44 



NATURE 



[Nov. 15, 1877 



expression — in the interval between November 30, 1875, when 

 he proposed it should be buried, and the time of his first 

 subsequent attack upon me. 



It is untrue that during this interval, or at any other time, I 

 gave my "public attestation to the spiritualistic genuineness of 

 what had been proved to be a most barefaced imposture." 



It is untrue that I gave Eva Fay a letter, speaking of the 

 "Spiritualistic nature of her manifestations," and referring to 

 " Fellows of the Royal Society." 



It is untrue that Eva Fay "returned to the United States 

 carrying with her " such a letter. 



It is untrue that "this letter was published va. facsimih in 

 American newspapers." 



When Dr. Carpenter limits himself to definite statements, my 

 task is not difficult. It is, however, less easy to answer a ruinour 

 of something which somebody told Dr. Carpenter I privately 

 admitted. 



"It has been rumoured," says Dr. Carpenter, in Eraser's 

 Magazine, "that Mr. Crookes has privately admitted that some 

 of his 'mediums,' when they could not evoke the 'manifesta- 

 tions ' by fair means, have done so hy foul." 



I admit that such a rumour respecting Eva Fay was circulated 

 in the United States, and a Boston gentleman wrote and asked 

 me if there was any truth in this statement. I replied as follows 

 under date Novembers, 1875 : — 



" In reply to your favour of October 25, which I have received 

 this morning, I beg to state that no one has any authority from 

 me to state that I have any doubts of Mrs. Fay's mediumship. 

 The published accounts of the test seances which took place at 

 my house are the best evidence which I can give of my belief in 

 Mrs. Fay's powers. I should be sorry to find that any such 

 rumours as you mention should injure Mrs. Fay, whom I always 

 found most ready to submit to any conditions I thought fit to 

 propose." 



Considering that this was a private letter from one gentleman 

 to another, written currente calamo without any thought of sub- 

 sequent publication, few of your readers, I believe, will see 

 much harm in it. Not being aware that private communications 

 were less sacred in America than in England, I was certainly 

 surprised one moaning to receive a copy of an American news- 

 paper containing a facsimile of this private letter. 



It will be observed that this letter is dated November 8, 1875, 

 whereas the " bury-the-hatchet " episode took place on Novem- 

 ber 30, 1875 ; this therefore cannot be the letttSr which convicts 

 me of attesting to a " barefaced imposture " subsequent to 

 November 30. 



Moreover, this letter does not contain the words " Spiritual- 

 istic nature of her manifestations." Neither does it allude 

 to " Fellows of the Royal Society." Nor did Eva Fay return to 

 " the United States, carrying with her this letter." Nor was it 

 even addressed to Eva Fay. It is then impossible that this can 

 be the letter to which Dr. Carpenter refers, and I demand that 

 he prove the truth of his allegation by producing a copy of the 

 "American newspapers" containing 2^. facsimile of a letter 

 written by me answering his description, containing the words 

 which he professes to quote from it, and justifying his defamatory 

 remarks. 



In your issue of last week (p. 26) Dr. Carpenter says nothing 

 about this facsimile letter, but lays stress on an article written 

 by me ten months previously. Does he seriously mean that the 

 publication in March, 1875, of an account of some test experi- 

 ments is a breach on my part of his "bury-the-hatchet" offer 

 made the following November ? 



I have evidently been labouring under a misapprehension as 

 to what Dr. Carpenter meant when he proposed to " bury the 

 hatchet" I supposed he intended to cease misrepresenting my 

 views and falsifying my experiments at his public lectures, and 

 never afterwards to repeat such calumnies on my scientific posi- 

 tion as he had anonymously contributed to the Quarterly Review 

 for October, 1871. It seems, however, that Dr. Carpenter really 

 meant that I was no longer to go poaching on his own special 

 preserve, and was to abstain for the rest of my life from writing 

 even a private letter on a subject which he has investigated for 

 more than thirty years, and about which he is now writing and 

 lecturing with redoubled vigour. 



Dr. Carpenter refers to an offer made in May, 1875, " by Eva 

 Fay's manager, that for an adequate sum of money the ' medium ' 

 should expose the whole affair, " and he vouches for its truth by 

 saying he has seen "copies of the letters." I can supply, not 

 copies, but original letters. I have before me letters from Eva 

 Fay, dated Birmingham, May, 1875, speaking bitterly of the 



temptations and persecution to which [she was being subjected 

 to induce her to join in the scheme, to which she was no party. 



But how, may I ask, does an abortive conspiracy to complicate 

 " six big guns'" prove that my "scientific tests" — which with 

 all deference to Dr. Carpenter's " good authority " can not be 

 evaded by a "dodge" — were useless, and that in spite of them 

 Eva Fay cheated me ? 



I am weary of protesting against the imputation which Dr. 

 Carpenter conveys in the words "scientific advocates of the 

 system." I emphatically deny that I have ever advocated any 

 "system" in connection with the phenomena ascribed to 

 spiritualism. I have never for one moment doubted that this 

 name has covered an enormous mass of fraud and trickery ; but 

 being convinced that amidst all this falsehood — which it -is Dr. 

 Carpenter's mission to denounce in the most fsrvid eloquence at 

 command — there was a solid nucleus of fact, and believing that 

 every unrecognised fact is a reproach to science, and every unin- 

 vestigated phenomenon is a probable mine of discovery, I con- 

 sidered myself not merely entitled, but almost bound in scientific 

 honour, to attempt the solution of the question. My attempt to 

 bring the so-called supernatural within the realm of fact, to turn 

 the light of science on a problem that required investigation, has 

 exposed me to many misrepresentations, but especially to the ire 

 of Dr. Carpenter, who never tires of repeating every idle tale 

 from hearsay evidence. I look back to the days of the alchemists, 

 and find the very same kind of fraud, mysticism, and trickery, 

 differing but little from the impostures of the present day. But 

 then, as now, there were a few earnest students who detected 

 the germs of truth amidst the ravings and juggleries of the gold 

 makers ; they cherished these germs, and although the Dr. Car- 

 penter of that period would doubtless have denounced those 

 students as " scientific advocates of the system " of alchemy, and 

 felt it his duty to " undermine " their reputations, they persevered 

 through calumny and ridicule, and thereby laid the foundations 

 of our modern science of chemistry. 



The readers of Nature have now before them ample illus- 

 tration of the falsity of the accusations with which I have been 

 persecuted for so many years. A calumny once born, said the 

 Great Napoleon, can never be killed. I have, however, done my 

 utmost to prove the groandlessness of the very serious charges 

 Dr. Carpenter has brought against me, down to the grave indict- 

 ments in your issue of last week (p. 26). There is not a single 

 charge which Dr. Carpenter has ever brought against me that I 

 am unable to answer with like completeness ; and, judging from 

 long experience, I venture to say that any future charges he may 

 bring will be equally unfounded. But I cannot, out of regard 

 for your readers, to say nothing of the sacrifice of time, continue 

 to defend myself from every petty accusation ; and unless really 

 forced by some imputation too serious to pass over, this must be 

 my last letter on a subject which to me involves painfully too 

 much self-reference. 1 have been constrained, in self-defence, 

 to speak in somewhat downright fashion, but Dr. Carpenter's 

 industrious misconstruction has drawn this protest from me. 

 Misstatements expressed in a few lines may require pages to 

 refute them. A calumny which takes a minute to write may 

 demand days to answer. Memories of half-forgotten occurrences 

 have to be revived, conversations recalled, old letters hunted out, 

 journals exhumed, and, in fact, as much time and trouble ex- 

 pended as if getting up evidence for an important legal trial. So 

 great a tax for so trivial a purpose is monstrous in its dispropor- 

 tion, and I can waste on this fruitless discussion no more precious 

 time — time stolen from my physical work in the laboratory, 

 already too much curtailed by the pressure of outward business. 



November 10 William Crookes 



The latter half of Dr. Carpenter's letter in last week's Nature 

 (p. 26) consists of almost verbatim extracts from his article in this 

 month's Fraser, I beg to refer your readers to a reply to Dr. 

 Carpenter's attack, and a full exposure of his false accusations 

 against Mr. Crookes and myself, which, will appear in the next 

 issue of that magazine. They will then see who has been led by 

 "prepossession" to adopt "methods which are thoroughly un- 

 scientific," and whose are "the statements which_ ought to be 

 rejected as completely untrustworthy." 



Alfred R. Wallace 



Experiment on Fluid Films 



I am experimenting on the optical phenomena exhibited by 

 thin fluid films in a state of vibration, .and have just obtained 



