To the substantive objections of appellant to the validity of the 1758 act it 
was answered that such objections did not prove that the law was a nullity 
ab initio either by its tendency to suspend the confirmed 1748 act or by its 
having obtained the governor's assent contrary to instructions or from any 
retrospective royal declaration of disallowance. 520 As to the first objection it 
was answered that the legislative power granted by the crown implied a power 
to suspend or to repeal laws which had become inconvenient or harmful; otherwise 
a distant colony might be subject to great calamities before relief could 
be obtained. As to the second objection, the royal instructions to the governor 
were private directions for his conduct, liable to be dispensed with upon extraordinary 
occasions. 521 The third contention was based upon a mistaken 
reading of the disallowing conciliar order. 522 
It had been objected at the argument of the demurrer that the law was void 
ab initio as contrary to principles of justice. The basis of this contention was 
that tobacco was valued at more than the commutation amount provided by 
the 1758 act; that the law was unnecessary, since sufficient tobacco existed to 
pay the clerical salaries; and that selective commutation and noncommutation 
as tobacco prices varied was inequitable. Respondents asserted that no particular 
answer could be given, since there was no opportunity to enter into 
proof. But it was observed that the law was not limited in operation to clerical 
creditors, that the insufficiency of tobacco to pay public creditors was notorious, 
that it must be presumed that the legislature was convinced of the necessity 
of the act, and that the compensation provided exceeded the originally established 
clerical salaries. 523 
After hearing the arguments of counsel, the Committee advised affirmance 
of the judgment of the General Court and dismissal of the appeal. 524 It has 
been asserted that dismissal was based upon procedural grounds; 525 counsel 
520 Add. MS, 36,220/58; cf. Lee Papers in 
30 Southern Literary Messenger (Feb., i860), 
126. 
521 It was asserted that "the instructions are 
not addressed to the people, nor promulgated 
amongst them; they are not publick instruments, 
nor lodged amongst the publick records 
of the province" (Add. MS, 36,220/58). Cf. 
the notes on the argument of respondent 
counsel (Add. MS, 36,220/63; Lee Papers, 
126-27). 
522 In argument respondent counsel insisted 
that the disallowance did not operate to void 
the 1758 act ab initio, that such operation was 
purposely avoided. In regular disallowances 
the Committee acted in a legislative capacity; 
in declarations of voidness ab initio it acted 
in a judicial capacity (Add. MS, 36,220/62). 
523 Add. MS, 36,220/58. Cf. the argument of 
counsel (Add. MS, 36,220/63). 
524 PC 2/112/96. Fletcher Norton and Edward 
Willes signed appellant's Case and William 
De Grey and Charles Yorke respondent's. But 
in the notes on the argument Alexander 
Wedderburn appears for appellant (Add. MS, 
36,220/61). 
625 Commissary Robinson wrote that the cause 
was "finally dismissed under pretence that the 
action was laid wrong" (Perry, ed., Hist. Coll. 
Rel. Amer. Col. Church, Virginia, 524-25). 
Endorsed on respondent's brief is, "Judgment 
affirmed, the action being misconceived" (Add. 
MS, 36,220/58). The clergy, however, maintained 
that the action could not have been