Part 23

AND it is further manifest, by the Scrutiny there inserted, that both those Princes were named by every of the Knights-Companions then present, according to the Sovereign’s signification (which has been usually done at all other Times upon the like Occasions.) But concerning the third Person then to be Elected, the Sovereign, (intending him to be a Knight-Subject) left it entirely to their Pleasure to Nominate whomsoever they thought worthy of their Votes. Since this Time, the Nominations in like Cases, have been sufficiently acknowledg’d by the Knights-Companions themselves, to be a Prerogative belonging solely to the Sovereign. For to the End they might more expeditiously and clearly shew their Compliance, it was moved in a Chapter held at _Oxford_, _March_ the 2d. 19 _Car._ I. _That it might become a Custom for the Sovereign to declare before-hand, whether he would elect any Foreign Prince, and whom, that so the Knights-Companions might be there to name him in the Scrutiny_.

§. 7. ANOTHER Consideration in our Progress towards the Act of Election, is appertaining to the Number, Qualifications and Dignities of the Persons nominated, which may be more conspicuously resolved from another Branch of the before-mention’d Article, _viz._ That every one of the Knights-Companions present at the Election should nominate for himself nine very sufficient Persons, whom he should judge free from all Reproach and Scandal, whether Subjects to the Sovereign, or Foreigners, Provided they are known not to Favour or Abet any Party at enmity with him; that is to say, three Earls, or others of higher Degree, three Barons, and three Knights. Wherein the Things chiefly observable, we rank under five Heads.

For the First of these, their Number. Every Knight-Companion assembl’d in Chapter, is injoin’d to name Nine, neither more nor less. So also saith King _Henry_ V’s Statutes. Nor are King _Henry_ VIIIth’s. any ways dissonant. And in this particular, the Statutes have been hitherto inviolably observed, except in one Case. As to Numbers, and the Mysteries wrapt up in them, we shall not further insist upon. But why our Royal Founder selected this particular Number above all other, unless he had some Eye, and tacit Reflection on the Nine Worthies, or a treble threefold Cord and Symbol of perfect Stability and solid Amity, the Number Nine is accounted to signifie, can with no great Facility or Certainty be decypher’d.

As to the Second Point, they ought to be of unspotted Character. The Injunction in the Statutes of Institution takes Order, that the Persons designed for Election, should be _free from all Reproach, and of untaintted Reputation_; and according to those of King _Henry_ V. are to be _the best and most sufficient Knights, and freest from Reproach_. To the same purpose the Exemplar in the Black-Book, _Such as are fittest_, and whom they who Nominate _believe to be free from Ignominy and Dishonour_. And to this Act of Nomination belongs part of the Second Article in _Henry_ VIIIth’s Statutes, _That no Knight-Companion should name any Person whom he thinks or esteems in his Conscience to have upon him any Spot of Reproach_. But on the Contrary in another Place of the same Statutes it is Provided, That they be nominated and proposed _out of the Number of the most worthy and select Knights_.

How tender the Knights-Companions were in pristine Times of infringing this particular, is proved from a notable Passage which happen’d _Ann._ 39 _Hen._ VI. at a Scrutiny taken the 8th of _February_, in the Bishop of _London_’s Palace, where _John de Foix_ Earl of _Kendal_, a _Gascoigner_ by birth, (which makes the Example more eminent, that a Stranger should have so great Regard to the Honour of the Order) not being acquainted with the Quality and Merit of Knights and Honourable Persons amongst us so well and demonstrably as to nominate such whom he was confident were irreprehensible, forbore to mention any Persons at all. And certainly, seeing the Statutes put very considerable Qualifications upon the Deputies and Proxies, made choice for the Installation of Strangers (as elsewhere shown) much more Caution and Regard ought to be used both in the Nomination and Election of Knights into this radiant and illustrious Society.

THE third Head the Statutes render indifferently capable of being nominated or elected, either Knights Subjects, or Strangers, [Free Princes or their Subjects.] And it was so even at the Election upon the first Choice, where among the Twenty five Elected Knights, Twenty three of them were Subjects. And this was the constant Custom not only in the remaining Part of the Founders Reign, and during those of his three Successors, but has continued ever since, as appears from the Scrutinies taken and entred throughout the Annals of the Order.

OF those who have gain’d admission into this Noble Order by Election, we shall in the last Chapter give an Account in a compleat Catalogue of them, and likewise insert the Names of such as have missed their Election, yet are not to be buried in Oblivion, out of this very respect, that by their standing Candidates, have the Fame of being enrolled in the Principal Register of Honour now in the Christian World. It cannot be supposed we should give a List of all, (for that were a Task too laborious, and wou’d prove too numerous) but only of those of eminent Quality in foreign Parts, with the Æra when the Scrutinies were taken.

_A_ CATALOGUE _of some_ STRANGERS _who have been nominated, but not elected_.

_Rambrith de Walsey_ } _Johannes de Voynada_ } 25 _Hen._ 6.

_Franciscus Sforza_, Dux _Mediolani_ 28 _Hen._ 6.

_Franciscus_ secundus, Dux _Britanniæ_ 13, 14, 15, 22 _E._ 4.

_Henricus_ quartus, Rex _Legionis_ & _Castil._ 14 _Ed._ 4.

_Matthius Corvinus_, Rex _Hungariæ_ 19, 22 _Ed._ 4.

_Fredericus_ secundus, Dux _Austriæ_ 22 _E._ 4. 1 _R._ 3.

_Philippus_ quartus, Dux _Burgundiæ_ 14 _Hen._ 7.

_Franciscus Maria_, Dux _Urbini_ 1, 2 _Hen._ 8.

_Uladislaus_ secundus, Rex _Hungariæ_ 1, 2, 6 _Hen._ 8.

_Christianus_ secundus, Rex _Daniæ_ 6, 8 _Hen._ 8.

Dux _Barryæ_ } Comes _Galaciæ_ } 8 _Hen._ 8

_Alphonsus_ Dux _Ferrariæ_ 13, 15 _Hen._ 8.

_Ludovicus_ secundus, Rex _Hungariæ_ 13, 14, 15 _H._ 8.

_Maximilianus Sforza_, Dux _Mediolani_ 14, 15, 16 _H._ 8.

_Marchio Pescaræ_ 17 _Hen._ 8.

_Johannes_ tertius, Rex _Portugalliæ_ 17, 18, 26, 28 _H._ 8.

_—— Marchio Mantuæ_ 18 _Hen._ 8.

_Carolus Burbonus_, Dux _Vandosme_ 24 _Hen._ 8.

_Gulielmus_ Dux _Clivensis_ } —— Dux _Bavariæ_ } 32 _Hen._ 8.

Dux _Alvæ_ } Dux _Medinæ Cæli_ } 1 & 2 _Ph._ and _M._ Comes _Fereæ_ }

_Franciscus_ secundus, Rex _Galliæ_

_Franciscus_ tertius, Comes _Palatinus_

_Augustus_ Dux _Saxoniæ_

_Alphonsus_ secundus, Dux _Ferrariæ_

—— Dux _Andegavensis_

Dominus _Grabazenby_ } Dominus _Humers_ } Dominus _Johannes Mounte_ } 24 _Hen._ 8. Dominus _Harmibolt_ } Dominus _Boysy_ }

THOSE Persons were render’d incapable of Nomination who were known to Act in contrary Interest to the Sovereign; as the _Exemplar_ in the _Black-Book_ expresseth more copiously, _Such as are not his Adversaries, or Abettors, or willing Defenders of his Adversaries_. Sometimes the Knights-Companions being more wary and discreet in Nominating them, to put either disrespect upon the Sovereign, or offer Violation to the Statutes.

IN the last Place, concerning the Degree, Rank and Dignity of the Nine Knights proposed to be Elected, the Statutes of the Institution set forth, That they be, _First_, Three _Earls_, or Persons of great Dignity. _Secondly_, Three _Barons_. And, _Thirdly_, Three _Knights_: Or, as it is in _Henry_ V’s Statutes, _Trois Contes ou de greegnear estat, trois Banerets, & trois Batchelers_. These Degrees are to be ranked in Three Classes, and they distinguish’d by Three Divisions, all including the Three Degrees aforesaid.

WHEREAS all other Bodies and Exemplars of the Statutes make positive mention of Earls only, yet the Statutes of _Hen._ VIII. in this Point are more ample, by expressing the first Class, _Dukes_, _Marquesses_, and _Earls_, or _Persons superior_ to these in Degree, wherein the highest Dignity is comprehended.

WE may observe the different Title, _viz._ _Baneret_ that _Henry_ V’s Statutes hath given us instead of _Baron_; and not only in this Article, but in all other where there is Occasion to treat of Barons; and yet the Record intends by it no other than the Person it mentions: For tho’ a Banneret had its Denomination _à vexillo_, it usually signify’d a Degree of Honour next below a Baron, both in a later and a modern Date; yet formerly among our Records, it is expressedly Synonymous to Baron, as is sufficiently clear’d up by our most Learned _Selden_; and in this Sense is to be taken here, and not as a distinct Title of lower Degree, because we observe the Bannerets rank’d in all Scrutinies before King _Henry_ VIII. establish’d his Statutes (except one) with the Knights-Batchelors, not with Barons.

THE Title of the third and lowest Rank in this Classis in the Statutes of their Institution, are called _Milites Bachalauri_, and in those of King _Henry_ V. _Batchelors_, and elsewhere _Bachalauri & Bachelauri Equites_, which in common Acceptation are the same with _Milites_, tho’ thus render’d to evince their difference from Knights-Bannerets, who are of a superior Degree of Honour. And here we may observe, that there is no Place in a Scrutiny for any under the Degree of a Knight-Batchelor. And tho’ Three of the Nine mentioned are set down to be Barons, and Three other Earls, or of higher Degree, yet must these Six be such as have had conferred on them the Order of Knighthood, else their Names are rejected, and neither given or taken in Nomination; for the Words of the Statute expresly are, _That each of the Knights assembl’d at the Election shall name nine Knights_.

THUS King _Charles_ I. _Anno_ 6 _Regni sui_, designing to invest _James_ Marquess of _Hamilton_ with this Order, conferr’d the Honour of Knighthood upon him immediately before his Nomination: And the Annals in that Place put this commentary Remark thereupon, _Because by the Statutes it is provided, that none should be elected into the Order that have not been dignify’d with the Title of Knight_.

YET the Ceremony of Knighting the Person designed to be elected, was not so strictly regarded, but sometimes this Branch of the Statute was either wholly passed, or else confounded with the second Article throughout the several Bodies of the Statutes, which prohibits the Choice or Election of any Person into the Society, as this doth the Proposal or Nomination. And thereupon perhaps it was conceiv’d, that altho’ the Nomination, Election, and sometimes Delivery of the Ensigns of the Order was first dispatch’d and past, yet it was sufficient if the Honour of Knighthood was conferr’d afterwards; as in the Cases of _William_ Earl of _Derby_ and _Thomas_ Lord _Burleigh_, _Anno_ 43. _Eliz._ where the Register observes, That as soon as their Election was over, and they Usher’d into the Chapter, the Earl of _Derby_, (who it seems had not been Knighted before) was dubbed Knight with a drawn Sword, according to Custom, after which they had the Garter and George put on by the Sovereign her self.

IN like manner, _Ulrick_ Duke of _Holstein_, and _Henry_ Earl of _Northampton_, immediately after their Election, (the last Day of St. _George_’s Feast, _Ann._ 3. _Jac._ I.) and before they receiv’d the Ensigns of the Order, had the Dignity of Knighthood conferr’d on them by the Sovereign; and in like manner the Earl of _Sussex_, _Ann._ 3 _C._ I. which the _Red-Book_ of the Order recites, _That as soon as it was understood that the Earl had not receiv’d the Order of Knighthood before, the Sovereign immediately drawing his Sword, Knighted him_; which was not done till after his Election and Investiture with both the George and Garter.

THUS did the Ceremony of Knighthood succeed the Election of _Charles_ Prince of _Wales_, the 21st of _May_, _Ann._ 14 _Car._ I. for after he had been elected, and invested with the Ensigns of the Order by the two Senior Knights (the Earls of _Pembroke_ and _Montgomery_, and of _Arundel_ and _Surry_) were intreated by the rest of the Knights-Companions, to present his Highness to the Sovereign in the Name of all the rest, to be initiated a Knight-Batchelor. He was conducted by the said Earls (his Supporters) into the Presence-Chamber in _Windsor-Castle_, where before the Chair of State, he most Solemnly receiv’d the Order of Knighthood from his Father King _Charles_ I.

TO Honour which Knighthood, and the Memory thereof, Four of the chief Nobility then present were Knighted, _viz._ the Earls of _Essex_, _St. Alban_’s and _Elgin_, and Viscount _Grandison_, being conducted from the Great Chamber to the Sovereign’s State, each between two Batchelor-Knights.

AFTERWARDS the Law in this Point began again to be more rightly understood; and by that Time _James_ Duke of _York_ came to be elected (which was the 20th of _April_, 18 _Car._ I. at the Feast of St. _George_ celebrated at _York_) the Sovereign appointed, and accordingly conferr’d Knighthood upon him the Day before, which he receiv’d upon his Knees, being conducted into the Presence-Chamber between two of the Nobility, who were also Knights, the Marquess of _Hertford_ and Viscount _Grandison_. In Honour and Commemoration whereof, Four other Noblemen receiv’d the Honour of Knighthood at that time, the Earl of _Carnarvan_, the Lords _George D’Aubignie_, _John Stewart_, and _Bernard Stewart_, each supported by two Knights.

AND thus Prince _Edward_ Count Palatine of the _Rhine_, and _George_ Duke of _Buckingham_, being designed by King _Charles_ II. to be admitted into this Noble Order, were both first Knighted at St. _Germains_ in _France_, 1649. and afterwards had the Ensigns of the Order sent unto them, by the Hands of Sir _Edward Walker_, Kt. Garter, who, in right of his Office, invested them therewith.

YET in the Case of Prince _Rupert_, who was elected with _James_ Duke of York, _Ann._ 18. _Car._ I. His want of Knighthood became no impediment, because he was a Prince in another Country, _viz._ Count _Palatine_ of the _Rhine_, and Duke of _Bavaria_, and might therefore justly challenge a Privilege to come within the Rule of foreign Princes.

BUT the Sovereign, to arrive as near to the Intention and Observance of the Statute as he could, (where there was a possibility to do it, and the Honour would be well accepted by the Prince) thought it requisite by Commission under the Great Seal of _England_, to impower _Thomas_ Earl of _Arundel_ and _Surry_, and _George_ Lord _Goring_, both being then in _Holland_, or either of them, to Knight the said Prince before putting on the Garter (seeing it could not possibly be done before his Election) which was intended to be sent by him by the Hands of Sir _John Burrough_, Garter. But Death intervening, the Sovereign’s Intention was frustrated; altho’ the Prince, upon his coming afterwards into _England_, receiv’d both the Garter and the George from the Sovereign himself at _Nottingham_ nevertheless without Knighthood, which to excuse, it may well be alledg’d, that the Sovereign might not recollect this Part of the Ceremony, it being a Time of so great Turmoil and Fatigue, occasion’d by the then setting up of his Standard.

HOWEVER, upon the 17th of _January_, 1644. when a Decree past in Chapter then assembl’d at _Oxford_, That both the Duke of _York_ and the Prince, should enjoy all Emoluments and Privileges of the Order, tho’ they were not as yet Install’d (which Ceremony was to be compleated assoon as _Windsor_ was out of the Power of the Rebels.) The Prince, before he receiv’d his Oath, was conducted by the Earl of _Berk-shire_ and Duke of _Richmond_ and _Lenox_, unto the Sovereign, and had conferr’d on him the Honour of Knighthood, there being at the same Time two of the Nobility Knighted in Memorial of that Solemnity, the Lord _Henry Seymour_, Second Son to the Marquess of _Hertford_, and the Lord _Capell_, conducted each between two Knights.

§. 8. WE are now come to speak of the Scrutiny it self, in reference to which, we shall consider by whom it ought, or hath been usually taken, and the Manner and Form thereof.

BY the Statutes of the Institution, the Collecting the Knights-Companions Votes, and entring them in the Scrutiny, solely appertains to the Prelate of the Order; and upon him is this Office devolved, not only by the other Bodies of the Statutes, but by the Constitutions of his Post, and the Obligation of his Oath, whose right we find duly asserted upon this Persons taking a Scrutiny, _Anno_ 29 _Eliz._

THE Statutes likewise provided, That if the Prelate was at any Time absent, then the Dean of _Windsor_, or the Register, or the Senior Residentiary of the College, or the Secretary, or Scribe of the Order, should undertake the Employment; and elsewhere it is mention’d expressly, _In the absence of the Prelate, whose particular Duty otherwise it was_. And among the various Examples enroll’d in the Annals of the Order, these Examples abundantly confirm it. The Prelate of the Order collected the Suffrages from the Knights-Companions, _Anno_ 9 _Hen._ V. when _John_ Earl-Marshal, and Four other Knights were elected. The like did _Henry Beaufort_, Lord-Cardinal, Prelate of the Order, upon the Election of _John_ King of _Portugal_, _Anno_ 13 _Hen._ VI. And when the Duke of _Suffolk_ was chose, _Anno_ 26 _Hen._ VI. the Prelate then also gather’d the Suffrages; which he likewise did upon the Feasts of St. _George_, Celebrated in the 12th, 13th, 14th, 27th, 28th, 30th, 31th, 34th and 35th Years of Queen _Elizabeth_’s Reign. Sometimes the Scrutinies have been gathered both by the Dean of _Windsor_, and the Register of the Order jointly; as we find by the Election of _John_ Lord _Talbot_, _Ann._ 2 _Hen._ VI. of Sir _John Falstaff_, _Ann._ 6 _Hen._ VI. and the Duke of _Quinbery_, _Ann._ 5 _Hen._ VI. all receiv’d at the Feasts of St. _George_, celebrated at _Windsor_.

IT is more than a bare Conjecture, that the Dean at those Times receiv’d the Votes from the Knights-Companions on the Sovereign’s side, while the Register collected those on the Prince’s; for ’tis observ’d, that in King _Henry_ Vth’s Reign, in Posts of different Natures, one whereof was to signifie the Sovereign’s Pleasure to the Knights-Companions about their paying due Reverence, first to God, and afterwards to himself; and the other in a Ceremonial, which directs the Manner and Order of Mulcting the Knights-Companions; in both which, the Dean perform’d the Service on the right Hand the Choir (the Sovereign’s side) and the Register on the left.

SOMETIMES the Register of the Order took them alone, as at the Election of _John_ Earl of _Arundel_, _Anno_ 10 _Hen._ VI. and those of the Earl of _Morteyn_ and Sir _John Grey_, _Ann._ 14 _Hen._ VI. Moreover it’s plain, that when the Office of Register was not fill’d, and _Thomas Ruthall_, Bishop of _Duresme_, executed it during its Vacancy, the Bishop himself, _Ann._ 2 _Hen._ VIII. collected the Suffrages. The like did _William Day_, Dean of _Windsor_, in the Absence of _George Carew_, Dean of the Chapel and Register of the Order, at the Feasts of St. _George_ held at _Whitehall_, _Anno_ 18 and 19 _Eliz._

THIS Duty was executed by the Register from the 15th Year of King _Henry_ VIII. to the Period of his and his Son’s Reign, as the _Black-Book_ of the Order fully evinces; as also on St. _George_’s Day, _Ann._ 1. _Eliz._ by _John Boxhall_; and at the Feast of St. _George_ held _Ann._ 1 _Jac._ I. by _Giles Thompson_, who in the several Times were Registers, yet we must not mistake that what they officiated was on their own behalf, but supply’d the Place of the Prelate.

IN the Beginning of Queen _Mary_’s Reign, we find the Chancellor of the Order began to perform this Service, being by King _Henry_ VIIIth’s Statutes adjoined to those other Offices before describ’d, to collect the Scrutinies in absence of the Prelate, and thereby made capable of the Employment, which afterwards is tacitly remark’d to be perform’d as if in his own right, when the Register has only effected it in the Chancellor’s absence, tho’ in reality it was no other, than as in the Instance of the Bishop of _Duresme_ and Dr. _Day_ aforesaid, who took the Scrutiny in the Vacancy of the Office, and absence of the Register.

_Anno_ 4 _Eliz._ the Register in the Absence of the Chancellor (who was sick,) upon the Feast Day of St. _George_, collected the Suffrages. And _Ann._ 8. _Eliz._ _George Carew_, then Register of the Order, _took the Votes of the Knights-Companions in absence of Sir_ William Petre, _Chancellor of the Order_. So also _Ann._ 4. _Jac._ I. where the Cause of the Chancellor’s Absence is noted to be Sickness, and _Ann._ 6. _Jac._ I. to be Death.

IN the first of these Instances, we find the Prelate expressly set down to be there; in the two following, his presence is implyed, for it is said, that the Four Officers of the Order did attend both Feasts, whereof, (the Chancellor being wanting) the Prelate must needs be one.

NOW all these Passages seem to relate to the Right of the Chancellors rather than the Prelates by this Remark, That every of the Scrutinies were taken in the Absence of the Chancellor, which looks something like a cautionary Remark that denoted the Right of Executing this Office to the Chancellor, rather than the Prelate.

WHEN a Deputy-Chancellor hath been admitted to Officiate in the Chancellor’s absence, he, and not the Prelate, hath taken the Scrutiny, (tho’ present) as at the Election of _Charles_ Prince of _Wales_, the 20th of _May_, 14 _Car._ I. and at another taken the 22d of _May_ following, and the same when the Suffrages were collected for the Election of the Duke of _York_ and Prince _Rupert_ at _York_, _Anno_ 17 _Car._ I.

BUT there is one Passage more (upon taking a Scrutiny _Anno_ 22 _Jac._ I.) which seems Advantageous to the Chancellor in this Point, where it is said, _That when the Knights-Companions had given their Votes_ (as say the _Annals_) _THE CHANCELLOR WHO, ACCORDING TO HIS OFFICE, was to receive them, presented them to the Sovereign_. Howbeit, in truth there is no sufficient Foundation for the Register to insert this as done by the Chancellor, _by Virtue of his Office_, or any one Act or Chapter that hath suspended or made void, the Right of the Prelate, which is reserved by him, even by the Patent, for erecting the Office of Chancellor; especially in those Affairs, which, respecting the Order, ought by the Statute of the Institution to appertain to him. But since the stated Time of performing this Ceremony in the Chapel, the Prelate (if present) is presumed to be Officiating at the Altar, in discharge of another part of his Duty, upon this consideration hath the Service been then imposed upon the Chancellor, and others.

_Lastly_, WE find the Scrutiny to be once taken by Garter, _Ann._ 16. _Car._ I. at the Election of _Thomas_ Earl of _Strafford_. But this was at a Time, when not only the Prelate, but all the other Officers of the Order, excepting Sir _John Burrough_, Garter, were absent, and consequently this Service so executed, ought rather to be judged to have been done in the Prelate’s than Chancellor’s Right.