of the liberty formerly given, in certain cases, to neutral vessels to sail for an enemy's port after having first touched at one in Great Britain. Upon this point, however, some important modifications were made by subsequent orders. A system was introduced of licensing certain vessels to proceed to hostile ports after having first touched and paid custom-dues at a British port; and this was eventually carried so far, that at last the number of such licences granted is said to have exceeded 16,000. The position, however, in which America was still placed was such as almost to force her to go to war either with England or France. In this state of things, in the spring of 1812 a vigorous effort was again made by the opposition in parliament to obtain the entire removal of the orders in council. In the Lords, a motion was made by the Marquis of Lansdowne on the 28th of February for a select committee of inquiry into the effect of the orders, but was negatived by a majority of 135 to 71. On the 3rd of March a similar motion made in the Commons by Mr. Brougham was also rejected by a majority of 216 to 144. On the 3rd of April, however, an order of the prince regent in council appeared in the Gazette, revoking entirely the former orders in so far as regarded America, but only on the condition that the government of the United States should also revoke an order by which it had some time previously exeluded British armed vessels from its ports, while it admitted those of France. This conditional revocation being still considered unsatisfactory, Lord Stanley, on the 28th of April, moved in the Commons for a committee of inquiry into the subject generally, and the discussion ended by ministers giving their assent to the motion. Many witnesses were in consequence examined, both by this committee and by another of the Lords, which sat at the same time, having been obtained on the 5th of May on the motion of Earl Fitzwilliam. When the examinations had been brought to a close, Mr. Brougham, on the 16th of June, moved in the Commons, that the crown should be addressed to recall or suspend the orders uncondi tionally. At the termination of this discussion ministers intimated that they were prepared to concede the question; and accordingly, on the 23rd of the same month, an unconditional suspension of the orders, in so far as America was concerned, appeared in the Gazette. By this time, however, the government of the United States had declared war, on the ground, as is well known, not only of the orders in council, but of other alleged acts of injustice on the part of the British government. The policy of the British government in issuing the orders in council of November, 1807, was maintained by its opponents to be wrong, on the double ground that it was both inexpedient and not warranted by the principles of the law of nations. On this latter head it was argued that no violation of international law by one belligerent power could justify the other in pursuing a similar course. The question, like all others connected with the law of blockade, appears to be one which must be determined chiefly by a reference to the rights of neutral powers, as regulated by the principle already stated, namely, that no neutral power shall be annoyed or incommoded by any warlike operation, which shall not have a greater tendency to benefit the belligerent than to injure the neutral. In this case the benefit which the British government professed to expect from its retaliatory policy, which was the excitement of a spirit of resistance to the original French decree both in neutral countries and among the people of France themselves, was extremely problematical from the first, and turned out eventually to be wholly delusive. On the other hand, the injury to neutrals was certain and of large amount, tending in fact to interdict and, as far as possible, to put a stop to the entire peaceful commercial intercourse of the world. The orders in council were sometimes defended, for want of better reasons, on a very peculiar ground, namely, on that of the pecuniary advantage which the country derived from the captures made under them, from the increase of port dues which they occasioned, and from the revenue obtained by the licensing system. In resting the justification of the orders | in council upon the ground of their expediency, their defenders of course contended that they were essential to the effective prosecution of the war, and that we were therefore justified in disregarding the injury which they might indirectly inflict upon neutrals. It was anticipated, as we have observed above, in the first place, that the pressure of their operation would excite both the American government, and even the inhabitants of France themselves, and of the various countries of Europe subject to the French emperor, to insist upon the revocation of the Berlin decree. But the effect anticipated was not produced. Neither the people of France, nor of any other portion of Bonaparte's empire, rose or threatened to rise in insurrection on account of the stoppage of trade occasioned by the edicts of the two belligerent powers; and America went to war, not with France, but with us, choosing to reserve the assertion of her claims for wrongs suffered under the Berlin decree to another opportunity, while she determined to resist our orders in council by force of arms. But secondly, it was contended that the policy adopted by the orders in council was necessary to save our commerce from what would otherwise have been the ruinous effects of the Berlin decree. This argument, also, if its validity is to be tried by the facts as they actually fell out, will scarcely appear to be well founded. The preponderance of the evidence collected in the course of the successive inquiries which took place was decidedly in favour of the representations made by the opponents of the orders, who maintained that, instead of having proved any protection or support to our foreign trade, they had most seriously embarrassed and curtailed it. The authors of the orders themselves must indeed be considered to have come over to this view of the matter, when they consented, as they at lengn did, to their entire repeal. In the actual circumstances of the present case, the convenient interposition of America, by means of which British manufactured goods were still enabled to find their way in large quantities to the Continent in spite of the Berlin decree, would seem to have been the last thing at which the government of this country should have taken umbrage, or which it should have attempted to put down. As the French ruler found it expedient to tolerate this interposition, in open disregard of his decree, it surely was no business of ours to set ourselves to cut off a channel of exit for our merchandise, so fortunately left open when nearly every other was shut. BOARD, a word used to denote, in their collective capacity, certain persons to whom is intrusted the management of some office or department, usually of a public or corporate character. Thus the lords of the treasury and admiralty, the commissioners of customs, the lords of the committee of the privy council for the affairs of trade, &c., are, when met together for the transaction of the business of their respective offices, styled the Board of Treasury, the Board of Admiralty, the Board of Customs, the Board of Trade, &c. The same word is used to designate the persons chosen from among the proprietors to manage the operations of any joint-stock association, who are styled the Board of Directors. In parochial government the guardians of the poor, &c. are called the Board of Guardians, &c. The word bureau in France is an equivalent expression. BONA FIDES and BONA FIDE is an expression often used in the conversation of common life. It is also often in the mouths of lawyers, and it occurs in Acts of Parliament, where (in some cases at least) it means that the acts referred to must not be done to evade the law, or in fraud of the law, as we sometimes express it, following the Roman phraseology (in fraudem legis). It appears to be used pursuant to the meaning of the words, in the sense of good faith, which implies the absence of all fraud or deceit. Bona Fides is therefore opposed to fraud, and is a necessary ingredient in contracts, and in many acts which do not belong to con tracts. How much fraud may be legally used, or what is the meaning of Bona Fides in any particular case, will depend on the facts. Many things are not legal frauds, and many things are legally done The phrase Bona Fides originated with the Romans, and it is opposed to Mala Fides, or Dolus (fraud). The notion of equity (æquitas), equality, fair dealing, equal dealing, is another form of expressing Bona Fides. He who possessed the property of another bonâ fide, might, so far as the general rules of law permitted, acquire the ownership of such property by use (usucapio). In this case bona fides consisted in believing that his possession originated in a good title, or, as Gaius (ii. 43) expresses it, when the possessor believed that he who transferred the thing to him was the owner. Bona Fide, which the common notions of the actions in which this formula is used fair dealing condemn. were actions arising out of contracts or quasi contracts; and not actions founded on delict, nor actions in which the ownership of a thing was in question. By leaving out the expression "ex bona fide" in the Intentio just quoted, the action is reduced to an action stricti juris. The bonæ fidei actio, by virtue of the formula (quidquid, &c.), referred to a thing not determined: the stricti juris actio might refer to a thing determined, as a particular field or slave, which was the subject of a contract, or to a thing undetermined (quidquid). Therefore all indeterminate actions (incertæ actiones) were not bonæ fidei actiones, but all bonæ fidei actiones were incerta actiones. The Romans classed under the head of bonæ fidei obligationes a great variety of contracts, and also of legal acts, as buying, selling, mandatum [AGENT], guardianship, &c. Actions founded on these obligations were called "bonæ fidei actiones," and the legal proceedings were called "bonæ fidei judicia." The name arose from the formula "ex bona fide," which was inserted in the Intentio, or that part of the Prætor's formula (instruction to the judex) which had reference to the plaintiff's claim, and empowered the judex to decide according to the equity of the case, ex fide bona. Sometimes the expression "æquus melius" was used instead of ex fide bona. Thus actions founded on contract, or on acts which bore an analogy to contract, were distributed into the two classes of Condictiones, or stricti judicii, or stricti juris actiones, and bonæ fidei actiones, or actions in which the inquiry was about the strict legal rights of the parties and actions in which the general principles of fair dealing were to be taken into the account. The object which was attained by the bonæ fidei judicia oears an analogy to the relief which may be sometimes obtained in a Court of Equity in England, when there is none in a Court of Law. BONA NOTABILIA. [EXECUTOR.] BOOK TRADE. The substance of this notice is condensed, with slight alterations here and there, from a 'Postscript' to William Caxton: a Biography,' by Mr. Charles Knight, which gives a history of the "Progress of the Press in England." The subject may be divided into five periods: I. From the introduction of printing by Caxton to the accession of James I., 1603. II. From 1603 to the Revolution, 1688. IV. From 1760 to 1800. I. One of the earliest objects of the first printers was to preserve from further destruction the scattered manuscripts of the ancient poets, orators, and historians. But after the first half-century of printing men of letters anxiously demanded copies of the ancient classics. The Alduses and Stephenses and Plantins produced neat and compactly printed octavos and duodecimos, instead of the expensive folios of their predecessors. The instant that they did this, the foundations of literature were The Intentio in the class of actions widened and deepened. They probably called Condictiones was in this form at first overrated the demand; indeed, quidquid (ob eam rem) Numerium Ne- we know they did so, and they suffered gidium Aulo Egerio dare facere oportet in consequence; but a new demand very ex fide bona-whatever Numerius Negi- soon followed upon the first demand for dius ought pursuant to good faith to give cheap copies of the ancient classics. The or do to Aulus Egerius (Gaius, ii. 47). All | first English Bible was bought up and burnt; those who bought the Bibles con- | tributed capital for making new Bibles, and those who burnt the Bibles by so doing advertised them. The first printers of the Bible were, however, cautious-they did not see the number of readers upon which they were to rely for a sale. In 1540 Grafton printed only 500 copies of his complete edition of the Scriptures: and yet, so great was the rush to this new supply of the most important knowledge, that we have existing 326 editions of the English Bible, or parts of the Bible, printed between 1526 and 1600. The early English printers did not attempt what the continental printers were doing for the ancient classics. Down to 1540 no Greek book had appeared from an English press. Oxford had only printed a part of Cicero's Epistles; Cambridge, no ancient writer whatever only three or four old Roman writers had been reprinted, at that date, throughout England. The English nobility were, probably, for more than the first half-century of English printing, the great encouragers of our press: they required translations and abridgments of the classics-versions of French and Italian romances, old chronicles, and helps to devout exercises. Caxton and his successors abundantly supplied these wants, and the impulse to most of their exertions was given by the growing demand for literary amusement on the part of the great. But the priests strove with the laity for the education of the people; and not only in Protestant, but in Catholic countries, were schools and universities everywhere founded. Here, again, was a new source of employment for the press-A, B, C's, or Absies, Primers, Catechisms, Grammars, Dictionaries, were multiplied in every direction. Books became, also, during this period, the tools of professional men. There were not many works of medicine, but a great many of law. The people, too, required instruction in the laws which they were required to obey; and thus the Statutes, mostly written in French, were translated and abridged by Rastell, an eminent law-printer. Even as early as the time of Caxton the press was employed to promulgate new laws. Taken altogether, the activity of the press of England, during the first period of our inquiry, was very remarkable. To William Caxton, our first printer, are assigned 64 works. Wynkyn de Worde, the able assistant and friend of Caxton, produced the large number of 408 books from 1493 to 1535, that is, upon an average, he printed 10 books in each year. To Richard Pynson, supposed to have been an assistant of Caxton, 212 works are assigned, between 1493 and 1531. From the time of Caxton's press to that of Thomas Hacket, with whose name Dr. Dibdin's work concludes, we have the enumeration of 2926 books. The Typographical Antiquities' of Ames and Herbert comes down to a later period. They recorded the names of three hundred and fifty printers in England and Scotland, or of foreign printers engaged in producing books for England, who were working between 1474 and 1600. The same authors have recorded the titles (we have counted with sufficient accuracy to make the assertion) of nearly 10,000 distinct works printed among us during the same period. Many of these works, however, were only single sheets; but, on the other hand, there are doubtless many not here registered. Dividing the total number of books printed during these 130 years, we find that the average number of distinct works produced each year was 75. Long after the invention of printing and its introduction into England, books were dear. In the Privy Purse Accounts of Elizabeth of York,' published by Sir H. Nicolas, we find that, in 1505, twenty pence were given for a Primer' and a Psalter. In 1505 twenty pence would have bought half a load of barley, and were equal to six days' work of a labourer. In 1516 Fitzherbert's Abridgment,' a large folio law-book, the first published, was sold for forty shillings. At that time forty shillings would have bought three fat oxen. Books gradually became cheaper as the printers ventured to rely upon a larger number of purchasers. The exclusive privileges that were given to individuals for printing all sorts of books. during the reigns of Henry VIII., Mary, and Elizabeth-although they were in accordance with the spirit of monopoly which characterized that age, and were often granted to prevent the spread of books-offer a proof that the market was not large enough to enable the producers to incur the risk of competition. One with another, 200 copies may be estimated to have been printed of each book during the period we have been noticing; we think that proportioning the fourteen years from 1666 to 1680, would have been quite adequate to the supply of the limited number of readers -to many of whom the power of reading was a novelty unsanctioned by the practice of their forefathers. tempt. We have before us a catalogue (the first compiled in this country) of "all the books printed in England since the dreadful fire, 1666, to the end of Trinity Term, 1680," which catalogue is continued to 1685, year by year. A great many-we may fairly say one-half-of these books, are single sermons and tracts. Tue whole number of books printed dur II. The second period of the English press, from the accession of James I. to the Revolution, was distinguished by pedantry at one time, to which succeeded the violence of religious and political controversy; and then came the profligate literature of the Restoration. The press was exceedingly active during the politico-religious contest. There is, in the British Museum, a collection of 2000 volumes of Tracts issued between the years 1640 and 1660, the whole number of which several publications amounts to the enormous quantity of 30,000. The number of impressions of new books unconnected with controversial subjects must have been very small during this period. After the Restoration an act of parliament was passed that only twenty printers should practise their art in the kingdom. We see by a petition to parliament in 1666, that there were only 140 "working printers" in London. They were quite enough to produce the kind of literature which the court required. At the fire of London, in 1666, the booksellers dwelling about St. Paul's lost an immense stock of books in quires, amounting, according to Evelyn, to the value of 200,000l., which they were accustomed to stow in the vaults of the metropolitan cathedral, and of other neighbouring churches. At that time the people were beginning to read again, and to think;-and as new capital rushed in to replace the consumed stock of books, there was once more considerable activity in printing. The laws that regulated the number of printers soon after fell into disuse, as they had long fallen into con we ascertain, by counting, was 3550, of which 947 were divinity, 420 law, and 153 physic,-so that two-fifths of the whole were professional books; 397 were school-books, and 253 on subjects of geography and navigation, including maps. Taking the average of these fourteen years, the total number of works produced yearly was 253; but deducting the reprints, pamphlets, single sermons, and maps, we may fairly assume that the yearly average of new books was much under 100. Of the number of copies constituting an edition we have no record; probably it must have been small, for the price of a book, as far as we can ascertain it, was considerable. In a catalogue, with prices, printed twenty-two years after the one we have just noticed, we find that the ordinary cost of an octavo was five shillings. III. We have arrived at the third stage of this rapid sketch-from the Revolution to the accession of George III. This period will ever be memorable in our history for the creation, in great part, of periodical literature. Till newspapers, and magazines, and reviews, and cyclopædias were established, the people, even the middle classes, could not fairly be said to have possessed themselves of the keys of knowledge. The publication of intelligence began during the wars of Charles I. and his Parliament. But the 'Mercuries' of those days were little more than occasional pamphlets. Burton speaks of a "Pamphlet of News." Before the Revolution there were several London papers, regulated, however, by privileges and sarveyors of the press. Soon after the be ginning of the eighteenth century (1709) London had one daily paper, fifteen three times a week, and one twice a week: this was before a stamp-duty was imposed on papers. After the stamp-duty in 1724 |