the Massachusetts petition dismissed, but without prejudice to raising the objections 
when the merits of the appeal were entered into. 189 
In January, 1738/9, a further petition of complaint against Belcher was 
presented, with a prayer for separation of the two governments. 190 This 
memorial obviously constituted part of the New Hampshire strategy to influence 
the outcome of the appeal by prior consideration of the complaints 
directed against Belcher 191 —strategy to which the Lords Committee was 
amenable, for after hearing counsel and considering evidence in November, 
1739, the Committee reported that Governor Belcher had acted with great 
partiality in his several prorogations of the New Hampshire assembly. 192 
Then, early in March, 1739/40, the Committee proceeded to hear the appeal 
proper, with Dudley Ryder and William Murray presenting the New Hampshire 
argument and John Strange and R. Hollings appearing for Massachusetts 
193 The studied argument of Massachusetts was in vain, for th« 
Committee insisted upon proof that the discovery, name, and courses of the 
Merrimac were fully known at the granting of the first charter—a burden of 
proof impossible to sustain. Furthermore, the Committee regarded it as impossible 
for a river running north and south to constitute a northern boundary 
194 Therefore, the Committee reported that the northern boundary of 
Massachusetts should be a "similar Curve line pursuing the Course of Merrimack 
River at three miles distance on the North side thereof," beginning at the 
Atlantic Ocean and ending at a point due north of "Pantucket Falls"; from 
thence it was to be a straight line drawn due west until it met with another 
province. The remainder of the commission determination was affirmed. 195 
Apparently little attention was paid to the "special verdict" of the commissioners. 
The Privy Council, approving the Committee report, ordered preparation 
189 PC 2/95/15, 37. Insinuation was earlier 
made by counsel William Murray at the 
Council Board that Belcher had been bribed 
into partiality to Massachusetts by £ 1,000 in 
new tenor bills voted him for extraordinary 
services on the very day the commissioners 
met to receive the appeals. See Richard Partridge 
to Lord Wilmington, Sept. 1, 1738, 
and the annexed memorandum defending 
Belcher against the charges {Wilmington MSS 
[L.C.]). 
190 pc 2/95/82. Cf. the Massachusetts comment 
upon this memorial (19 N.H. State 
Papers, 461-64). 
191 Ibid., 460-61, 466-67. Cf. the confidence 
of Belcher, 2 Belcher Papers, 7 Mass. Hist. 
Soc. Coll. (6th ser.), 242-43. 
192 j APC, Col., #432. For the complainants' 
printed case, argued by J. Browne and 
William Murray, see 19 N.H. State Papers, 
541-51. For respondent Belcher's case, presented 
by J. Strange and R. Hollings, see ibid., 
552-64. See also the comment of Belcher, 2 
Belcher Papers, 276-77. 
193 PC 2/95/642, 665. For the New Hampshire 
conciliar "case," see 19 N.H. State Papers, 
565-600; for that of Massachusetts, see ibid., 
601-28. 
194 Ibid., 468-69. The Massachusetts agents 
wrote that the Committee considered New 
Hampshire "quite out of the case" and that 
the question was between Massachusetts and 
the crown {ibid., 470). 
195 3 APC, Col., #432. Belcher regarded the 
settlement as "intirely in favour of New 
Hampshire" (2 Belcher Papers, 292).