LIGHT REPRESENTATIVES AT “JULIA’S BUREAU”

 

A Good Séance with Mrs. Wriedt

On June 17 Mr. And Mrs. F. W. South, Mr. And Mrs. Bernard D. Godfrey, and Miss Evans, from the offices of Light and the London Spiritualist Alliance, at the invitation of Vice-Admiral W. Usborne Moore, attended a Séance at “Julia’s Bureau,” Wimbledon, with Mrs. Etta Wriedt as medium. There were five other sitters present. The sitting was mainly interesting because of the evidential character of the communications which were given to Mr. and Mrs. South. We have received a full report of the Séance, from which we extract the following salient points :—

Twelve persons, including Mrs. Wriedt, were present. After Dr. John (Mr. Percy Street’s healing control) and John King had spoken in loud, clear voices, Mrs. Wriedt said: “Would anyone recognise the name of Priest? He seems to go near Mr. South,”

Mr. South: “I used to know a man named Priest.”

Mrs. Wriedt: “I see something in his hand, and it looks like tools. They are very small things; and I see small articles that he is putting on a counter or table, and he is picking them up.”

Mr. South: “Yes, he was the overseer of the composing department at the firm that printed Light years ago.”

After some more talk, a voice said, “George—South.” Mr. South: “Yes I know you. I am glad to meet you.”

Voice: “We have never had an opportunity like this before, and we may never have again, and I want you to know that I am happy to meet you here and have that pleasure.”

Mr. South, explaining: “That was my fathers brother, the last one that passed on.”

Mrs. Wriedt: “He wanted you to know he was always round you. He wanted to speak to you daily.”

A Voice: “I am Mary South”(sound of kisses). Mr. South: “I am glad to hear of you again.”

Voice: “How are you? You were very, very fond of me. I am here, dear, and I love you still. I am always watching over you.”

Mr. South: “That was my uncle’s wife.”

A Voice: “What in the world are you doing here? I am William South. I am glad to see you. My God, I was never so surprised in my life as when I heard George talking to you. I am glad to meet you and yours. Thank God I have got my wish.”

Mr. South: “That is remarkable. William is the brother of George, and Mary is William’s wife.”

John King’s voice: “That is the way to do it—talk to them when you can.”

Mr. South: “George and William were my father’s brothers, and Mary South was like a mother to me. It was a correct loud voice of William, and ‘My God’ was a characteristic expression.”

Mrs. Wriedt: “You have a strong mediumistic power round you.”

Mr. South: “They are just the people who would be watching round me, but of whom I was not thinking; and no one in the room even knew their names, or that I had such relatives.”

Mrs. Wriedt: “There is a lady standing by you, Mrs. T., and her name is Alice. She died of consumption.”

Mrs. South: “I think it must be for me.”

Voice: “Yes, I have been waiting all night to talk to you. I was by that lady drawing power from her.”

Some other personal conversation followed between Mrs. South and Alice, who was her sister.

After some further conversation with other sitters, the trumpet dropped. Then john King’s voice was heard again saying :—

“You cannot go away and say it is mind reading. When you meet people in your neighbourhood they will say it is mind-reading, but we want to give all the good folks that loved you when you were little the opportunity to say, how do you do? The people that died to-day are liable to come any time. God bless you. We want those who nursed you when you were little to come to you. I had a mother and an aunt, and a whole lot of people, when I was Governor. My name is really Henry Morgan. I was Governor of Jamaica.”

More conversation with other sitters. Then Julia’s voice was heard. She said :—

“Dear friends,—It is a very great pleasure to meet you all on this occasion. I love to be with you. I love to see you with your spiritual friends when you meet those you love and those who love you. I want this Bureau to be a lasting remembrance of dear Mr. Stead. Mr. Stead’s best wishes to all from Light Office and this company. He is perfectly satisfied with his transformation, and he will meet you in the sweet Creator’s

office face to face as he met you here. May the good be with you always in all your works; may it travel with you. Good night.”

As the circle ended, and the light was turned on, the trumpet fell from the ceiling.

I will now give a few instances of good evidence obtained by my friends who attended circles and private sittings at Cambridge House.

The following account is written by a clergymen of the Established Church :—

(1) May 30, 1912, at 7 p.m., general circle. Accompanied by my daughter. First voice, Mr. W. T. Stead. Addressed us all collectively, and my daughter and me, as well as others present, by name, with words of welcome “to ‘Julia’s Bureau.’” His manner was that of a host to his guests. I said how greatly he and his work in this world were missed, and asked him to tell me how he was occupied now. He replied emphatically and abruptly, “Why, talking to you.” He said no more than how glad he was to see us all, etc.

Voices came for many in the circle, but I have only specially noted those that were meant for my daughter and myself. There were persons whom I had not given a thought to previously; whereas those I had tried to “will” to come, and thought of intensely with that object, did not come at all.

A name was given for me, which I recognised as that of a lady recently passed over at an advanced age, and by whose decease I had received a small legacy. The voice was so feeble that we could gather only a little of what she said, a great deal being inaudible. It was to the effect that she had known many members of my family(correct), but that I was the only one to whom she could now gain access. My daughter asked, “Do you know me?”

Answer: “Why should I not?” Here John King interposed in his deep voice: “This poor soul has come to you as the only one of the family that she knew of to come to.”

The next voice that came to me announced itself as my “uncle.” I asked: “Which uncle?” Answer: “Your mother’s brother.” (I have had uncles on each side—all now passed over.) Question: “Which?” Answer: “Edward.” (correct.) Question: “Where did you and I first meet?” Answer: “At the gate.”

Question: “What gate?” Answer: “Why, of the cottage—the cottage covered with roses.” (I could only think of the lodge belonging to his house.) I failed to elicit more on this point. Then my daughter asked: “What cottage?” Answer: “You know nothing about it, child; I am talking to your father.” Here, and throughout, the manner was very characteristic, and especially the laugh which he constantly gave. I then asked, “Do you remember the violets?” Answer: “Oh yes.” Question: “What used you to do with them?” Answer: “Why we tied them up in bundles and sent them away.” (Correct. He used to cultivate them for sale in London.) I then asked if he remembered his dogs. Answer: “Yes—a short, wire-haired terrier called ——“ (name inaudible); and he added: “Do you remember Jack?” (This not verified.) I asked him what he was doing now. Answer, “I see: you want to know about my experiences.” I got nothing more: he had departed.

A clergyman sitting next to me had several voices, none of which he could identify, although specific indications were given him. I suggested to him, in one case, that he

should ask test questions, as I observed he always kept silent. The voice then speaking remarked here: “He [i.e., myself] knows more about Spiritualism than you do.”

At this séance I was greatly impressed by the voices which came to a Dutch lady in the circle, and conversed with her fluently in that language, these being her husband, “Frederick,” an “Uncle Pat,” and her child, “Yvonne”~names all correctly given. The child’s prattle especially was most fascinating, and was interspersed with sounds of kissing. There was no doubt whatever about the genuineness of the language; spoken also, I should say, as only a native could, although the language itself, being unknown to me, I did not understand what was actually said. Duration of séance, two and a quarter hours.

(2) May 31, 1912, at 3.30 p.m., private sitting. Present; Wife, self, and medium (only). First of all, under the red light, Mrs. Wriedt asked my wife to hold the trumpet to her ear. As she did so she heard continuous taps, and a whispering sound as if a voice struggling to speak: Mrs. W. and I hearing nothing. After total darkness a voice came for my wife especially, which we recognised under the name of an acquaintance between whose daughter and a member of our family there had been a friendship which had fallen off since the marriage of the former. The voice said that he could not understand this cessation of intercourse. We said it had naturally come about by absence through marriage. He replied he was not satisfied, that this should not have made the difference. Here John King interposed, to say that our acquaintance had “worried” considerably about this estrangement, as it seemed to be, and that he would be relieved to be sure that it meant nothing in particular. (I regard this incident, for certain reasons, as a good test.)

The next name given was also for my wife especially, and was that of a former parishioner, of whose family we had nearly lost sight since our disconnection with the parish in question. This lady spoke to my wife of the latter’s kindness to her when ill, in bringing her fruit, etc. (all correct), and of my own visits to her. She added: “But you are greatly changed now.” My wife replied she was so much older: but the voice did not seem to mean it in this sense; hoped my wife would come to see her again when on the other side: ended by saying: “I want to tell you that I could not make Mr.——[myself] and your daughter understand that we came to them last night.” (we had no recollection of the name being then given} The husband of the preceding then came; and, in allusion to the independence of his still living daughters, remarked how little one is missed on earth after once leaving it. As a test I asked: “Do you remember the name of the vicar I was working with?” The name came at once: “Vicar——“; and I could not have had a better proof of identity than this.

The next voice was one who was announced to my wife by John King as her mother­in-law. She began by saying: “You have never seen me” (my mother died when I was three years old); “But I know you, and love you, and admire all your endeavours.” My wife said: “We have your picture at home—one with long curls” (the then fashionable side ringlets). She replied: “I have those curls still.” She then spoke of “the sweetness” of her grandchild, but confused the number of our children. After saying good-bye to my wife, she sent many kisses through the trumpet towards myself. My uncle of the previous evening then came, and said he wanted to give my wife “some Violets,” and expressed his particular fondness for her. He said to me “Do you know how fond I am of her?” I replied: “I know you were.” He repeated: “Do you know how fond I am of her—now?” emphasising the last word. Then he asked me: “Do you

know about my son—how well he is doing?” I asked which son (there are two); and he at once gave the correct name, “Ted.” I then asked: “What did he do last week?” and he replied at once with his characteristic, hearty laugh: “Got married at last!” (He was, in fact married on the previous Saturday, having long been regarded as a confirmed bachelor.) An interval of laughter. Question (by me): “Were you pleased?” Answer: “Very much.” Question: “Is she a nice girl—a suitable match?” Answer: “Yes a beautiful young woman—will make a nice wife.” My wife remarked: “You were always so kind to us.” Answer: “Not half kind enough.” I then pressed him about “The cottage” he mentioned on the previous evening. He replied “It is the cottage by the sea, where you live.” Question: “Where is that?” Answer “Southsea.” (This did not accord with his previous statement, “the cottage covered with roses”; nor had he ever seen us at Southsea.) After laying a hand on my head he departed. The séance ended by Mrs. Wriedt, “as a test for what might follow,” holding one of my hands in both of hers; when, almost immediately, a wet leaf fell upon my imprisoned hand. Then my forehead was stroked by what felt like a similar leaf. I at once put up my free hand to take it, but found nothing. The same thing happened a second time. An object like a wet branch then fell on our clasped hands; I exclaimed that it was a “branch,” and John King then uttered some quotation about lilies, which I forget. “They have all gone,” he then said: and the light being turned up revealed a stalk of fine Madonna lilies. They, and the leaves, had evidently been taken from the vases standing near-by on two tables. The séance had lasted forty minutes.

The conclusion I have come to from my own experience of the Wriedt séances is that the nature of many of the communications made, and the various foreign languages spoken, through the trumpet, afford irrefragable proof of genuineness. Neither by fraud, nor telepathy, nor illusion can these be accounted for; Spirit agency is, therefore, the only remaining explanation.

July 31, 1912                                                   (Signed)           C. B.

The next narrative is written by Colonel E. R Johnson, a personal friend of six or seven years’ standing. He is a careful and accurate observer, interested in several branches of science, and a good draftsman. His account may be accepted as trustworthy :—

During May, June, and July, 1912. I attended seven séances with Mrs. Wriedt as medium. Five of these were private séances, only the medium and myself being present. The other two were circle sittings with about ten people present.

The first séance, a private one, was in full daylight. The second, also private, was held in the red light of two shaded electric lamps, and the other five, including the two public séances, were in absolute darkness. As far as I was personally aware there were no lights seen, or other appearances of an abnormal kind, at any of the séances. I have kept no record of the number of speakers at the two public sittings, but they were very numerous. Many of the sitters were addressed by their own friends and relations, and I could not hear a good deal of the conversations that went on when I was not addressed, but the speakers and sitters seemed to mutually (in most cases) understand each other. Besides these there were a few voices which addressed the sitters generally; most of these being at once recognised by the medium and some of the others. They seemed to be perfectly at home and sang. Occasionally joked, and were often more or less amusing. One appeared to be a kind of stage manager who arranged

the séances and the sequence of the speakers. This entity that I have called the “stage manager” was the only one, besides friends and relatives, who spoke at the private séances, and then he generally, but not always, said a few words at the beginning or joined in the discussion.

At the five private séances I was only addressed by one voice that I could not hear sufficiently well to identify him or her. This was the first voice heard at the daylight séance. All the others were identified with certainty. They consisted of seven relatives, some of whom spoke only once, others on three or four occasions. Several times the individual conversations must have lasted from twenty minutes to half an hour, and related to incidents and events which could not have been known to the medium, and in some cases to anybody now living except myself. References were made to objects that have disappeared for twenty or thirty years, which were accurately described, and, on the other hand, to conversations and events which took place between the séances.

Besides relatives, I was spoken to by seven personal friends and acquaintances, and three of these asked me to carry messages to living people. In one case an incident was referred to which was entirely unknown to me, but which I afterwards ascertained to be quite correct. I was also barked at by three of my dogs which had died more than twenty years ago, their barks being suited in tone and power to their respective sizes and breeds. This part of the séance did not convince me in the same way that the human voices did. Their barks appeared to be stagey and “to order.” I do not mean to infer that there was any deception or trickery on the part of the psychic, for she seemed even more surprised than I was, and continually made observations and exclamations as this was going on, and her voice was heard at the same time as the barking of the dogs, and it was both in distance and direction from me evidently from a different place; the dogs being a little to my left and close by, while she sat at some distance to my right.

The physical phenomena, if we may so call them, for, after all, sounds or vibrations of the air are physical too, were the giving of flowers to several of the sitters (I myself was not so honoured), the placing of a small table with a bowl of roses on it into the circle and presumably over the heads of the sitters (the flowers and table having been taken from another part of the room), the sprinkling of water and the touching of the hands and faces of the sitters. In one case a small lapdog, formerly belonging to me, which had died about thirty years ago, was placed on my knee. I was not conscious of its removal, for the weight and pressure of its body, which was quite distinct at first, gradually seemed to disappear.

At one public séance an entity with a little girl’s voice talked for nearly half an hour. She identified quite accurately various objects such as brooches, jewellery, miniatures, the number of coins in a pocket, etc. She foretold the route which a sitter would have to take to reach his home—he said quite correctly—and in my case said I should go to a funeral within a week. This was also quite accurate. The funeral was that of a distinguished military officer who died two days after the séance, and whose funeral I witnessed six days after the séance.

I believe I am not a particularly credulous person. In fact, I was taunted by the “Stage manager” for the long period I had been a doubter, and was asked in a somewhat sarcastic tone if I was now satisfied as to the reality of the phenomena. I may say that

I had no reason at any time during these séances to doubt their genuine character; and to suppose that the psychic or any combination of persons could have manufactured the phenomena by trickery of any kind appears to me absolutely impossible.

I cannot give many occurrences referring to personal or family matters without long and tedious explanation; but the following may be of interest :—

I was conversing with a friend, late an officer of the Royal Engineers, who, according to many people, and probably to most of his friends and relations, would be regarded as dead some thirty years; and I asked after a mutual friend, a distinguished Indian civilian, who died a little over a year ago, and said I supposed the latter “was working as hard as ever.” In reply I was told “No; he is amusing himself with his horses.” This rather astonished me, for I knew he was by no means a horsey man. I called on his widow a few hours later in the day. She at once knew what was meant, and told me that, when alive, he visited his horses, spent some time with them, and fed them daily. I was quite unaware of this habit of his, though I knew him and his family fairly intimately.

The Royal Engineer officer above referred to died from an accident in India. I had heard how the accident was caused, but purposely did not mention it, and asked him “how it happened.” He said “It was entirely due to my own carelessness.” This was said with such marked emphasis and in such a loud tone that I was somewhat surprised, for at the time I saw no particular reason for the forcible manner. The explanation came when the next speaker, who had evidently been an unseen hearer of the previous conversation, introduced himself for the first time. Though in quite an indirect and entirely innocent way, the latter might have felt in some slight degree responsible for the fatal accident, and the reason for the reply of the engineer officer was at once apparent, for it was evidently intended to spare his friend’s feelings.

Another incident. A man who had recently died asked me to convey a message to his widow. This I did at her house the same day as well as I remembered, but I made a slight verbal inaccuracy, which no doubt altered the tenor of the message. Shortly afterwards on my return home I wrote out the details of the séance. At the following séance the man spoke to me again, and said I had not given the message quite correctly, and repeated it. In replying, I went on to relate what the lady had answered; but before I got out the first word or two I was interrupted by his saying, “Oh I know that. I was there when you told her.” On looking at my notes on my return home afterwards I found that I had written the correct message, though I had not delivered it perfectly.

The scoffer may say that all this “corroborative detail gives atristic verisimilitude to a bold and unconvincing narrative”; but the most hardened sceptic hearing, with his own ears, unimprovised conversations such as these following each other in rapid succession for a few hours would find it difficult to maintain his original position.

In talking with a number of my relatives and friends who had passed over I noticed that several had a difficulty in remembering names. Christian names seemed to be well known, but surnames were much less easily recalled, though they were at once recognised when mentioned. The names of the three dogs were forgotten, to my surprise; and their colour, sizes, and other characteristics had to be described; but this was done so accurately and instantaneously that there was not the least doubt as to their identity. I cannot give a good explanation for this rather curious phenomenon. It