THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IN THE CHARTERED COLONIES 
With this description of the constitution of the Committee and its jurisdiction 
let us proceed to consider the endeavors of the Committee to impose appellate 
fetters upon the chartered colonies. We have already seen that under 
the Massachusetts Bay charter the right of appeal to the King in Council was 
consistently denied 14 and that the Committee alone was not effective against 
this opposition. It was more successful in its attempt to counteract the deficiencies 
of the Bermuda charter. 
As a result of complaints made against the Bermuda Company by inhabitants 
of that island, two important aspects of imperial judicial organization 
received administrative scrutiny —the right of the Bermuda Company to exercise 
original jurisdiction in England over causes arising in the island and 
the right of the settlers to petition and appeal to the King. The complaint 
that the company had disseised planters without trial at law 15 was heard in 
July, 1679. The planters urged the expense and damage entailed by attendance 
in England and the possibility of favoritism in hearings before the company. 
The company defensively alleged that power was granted to it by the charter 
to hear and decide all differences, that no title had been tried locally until 
1654, when a court subordinate to the company was established in the island, 
that not only appellate but also original jurisdiction, in several cases, had been 
reserved to the company. 16 After debate, the Lords Committee agreed that it 
did not appear that the company had any power by the charter to determine 
matters of right, as a court of judicature, in the first instance; that the trial of 
causes originally by the company in England was illegal and ought not to be 
continued. If the company would not agree to refer the matter to the Lords 
Committee, it was to be reported that the powers of the charter be left to 
a scire facias or quo warranto. 17 Also argued was the question whether the 
in the Leeward Islands. Since the Admiralty 
Court had jurisdiction under 13 Charles 11, c. 9, 
the Lords Committee advised that the court 
martial proceedings were irregular and should 
be set aside, and that the Nevis Admiralty Court 
be ordered to proceed in the matter (CO 391/ 
4/71-72). 
14 Supra, pp. 45-48, 56-62. 
15 2 Lefroy, Memorials of the Bermudas, 
466-67. 
16 CO 391/3/68-69; 2 Lefroy, op. cit., 476-77. 
The charter gave the company "full and 
absolute power and authority to correct, 
punish, pardon, governe and rule . . . according 
to suche orders, ordinances, constitucons, 
direccons, and instruccons as by the said 
Governor and Companie shalbe established 
. . . as well in cases criminall as civill both 
marityme and others Soe alwaies that the saide 
Statutes, ordinances, and proceedings (as neere 
as convenientlie may bee) bee agreeable to the 
lawes statutes, goverment and pollicy of this 
our realme of Englande" (1 Lefroy, op. cit., 
95). Cf. the answer of the company, 2 ibid., 
471. 
17 CO 391/3/69; 2 Lefroy, op. cit., 476-77, 
480. Attempts made to get the Lords Committee 
to change its opinion were in vain (CO 
391/3/77, 81, 104-5). In connection with the 
complaint of Perient Trott, see A True Relation 
of the just and unjust Proceedings of the 
Somer-lslands-Company (1676), 36, 38, 46.