amination by ancillary conciliar bodies. Applications for relief against judicial 
conduct are few in number, and no recognizable appellate system emerges 
from these puerile efforts to supervise colonial administration. As to procedure, 
it can be said that use of the übiquitous conciliar petition for relief from judicial 
proceedings in the plantations cannot be differentiated from proceedings by 
way of petition in nonjudicial matters. 
THE RECALCITRANCE OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY 
The earliest of the long series of challenges of the right of the King to hear 
appeals from the plantations occurred in Massachusetts Bay. These constituted 
early manifestations of the struggle to achieve autonomy which marked the 
career of that colony. Thus, in 1632 a malfeasor was punished for threatening 
to "have it tried" in England whether he was lawfully punished or not. 289 In 
1637 John Wheelright, sentenced to banishment, attempted an appeal to the 
King, but was informed that an appeal did not lie, that by the royal grant 
the colony had power to determine without any reservation. 290 
The real harbinger of later bitter agitations was an episode in the colony 
which emerged from the presentation to the General Court of a remonstrance 
by Robert Child and six others in May, 1646. 291 This petition, political in 
nature, was severely critical of existing conditions in the colony and advocated 
certain drastic reforms unpalatable to the existing regime. 292 Obviously in- 
cause were to be excluded therefrom {ibid., 
#434)- 
288 Ibid., #446. Upon certificate of the Subcommissioners 
for Foreign Plantations it was 
ordered by the Council that part of the sentence 
which ordered banishment should be 
suspended until further notice from the Board, 
that two councilors should be excluded from 
the rehearing, and that property taken from 
the petitioner should be delivered to persons 
named by the Governor and Council until 
further notice from the Board. 
289 2 Records of the Court of Assistants of 
the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (1904), 21. 
290 j winthrop's Journal (ed. J. K. Hosmer, 
1908), 240; cf. ibid., 273. Notwithstanding, 
Thomas Lechford presumed that the patent 
reserved and provided for appeals in some cases 
to the King {Plain Dealing [1642; ed J. H. 
Trumbull, 1867], 64). 
291 The literature on this episode is extensive. 
The most detailed accounts are found in G. L. 
Kittredge, Dr. Robert Child the Remonstrant, 
21 Col. Soc. Mass. Pub. (1919), 1-146; W. T. 
R. Marvin in his introduction to a reprint of 
Major John Child's New-England's Jonas Cast 
XJp at London (1647; reprinted Boston, 1869); 
2 Palfrey, History of New England (1892), 
165-79; W. Hubbard, General History of New 
England (1815), 499-519; P. Oliver, The 
Puritan Commonwealth (1856), 420-30; 1 
Hutchinson, op. cit., 124-27; 1 Osgood, op. 
cit., 257-64; 3 ibid., 111-12. 
The other petitioners were Thomas Burton, 
John Dand, Thomas Fowle, Samuel Maverick, 
John Smith, and David Yale (Kittredge, loc. 
cit., 17). 
292 The reforms urged fell under several heads: 
First, the establishment of "the Fundamentall 
and wholsome Laws of our native County, 
and such others as are no way repugnant to 
them. . . . And for the more strict and due 
observation and execution of the said Lawes 
by all Ministers of Justice, that there may be a 
setled Rule for them to walk by in cases of 
Judicature, from which if they swerve, there 
may be some Power setled, according to the 
Lawes of England, that may call them to account 
for their delinquencie, which may be a 
good means to prevent divers unnecessary Appeals 
into England." Secondly, that civil liberty 
and freedom be granted to all truly English.