INVESTITURE.]

ORDER OF THE BATH.

203

was supererogatory and unnecessary. Some doubt is said to be entertained ofthe power of the Crown to delegate authority to confer Knighthood, whichhas probably led to the custom of Knighting persons abroad by Letters Patent;but it is submitted that such power does certainly exist, though it would bemore consistent both with principle and ancient usage, not to appoint a Com-missioner who was not himself a Knight. Many precedents can be adduced,of Knights having been created by subjects, under a Royal Commission, as wellin ancient as in modern times; and the Statutes of the Bath not only expresslyauthorize the Great Master to Knight any person nominated to the Order, butthe Duke of Montagu conferred that honour upon the Duke of Richmond in1725. 5 It is, however, obvious that it would be in conformity with the constitu-tion of the Order, and with the principles of Chivalry, that no Investitures shouldtake place, unless the Knight-Elect had previously been Knighted.

In the case of the Knights Commanders of the Bath, nominated in 1815,it was officially announced in the London Gazette, that they should, “ fromthe publication of the present Instrument, be entitled severally to assume thedistinctive appellation of Knighthood,” and they accordingly did assume theTitle, and took precedence of all Knights Bachelors of the United Kingdom.But while the power of the Crown to appoint any of its subjects, being himselfa Knight, to confer Knighthood in the Sovereign’s name, is presumed to be asfully justified by Law, as it unquestionably is by Precedent, it cannot be con-tended that the mere declaration of the King’s pleasure (even under the RoyalSign Manual, or by any other instrument than Letters Patent), that an individualshall assume the Title and enjoy the privileges of Knighthood, can legallyrender him a Knight Bachelor, though such a declaration would authorize himto use the Appellation, and to enjoy any precedency (except perhaps of Peers),which might be expressed in the instrument. Still, however, the individualwould not be a Knight Bachelor ; and this fact explains the reason of Knight-hood having been conferred upon the Knights Commanders at the time of theirInvestiture. This instance of Titles and Precedency being irregularly and ineffi-ciently conferred, is only one of the daily examples of the laxity and incon-gruities respecting Honours which prevail in this Country.

In consequence of there not having been persons of proper station to repre-sent the Sovereign, Knights-Elect have occasionally been permitted to Invest

5 Vide p. 45, antea.