VERNEY, Ralph (1613-96), of Middle Claydon, Bucks.

Ralph Verney’s greatest single achievement was that he kept his correspondence. Had he not been such a hoarder, the family papers still at Middle Claydon would not be celebrated as one of the most important archives for the study of seventeenth-century English history. It is also probably true that historians have found those papers to be all the more fascinating precisely because Verney was not one of the great political figures of his time.

It was something of a family trait for Verney males to disappoint their parents. Ralph would certainly do so in 1642 and perhaps would have been uncomfortable under any circumstances with the public role expected of the eldest son of a prominent courtier. Yet, at the start, his prospects could not have been brighter. His father was a loyal and trusted servant of Charles I and, as knight marshal, Sir Edmund had brought the family to their pinnacle of public eminence. Their fortunes were substantially enhanced in 1629 when Ralph was married off to Mary Blacknall, the only surviving child of the late John Blacknall, a wealthy Abingdon lawyer. The bride was then aged only 13 – the groom was 15 – and it was probably not until 1631 that they consummated the marriage.19Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 137-44. Given that, Ralph’s married status did not prevent his becoming a student at Oxford. He attended Magdalen Hall so that he could be taught by his uncle, William Denton, a don who went on to become an eminent physician. Verney’s correspondence from those years represents a rare example of those sent to an Oxford undergraduate in this period.20Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 150-6. In 1633 he and his wife almost died of ‘a contagious disease’.21Verney MSS, J. Crowther to R. Verney, 30 Aug. 1633 (M636/2). His request in 1634 to one of his old university friends, James Dillon, for information about the punishments to be inflicted on William Prynne* suggests that he then had more interest in the gory details than any sympathy with Prynne’s politics.22Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 157. With his education completed and a growing family of his own and with Sir Edmund often absent at court, Ralph increasingly took on the management of the family’s Buckinghamshire estates.

The constituency nearest to those estates was Buckingham, but in 1640 Sir Edmund’s brother-in-law Sir Alexander Denton* had a prior claim to one of those seats and Ralph and his father had to look elsewhere. The next nearest constituency was Aylesbury, about ten miles to the south of Middle Claydon. Ralph was elected there in both the 1640 elections, probably without too much difficulty. He is also known to have attended the first of the county polls, held there in early March 1640.23Verney MSS, R. Verney to ?, 3 Mar. 1640 (M636/4). No evidence survives about his activities in the Short Parliament.

The same is not the case for his activities in the Long Parliament. It is a measure of how important Verney considered this, his second Parliament, that he compiled detailed notes on many of its proceedings. Although not as useful as those made by some other MPs, mainly because they are sometimes no more than a record of decisions taken, these notes do contain occasional details not found elsewhere and thus of some enduring value.24Verney, Notes. But they very rarely give much insight into Verney’s own views, mostly revealing only that he probably attended particular debates. The major event for him during the opening months of the Parliament seems to have been the trial of the 1st earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†).25Verney, Notes, 15-23, 30-4, 37-45, 48-59. The revelations about the two army plots were also of great interest to him.26Verney, Notes, 71-4, 85-91, 93-9, 110-1, 117-19, 131-2, 133. He took the Protestation on 3 May 1641 having first sat through the debate on the subject.27CJ ii. 133a; Verney, Notes, 66-71. He may have shared his father’s dislike of the bishops and he realised that opposition to reform had only increased the likelihood of the bishops’ outright abolition.28Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to [?Edmund Verney], [?June 1641] (M636/4). If the king believed that by knighting him in the spring of 1641, he would gain Verney’s support, he was to be disappointed.29Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 208.

Verney was not named to a many committees.30CJ ii. 52a, 82a, 101a, 108a, 151b, 164b, 209b, 210a, 395a, 463a, 475a, 613b, 819a. But in the case of the one investigating abuses in the postal services, to which he was appointed in February 1641, he did attend some of the meetings.31CJ ii. 82a; Verney, Notes, 24-7. The following year, in April 1642, the 2nd earl of Warwick (Sir Robert Rich†) wrote to him four times expressing the hope that he would attend its meetings in order to support his personal interest in the matter and was pleased when Verney did so.32Verney MSS, Warwick to Sir R. Verney, 5, 7, 12 and 15 Apr. 1642 (M636/4). Moreover, as a member of the committee to prepare the heads for the joint conference with the Lords on the queen’s wish to travel to Spa (14 June 1641), Sir Ralph recorded the statement from her physician, Sir Theodore de Mayerne, testifying that her wish to do so was genuine.33CJ ii. 210a; Verney, Notes, 106-9. It is also reasonable to assume that he made a point of attending the committee on the estate bill of his uncle, Sir Alexander Denton.34CJ ii. 164b.

On the issue of what should be done about the Scottish Covenanting army in the north of England, Verney’s sympathies seem to have been with the Scots. Several weeks before the Long Parliament had opened, his younger brother Edmund, who was serving with the English army, had teased him with the suggestion that, ‘the Scots, contrary to your opinion (I am sure), are very unreasonable’.35Verney MSS, E. Verney to R. Verney, 9 Oct. 1640 (M636/4). In the months that followed, Edmund constantly told him that the troops in the north needed money.36Verney MSS, E. Verney to R. Verney, 24 Jan., 8 Mar. and 17 Oct. 1641 (M636/4). Ralph probably heeded that advice, for he seems to have been in the House on several occasions when the issue was discussed.37Verney, Notes, 74, 77, 92-3, 183. Indeed, he probably wrote to Edmund in the summer of 1641 to point out they had voted so much to the two armies that it would now be difficult to find the money needed to disband them.38Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to [?E. Verney], [?June 1641] (M636/4).

Verney returned to Westminster in early October 1641 for the resumption of the session after the recess.39Verney MSS, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 17 Oct. 1641 (M636/4). Like most of his colleagues, he was soon troubled by the news from Ireland. He was particularly concerned in mid-November when he heard that a friend, Alice, countess of Barrymore (daughter of Richard Boyle, 1st earl of Cork), planned to travel there; he warned her of the ‘barbarous rebels’ who ‘delight in cruelty and take pleasure in insolency’.40Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to countess of Barrymore, 13 Nov. 1641 (M636/4). He then acquired a further reason to be worried when Edmund Verney’s regiment was posted to Ireland. Even before he had left, Edmund was badgering him about the need to pay the troops there.41Verney MSS, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 11 Dec. 1641, 12 Feb. and 4 Mar. 1642, (M636/4). But Sir Ralph saw more immediate problems closer to home. In June 1642, with both sides in England busy arming themselves, he wrote again to the countess of Barrymore.

The unhappy distractions of this kingdom [have] not only reduced ourselves into a sad condition, but made Ireland far more miserable. Till these are settled here, I shall not expect to see the rebels quiet there, especially considering these distempers have wrought so many doubtings in the minds of men, that I fear t’will be very hard to raise a considerable sum of money, unless there do appear greater hopes of peace than yet are evident. Peace and our liberties are the only things we aim. Till we have peace, I am sure we can enjoy no liberties, and without our liberties, I shall not heartily desire peace. Both these together may make us happy, but one without the other, I must confess, can never satisfy.42Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to countess of Barrymore, 9 June 1642 (M636/4).

This letter reveals how far events since his return to Westminster had failed to reassure him. He left an important account of the king’s botched attempt to arrest the Five Members, although frustratingly did not clarify whether he was present in the chamber to witness it himself.43Verney, Notes, 137-8. Seven weeks later, on 22 February 1642, he acted as a teller in one of the divisions on the proposed impeachment of the attorney-general, Sir Edward Herbert (Edward Herbert I)*, the accusation being that Herbert had drafted the articles against the Five Members. Verney’s notes reveal that he had taken an interest in this issue from an early stage.44Verney, Notes, 145, 146, 150. But in the division on 22 February he was a teller, with Lord Falkland (Lucius Cary*), for those who did not want an immediate vote on the proposed bill.45CJ ii. 450a. This might have been a tactical move, with him supporting the bill but fearing that it would be lost if MPs proceeded too hastily. But this seems unlikely, not least because the division was lost and the Commons then immediately proceeded with the bill. More likely, Verney was trying to help Herbert because, having been steward of the marshalsea and therefore one of the knight marshal’s subordinates, Herbert was a friend of Verney’s father.46Lttrs. and Pprs. of the Verney Family, 219. If so, this was a rare case of him allowing personal connections to override his deeper suspicions about the king.

Those suspicions continued to grow. On 30 April Denzil Holles* informed the Commons of the most recent letters from the king complaining that he had been denied entry to Hull and informing them that he would not give his assent to the militia bill.47CJ ii. 550a-b; Verney, Notes, 175-6. Faced with this crisis, the Commons decided that if the governor of Hull, Sir John Hotham*, should die, he was to be succeeded by his son, John*. Sir Ralph was subsequently sent to inform the Lords that the Commons had no objections to a number of amendments proposed by peers. He also passed on a request for a joint conference about the Yorkshire trained bands.48CJ ii. 551b; LJ v. 34a; PJ ii. 253. This is strong evidence that he now thought that Parliament, rather than the king, was right. His notes confirm that he followed closely the unfolding crisis centred on Hull.49Verney, Notes, 176-9. That June he was included on the new pro-parliamentarian standing committee for Buckinghamshire and by early September it was clear that he intended to side with Parliament in any conflict.50Nugent, Hampden, ii. 458; Verney MSS, Lady Gardiner to Lady Verney, 5 Sept. 1642 (M636/4). In doing so, he caused much distress to his father, despite Sir Edmund’s own doubts about the war.51Verney MSS, E. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 14 Sept. 1642 (M636/4). Sir Edmund’s death at Edgehill that autumn meant that the two were never really reconciled.

Sir Ralph now inherited the family estates worth £2,000 a year, but also £11,000 of debt.52J.P.F. Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators in the civil wars 1642-56’, Recs. of Bucks. xxvii. 1. The lands at Middle Claydon were mortgaged to Francis Drake*. The one advantage that the family gained by Sir Edmund’s death was that Sir Edward Sidenham, his successor as knight marshal, persuaded Charles I in November 1642 that royalist soldiers were to be ordered not to damage the Verney estates at Middle Claydon. Doubtless mindful of Sir Edmund’s supreme sacrifice on his behalf, the king agreed.53Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to [Sir E. Sidenham], 24 Nov. 1642; order of Charles I, 23 Nov. 1642 (M636/5). This was particularly useful given that those lands were in what was becoming one of the major battle zones.54J. Broad, Transforming Eng. rural soc.: the Verneys and the Claydons, 1600-1820 (Cambridge, 2004), 28-9. The king reiterated the instruction 11 months later and again in January 1644.55Verney MSS, orders of Charles I, 1 Oct. 1643, 19 Jan. 1644 (M636/1). However, on 30 August 1644, when on its way to Gloucester, the parliamentarian army under Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, passed through Middle Claydon and some of the troops spent that night in the Verneys’ house.56H. Foster, A true and exact Relation of the Marchings of the Two Regts. of the Trained Bands of the City of London (1643), sig. A2. Damage from both sides caused the rents from Verney’s estates to collapse.57Broad, Transforming Eng. Rural Soc. 31. His younger brother Thomas had joined the king’s army and was captured at Chichester in late December 1642. Thomas then suggested to Sir Ralph that, if he was brought before Parliament, it might be better if the latter absented himself from the House that day.58Verney MSS, T. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 10 Jan. 1643 (M636/5). But Thomas was soon blaming Sir Ralph for not doing enough to get him released. Sir Ralph refused to buy out an annuity held by Thomas that would have given him the money he needed to buy his freedom and seems never to have raised his case in Parliament in the way that Thomas had wanted.59Verney MSS, T. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 27 Jan., 31 Jan., 12 Feb., 22 Feb., 22 Mar. 1643 (M636/5). By the spring of 1643 Sir Ralph evidently to have feared that the royalism of his relatives would cause the Committee for Sequestrations to act against him and his family.60Harl. 164, f. 390.

The reality was probably that Verney was depressed by the war and so increasingly reluctant to play a full part in the Commons. It is telling that his last known committee appointment was on 22 October 1642, the day before his father was killed.61CJ ii. 819b. He does seem to have still attended occasionally, although he had abandoned his note taking, and he was among those MPs who on 7 June 1643, following the revelations about the plot of Edmund Waller*, swore to maintain the Protestant religion and to continue supporting the army.62CJ iii. 118a. By August 1643 he had withdrawn to Gorhambury, the country house in Hertfordshire that Sir Thomas Meautys* was leasing to Verney’s close friends, the earl and countess of Sussex.63Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 29 Aug. 1643 (M636/5) It was at that point that Sir Roger Burgoyne* began to write to him regularly with the latest gossip from Westminster. Verney now turned to Burgoyne in the hope of getting his absence approved by the Commons. On 15 September Burgoyne replied

I received your letter by which I understand an expectation of yours that I would have procured leave from the House for your absence a while but it was thought as convenient by others as well as by myself to defer it a little longer: which we did, but this morning a gentleman of the House of Commons, of his own good nature, most voluntarily gave intelligence to the House of your being gone to Oxford. It was my misfortune to be absent at that present, but Mr [Robert] Reynolds being there satisfied the House very fully, and if he had not been there I am confident divers would have affirmed the same which he did.64Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 15 Sept. 1643 (M636/5).

But it was about to become more difficult for the Commons to believe that Verney’s absence was innocent. The Solemn League and Covenant, sworn by the Commons for the first time on 25 September, could be used as a test of loyalty. Francis Drake (MP for Amersham) therefore wrote to Verney to warn that Denton and other non-attenders had already been summoned by the Commons and that, although Verney’s name was not yet on the list, it might soon be added.65Verney MSS, F. Drake to Sir R. Verney, 4 Oct. 1643 (M636/5). Burgoyne was soon advising him that he would be expected to take the Covenant by 19 October.66Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 17 Oct. 1643 (M636/5). Verney had, in fact, already taken action, but not in the way that the Commons wanted, for he had taken steps to obtain permission from the king to allow him and his wife to leave the country.67Verney MSS, signet warrant, 4 Oct. 1643 (M636/5). He was, however, careful to get similar authorization from Parliament as well. According to the draft of his letter to Robert Reynolds

unwilling to give the House the least occasion of offence (knowing how useless a creature I am) I have resolved to take a journey and for a while to retire to some such place where I may have leisure enough to inform my judgment in such things wherein I am yet doubting.68Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to R. Reynolds, [Nov. 1643] (M636/5).

This grovelling worked. A pass was issued by the lord mayor of London on 30 November permitting ‘Mr Ralph Smith and his wife’ to go abroad.69Verney MSS, warrant, 30 Nov. 1643 (M636/5). Together with their eldest son, Edmund, they set sail on 15 December, landing at Rotterdam on 17/27 December.70Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to countess of Sussex, 21/31 Dec. 1643 (M636/5). The other children were left behind and were brought up by William Denton. The estates had been handed over to trustees, among them Richard Winwood* and Francis Drake.71Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators’, 3.

By the spring of 1644 Verney had settled at Rouen.72Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 7 Mar. 1644 (M636/5). He now thought that ‘this world is grown tedious and life itself a burden to me’.73Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to Lady Sidenham, 26 Feb./7 Mar. 1644 (M636/5). Discussing his strained relations with one of his sisters, he told his cousin, Dorothy Leake

certainly there is a capacious disease now reigning in poor England that parts more friends than the sword itself. I thank God this air is not infected with it; poverty and sad thoughts of our own misfortune, together with the grief we hear for those that suffer in this unhappy war (though perhaps they take little care for us) are the chief maladies that trouble us in these parts.74Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to D. Leake, 21/31 Aug. 1644 (M636/5).

In early 1645 he appears to have told Burgoyne that he had no plans to return to England.75Verney MSS, [Sir R. Burgoyne] to Sir R. Verney, 27 Mar. 1645 (M636/5). Instead he spent that summer visiting the Loire.76Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to ? Wakefield, 4/14 Sept. 1645 (M636/5). He liked what he saw and, judging that there was no immediate prospect of peace in England, he moved to Blois in September 1645.77Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to J. Abeele, 29 Aug./8 Sept. 1645; R. Thorney to Sir R. Verney, 19/29 Sept. 1645 (M636/5). At about the same time the Commons finally got round to expelling him from Parliament, with Burgoyne reporting that, ‘absence was the only cause of it, though other things were objected against, which thanks to God were proved untrue’.78CJ iv. 282a-b; Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 24 Sept. 1645 (M636/6).

Verney’s finances were in disarray. In September 1645 he claimed that he had received just £90 from home during the 21 months he had been in France and he had earlier started to sell off some of his possessions.79Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to N. Hobart, 29 Apr./9 May 1645; same to W. Denton, 3/13 Sept. 1645 (M636/6). Then there was the constant possibility that Parliament would sequester his estates.80Verney MSS, Sir A. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 29 Aug. and 5 Sept. 1644; Sir R. Verney to Sir A. Denton, 6/16 Sept. 1644 (M636/6). With his large debts becoming even larger, it looked increasingly as if he would be forced to sell some of his lands, but as long as those lands could be sequestered, any sales were impossible. Compounding for his estates was almost as unattractive an option, for that would cost him at least £2,000 and would require him to swear to the Covenant he had been so reluctant to take in 1643. But there was another option. In January 1646 Francis Drake foreclosed on his mortgage and so became the nominal owner of a large chunk of the Verney estates.81Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators ’, 3; Broad, Transforming Eng. Rural Soc. 35. The rest of the lands were still liable for sequestration, however, and by the autumn of 1646 the Buckinghamshire sequestration committee had begun to take control of them.82Verney MSS, Bucks. sequestration cttee. to constables of Corstole, n.d. (M636/5); Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators’, 4. That November Lady Verney returned to England to seek a deal with them.83Verney MSS, [Lady Verney] to [Sir R. Verney] (copy), 26 Nov. 1646; Sir R. Verney to H. Verney, 13/23 Nov. 1646; same to Lady Verney, 24 Nov./4 Dec. 1646 (M636/7). Writing from London, she lamented, ‘I am most extremely weary of this place for here is nothing of friendship left, but all the falseness that can be imagined’.84Verney MSS, Lady Verney to Sir R. Verney, 10 Dec. 1646 (M636/7). Before leaving France, she had conceived another child, a boy, destined to be short-lived, who would be named Ralph after his father (against Sir Ralph’s explicit instructions). As her confinement came nearer, Sir Ralph advised her in 1647 that, in arranging for the child to be baptised in England, she should ‘give no offence to the state’.85Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 259. Later that year they suffered a double bereavement, losing not only the new-born son but also their daughter Margaret.86Verney MSS, Sir R. Verney to W. Denton, 3/13 Oct. 1647, 10/20 Oct. 1647: Lady Verney to Sir R. Verney, [28 Oct. 1647], 4 Nov. 1647 (M636/8). Alluding to the difficulties being caused to them by the local sequestration committee, these deaths prompted Verney to ponder that, ‘court hopes undid my father and country hopes (for so we may call these that we now gape after) are like to undo me’.87Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 298. With assistance from William Denton and from the earl of Warwick, John Ashe*, Sir John Trevor* and Francis Drake, Lady Verney finally secured the lifting of the sequestration on 5 January 1648.88CJ v. 390a; Verney MSS, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 11 Nov. 1647, 20 Dec. 1647, 10 Jan. 1648; Lady Verney to Sir R. Verney, 20 Dec. 1647, 23 Dec. 1647, 6 Jan. 1648 (M636/8); Mems. of the Verney Fam. ii. 303-9; Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators’, 4-7; Broad, Transforming Eng. Rural Soc. 36-8. In the process, Verney had persuaded his wife to forge a deed extending the trust he had appointed to manage the estates in order to strengthen their hand in the negotiations with the Committee for Compounding.89Broad, ‘The Verneys and the sequestrators’, 6; Broad, Transforming Eng. Rural Soc. 37. As soon as Lady Verney had completed his other outstanding affairs in England, she joined her husband at Paris in April 1648. They then returned to Blois, where they continued living until Lady Verney’s death from breast cancer in 1650.

In his grief for the loss of his wife, Verney considered selling all his lands in England and settling permanently on the continent.90Mems. of the Verney Fam. iii. 29-30. If nothing else, this would have allowed him to pay off his considerable debts. Instead, now that the issue of sequestration was behind them and that the rents were recovering, William Denton began to pay the creditors.91Broad, Transforming Eng. Rural Soc. 40-2. Sir Ralph was able to relax. In 1651 he travelled to Italy, spending time in Florence, Rome, Naples and Venice.92Lady Verney, ‘A traveller of the 17th century’, Berks. Bucks. and Oxon. Arch. Jnl. ii. 110-12. His son Edmund accompanied him. Sir Ralph then made his way back to England via Germany, Amsterdam and the Spanish Netherlands. By January 1653 he had reached England.

One of his first priorities on his return was to commission a monument to his parents and to his wife from the sculptor Edward Marshall for the church at Middle Claydon. Had he been able to afford it, he would have rebuilt the entire church at the same time.93Stone, ‘Verney tomb’, 67-82. His other priority was to continue the process of restoring his properties in Buckinghamshire from the serious damage inflicted on them during the war years. It was quiet, uneventful existence. That changed on 13 June 1655 when, amidst fears of a royalist uprising, he was placed under arrest by the government. He was taken first to Northampton and then to London, where he was imprisoned in St James’s Palace. As he jokingly wrote to Lady Gawdy

I doubt not but you have heard how highly the protector hath obliged me in sending for me from my own cottage to lodge me in his own palace, and presently put me into a condition to keep a guard both day and night, which is usually to none but princes, and all this without my seeking I assure you.94Verney MSS, [Sir R. Verney] to [Lady Gawdy], 25 June 1655 (M636/13).

He was not released until 4 October 1655 and then only after agreeing to an ‘ugly conditioned’ bond of £2,000 as a guarantee of his good behaviour.95Verney MSS, [Sir R. Verney] to [Lady Gawdy], 15 Oct. 1655 (M636/14). The following year he found himself being required to pay the decimation tax. In fact, there is no reason to believe that Sir Ralph was involved in any royalist conspiracies. Indeed, it is not at all obvious that he was particularly keen to see the monarchy restored. In February 1660 his sister Margaret Elmes criticised him after he had failed to pay his respects to George Monck* during the general’s journey towards London.96Verney MSS, M. Elmes to Sir R. Verney, 1 Feb. 1660 (M636/17). The vote on 21 February 1660 to re-admit the secluded Members did not apply to Verney, as he had been expelled long before the 1648 purge, and he remained in the country.97Verney MSS, P. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 8 Mar. 1660; Sir R. Verney to M. Pappin, 14 Mar. 1660 (M636/17). As before, Burgoyne kept him informed about developments at Westminster.98Verney MSS, Sir R. Burgoyne to Sir R. Verney, 29 Feb. 1660, 15 Mar. 1660, 17 Mar. 1660 (M636/17). Already some of his friends were talking of electing him to the next Parliament and, although he hinted that his eldest son Edmund could be elected instead, he was nominated at Great Bedwyn by Anne, countess of Rochester in the elections for the Convention.99Verney MSS, Sir H. Lee to Sir R. Verney, 23 Feb. 1660; Sir R. Verney to countess of Rochester, 23 Feb. 1660 (M636/17); HP Commons, 1660-1690. Thereafter, the cost of electioneering and his innate caution made him reluctant to stand again. It was not until the 1680s, when he sat three times as MP for Buckingham as a half-hearted tory, that he was finally tempted out of retirement.100HP Commons 1660-1690. It may well be that he never really came to terms with the emotional scars from the 1640s.