guage, viz., "disallowed, declared void, and of none effect." This harmless insertion was alleged by the clergy to have been made to mislead people to a belief that an ordinary "repeal" operative only in futuro had been obtained and that thus relief against the expired act was unavailable. 482 However, this insertion did not deter the clergy from resort to the courts. Litigation was confined to actions involving the validity of the 1758 act; no suits were ever brought by reason of the disallowance of the three other acts. 483 Clergyman Alexander White, commencing suit in King William County Court for his salary, as provided for by the 1748 act, petitioned the Lieutenant- Governor for an authenticated copy of the August 10, 1759, Order in Council. Fauquier, expressing his opinion that the conciliar order was merely a disallowance (in the orthodox sense), sent the original Order in Council delivered by Camm to the trial. 484 Accompanying this conciliar order was another disallowing Order in Council (to acquaint the court and jury with the terminology of disallowing conciliar orders) 485 and the preamble of the 17th article of Fauquier's instructions to show the force of colonial laws. 486 Taking its lead from Fauquier that the conciliar order was a mere disallowance, the court refused to direct the jury to bring in a special verdict. 487 Instead, in its directions the court insisted upon the validity of the 1758 act, despite the disallowance, and that an instructional violation might subject the governor to royal censure, but would not entitle sufferers under a violating act to redress. In effect the court directed the jury to bring in a general verdict for the defendant, which was done after a few minutes deliberation. 488 Rejected were all arguments as to the nullifying effect of the Order in Council 480 482 Perry, op. cit., 477, 494; Fulham Palace MSS, Va., Box 2, #132; ibid., Box 1, #188. 483 P err y ; o p_ elf., 498. 4si lbid., 480-81. Since the King William County Court records of this period are missing, it is necessary to rely upon unofficial sources in discussing White's suit. 485 Ibid., 480. Presumably the disallowance was that of a 1752 Act for erecting a lighthouse at Cape Henry (6 Hening, Stat, at Large Va., 227); see Perry, op. cit., 481. But it should be noticed that this act contained a suspending clause. For the disallowing Order in Council see PC 2/106/350; see also 4 APC, Col., #374. 486 p erryi o p_ 4 8 0 _ Presumably the 17th Article is the one set forth in 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #227. The preamble thereof reads: "And whereas great mischiefs may arise by passing bills of an unusual and extraordinary nature and importance in the plantations, which bills remain in force there from the time of enacting until our pleasure be signified to the contrary." 487 Perry, op. cit., 481. As to the importance of a special verdict for an appeal to the King in Council see supra, Chap. VI. 488 Ibid., 481, 497. Allegations were also made that the jury was "packed" (ibid., 481-82). 489 Urged were: (1) the lack of similitude between the 1758 act and the 1752. act for erecting a lighthouse at Cape Henry; (2) that two contrary acts, that of 1748 and that of 1758, could not be in force at once; (3) the manifest difference between the instant Order in Council and any repeal by the omission of the word "repeal" in the former; (4) that if the act were for a longer period, it might have been more plausibly urged that the disallowance was only to operate prospectively, but here with a temporary act either the act or the Order in Council must be altogether a nullity (ibid., 481).