To The Editor of
the "Bombay Gazette."
by Edward Wimbridge
[Reprinted from The Bombay Gazette, September 15, 1880, p. 2.]
[For background on the subject
matter of this letter,
see Henry S. Olcott's, Old Diary Leaves, Volume II,
Chapter XIII, "A Little Domestic Explosion," pp. 206-213.
See also the anonymous article that elicited Mr.
Wimbridge's letter. --- BA Editor.]
Sir, --- In your issue
of yesterday you give publicity to a circular letter, which Colonel Olcott and Madame
Blavatsky have in their wisdom thought fit to send you for publication. As the document in
question is filled with inaccuracies, I am compelled to ask for space in your valuable
journal for the correction of the same. We are told that Colonel Olcott and Madame
Blavatsky complain, "that they (Miss Bates and myself) could never fully sympathise
with us (Colonel Olcott and Mdme. Blavatsky) in our views and plans." As a matter of
fact, we, in common with a great many others, have never been able to arrive at a just
appreciation of what those views and plans were. Recent events have, however, cast some
light upon the subject. Again, we are told that "Mr. Wimbridge never offered to
assist in the work." In the real work of the Society I was at all times ready to
assist, as an evidence of which I may mention the designing and engraving of the cover of
the [Theosophist] journal; the designing and lithographing of the elaborate
invitation cards issued for the anniversary last year, &c. But, as talk appears to
have always had more weight with them than deeds, and as I have always regarded gush and
slop as Colonel Olcotts peculiar province, I must plead guilty to having rendered no
assistance in that direction.
Your readers could better estimate the value
of the remarks as to "the eating of beef, use of beer, wine, &c., which we would
never allow in our house." If they had heard Colonel Olcott as I have done, referring
with a sort of pride to a time, not long past, when his bills for whisky alone were
something abnormal. Why, again, should they say, referring to the beef, &c.,
"which we never would allow in our house," when it is only since they
came to India that beef has been tabooed, out of mere policy.
The question of veracity between Miss Bates
and Mdme. Blavatsky arose nearly a year ago, and was imported into the present quarrel as dernier
ressort, with what result the action of the members present at the last meeting ---
when the affair was discussed --- will best testify. Most of them openly declared that
henceforth they should cease to take any interest in the Society, basing this
determination on the extremely unfair action taken by the founders of the Society in the
matter at issue. Within a day or two after this meeting, six members, including myself,
Bombay, Sept. 13.