was approved wherein the governor was strictly enjoined to observe article 16 of his instructions upon pain of the highest royal displeasure and of immediate recall. 470 Conceiving the English authorities as encouraging him to seek a remedy at law, agent John Camm advised his attorney in Virginia to commence suit, if the parish proved recalcitrant, to recover the difference between the amount of the commuted payment and the market value of the tobacco due under the 1748 act. The parishes were in doubt whether to capitulate or to stand suit, but their waverings were terminated by a November, 1759, resolution of the House of Burgesses that the colony agent should be instructed to support vestry proceedings under authority of the disallowed act upon any appeal to England. 471 It was alleged that vestries alone were mentioned in this resolution, because other creditor groups affected by the 1758 act had been paid in tobacco without necessity of suit. 472 Upon his return to the colony, Camm strengthened the determination of the clergy by repetition of the Committee dictum, 473 but incurred the censure of Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier for the manner of his conveyance of the disallowing Order in Council. 474 To Fauquier, anticlerical in attitude, was even ascribed the assertion that any litigation instigated by the clergy could be delayed interminably in the General Court. 475 The pamphlet literature which marked the next stages of the cause revealed little comprehension of constitutional theory. It was generally agreed that the royal instructions should be obeyed, but some thought that pressing necessity justified an infringement thereof. 470 This point was not directly controverted, but the clergy took factual issue as to the actuality of "pressing necessity." 477 On the point of nullity ab initio pamphleteer Landon Carter initially professed inability to comprehend such a contention. But then he observed upon the dangers inherent in the growth of such doctrine, stating that for it is stated that "Mr. Camm desired an opportunity of making this opinion [of the Committee] known in hope of preventing further contest in Virginia and it was drought there was no impropriety in letting their opinion be known and drerefore the disallowance was granted" (Perry, op. cit., 510). Compare this with the contention later advanced by Camm and his adherents that the disallowance voided the act ab initio, injra, p. 616. 470 PC 2/107/84, 126; 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #210. 471 p en -y, op. cit., 475, 493-94, SH. For the resolution see Journals House Burgesses Va., iy;B-6i, 146. 472 Perry, op. cit., 475-76, 491, 511, 520; Fulham Palace USS, Va., Box 2, #132. 4T3 p e rry, op. cit., 490. 474 For pro-Camm versions see ibid., 464, 476- 77, 491. For that of Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier see ibid., 471. 475 Ibid., 475. 476 See R. Bland, A Letter to the Clergy of Virginia (1760), 16, 18; Landon Carter, A Letter to the Right Rev. Father in God, The Lord B p of L n (1760), 6-7, 30, 47- 48. Carter also advanced that the act in question did not suspend the operation of the former act, because conditions rendered it impossible for such former act to operate. The later act carried out the intent of the former act by currency payments (ibid., 8). 477 Perry, op. cit., 466-67.