"The records of some ten or twelve patents exist in the office of the Secretary of State, issued respectively in the reigns of James II., William and Mary, Anne, and George I., and the earlier government of the Duke of York [among which are those of Scarsdale, Fhilipsburgh, Fordham, Pelham, Cortlandt, and Morrisania, in W-.s'chester County'], with powers respecting a manor and Manor Courts similar to those under consideration [the English manor grants of Rensselaer swyck]; and the proprietary charters of several of the Colonies authorize grants to be made to hold ofthe proprietaries. If the statute against subinfeudations was in force in the colonies, these proprietary grants were as much violations of its provisions as the grants in question or any other grants from the King. The practice of making such grants for a long course of years is pretty strong evidence that the statute was never understood to apply to the King. . . . The general expressions of writers and judges to the effect that manors cannot have a. commencement since the statute of Edward [in the year

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE MANORS.

1290] is quite correct, if we add the reason, which is always understood, viz., that all the lands in England are already in tenure, and subinfeudations are forbidden by the statute. The rouuirk was never applicable to the ungranted crown lands in the Colonies, upon which the statute, I think, never had any, or ouly a qualified, bearing.' I have considered this question as though the statute was in force, and controlled the tenures in this Colony (New York) in any case to which in England it might be applicable ; and I do not think it material to deny the proposition, though it has been questioned by respectable authority. Whether it was generally in force or not, it did not, in my opinion, apply to the ungranted crown lands ; and in respect to these, the King, I think, was competent to authorize his immediate grantees to create tenants of a freehold manor by granting lands to be held of themselves.