vember 2, 1733, decreed that the order of the Judge of Probates should be affirmed. 215 Conceiving himself aggrieved by this order, Gillam Philips petitioned for leave to appeal to the King in Council, but was refused. 216 Thereupon, in November, 1734, a petition for leave to appeal from the November 2, 1733, order of the Governor and Council was presented to the King in Council. 217 The Committee advising that the appeal should be allowed on the usual security, it was so ordered by the Council Board in February, 1734/5. 218 The appeal was entered in May, 1735, but no hearing took place until January, 1737/8. 219 In the meantime Wilks, Massachusetts agent since 1728, 220 petitioned the Council Board, setting forth that the order appealed from was based on a general law of the colony for settling intestate estates, that this law had been constantly observed since its passage, and that it had long since received royal approbation. Therefore, it was prayed in behalf of the province that the validity of the provincial act might not be drawn into question on hearing the appeal, or if the validity were questioned, that the province might be heard by counsel in support thereof. 221 Leave was granted for the province to be heard by counsel before any order issued detrimental to established law and usage. 222 215 Ibid., 68, 75; 82 MS Mass. Archives (Minutes of Council, 1733—53), 20. 216 Ibid., 21; 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 68, 76. This refusal was probably based upon the Massachusetts reluctance to allow appeals in actions involving realty; see supra, p. 162 et seq. 217 PC 2/93/36. 218 PC 2/93/93, 95) 100. 219 On June 25, 1735, upon motion of appellant, the Committee ordered the appeal heard on January 29, 1735/6. But no action followed. On April 20, 1737, upon another motion to be heard, the Committee ordered that appellant's solicitor satisfy the Committee that all respondents had been duly summoned before a day would be appointed. Finally on December 2 3- 1737) the Committee ordered that the appeal be heard on the following January 13 (PC 2/93/166, 186; PC 2/94/203, 267, 353). 220 In November, 1735, respondents petitioned the Massachusetts House of Representatives that they were cited to appear before the Council Board on the next January 29 for a hearing of the appeal and prayed that such directions be giyen to the colony agent as seemed meet (13 lour. House Rep. Mass., 116-17). Some objection was raised to entrusting agent Wilks with the matter, since he was alleged to have lately solicited an appeal similar to the one to be defended against. Finally, a memorial to the King and a letter to Wilks were settled upon (ibid., 146, 153-54). 221 PC 2/94/267. Cf. 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 78. The Reverend Benjamin Coleman represented the appeal as concerning the whole province and as an attempt to strike at the charter (Coleman to Francis Wilks [?], Nov. 12, 1735; Coleman MSS, 1735-63). 222 Agent Wilks wrote that "the consequence of this appeale in the nature of it greatly affecting the welfare of the province I had by former instructions engaged in it . . . The Committee [of the House of Representatives] are of opinion that I should not publickly appear in the case but give assistance to Mr. Partridge and encourage them with such a sum as I thought necessary not exceeding but it was too late then for me to retract. I had obtained leave for the province to be heard by council! before any order should be made that might hurt the established law and usage of the country, thus we secured another hearing had the lords leaned any ways towards confirming the appeale before it could be finally done, for afterwards as in the case of Connecticut all application or expense would have