THE CHANCELLOR'S CASE.—1 BLAND. 573

enumerated as one of their grievances. 1 Niles' Reg, 13, 65. In
the year 1767, the British Parliament passed those other Acts, for

tations, &c. (here follows the report of the committee in relation to other
matters in the before mentioned case o£ Powlson v. Forwood.)

"His Majesty in council taking the said report into consideration, is pleased
to approve thereof, and accordingly to enforce the said order of the 11th of
August, 1720, and to that end his majesty is hereby pleased to order, that
the Deputy Governor of the said Province of Maryland do command the
Courts there to carry the said order into immediate execution, by causing
speedy restitution to be made the said petitioner of his effects, or, in case
they are sold, immediate payment of the money arising therefrom. And
his Majesty taking particular notice, that the said Deputy Governor hath
not complied with the said former order in council, is hereby further pleased
to order and require him forthwith to send an account to this board why the
said order was not carried into execution, together with the reasons for the
same."

" At the Court at Kensington, the fourth day of July, 1734. Present, the
King's most excellent Majesty, &c. (here follow the names of the members
of the council.) Upon reading this day at the board a report from the right
honorable the Lords of the Committee for hearing appeals from the Planta-
tions dated on the 17th of June last, in the words following, viz: (here fol-
lows the report an relation to the before mentioned case of Powlson v. For-
wood, which concludes in these words, to wit:

" Their Lordships having heard counsel on behalf of the appellant, none
appearing for the respondent, notwithstanding the usual time for his appear-
ing according to the rules of this board was expired, and although the usual
notice was affixed on the exchange of London, do agree humbly to offer it
as their opinion to your Majesty, that the said judgments of the 20th of Sep-
tember, 1720, and the 7th of May, 1723, should be reversed and set aside;
and that the appellant be restored to all he hath lost by means of the said
judgments.''

" His Majesty in council taking the said reports into consideration is
pleased to approve thereof, and to order as it is hereby ordered, that the
said judgments of the 20th of September, 1730, and the 7th of May, 1723, be
reversed and set aside. And that the appellant be restored to all he hath
lost by means of the said judgments whereof the deputy governor or com-
mander-in-chief for the time being of the said Province of Maryland, and
all others whom it may concern are to take notice and govern themselves
accordingly."— (Chan. Proc. lib. I. R. To. 1, fol. 57; 1692,ch. 17, note; Bacon's
Laws of Maryland.)

If the appellant failed to transmit a properly authenticated transcript of
the record; or to proceed with MB appeal within one year after it had been
allowed ia the colony, the appeal might be dismissed, (2 Ld. Raym. 1447.)
No costs were allowed on the final determination of such appeals, or at least
not as a matter of course, (4 Doll. app. 25; 2 Ld. Raym. 1447.) In all cases
a decision by the King in Council was final and conclusive; and there was
no instance of a rehearing of any such appeal, (1 Ves. 455.) An opinion
seems to have been entertained by some, that the King in Council might of
himself, and directly, issue an execution; and have a writ of sequestration
in execution of his final judgment sent to the Governor of the colony, (Gilb.
For. Rom. 215; 3 P. Will. 262.) But no coercive process was ever attempted
to be issued by the King in Council against a colony itself; and if it had
been attempted there is every reason to believe, that it would not have been
endured, (2 Hutch. His. Mass. 204.)