"as in case of appeale from the Governour and Councill is provided." 64 In 
the second Andros commission, of 1688, which embraced a greater territory, 
the appeal provisions remained the same as those of the earlier commission; 65 
as we have seen, these same provisions were inserted in the New York commissions 
to Dongan, Sloughter, and Fletcher. 66 The commission to Fletcher 
as Governor of Pennsylvania, which issued later in 1692, also provided for appeals 
from the superior courts of the province to the King in Council in the 
same causes and under the same regulations as in the prototype Andros commission 
67 
In those colonies in which appeals from the Governor and Council to the 
Assembly had been prohibited, 68 an appeal to the King in Council was substituted, 
since it was judged absolutely necessary that all subjects have liberty 
to appeal to the King in Council in cases deserving the same. The 1682 Virginia 
instructions permitted such appeals by persons dissatisfied with the 
judgment of the Governor and Council where the matter in difference exceeded 
sterling; appellant was to give security to answer charges awarded 
upon affirmance, and execution was not to be suspended by reason of any such 
appeal. 69 In 1685 the minimum was raised to ,£3OO, and it was also ordered 
64 Ibid., 193. This last clause has been construed 
that "appeals could be taken to King 
in Council under the conditions governing appeals 
from the court of governor and council" 
(Barnes, The Dominion of New England 
[1923], 108). 
e5 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 539-40. 
06 Ibid., 379, 625, 829-30. 
<" Ibid., 857. 
68 See supra, pp. 79-80. 
-69 28 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 
43. When Governor Culpeper communicated 
this instruction to the Virginia 
Council in May, 1683, the latter proposed that 
no appeal be allowed from an order of the 
Governor and Council under the value of 
,£2OO sterling. The proposal was prefaced by a 
statement that it had "duly considered what 
great inconveniences Appeals have and may 
produce by constraining several honest and 
Indigent persons to be deprived of their just 
Rights and dues until the appeals be determined 
which in all probability cannot be expected 
in less time than a Year" (1 Executive 
Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia 
[ed. H. R. Mcllwaine, 1925], 495). It was 
also proposed that execution, if desired, issue 
immediately upon the determination of the 
Governor and Council before the appeal was 
determined and that appellant give bond with 
good security for tire payment of the judgment, 
with double damages if the judgment were 
confirmed on appeal. In drawing up the 1683 
instructions for Lord Howard, the provisions 
respecting appeals were referred to the crown 
officers, but seemingly without any visible 
effect (CSP, Col., 1681-85, #1208, 1264, 
1286); see also the statement of Lord Howard 
(refusing to join the House of Burgesses in an 
address to the King that appeals be allowed 
as formerly from the General Court to the 
General Assembly) that if it was apprehended 
that the minimum of sterling set for 
appeals to tire King in Council was too low 
and might give vexatious spirits the occasion 
of too frequent appeals, he and the council 
would join the House in an application to the 
King that no appeals be permitted under the 
real value of {Journals of the House of 
Burgesses Va., 203; April 29, 
1684). On May 21, 1684, the governor answered 
an address of the House that no appeals 
might lie to the King in Council, but 
tiiat if the King was of the opinion that appeals 
should lie, that none might be permitted 
under the real value of £500 and that sufficient 
security be given to pay all costs and 
damages if judgment was affirmed. The gov-