examined the most important of the ancillary reinforcing devices—the manipulation 
of the crown's power of disallowing provincial legislation which was 
designed to limit or prevent appeals. The significance of this phase of the 
prerogative is very great, because by disallowance the colonists were cut off 
from their favorite means of making "adjustments" to suit their own ends 
and were cast upon the dodges available in contemporary procedure. Some 
of the colonial acts were artfully conceived. For example, in August, 1704, the 
Council Board disallowed a Bermuda act for the liberty of the subject. 238 As 
to this law, it had been represented that if the statute of 16 Charles I, c. 10, 
should be in force in the island as declared by the act in question, "the jurisdiction 
and authority of the Queen in Council in making any determination 
concerning any lands, tenements, goods or chatles upon appeal, or otherwise 
is wholly laid aside." 239 
Several Massachusetts acts were disallowed which attempted to give statutory 
form to the charter provision which as we have seen only mentioned appeals 
in personal actions. 240 In the colony of New Hampshire three acts were 
disallowed in November, 1706, which were construed as denying appeals to 
the King in Council. A 1699 act establishing a judicial system provided for 
appeals from the Superior Court to the King in Council provided the matter 
in difference exceeded The Board of Trade, in recommending disallowance, 
interpreted the act as preventing the King from allowing an appeal 
for less value, thus restraining proper exercise of the prerogative. 241 A 1701 
238 PC 2/80/158. 
239 CSP, Col., 1702-3, #1356. But compare 
infra, pp. 638-39, conciliar action upon an attempt 
of the Barbados Governor and Council 
to exercise original jurisdiction. 
240 A provincial act of Nov. 25, 1692, entitled 
An Act for the Establ'ing of Judicatories 
and Courts of Justice Within this Province, 
provided that if either party was dissatisfied 
with the judgment or sentence of any of the 
judicatories or courts previously mentioned in 
the act in personal actions wherein the matter 
in difference exceeded the value of 
sterling (and no other), he might appeal to 
their Majesties in Council, such appeal being 
made in time and security given according to 
the charter directions in that behalf (1 Acts 
and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 76). The Act was 
disallowed by the Privy Council on Aug. 22, 
1695, on the ground that the limitation of 
appeals to personal actions exceeding .£3OO 
sterling was not according to the words of the 
charter and appeals in real actions were thereby 
seemingly excluded (PC 2/76/196). It is 
difficult to find any validity in the grounds 
advanced for the disallowance. A 1697 Act 
for Establishing of Courts (1 Acts and Res. 
Prov. Mass. Bay, 285) containing a similar 
appeal provision was also disallowed, but for 
other reasons {PC 2/77/271-73; 1 Acts and 
Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 287). A May, 1699, 
Act for the Regulating and Directing the Proceedings 
in the Courts of Justice Established 
within This Province made no specific provision 
for appeals to the King in Council, but 
contained a clause "saving always the liberty 
of appeal unto his majesty in council, as by 
his majesty's royal charter in that behalf is 
provided" (1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 
373). But this act was disallowed in Oct., 
1700 (PC 2/78/89). A December, 1693, Act 
for a New Establishment and Regulation of 
the Chancery was also disallowed in December, 
1696, as excluding appeals in real actions (1 
Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 144-45). 
241 For the disallowance of the three acts see 
1 Laws of N.H., 866-67; see also the report 
of Attorney General Northey thereon (ibid., 
646-47). For the 1699 act see ibid., 660.