with such instructions. To correct this inconvenience the bill proposed that 
all colonial acts, orders, resolutions, or votes issuing, protracting, or reissuing 
bills of credit be null and void. After some further currency regulation, the 
last clause of the bill noticed that some colonies, particularly the proprietary 
and chartered, had not paid due obedience to royal orders and instructions, 
under pretense of exemption or dispensation under charters and proprietary 
grants. Wherefore, for the better enforcing the due execution of royal orders 
and instructions in the colonies, it was enacted that all and every acts, orders, 
votes or resolutions which should be passed contrary to the royal orders 
or instructions should be declared null and void, any law, custom or usage to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 392 This bill was dropped after the first reading,393 
but it was regarded as an attempted constitutional subversion in 
several colonies. 894 A strained construction was also advanced to make the 
bill more palatable that only instructions relating to the issuance of bills of 
credit were given the force of an act of Parliament. 395 
392 An Act to Prevent the issuing of Paper 
Bills of Credit in the British Colonies and 
Plantations in America, to be Legal Tenders 
in Payments for Money (i Parliamentary 
Papers Printed by Order of the House of Commons 
from the Year iyji to 1800, Bill #19). 
The bill is left blank where "null and void" 
should be inserted, but contemporary understanding 
justifies this interpolation; see 15 Doc. 
Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 430. Richard Partridge alleged 
the clause in question, "to be a contrivance 
of some Lords Commissioners' here, 
cooked up by them who doubtless from time 
to time will have the sole management in 
drawing up the said orders and instructions." 
Richard Partridge to John Kinsey, Aug. 4, 
J 744, (3 Pemberton MSS, 1702-4;, 126). Compare 
the heads of a proposed act of Parliament 
in 4 Colonial Currency Reprints, 218-22. 
393 24 ].H. of C, 681. Cf. 1 Correspondence 
of Colonial Governors of R.L, 254. Some merchants, 
presumably instigated by the Penns, in 
April petitioned against the bill (Penn MSS, 
Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council, etc., 38). 
Cf. the printed Case of the Inhabitants in Pennsylvania, 
probably circulated by the Penns {ibid., 
37). 
394 The New Jersey Assembly resolved that 
enactment of such a bill would not only be an 
encroachment upon the fundamental constitution 
of the colony and the royal concessions 
made to the first settlers, but also destructive 
of the liberties and properties of tire subjects 
now inhabiting there (Lewis Morris Papers, 
4 Coll. N.J. Hist. Soc, 221). Compare the attitude 
of Governor Morris {ibid., 221, 229, 284- 
85; 15 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.}., 396-97, 426- 
33). Pennsylvania had allegedly come to the 
same resolution; see Lewis Morris Papers, 221. 
Cf. 4 Pa. Col. Rec, 752; 4 Votes and Proc. 
Prov. Pa., 4. For the New York attitude see 
6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 643; 2 Journals 
General Assemb. N.Y., 47-50. For Rhode Island 
see 1 Correspondence of Colonial Governors of 
R.L, 284-87. For Connecticut see 2 Law Papers, 
355-57- Speaker John Kinsey of Pennsylvania 
wrote that "the general clause at die latter end 
of the bill is of the most dangerous consequence 
to us and all the King's cofonies in 
America. If this passes into a law it at one stroke 
deprives us of all our rights and privileges. The 
King's instructions will have the force of laws 
and must consequently render our lives, liberties, 
and estates subject to his pleasure. We are no 
longer freemen, but slaves. I hope none of 
those who brought in the bill intended this. 
Sir John Barnard who' has so eminently distinguished 
himself on the side of liberty I 
persuade myself will never approve of it." 
Further, "it would be very mischievous were 
ye provision in ye enacting clause to extend 
no furdier than mentioned, viz. ho law shall 
pass against the King's instructions. But the 
words appear to me to be much more extensive 
and give those instructions ye force of laws, for 
if they are to be obeyed as this paragraph provides 
they will be sufficient to repeal old laws 
and have all the effects of new ones" (4 MS 
Penn Official Corres., 1744—49, 2 4)- 
395 15 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.f., 430-31.