Jump to content

HPB-SB-8-39: Difference between revisions

HPB-SB-8-39 (view source)

Revision as of 08:03, 10 July 2024

10,692 bytes added ,  10 July
m
no edit summary
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
Line 11: Line 11:
  | item = 1
  | item = 1
  | type = article
  | type = article
  | status = wanted
  | status = proofread
  | continues =
  | continues =
  | author =  
  | author =  
Line 17: Line 17:
  | subtitle = Special Meeting of the Council
  | subtitle = Special Meeting of the Council
  | untitled =
  | untitled =
  | source title = Spiritualist, The
  | source title = London Spiritualist
  | source details =  
  | source details = No. 320, October 11, 1878, p. 179
  | publication date = 1878-10-11
  | publication date = 1878-10-11
  | original date =
  | original date =
Line 25: Line 25:
}}
}}


...
{{Style S-Small capitals| Last}} Tuesday night a special meeting of the Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists was held at 38, Great Russell-street, London, under the presidency of Mr. Alexander Calder. The other members present were Mr. Morell Theobald, Mr. G. C. Joad, Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Fitz-Gerald, Mrs. Maltby, Mr. F. Barrett, Mr. March, Mr. Colley, Mr. R. Pearce, the Rev. W. Miall, Mr. Dawson Rogers, Miss Withall, Mr. E. T. Bennett, Mr. C. C. Massey, Mr. Stainton-Moses, Mr. A. Joy, Mr. Cornelius Pearson, Dr. Wyld, Mrs. Edwin Ellis, Mr. Green, Mr. M. J. Walhouse, the Rev. W. W. Newbould, and Mr. W. H. Harrison.
 
The object of the meeting was to consider whether the Council would “take any steps in relation to a charge of gross fraud recently brought against Mr. C. E. Williams.”
 
The charges were contained in letters addressed to the Association by Mr. A. J. Riko, of The Hague.
 
Mr. Dawson Rogers moved, and Mr. Morell Theobald seconded:—
 
1. That the following be appointed a Special Committee to consider the charges made by gentlemen in Amsterdam against Mr. C. E. Williams; and that the said committee be requested to report as early as possible to the Council the result of their deliberations, accompanied by such recommendations as they may deem advisable.
 
Mr. Desmond Fitz-Gerald moved an amendment, probably half a column of ''The Spiritualist ''in length. Its main points were:—
 
2. That a decision unanimously arrived at by a number of fellow-Spiritualists and investigators should, in the absence of disproof, be considered with respect, and that the Council recognises the possession by Mr. Williams of medial powers of a high order.
 
Mr. Algernon Joy moved, and Mrs. Ellis seconded, another amendment:—
 
3. Mr. Williams having been publicly accused of fraud by respectable and credible witnesses, that this Association will not recognise him in any way in future until he shall have taken some effective steps to publicly clear his character.
 
Mr. C. C. Massey moved, and Mr. Stainton-Moses seconded, another amendment, namely:—
 
4. That the correspondence and other evidence submitted to the Council be referred to the Research Committee, which is requested to consider it in relation to the future employment of Mr. Williams.
 
In the course of the discussions on the foregoing proposed modes of action, Mr. Calder, the president, said that the Association had no right to assume judicial functions in this matter.
 
Mr. Bennett supported Mr. Fitz-Gerald’s resolution, on the ground that he objected to go into the case as if the members of the Council of the National Association of Spiritualists were judges.
 
Mr. Stainton-Moses preferred that the Council should take no cognisance of the matter beyond considering whether it should employ Mr. Williams again. All other points could only be taken up with risk, because if they took one side, other people would in consequence be sure to take the other, and the Council would lay itself open to all kinds of recrimination. Mr. Williams had not submitted his case to the judgment of the Association, although he had been so well treated by it that one would have supposed that in times of trouble he would have come to it, looking upon its members as friends he could trust, although Mr. Williams had, he believed, half promised to submit his case to the Research Committee. Not only was the assumption of judicial functions undesirable, but as Mr. Williams had not offered to submit his side of the case to the Association, how could the Council pronounce any judgment with one side only of the case before it?
 
Mr. C. C. Massey was of the same opinion, and thought that the consideration of the point whether they should employ Mr. Williams again or not, met all the requirements of the case.
 
Mrs. Edwin Ellis said that the National Association stood before the world as the most representative body connected with English Spiritualism, and when alleged cases of fraud arose, if the Association did not inquire and come to some decision in the matter, who was to do it? Spiritualists at large had nobody to appeal to, to keep the movement pure in the eyes of the public, by denouncing cases of fraud, except the National Association, consequently the Association was bound to take up a strong position. The Council had already assumed a judicial position by holding that meeting.
 
It was here explained that the notice convening the meeting had been so worded, that the Council had not as yet assumed a judicial position,
 
No. 4 amendment (Mr. Massey’s) was then put to the vote, and on the requisition of Mr. Stainton-Moses the votes at this and all the subsequent divisions were ordered to be recorded.
 
Votes for the amendment—Mr. C. C. Massey, Mr. Stainton-Moses, Mr. G. C. Joad, Mr. W. H. Harrison, Dr. Wyld, Mr. F. Barrett, and Mr. C. Pearson. Total, seven.
 
Against the amendment—Mr. Bennett, Miss Withall, Mr. Dawson Rogers, Mr. Miall, Mr. R. Pearce, Mr. Colley, Mr. March, Mrs. Ellis, Mr. Joy, Mr. Walhouse, Mr. Green, Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Fitz-Gerald, and Mr. Morell Theobald. Total, fifteen.
 
The amendment was, therefore, lost by a majority of eight.
 
Amendment No. 3 (Mr. Joy’s) was then put to the meeting.
 
Mr. Joy, Mrs. Ellis, and Mr. Walhouse voted for it. Total, three.
 
Ten members held up their hands against it. Their names were not recorded.
 
The amendment was, therefore, lost by a majority of seven.
 
Amendment No. 2 (Mr. Fitz-Gerald’s) was then put.
 
For the amendment—Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Fitz-Gerald, Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Colley, and Mr. Bennett. Total, six.
 
Against the amendment—Mr. Theobald, Mrs. Ellis, Dr. Wyld, Mr. March, Mr. R. Pearce, Mr. Dawson Rogers, Miss Withall, Mr. Walhouse, and Mr. Joy. Total, nine.
 
The amendment was, therefore, lost by a majority of three.
 
The original motion No. 1 (Mr. Rogers’s) was then put.
 
For the motion—Mr. Rogers, Mr, Theobald, Mrs. Ellis, Mr. March, Mr. Green, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Colley, Miss Withall, Mr. Walhouse, Mr. Miall, Mr. Joy, and Mr. Pearson. Total, twelve.
 
Against the motion—Mr. Barrett, Dr. Wyld, Mr. Bennett, Mr. and Mrs. Desmond Fitz-Gerald, Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. Joad, Mr. Stainton-Moses, and Mr. Massey. Total, nine.
 
The original motion was therefore passed by a majority of three.
 
Mr. Dawson Rogers then proposed that the Special Committee should consist of Mr. Harrison, Mr. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. Stainton-Moses, Mr. Massey, Mr. Bennett, Mr. March, Mr. Joy, Dr. Wyld, Mr. Withall, Mr. Theobald, Mr. R. Pearce; also of himself if somebody else would nominate him.
 
Messrs. Harrison, Fitz-Gerald, Stainton-Moses, Massey, Wyld, and Bennett then refused to take office on the committee, but after some conversation Mr. Fitz-Gerald withdrew his objection.
 
Mr. March said that most of the above would have acted in the matter on the Research Committee, yet had refused to do exactly the same work on a Special Committee. No disrespect to the Research Committee was intended by appointing special inquirers.
 
Mr. Massey said that the propositions were vitally different, for the motion of Mr. Rogers authorised a judicial investigation, whereas his own referred the matter to the Research Committee as one with which the Council had no concern, beyond asking that committee to consider whether it would employ Mr. Williams at future ''seances.''
 
Mr. Dawson-Rogers then consulted some of the members present as to their willingness to act, the result of which was that the following committee was appointed:—Mr. Fitz-Gerald, Mr. March, Mr. Withall, Mr. Joy, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Theobald, Mr. Dawson-Rogers, Mr. Miall, and Mr. Pearson.
 
The President did not vote throughout the meeting, but expressed his objection to the Council assuming judicial functions.
 
At the close of the proceedings the ordinary meeting of the Council was held. The particulars will be reported next week.


{{HPB-SB-item
{{HPB-SB-item
Line 32: Line 110:
  | item = 2
  | item = 2
  | type = article
  | type = article
  | status = wanted
  | status = proofread
  | continues =
  | continues =
  | author = Kislingbury Emily
  | author = Kislingbury Emily
Line 38: Line 116:
  | subtitle =  
  | subtitle =  
  | untitled =
  | untitled =
  | source title = Spiritualist, The
  | source title = London Spiritualist
  | source details = p. 174
  | source details = No. 320, October 11, 1878, p. 174
  | publication date = 1878-10-11
  | publication date = 1878-10-11
  | original date =
  | original date =
Line 46: Line 124:
}}
}}


...
{{Style S-Small capitals| With}} deep regret we have to announce the departure from this life of Prince Emile de Sayn-Wittgenstein, on the 18th September last. He was a sincere and earnest Spiritualist, and beloved by all who knew him. He leaves a wife and four children to lament his loss.
 
{{HPB-CW-separator}}
 
<center>''To the Editor of ''“''The Spiritualist.”''</center>
 
{{Style S-Small capitals| Sir}},—I have had sorrowful news this morning. The Baroness von Vay writes to me: “Our dear, good friend, that excellent and warm Spiritualist, the Prince Emile de Sayn-Wittgenstein, has changed his earthly body for a heavenly one.”
 
Having had the pleasure of close personal acquaintance with the Prince during the ten days that I was his guest at St. Valery two years ago, I wish to add my tribute of regard in respect to his fine social and domestic qualities, in addition to those military honours which, won in fair fight, are a public and standing witness to his valour.
 
In affability and courtesy I may say that I never met his equal, and these were evident not only in his treatment of strangers, but shone the most brightly in every detail of his home-life, in his affection for his wife and little children, by whom I need not say he was adored, and who have indeed suffered an irreparable loss. The Prince’s official relations with the Russian Court were supplemented by familiar friendship and intercourse with the Imperial Royal family, and often, as we sat sipping our coffee on the balcony in an evening, he would amuse us with little anecdotes about the childhood of the present Duchess of Edinburgh, or harrow us with incidents of skirmishes between Turks and Cossacks, in which he had borne part, long before there was a thought of the late war.
 
As a Spiritualist, Prince Emile was outspoken, true, and generous; a firm believer in individual immortality, preserved through successive incarnations in this world, or on other planets, according to the tenets of Continental Spiritualism.
 
No doubt there are other English Spiritualists who have experienced, as well as myself, the Prince’s urbanity and kindness. I only wish to add my testimony, from personal knowledge, to that of many who will sincerely applaud and deeply lament a man whose benevolence was only equalled by his prowess.
 
{{Style P-Signature in capitals| Emily Kislingbury.}}


{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}}
{{HPB-SB-footer-sources}}
<gallery widths=300px heights=300px>
london_spiritualist_n.320_1878-10-11.pdf|page=13|London Spiritualist, No. 320, October 11, 1878, p. 179
london_spiritualist_n.320_1878-10-11.pdf|page=8|London Spiritualist, No. 320, October 11, 1878, p. 174
</gallery>
Retrieved from "https://en.teopedia.org/lib/Special:MobileDiff/20748"