[785] It is "rights" in the text, but this appears to be a "slip," for lower down the proper spelling is used.
[786] N. C. Col. Rec., VIII, 322 (Dec. 17, 1770).
[787] Saunders, "Prefatory Notes," N. C. Col, Rec., VIII, xlv; also ibid., VIII, 297, 300; IX, 7.
[788] Saunders, op. cit., xlv.
[789] "It is interesting to note with what satanic disregard of the rights of man the leaders in the Establishment can write. Says Reed [minister in Craven County]: 'The bill was pushed by the dissenting interest, and [because of] the dangerous situation of the province from such formidable number of malcontents [Regulators], the governor acted with the greatest prudence in passing the bill with a suspending clause.... Should this act receive the royal assent it would be a fatal stroke to the Church of England, but as the insurrection is entirely quelled, I flatter myself with hopes that the act will meet with a repulse.'"—Weeks, op. cit., 247; N. C. Col. Rec., IX, 6. Later the Board of Trade wrote that the law was in effect a "bounty to the tolerated religion at the expense of the established," and petitioned for its disallowance: N. C. Col. Rec., IX, 7, 245, 251, 284, 366.
[790] Saunders, op. cit., xlv, errs in saying that the law of 1766 was repealed soon after its passage.
[791] Cooper, Statutes at Large, II, 120, 121 (act of March 1695/6).
[792] Ibid., 242, 243; also in N. C. Col. Rec., II, 867-82.
[793] Cooper, op. cit., II, 289-91; also in Brevard, Alphabetical Digest of Laws of S. C., 41-44. In both these acts elaborate provision is made for registration.
[794] Cooper, op. cit., II, 475, 476, where 32 H. VIII., c. 38, is put in force; and it is retained in Revised Statutes (Columbia, 1873), 481. In 1712, likewise, a part of the statute 1 Jac. I., c. 11, regarding bigamy was adopted: Cooper, II, 508.