power to make laws not contrary to the laws of England, if the laws of England 
were already the laws of the colony. 152 Therefore, it was hoped that 
the colony might be governed by the laws of equity as a conquered country, 
in any case until laws were made under the charter. The exception of acts 
of Parliament which specifically mentioned the plantations was recognized. 153 
Fourthly, in only one case had the colony been directed to correct a law made 
under the authority granted by the charter. 154 Fifthly, it was claimed that 
the legislative authority had been sanctioned by affirmation of judgments 
given in the colony courts according to laws established under such authority 
155 Lastly, any contention that the charter only gave power to pass 
by-laws was rejected as untenable. 156 
Coming, then, to the particular act in question it was urged that the division 
of intestate estates provided for thereby had been a universal custom in Connecticut 
and the other New England colonies since their beginnings. 157 Following 
this appeal to antiquity, the reasonableness of the custom in relation 
to colonial conditions was demonstrated. 158 Then the inconveniences ensuing 
from the vacating of the act were dwelt upon in a lengthy catalogue. 159 
declared his laws." Under colonial conditions 
the Connecticut provisions for distribution upon 
intestacy were argued as "more equitable and 
just" than primogeniture (i Talcott Papers, 
148). Compare the language of the case relied 
upon "that in the case of an infidel country, 
their laws by conquest do not intirely cease, 
but only such as are against the law of God; 
and that in such cases, where the laws are 
rejected or silent, the conquered country shall 
be governed according to the rule of natural 
equity." 
152 Ibid., 148. The same principle was also 
stated in different form, "that an authority to 
make the same law here that is in England, or 
one that is not contrary to it, does imply that 
till it is made, it can't be law here" {ibid., 149). 
153 Ibid., 148. The same attitude was revealed 
in the answer to Article 9 of Winthrop's complaint 
(6 APC, Col, #367) that the colony 
had "passed several laws absolutely repugnant 
and directly contrary both to the common and 
statute laws of England" (1 Talcott Papers, 
152). See also the answers to Articles 15 
and 16 {ibid., 154). 
15i Ibid., 144. The force of this argument is 
dubious. 
155 1 Talcott Papers, 144, 159. Presumably the 
judgments referred to were those appealed to 
the King in Council in Palmes v. Winthrop and 
Hallam v. Winthrop; see supra, pp. 140-45, 
149-50. 
156 This rejection was based on two points: 
(a) the charter nowhere directed that administration 
should be by the laws of England; 
{b) the purported end of the charter could 
not be obtained by a power to make and repeal 
by-laws only {ibid., 148—49). See also the message 
of the House of Representatives to Belcher 
{ibid., 158-59) in which the additional argument 
was advanced that "it's the privilege of 
Englishmen, and the natural right of all men 
who have not forfeited it, to be governed by 
laws made by their own consent." 
157 Ibid., 144, 153. Note mention of the presumed 
royal approval of the prototype Massachusetts 
act {ibid., 148, 153). The House of 
Representatives wrote Belcher that "many laws 
of the same import in the neighbouring governments 
have been approved and confirmed 
at home" {ibid., 159). It is interesting to note 
that a 1718 Rhode Island act {Acts and Laws 
R.J. [1719], 95) containing similar provisions 
to the Connecticut act was repealed a year after 
the conciliar order in Winthrop v. Lechmere 
{Acts and haws R.l. [1730], 163). 
158 1 Talcott Papers, 144—46. By this custom 
of dividing inheritances land was brought under 
cultivation and increase of population encouraged. 

159 It was claimed that all settlements of lands 
left intestate and all alienations thereunder 
would be upset. 'Quarrels and lawsuits would 
abound; many lands would lie unoccupied;