This conciliar limitation upon appeals in felony cases should not be taken as 
an inherent limitation upon the royal prerogative, 142 but rather as a fusion 
of history and convenience. l 43 
In this connection it is convenient to consider the question of appeals in 
criminal matters under the charter reservations. The language of the Massachusetts 
charter clearly ruled out any appeals except those civil in nature. 144 
The reservation in the patent to William Penn was so general that it was 
maintainable that criminal appeals were included therein. 145 In Pennsylvania 
on May 8, 1718, Hugh Pugh and Lazarus Thomas, convicted of murder at a 
late Court of Oyer and Terminer and sentenced to death, 146 in a petition to 
Lieutenant-Governor Keith insisted upon an appeal to the King as their undoubted 
right by the constitution of England and of the province and prayed 
a reprieve until the royal pleasure should be known. The petition of appeal 
recited the appeal reservation in the charter and gave reasons for the appeal— 
all revolving around the use of the affirmation by the grand and petty juries. l 47 
First, seventeen of the grand jury and eight of the petty jury were Quakers 
or reputed Quakers and were qualified only by affirmation, contrary to 
1 Geo. I, st. 2, c. 6. 148 Secondly, the provincial act by which judges, jury, and witnesses 
were qualified was passed after the alleged murder was committed and 
142 See Dr. Lushington in Regina v. Joykissen 
Moorkerjee (i Moore P.C. [n.s.] 272, 295); 
Lord Kingsdown in The Falkland Islands 
Company v. Regina (ibid., 299, 312); Sir 
John T. Coleridge in Regina v. Bertrand (4 
ibid., 460, 473-74). 
143 See Dr. Lushington in Regina v. Eduljee 
Byramjee (5 Moore P.C. [n.s.] 276, 289-91). 
144 1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 15. There 
is no evidence that this charter provision had 
any effect in the passage by Parliament of 
14 George 111, c. 39, which permitted removal 
of criminal trials in certain cases to other 
provinces or to Great Britain. Against this act 
it was objected that the province possessed full 
power under the charter to try such cases, 
that the charter prohibited transportation of 
inhabitants outside the province by the governor, 
and that it was "inconsistent with die 
known principles of common law, the common 
safeguard of the subject, the general, 
constitutional, and necessary system of colonic 
jurisprudence, and the special rights and 
privileges of the Massachusetts inhabitants" 
(The Petitions of Mr. Bollan, Agent for the 
Council of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 
Lately Presented to the Two Houses of Parliament 
[1774], 20-21). 
146 See Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 84. 
146 j Mins. Prov. Coun. Pa., 40. The criminal 
act had taken place three years earlier at a 
public vendue which resulted in a fray among 
the Welsh settlers. Pugh and his cronies seized 
the opportunity to settle old scores and fatally 
cudgeled one Jonathan Hayes who had innocently 
intervened. The trial was delayed because 
no trial could be had without use of the 
affirmation which Lieutenant-Governor Gookin 
had declared void (MS James Logan Letter 
BoofiS, 1717-31, 17, 30). Twelve hundred 
people were alleged to have been present at 
the trial, and Governor Keith wrote that 
"there never was a court in America that sat 
with more solemnity, neither any proceedings 
in Europe that could be said to be more regular 
and fair" (1 MS Penn Official Corres., 
1683-1727, 64-65). The outcome of the trial 
gave great satisfaction to the Quaker element 
(MS James Logan Letter Boo\s, 1717—31, 17), 
but supporters of the Established Church 
sought to utilize the trial in complaints to 
England. However, it was defended that two 
of the four judges (Jasper Yeates and William 
Trent) were noted Churchmen and that John 
Moore, an old antagonist of the Quakers, 
prosecuted in behalf of Hayes, joining with 
the crown attorney (ibid., 20). 
147 3 Mins. Prov. Coun. Pa., 40-41. 
148 Ibid., 41. This statute extended to the 
colonies. By 7 and 8 William 111, c. 35, it was