HPB-SB-8-74: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{HPB | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |The Williams-Rita Case|8-73}} | ||
}} | |||
... | Some articles have appeared calling attention to good manifestations obtained by Williams on former occasions, or at ''seances ''after the exposure. This is totally useless. The only question to he considered is—''Did Williams and Rita cheat at the particular seance at Amsterdam'' ''described in the report of the Dutch? ''That is all. Other sittings are out of court. This is calm and strict logic. | ||
The British National Association of Spiritualists appointed a committee to investigate the case. Mr. Massey, in ''The Spiritualist ''of October 25th, said that Williams had consented to go before that committee. Well, at the request of the gentlemen, the Dutch have sent them their evidences and “pieces of conviction,” including the beards and muslin; also the oil bottle, the neck of which is carefully covered with used English penny stamps (by the spirits!), in order to make it appear globular when illuminated, and to avoid displaying its real form''—a bottle J ''I could give many more items in this sense, but will wait till it becomes a necessity. We are able to meet ''every ''point. Let this be known. | |||
In the same number of ''The Spiritualist ''Mr. Gledstanes suggests consulting “John King” about the affair. We know the thinking part of the English as well as of Dutch Spiritualists are too fully convinced of the errors, contradictions, and even lies in spirit communications, to go that way. No; let us use our own sound judgment, compare notes, accept facts occurring under our own observation, and then draw our own honest conclusions, without consulting any spirit out of the flesh to guide us here. I went expressly to Amsterdam to hear the facts for myself. | |||
The article in the last number of ''The Spiritualist ''by Miss Kislingbury about drapery is an excellent one. Remember, The Hague Spiritualists are mostly old hands in the cause, and know all about it. I myself have witnessed wonderful phenomena in the Cook family. Heavens grant that all Spiritualists had done as honest Mrs. Cook on the occasion referred to, instead of passively gaping at the spirits! We should then have had to deplore a great deal less humbug from mediums and spirits both. Let us follow her example in future: it is a good one. | |||
In the last number of ''The Spiritualist ''I find two letters from my most esteemed co-worker, Mr. C. Blackburn. Let me simply say, as to the first, that ''there was no acting hastily at all. ''The writer of the letter himself gave the proof of the honesty and unprejudiced mind of the Dutch, by his first question in the second paragraph, and ruins also the assertion or insinuation that a trap was laid for the mediums. No; Williams and Rita were received the first day as friends, and trusted as such. We have known all about materialisation for years. Certainly, the spirits ''can ''bring things, but here the question is—''Did ''they do it? The white raiment of “Charlie,” after having been seized, went directly under Rita’s waistcoat (left arm), from which place it was brought to light. This happened at the moment when Williams “went for” Mr. Terpstra, and by thumping him on the back in darkness forced him to let Rita slip for some moments; probably Williams did this ‘‘in trance.” (!) I hasten to add that Williams got his blows back with usury, Mr. Terpstra being ''not ''entranced. There was ''no ''time to hide the raiment in a better way, and so it was found only under the waistcoat—quite a natural place, yea, the ''very ''natural one. To the latter part of the letter on “testing again,’’ and to the second letter about a ''seance ''at Mr. Rondi’s, I simply repeat that those points are out of consideration at this moment. | |||
Mr. Stock’s letter. To its first part I answer what I have said already. The Dutch were unprejudiced, trusted Williams and Rita; if you like they were careless, too; but that does not whitewash the mediums; so much is clear. I have the conviction that both persons are mediums; but how many genuine mediums have been convicted already of occasional cheating? The British and National Association of Spiritualists took in hand a good work by investigating the matter. I refer to what Mrs. Edwin Ellis said at the special meeting of the Council. (''Vide ''“''Spiritualist,” ''Oct. 11, p. 179.) That was a right word in the right place. To conclude, if all our evidences were published, the decision of honest Spiritualists would not be doubtful. In the meantime, let us calmly wait for the committee’s verdict. | |||
Mr. A. E. Hunter (of Jesus College, Cambridge) and others write:— | |||
Has it occurred to you that the number of sitters at the Dutch ''séance ''is very doubtful; I mean whether ''all ''those present really signed their'' ''names. Williams said “about a dozen;” only eight, however, attested'' ''the so-called fraud. Of course, these eight are careful to keep the ''exact ''number in the background. | |||
And, once more, is it, we ask, fair that ''only ''mediums should be searched at these materialisation ''seances? ''Certainly not; every member of such a circle should be individually searched, for it only needs one person with a malevolent design to throw suspicion on the mediums by pretending to draw articles of dress out of the medium’s pockets, or to secrete them there after the medium has been searched. | |||
It is not only desirable to know whether any persons were present at the ''seance ''who refused to sign the statement of the others, but to have a full description of the previous dark ''stance ''signed unanimously. If the mediums were then, as usual, held hand and foot, it will show that they were subject to strong spirit power that evening, and probably just as responsible for what they did with and without their bodies, as a sensitive under the rule of a mesmerist on a public platform. All the merits of this Williams-Rita case can never be properly examined, till everybody present at the dark ''seance ''has given his account of what he witnessed. | |||
The suggestions about searching people are superfluous. The better thing to do is to abolish cabinet ''stances altogether, ''except in experimental investigation among Spiritualists. It'' ''will be noticed that almost all public trouble to mediums in'' ''America and England has been due to cabinet ''stances. ''Good'' ''materialising mediums obtain strong manifestations while'' ''they are held hand and foot, so why do they not confine themselves'' ''to that class of ''seances, ''in which they are always safe'' ''from the suspicions of inquirers? | |||
Sir Charles Isham, Bart., writes:— | |||
<center>''To the Editor of ''“''The Spiritualist.”''</center> | |||
{{Style S-Small capitals| Sir}},—Whenever spirits, in the earlier period of the manifestations clothed themselves in the garments of the mediums, I believe they erred quite unconsciously. I once, just for something to say, inquired of Lenore where the clothes she was then wearing were procured. She replied, with unusual energy, that she did not know for certain; Florence brought them, and she suspected they came out of Miss Showers’ wardrobe, but still she doubted it, as she had not seen anything of the kind amongst the dresses. This she seemed most anxious to impress upon me, and repeated it, although I did not show much interest in the conversation. | |||
{{Style P-Signature in capitals| Chas. E. Isham.}} | |||
Lamport Hall, Northampton. | |||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
Latest revision as of 09:01, 10 July 2024
Legend
< The Williams-Rita Case (continued from page 8-73) >
Some articles have appeared calling attention to good manifestations obtained by Williams on former occasions, or at seances after the exposure. This is totally useless. The only question to he considered is—Did Williams and Rita cheat at the particular seance at Amsterdam described in the report of the Dutch? That is all. Other sittings are out of court. This is calm and strict logic.
The British National Association of Spiritualists appointed a committee to investigate the case. Mr. Massey, in The Spiritualist of October 25th, said that Williams had consented to go before that committee. Well, at the request of the gentlemen, the Dutch have sent them their evidences and “pieces of conviction,” including the beards and muslin; also the oil bottle, the neck of which is carefully covered with used English penny stamps (by the spirits!), in order to make it appear globular when illuminated, and to avoid displaying its real form—a bottle J I could give many more items in this sense, but will wait till it becomes a necessity. We are able to meet every point. Let this be known.
In the same number of The Spiritualist Mr. Gledstanes suggests consulting “John King” about the affair. We know the thinking part of the English as well as of Dutch Spiritualists are too fully convinced of the errors, contradictions, and even lies in spirit communications, to go that way. No; let us use our own sound judgment, compare notes, accept facts occurring under our own observation, and then draw our own honest conclusions, without consulting any spirit out of the flesh to guide us here. I went expressly to Amsterdam to hear the facts for myself.
The article in the last number of The Spiritualist by Miss Kislingbury about drapery is an excellent one. Remember, The Hague Spiritualists are mostly old hands in the cause, and know all about it. I myself have witnessed wonderful phenomena in the Cook family. Heavens grant that all Spiritualists had done as honest Mrs. Cook on the occasion referred to, instead of passively gaping at the spirits! We should then have had to deplore a great deal less humbug from mediums and spirits both. Let us follow her example in future: it is a good one.
In the last number of The Spiritualist I find two letters from my most esteemed co-worker, Mr. C. Blackburn. Let me simply say, as to the first, that there was no acting hastily at all. The writer of the letter himself gave the proof of the honesty and unprejudiced mind of the Dutch, by his first question in the second paragraph, and ruins also the assertion or insinuation that a trap was laid for the mediums. No; Williams and Rita were received the first day as friends, and trusted as such. We have known all about materialisation for years. Certainly, the spirits can bring things, but here the question is—Did they do it? The white raiment of “Charlie,” after having been seized, went directly under Rita’s waistcoat (left arm), from which place it was brought to light. This happened at the moment when Williams “went for” Mr. Terpstra, and by thumping him on the back in darkness forced him to let Rita slip for some moments; probably Williams did this ‘‘in trance.” (!) I hasten to add that Williams got his blows back with usury, Mr. Terpstra being not entranced. There was no time to hide the raiment in a better way, and so it was found only under the waistcoat—quite a natural place, yea, the very natural one. To the latter part of the letter on “testing again,’’ and to the second letter about a seance at Mr. Rondi’s, I simply repeat that those points are out of consideration at this moment.
Mr. Stock’s letter. To its first part I answer what I have said already. The Dutch were unprejudiced, trusted Williams and Rita; if you like they were careless, too; but that does not whitewash the mediums; so much is clear. I have the conviction that both persons are mediums; but how many genuine mediums have been convicted already of occasional cheating? The British and National Association of Spiritualists took in hand a good work by investigating the matter. I refer to what Mrs. Edwin Ellis said at the special meeting of the Council. (Vide “Spiritualist,” Oct. 11, p. 179.) That was a right word in the right place. To conclude, if all our evidences were published, the decision of honest Spiritualists would not be doubtful. In the meantime, let us calmly wait for the committee’s verdict.
Mr. A. E. Hunter (of Jesus College, Cambridge) and others write:—
Has it occurred to you that the number of sitters at the Dutch séance is very doubtful; I mean whether all those present really signed their names. Williams said “about a dozen;” only eight, however, attested the so-called fraud. Of course, these eight are careful to keep the exact number in the background.
And, once more, is it, we ask, fair that only mediums should be searched at these materialisation seances? Certainly not; every member of such a circle should be individually searched, for it only needs one person with a malevolent design to throw suspicion on the mediums by pretending to draw articles of dress out of the medium’s pockets, or to secrete them there after the medium has been searched.
It is not only desirable to know whether any persons were present at the seance who refused to sign the statement of the others, but to have a full description of the previous dark stance signed unanimously. If the mediums were then, as usual, held hand and foot, it will show that they were subject to strong spirit power that evening, and probably just as responsible for what they did with and without their bodies, as a sensitive under the rule of a mesmerist on a public platform. All the merits of this Williams-Rita case can never be properly examined, till everybody present at the dark seance has given his account of what he witnessed.
The suggestions about searching people are superfluous. The better thing to do is to abolish cabinet stances altogether, except in experimental investigation among Spiritualists. It will be noticed that almost all public trouble to mediums in America and England has been due to cabinet stances. Good materialising mediums obtain strong manifestations while they are held hand and foot, so why do they not confine themselves to that class of seances, in which they are always safe from the suspicions of inquirers?
Sir Charles Isham, Bart., writes:—
Sir,—Whenever spirits, in the earlier period of the manifestations clothed themselves in the garments of the mediums, I believe they erred quite unconsciously. I once, just for something to say, inquired of Lenore where the clothes she was then wearing were procured. She replied, with unusual energy, that she did not know for certain; Florence brought them, and she suspected they came out of Miss Showers’ wardrobe, but still she doubted it, as she had not seen anything of the kind amongst the dresses. This she seemed most anxious to impress upon me, and repeated it, although I did not show much interest in the conversation.
Lamport Hall, Northampton.
Editor's notes