confirmation of Dr Temple’s election as bishop of Exeter, the vicar-general heard counsel on the question whether he could receive objections, and decided that he could not. When the same prelate was elected to Canterbury, the course here laid down was followed, as also at the confirmation. of Dr Mandell Creighton’s election to the see of London. Objections were again raised, in 1902, against Dr Charles Gore, elect of Worcester; and an application was made to the king’s bench for a mandamus against the archbishop and his vicar-general when the latter declined to entertain them. By a unanimous judgment (February 10) the court, consisting of the lord chief justice (Lord Alverstone) and Justices Wright and Ridley, refused the mandamus. Without deciding that objections (e.g. to the identity of the elect, or the genuineness of documents) could never be investigated by the vicar-general or the archbishop, it held that they could not even entertain objections of the kind alleged. At the confirmation of Dr Cosmo Gordon Lang’s election as archbishop of York, held in the Church House on the 20th of January 1909, objections were raised on behalf of the Protestant Truth Society to the confirmation, on the ground that the archbishop-elect had, while bishop suffragan of Stepney, connived at and encouraged flagrant breaches of the law as to church ritual, taken part in illegal ceremonies, and the like. The objectors were heard by the archbishop of Canterbury and the other commissioners in chambers, the decision being that, in accordance with the judgment of the court of king’s bench above cited, the objections could not lawfully be received since they did not fall within the province of the commissioners. The archbishop also pointed out that the form of citation (to objectors) had been modified since 1902, but suggested that it was “a matter for consideration Whether the terminology of the citation could be altered so as to bring everything into complete accordance with the law of the Church and realm” (see The Times, January 21, 1909). Formerly the archbishop had the right of option, i.e. of choosing any one piece of preferment in the gift of a bishop confirmed by him, and bestowing it upon whom he would; but this has been held to be abolished by a clause in the Cathedral Act of 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c. 113, s. 42). And the election of a dean by a cathedral chapter used to receive the bishop’s confirmation (Oughton, Ordo Judiciorum, No. cxxvii.).
Authorities.—L. Thomassin, Vetus et nova disciplina, pars. ii. lib. ii. tit. 1-4 (1705–1706); E. Gibson, Codex juris ecclesiastici anglicani, tit. v. cap. i. (1761); W. H. Bliss, Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vols. i.-vii. (London, 1893–1906); John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae (Oxford, 1854); R. Jebb, Report of the Hampden Case (London, 1849); Sir R. J. Phillimore, Ecclesiastical Law, pp. 36-47 (London, 1895); art. “The Confirmation of Archbishops and Bishops” in the Guardian for January 20, 1897, pp. 106-107; “Judgment in the Gore Case,” in the Guardian for February 12, 1902, pp. 234 ff.
CONFISCATION (from Lat. confiscare, to consign to the fiscus, or imperial treasury), in Roman law the seizure and transfer of private property to the fiscus by the emperor; hence the appropriation, under legal authority, of private property to the state; in English law the term embraces forfeiture (q.v.) in the case of goods, and escheat (q.v.) in the case of lands, for crime or in default of heirs (see also Eminent Domain). Goods may also be confiscated by the state for breaches of statutes relating to customs, excise or explosives. In the United States among the “war measures” during the Civil War, acts were passed in 1861 and 1862 confiscating, respectively, property used for “insurrectionary purposes” and the property generally of those engaged in rebellion. The word is used, popularly, of spoliation under legal forms, or of any seizure of property without adequate compensation.
CONFOLENS, a town of south-western France, capital of an
arrondissement in the department of Charente, 44 m. N .E. of
Angoulême by rail. Pop. (1906) 2546. Confolens is situated
on the banks of the Vienne at its confluence with the Goire. It
is an ancient town, with steep narrow streets bordered by old
houses. It possesses two bridges of the 15th century, remains
of a castle of the 12th century, and two churches, one of the 11th,
another of the 14th and 15th centuries. The subprefecture,
a tribunal of first instance, and a communal college are among
the public institutions. Flour, leather, laces and paper are its
industrial products, and there is trade in timber and cattle.
CONFUCIUS [K ʽung tsze] (550 or 551–478 B.C.), the famous sage of China. In order to understand the events of his life and the influence of his opinions, we must endeavour to get some impression of the China that existed in his time, in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C.
The dynasty of Chow, the third which within historic time had Condition of China in time of Confucius.ruled the country, lasting from 1122 to 256 B.C., had passed its zenith, and its kings no longer held the sceptre with a firm grasp. The territory under their sway was not a sixth part of the present empire. For thirteen years of his life Confucius wandered about from state to state, seeking rest and patrons; but his journeyings were confined within the modern provinces of Ho-nan and Shantung, and the borders of Chih-li and Hu-peh.
Within the China of the Chow dynasty there might be a population, in Confucius’s time, of from 10,000,000 to 15,000,000. We read frequently, in the classical books, of the “ten thousand states” in which the people were distributed, but that is merely a grand exaggeration. In what has been called, though erroneously, as we shall see, Confucius’s History of his own Times, we find only 13 states of note, and the number of all the states, large and small, which can be brought together from it, and the much more extensive supplement to it by Tso Kʽiu-ming, not much posterior to the sage, is under 150. Chow was a feudal kingdom. The lords of the different territories belonged to five orders of nobility, corresponding closely to the dukes, marquises, earls, counts and barons of feudal Europe. The theory of the constitution required that the princes, on every fresh succession, should receive investiture from the king, and thereafter appear at his court at stated times. They paid to him annually certain specified tributes, and might be called out with their military levies at any time in his service. A feudal kingdom was sure to be a prey to disorder unless there were energy and ability in the character and administration of the sovereign; and Confucius has sketched, in the work referred to above, the Annals of Lu, his native state, for 242 years, from 722 to 481 B.C., which might almost be summed up in the words: “In those days there was no king in China, and every prince did what was right in his own eyes.” In 1770 B.C. a northern horde had plundered the capital, which was then in the present department of Si-gan, Shen-si, and killed the king, whose son withdrew across the Ho and established himself in a new centre, near the present city of Lo-yang in Ho-nan; but from that time the prestige of Chow was gone. Its representatives continued for four centuries and a half with the title of king, but they were less powerful than several of their feudatories. The Annals of Lu, enlarged by Tso Kʽiu-ming so as to embrace the history of the kingdom generally, are as full of life and interest as the pages of Froissart. Feats of arms, great battles, heroic virtues, devoted friendships and atrocious crimes make the chronicles of China in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries before the birth of Christ as attractive as those of France and England in the 14th and some other centuries after it. There was in China in the former period more of literary culture and of many arts of civilization than there was in Europe in the latter. Not only the royal court, but every feudal court had its historiographers and musicians. Institutions of an educational character abounded. There were ancient histories and poems, and codes of laws, and books of ceremonies. Yet the period was one of widespread suffering and degeneracy. While the general government was feeble, disorganization was at work in each particular state.
Three things must be kept in mind when we compare feudal China with feudal Europe. First, we must take into account the long duration of the time through which the central authority was devoid of vigour. For about five centuries state was left to contend with state, and clan with clan in the several states. The result was chronic misrule, and misery to the masses of the people, with frequent famines. Secondly, we must take into account the institution of polygamy, with the low status assigned to woman and the many restraints put upon her. In the ancient
