Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1707. 231

    Corpus & the Cause was thereon returned because he was in        Lib. C. B.

    Execution for his fine, i, Sidfn 144 and in any more there are

    of the like Nature where the psons were refused to be bayled

    on their habeas Corpus as 3d (200: 418. 3) 20: 144: 119 Stiles

    Repts 129. I take it that the habeas Corpus was allowed in

    a Civill Cause on the Statute afd.

      2dly that the returne Sufficiently Sett forth the cause of

    comittmt

      3dly That by such returne it Appeared Your Exny & no

    other in this province had Jurisdiction of the Cause I there

    fore humbly conceive the habeas Corpus ought not to be

    granted on the said Statute nor the party on the returne

    thereof bayled but remanded and that the Supream Comon            p. 101

    Law Court of this province had no Iurisdiction of the Cause.

                                   Wornell Hunt

      And then the Attorney Generall presenteth as follows Viz

      In Reply to Mr Chief Justice Smithsons Justificatory Letter

    relating to the bayling of Mr Thomas Macnemara (in Custody

    of the Serjeant at Armes for contempt of a certain Decree

    of the high Court of Chancery within this Province made by

    his Exncy the Governour and Keeper of the great Seale

    whereby said Thomas Macnemara was Decreed to deliver his

    wife certain Necessarys and pay her 15 ls p annum by half

    yearly payments untill they should agree to Cohabitt)

    Wherein Mr Smithson says he has been led to it by prsidents

    in point two of which he has shewne Mr Secrey Loyd, and

    believes what he has done to be upon very good Considera

    tion, offering to his Exncys consideration Sundry presidents of

    persons comitted by the Bishop for Heresye and yet bayled

    by habs Corpus because the Heresye was not fundamentall

    matter of ffaith of persons comitt'd by the high Ecclesiasticall

    Comissioners for Contempt of their Decrees and bayled on

    habeas Corpus. And further he says he cann shew of some

    comitted by Lord Chancellrs for Contempt (but fairly ownes

    in refusing to obey such of their Decrees as were made

    against Judgmts given in the Courts of Comon Law (which

    has no affinity to this Case) And particularly desires his Exncys

    consideration of the Stat. 16 Car primi cap: i. and 1 Keeble

    83 and before & after against which Quotations he says he

    finds It is objected to him That Iudges of the Courts of          p. 102

    Comon Law cannot enlarge prisoners but where comitted for

    such Supposed Criminall Matters as are tryable at Comon

    Law.

      2dly And that they cannot bayle one Comitted in Chanry

    or by the Ordinary in Ecciesiasticall matters. I know not any