Legend
< The British National Association of Spiritualists (continued from page 8-150) >
and was treated as altogether subsidiary to the policy of removing Mr. Harrison’s offices from the Association.
“(15.) That that policy is itself inexpedient and unnecessary in the opinion of many members of the Association, and will be regarded as induced or supported not solely with consideration for the interests j of the Association.
“(16.) That the adoption of the recommendation under the circumstances above set forth will cause just dissatisfaction in the Association, and will be seriously prejudicial to its interests.
“I make the above protest in writing in consequence of having sent in my resignation of my seat on the Council, and as that reason only applies to myself, I have not submitted the protest to any other member of the Council or of the committee for his or her concurrence.
“4, Harcourt-buildings, Temple, 14th February, 1879.”
Mr. Harrison then said—Will you kindly hear me out in the few respectful remarks I have to make, since these are nearly my last words on this Council. At the close of this meeting I give in my resignation, which is not altogether grounded, however, upon the subject now before us. Early in 1876 Messrs. Rogers, Bennett, and others, kept this Council in agitation for weeks because I rented a branch office on these premises; I accordingly gave notice of my intention to take offices elsewhere, but the Council, at a large special meeting, asked me to remain here by a majority of nineteen to two. Nearly all the strongest pillars of this Association, men whose names gave confidence to the public, and whose withdrawal would have killed it, told me they disliked the attack which had been made, and that they thought it to be a great convenience to the public to have The Spiritualist office and your reading rooms on the same premises, instead of forcing callers to make a journey between the two. Further, the Council never obtained the names of any objectors, outside a small circle of private friends, all on family visiting terms with each other, and it is not well that private tea-tables in the suburbs should rule a public body. Since then all has been quiet, until at last Council meeting it became necessary to deal with the rooms vacated by Miss Kislingbnry, and Mr. Dawson Rogers proposed that the General Purposes Committee should consider “the general house arrangements.’’ He proposed, further, that Miss Withall, Mrs. Fitz-Gerald, and Mr. Theobald should be added to the committee, and said he had no objection to act on it himself; whereupon Mr. Theobald proposed that Mr. Rogers should be placed on it. The committee met, and last week the recommendations of the committee now before us were issued by it, but illegitimately marked “private and confidential”—a prohibition against showing them to the members of the Association. These recommendations were carried by but a majority of one; the four persons who voted for them were Mr. Rogers, Miss Withall, Mr. E. T. Bennett, and Mr. Fitz-Gerald; the voters against them were Mr. C. C. Massey, Dr. Wyld, and Mrs. Maltby. Many of the members of the committee did not know that any such subject was coming up, and they are at present in a state of indignation, for the Council never intended the committee to deal with anything but the letting of the rooms vacated by the secretary; it never intended that the greater public question of the advantage or disadvantage of having two sets of public offices on these premises should be considered by the committee. The whole thing from first to last—the putting two or three special people on an already good committee, resulting in four votes on one side of a division where otherwise there would have been but two, and the wording of the resolution to make it cover subjects which the Council never intended—amounts altogether to a trick, which cannot be too strongly condemned by people with any sense of honour. Now to briefly criticise the details of the report. The advantages of letting a whole suite of rooms are spoken of. If the word “suite” in the report induces any readers to think of an unbroken suite of rooms, which in consequence of my departure will cover the complete flat instead of but a part of our second floor, let them know that on the said flat is our seance room, wherein public and private dark circles with all their noises are held, and which contains cabinets and weighing machinery, for which there is no room downstairs. Whether it is more remunerative, as the report says, to let six rooms together rather than in smaller numbers, and to turn out a paying tenant on the speculation that a public anxiety exists to take lodgings on Spiritualistic premises I do not know; but I do know that your new secretary cannot be chained immovably to your reading room from 2 till 9.30 p.m., and that if my assistant is not here to relieve her for an hour or two at unexpected times, you must add a boy or girl to your permanent staff at a cost of £20 or £30 a year. One object, the report says, of the recommendation to remove my offices is “to set the Association more free from responsibility;” that is to say, the responsibility of having at least £100 a year income over and above its expenses, for Miss Kislingbury’s departure has changed our whole financial position. Lastly, the report generously asks me to take six weeks’ notice from to-day to remove a somewhat responsible book-publishing office, instead of the three months’ notice from next quarter day, to which I am entitled. The Council never thought that Mr. Rogers’s resolution was intended to reopen the public question about the convenience or inconvenience of my office here, and the committee had no right to take up subjects not intended by the Council. But enough of this. I do not ask my friends to rally round me, as during the 1876 attack, to upset this packing of a good committee with unnecessary additional voters, or any other actions of the kind. If new subjects of inharmony had been brought up there might have been some faint hope of peace; but when an old one, authoritatively settled by a majority of 19 to 2, is brought up again in a surreptitious way, because its raising might not have been permitted had one of the usual straightforward monthly notices of motion been given to the Council, friendly working is hopeless. In spite of all the decisions and rules of the Council, Messrs. Rogers and Bennett every now and then throw brickbats (metaphorically speaking) at me, and I cannot support what I think to be the weak and inefficient public measures they frequently advocate. Io I will get out of this atmosphere of inharmony by giving up my seat on the Council. I have the inclination to say I will move my offices from here without delay, but that would relieve the Council from the present necessity of considering whether subterfuge has been resorted to by any person on the Council to resuscitate among honourable people a question which might not have been reopened by putting it in a straightforward way—that is to say, by giving the usual mouth’s notice to the Council of bringing up again a question of public policy—and whether the Council will submit to such subterfuge. Compared with this question of honour, the trivial one of my little office here is nothing.
Mr. Dawson Rogers said that it was not correct that he had intimated his willingness to serve on the committee before Mr. Theobald nominated him.
A division was then taken. Messrs. Walhouse, Miall, Pearson, Calder, Green, and Harrison did not vote. Mr. Pickersgill and Mrs. Maltby voted against the adoption of the resolutions. The thirteen other members present voted for their adoption. Majority eleven.
A vote of thanks was passed by the Council to the friends who recently gave an entertainment for the benefit of the Association.
The report of the Finance Committee showed a balance in hand of £115 3s. 3d., and recommended payments to the extent of £29 12s. 3d. It estimated the outstanding liabilities of the Association at £5.
A letter from the Rev. T. Colley was read, explaining why he had not attended the last Council.
Mr. Fitz-Gerald moved that Mr. Colley be requested to withdraw from the Council, since he had not attended that or the previous Council meeting, nor taken any steps to substantiate his implied charges against “the authorities” of the Association. He would add that there seemed to be extraordinary discrepancies between Mr. Colley’s published description of a bygone event, and the description of it given by the gentleman in whose house it took place. Mr. Colley had published in The Medium:—“I, in view of the family assembled, had taken the muslin and beard from that medium’s portmanteau,” but Mr. Owen Harries, of 15, Russell-street, Landport, who was, he believed, a respectable man, had written to him (Mr. Fitz-Gerald) under date of January 19th, 1879, that at his house the medium “had a small portmanteau with him; the 'following morning I felt justified in opening the portmanteau, and the first thing that rolled out was a piece of muslin (about four yards) and a beard.... I sent to the Rev. T. Colley, and told him about it; he advised me to say nothing about it at present.” There seemed to be a discrepancy in these statements.
Mr. Coffin- seconded the motion.
Mr. Reimers explained that so far as attending recent Council meetings was concerned, Mr. Colley had been unable to do so.
At the request of Miss Houghton, and one or two others, Mr. FitzGerald postponed his resolution for another month.
The following notices of motion by the Rev. T. Colley were then given in by Mr. Reimers:—
1. That it is inexpedient and prejudicial to the best interests of this Association longer to permit to be used any part of its promises as a shop for the sale of literature it does not endorse and cannot recommend, or continue to suffer the appropriation of any or part of its rooms as an office, branch, or otherwise, for the publication of a journal, assumed, through appearances, to be what it is not, the organ of this Association, and over which it has no control.
2. That no report of the proceedings of this Council be suffered to be made public that has not been authenticated by the chairman as honest and complete, and in fair agreement with the recorded minutes of the transactions of the Association.
The Secretary then read the following resignation from Mr. Harrison:—
“38, Groat Russell-street, Feb. 11th, 1879.
“To the Council of the British National Association of Spiritualists.
“Ladies and Gentlemen,—I write to resign my seat on your Council. The chief reason is that I find we have no proper control of our committees, so that public acts are performed for which members of Council arc responsible, but of which they know nothing. For instance, I found that three printed circulars, with the words 1 British National Association of Spiritualists’ at the top, had been printed and issued to the public by Mr. Bennett, at Richmond. The circulars did not tell the public to communicate with the secretary, but with Mr. Bennett. The Council would not have known anything about these circulars had I not accidentally discovered their existence some months after they had been printed. Further, our committees sometimes take up work they have not been ordered to take up, spend money without having the items previously sanctioned by the Council, and exercise the power of recording minutes of business which they do not report to the Council. Lastly, one of them has just issued a circular, which its members, our subordinates, have ordered us to treat as ‘private and confidential.’ I submit that our stewards have no right to give us such orders, and that our constituents have given us no authority to carry on any secret work whatever on their behalf; also that until, as in town councils, all minutes of our committees shall, be of no effect or authority until read over to and adopted by the Council, the power of the Council is broken, and it has little control over much for which it is responsible. Having failed to induce you to adopt that system of working which is common all over the kingdom, I respectfully give in this resignation.—Truly yours,
The meeting then broke up.
<Untitled> (Spiritualism in India...)
Spiritualism in India— Just before going to press we are glad to hear from Mr. Eglinton that he is going to India, where a physical medium has long keen. wanted among European residents. Those of Mr. Eglinton’s seances during which both his bauds are held are usually convincing. At present he is in Cape Town.
Editor's notes
- ↑ Spiritualism in India... by unknown author, London Spiritualist, No. 338, February 14, 1879, p. 83
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 338, February 14, 1879, p. 83