resort." This would increase the power of the crown and the dependency of the colonies and would coincide with the ministerial principle that the royal will was law in the provinces. The King in Council had received and determined such appeals from New England; the instructional alteration was made after the acquiescence of the New Ertgland colonies "had given the Crown a sort of possession." 199 But we have seen no evidence that the alteration was made with such an objective in view. Ironically enough, the initial appearance of the Coldenite interpretation, as we have seen, appeared in reasons offered by Smith to the Governor and Council in 1755 explaining why the instructional minimum as to appeals did not include writs of error. 200 To what extent the opposition of the bench and bar was rallied to prevent close scrutiny of land patents is debatable; 201 popular passions were aroused by belief that the Coldenite interpretation was an attempt to abolish trial by jury. 2o2 The agitation over appeals was also stimulated by rumors of the impending Stamp Act. 203 At the date for the return of the so-called writs, November 14, Chief Justice Horsmanden delivered in before the Lieutenant-Governor and Council the "writs" orally declaring his reasons for making no returns thereon and praying leave, which was granted, to draw them up in writing at large for entrance in the minutes. 204 On November 19 the Chief Justice gave his reasons in writing for nonreturn of the writs. Since no writ of error had been offered, the verdict of the jury must be the sole cause of complaint, and relief therefrom 199 2 Aspinwall Papers, 540. Removal of the judges for their contrary opinions seems to have been expected (ibid., 546, 552). 200 2 Wm. Smith MSS, 375-80. Cf. supra, pp. 220-21. 201 For the interrelation of landed interests and colonial liberties see Mark, Agrarian Conflicts in Colonial New York. (1940), 101-3. General Gage declared that fear of annulment of patents was at the base of the opposition to Colden in this cause (1 Correspondence of Gen. Thomas Gage, ed. by C. E. Carter [1931], 152). 202 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 699. William Smith, Jr., wrote: "I do not remember any subject that has so much engaged the public attention. People in general think their all at stake. I wish their heat may not transport them into improper steps" (Chalmers MSS, 4 New York, 16). See also 2 Aspinwall Papers, 553. 556; the preface to the relation of the cause in the New-York Gazette; or, The Weekly Post-Boy, #1148, Jan. 3, 1765; the address of the Grand Jury for the City and County of New York to the justices of the Supreme Court, Jan. 19, 1765 (ibid., #1151, Jan. 24, 1765). 203 2 Aspinwall Papers, 541, 570; Chalmers MSS, 4 New York, 20. 204 29 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 9-10; 2 Journals General Assembly N.Y., 804. Colden wrote that on the return day Horsmanden informed the Council that he had brought two pieces of parchment called writs, that he then read part of the oath which he had taken not to delay justice by any letter from the King, that he declared that writs were letters, and that it was better to obey God than man (for the oath see Rep. Forsey v. Cunningham, 6-7). Having been given further time to transcribe fair his reasons against allowance of the appeal, die Chief Justice was observed during this period in frequent consultation with the principal lawyers (CO 5/1071/ PP 67). Cf. Rep. Forsey v. Cunningham, 14. Since no lawyer would appear for or advise appellant, agent Waddel petitioned to have counsel assigned appellant to prosecute his appeal, but despite the urging of Colden, the question was not put (29 MS Mins. N.Y.