Imágenes de página

was described as "thy servant, our King and governor," and Queen Katherine as "our noble Queen.” James the First, whom his most partial biographer represents as having having" scarce a virtue free from the contagion of some neighbouring vice," and queen Anne his wife, "neither eminent for her virtues nor her vices," the one is styled "thy servant James, our gracious King and governor," the other "our gracious Queen Anne." The first unfortunate Charles, and his bigotted Queen Henrietta Maria, have each of them the same description as in the preceding reign.3 The second Charles, (" as a sovereign, his character, though not altogether destitute of virtue, was, in the main, dangerous to his country, and dishonorable to himself,") was more honored than his ancestors, and had the epithet of "most religious" first added to his title, which gave great umbrage to a few bishops, who were inclined to think that "the signification 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 his Queen, a violent catholic, and towards whom he very soon manifested a perfect hatred, is called "our most gracious queen Katherine." James the Second, so bigotted to his faith as to prefer it to the crown, and Queen Mary, at heart of a different persuasion, even in their short reign, had each of them, with the change of names, the same description as their immediate predecessors.5 George the First, who was a stranger to the language, laws, and customs of this country, had been long separated from his wife when he took possession of the throne; he always represented her as being first depraved, afterwards mad, and that he was, by the laws of Germany, divorced a vinculo matrimonii. Historians have said little about this unfortunate lady, except that she died deserted, neglected, and immured in the castle of Ahlden: she was never domiciled with us: no one, either directly, or indirectly, claimed for her any of those high privileges and immunities which belong of right to the Queen Consort of England. George the Second, and his wife Queen Caroline, were prayed for in like manner with Charles the Second and his Queen. Our late ever to be revered monarch and Queen were formally, but most truly designated, "our most religious King, and our gracious Queen." The present Queen was in the Liturgy as Princess of Wales, in

'See original, Brit. Mus. 1546.

2 Ibid. 1606. 1611. 1613.

3 See copies, Brit. Mus. 1630. 1637. 1639.

+ Copy royal, no date. It was probably immediately after the marriage, June 30th, 1662; another copy, 1665, the same description, and two more without date, British Museum.

Brit, Mus. royal copy, without date. VOL. XVIII.



serted by the late King, and continued there under the Regency, but when she became Queen her name was erased. Hence it appears that the Queen Consort of England, from the year 1546, with no exception, has been in all times, and under all circumstances, inserted in the Liturgy. It is also evident (and for this purpose only the quotations from the English history are given) that neither the moral nor the religious character of the King or of the Queen has had any thing to do with the subject.

To account for the uniformity of the practice, we must see whether there is any principle in the constitution sufficiently arbitrary to produce such an effect; the result of the examination will probably be, that the uncontrolable power of the law ordained, and for the wisest of purposes, that those first in dignity should be represented to the people in their political characters, and at periods when the mind is most disposed to serious reflection, as persons peculiarly entitled to honor and respect: and perhaps the law (summa ratio) may have contemplated the still nobler purpose of imploring the Almighty to keep the hearts of kings and queens in the right way, and, if disobedient, that he would, for the benefit of mankind, turn them to the wisdom of the just. Other branches of the royal family have been from time to time in the Liturgy, under the general terms of issue, progeny, and family; the practice has been altogether irregular, shifting as circumstances arose.

Let us now consider, not for the purpose of assisting any party views, but for the sake of that best safeguard of prerogative, its due exercise, what the common and statute law have provided in this particular. Before the time of Henry the Eighth matters ecclesiastical were more or less subject to the control of the see of Rome ;3 in the year 1529 the reformation began, and in 1584 king Henry the Eighth "was declared to be, and accepted and reputed, the only supreme head of the church, and should have full power and authority to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner, spiritual authority, or jurisdiction, ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this realin; any usage, custom, foreign authority,

All taken from Hume and Burnet.

2 See Common Prayers before referred to.

3 Bracton. lib. v. c. 2. Observations on the King's Jurisdiction in Matters Ecclesiastical, 1689. Brit. Mus. Burnet's Reformation, vol. i. Hume, Henry 8th.

prescription, or any other thing or things to the contrary thereof notwithstanding." After the passing of this act the King acted as if his mind was vacillating about the reformation of the church, for he did not till 1538 order the translation of the Bible, which was revised by the universities in 1542. In July 1543 he married Katherine Parr, and in the year following a translation of the prayers and litanies into English was first made, and styled " The Primer."

The last correction of this book was printed in the year 1546, the one before referred to, and it was afterwards twice reprinted and ordered by proclamation for public use, and continued in 'use till December 1548, when the Liturgy was framed,' and for the first time called the Common Prayer, and incorporated with the law of the land, and the use of any other prayer books, primers, &c. prohibited.3

Notwithstanding the statute of Henry the Eighth, the King's power respecting the church was so doubtful, that in the year 1549 it was thought fit to give him authority, with the advice of his council, to appoint for three years thirty-two commissioners, to examine and correct abuses in the ecclesiastical laws.4

The first Common Prayer Book (1548) could not of course contain the name of the Queen Consort, there not being one at the time.5

Queen Mary repealed all the statutes against the see of Rome." As soon as Elizabeth came to the crown, an act 7 was passed repealing the statutes of Mary; the 3d section enacts, that "the Book of Common Prayer shall be used, and all the common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the said book so authorized by Parliament in the 5th and 6th years of King Edward the Sixth, with one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants, and none other or otherwise.' Elizabeth did not even attempt to make one alteration


126 Hen. 8. c. 1.

2 Chiefly compiled by Cranmer.

3 2 & 3 Ed. 6. c. 1.-3 & 4 Ed. 6. c. 10.-5 & 6 Ed. 6. c. 1.

4 3 & 4 Ed. 6. c. 11.

This Prayer Book does not appear on the roll or in the parliament office, and is no where to be found. It is much to be regretted that the papers now before the House of Commons contain only extracts from the Lambeth Library, which are not so important as those at the British Museum and at other places; and the orders in council do not go further back than the year 1684; the most material would be those made when James the First came to the throne, and when Charles the Second was married, in 1662.

11 Mary, sess. 2. c. 2.


1 Eliz. c. %.

or addition to certain lessons without the aid of an act of parliament; and why? By virtue of her prerogative, as confirmed by the 27th of Henry, she surely might have so done, but the statute of the 5th and 6th Edw. 6th, chap. 1. made the Common Prayer uniform, and annexed it to the act by way of schedule, and took away, by construction of law, the exclusive power given to the King by the 27th of Henry the Eighth.

In the reign of Elizabeth many laws were made touching ecclesiastical matters; most of them were, certainly, of a mixed kind, and partook of civil rights; the object of some might have been attained with her high notions of prerogative, aided by the statute of Henry, without the assistance of the statute law. But Elizabeth was a very wise woman, and probably had read and well considered what Bracton and others had written, and time approved; viz. that Kings consult the common weal when they are anxious for the advice of their parliaments. Before the 13th and 14th of Charles the Second is commented upon, the state of the law at this time should be minutely considered. By the statutes of Edward and Elizabeth the Common Prayer was made as unalterable as it is now, and the Litany stands the same, with additions. In the time of Edward there was no Queen Consort, and his half sisters, the Queens Mary and Elizabeth, who would have come. under the description of progeny, were not in the Liturgy,-the reasons, unnecessary to consider, are obvious,-doubt was at that period entertained about the legitimacy of the one, and no doubt about the religion of the other. Anne, the Queen of James the First, being the first Queen Consort, after the passing of the statute of Elizabeth, was, immediately on James's accession to the throne, inserted in the Liturgy. This fact is irresistible evidence to prove, that the insertion of her name was deemed within the true intent and meaning of the preceding statutes, for by force of them the King could not make any alteration or addition whatsoever, as demonstrated by the first of Elizabeth, without an act of parliament for that purpose.

Previously to an examination of the statute, the reader should be reminded that the same was prepared by Keeling, afterwards Lord Chief Justice, in conjunction with Sir Matthew Hale and the great Lord Clarendon, at the time Lord Chancellor, who had, in addition to great legal and technical knowledge, the magna vis humanitatis, which was once thought honorable, and much for the benefit of the state.

In examining the statute, on which the question mainly depends, we must-1st, see what the legislature intended; 2dly, whether the words made use of in the enacting parts convey ideas which can unambiguously effectuate the purpose; and, 3dly, whether the King

is not bound by the letter of the statute with regard to that which he is required to do.

The rules uniformly adhered to in the construction of statutes, from the earliest period to the present day, are extremely simple:

First, "The most natural and genuine way of construing a statute is, to construe one part by another part of the same statute, for this best expresseth the meaning of the makers :"

Secondly, "The words of an act of parliament must be taken in a lawful and rightful sense: "

Thirdly, "That construction must be made of a statute in suppression of the mischief, and in advancement of the remedy:


Fourthly, "The preamble of a statute is a good mean to find out the meaning of the statute, and, as it were, a key to open the understanding thereof:"

Fifthly, "A statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed, that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word, shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant:

Sixthly, "Where words in a statute are express, plain, and clear, the words ought to be understood according to their genuine and natural signification and import, unless by such exposition a contradiction or inconsistency would arise in the statute by reason of some subsequent clause, from whence it might be inferred that the intent of the Parliament was otherwise; and this holds with respect to penal as well as other acts."

The first section, after declaring that the act of parliament passed in the first year of the said late Queen (Elizabeth), for the uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, was very comfortable to all good people desirous to live in Christian conversation, and most profitable to the estate of this realm, upon which the mercy, blessing, and favor of Almighty God is in no wise so readily and plentifully poured as by common prayers, recites,-" And whereas by the great and scandalous neglect of ministers in using the said order of Liturgy so set forth and enjoined as aforesaid, great mischiefs and inconveniences, during the times of the late unhappy troubles, have arisen and grown; and many people have been led into factions and schisms, to the great decay and scandal of the reformed religion of the church of England, and to the hazard of many souls: For prevention whereof in time to come; for settling the peace of the Church; and for allaying the present distempers, which the indisposition of the time hath contracted, the King's Majesty (according to his declaration of the five and twentieth of October, one thousand six hundred and sixty), granted his com

1 Inst. 381.-1 Show. 108.-Hard. 344.-Parker, 235.-Hob. 93, 97.Plowden, 369.

« AnteriorContinuar »