THE BIRMINGHAM DAILY MAIL

Birmingham, Warwickshire, England

13 April 1911

(page 4)

THE ROSICRUCIANS.

MORE ABOUT THE REVIVAL OF AN ANCIENT ORDER

THE BAN OF THE MACGREGORS.

Mr. Justice Scrutton and a common jury to-day resumed the hearing of the libel action brought by Mr. Geo. Cecil Jones [George Cecil Jones], a consulting and analytical chemist, against a weekly paper called the “Looking Glass.” Plaintiff contended that in a series of articles dealing with the career of a Mr. Aleister Crowley he was charged with immorality. The defence was that the articles did not libel the plaintiff, but referred solely to Mr. Crowley. The latter was mentioned as a member of an association known as the Rosicrucian Order, the principle object of which was to study the mystic philosophy of ancient religions. Plaintiff declared he was never a member of the order.

Defendants called yesterday Mr. Samuel McGregor Mathers [MacGregor Mathers], who declared that Mr. Jones took the oath of admission to the “Second Order.” The association, which dated back to 1398, was revived by witness in 1888.

Cross-examined this morning by Mr. Simmons, for the plaintiff, witness admitted that he was registered in the name of Mathers, though he was now known as McGregor.

You assumed the name of McGregor?—That name is of great antiquity, and in 1603 was forbidden to be used under pain of death.

Your name in 1603 was McGregor?—Yes, if you put it in that way. (Laughter.)

Have you ever suggested to anybody that you had some connection with James IV. of Scotland?—I do not understand what you mean. Of course, every Scotsman of ancient family must have some connection with James IV. and other Scottish Kings.

Are you asserting that James IV. of Scotland never died?—There is an old tradition about that in Scotland.

Do you assert that James IV. is in existence to-day?—I refuse to answer that question.

Have you ever asserted that Cagliostro was one and the same person as yourself?—No, you are confusing me with Mr. Crowley’s aliases.

Questioned as to other people long since dead, witness said he was not responsible for traditions.

His Lordship: The Flying Dutchman is another instance if you want to pursue the subject further. (Laughter.)

Witness: The Wandering Jew is another. (Laughter.)

Witness said that he had no profession or occupation, but that for a man of no occupation he was probably the busiest man living. (Laughter.)

What work is that?—The establishment of the Rosicrucian Order. It requires a knowledge of many languages and an enormous amount of work.

There are others who assert that their’s is the true Rosicrucian Order?—Yes, that is why you have two other forms of it.

In answer to further questions, witness said that there were secret chiefs, and he was the external of the Order, and exercised administrative powers. He was in communication with the secret chiefs, but he was sworn not to reveal their names. (Laughter.)

JUDGE’S HINT

His Lordship: This is getting a long way from the issue the jury have to try. The jury are not here for amusement. They are here to do their business. I do not want this court to be turned into a place of amusement.

Witness admitted that he had expelled members from the Rosicrucian Order, but declined to say how many. He had known the plaintiff for some time, and was on terms of friendship with him until he backed up Crowley on the latter’s expulsion from the Order.

Counsel was proceeding to question witness with regard to Alan Bennett [Allan Bennett], a Buddhist monk, and also a member of the Order, when his lordship intervened with the remark that “this trial is getting very much like the trial in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ ” (Laughter.)

Mr. Cran, a solicitor who acted for McGregor in an action against Crowley to restrain the latter from publishing certain rituals of the Rosicrucian Order, said M. Jones knew what the action was about, and witness had an interview with him and read to him extracts from one or two of Crowley’s books, and suggested that the latter was not a desirable person.

Mr. William Migge, a merchant, of Eastcheap, said he attended the first séance conducted by Crowley at Caxton Hall, which had been described in the “Looking Glass.” He paid five guineas for a series of screen performances, and as he did not like the performances he asked for his money back. The performances were supposed to be rites and rituals based on mysticism and planetary spirits. The performance he attended had something to do with the planet of Saturn.

His Lordship: What was Saturn being invoked for?—I do not know, my lord, but I think each performance had a bearing on a particular planet. There was a mixed audience, but there was so much incense used that he could not see everything. The account in the “Looking Glass” was tolerably accurate as far as it described the rites.

DIDN’T GET HIS MONEY’S WORTH

Cross-examined, witness said he was induced to pay his five guineas by a clairvoyant. He did not think the rites were worth the money. (Laughter.)

What did you expect to get for your money?—Clairvoyant manifestations.

In further evidence witness said he did not expect to see anything immoral.

Dr. Berridge [Edward Berridge], called on behalf of the defendants, said he was a member of the Rosicrucian Order. About 1900 there were ugly rumours about Crowley, and witness spoke to the latter. Crowley made an extraordinary statement in reply, winding up by saying

Plaintiff was re-called to speak to a certain interview, and was cross-examined as to his knowledge of Mr. Crowley’s books, his attention being directed to an extract from a review, in which one of the books was described as “revolting.” The extract was printed as an advertisement of the book.

His Lordship: Why does Crowley pick out a criticism which describes his books as “revolting”?—He would like to sell his books.

His Lordship: By advertising that they were revolting and morbid?—Witness: I have seen several criticisms, some one way and some another.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly with costs.