His son, Erik Lie (b. 1868), published a successful volume of stories,Med Blyanten, in 1890; and is also the author of various works on literary history. An elder son, Mons Lie (b. 1864), studied the violin in Paris, but turned to literature in 1894. Among his works are the playsTragedier om Kjaerlighed(1897);Lombardo and Agrippina(1898);Don Juan(1900); and the novels,Sjöfareren(1901);Adam Ravn(1903) andI. Kvindensnet(1904).
His son, Erik Lie (b. 1868), published a successful volume of stories,Med Blyanten, in 1890; and is also the author of various works on literary history. An elder son, Mons Lie (b. 1864), studied the violin in Paris, but turned to literature in 1894. Among his works are the playsTragedier om Kjaerlighed(1897);Lombardo and Agrippina(1898);Don Juan(1900); and the novels,Sjöfareren(1901);Adam Ravn(1903) andI. Kvindensnet(1904).
(E. G.)
LIE, MARIUS SOPHUS(1842-1899), Norwegian mathematician, was born at Nordfjordeif, near Bergen, on the 17th of December 1842, and was educated at the university of Christiania, where he took his doctor’s degree in 1868 and became extraordinary professor of mathematics (a chair created specially for him) four years later. In 1886 he was chosen to succeed Felix Klein in the chair of geometry at Leipzig, but as his fame grew a special post was arranged for him in Christiania. But his health was broken down by too assiduous study, and he died at Christiania on the 18th of February 1899, six months after his return. Lie’s work exercised a great influence on the progress of mathematical science during the later decades of the 19th century. His primary aim has been declared to be the advancement and elaboration of the theory of differential equations, and it was with this end in view that he developed his theory of transformation groups, set forth in hisTheorie der Transformationsgruppen(3 vols., Leipzig, 1888-1893), a work of wide range and great originality, by which probably his name is best known. A special application of his theory of continuous groups was to the general problem of non-Euclidean geometry. The latter part of the book above mentioned was devoted to a study of the foundations of geometry, considered from the standpoint of B. Riemann and H. von Helmholtz; and he intended to publish a systematic exposition of his geometrical investigations, in conjunction with Dr G. Scheffers, but only one volume made its appearance (Geometrie der Berührungstransformationen, Leipzig, 1896). Lie was a foreign member of the Royal Society, as well as an honorary member of the Cambridge Philosophical Society and the London Mathematical Society, and his geometrical inquiries gained him the much-coveted honour of the Lobatchewsky prize.
An analysis of Lie’s works is given in theBibliotheca Mathematica(Leipzig, 1900).
An analysis of Lie’s works is given in theBibliotheca Mathematica(Leipzig, 1900).
LIEBER, FRANCIS(1800-1872), German-American publicist, was born at Berlin on the 18th of March 1800. He served with his two brothers under Blücher in the campaign of 1815, fighting at Ligny, Waterloo and Namur, where he was twice dangerously wounded. Shortly afterwards he was arrested for his political sentiments, the chief evidence against him being several songs of liberty which he had written. After several months he was discharged without a trial, but was forbidden to pursue his studies at the Prussian universities. He accordingly went to Jena, where he took his degrees in 1820, continuing his studies at Halle and Dresden. He subsequently took part in the Greek War of Independence, publishing his experiences in hisJournal in Greece(Leipzig, 1823, and under the titleThe German Anacharsis, Amsterdam, 1823). For a year he was in Rome as tutor to the son of the historian Niebuhr, then Prussian ambassador. Returning to Berlin in 1823, he was imprisoned at Koepenik, but was released after some months through the influence of Niebuhr. In 1827 he went to the United States and as soon as possible was naturalized as a citizen. He settled at Boston, and for five years editedThe Encyclopaedia Americana(13 vols.). From 1835 to 1856 he was professor of history and political economy in South Carolina College at Columbia, S.C., and during this period wrote his three chief works,Manual of Political Ethics(1838),Legal and Political Hermeneutics(1839), andCivil Liberty and Self Government(1853). In 1856 he resigned and next year was elected to a similar post in Columbia College, New York, and in 1865 became professor of constitutional history and public law in the same institution. During the Civil War Lieber rendered services of great value to the government. He was one of the first to point out the madness of secession, and was active in upholding the Union. He prepared, upon the requisition of the president, the importantCode of War for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field, which was promulgated by the Government in General Orders No. 100 of the war department. This code suggested to Bluntschli his codification of the law of nations, as may be seen in the preface to hisDroit International Codifié. During this period also Lieber wrote hisGuerilla Parties with Reference to the Laws and Usages of War. At the time of his death he was the umpire of the commission for the adjudication of Mexican claims. He died on the 2nd of October 1872. His books were acquired by the University of California, and his papers were placed in the Johns Hopkins University.
HisMiscellaneous Writingswere published by D. C. Gilman (Philadelphia, 1881). See T. S. Perry,Life and Letters(1882), and biography by Harby (1899).
HisMiscellaneous Writingswere published by D. C. Gilman (Philadelphia, 1881). See T. S. Perry,Life and Letters(1882), and biography by Harby (1899).
LIEBERMANN, MAX(1849- ), German painter and etcher, was born in Berlin. After studying under Steffeck, he entered the school of art at Weimar in 1869. Though the straightforward simplicity of his first exhibited picture, “Women plucking Geese,” in 1872, presented already a striking contrast to the conventional art then in vogue, it was heavy and bituminous in colour, like all the artist’s paintings before his visit to Paris at the end of 1872. A summer spent at Barbizon in 1873, where he became personally acquainted with Millet and had occasion to study the works of Corot, Troyon, and Daubigny, resulted in the clearing and brightening of his palette, and taught him to forget the example of Munkacsy, under whose influence he had produced his first pictures in Paris. He subsequently went to Holland, where the example of Israels confirmed him in the method he had adopted at Barbizon; but on his return to Munich in 1878 he caused much unfavourable criticism by his realistic painting of “Christ in the Temple,” which was condemned by the clergy as irreverent and remained his only attempt at a scriptural subject. Henceforth he devoted himself exclusively to the study of free-light and to the painting of the life of humble folk. He found his best subjects in the orphanages and asylums for the old in Amsterdam, among the peasants in the fields and village streets of Holland, and in the beer-gardens, factories, and workrooms of his own country. Germany was reluctant, however, in admitting the merit of an artist whose style and method were so markedly at variance with the time-honoured academic tradition. Only when his fame was echoed back from France, Belgium, and Holland did his compatriots realize the eminent position which is his due in the history of German art. It is hardly too much to say that Liebermann has done for his country what Millet did for France. His pictures hold the fragrance of the soil and the breezes of the heavens. His people move in their proper atmosphere, and their life is stated in all its monotonous simplicity, without artificial pathos or melodramatic exaggeration. His first success was a medal awarded him for “An Asylum for Old Men” at the 1881 Salon. In 1884 he settled again in Berlin, where he became professor of the Academy in 1898. He became a member of the Société nationale des Beaux Arts, of the Société royale belge des Aquarellistes, and of the Cercle des Aquarellistes at the Hague. Liebermann is represented in most of the German and other continental galleries. The Berlin National Gallery owns “The Flax-Spinners”; the Munich Pinakothek, “The Woman with Goats”; the Hamburg Gallery, “The Net-Menders”; the Hanover Gallery, the “Village Street in Holland.” “The Seamstress” is at the Dresden Gallery; the “Man on the Dunes” at Leipzig; “Dutch Orphan Girls” at Strassburg; “Beer-cellar at Brandenburg” at the Luxembourg Museum in Paris, and the “Knöpflerinnen” in Venice. His etchings are to be found in the leading print cabinets of Europe.
LIEBIG, JUSTUS VON,Baron(1803-1873), German chemist, was born at Darmstadt, according to his baptismal certificate, on the 12th of May 1803 (4th of May, according to his mother). His father, a drysalter and dealer in colours, used sometimes tomake experiments in the hope of finding improved processes for the production of his wares, and thus his son early acquired familiarity with practical chemistry. For the theoretical side he read all the text-books which he could find, somewhat to the detriment of his ordinary school studies. Having determined to make chemistry his profession, at the age of fifteen he entered the shop of an apothecary at Appenheim, near Darmstadt; but he soon found how great is the difference between practical pharmacy and scientific chemistry, and the explosions and other incidents that accompanied his private efforts to increase his chemical knowledge disposed his master to view without regret his departure at the end of ten months. He next entered the university of Bonn, but migrated to Erlangen when the professor of chemistry, K. W. G. Kastner (1783-1857), was appointed in 1821 to the chair of physics and chemistry at the latter university. He followed this professor to learn how to analyse certain minerals, but in the end he found that the teacher himself was ignorant of the process. Indeed, as he himself said afterwards, it was a wretched time for chemistry in Germany. No laboratories were accessible to ordinary students, who had to content themselves with what the universities could give in the lecture-room and the library, and though both at Bonn and Erlangen Liebig endeavoured to make up for the deficiencies of the official instruction by founding a students’ physical and chemical society for the discussion of new discoveries and speculations, he felt that he could never become a chemist in his own country. Therefore, having graduated as Ph.D. in 1822, he left Erlangen—where he subsequently complained that the contagion of the “greatest philosopher and metaphysician of the century” (Schelling), in a period “rich in words and ideas, but poor in true knowledge and genuine studies,” had cost him two precious years of his life—and by the liberality of Louis I., grand-duke of Hesse-Darmstadt, was enabled to go to Paris. By the help of L. J. Thénard he gained admission to the private laboratory of H. F. Gaultier de Claubry (1792-1873), professor of chemistry at the École de Pharmacie, and soon afterwards, by the influence of A. von Humboldt, to that of Gay-Lussac, where in 1824 he concluded his investigations on the composition of the fulminates. It was on Humboldt’s advice that he determined to become a teacher of chemistry, but difficulties stood in his way. As a native of Hesse-Darmstadt he ought, according to the academical rules of the time, to have studied and graduated at the university of Giessen, and it was only through the influence of Humboldt that the authorities forgave him for straying to the foreign university of Erlangen. After examination his Erlangen degree was recognized, and in 1824 he was appointed extraordinary professor of chemistry at Giessen, becoming ordinary professor two years later. In this small town his most important work was accomplished. His first care was to persuade the Darmstadt government to provide a chemical laboratory in which the students might obtain a proper practical training. This laboratory, unique of its kind at the time, in conjunction with Liebig’s unrivalled gifts as a teacher, soon rendered Giessen the most famous chemical school in the world; men flocked from every country to enjoy its advantages, and many of the most accomplished chemists of the 19th century had to thank it for their early training. Further, it gave a great impetus to the progress of chemical education throughout Germany, for the continued admonitions of Liebig combined with the influence of his pupils induced many other universities to build laboratories modelled on the same plan. He remained at Giessen for twenty-eight years, until in 1852 he accepted the invitation of the Bavarian government to the ordinary chair of chemistry at Munich university, and this office he held, although he was offered the chair at Berlin in 1865, until his death, which occurred at Munich on the 10th of April 1873.
Apart from Liebig’s labours for the improvement of chemical teaching, the influence of his experimental researches and of his contributions to chemical thought was felt in every branch of the science. In regard to methods and apparatus, mention should be made of his improvements in the technique of organic analysis, his plan for determining the natural alkaloids and for ascertaining the molecular weights of organic bases bv means of their chloroplatinates, his process for determining the quantity of urea in a solution—the first step towards the introduction of precise chemical methods into practical medicine—and his invention of the simple form of condenser known in every laboratory. His contributions to inorganic chemistry were numerous, including investigations on the compounds of antimony, aluminium, silicon, &c., on the separation of nickel and cobalt, and on the analysis of mineral waters, but they are outweighed in importance by his work on organic substances. In this domain his first research was on the fulminates of mercury and silver, and his study of these bodies led him to the discovery of the isomerism of cyanic and fulminic acids, for the composition of fulminic acid as found by him was the same as that of cyanic acid, as found by F. Wöhler, and it became necessary to admit them to be two bodies which differed in properties, though of the same percentage composition. Further work on cyanogen and connected substances yielded a great number of interesting derivatives, and he described an improved method for the manufacture of potassium cyanide, an agent which has since proved of enormous value in metallurgy and the arts. In 1832 he published, jointly with Wöhler, one of the most famous papers in the history of chemistry, that on the oil of bitter almonds (benzaldehyde), wherein it was shown that the radicle benzoyl might be regarded as forming an unchanging constituent of a long series of compounds obtained from oil of bitter almonds, throughout which it behaved like an element. Berzelius hailed this discovery as marking the dawn of a new era in organic chemistry, and proposed for benzoyl the names “Proïn” or “Orthrin” (fromπρωίandὄρθρυς). A continuation of their work on bitter almond oil by Liebig and Wöhler, who remained firm friends for the rest of their lives, resulted in the elucidation of the mode of formation of that substance and in the discovery of the ferment emulsin as well as the recognition of the first glucoside, amygdalin, while another and not less important and far-reaching inquiry in which they collaborated was that on uric acid, published in 1837. About 1832 he began his investigations into the constitution of ether and alcohol and their derivatives. These on the one hand resulted in the enunciation of his ethyl theory, by the light of which he looked upon those substances as compounds of the radicle ethyl (C2H5), in opposition to the view of J. B. A. Dumas, who regarded them as hydrates of olefiant gas (ethylene); on the other they yielded chloroform, chloral and aldehyde, as well as other compounds of less general interest, and also the method of forming mirrors by depositing silver from a slightly ammoniacal solution by acet aldehyde. In 1837 with Dumas he published a note on the constitution of organic acids, and in the following year an elaborate paper on the same subject appeared under his own name alone; by this work T. Graham’s doctrine of polybasicity was extended to the organic acids. Liebig also did much to further the hydrogen theory of acids.These and other studies in pure chemistry mainly occupied his attention until about 1838, but the last thirty-five years of his life were devoted more particularly to the chemistry of the processes of life, both animal and vegetable. In animal physiology he set himself to trace out the operation of determinate chemical and physical laws in the maintenance of life and health. To this end he examined such immediate vital products as blood, bile and urine; he analysed the juices of flesh, establishing the composition of creatin and investigating its decomposition products, creatinin and sarcosin; he classified the various articles of food in accordance with the special function performed by each in the animal economy, and expounded the philosophy of cooking; and in opposition to many of the medical opinions of his time taught that the heat of the body is the result of the processes of combustion and oxidation performed within the organism. A secondary result of this line of study was the preparation of his food for infants and of his extract of meat. Vegetable physiology he pursued with special reference to agriculture, which he held to be the foundation of all trade and industry, but which could not be rationally practised without the guidance of chemical principles. His first publication on this subject wasDie Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologiein 1840, which was at once translated into English by Lyon Playfair. Rejecting the old notion that plants derive their nourishment from humus, he taught that they get carbon and nitrogen from the carbon dioxide and ammonia present in the atmosphere, these compounds being returned by them to the atmosphere by the processes of putrefaction and fermentation—which latter he regarded as essentially chemical in nature—while their potash, soda, lime, sulphur, phosphorus, &c., come from the soil. Of the carbon dioxide and ammonia no exhaustion can take place, but of the mineralconstituentsthe supply is limited because the soil cannot afford an indefinite amount of them; hence the chief care of the farmer, and the function of manures, is to restore to the soil those minerals which each crop is found, by the analysis of its ashes, to take up in its growth. On this theory he prepared artificial manures containing the essential mineral substances together with a small quantity of ammoniacal salts, because he held that the air does not supply ammonia fast enough in certain cases, and carried out systematic experiments on ten acres of poor sandy land which he obtained from the town of Giessen in 1845. But in practice the results were not wholly satisfactory, and it was a long time before he recognized one important reason for the failure in the fact thatto prevent the alkalis from being washed away by the rain he had taken pains to add them in an insoluble form, whereas, as was ultimately suggested to him by experiments performed by J. T. Way about 1850, this precaution was not only superfluous but harmful, because the soil possesses a power of absorbing the soluble saline matters required by plants and of retaining them, in spite of rain, for assimilation by the roots.Liebig’s literary activity was very great. The Royal Society’sCatalogue of Scientific Papersenumerates 318 memoirs under his name, exclusive of many others published in collaboration with other investigators. A certain impetuousness of character which disposed him to rush into controversy whenever doubt was cast upon the views he supported accounted for a great deal of writing, and he also carried on an extensive correspondence with Wöhler and other scientific men. In 1832 he founded theAnnalen der Pharmazie, which became theAnnalen der Chemie und Pharmaziein 1840 when Wöhler became joint-editor with himself, and in 1837 with Wöhler and Poggendorff he established theHandwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie. After the death of Berzelius he continued theJahresberichtwith H. F. M. Kopp. The following are his most important separate publications, many of which were translated into English and French almost as soon as they appeared:Anleitung zur Analyse der organischen Körper(1837);Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agrikultur und Physiologie(1840);Die Thier-Chemie oder die organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Physiologie und Pathologie(1842);Handbuch der organischen Chemie mit Rücksicht auf Pharmazie(1843);Chemische Briefe(1844);Chemische Untersuchungen über das Fleisch und seine Zubereitung zum Nahrungsmittel(1847);Die Grundsätze der Agrikultur-Chemie(1855);Über Theorie und Praxis in der Landwirthschaft(1856);Naturwissenschaftliche Briefe über die moderne Landwirtschaft(1859). A posthumous collection of his miscellaneous addresses and publications appeared in 1874 asReden und Abhandlungen, edited by his son George (b. 1827). His criticism of Bacon,Über Francis von Verulam, was first published in 1863 in theAugsburger allgemeine Zeitung, where also most of his letters on chemistry made their first appearance.SeeThe Life Work of Liebig(London, 1876), by his pupil A. W. von Hofmann, which is the Faraday lecture delivered before the London Chemical Society in March 1875, and is reprinted in Hofmann’sZur Erinnerung an vorangegangene Freunde; also W. A. Shenstone,Justus von Liebig, his Life and Work(1895).
Apart from Liebig’s labours for the improvement of chemical teaching, the influence of his experimental researches and of his contributions to chemical thought was felt in every branch of the science. In regard to methods and apparatus, mention should be made of his improvements in the technique of organic analysis, his plan for determining the natural alkaloids and for ascertaining the molecular weights of organic bases bv means of their chloroplatinates, his process for determining the quantity of urea in a solution—the first step towards the introduction of precise chemical methods into practical medicine—and his invention of the simple form of condenser known in every laboratory. His contributions to inorganic chemistry were numerous, including investigations on the compounds of antimony, aluminium, silicon, &c., on the separation of nickel and cobalt, and on the analysis of mineral waters, but they are outweighed in importance by his work on organic substances. In this domain his first research was on the fulminates of mercury and silver, and his study of these bodies led him to the discovery of the isomerism of cyanic and fulminic acids, for the composition of fulminic acid as found by him was the same as that of cyanic acid, as found by F. Wöhler, and it became necessary to admit them to be two bodies which differed in properties, though of the same percentage composition. Further work on cyanogen and connected substances yielded a great number of interesting derivatives, and he described an improved method for the manufacture of potassium cyanide, an agent which has since proved of enormous value in metallurgy and the arts. In 1832 he published, jointly with Wöhler, one of the most famous papers in the history of chemistry, that on the oil of bitter almonds (benzaldehyde), wherein it was shown that the radicle benzoyl might be regarded as forming an unchanging constituent of a long series of compounds obtained from oil of bitter almonds, throughout which it behaved like an element. Berzelius hailed this discovery as marking the dawn of a new era in organic chemistry, and proposed for benzoyl the names “Proïn” or “Orthrin” (fromπρωίandὄρθρυς). A continuation of their work on bitter almond oil by Liebig and Wöhler, who remained firm friends for the rest of their lives, resulted in the elucidation of the mode of formation of that substance and in the discovery of the ferment emulsin as well as the recognition of the first glucoside, amygdalin, while another and not less important and far-reaching inquiry in which they collaborated was that on uric acid, published in 1837. About 1832 he began his investigations into the constitution of ether and alcohol and their derivatives. These on the one hand resulted in the enunciation of his ethyl theory, by the light of which he looked upon those substances as compounds of the radicle ethyl (C2H5), in opposition to the view of J. B. A. Dumas, who regarded them as hydrates of olefiant gas (ethylene); on the other they yielded chloroform, chloral and aldehyde, as well as other compounds of less general interest, and also the method of forming mirrors by depositing silver from a slightly ammoniacal solution by acet aldehyde. In 1837 with Dumas he published a note on the constitution of organic acids, and in the following year an elaborate paper on the same subject appeared under his own name alone; by this work T. Graham’s doctrine of polybasicity was extended to the organic acids. Liebig also did much to further the hydrogen theory of acids.
These and other studies in pure chemistry mainly occupied his attention until about 1838, but the last thirty-five years of his life were devoted more particularly to the chemistry of the processes of life, both animal and vegetable. In animal physiology he set himself to trace out the operation of determinate chemical and physical laws in the maintenance of life and health. To this end he examined such immediate vital products as blood, bile and urine; he analysed the juices of flesh, establishing the composition of creatin and investigating its decomposition products, creatinin and sarcosin; he classified the various articles of food in accordance with the special function performed by each in the animal economy, and expounded the philosophy of cooking; and in opposition to many of the medical opinions of his time taught that the heat of the body is the result of the processes of combustion and oxidation performed within the organism. A secondary result of this line of study was the preparation of his food for infants and of his extract of meat. Vegetable physiology he pursued with special reference to agriculture, which he held to be the foundation of all trade and industry, but which could not be rationally practised without the guidance of chemical principles. His first publication on this subject wasDie Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologiein 1840, which was at once translated into English by Lyon Playfair. Rejecting the old notion that plants derive their nourishment from humus, he taught that they get carbon and nitrogen from the carbon dioxide and ammonia present in the atmosphere, these compounds being returned by them to the atmosphere by the processes of putrefaction and fermentation—which latter he regarded as essentially chemical in nature—while their potash, soda, lime, sulphur, phosphorus, &c., come from the soil. Of the carbon dioxide and ammonia no exhaustion can take place, but of the mineralconstituentsthe supply is limited because the soil cannot afford an indefinite amount of them; hence the chief care of the farmer, and the function of manures, is to restore to the soil those minerals which each crop is found, by the analysis of its ashes, to take up in its growth. On this theory he prepared artificial manures containing the essential mineral substances together with a small quantity of ammoniacal salts, because he held that the air does not supply ammonia fast enough in certain cases, and carried out systematic experiments on ten acres of poor sandy land which he obtained from the town of Giessen in 1845. But in practice the results were not wholly satisfactory, and it was a long time before he recognized one important reason for the failure in the fact thatto prevent the alkalis from being washed away by the rain he had taken pains to add them in an insoluble form, whereas, as was ultimately suggested to him by experiments performed by J. T. Way about 1850, this precaution was not only superfluous but harmful, because the soil possesses a power of absorbing the soluble saline matters required by plants and of retaining them, in spite of rain, for assimilation by the roots.
Liebig’s literary activity was very great. The Royal Society’sCatalogue of Scientific Papersenumerates 318 memoirs under his name, exclusive of many others published in collaboration with other investigators. A certain impetuousness of character which disposed him to rush into controversy whenever doubt was cast upon the views he supported accounted for a great deal of writing, and he also carried on an extensive correspondence with Wöhler and other scientific men. In 1832 he founded theAnnalen der Pharmazie, which became theAnnalen der Chemie und Pharmaziein 1840 when Wöhler became joint-editor with himself, and in 1837 with Wöhler and Poggendorff he established theHandwörterbuch der reinen und angewandten Chemie. After the death of Berzelius he continued theJahresberichtwith H. F. M. Kopp. The following are his most important separate publications, many of which were translated into English and French almost as soon as they appeared:Anleitung zur Analyse der organischen Körper(1837);Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agrikultur und Physiologie(1840);Die Thier-Chemie oder die organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Physiologie und Pathologie(1842);Handbuch der organischen Chemie mit Rücksicht auf Pharmazie(1843);Chemische Briefe(1844);Chemische Untersuchungen über das Fleisch und seine Zubereitung zum Nahrungsmittel(1847);Die Grundsätze der Agrikultur-Chemie(1855);Über Theorie und Praxis in der Landwirthschaft(1856);Naturwissenschaftliche Briefe über die moderne Landwirtschaft(1859). A posthumous collection of his miscellaneous addresses and publications appeared in 1874 asReden und Abhandlungen, edited by his son George (b. 1827). His criticism of Bacon,Über Francis von Verulam, was first published in 1863 in theAugsburger allgemeine Zeitung, where also most of his letters on chemistry made their first appearance.
SeeThe Life Work of Liebig(London, 1876), by his pupil A. W. von Hofmann, which is the Faraday lecture delivered before the London Chemical Society in March 1875, and is reprinted in Hofmann’sZur Erinnerung an vorangegangene Freunde; also W. A. Shenstone,Justus von Liebig, his Life and Work(1895).
LIEBKNECHT, WILHELM(1826-1900), German socialist, was burn at Giessen on the 29th of March 1826. Left an orphan at an early age, he was educated at the gymnasium in his native town, and attended the universities of Giessen, Bonn and Marburg. Before he left school he had become affected by the political discontent then general in Germany; he had already studied the writings of St Simon, from which he gained his first interest in communism, and had been converted to the extreme republican theories of which Giessen was a centre. He soon came into conflict with the authorities, and was expelled from Berlin apparently in consequence of the strong sympathy he displayed for some Poles, who were being tried for high treason. He proposed in 1846 to migrate to America, but went instead to Switzerland, where he earned his living as a teacher. As soon as the revolution of 1848 broke out he hastened to Paris, but the attempt to organize a republican corps for the invasion of Germany was prevented by the government. In September, however, in concert with Gustav von Struve, he crossed the Rhine from Switzerland at the head of a band of volunteers, and proclaimed a republic in Baden. The attempt collapsed; he was captured, and, after suffering eight months’ imprisonment, was brought to trial. Fortunately for him, a new rising had just broken out; the mob burst into the court, and he was acquitted. During the short duration of the revolutionary government he was an active member of the most extreme party, but on the arrival of the Prussian troops he succeeded in escaping to France. Thence he went to Geneva, where he came into intercourse with Mazzini; but, unlike most of the German exiles, he was already an adherent of the socialist creed, which at that time was more strongly held in France. Expelled from Switzerland he went to London, where he lived for thirteen years in close association with Karl Marx. He endured great hardships, but secured a livelihood by teaching and writing; he was a correspondent of theAugsburger Allgemeine Zeitung. The amnesty of 1861 opened for him the way back to Germany, and in 1862 he accepted the post of editor of theNorddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, the founder of which was an old revolutionist. Only a few months elapsed before the paper, passed under Bismarck’s influence. There is no more curious episode in German history than the success with which Bismarck acquired the services of many of the men of 1848, but Liebknecht remained faithful to his principles and resigned his editorship. He became a member of the Arbeiterverein, and after the death of Ferdinand Lassalle he was the chief mouthpiece in Germany of Karl Marx, and was instrumental in spreading the influence of the newly-foundedInternational. Expelled from Prussia in 1865, he settled at Leipzig, and it is primarily to his activity in Saxony among the newly-formed unions of workers that the modern social democrat party owes its origin. Here he conducted theDemokratisches Wochenblatt. In 1867 he was elected a member of the North German Reichstag, but in opposition to Lassalle’s followers he refused all compromise with the “capitalists,” and avowedly used his position merely for purposes of agitation whilst taking every opportunity for making the parliament ridiculous. He was strongly influenced by the “great German” traditions of the democrats of 1848, and, violently anti-Prussian, he distinguished himself by his attacks on the policy of 1866 and the “revolution from above,” and by his opposition to every form of militarism. His adherence to the traditions of 1848 are also seen in his dread of Russia, which he maintained to his death. His opposition to the war of 1870 exposed him to insults and violence, and in 1872 he was condemned to two years’ imprisonment in a fortress for treasonable intentions. The Union of the German Socialists in 1874 at the congress of Gotha was really a triumph of his influence, and from that time he was regarded as founder and leader of the party. From 1874 till his death he was a member of the German Reichstag, and for many years also of the Saxon diet. He was one of the chief spokesmen of the party, and he took a very important part in directing its policy. In 1881 he was expelled from Leipzig, but took up his residence in a neighbouring village. After the lapse of the Socialist law (1890) he became chief editor of theVorwärts, and settled in Berlin. If he did not always find it easy in his later years to follow the new developments, he preserved to his death the idealism of his youth, the hatred both of Liberalism and of State Socialism; and though he was to some extent overshadowed by Bebel’s greater oratorical power, he was the chief support of the orthodox Marxian tradition. Liebknecht was the author of numerous pamphlets and books, of which the most important were:Robert Blum und seine Zeit(Nuremberg, 1892);Geschichte der Französischen Revolution(Dresden, 1890);Die Emser Depesche(Nuremberg, 1899) andRobert Owen(Nuremberg, 1892). He died at Charlottenburg on the 6th of August 1900.
See Kurt Eisner,Wilhelm Liebknecht, sein Leben und Wirken(Berlin, 1900).
See Kurt Eisner,Wilhelm Liebknecht, sein Leben und Wirken(Berlin, 1900).
LIECHTENSTEIN,the smallest independent state in Europe, save San Marino and Monaco. It lies some way S. of the Lake of Constance, and extends along the right bank of the Rhine, opposite Swiss territory, between Sargans and Sennwald, while on the E. it also comprises the upper portion of the Samina glen that joins the Ill valley at Frastanz, above Feldkirch. It is about 12 m. in length, and covers an area of 61.4 or 68.8 sq. m. (according to different estimates). Its loftiest point rises at the S.E. angle of the state, in the Rhätikon range, and is named to Naafkopf or the Rothe Wand (8445 ft.); on its summit the Swiss, Vorarlberg, and Liechtenstein frontiers join. In 1901 the population was 9477 (of whom 4890 were women and 4587 men). The capital is Vaduz (1523 ft.), with about 1100 inhabitants, and 2 m. S. of the Schaan railway station, which is 2 m. from Buchs (Switz.). Even in the 17th century the Romonsch language was not extinguished in the state, and many Romonsch place-names still linger,e.g.Vaduz, Samina, Gavadura, &c. Now the population is German-speaking and Romanist. The constitution of 1862 was amended in 1878, 1895 and 1901. All males of 24 years of age are primary electors, while the diet consists of 12 members, holding their seats for 4 years and elected indirectly, together with 3 members nominated by the prince. The prince has a lieutenant resident at Vaduz, whence there is an appeal to the prince’s court at Vienna,with a final appeal (since 1884) to the supreme district court at Innsbruck. Compulsory military service was abolished in 1868, the army having till then been 91 strong. The principality forms ecclesiastically part of the diocese of Coire, while as regards customs duties it is joined with the Vorarlberg, and as regards postal and coinage arrangements with Austria, which (according to the agreement of 1852, renewed in 1876, by which the principality entered the Austrian customs union) must pay it at least 40,000 crowns annually. In 1904 the revenues of the principality amounted to 888,931 crowns, and its expenditure to 802,163 crowns. There is no public debt.
The county of Vaduz and the lordship of Schellenberg passed through many hands before they were bought in 1613 by the count of Hohenems (to the N. of Feldkirch). In consequence of financial embarrassments, that family had to sell both (the lordship in 1699, the county in 1713) to the Liechtenstein family, which had since the 12th century owned two castles of that name (both now ruined), one in Styria and the other a little S.W. of Vienna. In 1719 these new acquisitions were raised by the emperor into a principality under the name of Liechtenstein, which formed part successively of the Holy Roman Empire (till 1806) and of the German Confederation (1815-1866), having been sovereign 1806-1815 as well as since 1866.
See J. Falke’sGeschichte d. fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein(3 vols., Vienna, 1868-1883); J. C. Heer,Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein(Feldkirch, 1906); P. Kaiser,Geschichte d. Fürstenthums Liechtenstein(Coire, 1847); F. Umlauft,Das Fürstenthum Liechtenstein(Vienna, 1891); E. Walder,Aus den Bergen(Zürich, 1896); A. Waltenberger,Algäu, Vorarlberg, und Westtirol(Rtes. 25 and 26) (10th ed., Innsbruck, 1906).
See J. Falke’sGeschichte d. fürstlichen Hauses Liechtenstein(3 vols., Vienna, 1868-1883); J. C. Heer,Vorarlberg und Liechtenstein(Feldkirch, 1906); P. Kaiser,Geschichte d. Fürstenthums Liechtenstein(Coire, 1847); F. Umlauft,Das Fürstenthum Liechtenstein(Vienna, 1891); E. Walder,Aus den Bergen(Zürich, 1896); A. Waltenberger,Algäu, Vorarlberg, und Westtirol(Rtes. 25 and 26) (10th ed., Innsbruck, 1906).
(W. A. B. C.)
LIÉGE,one of the nine provinces of Belgium, touching on the east the Dutch province of Limburg and the German district of Rhenish Prussia. To a certain extent it may be assumed to represent the old prince-bishopric. Besides the city of Liége it contains the towns of Verviers, Dolhain, Seraing, Huy, &c. The Meuse flows through the centre of the province, and its valley from Huy down to Herstal is one of the most productive mineral districts in Belgium. Much has been done of late years to develop the agricultural resources of the Condroz district south of the Meuse. The area of the province is 723,470 acres, or 1130 sq. m. The population in 1904 was 863,254, showing an average of 763 per sq. m.
LIÉGE(Walloon,Lige, Flemish,Luik, Ger.Lüttich), the capital of the Belgian province that bears its name. It is finely situated on the Meuse, and was long the seat of a prince-bishopric. It is the centre of the Walloon country, and Scott commits a curious mistake inQuentin Durwardin making its people talk Flemish. The Liége Walloon is the nearest existing approach to the old Romance language. The importance of the city to-day arises from its being the chief manufacturing centre in Belgium, and owing to its large output of arms it has been called the Birmingham of the Netherlands. The productive coal-mines of the Meuse valley, extending from its western suburb of Seraing to its northern faubourg of Herstal, constitute its chief wealth. At Seraing is established the famous manufacturing firm of Cockerill, whose offices are in the old summer palace of the prince-bishops.
The great cathedral of St Lambert was destroyed and sacked by the French in 1794, and in 1802 the church of St Paul, dating from the 10th century but rebuilt in the 13th, was declared the cathedral. The law courts are installed in the old palace of the prince-bishops, a building which was constructed by Bishop Everard de la Marck between 1508 and 1540. The new boulevards are well laid out, especially those flanking the river, and the views of the city and surrounding country are very fine. The university, which has separate schools for mines and arts and manufactures, is one of the largest in the country, and enjoys a high reputation for teaching in its special line.
Liége is a fortified position of far greater strength than is generally appreciated. In the wars of the 18th century Liége played but a small part. It was then defended only by the citadel and a detached fort on the right side of the Meuse, but at a short distance from the river, called the Chartreuse. Marlborough captured these forts in 1703 in preparation for his advance in the following year into Germany which resulted in the victory of Blenheim. The citadel and the Chartreuse were still the only defences of Liége in 1888 when, after long discussions, the Belgian authorities decided on adequately fortifying the two important passages of the Meuse at Liége and Namur. A similar plan was adopted at each place, viz. the construction of a number of detached forts along a perimeter drawn at a distance varying from 4 to 6 m. of the town, so as to shelter it so far as possible from bombardment. At Liége twelve forts were constructed, six on the right bank and six on the left. Those on the right bank beginning at the north and following an eastern curve are Barchon, Evegnée, Fléron, Chaudfontaine, Embourg and Boncelles. The average distance between each fort is 4 m., but Fléron and Chaudfontaine are separated by little over 1 m. in a direct line as they defend the main line of railway from Germany. The six forts on the left bank also commencing at the north, but following a western curve, are Pontisse, Liers, Lantin, Loncin, Hollogne and Flemalle. These forts were constructed under the personal direction of General Brialmont, and are on exactly the same principle as those he designed for the formidable defences of Bucarest. All the forts are constructed in concrete with casemates, and the heavy guns are raised and lowered automatically. Communication is maintained between the different forts by military roads in all cases, and by steam tramways in some. It is estimated that 25,000 troops would be required for the defence of the twelve forts, but the number is inadequate for the defence of so important and extensive a position. The population of Liége, which in 1875 was only 117,600, had risen by 1900 to 157,760, and in 1905 it was 168,532.
History.—Liége first appears in history about the year 558, at which date St Monulph, bishop of Tongres, built a chapel near the confluence of the Meuse and the Legia. A century later the town, which had grown up round this chapel, became the favourite abode of St Lambert, bishop of Tongres, and here he was assassinated. His successor St Hubert raised a splendid church over the tomb of the martyred bishop about 720 and made Liége his residence. It was not, however, until about 930 that the title bishop of Tongres was abandoned for that of bishop of Liége. The episcopate of Notger (972-1008) was marked by large territorial acquisitions, and the see obtained recognition as an independent principality of the Empire. The popular saying was “Liége owes Notger to God, and everything else to Notger.” By the munificent encouragement of successive bishops Liége became famous during the 11th century as a centre of learning, but the history of the town for centuries records little else than the continuous struggles of the citizens to free themselves from the exactions of their episcopal sovereigns; the aid of the emperor and of the dukes of Brabant being frequently called in to repress the popular risings. In 1316 the citizens compelled Bishop Adolph de la Marck to sign a charter, which made large concessions to the popular demands. It was, however, a triumph of short duration, and the troubles continued, the insurgent subjects now and again obtaining a fleeting success, only to be crushed by the armies of the powerful relatives of the bishops, the houses of Brabant or of Burgundy. During the episcopate of Louis de Bourbon (1456-1484) the Liégeois, having expelled the bishop, had the temerity to declare war on Philip V., duke of Burgundy. Philip’s son, Charles the Bold, utterly defeated them in 1467, and razed the walls of the town to the ground. In the following year the citizens again revolted, and Charles being once more successful delivered up the city to sack and pillage for three days, and deprived the remnant of the citizens of all their privileges. This incident is narrated inQuentin Durward. The long episcopate of Eberhard de la Marck (1505-1538) was a time of good administration and of quiet, during which the town regained something of its former prosperity. The outbreak of civil war between two factions, named theClurouxand theGrignoux, marked the opening of the 17th century. Bishop Maximilian Henry of Bavaria (1650-1688) at last put an end to the internal strife and imposed a regulation (règlement) which abolished all the free institutions of the citizensand the power of the gilds. Between this date and the outbreak of the French Revolution the chief efforts of the prince-bishops were directed to maintaining neutrality in the various wars, and preserving their territory from being ravaged by invading armies. They were only in part successful. Liége was taken by Marlborough in 1702, and the fortress was garrisoned by the Dutch until 1718. The French revolutionary armies overran the principality in 1792, and from 1794 to the fall of Napoleon it was annexed to France, and was known as the department of the Ourthe. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 decreed that Liége with the other provinces of the southern Netherlands should form part of the new kingdom of the Netherlands under the rule of William I., of the house of Orange. The town of Liége took an active part in the Belgian revolt of 1830, and since that date the ancient principality has been incorporated in the kingdom of Belgium.
The see, which at first bore the name of the bishopric of Tongres, was under the metropolitan jurisdiction of the archbishops of Cologne. The principality comprised besides the town of Liége and its district, the counties of Looz and Hoorn, the marquessate of Franchimont, and the duchy of Bouillon.
Authorities.—Théodore Bouille,Histoire de la ville et du pays de Liége(3 vols., Liége, 1725-1732); A. Borgnet,Histoire de la révolution liégeoise(2 vols., Liége, 1865); Baron B. C. de Gerlache,Histoire de Liége(Brussels, 1843); J. Daris,Histoire du diocèse et de la principauté de Liége(10 vols., Liége, 1868-1885); Ferdinand Henaux,Histoire du pays de Liége(2 vols., Liége, 1857); L. Polain,Histoire de l’ancien pays de Liége(2 vols., Liége, 1844-1847). For full bibliography see Ulysse Chevalier,Répertoire des sources historiques.Topo-bibliographie, s.v. (Montbéliard, 1900).
Authorities.—Théodore Bouille,Histoire de la ville et du pays de Liége(3 vols., Liége, 1725-1732); A. Borgnet,Histoire de la révolution liégeoise(2 vols., Liége, 1865); Baron B. C. de Gerlache,Histoire de Liége(Brussels, 1843); J. Daris,Histoire du diocèse et de la principauté de Liége(10 vols., Liége, 1868-1885); Ferdinand Henaux,Histoire du pays de Liége(2 vols., Liége, 1857); L. Polain,Histoire de l’ancien pays de Liége(2 vols., Liége, 1844-1847). For full bibliography see Ulysse Chevalier,Répertoire des sources historiques.Topo-bibliographie, s.v. (Montbéliard, 1900).
LIEGE,an adjective implying the mutual relationship of a feudal superior and his vassal; the word is used as a substantive of the feudal superior, more usually in this sense, however, in the form “liege lord,” and also of the vassals, his “lieges.” Hence the word is often used of the loyal subjects of a sovereign, with no reference to feudal ties. It appears thatligeitasorligentia, the medieval Latin term for this relationship, was restricted to a particular form of homage. According to N. Broussel (Nouvel examen de l’usage général des fiefs en France, 1727) the homage of a “liege” was a stronger form of the ordinary homage, the especial distinction being that while the ordinary vassal only undertook forty days’ military service, the liege promised to serve as long as the war might last, in which his superior was engaged (cf. Ducange,Glossarium, s.v. “Ligius”).
The etymology of the word has been much discussed. It comes into English through the O. Fr.ligeorliege, Med. Lat.ligius. This was early connected with the Lat.ligatus, bound,ligare, to bind, from the sense of the obligation of the vassal to his lord, but this has been generally abandoned. Broussel takes the Med. Lat.liga,i.e.,foedus,confederatio, the English “league,” as the origin. Ducange connects it with the wordlities, which appears in a gloss of the Salic law, and is defined as ascriptitius,servus glebae. The more usually accepted derivation is now from the Old High Ger.ledic, orledig, meaning “free” (Mod. Ger.ledigmeans unoccupied,vacuus). This is confirmed by the occurrence in a charter of Otto of Benthem, 1253, of a word “ledigh-man” (quoted in Ducange,Glossarium, s.v.),Proinde affecti sumus ligius homo, quod Teutonice dictur Ledighman. Skeat, in explaining the application of “free” to such a relationship as that subsisting between a feudal superior and his vassal, says “’aliegelord’ seems to have been the lord of a free band; and hislieges, though serving under him, were privileged men, free from all other obligations; their name being due to theirfreedom, not to their service” (Etym. Dict., ed. 1898). A. Luchaire (Manuel des institutions françaises, 1892, p. 189, n. 1) considers it difficult to call a man “free” who is under a strict obligation to another; further that the “liege” was not free from all obligation to a third party, for the charters prove without doubt that the “liege men” owed duty to more than one lord.
LIEGNITZ,a town in Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, picturesquely situated on the Katzbach, just above its junction with the Schwarzwasser, and 40 m. W.N.W, of Breslau, on the main line of railway to Berlin via Sommerfeld. Pop. (1885) 43,347, (1905) 59,710. It consists of an old town, surrounded by pleasant, shady promenades, and several well-built suburbs. The most prominent building is the palace, formerly the residence of the dukes of Liegnitz, rebuilt after a fire in 1835 and now used as the administrative offices of the district. The Ritter Akademie, founded by the emperor Joseph I. in 1708 for the education of the young Silesian nobles, was reconstructed as a gymnasium in 1810. The Roman Catholic church of St John, with two fine towers, contains the burial vault of the dukes. The principal Lutheran church, that of SS. Peter and Paul (restored in 1892-1894), dates from the 14th century. The manufactures are considerable, the chief articles made being cloth, wool, leather, tobacco, pianos and machinery. Its trade in grain and its cattle-markets are likewise important. The large market gardens in the suburbs grow vegetables of considerable annual value.
Liegnitz is first mentioned in an historical document in the year 1004. In 1163 it became the seat of the dukes of Liegnitz, who greatly improved and enlarged it. The dukes were members of the illustrious Piast family, which gave many kings to Poland. During the Thirty Years’ War Liegnitz was taken by the Swedes, but was soon recaptured by the Imperialists. The Saxon army also defeated the imperial troops near Liegnitz in 1634. On the death of the last duke of Liegnitz in 1675, the duchy came into the possession of the Empire, which retained it until the Prussian conquest of Silesia in 1742. On the 15th of August 1760 Frederick the Great gained a decisive victory near Liegnitz over the Austrians, and in August 1813 Blücher defeated the French in the neighbourhood at the battle of the Katzbach. During the 19th century Liegnitz rapidly increased in population and prosperity. In 1906 the German autumn manœuvres were held over the terrain formerly the scene of the great battles already mentioned.
See Schuchard,Die Stadt Liegnitz(Berlin, 1868); Sammter and Kraffert,Chronik von Liegnitz(Liegnitz, 1861-1873); Jander,Liegnitz in seinem Entwickelungsgange(Liegnitz, 1905); andFührer für Liegnitz und seine Umgebung(Liegnitz, 1897); and theUrkundenbuch der Stadt Liegnitz bis 1455, edited by Schirrmacher (Liegnitz, 1866).
See Schuchard,Die Stadt Liegnitz(Berlin, 1868); Sammter and Kraffert,Chronik von Liegnitz(Liegnitz, 1861-1873); Jander,Liegnitz in seinem Entwickelungsgange(Liegnitz, 1905); andFührer für Liegnitz und seine Umgebung(Liegnitz, 1897); and theUrkundenbuch der Stadt Liegnitz bis 1455, edited by Schirrmacher (Liegnitz, 1866).
LIEN,in law. The wordlienis literally the French for a band, cord or chain, and keeping in mind that meaning we see in what respect it differs from a pledge on the one hand and a mortgage on the other. It is the bond which attaches a creditor’s right to a debtor’s property, but which gives no rightad rem,i.e.to property in the thing; if the property is in the possession of the creditor he may retain it, but in the absence of statute he cannot sell to recover what is due to him without the ordinary legal process against the debtor; and if it is not in possession, the law would indeed assist him to seize the property, and will hold it for him, and enable him to sell it in due course and pay himself out of the proceeds, but does not give him the property itself. It is difficult to say at what period the term lien made its appearance in English law; it probably came from more than one source. In fact, it was used as a convenient phrase for any right against the owner of property in regard to the property not specially defined by other better recognized species of title.
The possessory lien of a tradesman for work done on the thing, of a carrier for his hire, and of an innkeeper for his bill, would seem to be an inherent right which must have been in existence from the dawn, or before the dawn, of civilization. Probably the man who made or repaired weapons in the Stone Age was careful not to deliver them until he received what was stipulated for, but it is also probable that the term itself resulted from the infusion of the civil law of Rome into the common law of England which the Norman Conquest brought about, and that it represents the “tacit pledge” of the civil law. As might be expected, so far as the possessory lien is concerned the common law and civil law, and probably the laws of all countries, whether civilized or not, coincide; but there are many differences with respect to other species of lien. For instance, by the commonlaw—in this respect a legacy of the feudal system—a landlord has a lien over his tenant’s furniture and effects for rent due, which can be enforced without the assistance of the law simply by the landlord taking possession, personally or by his agent, and selling enough to satisfy his claim; whereas the maritime lien is more distinctly the product of the civil law, and is only found and used in admiralty proceedings, the high court of admiralty having been founded upon the civil law, and still (except so far as restrained by the common-law courts prior to the amalgamation and co-ordination of the various courts by the Judicature Acts, and as affected by statute law) acting upon it. The peculiar effects of this maritime lien are discussed below. There is also a class of liens, usually called equitable liens (e.g.that of an unpaid vendor of real property over the property sold), which are akin to the nature of the civil law rather than of the common law. The word lien does not frequently occur in statute law, but it is found in the extension of the common-law “carriers’ or shipowners’ lien” in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894; in the definition, extension and limitation of the vendor’s lien; in the Factors Act 1877, and the Sale of Goods Act 1893; in granting a maritime lien to a shipmaster for his wages and disbursements, and in regulating that of the seamen in the Merchant Shipping Act 1894; and in the equity jurisdiction of the county courts 1888.
Common-Law Liens.—These may be either particular,i.e.a right over one or more specified articles for a particular debt, or general,i.e.for all debts owing to the creditor by the debtor.
The requisites for a particular lien are, firstly, that the creditor should be in possession of the article; secondly, that the debt should be incurred with reference to the article; and thirdly, that the amount of the debt should be certain. It may be created by express contract, by implied contract (such as the usage of a particular trade or business), or as a consequence of the legal relation existing between the parties. As an example of the first, a shipowner at common law has a lien on the cargo for the freight; but though the shipper agrees to pay dead freight in addition,i.e.to pay freight on any space in the ship which he fails to occupy with his cargo, the shipowner has no lien on the cargo for such dead freight except by express agreement. The most usual form of the second is that which is termed a possessory lien—the right a ship-repairer has to retain a ship in his yard till he is paid for the repairs executed upon her,1and the right a cobbler has to retain a pair of shoes till he is paid for the repairs done to them. But this lien is only in respect of the work done on, and consequent benefit received by, the subject of the lien. Hence an agistor of cattle has no lien at common law upon them for the value of the pasturage consumed, though he may have one by agreement; nor a conveyancer upon deeds which he has not drawn, but which are in his possession for reference. The most common example of the third is that of a carrier, who is bound by law to carry for all persons, and has, therefore, a lien for the price of the carriage on the goods carried. It has been held that even if the goods are stolen, and entrusted to the carrier by the thief, the carrier can hold them for the price of the carriage against the rightful owner. Of the same nature is the common-law lien of an innkeeper on the baggage of his customer for the amount of his account, he being under a legal obligation to entertain travellers generally. Another instance of the same class is where a person has obtained possession of certain things over which he claims to hold a lien in the exercise of a legal right. For example, when a lord of a manor has seized cattle as estrays, he has a lien upon them for the expense of their keep as against the real owner; but the holder’s claim must be specific, otherwise a general tender of compensation releases the lien.
A general lien is a right of a creditor to retain property, not merely for charges relating to it specifically, but for debts due on a general account. This not being a common-law right, is viewed by the English courts with the greatest jealousy, and to be enforced must be strictly proved. This can be done by proof either of an express or implied contract or of a general usage of trade. The first of these is established by the ordinary methods or by previous dealings between the parties on such terms; the second is recognized in certain businesses; it would probably be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to extend it at the present time to any other trades. When, however, a lien by general usage has once been judicially established, it becomes part of the Law Merchant, and the courts are bound to recognize and enforce it. The best known and most important instance is the right of a solicitor to retain papers in his hands belonging to his client until his account is settled. The solicitor’s lien, though probably more commonly enforced than any other, is of no great antiquity in English law, the earliest reported case of it being in the reign of James II.; but it is now of a twofold nature. In the first place there is the retaining lien. This is similar in kind to other possessory liens, but of a general nature attaching to all papers of the client, and even to his money, up to the amount of the solicitor’s bill, in the hands of the solicitor in the ordinary course of business. There are certain exceptions which seem to have crept in for the same reason as the solicitor’s lien itself,i.e.general convenience of litigation; such exceptions are the will of the client after his decease, and proceedings in bankruptcy. In this latter case the actual possessory lien is given up, the solicitor’s interests and priorities being protected by the courts, and it may be said that the giving up the papers is really only a means of enforcing the lien they give in the bankruptcy proceedings. In the second place there is what is called a charging lien—more correctly classed under the head of equitable lien, since it does not require possession, but is a lien the solicitor holds over property recovered or preserved for his client. He had the lien on an order by the court upon a fund in court by the common law, but as to property generally it was only given by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, § 28; and it has been held to attach to property recovered in a probate action (ex parte Tweed, C.A. 1899, 2 Q.B. 167). A banker’s lien is the right of a banker to retain securities belonging to his customer for money due on a general balance. Other general liens, judicially established, are those of wharfingers, brokers and factors (which are in their nature akin to those of solicitors and bankers), and of calico printers, packers of goods, fullers (at all events at Exeter), dyers and millers; but in all these special trades it is probable that the true reason is that the account due was for one continuous transaction. The calico would come to be printed, the goods to be packed, the cloth to be bleached, the silk to be dyed, and the corn to be ground, in separate parcels, and at different times, but all as one undertaking; and they are therefore, though spoken of as instances of general lien, only adaptations by the courts of the doctrine of particular lien to special peculiarities of business. In none of these cases would the lien exist, in the absence of special agreement, for other matters of account, such as money lent or goods sold.
Equitable Liens.—“Where equity has jurisdiction to enforce rights and obligations growing out of an executory contract,”e.g.in a suit for specific performance, “this equitable theory of remedies cannot be carried out unless the notion is admitted that the contract creates some right or interest in or over specific property, which the decree of the court can lay hold of, and by means of which the equitable relief can be made efficient. The doctrine of equitable liens supplies this necessary element; and it was introduced for the sole purpose of furnishing a ground for these specific remedies which equity confers, operating upon particular identified property instead of the general pecuniary recoveries granted by courts of common law. It follows, therefore, that in a large class of executory contracts express and implied, which the common law regards as creating no property, right nor interest analogous to property, but only a mere personal right to obligation, equity recognizes in addition to the personal obligation a particular right over the thing with which the contract deals, which it calls alien, and which though not property is analogous to property, and by means of which the plaintiff is enabled to follow the identical thing and to enforce the defendant’s obligation by a remedy which operates directly on the thing.The theory of equitable liens has its ultimate foundation, therefore, in contracts express or implied which either deal or in some manner relate to specific property, such as a tract of land, particular chattels or securities, a certain fund and the like. It is necessary to divest oneself of the purely legal notion concerning the effects of such contracts, and to recognize the fact that equity regards them as creating a charge upon, or hypothecation of, the specific thing, by means of which the personal obligation arising from the agreement may be more effectively enforced than by a mere pecuniary recovery at law” (Pomeroy, 2 Eq. Jur. 232).
This description from an American text-book seems to give at once the fullest and most concise definition and description of an equitable lien. It differs essentially from a common-law lien, inasmuch as in the latter possession or occupation is as a rule necessary, whereas in the equitable lien the person claiming the lien is seldom in possession or occupation of the property, its object being to obtain the possession wholly or partially. A special instance of such a lien is that claimed by a publisher over the copyright of a book which he has agreed to publish on terms which are not complied with—for example, the author attempting to get the book published elsewhere. It cannot perhaps be said that this has been absolutely decided to exist, but a strong opinion of the English court of exchequer towards the close of the 18th century was expressed in its favour (Brookv.Wentworth, 3 Anstruther 881). Other instances are the charging lien of a solicitor, and the lien of a person on improvements effected by him on the property of another who “lies by” and allows the work to be done before claiming the property. So also of a trustee for expenses lawfully incurred about the trust property. The power of a limited liability company to create a lien upon its own shares was in 1901 established (Allenv.Gold Reefs, &c., C.A. 1900, 1 Ch. 656).
Maritime Liens.—Maritime lien differs from all the others yet considered, in its more elastic nature. Where a maritime lien has once attached to property—and it may and generally does attach without possession—it will continue to attach, unless lost by laches, so long as the thing to which it attaches exists, notwithstanding changes in the possession of and property in the thing, and notwithstanding that the new possessor or owner may be entirely ignorant of its existence; and even if enforced it leaves the owner’s personal liability for any balance unrealized intact (the “Gemma,” 1899, P. 285). So far as England is concerned, it must be borne in mind that the courts of admiralty were conducted in accordance with the principles of civil law, and in that law both the pledge with possession and the hypothecation without possession were well recognized. The extreme convenience of such a right as the latter with regard to such essentially movable chattels as ships is apparent. Strictly speaking, a maritime lien is confined to cases arising in those matters over which the courts of admiralty had original jurisdiction, viz. collisions at sea, seamen’s wages, salvage and bottomry, in all of which cases the appropriate remedy is a proceedingin remin the admiralty court. In the first of these—collisions at sea—if there were no maritime lien there would frequently be no remedy at all. When two ships have collided at sea it may well be that the innocent ship knows neither the name nor the nationality of the wrongdoer, and the vessel may escape with slight damage and not have to make a port of refuge in the neighbourhood. Months afterwards it is ascertained that she was a foreign ship, and in the interval she has changed owners. Then, were it not a fact that a maritime lien invisible to the wrongdoer nevertheless attaches itself to his ship at the moment of collision, and continues to attach, the unfortunate owner of the innocent ship would have no remedy, except the doubtful one of pursuing the former owner of the wrong-doing vessel in his own country in a personal action where such proceedings are allowed—which is by no means the case in all foreign countries. The same reasons apply, though not possibly with quite the same force, to the other classes of cases mentioned.
Between 1840 and 1873 the jurisdiction of the admiralty court was largely extended. At the latter date it was merged in the probate, divorce and admiralty division of the High Court of Justice. Since the merger questions have arisen as to how far the enlargement of jurisdiction has extended the principle of maritime lien. An interesting article on this subject by J. Mansfield, barrister-at-law, will be found in theLaw Quarterly Review, vol. iv., October 1888. It must be sufficient to state here that where legislation has extended the already existing jurisdiction to which a maritime lien pertained, the maritime lien is extended to the subject matter, but that where a new jurisdiction is given, or where a jurisdiction formerly existing without a maritime lien is extended, no maritime lien is given, though even then the extended jurisdiction can be enforced by proceedingsin rem. Of the first class of extended jurisdictions are collisions, salvage and seamen’s wages. Prior to 1840 the court of admiralty only had jurisdiction over these when occurring or earned on the high seas. The jurisdiction, and with it the maritime lien, is extended to places within the body of a county in collision or salvage; and as to seamen’s wages, whereas they were dependent on the earning of freight, they are now free from any such limitation; and also, whereas the remedyin remwas limited to seamen’s wages not earned under a special contract, it is now extended to all seamen’s wages, and also to a master’s wages and disbursements, and the maritime lien covers all these. The new jurisdiction given over claims for damage to cargo carried into any port in England or Wales, and on appeal from the county courts over all claims for damage to cargo under £300, though it may be prosecuted by proceedingsin rem,i.e.by arrest of the ship, yet confers no maritime lien; and so also in the case of claims by material men (builders and fitters-out of ships) and for necessaries. Even though in the latter case the admiralty court had jurisdiction previously to 1840 where the necessaries were supplied on the high seas, yet as it could not be shown that such jurisdiction had ever been held to confer a maritime lien, no such lien is given. Even now there is much doubt as to whether towage confers a maritime lien or not, the services rendered being pursuant to contract, and frequently to a contract made verbally or in writing on the high seas, and being rendered also to a great extent on the high seas. In these cases and to that extent the high court of admiralty would have had original jurisdiction. But prior to 1840 towage, as now rendered by steam tugs expressly employed for the service, was practically unknown, and therefore there was no established catena of precedent to show the exercise of a maritime lien. It may be argued on the one hand that towage is only a modified form of salvage, and therefore entitled to a maritime lien, and on the other that it is only a form of necessary power supplied like a new sail or mast to a ship to enable her to complete her voyage expeditiously, and therefore of the nature of necessaries, and as such not entitled to a maritime lien. The matter is not of academical interest only, for though in the case of an inward-bound ship the tug owner can make use of his statutory right of proceedingin rem, and so obtain much of the benefit of a maritime lien, yet in the case of an outward-bound ship, if she once gets away without payment, and the agent or other authorized person refuses or is unable to pay, the tug owner’s claim may, on the return of the ship to a British port, be met by an allegation of a change of ownership, which defeats his right of proceeding at all if he has no maritime lien; whereas if he has a maritime lien he can still proceed against the ship and recover his claim, if he has not been guilty of laches.