Gassaway, (Harris and McHenry's Reports, p. 19,) this statute is alledged by counsel to have been
restrained, vi terminis to England, and that no such oath was required here.  The decision of the case
by the court seems rather to lead to a contrary opinion.

    The first part of this statute ordaining that " all the attornies shall be examined by the justices, and
by their discretions, their names put in the roll, and that they be good and virtuous and of good
fame" appears proper to be incorporated, &c.
    There were frequent disputes in the province, between the two houses, respecting the power of the
proprietor or the governor, of appointing and removing attornies.  In 1708 the lower house sent the
following message:  " This house are very sorry the honourable council should hearken to the cunning
subtle insinuations of any designing persons, and not look into the statutes empowering courts to admit
attorneys, 15 Edw. 2, Ch. 1, and 4 Hen. 4, Ch. 18, and many others which will inform them the
courts have the only power."
    In the act of 1715, Ch. 48, the power was acknowledged to be in the justices, to admit or suspend
attorneys, salvo jure coronæ; bit there is no other department of our state government to which such
a salvo can enure, the constitution having provided that the governor shall not, under any pretence
exercise any power or prerogative by virtue of any law, statute or customs of England or Great-Britain.
 

    Although the cause recited for the making of this statute did not exist in the province, yet the general
provision in it, " that none be imprisoned by any justice of the peace, but only in the common
gaol," was applicable to the circumstances of the people, and still remains so.
    The act of 1642, providing some rule for execution, directed the penalty for an escape after there
should be a prison built, which was not done before the year 1674, when there was an act for building 
a state-house and prison in St. Mary's county, and another act for erecting a court-house and
prison in each county.  On this statute, see 9 Co. 119, and 2 Hale 123; but the saving to the lords and
others who had gaols of their franchises, was not applicable to the province.
 

    See 3 Bl. Com. 306.  This statute appears to have been in force and to remain so, from the practice
of the courts.
 

    The first part of this statute has been, and remains in force.