From the recitals in the above bills it is evident that some opinion was abroad 
that in the chartered colonies royal instructions were of no force and effect 
—in the absence of a charter saving provision. We find the Pennsylvania Assembly 
in the 1750's maintaining this position. 407 In 1753 the opinion of 
the Attorney General was sought as to whether Governor Hamilton of that 
province might "legally and safely, and without committing any offence, or 
breach of his oath or bond, or of his duty to the King" violate the August, 
1740, instruction referred to above. Sir Dudley Ryder replied that such action 
was "by no means safe, or adviseable, or consistent with his duty." 40S But 
this answer was obviously more concerned with the expediency than with the 
legality of the hypothetical act and sheds little light on the question of the 
binding force of instructions in Pennsylvania. It should be noticed that in 
some quarters a distinction was made between instructions issuing upon royal 
instigation alone and those issuing upon parliamentary application. The latter 
were conceived of as possessing additional force. 409 What emerges as signif- 
talked of leaving our province wholly out of 
the bill, if that would satisfy me; but there 
was no direct offer made to me of it. Afterwards 
they seemed determined to continue the 
province in the bill, and to retain the clauses 
for making all future use of credit depend on 
the King's instructions: whereupon I made 
the best preparation for defence that I could. 
. . . Afterwards there was mention made to 
me several times, at second hand, of settling 
the matter with me; but it came to nothing, till 
at last, on a particular day appointed for my 
being heard, I was told from one of the 
managers that I might either have the matter 
of the instructions left out of the bill, or they 
would leave out the province wholly, but retain 
the point of the instructions. To which I 
replied, that I expected both to be left out; 
and, in order to reduce the matter to some certainty, 
got some of the managers out of the 
House; with whom I found it difficult to settle 
any thing. At last they left the matter to the 
conduct of one of the managers; who agreed 
with me to leave out the matter of the instructions" 
(21 MS Mass. Archives [Foreign 
Corres., 175i-sB[, 17)- Bollan was also informed 
that counsel Fazakerly and Wilbraham, 
consulted on the point of making bills of 
credit lawful tender in the colonies, were of 
the opinion that making anything lawful tender 
was an act of sovereignty. "It was also 
observed, that by the English constitution, 
nothing could be made a lawfull tender but 
silver and gold by the King himself, from 
thence it was inferred that the colonies could 
not be justified in their proceedings on this 
head" (287 MS Mass. Archives [Letters, 1663- 
'760], 55). 
406 24 George 11, c. 53. 
407 4 Votes and Proc. Prov. Pa., 254-65; 
Lieutenant-Governor Hamilton to Thomas 
Penn, Sept. 8, 1753 (6 MS Penn Official 
Corres., 1753-54, 98); Richard Peters to the 
proprietors, Sept. 11, 1753 {ibid., 100-103) 
(wherein the assembly is related to have opposed 
a royal instruction because the King had 
no right to interpose in a matter of law before 
it came into Council); Richard Peters to Thomas 
Penn, Dec. 16, 1754 (ibid., 245). Cf. A Brief 
State of the Province of Pennsylvania (1755), 
17-21; A True and Impartial State of the 
Province of Pennsylvania (1759), 92-94; Brief 
for Assembly (p. 15) in Assembly v. Proprietors 
and Lieutenant-Governor Morris, April, 1755 
(MS Pa. State Doc, 17545S [NYPL]). Proprietor 
Thomas Penn viewed one royal instruction, 
at least, as not binding (4 MS Penn Letter 
Boo\s, 1754-56, 170-71). 
408 4 Votes and Proc. Prov. Pa., 343-47. For 
assembly reaction to this opinion see ibid., 
351-52. Cf. 3 MS Penn Letter Books, 175°-5'U 
285; 4 ibid., 1754-56, 61, 73-74; Pennsylvania 
Gazette, #1357-58, 1360 (December 26 
and 31, 1754; January 14, 1755). Thomas Penn 
wrote that the Board of Trade had sent the 
question to the crown law officers, but no answer 
had been or would be received, since an 
agreeable one could not be given (3 MS Penn 
Letter Booths, 1750-54, 285-86). 
409 Discussing the royal instruction as to acts