. In the year 1785 the legislature of Virginia passed an act, in which among other provisions (in relation to the Northern Neck,) is the following:

"And be it further enacted, that the landholders within the said district of the Northern Neck shall be forever hereafter exonerated and discharged from composition and quitrents, any law, custom or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding."* This act of the state freed the people from a vexatious and troublesome kind of taxation. Fairfax's representatives soon sold out their interest in his private estate in this country, and it is believed there is no part of this vast landed estate remaining in the hands of any branch of the Fairfax family. Chief justice Marshall, the late Raleigh Colston, Esq., and the late Gen. Henry Lee, purchased the right of Fairfax's legatees (in England) to what is called the Manor of Leeds,† South Branch Manor, Patterson's Creek Manor, and various other tracts of land of immense value,-the most of which had been leased out for long terms or lives. This estate has been the cause of more litigation probably than any other estate in Virginia. Suits growing out of the case of Hite, &c. against Fairfax, are yet depending in our courts,-and some of the tenants in the Manor of Leeds have lately taken it into their heads that the Fairfax title is defective, and refuse to pay rents to the present claimants. This refusal has produced a lawsuit, which will doubtless be a long time depending.

This profligate manner of granting away lands in

copal society lately sold at auction this ancient building and lot for twelve thousand dollars. The purchasers caused the skeletons to be removed, and there are now three elegant brick houses erected on the lot. With the money arising from the sale the Episcopal society purchased a lot on Boscowen and Washington streets, and have built a splendid new church. It is to be regretted that no account was taken of the number of skeletons removed. The author inquired of several persons, who were concerned in the removal, no one of whom could give any account of the number. It is probable there were not less than 1000-the skeleton of lord Fairfax among them. *See Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia, vol. i. p. 351.

The Manor of Leeds is located in the counties of Culpeper, Fauquier and Frederick, and contains about 150,000 acres; the South Branch Manor in Hardy, 55,000; Patterson's creek in Hampshire, 9,000 acres. Goony-Run Manor, which adjoins the Manor of Leeds, contains about 13.000 acres, and lies chiefly in Shenandoah county.

immense bodies was unquestionably founded in the most unwise and unjust policy. Instead of promoting the speedy settlement and improvement of the country --instead of holding out to the bulk of society every possible encouragement to make the most speedy settlement and improvement of the new country,—monopolies in several instances were given, or pretended to be sold to a few favorites of the governing powers, whereby these favorites were enabled to amass vast estates, and to lord it over the great majority of their fellow men. Such are the blessings of kingly governments. But the people of this free and happy republic have abundant cause to rejoice and bless their God that this wretched kind of policy and highhanded injustice is done away, in the freedom and wisdom of our institutions, and that we have no longer our ears assailed, nor our understandings outraged, with the disgusting, high sounding title of "My lord!" applied to poor frail human beings.

Lord Fairfax was the county lieutenant for Frederick for several years. On looking into the record of the proceedings of the court-martial, the author found the following entry:

"At a council of war, held for regulating the militia of Frederick county, in order to take such steps as shall be thought most expedient in the present critical conjuncture, the 14th day of April, 1756; present the Rt. Hon. the lord Fairfax, county lieutenant; John Hite, major; John Lindsey, Isaac Parkins, Richard Morgan, Saml. Odell, Edward Rodgers, Jeremiah Smith,* Thomas Caton, Paul Long, captains.

"Proposals having been sent to the several captains of the militia, signed by the commanding officer of the said militia, and dated the 7th day of April 1756, to get what volunteers they could encourage to go in search of the Indian enemy who are daily ravaging our frontiers and committing their accustomed cruelties on the in

*

Capt. Jeremiah Smith, the same who defeated the party of 50 Indians, and killed the French captain, noticed in a preceding chapter.

habitants; and the aforesaid officers being met together, and finding the number of men insufficient to go against the enemy, it is considered that the men be discharged, being only fifteen. FAIRFAX."

From this it appears that lord Fairfax, among others, was an attentive officer in the time of the Indian wars. In truth it behooved his lordship to be active. He had more at stake, and the command of greater funds, than any other individual member of society. The Indian hostilities retarded the settlement of his large domain, and of course lessened his revenue. It is said that his lordship was remarkable for his eccentricities and singularity of disposition and character, and that he had an insatiable passion for hoarding up English gold.* He never married; of course left no child to inherit his vast estate; but devised his property, or a large portion of it, to the Rev. Denny Martin, his nephew in England, on condition that he would apply to the parliament of Britain for an act to authorize him to take the name of lord Fairfax. This was done; and Denny Lord Fairfax, like his uncle, never marrying, he devised the estate to Gen. Philip Martin, who, never marrying, and dying without issue, devised the estate to two old maiden sisters, who sold it to Messrs. Marshall, Colston and Lee.

He devised that part of his estate on which he resided, and which he called "Greenway-Court Manor," (containing ten thousand acres, with a large part of his slaves, &c.) to another nephew, the late Col. Thomas Bryan Martin, who had resided with him for many years previous to his death. Col. Martin, like the others, never married. But he contrived to make a daughter by a Mrs. Crawford, who lord Fairfax had employed as a housekeeper. After Fairfax's death, Martin kept this woman as a mistress for several years: she died, and the daughter grew up and married the late Francis Geldart, who was a captain in the British ser

* Some four or five years ago the slaves of the Rev. Mr. Kennerly, the present proprietor of "Greenway-Court," in quarrying stone, not far from Fairfax's ancient dwelling-house, found about $250 worth of gold coin, supposed to have been hidden there by his lordship.

the substitution of the latter line, no matter at which fork it may commence, would cause an important diminution in the already diminished territorial area of this state. It would deprive us of large portions of the counties of Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton, Randolph and Preston, amounting in all to almost half a million of acres- a section of the commonwealth which, from the quality of its soil, and the character of its population, might well excite the cupidity of a government resting her claims upon a less substantial basis than a stale and groundless pretension of more than a century's antiquity. Although my instructions have directed my attention more particularly to the collection and preservation of the evidence of such living witnesses as might be able to testify to any facts or circumstances in relation to the settlement and adjustment of the western boundary," I have consumed but a very inconsiderable portion of my time in any labor or inquiry of that sort, for who indeed, now living, could testify to any "facts or circumstances" which occurred nearly a century since? And if such individuals were now living, why waste time in taking depositions as to those "facts," in proof of which the most ample and authentic testimony was taken in 1736, as the basis of a royal adjudication? I have consequently deemed it of more importance to procure the original documents where possible, if not, authentic copies of such papers as would serve to exhibit a connected view of the origin, progress and termination of that controversy with the crown, which resulted, after the most accurate and laborious surveys, in the ascertainment of those very "facts and circumstances" which are now sought to be made again the subjects of discussion and inquiry. In this pursuit I have succeeded far beyond what I had any ground for anticipation; and from the almost forgotten rubbish of past years, have been enabled to draw forth documents and papers whose interest may survive the occasion which redeemed them from destruction.

To enable your excellency to form a just conception

of the weight and importance of the evidence herewith accompanying this report, I beg leave to submit with it a succinct statement of the question in issue between the governments of Virginia and Maryland, with some observations shewing the relevancy of the evidence to the question thus presented.

The territory of Maryland granted by Charles I. to lord Baltimore in June 1632, was described in the grant as "that region bounded by a line drawn from Watkins's point on Chesapeake bay to the ocean on the east; thence to that part of the estuary of Delaware on the north which lieth under the 40th degree, where NewEngland is terminated; thence in a right line by the degree aforesaid, to the meridian of the fountain of the Potomac; thence following its course by its farther bank to its confluence." (Marshall's Life of Washington, vol. 1, ch. 11. pp. 78-81, 1st edition.)

It is plain that the western boundary of this grant was the meridian of the fountain of the Potomac, from the point where it cut the 40th degree of north latitude to the fountain of the river; and that the extent of the grant depended upon the question, what stream was the Potomac? So that the question now in controversy grows immediately out of the grant. The territory granted to lord Baltimore was undoubtedly within the chartered limits of Virginia: (See 1st charter of April 1606, sec. 4, and the 2d charter of May 1609, sec. 6; 1st Hen. Stat. at Large, pp. 58-88.) And Marshall says that the grant "was the first example of the dismemberment of a colony, and the creation of a new one within its limits, by the mere act of the crown ;" and that the planters of Virginia presented a petition against it, which was heard before the privy council (of England) in July 1633, when it was declared that lord Baltimore should retain his patent, and the petitioners their remedy at law. To this remedy they never thought proper to resort."

Whether there be any record of this procceding extant, I have never been able to learn. The civil war in