ondly, the act was reasonable and well calculated for the end of the charter— 
the settlement of the province. 241 Thirdly, descents must be governed by 
the circumstances of a country, so that with varying circumstances different 
rules would evolve. The essential requisites, all present in this instance, were 
that the descent be reasonable, communally beneficial, notorious, and established. 
Fourthly, in the early stages of many countries the same rule of descent 
had been in force, showing that such law was not repugnant to the general 
wisdom and policy of mankind. 242 Next, respondent proceeded to picture 
the evil consequences following a declaration of voidness. The adoption of 
the doctrine that every colonial law not perfectly agreeable to the laws of 
England, though confirmed by the crown, was void, would not only render 
useless colonial legislative powers but would also subvert the royal prerogative 
243 Such declaration of voidness would affect most of the laws of the 
province which might with equal justice be termed repugnant to the laws of 
England. 244 Pleaded last was the public inconvenience and confusion which 
would be caused by the voiding of an act under which settlements had been 
made for many years. 246 
Finally there was discussion of the force of Winthrop v. Lechmere as precedent 
in this appeal. Upon the hearing, counsel for appellant agreed that in 
the earlier case there had been no confirmation and that the King possessed 
no power to approve or disallow Connecticut acts. 246 Respondent counsel 
distinguished the instant case from the suggested Connecticut precedent in 
several respects. First, the legislative powers under the Massachusetts charter 
were greater, Connecticut having only the power to make by-laws. 247 Secondly, 
the controverted law had been confirmed by the King in Council, even 
Hampshire, Bermuda." But appellant "urged 
no province has law like this" (Lee MS). Compare 
the disallowance of acts similar to the 
Massachusetts act in Pennsylvania and New 
Hampshire, supra, n. 63. 
241 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 78. Respondent 
counsel noted on appellant's printed Case, "The 
preamble artfully omitted, upon which the 
whole construction of the act depends" (ibid., 
65). In the Lee MS it is noted: "To show 
reasonableness insists on the preamble and that 
not for interest of England that single persons 
should become the proprietors." Cf. 2 Talcott 
Papers, 80. 
242 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, 78-79. 
243 Ibid., 78-79. 
244 Ibid., 80. Particularly adverted to was the 
tendency to bastardize and disinherit a majority 
of the province's inhabitants whose parents 
had been married by justices of the peace under 
another 1692 law (1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. 
Bay, 61) approved at the same time as the act 
in question (PC 2/76/195). 
245 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc., 79-80. 
246 From the Lee MS: "v. c. of Connecticut, 
1727. Winthrop's case. Agree no confirmation 
nor any power to approve or reject." 
247 "This case different from Winthrop. Ist, 
different colony. Powers to them only to make 
by-laws, further thought of ill consequence" 
(Lee MS). Cf. 2 Talcott Papers, 81. As to the 
validity of the contention compare the legislative 
powers of Connecticut (2 Pub. Rec. Col. 
Conn., 8) with those of Massachusetts (1 Acts 
and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 15-16), particularly 
the clause, "according to the course of other 
corporations within this our Kingdome of England," 
in the former.