A WHOLE FAMILY BENEFITS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 43, 19 August 1908, Page 2

A WHOLE FAMILY BENEFITS.

CUTS, BURNS, BRUISES, PIMPLES, CHAPS, CHILBLAINS, AND CORNS BANISHED BY ZAMBUK BALM. The mishaps of a housewife are many.; She may knock her knuckles whilst dusting, get burnt while ironing 015 cooking, scald herself with a kettle-spill, or get cut with -broken crockery and' slips of the table-knife. The housewife* ; /who keeps a pot of Zam-3uk Balm on a' Jiandy shelf provides against risks. Her; *hoice of Zam-Buk shows that she ap^ ' predates the necessity o f purity in her, ; healer, as well as the Value of Goothing,! I healing, antiseptic and geimicidal pro*' j perties in combination. ! Mrs. M. Patterson, of 20 WalkerI street, Christchuvch, N.Z., says: — "Wa ; have used Zam-Buk in our home for, years. " In fact, ever since it has beeit on the New Zealand market we have noli been without ifc in the house. It is a' healer no home should be without, and! i those to whom I have recommended its use ' have assured me that the results they have obtained have simply surprised! them. Myself and family swear by; Zam-Buk Balm, as we have used it for cuts, burns, bruises, pimples, chaps^ chilblains, corns, sore eyes, and s othen complaints, for all of which it has • proved most beneficial. W,e find Zaraj Buk is antiseptic, cleansing, cooling, andi t gives almost instant relief. It 13 with . pleasure, therefore, I make this statement, and trust others will be induced j to give Zam-Bulfßalm a trial." 1 For the skin troubles or every-day • hurts of infancy and age, this ideal healI ing ba\m }s never-failing. Of aIU : chemists and stores, at Is 6d or 3s 6d large family size (containing nearly foun times Is 6d).— Advt.

The London Exhibition of 185] attracted a little over 6,000,000- visitors, and showed tho substantial profit ol over £200,000 ; while its successor of 1862, with 6,211,000 visitors, resulted in, a deficit of about £10,000. The number, of attendances at the Paris Exhibition! of 1867 was 6,805,000, and the receipts were nearly £380,000 less than tha, cost; and at the' Vienna Exhibition ofj 1873 the visitors wer 6,740,000, and the* loss fell little short of £2,000,000. The, Philadelphia Exhibition of three yea-ras later attracted nearly 10,000,000 visitors, and the receipts - were less than half the* expenditure (£1,600,000); the Paris Exhibition of 1889, which showed a.small surplus, had 52,350,000 visitors ; and the Chicago Exhibition in 1893, on which, the enormous sum of £6,000,000 was spent, was. visited by 21,477,000 persons^ and resulted in a loss of over £2,000,000.,