Massachusetts boundary commission appeal the colony agent Richard Partridge 
in effect sought to have Chief Justice Willes prejudge a provincial 
attempt to have a rehearing. 348 In the Massachusetts-New Hampshire boundary 
commission appeal the former colony relied upon the influence of Samuel 
Holden to correct the effect of New Hampshire misrepresentations upon the 
conciliar attitude. 347 In McSparran v. Mumford, a Rhode Island appeal in 
which ecclesiastical rights were involved, the appellant sought the conciliar 
intercession of the Bishop of London. 348 In Bishop of Sodor and Man v. Earl 
of Derby the Archbishop of Canterbury was besought by his co-archbishop 
to attend the conciliar hearing and to use his utmost endeavors to procure 
justice for the appellant. 349 In Degge v. Kay, a case which concerned the 
ecclesiastical establishment in Virginia, the appellant's solicitor sent printed 
cases to the Bishop of London to be sent to such lords as was thought proper. 
The Archbishop of York was mentioned as often attending, and Canterbury 
sometimes. 350 In the quasi-appeal of William Smith from a Pennsylvania Assembly 
commitment, appellant successfully solicited the attendance of the 
Archbishop of Canterbury at the hearing. 351 Agent Johnson of Connecticut 
solicited the attendance of the Archbishop of Canterbury at the hearing of 
the appeal of the Mohegan Indians. 352 In the same case Alexander Forrester, 
counsel for the colony, was alleged to have a good interest with the Earl of 
Granville, Lord President of the Privy Council, 353 while Sir Fletcher Norton, 
346 See supra, pp. 452-53. 
347 Holden wrote in June, 1738, that as this 
was an affair of right, not of favor, he was 
fully persuaded of the honor and justice of 
the Privy Council and that the colony need 
not be under the least apprehension, but that 
the determination would be according to the 
strictest rules of justice. "But in case the 
gentlemen on the other side shall attempt to 
injure you by any false representations thereof; 
I will endeavour to remove the prejudices that 
may arrise from them, with such of the Lords 
of the Council with whom I have the honour 
to be acquainted" (52 MS Mass. Archives 
[Letters, 1724-28], 476-77; cf. 53 ibid, 
[letters, 1738-50], 26-27). 
348 Fulham Palace MSS, N.H., N.J., N.Y. and 
R.I. Box, #117. At a later stage in the prolonged 
litigation McSparran was informed that 
a conciliar postponement was advantageous, 
since at the subsequent hearing the Bishop 
of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury 
could be present, neither of whom could have 
attended the postponed hearing (ibid., #36). 
For some account of the cause see Washburne, 
Imperial Control of the Administration of 
Justice, 107-15. 
349 Christ Church College MS, 255/214-15. 
Canterbury was urged to encourage appeals 
to the King from the Isle o£ Man upon all 
important occasions and not to send grieved 
parties to the Governor for redress against the 
action of his own officers. The writer could not 
attend the hearing, but was comforted by the 
fact that the Bishop of London would attend 
in his place. For earlier exhortation and partial 
endeavors in the cause see ibid., 145-46. 
350 Fulham Palace MSS, Va., Box 2, #98. The 
Bishop of London, in addition to judging the 
appeal, organized the defense of the appeal; 
see 1 Dan/son Papers (L.C.), 138; 2 ibid., 
275. 
351 Lambeth Palace MS, 1123, 11/140. For this 
quasi-appeal, see infra, pp. 646—49. 
352 Beardsley, Life and Correspondence of 
Samuel Johnson '(1874), 311; cf. Trumbull 
Papers, 488. 
353 Wolcott Papers, 16 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 
115. On Forrester being a favorite before the 
Committee, see 2 N.Y.-N.f. Boundary MSS, 
13-