particular occasions, and not to be exposed to public view." 8 Thus, in the 
case of a reticent or recalcitrant governor parties might conduct litigation in 
ignorance as to appellate remedies. It is conceivable that the change in the 
vehicle whereby the crown's pleasure was expressed may have been due to 
the fact that colonial apprehensions over the appellate process were less likely 
to be aroused by private letters, but more probably the choice was due to the 
greater flexibility of this form of communication. 
THE REVISION OF INSTRUCTIONS 
Although the English authorities adhered stubbornly to the instructional 
pattern as set forth above, the opportunities for revision were frequent enough, 
for the colonists were constantly leveling criticism at the royal instructions 
and suggesting alterations. In 1700 William Penn proposed to the Board of 
Trade that the minimums for appeal to the King in Council be made uniform 
for all colonies, either at or 7 The motivation for this request 
is obscure. Perhaps its proponent hoped for a limitation in the case of 
Pennsylvania that was not provided by the charter. Less probably, it was 
a shrewd move to secure uniform treatment of all the colonies by the imperial 
agencies, thus forestalling the later jealousies attendant upon differential treatment. 
Penn's suggestion, however, was stillborn. 
Barbados proved a fertile source of complaint in the matter of appeal instructions. 
In July, 1701, one Thomas Hodges proposed several alterations in 
the appeal instructions for this island. He conceived that persons in the island 
at the time of the judgment or decree should be allowed three months within 
which to appeal to England or three months after cessation of such disabilities 
as infancy, coverture, or imprisonment. Persons in Europe should be allowed 
two years after sentence; persons in any part of America other than Barbados, 
six months; in either case the time was to be limited to three months after 
e CSP, Col., 1701, #627; cf. ibid., 1702, 
#118. Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton complained 
vigorously of this secrecy; see op. cit., 
23. Hartwell recommended that the body of 
the instructions be communicated to the Council 
{CSV, Col., 1696-97, #1320). Cf. the 
allegation in 1759 that it was the constant 
practice of royal governors upon their arrival 
to record all royal instructions in the public 
Rolls Offices that the Assemblies might have 
free access to them (A True and Impartial 
State of the Province of Pennsylvania [1759], 
32). But since the purpose of this allegation 
was to contrast the secrecy of the proprietary 
instructions, misrepresentation may be present. 
As to the varying constitutional qualities of 
commissions and instructions, see 1 Doc. Rel. 
Const. Hist. Canada (ed. Shortt and Doughty, 
1918) 350, protesting grant of ordinance 
power by instruction rather than by commission 
under seal. 
7 CSP, Col., 1700, #984. The author, probably 
Robert Beverley, of An Essay Upon the 
Government of the English Plantations on the 
Continent of America (1701; ed. L. C. Wright, 
J945). 4°> proposed that appeals lie directly to 
England from judges commissioned quam diu 
se bene gesserint for any sum exceeding the 
value of /500 sterling, eliminating the intermediate 
appeal to the governors and councils.