xxxviii     The First Century of the Court of Chancery.

        difference whether this record was kept in the office of the Principal Secretary of
        the Province, or with the Provincial Court Proceedings, or separately. Espe-
        cially was this true when there was one clerk or register for the two courts,
        as was the case until 1694, although beginning in 1669 the same individual
        was called “Clerk” when officiating in the Provincial Court, and “Register”
        in the Court of Chancery. To the Chancellor and Keeper of the Great Seal,
        however, who was dependent for his fees upon the amount and character of
        the work done under his seal and in the Chancery Court, it was obviously to
        his interest to have a separate record under his immediate control, and this
        became more and more important to him as the volume of writs and equity
        cases increased.
         We, therefore, must look principally to the records of the Provincial Court
        down to 1669, where law and equity cases are both recorded in the same books,
        and to the separate records of the Court of Chancery beginning in 1669, for
        the activities of the Chancery. A few scattered references to it and to the
        Chancellor are also to be found in the Council and Assembly records. Thus on
        May 21, 1674, the Lower House of Assembly sent a message to the Governor
        and Upper House asking for relief from the long delays in Chancery and the
        Upper House replied requesting the Lower House “to propound some Certaine
        rules for the regulacon of the sd Proceedings to be Considered of by this house”
        (Arch. Md., ii, 341). As no legislative action was called for we do not know
        whether such rules were propounded, and if so, whether the Governor and
        Council adopted them as the rules of court to expedite business.
         For some reason not very clear to us, the Proprietary, Cecilius Calvert, issued
        in London under date of February 16, 1665/6, new commissions to the various
        important Provincial officials, including the Governor, members of the Council,
        justices, and Chancellor, with the form of oath of office to be taken by each,
        and certain instructions to the Governor (Arch. Md., xv, 3-19). He directed
        his son Charles to “Deliver with your owne hands unto our Deare Brother
        Philip Calvert Esqr our Greate Seale of our said Province, and Administer unto
        him the oath annexed unto these prsents by us appointed to be Administered
        unto and taken by or Chancelour of our said Province, upon the Taking of WCli
        said oath and the Delivery of which said Seale by us or our Leiuetennant of our
        said Province for the time being or his sufficient Deputy or Deputyes in his
        absence * * * shall be sufficient upon the Taking of such oath to Constitute
        our Chancelour of our said Province and tht wee doe not intend either by Com-
        mission or any other way for the future to Constitute any Chancelour of our
        said Province” (Arch. Md., xv, 12).
         It is of interest that in the general commission of this same date for Provincial
        officers, including the Chancellor, the Proprietary, however, specifically appoints
        his son, Charles, the Governor, as” Cheif justice of our Provinciall Court * * *
        as for the holding of all pleas * * * and likewise for the Determining of all
        matters of Equity for which any Releif is shall or may be Justly or reasonably
        desired in our said court” (Arch. Md., xv, 8). Philip Calvert on May 17, 1666,
        took the oath of Chancellor, Privy Councillor and Justice of the Provincial
        Court (Arch. Md., xv, 19). The oath taken was doubtless the same as that