inaction would be a tacit confirmation, since the crown by the charter limitation 
could not disallow any act subsequent to expiration of the six-month 
period. Richard Jackson rendered an opinion in April, 1758, on some Pennsylvania 
acts for the annual election of sheriffs and coroners that had been transmitted 
and not disallowed within the six-month period. Lie was of the opinion 
that 
though a law void for repugnancy to the laws of England would not, I think, be 
made good by remaining thus not disapproved, (because the preservation of the 
prerogative of the crown and the allegiance of the province only is here declared to 
be in view) yet this circumstance furnishes a strong proof these laws are not 
repugnant as above, especially as their subject matter so immediately concerns the 
state and the administration of publick justice. 571 
This was a far from conclusive opinion, but when in 1772 the same, counsel 
was again faced with the question of the validity of a law thus tacitly confirmed, 
he stated positively that no term of years could give validity to a law 
in case it were repugnant to the laws and constitution of the kingdom, notwithstanding 
the provisions of the charter. 572 There was no suggestion that 
the way of legislative review would be open, and if the charter provisions respecting 
submission had been complied with, it is apparent that validity could 
be tested only by way of judicial review. This method, it may be remarked, 
Jackson, although counsel for the Board of Trade, seems to have viewed as 
the only proper one of determining voidness, for in 1773 he reported on two 
Pennsylvania statutes that if they were not within the extent of the provincial 
legislature's power, they were void in themselves and therefore proper subjects 
for the determination of a court of justice. He thought that pending such 
action no affirmance or condemnation by the crown should occur. 873 But the 
Board having intimated one of the two acts to be either improper or unconstitutional, 
it was disallowed. 574 Probably the notion of reserving action until 
litigation should be commenced seemed at that date a contingency too hazardous 
to await. 
That considerations of administrative expediency would overcome sober 
pretation of the legislative review power was 
rejected. The Board represented that it had 
been the uniform practice to disallow Pennsylvania 
acts not only because of repugnancy to 
equity or the laws of England, but also upon 
mere considerations of general expediency; 
that this practice had been ratified by a provincial 
validating act; that a final negative by 
the crown was necessarily implied, although 
not expressed, in every charter to examine the 
merits of any colonial act and to disallow it 
for any reason whatsoever (3 Stat, at Large 
Pa., 698—701). If the contention of the province 
had been upheld, the process of judicial 
review of repugnant acts might have assumed 
much greater importance than was actually 
the case. 
571 76 Franklin MSS, 1 h. 
■" 2 CO 5/1278/ L 20. 
578 CO 5/1278/ L 42. For die acts see 8 Stat, 
at Large Pa., 143, 243. 
57 *5 APC, Col, #251.