of countless families. Furthermore, that courts of the colony would be caught 
between the Scylla of judgments according to the common law destructive 
of colony welfare and the Charybdis of judgments according to the voided 
act engendering greater confusion and affronting the crown. 175 In addition, 
action leading only to the confirmation of estates already settled would still 
leave open the problem of unsettled estates and of the future operation of a 
rule unsuited to conditions in the colony. 176 
Upon mature consideration and the repeated advice of counsel, agents 
Belcher and Dummer decided, however, to take parliamentary action. 177 
Introductory thereto a petition was presented to the King in February, 
1729/30, setting forth the familiar arguments and praying leave to introduce 
a bill into the present Parliament to confirm estates settled under the voided 
act and to permit such intestate distribution in juturo, with a saving clause as 
to John Winthrop. 178 
European affairs, however, became so pressing that the ministry refused 
to allow the proposed bill to be brought into the present session of Parliament 
179 With legislative channels blocked, a petition for the same relief was 
presented to the King in Council, in April, 1730, ISO and referred to the Board 
of Trade. 181 Winthrop then memorialized the Board of Trade that the act 
for the settlement of intestate estates was contrary to the laws of England in 
two respects —in the distribution of realty upon intestacy and the holding of 
pleas of freehold estates by the Court of Probates, a spiritual court. The 
allegation that the act was annulled by the February 15,1727, Order in Council 
was a gross mistake, since the act was in its nature null and void before the 
King in Council declared it so for the future information of the subjects of 
Connecticut. Those approving the method of distribution provided by the 
175 Ibid., 177. 
176 Ibid., 177-78. 
177 Ibid., 184. 
178 The petitionary arguments included ancient 
custom; the failure to hear the colony on 
Winthrop's appeal; the reasonableness of the 
act with regard to Connecticut conditions; confirmation 
of the similar Massachusetts act; economic 
disaster contingent upon alteration of 
descent; and the confusion attendant upon upsetting 
many estate settlements {ibid., 187-90). 
Compare the earlier draft of an address to the 
King supplied to Belcher by Talcott (2 Talcott 
Papers, 418-22). 
179 This set-back was blamed upon the hesitancy 
of Talcott to seek parliamentary relief 
(1 Talcott Papers, 197). See also the February 
26, 1729/30, letter from Belcher to the Duke 
of Newcastle seeking to have the ministry alter 
this decision to delay introduction of the bill 
(CSP, Col, 1730, #78). 
180 3 APC, Col, #208; 1 Talcott Papers, 197. 
The petition is set out in CSP, Col., 1730, 
#171. The ministry may have advised such 
conciliar course; see ibid., #78. 
181 3 APC, Col, #208; 1 Talcott Papers, 200, 
201. Solicitor John Sharpe was employed to 
urge the matter and to have a report as soon 
as possible before the Council Board. It was 
hoped the report would advise that the matter 
be laid before Parliament at the next session 
{ibid., 197). Sharpe refusing to act with Dummer, 
Belcher appointed Francis Wilks, the 
Massachusetts agent, co-agent with Sharpe. Belcher 
quitted the agency to assume the governorship 
of Massachusetts {ibid., 198). By an October, 
1730, act of the assembly, Dummer was 
relieved of his agency and Wilks constituted