foretold, but (to summarize the views just presented) it seems a safe augury from present-day conditions and tendencies that the important lines of progress will include (1) the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity; (2) the lessening of international jealousies and the consequent minimizing of the drain upon communal resources that attends a military régime; and (3) an ever-increasing movement towards the industrial and economic unification of the world. (H. S. Wi.)
Authorities.—A list of works dealing with the savage and barbarous periods of human development will be found appended to the article Anthropology. Special reference may here be made to E. B. Tylor’s Early History of Mankind (1865), Primitive Culture (1871) and Anthropology (1881); Lord Avebury’s Prehistoric Times (new edition, 1900) and Origin of Civilization (new edition, 1902); A. H. Keane’s Man Past and Present (1899); and Lewis H. Morgan’s Ancient Society (1877). The earliest attempt at writing a history of civilization which has any value for the 20th-century reader was F. Guizot’s in 1828–1830, a handy English translation by William Hazlitt being included in Bohn’s Standard Library under the title of The History of Civilization. The earlier lectures, delivered at the Old Sorbonne, deal with the general progress of European civilization, whilst the greater part of the work is an account of the growth of civilization in France. Guizot’s attitude is somewhat antiquated, but this book still has usefulness as a storehouse of facts. T. H. Buckle’s famous work, The History of Civilization in England (1857–1861), though only a gigantic unfinished introduction to the author’s proposed enterprise, holds an important place in historical literature on account of the new method which it introduced, and has given birth to a considerable number of valuable books on similar lines, such as Lecky’s History of European Morals (1869) and Rise and Influence of Rationalism in Europe (1865). J. W. Draper’s History of the Intellectual Development of Europe (1861) undertook, from the American stand-point, “the labour of arranging the evidence offered by the intellectual history of Europe in accordance with physiological principles, so as to illustrate the orderly progress of civilization.” Its objective treatment and wealth of learning still give it great value to the student. Since the third quarter of the 19th century it may be said that all serious historical work has been more or less a history of civilization as displayed in all countries and ages, and a bibliography of the works bearing on the subject would be coextensive with the catalogue of a complete historical library. Special mention, however, may be made of such important and suggestive works as C. H. Pearson’s National Life and Character (1893); Benjamin Kidd’s Social Evolution (1894) and Principles of Western Civilization (1902); Edward Eggleston’s Transit of Civilization (1901); C. Seignobos’s Histoire de la civilisation (1887); C. Faulmann’s Illustrirte Culturgeschichte (1881); G. Ducoudray’s Histoire de la civilisation (1886); J. von Hellwald’s Kulturgeschichte (1896); J. Lippert’s Kulturgeschichte der Menschheit (1886); O. Henne-am-Rhyn’s Die Kultur der Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft (1890); G. Kurth’s Origines de la civilisation moderne (1886), &c. The vast collection of modern works on sociology, from Herbert Spencer onwards, should also be consulted; see bibliography attached to the article Sociology. The historical method on which practically all the articles of the present edition of the Ency. Brit. are planned, makes the whole work itself in essentials the most comprehensive history of civilization in existence.
CIVIL LAW, a phrase which, with its Latin equivalent jus civile, has been used in a great variety of meanings. Jus civile
was sometimes used to distinguish that portion of the Roman
law which was the proper or ancient law of the city or state of
Rome from the jus gentium, or the law common to all the nations
comprising the Roman world, which was incorporated with
the former through the agency of the praetorian edicts. This
historical distinction remained as a permanent principle of division
in the body of the Roman law. One of the first propositions of
the Institutes of Justinian is the following:—“Jus autem civile
vel gentium ita dividitur. Omnes populi qui legibus et moribus
reguntur partim suo proprio, partim communi omnium hominum
jure utuntur; nam quod quisque populus ipsi sibi jus constituit,
id ipsius civitatis proprium est, vocaturque jus civile quasi jus
proprium ipsius civitatis. Quod vero naturalis ratio inter omnes
homines constituit, id apud omnes peraeque custoditur, vocaturque
jus gentium quasi quo jure omnes gentes utuntur.” The
jus gentium of this passage is elsewhere identified with jus naturale,
so that the distinction comes to be one between civil law and
natural or divine law. The municipal or private law of a state
is sometimes described as civil law in distinction to public or
international law. Again, the municipal law of a state may be
divided into civil law and criminal law. The phrase, however,
is applied par excellence to the system of law created by the
genius of the Roman people, and handed down by them to the
nations of the modern world (see Roman Law). The civil law
in this sense would be distinguished from the local or national
law of modern states. The civil law in this sense is further to
be distinguished from that adaptation of its principles to ecclesiastical
purposes which is known as the canon law (q.v.).
CIVIL LIST, the English term for the account in which are
contained all the expenses immediately applicable to the support
of the British sovereign’s household and the honour and
dignity of the crown. An annual sum is settled by the British
parliament at the beginning of the reign on the sovereign, and is
charged on the consolidated fund. But it is only from the reign
of William IV. that the sum thus voted has been restricted solely
to the personal expenses of the crown. Before his accession
many charges properly belonging to the ordinary expenses of
government had been placed on the civil list. The history
History
of the civil list dates from the reign of William and
Mary. Before the Revolution no distinction had
been made between the expenses of government in time of
peace and the expenses relating to the personal dignity and
support of the sovereign. The ordinary revenues derived from
the hereditary revenues of the crown, and from certain taxes
voted for life to the king at the beginning of each reign, were
supposed to provide for the support of the sovereign’s dignity
and the civil government, as well as for the public defence in
time of peace. Any saving made by the king in the expenditure
touching the government of the country or its defence would go to
swell his privy purse. But with the Revolution a step forward
was made towards the establishment of the principle that the
expenses relating to the support of the crown should be separated
from the ordinary expenses of the state. The evils of the old
system under which no appropriation was made of the ordinary
revenue granted to the crown for life had been made manifest
in the reigns of Charles II. and James II.; it was their control
of these large revenues that made them so independent of
parliament. Moreover, while the civil government and the defences
suffered, the king could use these revenues as he liked. The
parliament of William and Mary fixed the revenue of the crown
in time of peace at £1,200,000 per annum; of this sum about
£700,000 was appropriated towards the “civil list.” But from
this the sovereign was to defray the expenses of the civil service
and the payment of pensions, as well as the cost of the support
of the royal household and his own personal expenses. It was
from this that the term “civil list” arose, to distinguish it from
the statement of military and naval charges. The revenue voted
to meet the civil list consisted of the hereditary revenues of the
crown and a part of the excise duties. Certain changes and additions
were made in the sources of revenue thus appropriated
between the reign of William and Mary and the accession of
George III., when a different system was adopted. Generally
speaking, however, the sources of revenue remained as settled
at the Revolution.
Anne had the same civil list, estimated to produce an annual income of £700,000. During her reign a debt of £1,200,000 was incurred. This debt was paid by parliament and charged on the civil list itself. George I. enjoyed the same revenue by parliamentary grant, in addition to Anne, George I.
and George II. an annual sum of £120,000 on the aggregate fund. A debt of £1,000,000 was incurred, and discharged by parliament in the same manner as Anne’s debt had been. To George II. a civil list of £800,000 as a minimum was granted, parliament undertaking to make up any deficiency if the sources of income appropriated to its service fell short of that sum. Thus in 1746 a debt of £456,000 was paid by parliament on the civil list. On the accession of George III. a change was made in the system of the civil list. Hitherto the sources of revenue appropriated to the service of the civil list had been settled on the crown. If these revenues exceeded the sum they were computed to produce annually, the surplus went to the king. George III., however, surrendered the life-interest in the hereditaryGeorge III. revenues and the excise duties hitherto voted to defray
