The _Massachusetts_ general court, in a letter to their agents, mentioned, that not being represented in parliament, they looked not upon themselves to be impeded in their trade by the acts of trade and navigation, and that these could not be observed by his majesty’s subjects in Massachusetts without invading their liberties and properties, until the general court made provision therein by a law, which they did in October. Notwithstanding such law, and a subsequent order, Feb. 15, 1681, “that the act of navigation and the act for the encouragement of trade, be published in Boston by beat of drum, and all clauses in said acts relating to the plantation be strictly observed.” _Randolph_ complained to the commissioners of the customs in England, because of their not being duly observed. When the people found themselves in danger of a _quo warranto_, they agreed upon such emendations of their acts of trade, as to make them accord in all things with the laws of England. But it was too late. A _quo warranto_ was sent them, and brought by _Randolph_, Nov. 3, 1683; and the next year a writ of _scire ficias_ was prosecuted in the court of chancery against the governor and company, and judgment given, that the charter should be annihilated. Considering the temper of _Charles_ II. it is rather matter of astonishment, that the sentiments and conduct of the Massachusetts government did not provoke him to vacate the charter much sooner. However mortifying, yet it would have been more prudent, to have declined contending with the king, when they knew that they must be vanquished, than virtually to bid him defiance. Such submission might not have saved them from the arbitrary government that followed, but could have been of no disservice, had there not been a subsequent revolution: that event taking place, it would have been extremely beneficial. They might have been allowed to resume their charter, nearly, if not wholly.