est was spent, and there ensued a lull in this branch of administrative endeavor 
for a few years. 
Despite the threat of parliamentary action and the strong pronouncements 
of an inherent right of appeal, Connecticut still proved recalcitrant. 92 In December, 
1703, Edward Palmes found it necessary to petition for leave to appeal 
from several sentences of the Connecticut Court of Assistants ° 3 in a matter relating 
to the administration of an estate, and in a trespass action over the ship 
Liveen. Upon advice of the Committee it was ordered in January, 1703/4, that 
copies of the petition be sent to the Governor and Magistrates to return their 
reasons for refusing the appeals and to transmit authentic copies under seal 
of all proceedings in the cases. 94 After some preliminary petitions the appeals 
There is no such order entered in the Privy 
Council register. At a hearing by the Board 
of Trade upon the charges, Penn refused to 
admit the denial to Byfield; it was then agreed 
that Byfield should be heard and that Penn 
might then produce his evidence to the contrary 
(ibid., #568). At a June 8 meeting of 
the Board, Byfield attended and complained 
of the illegality of the proceedings and verdict 
against him, as being made by a jury not 
sworn; he affirmed that he had not hitherto 
been able to procure an appeal. Penn desired 
that his witnesses in town be heard, but as 
Byfield was willing to refer the merits of 
the case to arbitration, the proprietor undertook 
to dispose the adverse party to agree 
thereto (ibid., #580). For a further refutation 
by Penn of the charge, see ibid., #638 ii. 
Some of these charges and answers thereto 
are printed in 1 Correspondence between 
William Penn and James Logan (9 Mem. Hist. 
Soc. Pa., 1870), 24 et seq., but wrongly dated 
"1700." See ibid., 164, for the issue of veracity 
between Byfield and Quary. 
92 Agent Ashurst informed the colony in 
March, 1702/3, that, "The Councell, since 
the King's death, have ordered Appeals in all 
cases from all the Plantations without exception" 
(5 Winthrop Papers, 120). We have seen 
no such order. 
93 PC 2/79/ '476. The requested appeals were 
from a May, 1700, judgment in an action of 
trespass on the case against Winthrop, Christopher, 
and Fosdick for seizure of the ship 
Liveen, mentioned above (see 4 Pub. Rec. 
Col. Conn., 303-4), and an October 5, 1699, 
judgment wherein administration of a share 
of the estate of John Winthrop, father of petitioner's 
deceased wife Lucy, was refused (PC 
2/79/489; MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., 
#142-44; 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 271-72). 
Concerning this matter Robert Livingston 
alleged that, "Hallam being baulked in ye 
matter of ye appeal, has procured 2 other 
orders: one relating to a complaint of Major 
Palms that he is denied to administer upon 
his deceased wife's estate, who, I presume, was 
your sister; and another about ye ship that 
was Livings [Liveen's]" (5 Winthrop Papers, 
254). Cf. ibid., 298-99. For other recalcitrance 
see the statement of Charles Congreve that the 
government did not suffer any to appeal from 
thence to the Queen in Council (CSP, Col., 
1704-05, #701) and the alleged denial of an 
appeal to one John Rogers (ibid., #701 i). 
On Rogers, cf. 5 Winthrop Papers, 86. It was 
defended by the colony that the court judged 
insufficient the security offered by Rogers, the 
men offering to be bound appearing to have 
little or no property (1 Trumbull, op. cit., 
419). Some of the vexations complained of 
involved the securing of copies of judgments. 
Palmes applied to the Assembly, but that body 
declined giving them, insisting it was not their 
province and referring him to the courts in 
which the judgments had been given. 
94 PC 2/79/489, 496. It was also ordered that 
all persons concerned on both sides be ordered 
to attend the Council Board in person or by 
attorney on the first October Council day to 
be heard on the whole matter, the petitioner 
first giving security either at the Council 
Chamber or in the County Court or Court of 
Assistants. Palmes at the latter court offered 
a bond in the sum of ,£l,OOO New England 
money under the hands of Edward Palmes, 
Samuel Rogers, and Thomas Rose. The Court 
adjudged the security "not to be such security 
as by her Majesty's order is required," 
since the matter in difference in one action