WCP3447

[1]

Parkstone, Dorset.

August 3rd 1890

Dear Mr. Romanes

As I do not wish to continue this correspondence much longer, I will confine myself to pointing out why I consider your present position to be logically untenable & ^unscientific. You admit you cannot explain what took place in your own house, but you say "not being able to explain" is very far from admitting it to have been done by super-natural means. (I would say "supernormal" or "preter-human" rather than "supernatural" but that is a detail). You then describe the "cage ^{you had made} & nothing coming of it— implying that if phenomena had occurred when Williams was within ^{the cage} you ^would have admitted something "supernatual". But why? Simply [2] because, in your own words, you could not explain "how the trick was done". To me, & I think to most persons, what did occur— the "luminous" hand ^{lifting a bell at a distance} &c. &c. &c. was just as inexplicable, and just as much a proof of something beyond "trick", as would have been some physical effect produced outside the cage while Williams was in it.

Again, it is not "scientific" to ^{treat your own experience as if it stood alone and} refuse to admit all evidence from other enquirers in correlation, and though your cage-test did not succeed, it did succeed with others. Mr. Adshead, a gentleman of Belper, had a wire cage ^made & Miss Wood sat in it, in his own house, many times, and under those conditions many forms of men women & children appeared in the room. The same or a similar cage was afterwards used by the Newcastle Spiritual Evidence Society, for a year or two, & Miss Wood say in it weekly. It was screwed [3] up from the outside, yet all the usual phenomena of Materialisation occurred just the same as on occasion when no cage was used. At other times Miss Wood sat in the circle visible to all, yet other figures of various apparent ages appeared. Then again Mr. Varley, the electrical engineer, applied the electrical test to Miss Cooke she [one word illegible] part of the circuit, yet all the usual phenomena occurred. Crookes again tried the same ^test experiment with the same result; & he also saw Miss Cooke, and the materialised form "Katie" at the same time in his own house. All these facts and many others have been published and are known to all enquirers, and ^and[sic] ^{photographed the latter.} Every investigator knows that your failure to succeed in the test was no proof of any dishonesty in the medium or of impossibility of ^obtaining test phenomena under the conditions. Such new tests sometimes require to be tried many times before success. To me & I believe to most enquirers, it will appear ^{in the highest degree} most unscientific to reject phenomena that could not be ^{possibly be due to} imposture and to ignore the hundreds of corroborative [4] tests by other equally competent observers: and then, after this, to call all such observers (by implication) fools & idiots! Yet again, your attempted escape from ^{explanation of} the "mental questions" test, does not apply to the "Bellew" case, where you expressly state that ^{some of} the words ^while being spelled out were challenged by all, as wrong & was yet insisted on, & spelled out ^resulted contrary to the expectation of all in "J James Bellew fear no being."

Your writing to F. Darwin was unnecessary as neither he nor any of his family know any thing of my seeing copies of your letters, which did not come through them.

Yours truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]