The scene now shifts to Whitehall. On July 10, 1765, Cunningham petitioned 
the King in Council for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court 
judgment of the October, 1764, term and from the order of the Lieutenant- 
Governor and Council whereby petitioner was denied admission to an appeal, 
and that petitioner be allowed copies of all proceedings in the cause under 
seal. 254 The Committee, upon consideration, reported that it was not advisable 
to grant the requested appeal to the King in Council from the Supreme Court 
judgment since such appeals should only be admitted from the determinations 
of superior courts in the colonies, that the cause should be first carried to 
the Lieutenant-Governor and Council. It was therefore recommended that 
there should be an order to the governor to allow an appeal to the Court of 
Appeals [sic], and if either party felt aggrieved there, to the King in Council 
255 This was accordingly ordered on July 26 by the King in Council. 256 
This Order in Council seemingly accepted the Colden view, but it is probable 
that "appeal" was here used loosely. 
After an unsuccessful application, Robert Charles, New York agent, petitioned 
the Board of Trade in September, complaining of the irregular interposition 
of Colden and of his construction of the 32d instruction. Petitioner 
prayed suspension of the ex parte order directing an appeal to the Governor 
and Council as a "Court of Appeals" until the merits of the petition were fully 
doubt as to the meaning of the instruction, 
that the Coldenite interpretation was forced 
for ulterior purposes {New-York Gazette; or, 
The Weekly Post-Boy, #1156, Feb. 28, 1765). 
The Sentinel, No. 2, compared the advantages 
of evidence given viva voce in the presence of 
the judge and jury of the vicinage with evidence 
taken out of court upon written interrogatories. 
The ability of governors to try 
either matters of fact or of law was gravely 
questioned. Adoption of the proposed system 
would result in an inundation of perjury, the 
introduction of a litigious spirit, a great increase 
in the cost and delay incident to litigation. 
Both the Governor and Council and the Privy 
Council would be overwhelmed with appeals 
{ibid., #1157, March 7, 1765). The Sentinel, 
No. 3, advanced that if an instruction had the 
force of law in a civil cause, there was no 
reason why it should not in criminal causes. 
To attempt to have a system whereby subjects 
were tried by judges dependent on the crown 
in all causes would be a wanton attack on the 
constitution {ibid., #1158, March 14, 1765). 
The Sentinel, No. 5, contained a satirical letter 
signed Paracelsus Arecolus Philippus, Theophrastus 
de Hohenheim, M.D., in favor of appeals 
from jury verdicts {ibid., #1160, March 
28, 1765). The Sentinel, No. 8, satirized the 
part played by John Coghill Knapp in the dispute 
{ibid., #1163, April 18, 1765). The 
Sentinel, No. 12, was devoted to showing the 
irrelevancy of an argument of Colden based 
upon parliamentary intent as manifested in 6 
George I, c. 5 {ibid., $ii6j, May 16, 1765). 
The Sentinel, No. 27, contained hints for a 
paper to be entitled "Analogy between Physic 
and Law; or, An Argument Proving That 
Every Doctor as Such Is an Able Lawyer"; a 
satire upon Colden {ibid., #1181, Aug. 22, 
1765). 
254 PC 2/111/262. Those opposing the introduction 
of appeals had already taken the cause 
to London in that they had prevailed upon 
several persons in New York to write to their 
correspondents in London and to transmit the 
papers printed in New York in order to create 
a public appearance there against appeals (7 
Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 707). 
255 PC 2/111/289. 
250 PC 2/111/311. For the reception accorded 
the conciliar order by the anti-Colden faction 
see Letter Book, of John Watts, 390-91, 393.