The First Century of the Court of Chancery.       51

      Chancery affairs again occupied the attention of the Council at the May 14,
     1695, meeting, and it was perhaps as a result of the instructions given by this
     body six months before to Attorney-General Plater that he now submitted the
     forms of oath to be taken respectively by the “Chancellor, Keeper or Commis-
     sionrs" in Chancery, which after receiving the approval “of the attorneys and
     officers of the Cort" were adopted. These oaths are printed in full in the Coun-
     cil Proceedings (Arch. Md. xx, 232-233). Immediately afterward Jowles,
     Cheseldyn and Dorsey “had administered unto them the Oathes appointed by
     Act of Parliamt to be taken instead of the Oathes of Allegiance & Supremacy
     and Subscribed to the Test “, and then took “The forme of the Oath proper
     for the Chancelour, Keeper of the Great Seal or Commissionrs appointed for
     the keeping of the Great Seal of the Province of Maryland” (Arch. Md. xx.
     232). The commission, dated May 14, 1695, appointing them” Commissioners
     and Judges of our Court of Chancery “, is recorded in the Chancery records
     (Chanc. Proc. P. C. 294-295).
      On December 6, 1695, the misuse of the Broad Seal by John Freeman,
     recently appointed Register, apparently due to Jowles' absence from St. Mary's
     City, was investigated by Gov. Nicholson, and on February 27, 1695/6, brought
     forth an order from the Council that the Chancellor “make answer in writing
     what he had to say in defense of himself for taking away the Broad Seal of the
     Province out of Town with him contrary to an Ordr of Councill * * * and
     how he came to leave a spare Broad Seal with Stephen Blatchford * * * the
     which Seal his Exncy now burnt “. Jowles then delivered his seal to Major
     Edward Dorsey, one of the justices or commissioners in Chancery, to be kept
     by him, who was thereupon ordered to seal only “what is authentick & accord-
     ing to the Rules & practise of his Mat high Court of Chancery “. A letter was
     read from Jowles setting forth as the cause of his absence, “his present indis-
     position of body” and asking that one of the “honoble Councill might be
     appointed to sit in Chancery Causes this court in his stead” (Arch. Md. xx,
     361-362). It appears that on October 15, 1695, when the Council had ordered
     Jowles “for the future to lodge the Broad Seal with Majr Edward Dorsey one
     of the Commissioner in Chancery” to be kept by him and used to seal instru-
     ments in the absence of Jowles, the Keeper, he had failed to do so and had carried
     it away, and then intrusted it to Freeman, the Register (Arch. Md., xx, 326-
     327). Jowles later, on February 15, 1695/6, complained to the Council of
     Dorsey, alleging that he had failed “to give him an account of the Chancery
     fees “. In reply, the Council declared that Dorsey denied the charge against
     him, and that it was the opinion of the Council that half the fees should go to
     Dorsey for the period when the seal was in his custody (Arch. Md. xx, 391).
      On May 14, 1695, John Freeman was sworn in again as Register of the
     Chancery Court. It is learned from the proceedings of the court that, October 1,
     1694, Sir Thomas Lawrence, who had been authorized to “find a recorder “,
     had selected Freeman, whose commission having been burned in a fire at the
     Chancellor's house, it was deemed necessary to recommission him. It was not
     long before Freeman was in hot water with Nicholson, who charged him before
     the Council on December 6, 1695, with unlaw fully sealing with the Broad Seal