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 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Mr.Wallace's Defence of Mr. Fletcher|10-447}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued |Mr.Wallace's Defence of Mr. Fletcher|10-447}} | ||
... | {{Style P-No indent|in England, or the public reputation of it, having been even perceptibly affected by any reports, prior to the appearance of Dr. Carpenter’s article in ''Fraser'' (''Fletcher having then arrived'') of these occurrences in America, would be utterly untrue and nonsensical. Mr. Wallace admits that the words “had rendered Spiritualism detestable and contemptible in this country” “may be too strong” to apply to Mrs. Fay, or, as he thinks, to “any one medium.” (We will see about that directly). But he considers that Fletcher’s language may have been influenced by the effects of Dr. Carpenter’s article. But Fletcher could not have got out of the ''Fraser'' article or its effects, his reason for coming to England at an earlier date. And all the facts on which Mr. Wallace relies for showing that Eva Fay might possibly be said to have discredited Spiritualism here or abroad are got out of this ''Fraser'' article, and were generally unknown to the English public until Dr. Carpenter published them in it.}} | ||
{{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-449}} | Mr. Wallace lays great stress on the fact that in the opinion of Spiritualists the phrase “not necessarily impostors, but charlatans” is applicable to Mrs. Fay and not applicable to Slade. He would reverse the well-known rule of construction, that general words are to be governed and interpreted by the particular words that follow them, and not the particular by the general. He asks us to begin by assuming that Fletcher as a Spiritualist was in agreement with other Spiritualists as to Slade’s character; because otherwise the general words coming from his mouth, would be just as applicable to Slade as to Mrs. Fay. But this is the very point in dispute, and the only way of deciding the dispute is to see whether the particular words which follow have any possible application to any one but Slade. | ||
In all the foregoing, down to the last paragraph, I have studiously kept Slade out of the question. I have wished to show that had Slade never been heard of in England there would have been no object on which Fletcher’s words would have found even a momentary resting place; that they would have been empty and unintelligible; that there would have been nobody and nothing to suggest them; and that therefore they would never have been spoken. | |||
But what was, and had been for many months, the state of things in England as regards Spiritualism at the time that Fletcher came over? Who had been talking of Eva Fay or the Holmeses? Who had not been talking of Dr. Slade? I am writing on Sunday, and I take up the ''Observer'' newspaper before me. My eye lights at once on an article suggested by Miss Houghton’s case, and what do I read? “Spiritualism has, to all intents and purposes, died out since the memorable exposure of ‘Doctor’ Slade. The controversy then aroused was read by all intelligent people, and we believe put the whole matter at rest for ever.” And again, “Mr. David Dunglass Home and the so-called ‘Doctor’ Slade played for high stakes; but with the discomfiture of these two masters in the art of mediumship, Spiritualism became practically extinct.” &c. Of course this is false—absurd to us, who know better. But when the same thing was said hundreds of times over in the months between September 1876, and February 1877, it was said in good faith, and believed by thousands of people in this country. Is it not the fact, without any exaggeration, that Spiritualism was “detestable and contemptible” to the public, according to all the evidences we have of public opinion, on Slade’s account during all the time? Of course the notorious fact may be stated in two ways; either in condemnation of Slade, as was implied by Fletcher’s language, or without any such implication, as I state it, who have a hearty sympathy with Slade, in simple recognition of what is undeniable. Will Mr. Wallace seriously contend that information could have reached Fletcher at any time between September 1876 and the spring of 1877 to the effect that Spiritualism in England had been terribly discredited through an American medium, without such information having reference to Slade? Or to what previous time does he suppose Mr. Fletcher’s meaning to be reasonably referable? I will give him a large tract of time (notwithstanding Fletcher’s “at once”) if he will only not carry me back to Home and the Davenports, but will point to some one single American medium, other than Slade, exposed or reputed to be exposed here in England, and whose real or supposed misconduct attracted any remarkable public attention. We know that he cannot do so. And so he puts us off with exposures in America, with attacks in England subsequent to Fletcher’s arrival, and with one meaning several. And because all this comes to us with the authority of an imposing name and reputation, time not wholly valueless must be consumed in detailed exposure of what I must call manifest absurdities. | |||
But there is a further observation. It is evident that Fletcher must have committed himself to some name among his intimates in London. Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, cited by Mr. Wallace, is likely to be a very good authority on what Fletcher desired to be “generally understood.” Now if Fletcher has ever named any one, all other candidates for the honour of his denunciation to the Whitehall Reviewer must be dropped by his defenders. And if we find the faithful of Steinway Hall putting forth the name of the Holmeses, we may be pretty sure that Fletcher put that name into their heads. Mr. Wallace forgets that Mr. Fitzgerald’s information is probably fatal to his own suggestion of Eva Fay, when he uses it to convict me of inaccuracy in saying that “all the world” understood Slade. Now as to this, no doubt it may have been “generally understood”—among Fletcher’s friends—that he meant the Holmeses, ''after Fletcher had put that into their heads''. I have no certain information that he did so; but I should be rather surprised to hear it denied by credible persons—and surely some there must be—who suppose themselves to have been in Fletcher’s confidence on this subject. (Although, indeed, I have some reason to suspect that Fletcher rang the changes on more than one name in private.) I can only say that my own attention was called to “Fletcher’s attack on Slade” by some half-a-dozen people before I publicly noticed it, to not one of whom had it ever occurred to imagine that the words would refer to anyone else. | |||
Mr. Wallace objects to the phrase (yours, Sir, I believe), “convicted,” because “the accuser alone is both judge and jury.” Whose fault is it that there has been no decision by “an impartial and competent tribunal?” Mine, who first offered Fletcher a decidedly friendly tribunal, and afterwards put him in the position to bring the case before a legal tribunal by formally libelling him, and pointedly calling his attention to the fact that I had done so, and to his remedy? Or Fletcher’s who alone could put the law in motion, and refrained from doing so? | |||
Mr. Wallace thinks that contempt for my accusation that Fletcher had traduced Slade may account for the former’s “somewhat evasive answers at first.” I have heard of contempt being evinced by silence, but who ever before heard of it being expressed by repeatedly evasive answers to perfectly distinct statements and questions? “Somewhat evasive!” If Fletcher had answered in the witness box as he answered in your {{Style S-HPB SB. Continues on |10-449}} | |||