Volume 49, Preface 10 View pdf image (33K) |
xiv Letter of Transmittal, chancellor has been found. In September 1661, when Charles Calvert was commissioned governor, his commission specifically provided that his uncle, Philip Calvert, whom he succeeded as governor, should retain the office of chancellor (Arch. Md. III, 439). The High Court of Chancery as a separate entity therefore dates from the year 1661. We find Philip Calvert recommis sioned as chancellor in 1665 (Arch. Md. XV, 12). He is said to have held the office until 1689, and as chancellor was the Keeper of the Great Seal. He was also a member of the Upper House and of the Council, one of the judges of the Provincial Court, and after 1676 Commissary General for the probate of wills. When Phillip Calvert ceased to be chancellor in 1689, this office again became vested in the governor, but with the later history of the Court of Chancery we are not here concerned. For the first seven years of Philip Calvert's chan cellorship, we find as in previous years, the chancery cases scattered about in the Provincial Court record books. Beginning with the year 1668, however, the Court of Chancery began to keep its own books of record, which continue unbroken until the Court ceased to exist in 1855. It would appear that at least one or two justices of the Provincial Court always sat with the chancellor when equity cases were heard, and very often the entire bench. The connection between the two courts was a close one. It seems probable that at times they had the same clerk for even after separate series of record books for the two courts were opened it is not unusual until towards the close of the century to find entries of sessions of the Provincial Court as such, recorded in the Chancery Court libers, and what were obviously equity cases were sometimes heard in the Provincial Court. The records of the Court of Chancery in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries are much less voluminous than are the records of the Provincial Court. It is hoped that it will be possible to publish as a single volume of the Archives the proceedings of this court from 1668 to 1699. The publication of the records of the county courts of Maryland presents great difficulty. Fire and neglect have taken a heavy toll. The county clerks usually preserved with great care the land records and the testamentary rec ords, but sadly neglected the proceedings or minutes of the county courts, which were seldom called for after they were a few decades old. The comparatively few seventeenth century court minutes which have been preserved doubtless owe their existence to the fact that until towards the end of the century it was the custom of the county courts to record deeds to land in the same books in which the minutes of the court were kept. After the deeds in these early rec ords had been transcribed into separate libers, as was done in many counties early in the next century, the original volumes suffered neglect. The result is that there are many breaks in the court proceedings in most of the counties. The extent of these breaks has been recently brought out by Mr. Louis Dow Scisco, who has made a very careful survey of the records of the various counties during the colonial period, and published the results of his study in recent numbers of the Maryland Historical Magazine. An examination of these lists shows that the earliest county court proceedings which have been preserved are those of Kent, Charles, Somerset and Talbot counties. Prior to about 1675 the records of only the three first named counties even approach completeness. It |
||||
Volume 49, Preface 10 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.