Psychic Force and Modern Spiritualism. 23 
harping on a weak remark of his own about the size of what he calls a 
“ monster’ locket attached to Mr. Home’s watch-chain. A stranger to the 
circumstances would imagine that something very important turned upon the 
exact dimensions and reflecting power of this trinket. But what are the facts ? 
In his letter to me of May 3rd,* speaking of an accordion which he saw playing 
at Mr. Serjeant Cox’s in Mr. Home’s hand, Mr. Spiller says that he 
‘saw a flash of light whilst under the dining-room table ”—a reflection from 
the “shining surface” of this locket; and on October 31stf his friend “‘ B.” gives 
(and he endorses) an entirely different tale about this light, which we are 
now told for the first time ‘‘ was playing about Mr. Home’s fingers as they lay in 
his lap,”—produced by the reflection from the “polished reverse side” of the 
locket in question. Speaking for myself, I saw nothing of this alleged light, nor 
did Mr. Home draw attention toit. My partinthe transaction was simple. Mr. 
Spiller was the critical observer under the table on this occasion, and all I 
did was to write down what he said. In my notes written at the time, 
and acquiesced in by nine witnesses, I read— Mr. Spiller declared that 
the accordion appeared self luminous while it was playing.” He subsequently 
denied this. He is welcome to do so, for it is a matter of no consequence 
whether he saw a light at all; the real question is, Did the accordion play 
and how was it played? Whether Mr. Spiller observed any light at all, the 
source of the light he said he saw, or the size of one of Mr. Home’s trinkets, 
has nothing whatever to do with the subject of my investigations. The locket 
might be as big as a dinner-plate, and might be polished to the lustre of a 
speculum; the light it refle@ed might be as bright as the noon-day sun, and 
all that it would prove would be my calumniator’s incompetency as an observer 
for not discovering it, or his inaccuracy as a witness for not mentioning it at the 
time when instant verification or disproof was possible. 
Mr. Spiller speaks on one occasion of the “‘ shining surface’? of this locket ; 
on another of its “‘ polished reverse side ;” whilst on a third occasion he draws 
attention to the fac@ that platinum is ‘‘a white metal sometimes used for 
reflectors.” Now to these inconsequential assertions I will oppose facts. 
The locket in question is now before me. Its obverse and reverse 
are almost identical, and the whole is so covered with ornamental engraving 
that there is not a particle of polished platinum about it. Moreover, 
on each side there are fifteen raised metallic ornaments of different shapes, 
which still further diminish the amount of light reflected from the surface. 
I have, moreover, carefully examined the optical properties of this locket. 
Tested in an accurate photometer, the reflecting power of each side is found to 
be equal to that of a silvered glass speculum 1°8 millimetres (less than 1-roth 
of aninch) square! I advise Mr. Spiller to keep silent about this ‘‘ monster ” 
locket in future, or, like a second Frankenstein, he will find he has conjured 
up a monster from his own inward consciousness which will devour his 
reputation. 
But, ofall the unfounded statements which my disingenuous assailant has circu- 
lated, the most outrageous is that he has been threatened with legal proceedings} 
* Echo, Noy. 6, 1871. 
7+ Echo, O4. 31, 1871. 
+ English Mechanic, Dec. 1, 1871. 
