240 Notices of Books. | (April, 
from a witness acknowledged to be sincere, and known to the 
world as eminently capable—a lady of the world assumes to 
explain it away by summarily referring the whole to the ‘ dog- 
ears and folds of early impression!’ What human testimony 
cannot be set aside on the same vague and idle assumption? It 
is time we should learn that the hypothesis of spiritual interven- 
tion is entitled to a fair trial, and that, in conducting that trial, 
we have no right to disregard the ordinary rules of evidence. 
Either Lord Erskine, one morning in Edinburgh, issuing from a 
bookseller’s shop, met what wore the appearance of an old 
family servant who had been some months dead—or else Lord 
Erskine lied. Either Lord Erskine heard words spoken, as if. 
that appearance had spoken them, which words contained a cer- 
tain allegation touching business which that servant, dying, had 
left unsettled—or else Lord Erskine lied. Either Lord Erskine 
ascertained, by immediate personal interrogation of the widow, 
that her husband, on his death-bed, had made the self-same alle- 
gation to her which the apparition made to Lord Erskine—or 
else Lord Erskine lied. Finally, either, as the result of this 
appearance and its speech, a debt found due to the person whose 
counterpart it was, was actually paid to his widow—or else Lord 
Erskine lied. But Lady Morgan expresses her conviction that 
Lord Erskine did not lie.” 
“<n itself, the thing was a trifle. Thousands on thousands of 
such cases of petty injustice occur, and pass away unnoticed and 
unredressed. ‘To the widow it was, undoubtedly, of serious 
moment; but I think no sensible man will imagine it a matter to 
justify the direct interference of God. If so, and if Lord 
Erskine spoke truth, an apparition is a natural phenomenon.” 
How is such evidence as this refuted or explained away ? 
Scores, and even hundreds, of equally well attested facts are on 
record, but no attempt is ever made to explain them. They are 
simply ignored, and, in many cases admitted to be inexplicable. 
Yet this is not quite satisfactory, as any reader of Mr. Owen’s 
book will be inclined to admit. ‘ Punch” once made a Yankee 
debtor say— 
‘‘ This debt I have repudiated long ago; 
’Tis therefore settled. Yet this Britisher 
Keeps for repayment worriting me still!” 
So our philosophers declare that they have long ago decided 
these ghost stories to be all delusion; therefore they need only 
be ignored ; and they feel much “‘ worrited”’ that fresh evidence 
should be adduced and fresh converts made, some of whom are 
so unreasonable as to ask for a new trial on the ground that the 
former verdict was contrary to the evidence Let us, however, 
consider another case, the parties to which are intimately known 
to our author, and whose character is vouched for as above 
suspicion. 
