WCP2564

[1]

Rosehill, Dorking.

Oct[obe]^r. 7th 1877

Dear Sir

I am glad to have your letter of 5th just because it gives me the opportunity of correcting your misapprehension of my meaning at p. 412 of my review. 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. Agan if you read "D^r Carpenter's authority" instead of ^{change the words} "the authority on whom D^r. Carpenter relies" 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 ___ before the public as an expounder of popular and educational science." I cannot understand. It is a true ^statement, it is ^{certainly not disparaging}, and it is strictly to the point of my argument. I did not say— mere expounder— as you refer to it ^{put it} in your letter, and I should have thought it shant[?] 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, 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's denunciations and statements on hearsay, [] good endures[???] to ^{by all means make use of them if you think they will satisfactorily dispose of—} the facts and the order of ^{medical, [ ] and other experts} authorities adduced by me by all means make ample use of them. He will be very good company for Mr. Maskelyne, and as your [ ] 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 [] wish to withdraw them till I am shown to be in error. I deny that I have ever depreciated your

2. ally authority for the statement you refer to at p. 407 was Mr. Jencken himself, in conversation, but thinking I find I may possibly ^must have misunderstood him, I wrote to him, and fixed He ^now tells me in answer to an enquiry, that you had a preliminary sitting at Mrs. Kane's house at which Prof[esso]^R. Huxley & Tyndall were present, tact ^and that you had only ^also one of at your house _cee, 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 my ^{in full such} of my criticisms you may think worth replying to, in full in order to avoid [illeg.] such misconceptions as are sure to arise from giving short[?] passages only without the context.

¹scientific character; ^{quite the reverse.} 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 evoke 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 [illeg]} 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, whole 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...