case than Camm's cause. The colony was also accused of inconsistency in 
treating Camm's cause as a representative suit, then raising a procedural objection, 
allegedly peculiar to that one action. 532 The Warrington cause was 
laid against a collector deceased without effects, but it was believed that the 
cause could be continued by a scire facias. If the General Court refused to bring 
on the trial or denied an appeal, it was intended to apply to the Bishop of London 
for intercession for a mandamus for the cause to be tried in the colony 
and removed before the Privy Council. With the appearance of another small 
tobacco crop, the clergy feared that another Twopenny Act had been averted 
only by the recentness of Camm's trial, the outcome of which depended on 
fortuitous circumstances (allegedly use of the wrong form of action), and 
the pendency of the Warrington cause. 533 In October, 1768, the General Court 
decided the Warrington cause upon the precedent of Camm v. Hansford and 
Moss, and an appeal therefrom was denied. Recommendation of application 
for a royal mandamus to remove the cause to England was made by Camm 
early in 1769. A petition to the governor was drawn up by Camm and a 
clerical committee for leave to remove the cause for trial before the Privy 
Council. To this procedure it was objected that the previous Order in Council, 
although not a determination on the merits, might afford a foundation for 
rejecting a hearing, if nothing worse. Some of the clergy were also of the 
opinion that "there was a recent case directly against us." This "case" referred 
to was a proposal made in the House of Lords to declare null and void ab 
initio a Massachusetts act combining an act of pardon with an act of indemnity. 
We shall discuss this episode in detail later; at this point only the interpretation 
placed on the incident in Virginia need occupy our attention. This interpretation 
was that "it was proposed to render that act null and void, aborigine. 
But that this could not be done was the opinion of that House ... if a declaration 
of an act's being null and void aborigine could not be effected in that of 
New England, it hardly would in ours." ° 34 For this reason and considerations 
of policy the contentions of the clergy as to the validity of the 1758 act abated. 
Whatever force is given to the evidence of dismissal of the appeal in Camm 
v. Hansford and Moss upon procedural grounds, conciliar attitudes survive. 
In the first place, the earlier intimation that an act might be declared null 
and void ab initio as against natural justice was apparently rejected. Secondly, 
it is evident that the Committee did not consider an act passed contrary to instructions 
as null and void ab initio. This view would naturally find wide acceptance 
in the colonies, 535 but it was not shared by all the English adminis- 
532 Ibid., 526-27. 
633 Ibid., 528. 
535 See R. Bland, The Colonel Dismounted; 
or, The Rector Vindicated, 26-27; South Carolina 
Gazette, #1560 (Dec. 3, 1764), pp. 1-2 
sai lbid., 530.