Commenting to the Board of Trade on these proceedings, the Lieutenant- Governor declared that this was the first appeal from the common law courts in the province, although writs of error from the Supreme Court had been formerly brought. As to the distinction between "writ of error" and "appeal" proceedings, Colden understood that in the former the merits of a cause seldom appeared, for where a general verdict was given the merits could not appear, because no evidence was set forth on the record. Only irregularity of proceedings below or some point of law could be corrected by writ of error. But on an appeal the whole cause and the evidence on which the verdict was given appeared, and judgment was on the merits. Colden thought that it was the royal intent to have such judgment on the merits by the 32d instruction, but admitted that the Attorney General was of the opinion that a writ of error only was meant. Colden interpreted the opposition to appeals as coming from the large landed proprietors, who allegedly feared the consequences in case the merits of suits in which they were parties should be brought before the council board. Coupled therewith was the identity of personnel and interest of the landed proprietors and the bench and bar. 194 Colden conceived appeal on the merits to be necessary to preserve the rights of the crown and the liberty and properties of the subject, and entirely consistent with the constitution of the colonies. 195 Before launching into the arguments advanced on both sides to support contradictory interpretations, some analysis of the motivation of the participants in this controversy is necessary. Colden, an extremely opinionated gentleman, was bitterly hostile to the lawyers in the colony. 190 Therefore, when the lawyers en masse opposed the construction contended for by Waddel, it was natural for Colden to gravitate to an opposite viewpoint. 197 Furthermore, adoption of such a view might secure for Colden the favor of the English administrators. 198 Less cynically, the Lieutenant-Governor may have honestly supported appeal on the merits as necessary to imperial control. On the part of the lawyers, William Smith, Jr., wrote that he had long supposed a ministerial aim to make plantation judgments "both with respect to law and fact, upon the whole merits, reversible on an appeal to the Crown as the dernier 184 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 677, 705, 195 Ibid., 679. 196 William Smith, Jr., asserted that Colden's enmity to the law was due to his ignorance of it. "Vain and ambitious of power he had always found himself in Council of less consequence than some other law-members, for his opinions wanted weight, because he himself wanted information" (4 Wm. Smith MSS, sub Nov. 24, 1761). This dislike was accentuated by the part played by the lawyers in the recent struggle in the province for judicial tenure during good behavior {ibid.). 197 Robert R. Livingston was of the opinion that the matter would have attracted less attention if Colden had not been so fond of showing himself superior in legal matters to the whole body of the law (2 Aspinwall Papers, 558). Cf. ibid., 549-50. 198 2 Aspinwall Papers, 537, 553.