Chronologies and Calendars/Chapter 9

by James C. MacDonald

CHAPTER IX.

Upon Great Britain's Calendar.

COMPLETING the futile Elizabethan effort in chronology, the British Parliament of 1751 discussed reforms in the calendar, Lord Chesterfield initiating the proposal.^[1] His motion for adopting the new style was carried into force by the statute 23 George II, chapter 50. The preamble of that act sets forth, 'The legal supputation (reckoning) of the year of our Lord in that part of Great Britain called England, according to which the year beginneth on the 25th of March, hath been found by experience to be attended with obvious inconvenience, as it differs from the usage of neighbouring nations, and also from the legal method of computation' in Scotland.^[2] Then having admitted that the Julian calendar was at the time eleven days wrong or beyond the solar year, the preamble proceeds to refer, in a roundabout way, to the Gregorian or new style.^[3]

92. Thereafter the needful enactments follow. Briefly these were:—

(a), The year 1751 as such was never finished. It began, of course, on 25th March, and ended as on 31st December, both 1751, a year of 281 days.

(b). The record of^[4] 11 days of September, 1751, was held as non-existent, so that the 3rd to 13th days of September (both days inclusive) were written off.

(c) The Gregorian method,^[5] already explained of, calculating leap years, was also adopted, so that errors in the future cannot occur, At least the error will be only of consequence after many thousands of years.

93. The calendar annexed to the statute is interesting, as showing the vitality of the Roman reckoning, and is important, being still, in the strict letter, the Statute Law Calendar of Great Britain, and as such is repeated in the Second Revised Statutes issued in 1889.^[6]

94. In 1859, it is proper to remark, three anniversaries were abrogated in the statutory calendar, both 30th January, King Charles' martyrdom; 29th May, Charles II.'s nativity and return; 5th November, 'Papists' conspiracy. This is the statutory designation, and is used now for the purpose of identification only—it being in my opinion that it always was a misnomer.

95. The statement of the regnal years on recent British coins seems to cause difficulty to some people, for while I was revising the MS. of this volume, there appeared in the correspondent's column of an important Scottish newspaper a letter which read, 'It would be interesting to know who is responsible for the error on one of the dates on the crown pieces of 1893 or 1894. On the crown piece of 1893 the legend runs, "Anno regni lvi.," and on the crown piece for 1894 it runs, "Anno regni lviii." Which coin bears the correct legend?' To this query I thought it best to send an immediate reply, which was as follows, 'Your correspondent, although he is mistaken in thinking there are errors in the dates of the recent crown pieces, has raised an interesting point in chronology. The regnal year, he says, on the 1893 coin is 56; while on that of the next year (1894) 58 is given as the regnal year. The explanation is as follows:-The date of Her Majesty's accession or era^[7] having been. 20th June, 1837, it follows that 55 years thereafter expired on 19th of June, 1892. Therefore

(a). From 20 June, 1892, to 19 June, 1893 = Anno Regni 56

(b). From„ 20 June,„ 1893 ,to 19„ June,„ 1894 _ Anno„ Regni„ 57

(c). From„ 20 June,„ 1894 ,to 19„ June,„ 1895 _ Anno„ Regni„ 58

Thus we see that the 1893 coin, being issued between 1st January and 19th June, 1893, is properly dated A.R. 56; and the 1894 piece, issued between 20th June and 31st December, 1894, consequently shows A.R. 58. If your correspondent will refer to the proclamation for dissolving the last Parliament, he will find that it was superscribed, "This 8th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1895, and in the 59th year of our reign;" further proving no error exists as regards the regnal year on the coin in question.' I may also add to the foregoing a specimen of a very rare proclamation, viz., the first proclamation of the new Warden the Cinque Ports. Its terms are as follows:—Dated at Hatfield, in the County of Herts, under the scale of my office, the thirtieth day of June, in the sixtieth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Victoria, by grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, and of India Empress, Anno Domini, 1896.—Salisbury.'

96. Although the 'anno regni' is placed on certain coins, and is inserted in proclamations, it does not nowadays find a place in the Acts of Parliament; and these bear simply the day, month, and year (A.D.) in which the royal assent is given. 'Anno regni' is evidently only a dutiful surplusage.

1. Bright, p. 1014.
2. Revised Statutes, vol. II., p. 246, et seq.
3. The title of this act is, 'An act for regulating the commencement of the year, and for correcting the calendar now in use.'
4. The rabble, as depicted by Hogarth, believed they were being defrauded of 11 days.
5. See section 26 supra.
6. It is given at section 142 infra.
7. The era of Victoria is an allowable expression.