Eighteenth-century Privy Council review was haphazard and tolerated most colonial statutory deviations.

Evidence

A few Privy Council decisions were great cases, that is, they touched on issues of major significance. One such case was Winthrop v. Lechmere (1727–​ 1728), a rare, controversial example of judicial review. This case threw out, as void, Connecticut’s intestacy laws. In general, the Privy Council was rather permissive, and somewhat incompetent. Legislation, too, was reviewed in a haphazard way. Delays were frequent. The council found it hard to decide on a method of review. Practically all colonial statutes were in some way repugnant to the laws of England. In theory, the council could have thrown them all out. In fact, most deviations were tolerated. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 226

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: England routed colonial appeals to the Privy Council, not royal courts, because politics dominated. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 221; National institutions checked the worst abuses of colonial rule — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 357

Broader Connections

• National institutions checked the worst abuses of colonial rule #corroborates (0.72) — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 357