Who knows anything about R.J. Kell?
CBA has one interesting looking item by him;
KELL (R J ) [Open letter dated November 12th, 1909 and commencing,] "To those needing information in view of the false charges circulated from Tunbridge Wells." [Marked] ("Private.") (Bromley, R.J.K., 1909.) 7p. 7". (G60675/KR11857) 689
And Noel also mentions him in connection with the TW division;
At this time, the late highly respected Mr. B. J. Kell was
at Tunbridge Wells for a few days, “in entire ignorance," he
says, “of ichat had been going on.”
Mr. W. M. Sibthorpe took him into his private room, and
he heard from him details of the meeting’s difficulties.
At Mr. Kell’s suggestion, a meeting was convened, to
bring the Accuser (Mr. W. M. Sibthorpe) and the Accused
(Mr. C. Strange) face to face.
2nd. Charge against Mr. C. S. was concerning a mat-
ter in connection with his son. Mr. E. J. Kell says, “If
any man ever was cleared of an imputation against him, Mr.
C. S. was cleared of this, in my presence in July, 1900.”
3rd. Charge against Mr. C. S. was, that he sought to
bring reproach and discredit upon the meeting at Tunbridge
Wells. This charge could not he sustained. Mr. R. J. Kell
says, “There was not the slightest proof or justification for
Mr. Kell asserts that “All the brothers professed them-
selves perfectly satisfied with the way Mr. C. S. replied to
Mr. W. M. Sibthorpe ; and, with the humbling and sorrow he
(Mr. C. S.) on his part, had expressed. Mr. W. M. Sib-
thorpe does not deny expressions of sorrow; but main-
tains they are not genuine” !
Mr. Kell further states that, on his return to London,
he wrote to Mr. Harborow, strongly protesting against the
spirit manifested by Mr. W. M. Sibthorpe towards Mr. C. S.
and Ms family.*
Mr. Kell also says that, “it appears from a letter (March
1, 1904) of Mr. Harborow’s, that what took place in my
presence in 1900, was practically repeated at a meeting of
seven brothers in 1902.”