EVIDENCE OF TIIE WORKING OF THE POOR-LAW.

A portion of the evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inqttire into the operation of the Poor-law has been published. It refers chiefly to the Union of Pet- worth, in Sussex,—a part of the country where the evils of the old system had reached such a height, that the Reverend Thomas Sockett, Rector of Petworth, paid :Ail. per annum on a tithe rental of 600/. ; the payment is now 120i. on the same rental. This fact shows that the new law has been advantageous in one important point to the rate- payer : how it has operated in other respects, will appear by the follow- ing selections from the evidence. 'fine Reverend Mr. Sockett is asked what is his general impression of the manner in which the law has been administered inn the Petworth Union, which contains five parishes, and between 3,000 and 4,000 acres. He says-

" My general impression is, that in the way in which it has been ad. ministered in the Petworth Union, it has been very injurious to the deserving labouring man with a large family ; bunt that with respect to, the old people, it having been, I must say, mercifully administered in Petwertb, it in toot been injuriona. I think the aged and infirm are as well off as they stele beffire the new Poor-law canoe into operation. NVitli respect to the young unman Mil and able-bodied people, I think it has produced in some instances providence ; that they are become inure frugal and saving than they used to be; but, with respect t3 the labouring man with a wife and a large family, even mercifully as it has ado!!nistered in ilne Petworth rniuu. it has produced a great deal of misery."

"Inn what respect do you think it has produced a great ffial of misery ? " " A labouring man.at the present wages, the out-door relief being, taken off, cannot keep his family:in any thing be? iii bread : in many instances lie has been obliged to cease to keep his mg, which is a great support to a labouter, and in kw instances can he at all pay rem. Hit is at all agreeable to the Com- mittee, I can state a few instances of very excellent labouring men, those who are spoken of by the Poor-law Commissioners, or whom we are taught to ex- pect are to be independent labourers. I can state instances of the earnings of those men, annul I can show that it is impossible that those men cats with those earnings keep their families. I have selected the eases of known good men—men who never go to the alehouse or beer-shop—men whom I have known front their boyhood, who were boys with myself—men whose habits I know, into whose cottages I frequently walk, and at the side of whose tires I often sit. I should beg leave to observe to the Committee, that I never have gone into a cottage and put a leading question : I never have said to the woman of the cottage, Dame So-and-so, are you not sadly oppressed by this new Poor-law?' I have not gone about to create dissatisfaction, but I have simply gone in and said, Well, how do you go on? do you make out pretty well ? and that sort of thing; and How is your wife annul your children?' Then they tell me of their grievances, little or big, as they have done these last twenty years back. I live upon those terms with my cottagers."

In reply to a question as to the rate of wages, the witness said that labourers get Os. or 10s. a week.

Mm Hutne—" Do you speak of the average all the year round ? " "I bl3OUld say that 10s. would be a high average all the year round ; but there is a gentle- man here who will be able to speak more decidedly as to those minutia: than I C301 because Inc will speak positively from his own kuowledge, and he is also a Guardian of this Union."

" How are those wages as compared with the wages before the Union was begun?" " I do not perceive that they are altered at till: the wages of the pour man with a large family I think, are not altered at all; but the wages of the single man without a family are lowered by the operation of the new Pour- law."

Chairman—" Flow are they lowered ? " " Because, rather than go to one of these new poor-houses, I could have an able-buslied mans of twenty years of age work for nie at from 9d, to Is. a day."

"What did they do before the new Poor-law ?" "IBefore, they would nut readily work for those wages." " What did they du if they did not work ?" " That I cannot exactly tell; hut I know that we can have labourers, single men, at a lower rate than we used to have."

" As you say that within your observation the rate of wages of a single man Las been lowered in consequence of the operation of the Poor-law, the Commit- tee will be naturally desirous of knowing how that effect is produced ? " in By the dread of the poor-house." in Then what did they du before the Pour-law was introduced ? " " They were employed much more by the parish before." " Theo, before the Poor-law was introduced, the single men were paid a part of their wages out of the rates of the parish ? " " certainly, they must have been ; that is to say, the parish employed them at unproductive labour—at labour they did not want to have performed; but they employed the man that Le might not starve."

" Was that advantageous to the parish ?" " No, it was so much money out of the pocket of the parish." The condition of a labourer with it larze family, at the present rate of

-wages in Petworth, is thus described by Mr. Lilts, Vice-Chairman of

. . , the Board of Guardians_

" I have taken the pains of seeing and conversing with some labouters, in order to get at their manner of liviug,. I take the instance of a 111311 of the name of Wailam King-bort, and who would have come up with (Ahura who have come, hut he is too ill." 'I In he single or niarried?" " Ile is a married man; be has a wife, and six children under twelve years of age, and one boy of sixteen years if age. That man is earning wages of los. a week, awl his boy 3s., making I:)s. Ile uses a bushel of flour, which costs him Os. 34. ; Inc has a pound of butter, ild. ; he has two pounds of cheese, Is. 2d. ; two ounce* of tea, tv!. ; inc has two pounds of sugar, Is. The reason of his having two pounds of sugav is, that the wo- man has now twins at the hreast, and consequently he reiperes a little more ant tar on account of those children than he woula otherwise require ; that nia'kes the amount his. Id., that is III. more than his wages. without the least sum to be paid for meat, candle, or soap, or any other comfort. Soule friend Las given him a pig, which is running about the common, and he has not the means of purchasing meal to feed it with. That is the situatiuu of an independent labourer, as he is called." " How does he manage to ply his lent? " " He can only pay his rent by Iris earnings doling 1111 vest, or by other means. The living swallows up the whole of Isis income, and a manly inure, without a farthing being applied fur clothes or any other comitut.' Chairman--" yin, have now statoal what viii suppose to be the expenses of II labouring man?" " Vhat be stated to tie to be the expenses." " The wage, being 10a. a week, ate those the wages that he received through• out the year ? " " Nu; I should suppose that in hat vest he received more." " Ten the Committee what you estimate the increase of wages during the harvest? " .• I am not a fat men, ;old I cannot reckon that."

" For how lung a time do you suppose that he receives this increase of wages? " in Duriog the month of

in lies Ire the opportunity of increasing those wages by being able to work at task-woik ? " Ile iniglit do that, po haps ; if be is employed its thrabbing Inc might add a little hy ta‘k- won k." " Is nut drailling sometimes done by task-won k inn your neighbetirlinod?" "1 inn not a farmer, and I cannot:III,Wer that qw.stioni whether it is or is

" Has the man stated ion any arcount he has gi■ tan to you what were the charges of tent, fire, awl clothes?" " No, I went no further thin the food, showing me that his Emil. cost him inure in eatitig (for there is no drinking, except water annul a little tea) than he cams; that teas quite stutlicieut,1 thought, for the porptr.e."

:11r. Ilarvey—" "linen the estimate you have now "'reduced makes no allow-. ance for any other think than that of tea ?" "Ne.' " No allowance for candle; soap. elnithes, fucl, or runt ?" " No."

Mr. 31iles—" But the estimate does net ineluole what Inc annul his family

might have made in extra stunk in hat vest time?" " No, it lea."

" Or by task-weals, if he gyes it ?" No, but I do not think lie c3n get it." Mr. Cliichester—" Flow old is the elileig ? " " Sixteen."

" old is the next ?" " I bliould say eleven is the age vf the nest chi'd."

" Do you know the age of each child ?" " No." " You have made a comparative stilteinent of what thenian earns, to bring before the Committee, ire order to show that be eantmt sub•iq ea his wages ; cannot ■011 tell the tonannittee.the age of tacit child ?" " No 1 HMI that they are all wider twelve, and there are two.at the breast, and tinose ate very young." " Does not the drill el-vein yells old do any thing?" " Nu; it is a gill." in It stay; ;;;;;;;;:hr 11.111:111,. f ;; " 140 gills under' eleven years ulub tnn our palish." "Then there is tine child _between: nine and ten ; does that child do any thing ? " " No."

"Does it go to school ? " " I cannot say whether it does or not." " It does nut contribute to the using ut the family ? " " No."

" You say you du not knuw what he p uys fur his cottage ; do you know

whether lie has area garden with his cottage? " " Ile has a moderately- sized cottage garden."

aVitat is the size of that?" " I am not a judge uf sizes, but it is a modes rately-sized gardens."

Mr. Janies Ford, who farms :2,000 acres int Petworth, stated that the new law bore very heavily upon the poor. Both he and Mr. Sockett considered that the Guattlians should have the power to admi- nister out-door relief in kind, not in motley, at their discretion. Mr. Ford, however, it would seem, spoke rather at random 1./11 tine :subject of the distress occasioned by the new system. Ile was questioned respecting the rent of cottages.

" Du you think that the preseot rent of cottages can be sustained at :2 s. a week, if no assistance is given from the pariah in the aid of rents ? " " They eaunut pay when they have large families." " Then the rent of cottages will fall? " " The effect will be, that those with large families will hare /lfl cuttayes at all."

" If wages rise, and the rent of cottages fall, that will help the labouring man ?" n The farmers have agreed to give Is. more, because wheat is oue-thirtt more than it was a mouth ago."

in And if the proprietors of cottages are unable to sustain their present rate of rents, the aid of the pour-rate being withdrawn, cottage rents must t'all in Pet-

worth ? " with large families will have to lie in the open air and in. barns ; that ig the ease witle some .1' them awe."

" That is your surmise ? " " That is nut my surmise, but the fact."

" Have any poor labouring men been ejected from their cottages, and are they now using in barns and iu the open air, no Petwin th " " lucre is one family living now in a barn." ".Mention tine name of that malt? " "I du not know that I WM."

in Do you know the particulars of that case?" " Yes, we had one through the winter belonging to our Northeru district : it was not in Petworth parish."

"As far as you know, detail to the Committee the circutustaoces of this case of the insua and his family who have been living in a barn thioughout the winter ?" " I eanuot give the 113111e of the man ; I believe there is SOIlle gen- tlemau in the room who can."

"Inc what patish was it?" " In the parish of Wishorough Green; or at least, it was a parishioner of Wisborough Green." in Is that within the Union of which your are a Guardian ?" " " Was it brought before the Board of Guardiaua ?" " It wan brought before the Board of Guardians."

"What was the decision of the Board upon it ? " "I believe the man way put into the workhouse and his family." "As WOO as it was brought to the knowledge of the Board of Guardians, he was taken into the liouse?" "The man remained in the barn far some time; it was his own option." " After he had applied to the relieving oflher, did he remain tweuty-fuur hours in the barn ?" " Ile did nut apply to the relieving officer." " As S0011 WI the case l'41111! before the Board of uatdians, Inc aud the family were removed from the barn iuto the mflkhettbe?" "16 sown as he was willing to be removed." " telief was administered the nauweut that the man wished it? Yes."

" Do you loom of any other case of poor 'jaded from t'leir euttegts lying in the open air or in barns?" " I have not Mid that they were ejerte.I from their cottages."

" But who are lying in the open air, in the parish of Petworth?" " I do toot now Mat we have any one.

"That was your conjecture of what might happen ?" " Yes." All the rest 10 metter ef conjecture as to lying In the open air ?" " I con- sider that that will be the cane:" Air. Ford gave the following evidence respecting the diet of the workhouse : it does not appear to be worse than that of common la- bourers out of the trurkhouse.

Chairman—" Have you obeerved the diet in the workhouse?" " " Do you consider it a sufficient and wholesome diet?" " It iv barely suffi- cient in the able-bodied house, though it is more now than it was."

" Can you etate what the diet is ? how often have they meat a week, for in- stance?" " The Clerk can produce the diet to the Committee; I do not know that I can from memory state it to the Committee." [The Clerk of the Board of Guardians produced the diet. Mr. Villiers—" Dn you know the contents of that diet ?" " I do not; be- fore I look at it I could not explain the diet they have at our workhouse; I Visit the house once or twice a week, but I cannot speak as to every item of diet."

Chairman—" Will you have the goodness to turn to that diet which you have in your hand, and state from that whether it appears that the able- bodied men and women have Svc ounces of cooked meat three times in each week." " Yes."

"And that each able-bodied man has sixteen ounces of bread every day? and each able-bodied woman fourteen ounces of bread every day?" " Yes; it was originally twelve, and we applied to the Commissioners and obtained sixteen."

" And besides that, each able-bodied man has a pint and a half of gruel, and each able-bodied woman the same every day." " Yes." And they have a pint and a half of broth each of them, the able-bodied men and the able-bodied women, three times a week." " Yes."

" You are a farmer are you not?" " Yes."

4' Emp'oying therefore a good many labourers ?" " Yes."

"Convereant with the diet of the labourers in your neighbourhood ?" " °imitating tiler diet with what you know to be the diet of the labourers in full employment in your neighbourhood, should you say that this diet was more or less than that which the labourer can give himself and his wife from his wages?" " Less, were he employed in the fields." " Is it the practice of the laboureie in the parish of Petwm th to have cooked meat three times a week ?" " I should wish to see my own labourers have meat every day." " But in ;mint ot fact, do they generally?' " They generally do." They have cooked meat three times a week ?" "0 They have cooked meat three times a week ; they have meat every day." " Do you know what quantity 9" " I cannot speak as to the quantity ; we consider a man is not capable of doing a fair day's work if he has not meat every day."

Mr. Chieheeter—" Du you mean bacon?" " Yes, bacon or pork; Lutcher's mat they rarely taste.

Mr. Hume—" Do you mean to state that that is the case with all the labourers in Petworth ?" " No, I do trot state that : I speak of my own labourers."

Chairman—"Is that the condition of your 1 ibourers:" " Yes, generally, with the exception cphose with jive children and upwards. According to Mr. Ford, the people ot Petworth generally had no objection to pay part of the wages of farmers' labourers out of the poor-rate. Mr. Scrope—" You are a large farmer? " " Yes, of '2,000 acres."

" Ilave you always employed a considerable number of labourers?" "Yes." " And, before the change of system, your labourers bad their wages made up out of the poor-rates as the others had .""t Nat made up." " They had cm allowance to enable them to tnaintaiu their families? " " If them had large families."

Were nut complaints mark against that custom by those who paid poor- ratee, and who did not employ labourers?" " No." " They were not in the habit of thinking, the clergyman and those who employed no Labourers, that they waisted iu maintaining your labourers?" " The clergyman was a member of our Vestry ; he was the chairman of the Vestry." There appears to have been no great cause of complaint respecting Medical relief in the Union ; but most of the witnesses say that if there were two instead of one medical officer, there would be better at- tendance on an emergency. Mr. Ford is asked- " From the result of your observation, aud from your attendance at the Board of Guardians to which the caries are naturally submitted, what is your impres- sion as to the manner in which the poor are taken care of with respect to medical relief?" " I think that they are very well taken care of in our district." " You do not think that there are any complaints of neglect or want of sufficient attendance ?" " I have heard of none, our doctor does not require an order to attend them ; any one in the parish goes to him, a man or a woman, whichever it is that has been ill, and he attends to them without any order." " Has that been objected to by the Commissioners or Assistant-Commie. sioners, or by any party ?" " Not that I am aware of." Mr. Estcourt—" Is the medical attendant bound by his contract to do so?" " No, he has never refused the order of the Overseer or a Guardian. I du not know the words of the contract, but the clerk will be able to prove that."

The case of a man who was refused medical relief was adduced, in proof of the harshness with which the law is exercised ; but it ap- peared that he was paying 41. a year for part of a good cottage, iilld earning 11s. 6d. a week, and therefore could scarcely be considered a pauper. On the subject of bastardy, Mr. Sockett said, that he did not con- sider that the law had made any difference : he wished, however, that greater facility should be given to the woman of proving paternity against the man. Mr. Ellis, Coroner for West Sussex, was asked by Mr. Harvey- " What is the number of inquests that you hold in the course of the year upon the average? " "1 should say upon the average from fifty to sixty."

" Have you at any time held any inquest upon recently born infients9" " have not since the commencement of Me new Poor-law had one instance," " hive you any reason to know that the number of bastard children is fewer since the passiog of the law ? " "1 have no reason to know one way or the other."

The operation of the law in Petworth has, according to Mr. Sockett, been aided by emigration. Chairman—" Are you connected with the emigration of the poor of Pet-

wor th ? " may say that I have bad the management of it, with the midst- Brice of two men cf business in my neighbourhood, altogether."

" Awl with the assietance of Lord Egremont ?" " Of Lord Egrernoutte purse : but I have myself, with the assistance of two parishioners of mine, does the work of the thing."

" Have you connections in Canada ?" " I have a son who is there." ." Is he at all engaged in the operations of this emigration ? " " Not in the slightest degree: be is living upon &small farm, that he purchased there. With the permission of the Committee, I will read this statement :—The item of want of employment was, in the year 1832, 1,404/. 6s. 3d. ; in the year 18.'33, 1,2281. 8s. Id. ; in the year 1834, 90131. bs. 4d. ; in the year 1835 6971. 12s. Id. ; from Itlarch 25, 1835, to December 25, 1835 (nine months).' after which the new law began to come into operation, 9201. ; the amount for the whole year, according to this rate, 4261. 138. 4d." " Will you state how many emigrants went out in the different years?" " From Petworth, in the year 1632, 49 ; I speak of the parish of Petworth solely ; from Petworth, in the year 1830, 24; in the year 1834, 4; in the ysar 1835, 14 ; in the year 1836, 16."

Mr. I3arneby—" Does this include children ? " " Yes."

Several families were removed to Manchester, and found employ. ment there at good wages ; but one man did not get employtnent, and his case was brought forward to prove that there was mismanagement on the part of the Poor-law Commissioners. The name of the man was Sopp ; and the following letter from Mr. ffluggeridge, the Emi- gration Agent at Manchester, explains his case-

". In reply to your letter of the 26th instant, I beg to state, that I cannot always ex. envie efficient control over maaufacturers selecting families for their service. The rea- son why Seim, the Petworth pauper, failed in obtaining the engagement, wits that ore family comprising seven children. bat oue had attained the legal age for full factory employment (thirteen years), such she was stated as being in sett ice. The ntaii's pre. vious uccupation, that of a soldier, was also regarded us tattier disqualifj lug than otherwise. I shonld, on the receipt of such a list, have written at once to say that it was RN Meligible family for migration ; bet, in consequence of your letter, evincing the interest yen took in the case, I tried in several quarters to obtain the parties an en- gagement ; and it was not until convinced of my inability to do so that I so wrote to the Clerk of the Guardians. It is hard that the peculiar exertions used for this family should have produced so ungracious a mention of the case in Parliament ; but, so long as we perfortn our duty to the best of our judgment sod ability, me shall the less fed illiberal constructions being put upon our conduct."

Mr. Hawley, the Assistant Commissioner, gave some further parti- culars respecting Sops and his family ; from which it is clear that Sopp was not the proper person to send to Manchester.

The following picture of the condition of the farm labourer in 1794, was given by Mr. Butt, un old farmer—

Mr. Ilarvey—" Were you personally occupied in farming pursuits in and befote the year 1794 ? " " Yes, all my lifetime ; I have never been out of it." " From your recollection, can you state what was the condition of the la- bouring poor at that peeiod ?" " Why, yes, very plainly. ltly father was a. farmer, and I was always with them ; when I was young, I used to have my meals with them ; and the people of the house used to have their fat pork, end such things, to live upon in the house." " Was it the practice of the farmer at that time to have his labourers in the farm- house?" " They used to come in at their meal time, at dinner-time, and bring their bit 4/I pork in their hand ; I never saw theca without at that time, and sit down by the fire and take their small beer." " Were some of them resident in the house; lodging in the farm-house?" "As servants."

" And the farming men used to come into the !rouse to tarka their meals?" " Yes, the common labourers." " Anil it is in your recollection, that each labourer hail his bread and meat?" " I nes en' saw them at dinner without at that time."

" Hail he at that time any beer allowed him ? " " He always had some beer, always his small beer."

" Was that beer allowed him by the farmer ?" " Always, Sir." " Then, at the time you are speaking of, the farming man had plenty of bread, always some meat and beer allowed him by his master ?" " Always." Mr. Robert Gordon—" Winter and summer ? " " Always; he used to come in by the fire-aide." Mr. Miles—" And their meat they brought themselves?" " Yes; and went to the farmer's tap for their small beer." Mr. Harvey—" Was the pork with which each labourer was provided with

his own feeding? " " His own feeding ; every labourer at that time had a pig.. " What was the ordinary rent paid for a cottage?" "As far as my know- ledge went with the people •I know, from 40s. to 50s. : 428. was a common eat for a cottage with a garden."

" Where did the cottager obtain his fuel?" " He used generally to go to the common where there was turf, and get a thousaud turf for half-a.guinea, or something of that sort of thing." " Had the cottager at that time the run of the common for his cow or for his pigs, which he does not now enjoy ?" " For his pig, not for his cow. I Ever knew the cottager keep a cow ; for his pig. His fuel used to be brought home without any expeese to him : we never thought of charging the labourer for that." " What was the average rate of wages paid to the labourer at that time ?" " Seven shillings a week : that was before the French Revolution."

As a contrast ta the above, take the evidence of Edward Pullen, • labourer, with ten children and lie. 6d. wages, in Sussex, in 1837.

Mr. Harvey—" Before the present Poor-law, what was the amount of wages you received ; how much a week ?" " I think it was 10s. ; I am not certain."

" What was the greatest weekly allowance that you had from the parish at that tune?" I cannot say justly, but somewhere about 48. or 5s. a. week."

" Teen at that there, from wages and parish assistance, you received 15s. ?"

" Yes." " And all that you now receive is lie. 6d. ?" " Yes."

" Did none of your children earn any thing before the Poor-law ? " " Noe

they are not big enough." " You state that you have three children in the Union workhouse?"

" Yes."

" Are they all boys?" '4 No; two boys and a girl."

" !lave you ricers them since they have been there?" " Yes, several time." " Are the boys separated from the sister? " "

" In separate apartments? " " Yes."

Sir James Graham—" Are they kindly treated in thie workhouse?" "I am very well satietied with them in the workhouse. I know they are done for bettes there than 1 can du for them." "You have no complaint to make of the treatment they receive?" " Not

At ..a'llAnecording to the eite of your garden, is your hou-e and garden dearer than the hems and gardens of the other labourers at Petworth " "No, about the

bailie thing." " That, at the present moment, you think is about the ordinary rate o! bouee.rent paid by the poor labourers at Petwotth ?"

Mr. Harvey—"The rent which you pay by " Yes, 1 consider It so.

3s. fid. ?" " Yes." the week is something wore this

a Mr Hit 110 you pay weekly for Sour and Meal ? " mute a bushel of eau, *week, which costs me 9s. ed., and throe pennyworth of yeast, which costs me 9s. 7d." Sir Thomas Fremantle--" Year boy is out at service ? " "Yes; I am obliged to find clothes for him." Mr. flarvev—" Is the total amount of your wages II:. 6d. ?" " Yes." " Out of which you have to supply yourself, your wife, and six children?" st Yes."

"Out of which you pay 9s. 7d. for flour and yeast, leaving lc lid. ; -which ie all the money you have wherewith to purchase cheese, butter, sugar, les, feel, beer, candles, clothes, and to pay your rent ?" " That is all I have." "That heilig the case, do you find that you and your family have as much food for your eating and drink as is requisite for your comfort?' " No." a M. you think that you would be stronger, and be able to work better, if you hot more food?" " I should be a great deal better." Sir 1110M111 Fremantle—" What do you think v can earn in the course of the vear, in addition to your weekly ,wages, by the harvest and hay-work and barking?" " I cannot say exactly. ' Mr. Scrope—. Is it so much as W.?" " I do not think it comes to that." Sir TI llllll as Fremantle—" Do you pay your rent with that?" " Yes, when I can get it."

" What do your shoes cost you?" " Four pounds .fifteen shillings the last year for me and my family." "How have you contrived to pay it ?" " I have not paid it." " Are you in arrear for your rent?" " My rent is paid." a HOW 1141 you contrive to pay your rent and your shoe bill before the new law came i uto operation ?" "I hail the assistance of the pat ish." • How much did you receive from the parish?" " About Ss. a week, or 4s. 6d."

Mr. Ilutne—" How many children were taken from you, for which you re- *elver! that allowance?" " Three."

' Then you have the maintenance of those three less ; the difference is 3s. ?" "Yes; but before that I had not so many children as I have now ; my wife has had two since that, and now those are taken from me, that does not make more than one difference."

Mr. Serape—" Are you in pretty good health?" "Yes, but I am weak." "Are you in as good health generally as when you were a young man?" " Yea."

"Is your family in good health ?" "No, they are very sickly."

"Since this complaint has been very prevalent?" "Yes; my wife is very ill. I have been obliged to keep a woman for her these six weeks." Sir 'f. Frernantle—" Have you had relief? " 4. Yes ; I went to the doctor,

and he came to see her."

"Did you apply to the relieving officer ?" "No." "Do you undetstaud that the parish is to pay him ? " " Yes ; I understand