plaint of William Freeman. 387 In 1705 relief against sequestration proceedings petidons (ibid., #1108). At the date appointed for the production of affidavits Mead was ill (ibid., #1133), but an answer to the two petitions was presented by Archibald Hutchinson, representative of Governor Codrington, justifying the conduct of Codrington in the cause (ibid., #1134). On January 13, 1701/2, Mead, Hutchinson, and Richard Cary, agent for the Leeward Islands, attended the Board of Trade with counsel and were heard in the matter, largely as to the propriety of the conduct of Codrington therein (ibid., 1702, #27, 30). After further discussion before the Board of Trade (ibid., #108), it was represented by the Board that since it appeared that an appeal had been duly granted, it seemed incumbent upon Mead to lay the same before the King in order to a determination thereon, without which the proceedings in the Leeward Islands could not legally be reversed or the petitioner have any remedy unless cause were shown why the granted appeal had not progressed further, A speedy hearing and determination was also advised, since Mead alleged great losses because of being kept out of possession of the disputed plantations. As to the conduct of Governor Codrington, it was offered that copies of Mead's petition should be transmitted for a speedy answer thereto (ibid., $113). It was so ordered by the Council Board (PC "2/78/3 53). For the Board of Trade's letter to Codrington in the matter see CSP, Col., 1702, #244. For a Codrington justification see ibid., #369, 1065. But the two appeals of Mead and Shipman never came to a hearing. Mead, dissatisfied with the relief offered at the Council Board petitioned the House of Commons for redress (ibid., #244), but without success (ibid., #944). -387 William Freeman complained that he had been ejected from possession of a plantation called the Manor of Godwyn in St. Christopher without trial of title or due process of law by the agency of Governor Codrington, who now held the plantation for his own use (CSP, Col., 1701, #1091). The petition of complaint was referred by the Council to the Board of Trade to examine and report (PC 2/78/283). The latter ordered Freeman to make proof of the factual allegations by affidavits before a Master in Chancery, and at petitioner's request a day was appointed for a hearing at which representatives of Codrington were dione Thomas Maycock petitioned for for contempt of the Barbados Chan- rected to attend (CSP, Col., 1701, #1108, mi). At the subsequent hearing Freeman introduced affidavits in proof of his allegations (ibid., #1125-27); the representatives of Codrington endeavored to justify the proceedings in the island as legal, insisting that nothing should be done in prejudice of the same otherwise than by due course of law (ibid., #1133). Hutchinson, as Codrington's representative, made further defense of the proceedings in answering some papers presented by Freeman (ibid., 1702, #10). At a further hearing the proponents of Codrington were forced to make some damaging admissions, but desired that Codrington be heard before any resolutions were taken in the matter (ibid., #13). See also the further answer to Freeman's complaint (ibid., #30). The Board of Trade then represented to the Council Board the material allegations of both sides, and in view of the many uncertainties advised that Codrington be ordered to answer in the matter; that he be required to give no obstruction to such legal proceedings as Freeman had recourse to for redress of grievances; that in case of sentence in the proper court in the islands neither party if aggrieved be hindered from appealing to the King in Council; that in case of appeal both parties be required to give security to abide the determination and to answer all costs and damages (ibid., #95). The Order in Council of Feb. 5, 1701/2, embodied this advice (PC 2/78/333), but Freeman, dissatisfied with the relief offered by the Council, petitioned the House of Commons for redress (CSP, Col., 1702, #244). However, no judgment passed in the House upon this complaint (ibid., #944). For Codrington's own view of the matter see ibid., #369; for further documents in the cause see ibid., #1065. As to Freeman's complaint, it was alleged by Codrington that "certainly his Majesty could not by law grant the prayer of his petition; for that had been to determine in a matter of property on the hearing only of one side, and that too in a cause which, according to the usual methods of the Council Board, was not judicially before them in a regular appeal." A Copy of the petition of William Freeman, Esq.; in behalf of himself and others, against Colonel Christopher Codrington .. . with some remarks thereon