propose a future course of succession on a different footing than in Great 
Britain. In return for such royal favor the colony ought to submit to the 
acceptance of an explanatory charter, whereby that colony might become as 
dependent on the crown as Massachusetts. If this method should not be regarded 
as advisable, the King might allow application to Parliament; in such 
a case it was hoped proper measures would be taken to secure the dependence 
of Connecticut upon the crown and the mother country. 190 
When the Committee considered the Board of Trade report in March, 
1730/1, the colony representatives and Winthrop both made motions to be 
heard by counsel thereon. The Committee informed them that upon application 
a day would be appointed for a hearing, 101 but apparently the matter was 
respited until the province could be heard from. 102 Upon the unfavorable 
Board of Trade report agent Francis Wilks had announced his intention to 
revert to parliamentary channels, 193 but as a conciliar recommendation thereto 
would certainly confirm the Board of Trade report, the agent was at a loss as 
to how to proceed. 194 Connecticut did not leave him long in doubt, for the 
Board of Trade report outraged the province. Wilks was instructed that in 
order to obtain passage of the advocated act for quieting estates vested under 
the nullified act the colony would not submit to an explanatory charter. 195 
The colony at the same time drafted a new act to settle intestate estates in the 
colony. 190 Wilks protested that passage of such act, while the same matter 
was depending before the King, might be construed as a contempt of the 
King and the Council and, further, that the proposed law was open to the 
identical objections which led to the annulment of the former act. 197 
A non-parliamentary solution of the problem was proposed in 1732, but 
its validity rested upon a mistaken interpretation of a legal opinion. Relying 
upon an alleged recent opinion of the crown law officers that the common 
190 CSP, Col, 1730, #638; 1 Talcott Papers, 
435-37- 
191 3 APC, Col., #208. For an account of. the 
Committee hearing see 1 Talcott Papers, 218, 
222. On February 6, 1730/1, Winthrop had 
presented a further memorial, in the main 
repeating his earlier allegations. He also opposed 
any act for quieting of titles as encouraging 
the assembly to pass acts convenient to 
party interests, however contrary to the laws 
of England. Memorialist also returned to the 
argument that the colony possessed only the 
power to make by-laws of a corporation 
within the dominion of England {ibid., 392- 
96). The original is in PC 1/48. 
193 1 Talcott Papers, 245. The account of disbursements 
by Wilks (ibid., 244—45) affords 
insight into the conciliar process. 
193 Ibid., 218-19. 
194 Ibid., 222-23. 
195 Ibid., 232; 2 Talcott Papers, 440, 
196 p or t i le act see 441-43. It was conceived 
of as "a law consonant to the rule of 
the common law of England" (ibid., 440). 
197 Wilks pointed out that the former act was 
not void merely because it let female issue 
in to inherit equally with male issue, but because 
it let in younger sons to inherit with 
the eldest son as co-heirs (1 Talcott Papers, 
240—41). He further advised passage of an act 
similar to that voided but limited to personalty. 
A report to the legislature suggested adoption 
of die Wilks suggestion (2 Talcott Papers, 
443)-