xxxviii              Introduction.

       From these it is learned that Scarborough had employed Bateman as his factor,
       or agent, in Maryland to engage in speculations in land and in trade, and had
       given him £1000 for this purpose; that lands had been purchased there by
       Bateman with this money, either in their joint names or in Bateman's name
       alone; and that the widow “was privy to these transactions and trusts”, but
       after her husband's death, pretending these lands and monies were his, and
       that they had been devised by his will to her, she “by fraud and covin
       confessed a judgment” against herself as executrix for £2000 on her husband's
       bond, pretended to be due to her mother Margaret Perry in trust for her, and
       had thus indirectly appropriated to herself trust funds received by Bateman
       from Scarburgh, long after the pretended debt was due; and finally had
       taken out a quietus est barring all persons from suing her. It was also shown
       that soon after this was issued the widow died, and that administration with
       the will annexed upon her estate had been committed to John Boague during the
       infancy of her daughter Mary. Scarburgh prayed the Proprietary for just
       relief, which if not granted would certainly discourage other merchants from
       trading in Maryland.
         Richard Langhorne of the Inner Temple, counsel for the Proprietary, in an
       exhaustive opinion dated February 20, 1667/8, found for Scarburgh on every
       point as to the misuse of the trust funds, giving the legal reasons in each
       instance for so doing. He declared that the proceedings in the Provincial
       Court were entirely erroneous, and had permitted the executrix to give prefer-
       ence to debts due to herself, and that the quietus est was used in a way unheard
       of in England. He pointed out that although the judgment of the court was
       in error, there was no way by which it could be directly set aside, as no one
       legally affected by it could bring an appeal by writ of error. The remedy he
       proposed was that Scarburgh prefer a bill in equity against the administratrix
       of the Bateman estate, and have all the accounts between Bateman and himself
       considered in equity, and upon proving these accounts, have the judgment
       against him in the Provincial Court set aside, and the quietus est cancelled,
       this to be followed by a decree in chancery conveying to him the monies due
       him and the lands Bateman held in trust for him.
         But the Proprietary promptly pursued an even more direct course, for he
       issued his orders from England under the lesser seal, dated February 2, 1667/8,
       which reached Maryland on June 9, 1668, directed to his Governor, Chancellor,
       Council, and Judges of the Provincial Court, “recommending”, but really
       ordering, the “petitioner (Scarburgh) and the equity of his said case under
       you that he receive releife therein according to the Rules of equity and good
       Conscience”. He further ordered that the court issue a writ of supersedeas for
       the extinguishment of the quietus est which had been previously issued. What
       seems at first sight a rather high-handed procedure on the part of the
       Proprietary towards his Maryland court, was doubtless done by him in his
       capacity of, what might be called, super-judge in equity—powers which under
       ordinary circumstances were executed by the Governor resident in the Province
       as “chief judge in equity”, or by his Chancellor Philip Calvert in the absence
       of the Governor. It should be recalled that the powers which the king had