and for voters set out in the provincial statute. The confirmation mentioned referred to the instructional clause that the number of representatives should not be enlarged or diminished nor the manner of election altered otherwise than by acts of assembly to be confirmed by royal approbation. 384 Burnet's reasoning, if it may be called such, is difficult to follow. If the act was void ipso facto, how could it obtain validity by confirmation ? On the other hand, the instructional clause as to alterations indicates that the Board of Trade did not regard acts contrary to the instructions as void ipso facto, for it seems confirmation could be given such acts. When the Board of Trade sought the opinion of Attorney General Raymond in the matter, he was of the opinion that in point of law Burnet's request might be complied with. If an act had been passed and confirmed under the instruction, the situation would have been different; "as to the act said to be passed by Lord Lovelace, it being an act contrary to the instructions, and never approved by the crown, seems to me voyd; which Mr. Burnett has observed in his letter." 385 Accordingly in January, 1723/4, an instruction was issued to Burnet embodying the requested alteration in assembly representation 388 The issuance of this instruction certainly indicates Board of Trade acceptance of the view that the act was void, but in the colony the enactment remained on the statute books. 387 Most illuminating on the problem of the force of royal instructions were the abortive attempts to give these instructions parliamentary sanction. In 1740 a parliamentary investigation into colonial bills of credit resulted in several resolutions by the House of Commons. It was resolved inter alia that the King be requested to require the governors not to assent to any acts for emission of such bills without a suspending clause. 388 Circular instructions and letters to that effect issued in August,. 1740, 389 supplementing existing instructions on that score in many colonies. 390 These measures were ineffective, and in April, 1744, upon complaint of continuance of the evils, leave was given to bring in a bill in the House of Commons to prevent issuance of paper bills of credit as legal tender. 391 The bill introduced recited the injury to trade by legislative issuance of paper bills of credit in the colonies, the remedy which had been sought in gubernatorial instructions forbidding assent to acts for issuance of such bills without a suspending clause, and the noncompliance 384 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #164. 385 5 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 72-74. 386 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #165. 387 See supra, n. 381, and 1 Acts Gen. Assemb. Prov. N.J. (1752), 6-7. 388 23 J.H. of C, 512, 517, 527-28. 389 3 AVC, Col., #496; 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #320. 390 See ibid., #325. 391 24 J.H. of C, 658. Thomas Penn wrote that the bill "was brought in by Sir John Barnard who has it at heart; with him is joined Col. Bladen and Mr. Fane so that it will be well supported" (2 MS Penn Letter Books, 174 2 ~5°, 89-90). The last two were members of the Board of Trade.