The Online Library of Liberty

In the Gospel of Luke (2: 1-7) it is stated that the reason Jesus was born in Bethlehem was because his parents were ordered by Emperor Augustus to return to their ancestral village at a time when Mary was pregnant, thus linking the founding story of the Christian religion with Roman imperial economic policy:

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)
5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

[Read more]

Pieter Brueghel the Elder, "The Numeration (Census) of the People of Bethlehem" (1566) [See a larger version of this image 6.5 MB JPG 2439 px]

Pieter Brueghel the Elder (1525-1569) was a Flemish painter famous for his landscapes and depictions of peasant life. In this painting he takes Luke's account of the birth of Jesus in the town of Bethlehem and transposes it to mid-16th century Netherlands. The Reformation had taken root in the Netherlands which at that time was ruled by Catholic Spain under the Bourbon monarch Philip II. In addition to religious turmoil and persecution, the Flemish people suffered under heavy taxation imposed by Philip II in order to fight wars against the Ottoman Turks for control of the Mediterranean. In this context it is not surprising that Brueghel would find the biblical story of Joseph and Mary, forced by the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus to return to their ancestral city in order to be taxed, rather compelling. In the left foreground we see a cluster of ordinary people lined up to have their names checked off a ledger and then forced to hand over their taxes to an imperial official. The rest of the painting is taken up with scenes of ordinary people at work and play in the middle of winter. The Dutch Revolt against Spanish imperial control broke out in 1568 shortly after the work was painted. [More]

After having helped the American colonists shake off their reluctance to secede from the British Empire, Thomas Paine (1737-1809) turned his attention to the French Revolution which he vigorously defended against attacks by Edmund Burke. In the Rights of Man (1791) he distinguished between two types of government - the "representative" which was flourishing in North America, and the "hereditary" which still prevailed in Britain and France. He had the following harsh things to say about having an hereditary monarch:

We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling system; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical system. It is a system of mental levelling. It indiscriminately admits every species of character to the same authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject state of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on such an abject levelling system?—It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing; to-morrow it is something else. It changes with the temper of every succeeding individual, and is subject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of passions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decrepitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. It reverses the wholesome order of nature. It occasionally puts children over men, and the conceits of non-age over wisdom and experience. In short, we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession, in all its cases, presents.

[Read more]

New Playing Cards for the French Republic (1793-94): The Spirit of Peace (Motto: "Prosperity") [See larger image 600px]

This is a playing card from a charming collection of new designs for a deck which were issued during the French Revolution (1793-94). They were designed by moderate liberal republican supporters of the revolution (which included people such as the Marquis de Condorcet) who believed in the rule of law, free markets, the equality of women under the law, and the emancipation of slaves. As they said in their pamphlet they wanted to reinforce the principles of the revolution in such everyday items as playing cards, since the traditional designs had face or "court" cards depicting Kings, Queens, and Jacks who were the beneficiaries of the old privileged political order which had just been overthrown. It seemed obvious to them that a new design even for such mundaine things as playing cards was required under the Republic to reflect the new principles of government and which "the love of liberty demands". Here we show "The Spirit of Peace" (equivalent to the Queen of Clubs) which the designers explain as follows: ""Peace" is seated on an ancient seat and is holding in one hand the roll of the laws, in his other hand is the fasces signifying concord and on which is written the word "Union". Lying near him are a cornucopia and a plowshare; an olive branch which he is holding in his right hand shows its influence and justifies the word "Prosperity" which is placed next to him." An intriguing aspect of the designs was the important role which they gave to economic liberty: the Spirit of Peace" has as his motto "prosperity"; the "Spirit of Commerce" has for his "wealth"; and the "Liberty of the Professions" has "industry". Thus fully one quarter of the face cards deals with one or another aspect of economic freedom. [More]

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was convinced that the American "Civil War" was fought over who should exercise control over the Federal Government concerning tariffs, internal improvements, but most especially, over the expansion of slavery into new territories. He was convinced that if the Confederate States had their way way they would expand the institution of slavery into Mexico and the Caribbean and therefore they needed to be stopped. Likening the South to highway robbers such as Dick Turpin, Mill thought they had no right to insurrection to defend an unjust cause:

But we are told, by a strange misapplication of a true principle, that the South had a right to separate; that their separation ought to have been consented to, the moment they showed themselves ready to fight for it; and that the North, in resisting it, are committing the same error and wrong which England committed in opposing the original separation of the thirteen colonies. This is carrying the doctrine of the sacred right of insurrection rather far. It is wonderful how easy, and liberal, and complying, people can be in other people’s concerns. Because they are willing to surrender their own past, and have no objection to join in reprobation of their great-grandfathers, they never put to themselves the question what they themselves would do in circumstances far less trying, under far less pressure of real national calamity. Would those who profess these ardent revolutionary principles consent to their being applied to Ireland, or India, or the Ionian Islands? How have they treated those who did attempt so to apply them? But the case can dispense with any mere argumentum ad hominem. I am not frightened at the word rebellion. I do not scruple to say that I have sympathized more or less ardently with most of the rebellions, successful and unsuccessful, which have taken place in my time. But I certainly never conceived that there was a sufficient title to my sympathy in the mere fact of being a rebel; that the act of taking arms against one’s fellow citizens was so meritorious in itself, was so completely its own justification, that no question need be asked concerning the motive. It seems to me a strange doctrine that the most serious and responsible of all human acts imposes no obligation on those who do it, of showing that they have a real grievance; that those who rebel for the power of oppressing others, exercise as sacred a right as those who do the same thing to resist oppression practised upon themselves. Neither rebellion, nor any other act which affects the interests of others, is sufficiently legitimated by the mere will to do it. Secession may be laudable, and so may any other kind of insurrection; but it may also be an enormous crime. It is the one or the other, according to the object and the provocation. And if there ever was an object which, by its bare announcement, stamped rebels against a particular community as enemies of mankind, it is the one professed by the South. Their right to separate is the right which Cartouche or Turpin would have had to secede from their respective countries, because the laws of those countries would not suffer them to rob and murder on the highway. The only real difference is, that the present rebels are more powerful than Cartouche or Turpin, and may possibly be able to effect their iniquitous purpose.

[Read more]

Abraham Lincoln as the "Federal Phoenix" rising from the fire of the American Constitution (1864) [John Tenniel, "The Federal Phoenix", Punch, Volume 47, December 3, 1864.] [See a larger version of this image 344 KB JPG]

This week is the 150th anniversary of the start of the American "Civil War" or "War for Southern Independence" depending on one's political point of view. The image above is by the British cartoonist and illustrator John Tenniel (1820-1914) which appeared in the December 1864 issue of the satirical magazine Punch. Lincoln had recently won a hotly contested presidential election against his Democratic opponent George McClellan. To Tenniel and his English readers it seemed that Lincoln and the Republican Party had "risen from the ashes" of defeat like the proverbial phoenix. A rather stern and arrogant looking Lincoln is unfurling his political wings ready for another 4 years in office. At the end of its lifespan the phoenix is consumed by fire and emerges anew (or resurrected) for another long cycle of life. In this picture the fire which consumes the old phoenix and readies it for another life are logs with the names "Commerce," "United States Constitution," "Free Press," "Credit," "Habeus Corpus," and "States Rights." Tenniel (along with many contemporary American critics of Lincoln) thought that the American Republic itself had been consumed by the fire of civil war which had brought about press censorship, the imprisonment of critics, the suspension of habeas corpus rights, the imposition of the income tax, and other measures. [More]

In a similar fashion to John C. Calhoun's division of the world into net "tax-consumers" and net "tax-payers", the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) distinguished between the ordinary citizens who paid taxes and the public sector entities like the New York subway which "consumed" the taxes paid by the former. This is a classic example of what Mises in 1945 termed "the clash of group interests":

The financial embarrassment of the main European countries is predominantly caused by the bankruptcy of the nationalized public utilities. The deficit of these enterprises is incurable. A further rise in their rates would bring about a drop in total net proceeds. The traffic could not bear it. Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful. But it is impossible to sell these enterprises back to private capital because the threat of a new expropriation by a later government would deter potential buyers.

In a capitalist country the railroads and the telegraph and telephone companies pay considerable taxes. In the countries of the mixed economy, the yearly losses of these public enterprises are a heavy drain upon the nation’s purse. They are not taxpayers, but tax-eaters.

Under the conditions of today, the nationalized public utilities of Europe are not merely feasting on taxes paid by the citizens of their own country; they are also living at the expense of the American taxpayer. A considerable part of the foreign-aid billions is swallowed by the deficits of Europe’s nationalization experiments...

[Read more]

The King as a "Tax Eater" by Honoré Daumier (1831) [Honoré Daumier, “Gargantua” (1831)] [See a larger version of this image 270 KB JPG]

This caricature from 1831 shows how Daumier thought ordinary people were exploited by the ruling elites through taxation and regulation. It was created at a time when agitation for democratic reforms were strong in both England and France and was drawn by the French republican artist Honoré Daumier for a satirical magazine in 1831. It depicts a fat and pear-shaped King Louis Philippe as a "tax eater" (the "Gargantua" from Rabelais' novel) who takes from the prdinary people and gives privileges to the ruling elite. The taxpayers (to the right) are loading baskets full of their tax money which are carried up a ramp into the king’s open mouth. Some well dressed citizens gather around his feet to collect the coins which fall to the ground. From the king’s commode fall official documents which grant various privileges and honours to those waiting below, before they rush off to the National Assembl in the backgrundy. For making this drawing Daumier spent 6 months in prison for offending the king. [More]

Henry Home, Lord Kames, Elements of Criticism:

As gardening is not an inventive art, but an imitation of nature, or rather nature itself ornamented; it follows necessarily, that every thing unnatural ought to be rejected with disdain. Statues of wild beasts vomiting water, a common ornament in gardens, prevail in those of Versailles. Is that ornament in a good taste? A jet d’eau, being purely artificial, may, without disgust, be tortured into a thousand shapes: but a representation of what really exists in nature, admits not any unnatural circumstance. In the statues of Versailles the artist has displayed his vicious taste without the least colour or disguise. A lifeless statue of an animal pouring out water, may be endured without much disgust: but here the lions and wolves are put in violent action, each has seized its prey, a deer or a lamb, in act to devour; and yet, as by hocus-pocus, the whole is converted into a different scene: the lion, forgetting his prey, pours out water plentifully; and the deer, forgetting its danger, performs the same work: a representation no less absurd than that in the opera, where Alexander the Great after mounting the wall of a town besieged, turns his back to the enemy, and entertains his army with a song.

In gardening, every lively exhibition of what is beautiful in nature has a fine effect: on the other hand, distant and faint imitations are displeasing to every one of taste. The cutting evergreens in the shape of animals, is very ancient; as appears from the epistles of Pliny, who seems to be a great admirer of the conceit. The propensity to imitation gave birth to that practice; and has supported it wonderfully long, considering how faint and insipid the imitation is. But the vulgar, great and small, are entertained with the oddness and singularity of a resemblance, however distant, between a tree and an animal. An attempt in the gardens of Versailles to imitate a grove of trees by a group of jets d’eau, appears, for the same reason, no less childish.

In designing a garden, every thing trivial or whimsical ought to be avoided. Is a labyrinth then to be justified? It is a mere conceit, like that of composing verses in the shape of an axe or an egg: the walks and hedges may be agreeable; but in the form of a labyrinth, they serve to no end but to puzzle: a riddle is a conceit not so mean; because the solution is proof of sagacity, which affords no aid in tracing a labyrinth.

The gardens of Versailles, executed with boundless expence by the best artists of that age, are a lasting monument of a taste the most depraved: the faults above mentioned, instead of being avoided, are chosen as beauties, and multiplied without end. Nature, it would seem, was deemed too vulgar to be imitated in the works of a magnificent monarch; and for that reason preference was given to things unnatural, which probably were mistaken for supernatural. I have often amused myself with a fanciful resemblance between these gardens and the Arabian tales: each of them is a performance intended for the amusement of a great king: in the sixteen gardens of Versailles there is no unity of design, more than in the thousand and one Arabian tales: and, lastly, they are equally unatural; groves of jets d’eau, statues of animals conversing in the manner of Aesop, water issuing out of the mouths of wild beasts, give an impression of fairy-land and witchcraft, no less than diamond-palaces, invisible rings, spells and incantations.

It is early spring and green is the dominant color of the landscape (with blue, black,and red the dominant colors of the aristocrats' clothing). The land is laid out before the castle like a garden. A small village is nestled against the walls of the castle to the right; two men in boats are fishing peacefully in the moat; to the right we can see a garden beginning to bloom with what might be fruit trees with white flowers and several bushes tied up against the wall in a horizontal espalier; in the centre foreground two aristocratic ladies are kneeling picking flowers which are growing wild in the grass; another group of aristocrats dressed in very festive clothes are to the left - a bride and bride groom are choosing a wedding ring laid out on a cushion as the lord and lady preside over the little ceremony. The political meaning of the picture might be as follows: we are witnessing the betrothal in 1410 of Charles d'Orleans and Bonne d'Armagnac, the daughter of Bernard d'Armagnac and the grand-daughter of the Duc de Berry. This is a political alliance between two powerful families who were on opposite sides of the 100 Years War. Thus we see here the illustration of the themes of peace and tranquility in both the natural and political worlds. [More]

This passage from Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) encapsulates an important part of the idea of the rule of law (or "written reason"), namely that it must be applied equally and impartially to all individuals and must not be subject to "mitigation or interpretation" by the ruler. It appeared in Sidney's unpublished book Discourses Concerning Government which was used to charge, try, and execute him for treason in 1683:

’Tis not therefore upon the uncertain will or understanding of a prince, that the safety of a nation ought to depend. He is sometimes a child, and sometimes overburden’d with years. Some are weak, negligent, slothful, foolish or vicious: others, who may have something of rectitude in their intentions, and naturally are not incapable of doing well, are drawn out of the right way by the subtlety of ill men who gain credit with them. That rule must always be uncertain, and subject to be distorted, which depends upon the fancy of such a man. He always fluctuates, and every passion that arises in his mind, or is infused by others, disorders him. The good of a people ought to be established upon a more solid foundation. For this reason the law is established, which no passion can disturb. ’Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ’Tis mens sine affectu [mind without passion], written reason, retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but without any regard to persons commands that which is good, and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. ’Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible.

[Read more]

Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) and the Thomas Hollis Library of Liberty [Hollis/Cipriani, Frontispiece to Sidney's Discourses concerning Government (1762)] [See a higher resolution image 3.8 MB JPG]

This image was designed by Thomas Hollis and appeared as the frontispiece of his 1762 edition of Algernon Sidney's Discourses concerning Government (1698) which was one of the most important works on republicanism to appear in the 17th century and which had a profound effect on the thinking of the American colonists during the American Revolution. It shows a long-haired, rather aristocratic Sidney dressed in the army uniform he wore during the 1640s. Over his shoulder he carries a banner with the Latin motto "Sanctus amor patriae dat animum" (the sacred love of the fatherland inspires). He turned against the revolution after Oliver Cromwell was appointed Lord Protector and went into self-imposed exile when the Stuart monarchy was restored in 1660. While he was Ambassador to Denmark in 1659 he wrote a provocative Latin motto in the King's visitors book which is included in the text above: "manus haec inimica tyrannis, ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem" which can be translated as "this hand, hostile to tyrants, seeks with the sword a quiet peace under liberty". This motto was adopted by the State of Massachusetts in 1775 as its official motto in recognition of the important role Sidney's ideas played in the formation of the American republic. [more]

Adam Smith, Lectures On Jurisprudence:

Every body must be sensible how much labour is abridged and facilitated by the application of proper machinery. By means of the plough two men, with the assistance of three horses, will cultivate more ground than twenty could do with the spade. A miller and his servant, with a wind or water mill, will at their ease grind more corn than eight men could do, with the severest labour, by hand mills. To grind corn in a hand mill was the severest work to which the antients commonly applied their slaves, and to which they seldome condemned them unlessl when they had been guilty of some very great fault. A hand mill, however, is a very ingenuous machine which greatly facilitates labour, and by which a great deal of more work can be performed than when the corn is either to be beat in a mortar, or with the bare hand, unassisted by any machinery, to be rubbed into pouder between two hard stones, as is the practice not only of all barbarous nations but of some remote provinces in this country. It was the division of labour which probably gave occasion to the invention of the greater part of those machines, by which labour is so much facilitated and abridged. When the whole force of the mind is directed to one particular object, as in consequence of the division of labour it must be, the mind is more likely to discover the easiest methods of attaining that object than when its attention is dissipated among a great variety of things. He was probably a farmer who first invented the original, rude form of the plough. The improvements which were afterwards made upon it might be owing sometimes to the ingenuity of the plow wright when that business had become a particular occupation, and sometimes to that of the farmer. Scarce any of them are so complex as to exceed what might be expected from the capacity of the latter. The drill plow, the most ingenious of any, was the invention of a farmer.

The snow has melted and the peasants go about preparing the soil for the spring planting. In the background we can see the Château de Lusignan (in the Department of Vienne) on a hill top dominating the farmland about. The Chateau was a formidable defensive structure with multiple defensive walls and was probably at its height when owned by the Duc de Berry in the early 15th century. To the left we can see the barbican tower (the gatehouse), in the center the clocktower with its external privy, and to the right a tower with a protective golden dragon on its roof. On the slopes below the castle we can see various peasant activities: at the top left we can see a shepherd and his dog looking after a flock of sheep; below this are three peasants pruning the vines; to their right is a vineyard which has already been prepared for the spring growing season; at the far right is a peasant sifting a bag of seed corn; and in the foreground we see a peasant ploughing a field with 2 oxen. Given its prominent place in the picture and the extraordinary detail with which it is painted, the Limburg brothers were keen to show how important agriculture was to the peasant economy and how dependent upon it for their upkeep were the castles and chateaux of the aristocracy. [More]

In Common Sense (January 1776) Thomas Paine reminded the American colonists that in a free republic " the law is king" and that if a day were to be set aside to celebrate the republic's achievements then it should not be focused on a single man but on the law itself:

But where, say some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the Charter; let it be brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the Crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.

A government of our own is our natural right: and when a man seriously reflects on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced, that it is infinitely wiser and safer, to form a constitution of our own in a cool deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now, some Massanello may hereafter arise [Note: Thomas Anello, otherwise Massanello, a fisherman of Naples, who after spiriting up his countrymen in the public market place, against the oppression of the Spaniards, to whom the place was then subject, prompted them to revolt, and in the space of a day became King], who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, finally sweep away the liberties of the Continent like a deluge.

[Read more]

Presidents Day and the Apotheosis of Washington John James Barralet, "The Apotheosis of Washington" (1802) [See a larger version of the image as an engraved print for more details].

In the United States the third Monday of February is designated "Washington's Birthday", better known by the name "Presidents Day". There appear to be two main periods for the creation of images of the apotheoisis of Washington. The first comes immediately after his death in 1799 and the second comes after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln (April 1865). The image above was drawn by John James Barralet and it appeared in various forms between 1802 and 1816. It shows George Washington ascending into heaven assisted by Father Time and an angel (or "Immortality"). Shafts of light shine down from heaven through a break in the clouds as the angel and Father Time lift Washington, wrapped in a red piece of cloth or perhaps his burial shroud, from what appears to be his coffin or crypt. To the left three women (Faith, Hope, and Charity) can be seen: one holds her hand out towards him grieving; another holds two children in her arms; and a third is slumped forward on her arms weeping. Beneath Washington can be seen an American eagle, the American shield on which is written "e pluribus unum" and Liberty, whose head is bowed in sorrow. Her staff with the red phrygian cap is resting among Washington's discarded armour and sword which lie beside a facses. In the far right bottom corner we can see a American Indian with his hatchet and arrows sitting with his head resting on his knees. This is one of many images of Washington which appeared in the 19th century. He appeared on stamps, paper money, postcards and prints, as well as a monumental fresco by Brumidi on the ceiling of the Capitol Building painted in 1865. [more]

John Millar, The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks (1771):

The situation, however, of these bond-men, and the nature of the employment in which they were usually engaged, had a tendency to procure them a variety of privileges from their master, by which, in a course of ages, their condition was rendered more comfortable, and they were advanced to higher degrees of consideration and rank. As the peasants belonging to a single person could not be conveniently maintained in his house, so in order to cultivate his lands to advantage, it was necessary that they should be sent to a distance, and have a fixed residence in different parts of his estate. Separate habitations were therefore assigned them; and particular farms were committed to the care of individuals, who from their residing in the neighbourhood of one another, and forming small villages or hamlets, received the appellation of “villains.” It may easily be imagined that, in those circumstances, the proprietor of a large estate could not oversee the behaviour of his servants, living in separate families, and scattered over the wide extent of his demesnes; and it was in vain to think of compelling them to labour by endeavouring to chastise them upon account of their idleness. A very little experience would show that no efforts of that kind could be effectual; and that the only means of exciting the industry of the peasants would be to offer them a reward for the work which they performed. Thus, beside the ordinary maintenance allotted to the slaves, they frequently obtained a small gratuity, which, by custom, was gradually converted into a regular hire; and, being allowed the enjoyment and disposal of that subject, they were at length understood to be capable of having separate property. After the master came to reside at a distance from the bulk of his servants, and had embraced the salutary policy of bribing them, instead of using compulsion, in order to render them active in their employment, he was less apt to be provoked by their negligence; and as he had seldom occasion to treat them with severity, the ancient dominion which he exercised over their lives was at length entirely lost by disuse. When a slave had been for a long time engaged in a particular farm, and had become acquainted with that particular culture which it required, he was so much the better qualified to continue in the management of it for the future; and it was contrary to the interest of the master that he should be removed to another place, or employed in labour of a different kind. By degrees, therefore, the peasants were regarded as belonging to the stock upon the ground, and came to be uniformly disposed of as a part of the estate which they had been accustomed to cultivate. As these changes were gradual, it is difficult to ascertain the precise period at which they were completed. The continual disorders which prevailed in the western part of Europe, for ages after it was first over-run by the German nations, prevented for a long time the progress of arts among the new inhabitants. It was about the twelfth century that a spirit of improvement, in several European countries, became somewhat conspicuous; and it may be considered as a mark of that improvement, with respect to agriculture, that about this time, the villains had obtained considerable privileges; that the master’s power over their life was then understood to be extinguished; that the chastisement to which they had been formerly subjected was become more moderate; and that they were generally permitted to acquire separate property.

In striking contrast to January where we see a gathering of aristocrats for gift giving and feasting, in the image for February we see a group of peasants going about their winter chores and warming themselves by a fire. The taxes they pay to the aristocratic landowners make possible the feasting they are enjoying so much above. In the background we can see a grey sky and a snow-covered village. Two men are at work: one walks behind a donkey which is laboring up the hill, and another is chopping firewood. In the middle ground we can see a number of objects which contribute to the peasant economy: a snow covered haystack, 4 beehives, and a dovecote. In the foreground we can see a sheep pen with sheep hunddling together for warmth, and a group of birds (doves or magpies) pecking some seeds which have been strewn on the ground. Seeking warmth is also the theme of the 4 people in the foreground. A cut away picture of a peasant's home shows a couple sitting by the fire with their pants and skirt hitched up in order to warm their legs. As in the image for January we see them with their hands raised towards the fire in a gesture of hand warming. A better dressed woman in a blue dress is shyly looking away as she too discreetly lifts her dress (only half way up) to warm herself. To the right a fourth person wrapped in a shawl is hurrying towards the house and its warm fire. [More]

The English judge and Member of Parliament Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634) spelled out the full meaning of what it meant to have "English liberties." Because he believed that "the liberty of a mans person is more precious to him, then all the rest that follow" he listed the nine "branches" which made up the "tree of liberty" as understood in the mid-17th century:

Upon this Chapter [29], as out of a roote, many fruitfull branches of the Law of England have sprung...

This Chapter containeth nine severall branches.

1. That no man be taken or imprisoned, but per legem terrae, that is, by the Common Law, Statute Law, or Custome of England; for these words, Per legem terrae, being towards the end of this Chapter, doe referre to all the precedent matters in this Chapter, and this hath the first place, because the liberty of a mans person is more precious to him, then all the rest that follow, and therefore it is great reason, that he should by Law be relieved therein, if he be wronged, as hereafter shall be shewed.

2. No man shall be disseised, that is, put out of seison, or dispossessed of his free-hold (that is) lands, or livelihood, or of his liberties, or free customes, that is, of such franchises, and freedomes, and free customes, as belong to him by his free birth-right, unlesse it be by the lawfull judgement, that is, verdict of his equals (that is, of men of his own condition) or by the Law of the Land (that is, to speak it once for all) by the due course, and processe of Law.

3. No man shall be out-lawed, made an exlex, put out of the Law, that is, deprived of the benefit of the Law, unlesse he be out-lawed according to the Law of the Land.

4. No man shall be exiled, or banished out of his Country, that is, Nemo perdet patriam, no man shall lose his Country, unlesse he be exiled according to the Law of the Land.

5. No man shall be in any sort destroyed (Destruere. i. quod prius structum, & factum fuit, penitus evertere & diruere) unlesse it be by the verdict of his equals, or according to the Law of the Land.

6. No man shall be condemned at the Kings suite, either before the King in his Bench, where the Pleas are Coram Rege, (and so are the words, Nec super eum ibimus, to be understood) nor before any other Commissioner, or Judge whatsoever, and so are the words, Nec super eum mittemus, to be understood, but by the judgement of his Peers, that is, equalls, or according to the Law of the Land.

7. We shall sell to no man Justice or Right.

8. We shall deny to no man Justice or Right.

9. We shall defer to no man Justice or Right.

[Read more]

John Lilburne reading from Coke's Institutes at his Treason Trial (1649) [See a larger version of this image 250 KB JPG]

John Lilburne (1615-1657) was a leader in the Leveller movement of the 1640s and was a prolific pamphleteer who defended religious and individual liberty. He was imprisoned several times for his views and was active in the army of the New Parliament rising to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel. In October 1649 he was arrested and tried for High Treason for printing and circulating books and pamphlets critical of the government but was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers. He defended himself vigorously in court, quoting from the works of the great jurist Sir Edward Coke. In this rather triumphant drawing we see Lilburne (or "Free-borne John" as he was called in reference to his constant quoting of the rights of all free born Englishmen) lieterally standing before the bench and reading from a copy of Coke's Institutes (or commentaries on the laws of England). Coke's Second Part of the Institutes had appeared in 1642 and were a detailed gloss on the Great Charter of Liberties (or Magna Carta) of 1215. This is the volume Lilburne is probably reading from and a passage on the nature of English Liberties which might have caught his eye can be found here. Above his head we can see on the right a plaque which lists the names of the jurymen who freed him. In a pamphlet he published soon after his acquittal he listed the date of publication as "Printed in the fall of Tyranny. 1649."
[more]

The legal theorist, abolitionist, and radical individualist Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) applied the same moral principles to the actions of an organization as he did to a single individual. This lead him to make some harsh criticisms of the government as this quotation reveals:

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

[Read more]

James Gillray on Debt and Taxes during the Napoleonic Wars

Image Title: James Gillray, "A Great Stream from a Petty-Fountain; or John Bull swamped in the Flood of new-Taxes; Cormorants Fishing the Stream" (1806). [See a larger version of this image 2.5 MB JPG].

James Gillray (1756-1815) trained as engraver but became best known for making hundreds of caricatures of British social and political life in the 1790s and 1800s. He satirized in particular King George III, William Pitt, the French Jacobins, Napoleon, and many others in the British political and military establishment. A recurring theme in his work was the dramatic increase in taxation and the national debt which was imposed in order to fight the wars against Napoleon and which placed a growing burden on the English people (represented as "John Bull"). Gillray also satirized the large numbers of well-connected people in the government and the military who profited from increased government expenditure by depicting them as greedy cormorants, sucking pigs, highway men, and wasps and hornets.

In this caricature, on the left we see John Bull (the personification of Britain) in a sinking boat which has been swamped by a mass of new taxes to fund the war against Napoleon. He has lost hold of an oar with the name of "William Pitt" written on it. [William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister from 1804-1806 as well as Chancellor of the Exchequer (or minister of finance)]. On the right we see a man's head (Lord Henry Petty the new Chancellor of the Exchequer) from whose mouth pours a fountain of water labelled "new taxes" which are named in the cascades of the fountain (taxes on salt, tea, hops, malt, sugar, alcohol, candles, horses, servants, soap, houses, land, stamps, windows, property, etc.). In the foreground we see 10 hungry cormorants with human heads devouring the fish, crabs, and eels which thrive in the waters of the tax fountain. In the middle ground there are 2 other human-headed birds; in the distance we can see dozens more hungry cormorants heading towards the tax feast. The heads of the cormorants probably depict prominent politicians and other figures of the day. [more]

Henry Home, Lord Kames, Sketches of the History of Man (1778).

Feasts in former times were carried beyond all bounds. William of Malmsbury, who wrote in the days of Henry II. says, “That the English were universally addicted to Drunkenness, continuing over their cups day and night, keeping open house, and spending the income of their estates in riotous feasts, where eating and drinking were carried to excess, without any elegance.” People who live in a corner imagine that every thing is peculiar to themselves: what Malmsbury says of the English is common to all nations, in advancing from the selfishness of savages to a relish for society, but who have not yet learned to bridle their appetites. Giraldus Cambrensis, speaking of the Monks of Saint Swithin, says, that they threw themselves prostrate at the feet of King Henry II. and with many tears complained, that the Bishop, who was their abbot, had withdrawn from them three of their usual number of dishes. Henry, having made them acknowledge that there still remained ten dishes, said, that he himself was contented with three, and recommended to the Bishop to reduce them to that number. Leland (a) mentions a feast given by the Archbishop of York, at his installation, in the reign of Edward IV. The following is a specimen: 300 quarters of wheat, 300 tons of ale, 100 tons of wine, 1000 sheep, 104 oxen, 304 calves, 304 swine, 2000 geese, 1000 capons, 2000 pigs, 400 swans, 104 peacocks, 1500 hot venison pasties, 4000 cold, 5000 custards, hot and cold. Such entertainments are a picture of manners. At that early period, there was not discovered in society any pleasure but that of crowding together in hunting and feasting. The delicate pleasures of conversation, in communicating opinions, sentiments, and desires, were to them unknown. There appeared, however, even at that early period, a faint dawn of the fine arts. In such feasts as are mentioned above, a curious desert was sometimes exhibited, term-ed sutteltie, viz. paste moulded into the shape of animals. On a saint’s day, angels, prophets, and patriarchs, were set upon the table in plenty. A feast given by Trivultius to Lewis XII. of France, in the city of Milan, makes a figure in Italian history. No fewer than 1200 ladies were invited; and the Cardinals of Narbon and St. Severin, with many other prelates, were among the dancers. After dancing, followed the feast, to regulate which there were no fewer employed than 160 master-households. Twelve hundred officers, in an uniform of velvet, or satin, carried the victuals, and served at the side-board. Every table, without distinction, was served with silver-plate, engraved with the arms of the landlord; and beside a prodigious number of Italian lords, the whole court, and all the household of the King, were feasted. The bill of fare of an entertainment given by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn to a company of 1500 persons, on his coming of age, is a sample of ancient English hospitality, which appears to have nothing in view but crowding and cramming merely. The following passage is from Hollinshed: “That the length and sumptuousness of feasts formerly in use, are not totally left off in England, notwithstanding that it proveth very beneficial to the physicians, who most abound where most excess and misgovernment of our bodies do appear.” He adds, that claret, and other French wines, were despised, and strong wines only in request. The best, he says, were to be found in monasteries: for “that the merchant would have thought his soul would go straightway to the devil, if he should serve monks with other than the best.” Our forefathers relished strong wine, for the same reason that their forefathers relished brandy. In Scotland, sumptuous entertainments were common at marriages, baptisms, and burials. In the reign of Charles II. a statute was thought necessary to confine them within moderate bounds.

January was a month of gift giving and we can see some of the wealthy friends of the Duke de Berry bringing new year's gifts to their lord (who can be seen seated on the right at a banquet table in a striking blue robe decorated with gold fleurs de lys - indicating his support for the French monarchy). He sits before a large fire which warms the group from the January cold. Behind him and to the right are two young men wearing black head gear who may be the Limbourg brothers who painted these scenes under the patronage of the Duke de Berry. On the wall behind the revellers is a large tapestry which shows a scene from the Trojan War (although the soldiers are dressed in 15th century uniforms). It might also be a reference to the war which was currently being fought against King Henry V of England who defeated the French at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. [More]

Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713) believed that liberty played the key role in fostering the development of the liberal arts and sciences and that the government should leave things alone and not disturb the "Genius of Liberty":

[W]ithout a Publick Voice, knowingly guided and directed, there is nothing which can raise a true Ambition in the Artist; nothing which can exalt the Genius of the Workman, or make him emulous of after-Fame, and of the approbation of his Country, and of Posterity. For with these he naturally, as a Freeman, must take part: in these he has a passionate Concern, and Interest, rais’d in him by the same Genius of Liberty, the same Laws and Government, by which his Property, and the Rewards of his Pains and Industry are secur’d to him, and to his Generation after him.

Every thing co-operates, in such a State, towards the Improvement of Art and Science. And for the designing Arts in particular, such as Architecture, Painting, and Statuary, they are in a manner link’d together. The Taste of one kind brings necessarily that of the others along with it. When the free Spirit of a Nation turns it-self this way, Judgments are form’d; Criticks arise; the publick Eye and Ear improve; a right Taste prevails, and in a manner forces its way. Nothing is so improving, nothing so natural, so con-genial to the liberal Arts, as that reigning Liberty and high Spirit of a People, which from the Habit of judging in the highest Matters for themselves, makes ’em freely judg of other Subjects, and enter thorowly into the Characters as well of Men and Manners, as of the Products or Works of Men, in Art and Science...

What Encouragement our higher Powers may think fit to give these growing Arts, I will not pretend to guess. This I know, that ’tis so much for their advantage and Interest to make themselves the chief Partys in the Cause, that I wish no Court or Ministry, besides a truly virtuous and wise one, may ever concern themselves in the Affair. For shou’d they do so, they wou’d in reality do more harm than good; since ’tis not the Nature of a Court (such as Courts generally are) to improve, but rather corrupt a Taste.

[Read more]

Shaftesbury designed the illustrations which accompanied the publication of his treatise in 1713. They are quite allegorical in nature and the meaning of many of the symbols is not entirely clear. This illustration appeared on the title page of volume 2 and is quite typical. It shows three panels. The top panel shows the free, productive, and harmonious cooperation of large groups of creatures (the bee hive on the left; a herd of deer, a flock of birds, a human settlement, and commercial shipping in the middle; and an anthill on the right). The bottom panel shows similar harmonious cooperation and useful activity but this time on an individual or familial level (a single spider in its web and a mother and father bird feeding their chicks in the nest). In the bottom center is a globe of the world surrounded by a circular chain, suggesting that the entire world is interlinked and interconnected by similar examples of cooperation and harmony. The middle panel shows Liberty or Britannia in her chariot being pulled by lions, with Pallas Athena (the goddess of wisdom and justice) standing next to her holding a staff and a Phrygian cap of liberty. To the left are three Passions or Vices (Flattery, Hypocrisy, and Intemperance); to the right are three Virtues (Fortitude, Justice, Abundance). One might conclude from this that, when men are free to choose, they choose virtue over vice with the result being cooperation, harmony, and prosperity. [More]