The validity of Marriage considered on medical grounds being established, the next point to be considered in the same light is the legitimacy and illegitimacy of children, as it may legally affect their rights to succession and property[336]. On this point the laws of England are most indulgently favourable to the child, for provided “it be born though not begotten in lawful wedlock,” (1 _Bl. Com._ 454.) the law will presume its legitimacy, (5 _Rep._ 98.) (_præsumitur pro legitimatione_). But this presumption may be rebutted by evidence. “As if the husband be out of the kingdom of England (or as the law somewhat loosely phrases it, _extra quatuor maria_[337]) for above _nine_ months, so that no access to his wife can be presumed, her issue during that period shall be bastards.” (1 _Bl. Com._ 454. 457. _Co. Litt._ 244.) but it was held that if the husband was in England during any part of the time between the conception and the birth (without any reference to the physiological impossibility of the fact) the child would be deemed legitimate (_Rex v. Alberton._ 1 _Raym._ 395.) If the husband be proved castrate the issue are bastards (1 _Ba. Ab._ 310. _Rolle Ab. tit. Bastard_, 356.) But though the husband were divorced from his first wife _causa frigiditatis_, yet his issue by his second were adjudged legitimate, (5 _Rep._ 98.) and this is reasonable, for there may be an _impotentia erga hanc_, from various causes; (_vide post._) If a man marries a woman who is pregnant, he is generally to be supposed cognisant of the fact, and that he is the father of the child; and the law which regards the time of birth, and not of conception, pronounces it legitimate. But the husband may have been imposed upon, and utterly ignorant[338] of his wife’s state. A man returning from abroad (to put the case of non access more strongly) marries immediately on his arrival; within four or five months his wife is delivered of a perfect child which lives, shall such child inherit? on the one hand _Præsumitur pro patre quem nuptiæ demonstrant_, on the other, the ordinary course of nature prohibits the supposition that the child can be the offspring of the husband. But see _Rolle Ab. tit. Bastard_, p. 358, where the woman was _grossement enseint_ the issue was held _un mulier_, and contrary decisions cited there: see also _Foxcroft’s Case, Rolle_, 359, & _sec._ 45. So also a man may purposely marry a pregnant woman to disappoint his supposed heir at law; on the other hand a woman may for some purpose of malignity bastardize her offspring, as was the case of _Savage_ the poet.[339]. But none can be legitimate who are born out of wedlock; in which our law differs materially from the Roman or Canon law, and it is somewhat singular that the celebrated[340] “_quod nolunt Leges Angliæ mutare_” of the Barons, at the Parliament of Merton, in the 20th of _Henry_ the 3d, should have been induced by an attempt on the part of