1703 Oweneco on behalf of the Mohegans petitioned the Queen in Council, 
setting forth that by order of the General Court the tribe had been deprived 
of a tract of land reserved to them by treaty, that application for redress had 
been made in vain to the Connecticut government. It was prayed that the 
matter be referred to Governor Dudley of Massachusetts for inquiry and report 
and that in the interim Connecticut be ordered to permit the Indians 
peaceably to enjoy their lands. 44 In a later petition Nicholas Hallam proposed, 
despite the absence of any charter reservation, that a royal commission 
issue to impartial persons in Connecticut or adjacent colonies to inquire into 
and determine the matter and to restore the Indians to possession in case of 
wrongful disseisin. 45 
Upon query of the Board of Trade, Attorney General Northey stated that 
it did not appear that the lands claimed by the Mohegans were intended to 
pass to the corporation under the charter. In the absence of excluding words 
in the charter the Queen might lawfully erect a court within the colony to 
do justice in the matter, reserving an appeal to the Queen in Council. 40 A commission 
was accordingly advised to issue to Dudley and others from the New 
England colonies. 47 Such commission under the Great Seal thereupon issued 
on July 19, 1704, to Governor Dudley and ten others to examine into the matters 
complained of and into any injuries offered the Indians, and after hearing 
the parties to determine according to justice and equity. Liberty to any parties 
aggrieved to appeal from the commission determination to the Queen in 
Council was reserved, upon giving sufficient security to abide the determination 
48 Before any action was taken under the commission, the colony, in 
October, 1704, granted all the "sequestered lands" to the town of New London, 
reserving to the Mohegans all rights to land not acquired by the English 
49 
Although the General Court was ignorant of the powers granted to the 
44 CSP, Col., 1702-3, #1353. Cf. a supporting 
affidavit of Nicholas Hallam (Hid., 1704-5, 
#11) and the reference to answer the complaint 
to Sir Henry Ashurst, the Connecticut 
agent (ibid., #13). 
is lbid., #56. 
46 Ibid., #58, 146. Compare the 1742 comment 
of Jonathan Law upon the reasoning in 
granting the commission (1 Law Papers, n 
Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 34-35). 
"CSP, Col., 17045, #171. 
48 Case of Respondents (Governor and Company), 
8-9; 2 APC, Col., #925. The commission 
is set forth in Governor and Company of 
Connecticut, and Moheagan Indians, by Their 
Guardians; Certified Copy of Boo\ of Proceedings 
before Commissioners of Review, 1741 
(London, 1769), 24-25 (hereinafter referred 
to as Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans). The commis 
sion as drafted by the Board of Trade was only 
pro hac vice, but was altered to a standing commission 
by Northey to conform with the 
Order in Council (CSP, Col., 1704-5, #199- 
200). It was alleged by the colony that many 
of those joined in the commission were persons 
whose interest it was to judge in favor of 
Oweneco, since they held land from him (5 
Winthrop Papers, 304; CSP, Col., 1704—;, 
#955)' Cf. 1 Trumbull, op. cit., 424. 
49 Case of Respondents (Governor and Company), 
9; Case of Appellants, 7.