6 Psychic Force and Modern Spiritualism, 
experimental philosophy (Faraday) . . . . should not have been lost upon 
those who profess to be his disciples. But it has been entirely disregarded 
. . . . by men from whom better things might have been expected ?” 
I have devoted my enquiry entirely to those physical phenomena in which, 
owing to the circumstance of the case, unconscious muscular action, self 
deception, or even wilful fraud, would be rendered inoperative. I have not 
attempted to investigate except under such conditions of place, person, light, 
position, and observation, that contact was either physically impossible or 
could take place only under circumstances in which the unconscious or wilful 
movement of the hands could not vitiate the experiment. The experiments 
being tried in my own house, assumption of pre-arranged mechanical con- 
trivances to assist the ‘‘medium” was out of the question. 
The most curious thing regarding this article in the Quarterly is that the 
writer himself is a believer in a new force, and he arrogantly tries to put 
down any attempt to bring forward another. He refers to various hy- 
potheses—to Sir William Hamilton’s “latent thought,” Dr. Laycock’s ‘* reflex 
action of the brain,” and Carpenter’s ‘ ideo-motor principle.” The reviewer 
adopts, without hesitation, Carpenter’s hypothesis as the true and universal 
solvent of the phenomena in question, notwithstanding that this hypothesis is 
rejected by the physiologists most competent to judge it. 
The whole tenor of the article, the numerous references to various “spiritual” 
phenomena, and the account of some of the reviewer’s own experiences, show 
that he knows little or nothing of any such phenomena as those which I have 
commenced to investigate. He refers to mesmerism, curative influence, ‘ plan- 
chette”’ writing, table-tilting, table-turning, and to the messages obtained by 
these means. When he does not impute fraud, he explains the physical move- 
ments by the hypothesis of ‘‘ unconscious muscular action,” and the intelligence 
which sometimes controls these movements, delivers messages, &c., by ‘‘ uncon- 
scious cerebration ” or ‘‘ ideo-motor action.” 
Now these explanations are possibly sufficient to account for much that 
has come under the personal cognisance of the reviewer.» I will do him 
the justice to believe that, as he affirms, he did take every opportunity 
within his reach of witnessing the higher phenomena of “spiritualism,” and 
that on various occasions he met with results which were entirely unsatisfactory. 
The error into which he falls is this: Because he saw nothing that he 
thought worth following up, therefore it is impossible anyone else can be more 
fortunate. Because he and his scientific friends were following out the 
subject for more than a dozen years, therefore my own friends and myself 
deserve reprobation for pursuing the inquiry for about as many months. 
According to this reasoning science would proceed very slowly. How often 
do we find instances of an abandoned investigation being taken up by another 
inquirer, who, more fortunate in his opportunities, carries it to a successful 
issue. 
The reviewer has no grounds whatever for asserting that— 
‘He (Mr. Crookes) altogether ignores the painstaking and carefully con- 
ducted researches which had led men of the highest scientific 
eminence to an unquestioning rejection of the whole of those higher 
phenomena of ‘mesmerism’ which are now presented under other 
names as the results of ‘ spiritual’ or ‘ psychic’ agency.” 
