 |
vol. title: vol. period: 1879-1880 pages in vol.: 577 |
< Mr.Massey's accusation against Mr.Fletcher (continued from page 10-442) >
conducted in a manner the direct opposite of that adopted by the quiet unpretentious Slade.
“An American had rendered Spiritualism detestable and contemptible in this country.” These words may be too strong as applied to any one medium, but they are certainly more applicable to Eva Fay than to Slade. First we have the exhibition as a conjuror to the public, and as a medium to Spiritualists; then the offer of her business agent to Mr. Maskelyne that—“for an adequate sum of money the medium should expose the whole affair, scientific tests and all.” (Carpenter, in Fraser’s Magazine, 1877, p. 553); then her exposure by Mr. Bishop, who was supported by many eminent men in America (including Oliver Wendell Holmes); and all this made public in England by Dr. Carpenter in so widely read a periodical as Fraser’s Magazine, must surely have had to a considerable extent the effect described. In this case we have no mitigating circumstances or countervailing benefits. The main facts cannot be denied, and the evidence that Mrs. Fay was really a powerful medium only adds to the injury the whole affair did to the cause.
It is true that Dr. Carpenter’s article was not published till after Mr. Fletcher's arrival in England, but Mrs. Fay's performances in London were in 1875, and her exposure in America extended over a large part of the year 1876, and this exposure was made widely known by the American Graphic and other newspapers, and through them to the English public. Besides, as Mr. Fletcher's words were spoken at a later date, they might very well have been influenced in their tone by the effects of Dr. Carpenter’s attack.
I have now shown that the words used by Mr. Fletcher are, in their entirety, totally inapplicable to Slade, while they are strictly applicable to Eva Fay; and when to this we add that Mr. Fletcher not only denies that they were meant for Slade, but goes further and says—“I have never had any but the highest opinion of Dr. Slade and his great gifts”—it seems to me a strange obliquity of judgment to maintain that Mr. Fletcher must tell a double falsehood because it is “incredible” to Mr. Massey that the words apply to any one else!
As to the inference attempted to be drawn from Mr. Fletcher's somewhat evasive answers at first, not the slightest weight can be attached to what is a mere matter of temper and judgment. An innocent man often behaves as if he were guilty, while on the other hand a guilty person often exhibits all the prompt indignation and loud denial of conscious innocence. Many persons think that a false accusation which seems to them almost absurd in its inappropriateness, had better be treated with contempt, and the manner in which this accusation was first made fully justified, in my opinion, such treatment of it. For, as I have now shown, the words used by Mr. Fletcher were all of them totally inapplicable to the admitted character of Slade, to his manner and his proceedings, while they were strictly applicable to the Fays, and in a less degree to several other American mediums. Yet from the first Mr. Massey used language which implied a certainty that Slade and no other was meant, and which even, to any one reading his first letters by themselves, implied that Slade had been referred to by name. He speaks in his very first letter of “a scandalous aspersion on Slade;” then that Fletcher had told the interviewer “that Slade was a charlatan,” and that he “vilified Slade for his own glorification;” and the only justification of this language is that “all the world” understood it to be Slade and that it was “simply incredible” that any other person could have been meant! Both these pleas I have now shown to have had not the slightest foundation in fact. People as well acquainted with Spiritualism and its history as Mr. Massey never so applied it, and many others will now be satisfied that the “incredibility” is quite the other way. To make such positive assertions on so slender a foundation, and to accuse a man of wilful falsehood on an untenable interpretation of his words which he himself denies, is to my mind far more reprehensible than any errors of judgment or of taste which have been charged against Mr. Fletcher in this matter.
In conclusion, I would point out, that my condemnation of the reckless accusation of untruth made against Mr. Fletcher does not in the least depend on his having consciously referred to Eva Fay. We often draw our conclusions from a combination of circumstances, and Mr. Fletcher may have had several American mediums in his mind and referred to their combined effect though speaking partly in the singular. But, as the accusation rests entirely on the alleged impossibility of any other than Slade having been referred to, it is completely answered by showing that there is another person to whom all that was said may be applied at least as well as to Slade; whereas, I have gone further, and have shown that while the actual words used do not apply to him, they do most strictly and accurately apply to the Fays.
I have brought forward these facts and remarks in the cause of simple justice, and I now submit them to the careful consideration of English Spiritualists.
Mr.Wallace's mistake
Sir,—The mystery of Mr. Wallace’s defence of Fletcher, which astonished me and filled “Lex” with dismay, is now explained. His “careful” reading, ten or eleven months ago, of a correspondence in which Fletcher’s admitted words are twice set out at length from the original and authentic source, has resulted in Mr. Wallace now accepting, upon “good” authority, a perfectly fictitious version of those words. In contending that a hypothetical reference to American mediums in general is not specially or exclusively applicable to one in particular, Mr. Wallace has given himself quite unnecessary trouble. Only a malicious fool would adopt such a construction, or found a charge of falsehood on its repudiation. Apparently, this obvious consideration did not suggest to Mr. Wallace the propriety of verifying his information. Whether there was anything in my known antecedents to justify such neglect, it is of course not for me to say. Pending any further public communication which Mr. Wallace may now think it right to make, I need add nothing more, except to thank “Lex” for his too kind and generous allusions to myself.
<Untitled> (Sir,- Mr. Wallace seems in some respect...)
Sir,—Mr. Wallace seems in some respects to have made matters worse. If the quarry had been less noble, his last letter might have been left to answer itself. But it is impossible to treat your illustrious correspondent with the forbearance which might be charitably displayed towards common men. His great eminence, which, by the way, involves a corresponding responsibility, gives to his words a weight which makes it necessary to notice them.
I must therefore, though very unwillingly, ask your readers to compare Mr. Wallace’s two letters, dated respectively September 20th and 27th. In the former he says, “I read the whole of the correspondence and accusation with great care.” In the latter he says, “The words used,” by Fletcher, “were (as I am informed on good authority) if American mediums have ruined Spiritualism, &c.” Now in the original cor-<... continues on page 10-444 >
Editor's notes
Sources
-
London Spiritualist, No. 424, October 8, 1880, p. 177