reversed and set aside. The letters so granted, the inventory exhibited thereunder, 
and the approving order of April 29, 1726, should be vacated and set 
aside. The original letters granted to Winthrop should be established and 
ordered to stand; all costs paid by appellant should be repaid; the suit of respondents 
should be dismissed; and all acts and proceedings had under any 
of the aforesaid sentences should be discharged and declared null and void. 
The May, 1726, act empowering Lechmere to sell the lands should be declared 
null and void, as also the September 27, 1726, Superior Court order made 
thereunder. Finally, appellant should be restored to possession of any realty 
taken from him under any of the aforesaid sentences, and respondent should 
account for any rents and profits received during unjust detention thereof. 133 
This report received conciliar approval and was embodied in an Order in 
Council of February 15,1727/8. 134 
REACTION TO THE DECLARATION OF NULLITY 
While these proceedings were taking place, the complaint, delayed in transmission, 
was received in Connecticut in September, 1727, and answer thereto 
dispatched. 130 In May, 1728, unofficial news of the outcome of the appeal was 
received in the colony, and Jonathan Belcher was authorized by the General 
Assembly to act as agent in England, alone or with Jeremiah Dummer (who 
was in ill health), and likewise to appear in the colony's behalf before the King 
or in any court in England in any matter or cause wherein the colony was 
concerned. 136 But in the following July this agency was revoked, when Dummer 
informed the colony that it was uncertain whether Winthrop would 
prosecute his complaint and that he, Dummer, had recovered his health. 137 At 
133 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 576-78; 6 Winthrop 
Papers, 505-7. See the surprise expressed 
by solicitor Ferdinand John Paris at the declaration 
of nullity which "was not particularly 
prayed for in the petition of appeal, any otherwise 
than under the prayer for general relief." 
Paris was also struck with the fact that no 
reference of the act was made to the Board of 
Trade (2 Talcott Papers, 78). Paris may have 
had in mind disallowance or declaration of 
nullity upon legislative review. 
13 *7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 578-79; 6 Winthrop 
Papers, 507—9. 
135 On September 19, 1727, Talcott wrote 
that the complaint had been received but recently 
and that he hoped no advantage would 
be taken if the answer "which we have in the 
greatest haste imaginable drawn up, and sent 
by the first opportunity," should not arrive by 
December 1, the date set for the hearing (1 
Talcott Papers, 94-97). A committee appointed 
by both legislative bodies had reported their 
answer to the complaint on the previous day 
(7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 122). Cf. 1 Talcott 
Papers, 99-100. 
136 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 185; Diary of 
Joshua Hempstead, loc. cit., 197. Talcott put 
the question to the assembly whether application 
should not be made to prevent, if possible, 
the declaration of the act for settling intestate 
estates to be void, or if the act were irrevocably 
voided, to procure a saving to estates 
already settled (1 Talcott Papers, 114-15). The 
letter from Talcott to Belcher is at ibid., 115—17. 
Some fear of scire facias or quo warranto proceedings 
is indicated by this appointment. For 
a discussion of the part played by colonial 
agents in this matter see Burns, The Colonial 
Agents of New England, 98-101. 
137 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 191.