We shall presently examine the merits of the different schools of hypnotism and call attention to the fact that the followers of the Nancy school, who see in hypnotism nothing but "suggestion," are unable to produce those higher phenomena which were familiar to the old mesmerists and vouchsafed by men of learning and standing.

One of these phenomena, which our modern scientific hypnotists cannot produce, is "clairvoyance," the subject seeing objects with closed eyes, and things that are invisible to the ordinary sight. I myself have only tried once to get a description of articles held behind a subject in the hypnotic trance and blindfolded. He recognised one article after another, and though not always giving its proper name, he gave a correct description of the objects which were hidden from his view. The usual modern explanation given of this phenomenon is that the subject does not really see these articles, but that his brain receives an impression through the operator's subconscious mind, the latter naturally thinking of the article he is holding, so that we have here in reality a transference of thought. Against this view is the fact that I have never succeeded in "willing" my thoughts to be known and acted on by a subject, and had always to express them verbally. No silent communication has ever succeeded.

With only one single experience I am not entitled to offer any theory; on the other hand, I cannot join those who consider every phenomenon, which they are not themselves able to produce, as due to fraud or self-deception. There have been many honourable men amongst the old mesmerists, men like Elliotson, who sacrificed their position and income in defence of what they considered a fact and a truth, and they stated positively that many somnambulists do distinguish with their eyes closed the objects placed before them; they have told the number and colour of cards without touching them, and the hour marked on a watch; they have read some lines of books opened by mere chance and distinguished through opaque substances, many other things invisible to the ordinary methods of sight. Some clairvoyants perceive the contents of a closed letter, or of a sealed packet, or of a closed box. Because some can do this more readily when one person of those in the room knows the contents, silent suggestion has been assumed, but cases are on record where no one present knew of the contents.

Fraud on the part of the clairvoyant in such test-experiments is not easy, for often there is a double process of blindfolding; since, besides the bandage preventing sight, in cases of deep hypnotism the pupil is usually found to be fixed and insensible to light, as we can test by forcing open the eyelids; while, in a large proportion of cases, the pupil is not only fixed and insensible, but is also turned upwards, so that it cannot be seen at all, when the eyelids are forcibly opened. In addition to all this, we can hold the object above or behind the head, positions in which the most sensitive and movable eye cannot possibly sec anything.

It has already been pointed out that some "sensitive" hypnotic subjects can see luminous emanations from animate and inanimate objects, as if some radiant force were given out. Considering the latest discoveries in chemistry should we not look for an explanation in the existence of a peculiar emanation in certain forms of matter, the action of which is perceived by certain "sensitive" people, especially when in the hypnotic state?

Doubtless the extraordinary faculty of clairvoyance, which is exercised with perfectly closed and apparently useless eyes, must make use of some form of etheric vibrations of a nature analogous to extreme ultra violet or even X-rays, which can pass straight through solid and opaque substances with little loss by reflection or absorption. If so, is it possible to conceive of a clairvoyant organ of vision acting independently of the physical eyes, and of the physical visual nervous mechanism ?

There are a variety of radiations known to us, such as Hertz's electro-magnetic waves, which are employed in wireless telegraphy, and are capable of being used for communication over thousands of miles of space; then there are Blondlot's or N-rays, which are given out by various substances, but particularly by nerves and nerve centres, especially during functioning. Then we have heat, luminiferous, ultra-violet, and lastly Becquerel and Rontgen or X-rays.

May it not be that our modern methods are at fault ? It is well known that the early mesmerists constantly and habitually developed higher powers in their subjects. Their experiments were often made, under test conditions, by the most careful and conscientious scientists, and the results are recorded in the many volumes on the subject written at the time.

When did the higher phenomena show the first signs of decadence? A moment's reflection will fix it at about the date of the promulgation of the theory of suggestion. As soon as it was found that the hypnotic sleep could be induced by suggestion, all other methods were practically abandoned. It was a much easier operation than to make passes over a subject for an indefinite length of time, accompanying the passes by fixity of gaze and intense concentration of mind. The law of suggestion is undoubtedly of the highest significance, only let us remember that it is not the whole of psychic science. It seems clear, then, that it is to this change of methods that we must look for an explanation of the change in results.

Hypnotists, who practise "suggestion" only, are bound to frustrate their own experiments in this direction and fail to produce any of the extraordinary phenomena mentioned, because of the fact already stated, that suggestion, whether consciously or unconsciously exercised, is the most potent force, and hence does not give the innate powers of the subject a chance to manifest themselves. Conscientious investigators should remember this. Only such of our modern hypnotists who do not limit themselves to the " method of suggestion" have succeeded in reproducing the higher phenomena.

In the subject' put to sleep by the mesmeric method, that is by passes without contact, and with no verbal suggestion of any kind, and who has never been hypnotised by any other process (for the memory of past hypnoses by the subject is a great factor in determining the condition of the present state), we have, and there we must agree with the mesmerists, instead of an interesting automaton, an individual with a personality of its own, one whose mental faculties have become clearer and more powerful, and who often exhibits an intelligence and capacities far in advance of his normal condition. This,in their opinion, is the individual who will most readily develop into the clairvoyant so long as we refrain from making suggestions to him.

Some clairvoyant subjects are able to perceive objects in an adjoining room, or in one overhead, or in one below. This used to be a frequent phenomenon, without any special preparation, and usually brought to light by the subject, of his own accord, remarking what takes place there. The experiments I have performed in this respect have not been satisfactory. Thus in one case I asked a subject whether she could tell me what her husband, who was at home a hundred miles away, was doing at the time, then about ten in the morning. She replied that she saw him in the garden with the children. On enquiry I ascertained that the vision, if such it was, was quite correct, but that her husband was in the habit at that time of morning of taking the children round the garden. There have always been possibilities of ordinary explanation, so that I can offer no evidence of my own.

Possibly I should have succeeded, and may yet succeed by perseverance for Gregory, one of the best mesmerisers, succeeded also only after many trials. His remarks may be of interest here:

" Mr. Braid, not having produced or seen clairvoyance, has gone so far as to deny its existence. I entertain the highest respect for Mr. Braid, but I cannot help thinking he has here been too hasty in his conclusion. It was long before I myself saw the higher phenomena, and, on more than one occasion, I have mentioned this, when writing on the subject. But I did not feel warranted in rejecting the prodigious mass of evidence, much of it, to all appearances, unexceptionable, of their occurrence. I did not then know, practically, how much depended on patience and perseverance in these matters, and, not at once meeting with the higher phenomena, I hastily concluded that I could not produce them. I am now convinced, that had I persevered for a short time, some of these cases would have exhibited the finest phenomena and I can only regret that I lost, through ignorance, opportunities so valuable."

Some people are subject to premonitions of future events. That these forebodings often prove wrong is no evidence against their psychic faculty, which may consist merely in an extraordinary capacity of noticing insignificant details that escape other people's observation, together with a quick associative power of ideas. Their mind works on the sequence of events in daily life, as the scientist's mind works on the sequence of events in physical phenomena, and they are able sometimes to predict in each of their respective spheres what will happen, only that the scientist, working with the knowledge of laws which are already firmly established, is more often accurate in his prediction.

Another class of phenomena which ought to be mentioned here, is that which has received an exhaustive treatment in the work of the late Professor Denton, and has been denominated " psychometry," which may be defined as the supposed power of the human mind to discern the history of inanimate objects by clairvoyance. Whether such a discerning power exists must remain a matter of " faith" so long as no proper examination has taken place. At best, it can only be a rare gift manifested under exceptional circumstances.

Another extraordinary power possessed by some clairvoyants, if we may accept the testimony of the old mesmerists and some men of to-day, is that they are often able to feel and describe every pain or ache felt by a patient with whom they are put en rapport, and will even in some cases feel, or intuitively perceive, the morbid state of certain parts. They will diagnose that the patient has a headache, or a pain in the side, or difficulty in breathing; and will declare that the brain, or lungs, or liver, or stomach, or heart, etc., are deranged in such or such a manner. They seem to have an intuitive perception of health and disease. These subjects seem to be able to give information of the form and situation of various organs, and to describe them with very great precision, though not with anatomical correctness, if the somnambulist be ignorant of anatomy. The human body seems to them as if transparent, and there have been medical practitioners who availed themselves of this faculty of lucidity to discover the nature of obscure disease, using the subject so to say as a living stethoscope to assist their own judgment.

In 1831 the Royal Academy of Medicine of France appointed a commission to investigate the subject of animal magnetism. The commission was composed of some of the ablest scientists of the Academy, and it prosecuted its investigations until 1837, when it made its report. Amongst other things it announced that it had demonstrated the fact that some mesmeric subjects possessed clairvoyant power; that such subjects could, with their eyes closed distinguish objects, tell the colour and number of cards, and read lines of a book opened at a chance page; and that others could, in a state of somnambulism, point out the disorders of those with whom they were placed en rapport, which disorders they confirmed by their own examination and in one case post-mortem.

In consequence of this report a standing offer of a large sum of money was made to anyone who should demonstrate the reality of clairvoyant power in the presence of a committee appointed for the purpose. It is said that many attempts have been made by good clairvoyants to earn this money, but every attempt has ended in total failure.

In this respect it should be remembered that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make satisfactory experiments with a subject in the presence of a sceptical audience. Especially is this true if the scepticism is open, avowed and aggressive. It is also well known that when a subject is in a state of lucid somnambulism no satisfactory results can be obtained if anyone disputes him, or attempts an argument, or accuses him of shamming or of a want of good faith. Such a course always results in great distress of mind on the part of the subject, and inability to concentrate on the work to be accomplished.

The hypnotic subject, who is in the presence of an openly sceptical audience and who hears someone declare that the subject is shamming, instantly seizes upon the declaration; and it is to him a suggestion that is as potent as the one which induced the hypnotic condition. The suggestion of the operator is thus neutralised, so to speak, by a counter-suggestion from the sceptic. His very presence is a standing suggestion of the unreality of the hypnotic condition which often cannot be overcome by the operator.

On the other hand, I quite agree with what Moll says:

"A favourite reply of occultists, and more especially spiritists, to this is that the experiments will not work in the presence of sceptics, who disturb that harmony of the 'circle,' which is so necessary if successful results are to be obtained. I can very well imagine that, if there really are any such subtle psychic processes, the constitution of the environment is of importance. But if such phenomena cannot be exhibited under scientific conditions, no pretence should be made of proving their occurrence scientifically—rather should it be openly admitted that the whole question is a matter of belief."

Many persons, who are extremely averse to admit the existence of clairvoyance at all, are apt to suppose that they get rid of it, when the facts are forced on their attention so that they can no longer be denied, by ascribing them to thought-reading, as if thought-reading, the power of seeing into another man's soul (and through his body, too) were at all less wonderful than the power of seeing through a stone wall, or a floor.

To my apprehension, thought-reading is still more wonderful and incomprehensible than that kind of clairvoyance, which takes note of material things at a distance. In the latter case, we can imagine some subtle, rare medium by which impressions may be conveyed to us, as light or sound are. But how do we perceive thoughts, not yet expressed, in the mind of another?

It would appear, then, as Gregory has said, that those who would explain all clairvoyance by thought-reading, only fall from the frying-pan into the fire. They account for an apparently unaccountable phenomenon by one still more incomprehensible.

Clairvoyance and some of the other phenomena we are about to describe are so unlike any which have been brought within the sphere of recognised science, as to subject the mind to two opposite dangers. "Wild hypotheses as to how they happen are confronted with equally wild assertions that they cannot happen at all. Of the two, the assumption of an a priori impossibility is, perhaps, in the present state of our knowledge of Nature, the most to be deprecated; though it cannot be considered in any way surprising. We have referred to the legitimate grounds of suspicion, open to all who have only chanced to encounter the alleged phenomena in their vulgarest and most dubious aspects. Even apart from this it is inevitable that, as the area of the known increases by perpetual additions to its recognised departments, and by perpetual multiplication of their connections, a disinclination should arise to break loose from association, and to admit a quite new department on its own independent evidence.

In the physical sciences, it is easy to demonstrate discoveries and to have them repeated under exactly the same conditions. When we come to the science of mind, however, all the circumstances are changed. True, we have our anatomists and physiologists working with the scalpel and microscope, but even as regards the most elementary phenomenon, say, man's reasoning capacity, how much have we learned from them? No one will deny that man does reason, and that for animal intelligence, human reason must seem something supernatural. Is it a wonder that to everyday men the abnormal capacities of the hypnotised sensitive persons should seem incredible? Why should man in the progress of his evolution not have developed powers, and may we say brain-functions, of which we have still meagre knowledge. I do not know if a "clairvoyant" power really exists, but I differ with those who think it impossible to exist. Some of these sceptics have never tried to find out, others have tried but failed. But would they deny man's reasoning capacity, because some men arrive at wrong conclusions. Let us not forget man's reasoning capacity has been trained for thousands of years, and we have received systematic schooling in its use throughout our childhood. If there be such a power as "clairvoyance," it must be admitted that humanity has done nothing to draw it out, and that those, in whom we discover it, lack the training which is necessary for all the mental powers with which man is endowed. Therefore let us assume a different attitude towards such abnormal phenomena as we cannot explain at present, and while we have given up the explanation of their being supernatural, let us also give up the idea that they belong to fraud and imposition, and that only highly credulous persons believe them.

Let there be no mistake, however! Clairvoyance as a spontaneous phenomenon in a hypnotised subject may be perfectly genuine; clairvoyance habitually exercised, as is professed by occultists in Bond Street and elsewhere, is an impossibility.