by the colony council and the proprietors. 78 With Governor Belcher affirming 
this need 79 and the "freeholders" petitioning defensively, 80 the Board of Trade 
in 1750 recommended drastic remedial action in the form of military intervention 
or reunion with New York. 81 
The Committee, however, not to be impelled into extreme measures, merely 
ordered the crown law officers to consider proper methods of inquiry into the 
New Jersey grievances and to draft a commission thereto. 82 Ryder and Murray 
reported in August, 1751, that the only grievance alleged was an apprehension 
of injustice upon trial of ejectment actions brought by the proprietors against 
the "freeholders" in possession; that the "freeholders" only desired that the 
matter might come fairly before the King in Council for impartial determination. 
Since by general verdicts the merits might be prevented from coming 
before the Council upon appeal, it was submitted whether it might not be 
proper to instruct the governor to recommend to the judges upon such ejectment 
trials to have all the evidence found in the nature of a special verdict. By 
this means the whole cause might come fully and fairly before the King in 
Council upon appeal, at which time every circumstance of title, possession, 
and improvement would be taken into consideration and a solemn determination 
had in such manner could be a rule for all similar cases. 83 
No such instruction ever issued, although the Board of Trade submitted the 
proposal as "prudent and effectual." 84 The crown law officers also prepared, as 
directed, a commission of inquiry, but the Board of Trade having declared its 
issuance to be of little utility, it never passed the Great Seal. 85 With a decline 
of the riotous spirit and a diversion of public energies, no further conciliar 
intervention was meditated. 88 
The opinion expressed by the crown law officers is interesting chiefly because 
no better way of meeting the dilemma respecting an inadequate record could 
™lbid., 189-97. 
7s lbid., 249-51, 290-92. Cf. the colony council's 
opinion on the conduct of Belcher (ibid., 
251-59) and that of the Board of Trade (ibid., 
260—61). 
80 Petitioners asserted that the right of appeal 
to the King in Council was rendered 
nugatory by petitioners' poverty in the face 
of multiplicity of suits (4 APC, Col., #103). 
81 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 466, 522. For 
the proceedings before the Board of Trade see 
ibid., 295, 301-5, 310, 312-16; JCTP, 1741/ 
2-49, 4 J 6, 421-22, 434, 441, 443. Yet in 
June, 1749, agent Richard Partridge was still 
urging fair trials in a few cases with appeals 
to the King in Council thereon (7 Doc. Rel. 
Col. Hist. N.J., 270). 
82 4 APC, Col., #103. Cf. the prediction of 
agent Paris as to the action which would be 
taken (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 234-35). 
83 8 ibid. (Part I), 56-57. We have seen above 
the initial views of Murray as to judicial proceedings 
in the colony, supra, p. 365. 
M lbid., 92. 
83 Ibid., 58-59, 91. For a copy of the draft 
commission see Paris Papers, X 117. An instruction 
relating to the issuance of such" commission 
was, however, dispatched to Governor 
Belcher (1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
#499)- 
86 Fisher, op. cit., 204-9.