clergy in the cause and their proper place in the societal structure. 510 Counsel 
for Maury in vain urged that as the verdict was contrary to the weight of the 
evidence, the jury ought to be sent out again. The verdict was accepted by 
the bench; motions to have recorded the evidence of the plaintiff as to the quantum 
of damages and for a new trial were denied. Finally granted was an application 
for admission to record the motion for a new trial, the denial thereof, 
and an appeal to the General Court. 511 
As we have seen, an appeal was taken by Camm from the adverse judgment 
of the General Court to the King in Council. Once this was under way, 
it was sought to enlist the aid of the Bishop of London in the cause by representing 
the harmful effect of establishing a precedent for violation of royal 
instructions to the detriment of the clergy 512 and by emphasizing the encouragement 
given to opponents of church and state if the Privy Council 
which had formerly declared that the act could not be deemed law because of 
its manifest injustices, should on appeal determine it to be law. Such a determination 
would be equivalent to saying that any law passed in the colony, 
be it ever so unjust and unreasonable, must be law until the royal pleasure was 
known in the colony. 513 
On February 6, 1765, appellant presented to the Council Board his petition 
to be heard on the appeal; on February 16 respondents entered an appearance. 
But it was not until November 27, 1766, that the Committee heard the 
appeal. 514 In his printed Case upon appeal appellant Camm related the indignation 
of the Privy Council at the injustice of the 1758 act in ordering disallowance, 
but from his account of the conciliar action it is apparent that he 
had returned to the view that the act was not declared null and void ab 
initio™ Appellant also related in detail the additional instruction which accompanied 
the disallowance, and to the prejudice of the colony set forth the 
partial repealing acts and the 1755 act. The reasons urged for reversal were 
six. First, since by reference every gubernatorial commission incorporated the 
instructions, every colonial act without a suspending clause which repealed or 
altered an act confirmed by the crown was void in itself and a nullity. For, 
510 Maury, ed., Memoirs of a Huguenot Family, 
421—22. 
511 Ibid., 420—21 
512 p err y ; o p_ c j t #< 499-500, 
513 Ibid., 516; cf. ibid., 21-22. 
51i PC 2/111/89, 95; PC 2/112/96, 113. 
515 It was alleged that "a noble lord of great 
weight in the Council declared, that if the 
validity of the act had come before them in an 
appeal touching any dispute concerning it, 
they must have declared it no law from its 
manifest injustice, if there had been no other 
objection to it. Their Lordships never doubted, 
and declared that the clergy would have their 
remedy at law, and their Lordships would 
have declared the act void ab initio, if they 
could have found a precedent for it; however, 
they industriously avoided the word repeal 
(though the Governor in his proclamation 
chooses to use that word)" (Add. MS, 
36,220/53).