WCP2564

[1]

Rosehill, Dorking.

Oct^r. 7th 1877

Dear Sir

I am glad to have your letter of 5^th Inst.¹ because it gives me the opportunity of correcting your misapprehension of my meaning at p. 412 of my review.² I never for a moment intended to suggest that you could possibly have manufactured evidence in the case in question. I believe the sentence does not ^{grammatically} bear that meaning, and I am sure that the whole context contradicts it. The words "his disposition to manufacture evidence" plainly refer to and are supplementary of— "the untrustworthiness of the authority." On the previous page I have referred to this "authority" as "not an unbiassed witness" & have asked for independent proof that "the chemical was not applied to the flowers after the seance". That is clearly the "manufacturing testimony" to which I subsequently refer as possible, and which can by no possibility be taken to implicate you. Again if you read "D^r Carpenter's authority" instead of ^{change the words} "the authority on whom D^r. Carpenter relies" the into "D^r. Carpenter's authority" the meaning of the sentence remains ^precisely the same, yet ^but the antecedent of the word "his" cannot be mistaken.

[2] 3. ^{I cannot understand} your objection to my statement (in the second paragraph ^{of my article}) of the advantage you enjoy in a discussion like this "of having been long before the public as an expounder of popular and educational science." I cannot understand. It is ^also a true ^statement, it is honorable ^{certainly not disparaging}, and it is strictly to the point of my argument. I did not say— mere expounder— as you refer to it ^{say put it} in your letter, and I should have thought it almost an impertinence on my part to go out of my way to tell ^enlighten the public as to your scientific eminence, which I, at least, have never called in question. If you can show me that I have made any misstatements to your predjudice I will gladly withdraw and apologize for them; but to object to statements whose accuracy is not denied seems to me to come with a bad grace from you, who made most damaging misstatements as to Mr. Crookes,³ and when he pointed them out and disproved them did not publickly withdraw and apologise for them.

4. If you think ^{As to} Mr. Home's⁴ denunciations and statements on hearsay, [illeg.] good answer to ^{by all means make use of them if you think they will satisfactorily dispose of—} the facts and the advance of ^{medical, scientific and other experts} authorities adduced by me by all means make ample use of them. He will be very good company for Mr. Maskelyne,⁵ and as your [illeg.] whole case is that he is an imposter.

[3] 5. Having made no charges against you, but such as I have established by evidence ^{duly set forth} I have no reason wish to withdraw them till I am shown to be in error. I deny that I have ever depreciated your

2. My authority for the statement you refer to at p. 407 was Mr. Jencken⁶ himself, in conversation, but thinking I find I may possibly ^must have misunderstood him, I wrote to him, and find He ^now tells me in answer to an enquiry, that you had a preliminary sitting at Mrs. Kane's⁷ house at which Prof^r. Huxley⁸ & Tyndall⁹ were present, but ^and that you had only ^also one of at your own house, that being the first of a series of sittings when he had before informed me you had agreed ^arranged to have under certain conditions agreed upon between you. This no doubt led to my misconception, as he considered that you had had but one of the ^{series of} sittings agreed on for investigation. This mistake I regret and will correct if I republish my article.

I am sorry you did not think it advisable to answer my criticism in the same journals in which they appeared, as then ^{so that} readers could compare my statements with your replies. I trust however that you will quote any ^{in full such} of my criticisms you may think worth replying to, in full ^{in order} to avoid any such misconceptions as are sure to arise from [illeg.] giving short passages only without the context.

————————————————

scientific character; ^{quite the reverse.} and It is in a great measure because of your ^high scientific reputation that I have thought it ^{right and} necessary to point out that you are misleading the public in this matter. I cannot admit that ^even a past President of the British Association [4] is to ignore evidence be allowed to make erroneous statements uncorrected without correction & without comment. Your imputations of excess of credulity on my part do not in the least disturb me, as you cannot see by my having ^made no reference to them in my article. It is your ^{But it is on the other hand} recklessly false ^{and unfounded} statements — like that of my "having expressed my full faith in Mr. Lewis' self-asserted powers"— and your systematic suppression of the whole series ^masses of facts, ^{such as those} summarised by me at p. 413-414, while by one who professes to deal impartially! with the evidence— that have received, and will continue to receive, the strongest condemnation I can give them.

I remain &c...¹⁰