were heard on April 8,1706, by the Lords Committee which advised dismissal 
of the Liveen appeal and reversal of the sentence below in the estate administration 
cause. 95 A further Order in Council was obtained later to insure the 
relief desired by the successful appellant in the latter cause. 96 
The assault upon the chartered governments was not abated by the several 
earlier failures to secure parliamentary action. In February, 1704/5, the respective 
agents of Connecticut and Rhode Island were ordered by the Council 
to answer within six months charges prepared by the Board of Trade against 
the conduct of their governments. 97 Included among the charges leveled 
against both colonies was the refusal to allow of appeals to the Queen in 
Council and the giving great vexation to those demanding the same. 98 To 
alone was £2,500. The Court was also not 
satisfied that the signers were of sufficient estate 
to give such security. Therefore, the Court did 
not see cause to receive the security offered 
(MS Rec. Conn. Ct. Assistants and Sup. Ct., 
1687-1715, 43). For the recognizance of 
£ 1,000 current money finally given and deposition 
as to said giving, see PC 1/46. The 
reaction of the colony is further seen in a May, 
1704, declaration of the Governor and Council 
that appeals in civil matters to the King in 
Council should not hinder execution and an 
order accordingly that execution in such judgments 
should issue forth notwithstanding such 
appeals (4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 480). 
95 The appellant's petition for hearing the 
appeal (see PC 1/46) was referred to the Committee 
on January 10, 1705/6 (PC 2/81/68), 
which ordered the cause heard at the first 
February committee meeting (PC 2/81/71). 
On February 14 a petition of respondents that 
they be not obliged to the trouble and expense 
of the appeals was referred to the Committee 
to examine and having heard the parties to 
report (PC 2/81/111). On February 20 the 
Committee, taking notice that until a report 
was made on respondent's petition the hearing 
of the appeal would be suspended to appellant's 
prejudice, advised that they be authorized to 
hear at the same time both petition and appeal 
(PC 2/81/111, 114). This was authorized 
(PC 2/81/114), the appeals heard, and an 
Order in Council issued therein (PC 2/81/170, 
!74 — 75). Ashurst wrote as to the dismissal: 
"I did not send you the order of Councill 
about dismissing of the Appeal, because I did 
hope to have got it altered, and that instead 
of staying to have dismissed the Appeal as 
it now stands; and I would have had the 
judgment in your Court affirmed, which cannot 
be done yet for a reason I do not think 
fit to write, unless sent you by a prticulr hand" 
(5 Winthrop Papers, 376). 
96 The petition of Palmes complained of the 
delay of the Governor and Council in putting 
into execution the aforesaid Order in Council 
(cf. 5 Winthrop Papers, 357) and prayed that 
it be renewed and enlarged with directions 
to the Governor, Council, judges, and others 
who usually granted letters of administration 
in the respective colonies of Connecticut, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York 
(where parts of the estate were) to grant 
petitioner letters of administration according to 
the intent of the Order in Council (PC 2/81/ 
315). Upon Committee recommendation a 
March 29, 1707, Order in Council issued to 
that effect (PC 2/81/350, 354). Cf. Ashurst 
on this hearing, that: "there is one Wharton, 
a pretended lawyer, borne in your country, 
that is their agent, and so malitious as to 
incurrage any body to bring in appeals against 
your Government and Massachusetts. . . . He 
subpoenaed me before the Lords, and wee 
had a hearing upon the petition of Palmes 
that you had refused, notwithstanding the 
order of Councill, to grant him letters of 
administration to his wife. I could not defend 
you in it, so there is new order for you 
to grant him letters of administration in your 
Colony, and in the Government of Rhode 
Island and the Massachusetts. He pretends he 
hath right to land in al these countrys, which 
I could not oppose; not that the Lords have 
granted any thing but his right,—that cannot 
be denyed any body" (5 Winthrop Papers, 
377; cf. ibid., 380). 
97 2 APC, Col., #952; CSP, Col., 1704-5, 
#862. 
98 Ibid., #975-76, charge #8