lii         The First Century of the Court of Chancery.

       “a couple of instrumts, a subpoena and an injunction in Chancery “, which
       contained “blanks” and were otherwise imperfect. The offense seems to have
       been allowed to pass (Arch. Md. xx, 139, 233, 361). Again eighteen months
       later Freeman was in more serious trouble in regard to the issuance of a writ of
       error for the benefit of a certain William Sharpe. Nicholson and the Council
       requested the Solicitor General and His Majesty's Counsel at Law to inquire
       whether Freeman had not committed perjury in making certain false statements
       in regard to the actual date of issuance and the date when it passed the Seal. It
       would appear from the records that there had probably been a misunderstanding
       as to these dates. At all events, the charge does not seem to have been pushed
       (Arch. Md. xxiii, 108, 111-116).
         When J owles asked that a member of the Council be appointed to sit in “ this
       Court in his stead “, the Attorney-General and Solicitor General, February 28,
       1695/6, recommended to the Council that an entirely new commission in
       Chancery “for this term” be issued out of the Secretary's office headed by
       Colonel Nicholas Greenberry with Cheseldyn and Dorsey, the two former
       associate commissioners in Chancery, as his associates, because there was
       “pretty much business now pending in this court” (Arch. Md., xx, 362, 364-
       365). From the records of the Chancery Court itself we learn that the com-
       mission dated, March 2, recites that Jowles was suffering from “gout and other
       indispositions “, and that Colonel Nicholson Greenberry was on this account
       appointed Keeper of the Broad Seal “pro hâc vice “, instead of Colonel Henry
       Jowles. When the Court met again May 21, Jowles had resumed his place
       (Chanc. Proc. Liber P. C. 320-328). That the Chancellor was reinstated in the
       good graces of the council is shown by the entry of May 16, 1696, in its pro-
       ceedings: “Came the honoble Majr Edward Dorsey one of Commissionrs in
       Chancery & delivered at the Board the Broad Seal of the province, which was
       by OrdT surrender'd up to the honoble Coll Henry Jowles Chancelour for his
       keeping, during his Residence in Town” (Arch. Md. xx, 426). At the Sep-
       tember and December 1696 sessions Jowles was again excused from attending
       at the Council because of his “ great lameness “.
         On December 9, 1696, the Council appointed Colonel John Addison, then
       the only one of the” Councill as yet to come to Town to Act (pro hâc vice) in
       Coil. Jowles stead “, and on the twelth Addison was sworn in as a commissioner
       in Chancery and Keeper of the Broad Seal of the Province, and the seal delivered
       to him (Chanc. Proc. Liber P. C. 338; Arch. Md., xx, 553). At the same
       meeting the advice of the justices of the Provincial Court and the lawyers then
       in town was asked as to whether the Chancery Court and the Court of Appeals
       should sit on the same days as the Provincial Court, or at the end of the session
       of the latter court, and it was unanimously decided to sit at the end, “one court
       being Enough for the Lawyers to attend at one time “. The next meeting of
       the Court of Chancery was ordered to be held in Annapolis in February and
       May, this marking the transfer of the capital from St. Mary's City to Annapolis
       (Arch. Md., xx, 560-561, 572).
         More frequent meetings of the Court of Chancery were demanded by the
       public, and the Council, December 16, 1696, ordered: “Upon Representation