458 ///. THE COLONIAL PERIOD Connecticut in 1730 as it practically did those of Massachu- setts in 1774.^ It is not quite clear to which conclusion the agents ar- rived, though in the petition upon which the Board based its representation, confirmation was asked for by an Order in Council.^ This request at once raised an exceedingly impor- tant question expressive of the political change which had come over England since the Revolution of 1688. Could the King by virtue of his prerogative and without the assistance of Parliament grant the wish of the colony? To this Attor- ney Francis Fane answered, at the request of the Board, as follows : " I cannot pretend to say whether the King by vir- tue of his prerogative can do what is desired by the peti- tioners. But I must submit it to your Lordship's considera- tion supposing the King had a power by his prerogative of gratifying the request, whether under the circumstances of this case it would not be more for his Majesty's service to take the assistance of Parliament, as that method will be the least liable to objection as well as the most certain and effec- tual means of gratifying the request of the petitioners."^ That this was the opinion widely held among English lawyers is evident from Belcher's letters, in which he mentions Lord Chancellor King and the counsel which he had secured as inclined to this view. *
- Talcott Papers, I, pp. 175-179. The history of the relations between
Parliament and the proprietary and charter colonies since 1701 shows the accuracy of Talcott's judgment. The representation of the Board of Trade upon the petition, the resolution of the House of Lords and the revival of the effort to introduce a bill into Parliament in 1731 to unite Connecticut and Rhode Island {Talcott Papers, I, p. 221) were a speedy fulfilment of Talcott's fears. There is history here to be written. See Judge Chamberlain's remarks, op. cit., pp. 131-133.
- The petition upon which the Board based its representation contains
the words "pray your Majesty to be pleased by your Order in Council to confirm," the petition which Belcher enclosed to Talcott says " pray that you would be pleas'd to give leave that a bill may be brought into this present Parliament of Great Britain to confirm." It is evident that the latter was the form originally intended to be used {Talcott Papers, I, pp. 184, 191). But probably Talcott's fears of Parliament, and par- ticularly the pressure of more weighty matters upon Parliament just at that time, induced a change, and the petition was altered and request for a confirmation by Order in Council inserted instead. {Ibid., I, p. 197.) » B. T. Papers, Proprieties, R. 132.
- Talcott Papers, I, pp. 167, 168, 184, 259.
