term for persons who had no legal | father. The reasons why they were called Spurii, as assigned by the Roman Jurists, are not satisfactory. (Gaius, i. 64.) Adulterine children, children begotten in an adulterous connection, had of course no father. If we closely follow the principle of Roman law contained in the expression that those children are in a man's power, and those only, whom he has begotten in lawful marriage, no person, according to strict Roman law, had a father unless he was begotten in lawful matrimony. If a child was begotten in lawful matrimony, and the woman was divorced from her husband during pregnancy, the husband was the father, whether the woman remained single or married again during preg nancy. This was the case of Tiberius Nero, whose wife Livia was with child when she married Cæsar Octavianus: the child was Drusus, the brother of Tiberius, who was legally the child of his real father, and was afterwards adopted by Cæsar. Under the old Roman law, it does not appear that a person begotten out of lawful matrimony could be legitimated. As children not begotten in lawful marriage had no father, they could have no kinsmen on the (reputed) father's side, no Agnati. They could also have no cognati, for cognatio implied a legal marriage. If, then, a spurius died intestate, no person could claim his property as an adgnatus or cognatus, for there could be neither cognatio nor agnatio where there was no father; but in respect of proximity, his mother, or his brother by the same mother, could claim the Bonorum possessio by virtue of the Edict, Unde Cognati (Ulpian, Dig. 38, tit. 4). This instance proves that the spurius was considered the son of his mother, at least for certain purposes; but the origin of this rule of Edictal Law may not have belonged to a very early period. It is stated by some modern writers on Roman law, that with respect to the mother, there was no difference between children conceived in lawful marriage and children that were not. The English maxim that a bastard is nullius filius is not so good as that of the Roman law, which considers him to be the son of his mother, as indeed the English law does for some purposes and yet not for others. In a case in Lord Raymond's 'Reports,' p. 65, there are some remarks on the maxim of a bastard being nullius filius, and they form a good example of the absurdity of the maxim. The English law also, though it calls a bastard nullius filius, admits him to be the son of his putative father for some purposes and not for others. The expression natural children, naturales filii, is borrowed from the Roman law. In the later Roman law naturales filii are described as the offspring of a concubine, or of a maid or widow whom a man has debauched. But the older sense of naturalis filius, naturalis pater, was that of natural son, natural father, as opposed to a son or father by adoption, as we see in Cicero and in Livy (xlii. 52; xliv. 4). The word is also used in the same sense in Gaius (i. 104), and by Ulpian (Dig. 37, tit. 8, s. 1, § 2). The context will show in any case whether it is the object of the writer to contrast natural-born children with adopted, or illegitimate children with legitimate. Children who were the sons of a concubine, or of a woman whom a man had seduced, were apparently called naturales because they were known to be the children of a man's body, and not adopted children, nor yet children begotten of promiscuous interourse. As already observed, the mother of a child may generally be ascertained, but the father cannot be certainly known, even when the woman is a married woman. However, it was a rule of Roman law that the husband must be presumed to be the father of his wife's child (Dig. 2, tit. 4, s. 5). This was only a legal presumption, and not an absolute rule. In certain cases the law provided precautions against a child being passed off as the husband's, when it was not his child. If a woman on the death of her husband declared that she was pregnant by him, those who were interested in the property in case the husband left no child, might apply to the Prætor for an order De Ventre Inspiciendo, the object of which was to ascertain the fact of pregnancy, and to secure the woman so that no fraud should be prac tised by her as to the birth of a child (Dig. 25, tit. 4). In case of divorce, the same process might also be used when the wife declared herself pregnant, and the husband would not admit the fact. The word "legitimate" (legitimum) in Latin means anything that is consistent with Law, whether it be customary law or positive enactment. A child begotten between two persons who were not in the relation of husband and wife, as a Roman citizen and a slave for instance, was said to be conceived illegitimately (illegitime concipi); and the status of such persons was determined by the status of the mother at the time of the birth. Accordingly, if the mother was a slave at the time of conception, but had been made free before the birth, the child was free. The status of children who were begotten according to law (legitime), was determined by the status of the mother at the time of the conception (Gaius, i. 89). The Roman terms legitimate and illegitimate in the earlier law, as applied to children, therefore did not correspond to our use of the terms. To take an instance from Gaius: if a Roman woman, a citizen, was pregnant, and in that state was subjected to the interdict of fire and water, by which she lost her citizenship and was reduced to the condition of an alien (peregrina), it was the general opinion that if the child was begotten in lawful marriage it was a Roman citizen; if it was begotten from promiscuous intercourse, it was an alien. All this shows that though those children only who were begotten in a legal Roman marriage were in the father's power and had the full rights of Roman citizens, all children otherwise begotten did not correspond to our bastards; they might be slaves, or peregrini, or naturales, or spurii. In the instance just given from Gaius, it appears that a child born of a woman who was a Roman citizen, but not begotten in lawful marriage, was spurius: a child so born of a woman who was not a Roman citizen was Peregrinus. The Roman law did not concern itself about the status of legitimacy or illegitimacy, in our of those who were not the children sense, of Roman citizens; such children were either Peregrini (aliens) or servi (slaves), as appears by another instance from Gaius (i. 91). This other instance is as The The old rule of Roman law that a Spurius (offspring of promiscuous intercourse) could not be made a legitimate son, appears to have been always maintained. The Spurius took the gentile name of his mother. It is mentioned by Suetonius (Julius Cæsar, c. 52) as an unusual thing, The son, howthat Cæsar allowed his son by Cleopatra to be called by his name. ever, was not Spurius; he was Peregrinus. In the fourth century the practice of legitimation was introduced by Constantine the Great in favour of naturales, or men's children by concubines. constitution of Constantine is only known as quoted in a constitution of Zeno (Code, v. tit. 27, § 5), which declared that it renewed the constitution of the Divus Constantinus, and enacted that those who, at the time of this constitution being published, were living with free women as concubines, and had begotten children of them, and had no wife and no legitimate children, might render all their children legitimate by marrying their concubines, and such children were to be on the same footing as after-born children of the marriage. But the benefit of the law did not extend to any children by concubines who should be born after the date of the constitution. The object of the law was to induce those who were then living in concubinage to marry, but not to allow any favour to such alliances in future. The Emperor Theodosius the Younger introduced a form of legitimating naturales, which was called Per Oblationem Curiae, which it is not necessary to describe par ticularly. would be his grandson and in his power. This seems to be a strict consequence of the principles that have been here laid down as to the condition of spurii. The simplicity of the Roman system in this respect forms a striking contrast with the rules of English law as to children not born in lawful marriage. The Roman law declared that a spurius had a mother and no father, and it followed out this position to its strict consequence. The English law declares that a bastard is nobody's child, a position which it does not follow out to its consequences, simply because a doctrine so manifestly false never could be fully applied to practice. Justinian, after various legislative measures, finally established legitimation by subsequent marriage in all cases of naturales, and placed the children who were born before the marriage, and those who might be born after, on the same footing. Anastasius established the mode of legitimation by Adrogation. Naturales, as they were sui juris, could be adopted by the form of adrogation, pursuant to a constitution of Anastasius. There seems to be no reason why this could not have been done according to the old Roman law; but there is probably no evidence that it was done. This constitution of Anastasius was repealed by Justin. Justinian established the practice of legitimation by imperial rescript, and by testament. A constitution of Justinian enacts (Code, vi. tit. 57, § 5) that if any woman of rank (illustris mulier) had a son born in matrimony and a bastard (spurius) also, she could give nothing to the bastard, either by testament or gift, nor could he take the pro-intestacy. Under the old law, and before perty ab intestato, so long as there were lawful children living. The constitution was published in order to settle a doubt as to the rights of spurii. But the children which a concubine who was a free woman had by the commerce of concubinage with a free man, could succeed to the mother's property on the same footing as her legitimate children, if she had any. It is important to form a right conception of the difference between children not begotten or born in lawful marriage, in the respective systems of English and Roman law. Paternity, in the Roman law, could only be obtained on the condition of begetting a child in lawful marriage. If this condition was not fulfilled, the male had no claim on the child who might be born from his connection with the mother; nor had the child or the mother any claim upon him in respect of maintenance. The child was the fruit of the mother, and it belonged to her in all cases, except when the father could claim it as the offspring of a legal marriage. The spurious child was a member of the mother's family. No child could be in the power of a mother; and her child therefore would either be sui juris if she were so, or if she were in the power of her father, the child This doctrine of a bastard being nullius filius was apparently simply intended and adapted to deprive bastards of all capacity to inherit as heirs or next of kin, and consequently to favour escheat; and also to prevent any persons claiming as heirs or next of kin to them, in case of the passing of the Statute of Wills, it must often have happened that the lands of bastards would escheat. The new rules of law as to bastardy at the present day have been solely framed with reference to the Poor Laws, for the purpose of saving the public, that is, the parish, from the charge of maintaining a bastard child. It is with this object that rules of law have been framed for ascertaining who has begotten the child and must contribute to its support; and for the purpose of settling the disputes between parishes as to the liability to maintain the child, it has been determined that for the purpose of settlement a bastard_shall be considered his mother's child. But the old rules of law as to the incapacities of bastards still subsist, and according to these rules, a bastard has neither father, mother, sister or brother, or other remoter kin. His only kin are the children whom he begets in lawful wedlock. An English bastard is therefore the founder of a new stock, the creator of a family whose pedigree can never be traced beyond him; a distinction which other people cannot have. The Roman Law required children to be begotten in matrimony in order to be lawful children. The English law does not concern itself as to the conception, BATH, KNIGHTS OF THE. [331] BATH, KNIGHTS OF THE. but only as to the birth, which must be in wedlock. The Roman law required that when a man obtained possession of a woman's person, he must do it with a matrimonial mind: the English Law cares not with what mind he obtains possession of the woman; it is altogether indifferent about the origin of the connection. The old system combines, with a clear practical rule for determining the father, the condition of a marriage, an elevated notion of the dignity of the marriage connection. The modern system simply lays down a rule for determining paternity, subject to which it is regardless as to the freedom of ante-nuptial sexual connection. BATH, KNIGHTS OF THE, so called from the ancient custom of bathing previous to their installation. Camden and Selden agree that the first mention of an order of knights, distinctly called Knights of the Bath, is at the coronation of Henry IV. in 1399, and there can be little doubt that this order was then instituted. That bathing had been a part of the discipline submitted to by esquires in order to obtain the honour of knighthood from very early times, is admitted; but it does not appear that any knights were called Knights of the Bath till these were created by King Henry IV. It became subsequently the practice of the English kings to create Knights of the Bath previous to their coronation, at the inauguration of a Prince of Wales, at the celebration of their own nuptials or those of any of the royal family, and occasionally upon other great occasions or solemnities. Fabyan (Chron. edit. 1811, p. 582) says that Henry V., in 1416, upon the taking of the town of Caën, dubbed sixteen Knights of the Bath. Sixty-eight Knights of the Bath were made at the coronation of King Charles II. (see the list in Guillim's Heraldry, fol. Lond. 1679, p. 107); but from that time the order was discontinued, till it was revived by King George I. under writ of Privy Seal, dated May 18, 1725, during the administration of Sir Robert Walpole. The statutes and ordinances of the order bear date May 23, 1725. By these it was directed that the order should con sist of a grand-master and thirty-six companions, a succession of whom was to be regularly continued. The officers appropriated to the order, besides the grandmaster, were a dean, a registrar, king of arms, genealogist, secretary, usher, and messenger. The dean of the collegiate church of St. Peter, Westminster, for the time being, was appointed ex officio dean of the Order of the Bath, and it was directed that the other officers should be from time to time appointed by the grandmaster. The badge of the order was directed to be a rose, thistle, and shamrock, issuing from a sceptre between three imperial crowns, surrounded by the motto Tria juncta in uno; to be of pure gold, chased and pierced, and to be worn by the knight elect, pendent from a red riband placed obliquely over the right shoulder. The collar to be of gold, weighing thirty ounces troy weight, and composed of nine imperial crowns, and eight roses, thistles, and shamrocks issuing from a sceptre, enamelled in their proper colours, tied or linked together by seventeen gold knots, enamelled white, and having the badge of the order pendent from it. The star to consist of three imperial crowns of gold, surrounded with the motto of the order upon a circle gules, with a glory or ray issuing from the centre, to be embroidered on the left side of the upper garment. The installation dress was ordered to be a surcoat of white satin, a mantle of crimson satin lined with white, tied at the neck with a cordon of crimson silk and gold, with gold tassels, and the star of the order embroidered on the left shoulder; a white silk hat, adorned with a standing plume of white ostrich feathers; white leather boots edged and heeled; spurs of crimson and gold; and a sword in a white leather scabbard, with cross hilts of gold. Each knight was to be allowed three esquires, who are to be gentlemen of blood, bearing coat-armour; and who, during the term of their several lives, are entitled to all the privileges and exemp tions enjoyed by the esquires of the king's body or the gentlemen of the privy chamber. In 1815, the Prince Regent being de sirous to commemorate the auspicious the navy. Each knight commander to termination of the long war in which the wear his appropriate badge or cognizance, empire had been engaged, and of mark-pendent by red riband round the neck, ing his sense of the courage and devotion and his appropriate star embroidered on manifested by the officers of the king's the left side of his upper vestment. For forces by sea and land, ordained that the greater honour of this class, it was thenceforward the order should be com- further ordained that no officer of his posed of three classes, differing in their Majesty's army or navy was thenceforranks and degrees of dignity. ward to be nominated to the dignity of a knight grand cross who had not been appointed previously a knight commander of the order. The Third class to be composed of officers holding commissions in his Majesty's service by sea or land, who shall be styled companions of the said order; not to be entitled to the appellation, style, or precedence of knights bachelors, but to take precedence and place of all officer to be nominated a companion of the order unless he shall previously have received a medal or other badge of honour, or shall have been specially mentioned by name in despatches published in the Lon don Gazette as having distinguished himself. The bulletin announcing the re-modelling of the Order of the Bath was dated Whitehall, January 2, 1815. The First class to consist of knights grand crosses, which designation was to be substituted for that of knights companions previously used. The knights grand crosses, with the exception of princes of the blood-royal holding high commissions in the ariny and navy, not to exceed seventy-two in number; whereof a number not exceeding twelve might be nominated in consideration of services rendered in civil or diplomatic employ-esquires of the United Kingdom. No ments. To distinguish the military and naval officers upon whom the first class of the said order was then newly conferred, it was directed that they should bear upon the ensign or star, and likewise upon the badge of the order, the addition of a wreath of laurel, encircling the motto, and issuing from an escrol inscribed Ich dien; and the dignity of the first class to be at no time conferred upon persons who had not attained the rank of major-general in the army or rear-admiral in the navy. The Second class was to be composed of knights commanders, who were to have precedence of all knights bachelors of the United Kingdom; the number, in the first instance, not to exceed one hundred and eighty, exclusive of foreign officers holding British commissions, of whom a number not exceeding ten may be admitted into the second class as honorary knights commanders; but in the event of actions of signal distinction, or of future wars, the number of knights commanders may be increased. No person to be eligible as a knight commander who does not, at the time of his nomination, hold a commission in his Majesty's army or navy; such commission not being below the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the army or of post-captain in the navy. By a subsequent regulation in 1815, no person is now eligible to the class of K.C.B. | unless he has attained the rank of majorgeneral in the army or rear-admiral in By another bulletin, dated Whitehall, January 6, 1815, the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, having taken into consideration the eminent services which had been rendered to the empire by the officers in the service of the Honourable East India Company, ordained that fifteen of the most distinguished officers of that service, holding commissions from his Majesty not below that of lieutenant-colonel, might be raised to the dignity of knights commanders of the Bath, exclusive of the number of knights commanders belonging to his Majesty's forces by sea and land who had, been nominated by the ordinance of January 2. In the event of future wars, and of actions of signal distinction, the said number of fifteen to be increased. His Royal Highness further ordained that certain other officers of the same service, holding his Majesty's commission, might be appointed companions of the order of the Bath, in consideration of eminent services rendered in action |