was also characterized as a possible means for malignant persons to obstruct 
justice in the province. 255 Mason encountered widespread opposition to his 
claims and finally was forced to leave the province, after summoning the 
leaders of the opposition to appear before the King in Council to establish their 
titles; in default of such appearance, Mason threatened to petition for final 
judgment in his favor. 256 
When a commission was issued to the new president, Cranfield, the Mason 
claims were dealt with in terms substantially similar to the Cutt commission 
257 But again the settlers objected to this method of settlement and insisted 
upon their rights as English subjects to trials in the province. 258 The method 
to be used in settlement of the claims of Mason within the territory of Massachusetts 
Bay was claimed as an applicable precedent in New Hampshire. 259 
Cranfield, in the first blush of office, was also of the opinion that if Mason 
had obtained an order for a trial in the province the dispute would have been 
nearer an end. 260 Later he became disillusioned as to the quality of the opposition 
261 but still was of the opinion that trials held in the province constituted 
the best means of resolving the dispute. 262 After Mason had endeavored in 
and persons concerned in the same state and 
condition as before the late change of government. 
Also, that all controversies concerning 
land titles should be finally determined only 
by a jury of twelve men chosen by the freemen 
of each town, according to law and custom 
(1 Laws of N.H., 23). This legislation 
was objected to by Mason (17 N.H. State 
Papers, 560; Trans. Orig. Doc. Rel. N.H., 
91-92). The former act was alleged to be 
repugnant to the laws of England and the 
commission to Cranfield and the Council 
(ibid., 95, 98). 
255 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 412. 
2™ Ibid., 560-62. 
257 17 N.H. State Papers, 581 
258 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 509; 
CSP, Col., 1681-85, #842. 
259 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 509, 511; 
17 N.H. State Papers, 581. When a boundary 
dispute between Massachusetts Bay and Mason 
and Gorges was referred to the Lords Chief 
Justices of King's Bench and Common Pleas 
in 1677, the latter reported it "most proper to 
direct the parties to have recourse thither for 
the decision of any question of property until 
it shall appear that there is just cause of complaint 
against the courts of justice there for 
injustice or grievance" (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. 
Prov. N.H., 335-36). By a royal proclamation 
of June 23, 1682, Mason was allowed to 
prosecute his rights in the courts of Massachusetts 
Bay; i£ justice was delayed or a 
judgment given wherein Mason did not acquiesce, 
he was given permission to appeal 
to the King in Council. All persons concerned 
were obliged to answer such appeal within 
six months after it was made (29 N.H. State 
Papers, 122). It was suggested that an indifferent 
jury might be secured out of the 
neighboring province (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. 
Prov. N.H., 511). 
260 17 N.H. State Papers, 571-72- 
261 Fry, op. cit., 216. See also the economic 
interest of Cranfield in the securing of quitrents 
(Bond, The Quit-Rent System in the 
American Colonies [1919], 56-58). 
262 Cranfield wrote "that without a tryall first 
had upon the place as hath been directed in 
his Majesties letters to tire Bostoners which 
these his Stubborn Opposers doe depend upon, 
before his Majesty in Councill can give a 
finall Judgment against them, and all this is 
only to gain time. I am therefore of opinion 
that an Order be directed to me to admitt of 
tryals between him and the Tertenants as in 
the Boston colony and then they will come 
to his terms rather than to be a charge and 
trouble to defend a bad title, and answer his 
Appeals in England" (17 N.H. Stale Papers, 
581).