of such a commission, an additional instruction to the New York governor 
to recommend similar provision by the New York Assembly was recommended 
242 The act was accordingly disallowed on June 24, 1755, 243 and the 
recommended instruction was issued in August. 244 
When Governor Hardy encountered assembly reluctance to conform to 
this additional instruction, he questioned whether the matter might not be 
more equitably determined by a royal commission in England. 245 But the 
Board of Trade replied that "the establishing such a jurisdiction is altogether 
without precedent, liable to numberless objections, and might be attended 
with very bad consequences." 248 In November, 1756, the East New Jersey 
proprietors returned to the Cockpit with a petition that the line allegedly 
agreed upon by the 1719 commissioners should constitute the boundary until 
the true line could be settled under the proposed royal commission. 247 Upon 
this petition, motivated by desire to compel financing of a commission by the 
New York Assembly, 248 the Board of Trade advised establishment of such 
temporary line after a six-month waiting period for New York to provide for 
the expenses of a final settlement, but no conciliar action was taken thereon. 249 
Finally, in December, 1762, New York passed an act submitting the con- 
242 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part 11, 108-10; 
6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 952-53. For the 
hearings before the Board of Trade see JCTP, 
1754-58, 120, 128, 150. Paris, in opposing 
confirmation, had argued: (1) the King had 
no jurisdiction to determine property in 
America in the first instance; (2) there was 
no possibility of bringing to England the many 
necessary witnesses; (3) the expense of such 
a proceeding would be excessive; (4) commissioners 
on the spot would be better informed 
than a court in England; (5) original 
evidence could be proved to be forgeries, but 
transcripts used at a hearing in England could 
not (Paris MSS, E 13/12). 
243 4 APC, Col., #279. 
244 2 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #975. 
245 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part 11, 207- 
8; 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 38. 
2i6 lbid., 80; 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 
Part 11, 213. 
247 4 APC, Col., #215; 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.J., Part 11, 225-28. This course had been 
suggested earlier in 1754 by the Board of 
Trade (ibid. [Part I], 296-97) and in 1753 
in a memorial of the East New Jersey proprietors 
(ibid., 229). New York, however, was not 
disposed to favor any temporary demarcation 
(ibid. [Part ll], 27-28, 31; but cf. ibid., 
74-75)- 
248 See Alexander to Paris, Jan. 6, 1756 (Paris 
MSS, K 26); Paris to Alexander, May 8, 1756 
(ibid., K. 30). 
249 8 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., Part 11, 245- 
46; 4 APC, Col, #215; JCTP, 1754-58, 
279-80, 283, ' 286-87, 357- Cf. Paris MSS, 
E 13. The New York Council earlier, in 
December, 1754, had represented that neither 
province had power without particular royal 
directions to agree to any temporary line 
inconsistent with their ancient and continued 
jurisdictions (2 Rep. Reg. Bonn. N.Y., 718- 
19). Agent Charles for New York had first 
adopted dilatory tactics (2 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary 
MSS, 2, 3, 6), then had objected that the 
temporary line recommended by the Board 
of Trade was the same line as settled by New 
Jersey in the 1747/8 act which had been 
recommended for disallowance (ibid., 12). 
It would appear that conciliar failure to act 
was due to the attitude of the Lord President 
of the Council, Granville (ibid., 19-20), and 
to the objection of Lieutenant-Governor 
Pownall, allegedly influenced by the New York 
Delancey group (Paris MSS, K 30). In the 
meantime the New York Assembly still refused 
to conform to the royal instructions, 
suggesting defrayment from the quit-rents (2 
Journals General Assembly N.Y., 524-25). Cf. 
7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 204.