to Boston in January, 1664/5, they found opposition aroused and various invidious 
rumors circulating concerning the purposes of the commission. 364 
Conceiving it necessary to bolster their prestige by extra-Massachusetts Bay 
action, three commissioners traveled through Plymouth, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island, hearing appeals and complaints. 365 
Rejoined by Nicolls in May, bit by bit the commissioners made known to 
the General Court their special public instructions for Massachusetts. On a 
proposal of the commissioners to hear the complaint of one John Porter, it was 
urged that the entertainment of such complaint was an infringement of the 
patent. A conference was held between a committee of the General Court 
and the commissioners on the matter; the committee offered to account for 
any proceedings of the General Court, but characterized as insufferable the 
desire that it stand on a level with a sentenced criminal at the bar of a tribunal 
not recognized in their charter. 366 To other instructions it was protested by 
the General Court that hearing and determining appeals from its judgments 
was inconsistent with the colony charter. 367 After some further discourse, the 
General Court was asked directly whether it recognized the authority of the 
commission. 368 Upon the return of an equivocal answer the commissioners 
364 It was reported inter alia that the form of 
government would be interrupted by the admission 
of appeals (3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
87). 
365 a few trifling complaints were heard in 
Plymouth. In Rhode Island, where the inhabitants, 
including the governor, readily submitted 
to be tried by the commissioners, more 
complaints were heard. Some of these were 
ended, some referred to arbitration, some to 
the General Court; some of the latter were 
returned again to the commissioners for determination 
(3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 97). 
In Rhode Island, Samuel Gorton complained 
of Massachusetts "not admitting of any appeals 
to his majesty in any case" (Danforth 
Papers, 8 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. [2d ser., 
1826], 68-69). 
366 1 Hutchinson, op. cit., 208; Danforth 
Papers, 91-92. At this conference the commissioners 
"endeavoured to proue by severall 
clauses in their charter, that appeals did belong 
to the King, and sayd they are tyed by their 
charter not to make lawes contrary to the 
lawes of England, now to hinder any caus 
from coming to the King's bench, or the 
Chancery is certainly contrary to the lawes of 
England, the King is judge of those 2 courts; 
but instead of causing them to come thither 
to answear, his Majesty had sent Commissioners 
hither for their greater ease etc." 
(Clarendon Papers, 95). It was further demanded 
by the commissioners how the King 
could perform his duty of seeing justice duly 
administered in the colony if appeals were 
not made to him. As laws were to be reasonable 
and wholesome who should judge them 
to be so but the King. "Or who will not 
judge them to be nether wholesome, nor 
reasonable when they deny the king that great 
prerogative of hearing appeales?" It was also 
urged that the colony was no more than a 
corporation, and that no corporation in England 
could refuse an appeal to the King 
(ibid., 96). Cartwright related further that 
"the commissioners also pleaded the submission 
of the 3 other colonies, who had suffered 
appeales to be made to, and determined by the 
Commissioners and yet had nether lost their 
charter, nor any of their priveledges granted 
them, nor were forced to quit their habitations 
nor had yet any cause to complayn" 
(ibid., 97). But in vain; the General Court 
had resolved on a course of conduct from 
which they could not be dislodged. 
367 1 Hutchinson, op. cit., 209; Danforth 
Papers, 67. 
368 Danforth Papers, 75. "His majesty sent us 
with commission to sit as a court of appeals, 
in these his majesty's dominions; but we are 
told, that the inviolable observation of your 
charter seems inconsistent with our hearing