13. ANDREWS: COLONIAL CONDITIONS 439 the colony, opposed to the government,^ and overzealous in finding flaws in colonial law and administration, and ever ready to exhibit such discoveries to the authorities in Eng- land, began to question the validity of the custom even before it became a law. This was done by Governor Talcott himself in 1691,^ and by Major Palmes in 1698,^ while in Massa- chusetts Dudley complained of the law in 1693.* The ques- tion was not destined, however, to become prominent for nearly thirty years, but it early became of importance as part of a larger question, the forfeiture of the charters and the proposal to unite the charter and proprietary colonies to the Crown. The agitation to produce this latter result seems to have grown out of the desire to unite the colonies of North- ern America under one military head,^ and was increased by the controversy over the right of appeal to the King in Coun- cil and the dissatisfaction arising therefrom. In Massachu- setts a law had been passed regarding appeals, but it was ^ Major Palmes refused to pay his dues because he considered the government restored after the revolution of 1688 " no government." Col. Bee. IV, pp. 325-326.
- It is not unlikely that there were other early unrecorded protests
against the custom, though probably not many, if there were any, before 1688. Gershom Bulkeley speaks as follows in his " Will and Doom," "if a Man dye Intestate they will and do ... . distribute his lands among sons and daughters, &c., as if they were pots and kettles. . . . So that their law will not allow an heir or Inheritance at the Common Law which is another repugnancy to the Law of England." It is an interesting fact that Governor Talcott himself, who afterwards so loyally defended the intestate law, should have petitioned the legisla- ture in 1691 when but twenty-two years old against the equal division of his father's estate, and should have claimed possession of the real estate by right of primogeniture. Talcott Papers, I, p. xix. » Palfrey, IV, p. 491.
- " For want of which [i. e. the same English laws] there are different
laws and forms of administration very disagreeable not (only) in lesser matters but even in the descent of estates at the common law." Dud- ley's " Paper on the Governments of New England, New York, etc." B. T. Papers, New England, vol. 7. F. 13. "The period from 1695 to 1715 was a time of trial for the colonies. They were attacked by the French, were in constant trouble from the Indians, were disturbed by the many irritating reports of royal officers and merchants in the colonies, and were not sufficiently established to resist encroachment and to maintain a position of self-reliance. As a result, they were often in distress, and it is little wonder that many in New England and New York petitioned for a stronger central govern- ment. In 1697 Harrison, Ashurst, Sewall of Salem and others peti- tioned for a union of colonies, the Board of Trade thought that secur- ity could be obtained in no other way, the I.,ords Justices favored the scheme, and, in consequence, although the agents of New Hampshire,
