After attracting a good deal of notice in New York, Home, on April 9, 1855, turned up at c.o.x"s Hotel, Jermyn Street, where Mr. c.o.x gave him hospitality as a _non_-"paying guest." Now occurred the affair of Sir David Brewster and Lord Brougham. Both were capable of hallucinations.
Lord Brougham published an account of a common death-bed wraith, which he saw once while in a bath (the vision coincided with the death of the owner of the wraith), and Sir David"s daughter tells how that philosopher saw that of the Rev. Mr. Lyon, in St. Leonard"s College, St. Andrews, a wraith whose owner was in perfect health. Sir David sent letters, forming a journal, to his family, and, in June (no day given) 1855, described his visit to Home. He says that he, Lord Brougham, Mr. c.o.x, and Home sat down "at a moderately sized table, _the structure of which we were invited to examine_. In a short time the table shuddered and a tremulous motion ran up our arms.... The table actually rose from the ground, when no hand was upon it. A larger table was produced, and exhibited similar movements. An accordion was held in Lord Brougham"s hand, and gave out a single note.... A small hand-bell was then laid with its mouth on the carpet, and after lying for some time, it actually rang when nothing could have touched it. The bell was then placed upon the other side, still upon the carpet, and it came over to me, and placed itself in my hand.
It did the same to Lord Brougham. These were the princ.i.p.al experiments: we could give no explanation of them, and could not conjecture how they could be produced by any kind of mechanism.... We do not believe that it was the work of spirits."
So Sir David wrote in a private letter of June 1855, just after the events. But the affair came to be talked about, and, on September 29, 1855, Sir David wrote to _The Morning Advertiser_. He had seen, he said, "several mechanical effects which I was unable to explain....
But I saw enough to convince myself that they could all be produced by human feet and hands," though he also, in June, "could not conjecture how they could be produced by any kind of mechanism." Later, October 9, Sir David again wrote to the newspaper. This time he said that he might have discovered the fraud, had he "been permitted to take a peep beneath the drapery of the table." But in June he said that he "was invited to examine the structure of the table." He denied that "a large table was moved about in a most extraordinary way." In June he had a.s.serted that this occurred. He declared that the bell did not ring. In June he averred that it rang "when nothing could have touched it." In October he suggested that machinery attached to "the lower extremities of Mr. Home"s body" could produce the effects: in June "we could not conjecture how they could be produced by any kind of mechanism." On Sir David"s death, his daughter and biographer, Mrs.
Gordon, published (1869) his letter of June 1855. Home then scored rather freely, as the man of science had denied publicly, in October 1855, what he had privately written to his family in June 1855, when the events were fresh in his memory. This was not the only case in which "a scientist of European reputation did not increase his reputation" for common veracity in his attempts to put down Home.
The adventures of Home in the Courts of Europe, his desertion of the errors of Wesleyan Methodism for those of the Church of Rome, his handsome entertainment by diamond-giving emperors, his expulsion from Rome as a sorcerer, and so forth, cannot be dealt with here for lack of s.p.a.ce. We come to the great Home-Browning problem.
In 1855, Home met Mr. and Mrs. Browning at the house of a Mr. Rymer, at Ealing, the first of only two meetings.[19] On this occasion, says Home, a wreath of clematis rose from the table and floated towards Mrs. Browning, behind whom her husband went and stood. The wreath settled on the lady"s head, not on that of Mr. Browning, who, Home thought, was jealous of the favour. This is manifestly absurd. Soon after, all but Mr. Rymer were invited to leave the room. Two days later, Mr. Browning asked to be allowed to bring a friend for another _seance_, but the arrangements of the Rymers, with whom Home was staying, made this impossible. Later, Home, with Mrs. Rymer, called on the Brownings in town, and Mr. Browning declined to notice Home; there was a scene, and Mrs. Browning (who was later a three-quarters believer in "spirits") was distressed. In 1864, after Mrs. Browning"s death, Mr. Browning published _Mr. Sludge, the Medium_, which had the air of a personal attack on Home as a detected and confessing American impostor. Such is Home"s account. It was published in 1872, and was open to contradiction. I am not aware that Mr. Browning took any public notice of it.
[Footnote 19: _Incidents_, ii. 105.]
In July 1889 the late Mr. F.W.H. Myers and Professor W.F. Barrett published, in the _Journal of the Society for Psychical Research_, p.
102, the following statement: "We have found no allegations of _fraud_" (in Home) "on which we should be justified in laying much stress. Mr. Robert Browning has told to one of us" (Mr. Myers) "the circ.u.mstances which mainly led to that opinion of Home which was expressed in _Mr. Sludge, the Medium_." It appears that a lady (since dead) repeated to Mr. Browning a statement made to her by a lady and gentleman (since dead) as to their finding Home in the act of experimenting with phosphorus on the production of "spirit lights,"
"which (so far as Mr. Browning remembers) were to be rubbed round the walls of the room, near the ceiling, so as to appear when the room was darkened. This piece of evidence powerfully impressed Mr. Browning; but it comes to us at third hand, without written record, and at a distance of nearly forty years."
Clearly this story is not evidence against Home.
But, several years ago, an eminent writer, whom I need not name, published in a newspaper another version. Mr. Browning had told him, he said, that, sitting with Home and Mrs. Browning (apparently alone, these three) in a darkened room, he saw a white object rise above the table. This Home represented as the phantasm of a child of Mr. and Mrs. Browning, which died in infancy. Mr. Browning seized the phantasm, which was Home"s naked foot.
But it must be remembered that (1) Mr. and Mrs. Browning had no child which died in infancy; and (2) Mrs. Browning"s belief survived the shock. On December 5, 1902, in the _Times Literary Supplement_, a letter by Mr. R. Barrett Browning appeared. He says: "Mr. Hume, who subsequently changed his name to Home" ("Home" is p.r.o.nounced "Hume" in Scotland), "was detected in a "vulgar fraud," for I have heard my father repeatedly describe how he caught hold of his foot _under_ the table." In the other story the foot was _above_ the table; in the new version no infant phantasm occurs. Moreover, to catch a man"s foot under a table in itself proves nothing. What was the foot doing, and why did Mr. Browning not tell this, but quite a different story, to Mr. Myers? We "get no forrarder."
On November 28, 1902, Mr. Merrifield, in the _Times Literary Supplement_, published a letter on August 30 (?), 1855, from Mrs.
Browning to Miss De Gaudrion, as to the _seance_ with the Brownings at Ealing. Mrs. Browning enclosed a letter from Mr. Browning, giving his impressions. "_Mine, I must frankly say, were entirely different_,"
wrote Mrs. Browning; and Home says: "Mrs. Browning was much moved, and she not only then but ever since expressed her entire belief and pleasure in what occurred." In her letter, Mrs. Browning adds: "For my own part, and in my own conscience, I find no reason for considering the medium in question responsible for anything seen or heard on that occasion." But "I consider that the seeking for intercourse with any particular spirit would be apt to end either in disappointment or delusion," and she uses the phrase "the supposed spirits."
This lady who wrote thus at the time cannot conceivably have been looking for the ghost of a child that never was born, and been deceived by Home"s white foot, which Mr. Browning then caught hold of--an incident which Mrs. Browning could not have forgotten by August 30, 1855, if it occurred in July of that year. Yet Mr. ---- has published the statement that Mr. Browning told him that story of Home"s foot, dead child, and all, and Mr. ---- is a man of undoubted honour, and of the acutest intelligence.
Mr. Browning (August 30, 1855) a.s.sured Miss De Gaudrion that he held "the whole display of hands," "spirit utterances," &c., to be "a cheat and imposture." He acquitted the Rymers (at whose house the _seance_ was held) of collusion, and spoke very highly of their moral character. But he gave no reason for his disbelief, and said nothing about catching hold of Home"s foot either under or above the table. He simply states his opinion; the whole affair was "melancholy stuff."
How can we account for the story of Mr. Browning and Home"s foot? Can poets possess an imagination too exuberant, or a memory not wholly accurate?
But Mr. Merrifield had written, on August 18, 1855, a record of an Ealing _seance_ of July 1855. About fourteen people sat round a table, in a room of which two windows opened on the lawn. The nature of the light is not stated. There was "heaving up of the table, tapping, playing an accordion under the table, and so on." No details are given; but there were no visible hands. Later, by such light as exists when the moon has set on a July night, Home gave another _seance_.
"The outlines of the windows we could well see, and the form of any large object intervening before them, though not with accuracy of outline." In these circ.u.mstances, in a light sufficient, he thinks, Mr. Merrifield detected "an object resembling a child"s hand with a long white sleeve attached to it" and also attached to Home"s shoulder and arm, and moving as Home moved. A lady, who later became Mrs.
Merrifield, corroborated.[20]
[Footnote 20: _Journal S.P.R._, May 1903, pp. 77, 78.]
This is the one known alleged case of detection of fraud, on Home"s part, given on first-hand evidence, and written only a few weeks after the events. One other case I was told by the observer, very many years after the event, and in this case fraud was not necessarily implied.
It is only fair to remark that Mr. F.W.H. Myers thought these "phantasmal arms instructive in more than one respect," as supplying "a missing link between mere phantasms and ectoplastic phenomena."[21]
[Footnote 21: _Human Personality_, ii. 546, 547. By "Ectoplastic" Mr.
Myers appears to have meant small "materialisations" exterior to the "medium."]
Now this is the extraordinary feature in the puzzle. There are many attested accounts of hands seen, in Home"s presence, in a good light, with no attachment; and no fraud is known ever to have been detected in such instances. The strange fact is that if we have one record of a detection of Home in a puerile fraud in a faint light, we have none of a detection in his most notable phenomena in a good light. To take one example. In _The Nineteenth Century_ for April 1896 Mr. Hamilton Ade published the following statement, of which he had made the record in his Diary, "more than twenty years ago." Mr. Ade also told me the story in conversation. He was "prejudiced" against Home, whom he met at Nice, "in the house of a Russian lady of distinction." "His _very_ physical manifestations, I was told, had caused his expulsion from more than one private house." Of these aberrations one has not heard elsewhere. Mr. Ade was asked to meet M. Alphonse Karr, "one of the hardest-headed, the wittiest, and most sceptical men in France" (a well-merited description), at a _seance_ with Home. Mr. Ade"s prejudice, M. Karr"s hard-headed scepticism, prove them witnesses not bia.s.sed in favour of hocus-pocus.
The two arrived first at the villa, and were shown into a very large, uncarpeted, and brilliantly lighted salon. The furniture was very heavy, the tables were "mostly of marble, _and none of them had any cloths upon them_." There were about twenty candles in sconces, all lit, and a moderator lamp in the centre of "the ponderous round rosewood table at which we were to sit." Mr. Ade "examined the room carefully," and observed that wires could not possibly be attached to the heavy furniture ranged along the walls, and on the polished floor wires could not escape notice. The number present, including Home, was nine when all had arrived. All hands were on the table, but M.
Alphonse Karr insisted on being allowed to break the circle, go under the table, or make any other sort of search whenever he pleased. "This Home made no objection to." Raps "went _round_ under the table, fluttering hither and thither in a way difficult to account for by the dislocation of the medium"s toe" (or knee), "the common explanation."
(I may remark that this kind of rapping is now so rare that I think Mr. Frederick Myers, with all his experience, never heard it.) Mr.
Ade was observant enough to notice that a lady had casually dropped her bracelet, though she vowed that it "was s.n.a.t.c.hed from her by a spirit." "It was certainly removed from her lap, and danced about under the table...."
Then suddenly "a heavy armchair, placed against the wall at the further end of the _salotto_, ran violently out into the middle of the room towards us." Other chairs rushed about "with still greater velocity." The heavy table then tilted up, and the moderator lamp, with some pencils, slid to the lower edge of the table, but did not fall off. Mr. Ade looked under the table: Home"s legs were inactive.
Home said that he thought the table would "ascend," and Alphonse Karr dived under it, and walked about on all fours, examining everybody"s feet--the others were standing up. The table rose "three or four feet," at highest, and remained in air "from two to three minutes." It rose so high that "all could see Karr, and see also that no one"s legs moved." M. Karr was not a little annoyed; but, as "Sandow could not have lifted the table evenly," even if allowed to put his hands beneath it, and as Home, at one side, had his hands above it, clearly Home did not lift it.
All alike beheld this phenomenon, and Mr. Ade asks "was I hypnotised?" Were all hypnotised? People have tried to hypnotise Mr.
Ade, never with success, and certainly no form of hypnotism known to science was here concerned. No process of that sort had been gone through, and, except when Home said that he thought the table would ascend, there had been no "verbal suggestion;" n.o.body was told what to look out for. In hypnotic experiment it is found that A. (if told to see anything not present) will succeed, B. will fail, C. will see something, and so on, though these subjects have been duly hypnotised, which Mr. Ade and the rest had not. That an unhypnotised company (or a company wholly unaware that any hypnotic process had been performed on them) should all be subjected by any one to the same hallucination, by an unuttered command, is a thing unknown to science, and most men of science would deny that even one single person could be hallucinated by a special suggestion not indicated by outward word, gesture, or otherwise. We read of such feats in tales of "glamour,"
like that of the Goblin Page in _The Lay of the Last Minstrel_, but to psychological science, I repeat, they are absolutely unknown. The explanation is not what is technically styled a _vera causa_. Mr.
Ade"s story is absolutely unexplained, and it is one of scores, attested in letters to Home from people of undoubted sense and good position. Mr. Myers examined and authenticated the letters by post marks, handwriting, and other tests.[22]
[Footnote 22: _Journal S.P.R._, July 1889, p. 101.]
In one case the theory of hallucination induced by Home, so that people saw what did not occur, was a.s.serted by Dr. Carpenter, F.R.S.[23] Dr. Carpenter, who was a wondrously superior person, wrote: "The most diverse accounts of a _seance_ will be given by a believer and a sceptic. One will declare that a table rose in the air, while another (who had been watching its feet) is confident that it never left the ground." Mr. Ade"s statement proves that this explanation does not fit _his_ case. Dr. Carpenter went on to say what was not true: "A whole party of believers will affirm that they saw Mr. Home float in at one window and out at another, whilst a single honest sceptic declares that Mr. Home was sitting in his chair all the time."[24] This was false. Dr. Carpenter referred to the published statement of Lord Adare (Dunraven) and Lord Lindsay (the Earl of Crawford), that they saw Home float into a window of the room where they were sitting, out of the next room, where Home was, _and float back again_, at Ashley Place, S.W., December 16, 1868. No "honest sceptic" was present and denied the facts. The other person present, Captain Wynne, wrote to Home, in a letter printed (with excisions of some contemptuous phrases) by Madame Home, and read in the original MS. by Mr. Myers. He said: "I wrote to the _Medium_ to say I was present as a witness. I don"t think that any one who knows me would for one moment say that I was a victim to hallucination or any humbug of that kind." Dr. Carpenter, in 1871, writing in the _Quarterly Review_ (Vol. 131, pp. 336, 337), had criticised Lord Lindsay"s account of what occurred on December 16, 1868. He took exception to a point in Lord Lindsay"s grammar, he asked why Lord Lindsay did not cite the two other observers, and he said (what I doubt) that the observations were made by moonlight. So Lord Lindsay had said; but the curious may consult the almanack. Even in a fog, however, people in a room can see a man come in by the window, and go out again, "head first, with the body rigid," at a great height above the ground.
[Footnote 23: _Contemporary Review_, January 1876.]
[Footnote 24: _Contemporary Review_, vol. xxvii. p. 286.]
Mr. Podmore has suggested that Home thrust his head and shoulders out of the window, and that the three excited friends fancied the rest; but they first saw him in the air outside of the window of their room.[25] Nothing is explained, in this case, by Dr. Carpenter"s explanation. Dr. Carpenter (1871) discredited the experiments made on Home by Sir William Crookes and attested by Sir William Huggins, because the latter was only "an amateur in a branch of research which tasks the keenest powers of observation," not of experiment; while, in the chemical experiments of Sir William Crookes, "the ability he displayed was purely _technical_." Neither gentleman could dream "that there are _moral_ sources of error."[26]
[Footnote 25: Cf. _Making of Religion_, p. 362, 1898.]
[Footnote 26: _Quarterly Review_, 1871, pp. 342, 343.]
Alas, Dr. Carpenter, when he boldly published (in 1876) the thing that was not, proved that a "scientist" may be misled by "moral sources of error"!
In 1890, in _Proceedings of the S.P.R._, Sir William Crookes published full contemporary accounts, noted by himself, of his experiments on Home in 1871, with elaborate mechanical tests as to alteration of weights; and recorded Home"s feats in handling red-hot coals, and communicating the power of doing so to others, and to a fine cambric handkerchief on which a piece of red-hot charcoal lay some time.
Beyond a hole of half an inch in diameter, to which Home drew attention, the cambric was unharmed. Sir William tested it: it had undergone no chemical preparation.
Into the details of the mechanical tests as to alterations of weights I cannot go. Mr. Angelo Lewis (Professor Hoffman), an expert in conjuring, says that, accepting Sir William"s veracity, and that he was not hallucinated, the phenomena "seem to me distinctly to be outside the range of trick, and therefore to be good evidence, so far as we can trust personal evidence at all, of Home"s power of producing motion, without contact, in inanimate bodies." Sir William himself writes (1890): "I have discovered no flaw in the experiments, or in the reasoning I based upon them."[27] The notes of the performances were written while they were actually in course of proceeding. Thus "the table rose completely off the ground several times, whilst the gentlemen present took a candle, and, kneeling down, deliberately examined the position of Mr. Home"s knees and feet, and saw the three feet of the table quite off the ground." Every observer in turn satisfied himself of the facts; they could not all be hallucinated.
[Footnote 27: _Proceedings S.P.R._ vi. 98.]
I have not entered on the "spiritual" part of the puzzle, the communications from "spirits" of matters not _consciously_ known to persons present, but found to be correct. That is too large a subject. Nor have I entered into the case of Mrs. Lyon"s gift to Home, for the evidence only proved, as the judge held, that the gift was prompted, at least to some extent, by what Home declared to be spiritual rappings. But the only actual witness to the fact, Mrs. Lyon herself, was the reverse of a trustworthy witness, being a foolish capricious underbred woman. Hume"s [Transcriber"s Note: so in original] mystery, as far as the best of the drawing-room miracles are concerned, is solved by no theory or combination of theories, neither by the hypothesis of conjuring, nor of collective hallucination, nor of a blend of both. The cases of Sir David Brewster and of Dr.
Carpenter prove how far some "scientists" will go, rather than appear in an att.i.tude of agnosticism, of not having a sound explanation.[28]
[Footnote 28: Mr. Merrifield has reiterated his opinion that the conditions of light were adequate for his view of the object described on p. 184, _supra_. _Journal S.P.R._ October 1904.]
NOTE.--Since this paper was written, I have been obliged by several interesting communications from a person very intimate with Home. Nothing in these threw fresh light on the mystery of his career, still less tended to confirm any theory of dishonesty on his part. His legal adviser, a man of honour, saw no harm in his accepting Mrs. Lyon"s proffered gift, though he tried, in vain, to prevent her from increasing her original present.
IX
_THE CASE OF CAPTAIN GREEN_
"Play on Captain Green"s wuddie,"[29] said the caddy on Leith Links; and his employer struck his ball in the direction of the Captain"s gibbet on the sands. Mr. Duncan Forbes of Culloden sighed, and, taking off his hat, bowed in the direction of the unhappy mariner"s monument.