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 This constitution of Anastasius was repealed by Justin.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 notning to the bastard, either by testament or gift, nor could he take the property 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

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.

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 intestacy. Under the old law, and before 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 dis tinction 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,

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 termination of the long war in which the empire had been engaged, and of marking his sense of the courage and devotion manifested by the officers of the king's forces by sea and land, ordained that thenceforward the order should be composed of three classes, differing in their ranks and degrees of dignity.

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 army 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 employments. 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

the navy. Each knight commander to wear his appropriate badge or cognizance, pendent by red riband round the neck, and his appropriate star embroidered on the left side of his upper vestment. For the greater honour of this class, it was further ordained that no officer of his Majesty's army or navy was thenceforward 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 esquires of the United Kingdom. No 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 Lowdon Gazette as having distinguished himself.

The bulletin announcing the re-modelling of the Order of the Bath was dated Whitehall, January 2, 1815.

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 com mission, might be appointed companions of the order of the Bath, in consideration of eminent services rendered in action

with the enemy; and that the said officers should enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities secured to the Third class of the said order. (Observations introductory to an Historical Essay upon the Knighthood of the Bath, by John Anstis, Esq. 4to. Lond. 1725; Selden's Titles of Honour, fol. Lond. 1672, pp. 678, 679; Camden's Britannia, fol. Lond. 1637, p. 172; Sandford's Genealog. Hist. fol. 1707, pp. 267, 431, 501, 562, 578; J. C. Dithmari, Commentatio de Honoratissimo Ordine de Balneo, fol. Franc. ad. Viad. 1729; Mrs. S. S. Banks's Collections on the Order of the Bath, MSS. Brit. Mus.; Statutes of the Order of the Bath, 4to. Lond. 1725, repr. with additions in 1812; Bulletins of the Campaign of 1815, pp. 1-18.)

BAWDY-HOUSES. [PROSTITUTION.] BEACON, a sign ordinarily raised upon some foreland or high ground as a sea-mark. It is also used for the firesignal which was formerly set up to alarm the country upon the approach of a foreign enemy. The word is derived from the Anglo-Saxon beacen or beacn, a sign or signal. Beac or bec is the real root, which we still have in beck, beckon. Fires by night, as signals, to convey the notice of danger to distant places with the greatest expedition, have been used in many countries. They are mentioned in the prophecies of Jeremiah, who (chap. vi. ver. 1) says, "Set up a sign of fire in Beth-haccerem, for evil appeareth out of the north, and great destruction." In the treatise De Mundo, attributed to Aristotle, it is said (edit. 12mo. Glasg. 1745, p. 35) that fire-signals were so disposed on watchtowers through the king of Persia's dominions, that within the space of a day he could receive intelligence of any disturbances in the most distant part of his dominions; but this is evidently an exaggerated statement. Eschylus, in his play of the Agamemnon, represents the intelligence of the capture of Troy as conveyed to the Peloponnesus by fire-beacons. During the Peloponnesian war we find firebeacons (pUKTOί) employed. (Thucyd. iii. 22.) Pliny distinguishes this sort of signal from the Phari, or light-houses placed upon the coasts for the direction, of ships, by the name of "Ignes prænun

tiativi," notice-giving fires. (Plin. Hist. Nat. edit. Harduin, ii. 73.)

Lord Coke, in his Fourth Institute, chap. xxv., speaking of our own beacons, says, "Before the reign of Edward III. they were but stacks of wood set up on high places, which were fired when the coming of enemies was descried; but in his reign pitch-boxes, as now they be, were, instead of those stacks, set up: and this properly is a beacon." These beacons had watches regularly kept at them, and horsemen called hobbelars were stationed by most of them to give notice in day-time of an enemy's approach, when the fire would not be seen. (Camden, Brit. in Hampshire, edit. 1789, vol. i. p. 173.)

Stow, in his Annals, under the year 1326, mentions among the precautions which Edward II. took when preparing against the return of the queen and Mortimer to England, that "he ordained bikenings or beacons to be set up, that the same being fired might be seen far off, and thereby the people to be raised."

The Cottonian MS. in the British Museum, Augustus I. vol. i. art. 31, preserves a plan of the harbours of Poole, Purbeck, &c., followed, art. 33, by a chart of the coast of Dorsetshire from Lyme to Weymouth, both exhibiting the beacons which were erected on the Dorsetshire coast against the Spanish invasion in 1588. Art. 58 preserves a similar chart of the coast of Suffolk from Orwell Haven to Gorlston near Yarmouth, with the several forts and beacons erected on that coast.

The power of erecting beacons was originally in the king, and was usually delegated to the Lord High Admiral. In the eighth of Elizabeth an act passed touching sea-marks and mariners (chap. 13), by which the corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond were empowered to erect beacons and sea-marks. on the shores, forelands, &c. of the country according to their discretion, and to continue and renew the same at the cost

of the corporation. [TRINITY HOUSE.]

Professor Ward, in his 'Observations on the Antiquity and Use of Beacons in England' (Archæologia, vol. i. p. 4), says, the money due or payable for the maintenance of beacons was called Beconagium,