Chapter 2

the composition of the treatise (329-322 B.C.). It begins with an account of the conditions of citizenship and of the training of the _ephebi_ (citizens between the ages of 18 and 20). In chapters 43-49 the functions of the Council ([Greek: boulê]) and of the officials who act in concert with it are described. 50-60 deal with the officials who are appointed by lot, of whom the most important are the nine Archons, to whose functions five chapters (55-59) are devoted. The military officers, who come under the head of elective officials, form the subject of c. 61. With c. 63 begins the section on the Law-courts, which occupied the remainder of the _Constitution_. This portion, with the exception of c. 63, is fragmentary in character, owing to the mutilated condition of the fourth roll of the papyrus on which it was written. It will thus be seen that the subjects which receive fullest treatment in Part II. are the Council, the Archons and the Law-courts. The Ecclesia, on the other hand, is dealt with very briefly, in connexion with the _prytaneis_ and _proedri_ (cc. 43, 44).

_Sources._--The labours of several workers in this field, notably Bruno Keil and Wilamowitz, have rendered it comparatively easy to form a general estimate of Aristotle's indebtedness to previous writers, although problems of great difficulty are encountered as soon as it is attempted to determine the precise sources from which the historical part of the work is derived. Among these sources are unquestionably Herodotus (for the tyranny of Peisistratus, and for the struggle between Cleisthenes and Isagoras), Thucydides (for the episode of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and for the Four Hundred), Xenophon (for the Thirty), and the poems of Solon. There is now among critics a general consensus in favour of the view that the most important of his sources was the _Atthis_ of Androtion, a work published in all probability only a few years earlier than the _Constitution_; in any case, after the year 346. From it are derived not only the passages which are annalistic in character and read like excerpts from a chronicle (e.g. c. 13. 1, 2; c. 22; c. 26. 2, 3), but also most of the matter common to the _Constitution_ and to Plutarch's _Solon_. The coincidences with Plutarch, which are often verbal, and extend to about 50 lines out of 170 in cc. 5-11 of the _Constitution_, can best be explained on the hypothesis that Hermippus, the writer followed by Plutarch, used the same source as Aristotle, viz. the _Atthis_ of Androtion. Androtion is probably closely followed in the account of the pre-Draconian constitution, and to him appear to be due the explanation of local names (e.g. [Greek: chôrion ateles]), or proverbial expressions (e.g. [Greek: to mê phylokrinein]), as well as the account of "Strategems" such as that of Themistocles against the Areopagus (c. 25) or that employed by Peisistratus in order to disarm the people (c. 15. 4). Whether the anecdotes, which are a conspicuous feature in the _Constitution_, should be referred to the same source is more open to doubt. It is also generally agreed that among the sources was a work, written towards the end of the 5th century B.C., by an author of oligarchical sympathies, with the object of defaming the character and policy of the heroes of the democracy. This source can be traced in passages such as c. 6. 2 (Solon turning the Seisachtheia to the profit of himself and his friends), 9. 2 (obscurity of Solon's laws intentional, cf. c. 35. 2), 27. 4 (Pericles' motive for the introduction of the dicasts' pay). But while the object ([Greek: oi boulomenoi blasphêmein], c. 6) and the date of this oligarchical pamphlet (for the date cf. Plutarch's _Solon_, c. 15 [Greek: oi peri Konôna kai Kleinian kai Hipponikon], which points to a time when Conon, Alcibiades and Callias were prominent in public life) are fairly certain, the authorship is quite uncertain, as is also its relationship to another source of importance, viz. that from which are derived the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty. The view taken of the character and course of these revolutions betrays a strong bias in favour of Theramenes, whose ideal is alleged to have been the [Greek: patrios politeia]. It has been maintained, on the one hand, that this last source (the authority followed in the accounts of the Four Hundred and the Thirty) is identical with the oligarchical pamphlet, and, on the other, that it is none other than the _Atthis_ of Androtion. The former hypothesis is improbable. In favour of the latter two arguments may be adduced. In the first place, Androtion's father, Andron, was one of the Four Hundred, and took Theramenes' side. Secondly, the precise marks of time, which are characteristic of the _Atthis_, are conspicuous in these chapters. In view, however, of the fact that Androtion in his political career showed himself not only a democrat, but a democrat of the extreme school, the hypothesis must be pronounced untenable.

_Value._--It is by no means easy to convey a just impression of the value of Aristotle's work as an authority for the constitutional history of Athens. In all that relates to the practice of his own day Aristotle's authority is final. There can be no question, therefore, as to the importance, or the trustworthy character, of the Second Part. But even here a caution is necessary. It must be remembered that its authority is final for the 4th century only, and that we are not justified in arguing from the practice of the 4th century to that of the 5th, unless corroborative evidence is available. In the First Part, however, where he is treating of the institutions and practice of a past age, Aristotle's authority is very far from being final. An analysis of this part of the work discloses his dependence, in a remarkable degree, upon his sources. Occasionally he compares, criticizes or combines; as a rule he adheres closely to the writer whom he is using. There is no evidence, either of independent inquiry, or of the utilization of other sources than literary ones. Where "original documents" are quoted, or referred to, as e.g. in the history of the Four Hundred, or of the Thirty, it is probable that he derived them from a previous writer. For the authority of Aristotle we must substitute, therefore, the authority of his sources; i.e. the value of any particular statement will vary with the character of the source from which it comes. For the history of the 5th century the passages which come from Androtion's _Atthis_ carry with them a high degree of authority. It by no means follows, however, that a statement relating to earlier times is to be accepted simply because it is derived from the same source. And in passages which are derived from other sources than the _Atthis_ a much lower degree of authority can be claimed, even for statements relating to the 5th century. The supremacy of the Areopagus after the Persian Wars, the policy attributed to Aristides (c. 24), and the association of Themistocles with Ephialtes, are cases in point. Nor must the reader expect to find in the _Constitution_ a great work, in any sense of the term. The style, it is true, is simple and clear, and the writer's criticisms are sensible. But the reader will look in vain for evidence of the philosophic insight which makes the _Politics_, even at the present day, the best text-book of political philosophy. It is perhaps hardly too much to say that there is not a single great idea in the whole work. He will look in vain, too, for any consistent view of the history of the constitution as a whole, or for any adequate account of its development. He will find occasional misunderstandings of measures, and confusions of thought. There are appreciations which it is difficult to accept, and inaccuracies which it is difficult to pardon. There are contradictions which the author has overlooked, and there are omissions which are unaccountable. Yet, in spite of such defects, the importance of the _Constitution_ can hardly be exaggerated. Its recovery has rendered obsolete any history of the Athenian constitution that was written before the year 1891. Before this date our knowledge was largely derived from the statements of scholiasts and lexicographers which had not seldom been misunderstood. The recovery of the _Constitution_ puts us for the first time in possession of the evidence. To appreciate the difference that has been made by its recovery, it is only necessary to compare what we now know of the reforms of Cleisthenes with what we formerly knew. It is much of it evidence that needs a careful process of weighing and sifting before it can be safely used; but it is, as a rule, the best, or the only evidence. The First Part may be less trustworthy than the Second; it is not less indispensable to the student of constitutional history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--A conspectus of the literature of the _Constitution_ complete down to the end of 1892 is given in Sandys p. lxvii., and, though less complete, down to the beginning of 1895 in Busolt, _Griechische Geschichte_, 2nd ed. vol. ii. p. 15. In the present article only the most important editions, works or articles are mentioned.

Editions of the text: _Editio princeps_, ed. by F. G. Kenyon, 30th January 1891, with commentary. Autotype facsimile of the papyrus (1891). _Aristotelis_ [Greek: politeia Athênaiôn], ed. G. Kaibel et U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (Berlin, Weidmann, 1891). _Aristotelis qui fertur_ [Greek: Athênaiôn politeia] recensuerunt H. van Herwerden et J. van Leeuwen (Leiden, 1891). Teubner text, ed. by F. Blass (Leipzig, 1892). Edition of the text without commentary by Kenyon.

Most of these have passed through several editions. The fullest commentary is that contained in the edition of the text by J. E. Sandys (London, 1893). The best translations are those of Kenyon, in English, and of Kaibel and Kiessling, in German.

Works dealing with the subject: Bruno Keil, _Die Solonische Verfassung nach Aristoteles_ (Berlin, 1892); G. Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_ (Eng. trans., 1895); U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, _Aristoteles und Athen_ (2 vols., Berlin, 1893), a work of great importance, in spite of many unsound conclusions; E. Meyer, _Forschungen_, vol. ii. pp. 406 ff. (the section dealing with the Four Hundred is especially valuable). Articles: R. W. Macan, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (April 1891); R. Nissen, _Rheinisches Museum_ (1892), p. 161; G. Busolt, _Hermes_ (1898), pp. 71 ff.; O. Seeck, "Quellenstudien zu des Aristoteles' Verfassungsgeschichte Athens," in Lehmann's _Beiträge zur alten Geschichte_, vol. iv. pp. 164 and 270. (E. M. W.)

CONSUETUDINARY (Med. Lat. _consuetudinarius_, from _consuetudo_, custom), customary, a term used especially of law based on custom as opposed to statutory or written law. As a noun "consuetudinary" (Lat. _consuetudinarius_, sc. _liber_) is the name given to a ritual book containing the forms and ceremonies used in the services of a particular monastery, cathedral or religious order.

CONSUL (in Gr. generally [Greek: hypatos], a shortened form of [Greek: stratêgos hypatos], i.e. _praetor maximus_), the title borne by the two highest of the ordinary magistrates of the whole Roman community during the republic. In the imperial period these magistrates had ceased practically to be the heads of the state, but their technical position remained unaltered. (For the modern commercial office of consul see the separate article below.)

The consulship arose with the fall of the ancient monarchy (see further ROME: _History_, II. "The Republic"). The Roman reverence for the abstract conception of the magistracy, as expressed in the imperium and the auspicia, led to the preservation of the regal power weakened only by external limitations. The two new officials who replaced the king bore the titles of leaders (_praetores_) and of judges (_judices_; cf. Cicero, _De legibus_, iii. 3. 8, "regio imperio duo sunto iique a praeeundo judicando ... praetores judices ... appellamino"). But the new fact of colleagueship caused a third title to prevail, that of _consules_ or "partners," a word probably derived from _consalio_ on the analogy of _praesul_ and _exul_ (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 77, n. 3). This first example of the collegiate principle assumed the form that soon became familiar in the Roman commonwealth. Each of the pair of magistrates could act up to the full powers of the imperium; but the dissent of his colleague rendered his decision or his action null and void. At the same time the principle of a merely annual tenure of office was insisted on. The two magistrates at the close of their year of office were bound to transmit their power to successors; and these successors whom they nominated were obliged to seek the suffrages of the people. The only body known to us as electing the consuls during the republican period was the _comitia centuriata_ (see Comitia). The consulate was originally confined to patricians. During the struggle for higher office that was waged between the orders the office was suspended on fifty-one occasions between the years 444 and 367 B.C. and replaced by the military tribunate with consular power, to which plebeians were eligible. The struggle was brought to an end by the Licinio-Sextian laws of 367 B.C., which enacted that one consul must be a plebeian (see Patricians).

Most of the internal history of Rome down to the beginning of the third century B.C. consists in a series of attacks, whether intentional or accidental, on the power of the executive. As the consuls are the sole representatives of higher executive authority in early times, this history is one of a progressive decline in the originally wide and arbitrary powers of the office. Their right of summary criminal jurisdiction was weakened by the successive laws of appeal (_provocatio_); their capacity for interpreting the civil law at their pleasure by the publication of the Twelve Tables and the Forms of Action. The growth of the tribunate of the plebs hampered their activity both as legislators and as judges. They surrendered the duties of registration to the censors in 443 B.C., and the rights of civil jurisdiction and control over the market and police to the praetor and the curule aediles in 367 B.C.

The result of these limitations and of this specialization of functions in the community was to leave the consuls with less specific duties at home than any magistrates in the state. But the absence of specific functions may be of itself a sign of a general duty of supervision. The consuls were in a very real sense the heads of the state. Polybius describes them as controlling the whole administration (Polyb. vi. 12 [Greek: pasôn eisi kurioi tôn dêmosiôn praxeôn]). This control they exercised in concert with the senate, whose chief servants they were. It was they who were the most regular consultants of this council, who formulated its decrees as edicts, and who brought before the people legislative measures which the senate had approved. It was they also who represented the state to the outer world and introduced foreign envoys to the senate. The symbols of their presidency were manifold. It was marked by the twelve lictors (q.v.), a number permitted to no other ordinary magistrate, by the fact that the first act of newly-admitted consuls was to take the auspices, their second to summon the senate, and by the use of their names for dating the year. The consulate was, indeed, as Cicero expresses it, the culminating point in an official career ("Honorum populi finis est consulatus," Cic. _Pro Planco_, 25. 60).

In the domestic sphere the consuls retained certain powers of jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was either (i.) administrative or (ii.) criminal. (i.) Their administrative jurisdiction was sometimes concerned with financial matters such as pecuniary claims made by the state and individuals against one another. They acted in these matters in the periods during which the censors were not in office. We also find them adjudicating in disputes about property between the cities of Italy, (ii.) Their criminal jurisdiction was of three kinds. In the first place it was their duty, before the development of the standing commissions which originated in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., to set in motion the criminal law against offenders for the cognizance of ordinary, as opposed to political, crimes. The reference of such cases to the assembly of the people was effected through their quaestors (see Quaestor). Secondly, when the people and senate, or the senate alone, appointed a special commission (see Senate), the commissioner named was often a consul. Thirdly, we find the consul conducting a criminal inquiry raised by a point of international law. It is possible that in this case his advising body (_consilium_) was composed of the _fetiales_ (see Herald, ad fin.). (Cicero, _De republica_, iii. 18. 28; Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 112, n. 3).

During the greater part of the republic the consuls were recognized as the heads of the administration abroad as well as at home. It thus became necessary that departments of administration (_provinciae_) should be determined and assigned. The method of assignment varied. The least usual device was for one consul to take the field at the head of an army, while the other remained at home to transact the civil business of state. More often foreign wars demanded the attention of both consuls. In this case the regular army of four legions was usually divided between them. When it was necessary that both armies should co-operate, the principle of rotation was adopted, each consul having the command for a single day--a practice which may be illustrated by the events preceding the battle of Cannae (Polybius iii. 110; Livy xxii. 41). During the great period of conquest from 264 to 146 B.C. Italy was generally one of the consular "provinces," some foreign country the other; and when at the close of this period Italy was at peace, this distinction approximated to one between civil and military command. The consuls settled their departments amongst themselves by agreement or by lot (_comparatio_, _sortitio_), the power of declaring what should be the consular _provinciae_ was usurped by the senate, (see Senate), and a _lex Sempronia_ passed by C. Gracchus, probably in 122 B.C., ordained that the two consular provinces should be declared before the election of the consuls. At this time the consuls entered office on the 1st of January (a practice which commenced in 153 B.C.), and their military command began on the 1st of March. They could hold this military command until they were superseded in the following March, and thus their tenure of power was practically raised to fourteen months. But meanwhile the home officials invested with the imperium had proved insufficient for the military needs of the empire, and the system of prolonging the command (_prorogatio imperii_) had been growing up (see Province). The consul whose command had been prolonged now served abroad as proconsul. It is probable that Sulla in his legislation of 81 B.C. did something to stereotype this system. Certainly the government by pro-magistrates becomes the rule after this period (cf. Cicero, _De natura deorum_, ii. 3. 9; _De divinatione_, ii. 36. 76, 77), although there are several instances of consuls assuming the active command of provinces between the years 74 and 55 B.C. (Mommsen, _Rechtsfrage_, p. 30), and Cicero declares that the consul has a right to approach every province ("consules, quibus more majorum concessum est vel omnes adire provincias," Cicero, _Ad Atticum_, viii. 15. 3). Certainly in theory the provinces were still regarded as "consular," not "proconsular," and were technically, although not practically, held from the 1st of March of the consul's tenure of office at Rome (cf. Cicero, _De provinciis consularibus_, 15. 37; Mommsen, _Rechtsfrage_, _passim_). It was not until the lex Pompeia of 52 B.C. (Dio Cassius xl. 56) had established a five years' interval between home and foreign command that the theory of the _prorogatio imperii_ vanished and the proconsulate became a separate office.

Since the theory of the persistence of the republican constitution was of the essence of the Principate, the consuls necessarily lost little of their outward position and dignity under the rule of the Caesars. The consulship was the only office in which a citizen, other than a member of the imperial house, might have the princeps as a colleague, and in the interval between the death or deposition of one princeps and the appointment of another the consuls resumed their normal position as the heads of the state (cf. Herodian ii. 12). As the presidents of the senate, who after A.D. 14 elected them to their office, they were the chief personal representatives of those elements of sovereignty that were supposed to attach to that body, and they directed that high criminal jurisdiction which the senate of this period assumed (see Senate). A restored power of jurisdiction is indeed one of the features of their position during this time, and it is probable that the civil appeals which came to the senate were delegated to the consuls. They also acted for a time as delegates to the princeps in matters of Chancery jurisdiction such as trusts and guardianship (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. p. 103). The consulship was also a preparation for certain high commands, such as the government of certain public and imperial provinces (see Province) and the praefecture of the city. It was probably due to the fact that the consulship was such a prize, and perhaps also to the expense imposed on the office by its association with the celebration of games (Dio Cassius lvi. 46, lix. 20) that the tenure was progressively shortened. In the early principate the consuls hold office for six months, later for four to two months (Mommsen, _Staatsrecht_, ii. pp. 84-87). The consuls appointed for the 1st of January were called _ordinarii_, the others _suffecti_; and the whole year was dated by the names of the former.

This distinction continued in the Empire that was founded by Diocletian and Constantine. The _ordinarii_ were nominated by the emperor, the _suffecti_ were nominated by the senate, and their appointment was ratified by the emperor. The consulship was still the greatest dignity which the Empire had to bestow; and the pomp and ceremony of the office increased in proportion to the decline in its actual power. The entry of the consuls on office was celebrated by a great procession, by games given to the people, by a distribution of gifts, such as the ivory diptychs, a long series of which has been preserved. But the senate, over which they presided until the time of Justinian, was little more than the municipal council of the city of Rome; and the justice which they meted out had dwindled down to the formal and uncontested acts of manumission and the granting of guardians. Sometimes there was a consul of the West at Rome and a consul of the East at Constantinople; at other times both consuls might be found in either capital. The last consul born in a private station was Basilius in the East in A.D. 541. But the emperors continued to bear the title for some time longer.

AUTHORITIES.--Mommsen, _Römisches Staatsrecht_, ii. pp. 74-140 (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1887); Herzog, _Geschichte und System der römischen Staatsverfassung_, i. p. 688 foll., 827 foll. (Leipzig, 1884, &c.), Lange, _Römische Alterthümer_, i. p. 524 foll. (Berlin, 1856, &c.); Schiller, _Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer_, p. 53 foll. (Munich, 1893, _Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft_, von Dr Iwan von Müller); Daremberg-Saglio, _Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines_, i. 1455 foll. (1875, &c.); De Ruggiero, _Dizionario epigrafico di antichità Romane_, ii. 679 foll., 868 foll. (Rome, 1886, &c.); Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyclopädie_, iv. 1112 foll. (new edition, Stuttgart, 1893, &c.).

For the consular diptychs, cf. besides Daremberg-Saglio, _l.c._, Gori, _Thesaurus veterum diptychorum_ (Florence, 1759), and Labarte, _Histoire des arts industriels au moyen âge_, i. p. 10 foll., 190 foll. (1st ed., Paris, 1864). (A. H. J. G.)

CONSUL, a public officer authorized by the state whose commission he bears to manage the commercial affairs of its subjects in a foreign country, and formally permitted by the government of the country wherein he resides to perform the duties which are specified in his commission, or _lettre de provision_. (For the ancient magisterial office of consul see separate article above.)

A consul, as such, is not invested with any diplomatic character, and he cannot enter on his official duties until a rescript, termed an _exequatur_ (sometimes a mere countersign endorsed on the commission), has been delivered to him by the authorities of the state to which his nomination has been communicated by his own government. This _exequatur_, called in Turkey a _barat_, may be revoked at any time at the discretion of the government where he resides. The status of consuls commissioned by the Christian powers to reside in Mahommedan countries, China, Korea, Siam, and, until 1899, in Japan, and to exercise judicial functions in civil and criminal matters between their own countrymen and strangers, is exceptional to the common law, and is founded on special conventions or capitulations (q.v.).

The title of consul, in the sense in which it is used in international law, is derived from that of certain magistrates, in the cities of medieval Italy, Provence and Languedoc, charged with the settlement of trade disputes whether by sea or land (_consules mercatorum, consules artis maris_, &c.)[1] With the growth of trade it early became convenient to appoint agents with similar powers in foreign parts, and these often, though not invariably, were styled consuls (_consules in partibus ultramarinis_).[2] The earliest foreign consuls were those established by Genoa, Pisa, Venice and Florence, between 1098 and 1196, in the Levant, at Constantinople, in Palestine, Syria and Egypt. Of these the Pisan agent at Constantinople bore the title of consul, the Venetian that of baylo (q.v.). In 1251 Louis IX. of France arranged a treaty with the sultan of Egypt under which French consuls were established at Tripoli and Alexandria, and Du Cange cites a charter of James of Aragon, dated 1268, granting to the city of Barcelona the right to elect consuls in _partibus ultramarinis_, &c. The free growth of the system was, however, hampered by commercial and dynastic rivalries. The system of French foreign consulships, for instance, all but died out after the crushing of the independent life of the south and the incorporation of Provence and Languedoc under the French crown; while, with the establishment of Venetian supremacy in the Levant, the _baylo_ developed into a diplomatic agent of the first class at the expense of the consuls of rival states. The modern system of consulships actually dates only from the 16th century. Early in this century both England and Scotland had their "conservators" with "jurisdiction to do justice between merchant and merchant beyond the seas"; but France led the way. The alliance between Francis I. and Suleiman the Magnificent gave her special advantages in the Levant, of which she was not slow to take advantage. Her success culminated in the capitulations signed in 1604, under the terms of which her consuls were given precedence over all others and were endowed with diplomatic immunities (e.g. freedom from arrest and from domiciliary visits), while the traders of all other nations were put under the protection of the French flag. It was not till 1675 that, under the first capitulations signed with Turkey, English consuls were established in the Ottoman empire. Ten years earlier, under the commercial treaty between England and Spain, they had been established in Spain.

The frequent wars of the succeeding century hindered the development of the consular system. Thus, though the system of consuls was regularly established in France by the ordinance of 1661, in 1760 France had consuls only in the Levant, Barbary, Italy, Spain and Portugal, while she discouraged the establishment of foreign consuls in her own ports as tending to infringe her own jurisdiction. It was not till the 19th century that the system developed universally. Hitherto consuls had, for the most part, been business men with no special qualification as regards training; but the French system, under which the consular service had been long established as part of the general civil service of the country, a system that had survived the Revolution unchanged, was gradually adopted by other nations; though, as in France, consuls not belonging to the regular service, and having an inferior status, continued to be appointed. In Great Britain the consular service was organized in 1825 (see below); in France the series of ordinances and laws by which its modern constitution was fixed began in 1833. In Germany progress was hindered by the political conditions of the country under the old Confederation; for the Hanse cities, which practically monopolized the oversea trade, lacked the means to establish a consular system on the French model. The present magnificently organized consular system of Germany is, then, one of the most remarkable outcomes of the establishment of the united empire. It was initiated by an act of the parliament of the North German Confederation (Nov. 8, 1867), subsequently incorporated in the statutes of the Empire, which laid down the principle that the German consulates were to be under the immediate jurisdiction of the president of the Confederation (later the emperor). The functions, duties and privileges of French and German consuls do not differ materially from those of British consuls; but there is a great difference in the organization and _personnel_ of the consular service. In France, apart from the _consuls élus_ or _consuls marchands_, who are mere consular agents, selected by the government from among the traders of a town where it desires to be represented, and unsalaried, the consular body proper was, by the decrees of July 10, 1880, and April 27, 1883, practically constituted a branch of the diplomatic service. It is recruited from the same sources, and its members are free to exchange into the _corps diplomatique_, or vice versa. Candidates for the diplomatic and consular services have to undergo the same training and pass the same examinations, i.e. in the constitutional, administrative and judicial organization of the various powers, in international law, commercial law and maritime law, in the history of treaties and in commercial and political geography, in political economy, and in the German and English languages. They have to serve three years abroad or attached to some ministerial department before they can enter for the examination which entitles them to an appointment as attaché or as _consul suppléant_. This assimilation of the consular to the diplomatic service remains peculiar to France.[3]

In Germany it was enacted by the law of February 28, 1873, that German consuls must be either trained jurists, or must have passed special examinations. The result of this system has been the establishment throughout the world of an elaborate network of trained commercial experts, directly responsible to the central government, and charged as one of their principal duties with the task of keeping the government informed of all that may be of interest to German traders. These annual consular reports were from the first regularly and promptly published in the _Deutsche Handelsarchiv_, and have contributed much to the wonderful expansion of German trade. The right to establish consuls is now universally recognized by Christian civilized states. Jurists at one time contended that according to international law a right of "ex-territoriality" attached to consuls, their persons and dwellings being sacred, and themselves amenable to local authority only in cases of strong suspicion on political grounds. It is now admitted that, apart from treaty, custom has established very few consular privileges; that perhaps consuls may be arrested and incarcerated, not merely on criminal charges, but for civil debt; and that, if they engage in trade or become the owners of immovable property, their persons certainly lose protection. This question of arrest has been frequently raised in Europe:--in the case of Barbuit, a tallow-chandler, who from 1717 to 1735 acted as Prussian consul in London, and to whom the exemption conferred by statute on ambassadors was held not to apply; in the case of Cretico, the Turkish consul in London in 1808; in the case of Begley, the United States consul at Genoa, arrested in Paris in 1840; and in the case of De la Fuente Hermosa, Uruguayan consul, whom the _Cour Royale_ of Paris in 1842 held liable to arrest for debt. In the same way consuls are often exempt from all kinds of rates and taxes, and always from personal taxes. They are exempt from billeting and military service, but are not entitled (except in the Levant, where also freedom from arrest and trial is the rule) to have private chapels in their houses. The right of consuls to exhibit their national arms and flag over the door of the bureau is not disputed.

Until the year 1825 British consuls were usually merchants engaged in trade in the foreign countries in which they acted as consuls, and their remuneration consisted entirely of fees. An act of that year, however, organized the consular service as a branch of the civil service, with payment by a fixed salary instead of by fees; consuls were forbidden also to engage in trade, and the management of the service was put under the control of a separate department of the foreign office, created for the purpose. In 1832 the restriction as to engaging in trade was withdrawn, except as regards salaried members of the British consular service.

The duty of consuls, under the "General Instructions to British Consuls," is to advise His Majesty's trading subjects, to quiet their differences, and to conciliate as much as possible the subjects of the two countries. Treaty rights he is to support in a mild and moderate spirit; and he is to check as far as possible evasions by British traders of the local revenue laws. Besides assisting British subjects who are tried for offences in the local courts, and ascertaining the humanity of their treatment after sentence, he has to consider whether home or foreign law is more appropriate to the case, having regard to the convenience of witnesses and the time required for decision; and, where local courts have wrongfully interfered, he puts the home government in motion through the consul-general or ambassador. He sends in reports on the labour, manufacture, trade, commercial legislation and finance, technical education, exhibitions and conferences of the country or district in which he resides, and, generally, furnishes information on any subject which may be desired of him. He acts as a notary public; he draws up marine and commercial protests, attests documents brought to him, and, if necessary, draws up wills, powers of attorney, or conveyances. He celebrates marriages in accordance with the provisions of the Foreign Marriage Act 1892, and, where the ministrations of a clergyman cannot be obtained, reads the burial service. At a seaport he has certain duties to perform in connexion with the navy. In the absence of any of His Majesty's ships he is senior naval officer; he looks after men left behind as stragglers, or in hospital or prison, and sends them on in due course to the nearest ship. He is also empowered by statute to advance for the erection or maintenance of Anglican churches, hospitals, and places of interment sums equal to the amount subscribed for the purpose by the resident British subjects.

As the powers and duties of consuls vary with the particular commercial interests they have to protect, and the civilization of the state in whose territory they reside, instead of abstract definition, we summarize the provisions on this subject of the British Merchant Shipping Acts.[4] Consuls are bound to send to the Board of Trade such reports or returns on any matter relating to British merchant shipping or seamen as they may think necessary. Where a consul suspects that the shipping or navigation laws are being evaded, he may require the owner or master to produce the log-book or other ship documents (such as the agreement with the seamen, the account of the crew, the certificate of registration); he may muster the crew, and order explanations with regard to the documents. Where an offence has been committed on the high seas, or aboard ashore, by British seamen or apprentices, the consul makes inquiry on oath, and may send home the offender and witnesses by a British ship, particulars for the Board of Trade being endorsed on the agreement for conveyance. He is also empowered to detain a foreign ship the master or seamen of which appear to him through their misconduct or want of skill to have caused injury to a British vessel, until the necessary application for satisfaction or security be made to the local authorities. Every British mercantile ship, not carrying passengers, on entering a port gives into the custody of the consul to be endorsed by him the seamen's agreement, the certificate of registry, and the official log-book; a failure to do this is reported to the registrar-general of seamen. The following five provisions are also made for the protection of seamen. If a British master engage seamen at a foreign port, the engagement is sanctioned by the consul, acting as a superintendent of Mercantile Marine Offices. The consul collects the property (including arrears of wages) of British seamen or apprentices dying abroad, and remits to H.M. paymaster-general. He also provides for the subsistence of seamen who are shipwrecked, discharged, or left behind, even if their service was with foreign merchants; they are generally sent home in the first British ship that happens to be in want of a complement, and the expenses thus incurred form a charge on the parliamentary fund for the relief of distressed seamen, the consul receiving a commission of 2½% on the amount disbursed. Complaints by crews as to the quality and quantity of the provisions on board are investigated by the consul, who enters a statement in the log-book and reports to the Board of Trade. Money disbursed by consuls on account of the illness or injury of seamen is generally recoverable from the owner. With regard to passenger vessels, the master is bound to give the consul facilities for inspection and for communication with passengers, and to exhibit his "master's list," or list of passengers, so that the consul may transmit to the registrar-general, for insertion in the Marine Register Book, a report of the passengers dying and children born during the voyage. The consul may even defray the expenses of maintaining, and forwarding to their destination, passengers taken off or picked up from wrecked or injured vessels, if the master does not undertake to proceed in six weeks; these expenses becoming, in terms of the Passenger Acts 1855 and 1863, a debt due to His Majesty from the owner or charterer, where a salvor is justified in detaining a British vessel, the master may obtain leave to depart by going with the salvor before the consul, who, after hearing evidence as to the service rendered and the proportion of ship's value and freight claimed, fixes the amount for which the master is to give bond and security. In the case of a foreign wreck the consul is held to be the agent of the foreign owner. Much of the notarial business which is imposed on consuls, partly by statute and partly by the request of private parties, consists in taking the declarations as to registry, transfers, &c., under the Mercantile Shipping Acts. Consuls in the Ottoman empire, China, Siam and Korea have extensive judicial and executive powers.

Since the incorporation of the British consular service in the civil service there have been several proposals to "reform" the system with the view of increasing its usefulness, more particularly from the point of view of providing assistance to British trade abroad (see _Reports of Special Committees of the House of Commons on the Consular Service_, 1858, 1872, 1903). It has been frequently urged that British consuls in their commercial knowledge and intercourse with foreign merchants compare unfavourably, for example, with the consuls of the United States. It must be remembered, however, that there are points of striking dissimilarity between the duties of the consuls of these two countries. The American consul is necessarily brought much into touch with the trade and commerce of the country to which he is assigned through the system of consular invoices (see Ad Valorem); in his ordinary reports he is not confined to one stereotyped form, and when preparing special reports (a valuable feature of the United States consular service) he is liberally treated as regards any expense to which he has been put in obtaining information. He is practically free from the multifarious duties which the English consul has to discharge in connexion with the mercantile marine, nor has he to perform marriage ceremonies; and financially he is much better off, being allowed to retain as personal all fees obtained from his notarial duties. The Committee of 1903 was appointed to inquire, _inter alia_, whether the limits of age--25 to 50--for candidates should be altered, and whether service as a vice-consul for a certain period should be required to qualify for promotion to the rank of consul; whether means could not be adopted to give consular officers opportunities of increasing their practical knowledge of commercial matters and to bring them more into personal contact with the commercial community. The suggestions of the committee as the result of its inquiries were adopted in principle by the Foreign Office. The consular service is now grouped into three main divisions: (1) the general service; (2) Levant and Persia; and (3) China, Japan, Korea and Siam. The general consular service is graded into three divisions: first grade, consuls-general, salary £1000 with local allowances; second grade, consuls-general and consuls, salary £800 and local allowances; third grade, consuls, salary £600, with local allowances. Vice-consuls have an annual salary of £350, rising by annual increments of £15 to £450. In the general consular service appointments are sometimes made to the higher offices from the ranks, but more usually from a select list of nominees, who must pass a qualifying examination. A proportion of the vacancies are reserved for competition amongst candidates who have had actual commercial experience. Divisions 2 and 3 are recruited by open competition. There were at one time a small number of commercial agents whose business consisted in watching and reporting on the commerce, industries and products of special districts, and in answering inquiries on commercial subjects. Their duties were subsequently transferred to the consular staff, and a new class of officers, consular attachés, created. The consular attachés divide their time between special investigations abroad, and visits to manufacturing districts in the United Kingdom. The headquarters of the commercial attachés in Europe, except those at Paris and Constantinople, were transferred to London, without defined districts, in 1907 (see _Report on the System of British Commercial Attachés and Agents_, 1908, Cd. 3610). "Pro-consuls" are frequently appointed for the purpose of administering oaths, taking affidavits or affirmations, and performing notarial acts under the Commissioners for Oaths Acts 1889.

The position of the United States consuls is minutely described in the Regulations, Washington, 1896. Under various treaties and conventions they enjoy large privileges and jurisdiction. By the treaty of 1816 with Sweden the United States government agreed that the consuls of the two states respectively should be sole judges in disputes between captains and crews of vessels. (Up to 1906 there were eighteen treaties containing this clause.) By convention with France in 1853 they likewise agreed that the consuls of both countries should be permitted to hold real estate, and to have the "police interne des navires à commerce." In Borneo, China, Korea, Morocco, Persia, Siam, Tripoli and Turkey an extensive jurisdiction, civil and criminal, is exercised by treaty stipulation in cases where United States subjects are interested. Exemption from liability to appear as a witness is often stipulated. The question was raised in France in 1843 by the case of the Spanish consul Soller at Aix, and in America in 1854 by the case of Dillon, the French consul at San Francisco, who, on being arrested by Judge Hoffmann for declining to give evidence in a criminal suit, pulled down his consular flag. So, also, inviolability of national archives is often stipulated. To the consuls of other nations the United States government have always accorded the privileges of arresting deserters, and of being themselves amenable only to the Federal and not to the States courts. They also recognize foreign consuls as representative suitors for absent foreigners.

The United States commercial agents are appointed by the president, and usually receive an _exequatur_. They form a class by themselves, and are distinct from the consular agents, who are simply deputy consuls in districts where there is no principal consul.

By a law of April 1906 the U.S. consular service was reorganized and graded, the office of consul-general being divided into seven classes, and that of consul into nine classes; and on June 27 an executive order was issued by President Roosevelt governing appointments and promotions.

See A. de Miltitz, _Manuel des consuls_ (London and Berlin, 1837-1843); Baron Ferdinand de Cussy, _Dictionnaire du diplomate et du consul_ (Leipzig, 1846), and _Réglements consulaires des principaux états maritimes de l`Europe et de l`Amérique_ (ib., 1851); Tuson, _British Consul's Manual_ (London, 1856); De Clercq, _Guide pratique des consulats_ (1st ed., 1858, 5th ed. by de Vallat, Paris, 1898); C. J. Tarring, _British Consular Jurisdiction in the East_ (London, 1887); Lippmann, _Die Konsularjurisdiktion im Orient_ (Berlin, 1898); Zorn, _Die Konsulargesetzgebung des deutschen Reichs_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1901); v. König, _Handbuch des deutschen Konsularwesens_ (6th ed., Berlin, 1902); Martens, _Das deutsche Konsular-und Kolonialrecht_ (Leipzig, 1904); Malfatti di Monte Tretto, _Handbuch des österreichischungarischen Konsularwesens_ (2 vols., 2nd ed., Vienna, 1904). See also the _Parliamentary Reports_ referred to in the text. For British consuls much detailed information, including, e.g., minute directions for the uniforms of the various grades, will be found in the official _Foreign Office List_ published annually. As regards American consuls, see C. L. Jones, _The Consular Service of the U. S. A._ (Philadelphia, 1906); _Publications of Univ. of Pennsylvania_, "Series in Pol. Econ. and Public Law," No. 18; and Fred. Van Dyne, _Our Foreign Service_ (Rochester, N.Y., 1909).

FOOTNOTES:

[3] The title of consul was borne by the chief municipal officers of several cities of the south of France during the middle ages and up to the Revolution. The name was not due to their being the successors of the chiefs of the Roman _municipia_. They were members of the governing body known as the _consulat_, and in Latin documents are sometimes styled _consiliarii_, i.e. councillors. The _consulat_ itself is not traceable beyond the 12th century.

[2] Particular quarters of mercantile cities were assigned to foreign traders and were placed under the jurisdiction of their own magistrates, variously styled syndics, provosts (_praepositi_), échevins (_scabini_), &c., who had power to fine or to expel from the quarter. The Hanseatic League (q.v.), particularly, had numerous settlements of this kind, the earliest being the Steelyard at London, established in the 13th century.

[3] i.e. as regards the organization of the system. Consuls, or consuls-general, of other countries have sometimes a diplomatic or quasi-diplomatic status. Consuls-general chargés d'affaires, e.g., rank as diplomatic agents. Of these the most notable is the British agent and consul-general in Egypt, whose position is unique. The diplomatic agent of Belgium at Buenos Aires, e.g., is minister-resident and consul-general, and the minister of Ecuador in London is consul-general chargé d'affaires.

[4] See also instructions to consuls prepared by the Board of Trade and approved by the secretary of state for foreign affairs.

"CONSULATE OF THE SEA," a celebrated collection of maritime customs and ordinances (see also Sea Laws) in the Catalan language, published at Barcelona in the latter part of the 15th century. Its proper title is _The Book of the Consulate_, or in Catalan, _Lo Libre de Consolat_, the name being derived from the fact that it embodied the rules of law followed in the maritime cities of the Mediterranean coast by the commercial judges known generally as consuls (q.v.). The earliest extant edition of the work, which was printed at Barcelona in 1494, is without a title-page or frontispiece, but it is described by the above-mentioned title in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to the table of contents. The only known copy of this edition is preserved in the National Library in Paris. The epistle dedicatory states that the work is an amended version of the _Book of the Consulate_, compiled by Francis Celelles with the assistance of numerous shipmasters and merchants well versed in maritime affairs. According to a statement made by Capmany in his _Codigo de los costumbras maritimas de Barcelona_, published at Madrid in 1791, there was extant to his knowledge in the last century a more ancient edition of the _Book of the Consulate_, printed in semi-Gothic characters, which he believed to be of a date prior to 1484. This is the earliest period to which any historical record of the _Book of the Consulate_ being in print can be traced back. There are, however, two Catalan MSS. preserved in the National Library in Paris, the earliest of which, being MS. Espagnol 124, contains the two first treatises which are printed in the _Book of the Consulate_ of 1494, and which are the most ancient portion of its contents, written in a hand of the 14th century, on paper of that century. The subsequent parts of this MS. are on paper of the 15th century, but there is no document of a date more recent than 1436. The later of the two MSS., being MS. Espagnol 56, is written throughout on paper of the 15th century, and in a hand of that century, and it purports, from a certificate on the face of the last leaf, to have been executed under the superintendence of Peter Thomas, a notary public, and the scribe of the Consulate of the Sea at Barcelona.

The edition of 1494, which is justly regarded as the _editio princeps_ of the _Book of the Consulate_, contains, in the first place, a code of procedure issued by the kings of Aragon for the guidance of the courts of the consuls of the sea, in the second place, a collection of ancient customs of the sea, and thirdly, a body of ordinances for the government of cruisers of war. A colophon at the end of these ordinances informs the readers that "the book commonly called the _Book of the Consulate_ ends here"; after which there follows a document known by the title of _The Acceptations_, which purports to record that the previous chapters and ordinances had been approved by the Roman people in the 11th century, and by various princes and peoples in the 12th and 13th centuries. Capmany was the first person to question the authenticity of this document in his _Memorias historicas sobre la marina, &c., de Barcelona_, published at Madrid in 1779-1792. Pardessus and other writers on maritime law followed up the inquiry in the 19th century, and have conclusively shown that the document, whatever may have been its origin, has no proper reference to the _Book of the Consulate_, and is, in fact, of no historical value whatsoever. The paging of the edition of 1494 ceases with this document, at the end of which is the printer's colophon, reciting that "the work was completed on the 14th of July 1494, at Barcelona, by Père Posa, priest and printer." The remainder of the volume consists of what may be regarded as an appendix to the original _Book of the Consulate_. This appendix contains various maritime ordinances of the kings of Aragon and of the councillors of the city of Barcelona, ranging over a period from 1340 to 1484. It is printed apparently in the same type with the preceding part of the volume. The original _Book of the Consulate_, coupled with this appendix, constitutes the work which has obtained general circulation in Europe under the title of _The Consulate of the Sea_, and which in the course of the 16th century was translated into the Castilian, the Italian, and the French languages. The Italian translation, printed at Venice in 1549 by Jean Baptista Pedrezano, was the version which obtained the largest circulation in the north of Europe, and led many jurists to suppose the work to have been of Italian origin. In the next following century the work was translated into Dutch by Westerven, and into German by Engelbrecht, and it is also said to have been translated into Latin.

An excellent translation into French of "The Customs of the Sea," which are the most valuable portion of the _Book of the Consulate_, was published by Pardessus in the second volume of his _Collection des lois maritimes_ (Paris, 1834), under the title of "La Compilation connue sous le nom de consulat de la mer." See introduction, by Sir Travers Twiss, to the _Black Book of the Admiralty_ (London, 1874), which in the appendix to vol. iii. contains his translation of "The Customs of the Sea," with the Catalan text. (T. T.)

CONSUMPTION (Lat. _consumere_), literally, the act of consuming or destroying. Thus the word is popularly applied to phthisis, a "wasting away" of the lungs due to tuberculosis (q.v.). In economics the word has a special significance as a technical term. It has been defined as the destruction of utilities, and thus opposed to "production," which is the creation of utilities, a utility in this connexion being anything which satisfies a desire or serves a purpose. Consumption may be either productive or unproductive; productive where it is a means directly or indirectly to the satisfaction of any economic want, unproductive when it is devoted to pleasures or luxuries. Its place in the science of economics, and its close relation with production, are treated of in every text-book, but special reference may be made to W. Roscher, _Nationalökonomie_, 1883, and G. Schönberg, _Handbuch d. polit. Ökonomie_, 1890-1891.

CONSUS, an ancient Italian deity, originally a god of agriculture. The time at which his festival was held (after harvest and seed-sowing), the nature of its ceremonies and amusements, his altar at the end of the Circus Maximus always covered with earth except on such occasions, all point to his connexion with the earth. In accordance with this, the name has been derived from _condere_ (= Condius, as the "keeper" of grain or the "hidden" god, whose life-producing influence works in the depths of the earth). Another etymology is from _conserere_ ("sow," cf. Ops Consiva and her festival Opiconsivia). Amongst the ancients (Livy i. 9; Dion. Halic. ii. 31) Census was most commonly identified with [Greek: Poseidôn Hippios] (Neptunus Equester), and in later Latin poets Consus is used for Neptunus, but this idea was due to the horse and chariot races which took place at his festival; otherwise, the two deities have nothing in common. According to another view, he was the god of good counsel, who was said to have "advised" Romulus to carry off the Sabine women (Ovid, _Fasti_, iii. 199) when they visited Rome for the first celebration of his festival (Consualia). In later times, with the introduction of Greek gods into the Roman theological system, Consus, who had never been the object of special reverence, sank to the level of a secondary deity, whose character was rather abstract and intellectual.

His festival was celebrated on the of August and the 15th of December. On the former date, the flamen Quirinalis, assisted by the vestals, offered sacrifice, and the pontifices presided at horse and chariot races in the circus. It was a day of public rejoicing; all kinds of rustic amusements took place, amongst them running on ox-hides rubbed with oil (like the Gr. [Greek: haskoliasmos]). Horses and mules, crowned with garlands, were given rest from work. A special feature of the games in the circus was chariot racing, in which mules, as the oldest draught beasts, took the place of horses. The origin of these games was generally attributed to Romulus; but by some they were considered an imitation of the Arcadian [Greek: hippokrateia] introduced by Evander. There was a sanctuary of Consus on the Aventine, dedicated by L. Papirius Cursor in 272, in early times wrongly identified with the altar in the circus.

See W. W. Fowler, _The Roman Festivals_ (1899); G. Wissowa, _Religion und Kultus der Römer_ (1902); Preller-Jordan, _Römische Mythologie_ (1881).

CONTANGO, a Stock Exchange term for the rate of interest paid by a "bull" who has bought stock for the rise and does not intend to pay for it when the Settlement arrives. He arranges to carry over or continue his bargain, and does so by entering into a fresh bargain with his seller, or some other party, by which he sells the stock for the Settlement and buys it again for the next, the price at which the bargain is entered being called the making-up price. The rate that he pays for this accommodation, which amounts to borrowing the money involved until the next Settlement, is called the contango.

CONTARINI, the name of a distinguished Venetian family, who gave to the republic eight doges and many other eminent citizens. The story of their descent from the Roman family of Cotta, appointed prefects of the Reno valley (whence Cotta Reni or Conti del Reno), is probably a legend. One Mario Contarini was among the twelve electors of the doge Paulo Lucio Anafesto in 697. Domenico Contarini, elected doge in 1043, subjugated rebellious Dalmatia and recaptured Grado from the patriarch of Aquileia. He died in 1070. Jacopo was doge from 1275 to 1280. Andrea was elected doge in 1367, and during his reign the war of Chioggia took place (1380); he was the first to melt down his plate and mortgage his property for the benefit of the state. Other Contarini doges were: Francesco (1623-1624), Niccolò (1630-1631), who built the church of the Salute, Carlo (1655-1656), during whose reign the Venetians gained the naval victory of the Dardanelles, Domenico (1659-1675) and Alvise (1676-1684). There were at one time no less than eighteen branches of the family; one of the most important was that of Contarini dallo Zaffo or di Giaffa, who had been invested with the countship of Jaffa in Syria for their services to Caterina Cornaro, queen of Cyprus; another was that of Contarini degli Scrigni (of the coffers), so called on account of their great wealth. Many members of the family distinguished themselves in the service of the republic, in the wars against the Turks, and no less than seven Contarini fought at Lepanto. One Andrea Contarini was beheaded in 1430 for having wounded the doge Francesco Foscari (q.v.) on the nose. Other members of the house were famous as merchants, prelates and men of letters; among these we may mention Cardinal Gasparo Contarini (1483-1542), and Marco Contarini (1631-1689), who was celebrated as a patron of music and collected at his villa of Piazzola a large number of valuable musical MSS., now in the Marciana library at Venice. The family owned many palaces in various parts of Venice, and several streets still bear its name.

See J. Fontana, "Sulla patrizia famiglia Contarini," in _Il Gondoliere_ (1843). (L. V.*)

CONTAT, LOUISE FRANÇOISE (1760-1813), French actress, made her _début_ at the Comédie Française in 1766 as Atalide in _Bajazet_. It was in comedy, however, that she made her first success, as Suzanne in Beaumarchais's _Mariage de Figaro_; and in several minor character parts, which she raised to the first importance, and as the soubrette in the plays of Molière and Marivaux, she found opportunities exactly fitted to her talents. She retired in 1809 and married de Parny, nephew of the poet. Her sister Marie Émilie Contat (1769-1846), an admirable soubrette, especially as the pert servant drawn by Molière and de Regnard, made her _début_ in 1784, and retired in 1815.

CONTE, literally a "story," derived from the Fr. _conter_, to narrate, through low Lat. and Provençal forms _contare_ and _comtar_. This word, although not recognized by the _New English Dictionary_ as an English term, is yet so frequently used in English literary criticisms that some definition of it seems to be demanded. A _conte_, in French, differs from a _récit_ or a _rapport_ in the element of style; it may be described as an anecdote told with deliberate art, and in this introduction of art lies its peculiar literary value. According to Littré, there is no fundamental difference between a _conte_ and a _roman_, and all that can be said is that the _conte_ is the generic term, covering long stories and short alike, whereas the _roman_ (or novel) must extend to a certain length. But if this is the primitive and correct signification of the word, it is certain that modern criticism thinks of a _conte_ essentially as a short story, and as a short story exclusively occupied in illustrating one set of ideas or one disposition of character. As early as the 13th century, the word is used in French literature to describe an anecdote thus briefly and artistically told, in prose or verse. The fairy-tales of Perrault and the apologues of La Fontaine were alike spoken of as _contes_, and stories of peculiar extravagance were known as _contes bleus_, because they were issued to the common public in coarse blue paper covers. The most famous _contes_ in the 18th century were those of Voltaire, who has been described as having invented the _conte philosophique_. But those brilliant stories, _Candide_, _Zadig_, _L'Ingénu_, _La Princess de Babylone_ and _Le Taureau blanc_, are not, in the modern sense, _contes_ at all. The longer of these are _romans_, the shorter _nouvelles_, not one has the anecdotical unity required by a _conte_. The same may be said of those of Marmontel, and of the insipid imitations of Oriental fancy which were so popular at the close of the 18th century. The most perfect recent writer of _contes_ is certainly Guy de Maupassant, and his celebrated anecdote called "Boule de suif" may be taken as an absolutely perfect example of this class of literature, the precise limitations of which it is difficult to define. (E. G.)

CONTÉ, NICOLAS JACQUES (1755-1805), French mechanical genius, chemist and painter, was born at Aunou-sur-Orne, near Sées, on the 4th of August 1755, of a family of poor farm labourers. At the age of fourteen he displayed precocious artistic talent in a series of religious panels, remarkably fine in colour and composition, for the principal hospital of Sées, where he was employed to help the gardener. With the advice of Greuze he took up portrait painting, quickly became the fashion, and laid by in a few years a fair competency. From that time he gave free rein to his passion for the mechanical arts and scientific studies. He attended the lectures of J. A. C. Charles, L. N. Vaquelin and J. B. Leroy, and exhibited before the Academy of Science an hydraulic machine of his own invention of which the model was the subject of a flattering report, and was placed in Charles's collection. The events of the Revolution soon gave him an opportunity for a further display of his inventive faculty. The war with England deprived France of plumbago; he substituted for it an artificial substance obtained from a mixture of graphite and clay, and took out a patent in 1795 for the form of pencil which still bears his name. At this time he was associated with Monge and Berthollet in experiments in connexion with the inflation of military balloons, was conducting the school for that department of the engineer corps at Meudon, was perfecting the methods of producing hydrogen in quantity, and was appointed (1796) by the Directory to the command of all the aerostatic establishments. He was at the head of the newly created Conservatoire des arts et métiers, and occupied himself with experiments in new compositions of permanent colours, and in 1798 constructed a metal-covered barometer for measuring comparative heights, by observing the weight of mercury issuing from the tube. Summoned by Bonaparte to take part as chief of the aerostatic corps in the expedition to Egypt, he considerably extended his field of activity, and for three years and a half was, to quote Berthollet, "the soul of the colony." The disaster of Aboukir and the revolt of Cairo had caused the loss of the greater part of the instruments and munitions taken out by the French. Conté, who, as Monge says, "had every science in his head and every art in his hands," and whom the First Consul described as "good at everything," seemed to be everywhere at once and triumphed over apparently insurmountable difficulties. He made, in an almost uncivilized country, utensils, tools and machinery of every sort from simple windmills to stamps for minting coin. Thanks to his activity and genius, the expedition was provided with bread, cloth, arms and munitions of war; the engineers with the exact tools of their trade; the surgeons with operating instruments. He made the designs, built the models, organized and supervised the manufacture, and seemed to be able to invent immediately anything required. On his return to France in 1802 he was commissioned by the minister of the interior, Chaptal, to superintend the publication of the great work of the commission on Egypt, and an engraving machine of his construction materially shortened this task, which, however, he did not live to see finished. He died at Paris on the 6th of December 1805. Napoleon had included him in his first promotions to the Legion of Honour. A bronze statue was erected to his memory in 1852 at Sées, by public subscription.

CONTEMPT OF COURT, in English law, any disobedience or disrespect to the authority or privileges of a legislative body, or interference with the administration of a court of justice.

1. _The High Court of Parliament._ Each of the two houses of Parliament has by the law and custom of parliament power to protect its freedom, dignity and authority against insult, disregard or violence by resort to its own process and not to ordinary courts of law and without having its process interfered with by those courts. The nature and limits of this authority to punish for contempt have been the subject of not infrequent conflict with the courts of law, from the time when Lord Chief Justice Holt threatened to commit the speaker for attempting to stop the trial of _Ashby_ v. _White_ (1701), as a breach of privilege, to the cases of _Burdett_ v. _Abbott_ (1810), _Stockdale_ v. _Hansard_ and _Howard_ v. _Gosset_ (1842, 1843), and _Bradlaugh_ v. _Gosset_ (1834). It is now the accepted view that the power of either House to punish contempt is exceptional and derived from ancient usage, and does not flow from their being courts of record. Orders for committal by the Commons are effectual only while the House sits; orders by the Lords may be for a time specified, in which event prorogation does not operate as a discharge of the offender. It was at one time considered that the privilege of committing for contempt was inherent in every deliberative body invested with authority by the constitution, and consequently that colonial legislative bodies had by the nature of their functions the power to commit for contempt. But in _Kielley_ v. _Carson_ (1843; 4 Moore, P.C. 63) it was held that the power belonged to parliament by ancient usage only and not on the theory above stated, and in each colony it is necessary to inquire how far the colonial legislature has acquired, by order in council or charter or from the imperial legislature, power to punish breach of privilege by imprisonment or committal for contempt. This power has in some cases been given directly, in others by authority to make laws and regulations under sanctions like those enforced by the Houses of the imperial parliament. In the case of Nova Scotia the provincial assembly has power to give itself by statute authority to commit for contempt (_Fielding_ v. _Thomas_, 1896; L.R.A.C. 600). In _Barton_ v. _Taylor_ (1886; 11 A.C. 197) the competence of the legislative assembly of New South Wales to make standing orders punishing contempt was recognized to exist under the colonial constitution, but the particular standing orders under consideration are held not to cover the acts which had been punished. (See May, _Parl. Pr._, 10th ed., 1896; Anson, _Law and Custom of the Constitution_, 3rd ed., 1897.)

2. _Courts of Justice._ The term contempt of court, when used with reference to the courts or persons to whom the exercise of the judicial functions of the crown has been delegated, means insult offered to such court or person by deliberate defiance of its authority, disobedience to its orders, interruption of its proceedings or interference with the due course of justice, or any conduct calculated or tending to bring the authority or administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties or witnesses during the litigation. The ingenuity of the judges and of those who are concerned to defeat or defy justice have rendered contempt almost Protean in its character. But for practical purposes most, if not all, contempts fall within the classification which follows:--

(a) Disobedience to the judgment or order of a court commanding the doing or abstaining from a particular act, e.g. an order to execute a conveyance of property or an order on a person in a fiduciary capacity to pay into court trust moneys as to which he is an accounting party. This includes disobedience by the members of a local authority to a _mandamus_ to do some act which they are by law bound to do; and proceedings for contempt have been taken in the case of guardians of the poor who have refused to enforce the Vaccination Acts, e.g. at Keighley and Leicester, and of town councillors who have refused to comply with an order to take specified measures to drain their borough (e.g. Worcester). This process for compelling obedience is in substance a process of civil execution for the benefit of the injured party rather than a criminal process for punishing the disobedience; and for purposes of appeal orders dealing with these forms of contempt have hitherto been treated as civil proceedings.

(b) Disobedience by inferior judges or magistrates to the lawful order of a superior court. Such disobedience, if amounting to wilful misconduct, would usually give ground for amotion or removal from office, or for prosecution or indictment or information for misconduct (Archbold, _Criminal Pleading_, 147, 23rd ed.).

(c) Disobedience or misconduct by executive officers of the law, e.g. sheriffs and their bailiffs or gaolers. The contempt consists in not complying with the terms of writs or warrants sent for execution. For instance, a judge of assize having ordered the court to be cleared on account of some disturbance, the high sheriff issued a placard protesting against "this unlawful proceeding," and "prohibiting his officer from aiding and abetting any attempt to bar out the public from free access to the court." The lord chief justice of England, sitting in the other court, summoned the sheriff before him and fined him £500 for the contempt, and £500 more for persisting in addressing the grand jury in court, after he had been ordered to desist. A sheriff who fails to attend the assizes is liable to severe fine as being in contempt (Oswald, 51). And in Harvey's case (1884, 26 Ch. D. 644) steps were taken to attach a sheriff who had failed to execute a writ of attachment for contempt of court in the mistaken belief that he was not entitled to break open doors to take the person in contempt. The Sheriffs Act 1887 enumerates many instances in which misconduct is punishable under that act, but reserves to superior courts of record power to deal with such misconduct as a contempt (s. 29).

(d) Misconduct or neglect of duty by subordinate officials of courts of justice, including solicitors. In these cases it is more usual for the superior authorities to remove the offender from office, or for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted by the Law Society. But in the case of an unqualified person assuming to act as a solicitor or in the case of breach of an undertaking given by a solicitor to the court, proceedings for contempt are still taken.

(e) Misconduct by parties, jurors or witnesses. Jurors who fail to attend in obedience to a jury summons and witnesses who fail to attend on subpoena are liable to punishment for contempt, and parties, counsel or solicitors who practise a fraud on the court are similarly liable.

(f) Contempt in _facie curiae_. "Some contempts," says Blackstone, "may arise in the face of the court, as by rude and contumelious behaviour, by obstinacy, perverseness or prevarication, by breach of the peace, or any wilful disturbance whatever"; in other words, direct insult to or interference with a sitting court is treated as contempt of the court. It is immaterial whether the offender is juror, party, witness, counsel, solicitor or a stranger to the case at hearing, and occasionally it is found necessary to punish for contempt persons under trial for felony or misdemeanour if by violent language or conduct they interrupt the proceedings at their trial. Judges have even treated as contempt the continuance outside the court-house after warning of a noise sufficient to disturb the proceedings of the court; and in Victoria Chief Justice Higginbotham committed for contempt a builder who persisted after warning in building operations close to the central criminal court in Melbourne, which interfered with the due conduct of the business of the sittings.

(g) Attempts to prevent or interfere with the due course of justice, whether made by a person interested in a particular case or by an outsider. This branch of contempt takes many forms, such as frauds on the court by justices, solicitors or counsel (e.g. by fraudulently circularizing shareholders of a company against which a winding-up petition had been filed), tampering with witnesses by inducing them through threats or persuasion not to attend or to withhold evidence or to commit perjury, threatening judge or jury or attempting to bribe them and the like; and also by "scandalizing the court itself" by abusing the parties concerned in a pending case, or by creating prejudice against such persons before their cause is heard.

Invectives against judges.

The _locus classicus_ on the subject of contempt by attacks on judges is a judgment prepared by Sir Eardley-Wilmot in the case of an application for an attachment against J. Almon in 1765, for publishing a pamphlet libelling the court of king's bench. The judgment was not actually delivered as the case was settled, but has long been accepted as correctly stating the law. Sir Eardley-Wilmot said that the offence of libelling judges in their judicial capacity is the most proper case for an attachment, for the "arraignment of the justice of the judges is arraigning the king's justice; it is an impeachment of his wisdom and goodness in the choice of his judges; and excites in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determinations, and indisposes their minds to obey them. To be impartial, and _to be universally thought_ so, are both absolutely necessary for the giving justice that free, open and uninterrupted current which it has for many ages found all over this kingdom, and which so eminently distinguishes and exalts it above all nations upon the earth." Again, "the constitution has provided very apt and proper remedies for correcting and rectifying the involuntary mistakes of judges, and for punishing and removing them for any perversion of justice. But if their authority is to be trampled on by pamphleteers and news-writers, and the people are to be told that the power given to the judges for their protection is prostituted to their destruction, the court may retain its power some little time, but I am sure it will eventually lose all its authority."

The object of the discipline enforced by the court by proceedings for contempt of court is not now, if it ever was, to vindicate the personal dignity of the judges or to protect them from insult as individuals, but to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court itself and to prevent acts tending to obstruct the due course of justice. The question whether a personal invective against judges should be dealt with _brevi manu_ by the court attacked, or by proceedings at the instance of the attorney-general by information or indictment for a libel on the administration of justice or on the judge attacked, or should be dealt with by a civil action for damages, depends on the nature and occasion of the attack on the judge.

There has at times been a disposition by judges in colonial courts to use the process of the court to punish criticisms on their acts by counsel or parties or even outsiders, which the privy council has been prone to discourage. For instance in a Nova Scotia case a barrister was suspended from practice for writing to the chief justice of the province a letter relating to a case in which the barrister was suitor. The privy council while considering the letter technically a contempt, held the punishment inappropriate. In _Macleod_ v. _St Aubyn_ (1899, A.C. 549) it was said that proceedings for scandalizing the court itself were obsolete in England. But in 1900 the king's bench division, following the Almon case, summarily punished a scurrilous personal attack on a judge of assize with reference to his remarks in a concluded ease, published immediately after the conclusion of the case (_R._ v. _Gray_, 1900, 2 Q.B. 36). The same measure may be meted out to those who publish invectives against judges or juries with the object of creating suspicion or contempt as to the administration of justice. But the existence of this power does not militate against the right of the press to publish full reports of trials and judgments or to make with fairness, good faith, candour and decency, comments and criticisms on what passed at the trial and on the correctness of the verdict or the judgment. To impute corruption is said to go beyond the limits of fair criticism. Shortt (_Law relating to Works of Literature_) states the law to be that the temperate and respectful discussion of judicial determination is not prohibited, but mere invective and abuse, and still more the imputation of false, corrupt and dishonest motives is punishable. In an information granted in 1788 against the corporation of Yarmouth for having entered upon their books an order "stating that the assembly were sensible that Mr W. (against whom an action had been brought for malicious prosecution, and a verdict for £3000 returned, which the court refused to disturb) was actuated by motives of public justice, of preserving the rights of the corporation to their admiralty jurisdiction, and of supporting the honour and credit of the chief magistrate," Mr Justice Butler said, "The judge and jury who tried the case, confirmed by the court of common pleas, have said that instead of his having been actuated by motives of public justice, or by any motives which should influence the actions of an honest man, he had been actuated by malice. These opinions are not reconcilable; if the one be right the other must be wrong. It is therefore a direct insinuation that the court had judged wrong in all they have done in this case, and is therefore clearly a libel on the administration of justice."

The exact limits of the power to punish for contempt of court in respect of statements or comments on the action of judges and juries, or with reference to _pending_ proceedings, have been the subject of some controversy, owing to the difficulty of reconciling the claims of the press to liberty and of the public to free discussion of the proceedings of courts of justice with the claims of the judges to due respect and of the parties to litigation that their causes should not be prejudiced before trial by outside interference. As the law now stands it is permissible to publish contemporaneous _reports_ of the proceedings in cases pending in any court (Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888, s. 3), unless the proceedings have taken place in private (_in camera_), or the court has in the interests of justice prohibited any report until the case is concluded, a course now rarely, if ever, adopted. But it is not permissible to make any comments on a pending case calculated to interfere with the due course of justice in the case, nor to publish statements about the cause or the parties calculated to have that effect. This rule applies even when the case has been tried and the jury has disagreed if a second trial is in prospect. Applications are frequently made to commit proprietors and editors who comment too freely or who undertake the task of trying in their newspapers a pending case. The courts are now slow to move unless satisfied that the statements or comments may seriously affect the course of justice, e.g. by reaching the jurors who have to try the case.

The difference between pending and decided cases has been frequently recognized by the courts. What would be a fair comment in a decided case may tend to influence the mind of the judge or the jury in a case waiting to be heard, and will accordingly be punished as a contempt. In _Tichborne_ v. _Mostyn_ the publisher of a newspaper was held to have committed a contempt by printing in his paper extracts from affidavits in a pending suit, with comments upon them. In the case of _R._ v. _Castro_ it was held that after a true bill has been found, and the indictment removed into the court of queen's bench, and a day fixed for trial, the case was pending; and it was a contempt of court to address public meetings, alleging that the defendant was not guilty, that there was a conspiracy against the defendant, and that he could not have a fair trial; and the court ordered the parties to answer for their contempt. In the case of the Moat Farm murder (1903) the high court punished as contempt a series of articles published in a newspaper while the preliminary inquiry was proceeding and before the case went to a jury (_R._ v. _Parker_, 1903, 2 K.B. 432). The like course was followed in 1905 in the case of statements made in a Welsh newspaper about a woman awaiting trial for attempted murder (_R._ v. _Davies_, 1906, 1 K.B. 32); and in the case of the _Weekly Dispatch_ in 1902 (_R._ v. _Tibbits and Windust_, 1 K.B. 77), two journalists were tried on indictment, and held to have been rightly convicted, for conspiring to prevent the course of justice by publishing matter calculated to interfere with the fair trial of persons who were under accusation.

Courts having jurisdiction.

"In the superior courts the power of committing for contempt is inherent in their constitution, has been coeval with their original institution and has been always exercised" (Oswald, _On Contempt_, 3). The high court in which these courts are merged is the only court which has a general jurisdiction to deal summarily with all forms of contempt. Each division of that court deals with the particular contempts arising with reference to proceedings before the division; but the king's bench division, in the exercise of the supervisory authority inherited from the old court of king's bench as _custos morum_, also from time to time deals with acts constituting interference with justice in other inferior courts whether of record or not. The nature and limits of this jurisdiction after much discussion have been defined by decisions in 1903 and 1905 in attempts to try by newspapers cases under inquiry by justices or awaiting trial at assizes or quarter sessions. The exercise of this authority in the king's bench division, being in a criminal cause or matter, is not the subject of appeal to any higher court.

Inferior courts of record have, as a general rule, power to punish only those contempts which are committed _in facie curiae_ or consist in disobedience to the lawful orders or judgments of the court. For instance, a county court may summarily punish persons who insult the judge or any officer of the court or any juror or witness, or wilfully interrupt the proceedings, or misbehave in the court-house (County Court