as having become a branch of the general science of jurisprudence in England, until the time of lord Mansfield, who appears to have had some considerable acquaintance with the treatise of Valin, from which he drew principles and reasons, and incorporated them into the reluctant common law. By degrees, during his judicial career, this branch of jurisprudence gained popularity, and, from that time, has occupied an important part of the British legal administration, though very few legislative enactments have either disturbed or promoted its progress. Though the maritime law in that country continued in a very rude and undigested state, long after it was arranged into an admirable system in France, yet the assiduity with which it has been cultivated since its introduction, and the splendid talents which have been brought to its illustration, have contributed to advance it with a rapid progress. Among the ornaments of this branch of law, we ought particularly to mention lord Stowell, judge of the British high court of admiralty, a jurist and judge unsurpassed in comprehensiveness of learning, depth, justness and clearness of thinking, cogency of reasoning, richness of illustration and brilliancy of expression. The present chief-justice of the court of king's bench, lord Tenterden, has also, by his learned and well arranged treatise on merchant shipping, as well as by his opinions from the bench, contributed very materially to the present advanced state of British commercial jurisprudence. The other principal writers on this law are Millar, Park, Marshall, Bayley, Chitty, Lawes, Holt and Benecke. Nor have the U. States been idle spectators of this improvement in a branch of law in which their industry and prosperity are so deeply interested. Though they have supplied but few original systematic treatises and digests, yet, in the numerous important and interesting questions that have been brought under discussion before the legal tribunals, the research, comprehensive views and logical power displayed both by the counsel and the courts, will support a comparison with those of their European contemporaries, who might derive very useful additions to their own adjudications, particularly on the subjects of merchants' shipping and insurance, from the American reports. It is not, perhaps, invidious to distinguish, among the most eminent of those who have contributed to the elucidation of the commercial law, chief-justice Marshall and justices Washington and Story, of the supreme court of

the U. States, and chancellor Kent of New York.

COMMERSON, Philibert, a botanist, born 1727, at Chatillon-les-Dombes, was a doctor of medicine in Montpellier. In 1767, at the command of the king of France, he accompanied Bougainville_(q. v.) on his voyage round the world. From the name of a young French lady, Hortense Barré, who accompanied him in a man's dress, he called a flower, now well known, Hortensia. During this voyage, he died on the Isle de France, in 1773. He wrote, among other things, a botanical martyrology—a biography of those who have fallen victims to their efforts in the cause of botany. He left his plants, drawings and papers to the royal cabinet at Paris. COMMINES. (See Comines.)

COMMITTEE. Large deliberative assemblies, with a great variety of business before them, are unable to discuss and investigate, sufficiently, many subjects on which they are obliged to act. Committees, therefore, are appointed, to examine and to report to the assembly. Committees have a right to choose their chairman. In the English parliament and the legislative bodies in the United States, as, in fact, in all legislative bodies in representative governments, there are select and standing committees. The French chambers are divided into bureaux. The standing committees are appointed, in England and the United States, by the speaker or president of the house, at the beginning of each session. In the English parliament, the standing committees appointed at every session are those of privileges and elections, of religion, of grievances, of courts of justice, and of trade, though only the first mentioned acts. In the congress

of the U. States, the standing committees are very numerous; some of the most important are those of elections, of ways and means, of commerce, of public lands, of the judiciary, of public expenditures, of Indian affairs, of foreign affairs, of manufactures, &c. In fact, business is done by means of committees much more in the American congress than in the English parliament. The French chamber, on the request of five members, must resolve itself into a secret committee.

Committee of the Whole. Matters of great concernment are usually referred to a committee of the whole house, where general principles are digested in the form of resolutions, which are debated and amended, till they take a shape which meets the approbation of the majority. These, being reported, and confirmed by

the house, are then referred to one or more select committees, according as the subject divides itself into one or more bills. The sense of the whole assembly is better taken in committee, because in all committees every one speaks as often as he pleases. They generally acquiesce in the chairman named by the speaker, but, like all other committees, have a right to elect their chairman, some member, by consent, putting the question. When the house is desirous of forming itself into a committee, the speaker, on motion, puts the question whether the house will resolve itself into a committee of the whole, to take into consideration such a matter, naming it. No previous question can be put in a committee; nor can this committee adjourn, as others may; but, if their business is unfinished when the time of separation arrives, a motion is made for rising, and the chairman reports that the committee of the whole have, according to order, had under their consideration such a matter, and have made progress therein, but, not having had time to go through the same, have directed him to ask leave to sit again. The question is then put whether the request shall be granted, and, if so, at what time the house will again resolve itself into a committee. But, if they have gone through the matter referred to them, the chairman reports, either immediately, or, if the house wish, at a later period. (See Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice, pp. 33, 39.)

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC SAFETY (Comité de Salut Public). Under this name, the Mountain party or Terrorists (see Terror, Reign of), in the national convention (see France), concealed the dictatorial power which they had assumed to overthrow the Girondists (q. v.) and the moderate party, that the Mountain party might rule, and the republic triumph over its domestic and foreign enemies. The revolutionary tribunal was subservient to this committee, which was at first composed of 9, then of 12 members. The committee was established April 6th, 1793, in the stead of the comité de défense générale, which had existed hardly 10 days; and the convention, from the midst of which its members (among them Danton, Barrère, Cambon) were chosen, intrusted it with unlimited power of secret deliberation, and of supervising the ministers. It was, in every case, to provide for the public welfare as its own judgment should dictate ; and therefore, after the lapse of a few months, the right of imprisonment

was also given it. The prevailing party acted on the ground that France, threatened from within and without, could not be governed as if at peace (as the Girondists wished), but could only be saved by desperate measures, as in times of the greatest danger. But, after the downfall of the Girondists, June 1st and 2d, 1793, when the Mountain, on the recommendation of the committee of safety, declared that the population of France consisted of but two parties, patriots and enemies of the revolution, and consigned the latter to the persecution of all good citizens, terror took the place of law. Robespierre (q. v.) soon afterwards, July 27, 1793, became a member of the committee of safety, the members of which were appointed monthly; but the old members were, at this period, commonly reëlected. From this time, the committee governed the Mountain party, and, through it, the convention. As the sole rule of his conduct, Robespierre declared that the main-spring of a popular government in a state of revolution was la vertu et la terreur ! With him, and in accordance with his views, St. Just, Couthon, Billaud de Varennes, Collot d'Herbois and Hérault de Séchelles acted in the committee. Carnot (q. v.), likewise a member of the committee of public safety, confined himself to the direction of the armies, and left to his colleagues the affairs of the interior. At the motion of these men, the new constitution was suspended for a time, and the revolutionary government conferred on the committee of safety, by a decree of the convention, of Dec. 4, 1793. The committee now instituted in all the communes of the republic, as judges of the suspected, revolutionary committees, composed of the most furious zealots: the number of these new tribunals was as great as 20,000. The last remaining forms of regular process were abolished; their place was supplied by violence, and often by avarice and folly. In this time of internal revolutions, and danger from without, it was not in the power of man to restrain the exasperated fury, which, probably, alone prevented France from being conquered. Finally, Danton, who had absented himself for a time from the committee, on account of the influence of Robespierre, declared himself against this system of bloodshed; and Robespierre himself acquiesced in the condemnation of the ringleaders of the Paris mob (March 24, 1794), among whom was Hébert (q. v.); but, soon after (April 5), Danton, with Hérault de Séchelles, was himself overthrown by Robes

pierre. Till July 28,1794, he now remained master of the lives of thirty millions of men. He appointed Fouquier-Tinville (q. v.) public accuser. Prisons were multiplied and crowded; the prisoners were cruelly treated, betrayed by spies, and condemned without being allowed the privilege of defence; the property of all imprisoned on suspicion was confiscated, and the guillotine remained en permanence. The same violence was practised in the provinces by some of the delegates of the committee of safety, especially Collot d'Herbois, Carrier (q. v.) and Jos. le Bon. Among the numberless victims of this system were the noble Malesherbes (q. v.) and the celebrated Lavoisier. (q. v.) The members of the committee of public safety, and of the comité de sureté générale, at last disagreed among themselves. Each committee contained three parties. These, and not Tallien, were the real causes of the 9th Thermidor. In the committee of public safety, Robespierre, Couthon and St. Just ("gens de la haute main") formed one party; Barrère, Billaud and Collot d'Herbois ("les gens revolutionnaires"), another; and Carnot, Prieur and Lindel ("les gens d'examen"), a third. In the comité de sureté générale, one party comprised Vadier, Amar, Jagot, Louis (du bas Rhin) and Voulland (the "gens d'expédition"); to a second belonged Danton and Lebas ("ecouteurs"); to the third, Moïse Bayle, Lavicomterie, Elie Lacoste, Dubarran ("les gens de contrepoids"). Robespierre attempted to remove the unyielding Carnot from the committee of safety. On the other hand, Billaud de Varennes labored to effect Robespierre's downfall. Couthon, St. Just, the Jacobins, and the commune of Paris, alone_adhered to Robespierre. But when St. Just actually proposed, in the committee, a dictatorship for the safety of the state, an opposition was raised against Robespierre, in the national convention, by Vadier, Collot d'Herbois, Billaud de Varennes, and especially by Tallien (q. v.) and Fréron; the dictator and his faction were proscribed, and the victory of Barras (q. v.), on the 9th Thermidor, (July 27), brought Robespierre, his brother, St. Just, Couthon, &c., 105 in all, to the scaffold, July 28. The convention now recovered its authority; the Jacobins and the partisans of terrorism (la queue de Robespierre) were completely overthrown; at the same time the convention gave the committee of safety and the revolutionary tribunal a more limited power and jurisdiction. The bloody despotism ceased; and when a new constitution introduced

(Oct. 28, 1794) a directorial government (see Directory), the convention was dissolved, and with it sank into its accursed grave the revolutionary government, the reign of terror, and the committee of public safety.-See Mémoires inédits de Senar (secretary-general of the committee, who died in 1796), or Révélations puisées dans les Cartons des Comités de Salut Public et de Sureté Générale (2d ed., Paris, 1824). The Mém. Historiques de M. de la Bussière (Legendre's private secretary) narrate how ingeniously this employé au comité de salut public preserved a number of the arrested from condemnation.

COMMODORE (Corrupted from the Spanish commendador); a general officer in the British marine, invested with the command of a detachment of ships of war destined for any particular enterprise. He retains this title only during the continuance of the expedition, during which he has the rank of a brigadier-general in the army, and his ship is distinguished from others in his squadron by a broad, red pendant. The eldest captain of three or more vessels cruising in company is often called commodore by courtesy. In the U. States, the title commodore is only given by courtesy, not officially.-Commodore ship, in a fleet of merchantmen, is the convoy and principal ship, which leads the other vessels, and keeps them together, bearing a light in her top.

COMMODUS ANTONINUS (L. Ælius Aurelius), born A. D. 161, son of Marcus Aurelius and of Anna Faustina, daughter of Antoninus Pius, gave early proofs of his cruel and voluptuous character. When a boy of 12 years old, he ordered the overseer of his bath to be thrown into the furnace, because his bath was too hot. His father, who hoped to correct him by mildness and his own example, permitted him early to partake in the government, conferred on him the office of tribune, and, in his 16th year, the dignity of consul, and soon afterwards the titles of Augustus and father of the country. He married him to Crispina, daughter of Bruttius Præsens. On the death of Marcus Aurelius, A. D. 180, Commodus ascended the throne, and showed himself a more execrable monster than even Caligula, Domitian or Nero. For his amusement, he cut asunder persons whom he met, put out their eyes, mutilated their noses, ears, &c. He was endowed with extraordinary strength, and often appeared, in imitation of Hercules, dressed in a lion's skin, and armed with a club. Three hundred concubines, and as many boys, even the lowest prostitutes of

Rome, were not sufficient to satisfy his infamous lusts. He had even an incestuous intercourse with his sisters, and killed one of them (Lucilla), who had refused to submit to his wishes, and had concerted a conspiracy against him. To fill the treasury, exhausted by his extravagances, he imposed unusual taxes upon the people, sold governments and offices to the highest bidder, and pardoned criminals for money. To display his strength and skill in arms, he appeared publicly on the amphitheatre. He is said to have fought in this way 735 times, and always to have been victorious. Immediately after ascending the throne, Commodus concluded an inglorious peace with the Quadi and with other German nations. In Britain, his valiant general Ulpius Marcellus gained important victories over the Caledonians; on account of which Commodus took the titles of imperator and Britannicus. The administration of affairs had been, at first, left to his freedman Anterus, who was accused of having seduced the emperor, and was killed by the commanders of the body guard. Commodus, after taking a bloody revenge for the death of his favorite, placed another freedman, Cleander, at the helm of state. A part of the city having been consumed by fire, and the people having been reduced to despair by famine, disturbances broke out, and the emperor was obliged to consent to the death of his minister, who was charged with being the author of these calamities. On the 1st of January, A. D. 193, he intended to appear at the same time as consul and gladiator, after having put to death the two consuls elect. He was so much enraged by the opposition of his friends to this design, that he resolved on their death. The tablets upon which he had written their names were found by accident, and given to one of his concubines (Marcia), who, with surprise, found herself among the number. She conspired, with the rest, against the life of the emperor. They administered poison to him, and, as the poison operated too slowly, he was strangled by the hands of his favorite gladiator, Narcissus (Dec. 31, 192). On the news of his death, which was reported to be the consequence of an apoplexy, the senate declared him an enemy of the state, ordered his statues to be broken to pieces, and his name to be erased from all public inscriptions. He perished at the age of 31 years and 9 months, after a reign of 12 years. Rome was indebted to him for her handsomest baths the therma Antoninianæ. He established, also, an African fleet, in addi

tion to the Egyptian one, for the purpose of supplying the city with corn.

COMMON CARRIERS are persons whose business and employment is carrying goods for hire, as distinguished from those who agree to carry in any particular instances. Carriers are one species of bailees. The material question in the contract relates to the degree of care which the carrier is obliged to exercise. By the civil law, he is required to use ordinary diligence, that is, the care and diligence used by a man of common prudence in like cases. The French code follows the civil law very nearly, being, however, a little more strict, as it makes the carrier answerable for the goods, except in cases of superior force, or inevitable accident, or damage arising from the quality of the articles. Down to the time of Henry VIII, the English law seems not to have imposed on the common carrier a greater responsibility than the French code. But, since the time of Elizabeth, he has been held answerable for all losses and damage not arising from the perishable nature of the article, the act of God, as it is called, or of a public enemy. Thus he is answerable for loss by robbers, for which the French code would excuse him. The reason of this strictness, given by chief-justice Holt in the case of Coggs vs. Bernard (Raymond's Reports, vol. ii, p. 909), is to provide “for the safety of all persons, the necessity of whose affairs obliges them to resort to those sorts of persons, that they may be safe in their ways of dealing; for else these carriers might have an opportunity of undoing all persons that have any dealings with them, by combining with thieves, and yet doing it in such a clandestine manner as would not be possible to be discovered." In regard to the continuance of the responsibility, in a case of the carriage of hops from Stourport to Manchester, and thence to Stockport, they were carried to Manchester by one set of carriers on the canal, where they were stored in their storehouse, until they should be taken by another set of carriers, to be forwarded to Stockport, and, being so stored, were burnt. The goods were considered as being in the defendants' hands, not in their character of carriers, but in that of warehouse-men; and so they were held not to be liable. Lord Kenyon said, "The case of a carrier stands by itself on peculiar grounds; he is held responsible as an insurer; but I do not see how we can couple the character of a carrier with that of a warehouse-man." In another case

against the same company by Hyde (reported in Term Reports, vol. v, p. 389), the goods were brought to Manchester, to which place they had been brought and stored in the duke of Bridgewater's storehouse, where they were consumed by fire. The company had charged for cartage from this store-house to the consignees' store. The goods were, from this circumstance, considered to be in the hands of the defendants, as common carriers; and they were held liable for their value. These cases consider loss by fire as not among the inevitable accidents denominated acts of God. The distinction was made upon this point in another case (reported in the Term Reports, vol. i, p. 27), of some bags of hops, which were in the course of transportation from London to Shaftesbury, deposited in a booth at Andover, and destroyed by a fire, which, at first, caught in a neighboring booth, at a hundred yards distance. It was said, in this case, if the fire had been occasioned by lightning, the carriers would not have been answerable; but as it was occasioned by the agency or carelessness of man, they were answerable. This risk of fire does not seem to be one which ought to be imposed upon the carrier, upon the principle alleged in favor of his answering for a robbery, namely, for the purpose of preventing collusion with the robbers, for there appears to be no reason for collusion with incendiaries. The above cases show that the law of England considers persons employed in transporting goods on a canal to be common carriers. The rule extends, also, to persons employed in inland navigation generally; and some of the old cases appear to extend it to the coasting trade; but there is no question that it is not, under a bill of lading in the usual form, applicable to foreign navigation, the risk from pirates being universally acknowledged to be a "danger of the seas," for which the ship-owner is not responsible. A wagoner or coachman, whose business is carrying for hire, is answerable as a common carrier; and the owners of the vehicle, who employ him, are also answerable in the same manner; but they are not answerable for any articles which it is known not to be their business to carry; as when the driver of a coach, intended by the proprietors, and ordinarily used, only for the transportation of passengers, took a box to carry, without the consent or authority of the owners, intending to keep the fare himself, they were held not to be answerable for the loss of the box. (Bac. Abr., art. Carrier,

vol. i, p. 553.) A post-master was held not to be under so strict a responsibility, nor answerable for money enclosed in a letter stolen from his office, for he is a public officer; but chief-justice Hale thought he ought to be answerable upon the same principle and to the same extent as a common carrier. (Lord Raymond, vol. i, p. 646; Modern Reports, vol. xii, p. 477.) A person who undertakes to carry goods in a special instance, though it be for hire, is not answerable, under the English law, as a common carrier; that is, he is not an insurer, but is only bound to use due diligence. So one who carries goods without receiving any compensation is answerable only for the loss and damage occasioned by his negligence or misconduct, and the reason of his being thus far answerable is his undertaking to carry the goods, which are accordingly put into his hands upon the presumption that he will not be guilty of any gross negligence in so doing. Mr. Dane, in the first volume of his Digest, says that the law in respect to the liability of carriers is the same in the U. States (excepting Louisiana and Florida) as in England. That the carrier is liable for any loss by his own negligence or fault, or that of the persons employed by him, there is no doubt; but it admits of at least some doubt whether he is considered so far an insurer against losses not occasioned by his own fault, as in England. Chief-justice Kent, indeed, has decided (Johnson's Reports, vol. x, p. 7) that, in case of no storm or other extraordinary peril, "the dangers of a well-known and dangerous rapid were at the risk of a common carrier, as much as the dangers of a broken and precipitous road." But no American case has yet gone the length of holding the carrier to be an insurer against inevitable loss by robbery or inevitable loss by fire, according to the English doctrine. The case coming nearest to such a rule is one decided in Virginia, Murphy vs. Staton (reported in Mumford, vol. iii, p. 239), in which it is held that a carrier by boat navigation on James river was liable for the value of cotton lost in his boat, though the boat was good and navigated with adequate skill. The original strictness of the English law, as far as it was grounded on the danger of collusion between carriers and robbers, seems hardly necessary to be kept up at present, either in that country or in the U. States; for, in general, in both countries, there is little danger of such collusion between the owners of boats, stagecoaches, baggage-wagons or coasters, and