Early in March Shirley was writing tO' Newcastle. He
first assured the duke that he had most promptly taken ac-
tion recommended by him; in the preceding October to ad-
just a claim of Sir Thomas Prendergast against Robert
Auchmuty, judge of the court of admiralty.^ Shirley
then denounced the letter to Newcastle signed J. Bowden
of which he had just heard, as counterfeit. He asserted
further that when this letter was written he knew nothing
of any application to the duke to make him governor of
Massachusetts, that " the thing itself was not then in my

1 In the fall Wilks and Partridge fruitlessly sought to get Thomlin-
son's petition dismissed, but suffered the dismissal of a petition of their
own protesting on behalf of Massachusetts Bay against the boundary
settlement; while in December the solicitor for the New Hampshire
house of representatives obtained an order directing that the house of
representatives or persons designated to act for them be allowed to
make copies of the public records of the province which they thought
necessary for their case against the governor, and that the secretary
should attest them and the governor seal them with the seal of the
province. For the above happenings of 1738, cf. A. P. C, vol. iii, pp.
592-594; C. O. 5 899, 250; Ar., vol. Ixxiii, fols. 494-495, SoS, S06-508;
Secretary of the Admiralty to Auchmuty, Nov. 6, 1738, and Dunbar to
Secretary Burchett, Nov. 16, 1738, both in Ad. I, 3817-

2 Belcher, who had excellent motives for involving both Shirley and
Auchmuty in unpleasant relations, seems to have sought to use the
incident to injure both. Cf. Shirley to Newcastle, Apr. 18, 1742, C. 0.
5 900, 51 ; Newcastle to Belcher, Oct. 9, I735> C. 0. 5 899, 48.
