the claims being freshly agitated in the colony, 124 and in April, 1765, the Committee ordered the cause heard at the first meeting after the Christmas holidays 125 Again no such hearing was held, but in July, 1766, upon motion the Committee revived the appeal against the heirs of deceased landholders, without prejudice to objections to the propriety of such revival at the hearing set for the first February meeting. 126 Upon notice thereof Connecticut appointed William Samuel Johnson agent to defend the appeal, with instructions to avoid a hearing upon the merits if possible. 127 After a further period of dormancy the respondent tenants entered their appearance to the appeal in December, 1769. 128 An attempt early in 1770 to have the cause dismissed upon motion of respondents having failed, 129 the Committee proceeded to hear the cause on Indians, to prevent any further proceedings in that case" (i Fitch Papers, 17 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 341-43; 11 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 127-28). Agent Richard Partridge stated the dormancy of the cause "to be chiefly owing to Lord Granville the President of the Council for that I have heard as if he is unwilling it should be brought forward on the carpet while the present troubles with Indians continue here" (1 Fitch Papers, 360). 124 2 Fitch Papers, 18 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 306-7, 309-11, 313-14, 317. 125 PC 2/111/198. 126 PC 2/111/695; Pitkin Papers, 19 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 11-14. Richard Jackson wrote that the true situation of the cause having been hinted at the Council Board, Lord Mansfield had "refused to permit the appeal to be revived of course but advised their Lordships (himself being one) to order as they did that it should be revived nisi" {ibid., 34). 127 12 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 501; Pitkin Papers, 46, 56-57; Willys Papers, 21 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 440-41; Trumbull Papers, 9 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. (sth ser.), 213; Beardsley, Life and Correspondence of Samuel Johnson (1874), 310; G. C. Groce, William Samuel Johnson (1937), 68, 89; 13 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 188, A conciliar judgment adverse to the colony might have lent support to the prevalent agitation against the charter governments; see Pitkin Papers, 51, 73, 75. 128 PC 2/114/157. The advice of agent Richard Jackson that an objection be taken by those landholders against whom the appeal had been revived was ignored (Pitkin Papers, 34). An approach was made to Jackson to accommodate the matter in early 1767, but the agent feared treatment of such accommodation as an admission of the right to revive the causeā€”a right which he had never admitted (ibid., 70). See also ibid., 77, 91; Trumbull Papers, 214-15, 221, 244. Factors causing delay in hearing the cause were the illness of Lord Northington, Lord President of the Council (Pitkin Papers, 77, 84; Trumbull Papers, lis,, 221-22, 235, 488), priority of other causes {Pitkin Papers, 77), failure to have the cause set down for hearing (ibid., 95), delay in the crown's assumption of appellants' expenses (Pitkin Papers, 141-42, 146; T //471/313-14; T //474/152), indolence of conciliar office (Trumbull Papers, 244, 289), conciliar and counsel absorption in Parliamentary elections (ibid., 268-69), absence of the Chief Justices during term time (ibid., 272-73), the return of Mason to Connecticut to secure further evidence and more money (ibid., 322, 342, 369-70; Pitkin Papers, 158- 59, 170-71, 178, 192). An unsuccessful attempt was made to influence the outcome by the complaining and bribing petition to the King in Council of Samson Occom, a Mohegan sachem favorable to Mason; see ibid., 160-61, 178-80, 275; Trumbull Papers, 322-23. Mason also alleged tampering with his attorney, one Astley (ibid., 367-68; T j/348/240-41; T // 463/77-79). 129 Trumbull Papers, 393-94, 405. Agent Johnson wrote that "the Master of the Rolls took it up very strongly against us, upon very narrow principles of mode and form, to which he is much attached, neglecting the large ideas of right and policy upon which we founded our nation. Some of the Lords, indeed, thought that the late and former war,