When I had read the pamphlet, published by my esteemed friend Mr. Geary, in reply to my “Letter,” it appeared to me that the facts, relative to the proposed Infant School Society, were sufficiently before the public; and, therefore, I determined to send him a few explanatory remarks in writing, rather than to make any reply through the medium of the press.  Having been induced to alter my determination, I respectfully submit to Mr. Geary’s consideration, the following brief observations.  
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St. Andrew’s Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers, that it had been determined on, at a meeting held in the Guildhall, to which none but members of the Establishment were invited.  William Moore, Esq. was in the chair, and the following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this city; and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its advantages, that there should be an examination of the children now receiving instruction in the Infant Schools of this city.”  The meeting which adopted that resolution, appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination of the schools—and, p. 6whatever private understanding there might be with Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what the resolution stated; and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as accomplishing “his own speculation,” but as the agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its resolution into effect.  I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in the eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne out by all the facts of the case.
 
When I had read the pamphlet, published by my esteemed friend Mr. Geary, in reply to my “Letter,” it appeared to me that the facts, relative to the proposed Infant School Society, were sufficiently before the public; and, therefore, I determined to send him a few explanatory remarks in writing, rather than to make any reply through the medium of the press.  Having been induced to alter my determination, I respectfully submit to Mr. Geary’s consideration, the following brief observations.
 
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St. Andrew’s Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers, that it had been determined on, at a meeting held in the Guildhall, to which none but members of the Establishment were invited.  William Moore, Esq. was in the chair, and the following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this city; and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its advantages, that there should be an examination of the children now receiving instruction in the Infant Schools of this city.”  The meeting which adopted that resolution, appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination of the schools—and, p. 6whatever private understanding there might be with Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what the resolution stated; and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as accomplishing “his own speculation,” but as the agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its resolution into effect.  I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in the eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne out by all the facts of the case.
 
I said nothing in my “Letter” to intimate that the children of Dissenters would be excluded from the proposed schools.  My explanation of the “Advertisement” which occasioned the “Letter” was this: “I understand it to mean, that the members of no other Christian church shall be allowed to participate with you in the formation of the society, or in its committee, or in its operations.”  If, however, I had expressed a fear that the church catechism might be introduced, or that some arrangement might be made which would prevent Dissenters from sending their children to the schools, the speeches at the public meeting, and Mr. Geary’s pamphlet, satisfactorily negative such an apprehension.  All parties have united in declaring that the schools will be open to all classes, and that there will be no rules nor formulas against which Dissenters can object.  At the public meeting, as reported in the newspapers, the Dean expressly stated, that “they had no desire to exclude the children of any persons of whatever religion, because the children would not be instructed in any points that any person might not learn; as they would be taught to worship and adore God, to know the merits of our Saviour, to fear God and honour the King, and to live in peace and unity with one another.  Their rules, said he, would be open to persons of all denominations, p. 7who would have the opportunity of sending their children, if they accorded with those rules.”  Mr. G. Seppings “stated that the school would be open to the children of persons of all denominations, who might choose to send them.”  In full accordance with these decisive statements, Mr. Geary says, “I cannot help again recurring to a mistake into which my reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout implied, in regard to the exclusion of the children of dissent.  He may rest assured, that nothing is decided with respect to the discipline of the schools, which can possibly be held to be an impediment with any conscientious Dissenter who desires to place his child there:—no impeding tests or testimonials on entering the school—no offensive rituals when there.”  And in another part of his pamphlet he declares, “I have seen the progress of the society in embryo, first, last, midst, and throughout all, without witnessing any symptoms of such a spirit.  Should it appear, I am prepared to contend with it hand to hand—foot to foot; and, should it unhappily prevail, I should feel bound to quit the society.”  The speeches at the public meeting are, however, a sufficient guarantee that no such spirit will “unhappily prevail;” and I “rest assured,” that, so far as the schools are concerned, they will be as comprehensive as those which already exist, and to which the children of Churchmen and Dissenters are admitted on equal terms.  I deeply regret, however, that my interpretation of the “Advertisement” has unfortunately proved true, and that, though the children of Dissenters are to be admitted into the schools, Dissenters themselves are, quite unnecessarily I think, excluded from the committee of the society, and from all its operations.
 
 
 When I had read the pamphlet, published by my esteemed friend Mr. Geary, in reply to my “Letter,” it appeared to me that the facts, relative to the proposed Infant School Society, were sufficiently before the public; and, therefore, I determined to send him a few explanatory remarks in writing, rather than to make any reply through the medium of the press.  Having been induced to alter my determination, I respectfully submit to Mr. Geary’s consideration, the following brief observations.
 
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St. Andrew’s Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers, that it had been determined on, at a meeting held in the Guildhall, to which none but members of the Establishment were invited.  William Moore, Esq. was in the chair, and the following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this city; and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its advantages, that there should be an examination of the children now receiving instruction in the Infant Schools of this city.”  The meeting which adopted that resolution, appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination of the schools—and, p. 6whatever private understanding there might be with Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what the resolution stated; and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as accomplishing “his own speculation,” but as the agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its resolution into effect.  I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in the eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne out by all the facts of the case.
 
I said nothing in my “Letter” to intimate that the children of Dissenters would be excluded from the proposed schools.  My explanation of the “Advertisement” which occasioned the “Letter” was this: “I understand it to mean, that the members of no other Christian church shall be allowed to participate with you in the formation of the society, or in its committee, or in its operations.”  If, however, I had expressed a fear that the church catechism might be introduced, or that some arrangement might be made which would prevent Dissenters from sending their children to the schools, the speeches at the public meeting, and Mr. Geary’s pamphlet, satisfactorily negative such an apprehension.  All parties have united in declaring that the schools will be open to all classes, and that there will be no rules nor formulas against which Dissenters can object.  At the public meeting, as reported in the newspapers, the Dean expressly stated, that “they had no desire to exclude the children of any persons of whatever religion, because the children would not be instructed in any points that any person might not learn; as they would be taught to worship and adore God, to know the merits of our Saviour, to fear God and honour the King, and to live in peace and unity with one another.  Their rules, said he, would be open to persons of all denominations, p. 7who would have the opportunity of sending their children, if they accorded with those rules.”  Mr. G. Seppings “stated that the school would be open to the children of persons of all denominations, who might choose to send them.”  In full accordance with these decisive statements, Mr. Geary says, “I cannot help again recurring to a mistake into which my reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout implied, in regard to the exclusion of the children of dissent.  He may rest assured, that nothing is decided with respect to the discipline of the schools, which can possibly be held to be an impediment with any conscientious Dissenter who desires to place his child there:—no impeding tests or testimonials on entering the school—no offensive rituals when there.”  And in another part of his pamphlet he declares, “I have seen the progress of the society in embryo, first, last, midst, and throughout all, without witnessing any symptoms of such a spirit.  Should it appear, I am prepared to contend with it hand to hand—foot to foot; and, should it unhappily prevail, I should feel bound to quit the society.”  The speeches at the public meeting are, however, a sufficient guarantee that no such spirit will “unhappily prevail;” and I “rest assured,” that, so far as the schools are concerned, they will be as comprehensive as those which already exist, and to which the children of Churchmen and Dissenters are admitted on equal terms.  I deeply regret, however, that my interpretation of the “Advertisement” has unfortunately proved true, and that, though the children of Dissenters are to be admitted into the schools, Dissenters themselves are, quite unnecessarily I think, excluded from the committee of the society, and from all its operations.
 
The public meeting, at which the preceding speeches were delivered, was distinguished by the expression of many liberal and Christian sentiments; and those of us who were excluded from it, were in no small degree gratified in learning, from the public papers, that several of the speakers expressed themselves so decidedly in favour of the liberal system advocated in my “Letter,” and that they regretted that circumstances constrained them to unite with the present exclusive system.  “Mr. Bignold said he had not been in favour of any exclusive views; and if it had been thought right to establish a general society, he should have with pleasure supported it.  That had not been agreed to, but if the Dissenters chose to establish another society, his funds should be at their service.”  “The Rev. R. Hankinson spoke in favour of an open society.  He said he belonged to several in the city, all of which were carried on with the greatest unanimity.  He had, however, yielded his opinions to those of others better qualified, perhaps, to judge.”  I need not add that these are also the sentiments of Mr. Geary, who says, in reference to my wishes for an union of all parties, “I truly sympathize with him in those views and feelings which, were it practicable, would suggest such an union;” and, “my reverend friend cannot feel more intense satisfaction than I do, in thus witnessing the joyful and happy state of brethren dwelling together in unity.”
 
I most earnestly hope and pray that these sentiments, so honourable to the gentlemen who uttered them, may more extensively prevail, till they have removed those “insuperable barriers” which at present exist, and till they have rendered that union “practicable,” which so many feel to be desirable.  Depend p. 9upon it, there are not half the difficulties really existing, which some persons imagine.  The united system, if tried, would, I am persuaded, work well—and I am sure that all who engaged in it would be made better and happier by their combined exertions in doing good.  There are some things, connected with both Church of Englandism and Dissent, in which the two parties could not unite without a compromise of principle.  As religious men, we have, however, a common cause to promote, and a common enemy to withstand.  We ought, therefore, as Christians, to unite in every thing that admits of an union; and, as Infant Schools appear to me to be precisely of that character, I deeply regret that we have not united in them.  I am somewhat comforted, however, by the persuasion, that an exclusive system cannot last.  There is an influential and increasing party in the church much opposed to it, and who, as is stated in my “Letter,” “would be glad to co-operate with other Christians in educating and in evangelizing the people.”  The adoption of the exclusive system has occasioned regret in the minds of many persons whom the church would have done well to conciliate; and I much question whether either party is perfectly satisfied with the proceedings that have been adopted.
 
 
 When I had read the pamphlet, published by my esteemed friend Mr. Geary, in reply to my “Letter,” it appeared to me that the facts, relative to the proposed Infant School Society, were sufficiently before the public; and, therefore, I determined to send him a few explanatory remarks in writing, rather than to make any reply through the medium of the press.  Having been induced to alter my determination, I respectfully submit to Mr. Geary’s consideration, the following brief observations.
 
Before the examination of the Infant Schools took place in St. Andrew’s Hall, the public were informed, by the newspapers, that it had been determined on, at a meeting held in the Guildhall, to which none but members of the Establishment were invited.  William Moore, Esq. was in the chair, and the following resolution was passed:—“Resolved, that the system of Infant Education might be beneficially extended in this city; and, with a view of prominently bringing forward its advantages, that there should be an examination of the children now receiving instruction in the Infant Schools of this city.”  The meeting which adopted that resolution, appeared to me to originate and to authorize the examination of the schools—and, p. 6whatever private understanding there might be with Mr. Wilderspin, all that the public knew was what the resolution stated; and Mr. Wilderspin appeared to us, not as accomplishing “his own speculation,” but as the agent, employed by the meeting, to carry its resolution into effect.  I think, therefore, that what I have stated, in the eighth and ninth pages of my “Letter,” is fully borne out by all the facts of the case.
 
I said nothing in my “Letter” to intimate that the children of Dissenters would be excluded from the proposed schools.  My explanation of the “Advertisement” which occasioned the “Letter” was this: “I understand it to mean, that the members of no other Christian church shall be allowed to participate with you in the formation of the society, or in its committee, or in its operations.”  If, however, I had expressed a fear that the church catechism might be introduced, or that some arrangement might be made which would prevent Dissenters from sending their children to the schools, the speeches at the public meeting, and Mr. Geary’s pamphlet, satisfactorily negative such an apprehension.  All parties have united in declaring that the schools will be open to all classes, and that there will be no rules nor formulas against which Dissenters can object.  At the public meeting, as reported in the newspapers, the Dean expressly stated, that “they had no desire to exclude the children of any persons of whatever religion, because the children would not be instructed in any points that any person might not learn; as they would be taught to worship and adore God, to know the merits of our Saviour, to fear God and honour the King, and to live in peace and unity with one another.  Their rules, said he, would be open to persons of all denominations, p. 7who would have the opportunity of sending their children, if they accorded with those rules.”  Mr. G. Seppings “stated that the school would be open to the children of persons of all denominations, who might choose to send them.”  In full accordance with these decisive statements, Mr. Geary says, “I cannot help again recurring to a mistake into which my reverend friend has fallen, and which is throughout implied, in regard to the exclusion of the children of dissent.  He may rest assured, that nothing is decided with respect to the discipline of the schools, which can possibly be held to be an impediment with any conscientious Dissenter who desires to place his child there:—no impeding tests or testimonials on entering the school—no offensive rituals when there.”  And in another part of his pamphlet he declares, “I have seen the progress of the society in embryo, first, last, midst, and throughout all, without witnessing any symptoms of such a spirit.  Should it appear, I am prepared to contend with it hand to hand—foot to foot; and, should it unhappily prevail, I should feel bound to quit the society.”  The speeches at the public meeting are, however, a sufficient guarantee that no such spirit will “unhappily prevail;” and I “rest assured,” that, so far as the schools are concerned, they will be as comprehensive as those which already exist, and to which the children of Churchmen and Dissenters are admitted on equal terms.  I deeply regret, however, that my interpretation of the “Adve............