The appeal, however, reduced to the single issue whether the questioned 1692 act was a valid law or not. 229 To justify this act respondent showed that been vain" (52 MS Mass. Archives [Letters, have been given in the common form prescribed 1724-38], 464-65; cf. 2 Talcott Papers, 83-84). by the act and thus including realty, since ap-223 PC 2/94/374, 375. The other respondents pellant neglected to include these instruments made no appearance, "though duly summoned in the record brought up (ibid., 73-74, 76). in New England." The committee which re- The Attorney General's answer to this conported on the appeal, as noted in the Privy tcntion was as follows: "Answer—claim ad- Council register, consisted of Lord Chancellor ministration as next of kin and that is con- Hardwicke, the Lord President (the Earl of formable to the laws of England. No power Wilmington), the Earl of Pembroke, the Earl to the administrator to intermeddle with real of Cholmondeley, Lord Monson, Onslow estate for that is to be divided per five suf(Speaker of the House of Commons), and ficient persons. Urged the bond has no rela- Chief Justice Lee. tio n to tne rea ' estate nor is that mentioned 22i 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 68. The charter therein. But if such bond given it is void if legislative power was subject to the limitation the law is void." Lord Chancellor Hardwicke that the acts "be not repugnant or contrary to in giving his "decision" apparently stated that the lawes of this our realme of England" (3 "giving an inventory will not give jurisdiction" Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions, 1882). (Lee MS). "5 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 68. Counsel for 22s 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 74"75, 76-77- To appellant were Dudley Ryder (the Attorney this it was answered: "the first order is only General) and John Brown. to make division, the second or last order is 226 Counsel for respondent were John Strange the grievance, founded on the certificate re(the Solicitor General) and Jonathan Belcher, turned" (Lee MS). son of the Massachusetts governor (ibid., 80). 229 According to Ferdinand John Paris, solicitor 227 Bond and inventory had to be presumed to for appellants (2 Talcott Papers, 80).