Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
12,919
edits
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| item =1 | | item =1 | ||
| type =correspondence | | type =correspondence | ||
| status = | | status = proofread | ||
| continues =443 | | continues =443 | ||
| author =Wallace, Alfed R. | | author =Wallace, Alfed R. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
}} | }} | ||
... | Sir,—Having now again read over the entire series of letters in last year's ''Spiritualist'', and having also before me Mr. Massey's latest communication reiterating and enforcing his accusation at considerable length, I am prepared to explain the reasons for my own view, which, that the original accusation against Mr. Fletcher of having alluded to Slade in his remarks to the ''Whitehall'' writer is not only unproved, but is also ''prima facie'' improbable, and that, consequently, after Mr. Fletcher's positive denial that he did refer to Slade, the repeated statement that he has been “convicted” of “wilful untruth” in this matter is an outrage on justice and a gross perversion of the meaning of words. For surely “convicted” means—“found guilty by some impartial and competent tribunal,” whereas here it is the accuser alone who is both judge and jury, and his judgment is, as I shall show, not in accordance with the evidence. | ||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|10-443}} | The above accusation rests entirely on two assumptions made by Mr. Massey,—that “it is ''simply incredible'' that Mr. Fletcher had any other American medium in his mind than Slade,”—and that it was—“so interpreted by all the world.” As to the latter assumption we have not a particle of evidence adduced. So far as the evidence given to the public goes “''all the world''” means Mr. Massey and the Editor of the ''Spiritualist''; for it must be noted that the anonymous W. C. P. who began the correspondence says—“To whom is Mr. Fletcher supposed to allude? Surely not to Slade, &c.,” implying at all events that he did not think it ''incredible'' that it could have been someone else. I am further authorised by Mr. Desmond G. Fitzgerald—one of the Vice Presidents of the B.N.A.S.—to state that he never believed the remarks to apply to Slade, and that they were “generally understood” to apply to the Holmeses. Another well-known Spiritualist gives me similar information, and it is therefore certain that this rhetorical expression “all the world” has no foundation in fact. | ||
There remains therefore the alleged “incredibility” that any one else could have been referred to, and to this question I shall now address myself, asking only for a fair consideration of the facts and arguments I shall adduce, and that it shall be assumed, as a possible hypothesis until the contrary is proved, that Mr. Fletcher ''may'' have told the truth when he declared that he did not refer to Slade. | |||
Now, as this is a question of the ''necessary meaning'' of certain words and expressions, it is most important that we should have them exactly before us, and should not lay stress on any one portion of them without considering their relation to the rest. I therefore give the sentence quoted from the ''Whitehall Review'' by W. C. P., the general accuracy of which has not been impugned by Mr. Fletcher. Its form shows that it was the conclusion of a discussion or exposition:—“It is the true view. There are men—not necessarily impostors, but charlatans—who have disgraced our creed. For my own part, when I learned that an American had rendered Spiritualism detestable and contemptible in this country, I at once resolved to come over and wipe out the disgrace. I have partly succeeded.” Here is first a general statement, evidently pointing to more than one person, (and those not necessarily mediums) who were ''perhaps'' impostors, ''certainly'' charlatans; and next a reference to an American who had rendered Spiritualism detestable &c., and by Mr. Fletcher's reply it is clear that this American was a medium, and it may be fairly inferred that the ''medium'' and the ''charlatans'' were either one person or closely connected. | |||
Now it is clear that the person or persons here referred to as “possible” impostors and “actual” charlatans, were such in the opinion of Spiritualists; for to non-Spiritualists all mediums are impostors and Spiritualism itself is a standing disgrace. There must, therefore, have been ''doubt'' as to the genuineness and honesty of the person referred to, even among Spiritualists. Were there any such doubts about Slade either in America or England? Certainly not; and therefore he could not be the person referred to as “not ''necessarily'' an impostor!” But is he a charlatan? Charlatan means a quack, a boaster, and implies some amount of trickery, with puffery and efforts at notoriety. Does this apply to Slade? Was he not quiet and gentlemanly in his manners? Did he puff or advertise himself, or in any way put himself prominently before the public? Certainly not; and therefore the word charlatan does not apply to him. Of course it will be said by Mr. Massey that this makes it all the worse, and applying such terms to Slade becomes a slander. Very true, if the words were applied to him ''by name''; but when it is merely ''inferred'' that they so apply, in the face of a direct contradiction by the person who used them, the fact that they are really quite inapplicable must be encountered by very strong and direct evidence on the other side. Then again, was Spiritualism rendered “detestable and contemptible” by Slade's trial? Surely not so. The opportunity it offered for such men as Mr. R. H. Hutton (Editor of the ''Spectator''), Mr. Massey and others, to give evidence on oath in favour of the reality of the phenomena—evidence admitted by the magistrate to be “overwhelming”—is generally held to have done far more to advance Spiritualism than the prosecution itself did to injure it; while the fact that nothing whatever was proved against the character and antecedents of Slade, and that his supporters were at least equal in position and attainments to his accusers, would tend to elevate the status of Spiritualism in public opinion. Here again, therefore, the actual words used do not apply to Slade. | |||
But, says Mr. Massey, who else can they apply to? I believe that even to some of those names Mr. Massey rejects the words used do apply far better than to Slade, and they were actually supposed by many Spiritualists to apply to the Holmeses, but there is another party to whom they apply with such remarkable accuracy that I think every impartial reader will acknowledge that they were probably so meant to apply. I allude to Colonel and Mrs. Fay; and to show their application in this case, we will take the terms used ''seriatim''. | |||
“''Not necessarily impostors''.” Mrs. Fay was exhibited in London by Colonel Fay in an equivocal character as neither conjuror nor medium. Dr. Carpenter says:—“The ‘Colonel’ candidly informed his audience that he purposely abstained from saying anything about the nature of the manifestations; he did not claim for them a ‘Spiritualistic’ character; on the other hand, he did not present them as conjuring tricks.” The Fay performance was a set one, got up to look like conjuring; and notwithstanding the remarkable tests to which the lady was afterwards subjected by Mr. Crookes, many Spiritualists believed, and probably still believe, that she was a skilful sleight-of-hand performer as well as a powerful medium. The phrase “not necessarily an impostor” is therefore strictly applicable to her. | |||
“''But charlatans''.” This term exactly describes the Fay performance. It was puffed and advertised. It was sensational in its get-up; and it was in every way {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on|10-443}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||