vised that the Governor and Company of Connecticut should be required to 
take care that no such obstructions to justice be allowed, but that all private 
litigation be fairly heard and judged in the proper methods of the established 
courts of the colony. If any persons felt aggrieved by sentences given in the 
colony courts, they should be allowed to appeal to the King in Council, copies 
of records and other proceedings being transmitted in order to a final hearing. 
As a crowning principle of conciliar power and policy the Board declared that 
it was "the inherent right of Your Majesty to receive and determine appeals 
from all Your Majesty's subjects in America." 48 The King in Council approving 
the representation, on March 9, ordered the Board of Trade to notify the 
royal pleasure therein to the Connecticut government. 49 It should be noticed 
that this declaration of an inherent right of appeal was really dictum by both 
the Board and the Council, since no question of denial of appeals to the King in 
Council was involved in the immediate complaints. 
Simultaneously with the enunciation of this principle in respect to Connecticut 
a similar statement was made in respect to its smaller chartered neighbor. 
In February, 1698/9, a petition from Rhode Island for the allowance 
of an appeal from, a judgment of the General Court of Trials or for a new 
trial below was transmitted to the Board of Trade. 50 This body reported itself 
as unable to judge upon the merits of the instant case, but advocated the expediency 
of a direction to the colony authorities to allow an appeal to the 
King from the judgment. More generally, it advised that "all other persons 
whatsoever who may think themselves aggrieved by sentences given in the 
courts of that colony be likewise allowed to appeal unto your Majesty in 
Council." 51 The embodying Order in Council (April 27, 1699), couched in 
widow Liveen {ibid., #114, 115). After the 
death of the widow Liveen the Hallams applied 
to the County Court at New London 
to interrogate and examine the subscribing 
witnesses to John Liveen's will. But that 
court having refused to comply, the moving 
parties declared that they would contest the 
instrument at the next Court of Assistants 
(ibid., #107; 53 MS Conn. Col. Rec, 1659- 
1703, 86 [vol. in reverse]). Cf. F. M. Caulkins, 
History of New London (1852), 222-25. 
48 PC 2/77/310. The Board stated, however, 
that the right of neither of the cases on petition 
appeared evident by any sufficient proofs, 
so that they could not therefore offer any 
opinion. The Hallams, in a communication to 
the Board of Trade, then pointed out that 
they did not complain of an obstruction of 
justice as to their own case, as the representation 
intimated, but rather aimed at obtaining 
a grant of the Liveen estate for themselves 
(CSP, Col., 1699, #191). The Board of Trade 
thereupon resolved to inquire of Lord Bellomont 
as to the affair (ibid., #196). But upon 
application of the Hallams (ibid., #270) the 
March 9 Order in Council was sent to tire 
Connecticut authorities (ibid., #290). The 
Board seemingly seized upon the petition as 
an opportunity to discredit the Connecticut 
government. Cf. infra, p. 146 the allegations 
that this matter was stirred up by Governor 
Dudley of Massachusetts Bay. 
is PC 2/77/310. 
s °Brinley v. Dyer (PC 2/77/302; CSP, Col, 
1699, # 122 )- 
51 PC 2/77/331; CSP, Col, 1699, #299. The 
Board of Trade also advised "that authentick 
copies of records and other proceedings as well