that no verdict had been obtained at common law previous to passage of the 
bill and that adultery was not positively proven by the evidence before the 
legislature. 311 When the matter came before the Lords Committee, counsel 
for Manning urged that the Jamaica legislature possessed full power to pass 
such act, that the objection based on the lack of a suspending clause should 
not affect the validity of the act. As to the preliminaries required in England, 
it was argued that with no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the plantations it was 
impossible to secure an ecclesiastical sentence. As to the jury verdict, the defendant 
had demurred on the ground that there was no Mrs. Manning since 
passage of the act. This was an admission of fact stronger than a jury verdict, 
especially since no appeal to the King in Council was taken from the overruling 
of the demurrer. Besides, a jury verdict was not absolutely necessary in 
English practice, for Parliament always examined the factual evidence independent 
of such jury verdict. 312 But the Committee, unmoved by this argument, 
reported the act as unprecedented in the plantations, liable to attendance 
with great inconveniences, and lacking the indispensable suspending clause, 
and it was accordingly disallowed in July, 1741. 313 Despite the strong report 
against this act, there was no intimation anywhere in the proceedings that 
the act was null and void ab initio. 
It is with this background that the Committee referred the Massachusetts 
divorces to the crown law officers in 1758 to consider and report as to this 
question of power and nullity. To prevent any sudden proceedings thereon, 
a caveat praying to be heard in the matter was entered with the Attorney 
General by William Bollan, the province agent. Attorney General Pratt was 
inclined to avoid passing upon the general question of legislative authority 
and to confine consideration to the policy, frame, and manner of passage 
of the acts. Yet at the same time he candidly doubted whether the colonies 
possessed power of making such laws, although unprepared to render an 
opinion therein. Feeling that doubts as to sufficiency of authority would influence 
the judgment given on the exercise thereof, Bollan insisted upon a 
general opinion according to the reference terms. Solicitor General Yorke 
likewise was inclined to avoid entering into the general question, but finally 
consented to a hearing with the Attorney General after the chancery business 
of the term. Bollan being unable adequately to prepare for such hearing, it 
was postponed till after the vacation. 314 
Conceiving the matter of general importance to all the colonies, Bollan 
311 3 APC, Col, #502. A copy of the legislative 
proceedings and evidence presented is 
in the Library of Congress (Law Division). 
312 This argument is in the Library of Congress 
(Law Division). 
313 3 APC, Col, #502. 
314 22 MS Mass. Archives {Foreign Corres., 
1758-75), 38-41 (Bollan to Secretary Oliver, 
Aug. 6, 1758).