denied, and it became necessary for Randolph to petition the King to allow 
the entry of appeals and to summon respondents in three seizures. 401 At the 
same time the Massachusetts Bay agents in England were endeavoring to 
justify actions of the colony; 402 to the accusation that appeals were denied in 
revenue matters, they intimated the burden upon the subject of unlimited 
appeals to the King. 403 
Finding appeals unavailing, the collector had recourse to other remedies. 
In the seizure of the ketch George, when a verdict against the King was given 
contrary to the law and evidence, the jury was coerced into amending its 
verdict by a threat of attaint. 404 However, in May, 1683, Randolph, in obedience 
to an order, returned to England and was active in drawing up articles 
in support of quo warranto proceedings against the Massachusetts Bay Company. 
Inevitably the matter of appeal recalcitrance was included in these articles 
405 The quo warranto proceedings, however, were dropped, and scire 
facias for the repeal of the patent was substituted. It is difficult to state how 
important the matter of refusal of appeals was in this proceeding; at any rate, 
the denial of appeals is not enumerated in the Chancery decree vacating the 
charter. 408 
That recalcitrance to conciliar review was not endemic to Massachusetts 
Bay may be seen from the fact that the Governor of Jamaica questioned his 
council in October, 1673, whether an appeal from an Admiralty Court sentence 
to the King or to a Court of Delegates should be received or not. The 
council unanimously declared that it would prove of ill consequence and 
has right to do by His Majesty's Order" 
{ibid., 183). It was also complained by Randolph 
"that notwithstanding his Appeals Ships 
are permitted to go away without giving security 
to stand a further Tryall" (ibid., 114; 
cf. ibid., 172, 175). 
401 For the petition and appeal see ibid., 204- 
5. However, this appeal is not entered in the 
Privy Council register. See also the list of 
seizures in which allegedly there should have 
been condemnations, but the seizures were 
arbitrarily freed {ibid., 211-12). 
402 Randolph questioned "who would believe 
that during the tyme their agents are accounting 
for former contempts, they should be so 
daring as to denye appeales to his Majestie 
in Councill from their Courts" (ibid., 215). 
403 Instructed "to represent that Appeals in 
all cases of His Majestie's Revenue would bee 
burdensome" (ibid., 202), the agents, Dudley 
and Richards, represented "that if without 
either restriction of the Sume or difficulty of 
the Case all matters Indifferently may be by 
the Officer or his deputy be removed from 
his Majestys Courts there and the Subject 
forced to Transport himselfe into this Kingdome 
of England it will force them to quitt 
their goods upon any pretense rather than 
Suffer Such Inconvenience and thereby wholly 
discourage all Trade in that his Majestys 
Plantation of which wee humbly pray His 
Majestys gratious consideration" (ibid., 199). 
ioi lbid., 217-18, 220, 258. Randolph proposed 
to proceed under 23 Henry VIII, c. 3 
(An Act concerning perjury and punishment 
of untrue verdicts). 
406 Enumerated were refusal of appeals to the 
King in Council in matters relating to the 
crown (3 Edward Randolph, 229); refusal to 
deliver copies of records in appeals before the 
King (ibid., 233); the claim of Massachusetts 
that the 1664 commissioners pretending to 
hear appeals was a breach of their privileges 
(ibid., 234). 
406 242 MS Mass. Archives (3 Hutchinson 
Papers), 321-25.