The Connecticut government, in defending its stand, represented to the 
Board of Trade that the allegations contained in the earlier petitions were 
false 56 and urged that no appeals be permitted from the courts of the colony. 57 
Complainant Hallam thereupon prayed an immediate hearing of his appeal, 
sufficient notice having been given respondents, and further that the proceedings 
denying an appeal be declared a contempt of the royal order and an encroachment 
on the royal prerogative. 58 Upon consideration of the representations 
of Hallam and of those presented by the Connecticut agent, Sir Henry 
Ashurst, the Board of Trade, in December, 1700, agreed to take the opinion of 
50 The Governor and Council of Connecticut 
avowed that the case mentioned by the 
Hallams had never been moved in any court 
in the colony and that therefore there was no 
reason to pretend any obstruction of justice. 
As to the petition of Palmes and Hallam, no 
complaint was ever made therein to the General 
Assembly as provided by the colony laws; 
since receipt of the Board of Trade letter, the 
petitioners had been afforded an opportunity 
to complain of the conduct of the inferior 
courts, but the offer was refused. And upon 
consideration of die proceedings it appeared 
that judgment was grounded upon the laws of 
England and was consented to by petitioners 
(ibid., #1002 i). 
57 Sir Henry Ashurst, the colony agent, advanced 
that the judicial system established 
under the charter was "reasonable and lawfull 
and no ways injurious to ye prerogative royall 
of this realm; though it seems to exclude any 
appeal properly so called to this kingdom," for 
the following reasons: First, the distance of 
the colony made it necessary that all causes 
be finally determined there. If appeals lay, the 
expense would be great, regardless of the 
amount involved or the circumstances of the 
parties. The hazarding of evidence and witnesses, 
where viva voce evidence was required, 
would be inconvenient. The administration of 
justice "at our very doors" was a privilege of 
the English constitution. No precedent appeared 
of an appeal of this nature in the whole 
history of the colony. Secondly, by the charter 
judicial autonomy was granted; possessed of 
ample legislative powers, the power to execute 
the laws followed as of course. Thirdly, the 
power contended for was not repugnant to the 
law of England. In many inferior courts and 
jurisdictions sentences given in some matters 
were final and conclusive. Not allowing ap-J 
peals from the General Assembly would not 
make them absolutely independent of the 
crown. For if the Assembly became totally 
corrupted, so that impartial justice was unobtainable, 
this would amount to a positive 
forfeiture of the charter. As to the particular 
causes in question, Palmes had been given a 
hearing in the New London Court and could 
have been relieved therefrom by application 
to the General Assembly. Since he had been 
contemptuous of the regular method of relief, 
it was hoped he would not be allowed to 
proceed in such an extraordinary manner, 
destructive of the fundamental privileges of 
the colony. The Hallams had never commenced 
legal proceedings below, but would have not 
only appellate but also original jurisdiction in 
England (5 Winthrop Papers, 61-66). This 
memorial was drawn up by "the best councill 
I could gett"; he wrote that one member of 
the Board of Trade privately informed him 
that it was difficult to reply to this memorial 
(5 Winthrop Papers, 63). The Governor and 
Council also emphasized the remoteness of the 
colony and the Charter provisions in arguing 
against any appeals from the colony {CSP, 
Col., 1700, #1002 i; 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 
300). Apparently not too much faith was 
placed in the ability of the colony to remain 
free of appeals to England. Caleb Stanley, 
writing to Winthrop about appeal allowance, 
suggested the expediency "iffe that matter 
must be granted, yet to inquire whether itt 
may not be limmited to bee only for the future 
or time to come and well bounded as in the 
Massetusets province, and not for euery 
triueall matter." He then went on to represent 
the hardship upon present judicial incumbents 
to answer an appeal from die acts 
of deceased judges who themselves could have 
given a good account of their actions (5 Winthrop 
Papers, 59-60). 
58 CSP, Col., 1700, $1014. Affidavits as to