FRANCE.--Provisional execution (_saisie-arret_) with a view to obtain
security has been already mentioned. Execution against personalty
(_saisie-execution_) is preceded by a _commandement_ or summons,
personally served upon, or left at the domicile of the debtor calling
on him to pay. The necessary bedding of debtors and of their children
residing with them, and the clothes worn by them, cannot be seized in
execution under any circumstances. Objects declared by law to be
immovable by destination (_immeubles par destination_), such as beasts
of burden and agricultural implements, books relating to the debtor's
profession, to the value of 300 francs, workmen's tools, military
equipments, provisions and certain cattle cannot be seized, even for a
debt due to Government, unless in respect of provisions furnished to
the debtor, or amounts due to the manufacturers or vendors of
protected articles or to parties who advanced moneys to purchase,
manufacture or repair them. Growing fruits cannot be seized except
during the six weeks preceding the ordinary period when they become
ripe. Execution against immovable property (_la saisie immobiliere_)
is preceded also by a summons to pay, and execution cannot issue until
the expiry of 30 days after service of such summons (see further Code
Proc. Civ., Arts. 673-689). Imprisonment for debt was abolished in all
civil and commercial matters by the law of 22nd of July 1867, which
extends to foreigners. It still subsists in favour of the State for
non-payment of fines, &c. The French system is in substance in force
in Belgium (Code Civ. Proc., Arts. 51 et seq.), the Netherlands (Code
Civ. Proc., Arts. 430 et seq.), Italy (Code Civ. Proc., Arts. 553 et
seq., 659 et seq.), and Spain.
GERMANY.--Under the German Code of Civil Procedure (Arts. 796 et
seq.), both the goods and (if the goods do not offer adequate
security) the person of the debtor may be seized (the process is
called _arrest_) as a guarantee of payment. The debtor's goods cannot
be sold except in pursuance of a judgment notified to the debtor
either before or within a prescribed period after the execution (Art.
809 [3], and law of 30th of April 1886). Imprisonment for debt in
civil and commercial matters has been abolished or limited on the
lines of the French law of 1867 in many countries (e.g. Italy, law of
the 6th of December 1877; Belgium, law of the 27th of July 1871;
Greece, law of the 9th of March 1900; Russia, decree of the 7th of
March 1879).
AUTHORITIES.--Anderson, _Execution_ (London, 1889); _Annual Practice_
(London, 1908); Johnston Edwards, _Execution_ (London, 1888); Mather,
_Sheriff Law_ (London, 1903). As to Scots law, Mackay, _Manual of
Practice_ (Edinburgh, 1893). As to American law, Bingham, _Judgments
and Executions_ (Philadelphia, 1836); A.C. Freeman, _Law of
Execution_, Civil Cases (3rd ed., San Francisco, 1900); H.M. Herman,
_Law of Executions_ (New York, 1875); American Notes to _tit._
"Execution," in _Ruling Cases_ (London and Boston, 1897); Bouvier,
_Law Dict._, ed. Rawle (1897), s.v. "Execution."
EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, in English law, those persons upon whom
the property of a deceased person both real and personal devolves
according as he has or has not left a will. Executors differ from
administrators both in the mode of their creation and in the date at
which their estate vests. An executor can only be appointed by the will
of his testator; such appointment may be express or implied, and in the
latter case he is said to be an executor "according to the tenor." The
estate of an executor vests in him from the date of the testator's
death. An administrator on the other hand is appointed by the probate
division of the High Court, and his estate does not vest till such
appointment, the title to the property being vested till then in the
judge of the probate division. As to whom the court will appoint
administrators and the various kinds of administrators see under
ADMINISTRATION. Apart from these two points the rights and liabilities
of executors and administrators are the same, and they may be
indifferently referred to as the representative of the deceased. As to
their appointment before the establishment of the court of probate see
articles WILL and INTESTACY. Before the Land Transfer Act 1897, the real
estate of the deceased did not devolve upon the representative but
vested directly in the devisee or heir-at-law, but by that act it was
provided that the personal representative should be also the real
representative, and therefore it may now be said broadly that the
representative takes the whole estate of the deceased. There are,
however, a few minor exceptions to this rule, of which the most
important are lands held in joint tenancy and copyhold lands. As the
representative stands in the shoes of the deceased he is entitled to sue
upon any contract or for any debt which the deceased might have sued in
his lifetime.
The duties of a representative are as follows: 1. To bury the deceased
in a manner suitable to the estate he leaves behind him; and the
expenses of such funeral take precedence of any duty or debt whatever;
but extravagant expenses will not be allowed. No rule can be laid down
as to what is a reasonable allowance for this purpose, as it is
impossible to know at the time of the funeral what the estate of the
deceased may amount to. The broad rule is that the representative must
allow such sum as seems reasonable, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case and the conditions in life of the deceased,
remembering that if he should exceed this he will be personally liable
for such excess in the event of the estate proving insolvent.
2. He must obtain probate or letters of administration to the deceased
within six months of the death, or, if such grant be disputed, within
two months of the determination of such suit. The penalty for not
doing so is fixed by the Stamp Act 1815, S 37, at L100, and an
additional stamp duty at the rate of 10%. As to the formalities of
PROBATE see that article.
3. Strictly speaking, he must compile an inventory of all the estate
of the deceased, whether in possession or outstanding, and he is to
deliver it to the court on oath. He is to collect all the goods so
inventoried and to commence actions to get in all those outstanding,
and he is responsible to creditors for the whole of such estate,
whether in possession or in action. This duty is thrown upon the
representative by an act of 1529, but it is not the modern practice to
exhibit such inventory unless he be cited for it in the spiritual
court at the instance of a party interested. It is, however, necessary
to file an affidavit setting out the value of the estate of the
deceased upon applying for a grant of probate or letters of
administration.
4. The representative must pay the debts of the deceased according to
their priority. Next to the legitimate funeral expenses come the costs
of proving and administering the estate; in the event, however, of the
funeral and testamentary expenses being charged by the will upon any
particular fund, they will be primarily payable out of that fund. The
representative must be careful to pay the debts according to the rules
of priority, otherwise he will become personally liable to the
creditors of one degree if he has exhausted the estate in paying
creditors of a lesser degree. First of all, a solicitor has a lien for
his costs upon any fund or duty which he has recovered for the
deceased; next in order come debts due to the crown by record or
speciality; then debts given a priority by statute, as, for example,
by the Poor Relief Act 1743, money due by an overseer of the poor to
his parish. Next, debts of record, i.e. judgment recovered against
the deceased in any court of record; all such debts are equal among
themselves, but a judgment creditor who has sued out execution is
preferred to one who has not; another class of debts of record are
statutes merchant and staple, or recognizances in the nature of
statute staple, i.e. bonds of record acknowledged before the lord
mayor of London or the mayor of the staple. Last in the order of debts
come specialty and simple contract debts, which by Hinde Palmer's Act
(the Executors Act 1869) are of equal degree, though as between
specialty debts bonds given for value rank before voluntary bonds
unless assigned for value, and as between simple contract debts those
due to the crown have priority. Though the creditors can if necessary
take all the estate of the deceased to satisfy their claims, yet as
between the various classes of assets the representative must pay the
debts out of assets in the following order: (i.) General personal
estate not specifically bequeathed nor exempted from payment of debts;
(ii.) real estate appropriated to debts; (iii.) real estate descended;
(iv.) real estate devised charged with payment of debts; (v.) general
pecuniary legacies _pro rata_; (vi.) specific legacies and devises;
(vii.) real estate over which a general power of appointment has been
exercised by will; (viii.) the widow's paraphernalia.
5. The debts of the deceased being satisfied, the representative must
next proceed to satisfy the legacies and devises left by the testator.
In order to enable him to do this with safety to himself, it is
provided that he cannot be compelled to divide the estate among the
legatees or next of kin until twelve months from the death of the
deceased (this is commonly known as "the executor's year"), though if
there is no doubt as to the solvency of the estate he may do so at
once. As a further protection the representative may give notice by
advertisement for creditors to send in their claims against the
estate, and on expiration of the notices he may proceed to divide the
estate, though even then the creditor may follow the assets to the
person who has received them and recover for his debt. As between
legatees the following priorities must be observed: (1) Specific
legatees and devisees, (2) demonstrative legatees, and (3) general
legatees; and as to this last class the testator can give priority to
one over another. If there are not sufficient assets to pay the
general legatees they must abate rateably. Legacies were not payable
out of the real estate prior to the Land Transfer Act 1897, unless the
testator charged the realty with them. Even then unless the testator
exonerates his personalty from payment of the legacies the personalty
will be the first fund chargeable. It has been suggested that the
effect of the act is to make the realty chargeable _pro rata_ with the
personalty, but this is doubtful.
6. The residue, after all legacies and devises are satisfied, must, if
there be a will, be paid to the residuary legatee therein named, and
if there be no will the real estate will go to the heir (see
INHERITANCE) and the personalty to the next of kin (see INTESTACY). It
was held at one time that in default of a residuary legatee the
residue fell to the executor himself, but now nothing less than the
expressed intention of the testator can give it to him.
The liabilities of the representative may be shortly stated. He is
liable in his representative capacity in all cases where the deceased
would be liable were he alive. To this general rule there are some
exceptions. The representative cannot be sued for breach of a contract
for personal services which can be performed only in the lifetime of
the person contracting, nor again can he be sued in a case where
unliquidated damages only could have been recovered against the
deceased. He is liable in his personal capacity in the following
cases: if he contracts to pay a debt due by the deceased, or if having
admitted that he had assets in his hands sufficient to pay a debt or
legacy he has misapplied such assets so that he cannot satisfy them;
or lastly, if by mismanaging the estate and effects of the deceased he
has made himself liable for a _devastavit_. Shortly stated, a
representative is bound to exercise the ordinary care of a business
man in administering the estate of the deceased, and he will be liable
for the loss to the estate caused by his own negligence, or by the
negligence of a co-representative which his act or neglect has
rendered possible. Though the general rule of _delegatus non potest
delegari_ holds good of a representative, yet in certain cases he may
"rely upon skilled persons in matters in which he cannot be expected
to be experienced," e.g. he must employ solicitors to conduct a
lawsuit.
The privileges of the representative are these: he may prefer one
creditor to another of equal degree; he may retain a debt owing to him
from the deceased as against other creditors of equal degree (see
RETAINER); he may reimburse himself out of the estate all expenses
incurred in the execution of his trust.
An executor _de son tort_ is one who, without any title to do so,
wrongfully intermeddles with the assets of the deceased, dealing with
them in such a way as to hold himself out as executor. In such a case
he is subject to all the liabilities of an executor, and can claim
none of the privileges. He may be treated by the creditor as the
executor, and, if he is really assuming to act as executor, creditors
and legatees will get a good title from him, but he is liable to be
sued by the rightful representative for damages for interfering with
the property of the deceased.
_Scotland._--Executor in Scots law is a more extensive term than in
English. He is either nominative or dative, the latter appointed by
the court and corresponding in most respects to the English
administrator. Caution is required from the latter, not from the
former. By the common law doctrine of passive representation the heir
or executor was liable to be sued for implement of the deceased's
obligations. The Roman principle of _beneficium inventarii_ was first
introduced by an act of 1695. As the law at present stands, the heir
or executor is liable only to the value of the succession, except
where there has been vitious intromission in movables, and in _gestio
pro haerede_ (behaviour as heir) and other cases in heritables. The
present inventory duty on succession to movables and heritables
depends on the Finance Acts 1894-1909 (see ESTATE DUTY). In England
the executor is bound to pay the debts of the deceased in a certain
order, but in Scotland they all rank _pari passu_ except privileged
debts (see PRIVILEGE).
AUTHORITIES.--R.L. Vaughan Williams, _The Law of Executors and
Administrators_; W.G. Walker, _Compendium on the Law of Executors and
Administrators_; James Schouler, _Law of Executors and Administrators_
(3rd ed., Boston, 1901).
EXEDRA, or EXHEDRA (from Gr. [Greek: ex], out, and [Greek: hedra], a
seat), an architectural term originally applied to a seat or recess out
of doors, intended for conversation. Such recesses were generally
semicircular, as in the important example built by Herodes Atticus at
Olympia. In the great Roman thermae (baths) they were of large size, and
like apses were covered with a hemispherical vault. An example of these
exists at Pompeii in the Street of the Tombs. From Vitruvius we learn
that they were often covered over, and they are described by him (v. 11)
as places leading out of porticoes, where philosophers and rhetoricians
could debate or harangue.
EXELMANS, RENE JOSEPH ISIDORE, COUNT (1775-1852), marshal of France, was
born at Bar-le-Duc on the 13th of November 1775. He volunteered into the
3rd battalion of the Meuse in 1791, became a lieutenant in 1797, and in
1798 was aide-de-camp to General Eble, and in the following year to
General Broussier. In his first campaign in Italy he greatly
distinguished himself; and in April 1799 he was rewarded for his
services by the grade of captain of dragoons. In the same year he took
part with honour in the conquest of Naples and was again promoted, and
in 1801 he became aide-de-camp to General Murat. He accompanied Murat in
the Austrian, Prussian and Polish campaigns of 1805, 1806 and 1807. At
the passage of the Danube, and in the action of Wertingen, he specially
distinguished himself; he was made colonel for the valour which he
displayed at Austerlitz, and general of brigade for his conduct at Eylau
in 1807. In 1808 he accompanied Murat to Spain, but was there made
prisoner and conveyed to England. On regaining his liberty in 1811 he
went to Naples, where King Joachim Murat appointed him grand-master of
horse. Exelmans, however, rejoined the French army on the eve of the
Russian campaign, and on the field of Borodino won the rank of general
of division. In the retreat from Moscow his steadfast courage was
conspicuously manifested on several occasions. In 1813 he was made, for
services in the campaign of Saxony and Silesia, grand-officer of the
Legion of Honour, and in 1814 he reaped additional glory by his
intrepidity and skill in the campaign of France. When the Bourbons were
restored, Exelmans retained his position in the army. In January 1815 he
was tried on an accusation of having treasonable relations with Murat,
but was acquitted. Napoleon on his return from Elba made Exelmans a peer
of France and placed him in command of the II. cavalry corps, which he
commanded in the Waterloo campaign, the battle of Ligny and Grouchy's
march on Wavre. In the closing operations round Paris Exelmans won great
distinction. After the second Restoration he denounced, in the House of
Peers, the execution of Marshal Ney as an "abominable assassination";
thereafter he lived in exile in Belgium and Nassau for some years, till
1819, when he was recalled to France. In 1828 he was appointed
inspector-general of cavalry; and after the July revolution of 1830 he
received from Louis Philippe the grand cross of the Legion of Honour,
and was reinstated as a peer of France. At the revolution of 1848
Exelmans was one of the adherents of Louis Napoleon; and in 1851 he was,
in recognition of his long and brilliant military career, raised to the
dignity of a marshal of France. His death, which took place on the 10th
of July 1852, was the result of a fall from his horse.
EXEQUATUR, the letter patent, issued by a foreign office and signed by a
sovereign, which guarantees to a foreign consul the rights and
privileges of his office, and ensures his recognition in the state in
which he is appointed to exercise them. If a consul is not appointed by
commission he receives no exequatur; and a notice in the _Gazette_ in
this case has to suffice. The exequatur may be withdrawn, but in
practice, where a consul is obnoxious, an opportunity is afforded to his
government to recall him.
EXETER, EARL, MARQUESS AND DUKE OF. These English titles have been borne
at different times by members of the families of Holand or Holland,
Beaufort, Courtenay and Cecil. The earls of Devon of the family of de
Redvers were sometimes called earls of Exeter; but the 1st duke of
Exeter was John (c. 1355-1400), a younger son of Thomas Holand, earl of
Kent (d. 1360). John's mother, Joan (d. 1385), a descendant of Edward
I., married for her third husband Edward the Black Prince, by whom she
was the mother of Richard II., and her son John was thus the king's
half-brother, a relationship to which he owed his high station at the
English court. He married Elizabeth (d. 1426), a daughter of John of
Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, and was constantly in Richard's train until
1385, when his murder of Ralph Stafford disturbed these friendly
relations. John then went to Spain as constable of the English army
under John of Gaunt; but after his return to England in 1387 he was
created earl of Huntingdon, was made admiral of the fleet and
chamberlain of England, and was again high in the king's favour. He was
Richard's chief helper in the proceedings against the lords appellant in
1397, was created duke of Exeter in September of this year, and went
with the king to Ireland in 1399. After the accession of his
brother-in-law, Henry IV., Holand was tried for his share in the events
of 1397, and was reduced to his earlier rank of earl of Huntingdon. He
was soon plotting against Henry's life, and after the projected rising
in 1400 had failed he was captured and was probably beheaded at Pleshey
in Essex on the 16th of January 1400.[1] He was afterwards attainted and
his titles and lands were forfeited.
In 1416 THOMAS BEAUFORT, earl of Dorset, was created duke of Exeter; but
this dignity was only granted for his life, and consequently it expired
on his death in 1426.
In 1416 JOHN (1395-1447), son of John Holand, the former duke of Exeter,
was allowed to take his father's earldom of Huntingdon. This nobleman
rendered great assistance to Henry V. in his conquest of France,
fighting both on sea and on land. He was marshal of England, admiral of
England and governor of Aquitaine under Henry VI.; was one of the king's
representatives at the conference of Arras in 1435; and in 1443 was
created duke of Exeter. When he died on the 5th of August 1447 his
titles passed to his son HENRY (1430-1473), who, although married to
Anne (d. 1476), daughter of Richard, duke of York, fought for Henry VI.
during the Wars of the Roses. After having been imprisoned by York at
Pontefract, he was present at the battle of Towton, sailed with Henry's
queen, Margaret of Anjou, to Flanders in 1463, and was wounded at Barnet
in 1471. In 1461 he had been attainted and his dukedom declared
forfeited, and he died without sons, probably in 1473.
Coming to the family of Courtenay the title of marquess of Exeter was
borne by HENRY COURTENAY (c. 1496-1538), earl of Devon, who was made a
marquess in 1525. A grandson of Edward IV., Courtenay was a prominent
figure at the court of Henry VIII. until Thomas Cromwell rose to power,
when his high birth, his great wealth and his independent position made
him an object of suspicion. Some slight discontent in the west of
England gave the occasion for his arrest, and he was tried and beheaded
on the 9th of December 1538. A few days later he was declared a traitor
and his titles were forfeited; although his only son, EDWARD (c.
1526-1556), who was restored to the earldom of Devon in 1553 and was a
suitor for the hand of Queen Mary, is sometimes called marquess of
Exeter.
The title of earl of Exeter was first bestowed upon the Cecils (see
CECIL: _Family_) in 1605 when THOMAS, 2nd Lord Burghley (1542-1623), the
eldest son of William Cecil, Lord Burghley, was made earl of Exeter by
James I. Thomas had been a member of parliament during the reign of
Queen Elizabeth, who knighted him in 1575, and had fought under the earl
of Leicester in the Netherlands. After his father's death in 1598 he
became president of the Council of the North and was made a knight of
the Garter. He died on the 7th or 8th of February 1623. His direct
descendants continued to bear the title of earl of Exeter, and in 1801
HENRY (1754-1804), the 10th earl, was advanced to the dignity of
marquess of Exeter, the present marquess being his lineal descendant. It
may be noted that the 1st marquess is Tennyson's "lord of Burghley."
See G.E. C(okayne), _Complete Peerage_ (1887-1898).
FOOTNOTE:
[1] There is some difference of opinion about the place and manner of
the earl's death, and this question has an important bearing upon the
privilege of trial by peers of the realm. See L.W. Vernon-Harcourt,
_His Grace the Steward and Trial of Peers_ (1907).
EXETER, a city and county of a city, municipal, county and parliamentary
borough, and the county town of Devonshire, England, 172 m. W.S.W. of
London, on the London & South Western and the Great Western railways.
Pop. (1901) 47,185. The ancient city occupies a broad ridge of land,
which rises steeply from the left bank of the Exe. At the head of the
ridge is the castle, on the site of a great British earthwork. The High
Street and its continuation, called Fore Street, are narrow, but very
picturesque, with many houses of the 16th and 17th centuries. There is a
maze of lesser streets within the ancient walls, the line of which may
be traced. All the gates have disappeared. The suburbs, which have
greatly extended since the beginning of the 19th century, contain many
good streets, terraces and detached villas. The surrounding country is
rich, fertile and of great beauty. Extensive views are commanded in the
direction of Haldon, a stretch of high moorland which may be regarded as
an outlier of Dartmoor. The lofty mound of the castle is laid out as a
promenade, with fine trees and broad walks.
The cathedral, although not one of the largest in England, is
unsurpassed in the beauty of its architecture and the richness of its
details. With the exception of the Norman transeptal towers, the general
character is Decorated, ranging from about 1280 to 1369. Transeptal
towers occur elsewhere in England only in the collegiate church of
Ottery St Mary, in Devonshire, for which Exeter cathedral served as a
model. The west front is of later date than the rest (probably
1369-1394), and the porch is wholly covered with statues. Within, the
most noteworthy features are the long unbroken roof, extending
throughout nave and choir, with no central tower or lantern; the
beautiful sculpture of bosses and corbels; the minstrel's gallery,
projecting from the north triforium of the nave; and the remarkable
manner in which the several parts of the church are made to correspond.
The window tracery is much varied; but each window answers to that on
the opposite side of nave or choir; pier answers to pier, aisle to
aisle, and chapel to chapel, while the transeptal towers complete the
balance of parts. A complete restoration under Sir G.G. Scott was
carried out between 1870 and 1877. The modern stall work, the reredos,
the choir pavement of tiles, rich marbles and porphyries, the stained
glass and the sculptured pulpits in choir and nave are meritorious. The
episcopal throne, a sheaf of tabernacle work in wood, was erected by
Bishop Stapeldon about 1320, and in the north transept is an ancient
clock. The most interesting monuments are those of bishops of the 12th
and 13th centuries, in the choir and lady chapel. Some important MSS.,
including the famous book of Saxon poetry given by Leofric to his
cathedral, are preserved in the chapter-house. The united sees of
Devonshire and Cornwall were fixed at Exeter from the installation there
of Leofric (1050) by the Confessor, until the re-erection of the Cornish
see in 1876. The bishop's palace embodies Early English portions. The
diocese covers the greater part of Devonshire, with a very small part of
Dorsetshire.
The guildhall in the High Street is a picturesque Elizabethan building,
which contains some interesting portraits; among them being one of
General Monk, who was a native of Devon, and another of Henrietta,
duchess of Orleans, given by her brother Charles II. Both are by Sir
Peter Lely. The assize hall and sessions house dates from 1774. The
Albert Memorial Museum contains a school of art, an excellent free
library, a reading-room, and a museum of natural history and
antiquities. There is a good collection of local birds, and some
remarkable pottery and bronze relics extracted from barrows near Honiton
or found in various parts of Devonshire. Of the castle, called
Rougemont, the chief architectural remnant is a portion of a gateway
tower which may be late Norman. Traces are also seen of the surrounding
earthworks, which may have belonged to the original British stronghold.
Beneath the castle wall is the pleasant promenade of Northernhay. The
churches of Exeter are of little importance, being mostly small, and
closely beset with buildings, but the modern church of St Michael (1860)
deserves notice. The Devon and Exeter Institution, founded in 1813,
contains a large and valuable library, and among educational
establishments may be noticed the technical and university extension
college, the diocesan training college and school; and the grammar
school, which was founded under a scheme of Walter de Stapeldon, bishop
of Exeter and founder of Exeter College, Oxford, in 1332, and refounded
in 1629, but occupies modern buildings (1886) outside the city. It is
endowed with a large number of leaving exhibitions, and about 150 boys
are educated. There are two market-houses in the city, many hospitals
and many charitable institutions, including the picturesque hospital or
almshouse of William Wynard, recorder of Exeter (1439).
Exeter is one of the principal railway centres in the south-west, and it
also has some shipping trade, communicating with the sea by way of the
Exeter ship-canal, originally cut in the reign of Elizabeth (1564), and
enlarged in 1675 and 1827. This canal is an interesting work, being the
first canal carried out in the United Kingdom for the purpose of
enabling sea-going vessels to pass to an inland port. The river Exe was
very early utilized by small craft trading to Exeter, parliament having
granted powers for the improvement of the navigation by the construction
of a canal 3 m. long from Exeter to the river; at a later date this
canal was extended lower down to the tidal estuary of the Exe. Previous
to the year 1820 it was only available for vessels of a draft not
exceeding 9 ft., but by deepening it, raising the banks, and
constructing new locks, vessels drawing 14 ft. of water were enabled to
pass up to a basin and wharves at Exeter. These works were carried out
under the advice of Thomas Telford. A floating basin is accessible to
vessels of 350 tons. Larger vessels lie at Topsham, at the junction of
the canal with the estuary of the Exe; while at the mouth of the estuary
is the port of Exmouth. Imports are miscellaneous, while paper, grain,
cider and other goods are exported. Brewing, paper-making and
iron-founding are carried on, and the city is an important centre of
agricultural trade. The parliamentary borough returns one member. The
city is governed by a mayor, 14 aldermen and 42 councillors. Area, 3158
acres. The eastern suburb of Heavitree, where is the Exeter city asylum,
is an urban district with a population (1901) of 7529.
Exeter was the Romano-British country town of _Isca Damnoniorum_--the
most westerly town in the south-west of Roman Britain. Mosaic pavements,
potsherds, coins and other relics have been found, and probably traces
of the Roman walls survive here and there in the medieval walls. It is
said to be the _Caer Isce_ of the Britons, and its importance as a
British stronghold is shown by the great earthwork which the Britons
threw up to defend it, on the site of which the castle was afterwards
built, and by the number of roads which branch from it. Exeter is famous
for the number of sieges which it sustained as the chief town in the
south-west of England. In 1001 it was unsuccessfully besieged by the
Danes, but in the following year was given by King Aethelred to Queen
Emma, who appointed as reeve, Hugh, a Frenchman, owing to whose
treachery it was taken and destroyed by Sweyn in 1003. By 1050, however,
it had recovered, and was chosen by Leofric as the new seat of the
bishops of Devon. In 1068, after a siege of eighteen days, Exeter
surrendered to the Conqueror, who threw up a castle which was called
Rougemont, from the colour of the rock on which it stood. Again in 1137
the town was held for Matilda by Baldwin de Redvers for three months and
surrendered, at last, owing to lack of water. Three times subsequently
Exeter held out successfully for the king--in 1467 against the Yorkists,
in 1497 against Perkin Warbeck, and in 1549 against the men of Cornwall
and Devon, who rose in defence of the old religion. During the civil
wars the city declared for parliament, but was in 1643 taken by the
royalists, who held it until 1646. The only other historical event of
importance is the entry of William, prince of Orange, in 1688, shortly
after his arrival in England. Exeter was evidently a borough by
prescription some time before the Conquest, since the burgesses are
mentioned in the Domesday Survey. Its first charter granted by Henry I.
gave the burgesses all the free customs which the citizens of London
enjoyed, and was confirmed and enlarged by most of the succeeding kings.
By 1227 government by a reeve had given place to that by a mayor and
four bailiffs, which continued until the Municipal Reform Act of 1835.
Numerous trade gilds were incorporated in Exeter, one of the first being
the tailors' gild, incorporated in 1466. This by 1482 had become so
powerful that it interfered with the government of the town, and was
dissolved on the petition of the burgesses. Another powerful gild was
that of the merchant adventurers, incorporated in 1559, which is said to
have dictated laws to which the mayor and bailiffs submitted. From 1295
to 1885 Exeter was represented in parliament by two members, but in the
latter year the number of representatives was reduced to one. Exeter was
formerly noted for the manufacture of woollen goods, introduced in
Elizabeth's reign, and the value of its exports at one time exceeded
half a million sterling yearly. The trade declined partly owing to the
stringent laws of the trade gilds, and by the beginning of the 19th
century had entirely disappeared, although at the time of its greatest
prosperity it had been surpassed in value and importance only by that of
Leeds.
See _Victoria County History_, _Devon_; Richard Izacke, _Antiquities
of the City of Exeter_ (1677); George Oliver, _The History of the City
of Exeter_ (1861); and E.A. Freeman, _Exeter_ ("Historic Towns"
series) (London, 1887), in the preface to which the names of earlier
historians of the city are given.
EXETER, a town and one of the county-seats of Rockingham county, New
Hampshire, U.S.A., on the Squamscott river, about 12 m. S.W. of
Portsmouth and about 51 m. N. by E. of Boston, Mass. Pop. (1890) 4284;
(1900) 4922 (1066 foreign-born); (1910) 4897; area, about 17 sq. m. It
is served by the Western Division of the Boston & Maine railway. The
town has a public library and some old houses built in the colonial
period, and is the seat of Phillips Exeter Academy (incorporated in 1781
and opened in 1783). In its charter this institution is described as "an
academy for the purpose of promoting piety and virtue, and for the
education of youth in the English, Latin and Greek languages, in
writing, arithmetic, music and the art of speaking, practical geometry,
logic and geography, and such other of the liberal arts and sciences or
languages, as opportunity may hereafter permit." It was founded by Dr
John Phillips (1719-1795), a graduate of Harvard College, who acquired
considerable wealth as a merchant at Exeter and gave nearly all of it to
the cause of education. The academy is one of the foremost secondary
schools in the country, and among its _alumni_ have been Daniel Webster,
Edward Everett, Lewis Cass (born in Exeter in a house still standing),
John Parker Hale, George Bancroft, Jared Sparks, John Gorham Palfrey,
Richard Hildreth and Francis Bowen. The government of the academy is
vested in a board of six trustees, regarding whom the founder provided
that a majority should be laymen and not inhabitants of Exeter. In
1909-1910 the institution had 20 buildings, 32 acres of recreation
grounds, 16 instructors and 488 students, representing 38 states and
territories of the United States and 4 foreign countries. At Exeter also
is the Robinson female seminary (1867), with 14 instructors and 272
students in 1906-1907. The river furnishes water-power, and among the
manufactures of the town are shoes, machinery, cottons, brass, &c. The
town is one of the oldest in the state; it was founded in 1638 by Rev.
John Wheelwright, an Antinomian leader who with a number of followers
settled here after his banishment from Massachusetts. For their
government the settlers adopted (1639) a plantation covenant. There was
disagreement from the first, however, with regard to the measure of
loyalty to the king, and in 1643, when Massachusetts had asserted her
claim to this region and the other three New Hampshire towns had
submitted to her jurisdiction, the majority of the inhabitants of Exeter
also yielded, while the minority, including the founder, removed from
the town. In 1680 the town became a part of the newly created province
of New Hampshire. During the French and Indian wars it was usually
protected by a garrison, and some of the garrison houses are still
standing. From 1776 to 1784 the state legislature usually met at Exeter.
See C.H. Bell, _History of the Town of Exeter_ (Exeter, 1888).
EXETER BOOK [_Codex Exoniensis_], an anthology of Anglo-Saxon poetry
presented to Exeter cathedral by Leofric,[1] bishop of Exeter, England,
from 1050 to 1071, and still in the possession of the dean and chapter.
It contains some legal documents, the poems entitled _Crist_, _Guthlac_,
_Phoenix_, _Juliana_, _The Wanderer_ and others, and concludes with
between eighty and ninety riddles. It was first described in Humphrey
Wanley's _Catalogus_ ... (1705) in detail but with many inaccuracies;
subsequently by J.J. Conybeare, _Account of a Saxon Manuscript_ (a paper
read in 1812; printed with some extracts from the MS. in _Archaeologia_,
vol. xvii. pp. 180-197, 1814). A complete transcript made (1831) by
Robert Chambers is in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 9067). It was first
printed in 1842 by Benjamin Thorpe for the Soc. of Antiq., London, as
_Codex Exoniensis ... with an English Translation, Notes and Indexes_.
More recent editions, chiefly based on Thorpe's text, are:--in Chr.
Grein's _Bibliothek der A.S. Poesie_ (vol. iii. part 1, ed. R. Wulker,
Leipzig, 1897, with a bibliography), J. Schipper in Pfeiffer's
_Germania_, vol. xix. pp. 327-339, and Israel Gollancz, _The Exeter
Book_, pt. i. (1895), with English translation, for the Early English
Text Society.
A detailed account, with bibliographies of the separate poems, is
given by R. Wulker, in _Grundriss ... der A.S. Literatur_, pp. 218-236
(Leipzig, 1885); see also the introduction to _The Crist of Cynewulf_
..., edited by Prof. A.S. Cook, with introduction, notes and a
glossary (Boston, U.S.A., 1900). For the poems contained in the MS.
see also CYNEWULF and RIDDLES.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] For Leofric, see F.E. Warren, _The Leofric Missal_ (1883).
EXHIBITION, a term, meaning in general a public display,[1] which has a
special modern sense as applied to public shows of goods for the
promotion of trade (Fr. _exposition_). The first exhibition in this
sense of which there is any account, in either sacred or profane
history, was that held by King Ahasuerus, who, according to the Book of
Esther, showed in the third year of his reign "the riches of his
glorious kingdom, and the honour of his excellent majesty, many days,
even a hundred and fourscore days." The locale of this function was
Shushan, the palace and the exhibits consisted of "white, green and blue
hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings
and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement
of red, and blue, and white and black marble. And they gave them drink
in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse one from another." The
first exhibition since the Christian era was at Venice during the
dogeship of Lorenzo Tiepolo, in 1268. On that occasion there was a grand
display, consisting of a water fete, a procession of the trades and an
industrial exhibition. The various gilds of the Queen City of the Seas
marched through the narrow streets to the great square of St Mark, and
their leaders asked the dogaressa to inspect the products of their
industry. Other medieval exhibitions were the fairs held at Leipzig and
Nizhni Novgorod in Europe, at Tanta in Egypt, and in 1689 that by the
Dutch at Leiden.
The first modern exhibition was held at London in 1756 by the Society of
Arts, which offered prizes for improvements in the manufacture of
tapestry, carpets and porcelain, the exhibits being placed side by side.
Five years afterwards, in 1761, the same society gave an exhibition of
agricultural machinery. In 1797 a collective display of the art
factories of France, including those of Sevres, the Gobelins and the
Savonnerie, was made in the palace of St Cloud, and the exhibition was
repeated during the following year in the rue de Varennes, Paris. This
experiment was so successful that in the last three days of the same
year an exhibition under official auspices, at which private exhibitors
were allowed to compete, was held in the Champ de Mars. Four years
later, in 1801, there was a second official exhibition in the grand
court of the Louvre. Upon that occasion juries of practical men examined
the objects shown, and the winners of a gold medal were invited to dine
with Napoleon, who was at that time First Consul. In the report of the
jury the following remarkable sentence appeared:--"There is not an
artist or inventor who, once obtaining thus a public recognition of his
ability, has not found his reputation and his business largely
increased." The third Paris Exhibition, held in 1802, was the first to
publish an official catalogue. There were 540 exhibitors, including J.E.
Montgolfier, the first aeronaut, and J.M. Jacquard, the inventor of the
loom which bears his name. The fourth exhibition was held in 1806 in the
esplanade in front of the Hotel des Invalides, and attracted 1422
exhibitors. There were no more exhibitions till after the fall of the
empire, but in 1819 the fifth was held during the reign of Louis XVIII.,
with 1622 exhibitors. Others were held at Paris at various intervals,
that in 1849 having 4500 exhibitors.
Other exhibitions, though on a smaller scale, were held in Dublin,
London, and in various parts of Germany and Austria during the first
half of the 19th century--that in 1844, held at Berlin, having 3040
exhibitors. Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, Poland,
Italy, Spain and Portugal all held exhibitions, and there was a Free
Trade Bazaar of British Manufactures at Covent Garden theatre in 1845,
which at the time created a great deal of interest. But all these
exhibitions were confined to the products of the country in which they
took place, and the first great International Exhibition was held in
London in 1851 by the Society of Arts, under the presidency of the
prince consort. All nations were invited to compete; a site was obtained
in Hyde Park, and a building 20 acres in extent was erected, after the
design of Sir Joseph Paxton, at a cost of L193,168. The exhibition was
open for five months and fifteen days. The receipts amounted to
L506,100, and the surplus was L186,000. The number of visitors was
6,039,195, and the money taken at the doors was L423,792. The total,
number of exhibitors was 13,937, of which Great Britain contributed
6861, the British colonies 520 and foreign countries 6556. The
International Exhibition of 1851 was followed by those of New York and
Dublin in 1853, Melbourne and Munich in 1854, and Paris in 1855--this
latter was held in the Palais d'Industrie, which remained in existence
until pulled down to make room for the two Palais des Beaux Arts, which
formed one of the attractions of the 1900 exhibition. The exhibitors
numbered 20,839 and the visitors 5,162,330. There were national
exhibitions during the following years in several European countries,
but the next great world's fair was held at London in 1862. The total
space roofed in amounted to 988,000 sq. ft., 22.65 acres, the number of
visitors was 6,211,103, and the amount received at the doors L408,530.
The death of the prince consort had a depressing effect upon the
enterprise. In 1865 an exhibition was held at Dublin, the greater
proportion of the funds being supplied by Sir Benjamin Lee Guinness. The
number of attendances during six months was 900,000, and the exhibition
was opened at night. An Italian exhibition was held at Rome in 1862.
The Paris Exhibition of 1867 was upon a far larger scale than that of
1855. It was held, like those that preceded and succeeded it, at the
Champ de Mars, and covered 41 acres. The building resembled an
exaggerated gasometer. The external ring was devoted to machinery, the
internal to the gradual development of civilization, commencing with the
stone age and continuing to the present era. A great feature of the
exhibition was the park, which was studded with specimens of every style
of modern architecture--Turkish mosques, Swedish cottages, English
lighthouses, Egyptian palaces and Swiss chalets. The number of
attendances was 6,805,969. The exhibitors numbered 43,217, and the total
amount received for entrances, concessions, &c., was L420,735. This was
the first exhibition at which there were international restaurants. The
cost of the exhibition was defrayed partly by the state and partly by
private subscriptions.
Small exhibitions were held in various parts of Europe between 1867 and
1870, and in the latter year a series of international exhibitions,
confined to one or two special descriptions of produce or manufactures,
was inaugurated in London at South Kensington. These continued till
1874, but they failed to attract any very large attendance of the public
and were abandoned. A medal was given to each exhibitor, and reports on
the various exhibits were published, but there was no examination of the
exhibits by jurors. In 1873 there was an International Exhibition at
Vienna. The main building, a rotunda, was erected in the beautiful park
of the Austrian capital. There were halls for machinery and agricultural
products, and hundreds of buildings, erected by different nations, were
scattered amongst the woodlands of the Prater. Unfortunately, an
outbreak of cholera diminished the attendance of visitors, and the
receipts were only L206,477, although the visitors were said to have
reached 6,740,500, and the number of exhibitors was 25,760.
None of the International Exhibitions held between 1857 and 1873 had
attracted as many as 7,000,000 visitors, but the gradual extension of
education amongst the masses, and the greater facilities for locomotion,
brought about by the growth of the railway system in all portions of the
civilized world, largely increased the attendances at subsequent World's
Fairs. The Centennial Exhibition of 1876, to celebrate the one-hundredth
anniversary of American Independence, was held at Fairmount Park,
Philadelphia. The funds were raised partly by private subscriptions, and
partly by donations from the city of Philadelphia, from Pennsylvania and
some of the neighbouring states. The central government at Washington
made a large loan, which was subsequently repaid. The principal
buildings, five in number, occupied an area of 48-1/2 acres, and there
were several smaller structures, which in the aggregate must have filled
half as much space more, the largest being that devoted to the exhibits
of the various departments of the United States government, which
covered 7 acres. Several novelties in exhibition management were
introduced at Philadelphia. Instead of gold, silver and bronze medals,
only one description, bronze, was issued, the difference between the
merits of the different exhibits being shown by the reports. Season
tickets were not issued, and the price of admission, the same on all
occasions, was half a dollar, or about 2s. 1d. The exhibition was not
open at night or on Sundays, thus following the British, and not the
continental, precedent. The number of visitors was 9,892,625, of whom
8,004,214 paid for admission, the balance being exhibitors, officials
and attendants. The total receipts amounted to L763,899. Upon one
occasion, the Pennsylvania day, 274,919 persons--the largest number that
had visited any exhibition up to that date--passed through the
turnstiles. The display of machinery was the finest ever made, that of
the United States occupying 480,000 sq. ft. The motive-power was
obtained from a Corliss engine of 1600 horse-power. At this exhibition
the United Kingdom and the British Colonies of Canada, Victoria, New
South Wales, New Zealand, Cape Colony and Tasmania made a very fine
display, which was only excelled by that of the United States.
The Paris Exhibition of 1878 was upon a far larger scale in every
respect than any which had been previously held in any part of the
world. The total area covered not less than 66 acres, the main building
in the Champ de Mars occupying 54 acres. The French exhibits filled
one-half the entire space, the remaining moiety being occupied by the
other nations of the world. The United Kingdom, British India, Canada,
Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Cape Colony and
some of the British crown colonies occupied nearly one-third of the
space set aside for nations outside France. Germany was the only great
country which was not represented, but there were a few German
paintings. The display of fine arts and machinery was upon a very large
and comprehensive scale, and the Avenue des Nations, a street 2400 ft.
in length, was devoted to specimens of the domestic architecture of
nearly every country in Europe, and of several in Asia, Africa and
America. The palace of the Trocadero, on the northern bank of the Seine,
was erected for the exhibition. It was a handsome structure, with towers
250 ft. in height and flanked by two galleries. The rules for admission
were the same as those at Philadelphia, and every person--exhibitor,
journalist or official--who had the right of entrance was compelled to
forward two copies of his or her photograph, one of which was attached
to the card of entry. The ordinary tickets were not sold at the doors,
but were obtainable at various government offices and shops, and from
numerous pedlars in all parts of the city and suburbs. The buildings
were somewhat unfinished upon the opening day, political complications
having prevented the French government and the French people from paying
much attention to the exhibition till about six months before it was
opened; but the efforts made in April were prodigious, and by June 1st,
a month after the opening, the exhibition was complete, and afforded an
object-lesson of the recovery of France from the calamities of
1870-1871. The decisions arrived at by the international juries were
accompanied by medals of gold, silver and bronze. The expenditure by the
United Kingdom was defrayed out of the consolidated revenue, each
British colony defraying its own expenses. The display of the United
Kingdom was under the control of a royal commission, of which the prince
of Wales was president. The number of paying visitors to the exhibition
was 13,000,000, and the cost of the enterprise to the French government,
which supplied all the funds, was a little less than a million sterling,
after allowing for the value of the permanent buildings and the
Trocadero Palace, which were sold to the city of Paris. The total number
of persons who visited Paris during the time the exhibition was open was
571,702, or 308,974 more than came to the French metropolis during the
year 1877, and 46,021 in excess of the visitors during the previous
exhibition of 1867. It was stated at the time that, in addition to the
impetus given to the trade of France, the revenue of the Republic and of
the city of Paris from customs and octroi duties was increased by nearly
three millions sterling as compared with the previous year.
Exhibitions on a scale of considerable magnitude were held at Sydney and
Melbourne in 1879 and 1880, and many continental and American
manufacturers took advantage of them in order to bring the products of
their industry directly under the notice of Australian consumers, who
had previously purchased their supplies through the instrumentality of
British merchants. The United Kingdom and India made an excellent
display at both cities, but the effect of the two great Australian
exhibitions was to give a decided impetus to German, American, French
and Belgian trade. One of the immediate results was that lines of
steamers to Melbourne and Sydney commenced to run from Marseilles and
Bremen; another, that for the first time in the history of the
Australian colonies, branches of French banks were opened in the two
principal cities. The whole cost of these exhibitions was defrayed by
the local governments.
Exhibitions were held at Turin and Brussels during 1880, and smaller
ones at Newcastle, Milan, Lahore, Adelaide, Perth, Moscow, Ghent and
Lille during 1881 and 1882, and at Zurich, Bordeaux and Caraccas in
Venezuela during 1883. The next of any importance was held at Amsterdam
in the latter year. On that occasion a new departure in exhibition
management was made. The government of the Netherlands was to a certain
extent responsible for the administration of the exhibition, but the
funds were obtained from private sources, and a charge was made to each
nation represented for the space it occupied. The United Kingdom, India,
Victoria and New South Wales took part in the exhibition, but there was
no official representation of the mother country. Exhibitions on
somewhat similar lines were held at Nice and Calcutta in the winter of
1883 and 1884, and at Antwerp in 1895.
A series of exhibitions, under the presidency of the then prince of
Wales, and managed by Sir Cunliffe Owen, was commenced at South
Kensington in 1883. The first was devoted to a display of the various
industries connected with fishing; the second, in 1884, to objects
connected with hygiene; the third, in 1885, to inventions; and the
fourth, in 1886, to the British Colonies and India. These exhibitions
attracted a large number of visitors and realized a substantial profit.
They might have been continued indefinitely if it had not been that the
buildings in which they were held had become very dilapidated, and that
the ground covered by them was required for other purposes. There was no
examination of the exhibits by juries, but a tolerably liberal supply of
instrumental music was supplied by military and civil bands. The Crystal
Palace held a successful International Exhibition in 1884, and there was
an Italian Exhibition at Turin, and a Forestry Exhibition at Edinburgh,
during the same year. A World's Industrial Fair was held at New Orleans
in 1884-1885, and there were universal Exhibitions at Montenegro and
Antwerp in 1885, at Edinburgh in 1886, Liverpool, Adelaide, Newcastle
and Manchester in 1887, and at Glasgow, Barcelona and Brussels in 1888.
Melbourne held an International Exhibition in 1888-1889 to celebrate the
Centenary of Australia. Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria and the
United States were officially represented, and an expenditure of
L237,784 was incurred by the local government.
The Paris Exhibition of 1889 marked an important change in the policy
which had previously characterized the management of these gatherings.
The funds were contributed partly by the state, which voted 17,000,000
francs, and by the municipality of Paris, which gave 8,000,000. A
guarantee fund amounting to 23,124,000 francs was raised, and on this
security a sum of 18,000,000 francs was obtained and paid into the
coffers of the administration. The bankers who advanced this sum
recouped themselves by the issue of 1,200,000 "bons," each of 25 francs,
Every bon contained 25 admissions, valued at 1 franc, and certain
privileges in the shape of participation in a lottery, the grand prix
being L20,000. The calculations of the promoters were tolerably
accurate. The attendances reached the then unprecedented number of
32,350,297, of whom 25,398,609 paid in entrance tickets and 2,723,366
entered by season tickets. A sum of 2,307,999 francs was obtained by
concessions for restaurants and "side-shows," upon which the
administration relied for much of the attractiveness of the exhibition.
The total expenditure was 44,000,000 francs, and there was a small
surplus. The space covered in the Champ de Mars, the Trocadero, the
Palais d'Industrie, the Invalides and the Quai d'Orsay was 72 acres, as
compared with 66 acres in 1878 and 41 acres in 1867. Amongst the
novelties was the Eiffel Tower, 1000 ft. in height, and a faithful
reproduction of a street in Cairo. The system of international juries
was continued, but instead of gold, silver and copper medals, diplomas
of various merits were granted, each entitling the holder to a uniform
medal of bronze. Some of the "side-shows," although perhaps pecuniary
successes, did not add to the dignity of the exhibition. The date at
which it was held, the Centenary of the French Revolution, did not
commend it to several European governments. Austria, Hungary, Belgium,
China, Egypt, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Luxemburg, Holland, Peru,
Portugal, Rumania and Russia took part, but not officially, while
Germany, Sweden, Turkey and Montenegro were conspicuous by their
absence. On the other hand, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, the United
States, Greece, Guatemala, Morocco, Mexico, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay,
Salvador, the South African Republic, Switzerland, Uruguay and Venezuela
sent commissioners, who were accredited to the government of the French
Republic. The total number of exhibitors was 61,722, of which France
contributed 33,937, and the rest of the world 27,785. The British and
colonial section was under the management of the Society of Arts, which
obtained a guarantee fund of L16,800, and, in order to recoup itself
for its expenditure, made a charge to exhibitors of 5s. per sq. ft. for
the space occupied. There were altogether 1149 British exhibitors, of
whom 429 were in the Fine Arts section. One of the features of the
exhibition was the number of congresses and conferences held in
connexion with it.
During the year 1890 there was a Mining Exhibition at the Crystal
Palace, and a Military Exhibition in the grounds of Chelsea Hospital; in
1891 a Naval Exhibition at Chelsea and an International at Jamaica. In
1891-1892 there were exhibitions at Palermo and at Launceston in
Tasmania; in 1892, a Naval Exhibition at Liverpool, and one of
Electrical Appliances at the Crystal Palace. A series of small national
exhibitions under private management was held at Earl's Court between
1887 and 1891. The first of the series was that of the United
States--Italy followed in 1888, Spain in 1889, France in 1890 and
Germany in 1891.
The next exhibition of the first order of magnitude was at Chicago in
1893, and was held in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the
discovery of America by Columbus. The financial arrangements were
undertaken by a company, with a capital of L2,000,000. The central
government at Washington allotted L20,000 for the purposes of foreign
exhibits, and L300,000 for the erection and administration of a building
for exhibits from the various government departments. The exhibition was
held at Jackson Park, a place for public recreation, 580 acres in
extent, situated on the shore of Lake Michigan, on the southern side of
the city, with which it was connected by railways and tramways. Special
provision was made for locomotion in the grounds themselves by a
continuous travelling platform and an elevated electric railway. The
proximity of the lake, and of some artificial canals which had been
constructed, rendered possible the service of electric and steam
launches; The exhibition remained open from the 1st of May to the 30th
of October, and was visited by 21,477,212 persons, each of whom paid
half a dollar (about 2s. 1d.) for admission. The largest number of
visitors on any one day was 716,881. In addition to its direct vote of
L320,000, Congress granted L500,000 to the exhibition in a special
coinage, which sold at an enhanced price. The receipts from admissions
were L2,120,000; from concessions, L750,000; and the miscellaneous
receipts, L159,000: total, L3,029,000. The total expenses were
L5,222,000. Of the sums raised by the Company, L400,000 was returned to
the subscribers. Speaking roughly, it may be said that the total outlay
on the Chicago Exhibition was six millions sterling, of which three
millions were earned by the Fair, two millions subscribed by Chicago and
a million provided by the United States government. The sums expended by
the participating foreign governments were estimated at L1,440,000. The
total area occupied by buildings at Chicago was as nearly as possible
200 acres, the largest building, that devoted to manufactures, being
1687 ft. by 787, and 30.5 acres. The funds for the British commission,
which was under the control of the Society of Arts, were provided by the
imperial government, which granted L60,000. The number of British
exhibitors was 2236, of whom 597 were Industrial, 501 Fine Arts and 1138
Women's work. In this total were included 18 Indian exhibitors. The
space occupied by Great Britain was 306,285 sq. ft.; and, in addition,
separate buildings were erected in the grounds. These were Victoria
House, the headquarters of the British commission; the Indian Pavilion,
erected by the Indian Tea Association; the Kiosk of the White Star
Steamship Company; and the structure set up by the Maxim-Nordenfelt
Company. Canada and New South Wales had separate buildings, which
covered 100,140 and 50,951 sq. ft. respectively; and Cape Colony
occupied 5250, Ceylon 27,574, British Guiana 3367, Jamaica 4250,
Trinidad 3400 and India 3584, sq. ft. in the several buildings. The
total space occupied by the British Colonies was therefore 193,660 sq.
ft. The system of awards was considered extremely unsatisfactory.
Instead of international juries, a single judge was appointed for each
class, and the recompenses were all of one grade, a bronze medal and a
diploma, on which was stated the reasons which induced the judge to
make his decision. Some judges took a high standard, and refused to make
awards except to a small proportion of selected exhibits; others took a
low one, and gave awards indiscriminately. About 1183 awards were made
to British exhibitors. The French refused to accept any awards. The
value of the British goods exhibited was estimated, exclusive of Fine
Arts, at L430,000, and the expenses of showing them at L200,000. A large
expenditure was incurred in the erection of buildings, which were more
remarkable for their beauty and grandeur than for their suitableness to
the purposes for which they were intended. Considerable areas were
devoted to "side-shows," and the Midway Plaisance, as it was termed,
resembled a gigantic fair. Every country in the world contributed
something. There were sights and shows of every sort from everywhere.
The foreign countries represented were Argentina, Austria, Belgium,
Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Curacoa,
Denmark, Danish West Indies, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece,
Guatemala, Honduras, Hayti, Japan, Johore, Korea, Liberia, Mexico,
Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Orange Free State, Paraguay, Persia,
Portugal, Russia, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom and
Colonies, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Exhibitions were held at Antwerp, Madrid and Bucharest in 1894; Hobart
in 1894-1895; Bordeaux, 1895; Nizhni Novgorod, Berlin and Buda-Pest in
1896; Brussels and Brisbane in 1897. A series of exhibitions, under the
management of the London Exhibitions Company, commenced at Earl's Court
in 1895 and continued in successive years.
The Paris Exhibition of 1900 was larger than any which had been
previously held in Europe. The buildings did not cover so much ground as
those at Chicago, but many of those at Paris had two or more floors. In
addition to the localities occupied in 1889, additional space was
obtained at the Champs Elysees, the park of Vincennes, on the north bank
of the Seine between the Place de la Concorde, and at the Trocadero. The
total superficial area occupied was as follows: Champ de Mars, 124
acres; Esplanade des Invalides, 30 acres; Trocadero Gardens, 40 acres;
Champs Elysees, 37 acres; quays on left bank of Seine, 23 acres; quays
on right bank of Seine, 23 acres; park at Vincennes, 270 acres: total,
549 acres. The space occupied by buildings and covered in amounted to
4,865,328 sq. ft., 111-1/2 acres. The French section covered 2,691,000
sq. ft., the foreign 1,829,880, and those at the park of Vincennes
344,448 sq. ft. About one hundred French and seventy-five foreign
pavilions and detached buildings were erected in the grounds in addition
to the thirty-six official pavilions, which were for the most part along
the Quai d'Orsay. Funds were raised upon the same system as that adopted
in 1889. The French government granted L800,000, and a similar sum was
contributed by the municipality of Paris. L2,400,000 was raised by the
issue of 3,250,000 "bons," each of the value of 20 francs, and
containing 20 tickets of admission to the exhibition of the face value
of one franc each, and a document which gave its holder a right either
to a reduced rate for admission to the different "side-shows" or else to
a diminution in the railway fare to and from Paris, together with a
participation in the prizes, amounting to six million francs, drawn at a
series of lotteries. Permission to erect restaurants, and to open places
of amusement in buildings erected for that purpose, were sold at high
prices, and for these privileges, which only realised 2,307,999 francs
in 1889, the concessionaires agreed to pay 8,864,442 francs in 1900. The
results did not justify the expectations which had been formed, and the
administration finally consented to receive a much smaller sum. The
administration calculated that they would have 65,000,000 paying
visitors, though there were only 13,000,000 in 1878 and 25,398,609 in
1889. A very few weeks after the opening day, April 15th, it became
evident that the estimated figures would not be reached, since a large
number of holders of "bons" threw them on the market, and the selling
price of an admission ticket declined from the par value of one franc to
less than half that amount, or from 30 to 50 centimes. The proprietors
of the restaurants and "side-shows" discovered that they had paid too
much for their concessions, that the buildings they had erected were far
too handsome and costly to be profitable, and that the public preferred
the exhibition itself to the so-called attractions. The exhibition was
largely visited by foreigners, but various causes kept away many persons
of wealth and position. Although many speculators were ruined, the
exhibition itself was successful. The attendance was unprecedentedly
large, and during the seven months the exhibition was open, 39,000,000
persons paid for admission with 47,000,000 tickets, since from two to
five tickets were demanded at certain times of the day and on certain
occasions. The entries of exhibitors, attendants and officials totalled
9,000,000. The receipts were 114,456,213 francs (L4,578,249), and the
expenditure 116,500,000 (L4,660,000), leaving a deficiency of rather
more than two millions of francs (L80,000). It was calculated that the
expenditure of the foreign nations which took part in the exhibition was
six millions sterling, and of the French exhibitors and concessionaires
three millions sterling.
A new plan of classifying exhibits was adopted at Paris, all being
displayed according to their nature, and not according to their country
of origin, as had been the system at previous exhibitions. One-half the
space in each group was allotted to France, so that the exhibitors of
that nation were enabled to overwhelm their rivals by the number and
magnitude of the objects displayed by them. All the agricultural
implements, whatever their nationality, were in one place, all the
ceramics in another, so that there was no exclusively British and no
exclusively German court. The only exception to this rule was in the
Trocadero, where the French, British, Dutch, and Portuguese Colonies,
Algeria, Tunis, Siberia, the South African Republic, China and Japan
were allowed to erect at their own cost separate pavilions. The greater
number of the nationalities represented had palaces of their own in the
rue des Nations along the Quai d'Orsay, in which thoroughfare were to be
seen the buildings erected by Italy, Turkey, the United States, Denmark,
Portugal, Austria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Peru, Hungary, the United
Kingdom, Persia, Belgium, Norway, Luxemburg, Finland, Germany, Spain,
Bulgaria, Monaco, Sweden, Rumania, Greece, Servia and Mexico. Scattered
about the grounds, in addition to those in the Trocadero, were the
buildings of San Marino, Morocco, Ecuador and Korea. Nearly every
civilized country in the world was represented at the exhibition, the
most conspicuous absentees being Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and some
other South and Central American Republics, and a number of the British
colonies. The most noteworthy attractions of the exhibition were the
magnificent effects produced by electricity in the palace devoted to it
in the Chateau d'Eau and in the Hall of Illusions, the two palaces of
the Fine Arts in the Champs Elysees, and the Bridge over the Seine
dedicated to the memory of Alexander II. These permanent Fine Art
palaces were devoted, the one to modern painting and sculpture, the
other to the works of French artists and art workmen who flourished from
the dawn of French art up to the end of the 18th century.
The United Kingdom was well but not largely represented both in Fine
Arts and Manufactures, the administration of the section being in the
hands of a royal commission, presided over by the prince of Wales. The
British pavilion contained an important collection of paintings of the
British school, chiefly by Reynolds, Gainsborough and their
contemporaries, and by Turner and Burne-Jones. Special buildings had
been erected by the British colonies and by British India. Canada, West
Australia and Mauritius occupied the former, India and Ceylon the
latter. For the first time since the war of 1870 Germany took part in a
French International Exhibition, and the exhibits showed the great
industrial progress which had been made since the foundation of the
empire in 1870. The United States made a fine display, and fairly
divided the honours with Germany. Remarkable progress was manifested in
the exhibits of Canada and Hungary. France maintained her superiority in
all the objects in which good taste was the first consideration, but the
more utilitarian exhibits were more remarkable for their number than
their quality, except those connected with electrical work and display,
automobiles and iron-work. The number of exhibitors in the industrial
section from the British empire, including India and the colonies, was
1250, who obtained 1647 awards, as many persons exhibited in several
classes. There were, in addition, 465 awards for "collaborateurs," that
is, assistants, engineers, foremen, craftsmen and workmen who had
co-operated in the production of the exhibits. In the British Fine Arts
section there were 429 exhibits by 282 exhibitors and 175 awards.
In later years, important international exhibitions have been held at
Glasgow, and at Buffalo, New York, in 1901, at St Louis (commemorating
the Louisiana purchase) in 1904, at Liege in 1905, at Milan in 1906, at
Dublin in 1907, and in London (Franco-British), 1908. In the artistic
taste and magnificence of their buildings and the interest of their
exhibits these took their cue from the great Paris Exhibition, and even
in some cases went beyond it, notably at Buffalo (q.v.), St Louis (q.v.)
and London. And it might well be thought that the evolution of this type
of public show had reached its limits. (G. C. L.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] An "exhibition," in the sense of a minor scholarship, or annual
payment to a student from the funds of a school or college, is a
modern survival from the obsolete meaning of "maintenance" or
"endowment" (cf. Late Lat. _exhibitio et tegumentum_, i.e. food and
raiment).
EXHUMATION (from Med. Lat. _exhumare_; _ex_, out of, and _humus_,
ground), the act of digging up and removing an object from the ground.
The word is particularly applied to the removal of a dead body from its
place of burial. For the offence of exhuming a body without legal
authority, and the process of obtaining such authority, see BURIAL AND
BURIAL ACTS.
EXILARCH, in Jewish history, "Chief or Prince of the Captivity." The
Jews of Babylonia, after the fall of the first temple, were termed by
Jeremiah and Ezekiel the people of the "Exile." Hence the head of the
Babylonian Jews was the exilarch (in Aramaic _Resh Galutha_). The office
was hereditary and carried with it considerable power. Some traditions
regarded the last king of Davidic descent (Jehoiachin) as the first
exilarch, and all the later holders of the dignity claimed to be scions
of the royal house of Judah. Under the Arsacids and Sassanids the office
continued. In the 6th century an attempt was made to secure by force
political autonomy for the Jews, but the exilarch who led the movement
(Mar Zutra) was executed. For some time thereafter the office was in
abeyance, but under Arabic rule there was a considerable revival of its
dignity. From the middle of the 7th till the 11th centuries the
exilarchs were all descendants of Bostanai, through whom "the splendour
of the office was renewed and its political position made secure"
(Bacher). The last exilarch of importance was David, son of Zakkai,
whose contest with Seadiah (q.v.) had momentous consequences. Hezekiah
(c. 1040) was the last Babylonian exilarch, though the title left its
traces in later ages. Benjamin of Tudela (_Itinerary_, p. 61) names an
exilarch Daniel b. Hisdai in the 12th century. Petahiah (_Travels_, p.
17) records that this Daniel's nephew succeeded to the office jointly
with a R. Samuel. The latter, according to Petahiah, had a learned
daughter who "gave instruction, through a window, remaining in the house
while the disciples were below, unable to see her."
Our chief knowledge of the position and function of the exilarch
concerns the period beginning with the Arabic rule in Persia. In the age
succeeding the Mahommedan conquest the exilarch was noted for the
stately retinue that accompanied him, the luxurious banquets given at
his abode, and the courtly etiquette that prevailed there. A brilliant
account has come down of the ceremonies at the installation of a new
exilarch. Homage was paid to him by the rabbinical heads of the colleges
(each of whom was called Gaon, q.v.); rich gifts were presented; he
visited the synagogue in state, where a costly canopy had been erected
over his seat. The exilarch then delivered a discourse, and in the
benediction or doxology (_Qaddish_) his name was inserted. Thereafter he
never left his house except in a carriage of state and in the company of
a large retinue. He would frequently have audiences of the king, by whom
he was graciously received. He derived a revenue from taxes which he was
empowered to exact. The exilarch could excommunicate, and no doubt had
considerable jurisdiction over the Jews. A spirited description of the
glories of the exilarch is given in D'Israeli's novel _Alroy_.
See Neubauer, _Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles_, ii. 68 seq.; Zacuto,
_Yuhasin_; Graetz, _Geschichte_, vols. iv.-vi.; Benjamin of Tudela,
_Itinerary_, ed. Adler, pp. 39 seq.; Bacher, _Jewish Encyclopaedia_,
vol. v. 288. (I. A.)
EXILE (Lat. _exsilium_ or _exilium_, from _exsul_ or exul, which is
derived from _ex_, out of, and the root _sal_, to go, seen in _salire_,
to leap, _consul_, &c.; the connexion with _solum_, soil, country is now
generally considered wrong), banishment from one's native country by the
compulsion of authority. In a general sense exile is applied to
prolonged absence from one's country either through force of
circumstances or when undergone voluntarily. Among the Greeks, in the
Homeric age, banishment ([Greek: phuge]) was sometimes inflicted as a
punishment by the authorities for crimes affecting the general
interests, but is chiefly known in connexion with cases of homicide.
With these the state had nothing to do; the punishment of the murderer
was the duty and privilege of the relatives of the murdered man. Unless
the relatives could be induced to accept a money payment by way of
compensation ([Greek: poine], weregeld; see especially Homer, _Iliad_,
xviii. 497), in which case the murderer was allowed to remain in the
country, his only means of escaping punishment was flight to a foreign
land. If, during his self-imposed exile, the relatives expressed their
willingness to accept the indemnity, he was at liberty to return and
resume his position in society.
In later times banishment is (1) a legal punishment for particular
offences; (2) voluntary.
1. Banishment for life with confiscation of property was inflicted upon
those who destroyed or uprooted the sacred olives at Athens; upon those
who remained neutral during a sedition (by a law of Solon, which
subsequently fell into abeyance); upon those who gave refuge to or
received on board ship a man who had fled to avoid punishment; upon
those who wounded with intent to kill and those who prompted them to
such an act (it is uncertain whether in this case exile was for life or
temporary); upon any one who wilfully murdered an alien; for impiety.
Certain political crimes were also similarly punished--treason,
laconism, sycophancy (see SYCOPHANT), attempts to subvert existing
decrees. For the peculiar form of banishment called OSTRACISM, see
separate article.
In cases of voluntary homicide the punishment was death; but (except in
cases of parricide) the murderer could leave the country unmolested
after the first day of the trial. He was bound to remain outside Attica,
and when on foreign soil was not allowed to appear at the public games,
to enter the temples or take part in sacrifices; but provided that he
adhered to the prescribed regulations, he was accorded a certain amount
of protection. Even when a general amnesty was proclaimed, he was not
allowed to return; if he did so, he might at once be put to death.
Temporary exile (the period of which is uncertain) without confiscation,
was the punishment for involuntary homicide. As soon as the relatives of
the deceased became reconciled to the man who had slain him, the latter
was permitted to return; further, since banishment was only temporary,
it is reasonable to suppose that the law insisted upon such
reconciliation.
2. Citizens sometimes voluntarily left the country for other reasons
(debt, inability to pay a fine). Since extradition was only demanded in
cases of high treason or other serious offences against the state, the
fugitive was not interfered with. He was at liberty to return after a
certain time had elapsed.
Little is known about exile as it affected Sparta and other Greek towns,
but it is probable that the same conditions prevailed as at Athens.
At Rome, in early times, exile was not a punishment, but rather a means
of escaping punishment. Before judgment had been finally pronounced it
was open to any Roman citizen condemned to death to escape the penalty
by voluntary exile (_solum vertere exsilii causa_). To prevent his
return, he was interdicted from the use of fire and water; if he broke
the interdict and returned, any one had the right to put him to death.
The _aquae et ignis_ (to which _et tecti_ "shelter" is sometimes added)
_interdictio_ is variously explained as exclusion from the necessaries
of life, from the symbols of civic communion, or from "the marks of a
pure society, which the criminal would defile by his further use of
them." Subsequently (probably at the time of the Gracchi) it became a
recognized legal penalty, practically equivalent to "exile," taking the
place of capital punishment. The criminal was permitted to withdraw from
the city _after_ sentence was pronounced; but in order that this
withdrawal might as far as possible bear the character of a punishment,
his departure was sanctioned by a decree of the people which declared
his exile permanent. Authorities are not agreed whether this exile by
interdiction entailed loss of _civitas_; according to some this did not
ensue until (as in earlier times) the criminal had assumed the
citizenship of the state in which he had taken refuge and thereby lost
his rights as a citizen of Rome, while others hold that it was not until
the time of Tiberius (A.D. 23) that _capitis deminutio media_ became the
direct consequence of trial and conviction. _Interdictio_ was the
punishment for treason, murder, arson and other serious offences which
came under the cognizance of the _quaestiones perpetuae_ (permanent
judicial commissions for certain offences); confiscation of property was
only inflicted in extreme cases.
Under the Empire _interdictio_ gradually fell into disuse and a new form
of banishment, introduced by Augustus, called _deportatio_, generally
_in insulam_, took its place. For some time the two probably existed
side by side. _Deportatio_ consisted in transportation for life to an
island (or some place prescribed on the mainland, not of Italy),
accompanied by loss of _civitas_ and all civil rights, and confiscation
of property. The most dreaded places of exile were the islands of
Gyarus, Sardinia, an oasis in the desert (_quasi in insulam_) of Libya;
Crete, Cyprus and Rhodes were considered more tolerable. Large bodies of
persons were also transported in this manner; thus Tiberius sent 4000
freedmen to Sardinia for Jewish or Egyptian superstitious practices.
_Deportatio_ was originally inflicted upon political criminals, but in
course of time became more particularly a means of removing those whose
wealth and popularity rendered them objects of suspicion. It was also a
punishment for the following offences: adultery, murder, poisoning,
forgery, embezzlement, sacrilege and certain cases of immorality.
_Relegatio_ was a milder form of _deportatio_. It either excluded the
person banished from one specified district only, with permission to
choose a residence elsewhere, or the place of exile was fixed.
_Relegatio_ could be either temporary or for life, but it did not in
either case carry with it loss of _civitas_ or property, nor was the
exile under military surveillance, as in the case of _deportatio_. Thus,
Ovid, when in exile at Tomi, says (_Tristia_, v. ii): "he (i.e. the
emperor) has not deprived me of life, nor of wealth, nor of the rights
of a citizen ... he has simply ordered me to leave my home." He calls
himself _relegatus_, not _exsul_.
In later writers the word _exsilium_ is used in the sense of all its
three forms--_aquae et ignis interdictio_, _deportatio_ and _relegatio_.
In England the first enactment legalizing banishment dates from the
reign of Elizabeth (39 Eliz. c. 4), which gave power to banish from the
realm "such rogues as are dangerous to the inferior people." A statute
of Charles II. (18 Car. II. c. 3) gave power to execute or to transport
to America for life the mosstroopers of Cumberland and Northumberland.
Banishment or transportation for criminal offences was regulated by an
act of 1824 (5 Geo. IV. s. 84) and finally abolished by the Penal
Servitude Acts 1853 and 1857 (see further DEPORTATION). The word exile
has sometimes, though wrongly, been applied to the sending away from a
country of those who are not natives of it, but who may be temporary or
even permanent residents in it (see ALIEN; EXPATRIATION; EXPULSION).
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--J.J. Thonissen, _Le Droit penal de la republique
athenienne_ (Brussels, 1875); G.F. Schomann, _Griechische Altertumer_
(4th ed., 1897), p. 46; T. Mommsen, _Ronmisches Strafrecht_ (1899),
pp. 68, 964, and _Romisches Staatsrecht_ (1887), iii. p. 48; L.M.
Hartmann, _De exilio apud Rumanos_ (Berlin, 1887); F. von
Holtzendorff-Vietmansdorf, _Die Deportationsstrafe im romischen
Alterthum_ (Leipzig, 1859); articles in Smith's _Dict. of Greek and
Roman Antiquities_ (3rd ed., 1890) and Daremberg and Saglio's _Dict.
des antiquites_ (C. Lecrivain and G. Humbert).
EXILI, an Italian chemist and poisoner in the 17th century. His real
name was probably Nicolo Egidi or Eggidio. Few authentic details of his
life exist. Tradition, however, credits him with having been originally
the salaried poisoner at Rome of Olympia Maidalchina, the mistress of
Pope Innocent X. Subsequently he became a gentleman in waiting to Queen
Christina of Sweden, whose taste for chemistry may have influenced this
appointment. In 1663 his presence in France aroused the suspicions of
the French government, and he was imprisoned in the Bastille. Here he is
said to have made the acquaintance of Godin de Sainte-Croix, the lover
of the marquise de Brin-villiers (q.v.). After three months'
imprisonment, powerful influences secured Exili's release, and he left
France for England. In 1681 he was again in Italy, where he married the
countess Fantaguzzi, second cousin of Duke Francis of Modena.
EXMOOR FOREST, a high moorland in Somersetshire and Devonshire, England.
The uplands of this district are bounded by the low alluvial plain of
Sedgemoor on the east, by the lower basin of the Exe on the south, by
the basin of the Taw (in part) on the west, and by the Bristol Channel
on the north. The area thus defined, however, includes not only Exmoor
but the Brendon and Quantock Hills east of it. Excluding these, the
total area in the district lying at an elevation exceeding 1000 ft. is
about 120 sq. m. The geological formation is Devonian. The ancient
forest had an area of about 20,000 acres, and was enclosed in 1815.
Large tracts are still uncultivated; and the wild red deer and native
Exmoor pony are characteristic of the district. The highest point is
Dunkery Beacon in the east (1707 ft.), but Span Head in the south-west
is 1618 ft., and a height of 1500 ft. is exceeded at several points. The
Exe, Barle, Lyn and other streams, traversing deep picturesque valleys
except in their uppermost courses, are in favour with trout fishermen.
The few villages, such as Exford, Withypool and Simonsbath, with Lynton
and Lynmouth on the coast, afford centres for tourists and sportsmen.
Exmoor is noted for its stag hunting. The district has a further fame
through Richard Blackmore's novel, _Lorna Doone_.
EXMOUTH, EDWARD PELLEW, 1ST VISCOUNT (1757-1833), English admiral, was
descended from a family which came originally from Normandy, but had for
many centuries been settled in the west of Cornwall. He was born at
Dover, on the 19th of April 1757. At the age of thirteen he entered the
navy, and even then his smartness and activity, his feats of daring, and
his spirit of resolute independence awakened remark, and pointed him out
as one specially fitted to distinguish himself in his profession. He had,
however, no opportunity of active service till 1776, when, at the battle
of Lake Champlain, his gallantry, promptitude and skill, not only saved
the "Carleton"--whose command had devolved upon him during the progress
of the battle--from imminent danger, but enabled her to take a prominent
part in sinking two of the enemy's ships. For his services on this
occasion he obtained a lieutenant's commission, and the command of the
schooner in which he had so bravely done his duty. The following year, in
command of a brigade of seamen, he shared in the hardships and perils of
the American campaign of General Burgoyne. In 1782, in command of the
"Pelican," he attacked three French privateers inside the Ile de Batz,
and compelled them to run themselves on shore--a feat for which he was
rewarded by the rank of post-captain. On the outbreak of the French War
in 1793, he was appointed to the "Nymphe," a frigate of 36 guns; and,
notwithstanding that for the sake of expedition she was manned chiefly by
Cornish miners, he captured, after a desperate conflict, the French
frigate "La Cleopatre," a vessel of equal strength. For this act he
obtained the honour of knighthood. In 1794 he received the command of the
"Arethusa" (38), and in a fight with the French frigate squadron off the
Ile de Batz he compelled the "Pomona" (44) to surrender. The same year
the western squadron was increased and its command divided, the second
squadron being given to Sir Edward Pellew in the "Indefatigable" (44).
While in command of this squadron he, on several occasions, performed
acts of great personal daring; and for his bravery in boarding the
wrecked transport "Dutton," and his promptitude and resolution in
adopting measures so as to save the lives of all on board, he was in 1796
created a baronet. In 1798 he joined the channel fleet, and in command of
the "Impetueux" (74) took part in several actions with great distinction.
In 1802 Sir Edward Pellew was elected member of parliament for Dunstable,
and during the time that he sat in the Commons he was a strenuous
supporter of Pitt. In 1804 he was made rear-admiral of the blue, and
appointed commander-in-chief in India, where, by his vigilance and
rapidity of movement, he entirely cleared the seas of French cruisers,
and secured complete protection to English commerce. He returned to
England in 1809, and in 1810 was appointed commander-in-chief in the
North Sea, and in 1811 commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. In 1814
he was created Baron Exmouth of Canonteign, and in the following year was
made K.C.B., and a little later G.C.B. When the dey of Algiers, in 1816,
violated the treaty for the abolition of slavery, Exmouth was directed to
attack the town. Accordingly, on the 26th of August, he engaged the
Algerine battery and fleet, and after a severe action of nine hours'
duration, he set on fire the arsenal and every vessel of the enemy's
fleet, and shattered the sea defences into ruins. At the close of the
action the dey apologized for his conduct, and agreed to a renewal of the
treaty, at the same time delivering up over three thousand persons of
various nationalities who had been Algerine slaves. For this splendid
victory Exmouth was advanced to the dignity of viscount. Shortly before
his death, which took place on the 23rd of January 1833, he was made
vice-admiral.
He had married Susan (d. 1837), daughter of James Frowde of Knoyle,
Wiltshire, who bore him four sons and two daughters. His eldest son,
Pownoll Bastard Pellew (1786-1833), became 2nd Viscount Exmouth, and his
descendant, Edward Addington Hargreaves Pellew (b. 1890), became the 5th
viscount in 1899.
Exmouth's second son, Sir Fleetwood Broughton Reynolds Pellew
(1789-1861), was like his father an admiral. The third son was George
Pellew (1793-1866), author and divine, who married Frances (d. 1870),
daughter of the prime minister, Lord Sidmouth, and wrote his
father-in-law's life (_The Life and Correspondence of Henry Addington,
1st Viscount Sidmouth_, 1847).
Exmouth had a brother, Sir Israel Pellew (1758-1832), also an admiral,
who was present at the battle of Trafalgar.
A _Life_ of the 1st viscount, by Edward Osler, was published in 1835.
EXMOUTH, a market-town, seaport and watering-place in the Honiton
parliamentary division of Devonshire, England, at the mouth of the river
Exe, 10-1/2 m. S.E. by S. of Exeter by the London & South-Western
railway. Pop. of urban district (1901) 10,485. In the 18th century it
consisted of a primitive fishing village at the base of Beacon Hill, a
height commanding fine views over the estuary and the English Channel.
After its more modern terraces were built up the hillside, Exmouth
became the first seaside resort in Devon. Its excellent bathing and the
beauty of its coast and moorland scenery attract many visitors in
summer, while it is frequented in winter by sufferers from pulmonary
disease. The climate is unusually mild, as a range of hills shelters the
town on the east. A promenade runs along the sea wall; there are golf
links and public gardens, and the port is a favourite yachting centre, a
regatta being held annually. Near the town is a natural harbour called
the Bight. The local industries include fishing, brick-making and the
manufacture of Honiton lace. Exmouth was early a place of importance,
and in 1347 contributed 10 vessels to the fleet sent to attack Calais.
It once possessed a fort or "castelet," designed to command the estuary
of the Exe. This fort, which was garrisoned for the king during the
Civil War, was blockaded and captured by Colonel Shapcoate in 1646.
EXODUS, BOOK OF, in the Bible, a book of the Old Testament which derives
its name, through the Greek, from the event which forms the most
prominent feature of the history it narrates, viz. the deliverance of
Israel from Egypt. Strictly speaking, however, this title is applicable
to the first half only, the historical portion of the book, and takes no
account of those chapters which describe the giving of the Law on Mt.
Sinai, nor of those which deal with the Tabernacle and its furniture. By
the Jews it is usually styled after its opening words [Hebrew: We'eleh
Shemoth] (_We'eleh Shemoth_) or, more briefly, [Hebrew: Shemoth]
(_Shemoth_).
In its present form the book sets forth (a) the oppression of the
Israelites in Egypt (ch. i.), (b) the birth and education of Moses, and
his flight to the land of Midian (ch. ii.), (c) the theophany at Mt.
Horeb (the Burning Bush), and the subsequent commission of Moses and
Aaron (iii. 1-iv. 17), (d) the return of Moses to Egypt, and his appeal
to Pharaoh which results in the further oppression of Israel (iv.
18-vii. 7), (e) the plagues of Egypt (vii. 8-xi. 10), (f) the
institution of the Passover and of the Feast of Unleavened Cakes, the
last plague, and Israel's departure from Egypt (xii. 1-xiii. 16), (g)
the crossing of the Red Sea and the discomfiture of the Egyptians, the
Song of Triumph, the sending of the manna and other incidents of the
journeying through the wilderness (xiii. 17-xviii. 27), (h) the giving
of the Law, including the Decalogue and the so-called Book of the
Covenant, on Sinai-Horeb (xix.-xxiv.), (i) directions for the building
of the Tabernacle and for the consecration of the priests (xxv.-xxxi.),
(j) the sin of the Golden Calf, and another earlier version of the first
legislation (xxxii.-xxxiv.), (k) the construction of the Tabernacle and
its erection (xxxv.-xl.). The book of Exodus, however, like the other
books of the Hexateuch, is a composite work which has passed, so to
speak, through many editions; hence the order of events given above
cannot lay claim to any higher authority than that of the latest editor.
Moreover, the documents from which the book has been compiled belong to
different periods in the history of Israel, and each of them,
admittedly, reflects the standpoint of the age in which it was written.
Hence it follows that the contents of the book are not of equal
historical value; and though the claim of a passage to be considered
historical is not necessarily determined by the age of the source from
which it is derived, yet, in view of the known practice of Hebrew
writers, greater weight naturally attaches to the earlier documents in
those cases in which the sources are at variance with one another. Any
attempt, therefore, at restoring the actual course of history must be
preceded by an inquiry into the source of the various contents of the
book.
The sources from which the book of Exodus has been compiled are the same
as those which form the basis of the book of Genesis, while the method
of composition is very similar. Here, too, the strongly marked
characteristics of P, or the Priestly Document, as opposed to JE, enable
us to determine the extent of that document with comparative ease; but
the absence, in some cases, of conclusive criteria prevents any final
judgment as to the exact limits of the two strands which have been
united in the composite JE. The latter statement applies especially to
the legislative portions of the book: in the historical sections the
separation of the two sources gives rise to fewer difficulties. It does
not, however, lie within the scope of the present article to examine the
various sources underlying the narrative with any minuteness, but rather
to sum up those results of modern criticism which have been generally
accepted by Old Testament scholars. To this end it will be convenient to
treat the subject-matter of the book under three main heads: (a) the
historical portion (ch. i.-xviii.), (b) the sections dealing with the
giving of the Law (xix.-xxiv., xxxii.-xxxiv.), and (c) the construction
of the Tabernacle and its furniture (xxv.-xxxi., xxxv.-xl.).
(a) _Israel in Egypt and the Exodus_ (ch. i.-xviii.). (1) i. 1-vii.
13.--The analysis of these chapters shows that the history, in the
main, has been derived from the two sources J and E, chiefly the
former, and that a later editor has included certain passages from P,
besides introducing a slight alteration of the original order and
other redactional changes. The combined narrative of JE sets forth the
rise of a new king in Egypt, who endeavoured to check the growing
strength of the children of Israel; it thus prepares the way for the
birth of Moses, his early life in Egypt, his flight to Midian and
marriage with Zipporah, the theophany at Mt. Horeb, and his divine
commission to deliver Israel from Egypt.
At the very outset the two sources betray their divergent origin and
point of view. According to J (i. 6, 8-12, 20b) the Israelites dwell
apart in the province of Goshen, and their numbers become so great as
to call for severe measures of repression, the method employed being
that of forced labour. E, on the other hand (i. 15-20a, 21, 22),
represents them as living among the Egyptians, and so few in number
that two midwives satisfy their requirements. It is to this latter
source that we owe the account of the birth of Moses and of his
education at the court of Pharaoh (ii. 1-10). On reaching manhood
Moses openly displays his sympathy with his brethren by slaying an
Egyptian, and has, in consequence, to flee to Midian, where he marries
Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian (ii. 11-22). In this
section the editor has undoubtedly made use of the parallel narrative
of J, though it is impossible to determine the exact point at which
J's account is introduced: certainly ii. 15b-22 belong to that
source.[1] The narrative of the call of Moses is by no means uniform,
and shows obvious traces of twofold origin (J iii. 2-4a, 5, 7, 8,
16-18; iv. 1-12 (13-16), 29-31; E iii. 1, 4b, 6, 9-14, 21, 22; iv. 17,
18, 20b, 27, 28). These two sources present striking points of
difference, which reappear in the subsequent narrative. According to
E, Moses with Aaron is to demand from Pharaoh the release of Israel,
which will be effected in spite of his opposition; in assurance
thereof the promise is given that they shall serve God upon this
mountain; moreover, the people on their departure are to borrow
raiment and jewels from their Egyptian neighbours. According to J, on
the other hand, the spokesmen are to be Moses and the elders; and
their request is for a temporary departure only, viz. "three days'
journey into the wilderness"; their departure from Egypt is a hurried
one. Yet another difficulty, which disappears as soon as the composite
character of the narrative is recognized, is that of the signs. In J
three signs are given for the purpose of reassuring Moses, only one of
which is wrought with the rod (iv. 1-9), but in iv. 17 (E) the
reference is clearly to entirely different signs, probably the plagues
of Egypt, which according to E were invariably wrought by "the rod of
God." Further, it is questionable if the passage iv. 13-16 really
forms part of the original narrative of J, and is not rather to be
ascribed to the redactor of JE. The name of Aaron has certainly been
introduced by a later hand in J's account of the plague of frogs
(viii. 12), and the only passage in J in which Aaron is represented as
taking an active part is iv. 29-31, where the mention of his name
causes no little difficulty.[2] In E, on the other hand, Aaron is sent
by God to meet Moses at Mt. Horeb, after the latter had taken leave of
Jethro, and, later on, accompanies him into the presence of Pharaoh.
The succeeding narrative (v. 1-vi. 1) is mainly taken from J, though
E's account of the first interview with Pharaoh has been partially
retained in v. 1, 2, 4. Moses and the elders ask leave to go three
days' journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, a request
which is met by an increase of the burdensome work of brick-making:
henceforward the Israelites have to provide their own straw. The
people complain bitterly to Moses, who appeals to Yahweh and is
assured by him of the future deliverance of Israel "by a strong hand."
With the exception of the genealogical list (i. 1-5) and the brief
notices of the increase of Israel (i. 7) and of its oppression at the
hands of the Egyptians (i. 13, 14; ii. 23b-25), the narrative so far
exhibits no traces of P[3]. But in vi. 2-vii. 13 we are confronted
with a narrative which carries us back to ii. 23b-25 and gives
practically a parallel account to that of JE in ch. iii.-v. Thus the
revelation of the divine name, vi. 2f., finds its counterpart in iii.
10f., the message to be delivered to Israel (vi. 6f.) is very similar
to that of ch. iii. 16f., while the demand which is to be addressed to
Pharaoh is identical with that which had been already refused in ch.
v. No allusion, however, is made by Moses to this previous demand; he
merely urges the same objection as that put forward in iv. 10f. With
the resumption[4] of the story in vi. 28f. Moses reiterates his
objection, and is told that Aaron shall be his "prophet" and speak for
him, and shall also perform the sign of the rod (cf. iv. 2-4). The
sign, however, has no effect on Pharaoh (vii. 13), and we thus reach
the same point in the narrative as at vi. 1. Apart from the literary
characteristics which clearly differentiate this narrative from the
preceding accounts of J and E, the following points of variation are
worthy of consideration: (1) The people refuse to listen to Moses; (2)
Aaron is appointed to be Moses' spokesman, not with the _people_, but
with Pharaoh; (3) _one_ sign is given (not _three_) and performed
before Pharaoh; (4) the rod is turned into a reptile (_tannin_), not a
serpent (_nahash_).