xliv PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

upon certain days appointed by act of Assembly, to make inquiry upon the prem-
ises doing thereon what to justice appertained according to the laws, orders and
reasonable 'customs of the province.l

The second Nicholson commission, dated June 4, 1697, was in substantially the
same form except that five, instead of four commissioners constituted the court,
and that the chastisement clause in the first part was expanded to offenders against
the form of the laws and orders of the province. 2

The commission from Governor Blakiston, dated August 7, 1699, was also in
substantially the same form as the earlier commissions except that the number
necessary to constitute a court returned to four, and the chastisement clause was
further altered to offenders against the form of the laws, orders and constitutions
of the province. 3

Presumably the commissions to the several county courts were intended to be
uniform but there are some variations in language in the various commissions as
recorded in the county records, probably arising from clerical laxity and of no
jurisdictional significance in practice. In any event these commissions in their
structure and phraseology used the proprietary commissions to the county courts
as the prototype. The proprietary commissions in turn, in setting forth criminal
jurisdiction, had adopted much of the style and format of the contemporary Eng-
lish commissions of the peace.

The principal differences between the English and Maryland commissions were
several. The former was an assignment to keep and cause to be kept "all ordinances
and statutes"; the Maryland commissions read "all laws and orders." The chastise-
ment clause of the first assignavimus in England used the "all ordinances and
statutes" terminology, as opposed to the several variations adverted to above. In
England two justices of the peace (one being of the quorum) were authorized to
hold sessions of the peace, as opposed to four or five in Maryland (at least for Prince
Georges County). The Maryland commissions omitted any provision for taking
security for the peace or good behavior, although this omission appears to have
had no effect in practice. The English commissions, after enumerating the offenses
into which justices might lawfully inquire, ended with the words "And of all and
singular other misdeeds and offenses, of which Justices of Peace may or ought
lawfully to enquire." The Maryland commissions substituted the language, "And
of all and singular other misdeeds and offenses... of which Justices of the Peace in
England may or ought lawfully to enquire." What was the effect of this variation?
Did it constitute a reception in the province of all the common law offenses of
England—at least those over which justices of the peace had jurisdiction? Was it
intended to receive the offenses over which justices of the peace had jurisdiction in
England by act of Parliament? If so, was the intendment limited to those offenses
handled in quarter sessions or did it include those cognizable in England by one,
two or three or more justices out of sessions? In the Maryland commissions, did the
following clause "against the Laws and Orders of this our Province" have a limiting
effect upon the reference to the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in England? We
have seen no discussion of this problem of construction in the Liber or elsewhere.
The 1692 act (An Act concerning Proceedings at Law) providing that where "the

1. Infra 1-2.

2. Infra 186-87.

3. Infra 519-20.