DR. CARPENTER ON SPIRITUALISM. 



439 



"Having placed before the somnambulists four 

 small bars of iron, one of which was magnetized 

 by the loadstone, they could always distinguish 

 this one from the others, from its two ends being 

 enveloped in a brilliant vapor. The light was 

 more brilliant at one end (the north pole) than at 

 the other. I could never deceive them ; they al- 

 ways recognized the nature of the poles, although 

 when in their normal state they were in complete 

 ignorance of the subject." Surely here is a 

 wonderful confirmation. One observer in France 

 and another in Germany make the same observa- 

 tion about the same time, and quite indepen- 

 dently ; and even the detail of the north pole 

 being the more brilliant agrees with the state- 

 ment of Reichenbach's sensitives (" Ashburner's 

 Trans.," p. 20). 



Our readers can now judge how far the his- 

 toric and scientific method has been followed in 

 Dr. Carpenter's treatment of the researches of 

 Von Reichenbach, not one of the essential facts 

 here stated (and there are hundreds like them) 

 being so much as alluded to, while "suggestion," 

 "expectation," and "imposture," are offered as 

 fully explaining everything. We cannot devote 

 much time to the less important branches of the 

 subject, but it is necessary to show that in every 

 case Dr. Carpenter misstates facts, and sets nega- 

 tive above positive evidence. Thus, as to the 

 magnenometer ' and odometer of Mr. Rutter and 

 Dr. Mayo, all the effects are imputed to expecta- 

 tion and unconscious muscular action, and we 

 have this positive statement : " It was found that 

 the constancy of the vibrations depended entirely 

 upon the operator's watching their direction, 

 and, further, that when such a change was made 

 without the operator's knowledge in the conditions 

 of the experiment, as ought, theoretically, to alter 

 the direction of the oscillations, no such alteration 

 took place." Yet Mr. Rutter clearly states : 1. 

 That the instrument can be affected through the 

 hand of a third person with exactly the same re- 

 sult (Rutter's " Human Electricity," App., p. 54). 

 2. That the instrument is affected by a crystal on 

 a detached stand brought close to the instrument, 

 but without contact (loc. cit., p. 151). 3. That 

 many persons, however " expectant" and anxious 

 to succeed, have no power to move the instru- 

 ment. 4. That substances unknown to the opera- 

 tor, and even when held by a third party, caused 



1 The magnenometer is a delicate pendulum, which, 

 when its support is touched by certain persons, vibrates 

 in a definite direction, the direction changing on the 

 motion suddenly stopping when different substances are 

 touched at the same time by the operator. 



correct indications, and that an attempt to de- 

 ceive by using a substance under a wrong name 

 was detected by the movements of the instrument 

 (loc. cit., Appendix, p. lvi.). Here, then, Mr. Rut- 

 ter's positive testimony is altogether ignored, 

 while the negative results of another person are 

 set forth as conclusive. Next we have the evi- 

 dence for the divining-rod similarly treated. Dr. 

 Mayo is quoted as supporting the view that the 

 rod moved in accordance with the "expectations" 

 of the operator, but on the preceding page of 

 Dr. Mayo's work other cases are given in which 

 there was no expectation ; and the fact that Dr. 

 Mayo was well aware of this source of error, and 

 was a physiologist and physician of high rank, 

 entitles his opinion as to the reality of the action 

 in other cases to great weight. Again, we have 

 the testimony of Dr. Hutton, who saw the Hon. 

 Lady Miibauke use the divining-rod on Woolwich 

 Common, and who declares that it turned where 

 he knew there was water, and that in other 

 places where he believed there was none it did 

 not turn ; that the lady's hands were closely 

 watched, and that no motion of the fingers or 

 hands could be detected, yet the rod turned so 

 strongly and persistently that it became broken. 

 No other person present could voluntarily or in- 

 voluntarily cause the rod to turn in a similar way 

 (Hutton's "Mathematical Recreations," ed. 1840, 

 p. 711). The evidence on this subject is most 

 voluminous, but we have adduced sufficient to 

 show that Dr. Carpenter's supposed demonstra- 

 tion docs not account for all the facts. 



We now come to the very interesting and im- 

 portant subject of clairvoyance, which Dr. Car- 

 penter introduces with a great deal of irrelevant 

 matter calculated to prejudge the question. Thus, 

 he tells his readers that " there are at the present 

 time numbers of educated men and women who 

 have so completely surrendered their 'common 

 sense' to a dominant prepossession as to main- 

 tain that any such monstrous fiction (as of a per- 

 son being carried through the air in an hour from 

 Edinburgh to London) ought to be believed, even 

 upon the evidence of a single witness, if that 

 witness be one upon whose testimony we should 

 rely in the ordinary affairs of life !" He offers 

 no proof of this statement, and we venture to 

 say he can offer none, and it is only another ex- 

 ample of that complete misrepresentation of the 

 opinions of his opponents with which this book 

 abounds. At page VI, however, we enter upon 

 the subject itself, and at once encounter one of 

 those curious examples of ignorance (or suppres- 

 sion of evidence) for which Dr. Carpenter is so 



