The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1892-12-13
LneLIsH si.ieHTHooD.
Titles Besto~ed So Lavisl,Iy That 1t Ha.
Fallen Into Disrepute

Titles Bestowed So Lavishly That 1t Has
Fallen Into Disrepute.
Knighthood confers no political
privileges and it is not hereditary.
and consequently it seems to have
become an admitted principle that
anybody and everybody has pr1ma
facie claim to it. In the last twenty
years many more than thousand
knights have been dubbed, and the
last batch of persons to receive the
royal accolade and the right of pre-
fixing Sir to their names consisted
mainly of professional musicians of
by no means high class, among
them the music master formerly at
Eton college, now of the Guildhall.
the leader of the queens private
band and an organist at Windsori
Against these gentlemen personal
ly we have nothing whatever to say.
In every moral and social quality we
have no doubt they are all that can
be desired. and that so far their adj
mission into the order to which they
now belong was perfectly justified
But that bandmasters, organists and
teachers Of music are proper persons
to be knighted can hardly be main
tanned on the assumption that
knighthood is to continue to be re-
garded as the appropriate reward of
public services in whatever capacity
they may be rendered. More espe-
cially Is this obvious in relation TO
the art with which they themselves
are connected, for assuredly if
knighthood is sufficient recoeni-
ton of the eminence of Sir Arthur
Sullivan and Sir Charles Halle it is
infinitely more than "a sufficient rec
ognition of the eminence of Mr.. Par
ratt, DR. Barnby and Mr.. Cusins.
1t is true that simple knighthood,
as distinguished from knight com
membership of the Bath, st. Michael
and st. George and the Star of India,
to say nothing of the Garter, the
Thistle and ST. Patrick, is not and
can scarcely be expected to be held
in any great veneration. Custom
has made it imperative on the soyer-
eign to confer it ON a number of
persons whose social status is alto
gether different from that of those
who are admitted to the royal or
ders. But however promiscuously
enjoyed, the honor, such as it is, is
invariably shared by the judges of
the land and the law officers of the
crown, and even city sheriffs and
provincial mayors have some reason
to complain when its value is still
further deprecated. No doubt the
disrepute of knighthood is no new
thing. Heralds are accustomed to
date the commencement from the
reign of James I, who created 300
knights in six weeks, and that of his
son, Charles I, who knighted among
others Sir jeffrey Hudson, the
queens dwarf. But it reached eli
max under George ", who discov-
cred in the mere threat of admins
tering the royal accolade an effectual
protection against the presentation
of unwelcome addresses, and under
William w, who knighted every
body who would allow Linn to do so
matters in this respect were not
much mended.
In the earlier years of the queens s
reign, however, when the counsels
of the lamented prince consort were
in the ascendant, knignthood was
very sparingly conferred, and its po
sition as social distinction was pro
portionately raised Bat it is not
too much to say that of late it has
been distributed with so little cir
cumspection that it has, become al
most valueless for the purpose for
which it is supposed and ought to
exist. World