xl          The First Century of the Court of Chancery.

       the Principal Secretary of the Province, and further declared that Philip was
       “in no manner precluded from the benifitt of our Lawes in Courts of Law or
       Equity within our said Province by meanes or occasion of your being keeper
       of our great Seale and Chancelor of our said Province” (Arch. Md., xv, 161).
         Philip Calvert died in December, 1682, having served as Chancellor twenty
       one years. It is worth noting that only one other Chancellor, Theoderick Bland
       (1824-1846), who held the office twenty two years, served as long as did
       Calvert, during the two hundred and twenty years that Maryland had a Chan-
       cellor. The year before his death he had married as his second wife, Jane Sewell,
       a daughter by a former marriage of Jane, then Lady Baltimore (the wife of
       Charles the thkd Lord) by her former husband, Henry Sewell of Maryland.
       Philip lived at St. Peter's near St. Mary's City, not far from what is now called
       Chancellor's Point. Of his qualifications as Chancellor and judge little can be
       learned, except from an examination of the records of his court, which he seems
       to have administered in a way satisfactory to all classes. William Penn, writing
       to Charles, third Lord Baltimore, March 12, 1682/3, just after Philip's death,
       refers to him as “thy Uncle, a man of Prudence & Ingenious Conversation”
       (The Calvert Papers Number One; Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Public. No. 28, 1889,
       p. 326). The little we know of his personal characteristics is learned from the
       private letters of his nephew Charles the third Baron, when living in Maryland
       as Governor, written to his father Cecilius, and printed in the same volume.
       Under date of August 14, 1663, in a letter to his father, Charles refers to one
       which had been written by his uncle, the Chancellor, to Cecilius requesting per-
       mission “that he might leave The Greate Seale wth me when his Occassions
       call'd him up the Bay to his Plantations” and adds, “he has since desir'd me
       to write to your Lopp that he may be dismissed from his imploymt, for that as
       he say's he is not able to look after yr Lopps businesse and his own” (ibid. p.
       242). It is needless to say, however, that he did not resign the chancellery,
       and that he is known to have made good use of his opportunities, and to have
       patented for himself large tracts of land in several counties. That the relations
       at this time between uncle and nephew were not very cordial may be learned
       from what follows. In the same letter Charles mentions the Chancellor's com-
       plaints that he, Charles, did not communicate to him his Lordship's instructions,
       and declares that these were unjustified; but adds Charles, “ I can justly
       complaine of his being backward in assisting & informing me of the businesse
       of the Country” (ibid. p. 243). Charles referring to the rumor, some ten years
       later, which events showed was well founded, that Sir William Talbot would
       not return to Maryland as Principal Secretary, writes to his father under date
       of April 26, 1672, that the Chancellor” moved to me the sending of a Ire [letter]
       to Yr Lop, which he said was ready writ to request the Secers place for himself,
       and would have me have seconded it” (ibid, p. 276). Charles refused to do
       so, saying that he hoped for Talbot's speedy return and adds “I humbly beg
       of yr Log, to send him to us for I have little comfort or satisfaction in the
       Society of any of the Rest of the Councell here “. It seems needless to add that
       the Chancellor was one of the members of the Council.
         There are two contemporary documents of the time of Philip Calvert, which
       throw much light upon the powers and perquisites of the Chancellor as Keeper