the papers referred to therein. 166 This was done, and after copies were directed 
to be given to Winthrop, the papers were ordered to be returned to 
Dummer. 167 
Matters stood thus in April, 1729, when Belcher arrived in England, with 
Winthrop allegedly still ready to defame the colony. 168 In May the agents 
consulted counsel, who advised that no application in the matter of the voided 
act should be made to the King in Council. Since no power existed under the 
charter to enact such law, the King could not ratify a law which the colony 
originally lacked power to make. An Order in Council might operate prospectively, 
but this would not relieve past settlements. Even then it might 
be claimed that a new charter was necessary to effect the change, and the 
resignation of the present charter for one presently granted was conceived as 
a procedure fraught with danger. Counsel therefore advised a special bill in the 
next session of Parliament for the quieting of all estates settled under the 
voided act in the past and for enablement of the same method in futuro. 169 
Apprehensive of the delay and cost entailed by parliamentary relief, the 
agents consulted Lord Chancellor King who confirmed the advice given by 
counsel. 170 
The Connecticut authorities, in considering this proposal, felt that there 
were several objections to any application for parliamentary relief. First was 
the improbability that an additional charter privilege would be granted establishing 
a rule contrary to the law of England. 171 Secondly, there was the 
danger of inciting parliamentary inquiry into the extent of Connecticut laws 
contrary to the laws of England with consequent vacating of further acts; 
indeed, such inquiry might lead to parliamentary opinion that under the 
charter the colony only possessed power to make by-laws. 172 Thirdly, the 
time was inauspicious in view of the present ministerial attitude which seemingly 
prohibited the making of any laws contrary to the laws of England, 
and of the possible extension to Connecticut of the long-seated ministerial 
hostility toward recalcitrant Massachusetts. 173 Relegated to a minor role was 
the question of costs arising from parliamentary action. 174 In opposition it 
was urged that inactivity would result in endless costly lawsuits to the ruin 
168 PC 2/90/404, 407. See the account of this tion" it is not certain whether disallowance 
in which the "Committee" is termed the "Lords or declaration of nullity was intended, 
of Trade and Plantations" (1 Talcott Papers, 173 Ibid., 175-76; cf. ibid,, 178-79. For the 
221). dispute between the Massachusetts Assembly 
167 PC 2/90/411. and Governor Burnet as to the governor's 
168 1 Talcott Papers, 166-67. salary see 3 Osgood, The American Colonies 
309 Ibid., 167-68. in the Eighteenth Century, 179-85. For the 
170 Ibid., 169-70. termination of this danger see 1 Talcott Papers, 
171 Ibid., 175; cf. ibid., 178. 185, 191. 
172 Ibid., 175-76; cf. ibid., 179-80. By "vaca- 17i Ibid., 178.