WCP4333

[1]

Rosehill, Dorking.

Nov[embe]^r. 14th. 1876

My dear Sir

I was sorry not to be able to meet you, but I have been in bed almost ever since.

I am myself quite satisfied of Slade’s¹ honesty, & can quite well account for L.² & D.’s³ Evidence. The writing is not always done when the slate is held against the table (wh[ich]. is what is called "in position"), but often when the slate is held loose under the table, and swaying about in the erratic manner in which medium’s arms often move. [2] This is especially the case when the conditions are not very favourable, & has happened when I have been there.

Lankester’s statement, that from a view of the coat-sleeve, he could tell the motion of writing from any other movement is absurd. He could not have seen any part of Slade’s hand, for if he had he must also have seen the slate & the knee on which he says he believes it was rested. This he did not see. But when he believed that Slade was "coolly" & [3] "deliberately" writing with the slate on his knee, & he (L.) close by with the edge of the table only just concealing it, a slight instantaneous movement of his head would have enabled him to see it, & then to seize the slate actually on Slade’s knee? This would have been proof positive, which he (on his theory) could have got but did not get. I therefore think his theory that it was written on Slade’s knee ought not to have been received as evidence.

[4] I am glad you think the Law of the case bad, but I fear the law of "false pretences" would in any case apply.

I would strongly advise you to go to Slade & judge for yourself. Take your own slate.

Believe me | Yours very faithfully | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]

C. M. Ingleby Esq.⁴