The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-15 00:00:00

FEBRUARY

15, .1861.

another commission was issued, who were also to consider
the statute law. It appeared from this that between 1833
and 1819 there were four commissions issuing four reports.
Then came the Statute Law Commission of 1854, which was
of much wider scope, namely, to consider both the statute
and the criminal law. Bills prepared by this commission
were introduced in 1856 into the House of Lords by Lord
Cranworth, but were lost in consequence of the advanced
period of the session. The present bills had been prepared
after a careful examination of all the previous reports and
measures. In these bills they had attempted to carry out
the principle of assimilation much further than before.
Still there was a limit to that principle beyond which it was
inexpedient to go. He now came to the year 1858, and he
might say that this not being a party measure, or adopted
exclusively by one or the other side of the house, it had been
taken up by the Government of Lord Derby with a view of
extending the principle of assimilation still further than
had beenrecommended by the commissioners of 1857. Those
bills fell through ; but since that a gentleman, a member of
this house, Mr. Whiteside, had taken up and still further
amended the bills of Sir F. Kelly. Tho provisions of these
bills were mainly the same as those he now asked leave to
introduce, but they had undergone the closest scrutiny and
examination. It now became his duty to ask leave of the
house for their introduction. He wished further to say that,
as these bills were introduced originally in the House of
Lords, infliction of the punishment of death was proposed
in three cases only—viz., those of offences against the per-
son, murder, and poisoning with intent to mnrder. Clauses
were afterwards introduced by which the punishment of
death was to be inflicted in three other cases—those of at-
tempting life by blowing up houses with gunpowder, by,
setting fire to houses, and by setting fire to ships. These
amendments he had retained in the present bill. Another
question to which he wished to draw attention was the
punishment of whipping. The limit fixed by the former
bills for the infliction of this punishment was the age of 18.
These clauses he had loft as they stood, and it would be
competent to any hon. member to take the opinion of the
house on the matter. The course he proposed to adopt was
to transfer all the bills to a select committee. The house
would probably be of opinion that the detailed labour of
going through all these bills could be better accomplished
in a select committee than in a committee of the whole
house. After all that had been done towards preparing for
this consolidation of the law the various measures intro •
duced during the last 30 years, it might not be too much to
ask the house, when the bills should have gone through the
select committee, not indeed to take them on trust, but to
look upon them with a confident persuasion that no mate-
rial change, or at all events no injurious change, was intro-
duced by them into the law of either England or of Ireland
or into its application or mode of' administration. He con-
cluded by moving for leave to bring in the bill.
Mr. M'MAHON said the house would readily acquiesce
in the suggestion to refer these bills to a select committee,
in which their provisions should be carefully examined, but
he thought the inquiry ought not to be confined to these six
or seven bills which constituted but a small and insufficient
measure, that would not reduce the bulk of the statutes, or
simplify the knowledge of the criminal law. The law of
England, Ireland, and Scotland should be assimilated toge-
ther, so as to have but' one system of criminal law for the
whole United Kingdom. In Scotland especially the law was
in a barbarous condition ; there was no habeas corpus act
there, though a prisoner might demand his discharge after
150 days if the public prosecutor did not bring him to trial
within that time. The judges in Scotland claimed the
power of adapting the law, at their own discretion, to meet
any new offences; and a man might be hanged in Scotland
by the odd man in a jury of 15. Now he did not see why
we should not have a perfect code for the United Kingdom
to be called the Victoria Code, showing how, from the time
when amen was taken into custody on a charge of commit-
ting any offence, to the time of his final acquittal or pun •
ishment, our law afforded every possible security that a re-
gard for truth and justice, and for the lives and liberties of
the Queen's subjects could require. We should be as proud
of such a code as another nation of its Napoleon Code,
which had produced such important effects in Europe.
Leave was then given to bring in the bills.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION.
(ST. ALBANS AND SUDBURY.)

Sir G. C. LEWIS, in moving for leave to bring in a
bill to assign the seats forfeited by the disfranchisement
of the boroughs of St. Albans and Sudbury, said
that the bill which he was going to bring in was not a
large measure of reform—(a laugh)—yet, as it was a bill
that dealt with four seats in that house, it was a measure
of considerable importance, and would, he was sure, receive
the deliberate attention of members of that house. The bill
was founded upon the disfranchisement of the borough of
St. Albans, which took place in 1844, and of the borough
of Sudbury, which occurred in 1852. The reason why
these seats had not been previously dealt with was, that it
was deemed net desirable to do so until a Government
measure of Reform was introduced into that house. The
house was aware that last session a bill was introduced into
that house by the Government upon the subject of Reform,
which dealt with the four seats in question. That bill,
however, not receiving the sanction of the house, fell to the
ground. As the Government had determined not to bring
in any measure of Reform this session, he thought it was
desirable that a bill should be brought in which had for its
sijset- the disposition of the four seats tints in abeyance.
He had no doubt that, when the bill went into committee,
a great many suggestions would be made by hon. gentle-
men, recommending a different disposition of the seats
from that which the Government intended to propose ; but
he had no doubt that the proposal of the Government
would be better than any that could be suggested. Of the
four vacant seats, he proposed to give two of them to
counties, as was proposed in the bill of last session—one
to the West Riding of Yorkshire and one to South Lan-
cashire. The population of the West Riding of York-
shire, unrepresented, amounted to 1,315,891 persons, and
that of South Lancashire to 1,597,000 persons. Ho pro-
posed that Chelsea and Kensington should be united
into ono borough, and that they should have one seat
given to them. (Hear, hear.) To that proposition many
gentlemen would perhaps entertain objections. (Hear,
hear, from the Opposition.) Supposing that the metro-
polis had at present a sufficient number of members—
(hear, hear)—and that it was already sufficiently and
efficiently represented—(hear, hear)--they would pro-
bably say that the house ought to give the disposable seats
to some rural borough. (Hear, hear, from the Opposition.)
Well, that was a matter which was open for the considera-
tion of the house in committee, and the opinion of the house
might in that stage bo taken upon the subject. (Hear, hear,
from the Ministerial benches.) Nevertheless, he would be
prepared to recommend the arrangement which he now pro.
posed. The parish of Chelsea at the last census contained
a population of 56,558, and the parish of Kensington at
that time contained a population of 41,053. Both these
parishes had since very much increased iu their population.
But it might be said that it could be proved, although
Chelsea and Kensington taken together form a large popu-
lation, London, of which they formed part, had already suf-
ficient members, and those parishes were already sufficiently
represented. Now let them see what was the population of
London at the present time. He had put himself in corn •
munication with the Registrar• General, and supposing the
population to have increased in the same ratio within the
last ten years that it had in the ten years preceding, it
would be now 2,864,000. According to the last census the
entire population of Scotland was only 2,862,000, which
was rather less than what was now the statement of the
population of London. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, whether
they looked at the population of those two parishes taken
alone, or whether they looked at the population of the me-
tropolis, it was quite clear to his mind that they were en-
titled to a seat. (Hear, hear.) Ho therefore proposed to
give them one, and he proposed to give the other disposable
scat to the town of Birkenhead. It was not, on the one
hand, like Birmingham or Manchester, or other places he
might name, a great manufacturing district; but it was,
on the other hand, a place of great commercial and trading
enterprise. At the last census, its population was 24,210,
but it had considerably increased since that time. That
was the population at the last census. It might be
said by those who took a different view on the subject,
that, " If you disfranchise St. Albans, you ought to assign
the vacant seats in the rural districts." (Hear, hear, from
the country gentlemen on tho Opposition benches.) But
what were the populations of some of the towns ? Birken-
head had 24,000, Staleybridge 20,000, Burnley 20,000, and
Gravesend 16,000. That would be the principle upon which
some would lay down that the representation ought to be
given; but he could not help thinking that the recommen-
dation which he laid before the house was the preferable
one. These were the views of the Government, and he
hoped they would meet with the fair and reasonable consi-
deration to which they were entitled. (Hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK did not wish, at that late hour, to go
at any length into this question. But the right hon. baronet
had told them that the Government view of the subject was
most important. Now, he (Mr. Bentinck) confessed that,
after having listened most attentively to the right hon. ba-
ronet, he was totally at a loss to understand the principles
upon which he proposed to dispose of the vacant seats. If
he understood the right hon. gentleman rightly, he based
his argument upon figures ; but he seemed to have totally
lost sight of the real merits of the case. Let them look at
the question, as one of figures, upon which he understood
the right hon. baronet to rest it. Now, he would undertake
to show the right hon. gentleman and the house, if he un-
dertook to rest his case upon figures, that every disposable
seat—even if there were 130 or 140 disposable seats—ought
to be given to the rural counties in England. (Hear, hear,
from the Opposition, and cries of " Oh, oh," from the Mi-
nisterial side of the house.) llon. gentlemen might laugh
and cry " Oh," but he would undertake to prove what he
had just recommended, and he maintained that if they were
to take figures as the standard to go by, and to calculate
upon, every disposable seat should be given to the rural
counties. He believed it was unnecessary for him to refer to
the right hon. baronet, who so ably distinguished himself in
finance, to prove to him that taxation and representation,
to which the right hon. baronet had referred, were con-
vertible terms. As a matter of perfect justice in a case
referring. to the representation of the country, and in a
matter of figures, they were bound to deal with this ques-
tion in a spirit of perfect justice. The right hon. baronet
had given no sound reason for the course which ho pro-
posed ; but he (Mr. Bentinck) would ask the house to try
the question fairly, and not t 9 deal with it open, the

ciples laid down by the right lion. gentleman. He must
enter his protest against the manner in which the Govern-
ment treated this question. It seemed to be assumed, when
the redistribution of seats was considered, that the country
was nothing and the large towns everything. He had no
objection to our commercial emporiums having their fair
share of the representation, but he objected to their having
a monopoly.

Mr. STIRLING wished to urge upon the house the
position of a constituency which he thought had peculiar
claims to consideration. Ho meant the Universities of
Scotland. The Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and
Dublin were represented, while the Scottish Universities
did not possess that privilege. A few years ago it might
have been said that they did not possess a university con-
stituency, but three years ago the late Government had
remedied that defect, and introduced reforms which had
proved, and would continue to prove a great boon to that
country under the operation of the Scottish Universities
Act. Though it had come into full play within the last
few months, they had now an aggregate university consti-
tuency in Scotland of 3,301, a number which was daily in-
creasing. The constituency of the University of Cambridge
was 4,566, that of the University of Oxford 3,623, and that
of Dublin 1,780. The Scottish Universities therefore had
already a constituency about twice as large as Dublin,
nearly as large as Oxford, and he had not doubt it would
be soon equal to the constituency of Cambridge. One of
the great questions considered last year in connexion with
the Reform Bill was how to give the intelligence of the
country a larger share in the representation without basing
the qualification on property to the extent hitherto done.
By granting representation to the Scottish universities they
would to some extent enter upon a solution of that problem.
They would give the franchise to a number of educated
young men, who would highly value the privilege, and who
for some years might not possess the property qualification.
They were at the same time not confined to any one class of
the community, but fairly drawn from all cla'sses. He
hoped the right hon. gentleman would give time to the
public to consider this question in all its bearings, and the
public Press the opportunity for fair comment ; and he
begged to state that, if no one else brought forward the
subject, he should feel it to be his duty to give the house
an opportunity of voting upon the propriety of the sugges-
tion he had made.

Mr. MAGUIRE complained that though the Govern-
ment, in the bill of last year, gave two members to Scot-
land and two to Ireland, they had now changed their mind
and taken no notice of either. If the hon. member brought
forward a proposal in behalf of Scotland he should willingly
support it. But he asked the right hon. gentleman why he
threw Dublin and the county of Cork overboard, both of
which were to have had an additional member by the bill of
last year. The population of Cork was 600,000, that of
Dublin nearly 300,000 ; they were, if anything, larger than
they were last year, and he was at a loss to know on what
ground the right hon. gentleman and the Government had
changed their opinion and given the four members to two
English boroughs and two English counties. He saw no
pressing reason for an addition to the number of metropoli-
tan members. They were the most able—(a laugh)—the
most active—(hear, hear)—the most persevering, and the
most vigilant members in the house. (Hear, hear.) They
possessed a fair share of eloquence and wisdom—(a laugh)
—and, in his opinion, the Government would have done
better to adhere to its proposal of last year. Why should
Ireland have the cup which they had raised to her lip
dashed down in this manner ? Why should her hopes be
balked ?

Mr. AYRTON said that ho should have been well con-
tent to allow this miserable abortion of a bill to fall still-
born on the table of the house without a word but for the
observations of the hon. member for Norfolk. If they had
great cause for dissatisfaction in the abandonment of reform
on the part of the Government, they had cause for satis-
faction that the hon. member for Norfolk entertained such
sound views on that question. He (Mr. Ayrton) had great
hopes of gentlemen on the other side of the house. They
had become so enlightened that they might expect to obtain
from them what had been denied by the hollow friends of
Parliamentary Reform. It was delightful to hear the
hon. member for Norfolk say that representation and taxa-
tion should go together. The question was, what confi-
dence this assertion would give to those who paid half the
taxation, but were denied any voting power ? He was de-
lighted to hear the hon. member for Norfolk say that if
justice were done in the redistribution of seats that at least
100 seats should have to be given to the counties at the
expense of the boroughs. He admitted the truth of that
observation. But what was justice ? If they proceeded
upon numbers as the basis of representation, the counties
could not send members to the House of Commons until
the county represent ation was based on numbers. When
the hon. member came down to the house with a Reform
Bill giving a vote to the adult millions living in the coun-
ties beyond the limits of the boroughs he must be the last
to deny the right of representation to the counties. But
where was the Conservative who proposed to give that
right to counties ? At present the franchise was enjoyed
in counties by two or three thousand, while the adult
males might be counted by hundreds of thousands. He
ventured to say that if that principle were established the
hon. member far Norfolk would be able to overthrow a
large amount of political intrigue. (Hear, hear, from Mr.
Bentinek.) The hon. member said "Hear, hear," but
where was the bill ? (Laughter.) Why had not the Conser-
vative Government framed a bill in accordance with the
wishes expressed by the hon. member on the pleociat 0,,a-
-sion? Had they done so they would have immortalised
themselves, and would have received the support, not only
of a large majority in that house, but of the nation at
large, and would have come triumphantly out of the
struggle. It was certainly gratifying to the metropolitan
members to be told that they were so singularly efficient,
but he objected to be improved out of his own estate.
(Laughter.) He did not admit they were so efficient; at
all events they had not that power of numbers which, un-
fortunately, when questions of right were before the house,
prevailed far more than eloquence or advocacy on the part
of members. He did not admit the doctrine of numbers
being the basis of representation, and he regretted to find a
Minister of the Crown proposing a measure entirely on
that ground, for ho did not consider it a fair or states-
manlike mode of dealing with the question. If that doc-
trine were affirmed the whole of the four seats ought to go
to Ireland ; but the constitution of the House of Commons
had been settled on a different principle—one which was
well investigated at the time of the Union, and no addi-
tional light could now be thrown upon it. He warned Irish
members in their own interest not to attempt to disturb it.
The boroughs included in the right hon. gentleman's pro-
gramme were two of the largest unenfranchised consti-
tuencies existing, and therefore had the first claim to repre-
sentation. He expressed no opinion upon the details of
the measure, but he for one protested against the attempt
of the Government to escape from the performance of their
great duty by presenting to the house this most trumpery
bill. If such a part were to be played as the representation
of this ridicules mus of the great mountain of Reform, then
there was but one person qualified for the performance, and
that was the noble lord the member for the city of London.
It was evident that the Government had taken advantage
of the known good nature of the right hon. gentleman to do
the public work, and had imposed on him, he would not
say service, but this very ridiculous performance. The
right hon. gentleman always did his work well whatever it'
might be—(hear, hear)—but ho (Mr. Ayrton) hoped that
the house would not allow him to be made a convenience
of on the present occasion. (Cheers and laughter.) He
also hoped that the Liberal party would hold the Go-
vernment to the fulfilment of its duty, and not allow
them to escape from it by such a contrivance as this.
(Hear, hear.) They had taken office for one great purpose
and that purpose they were bound to carry out and it was
their duty to fulfil. They bad confederated to displace a
former Government—(hear, hear)—and had succeeded,
because men thought that that Government would not ful-
fil conscientiously their duty. They had put that forward
as a ground on which they invited the Sovereign to change
her Ministers. Nay, more, they might be said to have
forced themselvee on their Sovereign, usurping her great
prerogative, and in doing that they had been buoyed up by
the popular sympathy, accorded to them because they were
supposed to enter office in the performance of that duty ;
but now that they had obtained office they seek to escape
under the hollow pretence that a bill lull of deformities and
defects which they brought forward was subject to criticism,
and thus they availed themselves of its badness to be ab-
solved from their obligation and the performance of their
duty (Hear, hear.) Therefore, there never was such a
contrivance as this. The Government must learn that, as
every election takes place they would lose character and
credit in the country, and that if they did not face this
question manfully, they will sink step by step until they
slip out of office objects of universal contempt and scorn.
(Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, wo shall not be at all
swayed, as I can assure the hon. gentleman ; we are not at
all daunted by the magnificent philippic which he has just
delivered. (hear.) It may be well for the hon. member
to misrepresent the conduct of the Government. But we
do not propose this its the substitute for a general measure
of Reform. We stated, I think sufficiently, the reasons
why we do not think it our duty in this session to bring in
what i called a great and comprehensive measure of
Reform. (Hear.) Those, I think, who remember the
course adopted last year by gentlemen on this side
of the house—(hear, hear, and laughter from the
Oprosition)—as well as by those who sit opposite, can
never feel in their hearts, whatever they may
assume to feel, that the Government ought this session to
have called on the house to spend so many hours as were
spent last year, not in discussing, but in evading and shelv-
ing that measure—(cheers)—which was shelved as much
by the professed friends of reform as by its opponents.
(Laughter and cheers.) I therefore repudiate the whole of
the insinuti ms of the hon. and learned gentleman as totally
unfounded, and as in no degree affecting the standing and
character of her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) We
have, upon mature deliberation, come to the conviction that
it would not have been for the public advantage for us to
have called upon Parliament in the present session to renew
any long discussions on a comprehensive measure of reform.
But we did think it our duty not to perinit these four seats
to remain vacant any longer. The reason no arrangement
was proposed before is, that from year to year it was thought
tbeY might be included ilk OtAlaC large azl general measure, •

••••••••Ak

Now, wo certainly did not expect that any pt'opos,al we
might make for the distribution of these four seats would
not be met by an an infinite number of counter proposals.
These four seats belonged to English boroughs, and tile
natural arrangement appears to be that they should be al-
lotted to four English constituencies. But we did not dis-
guise from ourselves that the moment we made that proposal
we should have some hon. gentleman from Scotland rising
to say that they ought to be given to Scotland; and that.
members from Ireland would claim them for Ireland. We.
knew that we should have, as we probably shall have, vari-
ous gentlemen proposing a different arrangement for Eng-
land. We knew that whatever proposals we might make
counter proposals would be urged against them. But lam
myself of the opinion that when the house comes to consider
our plan, and those counter proposals in committee, it will
think that the arrangement made is as fair as any that cane
be proposed against it. It is quite true, that mere num-
bers ought not to be the principle on which the representa-
tion of this country is founded. The House of Commons
is the great legislative machine of the nation, and ought to
represent, not its numbers alone, but all its various into •
rests—(hear, hear) ; all its different intelligence, and all
those elements that are essential to the proper action of the
great assembly that is to direct its general policy and desti-
nies. (Hear, hear.) Well, I think the manner in which
we propose to distribute these four seats is founded on that•
principle. The two places disfranchised are comparatively
smell boroughs ; but we do not propose to give those seats
to tvie other comparatively small towns; we propose to
give two of them to two great counties, in which there are
both agvicvltura.l and manufacturing interests—interests
that ought to have their opinions represented in this house.
We give another member to a place of a different character
—a large and growing seaport town, with interests different
to those of the counties,. The fourth seat we propose to
give to a new borough to be created out of a very increasing
and thriving part of the metropolis. Perhaps that which
in some degree excited the zeal and energy of the member
for the Tower Hamlets against some hon. members who
preceded him may have been the sounds—not articulate—
that indicated an objection to any addition to the number
of the metropolitan membel.s. (Laughter.) That naturally
excited some degree of waradh on the part of the hon. and
learned member for the Tower Hamlets. I think, how-
ever, that Kensington and Chelsea are very fit places to be
erected into boroughs. They include interests that deserve
m
to be represented in this house, avd I do not concur with
those who think the proposal inexpedient because it will
be an addition to the metropolitan members. (Hear.) I
feel a great respect for those members, and pay no regard
to the opinion that has excited the indignation of the hon..
and learned gentleman. (Hear, hear.) Ido not intend toy
go further into this subject at present; I think no case can
be made for an addition to the members of Scotland and
Ireland. We are dealing with four seats that belong to Eng-
land,that were forfeited in consequence of corruption. We
had to look round England to find how we could best dispose
of them for the public advantage. Wo have disposed of them
by giving them to as great a variety of interests as could be
consulted in that small number of seats ; and when the
house comes to consider the plan, I think it will be of
opinion that it is as reasonable as any proposal that can be
set against it. (Cheers.)
Mr. KNIGHTLEY said the hon. member far the Tower
Hamlets appeared to taunt the hon. member for West Nor-
folk (Mr. Bentinck) with having changed his opinion. The
hon. and learned member must have been remiss in his
attendance in the house. Ho had had the pleasure of hear-
ing the hon. member for West Norfolk speak often. on this
question, and he had always heard him use the same argu-
ments. The hon. gentleman denies that my hon. friend
made out a case for the counties. He was unwilling to go
into figures, but he had an extract from the Census of 1857
that was very short, and he would read it. It showed that
the representation of England and Wales under the ROorni
Act was based on estimates of wealth and population, which
gave to the counties property of the annual value of
£60,561,288 ; inhabited houses, 2,053,998 ; population,
10,495,930; the number of county members was 159. In
the boroughs and cities the annual value of property was
£42,898,247; the inhabited houses, 1,383,300; and the
population, 7,431,679 ; the number of borough members was
337. (Hear, hear.) Wo have never wished to maintain
the present state of the county franchise; we have always
wished to place the county and borough franchise on an
equality in every respect. (Cheers from the Opposition.)
That was what the late Government proposed to do.
(Cheers.) They proposed to put the counties and the
boroughs on the sane footing. But what did you do ?
(Renewed Opposition cheers.) You supported the resolu-
tion of the noble member for the city of London (Lord J.
Russell), and refused to put them on the same footing.
(Cheers.) You destroyed the bill of the late Government,
and now a very nice little Reform Bill you have got instead
of it. (Cheers from the Opposition.) We have always
been ready to give a far lower franchise than the present,
if you would consent to place counties and boroughs on a
perfect equality. (Cheers.)
Sir G. LEWIS, in reply, said—There are some members
in this house whose notions of Parliamentary reform are so
gigantic and colossal that any measure proposed to them is
called a pitiful abortion. (Hear, hear.) The Reform Bill
of last year was called a " pitiful abortion"—(laughter)--
though now it is termed revolutionary and destructive.
The hon. member for the Tower Hamlets has thought fit
to denominate the present bill a " miserable abortion," and
seems to think I have been reduced to some kind of servile
defy in having: laid the measure before the house. Now,
the bill is one that disposes of four seats at present vacant,
and that are wanting to the integrity of the number of this
house. In 1853 the right hon. member for Bucks proposed
a measure precisely similar to this "miserable abortion."
He asked leave to introduce a bill assigning the four vacant
seats to the West Riding of Yorkshire and the southern
division of Lancashire, two to each. The plan was dis-
cussed, but on a division was rejected—not on the ground
that it m as a " pitiful" measure, but because it was thought
the Government was not in a condition then to make any
important proposition. There are two notices on the votes
by which it is proposed to assign two of these seats to par-
ticular places. It is possible that if the Government were
not to interpose there would be otbe4 motions on the sub-
ject, as it is known that it is not the intention of the Go-
vernment to bring forward any general measure this ses-
sion. The consequence would be great confusion and
inconvenience, and I hope therefore that the house will
approve the course which we have taken as the most con-
venient mode of dealing with the question. (Hear.)
Leave was then given to bring in the bill, which was
afterwards brought up and read a first time.
The house then adjourned athalf-past 12 o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

BIRMINGHAM-JAN. 14.

At this day's market there was en increased supply ri
wheat, and all qualities were firmly held for the currency
of this day se'nnight. Barley reeler ckeaper. Oats unal-
tered. Beans quite as dear. Peas only find buyers in
limited parcels.

;,,i1 we
w ould

)os,lls.

id tile
be al-

Dt dis-

oposal

rising
I that•
We.

vari--
• Eng-
make
t I am

msider

it will

►at cant

num--