Plantation policy was governed by considerations of administrative expediency, 
but occasionally exasperation creeps into the reports. Thus, in a 
February 11, 1762, representation on a 1761 Jamaica act the Board of Trade 
declared that a penal clause therein was "null and void as repugnant to justice, 
reason, and the laws of England." Therefore, the Board was persuaded that 
the King would not hesitate to declare his disallowance of the act. 371 An 
Order in Council accordingly disallowed the act; despite the language of 
"null and void," no declaration of nullity was even suggested. 372 
COLONIAL ACTS CONTRARY TO ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 
We now come to discussion of the question which provided the subject matter 
of the famous Parsons' Cause from Virginia 373 —the status of a colonial act 
enacted contrary to gubernatorial instructions. Before launching into this 
cause proper, some preliminary examination of the nature of the royal instructions 
to governors is necessary. Did these instructions possess the force of law, 
so that acts made in violation thereof were null and void, as if made contrary 
to the laws of England? There is little contemporary inquiry into the nature 
of instructions. Their private nature, which we have already noticed, 374 
was adverted to in Queen v. Ma\emie in New York. In this 1706 trial for 
preaching without qualification under the Act of Toleration, it was contended 
that Lord Cornbury's pretended instructions in re licensing ministers 
did not have the force of law, largely because of their private nature; 375 but 
the prisoner being acquitted, the question was not really brought to an issue 
in quarters where a decision would have clarified the general situation. During 
the first half of the eighteenth century there is precious little discussion of the 
problem, but we have seen one sour reflection as to Barbados in 1719, that 
Bay, 287; 2 APC, Col, p. 843). A 1715 Pennsylvania 
act laying a duty upon liquor imported 
into the province was regarded as contrary to 
15 Charles 11, c. 7 (3 Stat, at Large Pa., 439-40, 
465). A 1758 Jamaica act was repugnant to 
6 Anne, c. 30 (4 APC, Col., #422). Cf. a 
Jamaica act which was "in direct opposition" 
to 4 George I, c. n, but was not even disallowed, 
being of a temporary nature (3 ibid., 
#125). A 1765 New Hampshire act was also 
termed contrary to 6 Anne, c. 30 (5 ibid., 
#82). A 1769 New Jersey act which was contrary 
to 4 George 111, c. 34, and thus null and 
void by provision of the same act was only 
disallowed (5 ibid., #116). The same treat- 
ment was accorded similar New York (5 ibid., 
#130) and South Carolina acts (5 ibid., 
$202). A West Florida act was conceived of 
as repugnant to 4 George 111, c. 15 (5 ibid., 
#228). A Prince Edward Island act was repugnant 
to 5 George 111, c. 45 (5 ibid., #327). 
371 H. of L. MS, 247/139-54. 
ST2 lbid., 156-60. 
373 See Scott, The Constitutional Aspects of the 
"Parson's Cause," 31 Pol. Sci. Quart., 558; 
G. C. Smith, The Parsons' Cause, 1755-65, 21 
Tyler's Quart. Hist, and Gen. Mag., r4O, 291. 
374 See supra, p. 215. See also the 1774 statement 
of Edward Long (The History of Jamaica, 
39) that, "These instructions are never 
communicated to the people by some governors; 
and, by others, they are retailed in piecemeal, 
only to shew, that their hands are tied up from 
doing what, perhaps, the colony exigencies, and 
universal voice of the people, require." 
375 See A Narrative of a . . . Prosecution of 
Mr. Francis Ma\emie, 4 Force, Tracts, #4, 
pp. 12, 24-27, 30, 33, 37, 44; cf. 4 Doc. Rel.