The First Century of the Court of Chancery.    xlix

    The portion of their report recommending certain changes in the Court of
    Chancery and in the matter of appeals is in the form of question and answer,
    and runs as follows:
      “What will be the best Methode or Manner for constituteing a Court of
    Chancery or Equity in this province according to the constitutions of the same.
      “Wee Say that because you have power & Authority to constitute Erect and
    establish such & so many Courts of Judicature & public Justice &ca as to you
    shall seem convenient &Ca You may constitute a particular Court of Equity in
    this province. But then for the Honr of the Goverr & Councill it would be
    Necessary to declare by a Law that any person expecting to be relieved by Equity
    shall lay hold of the same by Injunction or otherwise before the Matter in Law
    by Appeale or Eror be laid before the sd Goverr & Councill and not after or else
    you may procure a Law to be made declareing the Goverr & Council to be Judges
    in Equity wthin this province when the matter shall in a regular equitable way
    be brought before them by Subpen Injunction or Petition and not otherwise
    And this wee say because wee are not Unanimously Agreed wch of the Two is
    most Agreeable to the Current of Law and constitution of this province And
    wee humbly signifye that Wee take it to be Against the Current and the Meaning
    of the Law and incongruous of it Self to have the Same persons Judges in the
    Prov1' Court as also Judges in Councill for the Motion of Appealing or Writts
    of Error is to except Against the Judgmts of these Judges that gives Judgmt &
    Appeale to other Judges in a Superior Court wch plainly Supposes different
    prsons this is our present Opinion of the Matters abovesaid to wch wth Sub-
    mission to better Judgments wee Subscribe” (Arch. Md., xx, 135-136).
      The Governor and Council then proceeded with their plan of reorganization
    of the Provincial Court and of the Court of Chancery, and with the establish-
    ment of separate special sittings of the Governor and Council as a Court of
    Appeals, to supplant the current practice of the members of the Council hearing
    appeals in the Upper House of Assembly. Under the old system the Governor
    and Council had sat as the Provincial Court to hear law cases, as the Court of
    Chancery to pass upon equity cases, and as the Upper House to hear appeals
    from the Provincial Court. Under the reorganization, the Governor and Council
    sitting as the new Court of Appeals were to hear cases on appeal from the
    Provincial Court. The latter as now reconstructed no longer had sitting on it
    members of the Council, and its membership was increased to eleven. The Court
    of Chancery was reduced in number to three, and the Chancellor who presided
    was the only member of the Council represented upon it. Legislation was then
    passed at the October 1694 session of the Assembly limiting and regulating
    appeals from the Provincial Court to the Court of Appeals. The same act also
    permitted under limited conditions appeals from the Court of Chancery to the
    newly organized Court of Appeals in decrees in suits to relieve of judgements
    at law. Appeals from decrees in Chancery to the Upper House in the past had
    rarely been allowed. The Act of 1694 contains the following clauses relating
    to appeals from Chancery decrees:
      “And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid that all and every
    person or persons whatsoever shall conceive him or themselves relievable in