Attainder was the most solemn penalty known to the common law. Attainder for treason was followed not only by the most savage and brutal corporal penalties and the forfeiture of all possessions, but in addition the corruption of blood passing to all direct descendants, in other words, by the legal death of the family. Before proceeding to an examination of the effects of parliamentary acts of attainder in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries it is necessary first of all to define the scope of forfeiture for treason as it affected landed property. Bracton's classic definition of forfeiture had involved for the traitor ‘the loss of all his goods and the perpetual disinheritance of his heirs, so that they may be admitted neither to the paternal nor to the maternal inheritance’. Feudal opinion had always been very much opposed to the stringency of this conception and the Edwardian statute De Donis Conditionalibus, confirmed implicitly by the treason statute of 1352, had protected entailed estates from the scope of forfeiture, thus leaving only the fee simple and the widow's dower within the scope of the law. The wife's own inheritance or any jointure which had been made for her, because they ante-dated her husband's treason, as distinct from her right to dower which did not, were not liable to ultimate forfeiture—though a married woman could claim them only when ‘her time came according to the common law’, that is after the death of her husband when she ceased to be ‘femme couvert’. This equitable principle was confirmed by a statute of the Merciless Parliament of 1388 which, however, included for the first time the rule that lands held to the use of a traitor were also included in the scope of forfeiture. Thus, by 1388, of the lands held by a traitor (as distinct from the wife's inheritance and jointure), only those held in fee tail fell outside the scope of the treason laws. This loophole was closed by Richard II in 1398 when Parliament declared forfeit entailed estates as well as lands held in fee simple and to the use of a traitor, thus reverting with one exception to Bracton's view of forfeiture.

The events of 1857 etched themselves deeply into the consciousness of the British in India. Throughout the remaining years of British rule the lessons of the Mutiny were never forgotten; indeed they provided the constant backdrop against which British policy was enacted. To a large extent this experience played a decisive role in recasting the whole direction of British policy. Its impact on policy toward the native Indian states was sharp, and lasting in its effects. Canning realized that the native states were ‘break-waters to the storm which would otherwise have swept over us in one great wave’, and he henceforward, by his grant of the right of adoption, committed Britain to their maintenance.1 This post-Mutiny solicitude for the native states stands in obvious contrast with the deprecatory, if not avowedly annexationist, policy of Canning's predecessors.

The neutralization of the Black Sea was, perhaps, the most important single result of the Crimean War. Regarded by the western allies as a valuable new element in the security of Turkey, it was resented by the Russians as an intolerable insult to their national honour. It rapidly became the object of a diplomatic struggle. Whilst allied—and especially British—diplomacy watched with a jealous eye over its observance, the Russian Government left no stone unturned to secure its early abrogation. With treaty revision the principal object of Russian diplomacy, any European issue between 1856 and 1870 regardless of its origin, became entangled in some form or other with the Black Sea Question. On more than one occasion, the problem forced itself on the attention of the cabinets.

At the present time there is considerable divergence of opinion on the question of whether or not one can speak meaningfully of political parties during the reign of Anne. An effective means of answering the question would be at hand if there were a sufficient number of division lists available. Then, the actions of individual politicians could be charted with precision and it would be possible to determine whether M.P.'s voted in conformity with family groupings or on the basis of what are generally termed Whig and Tory principles. Unfortunately, up to the present time only seven division lists for Anne's reign have been discovered. Thus, the discovery of the eighth, given below, is of some importance.1

The writer is Arthur Dobbs (1689–1765), M.P. for Carrickfergus, later Governor of North Carolina, and a lifelong believer in the North-West Passage. The letter is in the Walpole Papers. (Cambridge University Library by courtesy of the Marquis of Cholmondeley), but the Memorandum to which it relates is absent. However, the rough draft of the Memorandum, from which I quote at length, is in the Dobbs Papers from Castle Dobbs, Carrickfergus, now on deposit with the Public Record Office, Belfast, and there marked ‘82, undated’.

The extent and influence of political and economic organizations among the lower classes was a marked feature of Irish life in the early nineteenth century. Trade unions flourished among the workers of many trades and were bitterly resented by manufacturers.1 These unions were primarily concerned to protect the living standards of their members against the encroachments of the employers. However, matters of national importance also excited their attention. Tradesmen all over Ireland supported the agitation for Repeal of the Act of Union (1801). A number of Dublin tradesmen took part in the revolutionary disturbances in 1848. In Ireland organization for political and economic ends in opposition to the dominant orthodoxy was a familiar and honoured tradition.

Professor Jordan has now brought out the first of two volumes which are to supply the detailed evidence for the statistical arguments in his study of Philanthropy in England 1480–1660. That book showed that the London merchant classes were among the most active and generous benefactors both in London itself and elsewhere in the kingdom, and the bulk of this one consists of masses of illustrative detail digested under three main heads: the geography of the London parishes; the classes of people and their charitable aims; the classes of charities served. These categories and the main conclusions are familiar from the earlier book which was reviewed at length in these columns (vol.III, pp. 89 ff.). Here, with a wealth of facts and pernickety percentages worked out to two places of decimals, Professor Jordan once again declares that in the century under discussion the rich were remarkably ready to provide for the less fortunate, and that charity was turning from religious to secular purposes. There can be no doubt that his enthusiasm and powers of research make his work an important repository of information, nor that up to a point his arguments carry conviction. Unfortunately, however, the main effect of the new book is to increase one's doubts of his methods and conclusions. And again, these are enforced rather than silenced by his lavishing of superlatives: when one reads that Edward Alleyn, the actor, was ‘almost fanatically interested in the plight of the poor’ because he endowed an almshouse for ten persons, one wonders if Professor Jordan is perhaps employing a different version of the English language.