Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1694 97. 315

   Rules of Law they are to proceed vpon any Appeal from the Lib. H. D.

   Commissary Genlls Sentence.

     I have had no Books to consult, but the Statutes of England

   & the Acts of Assembly of this Province, and have had very

   small time to consult them, having been the most of this day

   either in the House of Burgesses or on a Committee, but by

   what I can at present collect out of them, this is my Opinion

   upon the Matter.

     1: that as to their Power & Authority, it is exprest &limited

   in the Commission which I conceive they are guided & limited

   by, because they are not Nominated either by the Statute of

   24th of Henry the 8th nor by the Act of Assembly for the Act

   directs the Appeal to be made to the Governr who in this

   province is Chief Judge in all Causes both of Law & Equity

   And he Empowers the Delegates; And powers & Authorities

   are to be strictly observed and that power I take to be their

   Bounds.

     2: As to their Jurisdiction (with respect to their Commission)

   I vnderstand it to be extended to the Sentence of the Com

   missary Generall vpon which the Appeal is made and therein

   they are Judges of the same matters & things that the Com

   missary was Judge of contained in that Record for the Act

   saith that the persons so appointed shall hear & determine the

   matter &Ca therefore I conceive they are the Judges of it and

   wherein they find the Commissaries Sentence good they may

   affirm it in theirs and wherein they find [it] naught alter it and

   adjudge as the matter in Law & equity appears to them.

     3: By what Rules of Law they are to proceed I am not so

   well satisfyed as I would be, but by considering what they

   may not do it may be collected what they may do And it p. 229

   appears beyond dispute with me that they cannot proceed by

   the Rules of the Common Law first because the Proceedings

   comes not from a Comon Law Court, 2dly because they are to

   hear & determin the whole matter and it is to be finall which

   the Court of Common Law cannot do; for a Superiour Court

   in Common Law cannot hear & determine the whole Cause

   nor is their Judgmt finall vnless vnder the limitations of the

   Act of Assembly but they can only Examin the Judgmt of the

   Court whether agreeable to Law or not and to confirm or

   Reverse it but as to the ifact have nothing to do And I find tht

   the Chancellor in a common course of Equity cannot meddle

   with it but I conceive the Reason to be because of the Statute

   of the 24th of King Henry which confirms testamentary

   Causes &ca to others and prescribes Rules & Methods for

   Appeals where injury is done But still I perceive those Judges

   in those matters of which they have cognizance by the said

   Statute proceed in a course of Equity grounded on the comon