Chapter C: Section 2 (3)

"The earliest instance on record of popular representation in
Castile occurred at Burgos, in 1169; nearly a century
antecedent to the celebrated Leicester parliament. Each city
had but one vote, whatever might be the number of its
representatives. A much greater irregularity, in regard to the
number of cities required to send deputies to cortes [the name
signifying 'court'] on different occasions, prevailed in
Castile, than had ever existed in England; though, previously
to the 15th century, this does not seem to have proceeded from
any design of infringing on the liberties of the people. The
nomination of these was originally vested in the householders
at large, but was afterwards confined to the
municipalities,--a most mischievous alteration, which
subjected their election eventually to the corrupt influence
of the crown. They assembled in the same chamber with the
higher orders of the nobility and clergy, but on questions of
moment, retired to deliberate by themselves. After the
transaction of other business, their own petitions were
presented to the sovereign, and his assent gave them the
validity of laws. The Castilian commons, by neglecting to make
their money grants depend on corresponding concessions from
the crown, relinquished that powerful check on its operations
so beneficially exerted in the British parliament, but in vain
contended for even there till a much later period than that
now under consideration. Whatever may have been the right of
the nobility and clergy to attend in cortes, their sanction
was not deemed essential to the validity of legislative acts;
for their presence was not even required in many assemblies of
the nation which occurred in the 14th and 15th centuries. The
extraordinary power thus committed to the commons was, on the
whole, unfavorable to their liberties. It deprived them of the
sympathy and cooperation of the great orders of the state,
whose authority alone could have enabled them to withstand the
encroachments of arbitrary power, and who, in fact, did
eventually desert them in their utmost need. ... The Aragonese
cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; the ricos
hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the
knights; the clergy; and the commons. The nobility of every
denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The
ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar
privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of
this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum.
{617}
The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from
the inferior as well as higher clergy. It is affirmed not to
have been a component of the national legislature until more
than a century and a half after the admission of the commons.
Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in
Aragon than in the other kingdoms of the Peninsula. ... The
commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges. For
this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of
their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic
institutions naturally extended to other parts of the
Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to
the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of
immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were
permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. From a
very early period we find them employed in offices of public
trust, and on important missions. The epoch of their admission
into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133,
several years earlier than the commencement of popular
representation in Castile. Each city had the right of sending
two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its
magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever
might be the number of its deputies. Any place which had been
once represented in cortes might always claim to be so. By a
statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been
annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little
regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for
some specific necessity. The great officers of the crown,
whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded
from their deliberations. ... It was in the power of any
member to defeat the passage of a bill, by opposing to it his
veto or dissent, formally registered to that effect. He might
even interpose his negative on the proceedings of the house,
and thus put a stop to the prosecution of all further business
during the session. This anomalous privilege, transcending
even that claimed in the Polish diet, must have been too
invidious in its exercise, and too pernicious in its
consequences, to have been often resorted to. This may be
inferred from the fact that it was not formally repealed until
the reign of Philip II., in 1502. ... The cortes exercised the
highest functions, whether of a deliberative, legislative, or
judicial nature. It had a right to be consulted on all matters
of importance, especially on those of peace and war. No law
was valid, no tax could be imposed, without its consent; and
it carefully provided for the application of the revenue to
its destined uses. It determined the succession to the crown,
removed obnoxious ministers, reformed the household and
domestic expenditure of the monarch, and exercised the power,
in the most unreserved manner, of withholding supplies, as
well as of resisting what it regarded as an encroachment on
the liberties of the nation. ... The statute-book affords the
most unequivocal evidence of the fidelity with which the
guardians of the realm discharged the high trust reposed in
them, in the numerous enactments it exhibits for the security
both of person and property. Almost the first page which meets
the eye in this venerable record contains the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta, as it has been well denominated,
of Aragon. It was granted by Peter the Great to the cortes at
Saragossa, in 1283. It embraces a variety of provisions for
the fair and open administration of justice; for ascertaining
the legitimate powers intrusted to the cortes; for the
security of property against exactions of the crown; and for
the conservation of their legal immunities to the municipal
corporations and the different orders of nobility. ... The
Aragonese, who rightly regarded the General Privilege as the
broadest basis of their liberties, repeatedly procured its
confirmation by succeeding sovereigns. ... The judicial
functions of the cortes have not been sufficiently noticed by
writers. They were extensive in their operation, and gave it
the name of the General Court."

_W. H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and
Isabella, introduction, section 1-2._

"Castile bore a closer analogy to England in its form of civil
polity than France or even Aragon. But the frequent disorders
of its government and a barbarous state of manners rendered
violations of law much more continual and flagrant than they
were in England under the Plantagenet dynasty. And besides
these practical mischiefs, there were two essential defects in
the constitution of Castile, through which perhaps it was
ultimately subverted. It wanted those two brilliants in the
coronet of British liberty, the representation of freeholders
among the commons, and trial by jury. The cortes of Castile
became a congress of deputies from a few cities, public
spirited, indeed, and intrepid, as we find them in bad times,
to an eminent degree, but too much limited in number, and too
unconnected with the territorial aristocracy, to maintain a
just balance against the crown. ... Perhaps in no European
monarchy except our own was the form of government more
interesting than in Aragon, as a fortunate temperament of law
and justice with the royal authority. ... Blancas quotes a
noble passage from the acts of cortes in 1451. 'We have always
heard of old time, and it is found by experience, that seeing
the great barrenness of this land, and the poverty of the
realm, if it were not for the liberties thereof, the folk
would go hence to live and abide in other realms and lands
more fruitful.' This high spirit of freedom had long animated
the Aragonese. After several contests with the crown in the
reign of James I., not to go back to earlier times, they
compelled Peter III. in 1283 to grant a law called the General
Privilege, the Magna Charta of Aragon, and perhaps a more full
and satisfactory basis of civil liberty than our own." They
further "established a positive right of maintaining their
liberties by arms. This was contained in the Privilege of
Union granted by Alfonso III. in 1287, after a violent
conflict with his subjects; but which was afterwards so
completely abolished, and even eradicated from the records of
the kingdom, that its precise words have never been recovered.
... That watchfulness over public liberty which originally
belonged to the aristocracy of ricos hombres ... and which was
afterwards maintained by the dangerous Privilege of Union,
became the duty of a civil magistrate whose office and
functions are the most pleasing feature in the constitutional
history of Aragon. The Justiza or Justiciary of Aragon has
been treated by some writers as a sort of anomalous
magistrate. ... But I do not perceive that his functions were,
in any essential respect, different from those of the chief
justice of England, divided, from the time of Edward I., among
the judges of the King's Bench. ...
{618}
All the royal as well as territorial judges were
bound to apply for his opinion in case of legal difficulties
arising in their courts, which he was to certify within eight
days. By subsequent statutes of the same reign it was made
penal for anyone to obtain letters from the king, impeding the
execution of the Justiza's process, and they were declared
null. Inferior courts were forbidden to proceed in any
business after his prohibition. ... There are two parts of his
remedial jurisdiction which deserve special notice. These are
the processes of juris firma, or firma del derechio, and of
manifestation. The former bears some analogy to the writs of
'pone' and 'certiorari' in England, through which the Court of
King's Bench exercises its right of withdrawing a suit from
the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals. But the Aragonese
juris firma was of more extensive operation. ... The process
termed manifestation afforded as ample security for personal
liberty as that of juris firma did for property."

_H. Hallam, The Middle Age, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

For some account of the loss of the old constitutional
liberties of Castile and Aragon, under Charles V.,

See SPAIN: A. D. 1518-1522.

"The councils or meetings of the bishops after the reconquest,
like the later Councils of Toledo, were always 'jussu regis,'
and were attended by counts and magnates 'ad videndum sine ad
audiendum verbum Domini.' But when the ecclesiastical business
was ended, it was natural that the lay part of the assembly
should discuss the affairs of the kingdom and of the people;
and insensibly this after-part of the proceedings grew as the
first part diminished in importance. The exact date when the
Council merged into the Curia or Cortes is difficult to
determine; Señor Colmeiro takes the so-named Council of Leon
in 1020 as the true starting-point of the latter. The early
monarchy of Spain was elective, and the acclamation of the
assembled people (plebs) was at least theoretically necessary
to render the king's election valid. The presence of the
citizens at the Cortes or Zamora, though stated by Sandoval
and Morales, is impugned by Señor Colmeiro; but at the Council
of Oviedo in 1115 were present bishops of Spain and Portugal
'cum principibus et plebe praedictae regionis,' and these
latter also subscribed the Acts. Still, though present and
making their influence more and more felt, there is no record
of a true representation of cities until Alfonso IX. convoked
the Cortes of Leon in 1188, 'cum archiepiscopo, et episcopis,
et magnatibus regni mei et cum electis civibus ex singulis
civitatibus'; from this time the three estates--clergy,
nobles, citizens--were always represented in the Cortes of
Leon. Unfortunately, the political development of Castille did
not synchronise with that of Leon. In general, that of
Castille was fully half a century later. We pass by as more
than doubtful the alleged presence of citizens at Burgos in
1169; the 'majores civitatum et villarum' at the Cortes of
Carrion in 1188 were not deputies, but the judges or governors
of twenty-eight cities. It is not till the united Cortes of
both kingdoms met at Seville in 1250, that we find true
representation in Castille. Castille was always more feudal
than Leon. It is in this want of simultaneous development, and
in the presence of privileged classes, that we find the germ
of the evils which eventually destroyed the liberties of
Spain. Neither the number of deputies nor of the cities
represented was ever fixed; at Burgos, in 1315, we find 200
deputies (procuradores) from 100 cities; gradually the number
sank till seventeen, and finally twenty-two, cities alone were
represented. The deputies were chosen from the municipality
either by lot, by rotation, or by election; they were the mere
spokesmen of the city councils, whose mandate was imperative.
Their payment was at first by the cities, but, after 1422, by
the king; and there are constant complaints that the salary
was insufficient. The reign of Juan II. (1406-54) was fatal to
the liberties of Castille; the answers to the demands and
petitions of the deputies were deferred; and, in fact, if not
in form, the law that no tax should be levied without consent
of the Cortes was constantly violated. Still, but for the
death of Prince Juan, in 1497, and the advent of the Austrian
dynasty with the possession of the Low Countries, the old
liberties might yet have been recovered. ... With the Cortes
of Toledo, in 1538, ended the meeting of the three estates.
The nobility first, then the clergy, were eliminated from the
Cortes, leaving only the proctors of the cities to become
servile instruments for the purposes of taxation."

_W. Webster, Review of Colmeiro's
"Cortes de los Antiguos Reinos de Leon y de Castilla"
(Academy, Aug. 16, 1884)._

CORUNNA, Battle of (1809).

See SPAIN: A. D. 1808-1809 (AUGUST-JANUARY).

CORUPEDION, Battle of.

A battle fought in western Phrygia, B. C. 281, in which
Lysimmachus, one of the disputants for Alexander's empire, was
defeated by Seleucus, and slain.

_C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 60._

CORVÉE.

One of the feudal rights possessed in France (under the old
regime, before the Revolution) "by the lord of the manor over
his subjects, by means of which he could employ for his own
profit a certain number of their days of labour, or of their
oxen and horses. The 'Corvée à volonté,' that is to say, at
the arbitrary will of the Seigneur, had been completely
abolished [before the Revolution]: forced labour had been for
some time past confined to a certain number of days a year."

_A. de Tocqueville, On the State of Society in France
before 1789, note 4 E. (p. 499)._

CORVUS, The Roman.

See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

COS, OR KOS.

One of the islands in the Ægean called the Sporades, near the
Carian coast of Asia Minor. The island was sacred to
Asclepius, or Æsculapeus, and was the birthplace of the
celebrated physician Hippocrates, as well as of the painter
Apelles. It was an Æolian colony, but joined the Dorian
confederacy.

COSIMO DE' MEDICI,
The ascendancy at Florence of.

See FLORENCE: A. D. 1433-1464.

COSMOS, COSMIOS, COSMOPOLIS.

See DEMIURGI.

{619}

COSSACKS, The.

"The origin of the Cossack tribes is lost in the obscurity of
ages; and many celebrated historians are still divided in
opinion as to whence the term Cossack, or rather Kosaque, is
properly to be derived. This word, indeed, is susceptible of
so many etymological explanations, as scarcely to offer for
anyone of them decided grounds of preference. Everything,
however, would seem to favour the belief that the word
Cossack, or Kosaque, was in much earlier use in the vicinity
of the Caucasus than in the Ukraine. ... Sherer, in his
'Annals of Russia Minor,' (La Petite Russie,) traces back the
origin of the Cossacks to the ninth century; but he does not
support his assertion by any facts clothed with the dignity of
historical truth. It appears certain, however, that the vast
pasture lands between the Don and the Dnieper, the country
lying on the south of Kïow, and traversed by the Dnieper up to
the Black Sea, was the principal birthplace of the Cossacks.
When, in 1242, Batukhan came with 500,000 men to take
possession of the empire which fell to his share of the vast
inheritance left by Tchingis Khan [see MONGOLS: A. D.
1229-1294], he extirpated many nations and displaced many
others. One portion of the Komans flying from the horrors of
this terrific storm, and arriving on the borders of the
Caspian Sea, on the banks of the Iaïk, (now Ouralsek,) turned
to the left, and took refuge between the embouchures of that
river, where they dwelt in small numbers, apart from their
brethren, in a less fertile climate. These were,
incontestably, the progenitors of the Cossacks of the Iaïk,
who are, historically, scarcely important enough for notice.
... At the approach of this formidable invasion towards the
Don, that portion of the Komans located on the left bank took
refuge in the marshes, and in the numerous islands formed by
that river near its embouchure. Here they found a secure
retreat; and from thence, having, from their new position,
acquired maritime habits and seafaring experience, they not
only, themselves, resorted to piracy as a means of existence,
but likewise enlisted in a formidable confederacy, for
purposes of rapine and pillage, all the roving and
discontented tribes in their surrounding neighbourhood. These
latter were very numerous. The Tartars, ever but indifferent
seamen, had not the courage to join them in these piratical
expeditions. This division of the Komans is indubitably the
parent stock of the modern Cossacks of the Don, by far the
most numerous of the Cossack tribes: by amalgamation; however,
with whole hosts of Tartar and Calmuck hordes, lawless,
desperate, and nomadic as themselves, they lost, in some
degree, the primitive and deeply marked distinctive character
of their race. The Komans of the Dnieper offered no more
energetic resistance to the invading hordes of Batukhan than
had been shown by their brethren of the Don: they dispersed in
various directions, and from this people, flying at the
advance of the ferocious Tartars, descended a variety of
hordes, who occasionally figure in history as distinct and
independent nations. ... [They] ultimately found a permanent
resting-place in the wild islets of the Dnieper, below the
cataracts, where dwelt already a small number of their ancient
compatriots, who had escaped the general destruction of their
nation. This spot became the cradle of the Cossacks of the
Ukraine, or of the tribes known in after times as the Polish
Cossacks. When Guedynum, Grand Duke of Lithuania, after having
defeated twelve Russian princes on the banks of the Piërna,
conquered Kïow with its dependencies in 1320, the wandering
tribes scattered over the steppes of the Ukraine owned his
allegiance. After the victories of Olgierd, of Vitold, and of
Ladislas Iagellon, over the Tartars and the Russians, large
bodies of Scythian militia, known subsequently by the
comprehensive denomination of Cossacks, or Kosaques, served
under these conquerors: and after the union of the Grand Duchy
of Lithuania with Poland, in 1386, they continued under the
dominion of the grand dukes of Lithuania, forming, apparently,
an intermediate tribe or caste, superior to the peasantry and
inferior to the nobles. At a later period, when the Ukraine
was annexed to the Polish crown, they passed under the
protection of the kings of Poland. ... Although there may,
doubtless, exist several species or castes of Cossacks, and to
whom Russia in order to impose on Europe, is pleased to give
as many different names, yet there never have been, nor will
there ever be, properly speaking, more than two principal
tribes of the Cossack nation, namely the Cossacks of the Don,
or Don-Cossacks, and the Cossacks of the Black Sea, known in
ancient times as the Polish Cossacks, or Zaporowscy Kozacy.
... The Cossacks [of the Don] ... have rendered signal service
to Russia, which, ever since the year 1549, has taken them
under her protection, without, however, the existence of any
official act, treaty, or stipulation, confirming their
submission to that power. ... The Don-Cossacks enjoy a certain
kind of liberty and independence; they have a hetman, attaman,
or chief, nominated by the Emperor of Russia; and to this
chief they yield an obedience more or less willing and
implicit; in general, they are commanded only by Cossack
officers, who take equal rank in the Russian army. They have a
separate war administration of their own; although they are
compelled to furnish a stated number of recruits who serve in
a manner for life, inasmuch as they are rarely discharged
before attaining sixty years of age: on the whole, their
condition is happier than that of the rest of the Russian
population. They belong to the Greek-Russian church. The
existence of this small republic of the Don, in the very heart
of the most despotic and most extensive empire in the world,
appears to constitute a problem, the solution of which is not
as yet definitely known, and the ultimate solution of which
yet remains to be ascertained."

_H. Krasinski, The Cossacks of the Ukraine, chapter 1._

The Cossacks of the Ukraine transferred their allegiance from
the King of Poland to the Czar of Russia in 1654, after a
revolt led by their hetman, Bogdan Khmelnitski, in which they
were assisted by the neighboring Tartars, and which was
accompanied by terrible scenes of slaughter and destruction.

See POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.

COSSÆANS, The.

See KOSSÆANS.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1502.
Discovery by Columbus.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1813-1871.
Independence of Spain.
Brief annexation to Mexico.
The failures of federation, the wars and revolutions of
Central America.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

COSTA RICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton Bulwer Treaty and the projected Nicaragua Canal.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

----------COSTA RICA: End----------

COSTANOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: COSTANOAN FAMILY.

COSTER, Laurent, and the invention of printing.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1430-1456.

COTARII.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.
620

COTHON OF CARTHAGE, The.

"There were two land-locked docks or harbours, opening the one
into the other, and both, it would seem, the work of human
hands. ... The outer harbour was rectangular, about 1,400 feet
long and 1,100 broad, and was appropriated to merchant
vessels; the inner was circular like a drinking cup, whence it
was called the Cothon, and was reserved for ships of war. It
could not be approached except through the merchant harbour,
and the entrance to this last was only 70 feet wide, and could
be closed at any time by chains. The war harbour was entirely
surrounded by quays, containing separate docks for 220 ships.
In front of each dock were two Ionic pillars of marble, so
that the whole must have presented the appearance of a
splendid circular colonnade. Right in the centre of the
harbour was an island, the headquarters of the admiral."

_R. B. Smith, Carthage and the Carthaginians, chapter 20._

COTSETI.

See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL AND MODERN: ENGLAND.

COTTON, Reverend John and the colony of Massachusetts Bay.

See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1631-1636.

COTTON FAMINE, The.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.

COTTON-GIN:
Eli Whitney's invention and its effects.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

COTTON MANUFACTURE:
The great inventions in spinning and weaving.

"Cotton had been used in the extreme East and in the extreme
West from the earliest periods of which we have any record.
The Spaniards, on their discovery of America, found the
Mexicans clothed in cotton. ... But though the use of cotton
had been known from the earliest ages, both in India and
America, no cotton goods were imported into Europe; and in the
ancient world both rich and poor were clothed in silk, linen,
and wool. The industrious Moors introduced cotton into Spain.
Many centuries afterwards cotton was imported into Italy,
Saxony and the Low Countries. Isolated from the rest of
Europe, with little wealth, little industry, and no roads;
rent by civil commotions; the English were the last people in
Europe to introduce the manufacture of cotton goods into their
own homes. Towards the close of the 16th century, indeed,
cotton goods were occasionally mentioned in the Statute Book,
and the manufacture of the cottons of Manchester was regulated
by Acts passed in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and
Elizabeth. But there seem to be good reasons for concluding
that Manchester cottons, in the time of the Tudors, were
woollen goods, and did not consist of cotton at all. More than
a century elapsed before any considerable trade in cotton
attracted the attention of the legislature. The woollen
manufacturers complained that people were dressing their
children in printed cottons; and Parliament was actually
persuaded to prohibit the introduction of Indian printed
calicoes. Even an Act of Parliament, however, was unable to
extinguish the growing taste for Indian cottons. ... The taste
for cotton led to the introduction of calico-printing in
London; Parliament in order to encourage the new trade, was
induced to sanction the importation of plain cotton cloths
from India under a duty. The demand, which was thus created
for calicoes, probably promoted their manufacture at home. ...
Up to the middle of the last century cotton goods were really
never made at all. The so-called cotton manufactures were a
combination of wool or linen and cotton. No Englishman had
been able to produce a cotton thread strong enough for the
warp; ... The superior skill of the Indian manufacturers
enabled them to use cotton for a warp; while clumsy
workmanship made the use of cotton as a warp unattainable at
home. In the middle of the 18th century, then, a piece of
cotton cloth in the true sense of the term, had never been
made in England. The so-called cotton goods were all made in
the cottages of the weavers. The yarn was carded by hand; it
was spun by hand; it was worked into cloth by a hand loom. ...
The operation of weaving was, however, much more rapid than
that of spinning. The weaver consumed more weft than his own
family could supply him with; and the weavers generally
experienced the greatest difficulty in obtaining sufficient
yarn. About the middle of the 18th century the ingenuity of
two persons, a father and a son, made this difference more
apparent. The shuttle had originally been thrown by the hand
from one end of the loom to the other. John Kay, a native of
Bury, by his invention of the fly-shuttle [patented in 1733],
saved the weaver from this labour. ... Robert Kay, John Kay's
son, added the drop-box, by means of which the weaver was able
'to use any one of three shuttles, each containing a different
coloured weft, without the trouble of taking them from and
replacing them in the lathe.' By means of these inventions the
productive power of each weaver was doubled. ... Carding and
roving were both slowly performed. ... The trade was in this
humble and primitive state when a series of extraordinary and
unparalleled inventions revolutionised the conditions on which
cotton had been hitherto prepared. A little more than a
century ago John Hargreaves, a poor weaver in the
neighbourhood of Blackburn, was returning home from a long
walk, in which he had been purchasing a further supply of yarn
for his loom. As he entered his cottage, his wife Jenny
accidentally upset the spindle which she was using. Hargreaves
noticed that the spindles which were now thrown into an
upright position, continued to revolve, and that the thread
was still spinning in his wife's hand. The idea immediately
occurred to him that it would be possible to connect a
considerable number of upright spindles with one wheel, and
thus multiply the productive power of each spinster. ...
Hargreaves succeeded in keeping his admirable invention secret
for a time; but the powers of his machine soon became known.
His ignorant neighbours hastily concluded that a machine,
which enabled one spinster to do the work of eight, would
throw multitudes of persons out of employment. A mob broke
into his house and destroyed his machine. Hargreaves himself
had to retire to Nottingham, where, with the friendly
assistance of another person, he was able to take out a patent
[1770] for the spinning-jenny, as the machine, in compliment
to his industrious wife, was called. The invention of the
spinning-jenny gave a new impulse to the cotton manufacture.
But the ... yarn spun by the jenny, like that which had
previously been spun by hand, was neither fine enough nor hard
enough to be employed as warp, and linen or woollen threads
had consequently to be used for this purpose.
{621}
In the very year, however, in which Hargreaves moved from
Blackburn to Nottingham, Richard Arkwright [who began life as
a barber's assistant] took out a patent [1769] for his still
more celebrated machine. ... 'After many years intense and
painful application,' he invented his memorable machine for
spinning by rollers; and laid the foundations of the gigantic
industry which has done more than any other trade to
concentrate in this country the wealth of the world. ... He
passed the thread over two pairs of rollers, one of which was
made to revolve much more rapidly than the other. The thread,
after passing the pair revolving slowly, was drawn into the
requisite tenuity by the rollers revolving at a higher
rapidity. By this simple but memorable invention Arkwright
succeeded in producing thread capable of employment as warp.
From the circumstance that the mill at which his machinery was
first erected was driven by water power, the machine received
the somewhat inappropriate name of the water frame; the thread
spun by it was usually called the water twist. Invention of
the spinning-jenny and the water frame would have been useless
if the old system of hand-carding had not been superseded by a
more efficient and more rapid process. Just as Arkwright
applied rotatory motion to spinning, so Lewis Paul introduced
revolving cylinders for carding cotton. ... This extraordinary
series of inventions placed an almost unlimited supply of yarn
at the disposal of the weaver. But the machinery, which had
thus been introduced, was still incapable of providing yarn
fit for the finer qualities of cotton cloth. ... This defect,
however, was removed by the ingenuity of Samuel Crompton, a
young weaver residing near Bolton. Crompton succeeded in
combining in one machine the various excellences 'of
Arkwright's water frame and Hargreaves' jenny.' Like the
former, his machine, which from its nature is happily called
the mule, 'has a system of rollers to reduce the roving; and
like the latter it has spindles without bobbins to give the
twist. ... The effects of Crompton's great invention may be
stated epigrammatically. ... The natives of India could spin a
pound of cotton into a thread 119 miles long.' The English
succeed in spinning the same thread to a length of 160 miles.
Yarn of the finest quality was at once at the disposal of the
weaver. ... The ingenuity of Hargreaves, Arkwright and
Crompton had been exercised to provide the weaver with yarn.
... The spinster had beaten the weaver. ... Edmund Cartwright,
a clergyman residing in Kent, happened to be staying at
Matlock in the summer of 1784, and to be thrown into the
company of some Manchester gentlemen. The conversation turned
on Arkwright's machinery, and 'one of the company observed
that, as soon as Arkwright's patent expired, so many mills
would be erected and so much cotton spun that hands would
never be found to weave it.' Cartwright replied 'that
Arkwright must then set his wits to work to invent a weaving
mill.' ... Within three years he had himself proved that the
invention was practicable by producing the power-loom.
Subsequent inventors improved the idea which Cartwright had
originated, and within fifty years from the date of his
memorable visit to Matlock there were not less than 100,000
power-looms at work in Great Britain alone. ... Other
inventions, less generally remembered, were hardly less
wonderful or less beneficial than these. ... Scheele, the
Swedish philosopher, discovered in 1774 the bleaching
properties of chlorine, or oxymuriatic acid. Berthollet, the
French chemist, conceived the idea of applying the acid to
bleaching cloth. ... In the same year in which Watt and Henry
were introducing the new acid to the bleacher, Bell, a
Scotchman, was laying the foundations of a trade in printed
calicoes. 'The old method of printing was by blocks of
sycamore.' ... This clumsy process was superseded by cylinder
printing. ... Such are the leading inventions, which made
Great Britain in less than a century the wealthiest country in
the world."

_S. Walpole, History of England from 1815, volume 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
R. W. C. Taylor, Introduction to a History
of the Factory System, chapter 10.

E. Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain.

A. Ure, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain.

COULMIERS, Battle of (1870).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, The Mormons at.

See MORMONISM: A. D. 1846-1848.

COUNCIL FOR NEW ENGLAND.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623; 1621-1631; and 1635.

COUNCIL OF BLOOD, The.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1567.

COUNCIL OF FIVE HUNDRED, The Athenian.

See ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.

The French.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL OF TEN, The.

See VENICE: A. D. 1032-1319.

COUNCIL OF THE ANCIENTS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1795 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

COUNCIL, THE PRIVY.

See PRIVY COUNCIL.

COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, General or Ecumenical.

There are seven councils admitted by both the Greek and Latin
churches as œcumenical (or ecumenical)--that is general, or
universal. The Roman Catholics recognize thirteen more, making
twenty in all--as follows:

1. The synod of apostles in Jerusalem.
2. The first Council of Nice, A. D. 325
(see NICÆA, THE FIRST COUNCIL).
3. The first Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381.
4. The first Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.
5. The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
6. The second Council of Constantinople, A. D. 553.
7. The third Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681.
8. The second Council of Nice, A. D. 787.
9. The fourth Council of Constantinople, A. D. 869.
10. The first Lateran Council, A. D. 1123.
11. The second Lateran Council, A. D. 1139.
12. The third Lateran Council, A. D. 1179.
13. The fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.
14. The first œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1245.
15. The second œcumenical synod of Lyon, A. D. 1274.
16. The Synod of Vienne in Gaul, A. D. 1311.
17. The Council of Constance,
A. D. 1414 (see PAPACY: A. D. 1414-1418).
18. The Council of Basel, A. D. 1431
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1431-1448).
19. The Council of Trent, A. D. 1545
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1537-1563).
20. The Council of the Vatican, A. D. 1869
(see PAPACY: A. D. 1869-1870).

{622}

COUNT AND DUKE, Roman.
Origin of the titles.

"The defence of the Roman empire was at length committed
[under Constantine and his successors] to eight
masters-general of the cavalry and infantry. Under their
orders thirty-five military commanders were stationed in the
provinces--three in Britain, six in Gaul, one in Spain, one in
Italy, five on the Upper and four on the Lower Danube, in Asia
eight, three in Egypt, and four in Africa. The titles of
Counts and Dukes, by which they were properly distinguished,
have obtained in modern languages so very different a sense
that the use of them may occasion some surprise. But it should
be recollected that the second of those appellations is only a
corruption of the Latin word which was indiscriminately
applied to any military chief. All these provincial generals
were therefore dukes; but no more than ten among them were
dignified with the rank of counts or companions, a title of
honour, or rather of favour, which had been recently invented
in the court of Constantine. A gold belt was the ensign which
distinguished the office of the counts and dukes."

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 17.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

"The Duke and the Count of modern Europe--what are they but
the Generals and Companions (Duces and Comites) of a Roman
province? Why or when they changed places, the Duke climbing
up into such unquestioned pre-eminence over his former
superior the Count, I know not, nor yet by what process it was
discovered that the latter was the precise equivalent of the
Scandinavian Jarl."

_T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE DOMESTICS.

In the organization of the Imperial Household, during the
later period of the Roman empire, the officers called Counts
of the Domestics "commanded the various divisions of the
household troops, known by the names of Domestici and
Protectores, and thus together replaced the Prætorian Prefect
of the earlier days of the Empire. ... Theoretically, their
duties would not greatly differ from those of a Colonel in the
Guards."

_T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE SACRED LARGESSES.

In the later Roman empire, "the Count who had charge of the
Sacred (i. e. Imperial) Bounty, should have been by his title
simply the Grand Almoner of the Empire. ... In practice,
however, the minister who took charge of the Imperial
Largesses had to find ways and means for every other form of
Imperial expenditure. ... The Count of the Sacred Largesses
was therefore in fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the
Empire."

_T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 1, chapter 3._

COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE.

See SAXON SHORE.

COUNT PALATINE.

See PALATINE, COUNTS.

COUNTER-REFORMATION, The.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1534-1540; 1537-1563; 1555-1603.

COUNTRY PARTY, The.

See ENGLAND; A. D. 1672-1673.

COUP D' ETAT OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1851; and 1851-1852.

COUREURS DE BOIS.

"Out of the beaver trade [in the 17th century] rose a huge
evil, baneful to the growth and the morals of Canada. All that
was most active and vigorous in the colony took to the woods,
and escaped from the control of intendants, councils and
priests, to the savage freedom of the wilderness. Not only
were the possible profits great, but, in the pursuit of them,
there was a fascinating element of adventure and danger. The
bush rangers, or coureurs de bois, were to the king an object
of horror. They defeated his plans for the increase of the
population, and shocked his native instinct of discipline and
order. Edict after edict was directed against them; and more
than once the colony presented the extraordinary spectacle of
the greater part of its young men turned into forest outlaws.
... We hear of seigniories abandoned; farms turning again into
forests; wives and children left in destitution. The exodus of
the coureurs de bois would take at times the character of an
organized movement. The famous Du Lhut is said to have made a
general combination of the young men of Canada to follow him
into the woods. Their plan was to be absent four years, in
order that the edicts against them might have time to relent.
The intendant Duchesneau reported that 800 men out of a
population of less than 10,000 souls had vanished from sight
in the immensity of a boundless wilderness. Whereupon the king
ordered that any person going into the woods without a license
should be whipped and branded for the first offence, and sent
for life to the galleys for the second. ... Under such leaders
as Du Lhut, the coureurs de bois built forts of palisades at
various points throughout the West and Northwest. They had a
post of this sort at Detroit some time before its permanent
settlement, as well as others on Lake Superior and in the
Valley of the Mississippi. They occupied them as long as it
suited their purposes, and then abandoned them to the next
comer. Michillimackinac was, however, their chief resort."

_F. Parkman, The Old Regime in Canada, chapter 17._

COURLAND, Christian conquest of.

See. LIVONIA: 12TH-13TH CENTURIES.

COURT BARON.

See MANORS.

COURT CUSTOMARY.

See MANORS.

COURT-LEET.

See MANORS,
and SAC AND SOC.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

See CHANCELLOR.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT OF HIGH COMMISSION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559;
and A. D. 1686.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

See CURIA REGIS.

COURT, SUPREME, of the United States.

See SUPREME COURT.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1382.
Pillaged and burned by the French.

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1382.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1646.
Siege and capture by the French.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1645-1646.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1648.
Taken by the Spaniards.

See NETHERLANDS (SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1647-1648.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1667.
Taken by the French.

See NETHERLANDS (THE SPANISH PROVINCES): A. D. 1667.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1668.
Ceded to France.

See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND); A. D. 1668.

COURTRAI: A. D. 1679.
Restored to Spain.

See NIMEGUEN, THE PEACE OF.

----------COURTRAI: End----------

{623}

COURTRAI, The Battle of.

The battle of Courtrai (July 11, A. D. 1302), in which the
barons and knights of France were fearfully slaughtered by the
sturdy burghers of Flanders, was sometimes called the Day of
the Spurs, on account of the great number of gilt spurs which
was taken from the bodies of the dead and hung up by the
victors in Courtrai cathedral.

_G. W. Kitchen, History of France,
book 3, chapter 10, section 2._

See FLANDERS: A. D. 1299-1304.

COURTS OF LOVE.

See PROVENCE: A.D. 1179-1207.

COUTHON,
and the French Revolutionary Committee of Public Safety.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JUNE-OCTOBER), to 1794 (JULY).

COUTRAS, Battle of (1587).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

COVADONGA, Cave of.

See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

COVENANT, The Halfway.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

COVENANT, The Solemn League and.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).

COVENANTERS.

The name given to the signers and supporters of the Scottish
National Covenant (see SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557, 1581 and 1638)
and afterwards to all who adhered to the Kirk of Scotland. The
war of Montrose with the Covenanters will be found narrated
under SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645. For the story of the
persecution which they suffered under the restored Stuarts,

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1660-1666; 1669-1679; 1679; and 1681-1689.

COVENANTS, The Scottish.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1557-1581; and 1638.

COWBOYS.

During the War of the American Revolution, "there was a venal
and bloody set which hung on the skirts of the British army,
well known as Cow-boys. They were plunderers and ruffians by
profession, and came to have their name from their
cattle-stealing. Some of the most cruel and disgraceful
murders and barbarities of the war were perpetrated by them.
Whenever they were caught they were hung up at once."

_C. W. Elliott, The New England History, volume 2, page 372._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780
(AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

COWPENS, Battle of the (1781).

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780-1781.

CRACOW: A. D. 1702.
Taken by Charles XII. of Sweden.

See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.

CRACOW: A. D. 1793-1794.
Occupied by the Russians.
Rising of the citizens.
Surrender and cession to Austria.

See POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.

CRACOW: A. D. 1815.
Creation of the Republic.

See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.

CRACOW: A. D. 1831-1846.
Occupation by the Austrians, Russians and Prussians.
Extinction of the Republic.
Annexation to Austria.

See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.

----------CRACOW: End----------

CRADLE OF LIBERTY.

See FANEUIL HALL.

CRAFT-GUILDS.

See GUILDS, MEDIÆVAL.

CRAGIE TRACT, The.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.

CRAL.-KRALE.

"The princes of Servia (Ducange, Famil, Dalmaticæ, &c., c.
2-4, 9) were styled 'despots' in Greek, and Cral in their
native idiom (Ducange, Gloss. Græc., page 751). That title, the
equivalent of king, appears to be of Sclavonic origin, from
whence it has been borrowed by the Hungarians, the modern
Greeks, and even by the Turks (Leunclavius, Pandect. Turc., p.
422), who reserve the name of Padishah for the Emperor."

_E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 63, note.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

See, also,
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1341-1356 (SERVIA).

CRANNOGES.

See LAKE DWELLINGS.

CRANNON (KRANNON), Battle of (B. C. 322).

See GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

CRAONNE, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

CRASSUS AND THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.

See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to 57-52.

CRATER, Battle of the Petersburg.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA).

CRATERUS, AND THE WARS OF THE DIADOCHI.

See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

CRANGALLIDÆ, The.

See HIERODULI.

CRAYFORD, Battle of (A. D. 457).

The second battle fought between the Britons and the invading
Jutes, under Hengest, for the possession of southeastern
Britain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473.

CRÉCY, Battle of (1346).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.

CREDIT MOBILIER SCANDAL.

On the meeting of the Congress of the United States in
December, 1872, attention was called by the Speaker to charges
made in the preceding canvass "that the Vice-President, the
Vice-President elect, the Secretary of the Treasury, several
Senators, the Speaker of the House, and a large number of
Representatives had been bribed, during the years 1867 and
1868, by presents of stock in a corporation known as the
Credit Mobilier [organized to contract for building the Union
Pacific Railroad] to vote and act for the benefit of the Union
Pacific Railroad Company. On his motion, an investigating
committee was appointed, L. P. Poland, of Vermont, being
chairman. The Poland Committee reported February 18th, 1873,
recommending the expulsion of Oakes Ames, of Massachusetts,
for selling to members of Congress shares of the stock of the
Credit Mobilier below their real value, with intent thereby to
influence the votes of such members,' and of James Brooks, of
New York, for receiving such stock. The House modified the
proposed expulsion into an 'absolute condemnation' of the
conduct of both members."

_A. Johnston, History of American Politics, pages 210-220._

_Report of Select Committee
(42d Congress, 3d session, H. R. report no. 77)._

ALSO IN:
_J. B. Crawford, The Credit Mobilier of America._

CREEKS.
Creek Wars.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL),
and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

CREES, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

CREFELD, Battle of.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1758.

CREMA, Siege of (1159-1160).

See ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162.

CREMONA: The Roman Colony.
Siege by the Gauls.

See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

CREMONA: A. D. 69.
Destruction by the Flavians.

See ROME: A, D. 69.

CREMONA: A. D. 1702.
Defeat of the French.

See ITALY (SAVOY AND PIEDMONT): A. D. 1701-1713.

{624}

CREOLE.

"In Europe it is very common to attach to the term Creole the
idea of a particular complexion. This is a mistake. The
designation Creole [in Spanish American regions] properly
belongs to all the natives of America born of parents who have
emigrated from the Old World, be those parents Europeans or
Africans. There are, therefore, white as well as black
Creoles. ... The term Creole is a corruption of the Spanish
word 'criollo,' which is derived from 'criar,' to create or to
foster. The Spaniards apply the term 'criollo' not merely to
the human race, but also to animals propagated in the
colonies, but of pure European blood: thus they have creole
horses, bullocks, poultry, &c."

_J. J. Von Tschudi, Travels in Peru,
chapter 5, and foot-note._

"The term Creole is commonly applied in books to the native of
a Spanish colony descended from European ancestors, while
often the popular acceptation conveys the idea of an origin
partly African. In fact, its meaning varies in different times
and regions, and in Louisiana alone has, and has had, its
broad and its close, its earlier and its later, significance.
For instance, it did not here first belong to the descendants
of Spanish, but of French settlers. But such a meaning implied
a certain excellence of origin, and so came early to include
any native of French or Spanish descent by either parent,
whose pure non-mixture with the slave race entitled him to
social rank. Much later the term was adopted by, not conceded
to, the natives of European-African, or Creole-African blood,
and is still so used among themselves. At length the spirit of
commerce availed itself of the money value of so honored a
title, and broadened its meaning to take in any creature or
thing of variety or manufacture peculiar to Louisiana, that
might become an object of sale, as Creole ponies, chickens,
cows, shoes, eggs, wagons, baskets, cabbages, etc. ... There
are no English, Scotch, Irish, Western, or Yankee Creoles,
these all being included under the distinctive term
'Americans.' ... There seems to be no more serviceable
definition of the Creoles of Louisiana or of New Orleans than
to say they are the French-speaking, native, ruling class."

_G. E. Waring, Jr., and G. W Cable,
History and Present Condition of New Orleans
(Tenth Census of the U. S., volume 19, page 218)._

CREONES, The.

See BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

CRESCENT, The Order of the.

A Turkish Order instituted in 1799 by the reforming sultan,
Selim III. Lord Nelson, after the victory of Aboukir, was the
first to receive this decoration.

CRESPY IN VALOIS, Treaty of (1544).

See FRANCE: A. D. 1532-1547.

CRETAN LABYRINTH,

See LABYRINTHS.

CRETE.

"The institutions of the Cretan state show in many points so
great a similarity to those of Sparta, that it is not
surprising if it seemed to the ancients as though either Crete
were a copy of Sparta, or Sparta of Crete. Meanwhile this
similarity may be explained, apart from intentional imitation,
by the community of nationality, which, under like conditions,
must produce like institutions. For in Crete, as in Laconia,
Dorians were the ruling people, who had subdued the old
inhabitants of the island and placed them in a position of
subordination. ... It is, however, beyond doubt that
settlements were made in Crete by the Phoenicians, and that a
large portion of the island was subject to them. In the
historical period, it is true, we no longer find them here; we
find, on the contrary, only a number of Greek states, all
moreover Dorian. Each of these consisted of a city with its
surrounding district, in which no doubt also smaller cities in
their turn were found standing in a relation of subordination
to the principal city. For that each city of the
'ninety-citied' or 'hundred-citied' isle, as Homer calls it,
formed also an independent state, will probably not be
supposed. As independent states our authorities give us reason
to recognize about seventeen. The most important of these were
in earlier times Cnossus, Gortyn and Cydonia."-

_G. Schömann, Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 2._

See ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

CRETE: B. C. 68-66.
The Roman Conquest.

The Romans came into collision with the Cretans during their
conflict with the Cilician pirates. The Cretans, degenerate
and half piratical themselves, had formed an alliance with the
professional buccaneers, and defeated, off Cydonia, a Roman
fleet that had been sent against the latter, B. C. 71. They
soon repented of the provocation they had offered and sent
envoys to Rome to buy peace by heavy bribes; but neither the
penitence nor the bribes prevailed. Three years passed,
however, before the proconsul, Quintus Metellus, appeared in
Crete (B. C. 68) to exact satisfaction, and two years more
were spent in overcoming the stubborn resistance of the
islanders. The taking of Cydonia cost Metellus a bloody battle
and a prolonged siege. Cnossus and other towns held out with
equal courage. In the end, however, Crete was added to the
conquered dominions of Rome. At the last of the struggle there
occurred a conflict of jurisdiction between Metellus and
Pompey, and their respective forces fought with one another on
the Cretan soil.

_T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 4._

CRETE: A. D. 823.
Conquest by the Saracens.

"The reign of Al Hakem, the Ommiade Caliph of Spain, was
disturbed by continual troubles; and some theological disputes
having created a violent insurrection in the suburbs of
Cordova, about 15,000 Spanish Arabs were compelled to emigrate
in the year 815. The greater part of these desperadoes
established themselves at Alexandria, where they soon took an
active part in the civil wars of Egypt. The rebellion of
Thomas [an officer who disputed the Byzantine throne with
Michael II.], and the absence of the naval forces of the
Byzantine Empire from the Archipelago, left the island of
Crete unprotected. The Andalusian Arabs of Alexandria availed
themselves of this circumstance to invade the island, and
establish a settlement on it, in the year 823. Michael was
unable to take any measures for expelling the invaders, and an
event soon happened in Egypt which added greatly to the
strength of this Saracen colony. The victories of the
lieutenants of the Caliph Almamum compelled the remainder of
the Andalusian Arabs to quit Alexandria; so that Abou Hafs,
called by the Greeks Apochaps, joined his countrymen in Crete
with forty ships, determined to make the new settlement their
permanent home. It is said by the Byzantine writers that they
commenced their conquest of the island by destroying their
fleet, and constructing a strong fortified camp, surrounded by
an immense ditch, from which it received the name of Chandak,
now corrupted by the western nations into Candia. ... The
Saracens retained possession of Crete for 135 years."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire,
from 716 to 1057, book 1. chapter 3._

{625}