granted. 309 By the disposal of the holdings of shareholders resident in England 
to those who had emigrated, absentee company administration was replaced 
by local government. 810 This removal rendered impossible a system 
of appeals from company units outside the realm to the governing body in 
England such as operated in at least one trading company structure. 311 Distance 
breeds contempt for authority, and a company-governing group in 
Massachusetts Bay could indulge in actions and assume attitudes not feasible 
for a similar group located in England. 
Let us now examine the situation where an appeal was reserved to a governing 
body or individual proprietor in England in its relation to a possible appeal 
to the King in Council. The Council of New England reserved an appeal 
to itself under certain circumstances in a grant to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and 
Captain John Mason, in 1632, 312 and more generally in a 1635 grant to 
Mason. 313 We have seen no evidence that this right was ever exercised. The 
first express reservation of an appeal to a proprietor in a royal patent is found 
in the 1639 grant of Maine to Gorges. Appeals to the grantee or to his governor 
or chief deputy were to be allowed from the provincial courts within 
forty days of sentence if appeals in similar English courts were admitted. 
Further appeal was intimated in the clause that the exercise of all powers of 
309 2 Scott, The Constitution and Finance of 
English, Scottish and Irish ]oint-Stoc\ Companies 
to 1720 (1912), 201. As to the question 
whether it was intended that the charter and 
corporation should be transferred to New 
England see Deane, The Forms Used in Issuing 
Letters-Patent by the Crown of England, 11 
Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc. (Ist ser.), 166-88; Davis, 
History of the Judiciary in Massachusetts 
(1900), 25-27; Hilkey, Legal Development in 
Colonial Massachusetts, 1630-1686 (1910), 
10-12; Barry, History of Massachusetts (1855), 
174 et seq. There are official statements at a 
later date (1679-80) that the charter was 
originally to be executed in England and not 
in New England (3 Edward Randolph [Prince 
Soc. Pub., 1899, ed. R. N. Toppan], 49, 83). 
One of the grounds proposed by Randolph for 
a quo warranto proceeding against the charter 
was "their managing their Charter in New 
England whereas by the doquett of said Charter 
it plainely appeares that they were constituted 
a Corporation and to be a Governor and 
Company, etc; here in England" {ibid., 96). 
Compare the opinion of Attorney General 
Sawyer that "they may reside and act in New 
England" (ibid., 101). 
310 2 Scott, op. cit., 201; cf. 1 Andrews, Colonial 
Period, 371-73. 
311 See Acts and Ordinances of the Eastland 
Company, 52. 
312 Gorges and Mason convenanted to establish 
a government in the lands granted to them 
"as neere as may be to the laws and customs 
of the realme of England"; if charged with 
neglect of this duty, they were to conform to 
the directions of the grantor therein, "or in 
default thereof it shall be lawful for any of 
the aggrieved inhabitants and planters, being 
tennants upon ye said lands, to appeal to ye 
chief courts of justices of the President and 
councill" (3 Thorpe, op. cit., 1624). 
313 Judicial and other powers were granted 
"saveing and allawayes reserving unto ye said 
Councill and their Successors power to receive 
heare and determine all and singular appeal 
and appeales of every person and persons whatsoever 
dwelling or inhabiting within ye said 
territoryes and Islands or any part thereof soe 
granted as aforesaid and from all Judgements 
and sentences whatsoever given within ye said 
lands and territoryes aforesaid" (4 Thorpe, op. 
cit., 2442). But this grant was probably void, 
since the Council of New England did not have 
power to transfer rights of government; see 1 
Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H. (1867), 37; W. 
H. Fry, New Hampshire As a Royal Province 
(1908), 23-24.