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.

" It will not be supposed that all the vexatious incidents of the feudal tenures were engrafted upon these Manor lands {in Xew York). If the feudal system ever prevailed in the American Colonies, it had been shorn of its most severe features before either of the grants in question [or ani/ other of the Manor (/rants in New York'] was made, by the Statute 12 Charles II., ch. 24 {Anno 1660), which abolished the peculiar incidents of the military tenures, and changed them whether holden of the King or others, into free and common socage ; and which was re-enacted in this State soon after the Revolution with a retrospect to the time of the passage of the English statute I. (Ireenleaf, 359, p. 2."