Lieutenant-Governor of each province, ever been regarded to this day as
an infringement of the rights and privileges of any Legislature or
British subject in the colonies? Wherein has the right of appeal by any
colony or party to the Supreme Courts or authorities of England, against
the decisions of local Courts or local executive acts, been regarded as
an infringement of colonial rights, or other than a protection to
colonial subjects? When has the right of appeal by parties in any of the
neighbouring States, to the Supreme Court at Washington, been held to be
an invasion of the rights of such States?

The rulers of Massachusetts Bay Colony concealed and secreted their
Charter; they then represented it as containing provisions which no
Royal Charter in the world ever contained; they represented the King as
having abdicated, and excluded himself from all authority over them as a
colony or as individuals; they denied that Parliament itself had any
authority to legislate for any country on the western side of the
Atlantic; they virtually claimed absolute independence, erasing the oath
of allegiance from their records, proscribing and persecuting all
nonconformists to the Congregational worship, invading the territories
of other colonies and then maintaining their invasions by military
force, denying the authority of Great Britain or of any power on earth
to restrict or interfere with their acts. The New England historians
referred to are compelled to confess that the Royal Charter contained no
such provisions or powers as the rulers of Massachusetts Bay pretended;
yet their narratives and argumentations and imputations upon the British
Government assume the truth of the fabulous representations of the
Charter, and treat not only every act of the King as royal tyranny, but
every suspicion of what the King might do as a reality, and the
hostility of the Massachusetts Bay Government as a defence of
constitutional rights and resistance of royal despotism. But in these
laboured and eloquent philippics against the Government of the
Restoration, they seem to forget that the Parliament and Government of
the Commonwealth and Cromwell asserted far larger powers over the
colonies than did the Government and Parliament of Charles the Second
(as is seen by their Act and appointments in their enactments quoted
above, pp. 88-90).

The Commonwealth appointed a Governor-General (the Earl of Warwick),
Commissioners with powers to remove