“That the said Joseph Anthony, John Siffon, John Akin and Philip Tabor, (on pretence of their non-compliance with the said law) were on the 25th of the month called May, 1723, committed to the jail aforesaid, where they still continue prisoners under great sufferings and hardships both to themselves and families, and where they must remain and die, if not relieved by the king’s royal clemancy and favour.” [Footnote: Gough’s _Quakers_, iv. 222, 223.] A hearing was had upon this petition before the Privy Council, and in June, 1724, an order was made directing the remission of the special taxes and the release of the prisoners, who were accordingly liberated in obedience thereto, after they had been incarcerated for thirteen months. The blow was felt to be so severe that the convention of ministers the next May decided to convene a synod, and Dr. Cotton Mather was appointed to draw up a petition to the legislature. “Considering the great and visible decay of piety in the country, and the growth of many miscarriages, which we fear may have provoked the glorious Lord in a series of various judgments wonderfully to distress us.... It is humbly desired that ... the ... churches ... meet by their pastors ... in a synod, and from thence offer their advice upon.... What are the miscarriages whereof we have reason to think the judgments of heaven, upon us, call us to be more generally sensible, and what may be the most evangelical and effectual expedients to put a stop unto those or the like miscarriages.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ 3d ed. ii. 292, note.] The “evangelical expedient” was of course to revive the Cambridge Platform; nor was such a scheme manifestly impossible, for the council voted “that the synod ... will be agreeable to this board, and the reverend ministers are desired to take their own time, for the said assembly; and it is earnestly wished the issue thereof may be a happy reformation.” [Footnote: Chalmers’s _Opinions_, i. 8.] In the house of representatives this resolution was read and referred to the next session. Meanwhile the Episcopalian clergymen of Boston, in much alarm, presented a memorial to the General Court, remonstrating against the proposed measure; but the council resolved “it contained an indecent reflection on the proceedings of that board,” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9.] and dismissed it. Nothing discouraged, the remonstrants applied for protection to the Bishop of London, who brought the matter to the attention of the law officers of the crown. In their opinion to call a synod would be “a contempt of his majesty’s prerogative,” and if “notwithstanding, ... they shall continue to hold their assembly, ... the principal actors therein [should] be prosecuted ... for a misdemeanour.” [Footnote: Chalmers’s _Opinions_, p. 13.]