Psychic Force and Modern Spiritualism. 21 
the phenomena as they occurred, but also to record the actual words 
or comments used by each person present. From time to time I repeated 
aloud what I had written, and asked the company if it were correct; 
when any correction was supplied it was invariably adopted. The narra- 
tive of the proceedings was written in full immediately after, and a copy 
was sent to Mr. Spiller, as well as to others who had been present, for them 
to approve or alter. Mr. Spiller has dignified this paper by the name of an 
affidavit, whereas it was purely a private memorandum, never intended 
to be made public, and only drawn up so that each person might possess a 
thoroughly truthful account of what was considered at the time to be a very 
remarkable series of occurrences. 
I have before me the paper which Mr. Spiller returned, corrected in pencil, 
and each correction signed with his initials. Where he has not corre¢ted it is 
clear that he tacitly assents. His objections are of an utterly insignificant 
kind, and, comparing what he accepts with what he rejects, it will be seen that 
he strains at gnats while he swallows camels. 
It now appears that Mr. Spiller totally disregarded the agreement assented 
to by all present—to speak out at the time, and thus to invite and facilitate the 
most searching inquiry. He arrogates to himselfthe position of an infallible judge 
instead ofanhonestinquirer. Whilsthe professed to a& openly and above-board, 
he was really carrying on furtive observations of his own. He recklessly dis- 
credits the other witnesses who were present, and expects the world to believe 
his own unsupported assertion. Brought forward at the time, his observations 
might have been of service, whilst at this distant date they are valueless. 
Mr. Spiller seems to imagine that, whilst everything else in nature is to be 
tested by careful experiment, his own hasty conclusions are to be accepted 
unchallenged. 
The first accusation launched at me by Mr. Spiller is of a suppression of 
the truth. I am said to have recorded certain phenomena in the Quarterly 
Fournal of Science, and to have ascribed their production to the action of a 
hitherto unknown form of force, notwithstanding that Mr. Spiller had ex- 
plained to me six months previously the “tricks ” by which these things were 
done.* 
From the various forms under which this accusation has been repeated it 
appears that Mr. Spiller is trying to establish, either that he was present 
at the test experiments on which my papers in the Quarterly Fournal 
of Science were based, or that these papers were but a narrative of what took 
place in his presence at Mr. Serjeant Cox’s. Now I have published no narra- 
tive whatever of any experiments at which Mr. Spiller was present, neither 
have I referred to them in any of my papers. His assertion, therefore, under 
whichever form it is viewed, is false. 
In the Echo of November toth I have gone fully into the analysis of these 
several accusations, and by placing in parallel columns extraés from Mr. 
Spiller’s printed letters and statements, plainly convicted him in each case of 
a direct mis-statement of fact. 
To show how ignorant I was of his reputed explanations of the few 
* Echo, Noy. 6, 1871. 
