regarded in the province as a valuable privilege. 60 The 1682 commission to Edward Cranfield as Lieutenant-Governor contained the same provisions, with the additional proviso that execution should not be suspended by reason of any appeal. 61 Three years later New Hampshire was incorporated into the Dominion of New England and governed by Joseph Dudley as President of the Council of the Dominion. By the terms of the Dudley commission, appeals were to be allowed in all real and personal actions above the value of subject only to the condition that appellant first enter into good security to pay full costs in case no relief were obtained upon appeal. 62 This commission was superseded by the first commission to Sir Edmund Andros as Governor of the Dominion of New England of June, 1686. The terms therein governing appeals were substantially those of the 1681 Jamaica instructions, with the addition that appeals be made within a fortnight after sentence and the substitution of a minimum. 63 A March, 1686/7, Dominion Act for Establishing Courts of Judicature and Justice embodied these provisions, with the exception of the clause that execution be not suspended by reason of any appeal. The act also allowed appeals from the local Chancery Court to the King in Council, where the matter in difference exceeded X3OO sterling 00 It was questioned whether such appeals might not prove a great occasion for the obstruction of justice in the province (Address of the General Court to the King, June n, 1680, 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 412). It has been indicated that this suggestion was made with reference to the Mason proprietary claims (Fry, New Hampshire As a Royal Province, 211). But these claims were ordered to be settled by other means, see infra, pp. 115 et seq. 1)1 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 438. 62 1 Laws of New Hampshire, 97. For an earlier proposal of a council to which appeals might be taken from the judicatures of the several New England colonies see CSP, Col., 1677-80, #1305; ibid., 1681-85, #iiss> 2033 (the latter proposal would leave only the most difficult and important causes to be brought to England). In considering a commission to Colonel Kirk as governor of Massachusetts, in November, 1684, the Committee considered what rule ought to be set for appeals, or whether the sum should not exceed £200 or more (3 Edward Randolph, 326). But finally no appeals were to be allowed to England until the government was settled (CSP, Col., 1681-85, #1941; cf. ibid., #2033). On November 2, 1686, an appeal to the King in Council was taken in Cooke v. Paige from the Court of Appeal and Grand Assize held at Boston. The appeal was allowed upon condition that appellants forthwith give bond with sufficient securities to the value of £1,000 sterling to respondent that they would draw fordi from the Secretary and the clerk of the court copies of the records, judgment, plans, and evidences on both sides and lay them before the King in Council and prosecute to effect within nine months or such further time as the King in Council should allow; that they would show final judgment before the President and Council and pay such costs as were awarded within — days after return of judgment (MS Rec. Mass. Special Courts, 1685-86, 8). In Cooke and Burrall v. Paige an appeal was allowed on the same conditions with only £500 security (ibid., n). But Cooke et al. refused to give the desired security (Dudley Records, 13 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (2nd ser.), 284). For issuance of execution see MS Rec. Mass. Special Courts, 1685-86, 14-15. The June 10, 1686, Order of the President and Council for the Holding of Courts and Execution of Justice reserved the right of appeal as provided in the commission (1 Laws of New Hampshire, 104). 63 Ibid., 150.