since the order in Winthrop v. Lechmere. 2is Thirdly, in the Connecticut 
case appellant never submitted to bring an inventory. 249 Fourthly, the Massachusetts 
law was very ancient and constantly observed. 250 
The Committee, after hearing counsel present these arguments and after 
maturely considering the proceedings in the cause, 2ul advised that the three 
orders appealed from and the division made thereunder be affirmed and that 
the appeal be dismissed. 252 From the recital in the report it appears that the 
grounds for dismissal of the appeal included the 1695 confirmation of the 
questioned act by the King in Council, the recent confirmation of the 1731 
additional act, and the constant usage in the colony under the act. 258 On 
February 15, 1737/8, an Order in Council issued giving executive force to the 
Committee report. 254 
It is apparent that in Philips v. Savage an element was present that was lacking 
in Winthrop v. Lechmere, viz., the circumstance that certain provincial 
acts had been confirmed by the crown. This, it has been assumed, was the 
ratio decidendi of the affirming conciliar order, 255 but there was some contemporary 
opinion in the colony to the effect that the confirmation was of 
no operative consequence. 256 Such a view would accord with English judicial 
doctrine which treated approval of corporate by-laws under 19 Henry VII, 
c. 7, as giving no exemption from judicial review. 257 Curiously enough, this 
248 Lee MS. A reference to Chapter 2 of the 
Laws of 1730—31, confirmed on January 27, 
1731/2; see supra, n. 231; cf. 2 Talcott Papers, 
81. 
249 Lee MS. 
250 2 Talcott Papers, 81. 
251 Solicitor Paris wrote that respondent's cause 
was greatly assisted by a statement of Lord 
Chancellor Hardwicke: "That he had been of 
Council for Mr. Winthrop in his case formerly. 
That as his counsel, he had at such time, offered 
all that he could for his clyent, to get the 
Conecticut Act repealed and the orders reverst. 
That though he had prevailed therein for his 
clyent, yet, with very great deference to those 
lords who judged in that case, he was not 
satisfied in his own private opinion, with that 
determination in Winthrop's case" (ibid.). 
252 3 APC, Col, #322. 
253 Ibid. To establish the latter point certificates 
under the hands of Josiah Willard, judge of 
the Court of Probates, and John Boydell, 
register of that court, were submitted. 
254 Ibid. In December, 1738, respondent petitioned 
the House of Representatives for reimbursement 
for costs incurred in defending the 
appeal, since the outcome was in favor of the 
province and its laws (16 Jour. House Rep. 
Mass., 136). Upon committee report thereon, 
the House voted that ,£4O of the charges 
should be assumed by respondent, the remainder 
(;£iso/iB/3) by the colony (ibid., 
154-55). 
255 See Schlesmger, Colonial Appeals to the 
Privy Council, 28 Pol. Sci. Quart., 443; 
Hazeltine, Appeals from the Colonial Courts 
to the King in Council, Annual Rep. Am. Hist. 
Assn. (1894), 321. 
256 Thg Reverend Benjamin Coleman wrote 
"that it only remains to say this or that is 
repugnant to the laws of England, and then 
the inference is that the law has no validity 
though it has been confirmed, because the 
charter allows of nothing repugnant to the 
laws of England" (Coleman to Francis Wilks 
[?], Nov. 12, 1735; Coleman MSS, 1735-63). 
257 In The Case of the Tailors of Ipswich (11 
Co\e 53a) it was resolved "that the statute of 
19 H. 7. C. 7. doth not corroborate any of 
the ordinances made by any corporation, which 
are so allowed and approved as the statute 
speaks, but leaves them to be affirmed as good,