certain English subjects in America who, while popularly styled " lords " of the manors, enjoyed no distinguished rank whatever, and were in no way elevated titalarly, by virtue of their manorial proprietorships, above the common people. In no case was a manorial grant in Westchester County conferred upon a member of the British nobility, or even upon an individual boasting the minor rank of baronet; and in no case, moreover, was such a grant bestowed in recognition of services to the crown or as a mark of special honor by the sovereign. Without exception, the proprietors of the manors were perfectly plain, untitled gentlemen. Yet, says de Lancey, " we often, at this day, see them written of and hear them spoken of as nobles. ' Lord Philipse ' and ' Lord Pell ' are familiar examples of this ridiculous blunder in Westchester County. No grant of a feudal manor in England at any time from their first introduction ever carried with it a title, and much less did any grant of a New York freehold manor ever do so. Both related to land only. The term Lord of a Manor is a technical one, and means simply the owner, the possessor of a manor-- nothing more. Its use as a title is simply a mark of intense or ignorant republican provincialism. ' Lord ' as a prefix to a manor owner's name was never used in England nor in the Province of New York." The manor was a very ancient institution in England, but by the statute of quia emptorvs, enacted in 1290, the erection of new manors in that kingdom was forever put to an end. The old English manors, founded in the Middle Ages, were of course based upon the feudal system, involving military service by the fief at the will of his lord, and, in general, the complete subjection of the fief.