That there are cases of happy and beneficial union I admit, and I rejoice in the fact that there are such; but that the majority of cases in large towns are so I do greatly fear and doubt. My reverend friend quotes the authority of Mr. Wilderspin, at page 18, in a manner which requires qualifying. He says, “These quotations abundantly prove that the originator of Infant schools, who has visited many of the towns in the three kingdoms, and who is, perhaps, better qualified than any other person to form an opinion as to the best mode of conducting them, is decidedly opposed to the exclusive system advertised for Norwich.” Now I do humbly submit to the candid reader of Mr. Wilderspin’s book, that the cases he there notices, various as they are in character, do not lead to this conclusion. There may be cases, and I hope there are many, where “the union of Churchmen and Dissenters is delightful;” but that there are others, which do but too plainly tell the sad tale of the results of conflicting elements, cannot be denied. Much stress has been laid throughout on the value of the testimony of Mr. Wilderspin, and some of his statements have been so interpreted, as to bear strongly in favour of the union, when, as I have clearly shewn, they have a directly contrary tendency. His book bears evidence that his object is to promote infant instruction without any distinction of the party who patronises it. He is the willing agent of the Episcopalian or the Nonconformist; and, however he may rejoice when the state of feeling will admit of an union of all parties in one common bond of Christian love, he is too keen an observer of the workings of human prejudices, not to see that there are circumstances which would, in many cases, render an union an occasion rather for widening than diminishing the existing chasm.