WAS JAMES WEDGWOOD AN INITIATE?

 

James Ingall Wedgwood was the first "bishop" to preside over the Liberal Catholic Church. While on the other hand, T.H. Martyn was an important member of the Theosophical Society in Australia and about this question he wrote the following:

 

 

 

Excerpt from T.H. Martyn's letter to Annie Besant

 

(Editor's note: The author of the following letter is Mr. T.H. Martyn, of Sydney, Australia, who has been a member of the Theosophical Society for thirty years, he has recently been president of the Sydney Lodge, which is the lodge of the largest Theosophical Society in the world, and he has also been General Secretary of the Australian Section Theosophical Society, Corresponding Secretary of the Australian Esoteric Section, and close associate of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater. to the Theosophical Society in that part of the world.)

 

 

« Then there cropped up the matter of Wedgwood’s initiation. You told me he was not an initiate. I could not be surprised at that, naturally, if the other was true how could he be?

 

The statement prompted me to wonder to what extent you confirmed or otherwise all the many other declarations of Leadbeater about various other people being disciples, initiates etc. My notes (written down immediately after I left you) remind me that I asked you what I was to do with regard to them and of your reply.

 

After my interview with you I left London immediately for Australia via America, and for a couple of months was busy readjusting my own ideas about things as well as I could. I found comfort in certain help which I believed my Master (M) gave me. I understood I was to do all I could to support you in a difficult crisis.

 

To me you had committed a distinct breach by discarding blind subservience to Leadbeater’s every word. It was easy for me to do this where in view of what I am telling you it would be impossible to accept Leadbeater’s infallibility in all things.

 

In America after leaving you certain people came to me and told me they had heard that the truth about Wedgwood was coming out at last and explained that he had in London admitted his trouble to one of them (or both I am not sure); that great efforts were made to help him overcome it; that things went on well for a time, but that later on he dropped back again into his evil ways. I can give you names if you want them.

 

When I reached Sydney, Raja [Curuppumullage Jinarajadasa] accepted the message with evident reluctance, and rather foolishly I repeated bits of your conversation in addition to the directions.

 

The central point with Raja became your denial of Wedgwood’s initiation and I soon saw that the breakdown of Wedgwood involved to him nothing short of the collapse of Leadbeater as an Arhat; of the divine authority of the Liberal Catholic Church; and of all reliance on the genuineness of reported initiations, discipleships, etc, in which great numbers of people are supposed to have participated.

 

Prom Raja's viewpoint this must not be permitted at any cost for the sake of the peace of mind of members and of the cause in general and he just became the politician pure and simple scheming to maintain what to me was —on the evidence available— a falsehood; he showed no desire at all to find the truth and follow it. I may have been a little unfair in this conclusion because I afterwards found that Raja is an echo of C.W.L. and that he takes his occultism directly from what the latter says without question. For some time until I could no longer stand his attitude up to a certain point.

 

Then followed the cable to you from Raja explaining what your statement —that Wedgwood was not an initiate—involved. He made no reference in the message to the immorality — that was apparently unimportant and you replied accepting Leadbeater's statement about the initiation as decisive and cancelled your instructions. But I will repeat the cables to make this point clear.

 

Sydney Dec. 17. 1919. to Besant, Adyar.

 

“Martyn reports you said Wedgwood not initiate. Leadbeater asserts you were present at initiation. Am most anxious members sake there should be no fundamental divergence between you and him on such important occult matter since at same time. . . . and . . . . took second . . . . and . . . . first. Do you mean that since you have no recollection you cannot assert Wedgwood initiate but do not wish to be quoted as saying that he is positively initiated.”

 

Dec. 22, 20. Bombay.

 

“Brother’s statement enough accept fact, cancel message sent.”

 

Before Raja’s cable was sent I had interviewed Leadbeater alone. He wanted to hear all he could. I told him about the evidence thrust on me in America about Wedgwood having confessed and he said “well we had better get rid of him then.” I have often since remembered this incident. If Leadbeater knew Wedgwood to be innocent because he was an initiate why should he have said that? »

 

(O.E. Library Critic, vol, 11, No. 11, January 4, 1922, p.4-8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

OBSERVATIONS

 

Charles Leadbeater was an immense charlatan and this testimony shows once again the enormous control he had over Annie Besant, since she was faced with the proven accusations of pedophilia against Wedgwood, she decided to expel him from the Theosophical Society and she had also correctly concluded that Wedgwood was not an initiate. But just because Leadbeater said otherwise, then she blindly accepted what Leadbeater said.