2nd s. No 83., Aoa. 1. '57.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



97 



Sundrle Times;" and then the " Godly Prayers" 

 for sundry purposes. These last were, I believe, 

 first added to the Psalter in 1552 (Whitchurch). 



J. C. J. 



Mb. Elliott, after enumerating several edi- 

 tions of the Common Prayer-Book, says : " Hence 

 it appears that the ' Godly Prayers were pub- 

 lishecl as early as 1630, and probably as early as 

 1628," &c. I beg to inform that gentleman that 

 I have a portion of the Common Prayer-Book, 

 4to., with the " Godly Prayers," imprinted by 

 Bonhara Norton and John Bill, 1623. It is 

 bound with the Bible, by the same printers, of the 

 date 1622, and Sternhold and Hopkins' Psalms, 

 printed for the Company of Stationers, 1619. B. 



" The Drury Lane Journal" (2"'^ S. iv. 68.) — 

 I have eleven numbers of the above periodical, 

 bound in a volume paged continuously to 263. 

 No. 11. is dated 26th March, 1752. Inside the 

 cover some one has written, " Collated and perfect, 

 J. M., very rare." In another hand, " Written by 

 Bonnel Thornton." John Hawkins. 



Order of Knighthood and Serjeants-at-Law (2°'^ 

 S. iv. 61.) — Much learning might doubtless be 

 displayed in discussing the antiquity and relative 

 dignity of these two Orders ; and in a contest for 

 precedence it is most probable that those who 

 owed their honours to their intellect would be 

 glad to avoid coming into collision with those who 

 had gained them by the strenjjth of their arms ; 

 unless, indeed, they had Sir Geoffrey le Scrope, 

 or some others who distinguished themselves as 

 well in the field as in the courts, for their cham- 

 pion. 



But when knighthood became a matter of re- 

 venue, and did little more than testify the extent 

 of the possessions or the length of the purse of the 

 party dubbed, — when all persons who had the pre- 

 scribed quantity of land were visited with a pe- 

 cuniary penalty if they did not take the order, — 

 when in short they were merely " knights of the 

 carpet," — then, indeed, the question might arise 

 whether it was any longer an honourable dis- 

 tinction; and Serjeants might justly doubt whether 

 it would be any addition to their dignity. 



There is an instance in the reign of Henry VI. 

 of a Serjeant, Thomas Rolfe, who, when sum- 

 moned in 1431, pleaded his privilege of exemption, 

 as bound to attend the Court of Common Pleas 

 and not elsewhere ; and was thereupon excused. 

 Whether this resistance was prompted- by his 

 anxiety to save his pocket, or from any other 

 motive, it is certain that it was not till a hundred 

 years afterwards that the Serjeants changed their 

 opinion. In 1634 Thomas Willoughby and John 

 Baldwin were the first Serjeants who received the 

 honour of -knighthood, the Act of 1 Henry VIII. 

 having apparently invested it with a superiority 



in rank. Since that time it has been very com- 

 monly conferred on men of law as an honorary 

 distinction. Queen Elizabeth was, however, very 

 chary in its distribution, scarcely ever distinguish- 

 ing more of her judges than the chiefs of the 

 Courts with the title : and when it was " prosti- 

 tuted " on all around him by James I., Bacon, 

 though he accepted it in order to gratify his in- 

 tended wife, felt it necessary to apologise to his 

 cousin, Cecil, for making the request. 



The Society of the Inner Temple in 1605, and 

 the other Inns of Court afterwards, decided the 

 question of precedency as it regards men of the 

 law members of their Houses, by ordering that 

 any Knight, " notwithstanding his dignity of 

 knighthood, should take place at the Bench 

 Table according to his seniority in the House, and 

 no otherwise." But we are not furnished with 

 King James's decision on a petition of the Ser- 

 jeants on the same subject. Edward Foss. 



Wife of Lord High Chancellor Wriothesley (2°^ 

 S. iv. 68.) — Dugdale, in his Baronage, vol. ii. 

 p. 383., says that Lord Wriothesley married Jane, 

 the daughter of William Cheney, and that one of 

 their daughters became the wife of the Earl of 

 Sussex. Edward Foss. 



Times prohibiting Marriage (2"'' S. iv. 58.) — 

 Bishops and archdeacons in the seventeenth cen- 

 tury appear to have been in the habit of inquiring 

 at their Visitations whether any have been mar- 

 ried in the times wherein marriage is hy law re- 

 strained without lawful licence. Vide Andrewes' 

 ^?'/icZe5, Diocese of Winchester, 1619 and 1625; 

 Cosin's Articles, Archdeaconry of the East Riding, 

 1627; M.oni2igviQ' s Articles, Diocese of Norwich, 

 1638. E. H. A. 



" Lofcop " (2°'i S. iv. 26.) — On turning to the 

 passages in the 1" S., referred to in the 2"'^ S. iv. 

 26., I found it stated by a correspondent (I'' S. 

 iv. 411.) that "lakcop" (doubtless akin to "lof- 

 cop ") is explained in Thorpe's Ancient Laws and 

 Institutes of England, vol. i. p. 294. note. 



As the note in question throws considerable 

 light on the whole subject, and, so far as I can 

 find, has never yet appeared in "N. & Q.," a 

 summary of its contents may not be unacceptable 

 in your columns. 



The note is on " lah-cop," and states that^ " the 

 books interpret this term, redemptio privilegiorum 

 quas per utlagationem fuerint amissa. ' Also, " In 

 the old Sleswic Law the term is found : ' Sciendum 

 est autem quod rex habet quoddam speciale de- 

 bitum in Slseswick quod dicitur Lseghkop, quo 

 redimitur ibi hereditas morientium, non tamen 

 omnium." Afterwards, in the same extract, the 

 term is spelt " Lagh-kop." 



So far, then, the general meaning given both to 

 " lof " and to " cop " at p. 26. appears to be con- 



