owering; the Prince's
eyes were rivetted on him all the while. Sir Robert Peel spoke in a
calm, dignified, statesmanlike manner, but the expression of his face was
too supercilious to be pleasing. And there was Daniel O'Connell--big,
burly, rollicking--who seemed to enjoy the triumph of his own presence,
though not permitted to speak. The other time when I remember an awful
crush at Exeter Hall was at an anti-slavery meeting, when Lord Brougham
took the chair; an M.P. dared to attack his lordship, and his reply was
crushing, his long nose twitching all the while with a passion he was
unable to repress. He looked as angry as he felt. Amongst the
missionaries, the most popular speakers were John Williams, the martyr of
Erromanga, and William Knibb, the famous Baptist missionary from Jamaica,
and Livingstone's father-in-law, the venerable Dr. Moffat, who, once upon
his legs, seemed as if he could never sit down again. Williams was a
heavy man in appearance, but of such evident goodness and earnestness
that you were interested in what he said nevertheless. William Knibb
was, as far as appearance went, quite the reverse; a fiery speaker, the
very picture of a demagogue, the champion of the slave, and a terrible
thorn in the sides of the slave-owners. Of women orators we had none in
those primitive times, and some of the American women who had come to
speak at one or other of the Anti-Slavery Conventions--at that time of
constant occurrence--were deeply disappointed that, after coming all the
way from America on purpose to deliver their testimony, they were not
allowed to open their mouths. It was at Exeter Hall that I first heard
Mr. Gough, the Temperance advocate--an actor more than an orator, but of
wonderful power.

It was at Crosby Hall that I first heard George Dawson. I think it was
at one of the meetings held there in connection with what I may call the
anti-Graham, demonstration. On the introduction, in 1843, by Sir James
Graham of his Factories Education Bill, the Dissenters assailed it with
unexpected vehemence. They denounced it as a scheme for destroying the
educational machinery they had, at great expense, provided, and for
throwing the care of the young into the hands of the clergy of the Church
of England. It was in the East of London that the opposition to this
measure originated, and a committee was formed, of which Dr. Andrew Reed
was chairman, and his son, afterwards Sir Charles, who lived to b