persons. 165 New Hampshire then insisting that the dividing-line point of 
commencement was capable of conciliar determination before issuance of a 
commission, the matter was referred to the crown law officers. 166 After hearing 
the parties, the latter were of the opinion that the boundary was to be taken 
according to the intent of the 1691 charter from three miles north of the mouth 
of the Merrimac River where it entered the Atlantic. The Board of Trade, 
after further hearings, advised appointment of commissioners from neighboring 
provinces to establish the controverted boundary line. 167 Copies of the 
crown law officers' opinion were to be given the parties for information of the 
commissioners in case doubts should arise upon the construction of the 1691 
charter. On December 15,1735, the Lords Committee, after further hearing the 
parties, adopted the Board of Trade proposal, with the Massachusetts proviso 
that private property be unaffected thereby. 168 The Council thereupon, in 
January, 1735/6, ordered the Committee to nominate commissioners. l 69 
The Board of Trade proposing as commissioners the five eldest councilors 
in the respective colonies of New York, New Jersey, Nova Scotia, and Rhode 
Island, the Committee, in October, 1736, accepted the nominees with the 
exception of one interested Nova Scotia councilor, and ordered the Board of 
Trade to draft directions for such commissioners. l7o The Board of Trade, in 
December, 1736, represented that the commissioners should first meet on 
August 1,1737, at Hampton, New Hampshire, that five commissioners should 
constitute a quorum, and that liberty of an appeal to the King in Council 
should be granted to either party aggrieved by the commission determination. 
The appeal was to be entered within six weeks after delivery of a copy of the 
determination to public officers of the respective provinces. During the meeting 
of the commissioners the governors were to keep their respective assemblies 
sitting or under short prorogations in order to decide whether an appeal 
should be taken. 171 Upon the objection of Massachusetts, the time limited for 
taking the appeal was altered to six months and the provision as to the as- 
165 19 N.H. State Papers, 251; JCTP, 1728/ 
9-34, 371, 375. The General Court advised 
Wilks to avoid Rhode Islanders on the commission, 
queried New Yorkers (because of 
the distance and the bias created by the disputed 
boundary with Massachusetts), and 
favored Connecticut members. Since private 
property was not to be affected, the General 
Court favored a clause that between conflicting 
grants the oldest grant should govern, 
regardless of the government in which such 
grant fell (52 MS Mass. Archives [Letters, 
1724-38}, 434-36)- 
166 19 N.H. State Papers, 250-53, 256-58; 
]CTP, 1728/9-34, 376. 
167 19 N.H. State Papers, 256-58; 4 Doc. and 
Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 848-50; 52 MS Mass. 
Arc/lives (Letters, 1724-38), 447-48; ]CTP, 
'734/5-41, 3, 11-12, 17, 19. 
Los 19 N.H. State Papers, 259-61. 
169 Ibid., 261-62. 
170 Ibid., 262; 3 APC, Col, #102; JCTP, 
'734/' 5~4', 9°> 97-98; 52 MS Mass. Archives 
{Letters, 1724-38), 456-57. 
171 19 N.H. State Papers, 265-68; JCTP, 
'734/5-4', 144-45, 147, 150-51-