The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-15 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

The Zoist : a Journal of Cerebral Physiology and

Mesmerism.
This periodical increases in interest every quarter.
The present number gives us much characteristic
information, and several articles on subjects of
general entertainment. Among others, a letter to
Dr. Elliotson on " Table Moving," and " Sensi-
tives." The introductory notice by W. Gregory,
M.D., speaks for itself as to the nature of the sub-
ject far better than any criticism. We here sub-
join it at length ; it is well worthy of attentive
consideration, from the importance of the theme
and the able manner in which it is expounded :

" The medical profession has, within the last two or
three years, found it necessary to admit a very larga part
of the long and obstinately rejected phenomena of mes-
merism ; viz., all those phenomena which depend on
suggestion. These, so long as they were described by
mesmerists as occurring in the mesmeric sleep, were
scornfully rejected, and it is only since they have bees
publicly exhibited as occurring in the waking state, and
absurdly called electro-biological, that they have been
admitted. Yet they were just as true, and as fully de-
monstrated by the mesmerists before, had the evidence
but met with a fair reception.

" But those who now admit the suggestive phenomena
forget the past and, still neglecting or despising investi-
gation, ascribe, without hesitation, all mesmeric pheno-
mena whatever, so far as they admit these, to the in-
fluence of suggestion ; and either deny or disregard all
the evidence which tends to prove the existence of a
transferable influence, capable of acting at a distance,
and of passing through various media—opaque or other-
wise. The writers now alluded to still reject, precisely
as they once did the phenomena of suggestion, all the al-
leged facts of action at a distance, of sympathy without
suggestion, of vision at a distance, or lucid vision gene-
rally ; and rather than admit such facts, which imply
such a transferable influence as I have above alluded to,
ascribe all the alleged facts to imposture and collusion,
exactly as they did a few years ago in reference to the
phenomena of suggestion. They pronounce the very
idea of such a force or influence to be unphysiological,
unphilosophical and absurd, and begin their researches (!)
with assuming, a priori, the principle that no such in-
fluence or force exists or can exist.

" Now against this mode of reasoning, a priori in op-
position to alleged facts, observed by competent persons
of good character, I protest, in the name of logic and
science, as altogether inadmissible. I maintain that we
know little or nothing of the laws of nature in such
matters, and certainly nothing to justify such an assump-
tion. Nor can we ever learn anything of the laws of
nature save by observation and deduction from observed
facts ; in no case by a priori assertions.
" I maintain further that there exists a mass of evi-
dence in favour of the existence of a force or influence,
in all probability imponderable but quite distinct
from all the known imponderables—such as heat, light,
electricity, magnetism, &c. ; and that the facts observed
by mesmerists, in which suggestion has no share, can
only be accounted for by the supposition of some such
force. But I hold, that even if we could not account
for them at all in this or any other way, these facts exist
as truly as do those of suggestion, and to deny them
does not annihilate them. They remain, and will ulti-
mately compel recognition.
"I will go further, and say that we have no more nor
better evidence of the existence of the forces or influences
which we assume to be the cause of heat, light, &c. (but
of the true nature of which we no nothing, except that
they appear to be imponderable), than we do of the
supposed mesmeric force or influence. When we are
able to answer the question, "What is light, or heat, or
electricity ?" but not till then, we shall be able
to say what is the true nature of the mesmeric in-
fluence. At present, of all these forces and many more
we know only the effects, but not the essence. We
have ascertained by observation some of the laws which
regulate them, but still not their essence. And there is
no reason whatever to, suppose that the admitted list
of imponderable natural forces is incapable of additions
being made to it, from the same source, namely, ob-
servation.
"Be this as it may, it is on this point at present that
the mesmeric controversy hinges. Those who assume
that we know all the forces and laws of nature refuse to
admit a new influence or imponderable ; as if electricity
itself did not date, at the very earliest, from the 17th
century only ; and as if magnetism as a science, and
above all, electro-magnetism, were not of still more re-
cent origin. Those, again, who appeal to observation,
maintain that the facts observed demonstrate the exist-
ence of a new imponderable, or force, or influence as
plainly as do other facts the existence of the causes of
heat, light, electricity, magnetism (ordinary), chemical
attraction, gravitation, cohesion, and any other forces
which may belong to this category. And if it be un-
philosophical to talk of the mesmeric fluid, be it remem-
bered that this is done only in the same sense in which
we speak of the electric fluid or the magnetic fluid, a
mode of expression which arose from the resemblance of
some of the phenomena to the motion of currents of
fluid matter.

" Up to a recent period, all the evidence in favour of
the existence of a mesmeric force or influence was derived

from experiments made on persons in the state of mes-
meric sleep or somnambulism. But in 1842, Reichen-
bach adduced a vast body of facts, altogether indepen-
dent of the mesmeric state or processes. He studied
the phenomena precisely as those of all the other depart-
ments of physical science are studied ; and, precisely as
is done in all other cases, he gave a name to the new
force, because he found it to differ from all known forces.
" The letters which follow contain a brief and popular
account of his researches, and are, in my opinion, ad-
mirably calculated to show the utter futility of the a
priori argument against the existence of this force. It
is for this reason that I think they will be useful at the
present time, when so much misapprehension prevails as
to the extent and bearing of his researches. None of
the writers who have opposed his views have given proof
of having even carefully read his work. Their argu-
ments are addressed to superficial and erroneous notions
of it ; and I have no hesitation in stating my conviction,
after a very careful study of his writings, and many ex-
periments on the subject of them, that no scientific work
whatever, known to me, deserves to rank higher in all
the qualities which belong to an investigation conducted
on the true Baconian principles. I have met with no
argument which even touches his conclusions. But in
conclusion I would remind the reader that while Baron
Reichenbach speaks of a force or influence as the cause
of the phenomena he has observed, he is not to be under-
stood as using these terms in any other sense than that
in which we daily use them in reference to the known
and admitted imponderables. As we speak of a mag-
netic or electric influence or force, so, and not otherwise,
does he speak of the od force or the odic force—meaning
by this the unknown cause of certain observed pheno-
mena, which is precisely what we mean when we speak
of the electric force.
" Evidently, then, the important point is the pheno-
mena, and not the name given to the supposed cause of
them. And the reader will find in these letters abundant
proof of the existence of peculiar phenomena, 'and also,
if he considers the subject fairly, equally abundant proof
that suggestion has nothing whatever to do with them.
The precautions taken to exclude suggestion, however,
can only be fully understood by studying Baron Reichen-
bach's great work, of which the first volume has been
translated both by Dr. Ashburner and by myself.
"Even the present letters, however, contain suffi-
cient proof to satisfy such as can judge of scientific evi-
dence, that suggestion cannot explain the facts ; and this
is the conclusion to which all have come, who have in-
vestigated these phenomena, and which agrees perfectly
with the conclusion arrived at by the independent re-
searches of mesmerits on persons in the mesmeric state,
it being borne in mind that all the observations of
Reichenbach were made on persons in the ordinary or
waking condition.

" WILLIAM GREGORY."

THE PENINSULAR MAILS.

SOUTHAMPTON, JULY 14.

By the Peninsular and Oriental Company's ship Iberia,
Captain John Bowen, we have dates from Gibraltar to
the 6th ; Cadiz, the 7th ; Lisbon, 9th; Oporto, 10th ;
and Vigo, the 11th inst.
The Iberia brought on freight 5 packages specie, value
2,8151. sterling; 64 boxes eggs, 58 boxes 241 half and
35 quarter boxes raisins, 24 packages onions, 6 bags
potatoes, and 20 packages general merchandise.
Among the passengers by this steamer are—the Duke
of Forli, the Marquis of Caraccioli, Sir M. C. Smith,
Baron Gulich, the Baron and Baroness Estharege, Mr.
Campbell, her Majesty's Consul at Port St. Mary's, &c.
On the 7th the Iberia passed the screw steamer Alba-
tross steering to the southward ; on the Bth, the barque
Bullfinch ; on the 10th, the steamer Madrid ; and on
the 12th, the steam-ship Great Western.
The news from Portugal brought by this packet has
been anticipated by the arrival of the Tay.
From Gibraltar our accounts are to the 7th inst. The
screw-steamer Teneriffe, ten days from Alexandria, five
and a-half from Malta, touched at Gibraltar on the Ist
inst., 'on her way to Liverpool. The screw-steamer
Arno, three days from Marseilles, arrived on the 3d,
and cleared for Liverpool. The Peninsular and Oriental
Company's screw-steamer Cadiz, seven and a-half days
from Southampton, arrived on the Bth, and proceeded
for Constantinople. This steamer, after leaving South-
ampton, had to anchor in Yarmouth-roads for 30 hours,
in consequence of a tremendous gale of wind from the
south-west. The screw-steamer Livorno, three and a-
half days from Marseilles, arrived on the sth, and left
on the 6th for Liverpool. At Gibraltar, exchanges on
London are 90 days' date, as quoted, 511 to 51-1 ; Spa-
nish Pillared Dollars, 31 to 4 per cent. premium.

PREPARING FOR NEXT CENSUS.—In the Wick Free
Church, on Sabbath last, no fewer than eleven children
were baptised by the Rev. Charles Thomson. The ma-
jority of them were boys, and, judging from the strength
of their tiny lungs, some of them were evidently very
fine children.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (CANTERBURY
AND WHITSTABLE, &c.). BILL.
The Earl of VERULAM moved the third reading of
this bill.

Lord MONTEAGLE said the petitions against the
bill presented an enormous amount of national inte-

rests—one being from persons interested in 100,000 tons
of shipping, and working with 4,000,0001. of capital, and
the others being from large steam navigation companies,
and they were, therefore, entitled to their lordships' at-
tention. The first ground of opposition taken by the
petitioners was, that if they gave this railway company
possession of the port at which the terminus was for
steam-boat purposes, they gave them in effect the com-
mand of the steam navigation of the place ; next, that
Parliament proposed to give this particular company
limited liability, which they had for many years invari-
ably refused to other steam-boat companies. There was
at this moment pending a commission of inquiry into the
law of partnership, expressly including the principle of
limited liability which they were thus going to anticipate
—in a case, too, which was full of danger. They had
often objected to the grasping monopoly of railway com-
panies, but they were now going not only to confer on
one of them the control of the steam-boats at the termi-

nus, but the possession of the harbour of Folkestone. In
the case of the Brighton Company the house refused the
powers which they now were asked to give, and the Duke
of Wellington, whose interest in the Channel communi-
cation they all knew, in 1848 drew a distinction between
a railway bill to enable a company to make a railway
and a bill to enable them to build steamers, with the
construction of which he conceived a railway company
had nothing to do. But if it ever could be desirable to
grant such powers at any time, it must be to a company
which came before them with clean hands. Now, in the
present case the company admitted they had been guilty
for years past of a violation of the law, and of mis-
applying the funds of the railway shareholders to the
establishment of steam-boats. Let their lordships not be
led away by the argument that by giving those powers
they enabled the company to give them good boats across
the Channel. The case of the petitioners was, that they
had provided those good steamboats already. He did not
propose to reject the bill, but he certainly would propose
amendments of the clauses conferring those powers.
Lord BROUGHAM said, this case went before a select
committee as an opposed bill. Different opposing com-
panies were heard against it by counsel, agents, and wit-
nesses, and the committee after all came to a resolution
in favour of the bill ' • and it now appeared before their
lordships for a third reading. He strongly recommended
their lordships to pause long before they departed from
the principle of giving their confidence to the reports of
their committees acting impartially, and he would say
judicially, on the questions referred to them.
After a few words from the Earl of BANDON and Lord
COLCHHEOPER,
The Earl of HARROWBY said, that the principle
was not to give persons the advantages of limited liabi-
lity except in cases of such magnitude as should make
the risk too great to be undertaken on individual respon-
sibility. In the present case no such amount of re-
sponsibility had been shown ; he therefore hoped their
lordships would not pass the bill. The present was
merely an attempt on the part of a steamboat company to
obtain an advantage over a competitor by acquiring cer-
tain privileges under the cover of being connected with
' and forming part of a railway company. He saw no
reason why their lordships should depart from the prin-
ciple which they had usually followed in reference to such
cases, which was, not to give an advantage over their
competitors, which advantage was not at all requisite to
the carrying out of their undertaking.
'Lord STANLEY (of Alderley) did not think it was
quite fair to apply the same principles which regulated
the steam navigation of this country with foreign
nations to such a description of steam navigation as that
which was contemplated by this bill. There was a great
difference between the steam navigation which carried
on the trade between all parts of the world and that
which conducted trade between local ports. So far from
its being the fact that there was no instance of Parlia-
ment having given its consent to a similar undertaking,
he believed there was hardly any case in which a similar
application was refused. The principle laid down in the
report of the committee of 1848 was, that it was not ,
politic to grant a charter of limited liability to any
persons undertaking a private enterprise, and that such
charter should only be granted when the undertaking
was of sufficient magnitude to make it of national im-
portance. But the report drew a distinction which
appeared to be applicable to this case. They thought
that under circumstances similar to those which here
existed a limited power might be granted. If a mini-
mum of fares were established, and if certain regulations
were adopted, it was their opinion that the powers now
asked for might be granted. He did think that, such
having been the recommendation of the committee under
the peculiar circumstances of the case, their lordships
ought to grant the powers now asked for. The course
pursued by their lordships' house, and by the other house
of Parliament, was, when such matters were referred to
a committee, and that committee reported that it was
desirable that the power asked for should be granted, to
concur with the recommendation of the committee, and
he thought that much stronger reasons should be adduced
than had been advanced by the noble lord (Monteagle)
before their lordships should depart from that principle
by refusing to pass the third reading of this bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought their lordships
ought to have better evidence before them previously to
their coming to a decision upon the bill. He would,
therefore, recommend that the third reading should be
postponed until the report of the committee was printed
and laid before their lordships.
The Earl of GALLOWAY opposed the bill. The
object of it could not be carried out without a great
outlay, which outlay could not be met without granting
preferential shares ; and he knew that many of those
who were now interested in the company were opposed
to granting any preferential shares.
After a few words from Lord KINNAIRD,
The Earl of POWIS expressed a fear, if this power
were given to the South-Eastern Company, that Parlia-
ment would be called upon by other railway companies
for similar privileges, and he instanced the case of a
railway company at Great Grimsby, which was partly
projected for the purpose of engrossing the trade with
the north of Europe.
Lord MONTEAGLE explained that all he wished
was, that their lordships, when discussing the bill,
should have the evidence taken before the select com-
mittee on the table, and he was quite ready to withdraw
his amendment.

The Earl of WICKLOW then moved, as an amend-
ment, that the third reading should be postponed for the
production of the evidence.
The house divided—
For the third reading 34
For the amendment lO
Majority —24

The bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Taxing Officer, Common Law Business (Ireland),
Bill passed through committee, and was ordered to be
reported to-morrow (this day).
The Battersea-park and Westminster-bridge Bills
were read a second time.