this by careful experiments which have never been refuted, what improbability is there that this should be such a case, and what is the value of these positive assertions which you quote as “evidence”?  And at p. 286 you quote the person who says the more he tried to prevent the stick’s turning the more it turned, as evidence in favour of muscular action, without a word of explanation.  Another man (p. 287) says he “could not restrain it.”  None of the “trained anatomists” you quote give a particle of proof, only positive opinion, that it must be muscular action—­simply because they do not believe any other action possible.  Their evidence is just as valueless as that of the people who say that all thought-transference is collusion or imposture!

I do not say that it is not “muscular action,” though I believe it is not always so, but I do say that you have as yet given not a particle of proof that it is so, while scattered through your paper is plenty of evidence which points to its being something quite different.  Such are the cases when people hold the rod for the first time and have never seen a dowser work, yet the rod turns, over water, to their great astonishment, etc. etc.

Your conclusion that it is “clairvoyance” is a good provisional conclusion, but till we know what clairvoyance really is it explains nothing, and is merely another way of stating the fact.

I believe all true clairvoyance to be spirit impression, and that all true dowsing is the same—­that is, when in either case it cannot be thought-transference, but even this I believe to be also, for the most part, if not wholly, spirit impression.—­Believe me yours very truly,

ALFRED R. WALLACE.

* * * * *

TO PROF.  BARRETT

Parkstone, Dorset.  February 17, 1901.

My dear Barrett,—­I am rather sorry you wrote to any one of the Society for Psychical Research people about my being asked to be President, because I should certainly feel compelled to decline it.  I never go, willingly, to London now, and should never attend meetings, so pray say no more about it.  Besides, I am so widely known as a “crank” and a “faddist” that my being President would injure the Society, as much as Lord Rayleigh would benefit it, so pray do not put any obstacle in his way, though of course there is no necessity to beg him as a favour to be the successor of Sidgwick, Crookes and Myers....

* * * * *

TO REV.  J.B.  HENDERSON

Parkstone, Dorset.  August 10, 1893.

Dear Sir,—­Although I look upon Christianity as originating in an unusual spiritual influx, I am not disposed to consider [it] as essentially different from those which originated other great religious and philanthropic movements.  It is probable that in your sense of the word I am not a Christian.—­Believe me yours very truly,