act on the question whether infants, femes coverts, and lunatics could be 
bound in their property and rights by colonial assemblies. Unless shown precedents, 
Yorke was of the opinion that in matters not concerning the crown or 
the public good colonies could not legislatively bind the property of English 
subjects without their consent. Yorke took it that there had been cases of 
private acts assented to by the King being held void in Westminster for want 
of the consent of the persons affected. 545 
The case in Westminster to which reference was made may have been 
Richardson v. Hamilton, a 1733 chancery cause. This case involved a bill in 
chancery to be relieved against the sale of a house and land in Philadelphia 
made by virtue of a 1718 private act of the Pennsylvania Assembly. 548 By 
this act the house and land were vested in trustees to be sold for the benefit 
of the creditors (principally William Houston) of one William Clarke, deceased 
547 In pursuance of this act the house and lands were sold at vendue 
to Anthony Houston, who in turn conveyed the premises to defendant Andrew 
Hamilton, the then tenant in possession under a lease made sometime 
after 1712. 048 When apprised of the passage of this act, Clarke's widow, remarried 
to Zacharia Richardson of Barbados, petitioned the Board of Trade 
in October, 1719, for repeal thereof. Petitioner asserted that the premises had 
been conveyed by Clarke, senior, in 1704 to his son, with the intention of creating 
a fee tail, as part of a marriage settlement; that judgment had been had 
against the executors of Clarke, senior, for the pretended debt to Houston; 
and that the act was passed without any opportunity afforded petitioner or 
her children to be heard against it. 549 
Counsel Richard West, to whom the act and memorial were referred, made 
report in November, 1719, on the reference, to the effect that the end of the 
bill was to strip the children in whom the estate was legally vested according 
to the marriage settlement without a hearing; that the consideration of marriage 
was so strong that it could not be set aside; that the only inducement 
for passage of the act was to pay the debts of the two Clarkes—the elder 
having had at his death no interest in the premises, and the younger only a 
life estate. Therefore West advised that the act "ought for the injustice of 
it to be repealed." 55 ° 
After consideration of West's report, the Board heard Richardson et ux. in 
opposition to the act, these memorialists praying that "whatsoever hath been 
545 Add. MS, 36,224/281. 
546 Add. MS, 36,216/110. 
547 3 Stat, at Large Pa., 225. 
548 Ibid., 481, 483. The conveyance Houston 
to Hamilton is dated Dec. 10, 1718. It was 
recorded Nov. 16, 1731 (Recorder of Deeds, 
Philadelphia, Pa. Liber F5, pp. 340-41). 
549 3 Stat, at Large Pa., 470-71. The deed of 
settlement dated March 22, 1704/5, was not 
recorded until March 1, 1728/9 (Recorder of 
Deeds, Philadelphia, Pa. Liber F4, p. 349). 
550 3 Stat, at Large Pa. 473—74.