Introduction.               xiii



      cial Court and Council . . . keeper of the lesser Seal Records and Registries”
      and for these offices he was granted “one third part of all & singular the Fees
      duties and Regards unto the said Office and Offices belonging.” He was also
      “the publick Notary of this Province of Maryland” and had one third of the
      notary's profits (ibid., pp. 49-50). Blomfeild remained in office for several
      years this time.
        Many attorneys practiced before the Court at this period, most of them in
      civil cases. Indeed, until now it has been believed that persons accused of
      crime never had counsel, and truly the general use of attorneys for criminals
      did not begin until the eighteenth century. But the present record shows,
      beyond a doubt, that in four cases the defendant not only had a lawyer, but
      appeared by his attorney instead of in person. On December 19, 1671, “Joshua
      Guibert prsented last Court for marking John Blomfeilds Cattle with the said
      Guiberts marke appeared by Robert Carvile his Attorney & stood upon his
      Traverse Ordered by the Court that the prsentmt agt the said Guibert be
      quashed, and that he goe thereof without day” (post, pp. 12-13, 19). On Feb
      ruary 13, 1671/2, Justinian Gerard, brought into Court on an indictment for
      hogstealing (post, p. 23) was “admitted by the favour of the Court to have
      John Morecroft one of the Attorneys of this Court to be of his Counsell” (post,
      p. 28). And the plea made by Morecroft for him brought about his acquittal
      (post, p. 29). On December 11, 1672, James Neale, Junior, presented by the
      grand jury for hogstealing, on his appearance in Court, “Desired Councell
      to be assigned him by the Cort who ordered Mr Morecroft one of the Attorneys
      of this Cort to be of Councill for the prisoner” (post, pp. 45, 47). On the
      same day, Neale's father, James Neale, Senior, likewise under indictment for
      hogstealing, likewise “desired Councell to be assigned him by the Court, who
      ordered Mr Morecroft one of the Attorneys of the Court to be of Councill for
      the prisoner” (post, p. 48). Morecroft persuaded the jury that the elder Neale
      was not guilty, but the son was declared guilty as a first offender, and, on an
      abject petition to the Governor, was pardoned by him (ibid.). In addition to
      these four cases, where without. a doubt, attorneys represented persons accused
      of crime, there is another in which an attorney may have figured as counsel.
      On February 16, 1672, Joseph Weekes, presented for stopping a Kent County
      highway, appeared and traversed the presentment “And upon the motion of
      Mr Morecroft the said prsentmt was quashed by the Court for the incerteynties
      thereof.” (post, p. 25). It is very probable that Morecroft was Weekes's
      counsel.
        Twenty-eight different men appeared and represented clients in this four-
      year period. Some of them may have been attorneys in fact, not in law: it is
      often difficult or impossible to be certain. Of course, when they were sworn in,
      and given the right to practice before the Court, that settles it. Of the twenty
      eight, only a dozen or so had more than a few cases, and three or four were
      the busiest. Kenelm Cheseldyn had more than two hundred clients, and he was
      himself a party in seventeen more cases. Vincent Lowe, Robert Ridgely and
      John Rousby also appeared often. What is surprising to a modern student of
      courts is that court clerks and even the attorney general appeared on the other