, 1900._

My dear Barrett,-- ... I have read your very interesting paper on the
divining rod, and the additional evidence you now send. Of course, I
think it absolutely conclusive, but there are many points on which I
differ from your conclusions and remarks, which I think are often unfair
to the dowsers. I will just refer to one or two. At p. 176 (note) you
call the idea of there being a "spring-head" at a particular point
"absurd." But instead of being absurd it is a _fact_, proved not only by
numerous cases you have given of strong springs being found quite near
to weak springs a few yards off, but by all the phenomena of mineral and
hot springs. Near together, as at Bath, hot springs and cold springs
rise to the surface, and springs of different quality at Harrogate, yet
each keeps its distinct character, showing that each rises from a great
depth without any lateral diffusion or intermixture. This is a common
phenomenon all over the world, the dowsers' facts support it, geologists
know all about it, yet I presume they have told you that when a dowser
states this fact it ceases to be a fact and becomes an absurdity!

The only other point I have time to notice is your Sect. II. (p. 285).
You head this, "Evidence that the Motion of the Rod is due to
Unconscious Muscular Action." Naturally I read this with the greatest
interest, but found to my astonishment that you adduce no evidence at
all, but only opinions of various people, and positive assertions that
such is the case! Now as I _know_ that motions of various objects occur
without any muscular action, or even any contact whatever, while Crookes
has proved 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