Now I would refer to the unwarrantable attacks made upon me, and “the readings” in the columns of “The Marylebone Mercury” and “The Bayswater Chronicle.” I am an ardent advocate for the liberty of the press; but I think all will agree with me that as the press have undoubted power, they should be careful how that power is used in giving currency to personal attacks and _exparte_ statements; when this is done, they should at least give the attacked party an opportunity of replying to the accusations;—this has not been done in my case. My letters addressed to the Editors of both journals, containing denials to unfounded statements and inaccurate reports, have been suppressed in many cases; while in others disjointed and useless extracts have been made from them. I would appeal to you, is this justice? You will, I am sure, say “No!” “The Marylebone Mercury” has been extremely bitter and unjust in its criticism. I think it a disgrace that any journal having the Flag of Freedom hanging over its head, should insert petty, and of course anonymous attacks at the instance of any one who advertises largely in their columns; but in the Mercury, (or more appropriately speaking, “Múckery”), Editorial Office Justice is most decidedly blind. As to “The Bayswater Chronicle,” Bacchus and prejudice seem to be the presiding Gods—it has been of late a repertoire of unwarrantable attacks and false reports, such as it is plainly perceptible emanate from a malicious pen. It may not be out of the place to state that the Editor of “The Bayswater Chronicle”—a Mr. Myers (?)—came to our meeting one evening in a state of intoxication, having, as his friend informed us, been tasting wine at the Docks. After vainly endeavouring to disturb the meeting, the gentleman (?) conducted himself in a most abominable and disgusting manner—so much so, that appeals were made to me from all parts of the Hall to expel him; but being unwilling to do so, I allowed him to remain; however, the audience violently expelled him by sundry kicks and a good bonnetting; this may be sufficient to account for the bitter spirit in which “Mr. Editor” discharges that which he has the audacity to term a public duty. Comparisons have been drawn between the meetings of our Institution, and those of a similar character, which it is asserted not only pay their own expenses, but yield a surplus for charity; but it must be borne in mind that our meetings are very superior to any of the same class, and that we have to pay for the hire of halls, for hirage of pianos, and occasionally for artistes, while the majority of other Readings have their rooms and pianos lent to them; these items, though not very great, materially increase the expenditure; but for all this, I feel justified in stating that had it not have been for the malicious intervention of “the clique,” “the Readings” would have been almost self-supporting.