INSTALLATION.]

ORDER OF THE BATH.

207

Dispensed with by a Warrant under the signature of the Sovereign, and theSeal of the Order. According to the Statutes, the nomination, and even theInvestiture of the first Thirty-seven Companions, was to become void in caseany of them neglected to be Installed for more than six months after the dateof those Statutes ; 8 and a similar obligation, under the same penalty, was im-posed upon all future Knights-Elect. 9 Until a Knight-Elect has been Installed,he cannot, as has been already observed, wear the Collar, nor formerly the Star,without special authority for the purpose: nor can he, properly, be present atChapters, or at any other Solemnity of the Order, * 1 though since 1815, it hasbeen the practice to summon all the Knights Grand Cross to Investitures,whether Installed or not.

The Ceremonies observed at Installations, are fully described in the EighthArticle of the Statutes; 2 and an account of the First Installation in June 1725,will be found in a former page. 3 There have been altogether, eleven Installa-tions of the Order of the Bath, namely:

8 Art. V. p. 48, antea. 9 Art. IX. p. 56, antea.

1 Instances had, however, occurred before 1815, of Knights-Elect having attended Investitures. InMay 1779, when the Earl of Antrim was Invested, three Knights-Elect were marshalled in the Proces-sion to the Royal Closet, followed by the Knights Companions, and “ in consequence of a deficiencyof attendance in the King’s Cabinet, at former Investitures of Knights Companions, the King orderedsummons to be sent by the Secretary of State of the Home Department, to the Knights Elect, to attendthe Investiture of Sir David Dundas, in April 1803, and notwithstanding Garter and Deputy Bathasserted it to be unprecedented and impossible, Lord Henley, Sir Joseph Banks, and Sir Alured Clarke,went into the Cabinet, and were present at the Investiture.” Sir Joseph Banks having afterwardsreferred Deputy Bath King of Arms (the late Francis Townsend, Esq. Windsor Herald), to the prece-dent of Lord Antrim’s case, he replied, in a letter dated Heralds’ College, 3rd May 1803 :

“ I am very thankful for the favour of your letter, and for the precedent it contains in the case ofLord Antrim, which, like that of General Dundas, occurred just on the eve of an approaching Installa-tion. His Majesty may certainly command whomsoever he pleases to enter his Closet, and be presentat any Ceremony; and his Servants have only to obey. But I cannot find any thing in the Statuteswhich would warrant me (acting for Bath King of Arms) to marshal the Knights-Elect in a Processionto Investiture of another Knight-Elect. At page 25, you will find that upon a vacancy, the GreatMaster shall cause the Companions to be summoned; but you will, I think, nowhere find that theKnights-Elect are to be summoned, and, therefore, the Officers of the Order, who have no rule togovern their conduct but what they draw from the Statutes, will, I am sure, stand acquitted in yourmind for saying, * we know not how, or where to place a Knight-Elect in this Procession, until HisMajesty shall have signified His Royal pleasure upon that point.’ I was a very young Herald in 1779,and of course, cannot account for what took place then ; but since I have been at all connected withthe Order, I don’t recollect any thing of the kind having occurred.”—Additional MSS. No. 6327,fo. 36—40.

2 Vide pp. 53—56, antea.

3 Vide p. 67—70, antea. The Ceremonial at the last Installation in 1812 is given in the Appendix.