therein. 205 Hutchins was also admitted to appeal under the same conditions 
206 It was further ordered that the 1691 act under which the proceedings 
had taken place should be referred to the Committee to consider and report 
their opinion thereon at the Council Board. 207 On July 9 the Committee advised 
an instruction to Lord Cornbury to induce the Assembly to repeal the 
objectionable clause in the provincial act, since the laws of England sufficiently 
provided for the situation, and the meaning of the clause had been lately misinterpreted 
to the oppression of the subject. 208 Such instruction was accordingly 
dispatched in 1703. 209 
In the meantime, in the colony Lord Cornbury had examined the proceedings 
in the two trials and recommended to the Board of Trade that intercession 
might be made with the Queen for reversal of the sentences. 210 Mooted legislative 
action to declare the illegality of the proceedings was abated by news of 
the appeal. 211 Action under the Order in Council commenced when upon an 
October 28, 1702, petition of Bayard the Governor and Council directed Chief 
Justice Smith to take security of petitioner in the sum of according to 
the Order in Council. The recognizance was presented and approved by the 
New York colony council on October 30, and Bayard was ordered released 
from prison on November 6. 212 Governor Cornbury also issued a writ on 
October 28 to councilors John Bridges and Sampson Broughton to receive 
all records and notes of Bayard's trial and of examinations or minutes of evidence 
taken therein, together with all such other evidence and information 
by which the truth in the matter might best appear and to examine on oath 
all persons able to give any evidence in relation to the prosecution. These were 
to be arranged in order and laid before the Governor in Council for transmission 
to the Privy Council under the province seal. 213 On November 10, upon 
act would bear such construction, it was "contrary 
to the fundamental laws of England 
and therefore voyd" (CSP, Col., 1702, #755). 
20 5 PC 2/79/169; CSP, Col., 1702, #755- 
206 PC 2/79/170. 
207 PC 2/79/169. 
208 p C 2 / 7g / I?si 
209 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #243. 
210 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 972, 974~75- 
Cornbury adopted the view that the statute of 
25 Edward 111 limited the categories of treason; 
even allowing the opposite view, the treasonable 
addresses were never produced at any 
stage of the proceedings against the prisoners. 
Therefore, the governor concluded that the 
prisoners were condemned unjustly and contrary 
to the laws of England. Other irregularities 
pointed out were the adjournments taken 
by the commissioners contrary to their commission, 
which was limited to a determination 
on a single day, February 19, 1701/2. 
Grand jury irregularity was also alleged, accepting 
the prisoners' view of the proceedings. 
Prohibition of the taking of any notes 
at the trial was also adverted to. One George 
Larkin, an impartial witness of the trial, in a 
communication to the Board of Trade also 
termed the proceedings "very extraordinary" 
(CSP, Col, 1702, #344)- 
211 Ibid., #1148, 1166, 1182; 1 Journal General 
Assembly N.Y., 156-57. 
212 9 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 97-98, 102, 106; 
Bayard MSS. 
213 Misc. MSS Bayard (NYHS), printed in 
Goebel and Naughton, op. cit., c. iv, note 3.