1905, v. 2, p. 279).
Although Lewes refused Wallace’s invitations to examine spiritualistic phenomena, he wrote to the Pall mall Gazette (May 19, 1868) putting forth accusations against mediums and spiritualists. Amazingly, Lewes wrote that scientists were never allowed to investigate the phenomena. Wallace replied in a letter to the editor that this was not true. For example, Cromwell Varley, an electrical engineer, had been allowed to test the medium Daniel Dunglass Home, with results favorable to the authenticity of his paranormal phenomena. But the journal’s editor refused to publish the letter (Wallace 1905, v. 2, p. 282).
Around this same time, Tyndall had called for a single test demonstration that would prove once and for all the reality or falsity of spiritualistic phenomena. Wallace replied in a letter to Tyndall that one test, even if successful, would not suffice to convince opponents. Wallace thought it better to amass reports of the numerous credible cases already on record. And to these he added, in his letter to Tyndall, one of his own experiences: “The place was the drawing-room of a friend of mine, a brother of one of our best artists. The witnesses were his own and his brother’s family, one or two of their friends, myself, and Mr. John Smith, banker, of Malton, Yorkshire, introduced by me. The medium was Miss Nichol. We sat round a pillar-table in the middle of the room, exactly under a glass chandelier. Miss Nichol sat opposite me, and my friend, Mr. Smith, sat next her. We all held our neighbour’s hands, and Miss Nichol’s hands were both held by Mr. Smith, a stranger to all but myself, and who had never met Miss N. before. When comfortably arranged in this manner the lights were put out, one of the party holding a box of matches ready to strike a light when asked.
“After a few minutes’ conversation, during a period of silence, I heard the following sounds in rapid succession: a slight rustle, as of a lady’s dress; a little tap, such as might be made by setting down a wineglass on the table; and a very slight jingling of the drops of the glass chandelier. An instant after Mr. Smith said, ‘Miss Nichol is gone.’ The matchholder struck a light, and on the table (which had no cloth) was Miss Nichol seated in her chair, her head just touching the chandelier. . . . Mr. Smith assured me that Miss Nichol simply glided out of his hands. No one else moved or quitted hold of their neighbour’s hands. There was not more noise than I described, and no motion or even tremor of the table, although our hands were upon it. You know Miss N.’s size and probable weight, and can judge of the force and exertion required to lift her and her chair on to the exact centre of a large pillar-table, as well as the great surplus of force required to do it almost instantaneously and noiselessly, in the dark, and without pressure on the side of the table, which would have tilted it up. Will any of the known laws of nature account for this?” (Wallace 1905, v. 2, pp. 291–293).
If the facts were as Wallace reported them, it would seem that Miss Nichol herself could not have managed to place herself on the table. If all present at the table were holding hands and did not let go, it would seem that none of them could have lifted Miss Nichol in her chair. That leaves confederates as a possibility. But they should have been exposed by the struck match. Furthermore, it seems any attempt to lift Miss Nichol in complete darkness, either by persons at the table or confederates from outside the room, would have caused much more noise than reported by Wallace. One can only propose that Wallace himself gave a false report. This, however, seems unlikely.
Séances at miss Douglas’s
In 1869, Robert Chambers, author of vestiges of Creation, introduced Wallace to Miss Douglas, a wealthy Scotch lady with an interest in spiritualism. Wallace attended many séances at Miss Douglas’s London residence in South Audley Street. There he met many well connected spiritualists, including Darwin’s relative Hensleigh Wedgwood. Among the most interesting séances were those with Mr. Haxby, a young postal employee described by Wallace as “a remarkable medium for materializations.” Haxby would sit in a small room separated by curtains from a dimly lit drawing room on the first floor.
Wallace (1905 v. 2, pp. 328–329) gave this account of a typical séance with Haxby: “After a few minutes, from between the curtains would appear a tall and stately East Indian figure in white robes, a rich waistband, sandals, and large turban, snowy white and disposed with perfect elegance. Sometimes this figure would walk around the room outside the circle, would lift up a large and very heavy musical box, which he would wind up and then swing round his head with one hand. He would often come to each of us in succession, bow, and allow us to feel his hands and examine his robes. We asked him to stand against the door-post and marked his height, and on one occasion Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood brought with him a shoe-maker’s measuring-rule, and at our request, Abdullah, as he gave his name, took off a sandal, placed his foot on a chair, and allowed it to be accurately measured with the sliding-rule. After the séance Mr. Haxby removed his boot and had his foot measured by the same rule, when that of the figure was found to be full one inch and a quarter the longer, while in height it was about half a foot taller. A minute or two after Abdullah had retired into the small room, Haxby was found in a trance in his chair, while no trace of the white-robed stranger was to be seen. The door and window of the back room were securely fastened, and often secured with gummed paper, which was found intact.”
The usual skeptical explanation for such manifestations is imposture by the medium or a confederate. In this case, the measurements taken rule out imposture by the medium. And the precautions taken to secure the entrances to the back room make the participation of a confederate somewhat doubtful. On the whole, circumstances point to the genuineness of the materialization.
On one occasion at Miss Douglas’s, the famous Daniel Dunglass Home was the medium and Sir William Crookes, a distinguished physicist, was present. Crookes, later president of the Royal Society and recipient of the Nobel Prize for physics, was conducting his own research into spiritualistic phenomena. Wallace (1905 v. 2, p. 293) noted, however, that “his careful experiments, continued for several years, are to this day ignored or rejected by the bulk of scientific and public opinion as if they had never been made!”
At the séance attended by Wallace, Home was given an accordion. He held it with one hand, under the table around which he and the witnesses sat. Home’s other hand remained on top of the table. On hearing the accordion play, Wallace went under the table to see what was happening: “The room was well lighted, and I distinctly saw Home’s hand holding the instrument, which moved up and down and played a tune without any visible cause. On stating this, he said, ‘Now I will take away my hand’
—which he did; but the instrument went on playing, and I saw a detached hand holding it while Home’s two hands were seen above the table by all present. This was one of the ordinary phenomena, and thousands of persons have witnessed it; and when we consider that Home’s séances almost always took place in private homes at which he was a guest, and with people absolutely above suspicion of collusion with an impostor, and also either in the daytime or in a fully illuminated room, it will be admitted that no form of legerdemain will explain what occurred” (Wallace 1905, v. 2, pp. 286–287).
Darwin Agrees to test a medium
Another scientist who witnessed Home’s mysterious accordion playing was Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin. At the invitation of Crookes, Galton attended three séances with Home and another medium, Kate Fox. Afterwards, in a letter dated April 19, 1872, Galton wrote enthusiastically to Darwin: “What surprises me is the perfect openness of Miss F. and Home. They let you do whatever you like within certain limits, their limits not interfering with adequate investigation. I really believe the truth of what they allege, that people who come as men of science are usually so disagreeable, opinionated and obstructive and have so little patience, that the seance rarely succeeds with them. It is curious to observe the entire absence of excitement or tension about people at a seance. Familiarity has bred contempt of the strange things witnessed. . . . Crookes, I am sure, so far as is just for me to give an opinion, is thoroughly scientific in his procedure. I am convinced that the affair is no matter of vulgar legerdemain and believe it is well worth going into, on the understanding that a first rate medium (and I hear there are only three such) puts himself at your disposal” (Pearson 1914). Darwin agreed to see Home, giving Galton a letter to send to him. But by that time Home had gone on to Russia and never returned to England (Beloff 1993, pp. 49–50). This is unfortunate. Who knows what would have happened if Darwin had actually met Home? Perhaps he would have joined Wallace in his spiritualism.