 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577 |
< The Wallace-Fletcher Controversy (continued from page 10-477) >
The Slade case occupied the public mind from September, 1876, to February, 1877.
Mr. Fletcher arrived in England in the spring of 1877: the exact date I am not able to give.
The question was, to whom else, if not to Slade, could Mr. Fletcher’s words have been intended to apply. The words, be it remembered, were: “An American had rendered Spiritualism detestable and contemptible in this country.” Applied to Slade, these words were perfectly intelligible. For months, immediately before Mr. Fletcher’s arrival, the Press had been teeming with vituperation of Spiritualism on Slade’s account. The subject had never been so bitterly and continuously abused before. Can we find another “American” of whom the above could have been said, and if so, how far must we go back to look for him?
Mr. Home has been sometimes, though improperly, described as an American. The case of Lyon v. Home occupied public attention in 1868, and no doubt tended to discredit Spiritualism in England at that time. Does Mr. Wallace believe that Mr. Fletcher had this in his mind when he gave his reason to the Whitehall Reviewer for coming over to England in 1877? The only other Americans unfavourably known here in connection with Spiritualism prior to 1877 were Mr. and Mrs. Holmes. This name was put forward by some of Mr. Fletcher’s friends to explain his meaning, with an utter inattention to dates, circumstances, and the language used. Mr. Fletcher had, I understand, privately suggested this interpretation of his words, but was too astute to commit himself to it publicly. In point of fact, the alleged exposure of these people at a seance in this country never attracted public notice outside Spiritualist circles. They left England early in 1874, three years before Mr. Fletcher’s arrival. Their names were always coupled together—as “the Holmeses”—in connection with their mediumship here, whereas Mr. Fletcher spoke of “an American.” To talk of the Holmeses, or either of them, having “rendered Spiritualism detestable and contemptible in this country” would be to use words without a shred of historical sense or meaning. That they did discredit Spiritualism in America, very shortly after their return, there is no doubt, but this fact only makes the absurdity, if possible, still more apparent. But if anyone is still inclined to believe that Fletcher’s language, perfectly natural and obvious as it was—of course from a hostile point of view—in relation to Slade, and wholly inapplicable in relation to anybody else, nevertheless alluded to the Holmeses or to some other person, and not to Slade, he will have the further task of accounting for the succession of evasions and verbal subterfuges resorted to by Fletcher in the correspondence on the subject. It was only when these were exposed one after another, and no further resource was left to him, that he came plump out with as palpable a lie as ever was told. Nor did he attempt to support it by giving the name of any person, other than Slade, to whom his words did or could refer, or any reason for abstaining from doing so. As you, sir, have observed, Fletcher sat down under my actionable imputation. I only challenged him to sue me, because I understood that he had boasted privately that he would “prosecute” anyone who published anything injurious to his character. I had already made him another offer; viz.: to submit the question to three of his own colleagues on the Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists, two to be named by him, and one by me, and if they agreed on certain points in his favour, I undertook to advertise an apology. This offer he did not accept.
It was a gross and impudent lie, but some may think it was a venial one. Fletcher had tried to curry favour with the outside public, and to glorify himself through the Whitehall Review, at the expense of his unfortunate countryman; but he was not prepared to face the unpopularity among Spiritualists which would have resulted from a straightforward avowal of the natural and only sense of his words. Why make all that fuss about it? Why not shrug our shoulders and let it pass, without telling the man publicly, as I did, that he was a liar? Well, for this, in the first place: that I had had to tell him so privately before. The Fletchers had not been long in this country when they busied themselves by circulating infamous calumnies respecting honourable people abroad, who were my friends. When this came to my knowledge, I wrote to Fletcher characterising his conduct without much circumlocution. Another gentleman, well known to your readers, undertook to bring him to book. Fletcher swaggered and wriggled for a long time, just as he did in the correspondence about Slade. But he was in the resolute clutch of a man who is seldom defeated in his just purposes; and in the end he was forced to a written admission that he had no personal knowledge of the scandals which had been accepted in certain quarters on his and his wife’s sole authority. In the next place, reports had already reached me of the transactions now under investigation in America. I believe I said nothing about these to anyone, because it is my habit not to repeat scandalous and unverified rumours; but they were an added inducement to expose the man’s character so far as I could.
Shortly before or after the publication of my letter of 21st November, 1879, a countryman of Fletcher’s sought an interview with me, and volunteered certain information. I did not pay much heed to it; merely noting, that, if correct, it proved that Fletcher had no more holy or exalted mission in visiting England than to see how much money he could make. I can give some particulars of this information if necessary, and name my witness. Fletcher’s pretence to the Whitehall Reviewer that he was actuated by any nobler motive was apparently about as true as his subsequent disclaimer of any reference to Slade.
I have no wish or need to call in aid of my particular accusation against Fletcher, the graver suspicions under which he now lies, and which are as yet unproven. Beyond the indignation I felt at his slanders, I have had all along so little personal feeling against him that I believe I have put several guineas in his pocket, and have tried to put many—(almost down to his leaving England), through friends I have induced, and attempted to induce to visit him professionally; accepting, as I did and do still, the abundant testimony to his clairvoyant powers.
I should be glad to close my reply to Mr. Wallace here, weary as I am of the subject, and disgusted at being obliged to recur to it at all. I am happily relieved of the necessity of asking you to publish what I had written concerning a sentence in Mr. Wallace’s letter, respecting myself, which I read with almost more amazement than indignation. I, of course, at once communicated with Mr. Wallace, and having received from him the only possible intimation to be expected, or which I could accept—viz., of his intention to make a retractation and apology in your columns, I have only to notify now (to save further writing) my acceptance of an undertaking which I do not doubt will be sufficiently fulfilled.
2, Harcourt Buildings, Temple, September 25th.
<Untitled> (Sir,- In my letter which you published...)
Sir,—In my letter which you published last week, and which I wrote in order to defend an absent man <... continues on page 10-479 >
Editor's notes
- ↑ Sir,- In my letter which you published... by unknown author, London Spiritualist, The, No. 423, October 1, 1880, p. 160
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 423, October 1, 1880, p. 160