C 4 1 9 J

tv* ? - ' * ■>

fhat the Grand Feaft ought to be celebrated oncfa Tear .

. $ i°. Though the Prorogations of the Grand Feafthave been occafionally made ufe of on the aforefaid .m-porrant Reafons, yet no fuch Adjournment or Prorogationis legally to be enlarged beyond Sr. George's Day enfuing ,fcecaufe once within the compafs of every Tear, the GrandFeaft ought to be folemnizcd ; for fo it was ordainedby the Statutes at the Inftitudon of the Order, and con-*firmed likewife by the fucceeding Statutes. And whenour Hiftor ans take notice of the Grand Feaft, they freakof the fame thing, that it might annually to be perform-ed ; whence it is frequently : called in/ the Regtfters, An-nua Feftivitatis, folemnitas annua, Celebritas annua, andtbe like.

I Of late times an occafion happened that brought thisof the Statutes, into a lolerhn debate in Chapter $ whichfor the refu't thereof became very remarkable.

At a Chapter held, at White-Hall^ id Febru-ary, 1640.

.The Sovereign propffed to the Knights-Companions, thatloving prorogued the Celebration of St. George’* Feaft fromtime to time, to the 1, z,and? of March, fo near Lent,that if the Feaft were not held on thefe Days, it could notle done within the compafs of that Tear ; becaufe the z^d ofApril,/br the next Tear, did fall on Good-Friday, and fo con-fidently mufi have been kept in Lent this Tear, or not atoil 3 and conjidering the great and important Affairs of theParliament, he moved the Qucftion, whether, if there wereno Feaft fept this Tear, it would be any Blemifh to the Ho-nour of the Order ? And whether he might not difpcnce withtie Statute, and defer it till next Tear ? They all cpnfeffedthe Sovereign s difpenftng Power, yet fome of the Knightsfeeing from the Inftitution to that time, no Precedent ,fund where the Grand Feaft had been wholly omitted,W that fome of the Sovereigns, even though engaged in Warbeyond Sea , either folemmfed the Feaft in their own P re-E e % fettte^