The First Century of the Court of Chancery.      xli

     of the Great Seal, and upon the judicial functions of the Court of Chancery.
     In this same volume of Calvert Papers published by the Maryland Historical
     Society there is a long letter, dated June 2, 1673, from Charles Calvert, after-
     wards the Lord Proprietary, but at that time Governor, to his father, Cecilius,
     dealing with many Provincial questions and among others with the Chancery
     Court. Cecilius seems to have requested a “Mr. Langhorne” to send to Philip
     Calvert for his use certain information in regard to the methods in vogue and
     the fees charged in the High Court of Chancery of England for papers passing
     under the Great Seal. Charles goes on to explain in detail to his father the
     differences between the system of chancery fees in Maryland and in England,
     and recommends certain changes in regard to the use in the Province of the
     Great Seal and the Lesser Seal (kept by the Principal Secretary), which,
     however, do not seem to have been adopted. The Mr. Langhorne referred to
     in this letter was unquestionably “Richard Langhorne of the Temple “, to
     whom two years later Cecilius Calvert in his will, dated November 21, 1675,
     left the choice of his pendulum clocks, and the same Richard Langhorne, an
     ardent Roman Catholic, who, the Dictionary of National Biography tells us,
     was a member of the bar and of the Inner Temple, and being implicated in the
     “Popish Plot” by Titus Oates, lost his head at Tyburn, July 14, 1679. The
     letter just referred to from which the following extract is taken has been printed
     in full in The Calvert Papers (Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Publication No. 28; 270,
     293-299).

      “Concerning those ffees sent in by Mr. Langhorne for the Chancelor I did
     Conceive it wholy Related to the Chancelors office and that he would have beene
     so Carefull in that matter, as to have given yor Lopp a particular accompt
     wherein the Difficulty lay, but since he hath not I shall minde him of it, what I
     undrstand of it, is this, that in the said list of ffees is thinges Charged there that
     are never made use of here, and many things left out there that wee have dayly
     occasion for here, but for those thinges that are necessary here the said Direc-
     tions are very much wanting in this in that it does not distinguish how much in
     every pticular is due to the Chancelor for the seale, the Rest belongs to the
     Secretaryes office, where all the Records of that business are kept and all writs
     Commissions Decrees ordrs. &c. transcribed and written. As in the said list is
     allowed for a Subpena ad Respondend 2S. now the quere is how much for the
     making and Recording it, and how much for the seale. the Chancelor takes in
     all businesses that passe the seale, as much as if he writ them & kept the Records
     of them whereby it comes about that people genrally pay Double ffees in such
     Cases, Those that have beene acquainted with Chancery business in England
     alledge the Ld. Chancelor takes nothing for the seale of Chancery writt &c but
     that true it is when Lord Chancelor pens the seale, on a certaine day his Sec-
     retary gives notice to the Clerkes and other officers of that Court to attend who
     have any such Cursory pcesse to passe the Seale, and they pay the Chancelors
     Secretaryes but 6d a piece for one writ with another, and the number of tham
     that are so sealed at one opening makes it very advantageous to those Secre-
     taryes, and the Residue of the ffees for such writs, goes to the severall officers
     of the Court of Chancery, through whose hands they passe for this I humbly
     conceive yor Lopp may Receive full satisfaction from Mr. Langhorne and when