sent
one of their own number to England, for the purpose of soliciting the
royal disallowance of the act. After a full hearing of both sides, the
privy council gave it as their opinion that the clergy of Virginia had
their "certain remedy at law;" Lord Hardwicke, in particular,
declaring that "there was no occasion to dispute about the authority
by which the act was passed; for that no court in the judicature
whatever could look upon it to be law, by reason of its manifest
injustice alone."[46] Accordingly, the royal disallowance was granted.
Upon the arrival in Virginia of these tidings, several of the clergy
began suits against their respective vestries, for the purpose of
compelling them to pay the amounts then legally due upon their
salaries for the year 1758.

Of these suits, the first to come to trial was that of the Rev. Thomas
Warrington, in the County Court of Elizabeth City. In that case, "a
jury of his own parishioners found for him considerable damages,
allowing on their oaths that there was above twice as much justly due
to him as the act had granted;"[47] but "the court hindered him from
immediately coming at the damages, by judging the act to be law, in
which it is thought they were influenced more by the fear of giving
offense to their superiors, than by their own opinion of the
reasonableness of the act,--they privately professing that they
thought the parson ought to have his right."[48]

Soon afterward came to trial, in the court of King William County, the
suit of the Rev. Alexander White, rector of St. David's parish. In
this case, the court, instead of either sustaining or rejecting the
disallowed act, simply shirked their responsibility, "refused to
meddle in the matter, and insisted on leaving the whole affair to the
jury;" who being thus freed from all judicial control, straightway
rendered a verdict of neat and comprehensive lawlessness: "We bring in
for the defendant."[49]

It was at this stage of affairs that the court of Hanover County
reached the case of the Rev. James Maury, rector of Fredericksville
parish, Louisa; and the court, having before it the evidence of the
royal disallowance of the Act of 1758, squarely "adjudged the act to
be no law." Of course, under this decision, but one result seemed
possible. As the court had thus rejected the validity of the act
whereby the vestry had withheld from their parson two thirds of his
salary for the year 1758, it only remained to summon a