quent occurrence were orders by the court upon petitions of complaint, 271 or 
orders wherein the Governor and Council in the colony were admonished 
to do justice in a particular cause. 272 That ultimate authority was not conceived 
to reside in the company is indicated by mention of appeals to the King for 
relief against alleged unjust action by the Quarter Court. 273 The importance 
of this company appeal period is slight, but it may have served to facilitate the 
later imposition of crown control over plantation judiciaries. 
From 1619 onward events combined to stimulate royal interest in control 
over colonization activities. The clashes between the crown and the Virginia 
Company which culminated in the 1624 dissolution of the latter were more 
the result of domestic political struggles than a deliberate aggrandizement of 
crown power over the plantation. For interest focused primarily upon the relations 
of the crown and the company in England; the question of control 
over the settlements was rather obscured, although jurisdiction over complaints 
against the company was conferred upon crown commissioners, and a royal 
commission of inquiry was dispatched to Virginia. 274 Further conciliar commissioners 
for the affairs of Virginia were appointed after the abolition of 
company government. 275 Upon the accession of Charles lit was formally proclaimed 
that the government of Virginia should not be committed to any 
company or corporation, as it was not fit or safe to intrust the ordering of 
state affairs to such bodies. 276 Yet in 1627,1629, and 1632, respectively, we find 
charters granted to the Earl of Carlisle, the Massachusetts Bay Company, and 
Lord Baltimore, each conferring broad autonomy. 277 
Several episodes in Massachusetts Bay soon graphically revealed the desirability 
of established agencies of colonial administration. In 1632 complaint 
was made to the crown by Thomas Morton, Philip Ratcliff, and Sir Christopher 
Gardiner, all sufferers at the hands of the Massachusetts Bay authorities, 
which placed the conduct and attitude of that colony in a seditious and rebellious 
light. 278 Support was given the complaint by the influence of Sir 
271 2 ibid., 97, 119; cf. ibid., in 
272 Ibid., 104, 105. 
273 p or th rea ts by one Samuel Wrote to appeal 
to the King see ibid., 199-200, 203, 214. In 
relation to this appeal it was given as a legal 
opinion that "if either by sufficient testimony 
of any present, or by other good evidence it 
could be made appeare unto the Court, that 
his Majestie hath accepted of that appeale, then 
the Court was bound without any farther medlinge 
in the buissines to reserve the matter 
entire to his Majesties pleasure from whom 
they derived all the power and authority they 
have" (ibid., 249). 
274 See 3 Osgood, The American Colonies in 
the Seventeenth Century (1926), c. ii; 1 APC, 
Col., #98. 
275 1 APC, Col., #122-24. We have seen no 
evidence of the "similar commissions" for 
other plantations mentioned by Andrews, British 
Committees, 14. 
276 18 Rymer, Foedera, 72-73 (May 13, 1625). 
277 See CO 29/1/1-12; 3 Thorpe, op. cit., 
1846, 1669. 
278 See 3 Osgood, op. cit., 56—60; Morton, The 
New English Canaan (Prince Soc. Pub., 1883, 
ed. C. F. Adams), 43 et seq.