Mrs. Bettany's father has given the following fuller account:

"I distinctly remember being surprised by seeing my daughter, in company with the family doctor, outside the door of my residence; and I asked 'Who is ill?' She replied, 'Mamma.' She led the way at once to the 'White Room,' where we found my wife lying in a swoon on the floor. It was when I asked when she had been taken ill, that I found that it must have been after my daughter had left the house. None of the servants in the house knew anything of the sudden illness, which our doctor assured me would have been fatal had he not arrived when he did. My wife was quite well when I left her in the morning.

"S. G. GWYNNE.

This incident is interesting: for we cannot suppose that the mother was the agent without assuming that she had subconsciously thought of her daughter, which she would be less likely to do than to think of her husband. It is a case so closely allied to those which purport to involve the intervention of the dead that it is well worth quoting here.

I next take, from the "Proceedings" of the American Society for Psychical Research, an incident which was partly experimental, but which also represents a spontaneous coincidence.

 January 15, 1907.

"I sat down to read proofs a moment ago, and in the sentence, I had hoped by the article to begin the task of crystallizing,' the syllable 'izing' beginning the next line, I read the word 'crystallizing' as 'crystal gazing' twice, and being puzzled by its irrelevance I looked a third time and found that it was a most distinct illusion. I had a few minutes—perhaps ten or fifteen before been occupied with the subject of classifying crystal visions.

"Immediately I resolved to test my secretary and, taking the proofs around to her, asked her to read the sentence aloud, without saying what I wanted. At the same time, I willed that she should say 'crystal gazing' instead of 'crystailizing,' which she did twice. As soon as it was over she told me that just a second or two before I asked her to read the sentence, she saw an apparition of a crystal and thought of crystal gazing several times. She could not have seen or known what I was thinking about.

“JAMES H. HYSLOP."

Another instance shows the caprice and spontaneity that justifies classification with spontaneous cases.

BROOKLYN, N. Y., January 1, 1907.

“Dr. James H. Hyslop.

"The next morning father said that he had dreamed the night before that he was trapping muskrat, and that when he got to one trap it had a live rat in it. (So far the dream was merely the reproduction of what he had been told.) But he went on to say that the Tat was some distance from the shore, and that he hunted around and found a very long beanpole and with that dispatched the rat. Then Walter said: 'I killed mine with a bean-pole.' 'Mine was sharpened at the end,' said my father. 'And so was mine,' said my brother.

"It will not occur to you how odd that was, because it is unlikely that you ever hunted muskrats much. If you had, one of the last images which you would call up would be cultivated fields and gardens. I asked Walter if he had told any one about using the bean-pole, and he said he had not. I then asked father if he ever in his life had done the same thing or in any way connected muskrats and bean gardens, and he could recall nothing to bring up the dream.

"It seems to be thought transference. In our family this is not strange My brother, sister and I all agree that we all of us, to some extent, read father's mind. "(Mrs.) F——."

These suffice to illustrate spontaneous incidents which occur by the thousand. They may not have scientific cogency, but they suggest the need of experiment to decide the matter. There is not the slightest superficial indication of anything more than some connection between living minds in these phenomena; if they are supernormal, they do not suggest any third party as a link in the series. We turn to the next type.

 The occurrence of spontaneous cases suggested experiment for deciding the question. In the other sciences, if experiment was possible, it was not necessary to depend upon spontaneous phenomena for proof. Experiments were tried with apparent success. Illustrations are in order.

 I myself on one occasion made an experiment of some interest. I was investigating a professional claimant of telepathic powers, and was not satisfied with his performance, as it showed distinct evidences of the signal code and other methods of the conjurer. At last I selected a young man from those whom I had invited to witness the evening's experiment. He was an absolute stranger to the man whom I was investigating and came with another guest of mine. I blindfolded the young man and superintended the experiments myself. The young man sat about four feet in front of me, and I stood up with a writing pad in my hand in such a position that he could not see it.

 I first drew a triangle with a circle in it, while we remained quiet. No word or signal was uttered. In a few moments the young man got a triangle with a circle in it. I then drew a circle with a triangle in it and in the triangle a plus mark or cross. In a few moments the young man got two sides of the triangle and the cross inside them. I then drew a pig and he soon got "a goat or a pig." This ended the experiment. I am sure that there was no collusion nor possible fraud.

 In a series of experiments some years later I obtained interesting results of another kind. The subject was unable to reproduce drawings or to get words or ideas simply thought by the agent, but could find objects and put them in places intended by the agents. In other words, she could carry out motor impulses apparently suggested by telepathy. The thought to be conveyed to her was written down in a book and read silently by the persons acting as agents, while the lady was in another room at some distance. She was later admitted to the room for the experiment. Two stood behind her and touched hands, but did not touch the subject or percipient. The percipient stood a moment with eyes downcast, then went to the object thought of, picked it up, and put it in the intended spot. This performance was successfully repeated so often as to exclude explanation by chance, and only those who did not witness the phenomena could offer to explain them as the results of unconscious suggestions.

 For instance, in one experiment it was willed that the subject should get a pocketbook out of a vase ten feet distant, and put it on the bookcase in another room. She promptly went to the vase and got the pocketbook, and on the second trial put it on the bookcase intended. In another experiment she was to get the keys which I had concealed in the sofa in the reception room, and put them on the piano. Both actions were promptly performed on the first trial. One hundred twenty-four similar experiments, most of them quite as complex as the examples mentioned, were performed with a success that strongly suggested supernormal knowledge. The results were published in the "Proceedings" of the American Society. They are the only results that I was ever able personally to obtain in support of any kind of telepathy.

 Mr. Malcolm Guthrie and Mr. Birchall, members of the Liverpool Literary and Philosophical Society, published some good results in the English "Proceedings." * I can choose only a few illustrations from a very lengthy report. The operators and subjects of experiment were people in private life, and no professional interests were involved. In some of the experiments contact between the agent and the percipient was allowed, but in many of them this contact was not permitted, so that ordinary muscle-reading was excluded. The nature of the objects chosen, however, and the promptness of the answers, in the cases where contact was permitted, show conclusively that contact did not affect results. I shall choose some instances from the cases in which contact was not permitted.

 The agent thought of a half crown; the percipient stated her impression: "Like a flat bottom—bright...no particular color." In the second experiment the four of spades was in the mind of the agent; the answer given was: "A card...four of clubs." She said afterwards that she did not know the difference between spades and clubs. In the third experiment the agent thought of an egg; the percipient said: "Looks remarkably like an egg." In the fourth a penholder with thimble inverted on the end was the object thought of and the answer was: 'A column, with something bell-shaped turned down on it." In the fifth experiment the agent thought of a small gold ear-ring; the percipient answered: "Round and bright...yellow...with loop to hang it by."

 There is no superficial evidence of spirits in these instances of telepathy. We may suspend judgment as to the explanation of them, but we cannot quote them in proof either of the existence of spirits or of their influence to produce the effects. For aught that we know, spirits may be instrumental in producing them; but the phenomena themselves bear no testimony to that effect.

 Professor Barrett, now Sir William F. Barrett, reported a series of experiments for telepathy under good conditions, of which the illustrations appended explain themselves. The experiments were made without contact and represent drawings by the agent reproduced by the percipient. (" Proceedings," English S. P. R., Vol. II, pp. 207-215.)

 I now come to a type of phenomenon in which a living Person appears to another, when one of them is thinking of the other or even trying to impress him with the sense of his presence. I shall quote only a few cases in illustration. I take the first incident from Mr. Podmore's "Apparitions and Thought-Transference."

 Rev. Clarence Godfrey resolved to make himself appear to a friend. Without acquainting his friend with his intention, he determined before going to sleep to "translate" himself "spiritually" into her room so that he could be seen. This effort was sustained for about eight minutes; he then went to sleep, but was awakened at about 3:40 A.M. with some consciousness of her presence. This was on November 15.

 On the next day, November 16, he received an account from the lady, telling her experience, saying that at about 3:30 A.M. she had awakened with a start and had seen Mr. Godfrey standing near the window on the staircase. He had vanished in three or four seconds.

 Mr. Godfrey tried a similar experiment a second time and succeeded. Herr Weserman, an official in the German Government, tried the experiment frequently with marked success. Dr. Funk reported to me a case which I investigated and recorded.

 A lady who had been reading Hudson's book on psychic phenomena learned from it that she might be able to make herself appear to another; she resolved to try the experiment on her husband. She was at Derby, Connecticut, at the time of the experiment, and her husband was away on business. She did not know where he was, but thought he might be in New York, Schenectady, Syracuse or Buffalo. She went to sleep in Derby willing that she should appear to her husband, wake him, and kiss him on the forehead. On that night he awakened at about one o'clock and saw his wife standing at the foot of his bed. He asked what she was doing there, whereupon she walked round and kissed him on the forehead.

 There are numerous spontaneous cases of the kind, more or less well authenticated, which the skeptical are the more ready to accept because they afford a refuge from the spiritistic hypothesis. They require as much authentication as other types of apparition, and, as they are less numerous than those of the dying and the dead, they are not as cogent evidence for the supernormal, though, when proved, they afford support for telepathy. I have sufficiently illustrated the type, which supports the definition of telepathy as a coincidence between the mental states of two living persons. They do not suggest spiritistic interpretations of any kind.

 We come next to a type of phenomena which have been classified under telepathy because they do not, superficially at least, serve as evidence of discarnate spirits.

 The two volumes on "Phantasms of the Living," most of which are in fact apparitions of the dying, and the "Census of Hallucinations," Volume X of the English "Proceedings," include hundreds of cases of this type. They are usually appearances of a dying person at the time of death or very near it. Everyone must concede that the circumstances cannot be explained as chance coincidence. Let me abbreviate two instances, which I quote from the Census of Hallucinations."

"TICKHILL, YORKS, June 12, 1891.

An aunt of mine, who died in England last November, 1890, appearedbefore me in Australia, and I knew before I received the letter of her death that she was dead. I took a note of it at the time and found on comparing notes that she appeared to me the day she died—date November 17th, 1890."

 The next instance is also of interest because of the distance between those concerned.

September, 1893

"At the end of August of the year 1882, my father, mother, and sisters left home for our usual summer holiday. At the same time a young man whom we knew quite slightly (although he was our neighbor) started to Texas to learn farming, for which I felt sorry, because I was looking forward to paint well enough by my return to ask him to sit for the principal figure in a picture I was longing to do.

"We went to a cottage in Gloucestershire, where my sister and I shared the same room. About the fourteenth of September, 1882, my sister and I felt worried and distressed by hearing the death watch; it lasted a whole day and night. We got up earlier than usual the next morning, about six o'clock, to finish some birthday presents for our mother. As my sister and I were working and talking together, I looked up, and saw our young acquaintance standing in front of me and looking at us. I turned to my sister, she saw nothing; I looked again to where he stood, he had vanished. We agreed not to tell any one—and, although I wished to put it down in my diary (which I had not kept for some time), I was afraid to do so; I therefore made marks to remind myself.

"Some time afterwards we heard that our young acquaintance had either committed suicide or had been killed; he was found dead in the woods twenty­four hours after landing.

"On looking back to my diary, I found that my marks corresponded to the date of his death."

 These two typical instances have been chosen because the circumstances make it difficult to account for them by any previous knowledge on the part of the percipient. The main point is, that the writers of the reports of these phenomena explain them by telepathy, with the idea that this explanation excludes the possibility of the action of spirits. The impression is always left that the incidents are evidence of telepathy between the living, which in reality they are not. They are in no respect evidence for telepathy so defined. Some of the recorded instances show that the dying person was thinking of the percipient at the time, but the majority of them exhibit no such fact; that such thought was present cannot be conjectured

as probable, and then used as evidence. The possibility is sometimes emphasized that the range of telepathy may be extended so far as to shut out the appeal to such cases as evidence for the action of discarnate spirits. I quite agree that they cannot be used as evidence for the existence and action of spirits; but neither can they be quoted as evidence for telepathy of the type that excludes the action of spirits. The fact that the coincidence occurs more frequently in connection with dying than with living persons tends to show that death has something to do with causing the phenomena; and, though we may not be justified in invoking spirits to account for the facts, it is quite as legitimate to explain the phenomena by regarding the dying person as a free spirit at the time as by regarding him as a telepathic agent. In other words, the cases are not evidence on either side of the controversy. They are borderland phenomena explicable by either hypothesis and evidence of neither.

 This last statement, however, is dependent on the narrow meaning of the term telepathy. In the use of it as a rival hypothesis to that of spirit agencies, the term implies a limitation to coincidences between living people and so assumes nothing about a similar process between the dead and the living.

 The only argument for telepathy in apparitions of the dying is the presumption that the consciousness of the dying person is not yet dissociated from the body. There are affiliations between such phenomena and two other types, which are more clearly indicative of the existence of, the discarnate: visions appearing to the dying, and apparitions of the dead. Neither of these types is evidence for telepathy, in any sense determined by experimental and spontaneous coincidences and apparitions of the dying. They represent apparent communication with the dead, and, at least to some extent, are evidence of it. Visions that represent apparitions of the dead, appearing to the dying, lack all the conditions for evidence of telepathy between the living, though connected with those in articulo mortis [at the moment of death] conditions associated with the apparition of the dying to the living. They are in fact a borderland type of apparitions of the dead, just as apparitions of the dying are the borderland phenomena between telepathy with the living and telepathy with the dead.

 I need not illustrate phantasms of the dead or visions of the dying in this connection. It is quite apparent that neither of them can be explained by telepathy between the living, except by stretching the meaning of the term beyond the evidence. If apparitions of the dead and visions of the dying are evidence of a telepathic process between the dead and the living, and so to that extent serve as evidence for the existence of spirits, the hypothesis of telepathy is abandoned, not as a fact but as an alternative to the spiritistic hypothesis. It may name a process of unknown nature, common to both incarnate and discarnate minds. I have no objections to such an employment of the term, but it nullifies the popular antithesis between telepathy and spiritism. It even involves the possibility that spirits may furnish the explanation of telepathy between the living. Mr. Myers saw this implication at the very outset of the investigations into telepathy. He perceived that any transcendental process of communication between the living involved such independence of normal sensory processes as to render the isolation of consciousness easily conceivable; the next step would be to regard telepathy as the manner of communication, at least in certain types of phenomena.

 If the dead as well as the living may be telepathic agents, positive evidence alone is needed to show that discarnate spirits may intervene in telepathy between the living. In an address before the English Society, Professor Gilbert Murray, in order to suggest some known physiological or psychological condition that would make telepathy possible, proposed that telepathy between the living might be due to hyperaesthesia. But such an explanation would absurdly extend the limits of hyperaesthesia. We cannot apply tactual hyperaesthesia to perception at a distance of ten feet, nor visual hyperaesthesia to perception of a crow a thousand miles away. Nearly all the phenomena which believers in telepathy regard as evidence for the process are not explainable as hyperaesthesia.

 It is evident that not all the phenomena outside of experimental and spontaneous coincidences between living people can be adduced as evidence for telepathy. They are at least open to other explanations. Telepathy itself explains nothing; it has no office beyond that of description and 'classification. So far as we know, the activity of spirits might explain telepathy itself, though for this explanation we should have to adduce evidence. Much will depend on the positive evidence for the existence of spirits. This evidence is confined to phenomena indicating the continued personal identity of the dead; so long as we limit the evidence for discarnate action to this type of occurrence, we cannot make the hypothesis of spirits explain either coincidences between the living, or any other phenomena not indicative of discarnate memory.

 In the experiments between Miss Miles and Miss Ramsden,* published as evidence for telepathy between the living, there were indications that the telepathy was effected by the intervention of the dead, or at least involved conditions associating the dead with the result. These indications were not apparent in the account of the facts published by the English Society. Nothing was there said about some other types of phenomena in which the agent and the percipient were concerned. Certain circumstances connected with the report of the results seemed unusual in telepathy between the living alone. I made inquiry of the ladies and found that only part of the story had been told. Miss Miles was an all-round psychic. She had had experiences in automatic writing, apparent telekinesis or the movement of objects without contact, apparitions, and dousing both by clairvoyance and by the use of the divining-rod. In addition she let drop in her correspondence with me, that she could always tell when her telepathy was successful by the raps that she heard. That is, she persisted in thinking of the object which Miss Ramsden was to perceive until she heard raps; she could then safely regard the experiment as a success. Now raps are not telepathic phenomena, but have altogether another association. These complications of the phenomena told decidedly against telepathy between the living alone as an explanation, and the association or intervention of spirits had to be regarded as possible.

 A paper read before the French Society narrated an experimental incident of some importance. It was translated for the "journal" of the American Society for Psychical Research by Madame de Montalvo and published in Volume VIII (PP. 413-446). The incident of interest here is the following.

 The gentleman who reported the circumstance had two subjects with whom he experimented. One of them went to the sea-shore without the knowledge of the other, and was spending some time there. Dr. Geley, the experimenter, was with the other in Paris, and tried clairvoyance one evening to ascertain if the subject in Paris could see the surroundings of the one at the sea-shore. He succeeded in getting descriptions of scenes and objects which he afterward verified. But accompanying his usual experiments with the lady were two visible lights. On this occasion there was but one light, which disappeared when the clairvoyance ceased. Now lights often develop into apparitions; at any rate, this association of lights with clairvoyance or telepathic phenomena is partial evidence for the intervention of spirits in them.

 In communications through Mrs. Smead, the wife of an orthodox clergyman, Mr. Podmore, purporting to communicate, said that telepathy was always a message carried by spirits and that they could do it instantly. Mrs. Smead knew little of Mr. Podmore; there was no reason for her subconsciously putting this statement into the mouth of Mr. Podmore. He had always pressed telepathy between the living to explain all alleged spiritistic phenomena. Though it was not a proof of his identity to have this reversal of his opinion, it was not a natural view for Mrs. Smead to assign to him.

 Apparently Mr. Myers took the same view of telepathy, as always involving the intervention of the discarnate. While my publication of the Miles-Ramsden experiments was going through the press, Mr. Myers purported to communicate through Mrs. Chenoweth, making a spontaneous allusion to telepathy and remarking that "it all depended on the carrier." Not wishing to mistake the meaning of this remark, I inquired what was meant by "thecarrier "; and the answer was: "Telepathy is always a message carried by spirits."

Still better indications of spiritistic intervention in telepathy were given in communications from Mrs. Verrall soon after her death. She had believed when living that most of the incidents in the record of Mrs. Piper and in her own mediumship were explicable by telepathy between the living, and based her belief in spirits only on a few incidents which she thought could not be so explained. Mrs. Verrall died in July, 1916. In the following September she purported to communicate through Mrs. Chenoweth, who knew only that such a person had existed and had done automatic writing, and on the occasion of her first communications made an obscure reference to telepathy. The next day she spontaneously brought up the subject again, and said it was too early in her efforts to make clear her views on it. On the day following she again spontaneously referred to it in the following manner.

"I said yesterday that I would write more about the telepathic theory as I now understand it. I am not as sure of the passage of thought through space as I was once, and I had begun to question the method by which thought was transferred to brains before I came here, but you will recall that I had some striking instances of what seemed telepathy tapping a reservoir of thought direct, and the necessity for an intervening spirit was uncalled for; but there were other instances when the message was transposed or translated and the interposition of another mind was unquestionably true. I tried many experiments and I think you must know about them.

"I will say that I found more people involved in my work than I had known and there seemed more reason to believe that I was operated upon than that I operated—in other words, the automatic writing was less mine than I had supposed."

At the next sitting, a few days later, she again alluded to the process, and, speaking of having thought of it when living as a possible possession of all persons, significantly added:

"I am not yet convinced that this is my error, but I do know that we are companioned and aided by those who know the methods of the transference of thought."

Referring to the subject later, when mentioning a case that she had known before her death but that Mrs. Chenoweth (lid not know, a case of suddenly induced anaesthesia during an apparently normal state, she said:

"It may be that these cases of anaesthesia were produced by contact with superior intelligence. That I am now investigating on this side. While one may not be conscious of such state of anaesthesia, it may still exist; and, if this be true, the spirit mediation theory is possible, even in these extreme cases where it seemed as if telepathy were proven beyond a doubt."

 On the whole these statements are rather evidential, though other minds than her own may have contributed to the formal embodiment of the thought. But the statements distinctly affirm the possibility of the intervention of spirits in every form of telepathy. If that he conceded, we should explain away telepathy by spirits, rather than spirits by telepathy as the popular skepticism would do.

 Since I wrote this work and while it is going through the press, I have been experimenting, by cross reference, with two cases where "telepathy" and the "malicious animal magnetism" of Christian Science would be the assumed explanation, and I have obtained evidence of spiritistic intervention in the phenomena.

 We may revert to apparitions as corroborating such a view. I do not mean that all apparitions superficially indicate it; but there are instances too complicated to be explicable by the orthodox theory of telepathy. Some of the apparitions are premonitory of coming events, or indicative of approaching death; and premonitions are not telepathic. But even when not premonitory, many of them—for example, visions of the dying and apparitions of the dead—suggest the intervention of the dead as their most natural explanation. Some of them show complications too teleological for telepathy, which shows no evidence of purpose. For instance, I know of a subject who frequently had premonitions of coming deaths in the family. On one occasion she saw an apparition of her deceased sister, but immediately afterward she saw an apparition of her living aunt; in a few days her aunt died. The sister was apparently endeavoring to forewarn the subject of coming events. In another case, a lady saw an apparition of her living husband, but felt the presence of her deceased father; her husband died a few days later. On another occasion some months later the same subject saw an apparition of a heavy man walk through her door and fall down from drunkenness. At first she thought it war, her father; but she later saw that it was the renter of her houses, who afterwards became the cause of her losing the income on which she lived. Her father came apparently to forecast some misfortune. The point is, that the apparitions of the living in these instances were caused by the dead.

 But I am not prepared strenuously to defend any such thesis. We have not the evidence to assert that all telepathic coincidences are due to the intervention of spirits. Nor indeed is it either necessary or desirable that we should insist on this point in our defence of a spiritistic theory. We could hardly expect supernormal phenomena to be limited to the intervention of the dead. Some supernormal phenomena might happen between the living alone. It is enough to extort the admission that telepathy may be the name for a process which is sometimes incarnate and sometimes discarnate. If we have souls, occasional instances of transcendental connection between the living would be likely to happen. Telepathy as a connection between minds without the intervention of sense-perception makes the existence of a soul so probable that we may well consider many instances of the supernormal as due to its activity in this life; on the other hand, we may connect discarnate spirits with many other phenomena than the intercommunication between two worlds.

 The lesson to be learned from the fact of telepathy, though no explanation of it has been found, is that normal sense-perception is not our only source of knowledge. Materialism must stand or fall with the evidence for the limitation of knowledge to sense-perception; and telepathy, if it applies to information acquired at great distances, is a complete refutation of that theory. If we do not accept the large body of evidence for the existence of spirits, we are obliged to substitute for that view the theory of telepathy, which is in itself a guarantee of a transcendental world of some kind, since it implies that the brain is not the sole condition of consciousness.