Appendix M to the Report Consists of Some Particulars Verbally Given to

Mr. Myers by Mrs. Honywood, of 52 Warwick Square, London, in further explanation of her printed testimony to phenomena she had witnessed in Home's presence. She was well acquainted with him for twenty-five years, attended many seances, and took notes of them at the time. In the early part of this chapter, a statement she sent to the Dialectical Society has already been quoted. She told Mr. Myers that most of her friends were complete disbelievers in Spiritualism, and that they frequently repeated to her rumours to the discredit of Home. But she never heard any first-hand account of any kind of trickery on his part. She considered him a man of open childlike nature, thoroughly honest and truthful, and that in her opinion his utterances in the trance state were much superior in thought and diction to his ordinary talk. She said she should like to give Mr. Myers a few additional details with regard to the fire phenomena reported in Madame Home's book, "D. D. Home, His Life and Mission," on her authority. Madame Home's secretary, she said, had slightly abbreviated her words in a way which made the occurrences seem rather less wonderful than they actually were. Mr. Myers gives the following, as having been signed "BARBARA HONYWOOD, June 1889."

"As to the burning coal placed in my hand. I saw Mr. Home take this coal from the fire, moving his hands freely among the coals. It was about the size of a coffee cup, blazing at the top, and red-hot at the bottom. While I held it in my hand the actual flame died down, but it continued to crackle, and to be partially red-hot. I felt it like an ordinary stone, neither hot nor cold. Mr. Home then pushed it off my hand with one finger on to a double sheet of cartridge paper, which it at once set on fire. I am quite certain that I was in my usual condition at the time....

"As to the hot lamp-chimney which I touched. There was a row of four or five persons sitting side by side, and Mr. Home asked us each in turn to touch the glass. When I touched it, I felt as though a wave of heat were receding before me....

"I have repeatedly taken Mr. Home in my own carriage to the houses of friends of mine who were strangers to him, and have there seen the furniture at once violently moved in rooms which I knew that he had never entered till that moment. I have seen heavy furniture moved; for instance, a heavy sofa in my own drawing-room, with myself upon it, and a heavy centre table, moved several feet away from Home, and then back again, in the light, while his hands and feet were visible. Not horse-hairs, but ropes, would often have been necessary to pull the furniture about as I have seen it pulled."

A brief reference must now be made to what is perhaps the most sensational alleged event in Home's mediumistic career, the one which is most frequently spoken of by the general public, with more or less forcible expressions of scornful incredulity; his "levitation" out of the window of a room at a great height from the ground, and in at a window of the next room on the same story. In the Report by Professor Barrett and Mr. Myers, no detailed account of this is given. The Report says: "Lords Lindsay and Adare had printed a statement that Home floated out of the window and in at another in Ashley Place (Victoria Street), S.W., 16th December 1868." At a meeting of the Committee of the Dialectical Society, held on 6th July 1869, a paper was read from Lord Lindsay, describing some of his personal experiences with Home. This paper makes no reference to the above case of levitation. But at the same meeting of the Committee, Lord Lindsay and others gave evidence as witnesses, and Lord Lindsay thus described this particular case:--

"I saw the levitations in Victoria Street, when Home floated out of the window; he first went into a trance, and walked about uneasily; he then went into the hall; while he was away, I heard a voice whisper in my ear, 'He will go out of one window and in at another.' I was alarmed and shocked at the idea of so dangerous an experiment. I told the company what I had heard, and we then waited for Home's return. Shortly after he entered the room, I heard the window go up, but I could not see it, for I sat with my back to it. I, however, saw his shadow on the opposite wall; he went out of the window in a horizontal position, and I saw him outside the other window (that in the next room) floating in the air. It was eighty-five feet from the ground. There was no balcony along the windows, merely a strong course an inch and a half wide; each window had a small plant stand, but there was no connection between them. I have no theory to explain these things. I have tried to find out how they are done, but the more I studied them, the more satisfied was I that they could not be explained by mere mechanical trick."

There is one episode in the career of D. D. Home which, although it does not affect the reality of the phenomena alleged to have taken place in his presence, claims a brief mention. The gift to Home by Mrs. Lyon of a large sum of money, the subsequent lawsuit, and the judgment in accordance with which the money was returned to its original owner, excited much attention at the time. Public opinion frequently takes up sensational occurrences in a most illogical and unscientific manner. But a permanent effect may thus be produced, which is extremely difficult to eradicate, even if shown to be unjustifiable. This episode with Mrs. Lyon has probably had more effect than any other circumstance in causing the feeling of aversion with which large numbers of people regard Home and all his doings. He is looked upon, and spoken of, as if he were an unprincipled adventurer, convicted of fraud, and of obtaining money under false pretences.

The remarks at the end of this chapter are based mainly upon Appendix III. to the Report by Professor Barrett and Mr. Myers, and which deals with the case of Lyon v. Home. The Appendix commences thus: "Our colleague, Mr. H. Arthur Smith [barrister-at-law], author of 'Principles of Equity,' has kindly furnished us with the following review of the case of Lyon v. Home." The following are a few extracts from this review:--

"I have looked carefully into the case of Lyon v. Home as reported in the Law Reports (6 Equity, 655), ... and perhaps the following comments may be useful to you.

"It is certainly the fact that the judge discredited the evidence of Mrs. Lyon. He said: 'Reliance cannot be placed on her testimony.... It would be unjust to found on it a decree against any man, save in so far as what she has sworn to may be corroborated by written documents, or unimpeached witnesses, or incontrovertible facts.'

"Having, then, eventually decided against Home, it follows that the judge must have considered that her evidence was corroborated in some or other of the ways mentioned."

Mr. H. Arthur Smith further says: "There was also an admitted letter from Mrs. Lyon to Home, in which she stated that she presented him with the £24,000 as an 'entirely free gift.' This, she said, was written by her at Home's dictation, under magnetic influence."

Mr. H. Arthur Smith proceeds to discuss the "corroborative evidence which led to the judge's final opinion." He then remarks:--

"Now it must, I think, be admitted that considering the extraordinary character of Mrs. Lyon's conduct, and the swiftness with which she reached her decision to transfer her property to Home, such evidence as the above may reasonably be deemed corroborative of her assertion that she was induced to act as she did by the effects of Home's spiritualistic pretensions.... There was sufficient ... in my opinion, to establish the plaintiff's case. It is not then true that 'Home was made to restore the money, because, being a professed medium, it was likely that he should have induced her in the way he did.' The Court held the law to be that such transactions as those in question cannot be upheld, 'unless the Court is quite satisfied that they are acts of pure volition uninfluenced.' ... There was evidence of considerable weight, that as a matter of fact ... Home did work on the mind of Mrs. Lyon by means of spiritualistic devices, and further that he did so by suggesting communications from her deceased husband. Whether this is to Home's discredit or not of course will be decided according to one's belief in Spiritualism and the reality of her husband's interference.... H. ARTHUR SMITH. 1 NEW SQUARE, LINCOLN'S INN, October 19, 1888."

In order that this episode should have its rightful effect, and no more, it is needful that several things should be borne in mind. In the first place, the action was in a Court of Equity. It was not a prosecution in a Criminal Court. The decision of the Court was not a verdict of guilty against a prisoner, to be followed by punishment for wrong-doing, but an order to refund certain money. In ordinary circumstances a judgment of this kind does not brand a man with infamy, nor affect his character and position in the eyes of society. Again, after the judgment of the Court, Home promptly repaid the money. He had not appropriated or expended any part of it. What more could he have done?

Mr. Myers' remark in "Human Personality"--"The most serious blot on Home's character was that revealed by the Lyon case"--seems, therefore, rather severe under the circumstances. Especially as Mr. Myers has expressed himself so strongly in favour of the reality of the Home phenomena, and has said, in conjunction with Professor Barrett, that they found no allegations of fraud on which they were justified in laying much stress. Much more to the purpose is Mr. H. Arthur Smith's comment: "Whether this is to Home's discredit or not of course will be decided according to one's belief in Spiritualism and the reality of her husband's interference."

Had this Report of Professor Barrett's and Mr. Myers', with its Appendices, been placed before the public, it might have mitigated the prejudice which hangs about the name of D. D. Home in the minds of so many. The unique position which Home occupies in regard to the Physical Phenomena of Spiritualism seems a sufficient reason for dwelling somewhat fully on this episode as it affects his character as a man.

FOOTNOTES:

Report of the Committee of the London Dialectical Society, pp. 360-363.

Vol. iv. pp. 101-136.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 249-252.

Ibid., p. 115.

"Human Personality," vol. ii. p. 579.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. p. 102.

"Human Personality," vol. ii. pp. 580-581.

Ibid., p. 581.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. p. 107.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. p. 114.

Ibid., p. 115.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. p. 122.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 135-136.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. p. 108.

Report of the Committee of the Dialectical Society, p. 214.

Journal S.P.R., vol. iv. pp. 117-119.

"Human Personality," vol. ii. p. 580.