Two representations against the act were made by some of the Virginia clergy to the Bishop of London. It was first pointed out that the ruin of the established church was inherent in a measure wherein clerical salaries were subject to diminution at the legislative option. 449 Secondly, it was complained that the act in reality diminished a debt already due, since the salary was due before passage of the bill, but only payable six months after passage. Therefore, the act in effect deprived the subject of private property. 450 Thirdly, the measure was characterized as being in opposition to a law which had received the royal assent and thus derogatory to the royal prerogative. 451 Defenses offered in support of the bill were characterized as specious. 4s2 Emphasizing the meanness of their compensation, the clergy prayed that the Bishop intercede with the King in their behalf. More specifically, it was urged that a disallowance, even if ineffective, or an additional instruction to the governor might have a salutary effect upon the future legislative course in regard to acts which had received the royal assent. 453 There was no suggestion in these representations that the act was null and void ab initio. iSi Despite this protest, no immediate disallowance was forthcoming. In September, 1758, the provisions of the 1755 act were re-enacted with the same rate of commutation, the act being limited in effect to one year. Diminution of the tobacco crop by unseasonable weather and the hardship attendant thereon were again recited as the legislative motivation. 456 It was later alleged by the clergy that the assent of Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier 449 Ibid., 434-35 (Representation of November 2 9> x 755); ibid., 445 (Representation of February 25, 1756). 450 Ibid., 435. The retrospective aspect of the law is further elaborated at ibid., 441. 451 Ibid., 435. The proponents of the act asserted that there had already been two instances in which the confirmed act of 1748 had been contradicted by subsequent measures (see supra, n. 441). To this the clergy replied that in one case the clergy solicited the change; in the other, the minister was satisfied with the alteration. In both instances the parishes involved never produced any tobacco, and the money in lieu thereof was settled permanently at a stated rate (ibid., 437). 452 First, it was questioned whether many poor inhabitants had failed to raise enough tobacco to discharge the public dues. However, admitting such to be the case, it was advanced that relief should be afforded by a brief or some other proper method. Furthermore, although the act was ostensibly for the relief of the poor, actually die rich planters would profit most thereby. Although other classes had not complained against the act, their situations were distinguishable from that of the clergy (ibid., 435-36; cf. ibid., 442-43, 447). In addition clerical dues should not be lumped with placemen's fees; the former had received royal assent, the latter were variable at legislative volition {ibid., 443). 453 Ibid., 448. 454 However, some of the clergy also resolved to refuse money payments and, if necessary, to sue for tobacco payments under the 1748 act, but it would seem that no action was taken in that direction (ibid., 448). 405 y Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 240; cf. R. Bland, A Letter to the Clergy of Virginia (1760), 16-17. Compare die allegations of William Robinson, later Commissary in Virginia, as to the state of the tobacco crop (Perry, op. cit., 465-66, 489, 499-500). For the reasons advanced later in support of the acts by the Committee of Correspondence see 10 Va. Mag. Hist, and Biog., 348-52.