such acts were given in evidence or pleaded in cases depending before them, 
ought to adjudge them, ipso facto, void or only voidable, and so to be put into 
force until royal repeal. From this arose subsidiary questions whether the 
repugnancy to the laws of England had reference to the common or statute 
law or to the common law as altered, explained, or enlarged by statutes, and 
what obligation the statute law of England had in the plantations before or 
after a form of government had been established in the plantations by an 
authority derived from the crown. 300 
The doubts which beset Chief Justice Whitaker are all implicit in the general 
problem of repugnancy, but it is questionable whether any other judge 
in the colonies up to this time had perceived the dimensions of the problem, 
and equally whether the English authorities themselves had. In any event 
they appear to have done nothing to enlighten the chief justice. 
Some attempt to grapple with the problems inherent in measuring colonial 
legislation against the standard of the laws of England is found in 1752 in a 
proposal of James Abercromby. This British-born barrister, who prior to 
1743 had served nearly thirteen years as Attorney and Advocate General of 
South Carolina and had acted since 1749 as colonial agent for North Carolina, 
in the above year submitted to Lord Halifax a draft of a lengthy act of Parliament 
designed to strengthen the colonial administrative system of Great 
Britain in numerous respects. To each of the approximately thirty sections 
of the proposed statute was attached certain observations. In commenting 
upon the law-making powers of the colonies Abercromby observed that 
It becomes Amazing, That the parliament of Great Britain, have not hitherto attended 
to the Interior Government of these Colonies by taking under their Consideration, 
the different powers Exercised by the several Colonies in Making of 
Laws, and how far, such powers at this Time of the Day, are, or are not Consistent 
with the policy and Interest of the Mother Country, or admitting of no Inconsistency 
in such powers, how far the same are duly Exercised; in this Last Respect, The 
Statute of the 7th and Bth of King William has said Something, But nothing Effectual, 
or that can bring the Intention or the Operation of that Act, home To the 
Mischiefs to be Remedyd; The Rules therein laid down, are by far too General, 
whereby to Determine the Validity or Invalidity of plantation Laws; The Original 
powers given to make Laws, ought to be Considered, as well as the Laws that are 
made in the plantations under such powers, and how far both Agree with and are 
now, or may be hereafter, Detrimental to the Interest of the Mother Country, The 
Act of the 7th and Bth of King William It is true, Declared Such Laws as are 
300 Ibid. Whitaker further questioned whether 
acts confirmed by the crown could be repealed 
or altered by subsequent acts before 
such subsequent acts had likewise been confirmed. 
The answer to the query was found 
in the governor's instructions; see I Labaree, 
Royal Instructions, #205.