clergy petitioned the Committee following this representation that the acts 
in question might be declared null and void in their original creation. Otherwise 
the colony courts would regard these acts as valid until notice of disallowance 
and thereby force acceptance of the salary diminution or an appeal 
home with its attendant expenses. 484 At the Committee hearing on the representation 
there was apparently little difficulty in securing the usual disallowance, 
but it was further urged for the clergy that this was not enough, that 
it was necessary to declare the 1758 act null and void ab initio™* To support 
this contention Attorney General Pratt urged first that the governor, council, 
and assembly could not of themselves repeal laws confirmed by the crown, 
reciting the terms of the governor's instructions. Secondly, they could not alter 
the constitution of the province, as by establishing martial law or by introducing 
a new religion. Thirdly, they could not make temporary laws to evade 
the royal negative, as royal sovereignty might be taken away by annual continuances 
of such laws. Fourthly, they could not make laws repugnant to 
reason or to the laws of England. 466 Alexander Wedderburn, for the colony, 
answered that since twopence per pound was the average price of tobacco, 
the acts were not null and void in their substantive provisions. Secondly, they 
were not void because passed contrary to the governor's instructions —an Act 
of Parliament having been necessary to jnake laws concerning bills of credit 
null and void when enacted contrary to such instructions. Counsel for the 
colony further raised the procedural objection that a declaration of nullity 
was not possible in the present proceeding. It was contended that the crown 
was here acting in a legislative capacity; that a declaration of nullity in such 
proceeding would bind nobody. The question of nullity was not to be tried in 
a summary way, but in a judicial proceeding in a court of appeals. It was 
further contended that a declaration of nullity would entrench upon the 
provision of 16 Charles I, c. 10, prohibiting to the Privy Council determinative 
or dispositive jurisdiction over the property of any subject. The act in question 
concerned property of subjects in that many payments were made in reliance 
thereon. To this contention the Attorney General replied that surely the 
present body had as high authority to declare the act void as any court of 
judicature. The Committee was reminded that it sat as a council of state to 
487-88. 
465 Notes of Lord Hardwicke upon the arguments 
before the Committee of Attorney General 
Pratt for the clergy and Alexander Wedderburn 
for the colony (Add. MS, 36,218/38-39). 
466 The notes to the fourth objection read: 
"The justices of the peace to set the price of 
the tobacco which they are to pay. Lord Coke 
says an Act of Parliament to make a man 
judge in his own cause." Several disallowances, 
including the three from South Carolina discussed 
above, are cited, presumably as declarations 
of nullity upon legislative review. As to 
Winthrop v. Lechmere it is noted: "1727 
Connecticut-Winthrop's case. Declared null 
and void and of no force and effect whatsoever, 
came in question in a cause" (ibid.).