thoroughly. In the end their Lordships advised disallowance, since the act 
unwarrantedly incorporated an act of pardon with a compensatory act without 
obtaining previous royal consent. However, this opinion was submitted 
"without prejudice to the consideration of any question touching the nullity 
of the act now under consideration, ab initio, whenever the same may judicially 
come into question." The act was accordingly disallowed on May 13, 1767. 563 
As a consequence of the political events surrounding this disallowance an 
address was made by the House of Lords on May 18 for precedents of Orders 
in Council or opinions of the crown law officers for declaring colonial acts 
null, illegal, or void. Among the papers laid before the House by Lord Shelburne 
were an October 27, 1676, proclamation declaring null and void several 
acts passed by the Virginia legislature, a January 18, 1677/8, Order in Council 
that several Virginia acts were to be abrogated and made void in due time, 
the August 31, 1699, Order in Council mentioned above declaring null and 
void a Pennsylvania act, the conciliar order in Winthrop v. Lechmere, and a 
report of the crown law officers on a 1747/8 New Jersey act to pardon rioters. 
Several other alleged precedents were found upon later search, but not presented. 
These were the June 10, 1706, and May 14, 1718, Orders in Council 
relating to South Carolina acts and the February 15, 1762, declaration of 
the nullity ipso facto of the 1759 Jamaica act. 50 ' 4 We have already advanced 
the opinion that the two conciliar orders relating to South Carolina were dis- 
and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 903. For passage 
thereof see 3 Hutchinson, Hist. Col. and Prov. 
Mass.-Bay (ed. by L. S. Mayo, 1936), 114—15, 
and Governor Bernard's recital in H. of L. 
MS, 241/82-100. 
503 5 APC, Col, #30; 4 Acts and Res. Prov. 
Mass. Bay, 944. The crown law officers in an 
April 10, 1767, opinion had stated that the 
legislature under the charter had no original 
power to enact a law of general pardon, indemnity 
and oblivion without the previous 
consent of the crown (CO 5/892/ MM 58; 
H. of L. MS, 245/67-68). A rough Committee 
minute of May 1 shows some of the procedure 
of consideration. Read in succession were the 
Board of Trade representation, the act, extracts 
from the 1691 charter, from the present 
governor's commission, and from his instructions, 
precedents relating to the 1748-49 New 
Jersey land riots, a draft of a 1747 New Jersey 
bill for pardoning offenders, the Order in 
Council declaring null and void the 1698 
Pennsylvania act, proceedings relating to the 
1676 revolt in Virginia. A rough minute for 
May 4 reads that "having met to resume consideration 
of the act Chief Justice Wilmot 
acquainted the Committee that since the last 
meeting he had conversed with the Lord 
Chancellor and the Lord President upon the 
subject of declaring the act null and void ab 
initio and that all looked on the matter to be 
of great importance, and desired further time 
to deliberate thereon. It was agreed to adjourn 
till May 9 when the Lord Chancellor and the 
Lord President could attend, the crown law 
officers were also to consider the act and come 
prepared to give their opinion thereon" (PC 
J /8 [4 2 ])- We have seen no notes of this 
May 9 meeting. Passage in February, 1747/8, 
of a New Jersey Act to Pardon the Persons 
Guilty of the Insurrections, Riots, and Disorders 
Raised and Committed in the Province 
had been regarded as treason by the Board of 
Trade (7 Doc. Pel. Cdl. Hist. N.J., 304) but 
crown law officers Ryder and Murray ambiguously 
reported that the matter must rest entirely 
in the royal breast {ibid., 307). Cj. the 
opinion of Chief Justice Morris against passing 
the act (ibid., 409-13). The Board of Trade 
recommended disallowance (ibid., 519-21), 
but no conciliar action followed. 
564 5 APC, Col., #30.