[
392]
in the colony.
Boston, in town meeting, unanimously
applauded the refusal to fix a salary; and, to escape the influence of that town, the general court was ad-
journed to
Salem.
The board of trade reproved the conduct of the house; the agents of
Massachusetts advised concession, lest parliament should interfere; but
the representatives answered, ‘It is better that the liberties of the people should be taken from them, than given up by themselves.’
Burnet, dying, bequeathed the contest to
Belcher, his successor.
‘The assembly
of
Massachusetts,’ it was said in his instructions, ‘for some years last past, have attempted, by unwarrantable practices, to weaken, if not cast off, the obedience they owe to the crown, and the dependence which all colonies ought to have on their mother country;’ and an appeal to parliament was formally menaced.
The general court still persevered in its stubbornness; and, at last, as
Belcher obtained leave of the crown to accept the annual grants, the controversy subsided, leaving victory to the strong will of
Massachusetts.
In 1733, the province of
Massachusetts Bay pre-
sented a memorial to the house of commons, praying to be heard by counsel on the subject of grievances,
and the grief complained of was a royal instruction.
This petition to parliament against the king was voted to be frivolous and groundless,—a high insult, ‘tending to shake off the dependency of said colony.’
The opinion of censure by the representatives of
Massachusetts was, at the same time, voted to be ‘an au dacious proceeding.’
The farmers of
Connecticut loved to divide their
domains among their children.
In regard to intestate estates, their law was annulled in
England, and the
English law, favoring the eldest born, was declared to
