ing to make any personal sacrifice to secure such object." The Marquis then stated that the substance of his reply was, "that he was afraid any attempt to unite the bodies at present would be more likely to prevent than to produce so desirable an object; that he did not wish the other party to make any concession, for if it was a concession on one part, it must be so on both. That he had suggested that the first step should be taken by them, because they held their meeting first, and would thus have the first opportunity: that besides. Lord Albert was president of his section, while he (Lord Northampton) was only the local president elect of the other. That he did not intend that either party should abandon their claim to be the association, but that they should simply for mutual convenience each give up part of their common name." The Marquis added, I did not succeed, but my feelings still remain the same, and the Central Committee, to whom I have submitted the question, agree with me. We do not call upon you to make any concession to the other party, but to look to the public convenience; that public who have so generously supported us on the present occasion, and who have a right to say, "Why put us to this inconvenience? Why make matters personal that ought not to be personal? Why talk of the Way party and the Wright party?" We are now strong. We can stand upon our own ground. We can say to Lord Albert, "You are the minority, the name is of no consequence to us, you may have it." We are seven hundred. Under these circumstances I deny that we are making any concession, and if we were, we could afford to make it. We do not say we are not in the right, for I believe we are. We were right in not consenting to the violent measures taken at the time. Our opponents always avoid the real question at issue. Lord Albert Conyngham resigned the presidency, and this put us into a difficulty. There are times when it is necessary for public bodies to use violent means, but they should always avoid being more violent than is absolutely necessary. Now, in this case, admitting, for the sake of argument, that there was a grievance to be redressed, all that could be necessary was that the general committee should be called upon to summon a general meeting of the members. Instead of this, a meeting was called by the Treasurer, at which about 150 out of 1,700 or 1,800 members attended. No notice was given that the minority intended to turn out the majority of the committee; but an intimation rather to the contrary. What right then had they to turn them out? What power had they to do so? None. But we had a right to say we would not abide by the decision of such a meeting; and it should also be observed,—the meeting took place before Easter—at a time when very few of the members of the Association were in London. A meeting so called had no power to re-elect Lord Albert Conyngham. Without now going into the question of the Album; admitting (for the sake of argument) that there had been mistakes in that matter, nothing justifies such a proceeding. However, by a change of name we in no way recognize the validity of such acts; the only parties concerned in the change are ourselves and the public, and I think the latter have a right to expect thus much at our hands. I must now refer
