It was suggested that they were aiming at independence; and jealousies were raised in the minds of some, that there was danger of the colonies setting up for themselves. Nevertheless, it was certain that such a scheme appeared to the whole country wild and extravagant; because of the universal loyalty of the people, beyond what was to be found in any other part of the British dominions, together with the infancy of the colonies, and their being distinct from one another in forms of government, religious rights, emulation of trade, and, consequently, their affections; so that it was not supposable that they could unite in so dangerous an enterprise.[56] However, when the _Massachusetts_ petitioned the house of commons, praying that they might be heard by council on the subject of grievances, the house took that opportunity of discovering how jealous it was of the kingdom’s supremacy and uncontroulable authority over the colony; for the commons having considered the matter, resolved, “That the petition was frivolous and groundless, a high insult upon his majesty’s government, and tending to _shake off the dependency_ of the said colony upon this kingdom, to which, _in law and right, they ought to be subject_.” The colonies might object to some acts passed respecting them, particularly—the act prohibiting the cutting down of pitch and tar trees, not being within a fence or enclosure—the act prohibiting the exportation of hats made in the colonies, even from one colony to another; and restraining all makers of hats from taking more than two apprentices at a time, or any for less than seven years, and entirely from employing negroes in the business—the act for the more easy recovery of debts in his majesty’s plantations and colonies in America, which made houses, lands, negroes, and other real estates, assets for the payment of debts. It was passed in 1732, upon the petition of the English merchants trading to the colonies, who complained, that the Virginia and Jamaica, a privilege was claimed to exempt their houses, lands, tenements, and negroes, from being attached for debt; the lords of trade at the same time represented, that the assemblies of those colonies could never be induced to divest themselves of these privileges by any act of their own. But whatever objections were made to the above acts, no general measure was adopted to obtain their repeal. They continued in being; but the hatters act was disregarded: and methods were devised for felling the prohibited trees, when the neighbourhood wanted a supply. The operation of the act designed for the benefit of creditors, was too often, as in other countries, weakened or evaded by the dishonest debtor. Men of principle gave themselves little concern about its existance, as they had nothing to fear from it, and knew that the same was intended to prevent persons being cheated out of their property.