The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-09 00:00:00

ENGLAND AND SPAIN.

Mr. OSBORNE asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs if any official communication had been received by
telegram or despatch from her Majesty's Minister at
Madrid, relative to the seizure of the vessel Queen Vic-
toria by the Spanish authorities ; and, if the Spanish Go-
vernment had complied with the terms demanded by the
Foreign Secretary in his letter to Sir J. Crampton of 30th
March, 1867.
Lord STANLEY said no answer had yet been received
from the Spanish Government.
THE FLEET IN THE MEDITERRANEAN:

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked if there was any truth in the
report that a portion of the fleet had left the Mediterranean
with sealed orders, the presumed destination of the vessels
being Spain ?
Lord STANLEY said he did not know what orders had
been given to the fleet in the Mediterranean, but there was
nothing unusual in one or two vessels leaving the usual
cruising ground in the Mediterranean.
THE REFORM BILL.—MR. COLERIDGE'S
INSTRUCTIONS.

Mr. LOCKE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, supposing all the words after the word " rating"
in the third line were omitted, the Government would be
inclined to accept the first part of the instruction.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
very inconvenient to answer hypothetical questions. Per-
haps the hon. and learned gentleman would state whether
ho had authority to state that the latter part of the in-
struction would be withdrawn. (Hear, hear, and cheers
front the Government side of the house.)
Mr. LOUKE said he believed it was the intention to
withdraw it, providing the Government accepted the first
part of it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
latter part of the instruction then having been withdrawn,
said he believed the hon. and learned gentleman would
never have made the inquiry without authority—(hear,
hear, from the Government side of the house)—yet it
would have been much more satisfactory if the author of
the instruction had told them what were his intentions.
(Hear, hear.) As it was right to be precise, he would read
the terms of the instruction as it appeared on the paper.
The right hon. gentleman here read the notice from the
paper, and said—With regard to the second part of the in-
struction after the word "rating," he could only person-
ally regret that the house was to be deprived of the plea-
sure of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned member
for Exeter, because he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
had carefully read the instruction over, and he could not
fix any definite meaning to it. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
However, as it had ceased to exist, he would not
further pursue the subject. Her Majesty's Government
had always been of opinion that the committee had power
to deal with the question of rating, and the nob:0 lord the
member for Chester must have been of the same opinion,
or he would not have given notice of the amendment
which now stood in his name ; so it required no pressure,
however gentle—(hear, hoar, and cheers)—for me to say it
could. The first part of the instruction having been
adopted, it would be for the convenience of the house if he
stated that it was his intention on Friday next to move
that the house at its rising adjourn until the 29th for the

Easter recess.
On the reading of the first part of the " Instruction" from

the chair,
Mr. COLERIDGE said the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he had
failed to discover the precise meaning of the latter part of
his motion. He thought had he been called upon he should
in a very words have been able to have made the meaning
of his motion clearly apparent to the right hon. gentleman.
With regard to the inquiry whether the Government were
willing to accept the first part of his motion, the reason he
had not made the inquiry was that he was not aware that
he could, in accordance with the forms of the
house, ask the question until the time arrived
when he should have risen to make the motion. The
question had been asked whether any communication
bad been made with him (Mr. Coleridge), but, of course,
there would be no difficulty to the latter part, as he should
look upon it as a great calamity if the Reform Bill was
not passed this session. He, however, had to inform the
right hon. gentleman that that or something like it would
be moved in committee. (Loud cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) He therefore moved that the latter part of the mo-
tion be omitted.

Mr. LOCKE seconded the motion. With respect to
the observations of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cole-
ridge) that the question had been put to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer without any communication from him, all
ho had to say was that he (Mr. Locke) asked him (Mr.
Coleridge) whether he would like to ask the question, or
whether he should do so. The honourable and learned
gentleman after that quitted the house for a short
time, and he re-entered it just as he (Mr. Locke) was
putting the question. He hoped he would acquit him of
doing anything that was unfair and not in accordance
with the rules of the house.
Mr. COLERIDGE said he was quite ready to do that.
The motion of Mr. COLERIDGE was then put and

agreed to.
Sir R. KNIGHTLEY said he had an instruction to
move—viz., that it be an instruction to the committee to
make better provision than existed fur the prevention of
bribery and corruption at elections.
A brief discussion ensued, when
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
bill of the Uovernmont on the subject of bribery was pre-
pared, and he was desirous of bringing it forward as
speedily as possible. He thought it would have been for
the convenience of the house not to have
the discussion on the Reform Bill interfered with, and
that hail prevented hint introducing it. However,
after what had transpired he would introduce the bill next
Thursday without fail. In separating bribery front the
Reform Bill, he thought he was following out the general
wish of the house.
Sir It. KNIGHTLEY then withdrew his proposed in-
structions with respect to bribery.
On the motion that the house go into committee on the
Representation of the People Bill,
Capt. HAYTER moved as an amendment the followin,,.
resolution :—" That all Parliamentary boroughs havingt'a
less population than 10,000 persons, according to the
census of 1861, and from which the second seat be taken,
should be increased by adding either from the immediately
surrounding district, or front one or more neighbouring
boroughs or towns, a sufficient number of inhabitants to
give to every such parliamentary borough a population of
not less than 10,000 persons."
The CHANGLLLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to

the amendment on the ground that the matter was one

that could be dealt with in committee.
After a short discussion the amendment was withdrawn.
Sir R. KNIGHTLEY moved that it be an instruction to
the committee that they have power to make provision
against bribery and corruption at elections.

Mr. OSBORNE seconded the motion. After a reference
to his own course on this question last session, he said—As
I am now on my legs, and as this is possibly the last time

—(loud laughter)—which this house will have an oppor-
tunity of discussing the principle of the bill, I will, with

the leave of the house, make a few observations on the prin-
ciple of the bill. (No, no, and Order, order.)
The SPEAKER pointed out to the hon. menaler that the
question at present before the house was the motion hehad
risen to second.

Mr. OSBORNE urged his bun. friend (Sir R. Knightley)
to persevere with his instruction, and reserved any general
observations on the principle of the bill.
The SPEAKER put the question.

Mr. GLADSTONE-- The hon. baronet the member for
Northamptonshire (Sir R. Knightley) has, like the non-
member for Nottingham (Hr.B.Osborne) acted with perfect
consistency on this occasion, and I may perhaps venture to
recall to the mind of the hon. baronet that when he made a
similar motion last year, and I occupied a different position,
I did not, in objecting to his motion, use any expression
which was otherwise than consistent with my belief in the
full integrity and singleness of purpose with which he
acted. He has again shown that singlemindedness, but I
find myself under the necessity of pursuing the same course
as last year, and for the same reason. In the first place,
the subject of bribery and corruption is most naturally and
closely associated with the question of Parliamentary re-
form. In the second place, though naturally and closely
associated with it, it is infinitely more convenient and
politic to treat it in a separate bill. The grounds on
which that opinion rests are very simple. Say what
you will of the question of Parliamentary reform,
of its vast importance, and of the desirableness of keep-
ing it if possible out of the vortex of party feeling, it
is not practicable fully to attain that object. Passion
and prejudice will of necessity mix themselves up to a
great extent with the discussions on a Reform Bill. But
the question of bribery and corruption is one with respect
to which we may hope that, without distinction of party,
we entertain general community of view. (Hear, hear.)
And it appears to me that that being so, it is better to treat
that question by itself rather than place it in immediate and

legislative association with another subject in regard to
which it is certain passions will be excited. It is not
therefore from any indifference that lentertain on the sub-
ject proposed by the hon. baronet, but, on the contrary,
from my deep conviction of the importance of that subject,
and the importance of our dealing with it faithfully and
speedily, that I hope the house will adhere to the course
proposed by the Government of dealing with it by a sepa-
rate bill. I think the right hon. gentleman, at the com-
mencement of the session, did in the first instance propose
to include in his plan for reform clauses relating to bribery
and corruption. I heard that announcement, not with the
least intention of opposing the Government if that had
been the plan adopted, but with the belief that it would be
wiser to give a separate consideration to the subject. On
further consideration the Government believe that it is
more expedient, with a view of effectually handling the
subject, to deal with it separately. I believe they are right
in that opinion, and I must support the right hon. gentle-
man in voting against the instruction, though 1 heartily
hope that the object the instruction had in view will be
attained.
Mr. DILLWYN hoped that in one shape or another the
question of bribery, corruption, and intimidation will be I
dealt with. The necessity of protecting the voter has been
opened by the question of the Waterford election—inci-
dentally but improperly introduced by the hon. member—
(hear, hear)—and this may be most effectually accom-
plished by means of the ballot. (Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—In de-
ciding to separate the question of corrupt practices from
that of Parliamentary reform, the Government were under
the impression that they were following the general wish
of the House. (Hear, hear.) If the bill which I shall
bring in on Thursday is read a second time, it will be in
the power of the House to refer it to the general com-
mittee on parliamentary reform, and when the House
has seen the bill it would be bettor able to judge of its
merits. The bill is not inconsiderable, and is, I think,
well deserving of the deep consideration of the House ;
and it will be better to consider this question separately.
(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. BARROW and Mr. CLAY,
The motion was withdrawn.
MOTION OF ADJOURNMENT.

Mr. GORST rose to move the adjournment of the de-
bate. Members came down in the expectation of a debate
which suddenly collapsed. The question of leaving the
chair is the last opportunity afforded for general discus-
sion, and members therefore ought to be enabled, by an
adjourement, to express their opinions on the whole bill.
Mr. SMOLLETT seconded the motion.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCIIEQUER—I hope
my hon. friend will not persist in his motion for the ad-
journment of this debate. (Cheers.) I frankly acknow-
ledge that there has not been that amount of general dis-
cussion I should have wished ; but that has been caused
by a variety of circumstances on which it is unnecessary
to dilate, and we have rather to deplore the evil than to
attempt to remedy it. If this motion is carried, you, Sir,
will not be able to leave the chair, nor shall we be able to
take that first important practical step before the adjourn-
ment for the holidays. I take this opportunity of express-
ing the gratification experienced by the Government at the
generous and kind manner in which the house has met
their efforts to-night to carry a bill through, subject to such
amendments as it may be considered proper to adopt ; and
I trust, after the friendly and conciliatory spirit evinced
this evening, we may succeed is passing a bill satisfactory
to the country. (Cheers.) On the part of tho Govern-
ment I wish to express my grateful sense of this generous
conduct.
Mr. B. OSBORNE —I feel very sensible—(laughter, the
hon. member having made a pause)—of the great disad-
vantages under which I rise. It is one of the pleasures of
belonging to an united party to learn only at the eleventh
hour, on the eve of discussing a great question, that the
political Epicureans are so tired and sick of the strife of a
Reform Bill that they are ready to pass any measure, so
that they have a quiet life. (No, no.) It is extraordinary
that hon. gentlemen waited till Monday to disapprove of
that which they approved on Friday, and turned tail when
they heard of a dissolution. (Laughter.) The position is
a most peculiar one ; the object is to go into committee on
a bill, the policy and principle of which have hardly been
discussed in this house; for it will be recollected that the
second reading was shuffled through, on the understanding
that the discussion should be on the motion for leaving the
chair. There are many points which this house is entitled
to question, and the difficulties are not mitigated by the
course of her Majesty's Government, which have displayed
as much vacillation as the house has displayed forbearance.
Though there was what was called a paragraph about re-
form in the Royal speech, her Majesty's Ministers were
not prepared with any definite scheme when Parliament
met. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly afterwards
came down and made a voluminous speech. Nothing came
of that, but a week after came a bundle of resolutions.
These resolutions, introduced with so much pomp and
circumstance, vanished with celerity and confusion, and
then two Reform Bills were brought under notice. Of
the first it is unnecessary to speak, further than that it
quickly followed to the mausoleum of the Government
policies. They have now recurred to what is called their
original policy ; and the house was induced to come to a
second reading of a bill which no gentleman on either
side approves of in his heart, which Conservatives dislike,
and Liberals distrust. The right hon. gentleman was pro-
fuse in his promises that he would be ready to bow to any
suggestion that might be offered in committee; and lie
left the house on this side with the idea that they had
gained a victory, so admirable was the display of parlia-
mentary pyrotechnics by the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site. And what is the consequence ? Parliament has been
bamboozled (laughter)—and we are going into committee
on a bill which I believe no ten men like in their secret
hearts. On March 26, 1852, Mr. Hume brought in a bill for
household suffrage, lodger franchise, one year's residence,
and personal payment of rates. How was that bill treated?
The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
stigmatised that bill as a revolutionary recommendation.
That was his alliterative way of speaking of it. We find in
1867 part of this plan has become a Conservative bill. Nor
was the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer peculiar in his view. The right hon. gentleman
recently promoted to the Council of India, the member for
some division of Devonshire (Sir S Northcote), said in
1866 that ho was obliged, with the utmost sharpness and
definiteness, to say that to descend to household suffrage at
once, now or at any time, with any safeguard whatever,
would be a most mischievous and most reckless innovation
on the constitution. (Hear, hear, by Sir S. Northcote.)
Can I believe it? Has the right hon. gentleman actually
come to that frame of mind that he can say "Hear, hear,"
to this? (Laughter.) There is no saying what a member
for Devonshire, President of the Council of India, may not
do under circumstances. We have got a proposition for
taking votes by voting papers. This was denounced by
the noble lord the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Lord
Stanley) iu 18.52 as being a project which would increase
bribery and corruption. I will keep that until we go
into committee on the bill. (Laughter.) There was an-
other member, a recent adherent of the Government—
(Lord R. Montagu)—and if the house will excuse me I
will here read out what I call a choice specimen of per-
sonal rating. (A laugh.) The noble lord said "it looked
as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sat himself
down to contrive a plan for swamping the constituencies.
Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer suppose that by
lowering the franchise ho would increase the check the
House of Commons now exercised oa the administration of
public affairs ? Did the right hon. gentleman think he
would check bribery by lowering the franchise in boroughs ?"
Then there is a little quotation in the shape of poetry. I
remember the noble lord standing here and shaking his
finger, as he said—
" Men, faithless once, are ever faithless men ;
Give them but scope, they soon will turn again."
(Much laughter.) That is not all. He concluded an ani-
mated speech by saying, "The Government having elan-

Boned their character in orde(r to gala their power, would
not part with their power in order to regain their charac-
ter." (Hear, hear.) These are the sentiments of men who
opposed, to oth and nail, the bill supported by popular opi

- -
nion, but who now come dow-u to the house to talk of pa_

triotism and forbearance. A plan suggested by the hon_
member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) is well worthy the con-
sideration of the house. If you had the instruction for £5
rating you would probably have had 200,000 more voters
than with a £7 rental, and with a£4 rating double the
number. But while you have the right hon. gentleman
here ready to dispute everything, he suddenly jumps up at
a meeting on Saturday—a private meeting with a public
reporter present—and states that he will die in the last
di.,ch for personal rating. What does it all mean ? This
declaration was never made to the House of Commons,
grateful as the right hon. gentleman has expressed himself
to the House of Commons —and I think he hasa great deal
to be thankful for—(laughter)—but it was reserved for his
uproarious supporters from Manchester. Now, sir, I wish
to know what is the origin of this ? Has he discovered,
or has ho not, that any instruction such as
was going to be offered to-night is not for the
interests of the Conservative party ? Because, sir, lam
in possession of a very curious paper, which I don't
know whether I ought to read to the house. (Cries of
Read.") Well, if you press me, of course I must.
(Laughter.) But I expressly tell you, sir, and the house
in general, that it is a confidential communication.
(Laughter.) It is a communication given to me confiden-
tially by a Conservative friend, who did not altogether
agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, he
says, he is a democrat. The letter is dated very properly
the Ist of April—(laughter) —1867, and marked " Confi-
dential, 6, Victoria-street, Westminster Abbey, S.W." It
is to the agent of a certain borough in the north of Eng-
land—a Tory agent, of course ;at least, I don't know what
he is, for it is very difficult in these times, when my hon.
friend below me is actually appearing to a certain extent
in Conservative colours, to say who's who, and what's
what. (Laughter.) But here is this confidential com-
munication

My dear Sir—You are aware that the Reform Bill of the
Government purposes to give a vote to all occupiers for
two years of a dwelling house only, in boroughs, who
personally pay the full tenement rate, not the compounded
rate, and without reducing the Small Tenements Act.
Notice has been given in the Rouse of Commons by Lord
Grosvenor of a proposal to reduce limits of the Small
Tenements Act from £6 to £5, and to give the franchise
only to occupiers at or above £5 rating. It is probable
that such a qualification will not be limited to dwelling
houses only, but will extend to shops and buildings, with
land, as in the Act of 1832.
Now comes the confidential part.
I should be exceedingly obliged if you would let me know
by Friday morning next (that is, last Friday) which of
these two proposals would work most favourably for the
Conservative interest in your borough, and which in your
opinion would be most likely to be the basis of a permanent
settlement. —I am, my dear sir, yours faiitslf
i.u_lply,
S OFFORTH.
(Ministerial cheering) Yes ; but mark the words
"in the Conservative interest." That was a mistake
of the right hon. gentleman in drawing that letter—
for I have no doubt he did draw it, because it is
signed by the confidential agent of the party. But I
mwaandet ttohatkndoewc,lahvaatsionthethraitghptersohaaonlourable g
rating
iesn gem an
point in this bill, and twe years' residence, because he
thinks it is for the interest of the Conservative party, and
will form a permanent basis of a Reform Bill ? I don't
know what the interest of the Conservative party is; but
I believe it really is the same interest we hold on this side
of the house. (Hear, hear.) Sir, however anxious we
sooromoeßrilsledoutrhiongbtilhel7 presentiliw esreessaionb,adl
fmoaryonbee to pass a
Reform
would much
one, postponed to another, than pass an imperfect and in-
complete measure. (Hoar, hear.) I have have taken the
liberty of making these few observations before you leave
the chair. It is a subject on which I feel strongly, and I
trust I have not expressed myself more strongly than the
occasion warrants or demands. (Cheers.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE—T he hon. gentleman has referred
to me as one of what he is pleased to call the recent peni-
tents. (Hear.) If I were a penitent at all, I should not
shrink from what I have said, if I had in any degree
changed any opinion which I had over expressed. But the
! opinions which I held and expressed last year are the same
opinions which I hold and which lam ready to express
i now, and from which I do not consider I have in any de-
gree departed in making myself a party to the bill which
we have introduced now. The sentence to which the hon.
member for Nottingham has referred, taken in connection
with the rest of the speech,- refers to the argument of mine
on the Educational Franchise Bill of the hon. member for
Hull (Mr. Clay). The argument was, that if you desire to
extend the franchise in boroughs, and to include a number
of persons who are excluded, you must consider by what
means to do that. I was comparing that bill with the bill
of the late Government for the reduction of the occupa-
tion franchise in boroughs from the limit of £lO
to the limit of £7, and I said, "if you are to go on that
principle of reducing the occupation franchise in
boroughs, there is no point at which you can stop till
you come to household suffrage." I said, " I am not
prepared now, or at any ether time, with or without
safeguards, to adopt household suffrage." I took my
stand then, as now, upon the present limit of the oecapa-
tion rental franchise in boroughs of £lO as fixed by the
Reform Bill of 1832, which though it was fixed upon not
on any particular principle perhaps at the time, has become
consecrated by the time it has existed, and below that I
think it unwise that you should attempt to reduce that ren-
tal franchise. That was the view the Goveinment took
in 1839, and it is the view they take now. The Go-
vernmont are prepared to justify the principles of the bill,
in which there is nothing of which the Conservative party
need be ashamed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOWE—I was very much struck with the speech of
the right hon. the gentleman the Secretary of State for
India, because the language was so entirely strange and
new to me that I could not believe it proceeded from the
same gentleman whom I remember hearing address the
house on this subject last year. The right hon. gentleman
appeared to me to say—and if I misrepresent him I hope
he will be kind enough to correct me—that if the present
bill really contemplated lowering the franchise he himself
would have nothing to do with it. I understood him to say.
that. (Hear, hear, and No, no.) And he went on to argue.
" We retain the rating franchise, and in so doing retain
everything. We allow men who are desirous of the fran-
chise to put themselves on the register, and we retain
matters as they were, so far as lowering or degrading the
franchise is concerned ;" and if it were not so, he would be
no party to it. He treated the notion of this tending in
any way to household franchise with the greatest indigna-
tl
saya weaaa ao
amount
ehe
right—butaf
totayr
ehehai
didhasa ieandht
dalnatl
ocdhs
tate
nfefran-
chise—in
year,aeayn_
indigna-
tion. He said that the question was still just as remote
Go-
vernmentf
y
r
fphnopidmsreow—bx
ooi
nmundsawbeet household
hlloi lcawdhohtha ote
towardsa is l suffrageietdid.np Nr
perfectly
a
a
the next. (A laugh.) lam now quoting from " Han-
sard," of May 30, 1866, in the speech of the right hon.
baronet "no did not intend to go the length of saying
that it was desirable to extend the franchise down to
household suffrage, but ho would agree that if it were the
intention of the House to extend the franchise by going
below a.£lo limit for boroughs"—of which be has not said
one word to-night—" there was no point whatever short of
household suffrage at which they could conveniently stop."
(Cheers.) The right Lou. baronet is a party to a bill that
does not stop at £lO or at any figure, and yet b ~t 3 argues
that if you adopt it you will not have made the slightest
approach to household suffrage. (Cheers.) The only thing
you have to ascertain is, not whether a man possesses pro-
perty or intelligence, but simply whether he lives in a
house, and earnestly desires to have the franchise. I can
imagine no more unsafe or unsound principle. It is very
easy to create the desire if it does not exist, and to take
away the condition, so that the desire may not be desire
of the voter as the desire of the person who wishes him to
have it; and so you open the door to every species of cor-
ruption. (Hear, hear.) These are the principles which
are considered by many so plain and manifest that they
are not worth the trouble of preliminary discussion. I
think we are under great obligation to the hon member
for Nottingham (Mr. B. Osborne) for his courage ; he has
done a great publice service in drawing attention to the
subject. There never was a more complete change and
tergiversation of principle than has been committed by
those who have the assurance to come forward and say
they held the same opinions last year. There is no consis-
tency or identity in those principles with what they held
last year. This thing may fail or succeed ; the party may
keep office or lose it ; but one thing will not fail, and that
is, that such conduct will be looked upon by their contem-
poraries with the contempt of all honest men, and will
carry down with it the execration of posterity. (Cheers.)
The SPEAKER put the question : " That the debate
be now adjourned," and declared " The noes have it."
(Cries of " Agreed !")
The SPEAKER then put the question, " That I now
leave the chair ?" and declared " The ayes have it."
(Loud cheering.)
The house went into committee on the bill, and Mr.
HARDY having stated, in reply to Mr. GOSCHEN, that the
bill will be proceeded with on Thursday, it was agreed
that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit
again. Mr. Dodson then, amidst loud laughter, left the
chair, and the house resumed.
REPRESENTATION OF TPE PEOPLE BILL.
On the motion for the adjournment of the house,
Lord ELCIIO asked whether it was the intention of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to proceed in committee with
the Representation of the People Bill first on Thursday, or
the bill of which he had given notice on bribery and cor-
ruption at elections. If it was not likely that much pro-
gress would be made with the former bill, it was hardly
worth while, seeing that the house would adjourn on the
following day for the Easter recess, to go into committee.
In putting the question it was not his intention to throw
any obstruction in the way of the progress of the bill.
On the contrary, if the house had gone to a division that
night he should have voted for going into committee.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would fix the Representation Bill first, and the house
could then take its own course, either to proceed with it or
postpone it in order to discuss the Bribery and Corrup-
tion Bill, which he hoped would prove his sincerity on the
subject.
The house adjourned at five rainutee to ten o'clock.
•