Allen of London had obtained whatever rights Robert Mason possessed by 
purchase from his heirs in i69i, 10T but took no legal steps to force recognition 
of his alleged proprietary interests until the century was almost out. 108 Then 
Allen, in his capacity as governor of the province, sought to insure the outcome 
of any trials by judicious use of his appointing power, but the trials were 
interdicted, and the judicial appointees of Allen were superseded by the July, 
1699, arrival of the Earl of Bellomont with a commission as governor. 109 
Bellomont agreed that the parties should come to trial at the February, 1699/ 
1700, session of the Superior Court, 110 but through the fault of Allen the trial 
was not held as agreed. 111 Finally, in August, 1700, in an action of ejectment 
against Colonel Richard Waldron, a judgment unfavorable to Allen was given 
in the Superior Court of Judicature. 112 An appeal to the King in Council from 
this judgment was denied on the ground that the amount involved was under 
the requisite appeal minimum. 113 Allen thereupon petitioned the King in 
107 See 29 N.H. State Papers, 143, 145, 148, 
155, for the various transactions involved in 
the transfer of the proprietary rights. It has 
been alleged that the rights were sold by the 
heirs on the assumption that the new rulers 
would not uphold them {Captain John Mason, 
124). Allen, in favor with the new regime, was 
appointed governor of New Hampshire in 
March, 1691/2 (2 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. 
N.H., 57). 
108 p r y j New Hampshire As a Royal Province, 
221; cf. 29 N.H. State Papers, 295. The inhabitants 
showed no greater willingness to 
recognize the claims than formerly; see CSP, 
Col., i6gj-g6, #39, 2105; ibid., i6gg, #831. 
109 Ibid., #116, 769. It was not difficult for 
Bellomont to judge which way the causes 
would have been decided with Allen in effect 
both judge and party. In one trial Allen, 
present in court, had hectored and abused 
counsel for the defendants. Bellomont refused 
to be influenced by bribery to restore the Allen 
appointees and favor his cause, but pointed 
out the impossibility of a fair trial in the 
province where all parties were against Allen 
except those of no substance, unqualified to be 
jurors. 
110 3 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 75, 
81-82. In the interim Allen petitioned the 
Board of Trade for enforcement of his claims, 
relying on Vaughan v. Mason, confirmed on 
appeal by the King in Council on November 
19, 1686 (see supra, p. 120). CSP, Col., i6gg, 
#831. 
111 The attorney of Allen omitted taking out 
venires for summoning juries, so the causes 
were deferred until another session {ibid., 
1700, p. 194; cf. ibid., #206). 
112 PC 2/78/174. Bellomont was apparently 
of the opinion that neither Allen nor the 
settlers had good title to the disputed lands, 
but that the title should be in the King {CSP, 
Col., 1700, pp. 194-95). See also ibid., pp. 
359-60, 373-74, for Bellomont's account of 
Allen's attempts at bribery and ibid., pp. 
372-73, for an account of a deal between 
William Blathwayt and Allen whereby the 
former undertook to procure a mandamus to 
force the inhabitants to a trial with Allen; cf. 
Jacobsen, op. cit., 465-67. But the Board of 
Trade maintained a cautious attitude on Allen's 
title {CSP, Col., 1700, pp. 194-95), an d 
Bellomont endeavored to maintain a neutral 
course as directed {ibid., #342, p. 578). 
113 Ibid., p. 683; ibid., 1701, #271. There is 
some confusion as to the appellate regulations 
in New Hampshire. The commission to Bellomont 
provided for the usual appeals from 
the colony courts to the Governor and Council 
in causes exceeding j£ioo sterling. Then the 
instrument provided that "if either party shall 
not rest satisfied with the judgment or sentence 
of the Superior Court [italics ours] of our 
said Province they may then appeale unto 
us in our Privy Councill" provided the matter 
in difference exceeded the "true value and 
sum'e" of /J3OO sterling (1 Laws of N.H., 
615-16). This is either a variance from the 
usual judicial hierarchy of appeal to the Governor 
and Council, or the latter body was referred 
to as the "Superior Court." The instructions 
granted an appeal from the Governor