daring Ben Uncas rightful sachem and admitting his releases made subsequent 
to the issuance of the commission. 88 Thereupon, the remaining commissioners 
reversed the 1705 judgment, except as to one tract, the so-called 
"Mohegan fields," still in tribal possession. B9 Although denied an appeal by the 
commissioners, 90 Samuel and John Mason, both sons of the late guardian, appealed 
directly to the King in Council from this judgment, 91 while the New 
York members, Daniel Horsmanden and Philip van Cortland, made a separate 
return. 92 The Board of Trade, to which the matter was referred, after hearing 
the parties, represented that the proceedings in execution of the commission 
were very irregular and submitted the advisability of a new commission of 
review. 93 Despite objection by the Connecticut agent, this representation 
elicited conciliar approval, the proceedings were set aside on July 31, 1740, 
and a new commission of review was ordered to pass under the Great Seal. 94 
Although Connecticut petitioned that the former Rhode Island members be 
included in the new commission or that the former New York councilors be 
omitted, the commission was ordered issued in January, 1740/1, to the respective 
governors and councils of New York and New Jersey. The commission 
Connecticut version of the conduct of the New 
York commissioners. 
88 MS Conn. Archives, i Indians, #173. Compare 
2 Talcott Papers, 199-200, on the validity 
of the releases. According to Samuel and 
John Mason the 1640 grant was much relied 
upon by the commissioners, although no 
countenance should have been given to it 
{ibid., 154-55). 
89 CO 5/1269/T 19; 3 APC, Col., #392; 2 
Talcott Papers, 156. 
so it- was commented by Connecticut upon 
the petition of appeal that, "No appeal was 
granted by the commission [see 2 Talcott 
Papers, 18-23] an d this being a commission 
of review no appeal does by law lye" (ibid., 
156). Cf. ibid., 158. 
91 PC 2/95/219; JCTP, 1734/5-41, 265-66. 
For the petition of appeal see 2 Talcott Papers, 
T 39-59; CO 5/1269/T 16. Counsel John 
Sharpe had written that "there being no liberty 
of appeal given by this Commission ... I 
take it to be very clear no appeal will lie, and 
that the determination of the commissioners 
is final and conclusive. Unless the crown 
should think proper to grant another Commission 
of Review which is the only method that 
can in my opinion be taken to [illegible] the 
determination of the present commissioners 
and which to be sure the crown may do if 
they see proper. But as Commissions of Review 
are not demandable of right, but are 
meer matter of grace and favour, and as it 
is very rarely if ever done to grant a Commission 
of Review upon a Commission of 
Review ... I am very inclinable to think 
the crown will never give in to any application 
for another Commission of Review" (2 
Talcott Papers, 115). See also the marginal 
comments in Chalmers MSS, 2 Conn., 14-22. 
92 For the separate return of Cortland and 
Horsmanden see CO 5/1269/T 10; Chalmers 
MSS, 1 Conn., 84-87; ibid., 2 Conn., 1-12. 
Great dissatisfaction was expressed at the 
Rhode Island members suffering a collusive 
defense to the Indian title to be made and 
conducted by persons who plainly appeared 
to be members of the corporation and therefore 
adversaries of the tribe. Compare the 
Connecticut version of the assignment of 
counsel to Ben Uncas (2 Talcott Papers, 113, 
198-99). For the answer of the Rhode Island 
commissioners to the Mason charges see Wm. 
Samuel Johnson MSS, Mohegan Indians, #20. 
93 MS Conn. Archives, 1 Foreign Corres., 
#153; JCTP, 1734/5-4', 297> 305-6. 308-10, 
312-14, 321, 324-25; 2 Talcott Papers, 137- 
38, 263-65. 
94 PC 2/96/163-67, 175; 2 Talcott Papers, 
2 74~79- Cf. ibid., 262.