DEGRADATION.]

213

ORDER OF THE BATH.

of the Garter, on the 6th of July 1606, in the case of Robert Carr, Earl ofSomerset, who had been convicted of Murder, “ that Felony should not bereckoned amongst the disgraces for those who were to be excluded from theOrder of Saint George, which was without precedent,” 6 or, as the decision iselsewhere expressed, “ that Felony comes not within the compass of the Sta-tutes, as not being particularly specified among the Reproaches there reckonedup,” 7 and the Earl of Somerset continued a Knight of the Garter until his death.

That this decision was legal, and consistent with the principle that all penalenactments are to be construed strictly, is unquestionable; but a totally differentproceeding took place in Lord Cochrane’s case in 1814. The Statutes of theBath, respecting Degradation, are precisely the same in effect, and very nearlythe same in words, as those of the Garter; and if a Knight of the Garter couldnot be Degraded even for murder, it is difficult to understand how a Knight ofthe Bath could be legally Degraded for a mere misdemeanour ? The authorityupon which Lord Cochrane was expelled must, therefore, be ascribed to thesupreme and absolute power which is supposed to reside in the Sovereign, andwhich may, perhaps, be said to have been reserved to Him by those clauses inthe Statutes which recite, that to the Sovereign “ doth, and shall appertain theresolution, reformation, interpretation, and determination of every doubt, obscu-rity, or ambiguity, contained in any of the ancient Ceremonials, or in any par-ticular Article of these Our present Statutes, touching this Most HonourableOrder, for maintaining the dignity and perpetual succession of it;” 8 and “thepower of adding and of explaining any particular” in the Statutes. 9 But thesame power was vested in King James the First, as Sovereign of the Order ofthe Garter, the same reservation is to be found in its Statutes, and the samereasoning, sed multo fortius, applied to the Earl of Somerset’s case as to that ofLord Cochrane. In the instance of the Earl of Somerset, it was not deemedexpedient to adopt the objectionable course of making an ex post facto regula-tion ; nor was the offender expelled by the voice of his Companions in a Chapterof the Order. In that of Lord Cochrane, however, though he had eminentlydistinguished himself in the service of his Country, and though his crime wasinfinitely less, he was Degraded with every mark of dishonour by the Royal

6 Ashmole, p. 621.

7 Camden’s Annals. See the History of the Order of the Garter, p. 218.

3 Art. I. p. 47, antea. 9 Art. XXI. p. 64, antea.