26

HISTORY OF THE

[GENERAL REMARKS.

Knighted by a Foreign Prince, had been permitted by his own Sovereign toaccept the dignity . 3 But it should be remembered, that the Knighthood meantby Sir Edward Coke, and the other old Law Writers, was communicated bythe Accolade, in the same way as the honour was bestowed by their ownPrince, such being the only mode then known of conferring that dignity,instead of being the mere appointment of persons to an Order, without theirhaving ever received the imposition of the Sword, either from their own orany other Sovereign.

This distinction is important, even if it be not decisive of the question; andthough it be true that in the Statutes of the Order of the Guelphs, the Membersare described as “ Ritter,” which Lord Coke considers synonymous with“ Knight ,” 4 and that in their letters of appointment, in English, signed by theChancellor of the Order, they were generally called “ Knights,” yet if theSovereign himself were to style a man “ Sir,” and “ Knight,” even in LettersPatent under the Great Seal, the individual would have no right to the title orrank, unless the dignity were actually conferred by the Sword, or by Letters

3 In the Case of Rex v. Dearsley. This Case is not to be found in the Reports, but the followingaccount of it is taken from the newspapers of the 20th February 1808: “ On a trial in the Court ofKing’s Bench of an indictment for an assault, the counsel for the defendant objected, that the prose-cutor, Sir Robert Peat, was called ‘Knight,’ whereas he was not a Knight of this Country, but ofPoland, having received the Order of Saint Stanislaus from the King of Poland, and therefore thedefendant was entitled to his acquittal. Lord Ellenborough overruled the objection, observing, that‘ the Order of Knighthood having been confirmed by License from the King of England, no doubtwhatever could be entertained respecting its validity. The King is the fountain of Honor, and no oneever doubted the Knighthood of Sir Sidney Smith, with many others, whose rank had been confirmedby the King. Had it been written ‘ Baronet,’ the objection would have been fatal.’” According to thestatement in Townsend’s “ Calendar of Knights,” p. xiv, taken from a Report of the Case printed atBrentford, Lord Ellenborough also said, as the grounds for his decision, that “ Knighthood was anuniversal honour, which there could be no doubt every Sovereign could confer according to the lawsor customs of his own State, and that there could be as little doubt that the King of England couldratify and confirm such creation by a Foreign Sovereign, and that having so done, the party was toall intents and purposes a Knight, and entitled to the appellation by which Knights are commonlydistinguished in these Realms.” The decision of Lord Ellenborough in that Case, having led to theassumption of the title of “ Sir” in some similar instances, where a Royal Licence for the acceptanceof an Order had been obtained, a proviso was introduced into all Licences granted after Marcli 1813,to accept Foreign Orders, that such Licence and permission “ doth not authorize, and shall not bedeemed or construed to authorize, the assumption of any style, appellation, rank, precedence, orprivilege, appertaining unto a Knight Bachelor of these Realms.” It is proper to observe, that SirSidney Smith, to whom the Lord Chief Justice alluded, received the accolade from the King of Swedenunder the Banner Royal, which was assigned as the reason for his not being Knighted by King Georgethe Third, when His Majesty, at the request of His Swedish Majesty, invested him with the Ensignsof the Order of the Sword in May 1792. Vide London Gazette, 16th—19th May 1792.

4 First Inst. 74 b .