semblies being kept in session was omitted. Affirmance of the commission determination 
by the King in Council was to be final and conclusive for all 
parties. 172 Pursuant to an Order in Council, the commission issued under 
the Great Seal on April 9,1737. 173 In the interim Massachusetts, far from idle, 
had been lending de facto support to its claims by abetting settlements in the 
disputed regions. l 74 
In April, 1737, a committee of assemblymen and councilors was appointed 
by the respective New Hampshire legislative bodies to prepare and present 
the New Hampshire cause before the commissioners. 175 Governor Belcher, 
then, by several prorogations kept the New Hampshire assembly inactive until 
August 10, despite receipt of letters from the Board of Trade directing recommendation 
to the respective assemblies to appoint the public officers required 
by the commission and to draft the statement of claims to be presented to the 
commissioners. 170 When Belcher finally communicated the recommendation 
on August 10, it appeared that to prevent an ex parte hearing the committee 
previously appointed had taken necessary action. 177 After considering the 
pleadings and evidence of both colonies at several meetings during August, 
the commissioners, on September 2, stated that some doubt had arisen over a 
point of law. Therefore, in the nature of a special verdict, it was resolved that 
if the 1691 Massachusetts charter granted all the lands held under the earlier 
charter, then the boundary was to be a line running parallel with the Merrimac 
River at a distance of three English miles north of the river mouth, beginning 
at the south side of the so-called Black Rocks at the low water mark, 
and from thence to a juncture of the Pemogewasset and Winepesiokee, and 
from thence due north three English miles, and from thence due west until 
it met with another province. If otherwise, then the line was to run due west 
from such starting point until it met with another colony. 178 The commissioners 
then adjourned until October 14, when all exceptions or appeals were 
to be received. 179 
Immediately following rendition of this "judgment" the Massachusetts 
legislature voted an appeal from the judgment and the appointment of a com- 
172 19 N.H. State Papers, 268-72; 3 APC, Col, 
#102; 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 862. 
Cf. JCTP, 1734/5-41, 164-65, 175. The provision 
as to the finality of the affirmance of 
the King in Council on appeal may have been 
designed to prevent issuance of a commission 
of review. 
173 19 N.H. State Papers, 274-76. The sum 
of iC I 3 5/4/6 was disbursed in suing out 
the commission (ibid., 577; 15 Jour. House 
Rep. Mass. [1934], 84). 
174 24 N.H. State Papers, 749, 751, 755 
760-65; Fry, op. cit., 252-55. 
175 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 732. 
176 Ibid., 734-35, 863-65. See also 15 Jour. 
House Rep. Mass., 124-32. 
177 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 734-35 
19 N.H. State Papers, 281-82. 
178 For the various proceedings see ibid., 281— 
392. See also 5 MS Mass. Archives {Colonial, 
1728-74), 70-101. 
179 19 N.H. State Papers, 392-93.