This legislative miscarriage failed to deter later efforts directed toward the 
same end. In February, 1748/9, as a result of an inquiry by the Board of Trade 
into the state of colonial paper currency, 398 leave was given to bring a regulatory 
bill into the House of Commons. 397 The new proposal was more concerned 
with the enforcement of royal orders and instructions than the earlier 
bill. The bill recited that some colonies had not paid due regard to royal orders 
and instructions, but had assumed an exemption therefrom under pretense 
of royal charters. Further, that some doubts had arisen touching the power of 
governors, or their equivalents, in respect to the making of acts and orders. 
Therefore, it was enacted that all governors, etc., should pay strict obedience 
to such royal orders and instructions as were transmitted to them. After a certain 
date all governors, etc., were required to negative all acts and orders 
passed in their respective colonies repugnant to the royal orders and instructions 
or which should be conceived to be repugnant to the interest of the realm 
and to the public good and welfare of such colonies. All acts and orders made 
within any colony after signification of such dissent should be "null and void, 
and of no force whatsoever" until such time as the royal pleasure should be 
signified thereon. 398 
The purport of this bill is not immediately evident. It conferred no new 
powers in most colonies, because the governor's assent was already a necessary 
part of the legislative process. It did confer veto power upon the governors of 
Rhode Island and Connecticut, which had been previously lacking, and resolved 
doubts as to the authority of royal instructions in those colonies. But 
since instructions had not been previously dispatched to those chartered 
colonies, the recitals in the bill are misleading. Of course, strong opposition to 
the bill developed from several colonies. 399 Counsel for the opposing colonies 
596 g ee jcTP, 7747/2-49, 370, 376, 378, 380. 
Cf. Basye, The Board of Trade, 1748-1782, 37— 
39- 
397 25 J.H. of C, 746. 
398 A bill to Regulate and Restrain Paper Bills 
of Credit in the British Colonies and Plantations 
in America, and to prevent the same being 
legal Tenders in Payments for Money; and for 
the better enforcing his Majesty's Orders and 
Instructions throughout the said Colonies and 
Plantations (1 Parliamentary Papers Printed by 
Order of the House of Commons from the 
Year 17JI to 1800, Bill #39). New York agent 
Robert Charles wrote that "this bill has been 
long in agitation at the Board of Trade and 
is formed nearly on the model of one, which 
about four years ago was brought into Parliament." 
Charles had seen a written copy of the 
bill but understood it would undergo several 
alterations before it was brought into the 
House. Going on to the implications of the 
declaratory clause, the agent stated that the 
royal instructions had always been considered 
as the rule of the governor's conduct, rather 
than the measure of the people's obedience 
(Charles to David Jones, March 2, 1748/9 
[Wm. Smith MSS]). Thomas Penn wrote that 
there was a clause in the bill to give the royal 
instructions "a force nearly equal to that of a 
law, but such a power I think the House of 
Commons will not consent to when it is explained 
to them" {MS Penn-Hamilton Corres., 
1748-70, 1). 
399 p or me petitions opposing enactment presented 
by the agents of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 
and Rhode Island see 25 J.H. of C, 
792-94. For that of some London merchants 
see ibid., 806-7. F° r those of the agents of