Thereupon, at the October, 1728, meeting of the General Assembly, it was resolved that as soon as Winthrop or his attorney certified to the colony secretary the bounds and quantity of the land detained, the secretary would grant a writ of habere facias possessionem directed to the proper sheriff to put Winthrop in possession of the detained land. This writ was accordingly granted on January 20, 1728/9. 147 Returning now to the efforts of the colony to obtain relief from the nullifying Order in Council, in December, 1728, we find agent Belcher instructed as to the grounds for a reconsideration of the vacating of the act for the settlement of intestate estates. 1 ' 48 In the first place, several arguments were proposed in support of the power of the colony government to make laws of selfgovernment under the charter. Preliminarily advanced was a prescriptive right based upon the uninterrupted practice of the colony for almost one hundred years. 149 Secondly, the body of colony laws had been twice laid before the King, and no exception had been taken thereto, despite the declaration of the first law therein that the people should be governed by the laws of the colony and in the absence thereof by the law of God. 150 This act, moreover, was agreeable to the rule of Blan\ard v. Galdy as to conquered or not uninhabited countries. 151 Thirdly, it was advanced that it would be inconsistent to grant cut timber on this land. They set forth the circumstances they were brought to by reliance on the act of assembly and inquired whether they should submit to the intruding acts or vindicate their title at law (1 Talcott Papers, 131- 33). On the other hand, Winthrop ux. prayed that the purchasers be restrained from cutting further timber and that she be put into possession following the tenor of the Order in Council (ibid., 134-35). Compare the allegations of Talcott for royal consumption (ibid., 174-75). rebutted by Winthrop in a conciliar petition of February 6, 1730/1 (6 APC, Col., #432). 147 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 217; MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., #168. In October, 1735, the purchasers or their executors were permitted by the General Assembly to bring suit on the bond, the cancellation of which had been the consideration given Lechmere for the lands now restored to Winthrop (8 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 17-20; cf. 7 ibid., 569). For the course of recalcitrance see MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., $169-214. Winthrop refusing to pay the debt represented by the bond, the General Assembly in October, 1741, ordered that complainants recover the amount of the purchase sum and that execution issue for such amount (8 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 432-34). Execution was granted Feb. 2, 1741/2. A further explanatory order of the General Assembly was necessary in October, 1744, as to the type of currency in which the debt was to be paid (9 ibid., 15, 62-63). In May, 1747, upon a memorial of the executors of purchaser Douglass in old tenor bills of credit was voted for the relief of the memorialists {ibid., 308). 148 Belcher was also instructed to answer the complaint of Winthrop, but in his own words, "my main errand to Great Britain in behalf of your colony is to get reverst the King's judgment in Council against law for settling intestate Estates, and to have the same allowed and approbated by his Majesty" (1 Talcott Papers, 160; cf. ibid., 163). Compare the draft of an address to the King (2 Talcott Papers, 418—22) and the draft of instructions to Belcher (ibid., 422-31). 149 1 Talcott Papers, 143-44; see also ibid., is£>. 150 Ibid., 143. For the act referred to see An Act for Securing the General Priviledges of the Inhabitants (Acts and Laws of Connecticut [1715], i)- 151 1 Talcott Papers, 143-44. The case (2 Sal\eld 411) was interpreted as holding that "in a conquered country, the laws of equity and nations, [prevailed] till the conqueror had