phlet also adopted Dummer's view of the 1696 act, with the possible addition 
of acts directly invasive of the royal prerogative or plainly inconsistent with 
the liberties of the subject. 2s 
The view advocated by Dummer still provided subject for controversy in 
the period of political agitation preceding the revolt of the continental colonies 
29 That this was a patent misuse of the 1696 act appears from the historic 
weakness of Dummer's argument. First, the prototype clause in domestic 
corporate charters was not confined to repugnance to a limited part of the laws 
of England. Secondly, at the period of the issuance of the early colonial charters 
few acts of Parliament extended to dominions of the crown, providing virtually 
no legislative standards. 30 Further, there is some evidence of Stuart belief 
that the American colonies were beyond reach of acts of Parliament. 31 Another 
view, seemingly not widely held, was that by the "laws of England" in 
colonial charters was meant the common law as it stood at the date of the 
charter. 32 A minor question was whether a colonial act repugnant to a public 
treaty was to be considered as repugnant to the laws of England. 33 The opinion 
held in some plantation circles that such treaties were not part of the laws 
of England 34 was affirmed by the crown law officers. 35 
EARLY LEGISLATIVE REVIEW 
Let us now examine chronologically the various instances preceding Winthrop 
v. Lechmere in which colonial acts were declared void or such declarations 
were discussed. In 1698 Pennsylvania passed an act for preventing frauds and 
time of the settlement of a colony might be regarded 
as in force in such colony as an uninhabited 
territory discovered by English subjects. 
In rebuttal it might be argued that the 
laws of England did not extend to conquered 
countries and that most colonies were of the 
same status as Virginia, which had been held 
a conquered country; see Smith v. Brown (2 
666). But see the denial that Maryland 
was a conquered country, supra, p. 522. 
23 Remarks on Several Acts of Parliament Relating 
More Especially to the Colonies Abroad 
(1742), 17-18. 
29 See the passages between the Governor and 
the Assembly of Massachusetts in 1773 (Principles 
and Acts of the Revolution in America 
[ed. by H. Niles], 284, 291). Cf. the 1779 
statement of Baron Maseres (3 Canadian Freeholder 
[1779], 774)- 
30 See Schuyler, Parliament and the British 
Empire (1929), 19—22. 
31 Ibid., 22-24. 
32 This view was allegedly favored by Governor 
Hopkins of Rhode Island in 1766 (26 
MS Mass. Archives [Hutchinson Corres., 
1761-70], 197). 
33 This question was raised in 1718 by David 
Dunbar, Surveyor General of the Customs, in 
connection with an Antigua act which was 
repugnant to articles of a 1686 commercial 
treaty (CSP, Col., 1717-18, #495). 
34 Lieutenant-Governor Spotswood of Virginia 
wrote that it was "the common opinion 
here that the treatys of sovereigns do not bind 
the subjects unless confirmed by Act of Parliament" 
(ibid., #406). Cf. the Board of Trade 
opinion (ibid., #598). 
35 These officers were of the opinion that the 
articles of a treaty "could not have had its 
effect with respect to His Majesty's subjects, 
unless the said articles had been confirmed 
either by Act of Parliament of Great Britain or 
by Acts of Assembly within the respective 
plantations" (ibid., 1728—2g, #230).