analogy to what was done with respect to the seigniories in Wales being tried 
in English counties." 12 
Despite the earlier settlement of the Pennsylvania-Maryland boundary, 13 
recognition of the original jurisdiction of the Privy Council in the eighteenth 
century as a procedural possibility came late, 14 so that royal commissions with 
appeals reserved were employed in the majority of the judicial settlements of 
disputed intercolonial boundaries. In 1758 we find Ferdinand John Paris, 
able solicitor in colonial matters, declaring that issuance of a commission was 
"the only legal method" of settling the New York-New Jersey boundary controversy 
and "always practiced in such cases." lo It was even questioned 
whether the King in Council could demarcate a temporary boundary line 
pending final determination by commission proceedings and appeal therefrom 
16 Yet in July, 1764, the King in Council demarcated the boundary of 
New York and New Hampshire in original "judicial" proceedings. 17 Later, 
in 1773, it was alleged that "in every question of boundary between two 
colonies, the King, in Privy Council, exercises original jurisdiction on the 
principles of feudal sovereignty. There can be no other tribunal." 18 
In the New York-Massachusetts boundary quarrel Lieutenant-Governor 
Colden of the former province advocated an alternative method of settle- 
12 20 Howell, State Trials, 82, 230. 
13 5 Md. Archives, 455-56, 458-59. 
14 See 21 MS Mass. Archives (Foreign Corres., 
'75'SS), 635, 637. 
15 2 MS N.Y.-N.J. Boundary Papers, 15. 
16 Lieutenant-Governor Delancey of New York 
writing to the Board of Trade in July, 1757, 
in re the boundary dispute between Massachusetts 
and New York stated: "But as the 
sueing out such commission in Great Britain, 
the carrying it into execution here and getting 
the merits finally determined upon appeal to 
his Majesty must inevitably take up much time, 
during which many disorders may be committed, 
it seems to me it would be a great 
and apparent defect in our constitution, if the 
King, who is the fountain of justice and the 
great conservator of the peace among his subjects 
could not legally interpose in cases of this 
kind by fixing some temporary line of jurisdiction, 
so as the contending parties might in 
the mean time know where to resort for justice, 
and to what authority they were to submit" 
(7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 274). But agent 
William Bollan of Massachusetts expressed 
doubts whether such a temporary line could be 
established (21 MS Mass. Archives [Foreign 
Corres., 1751-58], 635). 
17 4 Doc. Hist. N.Y., 355; 4 APC, Col, #559. 
Cf. Fry, New Hampshire As a Royal Province, 
265—74. It was ' ater stated that the claims 
"came judicially before his Majesty" (1 Rep. 
Reg. Boun. N.Y. [1874], 80). In view of the 
fact that there was no hearing of the claimants 
before the Board of Trade, it would appear that 
the proceedings were administrative (viz., a 
naked exercise of prerogative), rather than 
judicial. 
18 A State of the Right of the Colony of New 
Yor\ with Respect to Its Eastern Boundary on 
Connecticut River (1773), 19. It was also 
stated "that though, in every contest between 
two colonies, the King in Privy Council, exercises 
original jurisdiction; yet, the boundary as 
in the present case, being determined, and out 
of the question; private property, and the claims 
of individuals, are cognizable before the ordinary 
judicatories, and can only be carried up to 
the throne, by appeal from the errors of the 
judges" (A Narrative of the Proceedings Subsequent 
to the Royal Adjudication, Concerning 
the Lands to the Westward of Connecticut 
River, Lately Usurped by New-Hampshire 
[1773], 26).