The Sun.
London, England, 1831-08-05 00:00:00

tuency of Marylebone, and for that reason he did not
think that Pancras should have a Member for itself.

The question was then put and carried.
The CIeAtRMAN then put the question " that Lambeth
stand part of schedule C," which was carried.
Lord MILTON said that he had given notice on Thurs-
day evening that he should, in the discussion of the details
of schedule C, submit that the boroughs in schedule D be
transferred to schedule C. He had since made up his
mind to take a different course. He should suffer the
clause D to be read till it came to the part where the
blank was to be filled up, and he should move by way of
amendment, that the word tWo be inserted instead of one.
Mr. LITTLETON said, that the Noble Lord's motion I
went to preclude his bringing forward his proposition re-
specting the borough of Stoke-upon-Trenl; hut, neverthe-,
less, he must submit to the tlouse the very peculiar cis-.
cumstances of that borough. This borough had not been
included in Ihe original Reform Bill of the last Parllament ;
hut it consisted of a cluster of four town, containing, in the
whole, a population of 5;3,000 persons. The inhabitants
of this very populous district were principally employed in
the mantsfactUre of earthenware and chisaa, and from their
numbers, and from the extensive and important nature of
their trade, with the cepltal it employed, and the interests
it involved, they were fully entitled to have two represen-
tatives in that House. If Hen. Members would examine
into the subject, they would find that the cotton manufac-
turers had their interests represented in Parliament by
fifteen Members, the colonial interests by seven, and the
silk trade by three, whilst the china manufacturer was
very inadequately represented. The trade of the people of,
Stoke-upon-Trent was hot only large and extensive, but itt
was on the inerease, and in its nature more likely to be'
permanent than many which were to be better represented
in that House. He should therefore move that the borough
of Stoke-upon-Trent be inaerted in schedule C.
Sir J. WROT'I'ESLEY would detain the Committee
by a very few words. He had been forcibly impressed by
some striking facts which were manifest in comparing
schedules C. and D. Whilst schedule C contained towns,
having a population of 43,000 and 44,000 inhabitants,
Stoke-upon-Trent, with a population of 53,000, was in-
eluded in schedule D. When the House considered this
striking discrepancy, he was persuaded it would not refuse
what his Hon. Friend had moved for. He would only
add that Stoke was a district of continuous houses, and it
therefore came within the principles of the Bill.
Mr. EDMUND PEEL had no hesitation in expressing
his approbation of the plan of giving representatives to
populous towns and districts. The statement which had
been just made by the Hon. Member for Staffordshire af-
forded a convincing proof that the Potteries had a just
claitn to send two representatives into that House. When
he (Mr. Peel) considered the great respectability of the
people of Stoke, their commercial importance, and the
ingenuity and utility of their manufacture, lie was con-
vinced that they were deserving of a full representation in
that House. Stoke had a greater population than any
place in schedule B, and a population superior to most
places in schedule C. He would only further observe that
machinery could not be applied to the manufacture of this
place, and therefore the trade of Stoke was likely to be
permanent.
Lord ALTHORP agreed that the Staffordshire Pot-
teries were most important to the commerce of the country.
If the question were whether the Potteries should be re,.
presented at all, he should entertain no doubt upon which
side to vote ; but the question was, whether the repre-
sentation of the district would be sufficient with one
Member, or whether it was fair and right in the Govern-
ment to give it two representatives. He would admit
that the amount of the population was very great, but
from the information which Ile had received, this was not
a case of town representation, but of a district uncon-
nected, although in appearance it might resemble a large
town. In omitting Stoke from schedule C, Ministers had
therefore done what they thought justifiable after due in-
quiries into the case. He was convinced that in giving it
one Member it obtained its fair share in the representation
of the country. It was difficult to determine whether
one or two representatives were more proper, but after
every inquiry be had made, and after all the consideration
he could give the subject, his opinion was in favour of in-
cluding Stoke in the schedule of one Member.
Lord INGESTRIE supported the motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL preferred the giving of two Mem-
bers instead of one, in every case. He preferred taking
12 large towns, and giving each of them two representa-
tives, to taking 24 smaller places, and giving each but one.
Of the 12 most important places in schedule D, Stoke
was one ; and it was a place which he would wish to see
retained for the right of possessing two representatives,
and for that reason he should certainly support the motion.
In his opinion, in every case there ought to be two Mem-
bers instead of one; for with one Member, every place
would present a scene of perpetual division and contest,
and he would prefer the system of two Members, if it were
only for the sake of preserving peace.
Mr. HODGSON denied that Stoke had a population
double that of other towns that had been alluded to in
schedule B. Stoke had a population of 53,000 souls, Old-
ham of 50,000, Salford 51,000, and Stockton 52,000.
He thought that one representative was sufficient, and
should oppose the motion.
Mr, ROBINSON thought the motion would much em-
barrass the Committee, and if it were carried, consistency
would require that Bradford, Wakefield, and several other
places, should be changed from their schedule.
Lord MILTON said that there were several places in
schedule D of greater importance than Stoke.
Mr. C. W. W. WYNN could not support the motion
without he was prepared to give two Members to other
places in schedule D.
Mr. GISBORNE supported the motion.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY maintained that Staffordshire
already gave more than the due proportion of Members to
that House, and if the motion were carried, two Members
must be given to several places in Lancashire and York-
shioe, which had now only one. Staffordshire, with a
population of only 340,000 persons, had already received
six new Members, and would, in all, return sixteen
Members to that House, or fifteen if Tamworth were con-
sidered in Warwickshire, whilst Lancashire, with a popu-
lation of 1,221,000 souls, had only fourteen representatives.
Mr. PROTHEROE would support the motion, with-
out considering that in so doing he abandoned the general
principle of the Bill.
Mr. PERCEVAL thought the giving of representatives
to particular interests would only lead to perpetual changes.
Mr. WARBURTON denied that a representation of
pat ticular interests was consistent with good government.
In forming the corporation or government of a town, the
object was not to represent the interests of the butcher,
baker, and other trades, but to select a body of competent
persons without any reference to particular interests. If
two Members were to be given to Stoke, why should they
not give two to Ashton-under-Line, and to Chelsea.
Here some ME3IBER, exclaimed, " And why not give
two Msmbera to Chelsea ?"---(A laugh.)
The Hots. MEMBEa continued—That was not a question
for him to answer.—(A laugh.) He was not the framer
of the Bill. He believed that the Bill would effect great
good, and on that account he was willing to wave all
minor objects.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought the motion useless, as
that which was to be made by the Noble Lord (Lord
Milton) would include Stoke with the other places in
schedule D. He could not conceive that one Member was
not sufficient for this district. The question was to be
considered in its relation to the general interests of the
country, and not in reference to any interests purely local.
If the motion were carried, it would create great jealousies
in other places, and so far injure the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Although the motion of his Noble Friend (Lord Milton)
did not proceed from a person hostile to Ministers, it was
nevertheless a proposition totally in opposition to the Bill.
He should certainly oppose the Noble Lord's motion, and:he
would be better able to do so if the present question were
negatived.
Lord STANLEY approved of the proposition for giving
two Members to the Potteries.
Sir R. PEEL said he had come down to the House
expecting that the motion of the Noble Lord would be the
same as it appeared on the paper, and he bad intended to
oppose the motion, and now he made a totally different
proposal. His (Sir R. Peel's) intention was to make the
Bill as perfect as possible, not to take advantage of its
imperfections.—( lkar.)
Lord J. RUSSELL did not accuse the Right Hon.
Baronet ofany intention to embarrass the Bill, but be wished
to propose a plan totally at variance with its principle.
Sir R. PEEL repeated, that, as it was proposed to give
twenty-four or twenty-six Members to Parliament, his
plan was, that it was preferable to give two Members to
each place rather than one.
Mr. J. WOOD preferred one Member to two, because
the having two Members led to compromises injurious to
the public interests.
Mr. LITTLETON observed, that Stoke had large ma-
nufactures, carried on with a capital of 1,300,0001.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
On our Irlea-joadrintylisfosironl'ltlnoistthee Lord •1. Ru
"gallery, f:A6
—lsOslE
Lt,
was addressing the Committee, but not one word could
be heard.

The CHAIRMAN put the question, " That the clause'
as amended, stand patt of the Bill ;" which was agreed to,
The CHAIRMAN then read the next clause,.." Be i

enacted, that each of the places named in the first clause 1
of schedule D shall be a borough, and entitled to send
- Member to serve in Parliament." The question
he pat was, that the blank be filled up with the word "one."
Lard MILTON rose and said, that the period had ar-
rived when, in compliance with what he considered to be
his duty to the country, he might bring forward the ma-
' tion of which he had given notiee. In making it he
wished it to it: distinctly understood, that he Was not ac-
tuated by the slightest hostility to the Bill, or to these
friends who had brought it forvt-ardi With o horn be had
been long united in public principles and private friend.
ship, which was the best cement of public principle. Nor
was it through any want of confidence in them that he
had taken a different view of the questio❑ from that which
they had propounded to the House. It appeared to hith
that by adopting the ptinciple Of having one Member Only,
they were departing from the ancient practice of the Consti-
tution, whereas, in his 'opinion, they ought to base them-
selves as much as possible on ancient foundations._

(Cheers from the Opposition.) Wherever repre,entatiom
existed, it seemed to have been a rule that it should be
confided to two representatives.—( Hear.) There were,
doubtless, some exceptions ; but these were exceptions
merely. Abingdon, Banbury, Newbury, and Higham
Ferrers, had had but one Member each ; but Abingdon
and Higham Ferrers owed their right to the elective
franchise to Queen Mary, and that of Banbury and
Newbury was not to he traced beyond the same period—
a period not remarkable for legislative wisdom or for a
regard for civil liberty. It had been said by his lion.
Friend the Member for Preston, that where there were two
Members to be elected, there was sometimes a sacrifice of
public principle. This might be the case, but the system
of compromise led to the avoidance of contests, and, as he
thought, to a more accurate representation of the people
in Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) If every representative
acted with the purest feelings, without any reference to
private or local interests, there would be no ground for his
present objection ; but it was not to be denied, that for an
accurate representation of the people in Parliament, the
minority out of doors should find a minority in the House.
--(Hear, bear, from the Opposition.) Suppose there
were one hundred electors for a borough, and fifty-one
voted on on eside, arid forty-nine on the other, if there were
but one Member, a majority of two would engross the re-
presentation, and the borough would not be fairly repre-
sented in Parliament —(Hear, hear.) The necessary re-
sult of this system would be, that in periods of popular ex-
citement, the minority might be entirely excluded from the
walls of that House. He considered it to be desirable, on
the contrary, that the minority should find a way into the
House.—(Hear, from the Opposition.) He (Lo`rd Mil-
ton) did not view schedule A with peculiar favour, though
lie voted for it as the means of removing the corrupt
parts of the representation ; but he would ask the House,
he would ask his Hon. Friends who sat on the benches
beside him, whether, if they adopted schedule D in its
present state, in the remodelling of the Constitution they
were now making, the arrangement could by possibility be
' final ?—(Cheers from the Opposition.) There would be
perpetual claims from populous and wealthy places having
one Member, which would consider themselves equally en-
titled with othi r places to have two. It was impossible
it could be final, unless they departed from the principle of
schedule D, and he (Lord Milton) was prepared to give
to each of the towns an additional Member. He had
heard much of the representation of particular interests in
that House; but they were not delegates.—(Loud cheers
from the Opposition.) The Members for Stoke-upon-
Trent were not to come there as representatives for the
Staffordshire Potteries, hut for the general good. He
had been in the House long enough to have discovered
that the representatives of these peculiar interests looked
to sonic protection to their own branches of trade. The
great masses of population had none of these local and pe-
culiar interests. lie had performed a painful duty, but
one which be felt he owed to the country. He was a
friend to the Bill ; he would support it totis viribus,
and had not the slightest wish to distract it. But this
subject had pressed greatly on his mind, and be did
not see that the principle of his Hon. Friends, which pro-
fessed to be founded on population, was adhered to in this
schedule.—(Hear, hear.) There was nothing of it.—
(Hear.) The principle of the schedule was a principle
mischievous in its effects on the Constitution, and which,
when its character was calmly considered by the constitu-
ency of the country, would lead to considerations of a most
painful nature. He had lately had an interview with per-
sons from one of these towns (the Noble Lord did not state
the name), including Tories, Reformers, and Anti-Re-
formers, who concurred in stating that they would rather
have no representative at all than one.—(Hear, hear.)
The Noble Lord concluded in a particularly low tone of
voice, with moving that the blank in clause three be filled
up with the word " two."
Sir F. BURDETT said he must differ altogether from
his Noble Friend, much as he respected his motives, and
rather concurred in the opinion of the Hon. Member for
Preston. The Noble Lord's proposition seemed to proceed
from a wish that the present measure of Reform should
be permanent and final, but that was absolutely impossible
and incompatible with the conditions to which the Divine
will had unalterably subjected all human affairs. He
imagined under existing circumstances that it would be
much better for the friends of Reform to forego their own
wishes, however reasonable, with respect to mere matters
of detail, rather than in any degree endanger the success of
the great measure before them, which the Right Hon.
Baronet had owned that he had not the fortitude to intro.
duce, although lie was sensible that some Reform in the
representation had now become indispensable.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) His Noble Friend appeared to advocate
a double representation, whereas he considered single re-
presentation, if attainable consistently with the interests of
the people, to be more convenient and advantageous for all
practical purposes ; and for his part he should desire rather
to see the number of representatives diminished than in-
creased, as his Noble Friend would propose. The present
Bill, it ought to be borne in mind, would abundantly em-
brace all the interests of the country, and no one could fail
to perceive that they could never arrive at practical results
on any question, the success of which required combina-
tion, if they all insisted on pressing their own specific opi-
nions on the legislature, to the prejudice of the general
measure on which they were, for the most part, agreed.
The Members who had been returned by a popular con-
stituency bad been taunted with having come into the
House under pledges that they would vote in support of
the Ministerial Bill ; but he would ask, must not the opi
nions of the nominees opposite revolve on the same axis
with those of the borough patrons by whom they had he n
returned ?—( Hear.) The popular Members, it was true,
were liable to be called to account by their constituents ;
but the existing excitement, he had no doubt, would die
away altogether after the passing of the Reform Bill, when
the public generally would acquiesce in the good sense and
intelligence of Parliament. He did not believe that double
representation would be attended with the advantages wh;eh
the No'de Member for Northamptonshire anticipated, but
at all events it could not be deemed of that paramount im-
portance which would justify the Noble Lord in pressing
his motion to a division.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUNT confessed that he had been a disciple of
the lion. Baronet for a great number of years, during
which the Hon. Baronet's opinions had undergone a few
variations undeniably; but he could remember none so
remarkable as that which the House had witnessed in his
particular person that evening.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Opposition.) The Hon. Baronet, it was apparent, had
shown himself the best thick-and-thin supporter of Minis-
ters that the most zealous amongst them could possibly have
desired. In his opinion the Noble Lord's arguments were
well deserving of the most serious attention, and he cer-
tainly felt himself bound to support his proposition,
which, as far as lie could judge, was by no means calcu-
lated to destroy the measure lay which Government meant
to abide. The Hon. Baronet, it would be remembered,
had supported with all his might the Ministry of Mr.
Canning, who declared himself adverse to all kinds of Re-
form, no matter what shape it assumed, and yet he now
came forward to lend his aid in favour of this Bill as the
very best that true statesmanship could devise.—("Hear,"
from the Opposition.) The present Bill was, then, to
have all the support which it was in the Hon. Baronet's
power to render it, although it embraced neither short
Parliaments nor universal suffrage, which he (Mr. Hunt)
and the Honourable Baronet had so long advocated in
comnion. Truly, the Hon. Baronet had given up not a
little for the sake of unanimity.—(Cries of "hear," and
laughter, from the Opposition.) Much had been said on
the subject of pledges, but he " would rather be a dog and
bay the moon" than come into that House with shackles
about his arms—(Laughter)—like thelMembers of the city
of London.—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear.") He
would at once resign his seat if he could not concur with
his constituents; but as to their calling hint to account,
forsooth, he would take good care that the first time of
their doing so should also be the last.—(Cheers from the
Opposition.) On the question of giving Members to po-
pulous places, he voted with Ministers, merely because
their proposition came nearer to his own principles than
any other which had hitherto been submitted ; and on the
other details of the Bill he had stated his sentiments
frankly and fairly, in spite of the taunts not only of the
House itself, but of the whole newspaper press in the
country. He would now add that, in the event of the
passing of this Bill, the table would be forthwith crowded
with petitions for a further extension of the suffrage.
Mr. STRICKLAND said he rose to support the amend-

ment of the Noble Lord, although not on the abstract
principles which the Noble Lord himself had stated as the
grounds of his proposition. He would support the pro-
position of the Noble Lord, because it was the only chance
of adding a few more Members to that county with which
he was more particularly connected. Long before he had
a seat in that House, he was of opinion that no measure
of Reform would be final if we excluded from representa-
tion such towns as Bradford, Halifa, Huddersfield, and
Wakefield, and admitted to it such towns as Northallerton
and Ripon. It was said there had been such a change of
the balance of Members from the south to the north as
would give the preponderance to the latter. Those who
used that argument forgot that Yorkshire, with all its in-
dustry, all its wealth, and poptilation of 1,250,000,
had t lily gained two additional Members, whilst Stafford-
shire, with only 315,000, gained six, Yorkshire having
30, and Staffordshire 15. According to the proportion
which ought t• exist between the two counties, when
Stafford had 15 Members, Yorkshire ought to have 60.
He contended that it was a shallow principle to maintain
that there was any hostile difference between agriculture
and commerce : for where could the wool-grower dispose
of his commodity if he did not find a purchaser in the
manufacturer ? It was absurd, then, to suppose these
new Members would give a preponderance to the commer-
cial interest which would be destructive of the agricultural
interest. On these general principles be should support
the amendment of the Noble Lord, the Member for Nor-
thamptonshire.
Lord MORPETH agreed with hie Noble Friend in the
abstract proposition, that two Members were better than
one ; but his reason for not supporting his Noble Friend's
amendment was, that he believed that the Bill was founded
❑pon an adjustment of the two great interests of agricul-
ture and commerce, which had been agreed to in the dif-
ferent counties. Now a departure from that principle to
the extent of giving 26 additional Members to the com-
mercial interest might be made a ground on the other
side for departing from the principle of the measure alto-
gether.
Sir R. PEEL expressed his surprise that the Hon.
Member for Yorkshire should have contended that the
interests of agriculture were one and the same, and yet at
the same time complain that Yorkshire was not sufficiently
represented. If he had such confidence in the identity of
the interests, why be ao anxious to increase the numbers
on one side, and not rely on the moderation of the other ?
The present was one of those difficult cases in which a man
found it hard to give a vote either way. He owned that
if he thought the Noble Lord likely to carry his amend-
ment, he should be afraid to vote with him, because he
should then expect that the same majority would transfer
the whole of schedule Dto schedule C. In the abstract
question he agreed that it would be better to have two
Members for each place, and, looking at the whole
as an abstract question, he was disposA to vote for
the amendment of the Noble Lord, reserving to
himself the power of saying to what number of
boroughs this should be extended—that was, of saying
whether 12 or 21 boroughs should be included in the
schedule. He owned he was surprised at the argument
of the Hon. Baronet in favour of single representation ;
taking, as he did, the principle that the minority should
not be represented at all. To that he was prepared to
give his dissent. Would it be wise or politic to say that
where any great difference of opinion existed on perhaps
a most important public question, that the minority—
which might be a very large minority—should be wholly
excluded from all share in the representation ? In times
of peace and quiet there might be little danger of such a
principle; but times of storm and difficulty might arise.
Would the Hon. Baronet's principle be then applicable ?
It reminded him of that beautiful simile of Horace—

Cum pace delabentis Etruseum
" In mare;"
but the time might come,
--" Cum fera deluvies quietos
" Irritat amnes."
A time of a question of peace or war might arise, would
it be then wise to exclude the whole of the minority ?
Suppose that a constituency of 1,000 were divided, so as
to have 501 at one side, and 499 at the other, ought the
499 to remain unrepresented ? Should there be no op-
portunity left for the influence of reason ? The Hon.
Baronet would tell them at once that there was no hope
left to the minority in any case ; and yet at the same time
he said that this would put an end to petitions. But what
became of the principle of taxation and representation
being co-extensive, if the minority were in all cases to be
excluded ? Looking at the question as an abstract one,
he would have the old principle of two Memb..rs, for he
would have no anomalies not necessary to the furtherance
of the general object in view. On these grounds he would
' support the proposition of the Noble Lord (Milton).
Lord ALTHORP admitted that the exclusion of the
minority from a share in the representation would be un-
fair and unconstitutional. He admitted, as a general pro-
position, that two Members were better than one, but the
question in this case was, would the evils that had been
predicted, arise from having the one Member instead of
two in the cases of those twenty-six boroughs ? Let it
be recollected that the largest number of places would be
represented by two instead of one, and that in that way
the minority in the kingdom would be represented. But
could it be supposed that public opinion would ever be so
united, as that it would be the same in every part of the
kingdom ? This was a circumstance which could not be
expected, or, if it should happen, the minority in the
country would be so very small, that no danger could oc-
cur from its not being represented in those places. The
argument of the Hon. Member for York was so fully an-
swered by the Right Hon Baronet, that it was not necessary
to go to it. He did not admit that the balance between
agriculture and commerce was destroyed. Looking at the
manner in which the small boroughs had been represented,
he did not think that the power of the landed interest was
lessened in any degree to create alarm ; but as had been
said, if they considered the sort of agreement that had
been made as to the principle of the Bill, he thought it
would be considered as a breach of faith to the agricultu-
rists to add 26 to the commercial towns, and on these
grounds he would oppose the motion of his Noble Friend.
Mr. R. WASON supported the proposition of the
Noble Lord, who proposed to give two Members to each
of the boroughs in schedule D.
Lord MILTON briefly replied; after which the Com-
mittee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority for Ministers
The Chairm in then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again to-morrow.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Quarter before Two.

hnoaef tsitLelhecoeomßnlptti
standing
orders, when
HOUSE OF LORDS, Auoun 4.
LEFEVRE DIVORCE BILL.
Mr. Lefcvre was examined this day at the bar, in order
to clear up several doubts that were entertained by the
Lord Chancellor on this Bill, after which it was read a
second time.
AFFIDAVITS IN CHANCERY BILL.
r a 3,rd motion of the Loan CHANCELLOR the Bill was
CHANCELLOR then moved the suspen-
sion The Earl of ELDON rose, observing that he had great
objections to the passing of this Bill, having no more doubt
of the Lord Chancellor's power to do that which the Bill
was to enable him to do, than that he was now in exis-
tence. Affidavits of the nature referred to can lie read at
the Court of Chancery, sitting from the first day of Janu •
ary to the last day of December. He trusted, there-
fore, the Noble Lord on the Woolsack would considi r
the opinion he had thus given, and withdraw the Bill on
account of its uselessness.
The LORD CHANCELLOR felt deeply the kindness
of the Noble Earl in stating what he had done, and was
most happy to hear from the mouth of the greatest autho-
rity in the country, that he entertained no doubt of the
jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor in this matter. As,
however, he (the Lord Chancellor) had introduced
this Bill, he thought it due to their Lordships
that lie should state the grounds on which he had done
„,. Objections being taken yesterday to the reading of
affidavits, he had asked the opinion of the most eminent
men at the bar, whether any doubt could be entertained as
to the reading of the affidavits, and the bar had
come to the conclusion that it could not be done,
naturally looking forward to vacation as more agreeable
than a long sitting. On application to the Registrars,
they bore out the opinions expressed by the bar ;
seeing that unless something was done the Court
roust close its doors, he (the Lord Chancellor) con-
sulted one of the Registrars as to whether an order
could not be made by the Court by giving notice. The
Registrar thought that could be done, and an order was
immediately drawn up. The Noble Lord after pay-
ing a high compliment to the great talents of the
Noble Earl, expressed his intention of withdrawing
the Bill, reserving to himself the right, if any doubts
should be entertained upon the point, of introducing it again.
He trusted after what hail had transpired in that House
that no attempt would again be made by suitors to delay
despatch in the Court of Chancery.
The Earl of ELDON said a few words in reply, but
the Noble Earl spoke with his back to the liar, and in
such a low tone of voice as to render what he said totally
inaudible to us.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that be had only a
few words to address to his Noble and Learned Friend.