(14) July 17th.--Lemaire was to guess a card at 9 o'clock. At 10 minutes to 9, from my house, I tried to transfer the 4 _Spades_. (I have forgotten to make a note of whether I merely thought of this card or whether I drew it from a pack.) At 9 o'clock Lemaire guessed 5 _Spades_. (15) 30th July.--This experiment is more complicated but none the less interesting. On the 30th July, at 11 A.M., Lemaire was to guess a card which I had tried to suggest to him on the 26th July. This card was the _Knave Diamonds_. But he forgot to do it, and did not remember to guess the card till 7 P.M. on the 30th July. Now on this same day, the 30th July, from 6 to 6.30 P.M. I was myself engaged in guessing a card by clairvoyance, and after many attempts I decided on 7 _or_ 8 _Clubs_, and Lemaire, guessing the card at 7 P.M., also decided upon 7 _Clubs_. So that I had suggested the card to him unconsciously. Thus, omitting the last trial as of doubtful interpretation, we find that in 14 trials the card was guessed correctly twice, the number alone once, and the suit alone nine times, or three times the probable number. _Transference of Visual Impressions._ In the four cases which follow the impression was of a well-marked visual character; reaching, indeed, in the two last to the level of actual hallucination. It should be observed that in none of these four cases is the possibility of chance coincidence so entirely precluded as in many of the experiments at close quarters already cited. In the first of the cases recorded by Dr. Gibotteau (No. 40), and in some of Mr. Kirk's experiments (No. 37), the luminous patches seen by the percipients are not unlike rudimentary hallucinations of a sufficiently common type, and their resemblance in these instances to the objects actually looked at or thought of by the agents should not therefore be pressed very far. In the other cases, however, the percipient received a well-marked impression of a definite object. But here there is a flaw of another kind. The coincidences may have been due, as indeed Miss Campbell (No. 35) is careful to suggest, to a lucky shot on the part of the percipient at the object the agent would be likely to choose. The very distinct nature of the impression produced in each case upon the percipient, as contrasted with the vague images called up, _e.g._ in Miss Campbell's case, by more or less conscious conjecture, is, however, against this interpretation; and the fact that in the first narrative the experiments quoted were the culmination of a successful series of experiments at close quarters tells in favour of a telepathic explanation for these also. No. 35.--By MISS CAMPBELL and MISS DESPARD.