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.”