The Spiritualist > No.40, November 15 1872

2
THE SPIRITUALIST.
Nov. 15, 1872.
Cjre Spmtualisf geixrspapr.
CHA.EGrE FOU AFYERTISEMENTS :—Three shillings.
and sixpence for the first fifty words or portion of fifty words, and
sixpence for every ten words in addition. Ten initial letters or figures
count as one word.'
2%e Spiritualist is a very good medium for advertisements,'because it
circulates largely among those whom advertisers _desire to reach, and an
advertisement is not lost to view amid a mass of others. Moreover, the
paper is not usually tom up when read, but preserved for binding.
Oorrespondenos.—Correspondents who write letters consisting of per¬
sonal opinions, for publication, are requested not to make them more
than a third of a' column long. Letters containing important news or im¬
portant facts may be longer sometimes.
Subscriptions:—No notice is taken of orders received for papers unac¬
companied by a remittance. The next twelve copies of The Spiritualist
will be posted to any address in the United Kingdom on receipt of 4s. 6d.
London: E. W. Allen, 11, Ave Maria-lane, E.O.
Any delay or irregularity in the supply of “ The Spiritualist ” in
London or in the provinces is the fault of the locbl newsvendor or his
City agent. Our publisher, Mr. E. W. Allen, 11, Ave Maria-lane,
E.C., should always be informed of such impediments and irregulari¬
ties, and copies can then be ordered of him by post, direct.
SPIRITUALISM AND ANTHROPOLOGY.
The Anthropological Institute was founded for the
purpose of studying man as a science, and a little
paragraph about it in our last has brought forth the
following letter from Mr. H. G. Atkinson :—
i| the Editor of the Spiritualist.
Sir,—As a late Vice-President of the Anthropological In¬
stitute previous to the amalgamation, you will allow me to
say that, at my suggestion, and through my influence with
the president and founder of the society, the late Dr. Hunt,
we did appoint a committee for the investigation of the
case of the Davenport Brothers. The committee had several
sittings, and we arranged our tests, &c., but unfortunately
before the evening came on which the brothers were to pre¬
sent themselves, there came out some “ slashing ” articles
against Spiritualism in a leading paper, and Dr. Hunt got
quite frightened lest the Institute he had founded, and
which was the pride of his life, should be injured. In¬
deed, he so clearly exhibited fright that I quite pitied him.
The other members of the committee, from their undisguised
prejudices, were not in a more favourable condition for calm,
honest, and earnest investigation; indeed, those who investi¬
gate with prejudices are pretty sure to find the prejudices
confirmed. The result was that after one exhibition, they
voted, in spite of my protest, that nothing had been shown
worthy further notice; and that is the plain truth, which I
could not well state during the life of Dr. Hunt. Now it
seems to me that if Spiritualists desire any action on the part
of the Anthropologists, they should join the society, and
beard the lion in his den (Huxley), read papers, and be ready in
discussion to support one another, because'that is the real way
in which the society works, as a rule—by reading papers add
discussion. The first paper I would read should be on “ the
reception of new truths, and the special method adapted to
spiritual and psychological enquiries, and other correlated and
kindred matters ”—which the breadth of view taken in The
Spiritualist well illustrates. I think the phenomena, ranging
under the term Spiritualism, particularly as of objective Spiri¬
tualism, to be of most absorbing interest, and" to be of vital
importance in a scientific point of view, but that the facts
are at present in advance of the orthodox or accepted science
of the age. -We had a hard battle to get even anthropology, such
as it is, admitted as a science, and received within the magic
pircle of the British Association ; and it is still as much as we
can do to hold our own at the annual meetings. There is still
much prejudice against anthropology among the “ orthodox ”
clergy and others, as you may see by the Victoria Institute,
formed by members who left the old Anthropological Society,
now amalgamated with the Ethnological Society as the An¬
thropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.
But in reference to the Davenport Brothers, what became
of those other two men who came up to town, and exhibited
themselves to the Spiritualists once or twice at the Crystal
Palace, and who did all that the brothers did, and much
besides, of a marvellous character ? Mr. * was certain
* We omit the name, as we do not wish to open a discussion on the
subject in these pages. A friend of ours who saw them, says that con¬
sidered as trickery the performance was clever, hut as an imitation of the-
Dayenports it was a failure.—Ed.
that it was spiritual; Mr. I think, believed it to be all
trick ; and it shook the belief of some in the Davenport
Brothers. One word in regard to tests. The cording is ob¬
jectionable, because there is an- old trick of a man loosening
himself from cord ; I have seen it done often. Fine thread,
or slips of paper sealed, would be much better ; or say, put
the thumbs together, and a strip of silver paper round them
sealed, as it is evident that on the slightest attempt to get
free the paper would give way—anything better than the
cording. The men I refer to, I saw, were corded up in trunks,
and immediately became free; the door of. the cabinet
closed again, and they became as before—fastly corded up,
though you could see under the cabinet, and watchers were
placed all round, and all in full daylight, there being windows
allround. , Henry G. Atkinson.
Hotel Royal, Boulogne-sur-Mer.
Three leading points are raised in the foregoing
letter:—1. The position of the late Dr. Hunt with
regard to Spiritualism; 2. The relationship between
the Anthropological Institute and the British Associa¬
tion ; 3. The relative positions of Spiritualists and
Anthropologists.
Only a few ' hours before his painful and sudden
death, Dr. Hunt told us, in the reception room of the
British Association at Exeter, that he wished to see
Spiritualism fairly investigated ; he said that he had
seen the Davenports and believed them to be impostors,
but that when clever men like Mr. Cromwell Varley stated
the physical phenomena of Spiritualism to be genuine, it
was clear that the wholasubject required, searching ex¬
amination. He knew nothing about it himself. He
then began to complain, in an excited manner, of the
action of a few of the officers of the British Association
in regard to anthropological papers ; and he expressed
much indignation about the action of one learned pro¬
fessor in particular. A few hours later and this
earnest man, who had laboured so hard all his days to
establish in Great Britain a powerful organisation, to
systemartically study man as a science, passed to the
other side of life, where “his works do follow him.”
That the British Association and the Anthropological
Institute have not worked more easily together is owing
to faults on both sides. "What private griefs both may
have we know not, so can only speak of their public
actions. When the grievances of the Anthropological
Institute have been brought up at meetings of the
General Committee of the British Association, the In¬
stitute has, of late years at least, been unfortunate in
its advocates, who have usually spoken in an angry
manner, to the great amusement of the listeners, who,
for the most part, could not gather very clearly from
the utterances what the.complainants wanted, and why
it was wanted. Professor Huxley, when in the chair at
Edinburgh, told one of the Anthropological delegates
that he was quite out of order in speaking; the speech
went on nevertheless, the listeners laughed, and at its
close Professor Huxley remarked that the gentleman
was quite “ out of order and breaking the rules of the
Association in speaking,” but that he, as chairman, “ did
not interrupt him, because he did not wish it to be
stated that the meeting refused to hear what Dr.
had to say.” If a good speaker like Sir John Lubbock
had represented the Institute, stating in a quiet clear
way what the Institute really wanted, and why it
wanted it, then sat down, and left with the meeting the
onus of acting unjustly, if it chose to do so, the point
would probably have been carried, for too many voters
were present to form a clique, though wo do not say
that they might not have been influenced to some extent
by popular prejudices. On the other hand, the Anthro¬
pological Institute has not been quite fairly treated by