WCP1575

[1]

Parkstone,

Dorset.

August 1st. 1891.

Dear Mr Myers¹

I have just been reading with the greatest interest your 1st para of Art. in Proc. S. P. R. on "Movements of Objects without Contact"² &c.&c. and am greatly pleased to see that you have got such excellent cases in private circles, which even Mrs Sidgwick's³ supreme genius for destructive criticisms will hardly venture to explain away. Her reply on Sp. Phot'y⁴ seems to me the very weakest of all her efforts in this direction and hardly worthy of serious consideration. The suggestion that Mr Josty, who was at most of the experiments purely passive, & often entranced — moreover an unsuccessful photographer — should have deceived two such men as Mr. Beatie⁵ & Dr. Thompson,⁶ — in all the experiments extending over two years, — & without no conceivable object — is the most ludicrously weak suggestion from a not altogether ignorant person, that I have yet met with!

What I am writing for chiefly, is to ask you whether you are going to admit omit from your paper all reference to the physical phenomena occurring with Mrs. Guppy,⁷ — the very first of which are described in my "Miracles & Mod. Sp'm"⁸ Pt. 2 Chap X. and also at pp.163-165; while very numerous others have been recorded in the Spiritual Periodicals. Mrs Guppy was never a paid medium, & comes in the same category as Home.⁹

I should like to take this opportunity of observing, that I should have seen — in your Review of Home's Life¹⁰ — a fuller recognition of his refusal always to take money for seances, — though he was for years under the temptation of partial or absolute poverty; — and also to have clearly stated who were responsible for his marvellous powers not having been more fully investigated. It was, primarily, & mainly, the fault of men of science. Brewster¹¹ & Faraday,¹² Tyndall¹³ & Huxley,¹⁴ & the Royal Society, all refused to investigate the phenomena, and raised such a howl of abuse, misrepresentation, & derision, — taken up by the entire press of course — and thus frightening others from allowing their names to appear as witnesses. I hope that you will not fail to lay stress on the remarkable corroboration in details afforded by your new cases — & especially to the rea-[2]lity of slate-writing — since I presume even Mrs Sidgwick will hardly maintain that the little girl-medium in Rio Janeiro was an experienced performer, a la Davey,¹⁵ — who I shall continue to believe to b have been a (partial) imposter till his "modus operandi throughout" which you say "he explained to an expert", has been fully made public.

Yours very truly, | Alfred R. Wallace.