I. That the parties in question have acted unkindly and disrespectfully,
so far as they have interfered with the arrangements for the exhibition
in St. Andrew’s Hall.
II. An assumption, (perfectly groundless,) that the plan of the proposed
society would exclude all children except those of parents belonging to
the Established Church, and
III. That a society embracing in its direction and operations, all sects
and denominations, would have worked more for the public good than the
one proposed.
It should be borne in mind, that the exhibition, in St. Andrew’s Hall,
was Mr. Wilderspin’s own speculation. By myself and by some others, it
was however favourably viewed, under an impression that a feeling would
be excited where none had previously existed, and that it might possibly
open the way for an extension of the system. Mr. W. was requested to
meet a few gentlemen, at the Hall in the Market, to explain to them the
nature of his system, and he there again mentioned his intention of
assembling the children for examination in St. Andrew’s Hall. He was
distinctly asked whether the directors or the committee of those schools
had been consulted, and he as plainly replied that there would be no
difficulty on that head. On the subject of the expenses the way was not
so clear,—with his usual liberality he declared that he did not seek
remuneration, but still he thought he ought to be indemnified from
loss—and after some loose discussion it was agreed that those present
should be responsible for any loss. It was finally arranged that free
tickets of admission should be given to the Sunday school and other
teachers. Of these, 300 were distributed to the various DISSENTING
CONGREGATIONS in the city. The public were admitted at sixpence each
person, and the proceeds went to the erection of the gallery, the
purchase of buns for the children, and a gratuity to Mr. Wilderspin; a
small contribution being collected from the _responsibles_ to make up
this sum.
I think, therefore, that my reverend friend, for so I beg in sincerity to
designate him, must have been misinformed on some points which drew from
him the charge that we had taken unwarrantable liberties either with the
money or the schools of others.
But another and far more important error is manifest at pages 10 and 19,
where I understand him to mean that it is intended to exclude the
children of all except those of the members of the Established Church.
Now this is an impression so utterly at variance with truth and fact,
that I cannot conceive what part of the proceedings can have been so
distorted, as to admit of such an interpretation. 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, however
painful it might be to part from one in whose work my almost entire
public services and affections are bound up.
On entering upon the subject of the union of all denominations in this
work of benevolence, it appears to me, that my reverend friend has
suffered the question of what is _practicable_ completely to merge into
that which he considers as most _desirable_. His affections and his
sympathy have been so attractively led by the cases where such an union
has been effected, as has induced him to overlook many whose efficacy is
doubtful, and some, where the effects have rather hindered than promoted
the cause. But while I truly sympathise with him in those views and
feelings which, were it practicable, would suggest such an union, the
cool deliberations of sober judgment are most convincing that the present
state of things here in reference to the feelings of various parties,
presents insuperable barriers, except at the expense of that cause which
it is our object mutually to advance. Now I would fairly meet the
question,