Having given you a brief, and I trust a satisfactory account of our proceedings, I feel it incumbent upon me to comment upon the statements referred to in the former part of this address. The first subject of comment will be the circular _purporting_ to be issued by Lord Lichfield; the second, the case of Oetzmann _versus_ The Marylebone Penny Readings; and thirdly, the scandalous and unfounded reports of the Local Journals. The circular referred to was that issued by Mr. C. J. Ribton Turner (?), and purporting to be signed by Lichfield, Hodgson Pratt, J. W. Probyn, H. N. Hoare, Auberon Herbert, and Julian Goldsmid, who state that they have withdrawn their names from the Patron List of “The Marylebone Penny Readings” owing to reports which have appeared in “The Marylebone Mercury” of proceedings taken against the Hon. Conductor in the Bloomsbury County Court; and that “we beg further to state that though Mr. Taylor was requested by Lord Lichfield on the 3rd inst., (March), to furnish a statement of his receipts and expenditure, he has not, up to the present time, thought fit to comply with the invitation.” Whether in issuing this circular Mr. C. J. Ribton Turner has been authorised to use the names appended to it, I cannot say; but this I can truly affirm,—that the said circular is a tissue of misrepresentations. In the first place, I was _never_ requested by Lord Lichfield to furnish any account whatever. The facts of the case are these:—On Tuesday, March 1st., the Right Hon. the Earl of Lichfield (with authority) was announced to preside at our usual weekly meeting; his Lordship came to the meeting, (I am informed accompanied by Thomas Oetzmann and others, this being previously arranged); his Lordship informed the audience that he had never given his consent to preside at the meeting, and expressed his dissatisfaction at the course Mr. Taylor had taken regarding the payment of the account of Thomas Oetzmann, trading as Thomas Oetzmann & Company (?). With all due respect to his Lordship, I am assured that he gave his consent to preside; and it may be desirable to mention, that on the Thursday previous to the meeting, I sent a note reminding him of his promise; and on the following Monday I sent a programme of the meeting. If his Lordship had not promised to preside, why did he not send an intimation? On the 2nd March I addressed a letter to his Lordship apologizing for the mistake, _if_ on our part, and asking whether I should retain his Lordship on the Patron List, and adding that I should be pleased to furnish him with a statement of receipts and expenditure. I trusted that his Lordship would not be guided by _exparte_ statements. On the 4th his Lordship replied, stating that he must decline to remain on the Patron List, but would be willing to give any statement that might be forwarded his impartial consideration. I was prevented by ill health from sending the account before the 20th. On the 23rd his Lordship