acquainted the other agents with the reference. Although reactions varied, 
Bollan felt that most of them would assist him in striving to uphold the legislative 
authority. 31411 In April, 1759, Bollan wrote the colony of his intensive 
researches and consultations in the fields of colonial constitutions and of 
domestic relations, fully underscoring the difference between the usual disallowances 
and the threatened declarations of nullity. The legislative authority 
being expressed in the charter in comprehensive terms, Bollan felt that distinguishing 
matrimonial matters was a matter of great importance when 
considered in its natural operation and consequences. A hearing was scheduled 
to follow the Easter holidays, but press of public affairs might cause postponement 
315 In October no hearing had as yet taken place, November being 
then named. Bollan wrote that it was "now fully agreed on all hands that this 
great constitutional question shall be thoroughly discussed and considered, in 
order to the final and perpetual settlement of it for all the colonies"; nevertheless, 
the financial burden rested upon Massachusetts. 318 Unfortunately 
there is no record that this momentous hearing ever took place. However, it 
should be noted that there is no mention that a judicial proceeding was necessary 
to declare a provincial act null and void ab initio. And certainly a declaration 
of nullity upon legislative review could not in this instance be justified 
under the 1696 act of Parliament. Three further private divorce acts passed the 
Massachusetts legislature in 1757, 317 but the home authorities do not appear to 
have taken any action thereon. 318 Later divorce acts from Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, and New Hampshire were disallowed, but the question of voidness 
ab initio was not raised. 319 
314 a Ibid., 41-44. Some insight into colonial 
divergencies is afforded by the reaction of the 
South Carolina agent to Bollan's information. 
This agent stated that the Massachusetts proceedings 
struck him in a pretty extraordinary 
light. "I know its what we never yet thought of 
in South Carolina, much less attempted to carry 
into execution; even acts that affect private 
property in but a small degree are not passed 
without a saving clause, and I am certain no 
act of the nature you mentioned will; and this 
being the case with us at present, I think its almost 
a matter of indifference how this point is 
determined" {ibid., 35). Bollan commented 
that the agent failed to distinguish between authority 
and the exercise thereof {ibid., 42). 
315 Ibid., 83-85 (Bollan to Secretary Oliver, 
April 12, 1759). 
316 Ibid., 104-6 (Bollan to Secretary Oliver, 
Oct. 12, 1759). 
317 6 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 173-74, 
176. 
318 3 ibid., 1054; 4 ibid., 92-93 
319 In Pennsylvania, in 1769, an act was 
passed dissolving the marriage of Curtis 
Grubb (7 Stat, at Large Pa., 263). See also 
6 Votes and Proc. Prov. Pa., 132-33, 146, 
148, 150; 9 Mins. Prov. Council Pa., 564, 
566-68. Richard Jackson, counsel for the 
Board of Trade, in his favorable report on the 
act omitted any objection for lack of judicial 
preliminaries (7 Stat, at Large Pa., 626-27). 
Upon his advice, however, the act was referred 
to the crown law officers, who neglected 
to report thereon (5 APC, Col., #251). 
As a result, the act became law under the 
six months charter provision (7 Stat, at Large 
Pa., 265). In 1772 the same legislature passed 
an act to dissolve the marriage of George 
Keehmle (8 Stat, at Large Pa., 243). In this 
case there was a previous conviction of the 
wife for adultery, recited in the act and in the 
prayer for legislative action (6 Votes and 
Proc. Prov. Pa., 344). The Board of Trade