lector and Surveyor of New England. This official complained to England that 
effective enforcement of the trade legislation was prevented by denial of appeals 
in seizure trials in which the outcome was adverse to the prosecutor, by 
unlawful recapture by force of seizures pending on appeal, and by discharge 
of seized ships before trial. 89 To ameliorate this situation it was ordered by 
the King in Council that customs officers be allowed to appeal in all "like" 
cases upon giving the usual security to prosecute in twelve months after the 
appeal was made, that due care be taken to transmit authentic records, and 
that ships seized be secured for the future and not discharged without due 
process of law. 40 
To this Order in Council it was objected from Massachusetts Bay that in 
effect it abolished the charter privileges as to appeal minimums. 41 The Board 
of Trade consulted the crown law officers in the matter, pointing out the improbability 
that it was ever intended to exclude the crown from a remedy 
against the Massachusetts Bay courts in case of unjust determinations in respect 
to customs or revenue. It was also represented as a practical matter that many 
vessels and cargoes were not of the minimum appealable value and that illegal 
traders might so order their affairs that no single seizure would amount to 
_£300. 42 The crown law officers were of the opinion that upon any action or 
information upon seizure of a ship or goods for illegal trading, whatever the 
value, an appeal lay from the provincial judgment should the King in Council 
see fit to allow it. Such appeal allowance constituted no infringement or violation 
of the colony charter. 43 The Board of Trade repeated this opinion to the 
Council Board, adding that precautions be taken to safeguard crown interests 
where an appeal was desired, but the granting thereof doubtful. It also 
advised a direction to the Lords Commissioners of the Customs to charge 
their officers to refrain from vexatious appeals or threats thereof. 44 Nevertheless, 
no effective action by the Council followed. 46 
™lbid., 1693-96, #2342; PC 2/77/1. 
40 PC 2/77/22. The genesis of the order may 
be traced from Brenton (CSP, Col., 1693-96, 
$2342) to the Commissioners of Customs 
(ibid.) to the Board of Trade (PC 2/77/1) 
to the Privy Council. 
41 An address of the Lieutenant-Governor and 
Council to the King observed that the Order 
in Council of May 27, 1697, extended not only 
to Brenton's immediate cases but also to all 
future cases without limitation of value; that 
by the charter appeals to the King in Council 
were limited to causes wherein the matter in 
difference exceeded ,£3OO in value; that if 
the said Order in Council were not subject to 
this limit and if no ships acquitted could be 
discharged until final judgment in England, 
then it was conceived that the charter privileges 
would be vitiated, in view of the delay 
and cost of travel to England and of undertaking 
a trial there. The address closed with 
a prayer for restoration of the charter privileges 
(CSP, Col, 1697-98, #677). 
i2 lbid., #725. 
43 Ibid., 1699, $234. Apparently Sir Henry 
Ashurst, the Massachusetts agent, appeared for 
the colony before the crown law officers (ibid., 
#499, 54°)- 
44 Ibid., #646. The Board also ordered that 
copies of papers relating to the denial of appeals 
to Brenton be taken (ibid., #612). 
45 The representation was referred by the