With all his cunning and diplomacy he really seems to suffer from a loss of memory. Not only had he taken the "dear old lady" into the plot in a long private letter written to her a few hours after the said "efficient weapon" had been sent for publication, (a letter sent by her to you and which you lost in your packing up at Simla to come down) but he had actually gone out of his way to put a few words of explanation on the back of the said "Letter." It is preserved as every other MSS. by Damodar and the note runs thus . . . "Please print this carefully and without alteration. It answers admirably Davison's and other letters from home." . . . (Extracts from these letters were enclosed in his manuscript). . . . "We can't long, I fear, bolster up — but hints like these will help to break the fall" etc. . . .
Having thus himself forged this most efficient weapon for the conversion of the infidels at home, as to our actual existence, and unable henceforth to deny it, what better antidote than to add to the hints therein contained full and well defined charges of sorcery, etc.?
When accused by the 12 Chelas in their joint answer to his letter to them, of a deliberate falsification of facts with reference to the "dear Old Lady" whom he had, notwithstanding all he could say to the contrary, "taken into the plot" he writes in a letter to Subba Row that he had never done so. That his letter to the "Madam" explaining to her the whys and reasons for that "Letter" of his by "H.X." — was written and sent to her long after the said denunciatory Letter "was already in print." To this Subba Row, in his letter to whom he had bitterly abused and vilified M., answered by quoting to him the very words he had written on the back of the manuscript, thus showing to him how useless was any further falsehood. And now you may judge of his love for Subba Row!
And now comes the bouquet. Writing on the 1st of December to Mr. Olcott (letter first above referred to), he distinctly claims adept powers. "I am very sorry I cannot join you in the body in Bombay — but — if allowed I may nevertheless perhaps assist you there. . ." Yet in Fern's case he says "it is a perfect chaos and no one can tell what is really owing and what is not;" and several letters upon the same topic teem with acknowledgment that he had no power to see what was going on "during the past six months." Quite the contrary, it would seem, since in a letter to me within this period he describes himself as "not on a level spiritually with him (Fern) Sinnett" and others. He did not dare brag to me of his spiritual clairvoyance; but now, having "broken forever with the Tibetan Sorcerers" his potential adept powers have suddenly developed into monstrous proportions. They must have been from birth marvellously great since he informs Olcott (same letter) that "a certain amount of Pranayam for a few months (six weeks in all) was necessary to ensure concentration — at first. . . . I have passed that stage and — I AM A YOGI."
The charge preferred now against him is of so grave a character, that I would have never asked you to believe it on my simple assertion. Hence — this long letter, and the following evidence, which, please read with the utmost care and drawing your conclusions solely on that evidence.
In his July letter to me he imputes to us the blame for Fern's course of falsehood, his pretended visions and pretended inspirations from us; and in the letter to Mr. Olcott (December 1st) he charges Morya, my beloved brother, with acting "in a most dishonourable manner," adding that he has "never since looked upon him as a gentleman, for having caused Damodar . . . to send Fern a transcript of my confidential report on him. . . . " This he regards as "a dishonourable breach of confidence" so gross that "Moriar was afraid (!!) to let even K.H. know how he had stolen and made a bad use of my letter to him. K.H. is a gentleman I believe and would scorn so base an act." No doubt I would, had it been done without my knowledge and were it not absolutely necessary — in view of clearly foreseen events — to bring Mr. Hume to betray himself and thus counteract the influence and authority of his vindictive nature. The letter so transcribed was not marked confidential, and the words "I am ready to say so to Fern's face, at any day" — are there. However — the unmeasured abuse and his truly saintly and gentlemanly indignation at M.'s treachery are followed by these words of confession;213 very startling as you will see: ". . . Fern does not, let me do him that justice, know to this day that I knew of this" i.e. of the letter pilfered by M. and sent to Fern through Damodar. In short, then, Mr. Hume had means of reading the contents of a private letter addressed to Fern registered, sent to his (Mr. Hume's) care, kept in a drawer of a table belonging to the house. The proof is complete since it is himself who furnishes it. How then? Of course, either by reading its physical substance with his natural eyes, or, its astral essence by transcendental power. If the latter, then by what brief forcing system was the psychic power of this "yogi," who, in July last, was "not on a level spiritually" with yourself, or even with Fern, suddenly shot out into such full flower and fruitage, whereas it takes even us, trained "sorcerers" ten or fifteen years to acquire it? Besides, if this and other letters to Fern were presented to him in the "astral light" (as he maintains in his letter in reply to Colonel O.'s query, herein enclosed), how comes it that the benevolent Almorah genius (through whose help he suddenly acquired such tremendous powers) could cause him to take note of the contents, to read word for word and to remember ONLY such letters as were kept by Fern — in accordance with M.'s positive orders — in his desk in Mr. Hume's house? While WE DEFY HIM to repeat one word of other and (for him) far more important letters sent by my Brother to the "probationary chela" in which the latter was forbidden to keep them at Rothney Castle, but had them securely shut up in a locked desk at his own house? These queries arising at M.'s will in Olcott's mind, he flatly put the question to Mr. Hume. As M.'s chela, revering him, of course, as a Father as well as Teacher he very properly put to this Censor Elegantiarum the direct question whether he had been himself guilty of the very "dishonourable" breach of gentlemanlike conduct of which he was complaining in Morya's case. (And unjustly as you now see; for what he did had my approval, since it was a necessary part of a preconceived plan to bring out — besides Mr. H's true nature, — of a disgraceful situation, itself developed by the wicked appetites, follies and Karma of sundry weak men — ultimate good, as you will find).