286 CUNNINGHAM v. BROWNING.—1 BLAND.

the instrument, and the grant is thus perfected and issued; but if
the Chancellor sustains the objections, he then withholds the great
seal, and represents the whole matter to the king; who may never-
theless order a patent to be issued or not at his pleasure. Leigh-
ton's Case, '2 Vern. 173; Ex parte O'Reily, 1 Ves. Jun. 112; 1 Chal.
Opin. Em. Laic, 152; Ex parte Beck, 1 Bro. C. C. 578; Stingsby's
Cane, 3 Swan. 178, note; 1 Mad. Chan. 18; 1 Hal. Con. Eng. 489,
note; 2 Virg. Stat. 523, 531, 537. (e)

The charter of Maryland gave to the Lord Proprietary an abso-
lute right of soil to all the territory comprehended within its spe-
eified boundaries; and constituted him viceroy over the Province.
Thus clothed with an unqualified title to all the lands, and a limited
yet large extent ol sovereignty over the projected State, he com-
menced the settlement of the country in March, 1634. 1 Boz, His.
Mary. 274; Land Ho. Ass. 13, 64, 255; Cassell v. Carroll, 11 Wheat.
134, 170. And, as might have been expected, from the nature of
things, the parcelling out and sale of lands called for his earliest
attention. It appears accordingly, that among the first things
done by the Proprietary, was to adjust and publish the terms upon
which he proposed to dispose of his lands, and the manner in which
an individual might obtain a legal title to any specified quantity
he might want; but of those terms, or conditions of plantation, it
will here be unnecessary to hay any thing further, in regard to
original grants from the Proprietary, than that lands were given
to emigrants as an encouragement to their coming into and set-
tling the countrj ; or they were sold at a low, but stipulated price
payable in money. But large quantities of land, after having been
thus alienated, were continually reverting to the Proprietary, con-
sidering him merely as * one of the contracting parties: be-
306 cause of the purchasers failing to comply with the condi-
tions of plantation on their part; or the lands which had been
so disposed of by the Proprietary were returned to him by forfeit-
ure or escheat.

By several proclamations of the Proprietary, the first of which
was published m November, 1725, it was made an express condi-
tion of all future contracts between himself and the purchasers of

(e) The process of obtaining a patent for a new invention; and the mode
of preventing the emanation of such a patent, in England, by a caveat, is
substantially similar to that here described. Westm. Rev. Jan. 1835, art. 12.
It would seem, that, under the Colonial Government as well as since the
Revolution, the exclusive right to a new invention could only be secured to
the inventor by a special Act of the Legislature. 1 Virg. Stat. 374; 1784, ch.
20; 1786. ch. 23; April, 1787, ch. 21, as the English statute of monopolies, 21
Jac. 1. c. 3, did not extend to the colonies, 1 Chal, Opin. Em. Law, 202. But
this matter now belongs to the Government of the United States, and has
been regulated by the Acts of Congress of the 21st February, 1793, ch. 11,
And 15th February, 1819, ch. 19.