this charge Rhode Island answered by denying any refusal to allow such appeals 
when due application was made and when the value of the matter in 
question required allowance. For want of instructions, an appeal had even 
been allowed for the value of twenty pounds which was humbly submitted 
to be frivolous and vexatious." Alleged proofs of these charges of appeal 
denials were forwarded in November, 1705, by enemies in high position, Governor 
Dudley of Massachusetts and Lord Cornbury, governor of New York. 100 
In consequence, a January 10, 1705/6, representation of the Board of Trade 
to the Queen pointing out the benefits of reuniting the proprietary and chartered 
colonies in the crown included denial of appeals to the Queen in Council 
as one ground of indictment. 101 Connecticut was particularly singled out as 
guilty of such conduct. 102 A month later a bill was introduced in the House of 
Commons for better regulating the charter and proprietary governments in 
America. 103 This bill made specific provision that appeals should be allowed 
from the courts of such colonies as in the royal colonies. 104 If Ashurst's boasts 
are to be believed, the Connecticut agent was successful in preventing even a 
second reading of the bill. 105 In this same vein it should be noted that as late 
as 1720 it was complained from proprietary South Carolina that no method 
of appeal to the King in Council had been settled. 106 
OPPOSITION IN THE ROYAL COLONIES 
While this struggle with the chartered colonies was taking place, some opposition 
to conciliar appellate jurisdiction was also encountered in the royal colonies. 
An early instance involved New Hampshire, the case reopening the 
question of the disputed Mason proprietary claims in that province. Samuel 
"3 Rec. Col. R. 1., 548. For the Connecticut 
reaction see 5 Winthrop Papers, 285-86. 
100 For the evidence of Dudley against Rhode 
Island see CSP, Col., 17045, #1424, xxiii, 
xxiv; for that of Cornbury against Connecticut 
see ibid., #1475; 3 Rec. Col. R. 1., 545-46. 
101 "Diverse of them have denyed appeals to 
your Majesty in Councill, by which not only 
the inhabitants but others your Majesty's subjects 
are deprived of that benefit enjoyed in 
the plantations under your Majesty's immediate 
government, and the parties agrieved are 
left without remedy against the arbitrary and 
illegal proceedings of their courts" (CSP, Col., 
1706-8, #18). 
102 It was stated of the Connecticut authorities 
that they "refuse to allow appeals and give 
great discouragements and vexation to those 
that demand the same" (ibid.). 
103 13 /. H. of C, 151, 168. 
104 The bill provided that "appeal shall be 
allowed to her Majesty, her heirs, and successors 
from the judgments, decrees, and 
sentences to be given and made in the courts 
of the said respective plantations as appeals 
are allowed and used in other her Majesty's 
plantations any law, statute or usuage contrary 
hereunto in any wise notwithstanding" 
(PC 1/46). 
105 Upon a March 2 division the vote was 50 
to 34 against a second reading (13 J. H. of C, 
183). Agent Ashurst wrote that "they brought 
in a bill last Sessions of Parliament to take 
away your charter; but I made such interest 
against itt with some of the leading men of 
the House, so that it was thrown out att the 
first reading" (5 Winthrop Papers, 326). Cf. 
3 Stock, op. cit., 113. 
106 CSP, Col., 1719-20, #541. See also the 
undated denial of an appeal in North Carolina 
(2 Hawk, Hist. No. Car. [1858], 209).