Board of Trade, in March, 1701, submitted to the King a vigorous indictment of the various proprietary and chartered colonies. Recall of all the existing patents by what the Board regarded as the only means possible, an act of Parliament, was advocated. 81 Some of the evils enumerated were evasion of the Acts of Trade, legislation repugnant to the laws of England, denial of appeals to the King in Council, harboring of pirates and smugglers, injurious currency manipulation, competitive manufacturing, and lack of adequate defense measures 82 In early April, 1701, the House of Commons ordered the Board of Trade to lay before it an account of complaints in relation to trade or courts of justice in the plantations and the action taken thereon. 83 In the Board of Trade representation laid accordingly before the House an important item contained therein concerned various denials of appeals by chartered governments —Massachu- Bay, Connecticut, and Carolina being singled out as guilty. 84 Late in April, 1701, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords as a government measure voiding all powers of government granted in existent charters. 85 In May, upon petitions of the various proprietary interests, debate on the bill took place at which counsel were heard, witnesses examined, and evidence considered 86 The bill passed a second reading, 87 but the committee stage was setts Bay the denial of appeals to crown prosecutors in illegal trade seizures (CSP, Col., iyoi, #180). See also the appeal denial charges leveled against these colonies in a March 24 report (2 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 359, 361). 81 CSP, Col., 1701, #286. 82 It was stated that: "Divers of them have delayed Appeals to your Majesty in Councill, by which not only the inhabitants of those colonies but others your Majestie's subjects are deprived of that benefit in the Plantations under your Majestie's immediate Government, and the parties agrieved are left widiout remedy from the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of their Courts" (ibid.). 83 13 /. H. of C, 465; 2 Stock, op. cit., 389-90; CSP, Col., 1701, #300. 84 As to Massachusetts Bay it was stated that the province had refused appeals to the King from judgments in cases concerning illegal trade (2 Stock, op. cit., 398). As for Connecticut, besides the irregularities common to all proprietaries, they were "more directly guilty of refusing to admit appeals to England"; the position of the government on appeals as expressed in the Hallam and Palmes cases was then elaborated (ibid., 399)- In reference to Carolina, the refusal of an appeal in the Cole and Bean case was recounted, with the Board of Trade's recommendation therein (ibid., 400-401). Rhode Island was guilty of such serious irregularities and misdemeanors that an accusation of appeal denials would have been anticlimactic (ibid., 398-99). As to the royal colonies, it was mentioned that in New Hampshire an appeal had recently been denied to Samuel Allen, a matter which was at present under examination (ibid., 397). 85 The bill entitled "An Act for reuniting to the Crown the Government of several Colonies and Plantations in America" passed its first reading on April 24 (16 /. H. of L., 659; 2 Stock, op. cit., 401). This act is set out at 4 H. of L. MSS (n.s.), 1699-1702, 314-15. Sir Henry Ashurst wrote thereon: "I see now the reson of thes complants [Palmes, Hallam]. To put a beter face upon a designe to take away all the proprietie of Gouerments att one blow, to that end there is a Bill brought into the Lords' house" (5 Winthrop Papers, 69). 86 2 Stock, op. cit., 402 et seq.; 4 H. of L. MSS (n.s.), 1699-1702, 315 et seq. Sir Henry Ashurst appearing for Connecticut played a