but which we propose to examine for the light it throws upon crown policy on the eve of the Revolution. The genesis of this dispute was the indefinite description of the northern boundary in the release from the Duke of York in 1664 to Berkeley and Carteret. 227 Some attempts made to settle the line, inspired largely by the New Jersey proprietary interests, culminated in the 1719 issuance of commissions in the respective colonies appointing commissioners to run the line. 228 Although accord was reached upon the western locus of the division line, the New York commissioners refused to complete the demarcation, alleging imperfection of the surveying instruments. 220 Two decades then elapsed before increased settlement with consequent jurisdictional and titular conflicts in the controverted territory again brought the need for settlement to the fore. 230 New York exhibiting indifference to co-operative efforts, the East New Jersey proprietors pressed for a New Jersey act, subject to royal approbation, for ex parte settlement of the boundary. 231 After some political opposition, in February, 1747/8, an act containing a suspending clause was passed in New Jersey for running the boundary line according to the 1719 survey, but subject to royal alteration, with or without the co-operation of New York. 232 Agent Ferdinand John Paris was skeptical of approbation, principally because of the administrative inclination for commissions 233 and the failure to provide for any appeal. 234 (hereinafter cited as Rep. Reg. Boun. N.Y.). The journal of the 1769 royal commission to settle the boundary is contained in 3 N.Y.- N.J. Boundary MSS. 227 The boundary was defined as "to the northward as far as the northermost branch of die said bay or river of Delaware, which is forty-one degrees and forty minutes of latitude, and crosseth over thence in a strait line to Hudson's river in forty-one degrees of latitude" (Learning and Spicer, Grants, Concessions . . . of New Jersey, 10). 228 For a 1686 attempt see Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, 1664-1738, 641-42; Whitehead, op. cit., 162-63. For the 1719 New Jersey enabling act see Acts General Assembly N.J. (1732), 94-95. The 1717 New York act, a financial measure, merely recited in the preamble the need to settle the boundary and the lack of funds for allocation thereto, and then allotted 750 ounces of plate to defray the expenditure thereof (1 Col. Laws N.Y., 938, 941, 988). For the substance of the commissions see 2 Rep. Reg. Boun. N.Y., 608-10; 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 394-97. 229 For the tripartite indenture between the East and the West New Jersey proprietors and New York as to the western terminal point see ibid., 394-99. For the petition of the New York surveyor to the colony council see ibid., 403-6. For the favorable report thereon see ibid., 406-8. The New Jersey proprietors termed the petitioner's suggestions "groundless, weak, and untrue," asserting that the unfavorable trend of the survey for New York claims constituted the basis of the petition (ibid., 408-31). For substantiation of the New Jersey charge see ibid., 433-38, 442-43. A bill for the purchase of accurate instruments was abortively introduced in the New York Assembly (2 Rep. Reg. Boun. N.Y., 644-45). 230 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part I, 266-67; 15 ibid., 185. 231 6 ibid., 138-40, 144-45, 162-63, 168-71, 216-19; 8 ibid. (Part I), 213. 232 Lilly, op. cit., 174-75; 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part I, 216-17. For a copy of die act see the New Jersey brief for royal approbation of the act (Paris MSS, E 3/1-4). New Jersey delayed transmission of the act to England in the vain hope that New York would cooperate in running the line (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 142-44). 233 Paris noted that nothing but a private