he tenure was similar, there was a marked
difference in the methods of obtaining a grant. Instead of the headright
which we have seen was the basis for Virginia land grants during most of
the seventeenth century, the proprietors turned to what they considered
the more practical procedure--acquisition of title by purchase, or the
"treasury right." To obtain title to land the individual paid a
"composition" which was established at a uniform rate. For each 100
acres in grants less than 600, the price was five shillings; for 100
acres in grants more than 600, the price was increased to ten shillings.
Payment was permitted in tobacco which was valued at the rate of six
shillings for every 100 pounds in 1690. Such a provision could permit
the acquisition of large holdings without the manipulations that were
practiced under the headright system.

In the provision for quitrents, the two areas were similar. The amount
of the quitrent in the Northern Neck was the same as elsewhere in
Virginia--two shillings annually for 100 acres. Under agents Brent and
Fitzhugh one exception occurred with the attempt in 1694 to double the
quitrent and thereby maintain the same scale as was customary in
Maryland at the time. But few grants have been found to indicate the
agents succeeded to any extent in establishing the higher rate.

Relative to requirements for seating to validate the claim, the two
areas followed a different course as the seventeenth century progressed.
We have previously noted the three-year "seating and planting"
requirement for other Virginia patents. Similar provisions were included
in the first proprietary grants as revealed in the earliest patent in
1675. But beginning with the grant for Brent Town in 1687, the seating
requirement was omitted and this precedent was followed for all
subsequent proprietary grants in the Northern Neck in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries.

For the seventeenth century under consideration in this study, there was
considerable private and public animosity displayed toward the
principles of the proprietary system. There was a distrust of the grants
that were issued, and there was criticism of the proprietary system as
it differed from the remainder of Virginia. Demand for land in the area
was not as great; and with the exception of large holdings such as that
of William Fitzhugh, most of the patents were small. It was not until
the eighteenth century that public antipathy toward the p