[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR. "] SIR,—As regards the
first story given under this heading in last week's issue, your correspondent " A. B." gives a story which, in the light of many modern instances, is an entirely credible one ; her explanation, however, would prove too much, but I dare not ask for space to show her this. The second story by " Vectensis " has another sort of interest. He asks for an explanation of it, "admitting the substantial accuracy of the facts." But they cannot be admitted, considering that the main fact.—the passing of the wheels over the boy—is only attested by the memory of a jolt immediately after the boy fell; also we must remember that a boy falling off the box would not be very likely to fall under the wheels. I write these comments, which are rather obvious, because the interest of the story lies, not in the boy's falling off without visible injury, nor in the vision he had after falling, but in the example it gives us of the way in which men are content to build their "firm convictions" about great matters upon astonishingly doubtful evidence.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Loc UPLEL
Previous page
