Chapter XVI: Act 1895: , No. 20 of 1895) (2)

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_).

(2) vii. 14-xi. 10. _The First Plagues of Egypt._--In this section the
analysis again reveals three main sources, which are clearly marked
off from one another both by their linguistic features and by their
difference of representation. The principal source is J, from which
are derived six plagues, viz. killing of the fish in the river (vii.
14, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 24, 25), frogs (viii. 1-4, 8-150), insects
(viii. 20-32), murrain (ix. 1-7), hail (ix. 13-18, 23b, 24b, 25b-34),
locusts (x. 1a, 3-11, 13b, 14b, 15a, c-19, 24-26, 28, 29), the threat
to slay all the first-born (xi. 4-8). The most striking characteristic
of this narrative is that the plagues are represented as mainly due to
natural causes and follow a natural sequence. Thus Yahweh smites the
river so that the fish die and render the water undrinkable. This is
succeeded by a plague of frogs. The swarms of flies and insects, which
next appear, are the natural outcome of the decaying masses of frogs,
and these, in turn, would form a natural medium for the spread of
cattle disease. Destructive hailstorms, again, though rare, are not
unknown in Egypt, while the locusts are definitely stated to have been
brought by a strong east wind. Other distinctive features of J's
narrative are: (1) Moses alone is bidden to interview Pharaoh (vii. 14
f.; viii. 1 f., 20 f.; ix. 1 f., 13 f.; x. 1 f.); (2) on each occasion
he makes a formal demand; (3) on Pharaoh's refusal the plague is
announced, and takes place at a fixed time without any human
intervention; (4) when the plague is sent, Pharaoh sends for Moses and
entreats his intercession, promising in most cases to accede in part
to his request; when the plague is removed, however, the promise is
left unfulfilled, the standing phrase being "and Pharaoh's heart was
heavy ([Hebrew: kaved])," or "and Pharaoh made heavy ([Hebrew:
hihbid]) his heart"; (5) the plagues do not affect the children of
Israel in Goshen. E's account (water turned into blood, vii. 15, 17b,
20b, 23; hail, ix. 22, 23a, 24a, 25a, 35; locusts, x. 12, 13a, 14a,
15b) is more fragmentary, having been doubtless superseded in most
cases by the fuller and more graphic narrative of J, but the plague of
darkness (x. 20-23, 27) is found only in this source. As contrasted
with J the narrative emphasizes the miraculous character of the
plagues. They are brought about by "the rod of God," which Moses
wields, the effect being instantaneous and all-embracing. The
Israelites are represented as living among the Egyptians, and enjoy no
immunity from the plagues, except that of darkness. Their departure
from Egypt is deliberate; the people have time to borrow raiment and
jewels from their neighbours. E regularly uses the phrase "and
Pharaoh's heart was strong ([Hebrew: hazak])," or "and Yahweh made
strong ([Hebrew: hizek]) Pharaoh's heart" and "he would not let the
children of Israel (or, them) go." In the priestly narrative (P) the
plagues assume the form of a trial of skill between Aaron, who acts at
Moses' command, and the Egyptian magicians, and thus connect with vii.
8-13. The magicians succeed in turning the Nile water into blood (vii.
19, 20a, 21b, 22), and in bringing up frogs (viii. 5-7), but they fail
to bring forth lice (viii. 15b-19), and are themselves smitten with
boils (ix. 8-12): the two last-named plagues have no parallel either
in J or E. Throughout the P sections Aaron is associated with Moses,
and the regular command given to the latter is "Say unto Aaron": no
demand is ever made to Pharaoh, and the description of the plague is
quite short. The formula employed by P is "and Pharaoh's heart was
strong ([Hebrew: hazak])," or, "and Pharaoh made strong ([Hebrew:
hizek]) his heart," as in E, but it is distinguished from E's phrase
by the addition of "and he hearkened not unto them as Yahweh had
spoken."