F127 
 .R32 P46 
 
 

 
 
 ;^ 
 
 
 
 5^ " v^-^;^ 
 
 ^^ '^^% ^:^^%^^ ^^^"^ 
 
 
 
 V ^ 
 
 
 ?v"'V. 
 
 %> V" ^'-"^ c>. .0 .'/•'* ^ v^ f'-^- 
 
 
 .V ^ •- 
 
 
 
 >0' 
 
 A - ^ " O « 
 
 0^ ^»V'•^ ^ 
 
 
 ■"%^ ^ 
 
 
 <rv 
 
 ■3 ^. 
 
 
 C* '^^ "^^ 
 
 .*<^. 
 
 
 
 ^"v '^^ A^ ^^.Va''. ''^o .<5^*^ ' 
 
 
0?^ %> 
 
 
 .V 
 
 
 V 
 
 •>^' '^'^. 
 
 'V- * o , o ' O,"^ O^ * . , 1 • 
 
 ^^-1 
 
 ^'^X. 
 
 
 \/ 
 
 ,*'*■•••■• 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,.0 ^ 
 
 ■0^ 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 ^-^^^ 
 
 
 A^ 
 
 
 '\ 
 
 ■V 
 
 V 
 
 <• - ~ - 
 
 
 0^ 
 
 o 
 
 ^H q. * (li' : -5 c.. 
 
 
 
 
 \^ 
 
 
 
 .-\^ 
 
 ,^^ 
 
 
 ,0 c • " • • 
 
 O^ ♦ . , 1 • 
 
 
 
 ,0' 
 
 ,-0 
 
 .^^^ 
 
 
 '^- 
 
 
 ','• ^^ s<^' 
 
 .4- 
 
 -\r^ 
 
MANOR 
 
 RENSSELAERWYCK. 
 
 \^ • 
 Cl: PEPPER, JR. 
 
 COUNSELLOR AL LAW. 
 
 ISHED BY THE ALBANY AND RENSSELAER 
 ANTI-RENT ASSOCIATIONS. 
 
 ALBANY: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. MUNSELL. 
 
 1846. 
 
f^lJ-"? 
 
 .B^^ 
 
 ?¥(► 
 
 The following numbers were written for the Albany Freeholder, and 
 published originally in that paper. They are confined to an investiga- 
 tion of the title of the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, so called; and as the 
 public have a deep interest in the question, and a strong desire has been 
 manifested to have the numbers presented in pamphlet form, they are ac- 
 cordingly submitted for the consideration and judgment of the com- 
 munity. 
 
f^ 
 
 MANOR OF RENSSELAERWYCK. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 The Van Rensselaer family claim title to the Manor cf Rensselaer- 
 wyck : 1st. From the Indians, or ahori<;ines of the Country ; 2(1. From 
 tlie States General of the Netherlands and the West India Company; 3d. 
 From the English Government ; 4th. Coatirmation from oui- own State 
 Government since the Revolution; 5tli. From Inheritance; and, 6lh. 
 From Possession. 
 
 It is my design to investigate each of these claims in succession, and 
 trust I shall be able to satisfy a discerning public, upon what grounds 
 they arc claimed to be valid. A briel historical sketch of the country 
 in which the Manor is situate, will be ncccssaiy to a lull understanding 
 of the subject, after which I shall confine myself in this number to an 
 examination of the pretended Indian title. 
 
 This continent was discovered in 1492, by Christopher Columbus, of 
 Genoa, then in the service of Ferdinand and Isabella, sovereigns of 
 Castile and Arragon. In the year 1493, after the return of Columbus 
 from his first voyage to the New VVoild, Ferdinand obtained a grant or 
 bull from the pope, Alexander VI., of all counlries belonginir to infidels, 
 that might bo discovered west of an imaginary line, supposed to be drawn 
 from pole to pole, a hundred leagues to the westward of the Azores. All 
 countries to the east of this line were bestowed ui)on the king of I'oilu- 
 gal. The S|)aniards discovered and subdued most oi the West India 
 Islands, and Mexico and Peru upon the continent, and soon oblained an 
 extensive dominion in South America and upon the Isthmus. Four years 
 after the discover) of the West Indies by Columbus, John and Sebastian 
 Cabot, Venetians, in the service of Henry Vll., of England, explored 
 our coasts, and from their discoveries, the English found iheir claim to 
 North America. Their letters patent were dated in 1495. I hey sailed 
 in 1 197 from Bristol, discovered New Foundland, and sailed as far North 
 as 67i degrees. The English writers, in opposition to those of Hol- 
 land, mainlain that Sebastiiin Cabot in his relnrn voyage sailed along the 
 coast i)f Ncw-Yoik. The French claim that Varrazzans, who was com- 
 missioned by Francis I., in 1.523, was the first discoverer of the Bay of 
 New-York, and Piver Hudson, and by \irlue of his discoveries, and ihat 
 of Cartier, who wa<; commissioned in 1534, laid claim to most of North 
 America. Queen Elizabeth, in 1.5S4, gave to Sir Waller Raleigh the 
 disposal of all the countries between 33 and 40 deurees of noMli lati- 
 tude. The Conifiany's agents anchored in Roanoke Bay, and called the 
 country Viryinia, tiom their virgin queen. The first house erected and 
 soil cultivated within llie colonial limits of New-York, were by Bartholo- 
 
mew Gosnold, one year before the death of Queen Elizabeth, on the 
 most eastern of the Elizabeth Islands, now called No Mans Land. Sir 
 Waller Raleig^h's patent became vacated by his attainder. King Henry 
 IV., of France, in 1603, gave to Des Monts all the American lands from 
 40 to 46 degrees of north ialilude, which inchided this Slate, but which 
 was disregarded by James I. of England, who in 1606 granted a new 
 patent to two monopolies, denominated the North and the South Virginia 
 Companies. The j)alent ot the South Virginia Company was to Sir Thomas 
 Gates and others, to whom land was gi^en to begin a j)lanta(ion, at any 
 place on the continent, between the 34lh and 41st degrees of latitude, and 
 all the lands extending 50 miles on each side along the coast, and one 
 hundred miles into the country, and all the islands within one hundred 
 miles opposite their plantations were granted in fee. The North Vir- 
 ginia patent was granted to Thomas Herman and others, for a planlfition 
 between 38 and 45 degrees of latitude. Both patents included New- 
 York ; but as each company was to have tilty miles eacli way along the 
 continent from the place of their settlements, an actual contact was pre- 
 cluded within one hundred miles. This lajiping of the patents was the 
 principal reason why New York was not sooner settled by the English. 
 The first effectual settlement of North America was at Jamestown, on 
 James River, it) 1607, by the South Virginia Company. This was about 
 two years previous to the discovery of the Hudson River. Eleven years 
 after the discovery of our river by Hudson, no permanent colony was set- 
 tled in New England ; but at length the North Virginia Company effect- 
 ed a settlement at Plymouth, in 1620. The patent, or charter of 1606, to 
 the South A^irginia Company, was vacated at the desire of the patentees, 
 and in 1609 renewed by the name of " The Treasurer and Company of 
 Adventurers and Planters of the city of London, for the first colony of 
 Virginia." This was again enlarged by that of 1611-12. The patent 
 of the North Virginia Company became vacated, and in November 1620 
 king James I. by a new patent to the Duke of Lenox and others, by the 
 name of " The great council established at Plymoutli in the county of 
 Devon," granted ihem the country from the 40:h to the 48th degree of 
 north latitude, inclusively ; and in length of and within the breadth afore- 
 said, through the main-lands from sea to sea. This charier is the great 
 civil basis on which all subsequent patents in the subdivision of New 
 England were founded. It embraced this State, though then in posses- 
 sion of the Dutch, and conflicted with the clain)s of France. The States 
 General of the Netherlands were for a long time subject to Spain, but 
 their independence was obtained under Maurice and acknowledged by 
 the treaty of Munsler. The Dutch East India Company was established 
 by patent by the Stales General in 1602, for twenty-one years. Hudson 
 was in the employ of this company for the discovery of a northern pas- 
 sage to China and India, when he discovered our river. Hudson was an 
 Englishman, and it is denied by the English that he was in the service of 
 the F.ast India Company wiien he discovered the Hudson, but that he sold 
 his discovery to the Dutch, which was not acknowledged by the English 
 government. Henry Hudson in 1609 sailed up the Hudson. He came 
 as far as the present Canal Lock and Canal Basin, and his boat proceed- 
 ed to Waterford and Lansirgburgh. In 1614 the Stales General granted 
 a patent to some merchants for the exclusive trade of the North River, 
 who the same year built a fort on the west side near Albany, which was 
 first commanded by Henry Christaens. Captain Argall.who was sent out 
 by Governor Dale of Virginia, subdued this fort the same year. Albany 
 has had the names of Fort Orange, Beaverwyck, William's Stadt, Fuyck 
 or Hoop Neck, Albany, and New Albania. The name given by the Iri- 
 quois, or Five Nations, was Schenectadeaj and by the Mohegans on the 
 
east banks of the river, Gaschtcnick. The Slates General made a orrant 
 of ihcir possessions in North Anicricii, called New-Nelherland, in 1621, 
 for Uvenly-one years, to the Dutch West India Company. Their charter 
 is to be ibund in Hazard's Stale Pa|)ers, 1st vol, p. 121. The Dutch 
 West India Company is>ue(i tiieir Charier ol Lihoilies in 1G29, under 
 whicli the I'alroon Killian Van Rensselaer came lo liiis country. Tliis 
 important document is puhlished in the New York Misloiical Society 
 Collections, 2d series, |)ai^e 370. It is said Ihal (he Palioon's a<rent ar- 
 rived here the year lolh-wiiifr, in 1030. Killian Van Rensselaer himself 
 arrived in 1637. In 1656, the Dutch West In<lia Company parted with 
 that part of their possession in New Nclherland between the Delaware 
 and North Rivers to the city of Amsterdam. The reij:ulations of the city 
 of Amsterdam in relation lo tiiis tract, are published in the New York 
 Historical Sociely Collections, 1st vol., p. 291. '1 he Dutch claim of 
 New Nclherland was from latitude 3S to 42 dei;;rees, by the oct'an — all 
 adjacent islands, and northerly by the river o( Canada. Their claim was 
 founded, 1st. As subjects of the kin<i: nf Spain ; 2d. By virtue of the re- 
 linqiiisliment by Sp.tin to the United Pro\inces, free and independent of 
 all the possessions in the New World, ihen occupied by them, \\hereb)r 
 New Nelherl-ind (now New York,) became the inheriiante of Ihe Dutch 
 nation. 3d. By virtue of the discovery of Delaware and New York Bay 
 and River, by Henry Hudson, and the fust actual possession and settle- 
 ment thereupon. 
 
 Waller Van Twiller, the first p^overnor after Mitiuit, arrived at Fort 
 Anrslerdam, now New York, in 1629. William Kieft succeeded him in 
 1638. There are no books amon;^ the Dutch records in (he Secretary's 
 office relati:.ij to .state matters, beloie Kiell's lime, nor t.ny enrolment of 
 patents till a year after Van Twiller arri\ed here. Van Lambrechten, 
 who wrote in 161S, in his history of New Nclherland, publislied in 
 the 2d series of Ne>v York Historical Society CoUectioiis, [). 84, admits 
 that there is but little deservinjr of notice preserved in the lecoids of the 
 West India Company in Hollanil, concernintr New Netherland. He 
 states that all the documents in Holland in relation to the colony of Rens- 
 selaerwyck, were delivered lo R. S. Van Rensselaer, on his return lo 
 Anrerica. Peter Stuvvesant was the last Dutch jrovernor. He beijan his 
 administration in 1647. On Ihe 12th of May, 1664, kiti"^ Charles II., of 
 Eni^land, siianlcd a patent lo his brother, the Duke of York and Albany, 
 (aliiTwards James 11.,) of sundry tracts in America, including all New 
 Netherland In this same year tlie En<;lish under C(donei Richard 
 Nichols, conquered New Amsterdam. The Dutch at Fort Orani;e capit- 
 ulated to Carteret, .«ent up the river by Nicholson the 24lh of September. 
 On the fust of October, Ihe whole ol" New Netherland became subject 
 to iIk* En<;lish crown. Carteret entered into a leaEfue wiih Ihe Indians of 
 the Five Nations. Nichols became dejjuly governor of the conquered 
 province, under the Duke of York. Franci-; Lovelare succeeded Nich- 
 ols in 16ii7. The Dulch in 1672 a<rain leok the fort of Manhallan. 
 Colve wa'! made <r<ivernor. By llie treaty of Westminister between En<j- 
 land and Ihe Stales General, Feb. 9th, 1674, Ihe countrv was restored to 
 the En;j;lish, and Edmond Andross made jjovernor, who was succeeded 
 by Thomas Don^an on the 27th of Auiru-t, 1683 ; under him the [)eople 
 for the tirsl time elected representatives to a j^eneral assembly. 
 
 AUtany was incoiporated by Gov. Dongan in 1686. James Ihe H., 
 formerly the Dtdie of York ami Albany, ascended Ihe throne of (Jreat 
 Britain, in 1685 — he abdicated in consequence of Ihe revolution, and 
 Wdliatn, Prince of (^ran-jfC, succeeded him in 16S0. The revolution ex- 
 tended to America, and Leislcr alTeclintr zeal for Kinj William, usurped 
 the prerogatives of governor of New York. Henry Sloughter sent over 
 
from Eiigland, superseded him in 1691. The general assembly of 1691, 
 was the first in the province after the revolution of William and Mary. 
 All laws made here antecedent to this session of the assembly, are dis- 
 regarded both by the legislature and the courts of law. In the collec- 
 tion of acts of 1752, they went no farther back than 1691. Benjamin 
 Fletcher was; governor in 1692 ; tiie Earl of B'^llemont in 1695 ; John 
 Natfin in 1701; Lord Cornbury in 1702, and John Lord Lovelace in 1708. 
 Queen Anne, ascended the throne of Great Britain in 1701. New York 
 resisted the stamp act, and was one of the confederated stales in the Rev- 
 olution, that achieved our independence. Her constitutions of 1777 and 
 1821, I shall have occasion to refer to hereafter. 
 
 A summary of the claim of the Van Rensselaer family to the Manor of 
 Rensselaerwyck is presented in the report of the Assembly by the judi- 
 ciary committee, of which William F. Allen was chairman. Tiiis re- 
 port, numbered document 183, is to be found in the Assembly Journals 
 for the year 1844. As this committee atfect to establish title in the Van 
 Rensselaers, and have evidently labored hard to mnke it apparent, and 
 had every iacility afforded them for that purpose, I shall take their ac- 
 count as the Van Rensselaer side of the story, and giving them all the 
 benefit of the report, proceed in answer. 
 
 The pretended Indian title is presented in these words, "The earliest 
 Indian deed to Killian Van Rensselaer is dated April 8lh, 1630. This 
 describes the lands as extending from Barren Island to Smachie Island, 
 and westward from the river two days' journey — other Indian deeds con- 
 veving parts of the Manor on both sides of the river — one conveying 
 lands bounded north by the Cohoes Fall. The Indian deeds conveying 
 separate parcels, extend in point of time, through various years, from 
 1630 to 1727, and several of them subsequent to the English conquest in 
 1664." 
 
 These deeds the committee say are among the archives of the Van 
 Rensselaer family. There is no pretence that they are of record, con- 
 firmed as such by the colonial government, or attested by any formality. 
 
 According to the European foundation of property in land poss(>ssed by 
 the Indians, discovery alone, without conquest, gave the government the 
 right of pre-eminent domain, and the Indians had only the right of occu- 
 pancy. The Indians could not dispose of these lands, and no person had 
 a right to purchase of them without the consent of the government. The 
 above principles were recognized by all the European governments that 
 made discoveries upon this continent. 
 
 It appears from Smith's History, that from the earliest times in the co- 
 lony, it was the custom in obtaining Indian lands, to apply to the govern- 
 or in council for a license to purchase lands of the natives in his majesty's 
 name. A deed was then privately obtained from the Indian proprietors 
 to the king, and annexed to a second petition to the governor for a war- 
 rant to the surveyor-general to make a survey of the quantity purchased. 
 A warrant upon the return of the surveyor was then issued to the attor- 
 ney-general to prepare a di-aft of the patent, which being transmitted 
 to the secretary's office was then engrossed upon parchment, and the 
 great seal affixed to it by the governor. But even this was not deemed 
 sufficient, and hence by the laws of the colony under the Duke of York, 
 published in April 1664, to be found in the New York Hist<>rical Col- 
 lections, vol. i., 351, "No purchase of land from the Indians shall be 
 valid, after the first day of March, 1664, without leave first had from 
 the governor. The sachem is to be brought before the governor, and 
 the purchase entered upon record in the office." The constitution of 
 this slate of 1777 and of 1822, rendered contracts for lands with the In- 
 dians in this state void, unless sanctioned by the legislature. " The In- 
 
lUans liad no ric:lit (o sell to any other than the government of the first 
 discoverer, nor to private citizens without the sanction of their govern- 
 ment. (Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, 8th IVheaton's Jicports, 
 543, and of Chancellor Kent, 20 Johnson's Reports, 693.) " Sales by 
 Indians were void, made to the whites without legislative sanction." (14 
 Johnson, 375.) 
 
 The Patroon then can have no valid Indian deed in his possession, un- 
 less under the colonial seal, and of record : none such can be found, and 
 the committee make no pretence of the kind. But let us examine this 
 matter a little farther in regard to the genuineness of these pretended 
 Indian deeds. The committee pretend that from these deeds and a chi- 
 rographic map in the possession of the Van Rensselaers, that the bounda- 
 ries of the j) lent, north and south, were known as early as 1630. Now 
 Vander Donk, who was sherifl'of the colony, in his history of "New 
 Netherland," i)ubiished in 1655, to be found in the New York Historical 
 Collection, 2d series, p. 127, says that the Dutch settlements were con- 
 fined mainly to the borders of the river. He conjectured that the Cohoes 
 descended 150 or 200 feet. Even Smith, who wrote a century after Van- 
 derDonk, is erroneous in some ])articulars of his description; he as- 
 cribes the sources of the Hudson to be in the mountainous and uninhabit- 
 ed country between Lakes Ontario and Champlain, and that the Hudi^on 
 is navigable for batteaux from Albany to Lake George, except two port- 
 ages ol half a mile each. 
 
 The committee say in their rejjort, that the Indian deeds extend in 
 point of time through various years, from 1630 to 1727. If the Inriian 
 title was not completed before 1727, by a mulliplicily of deeds, the chi- 
 rographic map of 1630 was certainly descriptive of other lands than 
 those to which the Patroon Killian Van Rensselaer had at that time ac- 
 quired a title. But let us look at this matter a little more closely. At 
 the time that Henry Hudson sailed up the river in 1609, the Mohawks 
 occupied the western shores, from the head of navigation to the Catskili 
 mountains, and the Mohiccans the cast side of the Hudson, from a site 
 opposite Albany down to the Tappan Sea. The Mohawks were one of 
 the Five Nations, or Iroquois confederacy, and the enemies of those who 
 lived on the east side of the river, whom they afterwards (before 1630) 
 conquered. All the Manor of Rensselaerwyck was included in the Mo- 
 hawk possessions. De Laet gives the name of Mackwaas to the Indians 
 located near Fort Orange; but this was merely another name for the Mo- 
 hawks. Proceeding westward, the other of the Five Nations occupied 
 the country in this order: Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas. The 
 Dutch maintained an invic^lable peace with the Five Nations, as did also 
 their English successors in the government of the country. Then as the 
 Mohawks were but one tribe, and there were no divisions or revolutions 
 among them as regards the colonists at or near Albany, I would enquire 
 why it was necessary for Killian Van Rensselaer and his successors to 
 obtain so many Indian deeds at so many different times, from so many 
 different sachems or chiefs? Such was not the fact, but on the contrary 
 the West India Company, before the Patroon arrived here, obtained titles 
 from the Indians for themselves in their own name. The West India 
 Company, in their memorial of 29th September, 16-45, declared that her 
 ministers, as soon as the grant was obtained, exerted themselves to pur- 
 chase from the natives several islands and districts, and by way of pur- 
 chase became the legal proprietors of various spots along the North 
 River. Lambrechten, who wrote his history in Holland, says in express 
 terms, that the West India Company purchased Manhattan, (New York 
 Island) Statcn Island, Hoboken, and the tract of land on the west side of 
 the river near Fort Orange. If after all this we add the fact, which I 
 shall establish in my next number, that Killian Van Rensselaer was sent 
 
8 
 
 here by, and as the agent, and at the expense of the West India Com- 
 pany, which he afterwards betrayed, 1 think it will be evident that he ac- 
 quired no title from the Indians. In my next number I shall treat of the 
 pretended Holland title upon which the Van Rensselaer's lall back, and 
 drive ihera from that entrenchment. 
 
 NUMBER II. 
 
 Having in a previous number endeavored to show that the Van Rens- 
 selaers have no valid title to the Manor of Rensselaerwyck derived from 
 the Indians, I shall now jjroceed to examine the title they profess to have 
 derived from the Dutch government of the States General of the Neth- 
 erlands, and the Dutch West India Company; and here again 1 shnll take 
 the account of this title as given by the judiciary commillee in their re- 
 port to the Assembly of 1844. It is as follows: 
 
 1st. A printed paper wiih an English translation made by the Dutch 
 West India Company, dated 1630, granting certain privileges and liber- 
 ties to the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, which paper the committee say is 
 now in the p )ssession of the Historical Society of New York. 
 
 2d. A conlirmalion of the rights of (he Patroon and New Netherland, 
 signed by a notary public, dated •24th November, 1633. 
 
 3d. The Slates General Venia Tesfadi, to Killian Van Rensselaer, 
 dated 5lh January, 1641. 
 
 4tli. The determination of the West India Company in his favor con- 
 cerning the Fuyck, dated 2d x\pril, 1674, under tiie national seal, and 
 
 5th. Recommendation ol the States General to King Charles 11., in be- 
 half of the Colony ot Rensselaerwyck under the seal of the Slates Gen- 
 eral, dated 9lh June, 1674. 
 
 I have used the words of the committee, and all that they say in rela- 
 tion to the Dutch title. The reader will perceive how extremely vague 
 and indefinite and meagre is this account, and how dilKcult to be under- 
 stood; yet as it is calculated to convey many erroneous impressions, and 
 is more full and explicit than any account ever given before or since, it 
 is entitled to our serious consideration. 
 
 The printed paper spoken of, I have searched for in vain amongst the 
 publications of the Historical Society, and not having seen it or a copy, 
 of course cannot speak with certainty as to its contents, but still 1 think 
 that I have ascertained its true meaning and purport. In 1029 the West 
 ■ India Company issued their charier of privileges for the benefit of all 
 colonists in New Netherland. By one of the provisions of this charter the 
 colonists were to extinguish the Indian title to all lands they might claim 
 under the charter. As the Company had previous lo this time acquiied 
 by purchase the Indian title lo the lands in the neighborhood of Fort 
 Orange, the colony sent there was on behalf and at the expense of the 
 Company, and principally for trading purposes. Killian Van Rensselaer 
 came over in 1637 as agent of the Company, he being at the lime one of 
 the directors. From him the colony took its name. The paper alluded 
 to was certainly not addressed lo the r.ianor of Rensselaerwyck, for the 
 term manor was not applied until after the English Conquest in 1664. 
 Vander Donk and all the Dutch writers speak of the settlement as the co- 
 luny and not the manor of llensselaerwyck. It was reseived for the suc- 
 cessors of Killian Van Rensselaer to claim the inheritance of the colonists 
 by virtue of a name, and the honorable the judiciary committee adduce 
 this as evidence of title. Killian Van Rensselaer made no claim in his 
 own right lo the lands of the Company, until several years after its first 
 failure in 1634, and tnen, only as a patroon, under thfi general charier of 
 privileges of 1629. It was certainly right and proper for the Company 
 
to take its own colony under its protection, and hence (he paper spoken 
 of was published in derogativii of the claim thai any individual mifjht 
 make in opposition lo the rights of the colonists. In this sense tiie paper 
 proves much more than was intended hy the commitlce. 
 
 In proof of my statements in regard to the colony, I refer to the Jour- 
 nal of De Vries, formerly one of the directors of the West India Com- 
 pany, of a journey he made up the Hudson in 1640. This journal was 
 not published until within a few years past, and makes some very im- 
 portant disclosures. A translation is to be (ound in the 2d Series of the 
 New York Historical Society Collections, page 250. I make the follow- 
 ing extracts: "About evening we anchored at the Island of Brandt I'yleii, 
 below which the Fort Orange is situated, of which the owners are the pa- 
 Iroons Goodwyn, Rensselaer, .Ian De Laet and one Blocmart, and they 
 had besides three other farms which they had very much embellished at 
 the cost of the fVcst India Company, the cattle having been sent with 
 great expense oy the Company, and these persons being Commissioners 
 in the New iVetherland, had well ktiown how to turn things to their own 
 advantage, so that the Company had nothing but the naked fort and the 
 Commissioners the farms in its vicinity, and rvery farmer was a koopman. 
 p. 268. He [referring to his partner, F. Vries,] was, it seems, of opinion 
 that the colonies were to be erected without people and means, thinking 
 that such was the case in regard lo Godyn, Gilliane, Van Kensselaer, 
 Bloemart and Jan De Laet. But it was done by them at the cost of the 
 Com[iany, they having sent their farmers and cattle. They being at that 
 time Directors of the West India Company and Commissioners of the 
 New Netherlands, they saved themselves afterwaids by some sinister 
 merchant's trick, and their Company at that lime having obtained the lair 
 prize, Pict Heyn, did not think oi their lost Colony at Fort Orange, and 
 il was indifferent to the directors if any farm was erected there, — but 
 those fellows despised Van Rensselaer (who was used to refine pearls and 
 diamonds) and proceeded so far that they turned out their associates. 
 When .Michael Pann got to know that the lands at Fort Orange were ap- 
 propriated for themselves, he went immediately and had that part before 
 the Fort where the Indians cross the river to bring their beavers, put down 
 in his own name and called it Panovia, which afterwards when it was 
 known by the Company, occasioned much quarreling and jealousy, and 
 prevented the colonies prospering as they would have done." p 262. 
 
 It now becomes important for us to enquire if these usurpations were 
 acquiesced in by the West India Company. 
 
 There are published in the New York Historical Society Collections, 
 2d series, cooimencing at page 377, several extracts from ihe manuscript 
 colonial letters of Ihe directors of the West India Company. It appears 
 from one of these letters, dated March, 1651, that Waller Van TNviller, 
 (aflcr he was governor,) on behalf of the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, 
 claimed the ex( lusive right lo the navigation of the river and to Fort 
 Orange, and to Bears Ishnd, (nine miles below Albany.) This claim the 
 Company indignantly repudiates. Tli»*re is also a letter from Cornelius 
 Huggiens, altorney-general in the New Nelherland, dated in 1644, lo 
 Nicolas Room, Esqr., agent for Van Rensselaer, foibidding them to 
 establish themselves on Bears Island, on Ihe ground that a colony may 
 not be extended more than four miles (12 English miles) along the coast, 
 or two miles (6 English miles) on both sides Ihe river, accordmg lo Ihe 
 charter of privileges. Van Koorn replies in behalf of Van Rensselaer, 
 thai he shall persist in takinir possession of and building a castle on the 
 island, and that Ihe undertaking has nothing else in view than to prevent 
 "the canker of freemen" entering the colony. The attorney-general 
 renews the prohibition. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 This correspondence establishes two facts: 1st, That Van Rensselaer's 
 claim was under the general charter of privileges; and, 2d, Tliat the ex- 
 lent of his claim under the charter was disputed by the West India Com- 
 pany and ihe government of New Netherlands. 
 
 The title ol this charter was "Liberties or privileges granted by the 
 Assembly of Nineteen of the authorised West India Company, to all 
 such as shall or may settle or plant any colonies in New Nelherland." 
 By its provisions, any person who should within four years colonize fifty 
 50uls over fourteen years of age, of which number one-fourth were to be 
 colonized within one year, could extend Iheir limits four miles (twelve 
 English miles) on one side of a navigable river, and two miles (six 
 English miles) on each side of a river, and so far into the country as the 
 situation of ihe occupiers would permit. 
 
 It ap[)ears, then, that Kiilian Van Rensselaer came over as the agent 
 of the West India Company, and at iheir expense, to colonize hinds pur- 
 chased by the Company of the Indians in the neighborhood of Albany. 
 That the very caltle ujion his own farm were paid tor by Ihe Company. 
 That shortly afterwards he quarreled wilh th ; Con)pany and with the 
 Government, and by a "sinister merchant trick," cheated the Company. 
 That Michael Pann following his example, claimed Slaten Island, and 
 called it Panovia, and that these illegal proceedings prevented ihe colo- 
 nies prospering. That Ihe West India Conipany, having by their priva- 
 teers taken a rich prize, the Portuguese sloop Pict Heyn, were so 
 elated wilh this success, that they did not pay much attention at the time 
 to these spoliations in New Nelherland. That when the Patroon went 
 still further and sought to prevent the "canker of fieemen'' from eniering 
 (he colony, he was promptly prohibited, both by the Company and the 
 Government, and told that the very charter under which he claimed, re- 
 stricted him to twelve miles on one side and six miles on both sides of 
 the river. That it was seen at this early day that the "cankerof freemen" 
 would destroy patroonery ; hence ihe efforts to prevent freedom then — 
 hence the efforts to suppress freedom now. 
 
 I think it is established that Killian Van Rensselaer, Ihe lapidary, 
 never on his own account established a colony — that he could not legiti- 
 mately, or with justice, claim, as patroon under the charter — he not having 
 gone to the expense or submitted to the sacr'fices of a patroon, as con- 
 templated and required by the charter. That the extent of his claim 
 under the charter was controverted from the very commencement, and 
 cannot be sustained by the charter itself. But, say the committee, there 
 is a confirmation of his rights and of the New Netherland, signed by a 
 notary public, dated 24th November, 1633. 
 
 The West India Company were about failing in 1633 — it appears from 
 Hazard's Stale Papers, 1 vol. 397, that they actually failed, temporarily, 
 in 1634. The notary public, in his protest, saved and reserved all the 
 acquired rights of all Ihe colonists, without mentioning the nnme of any 
 one per.son in particular. This, certainly, proves no title in the Patroon. 
 The venia testandi to Killian Van Rensselaer, dated 5'h January, 1641, 
 was merely liberty given him to dispose of his heritage in the New 
 Netherland by last will and testament. This, accotding- to the charter, 
 was always granted as a matter of course: but it established no right or 
 title, and applied to all the possessions acquired, or to be acquired, by 
 (he applicant, without their being designated. That Killian Van Rensse- 
 laer did not apply for a venia testandi previous to 1641, is a very suspi- 
 cious circumstance in regard to his property or possessions in the new 
 world. 
 
 It is difiicult (o understand what the committee mean by the determin- 
 ation of the West India Company in favor of the Patroon, concerning the 
 
11 
 
 Fuyck, dated •2d April, 1G74. The Cily of Albany was known by (he 
 name of Fuyck, at one lime, but all jurisdiction of the West India Com- 
 pany, in re-iard to the cily or county was destroyed by the English con- 
 quest of 16G4. 
 
 This comniitlee say that there was a recommendation from the States 
 Geneial to King Charles 11., in behall of the colony ot Uensselaerwytk, 
 under the seal ol the btales General, ilaled V)lh June, 1674. The/ac7s in 
 regard to this rcconimcndalion are these: After the re-concjuesl of the 
 New Netherland by the Dutch, in 1673, all the magistrates and consta- 
 bles from Eiist Jersey, Long Island, Ksopus, and Albany, were immedi- 
 ately summoned to New York, and the major part of them swore alle- 
 giance to the stales General and the Prince of Urange. When informed 
 (hat negotialinns were pending lor a peace between England and the 
 Stales General, those who had so often changed iheir allegiance, pe- 
 titioned the Stales General that thi-y shall sufler no detriment Irum the 
 treaty. When, by the tieaty of Westminster, in 1674, New Netherland 
 was transferred to the king of Enjiland, the inhabitants, with their peti- 
 tions, were referred to the king of England. (See Lambrechtea's Jlis- 
 tory of Acw Netherland.) One of these petitions was in behalf o( the 
 colony of Rensselaerwyck, but not (or a recognition of Killian Van Rens- 
 selaer's claim. 
 
 Having now gone through with a review of the display of the Dutch 
 title, made by the comn.itlee, I would irujuire what there is in it at all 
 (hat would satisfy any mind as to its Viilidity. If Killian Van Rensselaer 
 had a good title from the Dutch, it could be made to appear indisj.utably, 
 and the (ollowino- uould be the character of the proof : 1st. A grant ab- 
 solute from the We>l India Company. There is no such grant. 2d. Let- 
 ters patent from the Dutch governors. Van Twiller, Kicit, or Stuyvesant. 
 There is no such patent. That the Dutch governors weie e.mpowert-d to 
 grant letters patent, appears from Sniilh's History. The style of the 
 patents granted by Van Twiller, were th.us — "We, director and council, 
 residing in New Netherland, on the Island Manhattan, under the gov- 
 ernment of thiir high mightinesses tiie Lord Stales General of the United 
 Netherlands and the privileged West IndiaCompany." 3d. There would 
 be some lecord of a Dutch title. There is no such record. 
 
 But what is conclusive to my mind in relation to this matter, is the 
 fact that the English government immev^iately after and sometime subse- 
 quent to the conquest, declined recognizing any such title, although if 
 one existed, they were bound to recognize and confirm it by the articles 
 ol surrender. Among the terms of capitulation were the following: "All 
 people shall continue free denizens, ami shall enjoy their lands, houses and 
 goods, wherever llicy are within this country, ancl dispose of them as they 
 please. The Dutch here shall enjoy their own customs concerning their 
 inheritances. Ail public writings and recoids which concern the inheri- 
 tances of any people, shall be carefully kept by (hose in whose hands (hey 
 now are." Governor Nichols devoted almost (he whole (ime of his ad- 
 ministration of three rears in confirming old grants and patents that were 
 valid. The code of laws pvibli>hed under Nichols, immediately after the 
 conquest, contains the following provisions concerning lands; — "All 
 lands, patents and bounds and limits of (owns, are (o be recorded in (he 
 otfice of red ids a( New York, as well as in each [larticular town, and at 
 (he sessions. All lands and heritages within this government shall be 
 free from all fines and licenses upon alienation." (This renders invalid 
 all quarter sales.) "To the end all former purchases may be ascertained 
 to (he present possessor or right owner, they shall bring in (heir former 
 granfs and lake out new patents for (he same from the present governor, 
 in behalf of his royal highness the Duke of York. Every patentee in 
 
12 
 
 acknowledgment of the property of such lands belonginj;^ to his royal 
 highness Jcimes Duke of York, shall, upon signing of the patent, pay unto 
 the governor so much as they shall agree u(ion. That, whereas, it is 
 said in the amendments of the laws that all grants and patents are to be 
 brought in and renewed, &c. It is to be understood that all old grants 
 which are brought in are to be contirrned and returned to (he parlies. 
 And where no lawful grants are, or they may be doubtful, new and legal 
 grants shall be obtained." 
 
 At a court of assizes, in 1666, was passed the following law, and ap- 
 proved of by the governor: 
 
 "The court having taken notice of the defects and failings of both 
 towns and persons in particular, in not bringing in their grants or patents 
 to receive a confirmation of them, or not coming to take new grants 
 where they are defective, or where there are none at all, according to 
 former directions in the law: as also taking it into their serious consid- 
 eration that several towns and persons within this government, as well 
 En^i-lish as Dutch, hold their lands and houses upon the condition of being 
 subjects to the Stales of the United Belgirke Provinces, which is contrary 
 to the allegiance due to hi^ majeslie; they do, therefore, order tliat all 
 grants or patents whatsoever formerly made, shall be brouu:ht to be con- 
 firmed or renewed by authority of his royal highness the Duke of York; 
 and all such as have not patents shall likewise be su|)plied by the first 
 day of April next after the date hereof; after which lime neither towns 
 nor private persons, whether English or Dutch, shall have liberty to plead 
 any such old grants, patents or deeds of purchase, in law; but shall be 
 looked upon as invalid to all intents and purposes." 
 
 It appears, then, that all valid grants from the Dutch were to be con- 
 firmed as a matter of right, but that patentees of doubtful grants were to 
 take out new patents from Governor Nichols. That ihe Palroon's claim 
 was considered doubtful, is evident from the fact, that he could not obtain 
 an unconditional confirmation from the governor; that it was considered 
 very doubtful, is evident from the fact, that the governor declined giving 
 him a patent at all, but referred him to the Duke of York. These facts 
 are proved from the statenients of the committee, taken in connection 
 •with the recitals contained in the pretended letters patent of Queen 
 Anne, a copy of which is annexed to the report of the committee. I 
 refer to these recitals as evidences of some facts about which there is no 
 dispute, and which had become matters of public notoriety, and were 
 necessary to be mentioned in the instrument, whether the instrument 
 itself was genuine or a forgery. The committee say that there was an 
 express acknowledgment by Governor Nichols, under his seal, dated 12th 
 October, 1664, continuing to the Palroon of Rensselaerwyck all his rights 
 and privileges. The recital in tlie grant from Queen Anne says, that 
 Richard \ichnls, on the 18th of October, under his hand and seal, "did 
 rule and appoint that the said Jeremias Van Rensselaer should and might 
 lawfully enjoy and execute all such privileges and authority within the 
 limits of Rensselaerwyck, as he did enjoy and execute before the surren- 
 der of New York aforesaid under his majesty's obedience. And that the 
 inhabitants of the Manor should enjoy the benefit of the'articles of sur- 
 render, providi>d, always, that wilhin one year after the date hereof, the 
 said Jeremias Van Rensselaer shall procure a distinct patent for the said 
 colony from his royal highness, and, in the meantime, that all the in- 
 habitants thereof shall lake the oMh to his said majesty, Charles the II. 
 and the then present government." The recital in the deed and the state- 
 ment of the committee widely differ. It appears from the deed, that the 
 rjo-hts of the Patroon and the colonists of Rensselaerwyck, were not de- 
 jined by Governor Nichols, and that their rights, whatever they might be, 
 
13 
 
 were to be passed upon by (lie Duke of York within one year, the gover- 
 nor not takinir it upon himself", although he liad lull power and authority 
 so to do, to settle the question. It appears from the recitals in the deed, 
 that up to the lOlh of July, 1673, Jereniias Van Rensselaer had not yet 
 obtained a patent. At liiis lime, the committee say the Duke of York, 
 by his warrant, directed an order to Col. Lovelace, ihen governor, to 
 grant a patent for the colony of Rensselaerwyck. Here, again, tho 
 recital in the deed of Queen Anne differs widely from the statement of 
 the coiimiittee The deed says that the duke directed Col. Lovelace to 
 continue the privileges and authority to Jeremias Van Rensselaer, until 
 he, the duke, should be better informed and enabled to determine whe- 
 ther it was proper to grant a patent to Van Rensselaer or not. In 1674, 
 Jeremias Van Rensselaer died, without having obtained any patent or 
 confirmation of his claim from the English government, and there is no 
 pretence on the part of the committee that any deed or letters patent was 
 griinted for the Manor by the English government to any person or per- 
 sons prior to the year 168-5. 
 
 Jt has been sliown, from the laws of the colony, that all old Dulch grants 
 should be deemed invalid to all intents and purposes that were not con- 
 firmed by the English government, and recorded prior to the 1st of April, 
 1666. Unless, then, the Van Renssclaers can show an English title 
 acquired subsequent to that time, their claim to the manor on that ground 
 entirely fails. They pretend to have such title, and an investigation of 
 this claim will form the subject of our next number. 
 
 NUMBER m. 
 
 In the two preceding numbers we have attempted to show that the Van 
 Rensselaers have no legal and valid title to the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, 
 deiived from the Indians, or the Dulch government, or the Dutch West 
 India Company. Our inquiry will now be directed to the alleged English 
 title as set forth in the report of the judiciary committee to the Assembly 
 of 1844. The committee slate that there was a patent for the Manor 
 granted by Governor Dongan, Nov. 5, 168-5. That the patent isupon parch- 
 ment in the possession of the proprietors, and that the signature of the gov- 
 ernor is [)laced about midway on the lower and turned up margin of the 
 parchment, and evidently the seal of the colony affixed, although worn and 
 inu( h mutilated — tliat all doubts in relation to it are removed by the actual 
 recital of this very document, nineteen years afterwards, in the patent from 
 Queer. Anne, into which it is copied. That after reciting the consideration 
 it conveys the Manor of Rensselaerwyck "in obedience and in pursuance, 
 and performance of several orders, directions and commands of his said 
 majesties commission and authority to me given," "To Killian Van 
 Rensselair the son of Johannes Van Rensselaer, and Killian Van Rens- 
 selaer the son of Jeremias Van Rensselaer, their heirs and assigns for- 
 ever," "in trust to, and f^^r the use and behoof of the right heirs and 
 assigns of the said Killian Van Rensselaer, grandfather to the said Killian 
 Van Rensselaer, party to these presents." Several questions of law here 
 arise in regard to the legal effect of such an instrument, if actually exe- 
 cuted — but the consideration of these will be reserved for another number, 
 as will also the cj-ieslion, if the claimants are the right heirs at law of 
 Killian Van Rensselaer, tin; grandfather mentioned in the grant. 
 
 The committee seem to concede, that independent of the recital of the 
 Doniran grant in the jrrant froirr Queen Anne, the mutilation of the seal, 
 and the signature of the governor being in ihc middle of the lower and 
 turned up margin of the parchment, would raise some doubt as to the 
 
14 
 
 genuineness of the instrument. As the one grant is to be proved by the 
 other we will now coini)are them together and see how tar they agree: 
 1st. The grant of Queen Anne conlaitis several recitals in relation to 
 the inducements and preliminaries of the Dongan grant which are not 
 conlaiiied in the Dongan grant itself. 2d. The parchment purporting to 
 be tlie Dongan grant was dated, tlie commillee say, 4th November, 1685, 
 the recital in the Queen Anne grant says tlie Dongan grant was given the 
 olh day of November, in the first year of the reign of King James II., but 
 that this was after the 30di year of the reign ot Ciiarles II. Now, as 
 King Charles II. commenced his reign in the year 1660, thirty years after 
 this time would bring us to the year 1690, a difference of five years, be- 
 tween the date of tlie Dongan grant as slated by the committee and as 
 staled by the recilal in the patent from Queen Anne. 
 
 In every one of the grants of Governor Dongan I have been able io 
 find, for example his grant of a charier to the cily of New York, and 
 to the city of Albany, both granted in 1686, it is staled in express lernis, 
 that the governor himself had caused to be enrolled and recorded in the 
 secretary's office the patent or charier, and in fact this was essential to 
 the validity of Ihe grant. There is no pretence that any grant of the 
 JNIanor of Kensselaerwyck from Governor Dongan was ever enrolled or 
 recorded. 
 
 After the revolution of William and Mary, all laws and grants in the 
 colony made under the Duke of York, were regarded with much jealousy 
 and disfavor, and hence the first general assembly in the colony after the 
 revolution, passed the following resolution, as appears from I he Journal 
 of 24lh April, 1691. "Resolved, Nemine Contralicerle — That all the 
 laws consented to by the general assembly of James, Duke of York, 
 and Ihe liberties and privileges therein contained, granted to the people 
 and declared to be their rights, not being observed, and not ratified and 
 confirmed by his royal highness nor the late king are null and void, 
 and of none effect. And also, Ihe several lavi's made by the late gover- 
 nors and councils being contrary to Ihe constitution of England and the 
 practice of the government of their majesties other plantations in Amer- 
 ica, are likewise null and void, and of none effect or force wilhin this 
 province." 
 
 This general assembly to quiet forever all conflicting claims for lands 
 arising before the revolution, passed an act, " that all charters, patents, 
 and grants, executed under the seal of tlie Province, and registered in 
 the secretary's office shall be confirmed." (^Bradford's edition of the 
 Colonial Laws, p. 5.) The pretended Dongan grant then not being regis- 
 tered in the secretary's office in 1691, was null and void, if indeed it had 
 ever been ex(!cuted. The Van Rensselaers then can have no valid Eng- 
 lish title unless acquired subsequent to the year 1691, and this brings us 
 to a consideration of Queen Anne's grant. 
 
 In order to establish the validity of this g'rant, it must be made to ap- 
 pear that it was granted by the then Governor Cornbury, with the advice 
 and consent of his council. All the information upon this subject that 
 can be obtained is to be found in the minutes of the council on record in 
 the secretary's office. A cojiy of these minutes so far as they can have 
 any bearing upon this question, is annexed to liie report of the select 
 committee made to the assembly in 1844, numbered 189. I refer to 
 the full copy of the minutes attached to this report in preference to the 
 partial copy made by the judiciary commillee in document 183. From 
 these minutes and the statements of the judiciary committee we derive 
 the following facts: That on the 3d of November, 1703, one Killian Van 
 Rensselaer, then a member of the council, presented to his excellency 
 Viscount Cornbury and the members of ins council then present, his pe- 
 
15 
 
 tition in relation to tlie Manor of Renssclacrwyck, and pra}in<( a patent 
 of confirn alion in hiinsell as tiie riglil heir of Killian tiie giandlatlier. 
 This [ielilion was releiicd " lo tlie meinl.crs of iLc lioaid, or any ihiee 
 of lliem wiio are to examine into the tnilli o( tiie alle<;alions in the said 
 petition contained, and make report to liiis beard how tiiey shall lind the 
 same." 
 
 On the following day a report endorsed on the petition was made, of 
 which the lollowing- is a copy: — " In obedience to your excellency's 
 order, in council ol the third instant, we have ppiused yc wilhin petition, 
 and it appears to us by several orders Ironi the L)uUe of Yoik, and other 
 deeds and wiilinirs s-houed to us, that ye petitioner is heir at law of the 
 wilhin named Killian Van Kensselaer, the grandtalher, and is well enti- 
 tled to have a patent of confirmation as piayed in the said petition, ye 
 petitioner and his lather Jeremias Van Kensselaer having been in the 
 quiet and peaceable possession of the premises about filly years, all of 
 which is nevertheless submitted to your excellency." Then follows the 
 following order of the council: — " On n ading at the board the report of 
 the gentlemen of the council to whom the petition of Killian Van Kens- 
 selaer was yesterday referred, the same was approved of, and ordered that 
 a warrant issue to the attorney general to prepare a draft of letters 
 patent of confirmation as desired by said petition at a yearly quit rent of 
 filly bushels of good merchantable winter wheat." 
 
 It will be obseived that the order in council was not that lelters patent 
 of confirmation should be granted, but that ihey should be jirepared by 
 the attorney general. The final question could not be taken until the 
 letters of confirmation were presented (or execution, and in the mean 
 time any person had a right to enter his caveat, or protest against their 
 being granted. As the proceedings of the committee of relerence were 
 subject to review and reversal, it might have been urged at the time, as 
 I have no doubt it was at a subsequent meeting of council, that this 
 packed committee of three belonging to a council of which Van Rens- 
 .selaer was himself a member, and which made tlieir rej)ort wilhin a few 
 hours after these important matters were submitted to them, must have 
 been nr.isiaken in every material fact as slated by them, for: 1st, ihis 
 Killian, the son of .leremias Van Rensselaer was not the heir .A law of 
 Killian the grandfather, as the judiciary commiltee of 1844 themselves 
 submit. Accoiding to the genealogical chart furnished by the Van 
 Rensselaers themselves to the judicial} comniillce at this very time, that 
 is in 1703 anallur Killian Van Rensselaer was the Irueheir, viz. Killian the 
 son of John Baplist who was the ddefit son of Killian ihe lirandralher, 
 whereas, this Killian in whose favor the commiltee made their leport, 
 was the son of Jeremias, wlio was a younger .son of Killian the graiid- 
 falher: 2nd, it appears from Ihe Journals of tiie General Assembly Ihat 
 this Killian Van Rensselaer the son of Jeremias, and from whom all Ihe 
 Van Rensselaers now claim, was on the first day of May, 1601, an alien, 
 and of course he could at that time have been long in Ihis country; 3d, 
 it appears from the report of the judiciary committee and Irnm the reci- 
 tal in the grant from Queen Anne, that the order fi( ni Ihe DuUe of Voik 
 to Governor Andioss in 1678, staled ihat the heiis of Killian Van Rens- 
 selaer the gi'i ndlalher, had been out of possession since 16o"2. How 
 then was it [lossible that Ihe heirs could have been out of possession from 
 16.52 to 1677, and in possession from 1653 to 1703. It is for the reader 
 to reconcile these discre|)ancies if he can. 
 
 The report of the committee of reference and the order of the council 
 thereupon, was not submitted to. A caveat was entered by one Barent 
 Peters Coeymans, and Killian Van Rensselaer's claim boldly dis|iutcd. 
 The attorney-general declined preparing the letters patent of" confirma- 
 
16 
 
 tion and the work was to be commenced anew. The governor, [who by 
 this time began to entertain doubts of the justice, or validity of the 
 claim, heard a debate by counsel on both sides nf the question, and his 
 doubts and suspicions being increased, "Ordered that the parlies sliould 
 produce their Ibrmer patents and writings to a committee oi the council 
 appointed, to inspect and peruse the same, and report to the council 
 what they did thereon." The conmiittee n)ade their report to the coun- 
 cil held at Fort Ann on the 8th of May, 1704. This time it was not al- 
 leged that Killian Van Rensselaer was the heir at law of Jeremias the 
 grandfather, or that he and his father Jeremias had been in possession lor 
 fifty years, but simply that granting letters patent as prayed for, in the 
 petition, without any addition, could not impair any of (he rights of 
 Barent Peters Coeymans. The judiciary committee say that "the min- 
 utes proceed to recite the determination against the caveat:" the minules 
 make no such recital except in the modified sense 1 have mentioned. 
 The council made the following order: — "His excellency and council 
 who therefore order and direct the attorney-general to proceed in prepar- 
 ing the said patent accordingly." Still there was no iinal decision, and 
 the proceedings thus far evidently contemplate further action on coming 
 in of the report of the Attorney-General, but no such subsequent action 
 was had. The matter seems to have been dropped in council, and in the 
 mean time Barent Peters Coeymans was quieted by obtaining a lease 
 from Van Rensselaer without consideration, ibr a large portion of the 
 lands said to have been included in the IVlanor. This release was dated 
 on the 22d of October, 1706. It was the uniform practice when final or- 
 ders of importance were made in council for the governor to transmit in- 
 formation of it to the general assembly by his message, and the purport 
 of his message was entered upon the journals of the house. I have ex- 
 amined carelully the very full and complete journals of the geneial as- 
 sembly for the years 1703-4-5, and although 1 find many messages were 
 received from the governor and council of much less importance, there 
 is no entry in regard to the patent, and this omission is the more romaik- 
 able that this patent if genuine required of the general assembly to re- 
 gard it in their apportionment of representatives. Still the committee 
 say, that the patent was granted, and this patent now claims our attention. 
 The patent of Queen Anne, the con)mittee say, is dated on the 30th of 
 May, 1704, in the third year of her reign, and they append a copy to 
 their report. The following is an abstract of the patent. It is in the 
 name of Queen Anne, recites that Killian Van Rensselaer, and Jeremias 
 his son, at their vast expense, cost and charges were the first settlers of 
 the lands mentioned under the government of the States General of the 
 United Netherlands — the grant of King Charles II. to the Duke of York 
 on the 12th of March, in the 16th year of his reign, and the surrender of 
 Peter Stuyvesant to Richard Nicolls, on the 27th of August, the same 
 year — the articles of surrender at which time Jeremias Van Rensselaer 
 was in possession — that Richard Nichols on the 18th of October, in (he 
 same year, under his hand and seal, did " order and appoint that the said 
 Jeremias Van RensseLier should and might lawfully enjoy and execute 
 all such privileges and authority within the limits of Rensselaerwyck, as 
 he did enjoy and execute before the surrender of New York afoiesaid 
 under his majesties obedience," and " that the inhabitants of the manor 
 should enjoy the benefits of the articles of surrender, provided always, 
 that within the space of one year after the date thereof, the said Jeremias 
 Van Rensselaer should procure a distinct patent for the yaid colony, for 
 his said royal highness, and in the mean time, that all the inhabitants 
 thereof should fake the oath of allegiance to his said majesty, Charles 
 the Second, and the then present government, which said privilege and 
 
17 
 
 autliorily on the twelfth day of October, in ye seventeenth year of the 
 said King Chailes tlic t>ctond, were cotilirii'ed ami reserved lo ihe said 
 Jereniias Van Kensseiaer till lurllier older by xMiung under the jjand of 
 the s'd Kichard iNitholls, Es(i." Ilial the Duke of 'ioik, by warrant, llic 
 8lii day of May, in the eighlcenlii year of Charles 11., diiected lochard 
 Nicholls, tsq., to continue to saitl Jereniias Van Kenssehier, Ksq., his 
 rights and auiliority, and the iiihabitanis oi the colony, their |irivihges 
 under the article ol >urien(ler, until the Duke could be belter iiiloinud 
 what lo do in the jireinises — thai the Duke ol York, by his wariant the 
 lUlli day of July, in the 2.5ih year ol Chailes 11 , directed Col. Lovelace 
 to continue the jirivileges and authority to Van Kensseiaer and the in- 
 habitants of the colony, until he, the Duke, should be better informed 
 \Nhal to do ill ihe |ireiiiises. 'Ihe deed luither recites that Jereniias \'an 
 Kensseiaer in 1674, died, seized and [ios.sessed of the Manor — that the 
 Duke by his warianl of the 7lh of June, in the 30ili year of Chailes 11., 
 directed Edniond Andioss " to cause letters |ialenl under Ihe great seal of 
 the governnienl of New York," to be gianled to the said petitioners, 
 graining and confirming unto them the said Kensselaerwyck colony, 
 with such privileges and immuniiies as then lormerly they had, and that 
 the warrant recited, that the heirs of Killian Van Kensseiaer had been out 
 of possession since 1652. The letters further recite, that Thos. Dongan, 
 on the fourth of November, in the first year of King James II., gave a 
 patent which is described; it repiescnts that the a|)plicatiGn lor the patent 
 was by Killian Van Kt-nsselaer, of the village ol Dorpe, of New Kiike, 
 in the province of Gelderland, in Europe, eklesl son and heir of Johannes 
 Van Kensseiaer, deceased, who was the eldest son and heir of the first 
 Killian Van Kensseiaer — that this Killian Van Kensseiaer the 2nd, had 
 become naturalized by an act of Assembly, of the province of New 
 Y'ork — that the deed was, " to Killian Van Kens-elaer the son of Johan- 
 nes Van Kensseiaer, and to Killian Van Kensseiaer the son of Ihe said 
 Jeremias Van Kensseiaer, their heirs and assigns, for all that and those 
 tracts of land called Kensselacrwyck, lying and being in and upon the 
 lands of the Hudson Kiver aforesaid, in the county of Albany, in the 
 province of New York aforesaid, theretofore called and known by Ihe 
 name of ye colony of Kanslaerwyck, beginning at the south end, or part 
 of Berren Island, on Hudson river, aforesaid, and extending northward 
 up along both sides of ye s'd river into a place theretofore, and yet call- 
 ed the kahoos, or the greal falls of ye s'd river, and extending itself east 
 and west all along, from the east side ol the said river backwards into the 
 woods twenlv-lbur English miles " — excepting the fort and (own of Al- 
 bany, and liberty to cut fire wood and lin'ber for fences, for twenty-one 
 years — constituting the Manor of Kensselaerwyck — giving the [lowcrto 
 hold court leet and court barro.i, and all the powers incident to a feud- 
 al manor, and one de|)uty lo sit in general assembly. That the Dongan 
 grant, was " in trust lor ihe rii:hl heirs and assigns of Killian Van Kens- 
 seiaer their grandfather, under the yearly rem of filly bushels of good 
 winter wheal, in full of all rents or former reserved rents, services and 
 demands whatsoever," (here is the end of the description of the Dongan 
 patent.) The deed of Queen Anne further recites, "that Killian Van 
 Kensseiaer son of Johannes Van Kens.selae"- died in the year 16S7, with- 
 out issue, whereby Killian Van Kensseiaer, eldest son of the said Jeiemi- 
 as Van Rensselaer, became soh'ly seized and possessed of the colony." 
 It then speaks of the petition of Killian Van Kensseiaer in November, 
 1703, preferred in council, (here end the recitals.) The deed then con- 
 firms the grant of Dongan, "to be holden in free and common socage, 
 as of our manor of East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, in our realm 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 of England," at a yearly quit rent of fifiy bushels of good merchanfaMe 
 wheat. The deed |)uri)orts to be tesied in the name of Edward Viscount 
 Cornbury, captain general and conuiiaiider-in-chief of the province, — but 
 his name is ?wt signed to the patent. It is transcribed in tlie books of 
 patents, No. 9, p. 237, but has no signature ol any |)ersoii aliached. The 
 Coaimittee gay ihat it is signed by the Secretary of lii.e Colony, George 
 Clark, upon the lower and left iiand side, and turned up margin of the 
 parchment, and tliat the seal bears the name of William and Mary. 
 
 I shall proceed now lo urge some objections against an implicit belief 
 in Ihe genuineness of ihis document. 1st. It creates a feudal eslate and 
 domain, in violation of the statute quia emplores, jiassed in the reign of 
 Edward I., and of the Bill of Rights, in the reign of Charles I., and is in 
 violation of the British laws, and constitution existing at the time. There 
 are no manor estates of a feudal character al this day existing in England 
 that were not created before the time of Edward 1., and parcels of these are 
 called copyhold estates. In a subsei^uent number 1 shall attempt lo show 
 that it was bey(jiid the power of (he sovereign even to grant a charter 
 such as that under which the Manor of Kensselaerwyck is now claimed, 
 2d. The historical mistakes and inaccuracies of the pretended patent, 
 are so many and so glaring as utterly to preclude the idea that it was ever 
 executed as an official document. I will allude to some of these errors. 
 The Deed recites that the New Netherland was granted by Charles II., 
 to his son the Duke of York on the 12lh of March, in the sixteenth year 
 of his reign. The reader will see by referring lo Hume's, or any other 
 history ol Englfind, that Charles II., ascended the throne in 1660 ; the 
 sixteenth year of his reign was in the year 1676, and the grant to the 
 Duke of York was made in 1664, a mistake of 12 years. The surrender 
 of 8tuyvesant, was in 1664, and the deed makes it in 1676, another mis- 
 take of 12 years. The deed speaks of an order by the Duke of Yoik to 
 Governor Lovelace, dated the 16lh of .July, in the 25lh year of Charles 11. 
 that is in 1685, and several months afler the death of Charles. Now gov- 
 ernor Lovelace ended his administration in 1667, eighteen years before 
 the alledged date of Ihe order. The deed speaks of an order from the 
 Duke of York, directed to governor Andross in the thirtieth year of 
 Charles II. , (1690,) when long before this Charles 11., had ceased to live, 
 and his bones had been mouldering in Ihe tomb of his ancestors for more 
 than live years. He reigned but 25 years, and died in 16S5, when fifty- 
 five years of age. The deed makes him sixty years of age at the lime 
 of his death, and upon a temporal throne five years after he had apjieared 
 before the King of kings. 3d. It does not ap[)ear that Ihe patent was 
 ever executed. Governor Cornbury's name is not signed to it. The 
 name of Geo. Clark, Secty, is placed in the extreme left hand corner of 
 the lower margin, and is no more a part of the instnunent than it would 
 be if placed on a se|)arate parchment. It is charitable to suppose that it 
 was placed there merely as a memorandum, or as a reference. There is 
 no law, or authority to be found that so important a dobument could be 
 sisjned by such an olficer as a valid execution. There is no example of 
 a legal instrument being signed by the pro|)er officer in th<' left hand col- 
 umn of the lower margin at a considerable distance below all writing. — 
 No man could be convitted of forgery in any court of justice for sign- 
 ing any name in such a place to any paper. It is but reasonable to sup- 
 pose that Mr. Clark's official signature to papers he was authorized to 
 si?n, was someihinar more than simply " Geo. Clark, Secty ;" thai ia 
 signing papers in which his name or office was not mentioned he would 
 at least give some data by which future generations mioht be enabled to 
 determine whether he was secretary of a bank, of a turnpike company 
 or the private and confidential secretary of Killian Van Rensselaer, es- 
 
]9 
 
 pecially as for waiit of (his infornialion from himself (here is no means 
 of ascer(ainiiio: i( from oIIht sources — none a( leas( tha( I can find afier 
 dili^en( scare li and inquiry. 4th. We nius( be allowed to doul)( (ha( ti)c 
 seal of VVdliam and Mary was (he seal of the Province in the third year 
 of (he re'i^n of Queen Anne. I have yet to learn th-it such a seal was 
 attached lo (he ciiarter given by Governor Cornl)ury (o (he cily of New 
 York in (he year 1703. We do know (liat (he j^overnor's own [iroper 
 name was adaciied to this charter of New York, and that he was wont to 
 sii^n all his patents. 5lh. There is no record prooi of this patent. — 
 Tiie scribe who in pursuance of (he law passed 3Ist Dec. 17G8, Iran- 
 scribed all old valid or iloublful Dutch and Kn!;li.>h docunienls in books 
 provided for thai purpose in copyinjj this patent so called, did no( con- 
 sider Geo. Clark's name (here as a signature, and omitted it in (he copy. 
 It is proved by the record Hut the patent was never signed, and this 
 is all that the record proves, and as this record is the only show of a gov- 
 ernment grunt, the Van Rensselacrs can exhibit as a record — / icottld 
 ask ifil is not record proof that the fun Rensseluers have no record title. 
 I shall resume the fur(her consideiadon of (he alledged Englisii (itle in 
 my next number. 
 
 NUMBER IV. 
 
 In my last number I assigned amongst other reasons for my distrust of 
 the genuineness ol the Queen Anne ])atenl, that i( was in violation of (he 
 English constitution and laws, existing a( the time it jiurporls to have 
 been granted; ami as it is of the utmost importance that (his (ac( should 
 be eslaldished and will render comparadvely easy our fuidier review of 
 the repor( of (he judiciary commit(ce; I shall proceed (o an examina- 
 tion of (he nature and kind of (he estate jjranted by the patent upon the 
 supposition (hat i( is genuine, and endeavor (o ascer(ain how far it con- 
 flicted or was in accordance with (he laws of (he government under 
 which it i-f said lo have been issued. As I shall a(temp( (o es(ablish that 
 the estate granted by this alledged patent, was feudal in its nature, char- 
 acter and inception, i( becomes necessary for us (o have a clear and dis- 
 tinct understanding of what constitutes a feudal estate, and for this pur- 
 pose I shall treat of the origin, rise, decline and final subversion of 
 feudalism in its most obnoxious features throughout the British domin- 
 ions, and attempt to show that the Van Rensselaer patent is not a relic of 
 this ancient baibarism, bu( an infiimous and most presumptions altem])t 
 at revival, and that i( is an insuK (o (he age and genera(ion in which we 
 live, for any person (o pretend (hat (his prepos(erous claim, was ever 
 founded in reason, justice or law. 
 
 Feu.ls were originally a military policy of (he northern conquering 
 nations, devised as the most likely means to secure their new acquisi- 
 (ions, and were large disliicts or [larcels of Ian 1 given or alloded by 
 Ihe conquering general (o the superior ofTicers of his aimy, and by them 
 dealt out in less |ia reels to the inferior ofTicers and most deserving soldieis. 
 Thus a pro|)er military snboidination was naturally and rationally estab- 
 lished and an army of feudatories were so many stipendaries always on 
 foot, ready (o mus(er ami engage in defence of (heir coun{ry. So that 
 the feudal returns of fealty or mutual fidelity and aid, seem originally to 
 have been political or latlier naluial consequences drawn from the ap- 
 ])aren( necessity these warlike chiefs were under, of maintaining iheir 
 ground with the same spirit and by the samt' means (iiey had got it. 
 ( Wright's Law of Tenures, 7-10. ") This service was originally purely 
 military, and (he possession of the feudatory by homage or feallv was in 
 tlie infancy of feuds, a kind of military engagement, rather implied tlian 
 
20 
 
 expressed, to be faithful to his benefactor and also assistant unto him. 
 (^Spellmanon Feuds, 6.) 
 
 As the princes of Europe were every day more and more alarmed by 
 tiie progress of the northern standard, many of them and by de<i;rees all 
 went into this or a like policy; and in imitation of it parceled out some 
 ol their own possessions or territories under an express lealty, engaging 
 their tjeneticiaries or tieudalories to maUe to them the like returns of 
 fidelity and aid, as lollowed from the nature and design of an uriginal 
 feud. ( t^Vright Ten. 10-13. )Feuds were originally precarious and held 
 at the will of ihe lord, they next became certain for one year, and were 
 some time after given for life. But though ieuds were not at first hered- 
 itary it was unusual to reject the heir ot the former feudatory provided 
 he was able to do the services of the feud, and the lord had no just objec- 
 tion against him. But though the lord did not remove the heir from the 
 feud, yet he did not succeeil absolutely as of course, but paid a fine or 
 made some ;icknowledg(nent called a re/t<^y for the revival of the feud, 
 and though that reason ceased, yet ihe fine was continued afterwards and 
 became tieredilary. {Wright 13-15.) Feuds were afterwards extended 
 beyond the life of the first vassal or feudal tenant, to his sons or some one 
 of them whom the lord should nan:e. In process of'timo, grand-children 
 succeeded to sons and brothers to brothers. At length not only descend- 
 ants in the direct line succeeded in infinitum but collateials also, with- 
 out regard to their degree, provided they were descended from, and were 
 of Ihe blood of the first feudatory. {Wright 15-18.) 1- euds being thus 
 originally in the hands of military persons who were under frequent in- 
 capaciiies to cultivate their own lands, they found it necessary to commit 
 part of them to persons, who, having no feudal possessions of their own, 
 wore glad to possess them on any terms. Proper feuds are such, and 
 such only, as are purely military and hereditary, and such as in all re- 
 spects preserve the nature of an original feud as before explained. It 
 was the military nature of these feuds that first rendered women and 
 monks incapable i>f receiving or succeeding to feuds of this sort, and 
 that restrained the alienation, devising or incumbering the feud by Ihe feud- 
 atory without the consent of the lord, and of the seignory by the lord 
 ■without the consent of the tenant, the obligations of the superior and in- 
 ferior being mutual and reciprocal. The feudal course of succession in 
 all proper feuds beloniied to the sons only (exclusive of daughters) and 
 to them equally; until by a constitution of the emperor Frederick honor- 
 ary feuds became indivisable, and as such they, and in imitation of them, 
 military feuds in most countries, began to descend to the eldest son only. 
 ( Wright 27-32.) Improper feuds are such as are sold or bartered for any 
 immediate or contracted equivalent, or that are granted free of all service; 
 01 in consideration of one or more certain services, whether mililary or 
 not; or upon rent in lieu of services, and all such feiids as are by express 
 words in their creation or constitution alienable or allowed to descend 
 indifferently to males or females. ( Wright 32.) jFealty the essential 
 feudal bond is necessary to the very nature of a feud and the most im- 
 proper feud cannot subsist without it. (1 Inst. 129 ) j^id is an obliga- 
 tion upon the feudel tenant to contribute to the private necessities or oc- 
 casions of the lord, and depends upon the usage or custom of the several 
 countries where they are e<lal)lishi'd. ( Wright 40-42.) 
 
 William the conqueror first introduced feuds or tenures into England. 
 He caused a general survey of England to be made and entered in the 
 Dooms Day Book, and then summoned all the great men and land hold- 
 ers in the kinsrdom to London and Salisbury to do their homage and to 
 swear their fealty to him; it then became a fundamental maxim, princi- 
 ple or fiction of English law that the king is universal lord of his whole 
 
21 
 
 territories, and that no man doth or can possess any part thereof or landi 
 therein, but as either mediately or immediately derived from him. We 
 find accordingly amonj^ the laws of William 1. " that all owners of lands 
 sliiill expressly engage and swear that they will become vassals or tenants, 
 and as such litilldul lo ViiliHin as ihcir lord, and that they will in conse- 
 quence Ihereol everywhere raiilifully niainlHin and defend his (heir lord's 
 territory and title, as well as person, and give him all possible aid and 
 assistance against his enemies foreign and domestic." Wardship be- 
 came part ol ihe law ol feuds alter they became hereditary — wardship of 
 the land was the custody ol the feud itself retained t)y the lord when it 
 desceniled on infants, (hat out of the lands he mi^hl (irovide a fit j)erson 
 lo supply the infant heir's defect of services until he became of age lo 
 perform them, l^ardship of the body was when the lord who had the 
 custody ol the feudal hind had likewise the care and maintenance of the 
 infant feudatory. The English lords took upon themselves the right to 
 dispose of their male and female wards in marriage. (^Spellman on Feuds 
 29.) The three most usual and frequent aitis exacted from the tenants that 
 became fixed anil established in England were 1st. To make the lord's 
 eJdest son a knight. •2d. To marry his eldest daughter by giving her a 
 suitable apportionment. 3d. To ransom his person when taken by the 
 enemy. (2 Conyn's Digest, 63-86.) An Escheat is when the fee de- 
 termines lor want of heirs and falls back upon the lord. (^Spellman on 
 Feuds 37.) Escaage was a pecuniary aid or contribution, or reserved in- 
 terest in lieu of personal services in the wars. (^Littleton, sec. 95.) 
 When the cscuage became certain, it did in effect discharge Ihe tenant 
 from all military service, and the persons who held by such escuage were 
 looked upon as socage tenants by knight service. 
 
 Tenures are divided into tenures by knight service and in socage. Ac- 
 cording lo Blcickstone "there were four principal species of lay tenures 
 lo which all others may be reduced, Ihe grand criterion of which were 
 the nature of the several services that were due to the lords from their 
 tenants. The services in respect to iheir quality were e'i\her free or base 
 services, and in respect to their quantity and the lime of exacting them 
 were either certain or uncertain. Free services were such as were not 
 unbecoming the character of a soldier to perform, as to serve under his 
 lord in the wars, to pay a sum of money, and the like. Base services 
 were such as were fit only for peasants or persons of a servile tank, as to 
 plough the lord's land, to make his hedges, lo carry out his dung, or oth- 
 er mean employnient. The certain services whether free or base, were 
 such as were stated in quantity and could not be exceeded on any pre- 
 tence, as to pay a staled annual rent or to plough such a field for three 
 days. The uncertain de|)en(ied upon unknown contingencies, as to do 
 military service in person or j)ay an assessment in lieu of it, when called 
 upon; or to wind a horn when the Scots invade the realm, which are free 
 services, or to do whatever the lord should covenant which is base, or 
 villein service." 
 
 Bracton, who wrote in the time of Henry the Third, says, "Tenements 
 are of two kinds, frank tenement and villeinage. And of frank tene- 
 ment some are held freely or in consideration of homage and knight ser- 
 vice, and others infrce socage wilh the seivice of fealty only," and again, 
 "of villeinages, some are pure and others are privilesred. He that holds 
 in pure ui//e)Ha£^e sliall do whatever is covenanted him, and always be 
 bound to an uncertain service. The other kind of villeinage is called 
 villein-socage, and 'hese villein sockmen do villein services, but such 
 as are certain and determined. 
 
 Jacobs, in his Law Dictionary, says, "that 1st. where the service was 
 free but uncertain, as military service with homage, that tenure was 
 
22 
 
 called the tenure in chivalry, or by knight service. 2d. Where the 
 service was not only free but also certain, as by fealty or by rent and 
 fealty, &c., that tenure was called the tenure by free socage. These 
 were the only free holdings, others were villeinous or servile, as 3d. 
 When the service was base in its nature and uncertain as to time and 
 to quantity, the tenure was absolute or pure villeinage. Lastly, where 
 the service was base in its nature but reduced to a certainty, this was 
 still villeinage, but distinguished from the other by the name of privi- 
 leged villeinage, or it might be still called socage, but degraded by their 
 baseness into the inferior title of villein socage." 
 
 The socage tenures are divided by the English lawyers according to 
 their duration into estates in fee, for life, for years and at will. Estates 
 in fee are eilh^'r fees simple or fees tail. "A tenant in fee simple is he 
 who halh lands or tenements to hold to him and his heirs forever." 
 (^Litt. sec. 1.) A fee tail is a fee limited and restrained to some particular 
 heirs in exclusion of others. The committee say that Killian Van Rens- 
 selaer, to whom the Queen Anne grant was given, entailed his estate by 
 will to particular heirs. 
 
 The reader will bear in mind that most of the leases given by the 
 Van Rensselaers to their tenants, reserve not only rent certain, but re- 
 quire also menial services to be performed, amongst which it is men- 
 tioned that they shall perform certain day's labor as required by the 
 Patroon. They may be required to cart his dung from his premises. 
 
 It will be remembered from the above definitions, that socage denotes 
 a tenure other than military, by every certain and determinate service. 
 Free socage is when the services are certain and honorable, and villein 
 socage is when the services, though certain, are of a base nature. Free 
 services are such as are not unbecoming the character of a soldier, or a 
 freeman to perform — base services are such as are fit only for persons of 
 a servile rank; as to plough the lord's lands, to make his hedges, to 
 carry out his dung, and other mean employment. When the services 
 are not only base but uncertain also, the tenure is pure villeinage. 
 
 It is evident, then, that the estates created by Van Rensselaer, by such 
 leases as I have mentioned, are not in free and common socage, but 
 either of pure villeinage, or ni villein socage. 
 
 This fact I wish distinctly borne in mind, for it has an important bear- 
 ing upon the question of title, as will appear in the sequel. We will give 
 the most liberal construction for the patroon upon these leases, and say 
 they are in villein socage. 
 
 "Manors were formerly called baronies, as they still are lordships, 
 and each lord, or baron, was empowered to hold a domestic court, 
 called the court baron, for redressing misdemeanors and nuisances within 
 (he manor, and for settling disputes of property among the tenants. This 
 court is an essential ingredient to every manor, and if the number of 
 suitors should so fail as not to leave a jury, or homasje, that is two ten- 
 ants at least, the manor itself is lost. (4 Jacob's Law Dictionary, p. 231.) 
 
 In the early times of the English constitution, the king's greiter 
 barons, who had a large extent of territory held under the crown, g an'ed 
 out frequently smaller manors to inferior persons to Le holden of ih.MTi- 
 selves, which do, therefore, now continue to be held under a superior 
 lord, who is called in such cases the lord paramount over all these 
 manors, and his seignory is frequently termed an honor, not a manor, 
 especiilly if it nath belonged to an ancient feudal baron, or halh been at 
 any time in the hands of the crown. In imitation whereof these inferior 
 lords began to carve out and grant to others still more minute estates to 
 be held of themselves, and so were proceeding downwards in infinitum, 
 till the superior lords observed that by this method of subdivision they 
 
23 
 
 lost all iheir feudal profits of wardship, niarriagcs and escheats, which 
 lell into the hands ol these mesne, or middle lords, who were the imme- 
 diate superiors of the terrc tenant, or him who occupied the land; and 
 also, that the mesne lords tiiemselves were so impoverished thereby, that 
 they were disabled from ()er(brming th'.-ir services to their own supeiiors. 
 (^Jacob's Law Dictionarij, 4 vol , p. 231.) 
 
 "■^ 7 enure is 'lie manner whereby lands or tenements are holden, or the 
 service ihal the tenant owes to his lord; there can be no tenure without 
 some service, because the service makes the tenure. (1 fnstitule, 1, 93.) 
 Tiie service due (or estates in free socag'e, is fealty only. "Almost all 
 the real property of the kingdom is by ihe policy of our laws supposed 
 to be jf ranted by, dependent upon, and holden of, some superior lord, by 
 and in consideration of certain services to be rendered to the lord by the 
 tenant or pussessor of tliis pmpcrty. The thinfj holden is therefore called 
 a tenement, the j)Ossessors thereof tenants, and the mannci of their pos- 
 session tenure. Thus all Ihe land in the kino:dom is supposed to be 
 holden mediate, or immediately of the kini^, who is styled lord para- 
 mount, or above all. Those who hold immediately under him, in right 
 o( his crown and dignity, were callied his tenants in capile, or in chief. 
 (2 Comyn, c. 5.) 
 
 I have en'Jeavored to g^ive a connected statement of the rise of the 
 feudal system, and some ol its most distinguishing characteristics, in the 
 words of the writers themselves, but much has been omitted as having' no 
 bearing upon Ihe points I design to raise, and in treating of its decline and 
 final abandonment, the same order will be pursued. 1 now stale as a 
 proposition, Ihat the jjatent of Queen Anne creates a feudal estate in all 
 its harsh and objectionable features, and that the powers conferred by this 
 supfiosed grant were in palpable violation of law, declared more than a 
 century prior to the date of the deed, and which have been in force ever 
 since under every change of government. The following fruits grew out 
 of ihe feudal system, and were at one time English law: 1st. The tenant 
 in capile, or king's immediate grantee, could grant out all his desmesne 
 in lesser parcels to tenants under him This is altered by 33 ch. of Magna 
 Chiirta, 9 Henry 3. (which is not to be found in the first charter granted 
 by that prince, or in the great charier granted by King John,) 'Mhat no 
 man should eilher give, or sell his land wilhout reserving suiTicient to 
 answer the demand of his lord." It appears from Ihe statement of Ihe 
 committee Ihat Killian Van Rensselaer the 1st, had three children — 
 John Ba|)list, the eldest son, and Ihe only son of a former marriage, and 
 Johannes and Jeremias Van Rensselaer. The pretended grant of Gov- 
 ernor Dongan was not to John Baptist, to whom and whose heiis the 
 land would descend according to the rule of primogeniture ihen and 
 still English 'law, but to Killian, Ihe son of Johannes, and Killian, Ihe 
 son of Jeremias, in trust for the right heirs of Killian the grandfather, 
 that is, intrust for John Baptist and his heirs — this John Ba|)ti>t had a 
 son Killian, and this Killian. Ihe committee say, in lt3P5, being empow- 
 ered l)y all Ihe heirs in Holland, released to Killian, the son of Jeremias, 
 all claims to the Manor. I shall have occasion, hereafter, to inquire 
 in relation Ui this trust estate as a trust, and the alleged release from the 
 right heirs, but shall (or Ihe purposes of the present ar£run)ent, assume the 
 statement of Ihe committee in the absence of all proof to be true. I then 
 sav tiial Ihe release trom Ihe heir was unlawful, as he did not reserve suf- 
 ficient to answer Ihe demand of Ihe king. 2d. The lerre tenant owed 
 fealty or homage to the mesne lord, or his immediate feoffer, as did the 
 tenant in capile to the king. This was altered by the statute of Quia 
 Emplores, 18 Ed. ch. 1, which directs "thai upon all sales, or feoffments 
 of lands, the feofifee shall hold the same, not of bis immediate feoffer, but 
 
24 
 
 of the chief lord of the fee of whom such feofFer himself held it." This 
 law not applying to the king's immediate tenants in capite, another act 
 was passed, called perogatwa regis, 17 Ed. 2, c. 6—34 E. 3, c. 15, 
 which declared "that all subinfeudalions, previous to the reign of King 
 Edward I., were confirmed, but all subsequent to that period were lelt 
 open to the king's prerogative;" hence it is clear, says Jacobs, in liis Law 
 Dictionary, 4 vol. p. 231, '^That all manors existing at Uiis day must 
 have existed as early as King Edward I., lor it is essential to a manor 
 that theie be tenants who hold of the lord, and by the opeiation of these 
 statutes no tenant in capite since the accession of that Prince, (Edward 
 II.) and no tenant of a common lord since the statute of quia eirtptures 
 could create any new tenants to hold of himself." Will it be said after 
 this that any new manor has been created since the reign of Edward 1. ? 
 And here I must say in this connection, that on this wide continent, where 
 English common law prevads, I can find only two solitary cases where 
 manors are, or have been, claimed in their feudal sense, and these two 
 are the manors of Rensselaerwyck and Livingston. I say lurther, that 
 the question of the legality of these two manors, as manors, has never 
 been presented or passed upon in a court of law. 
 
 3d. A court baron and court leet necessarily belongs to every manor, 
 but since the statute of quia emptores, no sOch couit can be created, for 
 it implies fealty, or allegiance to a mesne lord. " A manor may be com- 
 pounded of divers things, as of a house, arable land, pasture, meadow, 
 wood, rent, deodands, court baron and such like, and this right ought to 
 be of long continuance of time, beyond the memory of man, for at this 
 day a manor cannot be created, because a court baron canwol now be 
 made, and a manor cannot be without a court baron." ( Coke upon Lit- 
 tleton, 58, 108.) Is it not incredible that long after this plain statement of 
 law by the great jurists Coke and Littleton, a patent should be given to 
 the Van Rensselaers expressly creating a manor, and authorising them in 
 express terms to hold courts baion. 
 
 4th. By the degenerating of knight service, or personal military duty 
 into escuage or pecuniary assesments, all the advantages either premised, 
 or real of the feudal constitution were destroyed and nothing but the hard- 
 ships remained. At length military tenures, with all their iieavy appenda- 
 ges were destroyed atone blow, by the statute 12. Chailes II. , c.24, which 
 enacts, " That the court of wards and licences, and all wardships, liveries, 
 primier seisens and ouster lemains, values and forfeitures of marriage 
 by reason of any tenure of the king, or others, be totally taken away ; 
 and that all fines for alienation, (quarter sales,) tenures by homage, 
 knights service and escuage, and also aids for marrying the daughters, or 
 marrying the son, and all tenures of the king in capite be likewise taken 
 away — and that all sorts of tenures held by the king, or others be turned 
 info free and common socage, saving tenures in franklemaign, copyholds 
 and the honorary services of grand seignory." Copyhold estifes were all 
 parcels of a manor that existed by grant, and prescriptive right prior to 
 the time of Edward I. (3 Comyn's Digest, 209.) Estates in frankle- 
 maign and grand seignory were pecidiar estates confined to particidar 
 locations and a few individuals, and existed by prescrijitive right. After 
 this important law of Charles II., which more than doubled the wealth 
 of the kinsrdom of England, all the estates in the kingdom and colonies, 
 with the trifling exceptions of franklemaign and grand seignorv, consist- 
 ed of copyhold, or manor estates, that were created befoie the reign of 
 Edward I., and of estates of free and common socage. No manor estates 
 were, or could be afterwards created — and neither Governor Dongan, 
 or Governor Cornbury, or King James, II., or Queen Anne, or Killian 
 Van Rensselaer, or any other person, had power to grant any other es- 
 
25 
 
 (ate than (hat of free and common socage, or to give any estate that 
 would enable the grantees to create any estate, otlier than that of free 
 and coninion socage. It is one ol tl-e iiiosl extraordinary absurdities and 
 contradictions, o( the extraordinary and contradictory patent ol (^ueen 
 Anne, tiial while it allows the Van Kensselacrs to hold the estate in fiee 
 and coninion socage o( the king, it gives them the power to re(|uire all 
 their tenants to hold ol' them in pure villeinage, and even by military ten- 
 ure, and that this was their understanding is evident from their having 
 made vassals of their tenants. They churned, that the feudal system itself 
 was tortured and twisted lo make slaves of their tenants, and independent 
 lords of themselves — that ihey held the iNlanor in free and common so- 
 cage, but their tenants held under the most oppressive restrictions of feu- 
 dalism — they actually txcrczselhe powers ol" feudal barons in exacting quar- 
 ter sales and base services, and were restrained by prudential motives 
 only from exercising also the right of advowsen, of appoinling the minis- 
 ters of the people, of deodunds, of waifs, oi cstrays, ol numberless exac- 
 tions under the name of aids, of exacting homage and fealty by open and 
 l)ul)lic, and degrading ceremonies in their courls Iceland baron, of deter- 
 mining cases both civil and criminal, of appointing sheriffs, constables 
 and oihcr officers, and many other powers too numerous to mention, «// of 
 which were conlcrred by the patentsof Governor Dongan and Queen Anne, 
 the most of them ex|)ressed, and the rest resulting as apjiendant to a ma- 
 nor, powers which if enforced in all their length and breadth would destroy 
 every vestige of liberty and degrade man below the brute — yet we are 
 told such were tl e grants that were given by the governers of a free pro- 
 vince, over a free people, in direct and pilpable violation of British laws, 
 the British constitution and British protection. Reader do you believe it ? 
 
 In the code of laws for the colony passed under the Duke of York, im- 
 meiliately after the conquest, the statute of Charles II. is re-enacted, al- 
 though this was not necessary, as the common and statute law of England 
 was the law of the colony until re[)ealed. In this code of law it is also 
 expressly stated that all fines upon alienation should be null and void. In 
 the session of the Colonial General Assembly of 1691, the first alter the 
 revolution of Williani and Mary, the General Assembly passed a bill of 
 riiihts to be found in Bradford's edition of the Colonial Laws, p. 4, in 
 which it i-; enacted, " That all lands within this |)rovince shall be esteem- 
 ed and accounted lands of freehold, and inheritance in free and common 
 sockage according to the tenure of East Greenwich, in their majesty's 
 realm of England." By the same law it was enacted, "That all lands 
 and heritages within this province and de[)endencies shall be free from 
 all fines, licencex upon alienation, and from all heriots, wardships, li- 
 cences, premiers, seizens, year and day, waste, escheat and forfeiture 
 n[>on the death of [)arents and masters, natural, unnatural, casi;al, or ju- 
 dicial, ami that forever, cases of high treason only excepted." After 
 our American Revolution it was enacted by the act of 20lh Feh., 1787, 
 concerning tenure*!, " That all charges incident lo knight service — all 
 fines upon alienation and tenures by knight services are aboli>hed, and 
 all estates of inheritance made allodial," thus destroying the last vestige 
 of feudalism, as allodial estates under which all estates of inheritance in 
 this slate are now held, are pure and absolute fees, held by the owners ab- 
 solutely and inde[)en(lently, and the Manors of Rensselaerwyck and Liv- 
 inirston cannot be made exceptions, as I have shown by the law as it has 
 existed more than five hundred years. 
 
 The judiciarv committee lay much stress upon a fact as slated bv 
 (hem, that the Manor of Rens«elaerwyck was represented in ihe Colonial 
 General Assembly from 1601 to 1775, a period of eighty-four years, and 
 insist that this was a continued recognition by the government during 
 thai time, of the existence of Ihe Manor, and Ihe rights of ihe Palroon. 
 
 It may bo said in the first place, that if a representation of the Manor 
 by a delesrate in General Assembly was proof of recognition bv Ihe co- 
 lonial government, that i' never having been represented under the .Ame- 
 rican government, from the commencement of our revolutionary struggle 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 in 1775, until the present time, is equal proof that with us the Manor 
 never had an existence; that if the representation under the colonial 
 government was an acknowledgment on the part of that government, by 
 parity of reason it having had no represcnlation with us is a repudiation 
 on the part of our government. Bui I insist that there has betn no ac- 
 knowledgment, or repudiati( n of the Manor by either government as 
 such, on the ground of representation. True it is, that the Manor of 
 Rensselaerwyck, so termed, was for a long series of years represented in 
 the general assembly, but equally true is it, that it was not represented 
 on account of any title in Van Rensselaer, but because of an express act 
 of the general assembly, passed in 1691, to be found in Bradford's edition 
 of the Colonial Laws, p. 2. The committee would have us infer that the 
 right of the inhabitants of the Manor to be thus lepresenled, existed from 
 the patent, whereas, on the contrary, the legislature conferred this right 
 in express terms, and the representatives were sent, not because of th» 
 patent but because of the law, and this law was not fourded upon the pa- 
 tent, for it makes no mention of it, and speaks of the Manor of Rensse- 
 laerwyck as a political division and cleclii,n district of the country. This 
 explains at once the whole mystery. At this time, the only inhabited 
 portion of the state north and west of Albany, with the exception of a 
 few remote and scattered settlements, was in the immediate vicinity of 
 the city. This settlement about Albany, was known in common par- 
 lance as the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, and the legislature adopted the 
 name upon the same principle that induced them to call many other 
 places and districts from Indian names, and from other adventitious and 
 accidental circumstances. That I am right in this conjecture will be 
 evident from the fact, that the district of country known as the county of 
 Albany and the district of country known as the Manor of Rensselaer- 
 wyck, botli of which were entitled to send a member to the general assem- 
 bly, were repeatedly altered in boundaries and extent by several legisla- 
 tive enactments, and this without regard loany patent or charter whatever, 
 
 Albany county, at one time, included most of the state, and by the act 
 of March 12th, 1772, was divided into the three counties of Albany, Try- 
 on, and Charlotte. Some idea may be formed of the extent of the coimty 
 of Albany after this division from the districts into which it was divided 
 by the act of 24th March, the same yeai. These were city of Albany, 
 Manor ot Livingston; Kinderhook, Kings, Manor of Rensselaerwyck; 
 Schaticoke, Hoosic, Cambridge, Schenectady, United District of Duanes- 
 burgli and Schoharie, Cocksakie, and Great Inbold Districts. It will be 
 perceived that the Manors of Rensselaerwyck and Livingston are men- 
 tioned in this division, and now I wish to call attention to the significant 
 fact, that by this act it is expressly provided, that these political divisions 
 shall not establish the right of any patentee. 
 
 By the act of April 4th, 1786, Columbia county was taken fmm Albany 
 county, and Rensselaer county was taken from Albany by the act of Feb. 7, 
 179L To show that no regard was paid by the legislature to the patent boun- 
 daries of the Manors, I would state that by the act of March 12th, 1772, 
 part of the Manor of Livingston, so called, was annexed to Albany coun- 
 ty. In 1769, Claverack was part of the Manor of Rensselaerwyck, 
 and afterwards taken from it. ( Van Schaick's Colonial Laws, p. 549.) 
 In 1770, that part of the city of Albany, now known as the Colonie, was 
 described as part of the Manor. ( Fan Schaick's Sedition of the Laivs, p. 
 568.) The distiict of the Manor ol Rensselaerwyck, being deemed loo 
 extensive, was, by the act of March, 1796, divided into two, the east and 
 west districts. Again, the eastern district of the Manor of Rensselaer- 
 wyck was, by the act of March 29th, 1784, divided into the Rensse- 
 laerwyck and Stephentown districts. I think the reader must be satisfied 
 by this time, that Rensselaerwyck and Manor of Rensselaerwyck were 
 used by the legislature as conventional terms, and neither expressed or in- 
 dicated any right or title to the Manor, or territory described by that name. 
 
 But, say the committee, the question was directly raised and passed 
 upon in the Legislature of 1769 — "That on motion of Mr. Noyells, of 
 
27 
 
 Orange county, a question came up in the Assembly, on the right of Mr 
 Ten liroeck, who claimed to represent the iManor, and resided in Albany 
 oily, to repiesent the siime on account of his residence — that the question 
 beifig put by ayes and nays, it was resolved ihal Mr. Ten Broeck has 
 such a residence as entities him to a scat. This case, wlien examined, 
 proves altogether too much lor the purposes of ihe committee. The pro- 
 ceedings referred to are to be found in the journals of the House of the 
 29lh December, 1769, and not in November, as the committee stale. By 
 an act passed 8th AUiy, 1709, all persons not actually residing in the dis- 
 trict of country which ho might be elected to rei)re.sent in General Assem- 
 bly, should be considered as disqualilJed from serving iis a member. Mr. 
 Ten MroL'ck re>ided in the city of Albany, and was elected to represent 
 the Manor ol Uensselaerwyck — the question that arose was, virtually, if 
 the Manor, so called, was to be considered as part, or distinct from Ihe 
 city tind county of Albany. It was decided that it belonged to the county 
 of Albany, and that therefore Mr. Ten Broeck, although residing in the 
 city, was entitled to a seat — in other words, if J understand it aright, 
 that the Manor, .so called, was not a Manor, but part of the county of 
 Albany; and, in fact, the General Assembly but di^clared the law as it 
 had been expressly declared long before by the act of 24th October, 1706, 
 in which it is stated, "that the Manor aforesaid can by no rea.sonable con- 
 struction be intended to be divided from the said county." In pursuance 
 of these acts and decisions, the name of the Manor of Kensselaerwyck was 
 gradually dropped, and, finally, in the constitution of 1777, was not men- 
 tioned at all in the apportionment of representatives, and has not been since. 
 The commillee say tiiat there are no less than seven acts of the colonial 
 assembly, all recognizing the distinct and separate existence of the Manor. 
 I have examined all these acts, and have no hesitation in statins that every 
 one of them contain provisions and enactments utterly inconsistent \^•ith Ma- 
 nor rights, and a Manor title in the Van Uensselaers. They speak of the 
 Manor only as an election district, or political division of the country, and 
 confer rij»hts and privileges upon the inhaliitants in entire derogation of the 
 rights claimed by the Van Uensselaers as sovereigns, lords and masters. 
 There is one case however in regard to which the committee with great ex- 
 ultation venture to enter into particulars, and this requires our more particu- 
 lar notice. It seems that there was a dispute betw-een Massachusetts and 
 New Hampshire colonies and the colony of New York in regard to the east- 
 ern boundaries of New York. This Stale claimed the Connecticut as its 
 eastern boundary, and New Hampshire and Massaciiusetts claimed as their 
 western boun laries the Hutison River. In the session of the (General As- 
 sembly of 177.^, a committee was appointed of which Mr. Bush was chair- 
 man, to report upon these conflicting claims. Of course the committee would 
 attempt to make clear and manifest the superior claim of New York from the 
 Hudson to the Connecticut, and hence in their very long, able and elaborate 
 report make incidental and very brief mention of the Manor of Uensselaer- 
 wyck, ea~t of the Hudson as part of the disputed territory and claim that 
 this territory had been ceded to Van Rensselaer. This report was accepted 
 as a whole, but it was far from 'he intention of the Legislature to endorse all 
 that was stated in it, and is no more legal evidence of Van Rensselaer's title 
 than is the subsequent report made by the honorable the judicinry committee 
 to the Assembly in l''*44. But there is one fact mentioned in this report 
 •which the judiciary committee overlooked, and that is that Governor Went- 
 worth of New Hampshire on behalf of New Hampshire in an address to the 
 crown in 17.'>(), in regard to the question of boundary, slated that Mr. \an 
 Rensselaer had not seen fit to contest with Massachusetts Bay, for fl«i/ land 
 east of the Hu Ison River. The dispute in relation to boundaries between 
 this State and New Hampshire an^l Massachusetts was submitted to Coni:ress 
 for arbilrarioa by the act of 2lsl October. 1779. and tinally adjusted upon 
 principles entirely irrelevant and independent of the Palroon's claim, anil the 
 boundaries fixed according to their present limits, by which the claim of 
 Massachusetts and New Hampshire to the Hudson, and of New York to the 
 Connecticut were both set aside as being equally founded in error. A strip 
 of land twelve miles in Icnslh and four in breadth has actually been taken 
 from the Manor and set olf to Massachusetts, and the Yankees lar.gli to scorn 
 Van Uensselaers' pretended claim. 
 
28 
 
 There is an act of the colonial Legislature passed May 12th, 1699, which 
 the committee represent as a general law annulling improper grants and nam- 
 ing them, and argue that as Van Rensselaer's Dongan patent was not named 
 in this act it was equivalent to a confirmation on the part of the Legislature. 
 On looking at the act I Was surprised and pained to find it of an entirely dif- 
 ferent character from that as represented by the committee. The following 
 is the title: — "An act for the breaking, vacating and annulling several ex- 
 travagant grants of lands made by Governor Fletcher, late governor of this 
 Province under his Majesty." It seems that Governor Fletcher had made 
 several extravagant and outrageous grants of land to his favorites, and this 
 Legislature fe't bound to interfere for the protection of the public domain — 
 they confined themselves to his patents one of which was for seventy miles in 
 lensith by twenty in breadth ; another 50 by 12, and others equally extrava- 
 gant, and they were annulled expressly on the ground of their extravagance. 
 It is conceded by the Legislature that the governor had complied with all the 
 requisitions of the law in granting these patents, and that he had not exceed- 
 ed his powers, but abused them, and they, the Legislature, claimed and exer- 
 cised the right to reverse and annul the patents on the ground of their ex- 
 travagance. I argue that the Dongan patent was not claimed at that time, or 
 considered as valid in other respects, else it would have met the same fate as 
 the Fletcher patents, and for precisely the same reasons. 
 
 For the purpose of showing what was the opinion of the Van Renfselaers 
 themselves as late as 1775, in relation to their having an unquestionable title 
 to the Manor, I would call the particular attention of the reader to certain ar- 
 ticles of arbitration between the representatives of the Van Rensselaer estate 
 and certain claimants under a patent said to have been gi anted to John 
 Hendrick Van Baal, in 1772. The lands of this Van Baal patent are situated 
 mostly in the town of Guilderland and lie in the very heart of the Mnnor, as 
 described in the Dongan and Queen Anne grants. The lessees of Van Baal 
 disputed the claim of Van Rensselaer, and a law suit was the consequence. 
 But it did not suit the purposes of these parties to have their respective titles 
 examined in a court of justice, and hence they entered into an agreement to 
 submit their respective claims to arbitration, and to prevent impei tinent curi- 
 osity were exceedingly careful to bind each other not to dispute each other's 
 paper title, but rest the whole question of dispute between them, upcin prior- 
 ity of possession, and being aware that possession alone could not give either 
 of them a valid claim as against others, bound themselves that they would 
 jointly apply to the Legislature for an act to confirm the title of the party 
 found by the arbitrators to have been first in possession, and to the king to 
 grant a patent for the same. At that time there being no general law oi' the 
 colony authorising submission to arbitration, they applied to the Legislature 
 for a law authorising this arbitration, and the Legislature passed an act ac- 
 cordingly, April 1st, 1775, in which this agreement to arbitration is set forth 
 in h(BC verba, but the Legislature observing that from the agreement itself 
 neither party had got a title from the Legislature or the king, inserted a 
 provision in the act, expressly reserving the right of others and of the State. 
 
 At this time the clash of resounding arms was already heard, and the glo- 
 rious war of the revolution had commenced. This the last act of the Van 
 Rensselaers under the British government in relation to the Manor, was an 
 acknowledgment that their title needed confirmalion by an act of the general 
 assembly, and a patent from the king, and the last act of the colonial assem- 
 bly in relation to the Manor was a solemn enactment that the right of others 
 to this tract of land, and the rights of the king and government should be 
 maintained inviolate. I have followed the Van Rensselaer claim from the 
 earliest period of authentic history down the tide of time, until the year 1775, 
 and it now remains to vindicate the insulted laws and institutions of our own 
 state and government, and prove that afcudal system which could not be im- 
 posed upon a free, intelligent and patriotic people under British rule, was not 
 imposed upon them by our own glorious laws and institutions, and to this 
 joyful task I shall next betake myself with the proud spirit of an American 
 freeman. 
 
 NUMBER V. 
 
 It has become very fashionable for many persons, when speaking of the 
 Van Rensselaer claim to the Manor, to concede that he has derived title 
 irom possession, and that should liis paper title fail he can hold the lands by 
 
S9 
 
 possession. Even the honorable the judiciary committee, learned in the law, 
 have rillen into this popular delusion and error, and claim for the Van Uens- 
 selaers title from pos>ession. Far he it I'rom me to decry the iinporlancf of 
 a possessory title, when fairly and legally ac(iuired. I consider that such a 
 title challenges the respect and support of every well-meaning man, and I 
 hasten to meet this interes'ing and important question, and besluvv upon it 
 that attention which its importance deserves. 
 
 By chapter iv. title ii article 1, section 5, of the Revised Statutes, concern- 
 ing tlie limitations of actions, it is enacted, "That no action (or the recovery 
 of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or for the recovery of the pos- 
 session thereof, shall be maintained, unless it appear that the plaintifl', his 
 ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seized, or possessed of the premises in 
 question williin twenty years before the commencement of such action." 
 The above provision embodies the law as it has existed for many years, and 
 may be considered as declaiatory of all the law in relation to adverse jios- 
 session. In regard to this law I remark, 1 : That to acquire a possessory 
 title, the claimant, or his grantor, or predecessor, must have been in actual 
 possession of the premises claimed 'for more than twenty years. The pos- 
 session of a grantee, or lessee, is no part of this possession, and cannot 
 enure to the bcnfil of the grantee, or lessor, althoush the previous posses- 
 sion of the grantor, or lessor, may enure to the benefit of the grantee, or 
 lessee, in possession. If A should possess lands adversely for twenty years, 
 he therefore acquires a title which he may dispose of by deed, or devise, and 
 may transfer his possession to another, but should he possess lands but ten 
 years, and then give a deed, or lease to B, and B should occupy the land ten 
 years, B will have acquired a title by adverse possession, for he and his 
 grantor, or lessor, will have occupied the land for twenty years, but A will 
 have acquired no possessory title whatever. It is evident from the phraseol- 
 ogy of the statute, that the whole doctrine of ailverse possession is to pro- 
 tect the possession of the last occupant, and not of his predecessor, unless 
 his predecessor had acquired a complete title by possession before the last 
 occupant became possessed of the premises. iSuppose there was no law 
 forbidding the tenant to dispute tlie title of his landlord, and Van Kensse- 
 laer should bring an action of ejectment agamst one of his tenants, and upon 
 the trial fail to show a paper title in himself, could he recover liom adverse 
 possession when he was never in actual possession in his life, and the law 
 does not make the possession of his grantee, or lessee, as tantamount to an 
 actual possession in himself. This is too plain to admit of cavil, or dispute, 
 and it must be conceded by every one who will examine this subject, that if 
 the legislature should pass a law allowing the tenants to contest \ an J{ens- 
 selaer's title, that he could not recover on the ground of possession. It is 
 dillerent, however, with the tenants — they having been in actual possession 
 for mure than twenty years, could maintain that possession if Van llensse- 
 laer was out of the way, as against the whole world. 
 
 To constitute adverse possession, it is necessary, 1st. That it be com- 
 menced under color and claim of title. 2d. That it be hostile in its inception. 
 3d. That it be marked by definite boundaries. -Ith. That there be an actual 
 occupancy, positive, notorious, uninterrupted and continued for twenty vears. 
 It is a general rule that an adverse possession will be negatived. 1st. When 
 the parties claim under the same title. 2d. When the possession of one 
 party is consistent with the title of the other. 3d. When tlie party claiming 
 title has never in contemplation of law been out of possession . and 4th. 
 Wh' n the possessor has acknowledged title in the claimant. {Till. ^d. on 
 Ejectments, A3.) 
 
 It certainly cannot be necessary to multiply words to show that the ^'an 
 Rensselaers have never been in actual possession of the lands occupied by their 
 tenants; but to make it perfectly plain, we will give the legal definitions of 
 actual possession. 1st. "For the purpose of constituting an adverse posses- 
 sion by a iierson claiming a title founded upon some written instrument, or 
 some judgment or decree, land shall be deemed to have been jJO.'-sessed and 
 occupied in the following cases ; 1st. Where it has been usually cultivated 
 or improved. 2. Wlicre it has been protected by a substantial enclosure. 
 3. When although not enclosed it has been used for the sui)ply of fuel, or 
 of fencing timber, for the purposes of husbandry, for the ordinary use of the 
 occupant. 4th. When a knov.n farm, or sinsle lot, has been partly improv- 
 ed, the portion of such farm, or lot, that may have been left not cleared cr 
 not enclosed, according to the usual course aad custom of the adjoining coua- 
 
30 
 
 try, shall be deemed to have been possessed and occupied for the same length 
 of lime as the part improved and cullivaied." (2 R. S., 294, Sec. 9-10.) 
 '"For the purpose of conslitulirig an adverse possession by a person claiming 
 title not Ibunded upon some written instrument, or some judgment or decree, 
 land shall be deemed to have been possessed and occupied in the following 
 cases: 1st. Where it has been protected by a substantial enclosure. 2d. 
 Where it has been usually cultivated or improved." {211. S. 294, Sec. 11-12.) 
 ''The payment of taxes and the executiori of partition deeds, is not evidence 
 of an actual possession, though it may show a claim of title." (3 Johnson's 
 Reports, 3SS.) Under no pretence, then, can it be maintained, that the Van 
 Rensselaers were ever in such actual possession of the Manor as to constitute 
 adverse posses>ion. 
 
 But for the purposes of the argument, I am willing to admit that from the 
 earliest period until the year 1778, the V'^an Kensselaeis were in actual pos- 
 session of the Manor, then, I say, that until that year adverse possession 
 could not be set up as against the stale. "'Adverse possession cannot be sus- 
 tained against the state, unless the stale has expressly restricted its own right 
 by statute." {Til. Bal. on Lim. p. 427.) The state did not see tit to make 
 the doctrine of adverse possession apply as to them, until by the act of 26th 
 February, 1778, sec. 1, it was enacted, "That no suit shall be brought by the 
 people of this slate for lands, but within forty years after their title shall 
 have accrued." This act was re enacted by the act of 8th April, 1801. By 
 the Revised Statutes, chapter iv., title ii., article i., section 1, it is enacted 
 "That the people of this state will not sue or imjilead any person for, or in 
 respect to any lands, tcneinenls. or hereditaments, or for the issues, or profits 
 thereof, by reason of any right or title of the said people to the same, unless 
 such right or title shall have accrued within twenty years before any suit or 
 other proceeding for the same shall be commenced." We will suppose, now, 
 that the title of the Van Rensselaers to the Manor should fail, and that the 
 state should seek to recover possession of these lands, proce^'dings could cer- 
 tainly not be commenced against the Van Rensselaers, for they are not in 
 possession, and ten thousand juda;mcnts against them would not remove the 
 tenants: but suppose the state should be so far forgetful of its duty to the 
 public — to the people — as to commence ejectment suits against the tenants, 
 then the tenants could reply in the language of the statute, that not having 
 commenced your suits within twenty years after your title accrued, or after 
 we came into possession, you are forever barred. 
 
 If I have succeeded then in showing that the Van Rensselaers have no title 
 from possession, their case is hopeless unless it can be made to appear that 
 from some consrilutional provision, or legislative enactment, or some judicial 
 judgment, or decree of a court of law or quity in this State, a title in them 
 has been created, acknowledged, recognized or confirmed. 
 
 In the first constitution of this Slate adopted in 1777, there are to be found 
 the following provisions — '" And this Convention doth further, in the name 
 and hy^-tlie_ authority of the aood people of this St".te, ordain, determine and 
 declare that such parts of the common law of England and Great Britain, 
 and of the acts of the Legislature of the colony of New York, as together 
 did form the lav of the said colony, on the nineteenth day of April, in the 
 year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and 
 continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as 
 the Legislature of this State shall from lime to time make concerning the 
 same. That such of the said acts as are temporary shall expire at the times 
 limited for their duration respectively. That all such parts of the said com- 
 mon law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof 
 as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of 
 Christians, or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, 
 and the supremacy, sovereignty, government or prerogatives claimed or ex- 
 ercised by the king of Great Britain and his predecessors over the colony of 
 New York, and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this consliluiion, be, and 
 they are hereby abrogated and rejected. And be it further ordained, that all 
 grants of land made by the king, or, of persons acting under his authority, 
 after the fourteenth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy 
 four, shall be null and void. But, that nothing in this consliluiion contained, 
 shall be construed to affect any grants of land within this State, made by au- 
 thority of the said king, or his predecessors, to annul any charter to bodies 
 politic, by him or them, or any of them made prior to that day." 
 
 The same provisions are substantially contained in the constitution of 1821. 
 
31 
 
 Now there is certainly nothing in these conslitulions which confiim the claim 
 of the Van Rensselaers unless by the laws of England as Ihey existed in 1775, 
 he was enlilled to Ihe Manor. It' 1 liave shown in llic prtcediiif; niiniliHrs, 
 thai he lias no valid Enu'lish litic, then he has no Aniiricaii liile. In ilie ihird 
 number 1 allempled lo show thai liie pretended jialeni of Queen Anne vas 
 never granted or executed, and in the fourth number, thai tins patent, il gen- 
 uine, was contrary to the laws of England existing al the time and ever since. 
 I spoke of Ihe nature ol the estate granted by the patent, ihal it was feudal 
 and in violation of law, and that no grant could be valid that cave the grantee 
 power to carve out of it any other estate than that of tree and common so- 
 cage ; and traced the English law upon the subject until the time ol our rev- 
 olution. It now remains that i follow up the law unto the present tirLC. 13y 
 the act of the 2()th of February, 1787, concernint; tenures, section 1, declares 
 that every I'reeholder of an estate of inheritance may alien or sell at pltastire. 
 The leases given by Van Rensselaer declare that the tenants shall n( I be al- 
 lowed to alien without the consent of the Patx en. i-(c. 2, lakts avay all the 
 feudal features of estates of inheritance, amongst which are expressly men. 
 tioned tines for alienation or quarter-sales and all base services. The leases 
 from Van Rensselaer retain most of these feudal features amonsst which are 
 expressly mentioned a Hne of one quarter of the purchase money for every 
 sale, and also day's labor with a team, brincinix fat fowls, &.c. ike Sec. 3 de- 
 clares that all tenures of land thereafter to be granted sluiuld he allodial ; the 
 Patroon siiice this lime has crenied hundreds of estates in pure villeinase 
 and villein socage. The act of 1787 is contained in the revised laws of 1813, 
 and its provisions embodied also in the last Revised Statutes,! vol. p. 718. 
 
 Not finJing any law in the conslitulions or statutes of the Stale to confirm 
 the Van Rensselaer claim, I waded through all the reports of all the adju- 
 dicated cases in the Stale with as litlle success, lor I could not find one case 
 in which their title has been passed upon, but I found three cases in which it 
 was disputed. 1st. As early as 1675, under the Hritish government, it was 
 disputed by Nicholas Van Rensselaer, a Dutch clergyman, (^'fe Sinith's his- 
 tory of A'ew York, 2 vol. p. 49.) Nicholas afterwards went to Holland be- 
 fore the dispute was settled. 2d In 17()3 it was disputed by B P. Coeymans 
 (See No. 3.) and this dispute was adjusted by releasing to Mr. C'oeymans a 
 larse portion ol the best lands in the Manor. 3J. In 1775 it was disputed by 
 the assigns of Van Baal, (see No. 4,) and this dispute was finally ailjusled by 
 arbitration, by which another very large portion of the Manor was taken 
 from the Van Rensselaers. There are other cases no doubt in which the title 
 was contested, but as these cases were all settled before trial, no records are 
 preserved that I can find. 
 
 But the judiciary committee come up gallantly to the help of the Van 
 Rensselaers and announce very gravely that they must have a title because 
 they have paid the comptroller a few hundred dollars quit rent, for lands 
 from which they were receiving millions. That because the comptroller did 
 not inquire into the title and recei\pd the Patroon's money, not knowing 
 whether he was bound to pay it or not, therefore the State and its citizens 
 are precluded from questioning the title, and the comptroller has settled the 
 whole matter. Really I cannot L'ive a serious refutaiion to this argument for 
 it is beyond iny powers; but this I will say, that as no quit-rent has been 
 paid of late years, and as the comptroller has no power to ci mmule, the Van 
 Rensselaers have beyond all doubt become anti-renters, and 1 respectfully 
 suggest that the military should be called out on this momentous occasion, 
 and all the Van Rensselaers in Christendom be declared in a state of insur- 
 rection. 
 
 NUMBER VI. 
 
 If it be true that the Van Rensselaers have no valid title to the lands of the 
 Manor, the inquiry at once sueeests itself lo every mind w hat is lo be done ? 
 and what are itie riehts and duties of the tenants in relation lo such a singu- 
 lar slate of things ? I answer : 
 
 1st This fact does not render less meritorious or important the great prin- 
 ciples of jurisprudence and government for which the lenants have been and 
 still are ctmteni ing, i i regard lo the powers of the Legislature in altering 
 the tenure of lands, and relieving the people from onerous and oppressive 
 laws. Such has been the zeal manifested by opponents of Ihe anti-rent 
 cause, so calleti, that the constitution itself has been perverted, and made to 
 
32 
 
 utter a language never intended by its framers ; and saactioned doctrines and 
 opinions subversive of all true liberty, and as devoid of common sense as of 
 correct legal construclion. Our enemies will have it, that ihe tenants are 
 not only enslaved but must needs always remain so, and that our nuble and 
 patriotic ancestors have absolutely made feudal servitude interminable, and 
 fastened it upon us and our posterity until the end of time. They will have 
 it, that the Leijislature have no power to relbrm acknowledged abuses, repeal 
 bad laws, legislate for the people — but that the whole business, end and aim 
 of government is to collect rents for a few purse-proud and aristocratic land- 
 lords — to pass for them partial and invidious laws, giving them special ()riv- 
 ileges that cannoi be granted to farmers and mechanics, and to enlorce those 
 laws at all hazards — to do every thing for property, but nothing for man — to 
 protect the rich but neglect the poor — promote the interests of the few at the 
 expense of the best interests of the many. 
 
 The Helderburgh, the third senatorial district, is but the theatre of war- 
 fare; the interests at stake are not confined to lime or place. We can trace 
 in the light of history as with the efl'ulgence of noonday, the ruin of every 
 republic of the ancient world to the detestable principles and practices of 
 land monopoly and serfdom of the soil. The innumerable evils that now af- 
 flict the nations of Europe are all atributable principally, if not solely to this 
 unrnitigate.l curse. A curse from which no nation ever yet permanently, or 
 etfeinually freed itself by agrarian laws, or the torcible division of landed 
 property. A curse which on account of the vast extent of our territory, the 
 sparseness of our population, the infancy of our existence and the wise and 
 salutary laws against primogeniture and restraints upon alienation has not 
 yet overtaken us as with the besom of destruction, leaving no hope but in 
 the evils of agrarianism, or the horrors of revolution — but which is neverthe- 
 less stealing upon us as a thief in the night, and in a thousand insidious ways 
 sapping the foundations of our glorious fabric, corrupting public sentiment 
 and preparins for itself empire in this land of the free and home of the 
 brave. The tenants seek to prevent monopolising aggression by the repeal 
 of partial and unequal laws, and destroy the monopolising spirit and vilaiity, 
 by the irresi>tible influence of public opinion. These are high and glorious 
 objects entertained by the tenants, irrespective of the question of title, and I 
 liave dwelled thus much upon this broad and expansive view to relieve the 
 tediousness of a mere technical discussion, and to caution my readers that 
 title is an important, but not the only question. 
 
 2d We should obey implicitly the law of the land, and preserve perfect 
 peace and order. It is the just pride and boast of the American people, that 
 while our laws are already more perfect than those of any other nation, the 
 theory of our government is such that all abuses can be reformed, defects or 
 omissions remedied, and every desirable alteration or improvement made by 
 the free voice of Ihe people — and I trust that it will ever be remembered that 
 freedom of speech, liberty of Ihe press, and the ballot will never fail us in 
 the hour of need. That as long as these rights are secured to us, no true 
 patriot will seek or desire other weapons. Every law upon our statute book 
 of which we complain, was placed there by the consent of the people — was 
 placed there by the people, and for the time being is the expression of their 
 will; and in submitting to the people, we but submit to selfsovernment, for we 
 are of the people, and when the proper time has arrived and public opinion 
 has become changed in regard to these laws, the power that created will de- 
 stroy, and we will do our own work in the way that we have ourselves pre- 
 scribed, by the government of our own choice. Anarchy is even more to be 
 dreaded that despotism — it is of itself the worst of despotisms, and true re- 
 publicanism is as far removed from the one as from the other, and those who 
 would involve our country in scenes of violence and outrage, are preparing 
 for themselves and for us, far greater evils than any we have yet been called 
 upon to endure. At the same time we cannot be too jealous, or watcliful of 
 our rights, and should resist manfully, and with spirit and determination any, 
 even the slightest agjression, but resist in a way that God and our conscience 
 and the laws will approve. 
 
 3d. We should insist upon the repeal of the following law as it now exists. 
 "A person who has entered into possession of lands under another, and ac- 
 knowledsed his title, cannot set up an outstanding title in a third person." — 
 (6 Joknson's Reports, 34.) '• If the defendant has recoiinized the lessor as 
 his landlord, he cannot afterwards dispute his title." — (1 Chancery Reports, 
 444.) The repeal of this law is of fundamental importance to the tenants, 
 
33 
 
 and absolutely neces«nry to the maintenance of their liglils ami tit enlorcr- 
 ment of justice, //the tenants have been for a long series of years deceived 
 and hunibugced, defraudeii and oppressed by a claim of title that was never 
 valid in law, by what principle of justice, or of equity, by what rule of etliics 
 shall the Van Renssclaers be still allowed to take advantage of their own 
 vrong f If the Van Renssclaers arc themselves deceived in this matter, and 
 suppose that they have title when in fact they have none, is that any reason ''y^v 
 
 •why the truth should be lonjier concealed ? When the title of GerrifSmith ' 
 
 of Madison county, to certain lands he had inherited from his father, was 
 questioned by the tenants, he sent for them and generously and witu the true 
 spirit of an honest man, offered to submit his title to the most rigid scrutiny, 
 and pledged his word that should it be found against him, that the tenants 
 should not only hold their farms independent of him, but that iie would in ad- 
 dition refund them every cent of money that they, or their fathers before them 
 had paid to Mr. Smith, or his father, on account of these lands. There is not 
 an honest and ingenuous mind that docs not at once approve of this course 
 on the part of Mr. Smith as dictated alike by reason and justice. In the pre- 
 ceding number I have shown what would be the legal ell'ect in case the Van 
 Rensselaer title could be disputed by the tenants, and it should prove to be 
 defective. That in such case the lands would not escheat to the State, but 
 vest in the tenants from possession, and when we consider that the tenants 
 and not the ^'an Renssclaers have been in actual possession of these lands — 
 iliat thcxj rescued them from the wilderness and by hand labor have thrice 
 earned their possessions — that they have paid for them over and over again 
 by exorbitant rents and tlie payment of ta.xes that the patroons should have 
 ])aid. It will be conceded that the tenants ask for nothins that is wrong and 
 should not be granted them when they ask for these lands if owned by no 
 one else. 
 
 4th. The law in relation to trespass upon lands, gives the tenants power 
 to test even now the title to the Manor, and they should unite as one man 
 in availing themselves of this law in such a way as to do no violence to the 
 laws of morality, and lor the sole and single purpose of determining this 
 much disputed question. Any person who trespasses upon the lands of an- 
 other, is liable to a civil action of trespass, and the jury in such case may 
 give exemplary damages against the wrong doer. If the trespass be wilful 
 and intentional, and injury be done to the freehold, the offender is also amen- 
 able to the laws of the land as for a criminal ofl'cnce, and can be indicted, 
 tried, convicted and punished for malicious trespass, which is a misdemeanor 
 both at common law and by statute. In such cases, however, the defendant; 
 or accused, is not precluded from disputing the right of property, unless the 
 lands were in the actual possession of another, in which case ownership 
 need not be proved, for it is presumed from possession, and cannct be con- 
 troverted by a person who has no title in himself. In the preceding num- 
 ber, I have shown what is necessary to constitute actual possession. If tlip 
 lands upon which the trespass was committed, be wild, un'-nclosed, and va- 
 cant, positive ownership must be proved ns laid in the declaration, or indict- 
 ment before the suit, or indictment can be sustained. '"Trespass on lands 
 ran only be maintained by a person having nctual and lawful possession." — 
 (9 John. 61.) Or, in case the premises are vacant by one who has the legal 
 title which draws to it the possession — (1~ John. 183) — in which case, how- 
 ever, the plaintiff must show his title, and thus make out constructive posses- 
 sion. (12 John- 183.) If, then, there be any wild and unenclosed lands in 
 the Manor, in the possession of no one, any person who troes upon Ihrm end 
 does injury to the freehold, can escape with impunity until the ownership of 
 the lands be proved. Such lands, however, bclons; either to Van Rensselaer, 
 or to some one claiming under him, or to the Stale, and no person who has 
 not title in himself, can with a clean conscience, under ordinary circunislnn- 
 ces, trespass upon these lands. Still, one trespass upon such lands, if trifling 
 in itself, and with an oiler of indemnity to the owner, whoevrr he may be, 
 and committed for the purpose of bringing u)i the question of title, and if 
 that question be of public interest and concernment, cannot be condemned by 
 the most rigid morality, notwithstanding it be a palpable and open violation 
 of the laws of the land. The person committing such a trespa«s, however, 
 must do it in a spirit of self-sacrifice, for his motives and the reasons of 
 the act cannot be unJer«tood by the vast majority of his fellow-citizens, and 
 from astociation of ideas ht will at once be classed with criminals, and thosp 
 who regard aot th« right* of property. At the same lime bo must be ei 
 
34 
 
 man of at least ordinary integrity and decisicn'of character, and possessed of 
 a medium share of intelligence, or he will not be able to withstand the per- 
 secution which he is sure to meet, the abuse to which he will necessarily be 
 subjected ; the art, the skill, the learning, and the talent with which he will 
 be assailed for the purpose of crushing him, or driving him from his position 
 with shame and disgrace. I considered all these things and counted the cost, 
 and in opposition to the tears, remonstrances and entreaties of those I love 
 best, amidst a flood of imprecation and obloquy from those I despise, I went 
 myself, not caring to entrust so important a business to the keeping of others 
 who would have saved me the woodman's labor, and »pon wild and Bncultk- 
 vated land on the Manor, in the town of VVatervleit, claimed by the Patroon, 
 and in the presence of a witness, cut down with vast labor and exertion,, 
 and in a peculiar manner, a tree, a very small tree, and as it came tum- 
 bling to the ground, methought I heard the crash of patroonery, and the 
 fall of feudalism. Tenants, it is your act, for it was done with the knowledge 
 and consent of some of your principal and chosen men, with whom I had 
 previously consulted, and you owe it to yourselves, to the cause you advo- 
 cate, and to me, that I sutler no detriment for this, and I have never doubted 
 for a moment but that I shall be nobly and triumphantly sustained. I imme- 
 diately addressed a note to Van Rensselaer, in courteous language, detailing 
 the full particulars of the transaction, and conjuring him, if he had a title, to 
 avail himself of this opportunity to make it apparent and satisfy the public 
 mind in regard to it — that I should be in attendance the next day at the 
 Police office, with the witness, by whom the fact could be proved, prepared 
 to contest his title — that a neglect to prosecute on his part would be considered 
 by thousands as a tacit confession that his claim is not valid, and that I should 
 publish the proceedings to the world. Hejdid not make his appearance as! 
 had appointed, and although a Grand Jury has since been in session, has not 
 seen fit to commence a prosecution. 
 
 A jury of my country must and shall pass upon this trespass. If I have 
 offended, public justice requires that I should be punished. If I have done 
 no wrong to Stephen Van Rensselaer, Jr., I should be honorably acquitted 
 of that charge. In regard to the State, I feel guilty and criminal, and if the 
 payment of twenty-five dollars, the penalty affixed for cutting down one tree 
 upon the State lands, would be received by the treasurer, it shall be imme- 
 diately paid, and I will promise in addition never to offend in like manner 
 again, and perhaps would not have done so this time if it had not been for 
 the lax manner with which this property has been heretofore protected and 
 kept. 
 
 Any person can prefer a complaint, and the attendance of the Patroon 
 upon the trial, with his title deeds, and the State Comptroller with all neces- 
 sary documents enforced by attachment, if necessary; hence, a trial must be 
 had and the title investigated. And I submit it to the enlightened judgment 
 and good sense of mankind, if all proceedings against the tenants, for the col- 
 lection of rents should not be suspended ,jn theTVnean time; if proof of title 
 should not be first in the order of time. 
 
 Every tenant, who has a personal interest in this matter, should at once 
 contribute towards defraying the necessary expenses of such a trial, and the 
 subsequent proceedings. The best and most eminent counsel in the State 
 should be retained, and nothing left undone to secure for the tenants a final 
 and complete triumph even to the court of dernier resort. A trial that wiFl 
 test the title is infinitely more important than anything else that can be done 
 at this time, and the incipient steps should not be delayed another day. 
 Money enough has been wasted in defending suits in which title could not 
 be brought in question. You cannot, as good citizens, multiply acts of tres- 
 pass, or wantonly destroy property, and one suit is sufficient for all your pur- 
 poses. 
 
 In raising the necessary funds for this and other purposes, I would suggest 
 with diffidence, that every town in the Manor give a public ball, or festival, 
 so as to combine pleasure with business, delight with profit. That the 
 treasurers of the different town associations should act as a finance committee, 
 through whose hands all moneys must pass. That the young should imme- 
 diately bestir themselves, and the old lend their smiles of approval, and that 
 all should go merry as a village bell, while nothing is seen but order and 
 decorum, the wisdom and spirit of an intelligent and Christian community. 
 
 Farewell, kind and patient reader, until we meet again face to face ! 
 

 
 
 0* ,' ••=>.• "> 
 
 ^** :^M", %/ 
 
 V ,^ 
 
 
 .^'\ 
 
 ' o <^ VP 
 
 o 
 
 •o V 
 
 -Jv 
 
 .^ 
 
 
 ■^^ ...0"° 
 
 
r> 
 
 ♦ 
 
 
 
 -J- 
 
 A 
 
 
 _ I* 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,/ 
 
 ^f 
 
 
 
 
 .K 
 
 \f- 
 
 ♦ 
 
 ^*^ 
 
 
 (f 
 
 
 -v- 
 
 ''■n. 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 .-•^ 
 
 9^ 
 
 
 
 
 41. 
 
 c\ 
 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 ,''' 
 
 
 
 • '»i. 
 
 
 ' « 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 -v, 
 
 IP^-*' 
 
 ^^' 
 
 
 ,.* im^. \/ :-^^^, %,.* ,•'- 
 
 
 A 
 
 .-^'\ 
 
 
 
 
 a'' - 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^'^. 
 
 .0' t 
 
 
 
 •0' , 
 
 ■» o. 
 
 -n.-o^ 
 
 v*^' 
 
 
 
 ^0 'tf^ 
 
 >» . ♦ • 
 
 
 
 
 V %^ 
 
 o > 
 
 ^^\' 
 
 A 
 
 
 ^^•n^. 
 
 
 4 o * - 
 
 .^.' .*"'°-'. 
 
 'oK 
 
 
 * A* 
 
 
 0^ 4O 
 
 ^0- 
 
 
 
 
 
 \r 
 
 .0 
 
 >a * ^-^^ ^^ '^-'^ 
 
 K<i>'