To Anne Edmondson

Respected Madam

The subject of the letter¹ with which you have favoured us is too grave to permit of our wasting much time in prefatory matter, we shall therefore enter at once upon the discussion of this to us truly painful question.

You ask us to pause and reflect, we are ready to comply with your request, nay, we have done so, our determination² is by no means an impulsive one: whether our opinions be right or wrong, of this we assure you they have not been hastily formed; our minds have been made up on this subject for months and though recent events may have precipitated matters, our resolution was formed altogether irrespective of these events. We believe that our motives will bear any investigation to which you may think proper to subject them. The very nature of things proves that these motives must have been disinterested, what personal advantage could we expect to reap from any change of school government that Mr E.³ could possibly make? Certainly none. Our sole motive then is a dictate of duty in obeying which each of us can truly affirm that he acts in a manner directly opposed to his pecuniary interests.

We are at a loss to conceive what is meant by the expression ‘you expect your opinion to be conclusive’,⁴ if it is intended to convey that you imagine us to expect you and Mr Edmondson to subscribe to our opinion we beg to affirm that we have never entertained a hope of the kind. So far from wishing our opinion to be conclusive our intention was to keep it entirely to ourselves and this we certainly should have done had not circumstances called for its utterance. Chimerical as we deem the idea of the gentleman’s dismissal⁵ we may in passing say that it is a circumstance which we should earnestly deprecate, we believe that he deserves better treatment at your hands. Whatever his motives may have been, whether personal or otherwise he has exerted himself to the utmost of his ability to promote the interest of Queenwood,⁶ let the policy, prudence or honesty of the course pursued be questioned as it may, one thing is certain that it has been followed with zeal and activity.

Most heartily do we subscribe to the inference which flows immediately from the following remark ‘I would if I might diffuse over your ruffled spirits the soothing influence of a clear conscience in this affair’, whatever may be here implied our experience enables us to recognise the philosophy of the sentence as true. The calm that we now enjoy is we believe the direct offspring of a clear conscience, we may possibly labour under a mental hallucination but our peace of mind is undisturbed, if we sin we do so unwittingly, our inward sentinel has become a dumb dog, nay worse, a deceiver, for he stamps with his approval all that we have said and done.

We have thus far endeavoured to follow in proper order the course indicated by your letter, omitting many reflections as to the injustice of condemning a fellow labourer without a hearing. We forbore making any allusion to these reflections inasmuch as we have them all summed up in the paragraph which next presents itself for our consideration.

That paragraph contains as weighty a charge as man could prefer against man, we receive it in the spirit which prompted it, a spirit of kindness and charity, and we thank you for expressing your opinion so frankly and unreservedly. Believing that your justice is equal to your candour we feel assured that a simple recurrence to facts will entirely alter the complexion of the affair and reverse the terrible judgment you have recorded against us. We think it needless to suggest the necessity of calmness and patience in coming to a conclusion such as you have here avowed, your remarks upon this head shew that you are fully alive to the importance of these conditions, we are unwilling therefore to attribute the formation of this your opinion to haste or irritation, but we do think that premises which admit of such a conclusion ought to have been analysed with more than ordinary care, had this been we feel assured that their utter instability would have been proved and we should have been spared the infliction of so unmerited an accusation.

The charge runs as follows, ‘I think in speaking of a fellow labourer to his employer in the manner you have done without giving him an opportunity of defending himself you have acted contrary to the spirit of the laws of our country contrary even to the world’s sense of honour and diametrically opposed to the precepts of our holy religion’. We will not stop here to ask how a pair of characters such as you have here depicted could possibly be the objects of that esteem which you so kindly profess towards us, we will not ask you to reconsider this charge, as the evident deliberation with which it was penned shews that you consider it has already engaged a sufficient share of your attention, and though we are accused of having at once violated the laws of honour, of man, and of God, we shall do all that in us lies to divest ourselves of all personal connexion with the accusation and shall endeavour to relate facts as we believe a party wholly disinterested would relate them.

On Wednesday May 31st Mr Yeats⁷ came to us while we sat at dinner and requested our presence in Mr Edmondson’s room at 3 o’clock. Shortly after this Mr E., Mr Yeats, Mr Singleton⁸ and those who now have the honour of addressing you found themselves seated together in No 10.⁹ Mr Y. commenced by remarking that he had come to clear up an unpleasant affair with Mr Singleton, that he cared little for the opinion of any man, least of all on a matter of business for that of Mr S. In this strain of studied insult he proceeded until we, feeling our position to be anomalous, arose and declined having anything to do in a quarrel so purely personal. Our wish was to leave the room immediately but being entreated by Mr Edmondson we remained. The matter which gave rise to our being called together was laid before us and in compliance with Mr Yeats’ own request we delivered our opinion which was condemnatory of his conduct. The true position of Mr E. in this investigation seemed to us to be that of an umpire or mediator, but instead of remaining thus neutral he defended one of the parties as strenuously as if that party had been his client and we found ourselves reduced to the painful necessity of expressing an opinion opposed to that which our respected principal evidently sought to attain.

Our subsequent interview with Mr E. was unsought by us, he came into our room and of his own free will again introduced the subject. Whatever remarks we then made flowed necessarily out of the nature of our conversation. We sought no opportunity to make a charge against the gentleman you consider aggrieved, our opinions were drawn out of us by Mr E. himself and we relied upon his ability to affix a proper value to these opinions. An hour before he had defended Mr Yeats as strenuously as even you Madam could desire, we felt that he was mistaken upon that as well as upon other points and we told him so, the next day proved our correctness in one particular at least. Mr Yeats condemned himself, which condemnation was acquiesced in by Mr E.

But why do we proceed in this strain, who can possibly form so correct an opinion of our conduct as Mr E. himself, our words were spoken in his ears, to him we refer for our justification, nay he has already vindicated our conduct to you in our own presence, how you Madam whose information must necessarily have come through him can found so grave and so opposite a charge upon that information we are totally at a loss to imagine.

We are unconscious of having denied to our fellow labourer an opportunity of defending himself. Mr E. has heard our opinions and is free to make what use he pleases of them, we never made secrecy a condition of our conversation. To the matters of fact mentioned by us we are still prepared to bear testimony and the opinion which we then expressed we still substantially retain. The circumstances which have resulted in these opinions would probably have led you to others totally different. We have therefore not the slightest hope of being able to make a convert of you, nor have we the least desire to do so. Our sincere opinion is that Mr Yeats has served you most assiduously, that he has at all times shewn an anxiety to anticipate your wishes and to execute your will. One feeling alone can result from such a course of conduct and this feeling we are by no means anxious to disturb. Our opinions shall merely determine our own act, we do not intend to make use of these opinions publicly or privately against Queenwood, our desire is to depart in peace, sincerely trusting – nay believing – that our successors will co-operate more harmoniously for the interest of the institution than we have hitherto been able to do. We are ready to admit the abundant flexibility of Mr Yeats’ character, we have never seen in him anything approaching to obstinacy but always precisely the reverse. We are perfectly satisfied that any particular error pointed out by you he would at once endeavour to eradicate, and we further believe that recent circumstances will cause such modifications of the state of matters at Queenwood as to render a repetition of our act in the case of our successors unnecessary.

Our friendship we believe to have been consistent, we have gone as far as we dared in expressing our disapproval of existing things, one method of disapproval has been noticed by yourself and Mr E. We have even gone further than this silent expression of dissent but received no encouragement to proceed, that any remonstrance of ours could have altered matters we were far from imagining. We had no reason to expect that our interference would have been better received than that of your own brother, his was evidently unpalatable, there was no pointing out faults, the alleged misconduct was defended and Mr Singleton exposed to insult for the utterance of a conviction which a night’s reflection proved to be strictly correct.

There is we believe but one point more in your letter to which we have not alluded, it is thus expressed. ‘I believe could you divest yourselves of prejudice towards the individual &c.’ x x x x ‘I believe that this storm blown over, this prejudice laid aside &c.’.

On reading your letter with that attention which everything of the kind coming from the respected writer demands, we meet the legible fact that it has emanated from a mind whose opinion is already formed. What more than this can be said of us? We beseech you Madam to weigh matters carefully and determine whether it is not as reasonable to expect prejudice on your side of the question as on ours. Nay, we should not be surprised if after giving the matter due consideration you should conclude with us that your position in the present instance is more exposed to this influence than our position. Mr Yeats, as in duty bound, has always paid you the most implicit attention, he has never, openly at least, attempted to injure us. We are therefore free from personal hostility to him while we are not sure that you are equally free as regards personal attachment. You will admit that the latter is as fruitful a source of prejudice as the former. Would there be no reluctance on the part of a lady whose conclusions are in general marked by coolness and sound judgment to acknowledge even to herself that she had leaned too long upon a hastily formed opinion? We feel satisfied that if every possible agency, secret and open be taken into account, that the probability of prejudice will not be found on that side which truth and justice have compelled us to espouse.

Thus far through life have we striven to enact the dictates of our consciences which we have no reason to believe have ever deceived us. We rely upon their fidelity and have little fear of subsequent self-condemnation if at the present juncture we act according to the light afforded us. We voluntarily throw ourselves upon the world to struggle for bread as we best may, steadfastly believing that our present act will in after life receive the sanction of our judgment.

In conclusion Madam we beg to say that though your letter is so severely condemnatory of our conduct, though the charges therein contained would, if valid, prove our presence not only at Queenwood but in society a pest, still we thank you for its frankness and for the numerous professions of kindly feeling which it contains. Our object in this reply has simply been to justify ourselves in your eyes. We have not at the present moment the remotest wish to change your convictions as regards others, for we believe that the interest of Queenwood demand that these convictions should remain substantially as they are. We entreat you to pardon our deficiencies, and if anything rude or undesirable have escaped our pen attribute it kindly to the novelty of our position for in thought, word or deed we would not willingly offend you.

RI MS JT/2/13a/333-336

LT Transcript Only