Seal was to rehear a sentence of the Court of Delegates in ecclesiastical or 
admiralty matters. 68 But no such matters were involved here, and it is more 
probable that precedent was found in Channel Islands causes 69 or in a general 
theory of the royal prerogative. 70 
For some years the controversy remained in abeyance. But in October, 1718, 
complaints of trespasses on their sequestered grounds having been renewed 
by the Mohegans, commissioners were authorized by the colony to take cognizance 
thereof and to report to the assembly for further directions. 71 In October, 
1720, a new committee was appointed to settle claims in the north part of 
New London township by compromise or otherwise and to lay such settlement 
before the assembly for confirmation. 72 A February, 1720/1, report of this 
committee was then ratified by the assembly in May, 1721, to quiet the Mohegan 
claims pro tempore™ But the 1705 commission had not been forgotten 
by John Mason, who as guardian of the Mohegans had been forced to assume 
a portion of the expenses involved therein, for in 1723 and 1725 he made unsuccessful 
applications to the assembly for redress. 74 Mason then sought to 
exert pressure upon the colony by securing the support in his efforts of a tribal 
faction opposed to Ben Uncas, the elective or usurping sachem who had been 
recognized by the colony in the place of Mahomet, the hereditary or legitimate 
sachem. 76 This action by Mason resulted in an assembly resolution appointing 
in his stead, as Mohegan guardians, James Wadsworth and John Hall, 
formerly commissioners for the Mohegans. 76 To establish his claims to recom- 
colony that the former judgment was set aside, 
nor could the colony with any propriety submit 
to a commission which it conceived illegal. 
It was the Mohegans' and Mason's business to 
have done it but neither thought it worth their 
while" (MS Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, 
#277 q). 
68 See Coke, Fourth Institute, 340; Chitty, 
Treatise on the Law of the Prerogatives of the 
Crown (1820), 56; Mathews v. Warner (4 
Vesey Junior 186); Eagleton v. Kingston (8 
Vesey Junior 438). 
c 9 See APC, Dom., 1613-14, 04-15; ibid., 
1616—17, 326; ibid., 1618-19, 51. 
70 In an April 20, 1713, opinion of Doctors 
Henchman, Pinfold, and Paske, of Doctors 
Commons, it was stated that "by the civil 
law every supream Prince has a power of 
granting a review in all cases, after the contending 
parties have passed through all the 
ordinary established courts of appeals" (2 
Documents Relating to the Law and Custom 
of the Sea, 50 Pub. Navy Rec. Soc, ed. R. G. 
Marsden, 1916, 229). 
71 6 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 78. See ibid., 193, 
204-5 for these commissioners in operation. 
72 Ibid., 218. 
73 Case of Respondent (Governor and Company), 
14-15; 6 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 256. 
74 De Forest, op. cit., 319; 2 Talcott Papers, 
384-95; 6 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 575; US 
Conn. Archives, 1 Indians, #123, 126. CJ. 
a Connecticut view as to the amount of the 
expenses (1 Talcott Papers, 346-47), and the 
declaration of Ben Uncas (ibid., 362-63). 
75 MS Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, #277 s-v; 
1 Talcott Papers, 335-36, 340-41; De Forest, 
op. cit., 321-22. The acts altering sachem succession 
(6 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 428; 7 ibid., 
75) were allegedly passed at the instance of 
the tribe (1 Talcott Papers, 361). CJ. ibid., 
364-66, on the status of Mahomet. We arcusing 
the eighteenth-century form of the 
name. The modern form is Mamohet; cf. A. L. 
Peale, Uncas and the Mohegan Pequot (1939), 
passim. 
76 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 75. Connecticut 
asserted that the change was made upon com-