it was alleged that by its ancient constitution and more specifically by the commission 
to the Earl of Loudoun as governor, full legislative power was possessed 
by the colony, with the usual repugnancy limitation. By the commission 
clause for transmission of acts for conciliar approval, disallowed acts were to 
become void only upon signification thereof to the governor. In the instant 
case no notification of disallowance of the 1758 act was received before the 
aforesaid tender was made under the provisions thereof. 485 Attempt was also 
made to invalidate the force of the instructions by argument that they were 
not inserted in the governor's commission. 4o6 
Plaintiff demurred to the rejoinder on the ground that the commission and 
instructions set up by defendant did not sufficiently authorize enactment of 
the 1758 act, but that this act, as suspending an earlier confirmed act, was contrary 
to the governor's instructions and null and void ab initio, and so declared 
by the King in Council. Therefore, defendants should not be allowed 
to avail themselves of the act as a plea in bar to plaintiff's demands. Respondents 
joined in the demurrer, which was argued several times. 497 It was 
urged that unless acts passed by the governor and legislature, although unjust 
and contrary to gubernatorial instructions and former confirmed acts, might 
stand as law, the people in Virginia were not free. It was also asserted that if 
the authority by which the act was passed could be established, no regard 
should be paid to its substantive justice. 498 Also argued were the procedural 
objection that the wrong form of action had been employed and the hardship 
upon the collectors of judgment for the plaintiff. 499 
When the vote of the General Court was taken, five of the bench were of 
the opinion that the act was valid until the royal pleasure was known, four 
that the governor and legislature had no right to pass the act, and two abstained 
from voting as parties to the cause. 500 Therefore, on April 10,1764, the 
court gave judgment for defendants, and Camm prayed and was granted an 
appeal to the King in Council on giving the usual security. 501 It was reported 
that Fauquier approved the judgment of the General Court, insisting that an 
act of whatsoever nature passed by the governor and legislature must be law, 
although contrary to gubernatorial instructions and to a confirmed act. In 
such case the only sanction was the accountability of the governor to the King 
for breach of his instructions. 502 These views were conceived by the clergy as a 
495 Add. MS, 36,220/52-53; Perry, ed., Hist. 
Coll. Rel. Amer. Col. Church, Virginia, 512. 
* Be lbid., 512-13. 
497 Add. MS, 36,220/53. 
498 p erry; 0 p cit., 494-95; cf. ibid., 506, 511. 
*<"> Ibid., 526-27. 
* 00 Ibid., 495; Fulham Palace MSS, Va., Box 
2, #132. 
601 Add. MS, 36,220/53. For the instructions 
from the Virginia Committee of Correspondence 
to the Virginia agent to defend the appeal 
see 12 Va. Mag. Hist, and Biog., 6-7, 11-13. 
502 Perry, op. cit., 495-96, 513, 521; Fulham 
Palace MSS, Va., Box 2, #132.