The actual proceedings of the King in Council prove the injustice and falsity of such insinuations and statements.
The pretence set up in Massachusetts was that the authority of the Local Government was _supreme_; that to appeal from it to the King himself was sedition and treason;[61] and the defence set up in England was that the allegations were untrue, and that the Massachusetts Corporation was acting loyally according to the provisions of the Charter and for the interests of the King.

The account of these proceedings before the King's Privy Council is given in a note from Mr.Palfrey himself.[62] In regard to these proceedings, the reader's attention is directed to the following facts: 1.

The principal charges of the complainants were denied--resting to be proved by parties that must be called from that place [Massachusetts], which required long, expensive time, "and were in due time further to be inquired into;" and the Massachusetts Corporation took effectual precaution against any documentary evidence being brought thence, or "parties" to come, unless at the expense of their all, even should the complainants be able and willing to incur the expense of bringing them to England.

The Privy Council therefore deferred further inquiry into these matters, and in the meantime gave the accused the benefit of the doubt and postponement.2.The nominal Governor of the Company in England, Mr.Cradock, Sir R.Saltonstall, &c., "appeared before the Committee of Council on the Company's behalf, and _had the address or good fortune_ to vindicate their clients," &c.

This they did so effectually as to prejudice the King and Council against the complainants, and excite their sympathies in favour of the Company, the King saying "he would have them severely punished who did abuse his Governor and Plantations." But the question arises, And by what sort of "address or good fortune" were Messrs.