Hi Tradename,
Check (if you are interested) into "Sir" Washington Irving Bishop. He died in 1889 under circumstances that are a trifle murky and frightening. Bishop had a history of epilepsy, and while in a trance had some form of attack (or so it was said) in front of an audience of theater people and professional people. One of the doctors present felt his pulse and was sure (or said he was sure) that Bishop was dead. However, in the past Bishop was known to snap out of these situations. His body was taken to a hospital and the doctors began to do a post-mortem examination, including removing the top of his skull. They finished the post-mortem, and declared his death related to the epilepsy. But it has never been satisfactorily disproven that the post-mortem was not the actual cause of death while Bishop was unconcious.
Jeff
-
Here's a link to a post at JTR Forums by Simon Wood about the Dr. Rubie that Cumberland mentioned in his account of his "prophetic dream." He was still alive in 1889 when Cumberland's account was published.
An article about muscle reading which mentions Cumberland:
The Virginia Enterprise. (Virginia, St. Louis County, Minn.), January 24, 1908, Page 7
Facts
Fads
Fallacies
Dealing vilk Personal Magnetism. Telepathy, Psychology,
Suggestion, Hypnotism, aod Splritualism
by Edward B. Warman, A.M.
Eminent Psychologist and Hygienist
Muscle Reading
"Muscle reading" is not reading the
muscle but reading the mind by means
of unconscious muscular action. When
this is called "mind-reading"—-in the
sense in which it is generally understood—-
the term "mind-reading" is a
misnomer and is, in consequence, misleading.
Its History.
So-called "mind-reading" had its initiative
in Chicago in 1873, and was
first demonstrated by one J. Randall
Brown, a newspaper reporter.
In 1877, while Brown was giving exhibitions
in Chickering hall, New York
city, a young man whose fame afterward
eclipsed that of Brown and every
other so-called "mind-reader," made
himself known to Brown, and desired
to be his assistant, claiming he had
like powers.
This was none other than the great
Washington Irving Bishop, who saw
the opportunity of gathering in the
sheckels from a gullible public.
In conversation with Mr. Bishop in
Chicago (1887), after he had made an
international reputation, he admitted
to me the trickery whereby all "mind
(?) readers" performed their various
feats, and strongly indorsed the
memorable words of P. T. Barnum,
"The American people like to be humbugged."
I especially remember his remark in
regard to the use of the wire which he
touched to his forehead in order to
read the mind of the one at the other
end of the wire. He said: "The more
mysterious you make the affair, the
less likely are they (the public) to unravel
it."
When in England, Bishop secured
the services of one Charles Garner as
an assistant. As Bishop left Brown,
so Garner left Bishop as soon as the
trick was discovered. As Bishop had
invaded British territory, Garner sallied
forth "to do" the Americans, but
unlike Bishop, he did not care to put
his label upon his work. He came to
this country as "Stuart Cumberland,
the Great Mind-reader of London, England."
I was an invited guest at a private
seance (his initial performance) held
In the parlors of the Russell house,
Detroit, Mich. I give herewith, as
briefly as possible, not only what was
done, in a general way, but the HOW.
A dozen or more prominent citizens,
including ministers, lawyers, reporters,
actors, etc., were present by special request.
When "Cumberland" arrived he announced
that his tests of "mind-reading"
would consist of finding hidden
objects; giving names, dates of birth,
places of birth, etc., etc., of those present.
He did all that he agreed to do
—-and did it well—-under the guise of
"mind-reading." He failed in one instance
only (of this I will hereinafter
speak), and that failure was undeniable
proof that results depend more
largely upon the subject than upon the
"mind-reader" and wholly, in this case,
upon the physical contact.
Before leaving the room and being
blindfolded he took each of us by the
hand, for an instant only. Why? The
more expert the "mind-reader" (muscle
reader) the more sensitive to the
touch, even to so fine and delicate a
sense as may be rightly termed supersensitive.
He said: "I do this to ascertain
the best subject for the severest,
or most difficult test, viz., the
finding of three objects in quick succession."
Not only his touch but his sight
guided him in his choice. He would
not choose one of a phlegmatic temperament
or one of a-sluggish circulation.
I, being of a nervous, sanguine temperament,
sensitive to a marked degree,
was chosen for the test.
How It Was Done.
First, the blindfold. This is an assistance
rather than a hindrance. Inasmuch
as it shuts out all exterior distractions
from the operator's mind it
makes him more passive to the involuntary
muscular action of his subject;
besides, it appears to render the work
of the "mind-reader" more difficult.
In nearly every case the operator
produces a black 'kerchief (to add to
the deception) which he places over
the eyes and asks you to draw it tightly.
Yes, the tighter the better. Why?
Because he contracts the brows and
even if you put on an additional 'kerchief
and fold kid gloves over the eyes
(as did Paul Alexander Johnstone) the
strain of the 'kerchief falls upon the
part of the gloves resting against the
contracted brows. When he desires to
see he raises his brows—-a very simple
thing, indeed.
This is a very great aid and is especially
deceptive when describing a
young lady in the audience to whom a
book or bouquet is to be given. She
was plainly visible to the operator
(from underneath the fold) when he [something missing?]
muscular action of the subject.
This blindfold is also used to prove
(?) that his experiments are not due
to physical contact when he does not
touch the subject, but, instead, extends
his hands, one above the other, about
a foot or more apart, and directs the
subject to put one of his hands between
and equidistant from his own.
Were they placed on the level of his
eyes he could not do the trick. Why?
Because he could not see the action or
movement of the subject's hand. This
is essential to success because when
the operator moves his hands in the
wrong direction the subject's hand follows
tardily, thereby indicating, unconsciously
and unintentionally, to the
operator that he is moving in the
wrong direction. But when the operator
is on the right track, the hand of
the subject responds readily and retains
its relative position.
This blindfold trick is also resorted
to in the "driving test" through the
crowded thoroughfares of a city. However,
In the case of Johnstone a hood
was worn, the out cover being mohair,
the inner part of heavy broadcloth.
Surely he could not see below this?
No, he had no need to do so; he could
see through it by means of a neat little
contrivance. The strings that fastened
the hood about the neck had a sort of
double back-action, i. e., they opened a
seam in the front of the broadcloth
hood that was not distinguishable
through the mohair,--not distinguishable
to the casual observer, but enabled
the "mind-reader" to. distinguish
objects very clearly. So much for the
blindfold and the part it plays in reading
minds.
Once more to Mr. "Cumberland."
When he re-entered the room, after
having been blindfolded, he took the
hand of one of the group who had hidden
an object and he found the object
quickly. He did this many times and
accurately. He failed but once. There
was a reason. One of the reporters desired
a test. Unfortunately (for Mr.
"Cumberland") the reporter had been
imbibing rather freely, too freely to
concentrate his mind on the hidden
object. The reporter's hand "was as
limp, so to speak, as was hla mind;
therefore as the operator depended entirely
upon muscular action to indicate
direction he was wholly at sea—-a ship
without a rudder—-and he was obliged
to give it up.
In the triple test with myself as
guide he succeeded admirably. I held
my thought intently on each separate
article—-individually, not collectively;
held each one for the time being at
the exclusion of the two others.
Mind-Reading or Muscle Residing. Which?
Undoubtedly and undeniably muscle
reading. In order to do justice to the
operator my mind was fixed on the
hidden object, each In its turn; so intent
was I that I was not aware of a
muscular movement on my part that
was directing him to the object.
Mind is indivisible. It is impossible
for the mind to be in two places at the
same time. The hand of the operator
is guided, unmistakably guided by the
hand of the subject as soon as the
physical contact is established, as he
fully surrenders himself to the involuntary
muscular leading of his subject.
'Tis true, the operator is usually in
advance, hence it may be said that the
subject cannot lead, but the subject
can push as well as pull; the better
word, however, is direct.
When the operator, in his rush
(which is done for effect) passes the
point or place in the subject's mind,
he is very quickly made aware of it
by an involuntary movement on the
part of the subject that arrests his attention
and directs his action.
In the giving of names, dates, etc.,
Mr. "Cumberland" had all the letters
of the alphabet and the numerals (up
to ten) arranged in regular order.
Again he was blindfolded and seated
at a table. He took the hand of the
subject and told him to think intently
on the first letter of his name. He
then passed the subject's hand slowly
over the letters. When the right letter
was reached the supersensitive "mind-reader"
felt a slight involuntary movement
on the part of the subject. Instantly
the operator's hand darted
down on the correct letter like a hawk
on a chicken.
In this slow and tedious way he gave
names, dates, etc., and called it mind-reading.
If you want additional and self-evident
proof of involuntary muscular action,
you may find it in your own personal
experience if you are a bicyclist.
Recall the time you learned to ride.
Do you recollect that death-like grip
with which you clung to the handlebars?
You saw an object in the street.
There was ample room on either side
of it, but you steered straight for it
and then wondered why you hit it.
Why did you? Because mind is indivisible
and cannot be in two places at
the same time. Your mind was on the
object in the street, hence you were
wholly unconscious of the muscular action
that guided the wheel.
You may remember the experience
of the man who was learning to ride a
wheel and had much difficulty in consequence
of a telegraph pole in front
of his house. The pole was on the side
of the road, not in the road, but it always
seemed to be in evidence.
No matter where he started that
pole seemed to be his objective point.
He aimed straight for it (unintentionally)
and his aim was good. One day
he started with his back to the pole.
Although he was a novice he discovered
he was a trick rider; his wheel
made a complete circuit and struck the
pole. Why? Because he could not
have his mind on the pole and on the
wheel at the same time. Besides, he
feared the pole; and what one fears,
he gets.
The "muscle reader" and his subject
hold exactly the same relation to each
other as do the novice wheelman and
his wheel—-directed by unconscious
muscular action.Leave a comment:
-
Serialization of Cumberland's "Marked for a Victim"
The plot is pretty much the same as described in the reviews of A Fatal Affinity posted earlier. The story has more exposition (and waiting for exposition) than action. I don't know if there's any occultic significance in the way the chapters have been (mis)numbered.
The Evening World, March 14, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Prologue.
A Shadow over a Birthday
Chapter I.
The series of Tragedies that Excited London
The Evening World, March 15, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter II.
Wherein the "Charing Cross Gazette" Prints the Terrible Catalogue of the Mysterious Tragedies
The Evening World, March 16, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter III.
Wherein the Police Offer a Pardon to Any Accomplice and a Remarkable Discussion is Held at the Globe Trotter's Club
The Evening World, March 18, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter IV.
An Extraordinary Story of Parisian Tragedies Resulting from Hypnotic Influences, Cited as a Parallel to the London Mysteries
The Evening World, March 19, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter V.
Wherein the Lover of the Beautiful Miss Hardcastle Makes a Terrible Discovery
The Evening World, March 20, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VI.
Col. Mansfield Presents Evelyn Hardcastle a Talisman of Safety
The Evening World, March 21, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VI.--(Continued)
Miss Hardcastle Promises to Wear the Locket Near Her Heart
Chapter VII.
An Emissary of Darkness
The Evening World, March 22, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter VII.--(Continued)
An Emissary of Darkness
Chapter VI. [sic]
The Shadow of the Dagger
The Evening World, March 23, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter IX.
Further Mysteries Touching Col. Mansfield.
The Evening World, March 25, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter X.
MansField's Strange Trance
Chapter XI.
A Mysterious Affair
The Evening World, March 26, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XI.
The Police and the Public Much Mystified over the Extraordinary State of Affairs
The Evening World, March 27, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XII.
The Remarkable Proceedings before the Coroner
The Evening World, March 28, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XII.--(Continued)
"I am the Slave of the Master"
Chapter XIV. [sic]
"It is He!" She Said
The Evening World, March 29, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XIII. [sic]
The Curse of Ram Dass
Chapter XIV.
Col. Mansfield's Strange Manuscript
The Evening World, March 30, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XIV.
Col. Mansfield's Strange Manuscript Continued
The Evening World, April 1, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Chapter XVI.
Mansfield Awakes from his Trance
Chapter XIv. [sic]
What became of the DaggerLeave a comment:
-
Evening World's Profile of Cumberland
You're welcome, Jeff.
Jenni, I'm not quite sure what to make of Lees.
Here's a profile of Cumberland published by the New York Evening World to promote the serialization of Cumberland's story, "Marked for a Victim", which was later published in book form as A Fatal Affinity.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of this profile.
The Evening World, March 13, 1889, LAST EDITION, Page 3
Stuart Cumberland
Something About the Author of "Marked for a Victim"
He is "Thought Reader" to Europe's Crowned Heads
His Theory of Whitechapel's Mystery Expressed in Fiction
Mr. Stuart Cumberland, whose new and
dramatic story, "Marked for a Victim," begins
in The Evening World possesses
a world-wild repute as on occultist, a
mystic and a "thought-reader" to the Upper
Ten Thousand. A man of wealth, he has devoted
himself to the study of occult subjects
as a hobby, and claims to have been engaged
to read the thoughts of the crowned heads
and almost everybody of prominence in Europe.
In "Marked for a Victim" Mr. Cumberland
has woven a story of much dramatic interest.
Though founded on the Whltechapel
mysteries and expressing his theory of those
atrocities, the story avoids the objectional
and gruesome details. It is several degrees
more thrilling than the conventional novel,
and, what with love, mystery and occultism,
it is intensely interesting from the first line
to the last.
Though the author of several other works,
Mr. Stuart Cumberland is best known to the
public as a "thought-reader."
"Thought-reading" is a phase of the modern
spirit of physical [sic] research which brings
psychological action and phenomena into the
sphere of scientific research. The "London
Society of Psychical Research" makes this
sort of vital energy the object of its special
endeavor, and the soul falls Into its place as
a thing to be studied, just as naturally as
electricity.
It is an opinion of several thousand years'
standing that no human being could read
another human being's thoughts, if that other
human being could keep his thoughts fonted [?]
up in his thinking cells. Modern Thought
Reading, its exponents think, is rather
knocking out that idea.
Stuart Cumberland is one of the most
brilliant exponents of this fascinating practice.
It can be deservedly styled a practice
with him, because he has adopted it as a profession,
and reads thoughts as lawyers study
briefs, or as doctors diagnose and give clinics.
Stuart Cumberland is a man of about thirty-five
years of age. He comes of a fine old
English family which has that surest claim to
respectability in Albion that it owns real
estate.
He had an assured income from his own
fortune, and has devoted himself to this peculiar
field because he was too brainy a fellow
to bo simply a dawdling society man. He is
quite a fine-looking man, of good physique
and polished manners.
Mr. Cumberland is a great traveller, and a
student in many lines of knowledge. The
occult and subtler branches of science are
the ones that appeal to him most.
He was in the United States five years ago,
and travelled all over the country, as well as
South America.
He also went from East to West through
the British possessions on the Canadian
Pacific. The impressions and information
which he gathered from this trip, through
some of the most striking places on the
Western Continent, he embodied in a book
which he called "The Queen's Highway,"
This work has received the most flattering
encomiums from the press. Lord Lausdowne,
the present Governor-General of the Dominion
of Canada; tho Marquis of Lorne, his
predecessor in that position: Lord Dufferin,
once an Incumbent of the same, and Sir John
Macdonald, the Canadian premier, wrote him
hearty congratulations on the thoroughness
and value of his production. They certainly
were admirably qualified to rightly estimate
his success in this undertaking.
Mr, Cumberland has also published a weird
book, "The Rabbi's Spell.' He is a Fellow
of the Royal Geographical Society. One of
the latest works from his pen is styled "A
Thought-Reader's Thoughts."
He claims nothing preternatural in the accomplishment,
nor is be a Splrltualist. On
the other hand, while he claims that he will
do anything that any mind-reader can perform,
and achieves results which are unique
with itself, he does not say that it is trickery.
Irving Bishop's feats were duplicated by
Mr. Cumberland when he was here in New
York. He moved in society and had the
entree among the Four Hundred.
Mr. Cumberland has psychologically analyzed
some of the most distinguished personages
on the continent, and also many of
our American celebrities, among whom may
be mentioned the late Henry Ward Beecher,
Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, the poet John
G. Whittier, and many others with a good
deal of mind to read.
Among the other notables whose minds
Mr, Cumberland has perused are the Imperial
families of Austria aud Russia, the late
Emperor of Germany, Prince Bismarck, the
Khedive. the Nyzam of Hyderabad, the King
nf the Sandwich Island, those wily diplomats,
De Giero and Andrassy; Rubinstein. Coquelin,
Mme. Adam. Mr. Gladstone, Fred Burnaby,
Henry Stanley, tho artist Munkacsy,
the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Derby,
Princess Metternich and scores of others of
like prominence and mental excellence.
He has been claimed by the Spiritualists as
a "medium," by the Psychical Research
people as a conductor of brain waves and example
of telepathy, and by Mme. Blavatsky
and the Theosophists as the possessor of an
"astral body."
All of these distinctions Mr. Cumberland
declines with thanks, and will have none of
them. He professes to read thoughts in a
subject by interpreting tho physical indications
conveyed to him by the subject. Unless,
a subject is able to concentrate his mind
upon the thing sufficiently to give the necessary
muscular indications Mr. Cumberland frankly
admits that it is morally impossible
for him to tell what is in the subject's mind.
But it is not with weak aud nervous people
that he has the most success, as might be
supposed. Experiments with this class are
more frequently failures than with any
others. The man of iron will, who can concentrate
his thoughts strongly on a determined
thing, is the one whose mind is most
easily read by Mr. Cumberland. Mr. Gladstone
was an excellent subject, as was also
the late Kaiser.
A thought reader has greater power with
artists than with musicians. Gounod gave
Mr. Cumberland the greatest trouble, though
Rubinstein was a very sympathetic one.
Clergymen, ior drawing-room experiments,
are absolutely perfect.
To conclude, Mr. Cumberland makes his
whole confession of faith when he says that
thought reading is body reading. He says it
is exceedingly exhaustive work. Mr. Cumberland
has abandoned it himself to devote
his energies to some more permanent efforts.
His new story is tolerably certain to attract
attention, and that is why The Evening
World has secured the exclusive right of
presenting it to the New York public.Leave a comment:
-
Hi Jeff,
in answer to your earlier question, I think Cumberland is possibly mentioned in one of the diary books.
This story varies quite a great deal from Lees.
Tradename,
re Less lapses out and into spiritualism, he is said to have rennounced it in the 1870s feeling what he had been expeirincing could be explained by science. But later on he stated something else happened that meant he no longer could see that as the case.
Those cynics among us may be intersted to note this seems to coincide with the birth of several of his many children, his move to London and a period of financial difficulty, but that would only be cynics.
It is interesting about this Cumberland, he seems to have a different experience to Lees in terms of -its clear Lees hasnt simply copies what he said. But I do think it is interesting to note in relation to Lees that his going to the police seems to correspond exactly with the reward being offered after the double event.
JenniLeave a comment:
-
Reviews of Cumberland's "A Fatal Affinity"
The Academy, Volume 35, April 6, 1889, Pages 233-234
New Novels
[...]
A Fatal Affinity. By Stuart Cumberland.
(Spencer Blackett.)
[...]
Mr. Stuart Cumberland's latest work claims to be "a weird story," and such it undoubtedly is. Nine mysterious murders have startled and horrified the London world; all the victims have been young women of unblemished reputation, and are said to have resembled one another in personal appearance, though not in social position; further, each has been assassinated on her birthday, the deed has heen committed with precisely the same sort of instrument in every case, and up to the present time not the slightest trace of the murderer has been discovered. Eventually it appears that the whole series of crimes has been perpetrated by diabolical agency, an emissary of the powers of darkness, residing in human shape in London, having been appointed to the task. It is scarcely possible to criticise seriously productions of this kind. "When the story arrives at a point where an English cavalry officer of high rank dons a sorcerer's long flowing robe of white, and, drawing with an ebony rod a magic circle on the floor, succeeds in conjuring up a hideous apparition, the adult reader will at once appraise the value of the work before him, and compose his mind to the same sort of attitude he would assume before perusing the tale of the Second Calender, restored to man's shape by that king's daughter, whose enchantments, conducted in similar fashion, caused the appearance of "the genie, the son of the daughter of Eblis, in the shape of a very large and terrible lion." But to younger readers A Fatal Affinity may have the unwholesome effect of imparting hideous terrors in regard to the possibility of their being despatched on the occasion of their next birthday by the "astral body" of some reputedly inoffensive Hindu student at present located in suburban lodgings. It is difficult to see what other purpose can be achieved by the story. As for the scheme—-half Brahministic, half Zoroastrian—-of the government of the universe, the operation of which is outlined in the course of the narrative, it is needless to enquire whether it accords with any actually existing system of human belief.
[...]
The Literary World, Volume 39, April 5, 1889, Page 317
New Novels
[...]
A Fatal Affinity, by Stuart Cumberland, is a romance suggested by the East-end murders. In the novel, the young girls who are the victims of the assassin's knife are snatched from the upper and middle classes as well as from the daughters of the people. The connecting link between them is a striking similarity of personal appearance, and this clue at length leads to the discovery of the murderer by an English officer, an adept in Eastern occultism. The assassin is a member of the 'Brotherhood of Darkness,' the initiatory rite to which diabolic fraternity is the slaughter of thirteen maidens, one at the period of each full moon during the year of probation. The 'weird story,' as the author calls it, is related in thrilling style, and has in it the elements of popularity among lovers of sensational literature.
[...]Leave a comment:
-
Another article about Cumberland.
The Mercury (Hobart, Tas.), October 30, 1889, Page 25
JACK THE RIPPER
STUART CUMBERLAND"S THEORY
THE THOUGHT READER'S DREAM
Stuart Cumberland has been dreaming
in an altogether too delightfully a propos
manner about "Jack the Ripper."
Thought-readiug, as a profession, having
fizzled out, the enterprising Stuart appears
to be plumbing society to ascertain how a
course of prophetic dreaming would go
down. After all, if these visions have no
other use, they make capital "copy" for
the "Mirror."
"I see it asked," says Mr. Cumberland,
"in both the English and foreign
Press, why, if I possess the power of
thought-reading, I am unable to lay my
hand upon the author of the Whitechapel
murders, and from time to time I receive
letters calling upon me to exert myself
towards bringing the murderer to justice.
To my critics and to my correspondents
I can only reply that my power to
read thoughts is limited, and that I
can no more trace out the whereabouts
of an assassin than I can see
through a stone wall. In thought-reading
the operator must have the one
whose thoughts are to be read in front of
him in order that he, observing the
physical indications that person may
betray, may arrive at his thoughts. This '
it how it stands as far as I am concerned
with the diabolical scoundrel called 'Jack
the Ripper.' I have nothing to go upon,
no suspect to try my thought-reading
upon: were it otherwise, I might possibly
be able to bring the crime home to the
guilty man.
"But although I have, for the reasons
above stated, been unable to aid justice in
the matter of the Whitechapel murders, I
have none the less given the ghastly
subject a good deal of thought, with the
result that in my dreams the face of a
man claiming to be the author of these
murders has presented itself to me. The
first time this face appeared to me was
when I was in Dundee last October, soon
after the perpetration of the sixth murder,
and the next day I related the particulars
of my dream to a representative of the
[line missing]
a note of them. A couple of weeks later I
again saw the face, and I remarked to Dr.
Rubie, who was then editing the London
"Evening News," I believed that within
a couple of days we should have another
Whitechapel murder.
"A couple of days" remarked the
doctor; "why that will make it Lord
Mayor's Day, and on that day I am to
lunch with you; and if 'Jack the Ripper'
goes to work, then I shall be detained at
the office, and you won't have me at
lunch."
Lord Mayor's Day came round, and I
was at my club waiting for Dr. Rubie;
but the luncheon hour passed and he did
not arrive. Presently there arrived a boy
from the "Evening News" with a note.
It was from my expected guest, and ran
as follows:--
'Your prophecy has come true. Jack
the Ripper has been at work again. I am
therefore detained at the office and can't,
I am sorry to say, lunch with you.'
["]On Wednesday, July 17, I went to
Margate. I was out of sorts, and was
suffering a great deal from sleeplessness.
On retiring to bed, I, for a long while, lay
awake, and when at length I feel [sic] asleep
I did not precisely sleep the sleep of the
just. In one of my dreamful moments, a
face appeared before me. It was but a
passing vision, but there was sufficient
time to recognise it as that of the one I had
seen twice before--the face of the Whitechapel
murderer of my imagination.
"Let me describe this face.
"It was thinnish and oval in shape.
The eyes were dark and prominent, showing
plenty of white. The brow was
narrow, and the chin somewhat pointed.
The complexion was sallow--somewhere
between that of a Maltese and a Parsee.
The nose was somewhat Semitic in shape,
and formed a prominent feature of the
face, The formation of the mouth I
could not very well see; it was shaded
by a black moustache. Beyond the
hair on the upper lip the face was
bare. It was not a particularly disagreeable
face, but there was a wild intensity
about the dark full eyes that
fascinated me as I gazed into them, They
were the eyes of a mesmerist!
"The man of my dream« wore a short-crowned
chimney-pot hat; he stooped in
his shoulders, and although there was a
wiry look about such portions of his figure
that were visible to me, he did not have
the appearance of a man of muscular
build.
"I am, alas! not an artist, and I can
only describe in words what I fain would
draw in pencil.
"I may mention that the first time I
saw the man he seemed to draw with his
right hand in the air as it were the figure
9. I at the time interpreted it as meaning
that he would commit nine murders.
Eight he has already committed. Will he
commit the ninth? It was the seeing of
this man's face and the indication of his
intention, as contained in his drawing the
figure 9, that determined me to write my
recent weird story, 'A Fatal Affinity.'
This story is of course wholly fanciful,
but many superstitiously inclined
folk are inclined to find in it
a solution of the Whitechapel mystery.
People who have read the
book, including the Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone, have been haunted by the
vision of the unearthly assassin who
prominently figures therein, and I have
been inundated with letters requesting
me to state whether the book was founded
on fact or whether it was solely the outcome
of my imagination. How strange
it would be if the actual Whitechapel
murderer were, as intimated in 'A Fatal
Affinity,' to commit his ninth murder,
and then be delivered up to justice."
"I may, as a matter of course, be all
out of it with respect to the portrait of
the murderer; for, after all, it was but a
dream, and dreams count for but little, if
anything, in the stern realities of life.
But all the same the vision which has appeared
to me on three separate occasions
has, as the reader may well imagine, not
failed to make a deep impression upon me,
and I cannot help thinking that what I
have written will prove of some interest
to the public. And if after all I should
be right! If--well we shall see!"Leave a comment:
-
Stuart C. Cumberland
I am hoping that someone may look into Mr. Stuart C. Cumberland, noted "thought reader" and spiritualist, who claimed he dreamed he saw Jack the Ripper. There is a new book on this subjecte THE THOUGHT READER CRAZE by Barry H. Wiley, that appears to be of interest.
JeffLeave a comment:
-
[QUOTE=TradeName;246807]Light: A Journal of Psychical, Occult, and Mystical Research, Volume 9, September 28, 1889, Page 470, Column 2
VISIONS OF THE NIQHT.
When anything takes hold on the public imagination it almost necessarily results that impressionable people dream dreams and see visions bearing on the subject. The horrors associated with Whitechapel have stirred the public mind, and the St. James's Gazette gives a batch of dreams which are more coherent than what is usually published on such occasions. The account must be discounted, but it is distinctly curious :—
Mr. T. Ross Scott, residing at 26, Queen's-crescent, which is situated in one of tho fashionable suburbs of Edinburgh, has given publicity to a peculiar dream which he had on Tuesday morning of the Whitechapel murderer, and says that is the third occasion on which the same figure has presented itself to him in his dreams, and it has accordingly made a deep impression upon him. He says :—"While residing at Burntisland during the month of July, two of my remarkable dreams took place. The first occasion on which I saw the vision was during the night of Thursday, July 4th. The figure was standing in what appeared to me to be a small dispensary; but I was unable to note any of the details, because the man, whom I supposed to be the ship's surgeon, had his eyes fixed on me, and I seemed quite powerless to withdraw mine from his gaze. Just then, however, I awoke, and my dream came to an end. About a fortnight afterwards, on the morning of the eighth murder, the vision again appeared to me." Mr. Scott afterwards had his attention drawn to the Mirror of July 29th, in which the editor (Mr. Stuart Cumberland) gave an account of a vision in which the face of a man claiming to be the author of the murders presented itself. Upon opening the paper Mr. Scott instantly recognised the portrait as being that of the man he had seen in his dreams. With the exception of the colour of the moustache the description tallied in every respect. Since then it had been reported in the Mirror that the vision of the same face had appeared to a lady, and that that lady had subsequently seen the man of her dreams sitting in a fashionable London church during evening service. Mr. Scott gives the following account of his dream on Tuesday morning :—" Retired to bed at 1.30 this morning, but for a long while lay quite awake. The last thing I remember was looking at my watch, the hands of which pointed to five minutes to three. I then fell asleep. Gradually buildings seemed to rise on every side, and I appeared to be walking along a somewhat broad street, the features of which, however, I was unable to see distinctly, owing to the darkness of the night. While proceeding on my way I became conscious of the presence of someone, and, glancing up, observed a tall, dark figure rapidly approaching me. In his right hand, the stranger held a large carpet bag, which apparently he had considerable difficulty in carrying. As he passed he turned his head towards me, and I immediately recognised him as the 'surgeon' of my two previous dreams. In vain I tried to reach him; he again had his eyes fixed on me; I was totally unable to move. Just then I awoke, struggling violently and completely exhausted. The time by my watch was eleven minutes past five."
Light: A Journal of Psychical, Occult, and Mystical Research, Volume 9, October 19, 1889, Page 507, Column 2
Hi all,
This is the first reference I have found anywhere to Stuart C. Cumberland and his vision.
JeffLeave a comment:
-
Mr. Lees, "ex-medium," Now A Medium -- 1885
The Medium and Daybreak, May 8, 1885, page 299
by William Oxley
MR. LEES, "EX-MEDIUM," NOW A MEDIUM.
On Monday, May 4th, at the Hearts of Oak Coffee Tavern, Charlotte Street, a small company assembled for the ordinary weekly discourse and discussion. The subject was "Modern Spiritualism," opened by Mr. J. Hocker After breaking ground and recounting his own marvellous experiences, and adducing the testimony so abundant in the annals of Spiritualism, opposition and partial confirmation was advanced by several of the company. A gentleman, by the name of Mr. Lees, then arose and stated, that he had opposed Spiritualism as a lecturer for eighteen yearn, and that he thought at that time to be able to do all that Spiritualists advanced, in the way of table-turning, writing like Slade, &c. This induced the belief amongst some in the audience assembled, that another fierce adversary of the truth was to be encountered, but, to our surprise, he immediately disclosed the fact in forcible and choice language, that, through his own mediumship solely, he afterwards received such unmistakable proofs of spirit power and outside influence as totally to revolutionize the current of his thoughts and actions. He narrated most marvellous experiences of direct clairvoyance in regard to verified facts in America, the cure of hidden diseases and the identity of spirit poets and others, in comparison of their signatures and in some cases their communications with records in the British Museum. We trust that a much larger audience may hear elsewhere the truths of Spiritualism illustrated by such a varied human experience as Mr. Lees can offer. A stock of old Mediums was distributed.—Next Monday, at 8. 30., subject: "The Natural Food of Man." Admission free.— C. Delolme.Leave a comment:
-
Ex-Medium Lees
An account, from an antagonist, of Lees' activities as an anti-spiritualist ex-medium in the 1870's. The author notes that Lees "even now claims to get manifestations by some sort of occult power,"
The Spiritual Magazine, October, 1876, pages 465-471
Occasional Leaves from My Note Book
by Geo. Sexton, London, September 16th, 1876
[...]
On Monday and Tuesday, August 28 and 29, I gave two lectures on Spiritualism, at Leigh, in Lancashire, my subjects being the "Claims of Spiritualism upon Public Attention," and "Objections to Spritualism Stated and Examined." These lectures were brought about in consequence of a discussion which had been held in the town between Mr. Mahoney of Birmingham, and Mr. Lees the "ex-medium." Mr. Lees in fact, had been making himself extremely active in Leigh for some time before I went. He had been giving lectures and sham séances, and on the whole seemingly driving a rather flourishing trade, although as his séances had been mostly failures, a good deal of dissatisfaction was felt by those who at first had taken him warmly by the hand and energetically supported his claims. When I got in the railway at the Victoria Station, Manchester, on the Monday evening, to make my way to Leigh, whom should I see standing on the platform close to the train, but this same celebrated "ex-medium." "Aha!" thought I, "so you are going down with a view to offer opposition at the close of my lecture I suppose. Well, we shall see." Sure enough my anticipations were realised, for when I emerged from the carriage at Leigh, there was also the redoubtable Mr. Lees. Some friends met me at the station, took me to the house of one of them where I had some tea, after which I made my way to the Hall. On mounting the platform I saw the "ex-medium," note book in hand, preparing for an attack as soon as the opportunity should offer. The chair was taken by Samuel Henshall, Esq., of Cheetwood, a gentleman connected with the New Church Society in Peter Street, Manchester.
Before the commencement of the lecture a paper was handed to me containing a preposterous challenge from Lees, setting forth that "Mr. Mahoney having recently failed in a three nights' debate to prove that Spiritualism is what it is represented by its advocates," I was challenged to discuss the question in the same place where it had suffered defeat, signed of course "Robt. Jas. Lees." Taking no notice of this for the time being I delivered my lecture, which was admirably received by a moderately good, and very intelligent audience. There had been no announcement made that anything like discussion would be allowed, but as soon as the applause had subsided, after I had sat down, up jumped Mr. Lees begging to be allowed to put a question. As I agreed to this, the "ex-medium," with a good deal of swagger said, "Dr. Sexton denies unconscious thinking. I should like to know whether a man doesn't think unconsciously when he dreams, and whether there is not unconscious thinking in the case of the medium in a state of trance?" I replied, "It is quite clear that Mr. Lees has not been thinking, either consciously or unconsciously about the questions that he has put, or he would not have put them. To say that a man is unconscious when he dreams is to say that he is not conscious of his dream; and how, in that case, could he know anything about it? As to the persons in a trance, Mr. Lees knows perfectly well that according to the Spiritualist's theory, they do not think either consciously or unconsciously, their own minds being in a state of abeyance for the time being, and that the thinking that is done through them is effected by another spiritual agent."Mr. Lees then proceeded to announce that he should give a lecture in reply to me during the following week. I remarked that it was hardly gentlemanly for Mr. Lees to come to my lectures and advertise his own. As he had done so, however, I might just refer to the ridiculous challenge which I had received from him—-a challenge which commenced with a grand flourish of trumpets about the challenger having defeated Mr. Mahoney. "Now," said I, "I am not quite sure that Mr. Mahoney was defeated. In any case, if he was, I don't think it becomes Mr. Lees to say so; he should leave that to be judged of by the people who heard the debate."I told the audience that I was perfectly ready to meet any representative man, to discuss the truth of my opinions on this or other subjects; but that before I would agree to debate with Mr. Lees, I would put to him a straightforward question, the answer to which I thought would show them that a discussion with him was unnecessary or undesirable. Addressing Mr. Lees, I said, "I find you call yourself an 'ex-medium.' Please tell me in a straightforward way, were you ever a medium or not? Because if you were, Spiritualism is true, and there is no need for us to discuss it; and if you were not, then when you pretended to be one you were an impostor, and therefore, certainly not a man to enter into a discussion with." He got up and said that the Spiritualists had called him a medium, but that he had never called himself one, or an "ex-medium." I replied, "I have bills in my possession in which you describe yourself as an 'ex-medium;' but you have not answered the question. I don't care what the Spiritualists called you. Were you a medium or not?" Driven thus into a corner he replied that he was a medium, but that Spiritualism was still not true, because the effects that he experienced were not produced by spirits. "Why," said I, "You don't appear to know the meaning of the word medium; you had better go home and consult a dictionary. A medium is the channel through which one agent acts upon another—a vehicle of transmission. If you were a medium and not of spiritual agency, what then were you a medium of?" I need hardly say that I got no reply to this direct question. As I was leaving the Hall, the editor of the Leigh Chronicle came up to me, and said, "Look here, that man said, he never called himself an 'ex-medium.' Here is a photograph which he has given me this very night, on the back of which he so describes himself." And sure enough there it was:—"R. J. Lees, ex-medium," in his own handwriting, probably written just before coming to the meeting, where he declared he had never called himself an " ex-medium" at all.
On the following evening Mr. Lees was again present. In this lecture, while dealing with the objections urged against Spiritualism, I took occasion to notice a statement that Mr. Lees had made in the town, but without referring to him personally, to the effect that the lunatic asylums of America were filled to overflowing with Spiritualists, the inference to be drawn from which fact was of course that Spiritualism was a most fruitful source of insanity. I said I would characterise this statement by using the plainest words that I could employ. It was simply an audacious lie. Spiritualists had perhaps furnished a fewer number of inmates of lunatic asylums than any class of people that could be named. A man might of course go mad on the question of Spiritualism as he might on that of religion. Undue and excessive attention to one subject, whatever might be its nature, frequently produced insanity; but the number of Spiritualists who had gone mad was remarkably small. It had been suggested by the chairman at the commencement of this lecture that it would be better to allow Mr. Lees to have ten minutes at the close to say what he had got to say on the subject. I was perfectly agreeable to this and consequently after the lecture, which was most enthusiastically received, Mr. Lees was called upon to give his objections to Spiritualism. When he got up, which he did somewhat reluctantly, he complained that ten minutes was too short a time to deal with so large a question, but curiously enough he got through all he had to say and sat down before the ten minutes had expired. His principal arguments were that spirits contradicted each other and said what was not true, and that spiritual beings could not act on material things. I replied that I hardly saw how the fact of the messages being contradictory could prove there were no spirits, else the statements made by Mr. Lees would prove that he didn't exist. I fancied that I had seen contradictory statements made, and heard lies told by human beings in the flesh very often, and I did not see why human beings out of the flesh could not be guilty of the same fault. As to the statement that spiritual beings couldn't act on matter, I was certainly very much astonished to hear that assertion from a gentleman who came to that town I believed by the invitation of the Young Men's Christian Association. I might beg to draw their attention to a very old book in which Christians were usually supposed to have some faith, and in the pages of which several accounts would be found of spiritual beings acting directly on matter. There was a case in which an angel rolled back a stone from the door of a well-known sepulchre, and there was a case in which a spirit took Ezekiel by the hair of his head and carried him a long distance to Jerusalem. Several other instances of a similar kind I pointed out as being described in the Bible and asked whether Mr. Lees disbelieved these, and if so what the Young Men's Christian Association thought of him? When I had sat down and the applause which was long and loud had subsided, a gentleman rose, whose name I afterwards learned was Norbury, and stated that he was a member of the Young Men's Christian Association, and in that capacity he begged to repudiate all connection with Mr. Lees, and said that he did not consider the Young Men's Christian Association at all honoured by being associated with such a man. To this I replied that I was very glad to hear it, for as I was myself frequently in the habit of lecturing for Young Men's Christian Associations, and had a very high opinion of the work in which they were engaged, I was sorry to find that they had lent any countenance to such a man as the "ex-medium." On a vote of thanks afterwards being proposed to me it was seconded by Mr. Lees, who Sroceeded to speak in most eulogistic terms of the lecture I had delivered and of my ability in general, which certainly did strike me as somewhat novel. The lectures were tolerably well attended and were admirably received. A long report of them extending over more than three columns appeared in the Leigh Chronicle of the Saturday following.
From the same paper of a week later I learn that Mr. Lees gave his lecture in reply to me, and in doing so indulged in a good many reckless statements. He said he had seen Dr. Lynn perform feats in every sense "equal to those performed by the Spiritualists, and perhaps superior." This is utterly untrue, and Dr. Lynn has himself again and again admitted to me his inability to do anything more than give a crude imitation of the spiritual manifestations. Dr. Lynn is known to me intimately, he is the cleverest conjuror living, and withal a man of honour and a gentleman; and were he appealed to lie would not for one moment defend the preposterous statement made about him by Mr. Lees. But suppose it were so? Does not Mr. Lees see that the argument is as powerful against his own pretended mediumship as against that of the Spiritualists, seeing that he even now claims to get manifestations by some sort of occult power. He denied, too, that Mr. Crookes was a Spiritualist, whereas Mr. Crookes does not hesitate to speak of himself as a believer in Spiritualism, as may be seen from his recent speech at the meeting of the British Association at Glasgow. Of myself personally, Mr. Lees said I was first "a Congregationalist, afterwards an Atheist, and subsequently a Spiritualist," and that consequently I had "changed three times." Now I most certainly never was a congregationalist unless I might be considered one now, and in the strict sense of the word was never an Atheist. Even if I had, however, it is difficult to see where the three changes can be brought in, since I remain a Spiritualist, and must be considered to have commenced with one of the shades of thought referred to as soon as I was capable of forming any opinion. But if it were true, that I had changed three times, I have yet to learn that that is either a crime or a disadvantage. The statements made in my lecture were wilfully misrepresented. Take the following, which I copy from the Leigh Chronicle:— "Dr. Sexton contended that this was the lowest sphere of existence, and that Spiritualism recognized the grand doctrine of progress. At that rate if there were no punishment hereafter, but a system of progress, a man might be a liar, thief or murderer in this world without fear." When and where did I contend for any such preposterous theory as this? I have never stated that the present was the lowest sphere of existence, because I am very far from thinking that it is; and to make me represent that liars, thieves and murderers will share the same fate hereafter as the virtuous and the good is a mendacious calumny. Why, I have been again and again blamed by Progressionalists for speaking so frequently of the hells; and of the reality of these hells I have no kind of doubt whatever. However, I suppose I must take the most charitable view of the question and conclude that Mr. Lees has given himself no trouble to learn what my opinions are. He significantly remarked in his lecture that "he considered Dr. Sexton's reasoning beautiful, if you could but understand it." Well, I daresay there are many people who could not understand it—-a misfortune which all public teachers have to contend with. I supply arguments but can't, unfortunately, furnish my hearers with brains. Amongst other misrepresentations may be mentioned the statement that "Dr. Randolph and Dr. Potter (America) were formerly Spiritualists, but after examining it left it, having found it out to be a delusion." Now, Dr. Kandolph died only last year, as firm a believer in Spiritualism as he had ever been in his life. The statement about the lunatic asylums again turns up and Mr. Lees being pressed for his authority falls back upon a reckless assertion of Mr. David King of Birmingham. And upon such evidence as this it is, this man goes about the country repeating false and slanderous statements respecting Spiritualists. Probably if David King were asked for his authority he would refer to Mr. Lees. The Baptist minister who took the chair, has about as strange a notion of evidence as the "ex-medium" himself. He remarked, "As regards Mr. David King, I know him as being second to none as a good Christian, and if we had this statement corroborated by Mr. King, so far as 1 am concerned 1 should take it as satisfactory." What would Mr. Wareing think of a person who went through the country slandering the Baptists, and who when asked for the authority upon which he made his statements should refer to some bitter opponent of that denomination. Nor is the truthfulness of Mr. David King all that is requisite in this case, we must know the evidence on which he makes the assertion. Suffice it to say that it is as reckless and false a slander as ever went forth to the world.
[...]Leave a comment:
-
Thanks, Dave.
After publishing that letter in August, 1889, The Two Worlds (The Emma Hardinge Britten Archive) seems to have stopped mentioning Lees in its coverage of spiritualist meetings. But entries in Light show that he was still active and encountering opposition in Peckham.
Light, Volume 9, August 24, 1889, Page 412
South London Spiritualists' Society, Winchester Hall, 33, High-street, Peckham.—On Sunday Mr. R. J. Lees addressed three good meetings. The open-air gathering on Peckham Rye in the afternoon attracted some hundreds of listeners, who appeared greatly interested in what was said. The evening meeting at the hall was crowded; many of our orthodox friends were present and were well repaid by hearing a splendid address on "Christian Spiritualism," with some interesting replies to questions. An open-air gathering on Peckham Rye on Sunday next at 3 p.m., near the band stand, will be addressed by Mr. Lees; at the hall at 11 a.m. Miss Davy, clairvoyance; at 6.30 p.m., Mr. Parker and friends.—W. E. Long, Hon. Sec.
The Two Worlds, August 23, 1889, Page 498
LONDON. Peckham, Winchester Hall, 33, High Street.-In addition
to the usual services, an open air meeting was held in the afternoon, on
Peckham Rye, which had the effect of bringing many strangers to the
hall in the evening. The collection for the organ fund amounted to
£1 3s. The open-air meetings will be continued on the Rye, next Sunday,
near the band stand, at 8 o'clock. Spiritualists invited.
Light, Volume 9, August 31, 1889, Page 417
South London Spiritualists' Society, Winchester Hall, 33, High-street, Peckham.—On Sunday morning last Miss Davy gave some good clairvoyant descriptions to a fair assembly. In the evening an address was given by Mr. W. E. Long. On Sunday next local effort will sustain our platform at 11 and 6.30 p.m., as Mr. R. J. Lees has signified his intention not to fulfil [sic] his engagement.—W. E. Long, Hon. Sec.
[...]
Zephyr Hall, 9, Bedford-gardens, Silver-street, NotTing Hill Gate, W.— On last Sunday we had a very able address from Mr. Robert James Lees, preceded by an excellent recitation from Mrs. Lees, loudly applauded. After Mr. Lees' address "In the morning," he answered satisfactorily some questions of great interest to the audience. Notice was given of a set debate between Mr. Veitch (spiritualist), and Mr. Corbett (atheist), in the open-air at Hyde Park next Sunday afternoon, at 3.30. Subject :—" Is there a continuance of Life after Death so-called?"—Percy Smith, Hon. Sec.
Light, Volume 9, September 7, 1889, Page 435
South London Spiritualists' Society, Winchester Hall, 33, High-street, Peckham.—We ask Spiritualists to assemble on Peckham Rye, on Sunday afternoon next at three o'clock, near the band stand. The open-air meeting on Sunday was somewhat disturbed by opponents, but numbers of strangers visited our hall in the evening, and were much interested in the address given by Mr. Lees. We held a second open-air gathering in High street after the evening service. On Sunday next at the Hall the platform will be sustained by lady members, at eleven. Mrs. Stanley will address us at 6.30, and Miss Bell will sing a solo.—W. E. Long, Hon. Sec.
[...]
The Meetings On Peckham Rye.—Mr. John Theo. Audy, of 28, Gowlett-road, Peckham, writes :—I feel it my duty to proclaim the good work done on Peckham Rye by our valued friend, Mr. R. J. Lees. For three Sundays we have held meetings there, a few Spiritualists giving their support. The first Sunday much interest was shown by an attentive audience. The second was somewhat disturbed by the great number of dock labourers, and an over-zealous Christian giving away leaflets amongst the audience, in which we are named children of Satan and modern blasphemers, &c, &c. On Sunday last hundreds congregated to hear Mr. Lees. The Baptists, who also hold a meeting, seem to have caught sight of the danger signal, and by the stir in their ranks appear fearful for their faith. They were the instigators of a most brutal onslaught, as I noticed several respectably dressed men who, by their signalling and manner, proved that it was pre-arranged. We were followed by a crowd up and down streets; but, thank God, our unseen friends gave us the courage to keep the cowardly mob at bay. Brother and sister Spiritualists, it is your duty to rally round those who dare to proclaim the glorious truth, and I would appeal to you for your support, as it is intended to still continue the meetings at 3 p.m. on Sundays near the band stand.
The Two Worlds, September 6, 1889, Page 522
LONDON_ Peckham, Winchester Hall.--We had a lively campaign
in Peckham. At the open-air meeting on the Rye in the afternoon,
speakers were reminded that the age of persecution had not passed
away, and personal violence, and a possible "ducking" in a neighbouring
pond, was freely spoken of by some of a large crowd assembled. In no
way discouraged, the friends will assemble on the Rye, near the band
stand, at 8 p.m. nest Sunday. We ask as many spiritualists as can
to "come over and help us," as unity is strength, and the greater our
number, the more respect will be paid to us. We intend holding week
night discussion meetings, to which our opponents will be invited, and a
fair hearing guaranteed them, which on the Rye it has not been our
fortune yet to get. Our usual meetings at the hall included many
strangers, who respectfully listened to the addresses given. We held
a second open-air gathering in Peckham High Street, when addresses
were given and literature freely distributed, on the outskirts of a crowd
that assembled. Mr. Veitch and other friends will speak on the Rye,
next Sunday.-W. E. Long, Hon. Sec.
[Light, September 14 & 21, 1889 missing from Google Books]
Light, Volume 9, September 28, 1889, Page 472
Peckham Rye.—On Sunday, the 16th inst, the meeting was disturbed and violence used. Three of the most prominent disturbers were charged and taken to the police-station, where they were freed with a caution. The crisis seems to have passed, and we shall now hold our own. We had an immense gathering on Sunday last. Mr. R. J. Lees quoted from records of Visions, &c., &c., compiled by a clergyman of the Church of England,and showing on every aide evidences of spirit presence. Mr. J. Humphries also spoke. Next Sunday at 3 p.m.—J. T. Audy.
Light, Volume 9, October 5, 1889, Page 483
South London Spiritualist Society, Winchester Hall, 33, High-street, Peckham. —On Sunday morning several members gave short addresses of an interesting and instructive character. In the evening we had an excellent meeting and a good audience. Mr. Parker presided. The speakers included Mr. J. Humphries, Mr. Young, Mr. J. A. Butcher, and Mr. R. J. Lees. The last named gentleman will occupy our platform on Sunday next at eleven and 6.30.—W. E. Long, Hon. Sec.
The Meetings On Peckham Rye. —We had the largest meeting as yet on Sunday last. Mr. R. J. Lees on "Omens" was very well received. Mr. Major,who has held our platform, asked to be allowed to speak, and to our surprise flatly contradicted some of the statements which had been made, and alleged that no written evidence could be accepted in such cases, putting aside Professor Crookes and others as worthless and yet quoting a newspaper report of the Fox sisters' exposure which he gave as proof that mediums were frauds and Spiritualists deluded. Mr. Lees will debate the question with Mr. Major next Sunday at3 p.m.—J. T. Audy.
Light, Volume 9, October 12, 1889, Page 495
South London Spiritualist Society, Winchester Hall, 33, High-street, Peckham.—Our social gathering was a great success on Tuesday last, between sixty and seventy friends spending an enjoyable evening. We intend holding social meetings on the first Tuesday in each month during the winter. On Sunday last Mr. R. J. Lees occupied our platform. Next Sunday we expect to have Messrs. Veitch and U. W. Goddard. After the evening service the quarterly general meeting of the members will be held. We hope to have a good muster. Mrs. Spring will be at 99, Hill-street, on Wednesday, October 16th, at 8 p.m. Strangers invited.—W. E. Lons, Hon. Sec.
[...]
Peckham Rye.—Mr. R. J. Lees opened the debate on Sunday, and combatted Mr. Major's statements in a very able manner, leaving no loophole of escape. Mr. Lees read an extract from "Light," dating before the Seybert Commission, which was an expose' of the Fox Sisters, showing that Spiritualists were the first to bring frauds to light. In reply, Mr. Major stated that he had attended seances for materialisation, &c, which were all humbug, but when asked the question he could not say that he had thoroughly tested them ; as to Zöllner, he was a madman; in fact, his arguments were very weak. I thank the many friends who attended, helping to swell the very large number of listeners. No further meetings for the present.—J.T. Audy. [Is this Major the same person mentioned in the August letter?]Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: