But, after all, it was his Majesty's pleasure that the Charter of New England should run in the main points according to the second draft; and all that the agents could do was to get two or three articles which they apprehended to be for the good of the country added to it.
The expectations of the people (of the Congregationalists) of New England were very much disappointed, and their agents were censured as men not very well skilled in the intrigues of a Court.

It was thought that if they had applied themselves to the proper persons, and in a right way, they might have made better terms for their country; but they acted in the uprightness of their hearts, though the success did not answer their expectations.

It was debated among them whether they should accept of the new Charter or stand a trial at law for reversing the judgment against the old one; but, upon the advice of some of the best politicians and lawyers, the majority resolved to acquiesce in the King's pleasure and accept what was now offered them." (Neal's History of New England, Vol.II., Chap, xi., pp.

476, 477.)] [Footnote 210: Neal's History of New England, Vol.II., Chap, xi., p.
476.
Massachusetts would doubtless have retained the election of their Governor and their first Charter, as did the colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut, had her rulers submitted to the conditions on which Charles the Second proposed to continue their Charter.

Mr.Hildreth says: "The Charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island never having been formally annulled, and having already been resumed, were pronounced by the English lawyers to be in full force....