and the subsequent colonization of the coasts of America under the encouragement of its provisions.1

THE CHARTER OF 1606.2

The letters-patent issued in 1606 to Sir Thomas Gates and others granted to them the territories of America between 34° and 45° of north latitude, or from Cape Fear to Halifax, together with all islands within one hundred miles of their shores. The patentees were to divide themselves into two distinct companies, one of which, afterward called the London Company, was to have an exclusive right from 34° to 38° north, while the other, the Western, or Plymouth Company, was to have control between 41° and 45° north. The intermediate space was open to colonization by either. The London Company was dissolved by quo warranto in 1624. But it was not until 1635 that the Plymouth Company ceased to exist, and even then the surrender of its charter was voluntary.3

THE CHARTER OF 1620.4

Before any successful attempt at settlement had been made by the Plymouth Company, it was, with some changes of membership, made a separate body politic and corporate, under the name and style of "The Council established at Plymouth, in the County of Devon, for the planting, ordering, ruling, and governing of New England in America." The charter

of 1620 granted to the new corporation certain territories, to be called New England, extending between 40° and 48° north latitude, and from sea to sea; to be held "as of the manor of East Greenwich in free and common socage." It gave

'Graham, Col. Hist. of the U. S., I. 44, etc.

The Charter is in Hazard, State Papers, I. 50.

3 Palfrey, Hist. of New England, I. 81-2, Hazard. 4 Hazard, I. 103.

'Palfrey, Hist. of N. E., I. 192.

also rights of legislation and government; yet nothing came of any attempts to exercise these rights, for deep hostility to the patent was soon manifested, and from this, together with other causes, the difficulties of the situation became so great that the company in 1635 surrendered its charter to the King. It did not, however, do this until after making a number of grants, which, from ignorance or carelessness as to previous conveyances, and the want of accurate knowledge of the geography of the country, were, in the words of Sullivan, "but a course of confusion." 2 Among these grants, about which there has been so much dispute, were some of importance, from the fact that through these is traced the title to a great part of the soil of New England. These grants will, therefore, be more particularly described hereafter.3

GRANT TO GORGES.

But

Another royal grant was made in 1639 to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, conveying a tract of land called the Province of Maine, lying between the Piscataqua and the Kennebec, and extending inland one hundred and twenty miles, from which the whole State of which it is a part has taken its name. All necessary powers of government were included in the grant, and its tenure was in free and common socage. this grant was at an early date assailed by settlers, and indirectly by the government of Massachusetts Bay, which, in order to weaken its enemy, supported the theory that the native right was paramount to such an extensive patent. Titles from the natives were produced and were strongly upheld, and it is said by Sullivan that what was not taken from Gorges' patent by other means, was generally swallowed up by Indian deeds."

1 Graham, Col. Hist., I. 183.

2 Land Titles, 36.

See p. 15, post et seq.

4 Sullivan's Land Titles, 42. Ibid. 43.

Eventually, in 1677, the province was sold by the grandson of Gorges to Lieutenant-Governor Usher for the use of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay.1

"The Incorporation of Providence Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay in New England," received its charter from the Parliamentary Government of England in 1644. Its charter from the King was granted in 1663.2 The grant of lands covered substantially the territory of the present State of Rhode Island, which had already been occupied by settlers under a government established by themselves.

"The Governor and Company of the English Colony of Connecticut, in New England in America," were incorporated by royal charter in 1662.3 The territory granted comprised what is now the State of Connecticut, and also a part of New York. Parts of it were already in the hands of settlers belonging to the Connecticut and other plantations.

The royal province of New Hampshire was constituted in 1680, the chief justices in England having decided that the title and jurisdiction were in the Crown, subject, however, to the vested rights of John Mason in the soil-a reservation which rendered land titles in that province for many years uncertain. The territory subsequently reverted to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts for a short time, but from 1692 it remained a separate province. It included, as was claimed, the territory now known as Vermont. Grants both to individuals and towns were made by the governments successively in power.

The country called Sagadahock, lying between the Penobscot and the St. Croix, the possession of which had been long contested by the English and French, was, by the charter of 1692, placed under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and

1 Willis, Hist. of Portland, 239, and Hutchinson.

Arnold, History of R. I., I. 114, 284.

Trumbull, Hist. of Conn., I. 259.

'See documents printed in Belknap's Hist. of N. H., I. Appendix. Graham, Col. Hist., I. 244-5.

that province had authority to grant the lands. But if the King did not consent to a grant within two years after it was made, it became void. By the same charter the Province of Maine (lying between the Piscataqua and Sagadahock) was incorporated with the Province of Massachusetts Bay.1

The rights to land conveyed by these royal grants were in all cases substantially the same. The tenure was, as of the manor of East Greenwich, in free and common socage, and not in capite or by knight service; the conditions, fealty, and the payment for rent of one-fifth part of the gold and silver

ore.

The effect of the provisions relating to tenure has been generally, and in some cases strangely, misunderstood. But to discuss the subject fully here would require too much space. It must suffice to say that the tenure was not more favorable than, and not different from, that established by grants of lands in England of that period, and even of much earlier date. The words "as of the manor of East Greenwich' were used, not with reference to the customs of that manor, or of the County of Kent (gavelkind, etc.), but simply to negative the otherwise necessary inference that the grant was to be held in capite, or, to speak more accurately, ut de corona,3 which would have carried with it some disadvantages under the feudal law. The words "not in capite" add nothing to the substance. The tenure, however, was undoubtedly as favorable to the grantees as it could well be made.

1 Sullivan, Land Titles, 45, 55; Maine Hist. Coll., I. 239.

? I have met with several grants of the kind made by Queen Elizabeth, one as early as 1560. Madox, Hist. of the Exchequer, I. 621. History of Surrey, M. & B., I. 356, 357.

3 Lowe's Case, Bacon's Works, IV. 238, etc.

III.

GRANTS OF THE COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

The title to land in New England is traced through the Great Council for New England, which in 1620 became seized of the whole territory, and at the time of surrendering its charter, in 1635, had already granted a great part of its lands, and taken steps for a division of the remainder among its leading members. But the division was not perfected, and the ungranted lands again came into the possession of the Crown.

The confused and careless way in which the grants of the council were made has been already spoken of. The subject is exceedingly complicated, and entire accuracy could only be attained, if at all, by a long and tedious investigation. But for the present purpose, fortunately, such accuracy is not necessary, as only a few of these grants are of importance either in tracing the title or illustrating the tenure of lands.

Disregarding the grants that were forfeited or abandoned, those which failed to obtain judicial support, those which were substantially confirmations of previous grants, or which covered too little territory to be described here, we find six grants which deserve particular mention. These are:

1. In 1621, a grant to John Pierce, said to have been for the benefit of the Pilgrim colonists. This was rather in the nature of an agreement to convey than an actual grant of definite territory.3

2. In 1628, a grant to Sir Henry Roswell and others of the territory afterward known as that of Massachusetts Bay, which will be more fully described elsewhere. This grant

'Lowe's Case, Bacon's Works, IV. 238, etc.

2 This is the common theory. But the language of the charter, and of a deposition by Samuel Welles, published in Maine Hist. Soc. Coll., I. 38, make it doubtful, and tend to show that the settlement under it was on the coast of Maine.

3 Haven, Grants under the Great Council, etc. 'Sullivan, Land Titles, 48.