Page:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu/691

Rh 14. The colonies of the middle and southern sections of the territory, which later became the United States, were wholly

proprietary in form. This was true of New Netherland (founded by the Dutch West India Company in 1621) and of New Sweden (settled under the authority of the Swedish Royal Company in 1638), as well as of the English colonies which were established on that coast. In the case of Virginia and of the Dutch and Swedish settlements, trading companies were the proprietors. But the later English colonies, beginning with Maryland in 1632, and continuing with the Carolinas (1663), New York (1664), New Jersey (1665), Pennsylvania and the Lower Counties, afterwards Delaware (1681), were founded by individual proprietors or proprietary boards. Georgia (1732), the only English colony settled after 1681 on the continent, existed for twenty years under a proprietary board of trustees. By the efforts of adventurers of this class, put forth chiefly during the period of the Restoration, the entire coast-line from Florida to Acadia was permanently occupied by the English. But, unlike New England, the population of the other sections was of a mixed character, as were their economic and religious systems, and to an extent also their political institutions.

15. As has already been stated, in their internal structure and in the course of their history the proprietary provinces differed very materially from the corporate colonies. Those of later English origin also differed in some important respects from Virginia under the company and from New Netherland and New Sweden. The system of joint management of land and trade, which was so characteristic of early Virginia, was outgrown before the other proprietary provinces were founded. Neither did it prevail in the Dutch and Swedish provinces, but there the law and institutions of government of those nations existed, and no provision whatever was made for assemblies.

16. In the proprietary province the proprietor, or board of proprietors, was the grantee of powers, while in the corporate colony it was the body of the freemen organized as an assembly or general court. The proprietor might or might not be a resident of the province. He might exercise his powers in person, or, as was usually the case, delegate them to one or more appointees. In any case, the form of government of the proprietary province was essentially monarchical in character. The powers that were bestowed were fundamentally the same as those which were enjoyed during the middle ages by the counts palatine of Chester and Durham. In some charters express reference was made to Durham as a model. The normally developed provinces which resulted were miniature kingdoms, and their proprietors petty kings. As Coke said, their powers were king-like though not sovereign. This character arose from the fact that the grantee of power was the executive of the province. This branch of government was thereby brought into the forefront. At the beginning and for a long time thereafter it continued to bear the leading part in affairs. It was not so in the corporate colony, for there the freemen and the general court stood at the centre of the system, and their ultimate control, which no one dreamed of disputing, was maintained through a system of annual elections. In most of the corporate colonies the executive (i. e. the body of magistrates) was strong, but that was due to the political and social influence which its officials had gained, and not to their tenure of office. But the nature of the proprietary province demands further explanation.

17. In every case, apart from the ordinary rights of trade and the guarantees of the liberties of the colonists, the powers

which were bestowed on the proprietors were territorial and governmental. The territory of the provinces was granted under the conditions which by English law controlled private estates of land. An entire province, or any part of it, could be leased, sold or otherwise disposed of like a private estate. It was an estate of inheritance, descending to heirs. The attitude of proprietors toward it was that of landlords, investors or speculators in land. They advertised for settlers, and, in doing so, an ever present motive with them was the desire

to secure more private income from land. In 1664 the duke of York sold New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret, and the sale was effected by deeds of lease and release. In 1708 William Penn mortgaged Pennsylvania, and under his will devising the province legal complications arose which necessitated a suit in chancery. Thus proprietors and proprietary boards changed with every generation or oftener. All this, of course, was different in the corporate colony.

18. In all the later proprietary charters, except that of New York, the operation of the statute Quia emptores was suspended, so far as relations between the proprietor and his immediate grantees were concerned. By virtue of this provision each proprietor, or board, became the centre from which originated an indefinite number of grants. These were held directly of the proprietor and through him of the Crown. In practice the same was true also of New York. The proprietors were thus left free to make grants on such conditions as they chose—limited by the nature of their patents—to erect or permit the erection of manors, to devise the machinery necessary for surveying, issuing and recording grants, and collecting rents. Preparatory to the exercise of this power, the proprietors issued so-called “concessions” or “conditions of plantation,” stating the terms on which they would grant lands to colonists. These were often accompanied by descriptions of the country, which were intended to be advertisements for settlers. Under a system of head rights, analogous to that which existed in Virginia, land was thus bestowed on settlers upon easy terms. Proportional amounts of land were granted upon the importation of servants, and in this way a traffic in servants and their head rights to land was encouraged among planters and masters of merchant vessels. In all the provinces, except New Netherland, a quit rent was imposed on all grants. In the Dutch province rents were sometimes imposed, but they varied in character and differed from the English quit rent. In Maryland fines were levied on alienations. In Maryland and Pennsylvania the demand for land became so great that it was sold. In most of the provinces manorial grants were made, but in none except New Netherland did the manor become an institution of government. In all the provinces territorial affairs were administered directly by the provincial authorities, and not by towns as in New England. In Maryland a land office was fully organized, towns developed only to a very limited extent, and when they did originate they were in no sense village communities. Lots in them were granted by provincial authorities and they were subject to a quit rent. They were simply more densely populated parts of the counties, and, unless incorporated as boroughs, had no distinct institutional life. In almost all cases land, in the provinces, was granted to individuals, and individual ownership, with direct relations between the owners or tenants and the proprietary authorities, was the rule. This was in marked contrast to the conditions which have been described as existing in the corporate colonies. In the corporate colony the elements of the fief had been eliminated, but in the provinces they still survived to a considerable degree.

19. Had governmental powers not accompanied the territorial grants which have been described, these grants would have been estates of land, unusually large, no doubt, but nothing more. In cases where the governmental rights of proprietors were suspended or resigned into the hands of the Crown, they remained thereafter only private landlords. But the fact that rights of government were bestowed with the land made the territory a province and the proprietor its political head. The bestowment of rights of land carried with it not only the obligation to pay quit rent, but to take to the proprietor the oath of fidelity.

20. In the discussion of the corporate colony it was necessary to dwell first and chiefly on the legislature. But in the case of the proprietary province the executive, for the reason already mentioned, demands first attention. The provincial charters made the proprietors the executives of their provinces and for the most part left it to them to determine how and under what forms the governmental powers which they had received should