The exactly corresponding spot on the left side was guessed. 19. - Back hair pulled. No result. 20. - Inside of right wrist pricked. Right foot guessed.

Thus in 10 out of the 20 cases, the percipient localised the pain with great precision; in 6 the localisation was nearly exact, and with these we may include No. 10, where the pain was probably not confined to a single well-defined area in the hands of all the agents; in 2 no local impression was produced; and in 1, the last, the answer was wholly wrong.

§ 11. We may pass now to a totally new division of experimental cases. So far the effect of thought-transference on the receiving mind has been an effect in consciousness - the actual emergence of an image or sensation which the percipient has recognised and described. But it is not necessary that the effect should be thus recognised by the percipient; his witness to it may be unconscious, instead of conscious, and yet may be quite unmistakable. The simplest example of this is when some effect is produced on his motor system - when the impression received causes him to perform some action which proves to have distinct reference to the thought in the agent's mind.

1 See, for instance, the record of Mr. Hughes's series in Mr. Guthrie's " Further Report," above referred to.

The cases fall into two classes. In one class the actions are purely automatic: in the other some conscious idea of what was to be done has preceded and accompanied the muscular effect; so that that effect would be at most semi-automatic. To begin with this semi-automatic class; it might be thought that examples would be found in those rarer cases of the "willing-game" where contact, and movement on the agent's part, are avoided. But we have received no records of such cases where it is certain that the precautions neccessary to exclude the barest possibility of slight unconscious physical signs were rigidly enforced; and it will be preferable to describe some experiments made by members of our own group, where this point was kept steadily in view. We have had several interesting series in which the "subject's" power of utterance has been inhibited by the silent determination of the operator. Our first experiments of this sort were made in January, 1883. The "subject" was our friend, Mr. Sidney Beard, who had been thrown into a light hypnotic trance by Mr. G. A. Smith. A list of twelve Yeses and Noes in arbitrary order was written by one of ourselves and put into Mr. Smith's hand, with directions that he should successively "will" the "subject" to respond or not to respond, in accordance with the order of the list.

Mr. Beard was lying back with closed eyes; and a tuning-fork was struck and held at his ear, with the question, "Do you hear?" asked by one of ourselves. This was done twelve times with a completely successful result, the answer or the failure to answer corresponding in each case with the "yes" or "no" of the written list -that is to say, with the silently concentrated will of the agent.1

A much more prolonged series of trials was made in November, 1883, by Professor Barrett, at his house in Dublin. The hypnotist was again Mr. G. A. Smith. The "subject" was an entire stranger to Mr. Smith, a youth named Fearnley, to whom nothing whatever was said as to the nature of the experiment about to be tried, until he was thrown into the hypnotic state. [The results, obtained at different distances, were almost completely successful. For the sake of brevity they are omitted here; as are also two other short but successful series with different "subjects," and in one a different hypnotist, in which Mr. Gurney was the experimenter. - Ed. ]

1 Similar trials on other occasions were equally successful; as also were trials where the tuning-fork was dispensed with, and the only sound was the question, "Do you hear?" asked by one of the observers. On these latter occasions, however, Mr. Smith was holding Mr. Beard's hand; and it might be maintained that "yes" and "no" indications were given by unconscious variations of pressure. How completely unconscious the supposed "reader" was of any sensible guidance will be evident from Mr. Beard's own account. "During the experiments of January 1st, when Mr. Smith mesmerised me, I did not entirely lose consciousness at any time, but only experienced a sensation of total numbness in my limbs. When the trial as to whether I could hear sounds was made, I heard the sounds distinctly each time, but in a large number of instances I felt totally unable to acknowledge that I heard them. I seemed to know each time whether Mr. Smith wished me to say that I heard them; and as I had surrendered my will to his at the commencement of the experiment, I was unable to reassert my power of volition whilst under his influence".

§ 12. But in experiments of this class it is clearly difficult to be sure that the conscious idea of the evoked or the inhibited action does not precede or accompany the muscular effects. Indeed, as we have seen, the percipient's own account has sometimes shown that it did so. I proceed, then, to our second class of cases. There is, fortunately, one sort of act where the verdict of the performer that it was automatically performed may be taken as conclusive; the act of writing. If words are written down which the writer is obliged to read over, and even to puzzle over, just as anyone else might do, in order to learn what they are, his unconsciousness of them in the act of writing may be taken as established. Now written words are of course as good as spoken ones, as evidence that a particular idea has been in some way communicated. If, then, one person's automatic writing corresponds unmistakably to the idea on which another person's mind was concentrated at the time, and if the possibility of sensory indications has been excluded, we have a clear example of some novel influence acting, not only without the participation of the recognised organs of sense, but without the participation of the percipient's conscious intelligence.