The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-31 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

Several petitions were presented in favour of suppressing
knday traffic in intoxicating drinks ; from the members of
the Waterford Chamber of Commerce expressing regret at
the course pursued by Government in withdrawing the
subsidy from the Galway Company for conveying mails to
America, stating that persons had been induced to take
Shares in the company from a conviction that this subsidy
Would be continued, and praying for an inquiry into the
circumstances connected with the withdrawal of the sub-
sidy; for the adoption of means fJr the development of
the resources for growing cotton in India, so as to
sender this country independent of the supply of
that article from America ; against the abolition
of church rates ; for affording greater facilities for the edu-
cation of pauper Roman Catholic children; from the inha-
bitants of Coventry, praying that the duty on tea should
be remitted before the repeal of the duty on paper; from
the inhabitants of Dublin, expressing indignation at the
withdrawal of the Galway Contract, and praying for full
izquiry into the subject, &c., &c.
GOVERNMENT STOCK TRANSFER (IRELAND).
Sir E. GROGAN moved for copy of the correspondence
between the president of the Stock Exchange, Dublin, and
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the month of April last,
relative to the transfer and re-transfer of Government Stock
between England and Ireland ; and, return of the amount
Of the various stocks and annuities transferred from Eng-
land to Ireland, and from Ireland to England, pursuant to
the Act 5, Geo. 4, C. 53, 'in each year, from 1848 to 1850,
both inclusive, specifying the various descriptions of stocks
and annuities transferred in each year.—Ordered.
MONEY COINED IN SYDNEY.

-Mr. Alderman SALOMONS asked the Under Secretary
of ,State for the Colonies, what steps had been taken, if any,
towards making the colonial sovereign coined by the
branch of the Royal Mint at Sydney, New South Wales,
a legal tender throughout her Majesty's dominions.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that no steps had been taken
hi reference to the subject.
THE DISTURBANCES AT MILAN.
Mr. C. 33.13NTINCK ached the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether he should lay upon the table any
official accounts he may have received relative to the late
disturbances at Milan ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there was nothing in the
correspondence that justified his laying it upon the table.
SUDBURY AND ST. ALBANS.

Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the
*Rome Department whether it was his intention to proceed,
during the present session, with the Appropriation of Seats
(Sudbury and St. Albans) Bill ?
Six G. C. LEWIS answered in the affirmative.
ORNAMENTAL GATES AT HAMPTON COURT.
Mr. C. BENTINCK asked the First Commissioner of
Works at whose request and for what purpose certain or-
namental gates had lately been removed from Hampton
Court Palace Gardens, and whether it was intended to re-
°tore such gates to their original position ?
Mr. COWPER said that the gates in question had be-
come much deteriorated, and were removed to London for
the Purpose of being renovated, after which they would be
teetered to their former position.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.
htr. LANIGAN. asked the First Lord of the Treasury
Whether the representations made to her Majesty's Govern-
Inent on behalf of the Royal Atlantic Steam Navigation
Company, relative to a recent letter of the Postmaster ,
fieneral in reference to the Galway contract, had been con-
tidered, and with what result ?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the communication re-
ferred to was very long, and was received only yesterday
afternoon. The statement would have to be considered by
her Majesty's Government, but would be laid on the table
'With the answer of the Postmaster-General.
In reply to Mr. BEAMISH,
Lord PALMERSTON said he had no hesitation in
stating that it would be most advantageous to the interests
of the United Kingdom to have the most rapid communi-
cation with the north of America. He was of opinion that
Ireland was that portion of the United Kingdom from
Which such communication should be established, and her
Majesty's Government would be ready to adopt a plan for
that purpose, provided it was founded upon the principle of
°Pen competition.
Col. FRENCH asked if it was the intention of the Go-
Vernment to withdraw the subsidy for the Galway contract?
Lord PALMERSTON said that the house was already
In possession of what had taken place on this subject.
Mr. KER asked if the Government had received a memo-
rial from the inhabitants of Dublin and Waterford against
the withdrawal of the subsidy.

Lord PALMERSTON said that some petitions to that
effect had been received from certain parts of Ireland, but
those in question had not reached the Government.
BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AMERICA.

Lord J. RUSSELL, in reference to a question which had
been asked him the other evening, said he had received a
communication from the British Consul at New Orleans,
stating that some British subjects in that part of America
had been forced to enter the militia, but they were now
liberated, and redress was promised.

THE PAPER DUTY.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. MELLOR resumed the adjourned debate on going
into committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
The hon. and learned member contended that the argu-
ments against the 4th clause of the bill for the
'peal of the paper duty were fallacious, and the
4)Pposition of some honourable members to the remis-
sion of that impost was most inconsistent. It
Vas said that there would be no surplus, and therefore it
Would be most inexpedient to remit this tax. But if that
Were true, how, then, could they advocate the repeal of the
tea duty, which was much larger in amount ? It was said
that the tea duty was a war tax, and therefore should be the
first repealed ; but he contended the most objectionable tax
should have the precedence in being remitted. Moreover,
the paper duty was a war tax, and on that ground was
48 much er titled to repeal as the tea duty. The effect
of removing the paper duty would increase employment by
increasing the productive property of a certain branch of
industry, and enable the paper manufacturers to compete
Vith those on the continent, who were exempted from any
financial restrictions. He denied that the repeal of this
tax
would cause a collision with the House of Lords, and he
—fed Lord Monteagle on the subject. The hon. gentleman
ell went in detail through the arguments used against the
„4
i" clause of the bill, and urged some arguments in its
av'nur which were not very novel or effective.
isltr• DISRAELI—Sir, I cannot but think that if hon.
st7443ers would on this occasion think less of their con-
we ZiLs and more of the interests of their constituents,
would be assisted at arriving at a more satisfactory
epaAlthough
on the question before us. (Hear, hear.)
he was perfectly ready on Monday night to have
e,
bie for
a division, I shall avail myself of the opportu-
ty—,
theler which we are indebted to the interposition of
e hoe
the • and learned rentleman, to place succinctly before
Nee the views which I and (hoe friends who act with

me take on the immediate issue in question, and on those
subjects with which it is now inevitably an inextricably
associated. After the financial statement of the Minister
which was the origin of these protracted debates, several
gentlemen in this house whose opinions deserve respect en-
tertained some suspicions as to the solidity of the surplus
on whist' the measures of the Government were founded. I
am yet at a loss to understand that the House of Commons
was exercising any function foreign to its highest duties
when on such a subject theydid not hesitate to express their
suspicions, or to submit the statement of the Minister t) the
most severe scrutiny. I apprehend they were only perform-
ing their duty in so doing, and that they pursued the
course which their predecessors had always followed. I
take it that the principle which should guide the
house upon such a question as the existence or non-exist-
ence of a surplus is one which may be accurately defined.
If there be among hon. members a general conviction that
the Government have been guilty of such financial and poli
tical negligence as not to have duly provided for the public
service and the possible exigencies of the State, I apprehend
that the house has but one course to follow and one duty to
fulfil. It will be due to the Government and to the charac-
ter of the house, under such circumstances, that they
should call on the house to declare, in a manner which can-
not be mistaken, their want of confidence in the Ministers,
who, after such negligence, are clearly incompetent to dis-
charge the great duties and to bear the heavy responsibility
of government. (Cheers.) But if, on the contrary, that be
not the case, I do not understand bow, as practical men, we
can do otherwise than accept the statements of the Minister
and act as those statements justify us in doing. (Hear,
hear.) On the first night of the debate, on the question of
the adjournment, I said that for my own part I had not
made up my mind on the question, and that I waited for
the explanations of the Ministers upon the question of sur-
plus. I thought that I had on that occasion taken a usual
course, and I know that I was influenced only by the desire
of fair dealing. I was therefore surprised that the noble
lord the First Minister should have challenged the propriety
of my conduct. The criticism that was offered on the ele-
ments which form the surplus of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were of a grave character, and required con-
sideration and the explanation of the Minister. These
points were ably stated to the house, and we had the ad-
vantage of obtaining the answer of the Government upon
the main questions which were raised in that discussion.
On the one hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated
in regard to the money due from China that he had con-
templated all the objections which had been urged against
his estimates, and that he had no doubt that the money on
which he counted would reach him at the proper time. The
noble lord at the head of the Government, on the other
hand, stated that the objections to the Budget, founded on
political considerations, had been well weighed by the Cabi-
net, and that he saw no reason to believe that an unexpected
event in an important part of the globe would lead to in-
creased expenditure. Having received these assurances,
and not being prepared to challenge the Government upon
those great matters, and to ask the house to decide whe-
ther or not they could repose confidence in her Majesty's
Ministers, I felt it to be my duty to accept the surplus of
the Government as a natural surplus, and to hold that the
question at issue was how should it be appropriated. There
is another point upon which I wish to make one or two ob-
servations. The charges which have been made against us
of wasting the public time in considering whether the
financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was or was not justified are charges which cannot for a
moment be sustained ; I do not believe that any Minister
would in his cooler moments, and after due reflection, seri-
ously contend that the institution of a scrutiny into the
existence or absence of a surplus is not a legitimate duty of
the House of Commons. We have also been charged with
wasting time by the discussions which have take?' place in
the course of these protracted debates, as to the form of the
bill in which the policy of the Government is embodied.
That also is a charge which, as it appears to me, is entirely
devoid of justice. It cannot be denied that the procedure
adopted by the Government with regard to th it financial
measures this year is of a novel character. (Hear, hear.)
When the resolutions which were to be moved in Committee
of Ways and Means were placed upon the table every one
perceived at once that their form was unusual, and every
one necessarily connected that change of form with the
grave difference between the two houses which occurred
last year. Surly that was a combination of circumstances
which justified on the part of the house inquiry and con-
sideration—inquiry into the reasons which induced the
Government to adopt this form, and consideration whether
it was a constitutional or legitimate form. I cannot con-
ceive any subject with respect to which discussion and
deliberation in this house could be more legitimate or more
necessary. (Hear, hear.) I do not want to introduce any
cor troversy on that subject on the present occasion, but at
the same time, I do not want to conceal my opinion upon
it. I believe that by our precedents upon our Journals
her Majesty's Government were fully justified in putting
their measures in the form which they have selected.
(Hear, hear.) I go further than that—l believe that there
might be occasions upon which it would be highly conve-
nient that the policy of the Government should be em-
bodied in a single measure, and it is still my opinion that
had the financial measures of last year been brought before
the house in that form they would never have passed.
(Hear, hear.) But although the course pursued by the
Minister in this respect may be justified by precedent, and
though it may, under certain circumstances, be even recom-
mended by convenience, at the same time, in my opinion, its
adoption and application this year is unwise—(hear, hear)
—unnecessary—(hear)—and impolitic, and that instead
of leading to conciliation it will tend to an opposite
result. (Cheers.) In the first place, what is there to con-
ciliate ? There is no quarrel between the two houses.
I should look upon such a quarrel as a great misfortune,
and although I am, I hope, as anxious to maintain the pri-
vileges of this house as any gentleman in it, I should be
prepared to make any concession consistent with our rights
and dignity in order to prevent the occurrence of anything
so unfortunate as a misunderstanding between the two
Houses of Parliament. But I do not understand that there
has been any such misunderstanding. I conclude from all
that I have observed and all that I have read that the con-
duct of the House of Lords with respect to the measure for
the repeal of the paper duty last year was justified by
every legal and Parliamentary authority. Certainly, if
there are any persons who are of a contrary opinion it can-
not be her Majesty's Ministers. The speech of the noble
lord at the head of the Government, the resolutions adopted
by this house in consonance with that speech, would be
strong indications of that fact, but when we remember that
her Majesty's Ministers were last year obliged by the force
of circumstances to introduce a second Budget, and that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer availed himself of the Excise
upon Paper as part of his Ways and Means, it is quite clear
that it is not her Majesty's Ministers who can impugn the
right of the House of Lords as exercised last year. (He sr.)
How far it was justified in policy is not a question which I
wish to introduce into this discussion. This house and the
country are, I believe, agreed upon that point. Well, then,
what is there to conciliate ? If there has been no misun-
derstanding, if there has been no collision, if the House of
Lords has only done that which the law and usage of Par-
liament justified, and which her Majesty's Ministers have
entirely sanctioned by their speeches, by their resolutions,
and even by their financial measures, why should we this
year unnecessarily make a change in the form of our pro-
ceedings, the only apparent result of which can be to pro-
duce a collision and to render conciliation impossible F
(Cheers.) I will not proceed at length into this controversy,
because I think that upon the present occasion it is entirely
unnecessary to do so, and I only touched upon it because I
think that when so grave and delicate a question is brought
before the house and debates arise upon it—debates which
have been maintained on both sides, and with great learning
and ability—the country ought not to be told and led to be_
lieve that while we have been endeavouring to arrive at
prudent and wise decisions of policy we have been wasting
the public time. (Hear, hear.) It is of the very greatest
importance, even for the House of Commons with all its
power, to be upon terms of good and cordial understanding
with the other House of Parliament. We live in an age of very
rapid transition. The character of this house has been greatly
changed within the memory of man. The power of this
house has been very greatly increased ; the power of the
Houseb of Lords has, as we are often reminded, diminished.
T
lost a
The
House
dealo of power,fLords butavewi thethin housethela willst 30
make agreat
mistake or more
mistake if they fail to observe that the Lords have also
gained something. The Lords, indeed, can no longer exer-
cise the power which the ancient baronsexercised, because
there was in this country but ono kind s
of property,
andec
they s
were almost the sole possessors of it. The House of Lords
cannot, indeed, exercise that power which was exercised by
the great nobles who invented the Constitution of 1688 and
established an oligarchy in this country. No doubt all that
is changed ; but the House of Lords derive a great and
growing influence from the conviction in the national mind
that the existence of a body which may intervene between
the popular branch of the Legislature and absolute legisla_
tion is a great security for public liberty and for temperate
government. (Cheers.) The people of this country feel that
the existence of a body of that kind is a great blessing, and,
the experience of Europe having proved that such a body
should
cannot be artificially created, they consider it a great good
fortune to England that such an intermediate body
have gradually risen up, supported by property, tradition,
and experience, and ready to act with the _
critical faculty
which is necessary when precipitate legislation is attempted,
and at least to obtain time, so that the ultimate decision
all questions of importance shall be in accordance with the
matured opinion of an enlightened people. This is a great
influence, and if the House of Lords continues to be influ-
enced by the wise and temperate feelings which have go •
verned its conduct of late years, it is an influence that will
increase ; and I believe that our discussions upon the rela-
tions between ourselves and the House of Lords with re-
ference to this very legislation has assisted the house and
the country to arrive at sound opinions upon the subject.
Who, then, has a right to say that we have been wasting the
public time when we have been discussing questions involv-
ing considerations and consequences of so important a cha-
racter? Therefore, with respect to both the topics upon
which we have of late been so frequently taunted by the
House of Lords. I hold that the House of Commons is free
from blame. We have been told that we have denied the
surplus, and yet proposed a remission of taxation. I deny
that they can apply to myself, of to any gentleman who sits
upon this bouclz, Nothing of the )iikit A?4gf occurred, 1

have never denied the surplus—(Ministerial .cheering)—
and I have counselled a remission of taxation upon that
surplus. But if I wanted authority for at the same time
denying a surplus and yet recommending a remission of
taxation, I could find very high authorities, and it does not
become the occupants of the Treasury beach to indulge in
taunts of this kind. I shall not enter largely into that sub-

ject now, because my purpose at this moment is not to in-
dulge in any recrimination of that character, but to place
clearly before the house the course which we on this side
intend to pursue; but I remember that in the year 1857
the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary, who was
then charged with the care of the finances, taunted
one of the most distinguished members of this house,
then in Opposition, with denying the surplus and
at the same time recommending a reduction of taxation,
and he received from that distinguishod member a
most vigorous and able reply. If any one likes to read it—
because I will not load these few observations with extracts
from Hansard—he can refer to a speech delivered by the
present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1857.
Having said this much in vindication, not merely of myself
and my friends, but of the House of Commons, from the
charge brought against us by the Minister of wasting public
time, because we performed two of the most important func-

tions of members of this house—those of scrutinising the
data on which a surplus was estimated, and examining mi-
nutely whether our proceeding was justified, regard being
had to the privileges of the other house and our own, I
will proceed now, merely reminding hon. members that I
myself have never for a moment disputed the existence of
a surplus, to state the principles on which I myself think
that surplus ought to be apportoned. I lay it down as a
principle of our financial system which ought invariably
to be pursued, that in the remission of taxation, war taxes
should have the preference. (Cheers.) That is a sound and
a popular doctrine—(hear)—and it is popular, I think,
because it is sound. I am led to that opinion by considera-
tions of high policy. If, in an emergency—and war is the
greatest of emergencies—you apply to the people to bear ex-
traordinary imposts, it is of the highest essence of policy
that when that emergency is past you should free the people
from these extraordinary imposts as quickly as the state of
the public revenue will permit. (Cheers.) And for this
unanswerable reason, should the emergency recur, and you
have again to appeal to the patriotism and high spirit of the
people, you will apply to them with much less chance
of success to bear extraordinary imposts, if they can
turn round to you and say,—" A serious addition has
already been made to our taxation, and this in a great
emergency we cheerfully incurred ; but the emergency has
passed away, and you have remitted, reduced, and repealed
other taxes in preference to those extraordinary imposts
which, under the circumstances, you appealed to us to
bear." (Cheers.) I say, if that be your policy you cripple
the energies of the country, and you diminish the power of
' the Minister in appealing in future to the spirit of the
country, and you do this totally irrespective of the con-
siderations of finance and political economy which should
exercise paramount influence over the Minister in entering
into public contracts with the nation, and which, when en-
tered into on solemn occasions such as that to which I have
referred should be rigorously and rigidly fulfilled. (Cheers.)
Now, assuming as I assume and maintain it to be a princi-
ple of our financial policy that in the remission of taxation
war taxesshould have the preference let us apply that prin-
ciple to the surplus claimed by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and to the circumstances in which we now find
ourselves. Although the income-tax was introduced into
our modern system of finance merely as an instrument to
accomplish the reform of the tariff, I do not think any
War Minister should hesitate to look on the income-tax as
essentially a war tax. The existence of such a resource, not
drawn upon, in the possession of our Sovereign, is a greater
security for the maintenance of peace than fleets and armies.
The very fact of the income-tax in what I may calla virgin
state among the resources of our country would govern the
decisions of foreign Cabinets and make them hesitate before
they took a course which might offend the pride—the
honourable pride, or endanger the inter eats of this country.
It should therefore be a point of policy to draw as little as
possible on such an instrument, to keep it at a very low
figure, or, if possible, not to trench at all on its resources.
Therefore, had her Majesty's ministers come forward with
this surplus of £2,000,000, and after providing as they
might think fit for the requirements of the country, pro-
posed to appropriate even the entire of this surplus to the
reduction of the income-tax—(hear, hear)—as it at present
exists, I should not have questioned the course which they
were taking. It ought to be borne in mind that there is
no tax the remission of which so greatly stimulates con-
sumption. (A cry of " Oh, oh I" followed by loud cheer-
ing.) The hon. gentleman seems to be incredulous, but
I am sure the house has not forgotten that in 1857, when
we had a commercial and monetary crisis, when we had the
highest rate of money known for many years, our revenue
never decreased, but throughout the year was sustained en- \
tirely owing to the remission of £9,000,000 of income-tax,
impossed to carry on the Russian War. (Hear, hear.) How-
ever, as there is at present no controversy among us as to
the apportionment of the entire surplus to the reduction of
the income-tax, it is unnecessary to pursue this point. Ido
not pretend now to express any positive opinion with re-
gard to the relative advantages of remissions of direct and
indirect taxation : it is enough that her Majesty's Govern-
ment have considered that question. But assuming that a
portion of the surplus is to be appropriated to the relief of
indirect taxation, then I maintain that the principle which
I have ventured to lay down applies, and that regard ought
first to be had to those imposts which are absolutely or
effectually war taxes, and that relief ought to ha granted
from those extraordinary imposts respecting-which you vir-
tually entered into a contract with the people that they
should be relieved as soon as the opportunity for doing so
should arise. I thought gentlemen, not merely on this, but
cn the opposite side of the house, were of opinion that in
dealing with indirect taxation by way of remission we ought
to fix on those indirect imposts which were war taxes, and
on due reflection the house was asked to come to a decision
on that question, and at the same time to declare whether
it was more politic to repeal the indirect taxation on paper
or to reduce the indirect taxation upon tea. Totally irre-
wzoiretthehtitevhreed
pwoefeoltheh,
eafinhr
dsi tg
ofhc opnroeslimi de
iy.e ration, on which I need not
t t
nf
g keepingw h when
n your
opportunity engagements
offers
the taxes which under extraordinary circumstances you have
placed on their articles of consumption—l say the considera-
tions which influenced us to propose the reduction of the
tea duty were such as deserved the attention, and, I think,
the acceptance of the house. The commercial considera-
tions were of the highest character. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in the course of one of the debates, said that my
only view of financial change was to reduce duties on
articles of general consumption, and that I thought of no-
thing but the more obvious interests of the consumer. Sir,
I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unjust
in these observations. Ido not think the interest of the
consumer is one which ought in any way to be neglected.
A financial measure which greatly consults the interests
and advantages of the consumer has much to recommend
it. (Hear, hear.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer
says that in all these remissions and reduction* you
should look to the means by which you can occupy
the people, and that it was among those which afford in-
creased occupation to the people that the best measures are
to be found. (Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches.)
Why, who doubts it ? And, reviewing what has taken
place in these debates, I would ask the house whether, by
reducing the duties upon tea, you are not contributing
more to the employment and occupation of the people than
by the mode which is recommended by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. (Hear, hear.) I do not despise the
benefits which must accrue to those who acquire occupa-
tion and employment by the abolition of any excise. Every-
body admits that the abolition of an excise, if you can
afford it, is an advantageous course. (Ministerial cheers.)
I myself have said so twenty times in this house, and the
hon. and learned gentleman has just read a speech of my
lamented friend Lord George Bentinck, which as strongly
as possible lays down the same principle. But, if
we look at the employment of the people of this country,
we must look at it on a large scale—we must look at our
foreign trade; and, in the present disordered and dis-
turbed state of the European and American markets, it is
in the highest degree expedient that we should study our
position in reference to those great markets, including that
population of 400,000,000 whose commerce has been o;ened
to us by the skill of our diplomatists and the valour of our
troops. (Cheers.) And the employment of the great mass
of the people of this country will be much more assisted by
increasing our commerce with the empire of China than by
relieving a limited industry and trade from the interference
of the Excise. (Hear, hear.) At this moment we greatly
depend on the China trade. The subject engages the at-
tention of all commercial men who are carrying en large
transactions with the East. The fact is, that the consump-
tion of the great staple of China is at present fixed in this
country; it does not increase; and the obvious policy to
pursue would be by reducing its price to stimulate its con-
sumption, and thus obtain a larger market for our manu-
factured goods. It appears to me perfectly idle to place in
competition the great advantages the working classes of
this country would derive from a great impulse given to the
Chinese trade with the limited advantage to be derived
from abolishing the Excise on paper. However, the
house was called on to give a decision on this question,
and it decided not to reduce the duty on tea, But under
what circumstances was that decision taken ? It was cer-
tainly taken, not only in a very full, but almost a complete
house. But it does not follow because this decision was
come to under these circumstances, that we should give up
every opportunity we may possess of urging on the house
the adoption of the policy we think ought to be pursued.
It does not in the slightest degree shake my faith in the
principle that, if there is to be a remission of taxation, war
taxes ought to have the preference in that remission.
(Hear.) We have therefore to consider the position .in
which We are now placed. The right hon. gentleman calls
on us to repeal the paper duty. I do not for a moment pre.
tend to say that the Excise on paper is not a disadvantage
to the paper trade. But lam not at all prepared to main-
tain that the Excise on paper is a greater disadvantage to
that trade than an Excise duty would be on any other manu-
facture. No argument T have heard in this discussion has
shaken my conviction as to the financial policy we have en-
deavoured to urge on the house on this subject. Ido not
believe that with the present general aspect of circumstances
Novtelcetrnitolou.lurgeeixnpeanndy diturrr
lotfitot
yspeedy a os
yr ct:lldsuidaetrea
ob
there-