on January 23, 1683/4, that both appeals be dismissed. 277 The return of Wadleigh, 
crowned with the proverbial success, added to the ferment and disorder 
in the province, but it is doubtful whether these two appeals had any noticeable 
effect upon the outcome of the controversy. 278 
Finally, it was decided in the province to bring the actions of President 
Cranfield to the attention of the King in Council. Nathaniel Weare traveled 
to England and presented several petitions to the King in Council in July, 
1684. 279 The main petition inter alia represented Cranfield's divagation from 
the terms of his commission in his treatment of the Mason claims. 280 The petitions 
were referred to the Committee, which transmitted them to Cranfield to 
answer. 281 Upon consideration of the answer of Cranfield and the allegations 
of the petitioners, the Committee reported that Cranfield had not followed his 
instructions in the Mason claims, that he had caused courts to be held in the 
province, and that he had permitted titles to land to be decided there and unreasonable 
costs to be allowed, without first representing the particular causes 
to the King. 282 It was also represented that William Vaughan, one of the 
complainants, be allowed to appeal, within a fortnight, to the King in all 
verdicts and judgments given in New Hampshire in his private cause. Upon 
hearing this cause, by the relation it bore to the others, the King would be best 
able to judge the rights of Mason in the province; upon bringing the appeal, 
all proceedings at law in the province relating to the Mason claims were to 
be suspended till further notice. 283 
The Council adopted the report of the Committee, Vaughan entered his 
several appeals, and Cranfield was notified to suspend all proceedings in re 
the Mason claims. 284 The petition and appeal of Vaughan was then presented 
277 Ibid., #1448, 1512-13; PC 2/70/107. 
Wadleigh is alleged to have taken advantage 
of the absence of Randolph to secure these dismissals 
(1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 
544)- 
27s Ibid.; CSP, Col, 1681-85, #1701. 
379 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 384-85; PC 2/ 
70/201. 
280 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 515-19. 
It was represented that Cranfield had become 
owner of the province; that he had set up 
courts wherein both judges and jurors were 
biased in favor of Mason; that such jury was 
continual; that Mason had cast forty persons 
in suits before that same jury, the court rejecting 
all pleas; that costs in actions were 
raised from 20s. to £ 6 which was exacted in 
specie. For the four annexed petitions see 8 
Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 226-30. It should be 
noted that Vaughan, while Weare was in 
England, still urged a trial on the place by 
impartial judges and jurors (i Doc. and Rec. 
Rel. Prov. N.H., 525). 
wi-PC 2/70/201; 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 
230-31. All persons in the colony were to 
be given full liberty to make depositions and 
take copies of all records in the matter. 
282 p C 2/71/65; 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 
238-39. Cranfield justified his action in that 
there never had been any complaints as to the 
hard terms of quit-rents imposed by Mason; 
the inhabitants had wholly denied the right 
and title of Mason and refused to become 
tenants. Therefore, Cranfield felt that he could 
not mediate, since matters of right must be 
determined by law (CSP, Col., 1681-85, 
#1895). 
Z&ZPC 2/71/65; 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 238. 
2Si PC 2/71/65, 70, 74; 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. 
Soc, 240—42.