was of the opinion "that an appeal in this case doth properly lie before the 
King in Council." 73 A representation was then made to the Earl of Jersey 
to be laid before the King advising an appeal to the King in Council for the 
relief of petitioner. 74 Shortly thereafter application accordingly was made for 
leave to appeal from the condemnation in question. 75 Upon the advice of the 
Committee to whom the matter was referred, 70 the appeal was admitted and 
ordered heard on the first May, 1701, council day. 77 
At this point it is necessary to recount the abortive attempt made to end 
the existence of the chartered colonies and the part that denial of appeals played 
therein. As the eighteenth century dawned, imperialistic tendencies strongly 
influenced colonial policy, one manifestation of this influence consisting in opposition 
to the continuance of the nonroyal provinces. 7B This ideological approach 
found factual support in the actions and attitudes of the chartered and 
proprietary colonies. Alleged piratical relations, engagement in illegal trade, 
opposition to the establishment of vice-admiralty courts, all nurtured a climate 
of opinion for abolition of these types. Royal officials such as Randolph, Nicholson, 
Quary, and Brenton constantly focused administrative attention upon 
the activities of these colonies as detrimental to the imperial scheme of things. 
Personal ambitions also played a part as Joseph Dudley and Jeremiah Basse 
sought to secure or enlarge governmental appointments. 79 
Among the charges frequently leveled at the nonroyal colonies was that of 
maladministration of justice. Denial of appeals, however, did not constitute an 
important item until a project was formulated, in 1700, for the introduction 
of a bill in Parliament to reunite in the crown those colonial governments not 
already under direct royal control. Employing that inveterate foe of chartered 
government, Edward Randolph, in the capacity of evidence collector, 80 the 
was unable to produce any law or precedent 
for an appeal where a ship and goods were 
condemned and disposed of under a penal 
statute. The judge was of the opinion that no 
appeal lay in a case where a vessel and cargo 
were condemned and distributed by a law 
where no essoin, protection or wager of law 
was allowed (ibid., #574). This was not the 
first denial of an appeal by the Carolina Court 
of Vice-Admiralty. In Peers v. Amory an appeal 
was refused from an August 27, 1698, 
condemnation of the Turtle, but the appeal was 
allowed on petition to the Council Board (PC 
V 77/345)- 
73 CSP, Col., 1700, #574. 
7i lbid., #591, 595. 
75 PC 2/78/72. 
76 PC 2/78/82. 
77 PC 2/78/85. 
78 1 Osgood, The American Colonies in the 
Eighteenth Century, 185-86. 
73 Ibid., 213-14. Ashurst felt that Dudley, 
Randolph, and Basse were behind the legislative 
attempt to eliminate the chartered colonies 
(5 Winthrop Papers, 75-76). He wrote that 
"if it had not been for a certain person, you 
had neither been troubled with appeals in 
generall nor with this particular one of 
Hallam" (ibid., 119-20). Cf. Kimball, Public 
Life of Joseph Dudley (1911), 153-56; 1 
Trumbull, History of Connecticut (1818), 407 
et seq. 
80 In his report of February 19, 1700/1, Randolph 
devoted little space to appeal denials, 
merely mentioning in connection with Carolina 
the Cole and Bean cause and with Massachu-