"A female also at seven years of age may be betrothed or given in marriage; at nine is entitled to dower; at twelve is at years of maturity, and therefore may consent or disagree to marriage, and, if proved to have sufficient discretion, may bequeath her personal estate; at fourteen is at years of legal discretion, and may choose a guardian; at seventeen may be executrix; and at twenty-one may dispose of herself and her lands. So that full age in male or female is twenty-one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the anniversary of a person's birth; who till that time is an infant, and so stiled in law. Among the antient Greeks and Romans women were never of age, but subject to perpetual guardianship unless when married, nisi convenissent in manum viri: and, when that perpetual tutelage wore away in process of time, we find that, in females as well as males, full age was not till twenty-five years. Thus, by the constitution of different kingdoms, this period, which is merely arbitrary, and juris positivi, is fixed at different times. Scotland agrees with England in this point; (both probably copying from the old Saxon constitutions on the continent, which extended the age of minority "ad annum vigesimum primum, et eo usque juvenes sub tutelam reponunt") but in Naples they are of full age at eighteen; in France, with regard to marriage, not till thirty; and in Holland at twenty-five"—3rd ed., 1769, i. 463-4.
This points to an early establishment of 21 as the age of maturity, but in Saxon England, a boy was of age when much younger. According to the earlier laws, his capability of bearing arms and managing his property began in his tenth year, but in the time of Æthelstan 12 was the age. By the Salic law 12 was fixed as the age of responsibility. This premature ending of the period of nonage accounts for the early accession of Edward, the Martyr, who was crowned in his thirteenth year. According to Grimm's 'Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer,' the beginning of the thirteenth year was the universal Germanic majority.
Blackstone tells us that the king in judgment of law can never be a minor, and therefore his royal grants and assents to Acts of Parliament are good, though he has not in his natural capacity attained the legal age of 21. Power was given by a statute, 28 Hen. VIII. c. 17. to rescind and revoke all Acts of Parliament that should be made by future kings before they attained the age of 24; but this was repealed by 1 Edw. VI. c. 11. so far as related to that prince, and both statutes were determined by 24 Geo. II. c. 24. When a king is crowned under the age of 18, it is usual to appoint a protector until he attains that age. The Pope declared Henry III. of full age at 17, and he confirmed the Great Charter at 18, and undertook the administration of the Government at 20. Richard II. and Henry VI. were under the guardianship of protectors till they attained the age of 23. Statutes of Henry VIII. provided guardianship for successors to the crown, in the case of males to the age of 18, and in the case of females to the age of 16.
The Marriage Act of 1772 called forth a good deal of ridicule respecting the difference in age required by that Act for marriage of members of the royal family from that at which an heir apparent could rule. The following is a fair specimen of these jeux d'esprit:—
Says Dick to Tom, "This Act appears
The oddest thing alive;
To take the crown at eighteen years.
The wife at twenty-five.
The thing a puzzle must remain;
For, as old Dowdeswell said,
'So early if one's fit to reign,
One must be fit to wed.'"
Says Tom to Dick, "The man's a fool,
Or knows no rubs of life;
Good friend, 'tis easier far to rule
A kingdom than a wife!"
The Introduction to 'The Law and Practice relating to Infants,' by A. H. Simpson, 3rd ed., 1909, traces the history of the age of majority being fixed at twenty-one years, and gives numerous references on the subject. C. E. A. Bedwell.
The Authorship of 'Pax Vobis' (11 S. vii. 328).—At 8 S. vii. 388 the late W. C. B. had a query on this subject, which elicited no reply, beyond an editorial note attributing the Work to S. J. Brown. This was, doubtless, on the authority of Halkett and Laing, or the B.M. Catalogue. I have tried in vain to find out anything about S. J. Brown. At p. 391 was a reference to an earlier 'Pax Vobis' (1641, 4to), by Thomas Warmstrey, D.D. I have a cutting from a catalogue attributing the little work to Bishop Edmund Gibson, but this is a mere conjecture made to fit the initials on the title-page, and cannot be correct, as the Bishop was only 16 years old when 'Pax Vobis' appeared. Another extract states that,
"though professedly an attack on Romanism, this appears to be in reality a subtle and roundabout attack on the Church of England. It was evidently printed abroad."
The first edition is dated 1685, and the fourth 1687, so that it must have been in considerable demand. In the latter year appeared 'Some Dialogues, with Reflections
