fruit in 1730, when Jonathan Belcher, commissioned governor of both provinces, was instructed to propose to both assemblies that impartial persons be selected from neighboring royal colonies endowed with sufficient powers to settle the boundary dispute. But their proceedings were to be of no effect until the royal pleasure was signified thereupon. 156 The legislative action recommended under this instruction resulting in irreconcilable authorizations in the respective colonies, 157 it was proposed by Belcher to the New Hampshire council in May, 1731, that committees from the respective colonies meet to agree upon a bill to answer the intent of the royal instruction. 158 The House of Representatives at first characterized such procedure as futile and proposed resort to the King in Council, but they later agreed to a committee meeting on June 22, 1731. 159 When the session of the Massachusetts General Assembly prevented the scheduled meeting, the New Hampshire lower house refused to sanction postponement and proposed a representation to England in the matter. 160 A representation to the Board of Trade was presented, but the lower house also consented to a later meeting of the committees. When it turned out that the claims of Massachusetts appeared to be exorbitant in the eyes of the younger colony, no decisive action eventuated. 161 In his early days of office, Belcher proposed a regard for the New Hampshire claims greatly at variance with his later partiality to Massachusetts. 162 In March, 1732/3, New Hampshire returned to the conciliar front with a petition complaining of Massachusetts encroachments and praying settlement of the disputed boundaries. 163 The matter being referred to the Board of Trade, the agent of the older colony delayed action thereon, seeking authority to have the matter referred to commissioners from neighboring colonies. 164 In February, 1733/4, Massachusetts consented to a determination of the boundary by such commissioners, saving determination of the property of private 156 2 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #973. 157 For the New Hampshire authorization see 19 N.H. State Papers, 211-12; for that of Massachusetts see ibid., 213-15. 15s Ibid., 217-18. 159 Ibid., 217-19. For the appointment of the Massachusetts committee see ibid., 216. 160 Ibid., 216, 220-23 161 For the petition see ibid., 223-25; for the abortive committee proceedings see ibid., 225- 35. Cf. 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 610- 13- ie2 1 Belcher Papers, 6 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (6th ser.), 7, 9-11, 16-17, 147~49- 163 PC 2/92/137; 19 N.H. State Papers, 235- 48. "* 19 N.H. State Papers, 249-51; PC 2/92/143; JCTP, 1728/9-34, 342-44- Wilks, for Massachusetts, protested that the petition was from the lower house only; that the sole power of settling lands was in the Governor and Council, who had not joined in the application; that after settlement it might be objected that without their being heard the determination was not binding. But the Board refused to allow the objection. New Hampshire first desired explanation of the charter language, but the Board, favoring a commission, questioned Wilks as to his authority to consent thereto (52 MS Mass. Archives [Letters, 1724-38], 430-32). Cf. 1 Belcher Papers, 316, 332-33. 356, 432.