Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/469

 13. ANDREWS: COLONIAL CONDITIONS 455 quence of this, the common law of England was the common law of the colonies, and that all statutes in affirmance of the common law passed in England antecedent to the settlement of any colony were binding upon that colony. He also held, as did Wilks, that no statutes made since the settlements were in force unless the colonies were particularly men- tioned.^ His view, which I do not doubt was very generally held by English lawyers outside of the colony, was simply a legal opinion, and was probably based on little real knowl- edge of the subject to which it referred. We are, therefore, fortunate in having another and different view of the matter of greater practical value. In 1773 the legal advisor of the Board, Francis Fane, returned to the Board his comments upon the first installment of the laws of Connecticut and he completed his examination of the entire 387 laws in 1741. In this report opinion came face to face with facts, and the lawyer realized the anomaly of attempting to force English law upon a people whose conditions of life were in so many particulars different from those at home. In his comment upon the intestate law Fane notices that it was different from the law of England, but it is evident that this aspect of the case troubles him little. He is chiefly concerned with matters of rule, form, and procedure, and it is in these particulars that his real objection to the law lies. He recommends the repeal of the Act,^ but would substitute another law " either as it is now done in England or by such other methods as may best fit the province where this law is to take effect.*' In this statement there was for the colony a world of mean- ing. Furthermore, in his criticism of the later amendments and additions to the law he says nothing about their being contrary to the law of England; his recommendations for repeal are based upon the ground of uncertainty or upon some other defect of the law which would naturally attract a lawyer. An analysis of his comments upon the remaining ticed in the Plantations." June 20, 1730. B. T. Papers, Plantations General, L. 10. be repealed by the King in Council. It is not probable that the Board had instructed him on that point.
 * " Mr. West's Report relating to the Admiralty Jurisdiction prac-
 * Fane evidently took it for granted that the Connecticut laws could