. His remarks on
"Modern Dissent" showed how clear, how statesmanlike his judgment was.
Mr. Gresley decided to lay the matter before him, and to consult him as
to his responsibility in the matter. The Archdeacon did not know Hester.
He did not know--for he lived at a distance of several miles--that Mr.
Gresley had a sister who had written a book.

Mr. Gresley did not wish him to become aware of this last fact, for we
all keep our domestic skeletons in their cupboards, so he placed a
hypothetical case before his friend.

Supposing some one he knew, a person for whose actions he felt himself
partly responsible, had written a most unwise letter, and this letter,
by no fault of Mr. Gresley's, had fallen into his hands and been read by
him. What was he, Mr. Gresley, to do? The letter, if posted, would
certainly get the writer into trouble, and would cause acute humiliation
to the writer's family. What would the Archdeacon do, in his place?

Mr. Gresley did not perceive that the hypothetical case was not "on all
fours" with the real one. His first impulse had been to gain the opinion
of an expert without disclosing family dissensions. Did some unconscious
secondary motive impel him to shape the case so that only one verdict
was probable?

The good Archdeacon ruminated, asked a few questions, and then said,
without hesitation:

"I cannot see your difficulty. Your course is clear. You are
responsible--"

"To a certain degree."

"To a certain degree for the action of an extremely injudicious friend
or relation who writes a letter which will get him and others into
trouble. It providentially falls into your hands. If I were in your
place I should destroy it, inform your friend that I had done so
principally for his own sake, and endeavor to bring him to a better mind
on the subject."

"Supposing the burning of the letter entailed a money loss?"

"I judge from what you say of this particular letter that any money that
accrued from it would be ill-gotten gains."

"Oh! decidedly."

"Then burn it; and if your friend remains obstinate he can always write
it again; but we must hope that by gaining time you will be able to
arouse his better feelings, and at least induce him to moderate its
tone."

"Of course he could write it again if he remains obstinate. I never
thought of that," said Mr. Gresley, in a low voice. "So he would not
eventually lose the money if he was still decided to gain it in an
unscrupulous manner. O