The Sun.
London, England, 1821-01-20 00:00:00

TIH•E QUEEN,

•
• It he Undermentioned pamphlet having excited
great attention we are induced to offer to the
-notice of our readers the most material parts of
it. We do not presume to express- any opiniOn
on the stibjecti but we have reason to believe that
this tract will shortly be answered by an indivi-
dual-of the first eminence for legal and constitu-
tional knowledge, and who; we understand, will
be able to show satisfactorily the, converse of the
proposition contended for by this writer, and
that the alteration in the Liturgy, to which he
alludes, was legally made by the proper Autho-titles,

" The EXCLUSION of THE QUEEN horn THE LITURGY
Hietorically and Legally Considered. By a BARRISTER.
Lex est justoriem igjosti,runique distinctio.
The following pages are writtcn for the purpose of exa-
Initnng whether the advice, given to the King by his Mini-
sters, to exclude the Queen's name front the Liturgy, was
consistent with Ilia Laws of the Realm, and the spirit of the
Constitution. Many persons who ought to have been better in-
f?rmed, live asserted, that. the Queen was prayed for in the
thfrererit rituals, front the Conquest to t he time of Henry the
-tig!itts ; this is a mistake,•for, in all of then, the King only
is intentioned under the general title of tuo female nostre
rege.. (a)

The introduction.of the King and Quern by name was
Contemporaneous with the Reim illation. Henry the Eighth,
a catalogue of whose vices would comprehend many of
the worst qualities incident to human nature,' first directed
their insertion in the Litany (6) of the Prissier, and lee was
described as thy servant, our King and Governor,' and
'f-.l.ueen Katherine as ours noble Queen.' (c) *James the
ivhom his most partial biographer represents as having
scarce a virtue free trams the contagion of some neighbour.
i,og 'and queen Anne Isis wife, neither eminent for
viitues nor her vices,'—the one is styled thy servant
jaezirs, our gracious Kiug and Governor,' the other our
gracious Qui-co Anne'.' (d) The first -unfortunate Charles,
and bisbigZ'stied Queen Henrietta Maria, have each of them
tiie same description as in the preceding reign. (e) The se-
tend Charles, as a Sovereign, his character, though nut al-
tagether destitute of virtue, was, in lice nlailiVtlaugerouS to
Ills country, mid dishonourable to himself,' was more ho-
notrred than his ancestors, and had the epithet of " most re-
ligious' first applied to his name, which gave great umbrage
to a fewbishops, who were inclined to think that the
sigintication the word •bore in the English language no
way applicable to the King, who ',usually came from his
mistresses lodgings to church, even on sacrament days ;' and
Queen; a violent catholic, and towards whom he very soon
. manifested a perfect -batted, is called ' our must gracious
•Quetti Katherine.' f) James the Second, so bigotted to his
faith as to prefer it to the crown, and Queen Mary, at heart
-of a Wit-relit persilasirin, even in their short reign, had, each
•of them, with the change of tiatites, the same description as
their immediate predecessors. (g) George the First, who was
'a stranger to the language, laws, and customs of this coun-
try, had been long separated from his wiferwlien he took pos-
session of the throne ; he always I epresentid her as being
toad. Historians have said little about this iinfurtunate lady,
except that she died deserted, neglected, and immured in
some castle in Germany : she was never domiciled
.with us :
t,
th°ose (ines either directly, or iedirectlY, claimed fur her any of
privileges and immunities which belong of riglitAto
‘‘
" Queen Consort of Enelatid. George the Second, and his
wire Queen Caroline,were prayed for in like manner with
Charles the SeConclalid his Queen. Our late ever to he re-
vered Nlonarch and Queen were for4nally., but most truly de-
s„risgen,Latell, * our most religious king, and our gracious Queen.'.
tlsc •e. it appears that the Queen Consort of England, from
litybc r a 46, with one solitary but unimportant exception,
th in all times, and tinder all circumstances, inserted
ttie"Lui
the torgy. It is also evident (and for this purpose only
_e.ll,.urutations front the English history are given) (h) -that
ofn ti
4uthe moral nor the religious character of the King or
eets has had any thing to do with the subject. -
To
account for the uniformity of the praclice,we must see
atiitt'actr"i':re agcy principle ill the constitution eutliciently
ination rwi,? produce such an effect ; the result of the exam-
11re
o,l,L,Proliably be, that the uncontroulahle power of
susdi..u_?l,:)cd,and for the wisest of purposts,that those first
eld he represented to the people in their politi-
to serious refisi.' a"
at
periods when the mind is most disposed
and ~,speet., 'ellen, as persons pi euliarly entitled to honour
templated die" perhaps the
era use
ratio) may have con-
to keep
the
ii still nobler purpose of imploring the Almighty
and, if disobediVi: "f Kings and Queens in the right way,
turn them to tc ''',,that he would, for the benefit efanankind,
Iola! fan "Isduul f tl "ti t Odle' branches of the
de y
hare been f o *
r the gener -3 -.tom time to time in the Liturgy, un-
vractice bas terms of issue, progeny, and family; (1) the,
stances e,,,,,..4eeu altogether irregular, shifting as circuits-
" Let us no
siitil;g any party Consider, not for the purpose of as-
sifeguard of pet .ir,wsi but for the , sake of that best
Mon and statute a4ti,ve' its due exercise, what the com-
fort the time of fl-tir "''ve provided in this particular. &-
Were more or less sobjle. lire Eighth matters ecclesiastically
(4) iti the year 1.59.9- tic to tu the control]] ut the Sec of Rome;
Xing Henry the Eighth
.e Re formation began, and in 1534
reputed, the only suprtwas declared to be, accepted rued
i
have full power and aut'lire rit'ad of the Church, and should
form, erdo.,
_coma,
„,:trity to visit, repress, redress, re-
' heresies, abuses, otrenetfauts and amend all suds errors,
4. whatsoever they be, which sh'r cuuternpts, and enormit,es,
°Y.liy matinee, spit itualmoth rity, or jurisdiction ought
rrpressett, ordered, redress in"
law ally
d .ien e , most to tchthopstle,:sru,,irie,he refs-amid,
redressed, corrected, ust -lined, or
crease of virtue in of Altuighty"Go"d, the in-
s and fur the conser-
varier, af the peace, unity, and t'rtin
:4-nY 'Usage., custom, foreign am halit:l°ldt" oif,t realm this
o r a:du.;
other thing or things to the contraryYte.escri
eirf notwitirstan
sng,' (/) After the passing of this Act the acted as if his
luind was .vaseillating about the Reformatioui'llot Ch4srch,
which
}re
,dvi! not 1 it 1
.1 533 the translation rif the Bible,
revised by the Universities its 1542.
n
r tssarried Katherine Pars-, and in the yearfollowbinjgnalYtetasn4s3-
latent of the prayers and litanies into English was first made,
slidstyled ' The Primer:
‘ ' The last correction of this gook d was printed in the year
!cpri.sl6, tire one before referrpedretcol,an•iait.tit,i afterwards twiced
nted and ordered by
was
t7urinued in use till December 1548, whelLi pule lcituaseeg%
(m), and for theh first time called the Common Prayer,
„r• aun
~t7,riscorporatd Wite law (if the twit', and the use of any
K„ Prayer- houl4s; primers, Ste. prohibited. (a) /(IL withstatiainie' the statute of iiry the Eighth, the
tlijg Poiver respeting the Church was so doubtful,
Oa' t in
eSC 154 V it was- thought fit to give him authority, with
}t
ddriee ot his Con.neil to appoint for three years thirty-
,.,.k Coietuissioners,to examine and correct abuses in the
e, •, Laws. (o)
tbu firsteotinnon Prayer could not !of course, contain the
e.ii.;ll ° Yf the
QUeets Consort, there not being one at the
,„
'4%n
Nu, , Mary repealed all the statutes against the see of
ct ern
17?i_;'4"n as Elizabeth came to the Crown, an Aet
geolatssed repealing the Statutes of Mary ; the
-e shalenacts, that the Book of Go ni tuon Prayer
0 , e •
rUer ad e and oen prayer in WO
•
'4511 an 4 in mi
asall lucent is mentconnnustioned-in thesaid book so audio-
Ward th;Titrliatuent in the sth and 6th years of King Ed-
g IC4OII, tiXtl,, with one ft./tern:ion or addition of certain
,Of the ji°ue used on every Sunday in the year, and the form
Wed .75; altered and corrected, and two sentences only
.and non" 01 cleaver,/ of the Sacrament to the communicants.
Ittopt
,°,tttr (Jr atm wise: Elizabeth did not even at-
',stunt or ai
the
aajud4
ofifne tte • ' tion to certain lessons with-
• si`.! f Henry- an Act of Parliament; and whyr under the
slit surelvonight have su done, but the statute
test), anru Made the Common Prayer unifinsn, and annexed it
f teht_by way of. schedule; and teal, aWay, by construction
e.igtah Power given to the King by the 27th of Henry the
lutes-etc"lestill. ign of F.iizalieth many laws were made touching
lirtixedmattress most: ot them were, certainly, of a
.4, betana and partook of civil rights ; but many Acts might
ic n.ord,one for instance, (Wilt c. 1e..) with her
s of. prerogative, aided by the Statute of Henry,
tei.„"ur. the assistance uf Parliament. But Elizabeth was a
iii. 1.14: t sre
_wo nra , and probably had read and well considered
tiMi And s had writteis, and time approved;
the
core, tilt the common weal when they are aux-
irn Zatl, i.°Lll2ls aidi ice of their Parliaments. Before the 13th and
re..,,1.‘-;!ar es the Second is considered, the reader should
eoi.j.,Lointled that the same was prepared liy Keeling, after-
's Lind CI • f .•
ate Justice, conjunction with Sir Matthew
gre.e u, the great Lord Clareedon, who had, in addition to
4,,r7
.1.,a1 and technical knowledge, the magna vie hunsnui-
-Now a days, the latter would not be reeminnenda-
ii for these enlightened times a little special pleading
het':ilui.lelleCtiOtl of all science, and what was once thought
trtuve :able, and much for the benefit of the state, is now
r, as
Ile it.it„. were the impedimentam titre.
iung WI; Statute, on which the question mainly
~jrPtiids, we must—lst, see what the Legislature intended ;
whether the words made use of in the enacting parts
V"vey ideas which can unambiguously effectuate the pur-

. . . „ .
pose; and, 3dll, whether the King is not bound by the let-
ter of the Statute with regard to that which he is required
to do. _ .

. . . .
" The first section states, the.privention of ;tidier/3.
and :Mims which had arisen and grown, tending to the
gre4t decay and scatidal of the church, the7King had grant-
' ed his commission to certain Bishops and other Dtines to
' prepare such alterations and additions in tthe Common
Prayer as they thought fit to offer. It theh states, th'at
certain alterations and additions were made and
the King, who approved thereof, and recurnmended the
same to his Parliament.' (r)
" The fecund section points out, in iarignawe utiecinivocal,
"the intention of the Legislature ; it was' for the peace of the
nation; the honour of our Religion, and the propagation
thereof; ' those who advised the King knew froth history,
that the most likely means to make the Protestant Faith uni-
versal was first of all to make it uniform. No act was ever
penned that so clearly defined the intention of the Legislature,
and made use of words so little susceptible of ambiguity. The
second section also states that all ministers shall use the Book
of Common Prayer annexed to the Act.

" The :#d section enacts, that all persons who had enjoyed
any Ecclesiastical B•enefice shall, befOra the Feast of St. Bar-
tholoniew (24th August) 1662, read publicly the Book of Com-
mon Prayer, and declare his assent theret. It then sets out
the form of the Dee!station.

" Immediately after the *sing of this Act (May 19th,
16E20 :in order was made for the printitig of 3000' Books of
Common-Prayer for the use of all the Parishes in England,
many of which were not ready for delivers, till after the 24th
of August, of which the Clergy compininea, as an oppArtuoity
had rrit been afforded them of getting the Common Prayer,
and thereby avoiding the penalty created by the sth section.

" Charles the Second was married on the 30th of June,
16(12, and the remaining part of the 3000 copies, which were
printed after that period, contained the name of himself and
Queen Katherine.

" The Gth section requires every person thereafterpromoted
to any benefice to read the Book of Common Prayer, with a
penalty' for not 'so doing. The 7th, 9th, 9th, 10th, 11th,
12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 196, 20th, .21st,
22d, and 23d, are not material to the present purpose ; but
the 24th enacts, that all those Statutes of the realm which
have been formerly made, and now its force, fur the inn-
' fortuity of Prayer, shall stand and he in full force for the
• establishing and confirming the hook called tdie Book of
g Common Prayer; tins Statute, therefore, recognizes the
Acts of Edward and Elizabeth before. referred to.'

" We now come to the 25th sectiun, on the legal interpre-
tation of which the question turns, and let us bear in mind
the persona who prepared this Act ;—' rrovided always, and
be it further enacted,' (that is, made one of the laws of-the
realm ;r' by the authority aforesaid,' (that is, by the King's
Most Excellent Majesty, by the advice and with the consent
of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and of the. Commoral,
in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same,) • that in all those Prayers, Litanies, and Collects
whims do any way relate to'—What does the relative pro-
noun those refer Co, but to the Litanies, Prayers, and Col-
lects in which the names King, Queen, or lioyal Progeny
had been inserted, namely; those in use from the time
of the Ist of Edward to that period.?—and it is must
important that the Book annexed, by way of schedule
to the-- Act,* has blanks left for the names of the
King, Queen, or gßoyal Progeny to be inserted, which,
when done, made the law complete. (s) The legal definition
of the Queen, witbuut any addition, is as nnequivocal as that
of the'King, it means tho wife of the King, and is derived
' from the Saxon, which confers that idea, an no other (1); as
the wife of the King she is entitled to many high privileges
and immunities, (u) sonie of them depending on the existence
of the King, but altogether exclusive of Isis will.
" Prynne, its his Aurum &gine, recites many records in
which the Queen is set forth under'the title The Queen
who now is, (x) &c.' it will be argued, that the word Qaecn
has had a more extensive sense givers to it, for that, both be--
fore and immediately on passit, of the Act, Queen Mary was
lin the Liturgy under the titles of Queen Mary, and the Queen
Mother: but as soots as Charles the Second•tharried, Queen
Katherine preceded her in the Lit urgy,,..with the pronoun pos-
sessive our applied to her name, being lilted to the present so-
casion according to the direction of lawful authority. This
only shows that the King, desirous to point out the Queen
Henrietta Maria as a person entitled to respect, inserted her
name by curtesy as Queen, the same person, but in an infe-
rior character ; and it can be nu argument against the inser-
tion of the Queen's name, who is so de jure et de facto. Pre-
cisely the same tools place in the time of James the, Second,
when Katherine the Queen of Charles the Second was in the
Liturgy under the title of Queen Dowager, and continued so
in the reign of Queen Anne.
Progeny is a noun comprehending an. undefined race or
generation, and had been used in the Liturgies of 1611, 1613,
1630, 1637, and 1639 ; therefore under this word all branches
of the Royal Family have been included. The words ' names
altered and changed' are so clear that they define themselves.
Can any one say, assisted by the most ingenious contrivance,
that they were intended to give the sense borne by the nerd
omit, fur that must be the argument on the other side. From
time to time, and fitted tie the present occasion,' what dues
this mean kilt as circumstances shall arise and require as to
the deaths and different relations in which the parties might
stand to each other? The King and Queen never vary in the
sense intended by the statute, ausl therefore the 3d section
required that their names only should be changed from time
to time, as occasion should require, according to the direc-
tion of lawful authority. What is meant by the word direction
here but order ? If it he contended that it implies accordin.,
to the will, the whole sentence becomes nonsense ; the words
lawful authority purport an authority acknowledged by law,
comprehending all the states of the executive government,
the. King, a Queen regnant, or a regency, and according to
the user, assisted by their council.
" In attempting to explain the use of words like the-pre-
sent, which are so technically accurate, providing fur all cases
that could be contemplated by the law, it is inure than pro-
bable that the definition only confuses the original; but the
statute will soon be descanted upon by orators of all classes
and descriptions, some hired, others well regulated and in-
formed, others again who wish to be thought wise beyond
' what is written;' but the irresistible power of the law,
(and not a little protected by the memory of her celebrated
compilers,) will soon put to confusion the wiles of sophistry,
and the noisy and senseless efforts of declamation : since the
King, Lords, and Commons, after unexampled consideration,
declared, with one voice, that for the peace of the station the
Queen's name should be from time to time inserted in the
Liturgy. The authors of the law knew well enough that the
Queen Consort, although a subject of the King, but sups-
' rior to all subjects, and inferior to none,' was capable of
exciting faction and schism, which had been the case more or
less from the time of Elizabeth, the wife of Henry the Se-
venth, to the then period. Fur this, among other reasons,
they presented to the King the Act, for the purpose of having
it atterwards made the law of the land.. and existing circum-
stances prate what wonderfully wise providence directed their
conduct. If they had intended any thing like what is now
supposed, how easily would it have been to have placed the
words, atter changed, and omitted as shall seem fitting to
legal authority; the sense would then have been indisputable.
Men of consummate learning, together with both }lonics of
Parliament, are nut to be libelled, by first imputing to them
the absurdity of framing and passing a special enactment, fur
the purpose only of authorising the King to do a pas ticular
act which he oould do and had 'uniformly done without the
aid of Parliament; and secondly, the icrnorance of using
expressions uncertain, and inefficient fur that purpose.
" Some will contend that although the words would be im-
perative as applied to a common person, are not so wills re-
gard to the King, because he cannot be compelled, by reason
of his prerogative, to do any act whatever, and the Queen
being Isis subject is under Isis contront. There is a great dif-
ference, in point of law, between a power given to the King
to do an act which lie may execute or not, as he pleases, and
requiring him to do an act which the law has framed for the
people's benefit ; were it not so, the machinery of the Con-
stitution might at any moment be stopped, which' depends fur
its existence on its perpetual motion. The Kin., can do no
wrong ; but this high prerogative, Sir M. Hale King;
of the
compilers of the Act,) says, was intended for the people's
hem lit, and therefore cannot he exerted to then prejudice ; and
he was nut without precedent, for, in the 13th James I. Coke,
C.J.,Croke,Dodderidgc,and Houghton, one baring served the
Crown in the preceding reign, when prerogative was thought
omnipotent, still they resolved that the general words of an
Act should extend to the Queen (Elizabeth), although the
Queen was not expressly named in the Act, because the
Queen, Lords, spiritual and tempt:4M, and the Commons
' who made the 'said Act, have adjudged, as its the preamble
appears, lung Leases made by Colleges, &e. to be unrea.
suitable, and against reason, and the law, which is the per-
- feetion of reason, will never expound the words of an Act
against reason, because fearful and dangerous cause
quenccs would follow decay of the true religion
and spiritual worship of God,' (the very words
made use of in the Statute of Charles).; the judir,,-
mont also states that the Queen, who is the fowl-,
twin of justice, could not thereby be Made Ilse instrument
of injury and wrong, and of a violation of a pious and excel-
' lent law, which she herself; for tee mdintenance of religion,
&c. bad made.' And it was also resolved ' that the King
shall not be exempt by eonsti uction of law, out of the gene-
' ral words of the acts made to suppress wrong, because he is'
' the fountain of justice. and common right, and the King,
being God's lieutenant, cannot do a wrong, solunt Ilex hue
' non potent facere pod non potest injuste (were, anti here-
' with agree 13th E. 4. 8 a. and the case of Alton Woods, in
the first part of my reports, fill, 44 b. 48 a. &c. And al-

though a right was rensedilest, yet the act, which provides
necessary and profitable remedy for the presereation of it,
and to wrong, shall bind the King, at -appears its the
Lord Berkeley'S case, Pl. Com,-246. if tenant in tail before
the Statute De bolds eonditionalibus had aliened; either be-
' fore issue to bar the issue in tail, or after Issue to bar as
• well the donor as the issue in tail, it seal tortious, but no
reloedY was given for it till the Statute De Goias condition-
, taibus, Ann° IS E. 1., was wade, Which Act stub, ' Domi-
nos Rex perpendens quod necessatium et utile est its pile-
' dietis casibut appuncre remedium,•&c. staluit, quod nun
' babeant illi quibus tertemehturn sic fuit dattnu sub con-
' ditione prottstatum afiedaudi, &c. and the Lord Bar-
' keley's case was, that laud was given to King Henry
the Seventh, and to the heirs male • of his body;
' and the question was, Whether the King, fOrasmuch as ha
was not exprelsly restrained by the act pbat prolent 'mum-
, turn soscitattent, might abets or not ? and it was adjudged
that he Could nut alien, but that he is restrained by
• the said act for three reasons, Ist, BecauSe such alienation
before the statute Was wrongful, although such wrong
wanted remedy, for there it is said, it would be is hard
at gument to grant, that the statute which restrains
' men from, doing wrong and ill should permit the King
to du it.-2d. forasmuch as the said act is Statutuut
reniediale, and provides a .reinedy fur this remediless
wrong, and that it was necessary and - profitable to
provide adds remedy, it was adjudged, that it should
bind the King. And 1.6 conclude this reason, it is notably
laid, in 24 E. 3, 41 a. that the law is reason and equity, to
' do right to all, and to keep men from wrong and mischief,
and, therefore, the law will never make construction against
‘`law, equity and right." 1, Coke It. 11. pit. 66. Edit. 1776. •
" The first answer made to these quotations will be, that
the facts are dissimilar, true. Butthe principle is invariable,
and applicable to all cases of the same kind. If this reason-
ing were good its the lath of ,James the First, a fortiori,
dues it hold good now, since the Kin," holds his Crown on
certain specified conditions, and those of modern date
:
First, that he shall not suspend laws, or the execution of
laws, by regal authority,without the consent of Parliament ;
2dly,ahat the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or
the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it bath been as•
' suited and exercised of late, is illegal.' It was because
James the Second had assumed and exercised a power of dis-
-Ist:wing with laws and the exercise of laws, without the cuss-
sent of Parliament, that he, for this and other reasons stated
in the Act of Settlement, abdicated. When it it proved that
what the Act required to be done is altogether sliscretional ;
then the observations with regard to •the Act of Settlement
do not apply, hut common sense seems to suggest that the
present comes under the idea of either the non-execution
ur the suspension of laws: An attempt has been made to
prove the three propositions :—First, that it was the intention
of the Legislature that the Queen should he inserted in the
Liturgy :—Secondly, that the words of the Statute are unam-
biguous :—and, Thirdly, that the Kiugls bound thereby.
" Presumption and-avant of knowledge could only dictate the
assertion that much may not be said on the other side of the
question. • The law justorum injustorunlyne distinctio must
decide between conflicting arguments. The spirit of the
Constitution, leaving nothing r ernedi ess,wiselyprovides, that
Ministers are answerable for the acts of the executive go-
vernment. The King, being informed of all the noisome
stuff which has deluged the country with pollution, took and
acted by the advice of his Council, of whom it may be spoken
on this occasion, in the language of a very wise man, coneilia
ashler non minnunt Mala serf augent yotius. Some of them
may have, aided by their legal lights,
'Sight where better eyes are. blind.'
One in particular, unquestionably possesses more legal know-
ledge than any Judge.trorn the Conquest to the present day;
and therefore well able in debate (fearful odds against
an antagonist) to avoid and refine away what is essential,
and enforce with all the influence of novelty what is not
generally known ; is in legent per rim latant jurare
The.preceding observations are not made from a desire to
weaken the exertion of prerogative, lintels less from an in-
clination to carcourage the libido nialedicendo so disgracefully
prevalent among the over-zealous of each party, but from
allegiance to the King, best strewn by a faithful attachment to
the law.

" Gum legen4 diva nihil atiud intelligi t,olo,quans Imperium,
sive- qua nec domus ulta, nee civitas,. nec genes, nec hominum
uniuersum genus stare, nec reruns natura °nulls, nec ipse mun
dus palest, which the venerable Hooker beautituily para
phrased, and concluded by calling her (as the compilers of the
statute thought, and the lezislature intended) The ntother
of our peace and joy.'
To this Tratt is added, by way of Appendix,
the Act of the 13 and 14 of King Charles 11.,
chap. 4 ; and as the subject of it is of the highest
importance, and will be much canvassed, we will
readily admission to any impartial commu-
nications which may be sent us upon it.

(a) Salisbury Ritual, Brit. plus. 15341 told, tboke of Can-
teibury, Bangor, Salisbury, and Lincoln, in the Lambeth and
other episcopal libraries. The author has examined three,
and is informed by a gentleman of great historical learning
that the more ancient du nut contain the name of the Queen ;
if they bad, it would have been evidence of a common law
right.
(6) The litanies and suffrages, the Most ancient part of the
Common Prayer, in use front the time of Constantino.
(c) See original, Brit. Mus. 1546.
(d) Ibid. 1606. 1611. 1613. •
_ _

e; See copies, Brit. plus. 1630. 1637. 1639.
(J') Copy royal, no data. It was probably immediately after
the marriage, June 30th, 1662 ; another copy, 1666, the bailie
description, and two more without date, same.
(g) Brit. Mu:. royal copy, without date.
(Is) All taken from Hume and Burnet.
(i) See Common Prayers before referred to.

(k) Bruton. lib. v. c. 2. Observations oil the King's Ju-
risdiction in Matters Ecclesiastical, 1689. Brit. plus. Burnet's
Reformation, vol. 1. Hume Hew y sth.
(1) 26 Hen. 8. c. I.
(m) Chiefly compiled by erahmer.
• (n) 2 & 3 Ed. 6. c. 1.-3 & 4 Ed. 6. c. 10.-5 & 6 Ed. 6.
e. 1.
(o) 3 & 4 Ed. 6. c. 11.
(p) 1 Mary, seas. 2. C. 2.
(q) 1 Eliz. c. 2.
(r) Vide September 1.
(s) The author has nut personalty examined this book, as
he has all the. others; but he is informed by a person must
worthy of credit, that such is the fact.
(1) See Lye's Sax. Diet. The Queen in this Pamphlet, is
not considered under the Title of Queen Regnant ; because
by the Common Law, as unnecessarily drclarctl by the Ist
Mary, Sess. 3. c. 1. she is, as Sovereign, the same as the King.
(u) Vide Treat. on the Rights of the Queen, Vamp!), 1763
Harg. Libr. Bi it. M us.
(a) Prynne Auruin ltcginze, p. 124.