So after all that has been said of the practice of bundling in our country, by foreign writers, travelers, and reviewers--after all the reproach that has been heaped upon us, now that we are able to get at the plain truth, it appears to be, though certainly a bad practice, not half so bad as the junketing and sitting up courtships that are known elsewhere. Nay, more. Though in the present state of society it is a practice that should be utterly discountenanced everywhere, still it would seem to have grown up out of the peculiar circumstances of our first settlers; to be confined _now_ to remote and small districts (for I have heard of only three instances, after all my inquiry); and to be rapidly going out of practice. Yet more; there can be no bad intentions, there can be no evil consequences, where respectable and modest women are not ashamed to acknowledge that they bundle. I am anxious to know the truth for the purpose of correcting both the _misrepresentations_ that are abroad, and the _practices_ that prevail here. Bundling, however, is known in other countries, where they have less excuse, and in Wales where they do _not_ bundle, as I have said before, it is no reproach for a woman to have had a child before marriage. It was so in Russia after Catharine established her lying-in hospitals. In the next number of _The Yankee_ (August 20th) there is the following editorial paragraph: BUNDLING. There is a great outcry just now about the paper on bundling which was in the last _Yankee_. Now this very outcry proves the want of the very paper alluded to. The article is about bundling; and people who imagine bundling to be what it is not, a highly improper and unchaste familiarity, are offended with it; but the very purpose of that paper is to show that bundling is not what it is believed to be, that it is neither so common nor so bad, not a fiftieth part so bad as people have imagined. APPENDIX II.