MR. CROOKES AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sla,—The Spectator of Saturday last contains an editorial note calculated to do me a great injustice ; and as it is extremely inaccurate, I must ask you to allow me to answer it.
You state that a paper, to the same effect as my article on "Psychic Force" in the Quarterly Journal of Science, was offered by me to the Royal Society, and declined by the Committee.. The fact is, that the papers (for there were two) differed greatly from the article in the Journal of Science ; the former containing many additional facts, and not including the whole of the experi- ments described in the latter.
You not only say that the papers were declined, but you pro- ceed to state the grounds of their rejection. The fact is that a quorum of the Committee of papers not having been present, they were deferred to the next session in November, and on inquiry to-day at Burlington House, I was informed by the Assistant- Secretary of the Royal Society that my papers are, with others, still awaiting the decision of the Committee. Consequently the statement of any grounds for a rejection that was not made must be purely imaginary.
Your note concludes with the remark that I must go to work again, with stricter tests and better witnesses, if I would vindi- cate my own and Dr. Huggins's skill as observers. After the encomium bestowed on Dr. Huggins in the Spectator for July 8, your readers will, I think, share my doubt if it be possible to find a more eminent and trustworthy witness than this talented Vice- President of the Royal Society. In self-defence I may be ex- cused for saying of myself that want of accuracy has not been hitherto regarded as a characteristic of my scientific researches.
Knowing that my present investigation was a novel ono, 1 was prepared for the usual adverse criticism ; and I should have re- mained silent until I had prepared another paper on the subject, had not a wrong been done to me by an uncourteous commen- tary, based upon an unjust misrepresentation.—I remain, Sir,
[We gladly insert this letter. Our note was not, however, founded on any mere rumour. The words we used contained an exact copy of the words conveyed to us as used, not, as we inadver- tently stated, by the Committee, but by one of the secretaries, Professor Stokes, who, in the absence of a quorum exercised pro tempore the usual discretionary authority in regard to papers offered.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
