that it was within the power of this body assembled as a General Court and 
not in a legislative capacity to make a law ex post facto. 128 As to the contention 
of appellant that the act governing intestate estates was obsolete, respondents 
were not prepared with instances of its use or any common usage. 129 As to 
the legislative power under the charter it was claimed that the colony possessed 
power to make all laws whatsoever; further, that peaceful government could 
not exist without laws relating to property. 130 It was also maintained that the 
colony did not have the same status as a corporation in England, which would 
be bound by the laws of England. As to the question of repugnancy to the 
laws of England it was claimed that this limitation only extended to acts repealing 
statutes of England in which the plantations were mentioned. 131 As 
to whether the laws of England were in force in the colony, it was insisted that 
the laws of England did not extend to the colony, unless by a particular act. 132 
Upon consideration of the matter, the Committee reported to the Council 
Board on December 20, advising that the act for the settlement of intestate 
estates thould be declared null and void as contrary to the laws of England 
in making lands of inheritance distributable as personal estates and as not 
warranted by the charter of the colony. The three sentences rejecting the inventory 
exhibited by appellant because it did not contain realty as well as 
personalty of intestate should be reversed and set aside. Appellant should be 
permitted to exhibit an inventory of intestate's personalty alone, and the 
Court of Probates should be directed not to reject such an inventory for excluding 
realty. The March 22, 1725/6, sentence vacating letters of administration 
granted to appellant and granting letters to respondents should be 
heard (ibid., 495). The colony was not heard 
at all on the appeal (1 Talcott Papers, 173). 
128 6 Winthrop Papers, 495. 
129 Ibid. Ferdinand John Paris wrote in 1738 
that "Mr. Winthrop's counsell boldly put it 
upon Mr. Lechmere's counsell to shew that 
the distributary Act had ever, once, been followed 
or carried into execution in Connecticut; 
and they were so very poorly instructed that 
they did not in return, offer to shew that it had; 
which was giving a deadi's wound to their 
cause; whereas, if I am not much misinformed, 
there might have been given abundant testimony 
of its being daily carryed into use 
there" (2 Talcott Papers, 78). 
130 5 winthrop Papers, 495. Governor Talcott 
in May, 1728, stated that "the principal argument 
on Winthrop's side was our Government 
having no power by our Charter to make laws 
for the dividing property, and the descent of 
real estate etc" (1 Talcott Papers, 116). 
131 5 Winthrop Papers, 495. It also appears to 
have been argued that die restraint on making 
laws contrary to the laws of England was confined 
to "publick matters, trade, etc" (ibid., 
496). Cf. the answer of Governor Talcott to 
the complaint of Winthrop stating that it was 
understood diat the limitation of the charter 
referred only to acts made for the plantations 
and that the colony might make acts diverse 
from the common law of England, Wales, and 
Berwick-on-Tweed (6 APC, Col., #367). Cf. 
1 Talcott Papers, 152. In a later instruction to 
a colony agent it was stated that "the contrariety 
intended must be only to the laws made for 
the plantations, which opinion will be enforced 
by the statute made in King William's 
reign pleaded in Leachmere's case" (2 Talcott 
Papers, 427). Presumably the statutory reference 
was 7 and 8 William 111, c. 22, s. 9. 
132 5 Winthrop Papers, 496. Reliance was 
placed upon Blankard v. Galdy (4 Mod. 222).