praying determination of the ancient controversy and interim instructions to 
prevent violence in the disputed territory. 205 The petition being referred by 
the Committee to the Board of Trade, it languished there until May, 1738, 
when copies of the Board's representation thereon were ordered given to both 
parties. 208 This representation advised appointment of commissioners from 
neighboring provinces to settle the dividing line and immediate orders to the 
respective governors to allow continuance of peaceful possession without 
molestation. 207 Francis Wilks, Massachusetts agent, then petitioned the Committee 
to be heard by counsel against the issuance of any new commission; 
that the earlier determination by royal commissioners might stand; and that 
the Rhode Island petition be dismissed. 208 Upon considering the report and 
petition, the Committee advised rejection of the latter and adoption of the 
former. The Committee further represented that the petition appeared frivolous, 
vexatious, and designed to delay settlement of the boundaries. To prevent 
such petitions in futuro, the Committee conceived that it might be necessary 
to order that no applications to be heard against determinations of the Board 
of Trade, other than those made ex parte, should be entertained unless sufficient 
security was given to pay such costs as should be awarded. The same rule 
was proposed in all cases coming before the Committee in consequence of any 
commissions issued or to be issued on conciliar order for settling boundaries 
or other special matters in dispute in the American colonies. 209 
The King in Council approving, the Board of Trade was commanded to lay 
before the Committee nominees for the commission. Thereupon, the five oldest 
councilors, with one exception, of New York, New Jersey, and Nova Scotia 
were nominated and approved in January, 1738/9. The Board of Trade, then 
ordered to draft proper heads for a commission, submitted articles practically 
identical with those incorporated in the previous New Hampshire-Massachu- 
205 3 APC, Col., #323. For copies of the 
"appeal" see R.1.-Mass. Boundary MSS; 6 
MS Mass. Archives {Colonial, 1724-75), 
539-42. In June, 1734, the General Assembly 
had ordered all colony officers to forbear exercising 
jurisdiction in the controverted land, 
since the matter was sent home for determination 
(4 Rec. Col. R. 1., 498), but the order was 
repealed in October (ibid., 500). 
206 3 APC, Col., #323; 1 Correspondence of 
the Colonial Governors of Rhode Island, 78-79. 
For a January 5, 1735/6, answer of Massachusetts 
agent Wilks, containing twenty points, 
and the replication thereto by agent Partridge, 
see R.1.-Mass. Boundary MSS. 
207 j APC, Col., #323. Massachusetts counsel 
argued strongly that the right of the province 
was so clear that there was no room to leave 
it so much in doubt as to appoint commissioners, 
but the Board was inclined toward a 
commission and Rhode Island pressed for 
one (52 MS Mass. Archives [Letters, 1724- 
38], 470). Cf. 1 Correspondence of the Colonial 
Governors of Rhode Island, 86-87, 96-97- 
Hutchinson's chronology is faulty in his statement 
that "Rhode Island, encouraged by the 
ill success of the Massachusetts in the controversy 
with New-Hampshire, applied to his 
majesty to appoint commissioners to settle 
the line between the two governments" (2 
Hist. Col. and Prov. Mass. Bay, 304). 
208 3 APC, Col., #323. 
209 Ibid.; cf. 1 Correspondence of the Colonial 
Governors of Rhode Island, 98-99; 52 MS 
Mass. Archives (Letters, 1724-38), 474.