the crown law officers 50 on the question whether without any express charter reservation the King had not always an inherent right to receive and determine appeals from all the American colonies. 60 After the usual advisory delays, 61 an opinion was obtained from the crown law officers in May, 1701, that although there was no reservation of appeals to the King in the Connecticut charter, an appeal lay to the King in Council as a right inherent in the crown. In case an appeal was refused in the colony, the King could proceed to hear the merits of the cause on an appeal made to him in Council, whether or not the appeal was allowed below. 62 Its stand thus fortified by formidable legal opinion, the Board of Trade advised allowance of the appeal, 63 which was accordingly admitted by the Council Board with the usual ancillary directions as to security and transmission of proceedings. 64 After some delays in the hearing, caused by irregularities in taking evidence in the colony, 65 the cause was the denial of the appeal and the sufficiency of notice to the respondents are found in ibid., #1014 i-vi. 59 Ibid., $1012. Ashurst wrote: "Mr. Blathwaite said if I would acknowledge ye King's right of appeals, they would then discourse with me of ye reasonableness of this appeal. I would not acknowledge anything a right, which was not settled by law" (5 Winthrop Papers, 76). 60 William Popple, in his letter to these officers, recited the March 9, 1698/9, Order in Council and the recalcitrant attitude of the Connecticut government thereto, enclosing an extract of the charter. He also inquired by what means the Governor and Company might best be obliged to comply in the matter {CSP, Col., 1700, #1021). 61 See CSP, Col., 1701, #166, 171, 295, 363, 371. 02 Ibid., #442. Further light is found in an Ashurst letter to Winthrop, as follows: "The Attorney Generall and Solicitor (who are both my friends) told me they must say all ye King's subjects have a right of appeals; and it is so inherent in ye Crown, that they cannot give it away. But then they were of the opinion that it should be very seldome used, and upon great occasions" (5 Winthrop Papers, 76). 63 CSP, Col, 1701, #480, 481. The Board of Trade advised that a day be appointed for the hearing of the appeal, against which time notice might be given to the parties and to the government of Connecticut. 64 PC 2/78/218. 66 As to the Committee hearing in March, 1701/2 (PC 2/79/39), Ashurst wrote Winthrop: ". . . but if I had not used an extraordinary diligence and ingaged persons I think not safe to name, your cause here had been given against you. They opened such things at Ye Councel that made your cause look very foul, and all ye affidavits that you took in your country after ye Appeal was granted, they would not allow to be read, because it appear'd to be an examination ex parte. All that I could possibly hope for in your case I got granted, which was this: that at your charge ye whole evidence should be reexamined by both parties upon oath, and you and they have liberty to cross-examine, and then to have all returned back, and then ye Councel here to pass their final judgment. They opposed this very vehemently, urging their vast charges they had been at and ye length of time it had been delayed; so that if you can make it a just will, then you are safe, and particularly I would advise you to get some plain proof that ye widow of ye person that made ye will did for many years allow it to be a good will" (5 Winthrop Papers, 120). The Order in Council upon the Committee report ordered both parties to examine such witnesses in Connecticut as they could respectively produce; the examination to be taken in such a manner that witnesses could be interchangeably examined without hindrance. The examinations were to be transmitted under seal, the whole proceeding to be at the cost of the respondents, who were charged with greatly delaying prosecution of tire affair (2 APC, Col., #734)- As to the examinations taken under this Order in Council see MS Conn. Archives, 1