mittee to prepare the petition of appeal. 180 But in New Hampshire, Belcher 
prorogued the legislature until October 13, so that no effective preparation 
for taking an appeal could be made. 181 When reconvened on October 14 the 
New Hampshire council adjourned without taking any action on an appeal, 
so that an appeal hastily drawn and voted by the assembly alone was presented 
182 Massachusetts, presenting a properly authorized appeal, objected 
to the reception of the New Hampshire appeal as being the action of only part 
of the legislature, contrary to the terms of the commission. lB3 Nevertheless, 
the commissioners saw fit to receive the New Hampshire appeal. 184 The New 
Hampshire council refused to participate in presenting the appeal or in defending 
against the Massachusetts appeal, so the burden fell upon the assembly 
to be defrayed by popular subscription. 185 
In February, 1737/8, agent John Tomlinson presented at the Council Board 
in London the petition of appeal of New Hampshire and also a complaint of 
the lower house against Governor Belcher with respect to his conduct in execution 
of the late commission. lB6 On July 20, 1738, Massachusetts presented 
its appeal, to which Tomlinson duly entered an appearance. 187 In October, 
Massachusetts petitioned for dismissal of the New Hampshire appeal, on the 
ground that it was improperly received by the commissioners, that the petition 
of appeal presented by Tomlinson was improperly authorized, and that 
such petition of appeal improperly went outside the record. 188 Upon argument 
of the motion for dismissal, counsel for New Hampshire relied mainly 
upon traducing the partial conduct of Belcher. But since this matter was not 
yet before the Committee for judicial consideration, the Committee ordered 
180 Ibid., 393-94; 15 Jour. House Rep. Mass., 
157-58. 
181 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 745, 
829; 19 N.H. State Papers, 430. 
182 4 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 745-47, 
830. For the alleged attitude of the Council 
see 19 N.H. State Papers, 456. 
183 For the Massachusetts appeal see 19 N.H. 
State Papers, 395-98; for the protest against 
reception of the New Hampshire appeal see 
ibid., 399, 401-2. Cf. 15 four. House Rep. 
Mass., 160-65. 
184 19 N.H. State Papers, 399. 
185 Ibid., 424-25. Compare the Massachusetts 
attitude, 15 Jour. House Rep. Mass., 170, 173. 
188 PC 2/94/411, 414. For the petition and 
appeal see 16 Jour. House Rep. Mass., 160-69. 
For comment of the House of Representatives 
upon this petition and appeal see ibid., 1 69-73; 
19 N.H. State Papers, 452-57. For the complaint 
and order thereon see ibid., 428-32. 
187 PC 2/94/599, 603- The General Court, 
in December, 1738, expressed fear that the 
appeal would be referred by the Privy Council 
to some other body and that the relative 
positions of the two provinces might elicit 
sympathy from such a body favorable to New 
Hampshire. Therefore, it was advanced, it 
would greatly tend to full understanding of 
the cause if it might not be referred to any 
other board or boards, but might be argued 
fully and first, as well as finally, before his 
Majesty and his Privy Council (19 N.H. State 
Papers, 451). For the part played by the 
Masonian claims in the appeal see Hammond, 
The Mason Title and Its Relation to New 
Hampshire and Massachusetts, 26 Amer. Antiq. 
Soc. Proc. (n.s.), 253-55. 
188 PC 2/95/4; 19 N.H. State Papers, 440-48.