Chapter 13

See A. Tait’sFivesin the All England Series: “Fives” in theEncyclopaedia of Sport; andOfficial Handball Guidein Spalding’s Athletic Library.

FIX, THÉODORE(1800-1846), French journalist and economist, was born at Soleure in Switzerland in 1800. His father was a French physician whose ancestors had been expatriated by the revocation of the edict of Nantes. At first a land surveyor, he in 1830 became connected with theBulletin universal des sciences, to which he contributed most of the geographical articles. In 1833 he founded theRevue mensuelle d’économie politique, which he edited during the three years of its existence. He then became engaged in journalistic work, till his essay onL’Association des douanes allemandeswon him a prize from the Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques in 1840, and also procured him work on the report on the progress of sciences since the Revolution, which the Institute was preparing. A few months before his death he publishedObservations sur les classes ouvrières, in which he argued against all attempts to regulate artificially the rate of wages, and attributed the condition of the working classes to their own thriftlessness and intemperance. He died suddenly at Paris on the 31st of July 1846.

FIXTURES(Lat.figere, to fix), in law, chattels which have been so fixed or attached to land (as it is expressed in English law, “so annexed to the freehold”), as to become, in contemplation of law, a part of it. All systems of law make a marked distinction for certain purposes, between immovables and movables, between real and personal property, between land and all other things. In the case of fixtures the question arises under which set of rights they are to fall—under those of real or of personal property. The general rule of English law is that everything attached to the land goes with the land—quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit. This, like many other rules of English law, is all in favour of the freeholder; but its hardship has been modified by a large number of exceptions formulated from time to time by the courts as occasion arose.

In order to constitute a fixture there must be some degree of annexation to the land, or to a building which forms part of it. Thus it has been held that a barn laid on blocks of timber, but not fixed to the ground itself, is not a fixture; and the onus of showing that articles not otherwise attached to the land than by their own weight have ceased to be chattels, rests with those who assert the fact. On the other hand, an article, even slightly affixed to the land, is to be considered part of it, unless the circumstances show that it was intended to remain a chattel. The question is one of fact in each case—depending mainly on the mode, degree and object of the annexation, and the possibility of the removal of the article without injury to itself or the freehold. In certain cases the courts have recognized a constructive annexation, when the articles, though not fixed to the soil, pass with the freehold as if they were,e.g.the keys of a house, the stones of a dry wall, and the detached or duplicate portions of machines.

Questions as to the property in fixtures principally arise—(1) between landlord and tenant, (2) between heir and executor, (3) between executor and remainder-man or reversioner, (4) between seller and buyer.

1. At common law, if the tenant has affixed anything to the freehold during his occupation, he cannot remove it without the permission of his landlord. But an exception was established in favour oftrade fixtures. In a case before Lord Holt it was held that a soap-boiler might,during his term, remove the vats he had set up for trade purposes, and that not by virtue of any special custom, but “by the common law in favour of trade, and to encourage industry,” and it may be stated as a general rule that things which a tenant has fixed to the freehold for the purpose of trade or manufacture may be taken away by him, whenever the removal is not contrary to any prevailing practice, or the particular terms of the contract of tenancy, and can be effected without causing material injury to the estate or destroying the essential character of the articles themselves (Lambournv.McLellan, 1903, 2 Ch. 269). Agricultural tenants are not entitled, at common law, to remove trade fixtures. But the Landlord and Tenant Act 1851 granted such a right of removal in the case of buildings or machinery erected by a tenant at his own expense, and with his landlord’s consent in writing, provided that the freehold was not injured or that any injury was made good, and that before removal a month’s written notice was given to the landlord, who had an option of purchase. Under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1883 the tenant might, under similar conditions, remove fixtures, although the landlord had not consented to their erection. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1900 extended this provision to fixtures or buildings acquired, although not annexed or erected, by the tenant. Similar rights were created by the Allotments Compensation Act 1887, and by the Market Gardeners’ Compensation Act 1895. All these provisions were re-enacted by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1908.Again,ornamentalfixtures, set up by the tenant for ornament and convenience, such as hangings and looking-glasses, tapestry, iron-backs to chimneys, wainscot fixed by screws, marble chimney-pieces, are held to belong to the tenant, and to be removable without the landlord’s consent. Here again the extent of the privilege has been a matter of some uncertainty.In all these cases the fixtures must be removed during the term. If the tenant gives up possession of the premises without removing the fixtures, it will be presumed, it appears, that he has made a gift of them to the landlord, and that presumption probably could not be rebutted by positive evidence of a contrary intention. His right to the fixtures is not, however, destroyed by the mere expiry of the term, if he still remains in possession; but if he has once left the premises he cannot come back and claim his fixtures. In one case where the fixtures had actually been severed from the freehold after the end of the term, it was held that the tenant had no right to recover them.2. As between heir and executor or administrator. The question of fixtures arises between these parties on the death of a person owning land. The executor has no right to remove trade fixtures, set up for the benefit of the inheritance. As regards ornamental objects, the rulequicquid plantatur solo, solo ceditwas in early times somewhat relaxed in favour of the executor. As far back as 1701, it was held that hangings fixed to a wall for ornament passed to the executor; and, although the effect of this relaxation was subsequently cut down, it is supported by the decisions of the courts affirming the executor’s right to valuable tapestries affixed by a tenant for life to the walls of a house for ornament and their better enjoyment as chattels (Leighv.Taylor, 1902, App. Cas. 157); and the same has been held as to statues and bronze groups set on pedestals in the grounds of a mansion house.3. When a tenant for life of land dies, the question of fixtures arises between his representatives and the persons next entitled to the estate (the remainder-man or reversioner). The remainder-man is not so great a favourite of the law as the heir, and the right to fixtures is construed more favourably for executors than in the preceding cases between heir and executor. Whatever are executor’s fixtures against the heir would therefore be executor’s fixtures against the remainder-man. And the result of the cases seems to be that, as against the remainder, the executor of the tenant for life would be certainly entitled to trade fixtures. Agricultural fixtures are not removable by the executor of a tenant for life.4. As between seller and buyer, a purchase of the lands includes a purchase of all the fixtures. But here the intention of the parties is of great importance. Similar questions may arise in other cases,e.g.as between mortgagor and mortgagee. When land is mortgaged the fixtures pass with it, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the conveyance; and this even where the chattels affixed are the subject of a hire purchase agreement (Reynoldsv.Ashby, 1903, 1 K.B. 87). Again, in reference to bills of sale the question arises. Bills of sale are dispositions of personal property similar to mortgages, the possession remaining with the person selling them. To make them valid they must be registered, and so the question has arisen whether deeds conveying fixtures ought not to have been registered as bills of sale. Unless it was the intention of the parties to make the fixtures a distinct security, it seems that a deed of mortgage embracing them does not require to be registered as a bill of sale. The question of what is or is not a fixture must also often be considered in questions of rating or assessment.The law of Scotland as to fixtures is the same as that of England. The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1883 (ss. 35, 42) and 1900 (as to market gardens) give a similar statutory right of removal. The law of Ireland has been the subject of the special legislation sketched in the articleLandlord and Tenant. The French Code Civil recognizes the right of the usufructuary to remove articles attached by him to the subject of his estate on the expiry of his term, on making good the place from which they were taken (Art. 599); and there are similar provisions in the Civil Codes of Italy (Art. 495), Spain (Arts. 487, 489), Portugal (Art. 2217) and Germany (Arts. 1037, 1049).The law of the United States as to fixtures is substantially identical with English common law. Constructive, as well as actual, annexation is recognized. The same relaxations (from the common law rulequicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit) as regards trade fixtures, and ornamental fixtures, such as tapestry, have been recognized.In Mauritius the provisions of the Code Civil are in force without modification. In Quebec (Civil Code, Arts. 374 et seq.) and St Lucia (Civil Code, Arts. 368 et seq.) they have been re-enacted insubstance. Some of the British colonies have conferred a statutory right to remove fixtures on tenants (cf. Tasmania, Landlord and Tenant Act 1874). In certain of the colonies acquired by cession or settlement (e.g.New Zealand) the English Landlord and Tenant Act 1851 is in force.Authorities.—English law: Amos and Ferard,Law of Fixtures(3rd ed., London, 1883); Brown,Law of Fixtures(3rd ed., London, 1875); Ryde, onRating(2nd ed., London, 1905). Scots Law: Hunter,Landlord and Tenant; Erskine’sPrinciples(20th ed., Edin., 1903). American Law: Bronson,Law of Fixtures(St Paul, 1904); Reeves,Real Property(Boston, 1904);Ruling Cases(London and Boston, 1894-1901), Tit. “Fixtures” (American Notes).

Again,ornamentalfixtures, set up by the tenant for ornament and convenience, such as hangings and looking-glasses, tapestry, iron-backs to chimneys, wainscot fixed by screws, marble chimney-pieces, are held to belong to the tenant, and to be removable without the landlord’s consent. Here again the extent of the privilege has been a matter of some uncertainty.

In all these cases the fixtures must be removed during the term. If the tenant gives up possession of the premises without removing the fixtures, it will be presumed, it appears, that he has made a gift of them to the landlord, and that presumption probably could not be rebutted by positive evidence of a contrary intention. His right to the fixtures is not, however, destroyed by the mere expiry of the term, if he still remains in possession; but if he has once left the premises he cannot come back and claim his fixtures. In one case where the fixtures had actually been severed from the freehold after the end of the term, it was held that the tenant had no right to recover them.

2. As between heir and executor or administrator. The question of fixtures arises between these parties on the death of a person owning land. The executor has no right to remove trade fixtures, set up for the benefit of the inheritance. As regards ornamental objects, the rulequicquid plantatur solo, solo ceditwas in early times somewhat relaxed in favour of the executor. As far back as 1701, it was held that hangings fixed to a wall for ornament passed to the executor; and, although the effect of this relaxation was subsequently cut down, it is supported by the decisions of the courts affirming the executor’s right to valuable tapestries affixed by a tenant for life to the walls of a house for ornament and their better enjoyment as chattels (Leighv.Taylor, 1902, App. Cas. 157); and the same has been held as to statues and bronze groups set on pedestals in the grounds of a mansion house.

3. When a tenant for life of land dies, the question of fixtures arises between his representatives and the persons next entitled to the estate (the remainder-man or reversioner). The remainder-man is not so great a favourite of the law as the heir, and the right to fixtures is construed more favourably for executors than in the preceding cases between heir and executor. Whatever are executor’s fixtures against the heir would therefore be executor’s fixtures against the remainder-man. And the result of the cases seems to be that, as against the remainder, the executor of the tenant for life would be certainly entitled to trade fixtures. Agricultural fixtures are not removable by the executor of a tenant for life.

4. As between seller and buyer, a purchase of the lands includes a purchase of all the fixtures. But here the intention of the parties is of great importance. Similar questions may arise in other cases,e.g.as between mortgagor and mortgagee. When land is mortgaged the fixtures pass with it, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the conveyance; and this even where the chattels affixed are the subject of a hire purchase agreement (Reynoldsv.Ashby, 1903, 1 K.B. 87). Again, in reference to bills of sale the question arises. Bills of sale are dispositions of personal property similar to mortgages, the possession remaining with the person selling them. To make them valid they must be registered, and so the question has arisen whether deeds conveying fixtures ought not to have been registered as bills of sale. Unless it was the intention of the parties to make the fixtures a distinct security, it seems that a deed of mortgage embracing them does not require to be registered as a bill of sale. The question of what is or is not a fixture must also often be considered in questions of rating or assessment.

The law of Scotland as to fixtures is the same as that of England. The Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1883 (ss. 35, 42) and 1900 (as to market gardens) give a similar statutory right of removal. The law of Ireland has been the subject of the special legislation sketched in the articleLandlord and Tenant. The French Code Civil recognizes the right of the usufructuary to remove articles attached by him to the subject of his estate on the expiry of his term, on making good the place from which they were taken (Art. 599); and there are similar provisions in the Civil Codes of Italy (Art. 495), Spain (Arts. 487, 489), Portugal (Art. 2217) and Germany (Arts. 1037, 1049).

The law of the United States as to fixtures is substantially identical with English common law. Constructive, as well as actual, annexation is recognized. The same relaxations (from the common law rulequicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit) as regards trade fixtures, and ornamental fixtures, such as tapestry, have been recognized.

In Mauritius the provisions of the Code Civil are in force without modification. In Quebec (Civil Code, Arts. 374 et seq.) and St Lucia (Civil Code, Arts. 368 et seq.) they have been re-enacted insubstance. Some of the British colonies have conferred a statutory right to remove fixtures on tenants (cf. Tasmania, Landlord and Tenant Act 1874). In certain of the colonies acquired by cession or settlement (e.g.New Zealand) the English Landlord and Tenant Act 1851 is in force.

Authorities.—English law: Amos and Ferard,Law of Fixtures(3rd ed., London, 1883); Brown,Law of Fixtures(3rd ed., London, 1875); Ryde, onRating(2nd ed., London, 1905). Scots Law: Hunter,Landlord and Tenant; Erskine’sPrinciples(20th ed., Edin., 1903). American Law: Bronson,Law of Fixtures(St Paul, 1904); Reeves,Real Property(Boston, 1904);Ruling Cases(London and Boston, 1894-1901), Tit. “Fixtures” (American Notes).

(A. W. R.)

FIZEAU, ARMAND HIPPOLYTE LOUIS(1819-1896), French physicist, was born at Paris on the 23rd of September 1819. His earliest work was concerned with improvements in photographic processes; and then, in association with J.B.L. Foucault, he engaged in a series of investigations on the interference of light and heat. In 1849 he published the first results obtained by his method for determining the speed of propagation of light (seeLight), and in 1850 with E. Gounelle measured the velocity of electricity. In 1853 he described the employment of the condenser as a means for increasing the efficiency of the induction-coil. Subsequently he studied the expansion of solids by heat, and applied the phenomena of interference of light to the measurement of the dilatations of crystals. He died at Venteuil on the 18th of September 1896. He became a member of the French Academy in 1860 and of the Bureau des Longitudes in 1878.

FJORD,orFiord, the anglicized Norwegian word for a long narrow arm of the sea running far inland, with more or less precipitous cliffs on each side. These “sea-lochs,” as they are sometimes called, present many peculiar features. They differ entirely from an estuary in the fact that they are bounded seawards by a rocky sill, covered by shallow water, and they deepen inland for some distance before the bottom again curves up to the surface. They are thus true rock basins drowned in sea-water. It is pointed out by Dr H.R. Mill that Loch Morar on the west coast of Scotland, a fresh-water basin 178 fathoms deep, with its surface 30 ft. above sea-level, which is connected with the sea by a short river, is exactly similar in configuration to Loch Etive, 80 fathoms deep, filled with sea-water which pours over the seaward sill in a waterfall with the retreating tide; that Loch Nevis with a depth of 70 fathoms has its sill 8 fathoms below the surface, while the gigantic Sogne Fjord in Norway, more than 100 m. in length, is a rock basin with a maximum depth of 700 fathoms. Any inland rock basin such as Loch Morar would become a fjord if the seaward portion sank below sea-level. The origin of these rock basins has not yet been satisfactorily determined. Recent work upon somewhat similar basins in the high Alps has suggested local weathering of surface rock in fracture belts or faulted areas, or dikes, where material is easily eroded, thus producing a trough bounded by high walls in which a lake forms under favourable conditions. But investigations in such regions as the Rocky Mountains and the Yosemite Valley, where there is frequently a “reversed grade” similar to that near the seaward end of rock basins and fjords, seem to show, in some cases at least, that such a formation may be due to the “gouging” effect of a glacier coming down the valley which it constantly deepens where the ice pressure and the supply of eroding material are greatest. There may be several causes, but the results are the same in all these drowned valleys. The mass of sea-water in the depth of the basin is either unaffected by the seasonal changes in surface temperature, which in Norway penetrate no deeper than 200 fathoms, or else, as in Loch Goil, the fresher film of surface water responds quickly to seasonal changes, while the heat of advancing summer penetrates so slowly to the depth of the basin that it takes six months to reach the bottom, arriving there in winter. It has been found that where the fresher surface water has been frozen over, the temperature may be as much as 45° F. at a few fathoms from the surface. When the surface is warmest, on the other hand, the depths are coldest.

FLACCUS,a cognomen in the plebeian gens Fulvia, one of the most illustrious in ancient Rome. Cicero and Pliny state that the family came from Tusculum, where some were still living in the middle of the 1st centuryB.C.Of the Fulvii Flacci the most important were the following:

Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, son of the first of the family, Marcus, who was consul with Appius Claudius Caudex in 264. He especially distinguished himself during the second Punic War. He was consul four times (237, 224, 212, 209), censor (231) pontifex maximus (216), praetor urbanus (215). During his first consulships he did good service against the Ligurians, Gauls and Insubrians. In 212 he defeated Hanno near Beneventum, and with his colleague Appius Claudius Pulcher began the siege of Capua. The capture of this place was considered so important that their imperium was prolonged, but on condition that they should not leave Capua until it had been taken. Hannibal’s unexpected diversion against Rome interfered with the operations for the moment, but his equally unexpected retirement enabled Flaccus, who had been summoned to Rome to protect the city, to return, and bring the siege to a successful conclusion. He punished the inhabitants with great severity, alleging in excuse that they had shown themselves bitterly hostile to Rome. He was nominated dictator to hold the consular elections at which he was himself elected (209). He was appointed to the command of the army in Lucania and Bruttium, where he crushed all further attempts at rebellion. Nothing further is known of him. The chief authority for his life is the part of Livy dealing with the period (seePunic Wars).

His brotherGnaeuswas convicted of gross cowardice against Hannibal near Herdoniae in 210, and went into voluntary exile at Tarquinii. His son,Quintus, waged war with signal success against the Celtiberians in 182-181, and the Ligurians in 179. Having vowed to build a temple to Fortuna Equestris, he dismantled the temple of Juno Lacinia in Bruttium of its marble slabs. This theft became known and he was compelled to restore them, though they were never put back in their places. Subsequently he lost his reason and hanged himself.

Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, grandnephew of the first Quintus, lived in the times of the Gracchi, of whom he was a strong supporter. After the death of Tiberius Gracchus (133B.C.) he was appointed in his place one of the commission of three for the distribution of the land. He was suspected of having had a hand in the sudden death of the younger Scipio (129), but there was no direct evidence against him. When consul in 125, he proposed to confer the Roman citizenship on all the allies, and to allow even those who had not acquired it the right of appeal to the popular assembly against penal judgments. This proposal, though for the time successfully opposed by the senate, eventually led to the Social War. The attack made upon the Massilians (who were allies of Rome) by the Salluvii (Salyes) afforded a convenient excuse for sending Flaccus out of Rome. After his return in triumph, he was again sent away (122), this time with Gaius Gracchus to Carthage to found a colony, but did not remain absent long. In 121 the disputes between the optimates and the party of Gracchus culminated in open hostilities, during which Flaccus was killed, together with Gracchus and a number of his supporters. It is generally agreed that Flaccus was perfectly honest in his support of the Gracchan reforms, but his hot-headedness did more harm than good to the cause. Cicero (Brutus, 28) speaks of him as an orator of moderate powers, but a diligent student.

See Livy,Epit.59-61; Val. Max. ix. 5. 1; Vell. Pat. ii. 6; Appian,Bell. Civ.i. 18, 21, 24-26; Plutarch,C. Gracchus, 10. 13; also A.H.J. Greenidge,Hist. of Rome(1904), and authorities quoted underGracchus.

FLACH, GEOFROI JACQUES(1846- ), French jurist and historian, was born at Strassburg, Alsace, on the 16th of February 1846, of a family known at least as early as the 16th century, when Sigismond Flach was the first professor of law at Strassburg University. G.J. Flach studied classics and law at Strassburg, and in 1869 took his degree of doctor of law. In his theses as well as in his early writings—such asDe la subrogation réelle, La Bonorum possessio, andSur la durée des effets de la minorité(1870)—he endeavoured to explain the problems of laws bymeans of history, an idea which was new to France at that time. The Franco-German War engaged Flach’s activities in other directions, and he spent two years (described in hisStrasbourg après le bombardement, 1873) at work on the rebuilding of the library and the museum, which had been destroyed by Prussian shells. When the time came for him to choose between Germany and France, he settled definitely in Paris, where he completed his scientific training at the École des Chartes and the École des Hautes Études. Having acted for some time as secretary to Jules Sénard, ex-president of the Constituent Assembly, he published an original paper on artistic copyright, but as soon as possible resumed the history of law. In 1879 he became assistant to the jurist Edouard Laboulaye at the Collège de France, and succeeded him in 1884 in the chair of comparative legislation. Since 1877 he had been professor of comparative law at the free school of the political sciences. To qualify himself for these two positions he had to study the most diverse civilizations, including those of the East and Far East (e.g.Hungary, Russia and Japan) and even the antiquities of Babylonia and other Asiatic countries. Some of his lectures have been published, particularly those concerning Ireland:Histoire du régime agraire de l’Irlande(1883);Considérations sur l’histoire politique de l’Irlande(1885); andJonathan Swift, son action politique en Irlande(1886).

His chief efforts, however, were concentrated on the history of ancient French law. A celebrated lawsuit in Alsace, pleaded by his friend and compatriot Ignace Chauffour, aroused his interest by reviving the question of the origin of the feudal laws, and gradually led him to study the formation of those laws and the early growth of the feudal system. His great work,Les Origines de l’ancienne France, was produced slowly. In the first volume,Le Régime seigneurial(1886), he depicts the triumph of individualism and anarchy, showing how, after Charlemagne’s great but sterile efforts to restore the Roman principle of sovereignty, the great landowners gradually monopolized the various functions in the state; how society modelled on antiquity disappeared; and how the only living organisms were vassalage and clientship. The second volume,Les Origines communales, la féodalité et la chevalerie(1893), deals with the reconstruction of society on new bases which took place in the 10th and 11th centuries. It explains how the Gallo-Romanvillagave place to the village, with its fortified castle, the residence of the lord; how new towns were formed by the side of old, some of which disappeared; how the townspeople united in corporations; and how the communal bond proved to be a powerful instrument of cohesion. At the same time it traces the birth of feudalism from the germs of the Gallo-Roman personalcomitatus; and shows how the bond that united the different parties was the contract of the fief; and how, after a slow growth of three centuries, feudalism was definitely organized in the 12th century. In 1904 appeared the third volume,La Renaissance de l’état, in which the author describes the efforts of the Capetian kings to reconstruct the power of the Frankish kings over the whole of Gaul; and goes on to show how the clergy, the heirs of the imperial tradition, encouraged this ambition; how the great lords of the kingdom (the “princes,” as Flach calls them), whether as allies or foes, pursued the same end; and how, before the close of the 12th century, the Capetian kings were in possession of the organs and the means of action which were to render them so powerful and bring about the early downfall of feudalism.

In these three volumes, which appeared at long intervals, the author’s theories are not always in complete harmony, nor are they always presented in a very luminous or coherent manner, but they are marked by originality and vigour. Flach gave them a solid basis by the wide range of his researches, utilizing charters and cartularies (published and unpublished), chronicles, lives of saints, and even those dangerous guides, thechansons de geste. He owed little to the historians of feudalism who knew what feudalism was, but not how it came about. He pursued the same method in hisL’Origine de l’habitation et des lieux habités en France(1899), in which he discusses some of the theories circulated by A. Meitzen in Germany and by Arbois de Jubainville ville in France. Following in the footsteps of the jurist F.C. von Savigny, Flach studied the teaching of law in the middle ages and the Renaissance, and producedCujas, les glossateurs et les Bartolistes(1883), andÉtudes critiques sur l’histoire du droit romain au moyen âge, avec textes inédits(1890).

FLACIUS(Ger.Flach; Slav.Vlakich),MATTHIAS(1520-1575), surnamedIllyricus, Lutheran reformer, was born at Albona, in Illyria, on the 3rd of March 1520. Losing his father in childhood, he was in early years self-educated, and made himself able to profit by the instructions of the humanist, Baptista Egnatius in Venice. At the age of seventeen he decided to join a monastic order, with a view to sacred learning. His intention was diverted by his uncle, Baldo Lupetino, provincial of the Franciscans, in sympathy with the Reformation, who induced him to enter on a university career, from 1539, at Basel, Tübingen and Wittenberg. Here he was welcomed (1541) by Melanchthon, being well introduced from Tübingen, and here he came under the decisive influence of Luther. In 1544 he was appointed professor of Hebrew at Wittenberg. He married in the autumn of 1545, Luther taking part in the festivities. He took his master’s degree on the 24th of February 1546, ranking first among the graduates. Soon he was prominent in the theological discussions of the time, opposing strenuously the “Augsburg Interim,” and the compromise of Melanchthon known as the “Leipzig Interim” (seeAdiaphorists). Melanchthon wrote of him with venom as a renegade (“aluimus in sinu serpentem”), and Wittenberg became too hot for him. He removed to Magdeburg (Nov. 9, 1551), where his feud with Melanchthon was patched up. On the 17th of May 1557 he was appointed professor of New Testament theology at Jena; but was soon involved in controversy with Strigel, his colleague, on the synergistic question (relating to the function of the will in conversion). Affirming the natural inability of man, he unwittingly fell into expressions consonant with the Manichaean view of sin, as not an accident of human nature, but involved in its substance, since the Fall. Resisting ecclesiastical censure, he left Jena (Feb. 1562) to found an academy at Regensburg. The project was not successful, and in October 1566 he accepted a call from the Lutheran community at Antwerp. Thence he was driven (Feb. 1567) by the exigencies of war, and betook himself to Frankfort, where the authorities set their faces against him. He proceeded to Strassburg, was well received by the superintendent Marbach, and hoped he had found an asylum. But here also his religious views stood in his way; the authorities eventually ordering him to leave the city by Mayday 1573. Again betaking himself to Frankfort, the prioress, Catharina von Meerfeld, of the convent of White Ladies, harboured him and his family in despite of the authorities. He fell ill at the end of 1574; the city council ordered him to leave by Mayday 1575; but death released him on the 11th of March 1575. His first wife, by whom he had twelve children, died in 1564; in the same year he remarried and had further issue. His son Matthias was professor of philosophy and medicine at Rostock. Of a life so tossed about the literary fruit was indeed remarkable. His polemics we may pass over; he stands at the fountain-head of the scientific study of church history, and—if we except, a great exception, the work of Laurentius Valla—of hermeneutics also. No doubt his impelling motive was to prove popery to be built on bad history and bad exegesis. Whether that be so or not, the extirpation of bad history and bad exegesis is now felt to be of equal interest to all religionists. Hence the permanent and continuous value of the principles embodied in Flacius’Catalogus testium veritatis(1556; revised edition by J.C. Dietericus, 1672) and hisClavis scripturae sacrae(1567), followed by hisGlossa compendiaria in N. Testamentum(1570). His characteristic formula, “historia est fundamentum doctrinae,” is better understood now than in his own day.

See J.B. Ritter,Flacius’s Leben u. Tod(1725); M. Twesten,M. Flacius Illyricus(1844); W. Preger,M. Flacius Illyricus u. seine Zeit(1859-1861); G. Kawerau, in Herzog-Hauck’sRealencyklopädie(1899).

(A. Go.*)

FLACOURT, ÉTIENNE DE(1607-1660), French governor of Madagascar, was born at Orleans in 1607. He was named governor of Madagascar by the French East India Company in 1648. Flacourt restored order among the French soldiers, who had mutinied, but in his dealings with the natives he was less successful, and their intrigues and attacks kept him in continual harassment during all his term of office. In 1655 he returned to France. Not long after he was appointed director general of the company; but having again returned to Madagascar, he was drowned on his voyage home on the 10th of June 1660. He is the author of aHistoire de la grande isle Madagascar(1st edition 1658, 2nd edition 1661).

See A. Malotet,Ét. de Flacourt, ou les origines de la colonisation française à Madagascar (1648-1661), (Paris, 1898).

FLAG(or “Flagge,” a common Teutonic word in this sense, but apparently first recorded in English), a piece of bunting or similar material, admitting of various shapes and colours, and waved in the wind from a staff or cord for use in display as a standard, ensign or signal. The word may simply be derived onomatopoeically, or transferred from the botanical “flag”; or an original meaning of “a piece of cloth” may be connected with the 12th-century English “flage,” meaning a baby’s garment; the verb “to flag,”i.e.droop, may have originated in the idea of a pendulous piece of bunting, or may be connected with the O. Fr.flaguir, to become flaccid. It is probable that almost as soon as men began to collect together for common purposes some kind of conspicuous object was used, as the symbol of the common sentiment, for the rallying point of the common force. In military expeditions, where any degree of organization and discipline prevailed, objects of such a kind would be necessary to mark out the lines and stations of encampment, and to keep in order the different bands when marching or in battle. In addition, it cannot be doubted that flags or their equivalents have often served, by reminding men of past resolves, past deeds and past heroes, to arouse to enthusiasm those sentiments ofesprit de corps, of family pride and honour, of personal devotion, patriotism or religion, upon which, as well as upon good leadership, discipline and numerical force, success in warfare depends.

History.—Among the remains of the people which has left the earliest traces of civilization, the records of the forms of objects used as ensigns are frequently to be found. From their carvings and paintings, supplemented by ancient writers, it appears that several companies of the Egyptian army had their own particular standards. These were formed of such objects as, there is reason to believe, were associated in the minds of the men with feelings of awe and devotion. Sacred animals, boats, emblems or figures, a tablet bearing a king’s name, fan and feather-shaped symbols, were raised on the end of a staff as standards, and the office of bearing them was looked upon as one of peculiar privilege and honour (Fig. 1). Somewhat similar seem to have been the customs of the Assyrians and Jews. Among the sculptures unearthed by Layard and others at Nineveh, only two different designs have been noticed for standards: one is of a figure drawing a bow and standing on a running bull, the other of two bulls running in opposite directions (Fig. 2). These may resemble the emblems of war and peace which were attached to the yoke of Darius’s chariot. They are borne upon and attached to chariots; and this method of bearing such objects was the custom also of the Persians, and prevailed during the middle ages. That the custom survived to a comparatively modern period is proved from the fact that the “Guns,” which are the “standards” of the artillery, have from time immemorial been entitled to all the parade honours prescribed by the usages of war for the flag, that is, the symbol of authority. In days comparatively recent there was a “flag gun,” usually the heaviest piece, which emblemized authority and served also as the “gun of direction” in the few concerted movements then attempted. No representations of Egyptian or Assyrian naval standards have been found, but the sails of ships were embroidered and ornamented with devices, another custom which survived into the middle ages.

In both Egyptian and Assyrian examples, the staff bearing the emblem is frequently ornamented immediately below with flag-like streamers. Rabbinical writers have assigned the different devices of the different Jewish tribes, but the authenticity of their testimony is extremely doubtful. Banners, standards and ensigns are frequently mentioned in the Bible. “Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his standard, with the ensign of their father’s house” (Num. ii. 2). “Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible as an army with banners?” (Cant. vi. 10. See also Num. ii. 10, x. 14; Ps. xx. 5, lx. 4; Cant. ii. 4; Is. v. 26, x. 18, lix. 19; Jer. iv. 21).

The Persians bore an eagle fixed to the end of a lance, and the sun, as their divinity, was also represented upon their standards, which appear to have been formed of some kind of textile, and were guarded with the greatest jealousy by the bravest men of the army. The Carian soldier who slew Cyrus, the brother of Artaxerxes, was allowed the honour of carrying a golden cock at the head of the army, it being the custom of the Carians to wear that bird as a crest on their helmets. The North American Indians carried poles fledged with feathers from the wings of eagles, and similar customs seem to have prevailed among other semi-savage peoples.

The Greeks bore a piece of armour upon a spear in early times; afterwards the several cities bore sacred emblems orletters chosen for their particular associations—the Athenians the olive and the owl, the Corinthians a pegasus, the Thebans a sphinx, in memory of Oedipus, the Messenians their initial M, and the Lacedaemonians A. A purple dress was placed on the end of a spear as the signal to advance. The Dacians carried a standard representing a contorted serpent, while the dragon was the military sign of many peoples—of the Chinese, Dacians and Parthians among others—and was probably first used by the Romans as the ensign of barbarian auxiliaries (see fig. 3).

The question of thesigna militariaof the Romans is a wide and very important one, having direct bearing on the history of heraldry, and on the origin of national, family and personal devices. With them the custom was reduced to system. “Each century, or at least each maniple,” says Meyrick, “had its proper standard and standard-bearer.” In the early days of the republic a handful of hay was borne on a pole, whence probably came the namemanipulus(Lat.manus, a hand). The forms of standards in later times were very various; sometimes a cross piece of wood was placed at the end of a spear and surmounted by the figure of a hand in silver, below round or oval discs, with figures of Mars or Minerva, or in later times portraits of emperors or eminent generals (Fig. 3). Figures of animals, as the wolf, horse, bear and others, were borne, and it was not till a later period that the eagle became the special standard of the legion. According to Pliny, it was Gaius Marius who, in his second consulship, ordained that the Roman legions should only have the eagle for their standard; “for before that time the eagle marched foremost with four others—wolves, minotaurs, horses and bears—each one in its proper order. Not many years passed before the eagle alone began to be advanced in battle, and the rest were left behind in the camp. But Marius rejected them altogether, and since this it is observed that scarcely is there a camp of a legion wintered at any time without having a pair of eagles.”

Thevexillum, which was the cavalry flag, is described by Livy as a square piece of cloth fastened to a piece of wood fixed crosswise to the end of a spear, somewhat resembling the medievalgonfalon. Examples of these vexilla are to be seen on various Roman coins and medals, on the sculptured columns of Trajan and Antoninus, and on the arch of Titus. Thelabarum, which was the imperial standard of later emperors, resembled in shape and fixing the vexillum. It was of purple silk richly embroidered with gold, and sometimes was not suspended as the vexillum from a horizontal crossbar, but displayed as our modern flags, that is to say, by the attachment of one of its sides to a staff. After Constantine, the labarum bore the monogram of Christ (fig. 5, A). It is supposed that the small scarf, which in medieval days was often attached to the pastoral staff or crook of a bishop, was derived from the labarum of the first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great. The Roman standards were guarded with religious veneration in the temples at Rome; and the reverence of this people for their ensigns was in proportion to their superiority to other nations in all that tends to success in war. It was not unusual for a general to order a standard to be cast into the ranks of the enemy, to add zeal to the onset of his soldiers by exciting them to recover what to them was perhaps the most sacred thing the earth possessed. The Roman soldier swore by his ensign.

Although in earlier times drapery was occasionally used for standards, and was often appended as ornament to those of other material, it was probably not until the middle ages that it became the special material of military and other ensigns; and perhaps not until the practice of heraldry had attained to definite nomenclature and laws does anything appear which is in the modern sense a flag.

Early flags were almost purely of a religious character. In Bede’s description of the interview between the heathen king Æthelberht and the Roman missionary Augustine, the followers of the latter are said to have borne banners on which silver crosses were displayed. The national banner of England for centuries—the red cross of St George—was a religious one; in fact the aid of religion seems ever to have been sought to give sanctity to national flags, and the origin of many can be traced to a sacred banner, as is notably the case with the oriflamme of France and the Dannebrog of Denmark. Of the latter the legend runs that King Waldemar of Denmark, leading his troops to battle against the enemy in 1219, saw at a critical moment a cross in the sky. This was at once taken as an answer to his prayers, and an assurance of celestial aid. It was forthwith adopted as the Danish flag and called the “Dannebrog,”i.e.the strength of Denmark. Apart from all legend, this flag undoubtedly dates from the 13th century, and the Danish flag is therefore the oldest now in existence.

The ancient kings of France bore the blue hood of St Martin upon their standards. The Chape de St Martin was originally in the keeping of the monks of the abbey of Marmoutier, and the right to take this blue flag into battle with them was claimed by the counts of Anjou. Clovis bore this banner against Alaric in 507, for victory was promised him by a verse of the Psalms which the choir were chanting when his envoy entered the church of St Martin at Tours. Charlemagne fought under it at the battle of Narbonne, and it frequently led the French to victory. At what precise period the oriflamme, which was originally simply the banner of the abbey of St Denis, supplanted the Chape de St Martin as the sacred banner of all France is not known. Probably, however, it gradually became the national flag after the kings of France had transferred the seat of government to Paris, where the great local saint, St Denis, was held in high honour, and the banner hung over the tomb of the saint in the abbey church. The king of France himself was one of the vassals of the abbey of St Denis for the fief of the Vexin, and it was in his quality of count of Vexin that Louis VI., le Gros, bore this banner from the abbey to battle, in 1124. He is credited with having been the first French king to have taken the banner to war, and it appeared for the last time on the field of fight at Agincourt in 1415. The accounts also of its appearance vary considerably. Guillaume Guiart, in hisChroniclesays:—

“Oriflambe est une bannièreDe cendal voujoiant et simpleSans portraiture d’autre affaire.”

“Oriflambe est une bannière

De cendal voujoiant et simple

Sans portraiture d’autre affaire.”

It would, therefore, seem to have been a plain scarlet flag; whilst an English authority states “the celestial auriflamb, so by the French admired, was but of one colour, a square redde banner.” TheChronique de Flandresdescribes it as having three points with tassels of green silk attached. The banner of William the Conqueror was sent to him by the pope, and the early English kings fought under the banners of Edward the Confessor and St Edmund; while the blended crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick still form the national ensign of the unitedkingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland, whose patron saints they severally were.

The Bayeux tapestry, commemorating the Norman conquest of England, contains abundant representations of the flags of the period borne upon the lances of the knights of William’s army. They appear small in size, and pointed, frequently indented into three points and bearing pales, crosses and roundels. One, a Saxon pennon, is triangular, and roundly indented into four points; one banner is of segmental shape and rayed, and bears the figure of a bird, which has been supposed to represent the raven of the war-flag of the Scandinavian Vikings (fig. 4). In all, thirty-seven pennons borne on lances by various knights are represented in the Bayeux tapestry, and of these twenty-eight have triple points, whilst others have two, four or five. The devices on these pennons are very varied and distinctive, although the date is prior to the period in which heraldry became definitely established. In fact, the flags and their charges are probably not really significant of the people bearing them; for, even admitting that personal devices were used at the time, the figures may have been placed without studied intention, and so give the general figure only of such flags as happened to have come under the observation of the artists. The figures are probably rather ornamental and symbolic than strictly heraldic,—that is, personal devices, for the same insignia do not appear on the shields of the several bearers. The dragon standard which he is known to have borne is placed near Harold; but similar figures appear on the shields of Norman warriors, which fact has induced a writer in theJournal of the Archaeological Association(vol. xiii. p. 113) to suppose that on the spears of the Saxons they represent only trophies torn from the shields of the Normans, and that they are not ensigns at all. Standards in form much resembling these dragons appear on the Arch of Titus and the Trajan column as the standards of barbarians.

At the battle of the Standard in 1138 the English standard was formed of the mast of a ship, having a silver pyx at the top and bearing three sacred banners, dedicated severally to St Peter, St John of Beverley and St Wilfrid of Ripon, the whole being fastened to a wheeled vehicle. Representations of three-pointed, cross-bearing pennons are found on seals of as early date as the Norman era, and the warriors in the first crusade bore three-pointed pennons. It is possible that the three points with the three roundels and cross, which so often appear on these banners, have some reference to the faith of the bearers in the Trinity and in the Crucifixion, for in contemporary representations of Christ’s resurrection and descent into hell he bears a three-pointed banner with cross above. The triple indentation so common on the flags of this period has been supposed to be the origin of one of the honourable ordinaries—the pile. The “pile,” it may be explained, is in the form of a wedge, and unless otherwise specified in the blazon, occupies the central portion of the escutcheon, issuing from the middle chief. It may, however, issue from any other extremity of the shield, and there may be more than one. More secular characters were, however, not uncommon. In 1244 Henry III. gave order for a “dragon to be made in fashion of a standard of red silk sparkling all over with fine gold, the tongue of which should be made to resemble burning fire and appear to be continually moving, and the eyes of sapphires or other suitable stones.”The Siege of Carlaverock, an Anglo-Norman poem of the 14th century, describes the heraldic bearings on the banners of the knights at the siege of that fortress. Of the king himself the writer says:—

“En sa bannière trois luparteDe or fin estoient mis en rouge;”

“En sa bannière trois luparte

De or fin estoient mis en rouge;”

and he goes on to describe the kingly characteristics these may be supposed to symbolize. A MS. in the British Museum (one of Sir Christopher Barker’s heraldic collection, Harl. 4632) gives drawings of the standards of English kings from Edward III. to Henry VIII., which are roughly but artistically coloured.

The principal varieties of flags borne during the middle ages were the pennon, the banner and the standard. The “guydhommes” or “guidons,” “banderolls,” “pennoncells,” “streamers” or pendants, may be considered as minor varieties. The pennon (fig. 5, B) was a purely personal ensign, sometimes pointed, but more generally forked or swallow-tailed at the end. It was essentially the flag of the knight simple, as apart from the knight banneret, borne by him on his lance, charged with his personal armorial bearings so displayed that they stood in true position when he couched his lance for action. A MS. of the 16th century (Harl. 2358) in the British Museum, which gives minute particulars as to the size, shape and bearings of the standards, banners, pennons, guydhommes, pennoncells, &c., says “a pennon must be two yards and a half long, made round at the end, and conteyneth the armes of the owner,” and warns that “from a standard or streamer a man may flee but not from his banner or pennon bearing his arms.”

A pennoncell (or penselle) was a diminutive pennon carried by the esquires. Flags of this character were largely used on any special occasion of ceremony, and more particularly at state funerals. For instance, we find “XII. doz. penselles” amongst the items that figured at the funeral of the duke of Norfolk in 1554, and in the description of the lord mayor’s procession in the following year we read of “ij goodly pennes (state barges) deckt with flages and stremers, and a m (1000) penselles.” Amongstthe items that ran the total cost of the funeral of Oliver Cromwell up to an enormous sum of money, we find mention of thirty dozen of pennoncells a foot long and costing twenty shillings a dozen, and twenty dozen of the same kind of flags at twelve shillings a dozen.

The banner was, in the earlier days of chivalry, a square flag, though at a later date it is often found greater in length than in depth, precisely as is the case in the ordinary national flags of to-day. In some very early examples it is found considerably longer in the depth on the staff than in its outward projection from the staff. The banner was charged in a manner exactly similar to the shield of the owner, and it was borne by knights banneret and all above them in rank. As a rough guide it may be taken that the banner of an emperor was 6 ft. square; of a king, 5 ft.; of a prince or duke, 4 ft.; of a marquis, earl, viscount or baron, 3 ft. square. As the function of the banner was to display the armorial bearings of the dignitary who had the right to carry it, it is evident that the square form was the most convenient and akin to the shield of primal heraldry. In fact, flags were originally heraldic emblems, though in modern devices the strict laws of heraldry have often been departed from.

The rank of knights bannerets was higher than that of ordinary knights, and they could be created on the field of battle only. To create a knight banneret, the king or commander-in-chief in person tore off the fly of the pennon on the lance of the knight, thus turning it roughly into the square flag or banner, and so making the knight a banneret. The date in which this dignity originated is uncertain, but it was probably about the period of Edward I. John Chandos is said to have been made a banneret by the Black Prince and the king of Castile at Najara on the 3rd of April 1367; John of Copeland was made a banneret in the reign of Edward III., he having taken prisoner David Bruce, the Scottish king, at the battle of Durham. In more modern times Captain John Smith, of Lord Bernard Stuart’s troop of the King’s Guards, who saved the royal banner from the parliamentary troops at Edgehill, was made a knight banneret by Charles I. From this time the custom of creating knights banneret ceased until it was revived by George II. after Dettingen in 1743, when the dignity was again conferred. It is true, however, that, when in 1763 Sir William Erskine presented to George III. sixteen stands of colours captured by his regiment [now the 15th (king’s) Hussars] at Emsdorf, he was raised to the dignity of knight banneret, but as the ceremony was not performed on the field of battle, the creation was considered irregular, and his possession of the rank was not generally recognized.

The banner was therefore not only a personal ensign, but it also denoted that he who bore it was the leader of a military force, large or small according to his degree or estate. It was, in fact, the battle flag of the leader who controlled the particular force that followed it into the fight. Every baron who in time of war had furnished the proper number of men to his liege was entitled to charge with his arms the banner which they followed. There could indeed be at present found no better representative of the medieval “banner” than what we now term the “royal standard”; it is essentially the personal battle flag of the king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It and other royal and imperial standards have now become “standards,” inasmuch as they are to-day used for display in the same fashion, and for the same purposes as was the “standard” of old. The “gonfalon” or “gonfannon” was a battle flag differing from the ordinary banner in that it was not attached to the pole but hung from it crosswise, and was not always square in shape but serrated, so that the lower edge formed streamers. The gonfalon was in action borne close to the person of the commander-in-chief and denoted his position. In certain of the Italian cities chief magistrates had the privilege of bearing a gonfalon, and for this reason were known as “gonfaloniere.”

The standard (fig. 5, D) was a flag of noble size, long, tapering towards the fly (the “fly” is that portion of the flag farther from the pole, the “hoist” the portion of the flag attached to the pole), the edges of the flag fringed or bordered, and with the ends split and rounded off. The shape was not, however, by any means uniform during the middle ages nor were there any definite rules as to its charges. It varied in size according to the rank of the owner. The Tudor MS. mentioned above says of the royal standard of that time—“the Standard to be sett before the king’s pavilion or tente, and not to be borne in battayle; to be in length eleven yards.” A MS. of the time of Henry VII. gives the following dimensions for standards: “The King’s had a length of eight yards; that of a duke, seven; a marquis, six and a half; an earl, six; a viscount, five and a half; a baron, five; a knight banneret, four and a half; and a knight four yards.” The standard was, in fact, from its size, and as its very name implies, not meant to be carried into action, as was the banner, but to denote the actual position of its possessor on occasions of state ceremonial, or on the tilting ground, and to denote the actual place occupied by him and his following when the hosts were assembled in camp preparatory for battle. It was essentially a flag denoting position, whereas the banner was the rallying point of its followers in the actual field. Its uses are now fulfilled, as far as royalties are concerned, by the “banner” which has now become the “royal standard,” and which floats over the palace where the king is in residence, is hoisted at the saluting point when he reviews his troops, and is broken from the mainmast of any ship in his navy the moment that his foot treads its deck. The essential condition of the standard was that it should always have the cross of St. George conspicuous in the innermost part of the hoist immediately contiguous to the staff; the remainder of the flag was then divided fesse-wise by two or more stripes of colours exactly as the heraldic “ordinary” termed “fesse” crosses the shield horizontally. The colours used as stripes, as also those used in the fringe or bordering of the standard, were those which prevailed in the arms of the bearer or were those of his livery. The standard here depicted (fig. 5, D) is that of Henry V.; the colours white and blue, a white antelope standing between two red roses, and in the interspaces more red roses. To quote again from the Harleian MS. above mentioned: “Every standard and guidon to have in the chief the cross of St George, the beast or crest with his devyce and word, and to be slitt at the end.” The motto indeed usually figured on most standards, though occasionally it was missing. An excellent type of the old standard is that of the earls of Percy, which bore the blue lion, the crescent, and the fetterlock—all badges of the family—whilst, as tokens of matrimonial alliances with the families of Poynings, Bryan and Fitzpayne, a silver key, a bugle-horn and a falchion were respectively displayed. There was also the historic Percy motto,Espérance en Dieu. No one, whatsoever his rank, could possess more than one banner, since it displayed his heraldic arms, which were unchangeable. A single individual, however, might possess two or three standards since this flag displayed badges that he could multiply at discretion, and a motto that he could at any time change. For example, the standards of Henry VII., mostly green and white—the colours of the Tudor livery—had in one “a red firye dragon,” in another “a donne kowe,” in a third “a silver greyhound and two red roses.” The standard was always borne by an eminent person, and that of Henry V. at Agincourt is supposed to have been carried upon a car that preceded the king. At Nelson’s funeral his banner and standard were borne in the procession, and around his coffin were the banderolls—square, bannerlike flags bearing the various arms of his family lineage. Nelson’s standard bore his motto,Palmam qui meruit ferat, but, in lieu of the cross of St George, it bore the union of the crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick, the medieval England having expanded into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Again, at the funeral of the duke of Wellington we find amongst the flags his personal banner and standard, and ten banderolls of the duke’s pedigree and descent.

The guidon, a name derived from the Fr.Guyd-homme, was somewhat similar to the standard, but without the cross of St George, rounded at the end, less elongated and altogether less ornate. It was borne by a leader of horse, and according to a medieval writer “must be two and a half yards or three yardslong, and therein shall no armes be put, but only the man’s crest, cognisance, and devyce.”

The streamer, so called in Tudor days but now better known as the pennant or pendant, was a long, tapering flag, which it was directed “shall stand in the top of a ship or in the forecastle, and therein be put no armes, but the man’s cognisance or devyce, and may be of length twenty, thirty, forty or sixty yards, and is slitt as well as a guidon or standard.” Amongst the fittings of the ship that took Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, to France in the reign of Henry VII. was a “grete stremour for the shippe xl yardes in length viij yardes in brede.” In the hoist was “a grete bere holding a raggid staffe,” and the rest of the fly “powdrid full of raggid staves.”

National Flags.—British.The royal standard of England was, when it was hoisted on the Tower on the 1st of January 1801, thus heraldically described:—“Quarterly; first and fourth, gules, three lions passant gardant, in pale, or, for England; second, or, a lion rampant, gules, within a double tressure flory counter flory of the last, for Scotland; third, azure, a harp or, stringed argent, for Ireland.” The present standard connects in direct descent from the arms of the Conqueror. These were two leopards passant on a red field, and remained the same until the reign of Henry II., when lions were substituted for leopards, and a third added. The next change that took place was in the reign of Edward III. when the royal arms were for the first time quartered;fleurs-de-lisin the first and fourth quarters, and the three lions of England in the second and third. Thefleurs-de-liswere assumed in token of the monarch’s claim to the throne of France. In the “coats” of Edward III. and the two monarchs that succeeded him, thefleurs-de-liswere powdered over a blue ground, but under Henry V. thefleurs-de-liswere reduced in number to three, and the “coat” so devised remained the same until the death of Queen Elizabeth. The lion of Scotland and the Irish harp were added to the flag on the accession of James I., and the flag then had the French and English arms quartered in the first and fourth quarters, the lion of Scotland, red on a yellow ground, in the second quarter, and the harp of Ireland, gold on a blue ground, in the third quarter. With the exception of the period of the Commonwealth, to which reference will be made later, the flag remained thus until the accession of William III., who imposed upon the Stuart standard a central shield carrying the arms of Nassau. Queen Anne made further alterations; the first and fourth quarters were subdivided, the three lions of England being in one half, the lion of Scotland in the other. Thefleurs-de-liswere in the second quarter; the Irish harp in the third. Under George I. and George II. the first, second and third quarters remained the same, the arms of Hanover being placed in the fourth quarter, and this continued to be the royal standard until 1801, when the standard was rearranged as first described with the addition of the Hanoverian arms displayed on a shield in the centre. On the accession of Queen Victoria, the Hanoverian arms were removed, and the flag remained as it to-day exists. It is worthy of note, however, that in the royal standard of King Edward VII. which hangs in the chapel of St George at Windsor, the ordinary “winged woman” form of the harp in the Irish third quartering is altered to a harp of the old Irish pattern. At King Edward’s accession this banner replaced that of Queen Victoria which for sixty-two years had hung in this, the chapel of the order of the Garter.

Up to the time of the Stuarts it had been the custom of the lord high admiral or person in command of the fleet to fly the royal standard as deputy of the sovereign. When royalty ceased to be, a new flag was devised by the council of state for the Commonwealth, which comprised the “arms of England and Ireland in two several escutcheons in a red flag within a compartment.” In other words, it was a red flag containing two shields, the one bearing the cross of St George, red on a white ground, the other the harp, gold on a blue ground, and round the shields was a wreath of palm and shamrock leaves. One of these flags is still in existence at Chatham dockyard, where it is kept in a wooden chest which was taken out of a Spanish galleon at Vigo by Admiral Sir George Rooke in 1704. When Cromwell became protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland, he devised for himself a personal standard. This had the cross of St George in the first and fourth quarters, the cross of St Andrew, a white saltire on a blue ground, in the second, and the Irish harp in the third. His own arms—a lion on a black shield—were imposed on the centre of the flag. No one but royalty has a right to fly the royal standard, and though it is constantly seen flying for purposes of decoration its use is irregular. There has, however, always been one exception, namely, that the lord high admiral when in executive command of a fleet has always been entitled to fly the royal standard. For example, Lord Howard flew it from the mainmast of the “Ark Royal” when he defeated the Spanish Armada; the duke of Buckingham flew it as lord high admiral in the reign of Charles I., and the duke of York fought under it when he commanded during the Dutch Wars.

The national flag of the British empire is the Union Jack, in which are combined in union the crosses of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick. St George had long been a patron saint of England, and his banner, argent, a cross gules, its national ensign. St Andrew in the same way was the patron saint of Scotland, and his banner, azure, a saltire argent, the national ensign of Scotland. On the union of the two crowns James I. issued a proclamation ordaining that “henceforth all our subjects of this Isle and Kingdom of Greater Britain and the members thereof, shall bear in their main-top the red cross commonly called St George’s cross, and the white cross commonly called St Andrew’s cross, joined together according to a form made by our heralds, and sent by us to our admiral to be published to our said subjects; and in their fore-top our subjects of south Britain shall wear the red cross only, as they were wont, and our subjects of north Britain in their fore-top, the white cross only as they were accustomed.” This was the first Union Jack, as it is generally termed, though strictly the name of the flag is the “Great Union,” and it is only a “Jack” when flown on the jackstaff of a ship of war. Probably the name of the Stuart king “Jacques,” which James I. always signed, gave the name to the flag, and then to the staff at which it was hoisted. At the death of Charles I., the union with Scotland being dissolved, the ships of the parliament reverted to the simple cross of St George, but the union flag was restored when Cromwell became protector, with the Irish harp imposed upon its centre. On the Restoration, Charles II. removed the harp and so the original union flag was restored, and continued as described until the year 1801, when, on the legislative union with Ireland, the cross of St Patrick, a saltire gules, on a field argent, was incorporated in the union flag. To so combine these three crosses without losing the distinctive features of each was not easy; each cross must be distinct, and retain equally distinct its fimbriation, or bordering, which denotes the original ground. In the first union flag, the red cross of St George with the white fimbriation that represented-the original white field was simply imposed upon the white saltire of St Andrew with its blue field. To place the red saltire of St Patrick on the white saltire of St Andrew would have been to obliterate the latter, nor would the red saltire have its proper bordering denoting its original white field; even were the red saltire narrowed in width the portion of the white saltire that would appear would not be the St Andrew saltire, but only the fimbriation appertaining to the saltire of St Patrick. The difficulty has been got over by making the white broader on one side of the red than the other. In fact, the continuity of direction of the arms of the St Patrick red saltire has been broken by its portions being removed from the centre of the oblique points that form the St Andrew’s saltire. Thus both the Irish and Scottish saltires can be easily distinguished from one another, whilst the red saltire has its due white fimbriation.

The Union Jack is the most important of all British ensigns, and is flown by representatives of the empire all the world over. It flies from the jackstaff of every man-of-war in the navy. With the Irish harp on a blue shield displayed in the centre, it is flown by the lord-lieutenant of Ireland. When flown by thegovernor-general of India the star and device of the order of the Star of India are borne in the centre. Colonial governors fly it with the badge of their colony displayed in the centre. Diplomatic representatives use it with the royal arms in the centre. As a military flag, it is flown over fortresses and headquarters, and on all occasions of military ceremonial. Hoisted at the mainmast of a man-of-war it is the flag of an admiral of the fleet.

Military flags in the shape of regimental standards and colours, and flags used for signalling, are described elsewhere, and it will here be only necessary to deal with the navy and admiralty flags.

The origin of the three ensigns—the red, white, and blue—had its genesis in the navy. In the days of huge fleets, such as prevailed in the Tudor and Stuart navies, there were, besides the admiral in supreme command, a vice-admiral as second in command, and a rear-admiral as third in command, each controlling his own particular group or squadron. These were designated centre, van, and rear, the centre almost invariably being commanded by the admiral, the vice-admiral taking the van and the rear-admiral the rear squadron. In order that any vessel in any group could distinguish its own admiral’s ship, the flagships of centre, van, and rear flew respectively a plain red, white, or blue flag, and so came into being those naval ranks of admiral, vice-admiral, and rear-admiral of the red, white, and blue which continued down to as late as 1864. As the admiral in supreme command flew the union at the main, there was no rank of admiral of the red, and it was not until November 1805 that the rank of admiral of the red was added to the navy as a special compliment to reward Trafalgar. About 1652, so that each individual ship in the squadron should be distinguishable as well as the flagships, each vessel carried a large red, white, or blue flag according as to whether she belonged to the centre, van, or rear, each flag having in the left-hand upper corner a canton, as it is termed, of white bearing the St George’s cross. These flags were called ensigns, and it is, of course, due to the fact that the union with Scotland was for the time dissolved that they bore only the St George’s cross. Even when the restoration of the Stuarts restored thestatus quothe cross of St George still remained alone on the ensign, and it was not altered until 1707 when the bill for the Union of England and Scotland passed the English parliament. In 1801, when Ireland joined the Union, the flag, of course, became as we know it to-day. All these three ensigns belonged to the royal navy, and continued to do so until 1864, but as far back as 1707 ships of the mercantile marine were instructed to fly the red ensign. As ironclads replaced the wooden vessels and fleets became smaller the inconvenience of three naval ensigns was manifest, and in 1864 the grades of flag officer were reduced again to admiral, vice-admiral, and rear-admiral, and the navy abandoned the use of the red and blue ensigns, retaining only the white ensign as its distinctive flag. The mercantile marine retained the red ensign which they were already using, whilst the blue ensign was allotted to vessels employed on the public service whether home or colonial.

The white ensign is therefore essentially the flag of the royal navy. It should not be flown anywhere or on any occasion except by a ship (or shore establishment) of the royal navy, with but one exception. By a grant of William IV. dating from 1829 vessels belonging to the Royal Yacht Squadron, the chief of all yacht clubs, are allowed to fly the white ensign. From 1821 to 1829 ships of the squadron flew the red ensign, as that of highest dignity, but as it was also used by merchant ships, they then obtained the grant of the white ensign as being more distinctive. Some few other yacht clubs flew it until 1842, when the privilege was withdrawn by an admiralty minute. By some oversight the order was not conveyed to the Royal Western of Ireland, whose ships flew the white ensign until in 1857 the usage was stopped. Since that date the Royal Yacht Squadron has alone had the privilege. Any vessel of any sort flying the white ensign, or pennant, of the navy is committing a grave offence, and the ship can be boarded by any officer of His Majesty’s service, the colours seized, the vessel reported to the authorities, and a penalty inflicted on the owners or captain or both. The penalty incurred is £500 fine for each offence, as laid down in the 73rd section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. In 1883 Lord Annesley’s yacht, belonging to the Royal Yacht Squadron, was detained at the Dardanelles in consequence of her flying the white ensign of the royal navy which brought her under the category of a man-of-war, and no foreign man-of-war is allowed to pass the Dardanelles without first obtaining an imperialirade. Since then owners belonging to the squadron have been warned that they must either sail their ships through the straits under the red ensign common to all ships British owned, or obtain imperial permission if they wish to display the white ensign.

Besides the white ensign the ship of war flies a long streamer from the maintopgallant masthead. This, which is called a pennant, is flown only by ships in commission; it is, in fact, the sign of command, and is first hoisted when a captain commissions his ship. The pennant, which was really the old “pennoncell,” was of three colours for the whole of its length, and towards the end left separate in two or three tails, and so continued till the end of the great wars in 1816. Now, however, the pennant is a long white streamer with the St George’s cross in the inner portion close to the mast. Pennants have been carried by men-of-war from the earliest times, prior to 1653 at the yard-arm, but since that date at the maintopgallant masthead.

The blue ensign is exclusively the flag of the public service other than the royal navy, and is as well the flag of the royal naval reserve. It is flown also by certain authorized vessels of the British mercantile marine, the conditions governing this privilege being that the captain and a certain specified portion of the officers and crew shall belong to the ranks of the royal naval reserve. When flown by ships belonging to British government offices the seal or badge of the office is displayed in the fly. For example, hired transports fly it with the yellow anchor in the fly; the marine department of the Board of Trade has in the fly the device of a ship under sail; the telegraph branch of the post-office shows in the fly a device representing Father Time with his hour-glass shattered by lightning; the ordnance department displays upon the fly a shield with a cannon and cannon balls upon it. Certain yacht clubs are also authorized by special admiralty warrant to fly the blue ensign. Some of these display it plain; others show in the fly the distinctive badge of the club. Consuls-general, consuls and consular agents also have a right to fly the blue ensign, the distinguishing badge in their case being the royal arms.

The red ensign is the distinguishing flag of the British merchant service, and special orders to this effect were issued by Queen Anne in 1707, and again by Queen Victoria in 1864. The order of Queen Anne directed that merchant vessels should fly a red flag “with a Union Jack described in a canton at the upper corner thereof next the staff,” and this is probably the first time that the term “Union Jack” was officially used. In some cases those yacht clubs which fly the red ensign change it slightly from that flown by the merchant service, for they are allowed to display the badge of the club in the fly. Colonial merchantmen usually display the ordinary red ensign, but, provided they have a warrant of authorization from the admiralty, they can use the ensign with the badge of the colony in the fly.

In regard to ensigns it is important to remember that they are purely maritime flags, and though the rule is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, the only flag that a private individual or a corporation has a right to display on shore is the national flag, the Union Jack, in its plain condition and without any emblazonment.

There are two other British sea flags which are worthy of brief notice. These are the admiralty flag and the flag of the master of Trinity House. The admiralty flag is a plain red flag with a clear anchor in the centre in yellow. In a sense it is a national flag, for the sovereign hoists it when afloat in conjunction with the royal standard and the Union Jack. It wouldappear to have been first used by the duke of York as lord high admiral, who flew it when the sovereign was afloat and had the royal standard flying in another ship. When a board of commissioners was appointed to execute the office of lord high admiral this was the flag adopted, and in 1691 we find the admiralty, minuting the navy board, then a subordinate department, “requiring and directing it to cause a fitting red silk flag, with the anchor and cable therein, to be provided against Tuesday morning next, for the barge belonging to this board.” In 1725, presumably as being more pretty and artistic, the cable in the device was twisted round the stock of the anchor. It was thus made into a “foul anchor,” the thing of all others that a sailor most hates, and this despite the fact that the first lord at the time, the earl of Berkeley, was himself a sailor. The anchor retained its unseamanlike appearance, and was not “cleared” till 1815, and even to this day the buttons of the naval uniform bear a “foul anchor.” The “anchor” flag is solely the emblem of an administrative board; it does not carry the executive or combatant functions which are vested in the royal standard, the union or an admiral’s flag, but on two occasions it has been made use of as an executive flag. In 1719 the earl of Berkeley, who at the time was not only first lord of the admiralty, but vice-admiral of England, obtained the special permission of George I. to hoist it at the main instead of the union flag. Again in 1869, when Mr Childers, then first lord, accompanied by some members of his board, went on board the “Agincourt” he hoisted the admiralty flag and took command of the combined Mediterranean and Channel squadrons, thus superseding the flags of the two distinguished officers who at the time were in command of these squadrons. It is hardly necessary to add that throughout the navy there was a very distinct feeling of dissatisfaction at the innovation. When the admiralty flag is flown by the sovereign it is hoisted at the fore, his own standard being of course at the main, and the union at the mizzen.

Back to Index Next