tended for parliamentary consumption, it was regarded by the Puritan leaders 
as a design calculated to impose the trammels of English control upon the 
commonwealth. 293 
When in the November, 1646, session of the General Court the remonstrants 
were summoned before the court, they refused to acquiesce in the jurisdiction 
of that body and appealed to the parliamentary commissioners in England. 294 
The court, however, refused to allow any appeal, grounding denial upon the 
terms of the charter. 295 At a later session m the same month the six remaining 
remonstrants were again summoned before the General Court, and a 
charge was read accusing them of various seditious and subversive actions, 
including a disclaimer of jurisdiction by appealing before it was known 
whether the court would give sentence or not. 296 In answer Child stated that 
they conceived it lawful to appeal to the Parliament, but it was replied that 
appeals did not lie by the charter and that a premature appeal acted as a disclaimer 
of jurisdiction. 297 As a result of the hearing the petitioners were found 
guilty and fined in proportionate sums. 298 All the parties again appealed to 
Parliament against these sentences, but the court refused to receive the appeal 
299 
Thirdly, that liberty be given to reputable 
"members of the Churches of England" to be 
taken into the colony churches, or granted 
liberty "to settle themselves here in a Churchway 
according to the best Reformations of 
England and Scotland." This is followed by the 
threat of an application to Parliament, viz., 
"If not, we and they shall be necessitated to 
apply our humble desires to the Honourable 
Houses of Parliament, who we hope will take 
our sad conditions into their serious considerations." 
The "Remonstrance and humble petition" 
is set forth in Child, op. cit., B—rB. 
293 E. Johnson, Wonder-Working Providence 
of Sions Saviour in New England (1654; re ~ 
printed Andover, 1867), Book 111, c. iii; Kittredge, 
loc. cit., 82—87; 2 Winthrop's Journal, 
297-99. 
204 3 Rec. Mass. Bay (ed. N. B. Shurtleff, 
1854), 88-89; 2 Winthrop's Journal, 296. 
295 Ibid., 296-97; E. Winslow, New-Englands 
Salamander Discovered (1647), 2 Mass. Hist. 
Soc. Coll. (3d ser.), 123. At a previous meeting 
of the court it had been propounded for 
consideration in what relation the colony stood 
to England. The magistrates all agreed that 
the charter was the foundation of the government 
and "thereupon some thought, that we 
were so subordinate to the parliament, as they 
might countermand our orders and judgments, 
etc." (2 Winthrop's journal, 290). But the advice 
of the elders on the question was that 
"we conceive, that in point of government we 
have [been] granted by patent such full and 
ample powers ... of a full and final determination 
of all cases in the administration 
of justice, that no appeals or other ways of 
interrupting our proceedings do lie against 
us" (ibid., 294). 
29c >Ibid., 297-99; 3 Rec. Mass. Bay, 90-91. 
Remonstrant Thomas Fowle had sailed for 
England before the later session (Kittredge, 
loc. cit., 33). 
297 2 Winthrop's journal, 303. For the importance 
of the appeal as a basis for censure see 
2 Winthrop, History of New England (ed. J. 
Savage, 1853), 430-31- 
298 j g ec Mass. Bay, 94; 2 Winthrop's Journal, 
304-5. Child was fined £50, Smith, /40, 
Maverick (who had not attempted a premature 
appeal [Kittredge, op. cit., 32, 38]), £10, the 
others, £30 apiece. 
299 "Upon which [the rendering of sentence] 
they all appealed to the parliament, etc. and 
tendered their appeal in writing. The court 
received the paper; but refused to accept it or 
to read it in the court" (2 Winthrop's Journal, 
3°5)-