French, which have already been mentioned, were made at a comparatively early period, and subsequent to these, nothing was done in Northern America, until the advent of the English themselves. There was a long period of general tranquility, nothing occurred to urge to immediate or speedy action, and the "reasonable time" allowed for such action, would hence be prolonged.

At the very least, if the English title could not be considered, throughout the whole of this period, as being sufficient to bar the advances of other nations, had such advances been made, yet, in the absence of such, it continued so far in force, as to warrant the English themselves in entering the country and perfecting a title, by use and possession.

CHAPTER II.

POSSESSION BY THE ENGLISH.

AT length a period arrived when the English people resolved to take fuller possession of their American territories. The reign of Queen Elizabeth was to be marked, in addition to other successes, by the execution of this design. In the year 1577, an enterprize was projected to establish a settlement, and the course of procedure adopted at the time, was such as brought at once into view, some of the most important principles of British colonial policy. Application was made to the Queen by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an individual who was distinguished for his generous qualities, and an ardent love of adventure. To this person a grant was made in a formal instrument which was described in its title, as "Letters Patent granted by her Majesty to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Knight, for the inhabiting and planting of our people in America." It was dated June 11th, 1578. This instrument gave to Sir Humphrey, the full right to certain portions of lands, and also, full authority for the establishment and maintainance of government. It conveyed to the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assigns, and every of them, forever, the right to hold and enjoy all such lands, countries, and territories as he should discover, not actually possessed by any christian prince or people. It vested in the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assigns, the full right of property in the soil of these countries which he and they were to hold of the Crown of England by homage, upon condition of paying one fifth of all the gold and silver ore found there. It conferred complete jurisdiction within the said lands, and the seas adjoining them, and gave full authority and power to correct, punish, pardon, or rule all such persons as should adventure within, or inhabit these lands, and that in all causes, capital or criminal, as well as civil. It gave power to make all statutes, laws, and ordinances, for the better government

of the people, provided, however, that "the said statues, laws, and ordinances, should be as near as conveniently may, agreeable to the laws and policy of England."

The question naturally arises, whether it was within the proper scope of royal authority to confer a grant so comprehensive and full, as was this. The nature and extent of the English claim to land in America have been already considered. This claim so far as it continued in force, had been received by the sovereign now on the throne, in the common course of descent, and the royal authority in these lands was founded on the same laws that existed, and were in operation, in other parts of the realm.

The territory in America could only be regarded as a part of the dominion subject to the crown, and subject as were other parts, to the powers that belonged to the crown. Hence, to inquire whether the sovereign could make such a grant as that conferred upon Sir Humphrey Gilbert, is only to consider in a particular mode, the real extent of the royal prerogative. Queen Elizabeth herself was wont to say "that the Parliament ought not to deal, to judge, or to meddle with her Majesty's prerogative Royal;" and her successor, James, declared that "as it is Atheism and blasphemy in a creature to dispute what the Deity may do, so it is presumption and sedition in a subject to dispute what the king may do, in the height of his power." "Good christians," he says, "will be content with God's will revealed in his word, and good subjects will rest in the king's will revealed in the laws." But notwithstanding these pretentions, the royal prerogative was really restricted within determined bounds, and some of these restrictions had existed from the earliest period. Ina, the great Saxon king, distinctly acknowledged, that there was no great man nor any other in the whole kingdom, that could abolish written laws. It was a part of the oath administered to the Saxon kings at their entrance upon the government, that they should "maintain and rule according to the laws of the nation." In the year 1215, King John had been compelled to sign the Charter which from its importance, has ever since been denominated Magna Charta. In this charter the limitations of the royal prerogative were distinetly laid down, and at subsequent periods other restrictions had been added, and assented to. And at the very time that King

James put forth his arrogant pretensions, his people and their representatives in Parliament were far from assenting to his principles and his course.' But it does not appear that in the act of Elizabeth in which she gave a title to land, and granted authority to rule, the rightful authority of the sovereign was really exceeded. A title to land was granted by the English monarchs in their character as Lords Paramount. "All the lands in the kingdom," it is said, "is supposed to be holden mediately or immediately of the king, as Lord Paramount."2 That the holder of the crown was to be regarded as the original proprietor of all the lands in the kingdom, could hardly be considered as more than a fiction of law; yet the public domain comprizing those lands which remained unappropriated, was held by the king, and was distributed according to his pleasure. According to the theory of the British government, all vacant lands were vested in the crown, as representing the nation, and the exclusive power to grant them was admitted to reside in the crown, as a branch of the royal prerogative, and under such grant the subject could take, hold, and possess these lands in full propriety. This continued to be the case long subsequent to the time of Elizabeth, and until the passage of the statute of Queen Anne, in the year 1701. In consequence of this statute, the power of the sovreign over the lands in question, became measurably restricted.

As a grant of property then, the patent given to Sir Humphrey Gilbert was issued in accordance with law, or least without any violation of law. The other part of the grant, the power to establish government, was based upon similar grounds. It did not belong to the king, as a part of his prerogative, to determine the form of government, throughout his entire dominions; but the laws and customs of the country allowed a different exercise of power, in different parts of the kingdom. Counties Palatine had

The king thought that the lavish tongues of men pryed too narrowly into the secrets of his prerogative which were mysterics too high for them, being arcana imperii, fitted to be admired rather than questioned. But the Parliament were apprehensive enough that these hidden mysteries måde many dark steps into the people's liberties; and they were willing by the light of law and reason to discover what was the king's, and what was theirs."-Parl. Hist.

2 Blackstone.