The Spiritualist newspaper > No.107, September 11th 1874

Sept. 11, 1874.
THE SPIRITUALIST.
127
NEWSPAPER ABUSE.
The following disgraceful abuse was, to the dis¬
honour of Spiritual literature, published in The Medium
last week, under the title of “ Penny-a-linerism versus
Spiritualism,,:—
Spiritualists throughout the country have been astonished
at the eager viciousness with which the penny-a-liners have
taken up the Newcastle dark-lantern seance case, and repro¬
duced the untruthful side of the affair because it was offensive
to Spiritualists. The real truth is carefully suppressed, while
the falsehoods are industriously circulated without any care as
to whether the act of so doing be for the right or for the wrong.
To this line of conduct every thinking and moral person has
been long familiar. The newspapers are financial speculations
who sell themselves to the highest bidder. The genuine
penny-a-liner is scarcely a man, and is held in contempt by
all men of honour or genius. He is the champion of the mob
whose cry is “ Crucify him! crucify him ! ” It matters not
whether the service be for Whig or Tory, Catholic or Pro¬
testant Churchman or Dissenter, Imperialist; or Republican,
the man of “ copy ” will defend or abuse without scruple of
conscience if he can earn thereby his penny a line. The
penny-a-liner must have a party—a clique ; he cannot work for
a cause, for a truth, for God, or for humanity. Such service is
on a moral plane to him inaccessible. Like all serfs he must
have a master to serve and an enemy to abuse.
These things in the outside world, where truth and honour
are held at a discount, are just what might be expected; but
have we any of that sort of thing in Spiritualism ? We allow
facts to answer by quoting a letter addreesnd to the editor of
The Spiritualist, and which appeared in last week’s issue of
that paper:—
“ Explanations.—Sir,—Under the head of ‘ Answers to Cor¬
respondents,’in your issue of August 7th, the following note
appears :—‘ J.—If Mr. Kilburn is one of his greatest creditors
he ought to say so when he urges the public to keep the other
person well supplied with money. ’
“ I believe I am correct in assuming that I am the Mr.
Kilburn alluded to, and that the scarcely veiled statement
alludes to my being a large creditor of Mr. J. Burns, the pro¬
prietor of the Spiritual Institution, 15, Southampton-row,
London.
“ I therefore take the opportunity of saying that the state¬
ment is entirely false. I am not a large creditor of Mr.
Burns, nor have I any money claim against him whatever.
“ It may or it may not be that I have spent money in the
cause of Spiritualism—that certainly is my own affair; nor
do L see why, therefore, I should be insulted by those who
have come in ‘ at the eleventh hour.’
“ Surely it is but reasonable to expect of one who has
undertaken the sacred duty of an editor and leader of opinion
in the ranks of Spiritualists that he would have so far sub¬
dued the flesh as to be incapable of slandering an unoffending
stranger by covertly imputing to him motives of the basest
and most carnal description. Yet, in the above-quoted para¬
graph, under the cowardly refuge of an ‘ if,’ it is imputed
against me that I—a large creditor of Mr. Burns—did indite
an appeal to the Spiritualists of this country, begging them,
for the love of truth and progress, to aid in sustaining his
work, while, all the time, my real motive was to save my own
cash from annihilation.
“ This imputation-in-ambush is both baseless and malig¬
nant ; and no one, I am sure, will envy the writer the posses¬
sion of motives sinister enough to render its evolution possible.
“ Bishop Auckland, Aug. 15th.” “ N. Kilbubn, Jun.
“ [Floating statements have been current of the two being connected by
business transactions. We are pleased to have been the means of throw¬
ing daylight upon the matter, and to publish the above statement, that any
such rumours have not, and never did have, any foundation. Had the
facts been the other way, it was only right and just that the public should
know the same, under the circumstances; and it was in their interest, and
not with any desire to annoy Mr. Kilbum—a stranger to us—the question
was raised. It does not follow that, if one person is connected with another
in business transactions, he will necessarily publish biassed opinions about
that other.—Ed.] ”
This is a curious specimen of the “Ethics of Spiritualism.”
Where did the “ floating statements ” come from ? It is not
our business to supply evidence in this matter or we might
trace the “ statements ” to a source connected with the party
on the behalf of which they were “ floated,” and that the
“statements” could not be termed “ current ” till the para¬
graph to “ J.” rendered them so. Unless some explanation
of this extraordinary conduct be forthcoming we must suppose
that this party “ floats statements ” without the slightest
regard to their truth, and then gives them “ currency.” The
editor, by his silence, admits that this kind, of conduct is an
“ insult,” that it is “ slandering an unoffending stranger,”
and that it is “ baseless and malignant,” and yet he can
coolly excuse himself for such acts. Well may William
Howitt ask if Spiritualists are any better than the rest of
mankind.
We do not quote this case and publish comments thereon
for the purpose of vilifying the offending parties. The world
is capable of judging as to the merits of this affair without any
additional colouring; we write simply to warn Spiritualists
against accepting as truth without due care other statements
emanating from the same quarter. This instance is only one
of a series extending over years, the object of all of which has
been to injure our position,, impair our usefulness, and,
if possible, drive us from the field—a field which we cultivated
years before the offending editor heard of Spiritualism, and
from which he gleaned his early lessons on the subject. Besides
self-defence, we have to point out the evils arising from party¬
forming policy. In the same paper appear notes to a letter in
which the writer states that all who do not join his clique
when invited to do so, are schismatics and the enemies of
union and fraternity. Than this nothing could be more
impudent or intolerant. Before the advent of this
party Spiritualists were united. Indeed they are so now, for
there are only some 150 persons connected with the body for
whom this editor acts as whip. Yes, the Spiritualists are
united; it is the nationalists who are the schismatics. Again
we would remark that if Spiritualists require a newspaper,
they had better originate one for themselves, and not avail
themselves of the services of a professional penny-a-liner.* The
low moral tone of the hirelings of the fourth estate entirely
unfits them for, above all things, taking part in a spiritual
movement. The newspaper people have been all along the
open enemies of Spiritualism, availing themselves of every
opportunity to attack it or its adherents. Need we point for
proof of our statement to the case we quote in which one of
the most liberal Spiritualists, and the public bepbesentative
op the cause, are foully dealt with because forsooth they have
dared to expend their [?] means and serve humanity as their
inspirations directed.
The truth of the whole matter is stated by Mr.
Everitt in another column to be, that some time since
Mr. Kilburn lent Mr. Burns, the editor of The Medium,
£400, and an arrangement, was made whereby Mr.
Kilburn expected to work with Mr. Burns in his book¬
shop as his partner. They were perfectly aware of this
when writing the abuse just quoted, and thus do the
black and gigantic charges against us collapse like a
balloon, when pricked by a few simple words of truth.
Mr. Kilburn, in his letter given above, says the money
is not owing at the present time, and what he says is
always reliable. We should not impute anything worse
than bad taste to persons for mutually admiring each
other in public, if they were privately connected by
large business transactions.
It seems a sad waste of space to reprint an article
like the above, so full of bad feeling; but, as Mr. Burns
has been creating a great deal of dissension in the
Spiritual movement lately by circulating unreliable
statements tending to impede friendly national organ¬
isation, we have quoted the article to show his nature,
and to show the necessity for the publication of the fol¬
lowing article, in which the unreliability of the state¬
ments he circulates is clearly and specifically pointed
out.
MESSRS. BURNS AND KILBURN.
Mb. Bubns is a bookseller in London, who chiefly sells
spiritual publications. He is much at variance with metro¬
politan Spiritualists because among other things, he in his
advertisements calls his business of which he is the sole
proprietor—“ The Spiritual Institution,” and himself the
* There is nol a word of truth in this remark. The person untruthfully
described as “ a penny-a-liner,” (who are persons who get a living by in¬
dustry and not by begging), has never done any-such work in his life,
and is chiefly a leading article writer for standard journals,—Ed. of
Spiritualist.