Although greatly alarmed by the trial of freeholds by commissions without 
jury or legal process, the colony at first doubted the value of an appeal. 54 
In October, 1705, the General Assembly even appointed a committee to inquire 
into the alleged wrongs and report thereon at the next session. 55 Nevertheless, 
on February 14, 1705/6, Sir Henry Ashurst, the Connecticut agent, 
presented to the Queen in Council an appeal from the commission determination/ 
6 The points insisted upon in the petition and appeal were the absolute 
title in the colony by conquest and the subservient position of Uncas; 
the interest of Dudley et al.; the false allegations and surprise used to obtain 
the commission; the illegality of a commission empowered judicially to determine 
titles to land in summary manner —directly contrary to divers acts of 
Parliament; the willingness of the colony to submit the facts in dispute to 
commission inquisition; the partiality of the commission in the trial of the 
titles of the appearing landholders; and the absence of any showing in the 
proceedings of disseisin by the colony. 57 
On February 20 the Committee ordered that a copy of the petition and appeal 
be transmitted to the Mohegan agent to answer, and that the appeal be 
heard the first week after Easter, when those concerned were to attend, together 
with such witnesses as it should be necessary to hear in the cause. 58 
After security for costs had been given by Ashurst following the commission 
terms, the cause came before the Committee for hearing on May 21, 
1706. 59 The written brief presented by the colony was largely an elaboration 
of the arguments and charges presented in the petition and appeal. 60 The Com- 
5 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 147. See also JCTP, 
1704—1708/9, 205. 
54 It was thought that the matter of fact would 
still not be tried by a jury; that the evidence 
would be transmitted by interested adversaries; 
and that many of the summoned subjects could 
not afford the requisite security (5 Winthrop 
Papers, 305-6). Cf. the alleged entry into the 
record of evidence not presented to the commissioners 
{ibid., 349-50). The colony also 
felt that a formal appeal was not necessary 
where the commission authority had been so 
greatly exceeded {ibid., 352). However, it was 
also alleged that an attempt was made to prevent 
an appeal {ibid., 383). 
56 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 519-20. 
56 PC 2/81/108. 
57 Winthrop MSS, 7 b/55 (Mass. Hist. Soc). 
58 PC 2/81/ no; Case of Respondents (Governor 
and Company), 11. 
59 PC 2/81/202, 204. Counsel for the colony 
were Spencer Cowper, Sir John Hollis, and 
Peter King; their case was drawn by a former 
senior judge of King's Bench under William 
11l (5 Winthrop Papers, 325). The Committee 
(as recorded in the Privy Council register) consisted 
of the Lord President (Earl of Pembroke), 
the Lord Steward (Duke of Devonshire), 
the Duke of Somerset, the Earl of Stamford, 
Holt, C. J., Trevor, C. J. and James Vernon. 
Ashurst wrote that "there was two of the greatest 
dukes in England that attended your committee 
att my request, who never used to appear 
there" (ibid., 324). 
60 Mass. Hist. Soc. MSS, 151.1.57. Additional 
points adverted to were: (1) the affront to the 
colony in the execution of the commission, the 
commission never having been produced before 
the General Assembly and the commissioners 
having appointed their own sheriffs and other 
officers; (2) die extravagant items in the bill 
of costs; (3) the attempt to obtain a confirmation 
of the sentence by sending the proceedings 
to the Board of Trade without notice 
and accompanied by misrepresentations; (4) 
the Board of Trade's certification of the proceedings 
to the King in Council without 
notice to the colony; (5) the ordering the