In a sense, there were two general surrenders. The first was in 1841, and the second in 1845. Further more circumscribed surrenders (e.g., to the Burtch Tract) occurred between 1848 and 1853. However, after the submission of Lord Elgin's report in 1850, which was included in the Indian Registry System, there were only minor adjustments.
The Six Nations Land and Resources provide the facts and allegations pertaining to Claim 5 here. The map that is included can be found here.
Once again, the research did not go far enough. If one only sifts through the documents to 1844 and comes to a grinding halt here, well the Chiefs at this date were still requesting that they keep lands which they surrendered one year later or at least by 1848. Those years between 1845 and 1848 are absolutely key. "Avoiding" them, or omitting them, will create a distorted and false picture of the sum total of the lands which were surrendered and entered into Lord Elgins Report.
The discussion and data presented in the previous post applies directly to Claim 5. Claims 16 and 5 could and be combined based on my reading of the evidence. One again, as with Claim 16, there is no basis in fact to support the validity of Claim 5. It was surrendered in 1845 and registered in the Indian Registry System in 1850. The Chiefs did not for example come back in 1856 and report that the surrender of 1845 was in error, and that they wanted justice - it did not happen because the surrender was valid. Whatever 21 year leases there may or may not have been in relation to this property became a moot point in 1845 - the land was surrendered for sale by the Crown - said monies to be added to the Six Nations annuity fund. I am not in a position to speak to potential irregularities in the monies distributed to this fund - it is an area well beyond my research experience. There may or may not be injustices here - I simply don't know.
Please see my previous posting here, as it applies directly to Claim 5.