The eastern part of Bastir is a flat elevated plateau, from 1600 to 2000 feet above the level of the sea, the centre and north-west portions are very mountainous, and the southern parts are a mixture of hill and plain. On the plateau there are but few hills; the streams run slowly, and the country is a mixture of plain and undulating ground covered by dense sàl forests. Principal mountains of the district—(1), A lofty range which separates it from the Sironcha district; (2), a range of equal height called the Bela Dili lying in the centre of the district; (3), a range running north and south near Niriyanpur; (4), Tdngri Dongri range, running east and west; (5), Tulsi Dongri, bordering on the Sabari River and the Jaipur state. There is also a small range running from the River Indravati to the Godavari. The Indravati, the Sabari, and the Til or Tilper, are the chief rivers of the district; all of them affluents of the Godavari The soil throughout the greater portion of Bastir consists of light clay, with an admixture of sand, suited for raising rice and wet crops. Rice, sugar, and a little wheat and gram are the agricultural products of Bastir. In the jungles the Marias and Maris rear kosri (Panicum italicum) and other inferior grains. The aboriginal races generally follow the migratory system of tillage, clearing the jungle on selected patches, and after taking crops for two or three years abandoning them for new ground. Min's do not use the plough; nor do they possess buffaloes, bullocks, or cows; their only agricultural implement is a long-handled iron hoe. Lac, resin, wax, galls, horns, rice, a red dye called scndrt, wild arrow-root, molasses, teakwood, and tasar-silk cocoons, are the chief staples of export. 'The imports, -which considerably exceed tho exports, consist of salt, piece-goods, brass utensils, cocoa-nuts, pepper, spices, opium, tuπneric, cotton, wheat, &c. Iron-ore is found towards the eastern portion of the state, but is not much worked; gold is also found in certain places. Bastir is divided into two portions—that held by the Raja or chief himself, and that possessed by feudatory chiefs under him. There is not a single made road within the principality. The climate of Bastar is unhealthy— fever, smallpox, dysentery, diarrhoea, and rheumatism being the prevailing diseases. Jagdalpur, Bijipur, Madder, and Bhupàlpatnam are the only places of any note in the dependency, the first-named being the residence of the Raja and the chief people of the state. The grossest ignorance and superstition prevail, and the people live in constant fear of being bewitched or ruined by malicious magicians. The family of the Raja of Bastar claims to be of the purest Rajput blood, and traces its origin to Warangal in the Dakhin, about the commencement of the 14th century. The revenue of Bastar is supposed to be £3610; the tribute paid by the chief to the British Government is £305, 12s.

The law relating to the maintenance of bastard children is governed by a considerable number of statutes passed during the present reign, the Acts of 1872 and 1873 being the last. The mother of a bastard may summon the putative father to Petty Sessions within twelve months of the birth (or at any later time if he is proved to have contributed to the child’s support within twelve months after the birth), and the justices, after hearing evidence on both sides, may, if the mother’s evidence be corroborated in some material particular, adjudge the man to be the putative father of the child, and order him to pay a sum not exceeding five shillings a week for its maintenance, together with a sum for expenses incidental to the birth. No such order is to be valid after the child is dead or reaches the age of thirteen, but the justices may in the order direct the payments to be continued until the child is sixteen years of age. The putative father may appeal to Quarter Sessions. Should the child afterwards become chargeable to the parish, the sum due by the father may be received by the parish officer. When a bastard child, whose mother has not obtained an order, becomes chargeable to the parish, the guardians may proceed against the putative father for a contribution. The mother of an illegitimate child is entitled to its custody in preference to the father.

The rights of a bastard are only such as he can acquire; for civilly he can inherit nothing, being looked upon as the son of nobody, and sometimes called filius nullius, sometimes filius populi. This, however, does not hold as to ‘moral purposes, e.g., he cannot marry his mother or bastard sister. Yet he may gain a surname by reputation though he has none by inheritance, and may even be made legitimate and capable of inheriting by the transcendent power of an Act of Parliament. All other children have their primary settlement in their father’s parish; but a bastard has his in the parish where he was born, unless such birth has been procured by fraud, or has happened under an order of removal, in a state of vagrancy, in the house of correction, or under certificate; for in law he has no father. The incapacities attaching to a bastard consist principally in this, that he cannot be heir to any one; for being nullius filius, he is therefore of kin to nobody, and has no ancestor from whom an inheritable blood can be derived. Therefore, if there be no other claimant upon an inheritance than such illegitimate child, it escheats to the lord. And as bastards cannot be heirs themselves, so neither can they have any heirs but those of their own bodies; for as all collateral kindred consists in being derived from the same common ancestor, and as a bastard has no legal ancestor, he can have no collateral kindred, and consequently no legal heirs, except such as claim by a lineal descent from himself. And hence, if a bastard purchase land, and die seised therefor without issue and intestate, the land escheats to the lord of the fee. Originally a bastard was deemed incapable of holy orders, and disqualified by the fact of his birth from holding any dignity in the church; but this doctrine is now obsolete, and in all other respects there is no distinction between a bastard and another man. By the law of Scotland a bastard is not only excluded from his father’s succession, because the law knows no father who is not marked out by marriage; and from all heritable succession, whether by the father or mother, because he cannot be pronounced lawful heir by the inquest in terms of the brief; but also from the movable succession of his mother, because he is not her lawful child, and legitimacy is implied in all succession deferred by the law. But a bastard, although he cannot succeed J⅛re sanguinis, may succeed by destination, where he is specially called to the succession by entail or testament. In Scotland, as in England, a bastard can have no legal heirs except those of his own body; and hence, failing his lawful issue, the king succeeds to him as last heir. In Scotland bastards may be legitimized in two ways; either by the subsequent intermarriage of the mother of the child with the father, as already mentioned, or by letters of legitimization from the sovereign. With respect to the last, however, it is to be observed, that letters of legitimization, be their clauses ever so strong, cannot enable the bastard to succeed to his natural father; for the king cannot, by any prerogative, cut off the private right of third parties. But, by a special clause in the letters of legitimation, he may renounce his right to the bastard’s succession, failing descendants, in favour of him who would have been the bastard’s heir had he been born in lawful wedlock, such renunciation encroaching upon no right competent to any third party. Formerly bastards in Scotland without issue of their own could not make a will, but this disability was removed by G Will. IV. c. 22. If bastards or other persons without kindred die intestate without wife or child, their effects go to the king as ultimus haeres ; but a grant is usually made of them by letters patent, and the grantee becomes entitled to the administration.

The conflict of laws on the subject of legitimization by subsequent marriage yields some curious results. Thus, in the case of Burtwhistle v. Vardill, it was decided that a child born in Scotland of parents domiciled there, not married till after his birth, is legitimate by the law of Scotland, but cannot take real estate in England as heir. Again, a domiciled Scotchman had a son born in Scotland and then married the mother in Scotland. The son died seised of land in England, and it was held that the father could not inherit from the son. A domiciled Englishman, putative father of a child born in France of a French woman, having afterwards acquired a French domicile, married the mother and acknowledged the child as legitimate in the mode prescribed by the law of France. It was held that he could not legitimize the child so as to enable it to share in a bequest to his children by a person in England. The law of England, while admitting the general maxim that the status of legitimacy must be tried by the law of the country where it originates, holds that the succession to real property must be determined by the lex loci rei sitae; so that, for example, a legitimized Scotchman would be recognized as legitimate in England, but not legitimate so far as to take lands as heir.

The statistics of illegitimacy present some striking differences and uniformities, but it is only in the case of Scotland that we can be reasonably certain of the accuracy of the figures. The status of the child is not recorded in the English system of registration, but is a matter of inference from the facts stated by the parents. In 1873 illegitimacy varied in Scotland as follows. The proportion of illegitimate births was— [table]

In the counties the percentage varied from 4 in Shetland, Ross, and Cromarty, 5 in Nairn, and 6 - 5 in Sutherland, to 11T in Forfar, 11 ’ 4 in Roxburgh, 13 ’ 7 in Kincardine, 14 in Aberdeen, 15*8 in Banff, 15 - 8 in Elgin and Dumfries, and 18 ’ 4 in Wigtown. Similar variations are shown by English statistics for 1859. Compare the highest (Cumberland, ll·4; Norfolk, 10’7; Westmoreland, 9 ’ 7) with the lowest (Monmouth and Middlesex, 4 ’ 7; and Surrey, 5). The metropolis stands at 4 ’ 2. With these local variations may be contrasted the steadiness with which the general average of illegitimacy is maintained. In England, for example, during nineteenyears (1841-1859) the percentage fluctuated between 6 '37 and 7, and during the last thirteen years of the period between G∙4 and 6 - 8. The returns of the Registrar-General show rather more fluctuation in Scotland during the period for which we have statistics (1855-1873), the figures being 7 , 8 in 1855, 8 ’ 5 in 185G, steadily rising to 10 in 1863, and 10 ’ 2 in 1866, and then steadily falling to 9 - l in 1872, and 9 in 1873. The statistics of different countries, so far as any proper comparison can be made between them, show differences equally remarkable. The order in which they stand, would be something like the following:—Sardinia (illegitimates), 2Ό91 per cent.; Holland, 3'96; Spain, 5’6; Switzerland, 5 - 9; Tuscany, 6; England, 6'5; Finland, Belgium, Sicily, France, 7'8; Prussia, 7 to 8; Austria, Norway, Scotland, 9; Denmark, Sweden, Hanover, Iceland, Saxony, 15; Wurtemberg, Bavaria, 20 (from Mr Lumley’s paper in the Journal of the Statistical Society for June 1862). It will be seen that these differences cannot be explained on any consideration of religious belief or education. An inquiry made in Prussia in 1849 yielded the following results. The proportion of illegitimate to legitimate births was— [table]

English and Scotch returns show that the proportion of illegitimacy is smaller in the town than in the country districts, but the same feature is not observed in Continental towns, as appears from the following returns, which, however, can in most cases be regarded as approximations only :— [table]

[table]

In 1845 he came to Paris in order to superintend the publication of his Cobden et la Ligue, ou l'agitation Anglaise pour la liberté des échanges, and was very cordially received by the economists of the capital; from Paris he went to London and Manchester, and made the personal acquaintance of Cobden, Bright, and other leaders of the league. When he returned to France he found that his writings had been exerting a powerful influence; and in 1846 he assisted in organizing at Bordeaux the first French Free Trade Association. The rapid spread of the movement soon required him to abandon the sweet and fruitful leisure of his beloved Mugron for the feverish and consuming activity of Paris. During the eighteen months which followed this change his labours were prodigious. He acted as secretary of the central committee of the association, organized and corresponded with branch societies, waited on ministers, procured subscriptions, edited a weekly paper, the Libre-Échange, contribute^ to the Journal des Economistes, and to three other periodicals, addressed meetings in Paris and the provinces, and delivered a course of lectures on the principles of political economy to students of the schools of law and of medicine. The cause to which he thus devoted himself, with a zeal and a selfdenial most admirable in themselves, but fatal to his own health and life, appeared for a time as if it would be as successful in France as in England; but the forces in its favour were much weaker and those opposed to it w ere much stronger in the former country than in the latter, and this became always the more apparent as the struggle proceeded, until it was brought to an abrupt end by the Revolution of February 1848. This event allowed the socialism and communism which had been gathering and spreading in secret during the previous thirty years to show themselves openly and boldly in singularly favourable circumstances. Louis Blanc, Victor Considérant, Pierre Leroux, J. P. Proudhon, and other representatives of these theories laboured zealously and effectively to gain to them the needy and uneducated masses of their countrymen, and to discredit as utterly evil the existing order of society. In this grave crisis Bastiat nobly performed his duty. Although exhausted by the far too heavy labours in which he had been engaged, although robbed of his voice by the malady which was preying upon him, so that he could do but little to defend the truth from the tribune of the Constituent Assembly, he could still suggest wise counsels in the Committee of Finance of which he was vice-president, and he could still use his pen with a vigour and dexterity which made him capable of combating single-handed many opponents.

He wrote in rapid succession a series of brilliant and effective pamphlets and essays, showing how socialism was connected with protection, and exposing the delusions on which it rested. Thus within the space of two years there appeared Propriété et Loi, Justice et Fraternité, Propriété et Spoliation, L'État, Baccalauriet et Socialisme, Protec-tionisme et Communisme, Capital et Rente, Maudit Argent, Spoliation et Loi, Gratuité du Credit, and Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas. While thus occupied he was meditating the composition of a great constructive work, meant to renovate economical science by basing it on the principle that “interests, left to themselves, tend to harmonious combinations, and to the progressive preponderance of the general good.” The first volume of this work Les Harmonies Economiques was published in the beginning of 1850. In the autumn of that year, when working on the second volume, the increase of his malady compelled him to repair to Italy. After lingering at Pisa and Florence he reached Rome, but only to die there on the 24th of December 1850, in the fiftieth year of his age. An affecting account of the last days of this illustrious martyr to the cause of economical science and political justice was published by his friend, Μ. Paillottet.

The life-work of Bastiat, in order to be fairly appreciated, requires to be considered in three aspects. (1.) He was the advocate of free trade, the opponent of protection. The general theory of free trade had, of course, been clearly stated and solidly established before he was born, and his desire to see its principles acted on in France was quickened and confirmed by the agitation of the Anti-Corn-Law League for their realization in England, but as no one denies it to have been a great merit in Cobden to have seen so distinctly and comprehensively the bearing of economical truths which he did not discover, no one should deny it to have been also a great merit in Bastiat. He did far more than merely restate the already familiar truths of free trade. He showed as no one before him had done how they were applicable in the various spheres of French agriculture, trade, and commerce. Now, the abstract theory of free trade is of comparatively little value; its elaboration so as to cover details, its concrete application, and its varied illustration are equally essential. And in these respects it owes more, perhaps, to z Bastiat than to any other economist. In the Sophismes Economiques we have the completest and most effective, the wisest and the wittiest exposure of protectionism in its principles, reasonings, and consequences which exists in anylanguage. (2). He was the opponent of socialism. In this respect also he had no equal among the economists of France. He alone fought socialism hand to hand, body tn body, as it were, not caricaturing it, not denouncing it, not criticizing under its name some merely abstract theory, but taking it as actually presented by its most popular representatives, considering patiently their proposals and arguments, and proving conclusively that they proceeded on false principles, reasoned badly, and sought to realize generous aims by foolish and harmful means. Nowhere will reason find a richer armoury of weapons available against socialism than in the pamphlets published by Bastiat between 1848 and 1850. These pamphlets will live, it is to be hoped, at least as long as the errors which they expose. (3). He attempted to expound in an original and independent manner political economy as a science. In combating, first, the Protectionists, and, afterwards, the Socialists, there gradually rose on his mind a conception which seemed to him to shed a flood of light over the whole of economical doctrine, and, indeed, over the whole theory of society, viz., the harmony of the essential tendencies of human nature. The radical error, he became always more convinced, both of protectionism and socialism, was the assumption that human interests, if left to themselves, would inevitably prove antagonistic and anti-social, capital robbing labour, manufactures ruining agriculture, the foreigner injuring the native, the consumer the producer, &c.; and the chief weakness of the various schools of political economy, he believed he had discovered in their imperfect apprehension of the truth that human interests, when left to themselves, when not arbitrarily and forcibly interfered with, tend to harmonious combination, to the general good. Such was the point of view from which Bastiat sought to expound the whole of economical science. The sphere of that science he limited to exchange, and he drew a sharp distinction between utility and value. Political economy he defined as the theory of value, and value as “the relation of two services exchanged.” The latter definition he deemed of supreme importance. It appeared to him to correct what was defective or erroneous in the conflicting definitions of value given by Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, Senior, Storch, <fcc., to preserve and combine what was true in them, and to afford a basis for a more consistent and developed economical theory than had previously been presented. It has, however, found little acceptance, and Roscher, Cairnes, and others seem to have shown it to be ambiguous and misleading. ^ A consequence of it on which he laid great stress was that the gratuitous gifts of nature, whatever be their utility, are incapable of acquiring value,—what is gratuitous for man in an isolated state remaining gratuitous for him in a social condition. Thus, land, according to Bastiat, is as gratuitous to men at the present day as to their first parents, the rent which is paid for it—its so-called value—being merely the return for the labour and capital which have been expended on its improvement. In the general opinion of economists he has failed to establish this doctrine, failed to show that the properties and forces of nature cannot be so appropriated as to acquire value. His theory of rent is nearly the same as Mr Carey’s, i.e., decidedly anti-Ricardian. His views on the growth of capital and interest, on landed property, competition, consumption, wages, and population, are independent, and, if not unqualifiedly true, at least richly suggestive. His Oeuvres Completes are in 7 vols. The first contains an interesting Memoir by Μ. Paillottet. The following articles on Bastiat may be specified,—Reybaud’s in the Revue des Deux Mondes, Sept. 1, 1858; Macleod’s in his Dictionary of Political Economy; and that of Cairnes in the Fortnightly Review, Oct. 1, 1870. There is a good statement of his distinctive views in Kautz, Geschichte, der National-Oelconomik, ii. 578-584. His Harmonies have been well translated by Dr P. J. Stirling. (R∙ F·)

At a very early period, however, the Bastille was employed for the custody of state prisoners, and it was ultimately much more of a prison than a fortress. According to the usual account, which one is tempted to ascribe to the popular love of poetical justice, the first who was incarcerated within its walls was the builder himself, Hugues Aubriot. Be this at it may, the duke of Nemours spent thirteen years there in one of those iron cages which Louis XI. called his fillettes ; and Jacques d’ Armagnac, Poyet, and Chabot were successively prisoners. It was not till the reign of Louis XIII. that it became recognized as a regular place of confinement; but from that time till its destruction it was frequently filled to embarrassment with men and women of every age and condition.

Of the treatment of prisoners in the Bastille very various accounts have been given even by those who speak from personal experience, for the simple reason that it varied greatly in different cases. The prisoners were divided into two main classes, those who were detained on grounds of precaution or by way of admonitory correction, and those who lay under presumption or proof of guilt. The former were subject to no investigation or judgment, and the length of their imprisonment depended on the will of the king; the latter were brought to trial in the ordinary courts or before special tribunals, such as that of the Arsénal,—though even in their case the interval between their arrest and their trial was determined solely by the royal decree, and it was quite possible for a man to grow old in the prison without having the opportunity of having his fate decided. Until guilt was established, the prisoner was registered in the king’s name, and—except in the case of state prisoners of importance, who were kept with greater strictness and often in absolute isolation—he enjoyed a certain degree of comfort and freedom. Visitors were admitted under restrictions; games were allowed; and, for a long time, at least, exercise was permitted in open parts of the interior. Food was both abundant and good, at least for the better class of prisoners; and instances were not unknown of people living below their allowance and, by arrangement with the governor, saving the surplus. When the criminality of the prisoner was established, his name was transferred to the register of the “commission,” and he became exposed to numerous hardships and even barbarities, which, however, belonged not so much to the special organization of the Bastille as to the general system of criminal justice then in force.

Among the more distinguished personages who were confined in this fortress during the reigns of Louis XIV., XV., and XVI., were the famous Man of the Iron Mask, Fouquet, the Marshal Richelieu, Le Maistre de Sacy, De Renneville, Voltaire, De Latude, Le Prévost de Beaumont, Labourdonnais, Lally, Cardinal Rohan, Linguet, and La Chalotais. While no detestation is too great for that system of “royal pantheism” which led to the unjust and often protracted imprisonment of even men of great ability and stainless character, it is unnecessary to give implicit credence to all the tales of horror which found currency during the excitement of the Revolution, and which historical evidence, as well as a priori considerations, tends to strip of their more dreadful features, and even in many cases to refute altogether. Within the last twenty or thirty years much light of an unexpected kind has been shed on the history of the Bastille from the pages of its own records. These documents had been flung out into the courts of the building by the Revolutionary captors, and after suffering grievous diminution and damage were finally stored up and forgotten in the vaults of the library of the (so-called) Arsénal. Here they were discovered in 1840 by François Ravaisson, who has since devoted himself, with rare patience, learning, and ability, to their arrangement, elucidation, and publication. Of the extent and value of his investigations some idea may be formed from the fact that the six volumes published cover only the interesting period from 1659 to 1681.

At the breaking out of the Revolution the Bastille was attacked by the Parisians; and, after a vigorous resistance, it was taken and razed to the ground on the 14th July 1789. At the time of its capture only seven prisoners were found in it. A very striking account of the siege will be found in Carlyle’s French Revolution, vol. i. The site of the building is now marked by a lofty column of bronze, dedicated to the memory of the patriots of July 1789 and 1830. It is crowned by a gilded figure of Mercury spreading his pinions in the act of flight.

See the Histories of the Bastille by Renneville (7 tom. 12mo, 1713-24), Fougeret (8vo, 1833), Dufey de l’Yonne (8vo, 1834), and Arnould (7 tom. 8vo, 1843-44); and the Memoirs of Linguet (12mo, 1821, new ed.), Can>a(3 tom. 8vo, 1787), Charpentier (3 tom. 8vo, 1789),and Latude (edited by Thierry, 3 tom. 18mo, 1791-92); also François Ravaisson, Les Archives de la Bastille, (6 vols. 8vo, 1866-73); and Charles Louandre, in Revue des Deux Mondes, 1874.