OF THE COVENANT, a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in height; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tables of the covenant, Num. xvii, 10; Heb. ix, 4. This coffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the _mercy seat_, Exod. xxv, 17–22, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two ends whereof were two figures, called _cherubim_, looking toward each other, with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of the mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rabbins, was made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by solder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible display of the divine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle and in the temple, Lev. xvi, 2; and from hence the divine oracles were given forth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of his people. Hence it is that God is said in Scripture to dwell between the cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his glory among them, 2 Kings xix, 15; 2 Chron, xiii, 6; Psalm lxxx, 1, &c; and for this reason the high priest appeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of expiation, at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the divine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of Israel. On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two on each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by means whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness, &c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exod. xxv, 13, 14; xxvii, 5. After the passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for some time at Gilgal, from whence it was removed to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites carried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines, it fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession of the ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the ground and was broken. The Philistines also were so afflicted with emerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and it was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and lastly, Solomon brought it into the temple which he had built at Jerusalem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of Judah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their idols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this profanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to preserve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded them to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced, 2 Chron. xxxv, 3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been carried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would, in all probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the captivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable that it was destroyed with the temple. The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all those of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Levitical law; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but every where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever they prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan. vi, 10. Whence the author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the mercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein; and, therefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but the ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old men to have wept when they remembered the first temple in which it stood; and for the saying of Haggai, ii, 3, that the second temple was as nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the covenant in the glory of Solomon’s temple. However, the defect was supplied as to the outward form, for in the second temple there was also an ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place; but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, and the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a representation of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that collection of them made by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of which the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in which they keep their Scriptures. For the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed cherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional state to this most sacred symbol of God’s grace and mercy. These cherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal distance from the centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their wings being expanded, the two wings which were extended behind touched the wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it. When these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in and placed under their wings, 2 Chron. v, 7–10. The ark was called the _ark of the covenant_, because it was a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. It was also named the _ark of the testimony_, because the two tables which were deposited in it were witnesses against every transgression.

The ark contained nothing but the tables of the law, 1 Kings viii. 9.. That the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were also contained in it is an opinion resting on Heb. ix. 4, and Rabbinical tradition, but quite without evidence from the Old Testament (Exod. xvi. 33; Num. xvii. 10). That the presence of God to his people above the kαpp0reih was marked not only by artificial symbols, but by a miraculous cloud, is not certainly taught in Lev. xvi. 2, where the cloud is, according to many interpreters, the incense cloud of verse 13.

As the permanent pledge of God’s gracious presence, the ark preceded the people in their march, and led them on to victory (Num. x. 33-36). During the conquest of Canaan it stood in the headquarters of the invaders, first at Gilgal, and then at Shiloh, nor does it appear to have ceased to move from place to place during the insecure period of the Judges (compare 2 Sam. vii. 6 with 1 Chron. xvii. 5), though the pre-eminence of the tribe of Ephraim seems to have kept it for the most part within their territory. At the close of this period we find it established in Shiloh. But the old tradition, that the ark is essentially the sanctuary of the armed host of Israel, with the Levites for its body guard, was not yet extinct, and it was brought into the field and captured by the Philistines in the fatal battle of Ebenezer, which broke the supremacy of Ephraim (1 Sam. iv.) Though soon restored by the Philistines who, smitten by a plague, feared to retain it, the ark could not be replaced in the central sanctuary, which had probably been destroyed in the war, and it remained in obscurity till David brought it to Zion, and again gave to the nation a religious as well as a political centre. Even in David’s time the ark was carried into the field by the armies of Israel (2 Sam. xi. 11); but the king, who had himself so long maintained his religious life in banishment from the national sanctuaries, was the first clearly to express the conception, that God’s help could reach forth to those who were far from Zion without any material pledge (2 Sam. xv. 25; compare Psalm iii. 4, and the idea of a heavenly temple, Psalm xviii.) So soon as this idea was reached, the importance of the ark (which ceased to be carried beyond the temple) was lost in the gradually increasing weight laid on the fixed sanctuary of Zion. Probably it was altogether lost in the counterreformation of Manasseh, for soon after, in the beginning of the reign of Josiah, Jeremiah (iii. 16) speaks of it as missing and anxiously sought for, though 2 Chron. xxxv. 3 seems to imply that it was subsequently restored. But Jeremiah teaches that the religious significance of Jerusalem is quite independent of this symbol, and the wild legends of its preservation at the taking of Jerusalem (2 Mac. ii. and elsewhere) only show that the popular mind was unable to share the view that the ark was now an obsolete relic. More poetical is the tradition that the ark was raised to heaven, there to remain till the coming of the Messiah, which embodies the spiritual idea that a heavenly pledge of God’s covenant faithfulness had superseded the earthly symbol. Compare with this Rev. xi. 19. (Ample traditional material will be found in the younger Buxtorf’s dissertation De Area Foederis, Basel, 1659. For historical treatment of the subject compare especially Ewald’s Geschichte, vol. ii., and essays by Graf in Merx’s Archiv, i. 78, and by Kuenen in the Theologisch Tijdschrift for 1872, together with the usual works on Biblical Antiquities.) (w. k. s.)

Mountains. The Ozark Mountains do not exceed 2000 feet in height, and the only other great masses of elevation are the Black Hills and the Washita Hills. A geological survey of the whole territory was commenced at the state expense by Dr David D. Owen, in 1857, and two volumes of Reports were published in 1858 and 1860. In the district north of the Arkansas River, the three leading formations are the “mill-stone grit, with its associate shales and conglomerate; the subcarboniferous limestone and its associate chert, shales, and sandstones; and the magnesian limestones, and their associate sandstones, calciferous sandrocks and chert, belonging to the lower Silurian period.” The mineral products are reported to be very considerable, “including zinc, manganese, iron, lead, and copper; marble, whet and hone stones, rock-crystal, paints, nitreearths, kaolin, granite, freestone, limestone, marls, greensand, marly limestones, grindstones, and slate.” The zinc ores are said to compare very favourably with those of Silesia, while the argentiferous galena produces a high average percentage of silver. Of coal, anthracite, and lignite, there are abundant supplies. A great number of mineral and thermal springs occur in various parts of the state, the most remarkable and most frequented groups lying to the south of the Arkansas in Hot Springs county. The heat of several attains 146 c or 148° Fahr. Among what are called natural curiosities may be mentioned the sandstone dam across Lee’s Creek in Crawfurd county, the Mammoth Spring in Fulton, which is supposed to have underground connection with Howel’s Valley in Missouri, and is said to pour forth its water “at the rate of 8000 (1) barrels per minute,” the Bee Rock in "White county, and the crystalline productions of Magnet Cove. It need hardly be said that there is great variety of soil in such a state as Arkansas. Along the river “bottoms” the alluvium is dark, rich, and deep, and yields excellent crops. The chief crops cultivated are maize, wheat, cotton, and tobacco, as well as apples and other fruits. There is a natural flora of great richness, a complete list of which is given in Dr Owen’s second report. The trees and shrubs most frequently occurring are poplars, oaks, pines, sweet-gum, sycamore, black locust, ash, elm, hickory, dogwood, elder, palma-christi, black spice, papaw, mockernut, wild vine, &c. The fauna of Arkansas includes the buffalo, eland, red-deer, beaver, otter, hare, racoon, wild turkey, goose, and quail, as well as bears and wolves among the mountains. The climate of the lower districts is decidedly unhealthy, largely on account of the lack of wholesome water; but in the upper regions it is quite salubrious. Hitherto Arkansas has been mainly agricultural, but it is rapidly advancing in the development of its mineral wealth, in the extension of its railway communication, in the embankment and guidance of its rivers, in the reclaiming of its waste but fertile lands, in the progress of manufactures and industries, and in the establishment of educational and benevolent institutions. At the census of 1870 the population amounted to 484,471, comprising 362,115 whites and 122,169 coloured persons. In 1860 the population amounted to 435,450, so that an increase of more than 10 per cent, has taken place between these two periods, principally in the white population. The capital is Little Rock, originally a French settlement, situated on the Arkansas River, and occupying a very central position in the state; population, 18,000. Arkansas was first colonised by the French, in the 17th century, and in 1720 Louis XV. made a grant of land on the Arkansas to the well-known John Law, but this led to no results of importance. In 1763 the territory was handed over to Spain, but returned to France in 1800. In 1803 it was purchased by the United States, along with the rest of what was then called Louisiana, and was established as a separate nonIndian territory in 1819. It was received into the Union as a slave state in 1836; and during the American Civil War, 1861-65, its Convention sided with the Confederate States, joining that organisation May 6, 1861.

Arkansas, a river of North America, which rises in the Rocky Mountains, in lat. 39° N., long. 106° W., 10,000 feet above the level of the sea, flows with a generally eastward direction through Colorado and part of Kansas, then turns to the south-east, and so proceeds through the rest of Kansas, the north-east part of the Indian territory, and the state to which it gives its name, and finally falls into the Mississippi at Napoleon in lat. 33° 40' N. The length of its course is stated at 2170 miles, and its drainage-area at 178,000 square miles. It receives a large number of tributaries, of which the most important are the Cimarron, Rio Nutria, and Canadian River. It is navigable for steamboats of about 4 feet draught 40 miles above Little Rock, and during flood for some 150 miles further to Fort Gibson.

The spinning-jenny, invented in 1767 by Hargraves, a carpenter at Blackburn in Lancashire, gave the means of spinning twenty or thirty threads at once with no more labour than had previously been required to spin a single thread. The thread spun by the jenny could not, however, be used, except as weft, being destitute of the firmness or hardness required in the longitudinal threads or warp. But Mr Arkwright supplied this deficiency by the invention of the spinning-frame— which spins a vast number of threads of any degree of fineness and hardness. It is not difficult to understand the principle on which this machine is constructed, and the mode of its operation. It consists of two pairs of rollers, turned by means of machinery. The lower roller of each pair is furrowed or fluted longitudinally, and the upper one is covered with leather, to make them take a hold of the cotton. If there were only one pair of rollers, it is clear that a carding of cotton, passed between them, would be drawn forward by the revolution of the rollers; but it would merely undergo a certain degree of compression from their action. No sooner, however, has the carding, or roving as it is technically termed, begun to pass through the first pair of rollers, than it is received by the second pair, which are made to revolve with (as the case may be) three, four, or five times the velocity of the first pair. By this ingenious contrivance the roving is drawn out into a thread of the desired degree of tenuity, a twist being given to it by the adaptation of the spindle and fly of the common flax wheel to the machinery. Such is the principle on which Arkwright constructed his famous spinning-frame. It is obvious that it is radically different from the previous methods of spinning either by the common hand-wheel or distaff, or by the jenny, which is only a modification of the common wheel. The idea was entirely original, and was perfected and reduced to practice with consummate skill. Arkwright stated that he accidentally derived the first hint of his great invention from seeing a red-hot iron bar elongated by being made to pass between rollers; and though there is no mechanical analogy between that operation and his process of spinning, it is not difficult to imagine that, by reflecting upon it and placing the subject in different points of view, he might be led by it to his invention. The precise date of the discovery is not known; but it is most probable that the idea had occurred to his mind aβ early as the period when Hargraves was engaged in the invention of the jenny, or almost immediately after. Not being himself a practical mechanic, Arkwright employed John Kay, a watchmaker at Warrington, to whom we shall afterwards have to refer, to assist him in the preparation of the parte of his machine. An application in 1767 to Mr Atherton of Liverpool for pecuniary assistance was unsuccessful, though he is said to have sent some workmen to assist in the construction of the machine, the first model of which was set up in the parlour of the house belonging to the Free Grammar School at Preston.

His inventions being at length brought into a pretty advanced state, Arkwright, accompanied by Kay, and a Mr Smalley of Preston, removed to Nottingham in 1768, in order to avoid the attacks of the same lawless rabble that had driven Hargraves out of Lancashire. Here his operations were at first greatly fettered by a want of capital. But Mr Strutt of Derby, a gentleman of great mechanical skill, and largely engaged in the stocking manufacture, having seen Arkwright’s inventions, and satisfied himself of their extraordinary value, immediately entered, conjointly with his partner, Mr Need, into partnership with him. The command of the necessary funds being thus obtained, Arkwright erected his first mill, which was driven by horses, at Nottingham, and took out a patent for spinning by rollers in 1769. But as horsepower was found too expensive, he built a second factory, on a much larger scale, at Cromford in Derbyshire, in 1771, the machinery of which was turned by a water-wheel, after the manner of the famous silk-mill erected by Sir Thomas Lombe. Having made several additional discoveries and improvements in the processes of carding, roving, and spinning, he took out a fresh patent for the whole in 1775; and thus completed a series of machinery so various and complicated, yet so admirably combined and well adapted to produce the intended effect in its most perfect form, as to excite the admiration of every one capable of appreciating the ingenuity displayed and the difficulties overcome.

When the vast importance of these discoveries became generally known, it is not surprising that, every effort should have been made to have the patents set aside, and Arkwright deprived of the profit and honour to be derived from them. But an attentive consideration of the various proceedings relative to this subject will show that there are no good grounds for crediting the statement made in the Court of King’s Bench in 1785, and again repeated by Mr Guest in his work on the cotton manufacture, which ascribes the invention of spinning by rollers to Highs, or Hayes, from whom Arkwright is said to have learned it.

Arkwright’s first patent for spinning by rollers, which is the essential part of his inventions, was obtained, as we have previously stated, in 1769; and its value and importance were no longer doubtful after the establishment of the factory at Cromford in 1771. The success which attended this novel method of spinning naturally excited the strongest desire on the part of the Lancashire manufacturers to participate in the advantages to be derived from it; and the fair presumption is that, instead of attempting clandestinely to pirate the invention, they would, had they conceived there were any good grounds to go upon, have at once contested the validity of the patent. But no such attempt was made till 1781, twelve years after the date of the first patent, and six years after the date of the second. And even then, Arkwright’s opponents came forward only in consequence of his having resolved to vindicate his rights, which had begun to be invaded on all sides, by raising an action against Colonel Mordaunt for an infringement of his patent. Mordaunt was supported by a combination of manufacturers and, as they felt the question to be of the greatest importance, it is all but impossible to suppose that anything would be omitted on their part which was conceived likely to contribute to their success. The case having been tried in the Court of King’s Bench, after Trinity term, July 1781, the decision was unfavourable to Arkwright. But it is of importance to observe, that no attempt was made at the trial to charge him with having purloined the inventions of others, and that the verdict was given on the sole ground of the description of the machinery in the specification being obscure and indistinct. Arkwright admitted that this was partly the case; adding, however, that the obscurity had been intended only to prevent foreigners from pirating his inventions. On any other principle, indeed, his conduct would be inexplicable; for, as his inventions were fully known to hundreds of workmen in his own employment, and as he had sold the privilege of using them to many persons in different parts of the country, it is impossible to suppose that he could either have expected or intended to conceal his inventione after the expiration of his patent. In consequence of the result of this trial, Arkwright and his partners prepared a “case,” setting forth the value of the inventions, and the circumstances which had led to the indistinctness complained of in the specification, which they at one time intended to lay before Parliament, as the foundation of an application for an Act for their relief. But this intention was subsequently abandoned; and in a new trial (Arkwright v. Nightingale), which took place in the Court of Common Pleas on the 17th of February 1785, Lord Loughborough, the presiding judge, having expressed himself favourably with respect to the sufficiency of the specification, a verdict was given for Arkwright. On this, as on the former trial, nothing was stated against the originality of the invention.

In consequence of these conflicting verdicts, the whole matter was brought, by a writ of scire facias, before the Court of King’s Bench, to have the validity of the patent finally settled. And it was not till this third trial, which took place before Mr Justice Buller and a special jury, on the 25th of June 1785, that Arkwright’s claim to the inventions which formed the subject of the patent was disputed. To support this new allegation, Arkwright’s opponents brought forward, for the first time, Highs, or Hayes, a reed-maker at Bolton. He stated that he had invented a machine for spinning by rollers previously to 1768; that he had employed the watchmaker Kay to make a model of that machine; and Kay was produced to prove that he had communicated that model to Arkwright, and that that was the real source of all his pretended inventions. Having no idea that any attempt was to be made at so late a period to overturn the patent on this new ground, Arkwright’s counsel were not prepared with evidence to repel this statement; but it was stated by Mr Sergeant Adair, on a motion for a new trial on the 10th of November of the same year, that he was furnished with affidavits contradicting, in the most pointed manner, the evidence that had been given by Kay and others with respect to the originality of the invention. The court, however, refused to grant a new trial, on the ground that, whatever might be the fact as to the question of originality, the deficiency in the specification was enough to sustain the verdict. But, independently altogether of the statements made on the motion for a new trial, the improbability of the story told by Highs and Kay seems glaring and obvious. Highs states in his evidence that he had accused Arkwright of getting possession of his invention by means of Kay so early as 1769, or about that period. Where, then, it may be asked, was this Mr Highs ever since that period, and particularly during the first trial in July 1781, and the second in February 1785? Living in Lancashire, associating with manufacturers, and in the habit, as he declares in his evidence, of making machines for them, he could not fail to be speedily informed with respect to the vast importance and value of the invention Arkwright had purloined from him. It is impossible but he must have been acquainted with the efforts that were making by the Lancashire manufacturers to set aside the patents; and is it to be supposed, had he really been the inventor, that he would have remained for sixteen years a passive spectator of what was going forward? that he would have allowed Arkwright to accumulate a princely fortune by means of his inventions while he remained in a state of poverty 1 or that he would have withheld his evidence when the manufacturers attempted to wrest from Arkwright what he had so unjustly appropriated? A single hint from Highs or Kay would, had their story been well founded, have sufficed to force Arkwright to give them a share of his profits, or would have furnished the manufacturers with the means they were so anxious to obtain, of procuring the immediate dissolution of the patents. But it has never been alleged that Arkwright took any pains to conciliate these persons; on the contrary, he treated Highs with the most perfect indifference, and not only dismissed Kay from his service, but even threatened to prosecute him on a charge of felony. The supposition that persons with so many and such overpowering temptations to speak out, and with no inducement of any sort to be silent, should have kept so important a secret for so many years is almost incredible; and it is infinitely more consistent with probability to suppose that the story of Highs and Kay had been manufactured for the occasion than that it was really true. None of Arkwright’s most intimate friends ever had the slightest doubt with respect to the originality of his invention. Some of them, indeed, could speak to the circumstances from their own personal knowledge; and their testimony was uniform and consistent.

On their introduction, Arkwright’s machines were regarded by the lower classes as even more adverse to their interests than those of Hargraves, and repeated attacks were made on the factories built for them. But however extraordinary it may appear, it was amongst the manufacturers that the greatest animosity existed against Arkwright; and it required all the prudence for which he was so remarkable to enable him to triumph over the powerful combination that was formed against him. At the outset of the business they unanimously refused to purchase his yarn; and when his partners, Messrs Strutt and Need, had commenced a manufacture of calicoes, the manufacturers strenuously opposed a bill to exempt calicoes from a discriminating duty of 3d. a yard laid on them over and above the ordinary duty of 3d. by an old Act of Parliament. Luckily, however, the manufacturers failed of their object; and, in 1774, an Act of Parliament was obtained (14 Geo. III. cap. 72) for the encouragement of the cotton manufacture, in which fabrics made of cotton are declared to have been lately introduced, and are allowed to be used as “a lawful and laudable manufacture the duty of 6d. the square yard on such cottons as are printed or stained being at the same time reduced to 3d. But this disgraceful spirit of animosity, which must, had it been successful, have proved as injurious to the interests of the manufacturers as to those of Arkwright, did not content itself with actions in the courts of law, or a factious opposition to useful measures in Parliament, but displayed itself in a still more striking and unjustifiable manner. A large factory, erected by Arkwright at Birkacre, near Chorley, in Lancashire, was destroyed by a mob collected from the adjacent country, in the presence of a powerful body of police and military, without any one of the civil authorities requiring them to interfere to prevent so scandalous an outrage.

Fortunately, however, not for himself only, but for his country and the world, every corner of which has been benefited by his inventions, Arkwright triumphed over every opposition. The same ingenuity, skill, and good sense, which had originally enabled him to invent his machine and get it introduced, enabled him to overcome the various combinations and difficulties with which he had subsequently to contend.

Though a man of great personal strength, which he is said to have displayed, when young, in election riots at Preston, Arkwright never enjoyed good health. During the whole of his memorable career of invention and discovery, he was labouring under a very severe asthmatic affection. A complication of disorders at length terminated his truly useful life in 1792, at his works at Cromford, in the sixtieth year of his age. He was high sheriff of Derbyshire in 1786; and, having presented a congratulatory address from the wapentake of Wirksworth to his Majesty George III., on his escape from the attempt on his life by Margaret Nicholson, received the honour of knighthood. No man ever better deserved his good fortune, or has a stronger claim on the respect and gratitude of posterity. His inventions have opened a new and boundless field of employment; and while they have conferred infinitely more real benefit on his native country than she could have derived from the absolute dominion of Mexico and Peru, they have been universally productive of wealth and enjoyment.