Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/343

 314

the Proprietors or their deputies, the Land graves and Caciques, and one freeholder from each precinct to be elected by the other free holders. Here again rank injustice to the commonalty came in, since they were in so sad a minority they could gain no control of any question. In short, they were " mere witnesses " to the actions of others, lookerson in proceedings in which they had no real part or parcel. As a kind of honeyed con cession it was agreed that all members of this Parliament, patrician or plebeian, should sit together in one room, an arrangement modeled after the usage of the old Scotch Parliament. But, even had it been allowed the commons to have voice in the proceed ings of the Parliament, it would have been merely ings of the farcical, Grandsince, Model, according "no business to the should rul-. be allowed to be proposed " to this Parlia ment until it had first been debated in the Grand Council. Besides, like the Scotch Lords of Articles, they alone had the privi lege to prepare bills for presentment to the English Parliament. One marvelous provision of this remark able Model was with reference to the regis tration of births, which declared that the time of each one's age must be reckoned "from the day his birth is entered in the registry, and not before." No marriage was legal till both parties owned to it; neither could administration on an estate take place until the death of the testator was registered. Failure to register a birth or a death subjected the person in whose house it occurred to a fine of one shilling a week. There were three orders of the nobility, Palatines, Landgraves, and Caciques. The term Palatines — literally Lord of the Palace — was borrowed from England, that of Land grave from the Germans, and Cacique from the style of the Indian chiefs in America. Each Landgrave was given four baronies, and each Cacique two. There were to be as many Landgraves as counties, and twice as many Caciques. The land apportioned

to each Landgrave was 48,000 acres, and to each Cacique 24,000. The counties were laid off so that each contained 480,000 acres or 750 square miles. In addition to the seigniory of the Proprietors, the barony of the nobility, and the portion allotted to the common people, there was another subdivi sion, that of the manor. Each of these divi sions consisted of from 3,000 to 1 2,000 acres. The Lord of the Manor within his domains had all the "powers, jurisdictions, and privi leges " that pertained to the Landgraves and Caciques. As to the land grants to the commons, these, like all their other privi leges (?) under the Grand Model, "depended." In the order for the keeping of a copy of the "constitutions" in a great book, by the reg ister of every precinct, it was expressly set forth that " no person of what degree and condition soever, above seventeen years of age, should have any estate or possession in Carolina, or protection of the law, who did not first pledge to defend and maintain them." It is no wonder that the opposition of the people to the Grand Model and its methods became so violent that my Lords were forced at last to pay heed to it. On May 10, 1682, another set of the " constitutions " was form ulated, in which, and to which, the Proprietors claimed they had made some valuable altera tions and additions. But these were really of little moment. The most important was that with reference to the Grand Council, which provided that should that autocratic body forget its duty at any time, and not propose to Parliament laws of benefit to the people, the grand jury of the county could take the matter in hand; and, if the Grand Council did not, within reasonable time, make the presentment, the matter could be acted upon without their consent. Still the people were not appeased. As to any real rights and privileges for them selves the Grand Model was as barren as ever; the " constitutions " as much of a farce as they had ever been. The whole colony