The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-19 00:00:00

I could find a cartload of rhetorical rubbish of this
character. (Cheers,) During all these years these
very statesmen having been using such language as
this, and their newspapers have been reviling espe-
cially Alr. Cobden and myself for holding different
views ; but now I find that Parliammt by a unani-

mous vote has discarded, overthrown, and sent the

whole thing—lie and superstition—to that recep-

tacle to which all lies and superstitions must ulti-
mately go. (Cheers.) I think that Lords Pal-
merston and Russell, in their mature age, must feel
that they have either been greatly deceived them-
selves, or that they have done much to deceive
their countrymen, and I hope they will learn from
this lesson that it does not always happen that

men are great statesmen because they fill great
offices. (Cheers.) If Denmark was allowed to
be dismembered, I do not see how other countries
are to be protected, although I agree with
my hon. friend that this country has other
_ _ . .

than commercial interests, and that it is a mean
thing to do—as lam sorry to say our Government
has often done—to count the exact cost and value
of an island before it went to war or determined to

maintain peace. My own opinion is, that taking
the events of the last few years, the war in Italy
and Denmark, in which we took no part, coupled
with the debate of last session and the great division

which took place on this question—l think that I
am not much mistaken in pronouncing the theory
_ _ _

of the balance of power to be pretty nearly dead, if
it is not quite dead and buried. (Cheers.) It is
impossible to enumerate the sufferings which this
theory has entailed on this country. It rises up, as
I think, upon it as a ghastly phantom which during

the last 170 years, during which its worship has

prevailed in this country, has loaded the nation with
_ _

debt and taxes. It has sacrificed the lives of hun•

dreds of thousands of Englishmen. It has desolated

the homes of millions of families, and it has left us.

as the result of the profligate expenditure which it
has cost us, a double peerage at one end of the social
scale, and far more than a double pauperism at the
other. (Cheers.) We may now rejoice that this
foul idol—fouler than any heathen ever worshipped

—has at last been kicked out, and that one super

stition the less has hold of the minds of English

statesmen and the English people. If this is true,
my hon friend need not have so carefully guarded
his observations with respect to the diminution of
armaments, for the nation has determined not to send
.armies to the Continent or fleets to blockade ports
and people with whom we have no concern. And at
a time when the American colonies are about to unite

themselves into a great confederation in friendly
alliance with ourselves--when the Australian colonies

are so powerful that nobody dare molest them—
when the people of these -islands are better fed, as
I believe they have been for the last five years, and
are more loyal to the Crown and the institutions of
the country,—there is no necessity to maintain an
annual military expenditure which is double that
which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel thought necessary 25 years ago. If we are not
next session to have the question of Denmark, nor
the question of Italy, nor the question of America,
what is it that we are to discuss ? It is quite clear
to me, at least, that, whether we have more disposi-
tion or not, we shall have a good deal more time to
discuss matters of home affairs. What is the ques-

tion which at Torquay, where a number of noble
men and gentlemen enjoyed a good dinner and
made some very foolish speeches, Lord Devon,
copying the language of his leader, Mr. Disraeli, said
was looming in the not distant future ? What is
that question which will not go to sleep ? Let me
remind you of this, that really great questions which
affect the true and lasting interests of millions of
men can never be laid fast asleep, but that somehow
or other they come up again. There is a striking
example of this in what is now taking place in the
United States. For 30 years past the statesmen of
the United States have voted the negro to be a very
great nuisance. They would not talk about him,
and they swore each other to silence. The negro's
business was to grow rice, sugar, and cotton, and
not to give trouble to Congress ; so they determined
to bury that question, and they congratulated them-
selves that it was buried. But now you see the North
and the South engaged in deadly conflict, and the
negro standing before the world rubbing the marks
of the branding iron from his forehead, whilst the
shackles which have so long oppressed him are drop-
ping from his limbs, and he is every day becoming
more and more a free man. (Cheers.) So here there
is a question that will not be put to sleep. It is the
question of the admission of the people of this coun-
try to the rights which are guaranteed by every
principle, by everything which is comprehended in
the Constitution of this United Kingdom. Iu 1861,
as my hon. friend has decribed to you, this general
question of Parliamentary Reform was voted a nui-
sance. It was betrayed, it was slain, and, as they
thought, it was buried. It has been said that when a
measure of this kind has been submitted to Parlia-
ment, the ministers by whom it is submitted ought to
stand or fall by that measure. Earl Grey made the
declaration, and said that it was their business and
duty to bring in another bill if that before Parlia-
ment should be rejected, and that it would not be
less efficient than the measure then under discussion.
(Cheers.) There is not a man who was in the
House of Commons-.in 1860, there is not a man in
the present Cabinet who does not know that if Lord
Palmerston had said that, on one evening in that
year, the bill would have passed through the House
of Commons without one single effective hostile
discussion—(cheers)—and I have heard it from au-
thority which cannot err on that question, that the
sagacious leaders in the House of Lords had re-
solved that if the bill came from the House of Com-
mons they would not take upon themselves the re-
sponsibility of rejecting it. (Cheers.) But that
bill and that question are not dead ; it takes shape
again, and somehow or other the Tories and those
Whigs, who are like Tories--(laughter)—entertain
uncomfortable feelings, which approach almost to a
shiver. (Cheers and laughter.) Now what is this
apparition that alarms them ? They are afraid of
the five or six millions of grown-up Englishmen,
men who are allowed to marry, to keep house, to
rear children ; men who are expected to earn their
living, to pay taxes, who must obey the laws, who
must be citizens in all honourable conduct—they are
afraid of these five or six millions who by the pre-
sent system of representation are shut out—and
insultingly shut out—from the exercise of the fran-
chise. (Cheers.) We are proud of our 'country,
and there are many things of which we have a right
to be proud. We may be proud that England is the
ancient country of Parliaments. With scarcely an
intervening period, Parliaments have met constantly
for six hundred years ; and there was something of
a Parliament before the Conquest. England is the
mother of Parliaments. I ask you, men of Bir-
raingham, who are a fair representation of the great
mbe thus treated inags of the five or six millions, why you should
You know
slave lands in England.
your own land ? (Cheers.)
our boast of what occurs when a negro
One of our best poets says
that—

"If their lungs but breathe our air,
That moment they are free."
(Cheers.) They touch our country and their
shackles fall. But what is the case with respect to
an Englishman ? An Englishman, if he goes to the
Cape, can vote ; if he goes to Australia he can vote ;
if he goes to the Canadian Confederation, or to our
grandest colonies, he can vote. It is only in his own
soil, where he was born, the
country, on his own
very soil which he has enriched with his labour and
the sweat of his brow, that he is denied this right
which in every community of Englishmen in the
world would be freely accorded t)
and prolonged cheering.)agree very
(Cheers,
I much with
the gentlemen at the Torquay dinner as to the
apparition which alarmed, but
dis-
turb, iheir formidable and robust I hope did not
ust
digestion. (Laugh-
ter-) This apparition is not a pleasant one ; this
state of things is dangerous, and one which cannot
perpetually last. It may happen that the eyes of
the five or six millions all over the kingdom may.be
fixed with an intense glare on the doors of Parlia-
ment. It was BO in the years 1831 and 1832. There
are men in this room who felt then, and who know
now, that it required but one spark to the train and
this country would have been in the throes of a re-
volution ; and these men who are so alarmed at the
proposition to give a £lO vote for counties and a
Z 6 vote for boroughs would haqe repented in sack-

cloth and ashes if they had given a vote against Earl
Grey's Reform Bill. Accidents are always happen-
ing, not only to individuals, but to nations. It
was the accident of the French ReVolution in 1830
that precipitated the great movement in this coun-
try. There may be accidents again, and I don't
hold that to be statesmanlike which allows the se-
curity, the tranquillity, the loyalty of a people to be
disturbed by any accident over which they have no
control. (Cheers.) If these five or six millions of
people once unitedly fix their eyes with an intense
look upon the doors of the House of Commons, I
ask who shall say them nay ? (Cheers.) Not the
mace upon the table of the House—not the 400 easy
gentlemen who lounge in and out of that decorated
chamber under the same roof—(laughter)—not a
dozen gentlemen who call themselves statesmen, and
who dose in Downing-street, not even a power ap-
palling and more menacing that have their lodge-
ment higher up Whitehall. I say that, as opinion
now stands, there is no power in this country that
can say nay for one single week to the five or six
millions if they are intent on making their way
within the walls of Parliament. (Cheers.) This is
the apparition which frightened the gentlemen at
Torquay ; but it also gives trouble in other quarters
to which I would pay more respect. It is evident,
from the pamphlets and letters which are written,
and the speeches which are made, that every one
who does not want Reform says that nobody wants
Reform, and that people do not like it to be talked
about. And yet they begin and make this subject
the chief staple of their speeches. (Laughter.) Mr.
Charles Buxton, a very amiable person, but I should
be loth to affirm that he is a robust politician—
(laughter)—puts forward a scheme, the effect of
which would be that two of your townsmen would
poll at the next election, one of whom might vote
for Scholefield and myself, whilst the other :would
give two votes to each of the candidates whom he
might prefer ; the only justification for such a course
being that this one lived in a house rated at morethan
£lO a year, whilst the other lived in a house under
that sum. Mr. Buxton has found that nobody was
in favour of his scheme, and as I understand he has
withdrawn it ; and I hope he will keep it in the dark
until it is asked for. The other person to whom I
alluded is amember of the House of Lords, son of that
Earl Grey to whom I have referred. He isan eminent
and very capable man ; anything that he says de-
serves every consideration. I have a very great re-
spect for Earl Grey for two especial reasons. I heard
him as Lord:Howick in the House of Commons
make a speech against the corn laws, in which he quoted a
grand and solemn passage of Scripture against that atrocious
system, on which the Protectionists said that it was very
vulgar to quote Scripture on such a subject. Earl Grey
again made a great speech in the House of Lords against the
Russian war, which showed not only great moral courage,
but also, in my view, great intelligence and patriotism.
Therefore I come to the consideration of anything Earl Grey
proposes with most favourable feelings towards him. He
has undertaken to reconcile, with something like justice, the
people to the existing supremacy of his order. It is not pos-
sible to attempt great political change without some disturb-
ance. The object is to change something. The bill of 1832
disturbed the borough-mongers in a remarkable degree, and
the repeal of the corn laws disturbed landowners and far-
mers, whilst it did them nearly as much good as it did the
people. I don't care a bit about political changes because
they may make some disturbance ; that is precisely what
we want. What do you think Earl Grey proposed ? I wish
you to see what one of the most accute minds in the coun-
try can suggest in opposition to the simple measures to
which my hen. friend has alluded. He proposed to adopt a
plan of cumulative votes; so that if there were two mem-
bers, each elector could give his voteifor either candidate.
Now the result -f this in Birmingham would bc, that if Mr.
Acland had a body of 3,500 supporters who would stick close
together, they could give him 7,000 votes ; whereas if Mr.
Scholefield and myself had 6,500 supporters, and were in
equal favour with them,:we should have 6,500 votes apiece;
and if Mr. Scholefield had one morevote than me, 1 should
lose my seat, and Mr. Acland would have a large majority
over both of us. I have heard of a race between donkeys,
n which the last won—(cheers)—and in this case it would
be the slowest animal that would bear away the prize.
(Cheers.) Earl Grey also proposed to create more univer-
sity or similar constituencies ; but I don't think that for the
last 70 years any university would have taken either his
father or himself as their member. He also proposed that
the professions should return members, not as citizens, but
as lawyers and doctors. Now, I have had the misfortune
to fall into the hands of the lawyers, and nothing can be
more costly or more painful, except to fall into the hands
of the doctors. I have a great respect for them in their
professional capacity, but I object to placing political power
in theirhands because they are lawyers or doctors. I know
nothing like it, except the advice of old Mr. Weller, who
recommended his son to consult a friend of his on a matter
of law because he was a good judge of a horse. Earl Grey
proposed that a certain number of eminent men should be
nominated by the House of Commons to permanent seats ;
and he also proposed that others should be elected by cer-
tain trades, enough to speak, but not enough to rely on to
influence the divisions. I had always thought it was the
duty of a statesman not to separate classes, but to unite
them into one body, equally treated by the law and equally
loyal to the Government and their country. Beyond these
Earl Grey proposed some things that were right. He
would extend the suffrage, and abolish many, if not all, the
small boroughs. But, having made these concessions, he
takes care to neutralise them in the way that I have just de-
scribed. I warn you again to look with great suspicion on
all fancy propositions. The question is a plain and simple
one, and if any man comes before you with a complex and
involved scheme difficult to understand, take note of it that
he does not offer you valid coin in payment of your claims,
with the impress of the English constitution upon it, but he
offers you either flash notes or coin of an inferior workman-
ship. (Cheers.) I am charged, as you know, with having too
little reverence for the authorities of this country. Some
have even dared in the public newspapers to charge me
with disloyalty to the head of the Executive of this country,
but there is one disloyalty which I hold to be worse than
this, worse than turning back on the Crown and on the
peerage, and that is disloyalty to freedom and the people.
If representation be not an art—and who in this country
shall say that is ?—what is the use of all these tricks not
to complete representation, but to evade and escape it ?
(Cheers.) What is the representation which we consider
the foundation of liberty ? If all the five or six millions
were assembled on Salisbury Plain to decide a public ques-
Sion, the body would be too large for business, and chaos
would come. It has, therefore, been resolved that people
in different localities shall send men to meet at a certain
time and place, and to act honourably in the face of God
and the country on behalf of the true and solid interests of
the nation. But if you decided a question on Salisbury
Plain, the majority must carry the day ; and if you split
the nation up into constituencies, the majority must carry
the day. (Cheers.) There is a great fear of majorities
amongst certain people. Why, what is a majority in Bir-
mingham ? It holds one opinion, and we are supposed to
represent it. The majority in Liverpool holds a different
opinion, and sends one man' who agrees with it, and one
who always contradicts him. (Liughter.) Surely the
minority of Birmingham is represented in a certain sense
by the majority, of Liverpool ; and taking one district with
another, if there be an opinion that Is held by any consti-
tuency it has a representative somewhere, who can speak
in its behalf. (Cheers.) But surely no one would ask that
minorities should send members to say " no" when the
majority send members to say "aye." What is this fear of
the people ? In Australia the franchise is lower than it is
in this country ; but still the Government legislates in ac-
cordance with the wishes of the people. Take the case of
our North American colonies. They are going to form a con-
federation under the authority of an act of Parliament. Mr.
Brown, one of the most eminent of the Canadian Ministers
states the proposition to be, that the duration of their Par-
liament will probably be limited to five years—that it will
be composed of a legislative Council appointed by the Go-
vernment of the day, and a House of Commons in which
they are to obtain, what' they desire to obtain, representa-
tion on the basis of population. Therefore the Parliament
is going to pass a bill with regard to our British American
provinces which those gentlemen say would be wholly de-
structive if applied to this country. (Cheers.) In the State
of New York alone 700,000 men voted at the last Presiden-
tial election, and throughout the whole of the Free States
not less than 4,000,000 of votes were given with the most
perfect order and tranquility. Our opponents may say, look
at the legislative results of thiswide extent of the franchise.
I amready to test it by those results, and I say, whether you
go to South Africa, to Australia, to the British North Ame-
rican Provinces, or the States of the Union(excluding those
States where slavery injures the state of society), you will
find that life and property are as secure—that education is
with
tghoaosd
great
provisionoat
junstt--hothseatcotaunxetris
easreariemapos
equality—that
ate s
rfa
roetrdhe
otetltn
ahfl
heeT.ei
rroet;s
ogocotumhpeamrleyeeeeiltsarohltrsifs
ne.o)tuaghsftli
srhi
oa
ft
ourt h e laws are
much more extended among the people—that there is quite
ass imposed
country
andn
alllevied .
country-
men
fdna:f3if
oyawuoi
rmhucolt s
t
aas
n ercmerciful
establishedand
every•
ill
tellc
theyu m
ms theaas ofenineehtslaeetnf
et
hel behindi fe eu peoplet
in-
stitutions, and it comes out that "our institutions" are
Church and State. Now a man must be a blockhead be-
yond all power of argument to suppose that in this great
community the ministers of our free churches and of the
Dissenting sects would be less thought of than they are
at present if their fears should be realised. What they fear
is this—they seem to have a notion that some institutions
which have come down from mediaeval ages, from what
some peoP • le call the dark ages, may not permanently har-
onise with the intelligence and necessities of the 19th
mcentury in'which we live. Our institutions are safe enough
if the Government be in the hands of the institutions; and

'if the peerage of the Established Church are to rule in Eng-
land, I feel sure the peerage and the Established Church in
their present condition will be permanently safe. (Cheers.)
And se I may say of patronage. If it isto be dispensed per-
petually amongst .the ruling classes, they :will take care of
the patrotiage. Many men look upon patronage as a holy
and untouchable thing. Hosea Bigelow says—
" It's something a fulfilling the prophecies,

When all toe first families are in all the best offices."
(Loud laughter and cheers.) But I protest against the
theory that the people of this country have an unreason-
able desire to shake or overturn institutions which they

may not theoretically approve of. Do these parties know
what they admit by the expression of this fear. lam also
told that the people like the House of Lords very much. I

have never thought it worth while to contradict this,forl

am content to live undex the institutions which the intel-

ligence, the virtue, and the exPerience of my countrymen,
partly represented in Parliament, have determined upon. I

have been told that when the present Government was
formed I was to have been asked to take office with my
friends Mr. Cobden and Mr. Milner Gibson. Mr. Cobden

was then in America, and although they do not like him

better than they do me—l suspect they disliked him rather
less—he did not accept the offer, for reasons which were
then made public, and for reasons given to me which came
from Lord Palmerston, too, I suppose to be communicated
to me, that I had delivered opinions with regard to the in-

stitutions of the country which the majority of English-

men deemed essential, and this made it impossible for
him, although he personally had no objection, to offer me a
seat in his Government. I had attended meetings here, at

Glasgow, at Edinburgh, at Manchester, at Bradford, and
the largest towns. Now, as all these places could not con-
tain one half of those who wished to hear something said

on the question which I was then discussing, and the
speeches then made were supposed to be tinged with less
reverence for the institutions of England than some people

thought proper, I was not thought fit to be your represen-
tative, and although thousands of people applauded those
speeches, I was not thought fit to be a member of her Ma-
jesty's Government. Is it true that the people are against
the Church ? Do they fail to hear with respect any one

who acts as a Christian minister ? If it is the Church of.

the poor man, it is the poor man who ought to know it ;
and can you imagine that the people acting through their
representatives would do anything with regard to that
Church which would damage its utility as a Christian in-
stitution, or make it less honoured or less influential in the
spread of Christianity amongst the people of these islands?
Why are they so afraid of the people if there should be a
million more electors--and I believe that the last bill only

proposed to admit half a million ? Is there any single inte-
rest which deserves the slightest consideration which a

million electors joined with the present million would com-
bine in Parliament to repeal and destroy ? I take it that
the Crown, the most venerable of the institutions, is not
opposed to the admission of this million ; for on two occa-
sions the Queen has signified to Parliament her consent to
it. I believe that the people are grossly slandered, fox since

- _
the power of the Crown was limited 200 years ago, and since
the power of the nobles was limited 30 years ago, good go-
vernment has gained greatly, and the people in all circum-
stances are better off ; and I am quite sure that their re-

spect for the Crown is more general by far than it was be-
fore. But our constitution involves a representation of the
people ; and in asking for this reform we stand upon a
foundation from which no argument and sophistry can ever
remove us. The House of Commons is in reality the only

guarantee we have for freedom. If you looked at any other
country and saw nothing but a monarch—he might be a
good king, and might do his best, but you would say,
" There is no guarantee for freedom," because you know
not who would be lits successor. If you saw a country
with no crown, but with a handful of nobles administering

the government of the country, you would say, " There
was no guarantee there for freedom, because a number of
nobles acting together have not the responsibility and the
feeling of responsibility which one man has, and they will
do things which one man would not dare do." If there be
a man here who feels himself and his prejudices rise up
against the statements I am making, at least he will
admit that the real and only permanent foundation for
political freedom in any country is the establish-
ment and maintenance of the system of representation in
your Houses of Parliament. At that dinner at Torquay a
nobleman presided whom I had the pleasure of knowing a
little when he was a member of the House of Commons, and
another nobleman whom I have also known made the prin-
cipal speech. Now, what do you think they did ? They had
a number of toasts, which is a thing I do not much recom-
mend, because they do not generally drink them in cold
water, and first after what are called the ceremonial toasts,
they proposed the toast of the House of Lords ; and then, after
a long speech from Lord Devon, what did they propose
next ? not the House of Commons, but " The Conservative
party in the House of Commons." (Laughter.) They did
not propose the Conservative party in the House of Lords ;
perhaps they thought the whole House of Lords were of
the Conservative party, or else they thought the Liberal
party in the House of Commons were not worth remember-
ing except to wish that it did not exist. (Laughter.) These
gentlemen do not comprehend our Constitution at all. They
do not know, apparently, that it is only because there is
something which the people still believed to beain some de-
gree a representative body, and which stands between them
and monarchical or aristocratic despotism—it is only the ex-
istence of that house which makes the institution they aro so
fond of safe and permanent at all, and they are afraid that
the five millions should somehow or other get into it ; and
I beg leave to tell them that five millions will get into it.
They may not get in all at once, and perhaps few men de-
sire they should, for I am opposed myself to great and vio-
lent changes, which create needless shocks, and which are
accepted, if they are accepted at all, with great alarm ; but
I will undertake to say that a considerable and effective por-
tion of that five millions will, before many years are past,
be freely allowed to vote for members of the House of Com-
mons. (Cheers.) It is not democracy, which these gentle-
men are always afraid of, that is the peril of this country—
it was not democracy, in 1832, that was the peril—it was
the desperate antagonism of the class that then had power,
to the just claims and rights of the people—(cheers)—and
at this moment when they dine and when I speak, I tell
them that Conservatism—they give it that name, but it is
worthy of a very different name—Conservatism, be it
Toryism Whiggism,(Luod is the true national peril which we
have cheers.) They may dam the stream
to m
fa o
or. o
—they may keep back the waters, but the volume is ever
increasing, and it descends with an accelerated force ; and
the time will come when in all probability, and to a cer-
tainty if wisdom does not take the place of folly, the waters
will burst thir banks, and these men who fancy they are
stemming this imaginary apparition of democracy will
themselves be swept away by the resolute will of a united
and determined people. (Great cheering.) Cast your eye
over the face of Europe—there are only two considerable
States that have not any representative institutions—Tur-
' key and Russia—and Russia is making progress in freedom
equal to the powers of any other State in Europe. Repre-
sentation is found in Italy, in Austria even, in almost all
the German States, in the Northern States, in Belgium,
Holland, France, Portugal, and Spain ; it is also a firmly
settled institution in Australia. Englishmen everywhere
but at home are received into the bosom of this great, per-
manent, undying constitution and safeguard for human and
national freedom. But here they are slandered, they are
insulted, they are reviled, they are shut out, they are invited
to have a hundred ways of amusing themselves ; but if they
stand at the House of Commons or at the poll, and see their
richer brethren go up to vote, they are not allowed to register
their names in favour of principles for which their fathers
before them and themselves have sighed in many bitter hour
of disappointment. (Loud cheers.) I would change all this.
I speak out of no hostility to any class or to any institution.
That man who proposes to exclude permanently five millions
of his fellow-countrymen from the right which the consti-
tution of his country makes sacred in his eyes—l say that
is the man who separates England into two nations, and
makes it impossible we should be wholly and permanently
a contented people. (Loud cheers.) I demand this, then,
which is but the right of the Constitution, that the House
of Commons shall be made freely and fairly to represent the
commons and the people of the United Kingdom. England
has long been famous for the enjoyment of personal free-
dom by her people ; they are free to think, they are free to
speak, they are free to write ; and England has been famed
of late years, and is famed now the world over for the free-
dom of her industry, and the greatness and the freedom of
her commerce. I want to know why it is that our people
should not be free. (Cheers.) Who is that will meet me on
this platform, or who will stand on any platform, and will
dare to say to an open meeting of his fellow-countrymen
that these millions for whom I am now pleading are too ig-
norant, or vicious, or destructive to be entrusted with the
elective franchise ? I, at least, will never thus slander my
countrymen. I claim for them the right of admission,
through their representatives, into the ancient and vener-
able Parliament which at this hour exists amongst men ;
and when they are thus admitted, and not till then, it may
be truly said that England, the august mother of free na-
tions, herself is free.
The hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst loud and
enthusiastic cheers.
Mr. Alderman THOMAS LLOYD then moved the following
resolution :—" That the best thanks of this meeting are due
and are hereby given to Messrs. Scholefield and Bright for
their addresses ; and this meeting also desires to express its
unabated confidence in them as their Parliamentary repre-
sentatives of the borough."
The motion was seconded by Mr. J. S. WRIGHT, and
carried unanimously. •
The meeting then separated. -
an

CRYSTAL PALACE.—ONE SHILLING DAY, Wed-
nesday.—Admissions on payment, 1,677 ; ditto by season
tickets, 1,192. Total visitors, 2,869.

[ADVERTlSEMENT.]—Holloway'sPills.—Enfeebled Exist-
ence.—This medicine embraces every attribute required in
a general and domestic remedy—it overturns the founda-
tions of disease laid by indigestible food and impure air.
In obstructions, congestions of the liver, lungs, bowels, or
any other organ, these pills are especially serviceable, and
eminently successful. They should be kept in every family,
as they are a medicine without a fault for young persons
and those of feeble constitutions. They never cause pain
or irritate the most delicate nerves, or most tender bowels.
Holloway's Pills are the best known purifiers of the blood,
and the best promoters of absorption and secretion from
both solids and fluids.