act as economically beneficial were at liberty to achieve the same by a will. 182 
Many had groaned under the action of the Court of Probates and of the 
assembly, but lacked money to appeal, so that the agent's petition did not 
represent the sentiment of the united colony. 183 
At the same time the Board of Trade asked the opinion of the crown law 
officers whether under the charter the colony had the power of making laws 
which affected property or whether its power was not confined to the 
making of by-laws only; further, if the former power was not possessed, 
whether the charter had been forfeited by passing such laws. 184 In reply 
thereto, Attorney General Yorke and Solicitor General Talbot declared that 
under the charter the General Assembly possessed the power of making laws 
which affected property. 185 However, it was a "necessary qualification of all 
such laws that they be reasonable in themselves and not contrary to the laws 
of England; and if any laws have been there made repugnant to the laws of 
England they are absolutely null and void." 186 In November, 1730, the Board 
of Trade sought further opinion, questioning its legal adviser, Francis 
Fane, whether the King by virtue of his prerogative and without the assistance 
of Parliament could gratify the desires of the colony as expressed in their 
conciliar petition. 187 Fane could not answer whether the royal prerogative 
extended to this situation. Supposing it did, he suggested that it would be 
more for the royal service to take parliamentary assistance, as that method 
would be least liable to objection. 188 
In December, 1730, the Board of Trade, having heard the parties, 189 advised 
the Committee that royal license should be granted Connecticut to 
pass an act for the quieting of possessions already vested, with a saving of the 
interest of John Winthrop. But the Board reported that it could by no means 
sole agent (7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 307-8). 
182 CSP, Col., 1730, #203. But there appears 
to have been a tendency to omit making wills 
in the colony; see 1 Talcott Papers, 203. Talcott 
also pointed out that the intent of many 
people who relied on the 1699 act was defeated 
by the declaration of its nullity (ibid., 
234)- 
183 CSP, Col, 1730, #203. The last allegation 
was refuted by Talcott; see 1 Talcott 
Papers, 235. See also the later memorial of 
Winthrop {ibid., 394-95). 
Isi CSP, Col., 1730, #186. The memorial 
from Winthrop was also sent to the crown law 
officers as of possible service in forming their 
opinion (ibid., #206). On May 12 Belcher 
wrote that he had remained as long as he 
could, hoping to procure a Board of Trade report, 
but "the affairs of Parliament are so 
many and important that no other business can 
be done" (i Talcott Papers, 200). 
ISS CSP, Col, 1730, #363. Compare the statement 
of Talcott that "our best counsel has told 
us we have no power to make a law to restrain 
property, or regulate descents" (1 Talcott 
Papers, 177). 
186 CSP, Col., 1730, #363 
wibid., #535- 
188 Ibid., #552; 2 Talcott Papers, 433^34- 
189 For the account by Wilks of the hearing 
see 1 Talcott Papers, 217-18. For a refutation 
of the allegations made by Winthrop at the 
hearing see ibid., 226-27. The Board of Trade 
minute on the hearing conveys a strange suggestion 
that in juturo annulment was under 
consideration (}CTP, 1728/9-34, 165).