“A table can exhibit hesitation, it can seek for information, it can welcome a newcomer, it can indicate joy or sorrow, fun or gravity, it can keep time with a song as if joining in the chorus and most notably of all it can exhibit affection in an unmistakable manner.” _What has all this to do with the spirit of the departed?_ How is it possible to accept such silly nonsense? Think of it! A _table_ with intelligence, brains--a _table_ with consciousness--a _table_ with emotion. Yet that is the sort of reasoning used by Sir Oliver in his book “Raymond” and it is acceptable to all enthusiastic advocates of occult teaching. When we read of a mind of such high culture being overcome by such misfortune we are moved to compassion rather than censure and can only conjecture that the loss of his beloved son, Raymond, in an accursed war was the cause of it. Margaret Deland wrote: “As for the scientific value of the evidence submitted by Sir Oliver, one must not lose sight of the fact that by far the greater part of it is from the experience of others and accepted by him as established facts, in many cases with little or no investigation as applied to telepathy. By following his career, one familiar with the psychology of deception will see that he has been an exceptionally ‘easy mark.’” In describing a private performance of what is known among magicians as “long-distance second-sight,” after detailing the tests in full, Sir Oliver writes: “As regards collusion and trickery, no one who has witnessed the absolutely genuine and artless manner in which the impressions are described, but has been perfectly convinced of the transparent honesty of all concerned. “This, however, is not evidence to those who have not been present, and to them I can only say that to the best of my scientific belief, no collusion or trickery was possible under the varied circumstances of the experiments.” From the above, the reader may form his own opinion as to the value of Sir Oliver Lodge’s investigation, and at the same time should bear in mind that his so-called investigation is typical of all the investigations by scientists and sages who have accepted Spiritualism as a fact or a religion (?). The remaining figure of this type most conspicuously in the spotlight on the Spiritualistic stage at the present time is my esteemed friend, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Very much like Sir Oliver, his opinion hung in the balance during many years of _investigation_, some thirty or thirty-five, and it is significant that he did not manifest his deep concern in the cult until he too, like Sir Oliver, had lost a son in the late war and his heartstrings had been wrung by a similar grief.