at the Council Table and in the usual manner referred to the Committee. 280 
This body fixed a date for the hearing and Cranfield was ordered to give 
notice of the appeal to Mason and all others concerned. 286 There were appeals 
entered by Vaughan from four judgments in all; 287 after hearing the appeal 
concerning the Mason claims, the Committee advised affirmance of the judgment 
appealed from, as was accordingly ordered on November 19, 1686. 281 
Apparently this report was not based on a contested hearing on the 
merits; 289 at any rate it failed to aid Mason materially in the enforcement of 
285 pc 2/71/73. As to the November 6, 1683, 
Court of Pleas judgment, appellant alleged that 
Cranfield did not obey the instructions to settle 
the claims; diat appellant was taken by surprise; 
that appellant was not admitted to make 
out his title despite offers and ability to do so; 
that the governor and the jury were not impartial, 
since they were claiming lands under 
Mason. Appellant prayed time to bring over 
deeds and evidences, to make out title, and to 
have such affidavits and proofs taken upon the 
place as were requisite to be made (Samuel 
Allen MSS). 
286 The time appointed for the hearing was 
the first Tuesday after Midsummer Day in 
1686. A copy of the petition and appeal was 
enclosed in the Committee letter and ordered 
to be communicated to Mason and the others 
concerned, who were to attend at the time 
set either in person or by agents sufficiently 
authorized to answer the appeal and submit to 
the judgment. Cranfield was to permit all 
persons to have free access to and take copies 
of all records within the province relating to 
the matters in dispute and to depose on oath 
what they knew concerning the same. The 
depositions were to be taken in writing by any 
member of the council or justices of the peace 
in the province without any hindrance, in 
order to be transmitted to the Lords Committee 
"for the clearing of truth in that appeal" 
(8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 243-44). 
Weare entered an appearance for Vaughan to 
prosecute the appeal on June 23, 1686 (PC 
2/71/292). As an indication of opinion on 
the pending trial, it should be noticed that 
Edward Randolph in October, 1685, wrote: 
"And now, since Charters are at so low an 
ebb, I feare his [Mason's] Grants will hardly 
hold out upon a tryall at ye Councill Board: 
he is sure of all assistance from ye Plantation 
Office: but his Enemyes have the larger purse" 
(4 Edward Randolph, 60, 61). Blathwayt 
proposed that Mason should quit his pretensions 
upon the King's making him governor 
o£ Bermuda and allowing him and his heirs 
or yearly forever, to be paid 
out of the quit-rents (ibid., 59). See also F. 
B. Sanborn, Churchmen on the Pascataqua, 
1650-1690; 45 Mass. Hist. Soc. Proa, 229. 
287 In addition to the appeal concerning the 
Mason claims there were: (a) an appeal from 
a £40 fine imposed upon appellant at the 
May 6, 1684, Quarter Sessions for beating and 
abusing a customs officer (PC 2/71/355); (b) 
an appeal from a July 1, 1684, judgment of 
the Court of Pleas in re die ketch Diligence 
(PC 2/71/356); (c) an appeal from a May 22, 
1684, Chancery decree in favor of Richard 
Martin (ibid.). For the substance of this last 
appeal see 8 Coll. N.H. Hist. Soc, 312-17. 
288 pc 2/71/340; 8 Coll. NJi. Hist. Soc, 
242-43. The Lords Committee heard Mason 
and Weare and his counsel. The appeal was 
from a verdict and judgment of November 6, 
1683, in an action for certain lands and tenements 
in Portsmouth (see supra, n. 269). 
While the cause was pending, it was complained 
to President Dudley and Council that 
the anti-Masonites were cutdng wood on the 
controverted lands, and an order to stay waste 
was prayed (126 MS Mass. Archives Usurpation, 
1686-87], 34; Dudley Records, 13 Mass. 
Hist. Soc. Proc. [2nd Ser.], 258). William 
Vaughan in answer pleaded the pressing 
poverty of the people and the offsetting exorbitant 
damages recovered earlier by Mason 
(126 MS Mass. Archives, 49); cf. the answer 
of some of the inhabitants, ibid., 48. The 
President and Council, since the whole cause 
was before the King for final determination, 
saw no reason to make any new order in the 
matter (Dudley Records, 266). 
289 At the hearing before the Committee, appellant 
alleged that Cranfield had not pursued 
the terms of his commission for settling the 
Mason claims, but had permitted Mason to 
secure a verdict against appellant. Then a 
declaration made by Cranfield in February, 
1683/4, was read (see 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel.