of the colony to proprietary status in 1715, there was no immediate legislation to replace the royal instructions. This absence may be accounted for by the fact that the royal instructions were replaced by proprietary. 222 Within a few years, however, provincial acts restored to chancery suitors appeals to the Governor and Council from any Chancery Court decree. 223 Then, by a 1729 act it was provided that such appeals should be subject to the same regulation and limitation regarding prosecution as appeals from the common law courts. 224 Although somewhat out of logical sequence, it will be convenient to consider at this place the later proprietary instructions in Maryland. The earliest instructions we have seen, those of March, 1753, to Governor Sharpe, incorporated the royal instruction as to appeal to the Governor and Council in force when Maryland was a royal province. 22s The correlative royal instruction as to further appeal to the King in Council was also adopted, but the proprietor was substituted for the King in Council. The Governor and Council was also given discretion to allow appeals in causes under the sterling minimum. 226 Appeals were also to be allowed to the proprietor "for consideration thereof" from all fines imposed for misdemeanors amounting to or exceeding the value of with the same provision as to security as in the equivalent royal instruction. 227 Although no instructional minimum was set for appeals to the Governor and Council, Sharpe was directed to have an act passed restraining appeals as most convenient. 228 Despite this instructional mention of an appeal to the proprietor, we have never seen such an appeal. In the light of complaint of undue proprietary control over the colony courts, such an appeal would certainly have received notice. 229 Perhaps this instruction explains the ambiguous statement made 222 See infra, n. 225, 223 34 Md. Archives, 270; 36 ibid., 524. 224 Ibid., 454. 225 Md. H.R. Portfolio 2, #4, article #62. For the royal instruction followed see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #448. 226 Md. H.R. Portfolio 2, #4, article #63. For the adopted royal instruction see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #449. But in 1763 we find an understanding that appeals must amount to more than £500 (Carroll Papers, 11 Maryland Hist. Mag., 332). But compare Mereness, Maryland As a Proprietary Province (1901), 245; 32 Maryland Hist. Mag., 169. 227 Md. H.R. Portfolio 2, #4, article #65. For the equivalent royal instruction see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #458. 22! ffl. H.R. Portfolio 2, #4, article #64. But note that the Nov., 1713, act was still in force; see Laws of Md. (1765), 12 Anne, c. iv. 229 In answer to charges that the Maryland judicial system was dominated by the proprietor, it was said that "if either of the parties concerned in the cause are dissatisfied with the determination of the Court of Appeals [Governor and Council], they have a dernier resort, and may carry the matter home by appeal or petition to the King and Council. This is an absolute security against fraud, or errors of judgment, because any sentence complained of, may, if wrong, be at any time reversed" {An Answer to the Queries on the Proprietary Government of Maryland, Inserted in the Public Ledger [1764], 20-26 [Md. Hist. Soc.]). See also Barker, The Background of the Revolution in Maryland (1940), c. vii.