^{page 350 note *} There was in England an inveterate popular belief, without any foundation in law, that the declarations which made a marriage must be made before a person in orders, English or Roman. There is a great deal of confusion on this subject, in great part arising from not remembering that the marriage by declaration before witnesses, which was binding both civilly and ecclesiastically, was held irregular by the Church, and made the parties subject to spiritual censures and penances; and also to some statutory penalties, which were seldom or never enforced.

^{page 353 note *} I use D and N because they enter in the demonstration as denominator and numerator. I suppose the D and N of our commutation tables were chosen by Griffith Davies from the part they play in the first of the results wanted, and the suggesting formula. But this never struck me until now; and perhaps never struck some of my readers.

^{page 363 note *} In reply to a suggestion whether unmethodical would not be the preferable word, Mr. De Morgan writes:—“I mad e the word immethodical, upon the old analogy. Un is Saxon; and properly belongs to Saxon words, as unaware, unbeaten. In and Im are for Latin; though certainly the Saxon ha s intruded, as in ungovernable, unsophisticated, uncommon, &c. But the grea t bulk of our Latin words still keep im or in, according to the consonant which follows, as imperceptible, immense, innocent, and a crowd of others. On looking for immethodical in a little sixpenny Johnson of the stalls,—there it is. I generally consider the foreign dictionaries as good authoritie s as to English words: and in the French, German, and Italian which I keep at hand, I find the word in all. I find capricious cases; as unterminabl e and unterminated, indeterminate and undetermined (of which the mathematicians have availed themselves). Also insatiate and unsatiated. The rule seems t o be that when th e Saxon ed is at the end, the Saxon un shall be at the beginning; and Latin, Latin. This may be called the sandwich rule, if it be a rule. The end of it is that any one may do as he pleases, which is the glory of English.”—E D. J. I. A.

^{page 363 note †} Francis Baily was a paragon of method he practised and enforced. I found him one day in the act of finishing a note, which h e showed me; it was before the time of prepaid letters. One of those tradesmen who, whe n a customer is a s good as the bank, persist in making a banker of him during convenience, would not send in his bill. The note ran as follows:—“(No. 1). Sir,—I beg you will oblige me by sending in your account forthwith. Yours, F. Baily PS. This notice will be repeated once a week until it is complied with.” No. 2 was not wanted: the tradesman declined to grant His Majesty an annuity of 8s. 8d, payable weekly.