Lights without Apparent Physical Cause.

The phenomenon of Light without any apparent physical cause was a frequent one with Mr. Stainton Moses, and the manifestations were of a very variedcharacter. Several of these were described inChapter IV.

An account is now given of some remarkable phenomena which occurred at four consecutive seances on the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th of August 1873. Mr. Stainton Moses was on a holiday excursion with Dr. and Mrs. Speer in the North of Ireland. The days were spent in orthodox holiday fashion. The following is condensed from notes written in detail at the time by Dr. Speer:—

On the 10th of August, after some other phenomena had occurred, a large globe of light rose opposite to me, sailed up to the level of our faces, and then vanished. Several more followed. By request one was placed in the centre of the table. It was surrounded with drapery. A light came and stood on the table close to me. "Now I will show you my hand" was rapped out. A large very bright light then came up, and inside of it appeared the materialised hand of the spirit. The fingers moved about close to my face; the appearance was as distinct as can be conceived. I was told to write an exact account of what had been done. The next evening I placed the account I had written and a pencil on the table, and asked that the light might be brought down upon it. This was done. I then asked that if possible the spirit would append his signature. The spirit said he would try. After other lights had been produced, the hand appeared outside the drapery, I heard the pencil moving, and repeating his instruction of the previous evening, he departed, leaving on the paper a specimen of direct spirit caligraphy.On these two evenings no other sitter was present but myself.[53]

As has already been remarked, the wealth of material is so great that selection is a matter of difficulty. There is much more I should like to have included in this chapter, but it must be drawn to a close with a brief detailed account of a case of "Direct Writing." There is perhaps no phenomenon more incredible to the "beginner" in these studies, than that legible and intelligent writing should be produced without human agency, and yet there seems no other way of explaining the facts. The following is an account, by Mr. Stainton Moses himself, of a seance held on 19th September 1872, the last held before a break in the series during the autumn of that year. "Imperator" had recently announced himself as the leading guide or director of the phenomena.

Facsimile reduced from original. The paper was blue, with faint blue lines. The corner at the top right hand was torn off for identification of the paper.

"We darkened the seance room, leaving the gas burning brightly in the adjoining dining-room. Dr. and Mrs. Speer and I sat at the table. On the floor under the table we put a piece of ruled paper and a pencil. A corner of the paper I tore off, and handed it to Dr. Speer to identify the sheet of paper if necessary. Various raps, some objects brought in, and a noise rather like sawing wood. When light was called for, Mrs. Speer stooped down and picked up the paper. The upper surface was blank. Her endorsement on the back of the paper, afterwards written, reads: 'I took the paper from underthe table with the writing downwards,'i.e.on the surface touching the carpet. Dr. Speer and I wrote and signed this endorsement: 'The above cornerwas torn by me (S. M.) before the light was put out, and was given to Dr. S.' I (S. M.) afterwards put the two pieces together. They fit exactly, and are secured by a couple of halfpenny stamps, with the initials of Dr. S. and myself upon them. The message follows the rules exactly. A facsimile is appended, omitting only the initials of a deceased friend. It will be noticed that the writing is clearly and laboriously executed on the ruled lines. In no case are the lines deserted. I fancy the message is written backwards. Imperator's signature is of his usual decided type, very like what is automatically written by my hand. I suspect that the message was written by two hands."[54]

FOOTNOTES:[39]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 245-352, and vol. xi. pp. 24-113. Reference should also be made to an obituary notice of Mr. Stainton Moses by Mr. Myers, inProceedings, vol. viii. pp. 597-601.[40]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 247-248.[41]Ibid., p. 248.[42]Ibid., p. 247.[43]Ibid., p. 247.[44]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 247.[45]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 252.[46]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 259.[47]Ibid.[48]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 259-260.[49]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 261.[50]SeeProceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 263-266.[51]SeeProceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 266-267.[52]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 267-273.[53]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 274-276.[54]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 284-286.

[39]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 245-352, and vol. xi. pp. 24-113. Reference should also be made to an obituary notice of Mr. Stainton Moses by Mr. Myers, inProceedings, vol. viii. pp. 597-601.

[40]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 247-248.

[41]Ibid., p. 248.

[42]Ibid., p. 247.

[43]Ibid., p. 247.

[44]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 247.

[45]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 252.

[46]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 259.

[47]Ibid.

[48]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 259-260.

[49]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. p. 261.

[50]SeeProceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 263-266.

[51]SeeProceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 266-267.

[52]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 267-273.

[53]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 274-276.

[54]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ix. pp. 284-286.

Thereality or otherwise of the pretensions of the "Divining Rod" come legitimately within the scope of the present inquiry. The physical results which, it is alleged, follow the use of the "Divining" or "Dowsing" Rod in certain hands are unexplained by recognised physical science. The main fact of the success of the Rod, as a means of finding water where all ordinary methods have failed, is, however, so widely acknowledged among intelligent persons, including many business men, that it will be unnecessary to devote much space to this chapter. I shall not do more than briefly refer to the scientificinquiry into the whole subject which has been made in recent years, and quote a few cases where success has attended the use of the Rod after other means had failed.

Here again we are mainly indebted to a member of the Society for Psychical Research for what has been done. In the early days of the Society, two or three members, especially the late Mr. E. Vaughan Jenkins, of Oxford, had assiduously collected the best testimony they could obtain as to the successful use of the Rod. This was placed at the disposal of the Society in 1884, and was amply sufficient to show that a strongprimâ faciecase for fuller investigation existed.[55]In 1891, at the request of the Council of the Society, Professor W. F. Barrett, F.R.S., of Dublin, undertook to submit the whole subject to a thorough scientific and experimental research. The results of Professor Barrett's indefatigable industry over a number of years are embodied in two lengthy Reports, published in theProceedingsof the Society.[56]The following cases are quoted from Professor Barrett's records as examples of the work of different professional "dowsers."

I. Mr. B. Tompkins, of Pipsmore Farm, Chippenham, Wilts, was the "diviner" in this case. Prior to 1890, Mr. Tompkins was a tenant farmer. Having been at some expense in endeavouring to obtain a good supply of water for his cattle, without success, he sent for Mr. Mullins, who came and found a spot where he said a plentiful supply ofwater existed at a depth of less than 30 feet. A well was sunk, and at 15 feet deep a strong spring was tapped which has yielded an unfailing supply ever since. Mr. Tompkins finding that the forked twig moved in his own hands, tried some experiments on his own account which proved successful. He was then asked by Messrs. Smith and Marshall, of Chippenham, agents to the late Lord Methuen, to try and find a spring on Lord Methuen's estate, as a well already sunk had proved useless. After a long search the rod moved at a certain spot on a hillside where Mr. Tompkins predicted a good supply of water would be found. Nine feet of solid rock had to be blasted, but at 18 feet a spring was struck which rose 9 or 10 feet in the well. Messrs. Smith and Marshall subsequently wrote thus to Mr. Tompkins:—

"Chippenham, Wilts, and7 Whitehall Place, London,November24, 1891."The decision you arrived at was perfectly correct, and it is our opinion that if we had made the well 6 feet either way to the right or left of the spot you marked, we should have missed the water, which is now abundant.Smith and Marshall."

"Chippenham, Wilts, and

7 Whitehall Place, London,

November24, 1891.

"The decision you arrived at was perfectly correct, and it is our opinion that if we had made the well 6 feet either way to the right or left of the spot you marked, we should have missed the water, which is now abundant.

Smith and Marshall."

This is by way of introduction to case 99 in Professor Barrett's Report.

"No. 99. Mr. Charles Maggs, who is a Wiltshire county magistrate, and proprietor of the Melksham Dairy Company, required a large supply of pure water for his butter factory, and, after ineffectual attempts to obtain it, wrote to Mr. Tompkins to come over and try the divining rod. This wasdone, and subsequently Mr. Maggs writes to Mr. Tompkins as follows:—

"'Melksham Dairy Company,November10, 1890."'We found water at 30 feet, as stated by you at time of finding the spring—a very strong spring. Our hopes had almost gone, and faith was all but spent....Charles Maggs.'"

"'Melksham Dairy Company,

November10, 1890.

"'We found water at 30 feet, as stated by you at time of finding the spring—a very strong spring. Our hopes had almost gone, and faith was all but spent....

Charles Maggs.'"

Professor Barrett wrote to Mr. Maggs, and received the following interesting letter in reply:—

"Bowerhill Lodge, Melksham,March8, 1897."Briefly the facts are:—I sunk a well to find water for my dairy and found none. Then I wrote to Mr. Tompkins, who came the following day. He cut a forked stick out of the hedge, and having placed it over the well, said, 'There is no water here,' but found a slight spring within 10 feet, too small to be of any service, he reported. He walked all over the field, and said he had not come across any spring at all. However, in the extreme corner of the field, a bunch of nettles was growing, and he entered this, and instantly exclaimed—'Here it is; and a good head of water, too! Not running away, but just ready for tapping, and as soon as you strike it, it will come surging up.' 'How deep?' 'Not over 25 feet.' He cut out a turf to indicate the spot, and we commenced sinking next day. The person employed was an old well-sinker, and he came to me two or three times whilst engaged in sinking, showing specimens of the soil or marl,assuring me there never was water where such existed, and it was worse than useless to go further. I told him to go on if he had to get to New Zealand—it was my money, and he need not regard me nor my pocket. When he had gone about 22 feet, his pickaxe tapped the spring and the water came up like a fountain, and at such a rate he feared he should be drowned before he could get pulled up—his mates being away! The water rose rapidly to within 12 or 15 inches of the surface. We put in pumps and kept the water down whilst he went a little deeper, but the rush of water was such that we had to desist going lower. Since then we have had a splendid supply....Chas. Maggs."[57]

"Bowerhill Lodge, Melksham,

March8, 1897.

"Briefly the facts are:—I sunk a well to find water for my dairy and found none. Then I wrote to Mr. Tompkins, who came the following day. He cut a forked stick out of the hedge, and having placed it over the well, said, 'There is no water here,' but found a slight spring within 10 feet, too small to be of any service, he reported. He walked all over the field, and said he had not come across any spring at all. However, in the extreme corner of the field, a bunch of nettles was growing, and he entered this, and instantly exclaimed—'Here it is; and a good head of water, too! Not running away, but just ready for tapping, and as soon as you strike it, it will come surging up.' 'How deep?' 'Not over 25 feet.' He cut out a turf to indicate the spot, and we commenced sinking next day. The person employed was an old well-sinker, and he came to me two or three times whilst engaged in sinking, showing specimens of the soil or marl,assuring me there never was water where such existed, and it was worse than useless to go further. I told him to go on if he had to get to New Zealand—it was my money, and he need not regard me nor my pocket. When he had gone about 22 feet, his pickaxe tapped the spring and the water came up like a fountain, and at such a rate he feared he should be drowned before he could get pulled up—his mates being away! The water rose rapidly to within 12 or 15 inches of the surface. We put in pumps and kept the water down whilst he went a little deeper, but the rush of water was such that we had to desist going lower. Since then we have had a splendid supply....

Chas. Maggs."[57]

II. Mr. John Mullins and Mr. H. W. Mullins, father and son, Colerne, Chippenham, Wilts.

Mr. Mullins, sen., who died rather more than ten years ago, was for thirty years engaged all over Great Britain and Ireland in finding water by means of the divining rod. He was a professional well-sinker. His sons carry on their father's business. One of them, Mr. H. W. Mullins, inherits his fathers faculty.

Cases Nos. 62 and 63 in Professor Barrett's Report illustrate the powers of both father and son.

Mr. E.G. Allen writes:—

"Highfield, MetheringhamLincoln,March25, 1893."Having frequently availed myself of Mr. John Mullins' services during the last twenty years, I can say I have never known him to fail. Ihave sunk six wells, two on a heath farm about 30 feet deep (surrounding wells measuring about 70 feet) in limestone rock, thus saving a great expense in sinking. I took him one morning to a farm which was at that time farmed by the owner, the Right Hon. H. Chaplin, M.P. The well in the yard (nearly always dry) was about 30 feet deep. In a few minutes, Mullins, carrying in his hand his twig, found a good spring a very short distance from the old well. A new well was sunk, and at 10 feet a splendid supply of water was found. It has never failed, and has supplied the yards, &c., with water ever since."Being in want of water for a large grass field, called 'Catley Abbey Field,' I went with Mullins, who placed down a peg to denote a spring. We sunk a well, and bored 70 feet obtaining a good supply of water. Being struck with a peculiarity in its taste, it was submitted to Professor Attfield, Ph.D., who pronounced it to be the only natural seltzer spring in the kingdom.E. G. Allen."[58]

"Highfield, Metheringham

Lincoln,March25, 1893.

"Having frequently availed myself of Mr. John Mullins' services during the last twenty years, I can say I have never known him to fail. Ihave sunk six wells, two on a heath farm about 30 feet deep (surrounding wells measuring about 70 feet) in limestone rock, thus saving a great expense in sinking. I took him one morning to a farm which was at that time farmed by the owner, the Right Hon. H. Chaplin, M.P. The well in the yard (nearly always dry) was about 30 feet deep. In a few minutes, Mullins, carrying in his hand his twig, found a good spring a very short distance from the old well. A new well was sunk, and at 10 feet a splendid supply of water was found. It has never failed, and has supplied the yards, &c., with water ever since.

"Being in want of water for a large grass field, called 'Catley Abbey Field,' I went with Mullins, who placed down a peg to denote a spring. We sunk a well, and bored 70 feet obtaining a good supply of water. Being struck with a peculiarity in its taste, it was submitted to Professor Attfield, Ph.D., who pronounced it to be the only natural seltzer spring in the kingdom.

E. G. Allen."[58]

The next case in Professor Barrett's collection, No. 63, forms an interesting sequel to the above. The following is abridged from a long report, in theLincolnshire Chronicleof 8th June 1895, of a visit of Mr. H.W. Mullins, son of Mr. John Mullins, to Catley Abbey:—

"The object of the Catley Abbey Company in sending for Mr. Mullins was to secure a well of pure water for bottle-washing. A well on the adjoiningfarm of Mr. Allen had run dry, and recently the seltzer water had been used for the purpose of bottle-washing. Eight years ago, Mr. J. Mullins, the father of the family, located the spot at Catley, where now stands the only natural seltzer spring in Britain.... Proceeding to the site of the dried-up well, Mullins took out aV-shaped twig, the forks of which were each about a foot long, and walked slowly along the ground a short distance from the well. Suddenly the twig revolved ... and Mullins confidently asserted that he was standing over a subterranean watercourse. Proceeding to the other side of the well, he traced, or professed to trace, the course of the hidden stream, and marked a spot contiguous to the buildings where he asserted a good spring would be tapped at a depth of from 120 to 130 feet, and he advised that a well should be sunk there.

"It was told to Mullins that his father asserted the seltzer spring flowed under a hedge on the other side of the field in which we were then standing, and he was asked to indicate the place. Starting at one end of the field, he walked close by the hedge side. He had gone about 100 yards when the twig began to play, and digging his heel in the ground, he thus marked the spot. Mr. Allen, who was present when Mullins, sen., also located the spring, sent a man for a spade, and a stake was dug up which eight years ago was driven in by Mr. Allen to mark the place. Mullins, jun., had touched the spot exactly."

The same newspaper of 23rd August 1895 announces the result of digging in the spot indicated as follows:—

"Our readers will remember that a few weeks ago our columns contained an article relative to the finding of water at Catley Abbey by means of hazel twigs in the hands of Mr. Mullins, the eminent 'dowser.' We are now able to state that a well having been sunk in the position indicated by Mr. Mullins, a valuable supply of water has been obtained, and that at a depth of about 5 feet less than that mentioned by him."

Professor Barrett says: "I sent Mr. Allen the foregoing account, and asked if it were correct. He replies that it is perfectly accurate, the facts being most interesting, and occurred as stated in the letter and newspaper report."[59]

III. Mr. Leicester Gataker, Crescent Gardens, Bath, who is a gentleman by birth and education, soon after leaving Bath College, discovered to his surprise that a forked twig revolved in his hands in the same way as it did with a local "diviner." The following is Case 123 in Professor Barrett's Report:—

"Mr. Gataker states that, being engaged by Messrs Ruscombe Poole & Son, the well-known solicitors of Bridgwater, he found a spring less than 14 feet deep, and within 3 or 4 yards of a useless well, 20 feet deep, sunk prior to his visit. In corroboration he encloses the following letter:—

"'Bridgwater, Somerset,July1896."'We have sunk a well in the garden, and a copious spring has been found at 13 feet 6 inches, which amply verifies your prediction."'J. Ruscombe Poole & Son.'"

"'Bridgwater, Somerset,July1896.

"'We have sunk a well in the garden, and a copious spring has been found at 13 feet 6 inches, which amply verifies your prediction.

"'J. Ruscombe Poole & Son.'"

Professor Barrett says: "I wrote to Mr. Ruscombe Poole, and asked him if Mr. Gataker's statements were correct, and he replies:—

"'Bridgwater,January15, 1897."'We return the paper you sent us. As regards the statement that there was a well about 20 feet deep which was useless, this is perfectly true, because the water in it was foul and smelt badly. The supply found is a very much more copious one than the old well, which contained very little water.'"[60]

"'Bridgwater,January15, 1897.

"'We return the paper you sent us. As regards the statement that there was a well about 20 feet deep which was useless, this is perfectly true, because the water in it was foul and smelt badly. The supply found is a very much more copious one than the old well, which contained very little water.'"[60]

The Index to Professor Barrett's Reports enumerates between three and four hundred persons with whom experiments with the Divining Rod are described. A list of the names of "dowsers" is also given. This list includes the names of about seventy professional "dowsers," and of nearly as many amateur "dowsers." These figures show the extent to which the use of the rod prevails, and also the work which the preparation of the Reports involved. As a specimen of the kind of evidence presented by Professor Barrett from miscellaneous sources, the following may be quoted:—

"In the present Report numerous independent witnesses of unimpeachable integrity, and some with high scientific attainments, testify to the same class of facts, viz.:—(1) The automatic and apparently irresistible motion of the twig in the hands often of a complete novice; and (2) that,when the forked twig doesnotmove in a person's hands, if the dowser takes one link of the twig, or even places his hand on the wrist of the insensitive person, the previously inert twig now turns vigorously and often breaks in two in the effort to resist its motion. As regards (1), see the letter from the President of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall on p. 219,[61]who states that the Clerk of his Parish Council, on finding the rod suddenly twist in his hands, called out—'It is alive, sir, it is alive!' Mr. Enys adds: 'This exactly describes the sensation when the rod moves.' ... Mr. Bennett, of Oxford, on p. 176, refers to the frantic motion and the ultimate breaking of the twig 'held firmly' in the dowser's hands.... As regards (2), see Mr. Morton's letter toThe Engineer, given on p. 172; Mr. Morton found the rod would not move in his hands, but when the late John Mullins, the dowser, 'laid his hands on my wrists and grasped them firmly, then the twig instantly began to turn, and continued turning till he removed his hands. He never touched the twig while it was in my hands.' Mr. Montague Price in his letter on p. 181 states: 'I held one side of the forked rod myself and the diviner the other, and when we came to water [alleged underground water] the strain was so great on my fingers I was obliged to ask him to stop. From the position of the rod it was almost impossible for him to produce the pressure, which increased with the strength of the stream.' ...

"The usual practice, after watching a dowser atwork, is for some of the onlookers to try if the forked twig will move in their hands. Generally speaking, one or more, out of perhaps ten or twelve persons, discover, to their astonishment, that the twig curls up in their hands—at the same places at which it did with the dowser. Here is such an experience. Mrs. Hollands writes to me as follows:—

"'Dene Park, Tonbridge,October9, 1899."'In answer to your note of inquiry about the divining rod, the whole thing is rather a long story, but the practical result of the water dowser's visit was to find water which now supplies the house. One of my daughters found she had the strange power which moves the divining rod, and it works for her now quickly over any spring. It is most interesting, as you can feel the rod move if you take one side of it, and take one of her hands, she holding the other end of the rod—it struggles up, and would break off altogether if you did not allow it to move. My daughter has since found several springs on the estate, where we have sunk wells. They have stood us in very good stead these last dry seasons.Minnie Hollands.'"A similar experience is given by Miss M. Craigie Halkett, who published some excellent photographs of a dowser at work inSketchfor 23rd August 1899. Miss Halkett writes to me as follows:—"Lauriston, New Eltham, Kent,September8, 1899."The man depicted in the photographs is not a water-finder by profession. He is a tenantfarmer residing at Catcolt, a village near Bridgwater, and merely exercises the art to oblige his neighbours. Several of the country people in this neighbourhood (Somerset) have the gift. It has never been known to fail. Personally I was rather sceptical on the subject, but was converted by the stick turning in my hands when standing over a spring. There were about six persons present at the time; all tried it, but it would turn for no one excepting the man in the picture and myself. I experienced a sort of tingling sensation in my arms and wrists, but otherwise was quite unaware when the forked stick began to turn, it seemed to go over so quickly."'Maude Craigie Halkett.'"Miss Halkett does not say how she knew she was 'standing over a spring' when the twig turned in her hands; this statement is very characteristic of many others that have reached me."[62]

"'Dene Park, Tonbridge,October9, 1899.

"'In answer to your note of inquiry about the divining rod, the whole thing is rather a long story, but the practical result of the water dowser's visit was to find water which now supplies the house. One of my daughters found she had the strange power which moves the divining rod, and it works for her now quickly over any spring. It is most interesting, as you can feel the rod move if you take one side of it, and take one of her hands, she holding the other end of the rod—it struggles up, and would break off altogether if you did not allow it to move. My daughter has since found several springs on the estate, where we have sunk wells. They have stood us in very good stead these last dry seasons.

Minnie Hollands.'

"A similar experience is given by Miss M. Craigie Halkett, who published some excellent photographs of a dowser at work inSketchfor 23rd August 1899. Miss Halkett writes to me as follows:—

"Lauriston, New Eltham, Kent,

September8, 1899.

"The man depicted in the photographs is not a water-finder by profession. He is a tenantfarmer residing at Catcolt, a village near Bridgwater, and merely exercises the art to oblige his neighbours. Several of the country people in this neighbourhood (Somerset) have the gift. It has never been known to fail. Personally I was rather sceptical on the subject, but was converted by the stick turning in my hands when standing over a spring. There were about six persons present at the time; all tried it, but it would turn for no one excepting the man in the picture and myself. I experienced a sort of tingling sensation in my arms and wrists, but otherwise was quite unaware when the forked stick began to turn, it seemed to go over so quickly.

"'Maude Craigie Halkett.'

"Miss Halkett does not say how she knew she was 'standing over a spring' when the twig turned in her hands; this statement is very characteristic of many others that have reached me."[62]

Professor Barrett's views as to the source of the power which moves the rod are entitled to more attention than those of any one else. In a chapter on "Theoretical Conclusions" in the first of his two Reports, he says: "Few will dispute the proposition that the motion of the forked twig is due to unconscious muscular action." He then gives a summary of the causes which, he believes, determine that action. Among these he enumerates, impressions from without unconsciously made upon the dowser's mind from his own trained observation and practice, and from bystanders. He also believedthat in some cases an impression appears to be gained through Thought-Transference. He did not, however, think this covered the whole ground. A peculiar pathological effect is produced on the dowser; but to what this is due can only be ascertained by persevering and unbiassed investigation.

Professor Barrett's second Report contains a long and interesting discussion of this problem. His views had undergone some modification. He adheres to his previous view that the "curious phenomena attending themotionof the so-called divining rod are capable of explanation by causes known to science" (e.g.involuntary muscular action). But he has become more impressed with the view that the suggestion may arise "from some kind of transcendental discernment possessed by the dowser's subconscious self." And he further says: "For my own part, I am disposed to think that this cause, though less acceptable to science, will be found to be a truer explanation of the more striking successes of a good dowser." In conclusion Professor Barrett says still more definitely: "This subconscious perceptive power, commonly called 'clairvoyance,' may provisionally be taken as the explanation of those successes of the dowser which are inexplicable on any grounds at present known to science."[63]

FOOTNOTES:[55]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ii. pp. 79-107.[56]Ibid., vol. xiii. (Part XXXII.), pp. 2-282, and vol. xv. (Part XXXVI.), pp. 130-383.[57]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 145-148.[58]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 88-89.[59]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 89-90.[60]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. p. 182.[61]The pages inthisparagraph refer to the present Report (i.e.Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. pp. 130-383).[62]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. pp. 279-281.[63]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. p. 314. See also the whole discussion of which this page is the conclusion.

[55]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. ii. pp. 79-107.

[56]Ibid., vol. xiii. (Part XXXII.), pp. 2-282, and vol. xv. (Part XXXVI.), pp. 130-383.

[57]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 145-148.

[58]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 88-89.

[59]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. pp. 89-90.

[60]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xiii. p. 182.

[61]The pages inthisparagraph refer to the present Report (i.e.Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. pp. 130-383).

[62]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. pp. 279-281.

[63]Proceedings S.P.R., vol. xv. p. 314. See also the whole discussion of which this page is the conclusion.

Thereis one, and perhaps only one phase of the great subject of Thought-Transference or Telepathy the manifestations of which can legitimately be included among physical phenomena. Involuntary drawing or scribbling is a phenomenon of very common occurrence. But when such an involuntary drawing turns out to be a more or less exact copy of a drawing which the involuntary draughtsman has never seen; and still further when it turns out that the original drawing has been drawn by another person with the deliberate purpose of impressing it on the mind of the involuntary draughtsman, the subject assumes an entirely new interest. This, however, is the history of those series of "Thought-Transference Drawings" which have been published by the Society for Psychical Research. They are scattered through several volumes of its publications. Through the kindness of the Council of that Society I am able to put before the reader the largest selection of these drawings which has appeared. The drawings are the results of several different groups of experimenters in different parts of the country; and the selection has been made from as many groups as possible. In all cases facsimiles of the original drawing and of the reproduction are given. The earlier series done under the auspices of a Committee of the Society do not represent successes picked out of a large number of failures, but includeall the attempts made at the time. The number that can be considered total failures in any of the trials is exceedingly small. Any conceivable chance or coincidence is entirely inadequate to account for the similarity in the great majority of cases.

The "First Report on Thought-Reading" was written by Professor W. F. Barrett, Mr. Gurney, and Mr. Myers, and was read at the first General Meeting of the Society on 17th July 1882. In order to illustrate the then state of scientific opinion, the writers say: "The present state of scientific opinion throughout the world is not only hostile to any belief in the possibility of transmitting a single mental concept except through the ordinary channels of sensations, but, generally speaking, it is hostile even to any inquiry upon the matter. Every leading physiologist and psychologist down to the present time has relegated what, for want of a better term, has been called "Thought-Reading" to the limbo of explored fallacies."[64]A second Report by the same writers was read at a meeting of the Society in the same year. In this Report the first series of "Thought-Transference Drawings" was described.

The method of proceeding was as follows:—A. makes an outline sketch of a geometrical figure, or of something a little more elaborate. B. sees this sketch, and carrying it in his mind goes and stands behind C., who sits with a pencil and paper before him and draws the impression which arises in his mind. Precautions are taken against the conveyance of information by any ordinary means. Except in a few of the earliest trials no contact between any ofthe parties was permitted. B. and C. are called respectively "transmitter" and "receiver."

In December 1882, Mr. Myers and Mr. Gurney paid a visit to Brighton to personally investigate some joint experiments of Mr. Douglas Blackburn and Mr. G. Albert Smith. Both Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Smith were then, or soon after became, members of the Society for Psychical Research. The experiments were made in Mr. Myers' and Mr. Gurney's own lodgings. The following plan, arranged in regard to some experiments made on 4th December, is thus described by Mr. Myers: "One of us completely out of sight of S. [Mr. Smith] drew some figure at random, the figure being of such a character that its shape could not be easily conveyed in words.... The figure, drawn by us, was then shown to B. [Mr. Blackburn] for a few moments, S. being seated all the time with his back to us, and blindfolded, in a distant part of the same room, and subsequently in an adjoining room. B. looked at the figure drawn; then held S.'s hand for a while; then released it. After being released, S. (who remained blindfolded) drew the impression of a figure which he had received.... In no case was there the smallest possibility that S. could have seen the original figure; and in no case did B. touch S., even in the slightest manner, while the figure was being drawn."

The whole series of drawings done in this way, on that occasion, is given in the Report in theS.P.R. Proceedings. They were nine in number. We have selected two, Nos. 5 and 9.

No. 5 calls for no special remark.

ORIGINALREPRODUCTION

ORIGINAL

REPRODUCTION

ORIGINALREPRODUCTION

ORIGINAL

REPRODUCTION

When the reproduction of No. 9 was drawn, Mr. S. touched the spot to which the arrow points, and said: "There is something more there, but I cannot tell what it is."

In the experiments made subsequently to these, the conditions were still more stringent, and no contact whatever was allowed between Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Smith; and it will be seen that striking and successful results were obtained.

A few weeks later, in January 1883, at the invitation of the Committee of the Society for Psychical Research, Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Smith came from Brighton, and a series of experiments was conducted at the Rooms the Society then occupied in Dean's Yard, Westminster. For the Report embodying the results of these experiments, Mr. Myers, Mr. Gurney, and Professor Barrett are specially responsible. Two drawings, Nos. 10 and 11, are selected from a series of twenty-two made on this occasion.

As to No. 10, Mr. S. had no idea that the original was not a geometrical diagram. Nor had he any clue given him as to the character of No. 11. He added the line markedbsome time after he had drawn the line markeda, saying that he saw "a line parallel to another somewhere."

The authors of this Report say: "It is almost needless to point out that in these observations so foreign to our common experience, it is indispensable to be minutely careful and conscientious in recording the exact conditions of each experiment." The reader is referred to the Report itself to show how this was carried out; and also to show how exhaustively every possibility was considered bymeans of which information could be conceived to be conveyed through any recognised channel.

ORIGINAL

REPRODUCTIONMr. Smith had no idea that the original was not a geometrical diagram."

ORIGINALREPRODUCTIONMr. Smith had no idea that the original was not a geometrical diagram. He added line _b_ some time after he had drawn line _a_, "seeing a line parallel to another somewhere."

ORIGINAL

REPRODUCTION

ORIGINALREPRODUCTIONMr. Guthrie and Miss E. no contact.

ORIGINAL

REPRODUCTION

An entirely different group of experimenters set to work in Liverpool. Mr. Malcolm Guthrie, J.P., was a partner in one of the large drapery establishments, and Mr. James Birchall was the Hon. Secretary of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool. Their interest was aroused in the subject of Thought-Transference, and they carried out a very large number of experiments with some of the young ladies employed in Mr. Guthrie's establishment, who, "amusing themselves after business hours, found that certain of their number, when blindfolded, were able to name very correctly figures selected from an almanack suspended on the wall of the room, when their companions havinghold of their hands, fixed their attention on some particular day of the month." This led to serious experiments, including about one hundred and fifty Thought-Transference Drawings. The conditions were carefully guarded, and in the majority of cases no contact was permitted. There were many failures, but a large number of successes. Assistance as "transmitter" was also given by Mr. F. S. Hughes, a member of the Society for Psychical Research. In a report by Mr. Guthrie, published in theProceedingsof the Society, sixteen of these drawings are given.Nos.2 and 15 are selected. In neither of these was any contact between "transmitter" and "receiver" permitted. InNo.2, Mr. Guthrie was"transmitter" and Miss Edwards "receiver." InNo.15, Mr. F. S. Hughes was "transmitter" and Miss Edwards "receiver." With regard to the second, Miss Edwards said, "It is like a mask at a pantomime," and immediately drew the reproduction.

ORIGINALMr. Hughes and Miss E. no contact.REPRODUCTIONMiss E. said, "It is like a mask at a pantomime," and immediately drew as above.

ORIGINALMr. Hughes and Miss E. no contact.

REPRODUCTIONMiss E. said, "It is like a mask at a pantomime," and immediately drew as above.

Mr. Malcolm remarks in his Report: "The drawings must speak for themselves. The principal facts to be borne in mind are that they have been executed through the instrumentality as agents [transmitters] of persons of unquestioned probity, and that the responsibility for them is spread over a considerable group of such persons, while the conditions to be observed were so simple—for they amounted really to nothing more than taking care that the original should not be seen by the subject [receiver]—that it is extremely difficult to suppose them to have been eluded."

Mr. Guthrie, having satisfied himself as to the reality of the phenomena of Thought-Transference, as manifested by the drawings, and in other ways, endeavoured to interest the scientific men of Liverpool. He naturally appealed among others to Sir Oliver Lodge, who was then Professor of Physics in University College, Liverpool. He accepted the invitation, and subsequently gave "An Account of Some Experiments in Thought-Transference" to the Society for Psychical Research, of which he was already an unofficial member, and which account is published in the Society'sProceedings.

The Report commences with a tribute, "since it bears on the questions of responsibility and genuineness," to the important position Mr. Guthrie held in Liverpool, as an active member of the governing bodies of several public institutions, including the University College. Sir Oliver Lodge then says:—

"After Mr. Guthrie had laboriously carried out a long series of experiments ... he set about endeavouring to convince such students of science as he could lay his hands upon in Liverpool; and with this object he appealed to me, among others, to come and witness, and within limits modify, the experiments in such a way as would satisfy me of their genuineness and perfect good faith. Yielding to his entreaty, I consented, and have been, I suppose, at some dozen sittings, at first simply looking on so as to grasp the phenomena, but afterwards taking charge of the experiments.... In this way I had every opportunity of examining and varying the minute conditions of the phenomena, so as to satisfy myself of their genuine andobjective character, in the same way as one is accustomed to satisfy oneself as to the truth and genuineness of any ordinary physical fact.

"I did not feel at liberty to modify the experiments very largely, in other words to try essentially new ones.... I only regarded it as my business to satisfy myself as to the genuineness and authenticity of the phenomena already described by Mr. Guthrie. If I had merely witnessed facts as a passive spectator I should most certainly not publicly report upon them. So long as one is bound to accept imposed conditions and merely witness what goes on, I have no confidence in my own penetration, and am perfectly sure that a conjurer could impose upon me, possibly even to the extent of making me think that he was not imposing on me; but when one has the control of the circumstances, can change them at will, and arrange one's own experiments, one gradually acquires a belief in the phenomena observed quite comparable to that induced by the repetition of ordinary physical experiments."

Sir Oliver Lodge then describes in detail the method of procedure, in the course of which he says:—

"We have many times succeeded with agents ['transmitters'] quite disconnected with the percipient ['receiver'] in ordinary life and sometimes complete strangers to them. Mr. Birchall, the headmaster of the Birkdale Industrial School, frequently acted; and the house physician at the Eye and Ear Hospital, Dr. Shears, had a successful experiment, acting alone, on his first and only visit. All suspicion of a pre-arranged code is thus renderedimpossible even to outsiders who are unable to witness the obvious fairness of all the experiments."

Sir Oliver Lodge then gives the details of twenty-seven experiments. From these four are selected. Descriptions, in Sir O. Lodge's own words, are condensed.

(1) "Mr. Birchall, agent—Miss R, percipient, holding hands. No one else present except myself. A drawing of a Union Jack pattern. As usual in drawing experiments, Miss R. remained silent for perhaps a minute; then she said, 'Now I am ready.' I hid the object; she took off the handkerchief and proceeded to draw on paper placed ready in front of her. She this time drew all the lines of the figure except the horizontal middle one. She was obviously much tempted to draw this, and indeed began it two or three times faintly, but ultimately said, 'No, I'm not sure,' and stopped."

Back to Index Next