mittee upheld the propriety of the commission, since frequent treaties revealed 
that the Mohegans were a sovereign nation. Consequently, evidence on the 
part of the colony not introduced before the commissioners at Stonington was 
not admitted at the Committee hearing. 61 However, the Committee finally 
advised that as much of the sentence as awarded costs should be reversed and 
that a commission of review should be issued, for reviewing the residue of the 
sentence. 02 
The Council Board ordered accordingly on June 10, 1706, appointing Lord 
Cornbury, governor of New York, as one commissioner, the Board of Trade 
to suggest the others. 63 On June 26, upon Board of Trade representation, Lord 
Cornbury and eleven members of the New York council were placed on the 
commission. 64 On July 12 the Committee recommended insertion of a clause 
in the commission that such of the commissioners as were interested in the 
lands refrain from acting under the commission. 65 Finally, on February 5, 
1706/7, a draft commission was approved in Council and ordered prepared for 
the royal signature preliminary to passage under the Great Seal. 68 Ashurst 
labored greatly to prevent the passage, and no action was ever taken under 
this commission. 07 The usual use of a commission of review under the Great 
Indians restored to more land than they complained 
of losing; (6) the true effect of the 
1703 act adding land to New London; (7) 
the bad effect of the judgment on Indian relations; 
(8) the proceedings as part of a scheme 
to abolish charter government in Connecticut. 
61 PC 2/81/204; 5 Winthrop Papers, 325-26. 
Ashurst wrote that since the commission had 
passed the Attorney General and the Board of 
Trade, "there would be great interest made 
to support that Commission and proceedings." 
Winthrop informed Ashurst that Dudley and 
the commissioners had refused to receive any 
evidence unless all the colony's rights and 
properties were submitted to the determination 
of the commissioners {ibid., 325). For refutation 
of the sovereign status of the Mohegans, 
see ibid., 349-50. 
62 PC 2/81/204-5. In regard to the poverty 
of the Indians and the danger of their joining 
the French, the expenses of the commission of 
review were to be assumed by the crown. 
63 PC 2/81/214; 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
1176. 
M PC 2/81/223; 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
1178. The choice of Cornbury to head the commission 
was distasteful to Connecticut, the New 
York governor being regarded as an enemy 
of the colony (5 Winthrop Papers, 354, 378). 
But New York members were proposed by 
the Board of Trade allegedly because of 
proximity and lack of interest in the controversy 
(CSP, Col., 1706-8, #391). Ashurst 
proposed that the council of Massachusetts sit 
as commissioners (JCTP, 1704-1708/9, 269). 
eS PC 2/81/232; CSP, Col, 1706-8, #430. 
66 PC 2/81/292. The commission of review 
was drafted by Attorney General Northey, to 
whom the Board of Trade had forwarded a 
copy of the earlier commission and the proceedings 
thereon (CSP, Col., 1706-8, #468, 
732-33). See also JCTP, 1704-1708/9, 278, 
315-16. 
67 5 Winthrop Papers, 379; Case of Respondents 
(Governor and Company), II; 1 Talcott 
Papers, 4 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 367; 2 Talcott 
Papers, 478. For the reasons urged by Ashurst 
against issuance of the second commission see 
5 Winthrop Papers, 383. John Mason, Mohegan 
guardian, was ill, and Connecticut had little 
incentive to prosecute the matter (De Forest, 
op. cit., 312). Ashurst, writing to Governor 
Saltonstall in August, 1708, stated, "I make it 
my business widi all my interest to keep that 
matter quiet." He also stated diat he would 
like to have the matter referred to Governor 
Lovelace of New York if possible. (MS Conn. 
Archives, 2 Foreign Cortes., $104). Later, defending 
the colony inactivity, William Samuel 
Johnson stated that "it was enough for the