entrance upon the minutes; but the colony objected, and it was resolved in the 
negative by a majority of the commissioners. Horsmanden protested, stating 
that he would take the next opportunity to transmit his opinion to the Board of 
Trade. 116 Press of private affairs then forced the commissioners to disperse 
without attesting copies of their proceedings as required by the terms of the 
commission. 117 
Attested copies of the proceeding were not transmitted as required until 
March, 1743/4, 118 but the petition and appeal was not entered at the Council 
Office until July, 1746. 119 Referred to the Committee, the appeal remained 
dormant 120 until 1756, due to lack of funds to prosecute it, Connecticut endeavoring 
to prevent crown financing of the appeal. 121 Finally, on August 18, 
1756, appellants moved to be heard and prayed that since no appearance had 
been entered except for the Governor and Company the usual summons be 
affixed on the Royal Exchange and in the New England Coffee House. The 
Committee thereupon ordered the appeal heard on December 9 and the summonses 
affixed as prayed. 122 This hearing never took place, and Samuel Mason, 
who had come to England in connection with the case, returned to die in 
Connecticut. 123 Toward the end of 1764 John Mason journeyed to England, 
116 Ibid., 281. Cf. Horsmanden's version o£ 
the resolution (6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
257). For versions of Horsmanden's dissenting 
opinion see CO 5/1060/GG 106; Conn. 
State Lib. MSS, Ace. No. 39,065 (970.3/ M 
72); 1 Law Papers, 147-72. Cf. Wolcott 
Papers, 16 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 220-21. 
117 Proc. Conn. v. Mohegans (1743), 281-82. 
For the expenses of the commissioners see 1 
Law Papers, 94-98. 
118 6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 258. Cf. 
Wolcott Papers, 171. 
119 PC 2/99/535. F° r copies of the petition 
and appeal see Yale Vniv. Lib. MSS, Z 
117.0047; Conn. State Lib. MSS, Ace. No. 
39,065 (970.3/ M 72); Chalmers MSS, 3 
Conn., 6-36. It was reported that Samuel 
Mason did not set off to prosecute the appeal 
until assured by Horsmanden of success therein 
(1 Law Papers, 241). 
120 Jonathan Law suggested a plea to the 
jurisdiction of the King in Council to try 
land titles in America on the precedent of 
Francis v. The Selectmen of Boston (3 APC, 
Col., #535), but agent Eliakim Palmer replied 
that the precedent was misunderstood, 
"appeals of that nature being always admitted" 
(2 Law Papers, 13 Conn. Hist. Soc. 
Coll., 298). 
121 For the efforts of Samuel Mason to obtain 
funds from the crown see PC 2/101/231; PC 
2/102/'220, 339, 395, 424; 3 Law Papers, 15 
Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 266, 431-35; Wolcott 
Papers, 21-22, 48, 73, 84, 89, 101, 113-16, 
140-45, 159, 170, 189, 195-96, 219, 238-39, 
243, 252, 259-60, 262, 303, 365, 389-90, 444. 
William Sharpe, Solicitor of the Treasury, was 
of the opinion that if this had been a matter 
originally before the Lords he would have 
thought fit to get counsel's opinion on the 
advisability of an appeal. In Chancery and in 
the House of Lords no petitions of appeal 
were received unless signed by two counsel, 
whereas petitions of appeal to the King in 
Council were received without being signed 
by any counsel, as in this case (TS 11/1006/ 
#3888 [Oct. 31, 1752]). Sharpe also queried 
whether Mason should be allowed for 
attendance upon the appeal in England, such 
attendance being in no way necessary (ibid.). 
122 PC 2/106/286. 
123 It was later alleged that, while the appellants' 
solicitor was proceeding to bring on 
the cause, it was intimated to him on the 
part of the crown that the cause could not 
conveniently be heard until the expiration of 
the war (Case of Appellants, 23). Among 
the instructions to Connecticut agent Jared 
Ingersoll in May, 1758, was a clause "to take 
prudent care of the affair of the Mohegan