right from possession had not become established, and hence in that direction, the claims of the discoverers would still survive.

But another question presents itself to notice. Did the claim of the English continue in force during the whole interval of time between the date of the original discovery, and that of entering, and taking possession; or was it lost from non-usage and lapse of time? Some authorities have represented a right from discovery as being of so imperfect a nature, as to be nearly incapable of distinct existence. It has even been laid down a general principle or rule, that the property and sovereignty of a nation cannot be acknowledged over any newly discovered lands except those of which it has really taken possession, on which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.15 The acknowledgment of this principle would be entirely to destroy and extinguish the right in question, or at least, to render it of no value or force; its virtue would then be made to depend upon some other, some subsequent act, or thing. But this doctrine is by far too strongly stated. Discovery does certainly confer a right, and one that is distinct and independent, though it may be lost in consequence of neglect, and the lapse of time. not been precisely determined. to what they call "a reasonable, time," but this is a mode of expression that fixes nothing, as a reasonable time can only be determined by particular circumstances, and will therefore vary in the several cases that may come into view. If, during a period of general activity a nation should overlook or neglect a possession; no disposition whatever being shown to assert or maintain a claim, a presumption will soon arise that its claims have been abandoned. But during a period of general repose, when nothing occurs to call for vigilence or notice, then, the mere quiescence of a party cannot be rightfully construed as an abandonment of claims. The "reasonable time" must be somewhat extended under circumstances like these. The principles and views above given may be applied to the case under notice.

The period of its existence has
Some authors limit its duration.

The movements of the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the

18 Vattel.

French, which have already been mentioned, were made at a comparatively early period, and subsequent to these, nothing was done in Northern- America,.until the advent of the-English themselves. There was a long period of general tranquility, nothing occurred to urge to immediate or speedy action, and the "reasonable time" allowed for such action, would hence be prolonged.

At the very least, if the English title could not be considered, throughout the whole of this period, as being sufficient to bar the advances of other nations, had such advances been made, yet, in the absence of such, it continued so far in force, as to warrant the English themselves in entering the country and perfecting a title, by use and possession.

CHAPTER II.

POSSESSION BY THE ENGLISH.

AT length a period arrived when the English people resolved to take fuller possession of their American territories. The reign of Queen Elizabeth was to be marked, in addition to other successes, by the execution of this design. In the year 1577, an enterprize was projected to establish a settlement, and the course of procedure adopted at the time, was such as brought at once into view, some of the most important principles of British colonial policy. Application was made to the Queen by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an individual who was distinguished for his generous qualities, and an ardent love of adventure. To this person a grant was made in a formal instrument which was described in its title, as "Letters Patent granted by her Majesty to Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Knight, for the inhabiting and planting of our people in America." It was dated June 11th, 1578. This instrument gave to Sir Humphrey, the full right to certain portions of lands, and also, full authority for the establishment and maintainance of government. It conveyed to the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assigns, and every of them, forever, the right to hold and enjoy all such lands, countries, and territories as he should discover, not actually possessed by any christian prince or people. It vested in the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assigns, the full right of property in the soil of these countries which he and they were to hold of the Crown of England by homage, upon condition of paying one fifth of all the gold and silver ore found there. It conferred complete jurisdiction within. the said lands, and the seas adjoining them, and gave full authority and power to correct, punish, pardon, or rule all such persons as should adventure within, or inhabit these lands, and that in all causes, capital or criminal, as well as civil. It gave power to make all statutes, laws, and ordinances, for the better government

of the people, provided, however, that "the said statues, laws, and ordinances, should be as near as conveniently may, agreeable to the laws and policy of England."

The question naturally arises, whether it was within the proper scope of royal authority to confer a grant so comprehensive and full, as was this. The nature and extent of the English claim to land in America have been already considered. This claim so far as it continued in force, had been received by the sovereign now on the throne, in the common course of descent, and the royal authority in these lands was founded on the same laws that existed, and were in operation, in other parts of the realm.

The territory in America could only be regarded as a part of the dominion subject to the crown, and subject as were other parts, to the powers that belonged to the crown. Hence, to inquire whether the sovereign could make such a grant as that conferred upon Sir Humphrey Gilbert, is only to consider in a particular mode, the real extent of the royal prerogative. Queen Elizabeth herself was wont to say "that the Parliament ought not to deal, to judge, or to meddle with her Majesty's prerogative Royal;" and her successor, James, declared that "as it is Atheism and blasphemy in a creature to dispute what the Deity may do, so it is presumption and sedition in a subject to dispute what the king may do, in the height of his power." "Good christians," he says, "will be content with God's will revealed in his word, and good subjects will rest in the king's will revealed in the laws." But notwithstanding these pretentions, the royal prerogative was really restricted within determined bounds, and some of these restrictions had existed from the carliest period. Ina, the great Saxon king, distinctly acknowledged, that there was no great man nor any other in the whole kingdom, that could abolish written laws. It was a part of the oath administered to the Saxon kings at their entrance upon the government, that they should "maintain and rule according to the laws of the nation." In the year 1215, King John had been compelled to sign the Charter which from its importance, has ever since been denominated Magna Charta In this charter the limitations of the royal prerogative were distinetly laid down, and at subsequent periods other restrictions had been added, and assented to. And at the very time that King