THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE. 611

merated as one of their grievances.(e) In the year 1767 the Bri-
tish Parliament passed those other acts, for laying internal taxes
upon the colonists, commonly called the revenue acts. Upon these

of the committee in relation to other matters in the before mentioned case of Powl-
son v. Forwood.)

" His Majesty in council taking the said report into consideration, is pleased (o
approve thereof, and accordingly to enforce the said order of the 11th of August 1720,
and to that end his Majesty is hereby pleased to order, that the Deputy Governor of
the said Province of Maryland do command the courts there to carry the said order
into immediate execution, by causing speedy restitution to be made the said peti-
tioner of his effects, or, in case they are sold, immediate payment of the money aris-
ing therefrom. And his Majesty taking particular notice, that the said Deputy
Governor hath not complied with the said former order in council, is hereby further
pleased to order and require him forthwith to send an account to this board why the
said order was not carried into execution, together with his reasons for the same."

" At the court at Kensington, the 4th day of July 1724. Present, the King's most
excellent Majesty, &c. (here follow the names of the members of the council.)
Upon reading this day at the board a report from the right honourable the Lords of
the committee for hearing appeals from the Plantations dated on the 17th of June last
in the words following, viz : (here follows the report in relation to the before men-
tioned case of Powlson v. Forwood, which concludes in these words, to wit:)

" Their Lordships having heard counsel on behalf of the appellant, none appearing
for the respondent, notwithstanding the usual time for his appearing according to the
rules of this board was expired, and although the usual notice was affixed on the
exchange of London, do agree humbly to offer it as their opinion to your Majesty,
that the said judgments of the 20th of September 1720, and the 7th of May 1723,
should be reversed and set aside; and that the appellant be restored to all he hath
lost by means of the said judgments."

" His Majesty in council taking the said reports into consideration is pleased to
approve thereof, and to order as it is hereby ordered, that the said judgments of the
20th of September 1720, and the 7th of May 1723 be reversed and set aside. And
that the appellant be restored to all he hath lost by means of the said judgments
whereof the deputy governor or commander in chief for the time being of the said
Province of Maryland, and all others whom it may concern are to take notice and
govern themselves accordingly."—( Chan. Proce. lib. I. R. No. 1, fol. 57; 1692, ch.
17, note; Bacon's Laws of Maryland.)

If the appellant failed to transmit a properly authenticated transcript of the record;
or to proceed with his appeal within one year after it had been allowed in the colony,
the appeal might be dismissed, (2 Ld. Raym. 1447.) No costs were allowed on the
final determination of such appeals, or at least not as a matter of course, (4 Dall,
app. 25; 2 Ld. Raym. 1447.) In all cases a decision by the king in council was final
and conclusive; and there was no instance of a rehearing of any such appeal,
(1 Ves. 455.) An opinion seems to have been entertained by some, that the king in
council might of himself, and directly, issue an execution; and have a writ of
sequestration in execution of his final judgment sent to the governor of the colony,
( Gilb. For. Rom. 215; 2 P. Will 262.) But no coercive process was ever attempted
to be issued by the king in council against a colony itself; and if it had been
attempted there is every reason to believe, that it would not have been endured,
(2 Hutch, His. Mass. 204.)

(e) 1 Niles's Reg. 13, 65.