Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/454

 440 ///. THE COLONIAL PERIOD annulled, altered, re-enacted, and again annulled.^ New Hampshire refused an appeal in the Allen case in 1701 ; ^ Connecticut an appeal in the Hallani case in 1699 ; ^ but in each of these cases the King in Council granted the petition for an appeal, resting the decision on the plea that it was the inherent right of his Majesty to receive and deter- mine appeals from all his Majesty'c colonies in America.* Connecticut, on the other hand, based its determination to resist such appeal upon its willingness that the Privy Coun- cil should be the interpreter of the colony's law. ^ It was not difficult to find additional charges. Complaints were made that the colony broke the Navigation Acts, har- bored pirates, neglected to take the oaths required by law, encouraged manufactures, were negligent in military duties and in the erection of fortifications, encroached on the juris- diction of the Admiralty, and opposed the authority of its officers, protected escaped soldiers, seamen and servants,^ and failed to comply with certain requirements of the home gov- ernment — as in the case of the proclamation regarding coin, the instructions to naval officers, the command to aid New York with quotas of men against the French and Indians — etc. Through the influence of Dudley and the pertinacity of Edward Randolph, for it was he who personally led the campaign in the lobby of Parliament,"^ a bill was brought New York and Connecticut opposed the plan. New Hampshire, Massa- chusetts and New York were joined in 1697 under one governor, and with Connecticut and Rhode Island were placed under Bellomont as their military head. The year before an admiralty system had been erected for the colonies by commission under the seal of the Admiralty of Kngland. In the North courts were erected at Boston and New York, ' Palfrey, IV, pp. 172-174, 200. Ubid, pp. 218-219. = Caulkins, History of New London, pp. 222-227. two men. Fitch and Mason, said that they had heard Governor Fitz John Winthrop say, " I (or we) will grant no appeals for England but I (or we) will dispute it with the King, for if we should allow appeals I will not give a farthing for our charter." B. T. Papers, Proprieties, O. 39. land. B. T. Papers, Maryland, Entry Book, B. ff. 88-90. Winthrop in his complaints probably did little more, if we may judge from what we are told of them in Talcott's reply, than voice the complaints current among those opposed to the colonial administration. Documents relat- ing to the Colonial History of New York, IV, p. 1079. 'Randolph's bill of expenses incurred amounted to £96. 11.6. B. T. Papers, Proprieties, G. 20.
 * Palfrey, IV, p. 224.
 * In a deposition taken before Governor Cranston of Rhode Island
 * I^etter from the Board of Trade to Governor Blakeston of Mary-