continually postponed, 88 and in June it appeared that the bill would not pass 
that session. 88 In the next session of Parliament the matter was revived, but no 
legislation emerged. 90 During 1702 the matter of denials of appeals by proprietary 
governments was brought to the administrative attention anew by 
charges of Robert Quary against Pennsylvania. 91 By this time, however, inter- 
prominent part in the defense of the chartered 
interests, as did William Penn (4 T>u\e of 
Portland MSS [Hist. MSS Comm, 15th Rep., 
App. Part IV], 19-21). It should be noticed 
that several persons were ordered to attend 
to make out the recitals of the bill who had 
been involved in causes in which appeals had 
been denied. Arthur Bunyan had testified in 
the Hallam cause; James Butler in the Cole 
and Bean case; Nicoll, Walsh, and Bean were 
owners of said ship; Jahleel Brenton had been 
denied appeals in Massachusetts (2 Stock, op. 
cit., 402-3; cf. ibid., 418). The report of 
the debates is scrappy, but it appears that 
Serjeant Darnell, appearing for the bill, said 
of Connecticut that "they deny all appeals 
from them" (2 Stock, op. cit., 406). 
87 Upon a second reading of the bill, it was 
ordered committed to a Committee of the 
Whole House at which time some proprietary 
petitioners were to be heard on the bill (16 
/. H. of L., 700; 2 Stock, op. cit., 414-15). 
In addition to the public debates, private influence 
was exerted. Ashurst wrote: "I am 
soliciting the Lords day and night that, if the 
Bill must pass, to leue out your Colony; you 
have this reputation none of the Colonieys 
hath, a person of my quality to appear for 
them" (5 Winthrop Tapers, 69). 
88 16 /. H. of L., 722, 726, 736; 4 H. of L. 
MSS (n.s.), /699-/702, 316-17. 
89 On June 2 the hearing before the Committee 
of the Whole House was postponed till Wednesday 
next (16 /. H. of L., 717; 2 Stock, op. cit., 
418). On June n Randolph informed the 
Board of Trade that there was no hope of 
passing the bill that session (5 Edward Randolph, 
274). Ashurst in writing to Winthrop 
on July 10 stated: "I put in this inclosed Petition 
to ye Lords and was heard by my councill 
against ye Bill at the Lords barr, and by an 
interest I made in the Lords House it was 
stopped" (5 Winthrop Papers, 75). This statement 
of "interest" caused alarm in some quarters 
of the colony {ibid., 82). But Ashurst 
pressed upon the colony the necessity of a 
strong defense against a renewed attack in 
Parliament {ibid., 76, 85-86). 
90 2 Stock, op. cit., 401, note; 1 Osgood, op. 
cit., 218-19. On January 31, 1701/2, the 
House of Commons ordered that the state of 
the plantations be laid before the House by the 
Board of Trade (2 Stock, op. cit., 426). In its 
February 5 answer the Board of Trade pointed 
out what had been done in the cause of 
Samuel Allen in New Hampshire (see infra, 
p. 153) and in the Hallam causes by the King 
in Council upon its representations (2 Stock, 
op. cit., 430). To head off more drastic measures 
the heads of a bill for reuniting in the 
crown the several proprietary colonies in 
America, particularly Pennsylvania, were put 
forward by William Penn; one provision of 
the bill provided that appeals lie to the King 
in all causes above the value of sterling, 
as directed in the other colonies (CSP, 
Col., 1702, #121). Since appeals were reserved 
in the Pennsylvania charter, nothing was lost 
to this colony by such a provision. There might 
even be a gain in that the Pennsylvania charter 
contained no minimum. Penn had already proposed, 
in 1700, that it be generally signified to 
the respective governments for prevention of 
vexatious and litigious practices that no appeals 
to England be admitted under the real value of 
£300 (4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 757). But 
such a provision would scarcely have been 
acceptable to the chartered colonies of Connecticut 
and Rhode Island. The Board of 
Trade, however, felt that the heads were in no 
way adapted to the ends proposed (CSP, Col., 
1702, #128, 135). 
91 Among charges of irregular proceedings 
and undue practices leveled against the 
Pennsylvania proprietary government was an 
accusation that appeals had not been granted 
from sentences in the colony courts to the 
King in Council, particularly in the case of 
Thomas Byfield against John King (CSP, Col., 
1702, #342). Penn denied the charge (ibid., 
#391), but Quary replied that the matter was 
beyond dispute, that Byfield had petitioned 
the Queen complaining of the denial upon 
which an order was granted, requiring the 
offending government to allow of appeals 
home and to remit the cause (ibid., #462).