Site Map

THE HODGSON REPORT / REPORT ON PHENOMENA CONNECTED WITH THEOSOPHY

2. ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL INVESTIGATIONS IN INDIA, AND DISCUSSION OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE **KOOT HOOMI" LETTERS.

By Richard Hodgson.

PART 1.

In November of last year I proceeded to India for the purpose of
investigating on the spot the evidence of the phenomena connected with
the Theosophical Society.

It will be known to most of my readei*^ that M. and Madame Coulomb,
who had been attached to the Theosc^hical Society for several years in
positions of trust, had charged Madame Blavatsky with fraud, and had
adduced in support of their charge various letters and other documents
alleged by them to have been written by Madame Blavatsky. Some of
these documents were published in the Madras Christian College
Magazine of September and October, 1884, and, if genuine, unquestion-
ably implicated Madame Blavatsky in trickery. Madame Blavatfiky,
however, asserted that they were to a great eictent forgeries, that at
any rate the incriminating portions were. One of the most important
points, therefore, in the investigation was the determination of the
genuineness of these disputed documents.

It was also highly important to determine the competency of the
witnesses to phenomena, and to ascertain, if possible, the trustworthiness
in particular of three primary witnesses, viz., Mr. Damodar K.
Mavalankar, Mr. Babajee D. Kath, and Colonel Olcott, upon whose
trustworthiness the validity of the evidence which in our First Report
we considered primd facie important, mainly depended.

Before proceeding it may be well for me to state that the general
attitude which I have for years maintained with respect to various
classes of alleged phenomena which form the subject of investigation
by our Society enabled me, as I believe, to approach the task I had
before me with complete impartiality; while the conclusions which I
held and still hold concerning the important positive results achieved by
our Society in connection with the phenomena of Telepathy, — of which,
moreover, 1 have had instance^ in my own experience, both spontaneous
and experimental, and both as agent and percipient, — formed a further
safeguard of my readiness to deal with the evidence set before me
without any prejudice as to the principles involved. Indeed, whatever
prepossessions I may have had were distinctly in favour of Occultism
and Madame Blavatsky — a fact which, I think I may venture to say, is
well known to several leading Theosophists.

During my three months' investigation I was treated with
perfect courtesy, both at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society
and by the gentlemen connected with the Madras Christian College
Magazhie. I thus had every opportunity of examining the witnesses
for the Theosophical phenomena, and of comparing in detail the disputed
documents with the undoubted handwriting of Madame Blavatsky.
After a very careful examination of the most important of these
documents, and after considering the circumstantial evidence offered by
Theosophists in proof of their being forgeries, I have come to the
assured conclusion that they are genuine.

And it seems desirable here to mention a fact to which attention
has already been drawn by the editor of the Madras Christian College
Magazine, in his reply to an unfounded charge brought against him by
Theosophists, who accused the authorities of the magazine of having
published the disputed documents without any guarantee of their
genuineness. So far was this from being the case that prior to their
publication of the documents they obtained the best evidence procurable
at Madras as to the genuineness of the handwriting. There was indeed
no professional expert in handwriting to be consulted, but the judgments
which were obtained included, among others, the opinions of gentlemen
qualified by many years' banking experience.

From these Blavatsky-Coulomb documents it appears that Mahatma
letters were prepared and sent by Madame Blavatsky, that Koot Hoomi
is a fictitious personage, that supposed " astral forms " of the Mahatmas
were confederates of Madame Blavatsky in disguise — generally the
Coulombs j that alleged transportation of cigarettes and other objects,
'* integration'' of letters, and allied phenomena — some of them in con-
nection with the so-called Shrine at Adyar — were ingenious trickeries,
carried out by Madame Blavatsky, with the assistance chiefly of the
Coulombs.

But further investigations were required. Other apparently im-
portant phenomena had come before us which were not directly
discredited by the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters. Among these phenomena,
for example, were some appearances of Mahatmas, many instances of
the alleged precipitation of writing independently of Madame Blavatsky
and the Coulombs; and there were also the " astral " journeys of Mr.
Damodar. Not only did these and other phenomena require special
investigation, but it was desirable that some confirmation should be
obtained of the genuineness of the disputed letters — that any con-
clusions concerning them should not depend merely and exclusively
upon questions of style and handwriting. To this end it was necessary
that I should examine the important witnesses involved in the inci-
dents mentioned in these documents. It may be added that additional
light was required on some of the phenomena mentioned in '^ The Occult
World," and that the authorship of the K. H. letters could not be put
aside as not in some degree bearing on our research.

I may now express in brief the conclusions to which I was gradually
forced, after what I believe to be a thorough survey of the evidence
for Theosophical phenomena.

The conclusion which I formed, that as a question of handwriting
the disputed letters were written by Madame Blavatsky, is corroborated
by the results of my inquiries into the details of the related incidents.

For Mr. Damodar's " astral " journeys I could find no additional
evidence which rendered pre-arrangement in any way more difficult than
it appeared to be under the circumstances narrated to us at the time of
our First Report, when we considered that collusion between Madame
Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar was not precluded. On the contrary,
my inquiries have revealed that pre-arrangement between Madame
Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar was much easier than we then supposed.
The accounts given by those witnesses who, we thought, might contri-
bute valuable corroborative evidence in the way of showing that such
pre-arrangement was not possible, tended rather to show the reverse.
The cases, therefore, rested entirely upon the evidence of Mr,
Damodar and Madame Blavatsky. But early in my investigation events
occurred which impelled me towards the belief that no reliance could be
placed on Mr. Damodar, and after discovering the unmistakable false-
hoods which marked his own evidence, I could come to no other conclusion
than that he had co-operated with Madame Blavatsky in the production
of spurious marvels.

I was also, for reasons that will hereafter appear, compelled to dis-
card altogether the evidence of Mr. Babajee D. Nath, who appeared to
us at the time of our First Report to be a primary witness for the
ordinary physical existence of the Mahatmas.

The testimony of Colonel Olcott himself I found to be funda-
mentally at variance with fact in so many important points that it
became impossible for me to place the slightest veJue upon the evidence
he had offered. But in saying this I do not mean to suggest any doubt
as to Colonel Olcott's honesty of purpose.

In short, my lengthy examinations of the numerous array of
witnesses to the phenomena showed that they were, as a body,
excessively credulous, excessively deficient in the powers of common
observation, — and too many of them prone to supplement that deficiency
by culpable exaggeration.

Nevertheless, I refrained as long as possible from pronouncing even
to myself any definite conclusion on the subject, but after giving the
fullest consideration to the statements made by the Theosophic witnesses,
after a careful inspection both of the present headquarters of the Theo-
sophical Society in Madras and of the old headquarters in Bombay^
where so many of the alleged phenomena occurred, I finally had no
doubt whatever that the phenomena connected with the Theosophical
Society were part of a huge fraudulent system worked by Madame
Blavatsky with the assistance of the Coulombs and several other
confederates, and that not a single genuine phenomenon could be found
among them all. And I may add that though, of course, I have not^
in coming to this conclusion, trusted to any unverified statements o£
the Coulombs, still neither by frequent cross-examination nor by inde-
pendent investigation of their statements wherever circumstances per-
mitted, have I been able to break down any allegations of theirs which
were in any way material.

It is needless for me to enter into all the minutiie of so complicated
an investigation. It would in truth be impossible either to reproduce
all the palterings and equivocations in the evidence offered to me, or to
describe with any approach to adequacy how my personal impressions
of many of the witnesses deepened my conviction of the dishonesty
woven throughout their testimony. What follows, however, will, I
think, be more than enough to convince any impartial inquirer of the
justice of the conclusion which I have reached.

I begin by giving some extracts from the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters
which will justify the assertions which I have made above concerning
the contents of these documents. The asterisk (*) placed against some
of the extracts means that the letters from which those extracts are
taken were among those examined by Mr. Ketherclift.

1. — The Sassoon Telegram.*

The following is an extract from a letter purporting to be written
by Madame Blavatsky from Poena to Madame Coulomb at Madras in
October, 1883:—

Now, dear, let us change the programme. Whether something succeeds
or not I must try. Jacob Sassoon, the happy proprietor of a crore of rupees,
with whose family I dined last night, is anxious to become a Theosophist.
He is ready to give 10,000 rupees to buy and repair the headquarters; he said
to Colonel (Kzekiel, his cousin, arranged all this) if only he saw a little
phenomenon, got the assurance that the McJiatmas could hear what was
said, or give him some other sign of their existence (?!!) Well, this letter
will reach you the 26th, Friday; will you go up to the Shrine and ask K. H.
(or Ghristofolo) to send me a telegram that would reach me about 4 or 5 in
the afternoon, same day, worded thus: —

** Your conversation with Mr. Jacob Sassoon reached Master just now.
Were the latter even to satisfy him, still the doubter would hardly find the
moral courage to connect himself with the Society.

"Ramalinga Deb."

If this reaches me on the 26th, even in the evening, it will still produce a
tremendous impression. Address, care of N. KhandallavaUa, Judge,.
PooNA. Je ferai le reste. Cela coiitera quatre ou cinq roupies. Cela ne
faitrien.

Yours truly,

(Signed) H. P. B.

The envelope which Madame Coulomb shows as belonging to this
letter bears the postmarks Poena, October 24th; Madras, October
26th; 2nd delivery, Adyar, October 26th; (as to which Madame
Blavatsky has written in the margin of my copy of Madame Coulomb's
pamphlet: [1] " Cannot the cover have contained another letter? Funny
evidence!") Madame Coulomb also shows in connection with this letter
an official receipt for a telegram sent in the name of Kamalinga Deb
from the St. Thom6 office, at Madras, to Madame Blavatsky, at Poena,
on October 26th, which contained the same number of words as above.

2, 3, 4. — The Adyar Saucer.

The following are said to have been written by Madame Blavatsky
from Ootacamund to M. and Madame Coulomb at Madras, in July or
August, 1883: —

2.*

Ma bien ch^re Amie,

Vous n'avez pas besoin d'attendre rhonime '* Punch." Pourvu que cela
soit fait en presence de personnes qui sent respectables besides our own
familiar muffs, Je vous supplie de le faire k la premiere occasion.

3.*

Cher Monsieur Coulomb,

C'est je crois cela que vous devez avoir. T^hez done si V9US croyez que
cela va reussir d'avoir plus d'audience que nos imbkciles domestiq\tes seulement.
Cela mdrite la peine — Car la soucoupe d'Adyar pourrait devenir liistorique
comme la tasse de Simla. Soubbaya ici et je n'ai gu^re le temps d'derire a
axon aise, h. vous mes honneurs et remerciments.

(Signed) H. P. B.

This letter is said by Madame Coulomb to have contained the
following enclosure: —

To the small audience present as witness. Now Madame Coulomb lias
occasion to assure herself that the devil is neither as black nor as wicked as
he is generally represented. The mischief is easily repaired. — K. H.

4.*

Vendredi.

Ma ch^re Madame Coulomb et Marquis, [2]

Yoici le moment de nous montrer — ne notis cacJions pas. Le G^n^ral part
I>our affaires k Madras et y sera lundi et y passera deux jours. 11 est
President de la Socidtd ici et veut voir le shrine. C'est probable qu'il fera
\me question quelconque et pent etre se bornera-t-il k rcgarder. Mais il est
>iiir qu'il s'attend k un phdnom^ne car il me Ta dit. Dans le premier cas
suppliez K. H. que vous voyez tous les jours ou Cristofolo de soutenir
rhonneur de famille. Dites lui done qu'une fleur suffirait, et que si le pot de
<hambre cassait sous le poids de la curiosity il serait bon de le remplacer en
re moment. Damn les autres. Celui-lh. vaut son pesant d'or. Per I'amor del
Dio ou de qui vous voudrez ne manquez pas cette occasion car elle ne se
r^pdtera plus. Je ne suis pas Ik, et c'est cela qui est beau. Je me fie k
vous et je vous supplie de ne pas me d^sappointer car tous mes pro jets et
nion avenir avec vous tous — (car je vais avoir une maison ici pour passer les
six mois de Tannde et elle sera k moi k la Soci^ti et vous ne souffrirez plus
de la chaleur comme vous le faites, si j'y r^ussis).

***

Yoici le moment de faire quelquechose. Toumez lui la tete au GtJneral
\it il fera tout pour vous surtout si vous 6tes avec lui au moment du
Christophe. Je vous envoie un en cas — e vi saluto. Le Colonel vient ici
(lu 20 au 25. Je reviendrai vers le milieu de Septembre.

A vous de coeur,

Luna MELA^'coNICA.

***

The en cas referred to is the following: —

I can say nothing now — ^and will let you know at Ooty.

(Addressed) General Morgan . (Signed) K. H.

Extracts 5 and 6, from letters written in 1880 by Madanio
Blavatsky, apparently in Simla, to Madame Coulomb in Bombay^
throw some light upon the alleged transportation of cigarettes, &c.

5.

I enclose an envelope with a cigarette paper in it. I will drop another
lialf of a cigarette behind the Queen's head where I dropped my hair tho
same day or Saturday. Is the hair still there? and a cigarette still under
the cover?

Madame Blavatsky has written on the fly-leaf of the letter f ron^
which this passage is taken:

Make a half cigarette of this. Take cart of the edges.

And on a slip of paper said by Madame Coulomb to have accompanied
the cigarette-paper referred to:

Boll a cigarette of this half and tie it with H. P. B.'s hair. Put it on
the top of the cupboard made by Wimbridge to the furthest comer near th&
wall on your right. Do it quick.

6.*

Je crois que le mouchoir est un coup manqu^. Laissons cela. Mai»
toutes les instructions qu'elles restent statu quo pour les Maharajas de Lahore
ou de Benares. Tous sont fous pour voir quelquechose. Je vous dcrirat
d'Amritsir ou Lahore, mes cheveux feraient bien sur la vieille tour de Sion
mais vous les mettrez dans une envelope, un sachet curieux et le pendrez en
le cachant ou bien k Bombay— choisissez bon endroit et — Ecrivez moi k Am-
ritsir^sie restantSj puis vers le I*'' du mois k Lahore. Adressez votre lettr&
k mon nom. Bien de plus pour S. — il en a vu asscz. Peur de manquer la
X)oste, k re voir. Avez-vous mis la cigarette sur la petite armoire de Wimb —

7.

Oh mon pauvre Christofolo 1 II est done mort et vous Tavez tu^? Oh ma
ch^re amie si vous saviez comme je voudrais le voir revivre l » ♦ ♦
Ma benediction k mon pauvre Christofolo. Toujours k vous,

H. P. B.

This extract is said by Madame Coulomb to be Madame Blavatsky's
lament for the destruction of the dummy head and shoulders employed
for the Koot Hoomi appearances, Christofolo being the "occult"
name for Koot Hoomi. Madame Coulomb declares that she had burnt
the dummy apparatus " in a fit of disgust at the imposture," but that
she afterwards made another. The following letter (8) is suggestive
in several ways. The Coulombs are evidently supposed to be familiar
with the habits and customs of the Brothers. " Lc Roi " is said
l)y Madame Coulomb to have refen-ed to Mr. Padshah, and "les
deux lettres" sent by Madame Blavatsky to Madame Coulomb
(under the name of E. Cutting) appear to have been Mahatma
documents. General instructions for the transmission of such docu-
ments are exemplified by (9) and (10).

8.

Mes chers Amis,

Au nom du ciel no croyez pas que je vous oublie. Je n'ai pas le
temps materiel pour respirer — voilk tout! Nous sommes dans la plu9
ffrande crise, et je ne dois pas perdre la. tete. Je ne puis ni ose rien vous
^crire. Mais vous devez comprendre qu*il est dbaolunieHt ii^cessaire que
quelquechose arrive k Bombay tant que je suis ici. Le Roi et Dam. doitent
voir et re^evoir la visite d'un de nos Fr^res et — s'il est possible que le premier
reqoive une lettre que j'enverrai. Mais les voir il est plus n^cessaire encore.
EUe devrait lui tomber sur la tSte comme la premiere et je suis en train de
supplier ** Koothoomi " de la lui envoyer. II doit battre le far tant qu'il est
<chaud. Agissez indSpendamment de moi, mais dans les habitudes et customs
des Fr^res. S'il pouvait arriver quelquechose h Bombay qui fasse parler tout
le monde — ce serait merveilleux. Mais quoi! Les Fr^res sent inexorables.
Oh cher M. Coulomb, sauvez la situation et faites ce qu'ils vous demandent.
J'ai la fi^vre tou jours un peu. On Taurait k moins! Ne voilk-t-il pas que
Mr. Hume veut voir Koothoomi astrcUement de loin, 8*il veut, pour pouvoir
dire au monde qu* U suit qu'il existe et Vicrire dans tous les journaux car
jusqu'ik present il ne pent dire qu'une chose c'est qu'il croit fermement et
positivement mais non qu'iZ le sait parcequ'il Ta vu de ses yeux comme Damo-
dar, Padshah, etc. Enfin on voillb d'un probl^me I Comprenez done que je
deviens foUe, et prenez piti($ d'une pauvre veuve. Si quelquechose dHtwui
arrivait h Bombay il n'y a rien que Mr. Hume ne fasse pour Koothoomi sur
8a demande. Mais K. H. ne pout pas venir ici, car les lois occultes ne le lui
permettent pas. Enfin, k revoir. Ecrivez moi. A vous de coeur,

H. P. B.

Domain je vous enverrai les deux lettres. AUez les cherclier k la poste k
votre nom, E. Cuttiii^=Coulomb.

P.S. — Je voudrais que K. H. ou quclqu'un d'autre so fasse voir avant le
reqvL des lettres!

9.

Ma chhre Amie,

Je n'ai pas une minute pour repondre. Je vous supplio fa^'tes par\'enir
cette lettre (here inclosed) k Damodar in a miraeuUms xcay. It is very vtry
important. Oh ma ch^re que je suis dune malheureuse! De tous cot^s des
ddsagr^ments et des horreurs. Toute k vous,

H. P. B.

10.*

Veuillez O Sorcibre k miUe ressources demander k Chridofolo quand vous
le verrez de transmettre la lettre ci-incluse par voie adrienno astrale ou
n'lmporte comment. C'est tr^s important. A vous ma ch^re. Je vous
embrasse bien. — Yours faithfully,

LuKA Melanconica.

Je vous supplie faites le bien.

In the following extracts from letters said to have been written from
Ootacamund in 1883, Madame Blavatsky apparently speaks of the
Koot Hoomi documents provided by her as " mes enfants."

11.*

Cher Marquis. . . . Montrez ou envoyez lui [Damodar] le papier ou
le dip (le petit sacristi pas le grand, car ce dernier doit aller se coucher pr^s
de son auteur dans le temple m^ral) avec Tordre de vous les foumir. J'ai
re^u une lettre qui a forc^ notre maltre cheri K. H. d'^crire ses ordres aussi
k Mr. Damodar et autres. Que la Marquise les lise. Cela guffira je vous
Tassure. Ah si je pouvais avoir ici mon Christofolo chdri! . . . Cher
Marquis — Je vous livre le destin de mes enfants. Prenez en soin et faites
leur faire des miracles. Peut etre il serait mieux de faire tomber celui-ci sur
lat^te?

H. P. B.

Cachetez Tenfant apr^s Vavoir lu. Enregistrez vos lettres s*il s'y trouve
quelquechose — autrement non.

(12) (13) and (14) are also said by Madame Coulomb to have been
written from Ootacamund, during Madame Blavatsky's visit there in
1883.

12.*

La poste part ma ch^re. Je n*ai qu'un instant. Votre lettre arriv^e trop
tard. Qui, laissez Srinavas Rao se prostemer devant le afinne et s'il
demande ou non, je vous supplie lui faire passer cette rdponse par K. H.
car il s'y attend; je sais ee qu^U veut Demain vous aurez une grande
lettre! Grandes nouvelles. Merci.

H. P. B.

This apparently refers to a consoling Koot Hoomi letter provided by
!Madame Blavatsky for Mr. P. Sreenevas Rao, Judge in the Court of
Small Causes, Madras, and actually received by him.

13.

Ma ch^re Amie, — Ou me dit (Damodar) que Dewan Bahodoor
Ragoonath Rao le Pr^ident de la Soci^t^ veut mettre quelquechose dans
le temple. Dans le cas qu*il le fasse voici la r^ponse de Christofolo. Pour
Dieu arrangez cela et nous sommes k cheval. Je vous embrasse e ri saluto,
Mes amours au Marquis. — ^Yours sincerely,

Luna Melanconica.

Ecrivez done.

I have ascertained that Mr. Ragoonath Kao did place an inquiry
in the Shrine, but left without having received an answer, although it
would seem from the above that Madame Blavatsky had provided
" Christofolo's " reply. M. Coulomb declares that he feared the reply
might not be suitable, because Mr. Ragoonath Rao had said that only
an adept could answer his question, and moreover that he did not wish **to
make fun with this gentleman; " that he therefore wrote to Madame
Slavatsky, enclosing the Sanskrit document placed by Mr. Ragoonath
Rao iuv the Shrine, stating that he was afraid that the reply she had
furnished beforehand might not be applicable, and asking her to send
him a telegram if she still wished the Koot Hoomi (Ghristofolo) reply
to be placed in the Shrine. M. Coulomb received, he says, an answer
by letter, which is given in extract (14), from which it would appear
that Madame Blavatsky considered the reply, in consequence of the
delay, to be no longer suitable. The Koot Hoomi document in question^
which, the Coulombs assert, remained in their possession, and whiclk
they produce, consists chiefly of Sanskrit, but there is also a note in
English, and this note exhibits signs of Madame Blavatsky's handiwork^
such as are found in most of the Koot Hoomi writings. (See Part II.)

14.*

Tropo iardi! Cher Marquis. Si ce que *' Christophe " a en main eut 4t&
donn^ Bur Theure en r^ponse cela serait beau et c'est pourquoi je Tai envoy tf.
Maintenant cela n'a plus de sens commun. Yotre lettre m'est arriv^e ii
G^h. du soir presque 7 heures et je savais que le petit Fundi venait & cinq t
Quand pouvais je done envoyer la ddpSche? EUe serait arriv^e le lendemain
ou apr^s son depart. Ah! quelle occasion de perdue! Enfin. II faut que je
vouB prie d'une chose. Je puis revenir avec le Colonel et c'est tr^s probable
que je reviendrai, mais il se peut que je reste ici jusqu 'au mois d'Octobre.
Dans ce cas pour le jour ou deux que le Colonel sera k la maiaon il faut me
renvoyer la clefdu Shrifie, Envoyez-la moi par le chemin souterrain. Je
la verrai reposer et cela suffit; mais je ne veux pas qu'en men absence on
examine la Iwia mdaHconica du cupboard, et cela sera examine si je ne suia
pas Ih. J'ai le trac. II faut que je revienne! Mais Dieu que cela
m'embdte done que maintenant tout le monde d'ici viendra me voir Ik. Tout
le monde voudra voir et — j'ek ai assbz.

By " Punch," the Coulombs say, is meant Mr. Kagoonath Rao. It
seems clear from the second portion of the above extract that the Shrine
would not bear examination, that there was some secret construction in
connection with it of which Colonel Olcott was ignorant, and which he
must have no opportunity of discovering. Madame Coulomb states that
'^ luna melanconica " here means the opening at the back of the Shrine.
Hence, in case Colonel Olcott should return to Madras before Madame
Blavatsky, the key of the Shrine was to be concealed. The passage is a
testamonial to Colonel Olcott's honest 7, though jperhaps hardly to his
perspicacity.

One of the first points to ascertain with regard to these letters is
whether Madame Blavatsky did treat M. and Madame Coulomb
with the complete confidence which their tone throughout implies.
Plenty of evidence could be adduced to show that they were treated
with confidence both by Madame Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, and
that they held positions of trust (M. Coulomb being Librarian and
Madame Coulomb being Assistant Corresponding Secretary of the
Society); but it is, I think, sufficiently proved by the fact that when
Madame Blavatsky was at Gotacamund, in 1883, Madame Coulomb
had charge of the keys of the Shrine; and that when Madame
Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott left Madras to come to Europe in
February, 1884, M. and Madame Coulomb were left in complete
charge of Madame Blavatsky's rooms. Further evidence may be found
in a letter of Colonel Olcott, quoted (with some omissions not specified
by Dr. Hartmann) in Dr. Hartmann's pamphlet, *' Report of observa-
tions made during a nine months^ stay at the Headquarters of the Theo-
sophical Society" pp. 36, 37; and in another letter from Colonel Olcott,
which I have seen, from which it appears that he had wished M.
Coulomb to be a member of the Board of Control of the Theosophical
Society. Moreover, Madame Blavatsky herself spoke of Madame Cou-
lomb in Indian newspapers, of 1880, as " a lady guest of mine," and
as ** an old friend of mine whom I had known 10 years ago at Cairo,"
and by admitting nearly all the non-incriminating portions of the
Blavatsky-Coulomb documents to be in substance genuine, clearly proves
that she was in the habit of addressing Madame Coulomb in a very
familiar tone.

I may now proceed to show, in one or two instances, what evidence
there is apart from the style and handwriting of the letters tending to
establish their genuineness.

I will begin with number 1, relating to the Sassoon telegram. The
matter is rather complicated, and the details of my investigation are
given in Appendix: I. Here I will briefly state the results. Firstly, it
became clear to me from conversations with Messrs. A D. and M. D.
Ezekiel, who spent much time with Madame Blavatsky during her visit at
Foona in October, 1883, and from the written statement of Mr. N. D.
Khandalvala, in whose house she stayed, that the actual circumstances
during her stay there were quite consistent with the letter. Secondly,
I have been unable to obtain any tru^worthy evidence for the existence
of such a person as Ramalinga Deb, who was represented by Madame
Blavatsky as a Chela, residing in Madras, of the Mahatma with whom
she professed to be in occult communication. Thirdly, a careful com-
parison of Madame Blavatsky's attempt to disprove the genuineness of
this letter (see Appendix I.) with the statements of Messrs. Ezekiel
and Khandalvala appears to me to strengthen the case against her; for
it leads us to the conclusion that she must have made a specific pre-
arrangement for a conversation, the whole point of which was that its
subject should have arisen extempore.

I proceed to extracts (2) (3) and (4).

The Coulombs assert that a certain saiLcer was, according to
agreement between Madame Blavatsky and Madame Coulomb, to be
** accidentally" broken and the pieces placed in the Shrine, arrangements
being made for the substitution, through the secret back of the Shrine,
of another similar saucer, unbroken, in lieu of the broken pieces. (2)
(3) and (4) they, say, referred to this; letter (3) enclosed a slip pro-
vided for the occasion, and (4) suggests that the phenomenon should
occur for the edification of General Morgan.

Now, it is not disputed that the so-called " saucer phenomenon "
did occur in the presence of General Morgan. The only question is
whether it was pre-arranged, and if so, how it was performed. Here is
General Morgan's own account of it, published in the Supplement to the
Theo8ophi8t for December, 1883.

In the month of August, having occasion to come to Madras m the
absence of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky, I visited the head-
quarters of the Theosophical Society to see a wonderful painting of theMahat-
ma Koot Hoomi kept there in a Shrine and daily attended to by the Chelas.
On arrival at the house I was told that the lady, Madame Coulomb, who had
charge of the keys of the Shrine, was absent, so I awaited her return. She
came home in about an hour, and we proceeded up stairs to open the Shrine
and inspect the picture. Madame Coulomb advanced quickly to unlock the
double doors of the hanging cupboard, and hurriedly threw them open. In so
doing she had failed to observe that a china tray inside was on the edge of
the Shrine and leaning against one of the doors, and when they were opened,
down fell the china tray, smashed to pieces on the hard chunam floor. Whilst
Madame Coulomb was wringing her hands and lamenting this unfortunate
accident to a valuable article of Madame Blavatsky^s, and her husband was
on his knees collecting the tUhris^ I remarked it would be necessary to obtain
some china cement and thus try to restore the fragments. Thereupon
M. Coulomb was despatched for the same. The broken pieces were carefully
collected and placed, tied in a cloth, within the Shrine, and the doors locked.
Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar, the Joint Recording Secretary of the Society,
was opposite the Shrine, seated on a cliair, about 10 feet away from it,
when, after some conversation, an idea occurred to me to which I immediately
gave expression. I remarked that if the Brothers considered it of sufficient
importance, they would easily restore the broken article; if not, they would
leave it to the culprits to do so, the best way they could. Five minutes had
scarcely elapsed after this remark when Mr. Damodar, who during this timo
seemed wrapped in a reverie — exclaimed, **I think there is an answer." The
doors were opened, and sure enough, a small note was found on the shelf
of the Shrine— on opening which we read '* To the small audience present.
Madame Coulomb has occasion to assure herself that the devil is neither so
black nor so wicked as he is generally represented; the mischief is easily
repaired."

On opening the cloth the china tray was found to be whole and perfect;
not a trace of the breakage to be found on it! I at once wrote across the
note, stating that I was present when the tray was broken and inmiediately
restored, dated and signed it, so there should be no mistake in the matter.
It may be here observed that Madame Cotdomb believes that the many things
of a wonderful nature that occur at the headquarters, may be the work of the
devil — hence the playful remark of the Mahatma who came to her rescue. [3]

It will be seen that there is nothing in this account inconsistent
with Madame Coulomb's assertion. Moreover, it is a very suspicious
circumstance that the china tray should have been '' leaning against
one of the doors." This is not the position naturally assumed by a
saucer put into a cupboard in the ordinary way through the doors.

The whole '' saucer " found in the Shrine was shown to me at Adyar
at my request. I examined it carefully, and I also examined carefully
the broken pieces of the saucer which Madame Coulomb exhibited as
those for which the whole saucer had been substituted. The two
'< saucers " manifestly formed a pair. The incident happened in August,
1883. Madame Coulomb alleged that she purchased the pair of so-called
'^ saucers " at a shop [4] in Madras for 2 rupees 8 annas each. On inquiry
I found that " two porcelain pin trays " (words which properly describe
the so-called '< saucers ") were purchased at this shop by cash sale on
July 3rd, 1883, and that Madame Coulomb had made purchases at
the shop on that date. If taken as referring to this purchase there was
one slight inaccuracy in Madame Coulomb's account; inasmuch as she
said the "trays " cost 2 rupees 8 annnas each, instead of 2 rupees 8
annas the pair.

An incident somewhat similar to the foregoing is related in
Appendix III.

It will be seen that in order to explain the " saucer phenomenon "
hy ordinary human agency, we require to suppose that there was a
secret opening at the back of the Shrine. It was important, therefore,
to ascertain what ground there was for this supposition, apart from
the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters, in which its existence is clearly implied.
I now proceed to give the result of my investigations in this direction.

The Shrine {see Plan, following p, 380).

On my arrival at the headquarters of the Theosophical Society, on
December 18th, 1884, I was informed by Mr. Damodar that he could
not allow me to inspect the s(H»lled Occult Boom or the Shrine until the
return of Colonel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky. Colonel Olcott had left
the headquarters some days previously in order to meet Madame
Blavatsky at Ceylon on her return from Europe. Two days later
Madame Blavatsky had reached Adyar, and I again requested
permisBion to examine the Shrine. Madame Blavatsky professed
ignorance on the suhject, saying she had been unable to discover what
had been done with the Shrine. Mr. Damodar and Dr. Hartmann both
denied having any knowledge of it, and it was only after repeated
and urgent requests to be told what had happened that I learnt
from the halting account given by Mr. Damodar and Dr. Hartmann that
the Shrine had been moved from the Occult Room (see Plan) into
Mr. Damodar's room at about mid-day of September 20th, that on the
following morning, at 9 o'clock, they found the Shrine had been taken
away, and they had not seen it since. They threw out suggestions
implying that the Coulombs or the missionaries might have stolen it.

Moreover, the Occult Boom, when I first received permission to
inspect it, had been considerably altered; its walls were covered with
fresh plaster, and I was informed by Mr. Damodar that all traces of
the alleged " machinations " of the Coulombs in connection with the
Shrine had been obliterated. This was not true, for the bricked frame and
the aperture into the recess still existed (see p. 228). However, under
the circumstances it was impossible for me to test the accuracy of
much of the description given by Theosophists of the Occult Room and
the Shrine at the time of the " exposure " by the Coulombs. But by
analysing and comparing the evidence given by various witnesses, I
was able to put together the following history of the Shrine and its
surroundings. [5]

On December 19th, 1882, Adyar became the headquarters of the
Theosophical Society. One large upper room of the main bungalow was
used by Madame Blavatsky (see Plan). The Occult Room was built later,
against the west side of Madame Blavatsky's room. The north window
on this side was removed, and a layer of bricks and plaster covered the
aperture on the side of the Occult Room — a recess about 15in. deep
being left on the east side. The south window was transformed into a
doorway leading from Madame Blavatsky 's room into the Occult Room.
Madame Blavatsky s large room was divided into two by curtains and a
screen; that adjoining the Occult Room being used by Madame
Blavatsky as her bedroom, and at the end of 1883 as her dining-room
also. The accompanying rough sketch made from measurements of my
own shows the positions, the Occult Room being about 2ft. lower
than Madame Blavatsky 's room. The general entrance to the Occult
Room was through Madame Blavatsky's sitting-room. The Shrine, as
I gather from comparing the accounts of different Theosophists, was a
wooden cupboard between 3ft. and 4ft. in width and height,
and 1ft. or 15in. in depth, with a drawer below the cupboard
portion, and with comer brackets. The Shrine was made with
three sliding panels at the back. [6] It was placed against that
portion of the wall in the Occult Boom where the north window of
Madame Blavatsky's room had previously existed (see Plan), coTering
most of that portion, a most unfortunate position to choose for it if
there was no fraudulent intention. It rested below on a plank or shelf,
but its chief support consisted of two thick iron wires which
were attached to two hooks near the ceiling. A certain space round
the Shrine was enclosed by muslin curtains, which were drawn
aside from the front when any one wished to a|)proach the Shrine.
These curtains were about 7ft. high on the sides, but on the wall
behind the Shrine extended nearly to the ceiling. The wall immediately
behind the Shrine was covered by white glazed calico, tacked to the
wall. Two widths of the calico met in a vertical line passing behind
the centre of the Shrine. The remaining part of the walls of the
Occult Boom was covered with red-and-white striped calico tacked to
the walL The upper part of the Shrine was as close to the wall itself
as the muslin and calico behind it would allow. The lower part of the
Shrine was near to the wall, at a distance from it differently
estimated by different witnesses, but which must have been some-
where between ^in. and l^in., and was probably very little, if at
all, more than ^in. The Shrine smd its appurtenances were fixed
in February or March, 1883. Shortly afterwards a four-panelled
wooden boarding was placed in Madame Blavatsky^s room, at the back
of the recess. For some time an almirah (cupboard) stood in front
of this recess. The exact dates of the placing of the boarding and
almirah and of the removal of the almirah I have not been able to
ascertain. The almirah, and afterwards the recess, were used by
Madame Blavatsky as a closet for hanging clothes. The above is put
together from the statements of Theosophic witnesses.

M. Coulomb states that he removed the Shrine just after it
was originally placed against the wall, sawed the middle ^nel in two,
and attached a piece of leather behind to serve as a handle, so that the
top portion could be easily pulled up. The junction between the two
halves of the panel was, he says, hidden from those looking at the
inside of the Shrine, hy a mirror which just covered it. Behind this
sliding panel a hole was made in the wall. A sliding panel was also
made in the wardrobe which stood in front of the recess in Madame Bla<
vatsky's bedroom, and one of the panels of the teak-wood boarding was
also made to slide about 10 inches, so that easy communication existed
between Madame Blavatsky's bedroom and the Shrine. The panels in
the wardrobe and in the teak-wood door were shown by M. Coulomb to
the Board of Control when he gave up the keys of Madame Blavatsky's
rooms in May, 1884. The hole in the wall, he said, had been blocked
up in January, before Madame Blavatsky departed for Europe. He
states also that the two portions of the middle panel of the Shrine were
replaced by a new single panel, and that these changes were made at the
request of Madame Blavatsky, who was afraid that some examination
might be made of the Shrine during her absence in Europe. M.
Coulomb's statement as to the half panel cannot of course be verified,
and must be taken for what it is worth. What evidence there is in
support of his other statements will be seen from the remainder of my
narrative, derived from other sources.

At the end of October or beginning of November, 1883, Madame
Blavatsky, in consequence of a doubt expressed by Mr. G. [7] con-
cerning the panelled boarding connected with the Shrine, ordered
it to be removed, [8] and the front part of the recess, that towards
Madame Blavatsky's bedroom, to be blocked up. The panelled boarding
was placed on the outside of the north-east opening into Madame
Blavatsky 's drawing-room, and formed the back of a shelf, and there it
was certainly found to have a sliding panel in it when examined by the
Theosophists in May, 1884. [9] A wooden frame of about 8ft. by 4ft.
was made, with cross-pieces, so as to fit the front of the recess.
A single layer of half-size bricks was placed in this frame, and
the front then covered with plaster, so that it was flush with the
adjoining wall. The hollow left in the wall between Madame Blavatsky 's
room and the Occult Room, was about 1ft. deep. The whole wall was
then papered over, the work being completed about the middle of
December, 1883, or perhaps several days later. Directly afterwards a
sideboard, about 3ft. high and 34in. wide, was placed close against the
bricked frame forming part of the papered wall. It covered the lowest
north partition of the frame, and it was found on the expulsion of the
Coulombs in May, 1884, that the bricks from this partition had been taken
out, so that there was communication through the sideboard (in the back
of which was a hinged panel) with the hollow space. M. Coulomb
states that he removed the bricks as soon as the sideboard was in
position in December, 1883. However this may be, the sideboard
remained there during the time of the anniversary celebration in 1883;
and Shrine-phenomena, which were in abeyance during these alterations,
began again immediately after their completion. They ceased altogether,
with two exceptions to be afterwards dealt with (see p. 248), about or
shortly before the middle of January, 1884. On May 17th or 18th, M.
Coulomb gave up the keys, and the various contrivances for trickery were
investigated. The sliding panel in the almirah, the sliding panel in
the boarding, the hinged panel at the back of the sideboard, the opening
behind it where the bricks had been removed, and the hollow space of
the recess were all inspected. Mr. St. George Lane-Fox then examined
the west side of the party-wall behind the Shrine, but was unable at
that time to find any traces of the hole which, according to M. Qou-
lomb, had previously existed between the hollow space and the Shrine.
He also examined the sideboard, and found that he could discover no
signs yram v)ithout of the aperture which led into the hollow space, show-
ing that this aperture would remain undetected unless examination of the
sideboard were made from within. The Theosophists contended that the
structures for trickery revealed by the Coulombs, who had had exclusive
charge of Madame Blavatsky's rooms during her absence, had been made
after she had left j that they had never been and could not be used in the
production of phenomena; [10] that the hollow space and the aperture leading
to it were too small to be utilised in any connection with the Shrine, and
moreover that M. Coulomb's work was interrupted before he had time to
make a hole through the wall between the hollow space and the Shrine
itself.

To establish these points, the Theosophical Board of Control sent
round a circular inquiry in August, 1884, to various Theosophists who
had been at headquarters, requesting them to state what they knew of
the condition of the Shrine, adjoining walls, dsc, prior to and after the
expulsion of the Coulombs. I was allowed by Dr. Hartmann to read
the packet of replies to this inquiry. I also questioned in detail all the
important witnesses who professed to have made an examination of the
Shrine and its surroundings; — the result being that if we except
Madame Blavatsky and the Coulombs, Madame Blavatsky's native
servant Babula, and Colonel Olcott (whose statement on this point I
distrust for reasons given in Appendix IV. where it is quoted), there
is no evidence to show that any person ever removed the Shrine from
the wall or saw it removed from the wall after it was first placed there,
until the expulsion of the Coulombs; that, therefore, no careful examina-
tion could ever have been made of the back of the Shrine or of the wall
in immediate juxtaposition. Further, that no such examination was
ever made of the east side of the party-wall as would have sufficed to
discover the sliding panels and apertures. I must add that the
testimony offered appeared to me to be characterised by much mal-
observation, sometimes implying a ludicrous lack of ordinary intelligence,
and much equivocation sometimes amounting to absolute dishonesty.
Several of the original statements of the witnesses are given in Appendix
lY., together with modifications of their testimony produced by my
questioning, and further comments of my own.

The ultimate fate of the Shrine, according to a statement made by Dr.
Hartmann to Mr. and Mrs. Cooper-Oakley, Mr. Hume, and myself, was
as follows. After the expulsion of the Coulombs, Mr. Judge, an American
Theosophist, then residing at the headquarters of the Society, was desirous
of examining the Shrine. Mr. Damodar, who possessed the keys of the
Occult Room, avoided this examination several times on one pretext or
another; but, eventually, a party of Theosophists proceeded to the inspec-
tion of the Shrine. The Shrine was removed from the wall and its doors
were opened. Mr. T. Yigiaraghava Charloo, (commonly called Ananda)
a Theosophist residing in an official position at the headquarters, struck
the back of the Shrine with his hand, exclaiming, " You see, the back
is quite solid," when, to the surprise of most of those who were present,
the middle panel of the Shrine flew up. It seemed undesirable to some
of the witnesses of this phenomenon that the discovery should be made
public, and they resolved accordingly to destroy the Shrine. To do
this they considered that the Shrine must be surreptitiously removed, but
such removal was inconvenient from the Occult Boom. The Shrine was
therefore first removed openly to Mr. Damodar's room, and, on the
following night, was thence removed secretly by three Theosophists,
concealed in the compound, afterwards broken up, and the frag-
ments burned piecemeal during the following week. Dr. Hartmann
had only retained two portions of the back of the Shrine,
which he had enveloped in brown paper and kept carefully con-
cealed in his room, — substantial pieces of cedar wood, black-
lacked. It was of such wood, according to a previous statement of
M. Coulomb, that the back of the Shrine was made.

Dr. Hartmann has since furnished me with a statement in writing
which is of interest as affording evidence respecting the hole between
the recess and the Shrine. That this hole had manifestly
existed and had been blocked up, I had been assured by
another Theosophist who is particularly observant, and who discovered
its traces independently of Dr. Hartmann. The following is an extract
from Dr. Hartmann's written account: —

At what time the hole in the wall was made is as much a mysteiy to me
as it is to you; but from a consideration of all the circumstances as laid down
in my pamphlet, I came to the conclusion, and am still of the opiniotij that
they were made by M. Coulomb after H. P. Blavatsl^ went to Europe,
and I am now inclined to believe that M. Coulomb made them to ingratiate
himself with Madame Blavatsky to facilitate her supposed tricks. All the
traps are too clumsy, and it would tax the utmost credulity to believe
that such phenomena as I know of could have been made by Uieir means.
In fact I do not know of a single phenomena [sic] that happened in my
presence where they would have been of the slightest use.

Of the existence of a movable back to the Shrine and a fiUed-up
aperture in the wall, none of us knew anything, and although superficial
examinations were made, they divulged nothing; because to make a
thorough examination, it would have been necessary to take the Shrine
down, and we were prevented from doing this by the superstitious aw^ with
which Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar regarded the Shrine, and who fooked
upon every European who dared to touch or handle the *' sacred " Shrine aa
a desecration.

At about the time when Major-General Morgan sent his invitation to
Mr. Patterson to come to headquarters, that examination was made, and ii
was found that the back of the Shrine could be removed, and on moisten-
ing the wall behind the Shrine with a wet cloth, it was found that an aperture
had existed, which had been plastered up.

Why these discoveries should have thrown any discredit on Madame
Blavatdcy I cannot see, because they as well as the other traps were the
work of M. Coulomb, and there was no indication whatever that H. P.
Blavatsky knew anything of their existence, and moreover the testimonials
of such as claimed to have examined the Shrine went to show that they were
of recent origin.

Nevertheless, I must confess that it seemed to me that if at that in-
opportune moment this new discovei-y, to which I then alluded in the papers
(see Madras Mail), would have been made public, it would have had a bad
effect on the public mind. If I had been here as a delegate of the Society
for Psychical Research, or as a detective of the missionaries, I would,
perhaps, not have hesitated to state the exact nature of the neic discocery;
but in my position I had to look out for the interests of Madame Blavatsky,
and I did not, therefore, consider it prudent to speak of this discovery;
neither was I authorised to do so, neither did I (as I then stated) feel justified
in letting the enemies of H. P. Blavatsky invade her private rooms with-
out her consent.

A gentleman who was present, and who shared my opinions, was of the
opinion that the Shrine had been too much desecrated to be of any more use,
and he burned the Shrine in my presence. ... I never told Colonel
Olcott nor Madame Blavatsky, nor any one else at headquarters up to that
t;me, what had become of the Shrine. But when you and Mr. Hume,
besides a lot of other absurd theories, also asserted your conviction, that
Madame Blavatsky had sent her servant^ Baboola, for the purpose of doing
away with the Shrine, and that he had done so by her orders, 1 tliought it
about time to show you that even a member of the Society for Psychical
Kesearch may err in his judgment.

We learn from Dr. Hartmann that any thorough examination of
the Shrine was prevented by the " superstitious awe " w^ith which Mr.
Damodar regarded it. Dr. Hartmann's assertion is corroborated by
the testimony of Mr. Lane-Fox, who has also very emphatically
expressed to me his conviction that no examination of the Shrine by
native witnesses can be considered as of the smallest value, in
consequence of the exceeding reverence in which it was universally
held. But it will be observed that in one part of his account Dr.
Hartmann appears to lay some stress on '^ the testimonials of such
as claimed to have examined the Shrine.'' Dr. Hartmann himself,
indeed, was one of those " who claimed to have examined the Shrine "
before the exposure; he gave me, on different occasions, accounts
of his examinations, and these accounts, besides being inconsistent
with one another, are inconsistent with his final statements, — as he
at once cheerfully admitted, retracting all his previous utterances
on the subject.

It seems clear from all I have said (1) that the position
selected for the Shrine was peculiarly convenient for obtaining secret
access to it from the back; and that none of the changes from time to
time made in Madame Blavatsky's bedroom behind the Shrine, though
made with the ostensible object of removing all suspicion of trickery,
tended to diminish this convenience; (2) that there undoubtedly were all
the necessary apertures for access to the Shrine from the back, at some
period before the Coulombs left; (3) that there is no trustworthy evi-
dence whatever to show that this access did not exist during the whole
time from the moment the Shrine was put up till Madame Blavatsky
left for Europe, in February, 1884, except during the alterations con-
nected with putting up the bricked frame, when Mrs. Morgan saw the
whole wall papered over; and there is no evidence of the occurrence of
any Shrine phenomena during those alterations.

These results — altogether apart from the Blavatsky-Couloml>
correspondence — would prevent the whole mass of testimony to Shrine-
marvels from having any scientific value; taken along with this
correspondence, they can, I think, leave no doubt in the mind of any
impartial reader, as to the mode of production of these marvels.

Mr. Damodar's Evidence.

I now come to the question as to what weight can be attached to
the statements of Mr. Damodar K. Mavalankar. This is a fundamen-
tally Important question, not only because he is one of the few persons
besides Madame Blavatsky who testify to having seen the Mahatmas in
Thibet, and in a way which precludes the possibility of his having been
deceived, but also because Mr. Damodar himself is said to have the
power of travelling in the '* astral form/' and the reality of these
astral joui*neys of his depends mainly on his own statements. My own
conclusion, as I have said, is decidedly unfavourable to the trust*
worthiness of Mr. Damodar. It is not in my power to reproduce here
the whole of my grounds for forming this conclusion, but I tliink that a
mere analysis of his statements regarding the Shrine will go far to
justify it.

Babula, the native servant of Madame Blavatsky, had reached
Adyar on his return from Europe at 9 p.m., on September 20th, as I
found from a written entry in the Visitors' Book. My original con-
jecture as to the disappearance of the Shrine was that Babida had
concealed or destroyed it in compliance with instructions from
Madame Blavatsky, as it was on the night of September 20th that the
removal of the Shrine had been effected. This appears also to have
been the opinion of Mr. Subba Row, pleader in the High Court of
Madras, at that time and still a leading Theosophist, who vainly
questioned and threatened Babula in the hope of inducing a confession.
I am disposed to think that this was also the opinion of Mr. Damodar^
and that it was in order to prevent me from drawing the same conclusion,
that in reply to my inquiries at an early stage of the investigation^
lie endeavoured to conceal the fact that Babula had arrived on the
evening of September 20th; saying that he had arrived on the
morning of September 21st, and had immediately requested that he
might inspect the rooms, when, to the surprise of all (not, apparently,
excluding the three Theosophists who, according to Dr. Hartmann, [11]
had been concerned in its removal), the Shrine could not be found.
Mr. Damodar also asserted that marks were discerned on the partition
of the room where the Shrine had been placed, as though the Shrine
had been lifted over the side, and that statements to this effect were
in the deposition made at the time by those Theosophists who discovered
that the Shrine had disappeared. Inquiring of another Theosophist
who had been present, I was assured by him that no such marks were
observed, and that in fact none had been looked for. The deposition,
of which I have a copy, contains not the slightest allusion to any such
marks.

Turning now to the specific statements of Mr. Damodar, quoted in
Appendix lY., we find that he makes the following assertions: —

1. That the sideboard aperture leading to the recess, and the recess
itself, were so small that he could enter the hole with difii-
culty, and when once inside, '< could only stand abreast^
without being able to move either way an inch, or to lift up "
his hand.

2. That there was no sliding-panel to the frame of the Shrine.

3. That he was present on several occasions when various witnesses
to the phenomena '* had scrutinised carefully, in every
possible way, the Shrine, and had satisfied themselves that it
was intact, and had no panels or anything of the kind."

4. That he well remembers Mr. Subba Row and himself '' very
carefully examining the Shrine and the Wall" and that they
were " both satisfied that they were intact."

5. That the keys of the Shrine and the Occult Room were in his
charge while Madame Blavatsky was at Ootacamund, in
1883: and again

6. That the keys of Madame Blavatsky's rooms and of the Shrine
were in the charge of Madame Coulomb, while Madame
Blavatsky was at Ootacamund in 1883.

7. That the sideboard did not come into existence till January,
1884, when the phenomena were no longer produced in the
Shrine.

(1) Now, with respect to the sideboard aperture and the recess,
these were, as I afterwards found, still in existence when I arrived
at Adyar, though Mr. Damodar stated to me that the recess had
been blocked up. This last statement of Mr. Damodar's I can
regard only as a deliberate misrepresentation. Had I known that
the recess still existed, I should of course myself have endeavoured
to enter, and should at once have discovered the untruth of
Mr. Damodar's account of his own entrance. I was afterwards
informed by another Theosophist that he regarded the aperture
and the recess as quite large enough to be used by a person of
ordinary size for the production of the Shrine phenomena, and
in the meantime I had tested the accuracy, or rather, inaccuracy
of Mr. Damodar's account, by constructing for myself an aperture
and a recess smaller than those connected with the Shrine.
Dr. Hartmann, in his pamphlet, gave the dimensions of the
aperture as 2 7 in. high by 14in. wide, and these dimensions are as
nearly as possible correct. This I was subsequently able to ascertain
for myself, as the frame had been stowed away in the compound,
and was shown to me by another Theosophist. The recess was
alleged by Dr. Hartmann to be about 12in. deep, and about
5ft. high; the depth given is about correct, but the height
was more nearly 8ft. — as I found by measurement. I have myself
entered a space through a hole the dimensions of both of
which were at least an inch less than the dimensions given by Dr.
Hartmann. The hole I ma.de for the purpose measured less than
13in. by 26in., and the space into which it led, and in which I stood
upright, was less than 11 in. in depth. In this space I could with eas&
lift my hand, manipulate objects, and utilise the position generally in*
the way demanded for the production of the Shrine phenomena. Mr.
Damodar draws attention in his account to his own thinness and leanness^
and certainly my own organism is considerably larger than Mr»
Damodar's, and I believe also than M. Coulomb's or Babula's.

(2) Mr. Damodar's next assertion, that there was no sliding panel
to the frame of the Shrine, we have already seen to be untrue. Had
this statement stood alone, however, it could not have been regarded
as implicating Mr. Damodar in any falsehood, but would merely have
appeared to be a hasty inference from his experience, as the assertion
was made before the discovery of the sliding panel by Ananda, as
described above.

(3) The careful scrutiny of the Shrine " in every possible way,'*
which he asserts was made in his presence, was never made. In no
single instance was the Shrine moved in the least degree from the wall
by any of these various witnesses to whom he refers. Not only so, but
Mr. Damodar afterwards admitted that he never examined the back of
the Shrine himself, and was never present when any such examination,
was made. This appeared in connection with his statement that Mr.
Subba Row and himself ^' very carefully '' examined the Shrine and
the wall.

(4) I took an opportunity in Mr. Damodar's presence of questioning
Mr. Subba Row concerning this alleged examination. Mr. Subba Row
denied that he had ever made any examination of the Shrine. Mr.
Damodar then made a similar denial, and both again united in
affirming that they had never seen the Shrine removed. Yet this
imaginary examination by Mr Subba Row and himself, Mr. Damodar
declared in a previous written statement that he well remembered.

(5) and (6) The next marked contradiction in Mr. Damodar's state-
ments, is that when Madame Blavatsky was at Ootacamund in 1883^
the keys of the Shrine and the Occult Room were in his charge^
and yet were in the charge of Madame Coulomb. This contra-
diction is not easily resolved, but an explanation of it can be
suggested. The first statement was made on August 19th, 1884^
when Mr. Damodar probably deemed it to be of capital import-
ance that he should prove that there was no panel in the Shrine
before the middle of September, 1883. The second statement was
made on September 19th, 1884, and on September 10th the Madras
Christian College Magazine had appeared, in which various Blavatsky-
Coulomb letters were published. An attempt was then made on the
side of the Theosophists to show from circumstantial evidence that
these letters must be forgeries. Of these letters, two very important
ones referred respectively to the Adyar Saucer and to a Shrine letter
received by Mr. P. Sreenevas Rao. In General Morgan's previously
published account of the former, he had stated that Madame
Coulomb had charge of the keys of the Shrine, and the strength
of Mr. P. Sreenevas Rao's case for the genuineness of his phenomenon
rested upon his statement that he had asked Madame Coulomb to
be allowed to see the Shrine, had managed to do so on the following
evening, and that Madame Coulomb could not in the interval have
written to Madame Blavatsky, and received a Mahatma letter in time
for his visit, which had occurred while Madame Blavatsky was at
Ootacamund; and it was impossible to give any consistent account of
these incidents without its clearly appearing that Madame Coulomb had
charge of the keys during Madame Blavatsky's absence, as was no
doubt actually the case. It is difficult to suppose that the first of 3Ir.
Damodar's conflicting written statements was not a wilful and deliberate
falsehood.

(7) Mr. Damodar states that the sideboard did not come into existence
till January, 1884, when the phenomena were no longer produced in the
Shrine. Dr. Hartmann in his pamphlet of September, 1884, wrote
that on the suggestion of M. Coulomb " a heavy cupboard was con-
structed according to his [M. Coulomb's] plan, and under liis super-
vision, in the month of December, 1883, and the said cupboard was
placed against the said wall on the said side opposite to that on which
hung the * Shrine';" and in reply to my inquiry he stated that this cup-
board [the sideboard] in which M. Coulomb showed the movable back,
was against the e.ast side of the wall behind the Shrine during the
anniversary [December 27th]. Its presence at that time is also
certified to by Mrs. Morgan, Mr. Subba Row, Judge P. Sreenevas Rao,
and various other witnesses. (See Appendix IV.) Mr. Damodar
therefore is in disagreement with very important Theosophical witnesses,
and his own statement looks as if it was made because he realised
the cardinal necessity of establishing the falsehood that the sideboard
was not in its position during the anniversary celebration of December,
1883 (whan Shrine-phenomena occurred), if the allegations made by the
Coulombs were to be disproved. I had reason to think that he
forced the evidence of several minor witnesses on this point. I
found that in more than one instance he had instructed the witness
beforehand as to what replies should be given to mj questions. I
naturally endeavoured to preclude this preliminary arrangement, and on
one occasion, having unexpectedly paid a visit to Mr. Rathnavelu, a
witness whose written statement had come into my possession, I was
greeted by the significant remark, " Damodar didn't tell me you were
coming." This gentleman admitted, though with manifest reluctance,
that the sideboard was in its position at the time of the anniversary in
1883. The witnesses who state the contrary are all of them, I think,
persons whom there are independent reasons for regarding as un-
reliable.

These contradictions and false assertions as regards the Shrine,
constitute by themselves, I think, a sufficient ground for regarding Mr.
Damodar as for our purposes an untrustworthy witness.

Mr. Damodar's "Astral" Journeys.

I shall now proceed to show that there is nothing in the circum-
stances connected with Mr. Damodar's " astral " journeys which renders
it difficult to suppose a pre-arrangement between him and Madame
Blavatsky to make it appear that he took them; and even that some
of the circumstances suggest a suspicion of such an arrangement. Colonel
Olcott is of opinion that such a pre-arrangement was not possible, but
I do not think that any one who reads his evidence will agree with him,
especially if they take his statements in connection with some addi-
tional information which I have since acquired. The following is the
evidence given by Colonel Olcott before the Committee as to one of
these " astral " journeys: —

At Moradabad, K.W.P., India, being on an official tour from Bombay to
Cashmere and back, I was very strongly importuned by a gentleman named
Shankar Singh, a Government official, and not then a nieosophist, to under-
take the cure of two lads, aged 12 and 14 years respectively, who had each on
arriving at the age of 10 years become paralysed. It is known, I believe,
to many here that I have the power of healing the sick by the voluntary
transference of vitality. I refused in this instance, having already within
the previous year done too much of it for my health. The gentleman
urged me again. I again refused. He spent, perhaps, 10 or 15 minutes
in trying to persuade me and endeavouring to shake my resolution; but, as
I still refused, he went to Mr. Damodar, who was travelling with me in his
official capacity. Shankar Singh represented the case, and appealed to Mr.
Damodar's sympathies, and at last persuaded him to go in the double, or
phantasm, to the headquarters of our Society at Madras, and try to enlist
the goodwill of Madame Blavatsky.

Mr. Stack: What is the distance of Moradabad from Madras?

Colonel Olcott: The distance, approximately, by telegraph line is, I
sliould say, 2,200 miles.

Mr. Myers: Was it known at headquarters that you were at Moradabad
on that day?

Colonel Olcott: It was not known that I was at Moradabad, for, owing
to the rapid spread of our movement in India, I, while on a tour, was con-
stantly obliged to interrupt the previously settled programme, and go hither
and thither to found new branches. All the elements are against any
procurement. To understand the present case, you must know that it is the
rule in those Eastern schools of mystical research that the pupils are not
permitted to seek intercourse with Teachers other than their own. Hence,
Mr. Damodar, who is the pupil — the Sanskrit word is chela— ot the Mahatma
Koot Hoomi, could not himself approach my own Teacher, who is another
person. (Colonel Olcott here exhibited the portrait of his own Teacher, but
preferred to withhold the name from publicity, though he mentioned it to
the Committee.) Madame Blavatsky and I are pupils of the same Master,
and hence she was at liberty to communicate with him on this subject. Mr.
Damodar, preparatory to taking his aerial flight, then sent Mr. Shankar
Singh out of the room and closed the door. A few minutes later he returned
to his visitor, who was waiting just outside in the verandah. They came in
together to the part of the house where I was sitting with a number of Hindu
gentlemen and one European, and told me what had happened in consequence
of my refusal to heal the boys. Mr. Damodar said that he had been in the
double to headquarters (Madras), and had talked with Madame Blavatsky^
who had refused to interfere. But while they were conversing together,
both heard a voice, which they recognised as that of my Teacher.

Mr. Stack: Not of Mahatma Koot Hoomi?

Colonel Olcott: No, that of my own Teacher. Mahatma Koot Hoomi
had nothing to do with me in this affair. While they were talking they heard
this voice, which gave a message, and Mr. Damodar remarked that, if I
would take pencil and paper, he would dictate from memory the message. I
did so.

Mr. Myers: You have the paper?

Colonel Olcott: Yes. Shankar Singh then, in the presence of all,
sat down and wrote a brief statement of the circumstances, and it was en*
dorsed by 12 persons, including myself.

***

The memorandum states that Mr. Damodar added, after repeating the
message which he had received from headquarters, that he had asked Madame
Blavatsky to confirm the thing to me by sending a telegram repeating the
message or its substance, either to himself or to Shankar Singh. The next
morning the expected telegram arrived.

***

Mr. Myers: You do not know whether Damodar was seen by Madame
Blavatsky?

Colonel Olcott: She told me that she had seen him. At the head-
quarters resides M. Alexis Coulomb, Librarian of the Society. He was at
the time of Damodar's alleged visit engaged at some work in the room
adjoining the writing bureau, where Madame Blavatsky was. Suddenly he
came into the room and asked Madame Blavatsky where Mr. Damodar was
as he had heard his voice in conversation with her.

Mr. Myers: From whom did you hear this?

Colonel Olcott: From M. Coulomb himself. He said, *' I have just
heard his voice distinctly/' Madame Blavatsky said, *' He has not returned."
M. Coulomb seemed surprised: he thought Mr. Damodar had unexpectedly
returned, and could hardly be persuaded tliat he had not been in the room
talking to Madame Blavatsky.

The following is the message: —

Received by D. K. M. and delivered to Colonel Olcott at Moradabad at
4.50 p.m., 10th November, 1883.

"Henry can try the parties [12] once, leaving strongly mesmerised. Cajapati
oil to rub in three times daily to relieve suflferers. E[arma cannot be
interfered with."

The evidence of various witnesses shown to us by Colonel Olcott
establishes the delivery of the message by Mr. Damodar, and the
receipt of the genuine corresponding telegram from Madame
Blavatsky.

In order to show the little probability there was of any conspiracy
between Mr, Shankar Singh and Mr. Damodar, Colonel Olcott
stated: —

Notice had been put into The Theosophist some montlis before tliat I was
going to make such and such official tours throughout India, and that persons
who had sick friends to be treated might, within certain hours on the second
day of my visit to each station, bring them to me to be healed. Shankar
Singh had written to me long before my coming to Moradabad, asking me to
undertake the cure of these boys, and offering to bring them to Madras to
me. I refused to see anybody there, but told him that he could bring the
boys to me when I came to Moradabad, in the course of my tour; and it was
in pursuance of that authorisation that he came and importuned me so.
He said, '* Here is something that you are, in a way, pledged to undertake,'*
and that is what made him so urgent.

Now in dealing with the real sequence of events, this last statement
should be considered first. It appears that before Colonel Olcott
started on his tour it was known at headquarters that when he reached
Moradabad, Mr. Shankar Singh would expect him to fulfil his promise
and midsmerise the boys. But what were the peculiar circumstances
which would compel Colonel Olcott to resist the importuning of Mr.
Shankar Singh? Before starting on the tour, Colonel Olcott had
endeavoured to heal certain sick persons at Poona " by the voluntary
transference of vitality." I was informed by a Poona Theosophist that
some 200 patients were assembled, and that Colonel Olcott had
striven mesmerically with about 50 of them, the result being nilj
whereupon the Poona Theosophists drew up a protest against Colonel
Olcott's disgracing the Theosophical Society by professing to produce
oures in the face of such conspicuous failure. Notwithstanding this,
however, Colonel Olcott might have been persuaded by Mr. Shankar
Singh to the redeeming of his promise; it was, perhaps, for this reason
that a special injunction against his undertaking any cure was issued
in the form of a Mahatma document, which reached him through Mr.
Damodar.

"October 19th. — ^Through D. K. M. got an order from the
Chohans not to hoal any more until further orders." — {Colonel Olcott' a
diaryy 1883.)

In this way Colonel Olcott's refusal was ensured. It may be
observed that this important fact is not disclosed in Colonel 01cott^s
deposition. The reason there given by him for his refusal was that he
had " already within the previous year done too much of it [healing]
for his health." That the order referred to in his diary was the cause
of his refusal, whatever the alleged cause of the order itself, is confirmed
by Mr. Brown's statement {Some Experiences in Indian pp. 14, 15);

Colonel Olcott . . . had been ordered by his Guru to desist from
treating patients until further notice, and, when application was made to him
by Mr. Shankar Singh, of Moradabad, on behalf of two orphan children, he
was under the necessity of refusing the request. Damodar, however, became
interested in the matter, and said that he would ask for permission to be
granted for this special case.

But the most crucial point of the incident turned upon Madame
Blavatsky's ignorance or knowleilge that the travellers were at
Moradabad, and in reply to the definite question put by Mr. Myers,
Colonel Olcott declared that it was not known at headquarters that he
was at Moradabad. Now, some time after my arrival at Adyar, I took
the opportunity, when Colonel Olcott was examining his diary, of
requesting him to furnish me with the dates on which he visited the
various towns included in his tour of 1883. He replied that I could
get them from the programme of the tour antecedently published in The
Theosophistf as the programme had been carried out. To my remark
that I had understood from his deposition that the previously settled
programme was interrupted, he answered that it had been somewhat
altered in consequence of his founding new branches not anticipated, and
he then proceeded to quote the dates from his diary. I afterwards com-
pared these with the previously published programme, which bears the
dat« of October 1 7th. Twelve towns were mentioned in the programme,
which extended over the dates from October 22nd to November 18th,
and the datejs corresponded in every case but one with those of Colonel
Olcott's diary, the discrepancy in that case being probably apparent
only, and not real. (According to the diary Cawnpore was reached on
November 2nd, and the time given in the programme was 12.24 a.m.
on November 3rd.)

It appeared from the programme, then, that Moradabad was to be
reached on November 9th, and left on November 11th (and it appears
from Colonel Olcott's diary that it was recM^hed on November 9th, and
left on November 11th), so that it was known long previously at head-
quarters that Colonel Olcott would be at Moradabad on November 10th,
when the incident occurred, if the programme were not interrupted.
Colonel Olcott's reason for asserting that it was not known at head-
quarters that he was at Moradabad appears to be that, on the course
of his tours generally, he was constantly obliged to interrupt the
previously-settled programme, and that therefore, apparently, no
certain reliance could be placed on the programme for this particular
tour. This at least is the most favourable interpretation of the
evidence which he gave before our Committee. I may note,
however, that the following special proviso was attached to the
list antecedently published in The Theoaophist: *' This programme
will be as strictly adhered to as possible. Any change, necessitated by
unforeseen contingencies, will be signified by telegram." (Thus in case
of change of programme, Mr. Damodar would have had an adequate
reason for visiting the telegraph office, and might have sent a warning
telegram to Madame Blavatsky without exciting any suspicion.) But
the programme, as we have seen above, was closely kept, and the cir-
cumstances throughout were admirably adapted for a pre-arrangement.

Yet Colonel Olcott, after asserting that it was not known at head-
quarters that he was at Moradabad, and giving a general reason for
supposing that it could not be known, adds: *' All the elements are
against any procurement." His promise to the waiting Shankar Singh,
the " Chohans' " emphatic prohibition bestowed upon him by Damodar,
the programme which pointed with a steady finger to Moradabad on
November 10th, the easy opportunity aflforded to Mr. Damodar of
guarding against e^ fiasco in case of any unforeseen contingency — " all
the elements are against any procurement"!

I may notice here that M. Coulomb has stated to me that he told
Colonel Olcott a falsehood at the request of Madame Blavatsky; and
I may recall the fact, which we felt bound to mention in our First
Report (p. 40, note), that when Colonel Olcott quoted to us M.
Coulomb's testimony as that of a trustworthy witness, he was aware
that M. Coulomb had been charged with making trap-doors and
other apparatus for trick manifestations. Further, when Colonel Olcott
received the proof-sheets of his deposition, he must have been aware
that the Coulombs had been expelled from the Theosophical Society.

Colonel Olcott also referred to M. Coulomb as a witness in the only
other instance of Mr. Damodar's alleged astral journeys which came
within the scope of my investigations in India. [13]

This case Colonel Olcott described as follows: —

'' The second case is one of a similar character On the night of the 17th
of November, 1883 — to wit, seven days later — I was in the train on my way
fromMeerut, N.W.P., to Lahore. Two persons were in the carriage witli
me — Mr. Damodar, and another Hindu named Narain Swamy Naidu, who
were asleep on their beds at either side of the saloon compartment. I
myself was reading a book by the light of the lamp. Damodar had been
moving upon his bed from time to time, showing that he was not physically
asleep, as the other one was. Presently Damodar came to me and asked
what time it was. I told him that it was a few minutes to 6 p.m. He said,
'I have just been to headquarters' — meaning in the double — *and an
accident has happened to Madame Blavatsky.' I inquired if it was any-
thing serious. He said that he could not tell me: but she had tripped her
foot in the carpet, he thought, and fallen heavily upon her right knee.
I thereupon tore a piece of paper out of some book,
and on the spot made a memorandum, which was signed by myself and the
second Hindu."

The memorandum runs as follows: —

"In train at Nagul Station, S.P. and D. Railway, at 5.55 p.m., 17/11/83.
D. K. M. says he has just been (in Sukshma Sarira) to headquarters. H.P.B.
has just tripped in carpet and hurt right knee. Had just taken K. H.'s
portrait from Shrine. Heard her mention names of General and Mrs.
Moigan. Thinks they are there. Saw nobody but H. P. B., hut felt several
others."

"The next station reached by the train was Saharanpur, where a halt of
half-an-hour for supper occurred. I went directly to the telegraph office,
and sent a despatch to Madame Blavatsky as near as I can remember in the
following words: * What accident happened at headquarters at about G
o'clock? Answer to Lahore.' "

To this Madame Blavatsky telegraphed in reply: —

"Nearly broke right leg, tumbling from bishop's chair, dragging
Coulomb, frightening Morgans. Damodar startled us."

Colonel Olcott added: —

" The presence of General and Mrs. Moigan at headquarters is confirmed
by this telegram, and before that we travellers had no knowledge of their
having come dov?u from the Niigiris."

And to this remark Madame Blavatsky made the following note
when she looked over Colonel 01cott*s deposition before the Committee
in proof: —

"They had just arrived from Nilgherry Hills.— H. P. Blavatsky."

It seemed, then, that in this case the testimony of General and
Mrs. Morgan might afford very important evidence disproving the possi-
bility of pr&-arrangement between Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar.
For it might have proved (1) that their presence at headquarters
could not be known to Mr. Damodar; and (2) that the accident to
Madame Blavatsky was a genuine one, and occurred at the hour named.
I learnt, however, from General and Mrs. Morgan that they had been
at headquarters a week; that they had been specially summoned thither
by a Mahatma letter; and even then were not direct witnesses of the
accident. Thus every obstacle to a pre-arrangement vanishes. Indeed,
the summoning of the Morgans to headquarters, taken in connection
with the way their names are dragged into Madame Blavatsky's tele-
gram, and Madame Blavatsky's own note as to their having just arrived,
becomes a very suspicious circumstance.

On the whole, then, when I consider the probability from what we
otherwise know of Madame Blavatsky, that any marvel in which she
plays a part is spurious rather than genuine; the untruthfulness of Mr.
Damodar as displayed in his testimony about the Shrine; the absence
of any evidence for these marvellous communications except that of
Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar; the circumstances favouring
pre-arrangement between the two; and the minor points that I have
noted which positively suggest such pre-arrangement; the conclusion
that these " astral " journeys were fabulous appears to me to be
irresistible. And from this conclusion it further follows that no
importance can be attached to any other accounts of apparent marvels
which can be explained by attributing them to the agency of Mr.
Damodar. The full significance of this inference will be seen later on,
when I come to discuss the accounts of Mahatma letters received in
Madame Blavatsky's absence.

Colonel Olcott's Evidence.

I have already dwelt more fully on Mr. Damodar's " astral "
journeys than was demanded merely to show how easy was pre-
arrangement between Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar. I have
done so partly in order to show how worthless Colonel Olcott's state-
ments and inferences are seen to be when placed side by side with the
record of events as they actually occurred. I will give another instance
of the same unreliability.

In replying to a question put by Mr. Myers in connection with
Colonel Olcott's account of the alleged " astral " form of a Mahatma
which appeared to him in New York, Colonel Olcott stated: —

*' I never saw a living Hindu before I arrived in London on my way to
India. I had had no correspondence with anybody until then, and had no
knowledge of any living Hindu who could have visited me in America."

Now Colonel Olcott arrived in London on his way to India in
1879. The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875, and long before
this Colonel Olcott had travelled with Hindus from New York to
Liverpool. He had made their acquaintance and obtained their portraits,
which, as he tells one of them in a letter which I have seen, were
hanging on his walls in 1877. During the years 1877 and 1878 he
wrote many letters to one of them, Mr. M. T., who became a member
of the Theosophical Society, and was intimate with Colonel Olcott in
Bombay, but died several years agb.

It seems, then, that Colonel Olcott had been in familiar relations
with a Hindu, whom he first met on the passage from America to Eng-
land, long before he reached London on his way to India, and even long
before the " astral figure " in question appeared to him in New York.
Moreover, it was M. T. who first began the Theosophical Society in
Bombay, antecedent to the removal of headquarters from America to
India. What, then, is the explanation of Colonel Olcott's
statement to the Committee in his deposition? After it had
been pointed out to Colonel Olcott that this statement was
quite irreconcilable with fact, as could be easily proved from letters
of his which I had examined, he admitted that he had met M. T.
long previously, and he showed a remarkably clear recollection of the
circumstances — at least of the circumstances which were referred to in
his letters to M. T. He accounted for his statement to the
Committee by urging that his attention at the time was
being specially directed to the possibility of personation of
the Mahatma's "astral form," and that he momentarily forgot
his experiences [14] with M. T. and other Hindus. I do not, of
course, deny this to be the case, though part of Colonel Olcott's state-
ment in his deposition was quite uncalled for, and appears to me to
render his lapse of memory somewhat singular. He seems to have
volunteered the odd remark that he "had had no correspondence with
anybody until then," whereas he had written numerous letters to
M. T. and other Hindus, and had started the Theosophical Society
of India by means of such correspondence. And it must be remem-
bered that Colonel Olcott had the opportunity of correcting his state-
ment in proof, when he could not have been affected by that momentary
forgetfulness which overcame him in the presence of the pointed
question propounded by Mr. Myers.

Other instances of the unreliability of Colonel Olcott's statements,
due either to peculiar lapses of memory or to extreme deficiency in the
faculty of observation, will be found on pp. 253, 309, and 365.

I cannot, therefore, regard Colonel Olcott's testimony as of any
scientific value. In particular, his testimony to the alleged *' astral"
appearance in New York proves, in my opinion, no more than that he
saw some one in his room, who may have been an ordinary Hindu, or
some other person, disguised as a Mahatma for the purpose, and acting
for Madame Blavatsky. And the same may be said of all his testi-
mony to apparitions of Mahatmas.

Evidence of Mr. Mohini M. Chatterjee.

The testimony of another gentleman, Mr. Mohini M. Chatterjee,
who gave evidence as to the apparitions of Mahatmas, is open to
a similar charge of lamentable want of accuracy; but in his case
it must be said that he always professed that he had never
paid any great attention to phenomena. Moreover, his testimony
never appeared to us to be of special importance in the way
of establishing the genuineness of the supposed marvellous events
related by him, because we never thought it impossible that he might
have been deceived. We thought, however, that a further acquaint-
ance with the localities where the apparitions occurred, and the exami-
nation of other witnesses, might strengthen his evidence; but the
reverse has proved to be the case. (See Appendix VII.) After con-
sidering the statements of the other witnesses, and examining the
places where the alleged events occurred, the probability that the
witnesses were imposed upon becomes much more manifest than
appears from a reading of Mr. Mohini's evidence alone. Indeed, Mr.
Mohini's description of the spots where the alleged " astral " apparitions
appeared is more than merely imperfect; it is almost ludicrous.

For instance, in describing the second alleged " astral " apparition,
Mr. Mohini stated: —

"We were sitting on the ground — on the rock, outside the house in
Bombay, when a figure appeared a short distance away."

All the other witnesses appear to be agreed that the party were sitting
in the verandah, and not upon what some of them described as the rock;
they gave this name to the irregular summit of the hill upon the side
of which the house (Crow's Nest Bungalow) was situated. There are
five terrace-fields or gardens on the side of the hill, and the verandah
where the party were sitting was on the same level as the topmost of
these. Above and beyond rose the summit of the hill like a high
bank, to which there was easy access from the farther side, not visible
from the terrace-garden or the verandah j and it was upon this summit
that the " figure " appeared. Having pointed this out to Mr. Mohini
in a personal interview, I learn that he attributes the inaccuracy of his
account to his defective knowledge of the English language, and that
by " rock," he meant the ground of the top terrace just outside the
bungalow; the use of the word " rock " in this sense is certainly
inappropriate; the spot is elsewhere [15] described as the "garden of the
upper terrace." Mr. Mohini also pleads his defective knowledge of the
English language in explanation of certain other inconsistencies — to
which I drew his attention — between his statements and those of the
other witnesses.

Again, in the case of the first alleged " astral " apparitioii, we had
been led by Mr. Mohini's deposition to suppose that not only himself
but the other witnesses had recognised the figure. Being asked
whether all agreed that it could not be a real man walking in the way
described, Mr. Mohini replied: —

"Certainly. It seemed to us to be the apparition of the original of the
portrait in Colonel Olcobt's room, and which is associated with one of the
Mahatmas."

In reply to Mr. Stack's question, whether he could distinguish the
features, Mr. Mohini replied: " Oh, yes, and the dress, the turban, and
everything," but afterwards, in reply to Mr. Gumey's question whether,
if he had seen the face alone, he would have recognised it, he replied
that he did not know, that it was the whole thing taken together
which produced on him the impression that it was the apparition of the
original of the portrait in Colonel Olcott's room.

Now, not one of the other witnesses whom I examined recognised
the features; they could not even tell whether the figure had a beard or
not, with the exception of Mr. Ghosal, who " saw something like a
beard, but not very distinctly."

Nor are the witnesses by any means agreed about other points
to which Mr. Mohini refers. For instance, Mr. Mohini said the figure
" seemed to melt away." Mr. Ghosal said, " It appeared to me, apd a
few of those present were of the same opinion, that the figure walked
over one of the trees and suddenly disappeared." Mr. Mohini now
explains that when he said the figure seemed to melt atoay^ he meant
merely that the figure disappeared. [In his deposition before the Com-
mittee Mr. Mohini said that the figure disappeared, and when Mr.
Myers asked, "In what way did it disappear?" Mr. Mohini
replied, " It seemed to melt away. "J Another witness described the
figure as walking to and fro below the balcony on the third terrace field,
and appeared to think it could not have been an ordinary person,
because it would have been difficult for a man to walk freely in that
place, which he alleged to be full of thorny trees. But I found when I
inspected the old headquarters in Bombay that this description also was
inaccurate, and that it was perfectly easy for any one, even though
disguised in flowing robes, to walk freely over any of the terraces.
And I took care to ascertain that the terraces had not been altered in
the interval.

In short, after my examination of the locality, I was left without
any doubt that the appearances might have been well produced by
M. Coulomb in disguise. I have seenM. Coulomb disguised as a Mahatma,
and can understand that the figure may have been very impressive.
A dummy head (with shoulders), like that of a Hindu, with beard, &c.
and fehta, is worn on the top of the head of the person disguised. A
long flowing muslin garment falls down in front, and by holding the
folds very slightly apart, the wearer is enabled to see, and to speak also,
if necessary. I do not think it in the least degree likely that any of the
witnesses in the above cases would have penetrated this disguise had
the figure been even much nearer than it was, and the light much better.

I was unable to estimate the precise distance of the figure in the
second case, but in the first case the figure must, from an examination
of the locality, have been certainly more than 40 yards from the spec-
tators. We can hardly attach any importance to the supposed recog-
nition, and from a portrait only, of a figure at this distance, even in
bright moonlight. Moreover, a good view of the figure must have been
almost impossible in consequence of the trees and shrubs in the
neighbourhood.

The third case mentioned by Mr. Mohini, that of an alleged " skstral "
apparition at Adyar, possesses, if possible, still less evidential value
than the foregoing, especially after Mr. Mohini's later accounts to
myself. It appears from Mr. Mohini's deposition that the figure
disappeared on one side of the balcony [16] [terrace], at the edge of the
balcony, above a flight of steps.

Mr. Mohini: After a while I said that as I should not see liim for a
long time, on account of my going to Europe, I begged he would leave some
tangible mark of his visit. The figure then raised his hands and seemed to
throw something at us. The next moment we found a shower of roses
falling over us in the room — roses of a kind that could not have been pro-
cured on the premises. We requested the figure to disappear from that side
of the balcony where there was no exit. There was a tree on the other side,
and it was in order to prevent all suspicion that it might be sometliing that
had got down the tree, or anything of that kind, that we requested him to
disappear from the side whore there was no exit. The figure went over to
that spot and then disappeared.

Mr. Mybbs: You saw its disappearance?

Mr. Mohini: Oh yes, it passed us slowly until it came to the edge of
the balcony, and then it was not to be seen any more.

Mr. Myers: The disappearance being sudden?

Mr. Mohini: Yes.

Mr. Gurnet: Was the height of Uie balcony such that any one could
have jumped down from it?

Mr. Mohini: The height was 15 or 20 feet, and, moreover, there were
people downstairs and all over the house, so that it would have been impos-
sible for a person to have jumped down without being noticed. Just below
the balcony there is an open lawn. There were several persons looking at
the moment, and my own idea is that it would have been perfectly impossible
for a person to have jumped down.

Mr. Stack: Why?

Mr. Mohini: There is a small flight of steps just below the balcony,
and if a man had jumped from the balcony he must have fallen upon the
steps and broken his legs. When the figure passed and re-passed us we
heard nothing of any footsteps. Besides myself, Damodar and Madame
Blavatsky were in the room at the time.

Mr. Damodar, whom I questioned, declared that the figure dis<
appeared at a spot which he pointed out to me; this spot was not near
the edge of the balcony, and was just opposite and close to the door
of the Occult Room which opens on the balcony. (See Plan.) I
thought, at the time, that the disagreement between this account
and Mr. Mohini's might be due to a desire on Mr. Damodar's part ta
convince me that Madame Coulomb was not acquainted with the cir-
cumstances of the case.

Mr. Mohini, in the later account which he gave to me in our first
interview after my return from India, described the figure as dis-
appearing at a spot which to a great extent approximates to that
pointed out by Mr. Damodar, but is nevertheless not quite in agreement;
and I feel bound to say, after careful consideration, that had it been in
complete agreement, Mr. Mohini's later account would have involved a
clear and absolute stultification of his earlier one; and even as it is^
Mr. Mohini's two accounts are fundamentally at variance. Instead of
the figure's disappearing, as was stated in his original deposition, on mie
side oj the balcony and above a flight oj steps, the figure is now made to
disappear at a spot which should be described rather as the front of
the balcony, and where there were no steps below. I cannot attribute
any evidential value to these conflicting statements: nor does the
case seem to me improved by the explanation given to me by
Mr. Mohini in our last interview, that he had not examined the
place to see whether there were any steps below, and that it was
only when the question was put by Mr. Stack as to why it was
impossible for the figure to have jumped down [Mr. Mohini having
made the statement, and Mr. Stack having asked why?] that he
thought he remembered there were steps under the balcony in that
spot (Le., the spot described in his later account). In Mr. Mohini's
earlier account the point of disappearance of the figure was determined
by the side of the balcony, the position of the tree on the other
side, the edge of the balcony, and the flight of steps. Mr. Mohini's
later account contradicts his earlier one in three out of these four
determining conditions.

I may now say that the passage quoted above from Mr. Mohini's
deposition to the Committee, which was made before anything was known
here publicly of the charges brought by the Coulombs, agrees entirely,
so far as it goes, both as to the movements of the figure and as to the
place of its disappearance, with the account furnished to me indepen-
dently (that is, without any opportunity, as I believe, of knowing what
Mr. Mohini had said) by Madame Coulomb, who alleges that she acted
as the Mahatma on this occasion. The spot where she described herself
as finally escaping from view was at the edge of the balcony on one
side of the balcony; a flight of steps was just below, and a tree was
near the other side of the balcony. Her account was that, after dis-
guising herself as a Mahatma in the bath-room — now Mr. Damodar'a
room (see Plan) — she passed through the cupboard with the secret
double back into the Occult Boom, and thence through the door leading
out upon the terrace, where she passed along close to the wall in a.
stooping attitude until she came opposite the middle window of the
sitting-room, when she slowly rose to full height (the dummy head and
shoulders being added to her own stature). The spectators in the
room, she declared, saluted with profound respect. She was provided,
she said, with flowers, which were concealed in the folds of her muslin
robe, and which she threw over Mr. Mohini; and after walking up
and down on the terrace several times, she finally peussed away at the
east side of the balcony, departing into the new room, which was
then in process of construction, and thence by the north side
of the terrace back into the bath-room. She aUeged also that she had
taken ofl* her shoes in order to move silently, and that it was
so dark that she hurt her feet against some nails on the terrace;
she said that she had received the flowers that she had thrown over Mr.
Mohini from a certain Madame de Wailly, dressmaker, who had
since left Madras and is now living in Colombo, in Ceylon. I
called upon Madame de Wailly in Colombo, and found that she
recollected having received several bunches of flowers near the
beginning of 1884, and having given some to Madame Coulomb.
There was one slight difference, however, between the statement
of Madame Coulomb and that of Madame de Wailly. The former
was under the impression that the flowers given to her by Madame
de Wailly had come from Bangalore, a hill station, whereas
Madame de Wailly was inclined to think that she had received them
from a friend living on the outskirts of Madras, who had presented
her with a bouquet of magnificent roses. She believed that it was
these roses which she had given to Madame Coulomb.

Madame Coulomb stated that the night was dark, and in reply
to my special inquiry, said that there was no moonlight. Mr. Mohini,
however, had said in reply to a question put by Mr. Myers, that there
was moonlight on the balcony. On reference to the calendar it ap-
pears that there was no moonlight. Mr. Mohini now conjectures
that he may have mistaken the "fading lamp-light" on the limit of the
balcony for moonlight.

I do not myself feel quite certain about the existence of much
lamp-light on the balcony; but it may be desirable to add here that, in
any case, large portions of the terrace must have remained in darkness,
and that although the reader of Mr. Mohini's evidence given to the
Committee might almost suppose that the only exit from the terrace
was by means of a " tree, or an3rthing of that kind," there are various
ways in which an ordinary person disguised might have made his
escape. The spectators were in the sitting-room looking from the
middle window, and a reference to the Plan will show that certain
portions of the terrace on both sides, east and west, were entirely hidden
from their observation. The terrace might have been easily left not
only by the help of trees, but by proceeding in the direction of the
new room, or by mounting the roof, — not to speak of the doqr of the
Occult Boom, and the double-backed cupboard; or, considering that it
was 11 p.m., and that there was no moonlight, by a ladder from the
terrace to the ground. Indeed, I have myself often, as a lad, per-
formed a greater " drop " feat than would be required for leaving the
terrace without the help even of a ladder.

I ought to mention that Mr. Mohini had not the opportunity of
seeing the proof-sheets of his deposition and correcting any errors that
might have been made in our First Report. On June Ist, 1885, ho wrote
to Mr. Myers remarking on this fact, and stating that he had been
looking over the record of his testimony given before the Committee,
and he makes a correction in one particular. I need hardly say that
I have not used the statement which Mr. Mohini thus corrects in my
criticism of Mr. Mohini's evidence. Mr. Mohini, however, omitted to
correct another error, the discovery of which contributes to destroy
the interest of another marvel described by him (see Appendiit Yll.);
namely, the case of an alleged phenomenal letter which appeared on
the table of Mr. Keightley, a member of the Theosophical Society, in
Paris, and which referred to the ^^ friends " of Mr. Mohini. The
question was asked by Mr. Myers: —

"Could the letter have been written some days before, and the allusion
as to taking your friends into the country inserted afterwards? "

Mr, Mohini is represented in the deposition as replying: —

"No, because Mr. Keightley and Mr. Oakley only came to the house by
accident that morning.''

Mi:. Oakley has told me that he went frequently to the Paris
apartments and might be expected to call. Mr. Keightley has told me
that he was unaware that Mr. Oakley was even in Paris, and that Mr.
Oakley had called unexpectedly. But both Mr. Keightley and Mr.
Oakley are agreed that Mr. Keightley himself was living in the rooms
at the time with Mr. Mohini. After this discrepancy had been pointed
out, Mr. Mohini declared that the reply he is represented as giving
he did not give, and that the shorthand reporter, who took down
the evidence given before the Committee, must have made a
mistake. But the reader may himself compare Mr. Mohini's evidence
with that of the other witnesses (see Appendix VII.), and he will see
how much more marvellous the incidents in question have become
under the constructive and destructive action of Mr. Mohini's memory.
For example, in the case just referred to, of the letter found on Mr.
Keightley's table, it would appear from Mr. Mohini's account that he
had gone with Mr. Keightley into Mr. Oakley's room, that Mr. Oakley
and Babula were together, and that both Mr. Mohini and Babula were
in Mr. Keightley's sight while the latter was absent from his room.
Under these circumstances it was not easy to see who could have placed
the letter on the table in the interval; but when we find that, according
to Mr. Oakley and Mr. Keightley, Mr. Mohini did not entor Mr.
Oakley's room at all, that Babula was not with Mr. Oakley, that
there was probably a short interval of time during which both Mr.
Mohini and Babula were out of the sight of Mr. Keightley, and also of
Mr. Oakley, the incident ceases to present any difficulty in the way of
an ordinary explanation.

Remaining Evidence for Appearances of Mahatmas.

I need not here say much on the other alleged appearances of
Mahatmas, in either their ordinary physical or their " astral " bodies. A
confederate in disguise is generally an easy and sufficient explanation of
them. I have, I think, shown, in App«idix VIII., that there is no real
difficulty in applying this explanation even to the case of Mr. Rama-
swamier, whose account of his experience has made so much impression on
Mr. Sinnett. I have dealt similarly with other appearances in Appen-
dices IX. and X. The statements in Mr. Brown's pamphlet, Some
Experiences in India, concerning which he was unwilling to give me
any further details, need not detain us long. The only time he saw
** Mahatma Koot Hoomi" in broad daylight, the figure was at a
distance. Mr. Brown says: " On the morning of the 20th he came
to my tent, and said, * Now you see me before you in the flesh; look
and assure yourself that it is I,' and left a letter of instructions and
silk handkerchief, both of which are now in my possession.'' This inci-
dent happened, it appears, at about 2 a.m., and Mr. Brown's particular
reason for thinking the figure was " Koot Hoomi " seemed to be only
that the letter given to him was in the same handwriting as that of
letters " phenomenally " received at headquarters from "Koot Hoomi".

The chief persons who testify from personal experience to the actual
existence of the Brotherhood in Thibet are (besides Madame Blavatsky)
Mr. Damodar and Mr. Babajee Dharbagiri Nath. Of the value of Mr.
Damodar's evidence I have already said enough. With regard to Mr.
Babajee D. Nath, it is shown in Appendix I. that he has involved him-
self in the attempted att€u;k by Madame Blavatsky on the " Sassoon
Telegram " letter, and a reference to Appendix IV. will show that he
has made statements which I cannot but regard as wilfully false con-
cerning matters connected with the Shrine. Again, he stated to me
that he had lived with the Brothers only during certain months out of
a specific period of two years which immediately followed his leaving,
in 1878, the position of private secretary to a deputy-collector in
the Kumool district, although he had previously stated to Mr. Sinnett
(" The Occult World," pp. 154, 155, Fourth Edition) that he had been
living with Koot Hoomi for ten years. Further, it was, he said, only a few
months after the lapse of these two years that he joined the Theosophical
Society in Bombay, and thenceforward he has been continuously at the
headquarters of the Society, except when he paid two visits to the
North, one to Thibet, and the other to the borders of Thibet. Now, from
this account it is clear that Mr. Babajee must have joined the Theo-
sophical Society in Bombay at least as early as 1881, and remained
some time at the headquarters in that year. But he does not seem to
have made his first appearance as Babajee Dharbagiri Nath until
towards the end of 1882, at about which time he visited Mr. Sinnett.
When, later, he joined the headquarters of the Society, he was recog-
nised by Theosophists as Gwala K. Deb, who had been there before.
The assertion made by Madame Coulomb in her pamphlet, [17] and
repeated more explicitly to myself, that Mr. Babajee D. Nath is the
same person who was previously known in the headquarters at Bombay
as Gwala K. Deb^ is confirmed by the testimony of Mr. A. O. Hume,
Mr. Tookaram Tatya, Mr. Bal Nilaji Pitale, and Mr. Ezekiel; and it
seems to be the only explanation of the above statements made to me
by Mr. Babajee himself. Mr. Babajee indeed affirms that he never
passed under the name of Gwala K. Deb, but it is by no means
likely that all these witnesses should mistake another person for
Mr. Babajee, for he is very small, and his voice has a very peculiar
timbre. Moreover, he seems to have no objection to assuming different
characters, since at this very time he represents two persons in the last
Official Annual Report issued by the Theosophical Society; that is to
say, he appears under two different names. On p. 8 he appears as the
delegate of the Yizianagram Branch under the name of Babajee 2>.
Nath (otherwise written on pp. 83, 117, 120, as Mr, Dharhagiri Naih^
in connection with the Anniversary Hall Committee), and on p. 131 —
Appendix A. of the Theosophical Society's Report — he appears as one
of the Assistant Recording Secretaries under the name of S, Kriahnor-
swami. Yet Babajee Dharbagiri Nath is the same person as S. Krishna-
swami, the latter being Mr. Babajee's real name, according to his own
account to myself. I think that all will agree that the mere assertion of a
person who has made false and contradictory statements, and has appeared
under different aliases, is insufficient to prove him " the Chela of Koot
Hoomi that he declares himself to be," though it is difficult to avoid
the conclusion that ** if he is anything else," to use Mr. Sinnett's words,
*^ he, of course, must be a false witness, invented to prop up Madame
Blavatsky's vast imposture." Additional evidence of this will be found
in Fart II. I may add that Mr. Babajee, if I may judge from the account
(perhaps not very reliable) which he has given me of his changeful life,
appears to be almost isolated and entirely homeless apart from the
Theosophical Society, and is, I think, eagerly ready, out of gratitude
for sheltering kindness received from Madame Blavatsky, to dispense on
her behalf most freely with the truth.

Rama Sourindro Gargya Deva, from whose alleged letter to Madame
Blavatsky, asserting his intimacy with the Masters (published in The
Theosophiat for December, 1883), an extract was quoted in our First
Report, cannot be regarded as an independent witness; seeing that his
own existence is even more problematical than that of the Mahatmas,
the only evidence for it being the statement of Madame Blavatsky,
Mr. Babajee, and Mr. Daraodar, that they know him. And Mr. Mirza
Moorad Alee Beg, whose assertions (published in TJie Theosophist for
August, 1881) committed him, as we thought, nearly as fully as
Madame Blavatsky and Mr. Damodar are committed, to the existence
and powers of the Mahatmas, turns out, according to the statements
of various Theosophists, to be altogether untrustworthy and to have
shown evident marks of insanity. He is said to have practised Black
Magic [!] before his connection with the Theosophical Society, which
he left long ago, and became a Roman Catholic; he is now a Mussul-
man. I must conclude, then, that the strongest apparent evidence for
the existence of the Mahatmas comes to nothing at all.

Alleged Precipitated Writing, &c.

I now pass to the consideration of alleged phenomenal occur-
rences other than apparitions, especially those connected with pheno-
menal letters and the alleged precipitated writing.

I will first draw attention to the statement made by both Mr.
Damodar and Mr. P. Sreenevas Rao, that Shrine phenomena occurred
even after Madame Blavatsky left Madras, and therefore after the
hole in the party wall had been blocked up, according to M. Coulomb's
own statements.

In reply to my inquiries it was admitted by Mr. Damodar and Mr.
P. Sreenevas Rao, that the only instances of these later Shrine pheno-
mena are the two given in Appendix XI. It will be noticed by the
reader, on reference to the Appendix, that in the second case, where a
letter apparently requiring a specific reply is placed in the Shrine, a
considerable interval elapses, and is probably necessary, before the
answer appears. In the first case no letter is placed in the Shrine, no
specific communication is required, and a Shrine letter can be, and is,
produced without delay. It will be obvious to the reader what part
Mr. Damodar may have played in the proceedings; and that for these
particular phenomena an opening in the back of the Shrine would have
been unnecessary.

It had been alleged, indeed, that when Madame Blavatsky was at
Madras, instantaneous replies to mental queries had been found in the
Shrine, that envelopes containing questions were returned absolutely
intact to the senders, and that when they were opened replies were
found within in the handwriting of a Mahatma. After numerous
inquiries I found that in all the cases I could hear of, the mental query
was such as might easily have been anticipated by Madame Blavatsky;
indeed, the query generally was whether the questioner would meet
with any success in his endeavour to become a pupil of the Mahatma,
and the answer was frequently of the indefinite and oracular sort.
In some cases the envelope inserted in the Shrine was one which
had been previously sent to headquarters for that purpose, so that the
envelope might have been opened and the answer written therein
before it was placed in the Shrine at all. Where sufficient care was
taken in the preparation of the inquiry, either no specific answer was
given or the answer was delayed. Mr. Ezekiel, Theosophist of Poona,
has described to me the details of a case where he received a
Mahatma communication intended to be a reply to a specific question
which he had asked. These details entirely corroborate my conclusion
concerning Madame Blavatsky, but Mr. Ezekiel is miwilling that they
should be published; he has given me permission, however, to state
that the following passage which occurs in Madame Coulomb's
pamphlet (p. 73) is quite justified.

"There is another phenomenon wliich I must mention, because it took
place in the presence of Mr. Ezekiel, whom I shall liave to mention again
later. At the time of the Anniversary, among the many delegates that came
on this occasion was the above gentleman. He was in company with others
in Madame's apartment when a letter fell from the ceiling. Mr. Ezekiel
formed the natural supposition tliat it must have been pulled down by somo
contrivance, so he went and unburdened his heart to several Fellows of the
Society, giving this as a great secret. However, although a secret, it came
to Madame's ears and she immediately asked my husband to take out the
screw-rings through which the string had passed, and stop the holes with a
little paint to remove all traces; this done, she called some one to show
how ridiculous the accusation had been."

This letter fell in Madame Blavatsky's sitting-room, and was probably
arranged in the same way as the ^* phenomenal " letter prepared for me
by the Ooulombs, which was described in the April number of the
Journal^ in the words of a letter written by me from India, as
follows: —

Madras, January 9th, 1885.

This morning I called upon the Coulombs, who are living at the house
of Mrs. Dyer in St. Thomd. I conversed a short time with M. Coulomb
before Madame Coulomb appeared. In the course of the conversation that
followed I remarked, concerning certain cases of premonition, tliat I had no
satisfactory theory at present to account for them. At this moment some-
thing white appeared, touching my hair, and fell on the floor. It was a
letter. I picked it up. It was addressed to myself. M. and Madame
Coulomb were sitting near me and in front of me. I had observed no motion
on their part which could account for the appearance of the letter. Examin-
ing the ceiling as I stood I could detect no flaw; it appeared intact. On
opening the letter, I found it referred to the conversation which had jusc
taken i)lace. I transcribe the words: —

"Because the existing cause of to-day foretells the effect of to-morrow
— a bud assures us beforeliand the full-blown rose of to-morrow; on seeing
a fine field of com in which are buried eggs of locusts, we are to foresee that
that com will never enter the granary; by the appearance of consumptive
father and scrofulous mother a sickly child can be foretold. Now all these
causes, which bring to us these effects, have in their turn their effects them
selves, and so, ad iufiniium; and as nothing is lost in Nature, but remains
impressed in the akam, so the acute x>erception of the seer beginning at the
source arrives at the result with exactitude.

"The New Adept, Columbus."

M. Coulomb then described the origin of the letter.

A large beam supported the ceiling, and resting on tliis, at right angles
to it, was a series of small beams with spaces between them. These spaces
were filled with blocks of wood, with mortar to keep them in place. Part
of this mortar had been scraped out on the top of the large beam and between
two smaller ones, so that a letter could be inserted and lie flat on the top of
the laige beam. Round the- letter was twice passed a piece of thread of the
same colour as the ceiling. One end of the thread remained loose on the
letter, the other end was in the hand of a person outside the room. The
thread ran from the letter, close to the ceiling, passed outside and hung
down. I was sitting under the main beam. The subject of conversation
was led up to, and at the given signal (a call to the dog) the confederate in
the verandah beyond pulled the thread and the letter fell. The confederate
drew the thread entirely away and left the spot. The crevice for the
letter might, in a few moments, have been stopped up and covered with
dust, so that no aperture whatever appeared in the neighbourhood of the
ceiling.

The ceiling of Madame Blavatsky's sitting-room was constructed in
the same way as the one here described, and would, therefore, be suited
for the occurrence of similar phenomena. Besides the letter received
by Mr. Ezekiel, the letter mentioned in Appendix V. also fell in this
room. I examined the beam, and observed a crevice well suited for the
production of the phenomenon; this crevice was still in existence when
I left Madras.

In connection with phenomenal incidents various envelopes have
been shown to me by Theosophists which were supposed to have been
completely fastened, but from all of these the contents might have been
in my opinion even more easily abstracted than from the sealed
envelope described in detail in Appendix V., which presented clear
traces of having been surreptitiously opened by the withdrawal of the
right flap, which had just escaped being securely held, if held at all,
by the wax. In the case of one large sealed envelope shown to me by
a prominent native Theosophist, the wax held the upper and lower
flaps only, and hardly came within a quarter of an inch of the side
flaps; the crumpling suggested that the right flap here also had been
withdrawn.

After Madame Blavatsky's departure for Europe the Mahatma
communications — with the two exceptions already mentioned — were
found, not in the Shrine, but in various other places about the house,
chiefly the office-room. The accounts of many cases of this kind were
published in our First Report. I made careful inquiries concerning
all of them, and found that in every instance the letter might have been
easily placed by Mr. Damodar.

In one case mentioned by Mr. Babajee, where he found a letter upon
his desk in the office-room, he wrote: —

"On approaching my desk, I saw distinctly an envelope and paper
forming themselves.'* In his account to me, however, he says only that
*' the letter appeared to increase in size as he approached his desk ''!

There are, I think, only two instances among those given in our
First Report, where the modus operandi, if Mr. Damodar were the
agent, will not be obvious, and I shall briefly describe these.

Our evidence for them is an account written by Mr. Babajee and
forwarded through Dr. Hartmann to Mr. Myers for the Committee,
and after what I have said as to the value of Mr. Babajee's evidence, it
may seem unnecessary to investigate them further. Still, as they seem
to me — the second especially — ^to form an interesting sample of the
kind of evidence which is apparently thought at the headquarters of
the Theosophical Society to be valuable, I will give them. The first is
as follows:—

"On or about the Ist August, 1884, I was examining whether the wrap*
pers addressed to subscribers (to The Theosophist) were correct, sitting in the
room next to our ofiice-room; on a large camp table were spread the
addressed wrappers. With some noise fell a heavy packet (with a covering
letter to me) on the wrappers. The letter contained some wholesome and
timely advice to me, and directed me to hiind over the packet to Mr. St.
George Lane-Fox. I accordingly gave it, and found that in the packet was a
Chinese envelope and letter addressed both to Dr. F. Hartmann and to Mr.
Lane-Fox. When the packet fell on my table, there was nobody then in the
room or in the office-room. I was alone. The letter and contents were in
the well-known handwritings of Mahatma Koot Hoomi and of B.D.S."

I found from Mr. Babajee that Mr. Damodar was reclining on a
couch outside the office-room, and adjoining its door. Mr. Babajee was
sitting with his back turned partly towards the direction of the spot
occupied by Mr. Damodar, in such a position that no movement of
Mr. Damodar's need have been observed by him. The two rooms are
divided by a partition about seven feet high, the lower part o which
is zinc, the upper part being formed of wire trellis-work. The rooms
are twice as high as the partition. An object might easily be thrown
from the office-room entrance so as to fall on the table.

The other case is the following: —

"M. R. Ry. G. Sreenivas Row Garu, Sule Registrar of Cumbum,
Kumool District, India, wrote a lett<5r, dated 15th January, 1884, to the
address of Damodar, who gave it to me for reply. Early in the morning, at
7 a.m., I arranged all the papers to be answered on my desk, with which
nobody ever interferes. I pufc this letter of Sreenivas Row in a prominent
place on the table, and then after locking the office-room and taking the key
with myself, I went out to take a bath; at about 8 a.m. I returned and
opened the office door; on approaching my table, what do I find? Endorse-
ment on Sreenivas Row's letter in blue pencil, in the handvrriting of
Mahatma K.H., ordering me to answer the letter. There is not the least
possibility of doubt in this case.''

After reading this, what was my surprise to find that the room
which I have just described, next to the ofiice-room, and divided from
it only by the partition reaching half-way to the ceiling, was never
locked, and that there is no lock to the door, while a child might climb
from the table over the partition into the office-room! Truly "there is
not the least possibility of doubt in this case '' that the phenomenon
might have been produced by normal means.

Various other letter-phenomena which were mentioned ia our First
Report, had occurred at the headquarters in Bombay. Several letters
had fallen in the guest-chamber, which adjoined Madame Blavatsky's
bedroom, in Crow's Nest Bungalow. Among these were the phenomena
recounted by Professor Smith, Mr. Shroff, and Mr. Bal Nilaji Pitale
(see "Hints on Esoteric Theosophy"), and that described by Mr.
Sinnett in " The Occult World," fourth edition, p. 120. The ceiling of
this room is boarded, not plastered; and the remark which we made
in our First Report, that all accounts of letters falling in such
places must be regarded with suspicion, I found to be quite justified.
In Mr. Shroffs account it is stated that the wooden ceiling of the
room was perfectly intact. Mr. Shroff informed me that the account
was drawn up in the first instance by himself, and thfit afterwards
some passages were added and alterations made at the suggestion
of others present. He did not appear to have made any "examination";
he said that he had " looked up at the ceiling," that he had been posi-
tive beforehand about the genuineness of the phenomena, and that he
did not care to scrutinise with the eye of a critic.

M. Coulomb asserted, before I went to Bombay, that in a garret
above this room a trap was fixed with a string running from it into
another room. The letter was placed in the trap just above one of the
interstices between the boards of the ceiling, and on a given signal, the
string was pulled and the letter fell. On one occasion, when Judge
Gadgill was present, the trap would not work, and M. Coulomb
h8kd himself ascended the garret and pushed the letter down. He
described the garret particularly, the entrance to which is through a
trap-door in the ceiling of Madame Blavatsky's bedroom. The trap, he
asserted, was taken away when Judge Gadgill desired to inspect the
garret. The case where Judge Gadgill was present is mentioned by
Colonel Olcott in his deposition, but as there given, is likely to bo very
misleading. He said: —

"Judge Gadgill, and one or two others, knowing that they had to deal
with some very difficult sceptics at Baroda, who would demand if they had
taken the precaution to examine the premises and see if the letter could
have been delivered by any mechanical device, thereupon made a search of
the place, and even got a ladder and went upon the tiled roof. He will tell
you that the examination made then, and a subsequent and more careful one,
which was made in my own presence and with my assistance — for I held the
ladder — left no ground for suspicion of bad faith."

Now the tiled roof spoken of was above the garret, and there is not
the slightest trace of any suspicious circumstance discoverable from
there. Moreover, part of the hill very closely adjoins the bungalow, so
that it is but a short step from the bank to the tiled roof, and to speak
of getting a ladder and going upon the tiled roof is quite as absurd as
to speak of getting a ladder and going upon the sofa.

According to M. Coulomb, when Mr. Gadgill requested to examine
the garret Madame Blavatsky ordered the only available ladder to be
hidden, so that Mr. Gadgill was unable to examine the garret at the
time; and before he made his " subsequent and more careful " exami<
nation, having obtained a ladder for the purpose, M. Coulomb had
removed the trap, filled the interstices with bits of bamboo and stick
and dust, and endeavoured to make the garret look as though it had
been entirely undisturbed for a long time.

After my return from Bombay, Colonel Olcott gave me another
account of the incident, [18] in which he said that he was not at Bombay
when the letter fell j that he was told that Judge Gadgill went on the
tiled roof; that it was a week or so later when Judge Gadgill examined
the garret; that he (Colonel Olcott) held the ladder to steady it, as it
was placed on a table to enable the trap-door to be reached, and that he
told Judge Gadgill to first look at the joinings of the boards and see if
they were not choked with cobwebs, dust, &c., thus showing that they
could not have been used for pushing letters through. I neglected to
ask Colonel Olcott whether this suggestion originated from himself or
from Madame Blavatsky.

I examined carefully, Avhen I was at Bombay, the room and the
garret, the entrance to which is through a trap-door in the ceiling of
what was Madame Blavatsky's bedroom. The appearance of the
garret corresponded so accurately with M. Coulomb's detailed descrip-
tion as to convince me that he was familiar with it. Some of the
interstices in the ceiling were open; others had evidently been carefully
filled with bits of stick and dust^ and I dropped several pieces of
bamboo which I found in the garret, and which were more than a
quarter of an inch thick, through one of the interstices. A copy of our
Proceedings might easily have been pushed through, and interstices
were plainly visible in the ceiling from below. I was unfortunately
unable to see Judge Gadgill himself, but after my examination of the
room I felt that he could probably have added little important evidence.

There were also instances of objects falling in a room roofed by a
ceiling-cloth, which was occupied by Colonel Olcott in another house; one
of these (from " Hints on Esoteric Theosophy ") was given in our First
Report. I did not see this room, but Colonel Olcott, in reply to my
inquiries, informed me that no examination of the ceiling-cloth was made,
so that Madame Coulomb's statement that the card which came fluttering
down was pushed from above through a slit made in the ceiling-cloth is
very probably correct.

But cases had occurred, not only of the appearance, but of the
disappearance of letters. Chief among these was the disappearance of
the packet in the Vega case. This incident is described in " Hints on
Esoteric Theosophy." It was alleged that a letter was conveyed by a
Mahatma from Mr. Eglinton on the steamship Vega, between Colombo
and Aden, to Madame Blavatsky at Bombay, and again from Bombay
to Mrs. Gordon at Howrah. It is clear from the account of this
occurrence, as we pointed out in our First Report, that there was no
proof whatever of identity between the letter received at Bombay and
that shown on the Vega. The fall of the letter in Bombay is somewhat
strangely described in the following certificate. (See " Hints on Esoteric
Theosophy.")

"At 8 p.m. (Bombay time), on Friday, the 24th March, 1882, we were
spending our time with Madame Blavatsky in the room as the wind was
blowing powerfully outside. IVIadame told us that she felt that something
would occur. The whole party, consisting of 7 persons, then adjourned
on the terrace, and within a few minutes after our being there we saw a
letter drop as if from under the roof above. Some of us saw the letter
coming slanting from one direction and drop quite opposite to where it came
from. The letter, on being opened, was found to contain a closed envelope
to the address of Mrs. Gordon, Howrah; on the reverse side were three
crosses fff in pencil. The envelope was of bluish colour and thin. The open
letter written in red pencil contained certain instructions to Madame
Blavatsky, and accordingly she put the enveloi>e, together with three visiting
cards, and strung them all with a blue thread of silk and put the packet as
directed on a bookcase, and within 5 minutes after it was put there it
evaporated, to our no small surprise.

** K. M. Shroff,
** Vice-President Bombay T, S.
"GwALA K. Deb, F.T.S.
'* Dahodar K. Mavalankar, F.T.S.
'*Martandrew B. Nagnath, F.T.S.
**DorabH. Bharucha, F.T.S.
**Bhavani Shankar, F.T.S."

"The packet was taken away from the bookcase at 21 minutes past 8
p.m. (9, Madras time). A letter from Mr. Eglinton to myself was also
received by me. In it he confesses to a finn belief in the 'Brothers.' Speaks
of Koot Hoomi having visited him two nights ago (the 22nd) on the
Vega, &c.

"H.P. Blavatsky."

Mr. Martandrao B. Nagnath and Mr. Bhavani Shankar, whom I
questioned at Madras, could give but little additional information.
Mr. Martandrao said that he first saw the letter in the air at about
10 feet from the floor. Mr. Bhavani (concerning whom see p. 261 and
Appendix IX.) said that he first saw the letter as it stiiick the floor of
the verandah, that it contained an enclosure to Madame Blavatsky
beginning " Old woman get up," and ordering her to get some cards
of her own, and sew them up with the letter with green thread, and
put the packet on the top of a large cupboard; that the packet was
placed there as directed, and in about one minute afterwards it had
disappeared. Mr. Shrofl*, whom I saw in Bombay, was unable at first
to recollect the incident at all, and when he did recollect it, was unable
to give me any details.

Mr. Dorab H. Bharucha, medical student, whom I also saw in
Bombay, said, iu reply to my inquiries, that he saw the letter in the air,
that when he first saw the letter it was close to the branches of a
neighbouring tree, and that it came in such a way that it might have
been thrown from the tree. It should be noticed that no opportunity
was given to any of the witnesses to place any test marks on the packet. [19]
It was to Madame Blavatsky herself that the instructions were given
ill "the open letter written in red penciL" Mr. Bharucha has given me
further details which throw some light upon the evaporation of the
packet. The whole party entered Madame Blavatsky's sitting-room
after the letter was taken up; and when Madame Blavatsky had ful-
filled her (own) instructions, and placed the packet on the bookcase,
the whole party left the room. Several minutes elapsed before they
returned to the room, and when they returned the packet had dis-
appeared. Mr. Bharucha described the position of the bookcase where
the letter was placed, giving me a pencil sketch of the room. He did
not know that any opening existed on that side of the room where the
bookcase was situated, and was unaware that the bookcase stood im-
mediately in front of a double venetianed door, which communicates
with a sort of alley, part of which formed Babula's room. That this
was so I had ascertained by my own examination of the room at Crow's
Kest Bungalow. Probably the top portion of the venetianed door may
liave been by some means concealed from view. M. Coulomb asserts
that it was hidden by a piece of carpeting, and this would account for
Mr. Bharucha's not noticing it. The Venetian spaces of this door are
very wide and allow the hand and most of the forearm to be thrust
through. I presume, therefore, that the evaporation which astonished the
-witnesses — I should perhaps say the non-witnesses — was due not so
much to the volatile nature of the packet itself, as to the protrusile
capacity of Babula's hand. As to the fall of what purported to be the
same letter at Howrah, in the presence of Colonel Olcott and Colonel
and Mrs. Gordon, in the room which had been occupied by Mr.
Eglinton, it may of course have been accomplished by a confederate,
in one of the ways already described.

Other instances of " phenomenal " letters will be found mentioned in
Appendices XII., XIII. and XIV. It remains only to add here that in
those cases whei-e the immediately previous subject of conversation was
referred to in the Mahatma communication, there is no difficulty in
supposing that the special topic was led up to by Madame Blavatsky.

"The Occult World" Phenomena.

The phenomena described by Mr. Sinnett in " The Occult World" now
demand consideration. And first I shall deal with several cases
selected by Mr. Sinnett in his deposition to the Committee, as these
were presumably thought by him to be of special importance. The first
case described by Mr. Sinnett to the Committee was that of a letter
which he had written to Koot Hoomi.

"Having completed the note, I put it into an envelope, and took it to
Madame Blavatsky, who was sitting in the drawing-room with my wife. I
said to her, 'Will you get that taken, if you can, and get me an answer? "
She put the letter into her pocket, and rose to go to her room. All the-
windows were open, as is usual in India. As she passed out I walked to
the drawing-room door. She was out of my sight but for an instant of time^
when she cried out, ' Oh, he has taken it from me now.' I will undertake
to say that she was not out of my sight for 10 seconds. Having uttered
that exclamation, she returned to the drawing-room, and we then proceeded
together to my office at the back of my house. I went on with what I was
doing, and she simply lay on the sofa in my full view. She remained there,,
perhaps, for between 5 or 10 minutes, when, suddenly lifting her head
from the pillow, she pointed to it and said, * There is your letter.' I should
mention, as a little fact which may bear upon occult physics, that the moment
before I distinctly heard a peculiar rushing sound through the air. It was, I
tliink, the only occasion on which I had heard such a sound, and she asked
me afterwards if I had heard it. The letter lay on the pillow, the name
which I had written on the envelope being scratched out, and my own name
written immediately above it. The envelope was unopened, and in precisely
the same state, with the difference I have mentioned, as when I gave it to
Madame Blavatsky. 1 cut the envelope open, and found inside an answer
to the question which I had asked the Mahatma."

From this account it appears that Madame Blavatsky was not out
of Mr. Sinnett's sight for ten seconds, but in the account given in
" The Occult World" (pp. 96-97) Mr. Sinnett undertakes to say only that
she had not been away to her own room thirty seconds, admitting that
she was also out of his sight for a minute or ttco in Mrs. Sinnett's room*
After this I cannot feel certain that Madame Blavatsky may not have
been absent in her own room considerably more than 30 seconds, nor
do I feel certain that Madame Blavatsky may not have retired to some
other room during the interval of "a few minutes" which Mr.
Sinnett assigns to her conversation with Mrs. Sinnett in the adjoining
room. Even apart from this uncertainty, I cannot attach any impor-
tance to the case after finding that on my second trial I could open a
firmly closed ordinary adhesive envelope under such conditions as are
described by Mr. Siimett, read the enclosed note and reply to it, the
question and the reply being as long as those of Mr. Sinnett's, and
re-close the envelope, leaving it apparently in the same condition as.
before, in one minute; and it appears to me quite possible that Madame
Blavatsky, with her probably superior skill and practice, might have
easily performed the task in 30 seconds. I do not suppose that Mr.
Sinnett would wish to maintain that the "peculiar rushing sound
through the air " could not have been produced by ordinary means at
the disposal of Madame Blavatsky.

The next case mentioned by Mr. Sinnett was the fall of a letter in
the guest-room at Crow's Nest Bungalow, and is thus described in his
deposition.

"I had been expecting a letter fromKoot Hoomi, but on my arrival at
Bombay I did not find one awaiting me at the headquarters of the Theo-
sophical Society there. I had written, asking him several questions. I had
got in late at night, and on the following morning I was walking about tho
verandah talking to Madame Blavatsky. We went into a room which I had
occupied as a bedroom during the night — a big room, with a large table in the
middle of it. I sat down while we were talking, and she occupied another
chair at a considerable distance from me. I said, ' Why on earth liave I
not had a letter in answer to mine? ' She replied, *■ Perhaps he will send it
to you. Tiy to exercise your will-power; try to appeal to him. Ask him
to send it to you.' I retorted, ' No, I will wait his time; he will send sooner
or later, no doubt.' At that moment a packet fell before me on the table.
It was a large envelope containing at least 30 pages of manuscript — ^heavy
draft paper. The packet only came into view a few feet — two perliaps —
Above the table, though I do not attach much importance to the precise
distance, as in a case of that sort the eye cannot be certain to a foot. The
room was brilliantly light, this being in the morning.

Mr. Gurnby: Did Madame Blavatsky know that you had written
a letter and were expecting an answer, before this conversation with her?

Mr. Sinnett: Certainly; but the point to which I attach importance in
this case is that the thing happened in broad daylight in a room which I had
myself occupied the previous night, and which I had been in and out of
during the whole of the morning. Everything occurred fully before my eyes.
It is impossible that Madame Blavatsky could have thrown the letter with
her hand. All the circumstances are incompatible with that. I was not
writing at the time, but talking to her, so that the idea that she could have
thrown the letter is simply preposterous. (See "The Occult World," p. 120. )

It might be suggested that the remarks made by Madame Blavatsky
were calculated to render this phenomenon more striking than it
actually was if Mr. Sinnett could have been prevailed upon to " exercise
his will power," and it is to be inferred from Mr. Sinnett's accounts that
he made no examination whatever of the ceiling either from the room
below or from the garret above. According to M. Coulomb the packet had
Ijeen arranged in the trap in the garret before the arrival of Mr. Sinnett
on the previous evening, but as Mr. Sinnett was late in arriving, the
phenomenon was deferred until the following morning. The room where
the letter fell has already been described (p. 254), and the incident needs
no further comment.

The third case was that of a sealed envelope, a case which Mr.
Sinnett seems to have regarded as "quite complete," in his deposi-
tion to the Committee. (See <* The Occult World," pp. 95-96.) This
envelope, which contained a letter for the Brothers, and which
Mr. Sinnett, after gumming and sealing, had given to Madame Blavatsky,
was in Madame Blavatsky 's possession for several hours, and when it was
returned to Mr. Sinnett, he found it "absolutely intact, its very complete
fastenings having i*emained just as " he had arranged them. Cutting
the envelope open, Mr. Sinnett found inside, not only the letter it had
previously contained, but also another, from Koot Hoomi. Mr. Sinnett
showed me the envelope. The fastenings were not by any means
what I should call complete; so far was this from being the case, that
owing to the length of the flap, which was only sealed at its lower
extremity, the letter might have been abstracted, and re-inserted with
other letters, without even steaming the envelope, or loosening the
adliesion of the gum by any other process; and if the gum had been
loosened, say by careful steaming, the abstraction and re-insertion would
have been superlatively easy.

The last case given by Mr. Sinnett in liis deposition to the Com-
mittee, and emphasised by him as a "phenomenal test," is the
alleged instantaneous transportation of a piece of plaster plaque
from Bombay to Allahabad. ("The Occult World,'' pp. 126-131.) The
important facts are briefly these. Colonel Olcott, accompanied by Mr.
Bhavani Rao (now Inspector of the N. W. Theosophical branches), was
on his way from Bombay to Calcutta, and was staying with Mr. Sinnett
at Allahabad on the route. One evening, on his return home, Mr.
Sinnett found, in one of several telegram envelopes awaiting him, a note
from Mahatma M., telling him to search in his writing-room for "a
fragment of a plaster bas-relief that M. had just transported instan-
taneously from Bombay." Mr. Sinnett found the fragment in the
drawer of his writing-table. A document signed at Bombay shows that
somewhere about the same time as Mr. Sinnett got this note a loud
noise, as of something falling and breaking, was heard by several
persons as theji sat in the verandah adjoining Madame Blavatsky's
writing-room. A search was immediately made in this room, which
proved to be empty, but a certain plaster mould was found lying in
pieces on the floor. On fitting the pieces together, it was found that
one fragment was missing. Shoi-tly afterwards Madame Blavatsky
went into her other room and shut the door. After a minute's interval,
she called Mr. Tookaram Tatya and showed him a paper containing the
handwriting of " Mahatma M.," which informed them tliat the
missing piece had been taken to Allahabad. The remaining pieces
were sent a few days later to Mr. Sinnett, and he found that his piece
" fitted in perfectly." Of course, the weak point of the case is that
there is no proof whatever that the piece of plaster received by Mr.
Sinnett w^as in Bombay when the peculiar breakage occurred, for it
appears from the statement of the witnesses at Bombay (shown to us
by Mr. Sinnett, but not printed complete in " The Occult World ") that
the only evidence for the previously unbroken condition of the plaster
mould is that " Madame Blavatsky on inquiry ascertained [!] from the
servants that all the furniture had been cleaned and dusted two days
before, and the portrait was intact then."

What arrangements would be necessary for the phenomenon if it was
a trick? MaclameBlaA''atsky,we maysuppose,begins by breaking off a corner
of the plaster mould, and in so doing breaks the mould into several pieces.
After some difficulties, M. Coulomb fits the pieces together — all but
one — and keeps them in place by a strip of cardboard frame fastened in
such a manner that it can be jerked away by a string pulled from out-
side the room where the mould was suspended. The cardboard strip
containing the mould is arranged on the nail. As M. Coulomb is going
with Madame Coulomb to Poona, he instructs Babula how to pull the
string. [20] The fragment of plaster withheld is given (or sent) to some
confederate to be placed in Mr. Sinnett's drawer, together with a note
in the handwriting of " Mahatma M.," which is to be placed, if possible,
in some " closed " envelope at Mr. Sinnett's house; an hour is agreed
upon, say 7 p.m., March 11th, Bombay time, and at the appointed
hour, Babula pulls the string, the plaster falls with a crash, and witnesses
are there to hear the noise and fit the fragments together. Madame
Blavatsky entere her inner room alone and provides a Mahatma note.
Meanwhile, the confederate has succeeded in inserting the note in a
telegram envelope (possibly by careful manipulation of the eyelets which
are used to fasten telegram envelopes in India; possibly by substituting
eyelets slightly larger, so as to cover any flaws made in the paper of the
envelope).

To the same confederate may have been confided the two Koot
Hoomi notes received by Mr. Sinnett while Mr. Bhavani Rao was at
Allahabad. There is most assuredly nothing in those portions of the
first of these which Mr. Sinnett quotes ("Occult World," p. 130)
which might not have been "written beforehand, and the second might
w^ell, so far as appears from Mr. Sinnett's account of its contents, have
been prepared in anticipation of Mr. SuinetVs suggestions. It simply
said, Mr. Sinnett tells us, " that what I proposed was impossible, and
that he [Koot Hoomi] would write more fully through Bombay. " [21] This
is curiously like the en cas which was provided by Madame Blavatsky
for General Morgan in connection with the Adyar Saucer phenomenon,
and which, as General Morgan did not ask any questions, remained in
possession of tho Coulombs (see p. 213). If it be objected to my
explanation of these Allahabad phenomena that the only possible con-
federate was Mr. Bhavani Rao himself, I must reply that I cannot
regard this objection as an important one. I have already shown
grounds for believing that Madame Blavatsky has obtained sufficient
influence over two educated young natives to induce them to join her
in tricks, and from what I know of Mr. Bhavani Bao, or, as he is more
generally called, Bhavani Shankar, whose acquaintance I made while I
was in India, I can find no improbability in the supposition of his being
a third. I have given in Appendix IX., and in Part II., p. 297, what
I regard as instances of deliberate misrepresentation on his part.

I pass now to the remaining phenomena mentioned by Mr. Sinnett
in " The Occult World." We may first take the "raps" and the "astral
bells," which Mr. Sinnett seems to regard as constituting important
test phenomena. I may here quote a passage from " The Occult
World," p. 35:—

"With such a mighty problem at stake as the trustworthiness of
the fundamental theories of modem physical science, it is impossible
to proceed by any other but scientific modes of investigation. In any
experiments I have tried I have always been careful to exclude, not
merely the probability, but the possibility of trickery; and where it has
been impossible to secure the proper conditions, I have not allowed the
results of the experiments to enter into the sum total of my conclusions."

That Mr. Sinnett looks upon the cases we have just considered iii
detail as instances of the passage of matter through matter or of its pre-
precipitation or reintegration, forces me to the opinion that his modes
of investigation have not been what I should call " scientific,'' and that
the same lack of due caution probably characterised his observation of
test-conditions in those instances which I have not been able to investi-
gate personally, as in those instances where I have had the opportunity
of examining the conditions applied. Thus, for example, I have not taken
part in forming a pile of hands such as Mr. Sinnett describes on p. 33,
but I cannot attribute any importance to his confident statement
concerning this and similar incidents, now that I have examined some
of the possibilities in other cases about which he speaks with equal, if
not greater, confidence. The raps occurring when Madame Blavatsky
places her hands upon the patient's head, I have, however, experienced,
— ^though, as Madame Blavatsky sat behind me and placed her hands
upon the back of my head, I was unable to watch her fingers.
She had not informed me wliat she intended doing, and I conjectured
that she was attempting to " mesmerise " me; the so-called *' shocks "
which I felt impressed me simply as movements of impatience on
the part of Madame Blavatsky. My attention being then drawn to them
as " phenomena," they were repeated, but I found them not at all like
the ''shocks " experienced when taking off sparks from the conductor of
an electrical machine, as Mr. Sinnett describes them. The sharp thrillmg
or tingling feeling was quite absent. Unfortunately, I am unable to
gently crack any of the joints of my fingers, I can but clumsily and
undisguisedly crack one of the joints of my thumbs, yet I find that the
qtiality of the feeling produced when I thus crack my thumb-joint against
my head exactly resembles that which I perceived under the supple
hands of Madame Blavatsky. The explanation which accounts satisfactorily
for my own experience I do not pretend to offer as an assured explana-
tion of the experiments made by Mr. Sinnett, though I do not by any
means feel certain that it may not be sufficient. It is true that Mr.
Sinnett regards the hypothesis as "idiotic " ("Occult World," p. 33); but
then he regarded the suggestion that the letter he described as
" materialised, or reintegrated in the air," was an outcome of any con-
cealed apparatus, as "grotesquely absurd" (p. 120), notwithstanding
the facts that the phenomenon occurred at the headquarters of the
Theosophical Society, that the ceiling of the room abounded with
interstices, and that the garret above might have been crammed up to
the tiled roof with all sorts of conjuring devices for aught he knew to
the contrary. Mr. Sinnett treats with scorn the supposition that
Madame Blavatsky could have produced either the " raps " or the
" asti'ul bells " by means of any machine concealed about her person;
but I cannot help thinking that the latter sounds at least might
have been produced in this way. Madame Coulomb asserts that they
were actually so produced, by the use of a small musical-box,
constructed on the same principle as the machine 'employed in con-
nection with the trick known under the name "Is your watch a
repeater? " and she produced gainnents which she asserted had belonged
to Madame Blavatsky, and showed me stains resembling iron-mould on
the right side, slightly above the waist, which she affirmed had been
caused by contact with the metal of the machine. She declares also
that the machine was sometimes carried by Babula, on the roof or
in the various rooms of the house or outside, and when used by Madame
Blavatsky herself was worked by a slight pressure of the arm against the
side, which would have been imperceptible to the persons present. I
think the " astral bells " may be thus accounted for, and I must remind
the reader of an important consideration which Mr. Sinnett seems to
have overlooked — ^namely, the great uncertainty in all localisation of
sounds of which the cause and mode of production are unknown, especially
pure tones such as he describes the " astral bell '^ sound to be, and the
great ease of inducing by trifling indications the adoption of an altogether
erroneous opinion concerning the position where the sonorous disturbance
originates. Further, we may suppose, without any extravagance of
hypothesis, that Madame Blavatsky may possess more than one of these
machines alluded to, so that the sounds may be heard in different
places at the same time. Yet the possibility that if Madame Blavatsky
had one such machine she might have had two does not seem to have
occurred to Mr. Sinnett, if I may judge from his argument on p. 41.

"Managed a little better, the occurrence now to be dealt with
would have been a beautiful test " ("Occult World," p. 43); for a certain
class of readers it is told " not as a proof but as an incident," and it
is wortli a brief consideration from this point of view. Mrs. Sinnett
" went one afternoon with Madame Blavatsky to the top of a neigh-
bouring hill. They were only accompanied by one other friend." While
there Madame Blavatsky asked Mrs. Sinnett " what was her hearths
desire." As Mr. Sinnett's correspondence with " Koot Hoomi " appears
to have begun about this time, [22] it is probable that much interest was
excited by the idea of receiving communications from the " Adepts,'*
and it cannot, therefore, be regarded as at all unlikely that Mrs. Sinnett
should ask as she did " for a note from one of the Brothers." Moreover,
it does not appear that Madame Blavatsky guaranteed the fulfilment of
Mrs. Sinnett's " heart's desire " until she knew what the desire was,
any more than she guaranteed the fulfilment of Mrs. Sinnett's wish
that the note should '^ come fluttering down into her lap," and this
last wish was not granted. '^ Some conversation ensued as to whether
this would be the best way to get it, and ultimately it was decided
that she should find it in a certain tree." Mr. Sinnett does not
lay any stress upon the identity of the paper folded up by Madame
Blavatsky with the paper of the pink note received by Mrs. Simiett,
uor will any person experienced in strawberry hunts, or familiar with
leafy trees, be in the Jeast degree surprised that Mrs. Sinnett did not at
once perceive the " little pink note " upon the " twig immediately before
her face." The note was *' stuck on to the stalk of a leaf that had
l>een quite freshly torn off, for the stalk was still green and moist — not
withered as it would have been if the leaf had been torn off for any
length of time." " Length of time " is vague.

The incident ought to be instructive. Colonel Olcott was the friend
who accompanied Mrs. Sinnett and Madame Blavatsky to the top of
the hill, where, according to his diary, they had seen on the previous
<iay, "through a field-glass, a man in white making signals " to them.
The " man in white" may account for the expedition to the hill; he may
also account for the pink note in the tree. We are unlikely to discover
how many of Madame Blavatsky's pre-arrangements were never carried
out, owing to the complete failure of her anticipations; but the case
before us clearly illustrates a partial failure. If Mrs. Sinnett had
made some other answer than the one she actually made to the question,
put " in a joking way " by Madame Blavatsky, we should probably
have never heard of the conversation or the expedition at all. Mr.
Sinnett has not told us definitely whether it was Madame Blavatsky
or Colonel Olcott (whose name is not mentioned by Mr. Sinnett at all
in connection with the incident) who objected to Mrs. Sinnett's request
that the letter should " come fluttering down into her lap," nor has he
told us what the exact objection was. [23] It is implied, however, that
Madame Blavatsky pointed out the tree supposed to be chosen by the
** Brother." Why did she first point out the wrong tree? Perhaps she
Anticipated that Mrs. Sinnett might, for her own satisfaction, suggest
the other tree; or perhaps there may have been a mistake between her-
self and the '' man in white/' The note said, " I have been asked
to leave a note here for you, what can I do for you? " The words are
not remarkably relevant; according to the account given by Mr. Sinuett,
the " Brother " had chosen the spot himself.

We **come now to the incidents of a very remarkable day," ("Occult
World," pp. 44-59), that of the Simla picnic, October 3rd, 1880— the day
of the cup and saucer, diploma, bottle of water, and Mrs. Hume's
brooch. The account given by Colonel Oloott, dated October 4th, 1880,
and sent round at the time as a circular to the Fellows of the Theosophi-
cal Society, throws a remarkable light upon Mr. Sinnett's narrative.
Thus, whereas from Mr. Sinnett's description of the events, it would
seem that Msbdame Blavatsky had no share in the choice of the spot
chosen for luncheon, almost the reverse of this appeam from the
opening sentences of Colonel Olcott's account: —

"Great day yesterday for Madame's phenomena. In the morning she, with
Mr. and Mrs. binnett, Major , Mr. S. M., Mrs. R., and myself went on
a picnic. Although she had never been at Simla before, she directed us where
to go, describing a certain small mill which the Sinnetts, Major and
even the jampanis (palki-voaUahs) affirmed, did not exist. She also
mentioned a small Tibetan temple as being near it. We reached the spot she
had described and fmuxd the miU at about 10 a.m.; and sat in the shade and
had the servants spread a collation."

I received from Colonel Olcott, not only a copy of the circular from
which the above extract is taken, but a transcript from his diary-
account, and also further oral explanations. Erom these last it
would appear that Madame Blavatsky and X. were in front of the
others, and that Madame Blavatsky described the road which they should
take; that it was Madame Blavatsky and X. who together chose pro-
visionally the spot for the picnic encampment; and that Mr. Sinnett
and X. then walked on further to see if a better spot could be chosen,
and decided to remain at the place where the halt had already been
made.

As this place appears in Mr. Sinnett's account as a place they " were
not likely to go to " (p. 49) we cannot attach much weight to his opinion
that the cup and saucer were of a kind they " were not likely to take."

Probably Madame Blavatsky's native servant Babula, an active
young fellow, who, I am assured on good authority, had formerly
been in the service of a French conjurer, could throw even more light
upon the day's proceedings than Colonel Olcott's account. The previous
abstraction of the cup and saucer, their burial in the early morning, the
description of the spot to Madame Blavatsky, the choice of the
particular service taken, are deeds which lie easily within the accomplish-
ment of Babula's powers. Concerning a later period of the day, when
the party had shifted their quarters to another part of the wood, Mr.
Siiinett writes, on p. 51: "X. and one of the other gentlemen had
wandered off." From Colonel Olcott's accounts it appears that they had
gone back to the previous encampment in order to ascertain if there
were any traces of a tunnel by which the cup and saucer might have
been previously buried in an ordinary way, and that when they returned
they expressed their conviction that the cup and saucer might have
been so buried, but that the ground about the spot had been so disturbed
by the digging and throwing of earth, that evidence of such a tunnel
could not be found. Before the party returned from the picnic it was
known that three of them, viz., Mrs. R., Mr. S. M., and Major --
(mentioned by Mr. Sinnett as X.), were dissatisfied with the
" phenomenon "; the three who came away believing, were Mr. and
Mrs. Sinnett and Colonel Olcott, — all of whom seem to have previously
fully attained the conviction of Madame Blavatsky's good faith. Shortly
afterwards Major Henderson wrote a letter to the Times of IndiOf in
which he stated: " On the day in question, 1 declared the saucer to be
an incomplete and unsatisfactory manifestation, as not fulfilling proper
test conditions. My reasonable doubt was construed as a personal
insult, and I soon discovered that a sceptical frame of mind in the
inquirer is not favourable to the manifestation of the marvels of
Theosophy .... I am not a Theosophist nor a believer in the
phenomena, which I entirely discredit, nor have I any intention of
furthering the objects of the Society in any way."

The concealment of the diploma and the management of the bottle
of water would have been still easier tasks for Babula than the burying
of the cup and saucer in the rooted bank. Against Mr. Sinnett's account
of the finding of the diploma by X., I have to set Colonel Olcott's state-
ment that the particular shrub where the diploma was found was
pointed out to X. by Madame Blavatsky, this statement being made in
connection with the passage in Colonel Olcott's diary: " She points to
a bit of ground, and tells him to search there. He finds his diploma
. . . under a low cedar-tree." In continuation Colonel Olcott
writes: " Later, we are out of water, and she fills a bottle with pure
water by putting the bottle up her sleeve." In connection with this
incident Mr. Sinnett has much to suggest about the abnormal
stupidity of a certain coolie who had been sent with empty bottles to a
brewery with a pencil note asking for water, and who, finding no
European at the brewery to receive the note, had brought back the
** empty" bottles. It was — apparently — one of these " empty" bottles
thus brought back that Madame Blavatsky took for her experiment.
Who was this abnormally stupid coolie 1 Surely not Madame
Blavatsky's personal servant Babula? It is difficult to suppose that
Mr. Sinnett would speak of [Babula as a coolie, and he could hardly
make a greater mistake than to attribute abnormal stupidity to Babula
rather than abnormal cleverness. And yet Babula was in some way
concerned. Colonel Olcott wrote, after saying that wanting some tea
they found they were out of water: —

"Servants were sent in various directions but could get none. While
Babula was off on a second search Madame quietly went to the lunch-baskets,
took an* empty water-bottle, put it in the loose sleeve of her gown, and came
straight to where we were sitting on the grass. The bottle imsfull of clearest
and softest water ^ of which we all partook."

Granted that Babula was present, the fact that all the bottles became
empty, and that afterwards one of them became full, may be easily
accounted for without the necessity of supposing that there was anything
more substantial than a smile in Madame Blavatsky's sleeve. It is
curious how much Babula has been kept in the background of Mr.
Sinnett's account; carelessly, no doubt, and not carefully; but then, if
carelessly, Mr. Sinnett must be charged with a grievous lack of ordinary
perspicacity.

Finally, came the " celebrated brooch incident." (" Occult World,'*
pp. 54-59.) Of this it will suffice to say that the brooch formed one of
several articles of jewellery which Mrs. Hume had given to a person
who had again parted with them to another who had *' allowed
them to pass out of their possession." It is an admitted fact
that many of these articles, parted with at the same time as the
brooch, did actually pass through Colonel Olcott's hands very
soon afterwards. Colonel Olcott does not remember seeing the brooch;
but that Madame Blavatsky may at that time have had an opportunity,
which she seized, of obtaining possession of it, is obviously highly probable,
though there is no absolute proof of this. It is at any rate certain that
she entrusted a brooch, which needed some slight repair, to Mr. Hormusji
S. Seervai, of Bombay, who shortly afterwards returned it to Madame
Blavatsky. When the " brooch incident " occurred later, and the
account of it was published containing a description of the brooch,
Mr. Hormusji found that the description exactly fitted the brooch which
had been entrusted to him for repair by Madame Blavatsky. For these
facts I rely chiefly on statements made to me personally by Mr.
Hume and Mr. Hormusji, though, indeed, the first links of the chain had
been previously published in various forms, and were never challenged,
and I may add that Mr. Hormusji's testimony is confirmed by that of
two other witnesses who remember his immediate recognition of the
description given in the account of the " brooch incident " as that of the
brooch Madame Blavatsky had given him to be repaired. The above
outline is, I think, specific enough to lead the reader to a right conclu-
sion. The fact that Mrs. Hume chose the lost brooch as the object to
be brought to her by the '^ Brother," Mr. Hume is inclined to explain
as a case of thought-transference to Mrs. Hume from Madame Blavatsky,
who was probably willing intensely that Mrs. Hume should think of the
brooch. I do not dispute this opinion, though I cannot regard the
case as a proven instance of telepathy; Madame Blavatsky may have
had enough knowledge of the history of the brooch and enough prac-
tical acquaintance with the laws of association, to make it easy for
her to suggest that family relic to the thoughts of Mrs. Hume, without
exciting the suspicion of the persons present, who, by Mr. Sinnett's
account, seem to have been as far as possible from attempting to
realise what a special chain of reminiscence may have been quickened
into vivid life by Madame Blavatsky's words.

It must not be forgotten, in dealing with these cases, that we do not
know how many *' phenomenal tests" may have been arranged by
Madame Blavatsky which did not succeed. She may have failed in
leading to the needful topic of conversation; she may have been asked
for objects she had not obtained, or could not obtain, and so refused on
one pretext or another to comply with some request made; she may
have offered an answer to a letter neither she nor any confederate was
able to read, and failed in her Mahatma-reply to make any reference
whatever to the specific question asked in the undecipherable document;
she may have been requested to produce phenomena in a way different
from that already prepared; she may not have provided for contingent
cies such as the absence of the persons required for the experiment, and
so on. There are samples of these several kinds of failures, which would,
I presume, be regarded by Mr. Sinnett merely as interesting "incidents."
A notable incident of this kind may be given as it is closely related to the
next group of " proofs " to which we pass in Mr. Sinnett's " Occult
World." It appears that Madame Blavatsky, for the benefit of Captain
Maitland, had professed to send a cigarette tied up with her hair to a
place under the horn of the unicorn on the coat of arms under the statue
of the Prince of Wales, opposite Watson's Hotel in Bombay. Captain
Maitland telegraphed (from Simla) to Mr. Grant in Bombay, asking him
to look immediately for the cigarette. Mr. Grant found no cigarette in
the place described. Madame Coulomb asserts that she was the person who
was to have put the cigarette there, but that she " never went near the
place." ("Some Account," <fec., by Madame Coulomb, pp. 16-18.) Hence the
f ailure,not mentioned by Mr. Sinnett. The B]avatsky-Coulomb documents
sufficiently discredit the cigarette phenomena, and it can be seen at once
that those quoted by Mr. Sinnett might have been arranged with
perfect ease by Madame Blavatsky. In the first case, that of Mrs.
Gordon, the " place indicated " as the place where the cigarette would
be found is not stated. In the two other instances given, the
cigarettes were found in places where they would probably remain un-
discovered for some time, unless particular search for them were made,
and Madame Blavatsky — or, by her instructions, Babula — might have
deposited them there previously. Mr. Sinnettsays that "for persons who
have not actually seen Madame Blavatsky do one of her cigarette feats it
may be useless to point out that she does not do them as a conjurer
would," and certainly it is difficult for such persons to understand
the profound conviction which Mr. Sinnett displays (" Occult World,*'
p. 63) concerning the identity of the comer of the paper torn off with
the comer given to the percipient, in the face of such sleight-of-hand
performances as he himself describes: —

"You take two pieces of paper, and tear off a comer of both together, so
that the jags of both are the same. You make a cigarette with one piece^
and put it in the place where you mean to have it ultimately found. You
then hold the other piece underneath the one you tear in presence of the
spectator, slip in one of the already torn comers into his hand instead of
that he sees you tear, make your cigarette with the other part of the original
piece, dispose of thut anyhow you please, and allow the prepared cigarette to
be found. Other variations of the system may be readily imagined."

Mr. Sinnett's naive remark that the certainty of the spectator would
be enhanced by the pencil-marks drawn upon the cigarette paper before
his eyes, compels me to suppose that his experience in conjuring must be
very limited. For it appears that the pencil-marks were chosen and
drawn by Madame Blavatsky herself; she declined to let Captain Mait-
land " mark or tear the papers "; otherwise there might have been no
apparent similarity between the paper marked and that which had
already been deftly rolled by Madame Blavatsky's fingers, and was
lying snugly on a shelf inside the piano, or in the covered cup on the
bracket.

Mr. Sinnett's confidence that the cigarette feats are not conjuring
performances will appear still more singular to persons who have
practised palming, as I have myself done, and who read the following
sentences from the accounts given on p. 62: —

"The cigarettes being finished, Madame Blavatsky stood up, and took them
between her hands, which she rubbed together. After about 20 or
30 seconds, the grating noise of the paper, at first distinctly audible,
ceased."

"With the remainder of the paper she prepared a cigarette in the ordinary
niamier, and in a few moments caused this cigarette to disappear from her
hands."

In short, if Madame Blavatsky does not do her cigarette feats as a
conjurer would, the descriptions quoted by Mr. Sinnett, pp. 60-63, must
be fundamentally erroneous.

The next case for our consideration is the Pillow Incident. ("Occult
World," pp. 75-79.) Mr. Siimett's " subjective impressions " of the
previous uight appear to be in close relation with the incident, if not
to form part of it; but as thej are not exactly described, I am unable,
of course, to deal with them. If they were neither hallucination nor
extreme illusion suffered by Mr. Sinnett, they may have been due to
Madame Blavatsky's boldness and cleverness, in which case the cushion
may have been manipulated before Mr. Sinnett spoke of his impres-
sions that morning. And here again appears the invaluable Babula,
who was probably the " Brother " who inserted the brooch and the note
provided by Madame Blavatsky, in the jampan cushion. Was it
a remarkable fact that this particular cushion was chosen?
There may, indeed, have been a second object, and a note in
some adjoining tree in case a tree had been chosen, and there
may have been a third buried in the ground; though I think
it unlikely that Madame Blavatsky would have taken any
trouble to provide for these contingencies, even if there were other
objects which might have "hinged on" to Mr. Sinnett's subjective
impressions. Simply because such places as the ground and the tree
had been chosen before, they were not likely to be chosen again; it
was not so exceedingly improbable that the firmly-made " usual jampan
cushion " which Mrs. Sinnett might certainly be expected to take with
her should be selected. Madame Blavatsky's intimate acquaintance
with Mr. Sinnett may have enabled her to anticipate with considerable
confidence that he would choose the cushion. Besides, if it should
unfortunately not be chosen, some conversation might ensue as to
whether the place fixed upon was the best, and ultimately it might be
decided that they should look for it in one of the cushions. If any
mistake were made about the cushion, Madame Blavatsky might again
get into communication with Koot Hoomi, and ascertain that it was in
Mrs. Sinnett's cushion that the object was being placed, as in the case
of the " incident " discussed above, p. 264.

But Mr. Sinnett gave a note to Madame Blavatsky, apparently just
before starting out, for Koot Hoomi. This note is said to have dis-
appeared when they were about half way to their destination, yet no
reference to this was made in the Koot Hoomi note found in the
cushion. Let us suppose, allowing the picnic-spot to be only half an
hour's\listance, that this involved only a quarter of an hour's interval
between the disappearance of the note and the choice of the cushion^
followed by the preparation of the " currents." What happened during
tliis quarter of an hour? We read in other places of instarUaneouB
transportations of solid objects, instantaneous precipitations of answers,
to questions, &c. I suppose this quarter of an hour would be accounted
for by the blundering of a Chela, the Cliela being Madame Blavatsky..
It will hardly be pleaded that " the currents for the production of the
pillow dak " had been set ready some time before the pillow had been
chosen, unless it is intended to take refuge in the surrejoinder that Root
Hoomi knew that Mr. Sinnett would be certain to choose the pillow,
and could, therefore, pre-arrange the "currents," but that Koot Hoomi
did not know, when he thus pre-arranged the currents, what Mr.
Sinnett had written, or even that Mr. Sinnett had written a letter at
all. All this ignorance on the part of Koot Hoomi, notwithstanding
the fact that Mr. Sinnett's letter was in answer to a Koot Hoomi note,
and that Koot Hoomi was supposed to be busy with phenomena for
Mr. Sinnett's behoof! Mr. Sinnett's faith, however, does not seem to
have been affected by this little hiatus of time, though it seems to have
been stimulated by the underlining of a " k " in the Koot Hoomi
cushion note, as on the previous evening " Madame Blavatsky had been
saying that Koot Hoomi's spelling of * Skepticism ' with a * k ' was
not an Americanism in his case, but due to a philological whim of his."
(This " philological whim " is not always remembered; I have myself
seen " sceptic " spelt with a " c " in a Koot Hoomi document.) That
the note found in the cushion bore reference throughout to the con-
versation (we will suppose, not led up to) of the previous evening, but
contained not the slightest allusion to Mr. Sinnett's note of the follow-
ing morning, leads me to the inference that the said Koot Hoomi note
was inserted in the cusliion in the interval — and, as I have stated,
by Babula.

The Jhelura telegram case might be explained in a variety of ways,
but Mr. Sinnett has not given us the detail necessary to enable us to
form any conclusion. The incident was briefly as follows. ("Occult
World," pp. 80-83). Mr. Sinnett, before leaving Simla for Allahabad,
wrote a letter to Koot Hoomi which he sent to Madame Blavatsky,
who was at Amritsur. This letter was written on October 24th,
1880. The envelope of this letter was returned to Mr. Sinnett by
Madame Blavatsky, and bore, as I understand, the afternoon postmark
of October 27th. On October 27th, Mr. Sinnett, then at Allahabad,
received a telegram from Jhelum sent on October 27th. This telegram
contained a specific reply to his letter. Afterwards Mr. Sinnett was
requested, through Madame Blavatsky, to see the original [24] of the Jhelum
telegram. This he succeeded in doing, and found the writing to be that
of Koot Hoomi.

Let us suppose that Madame Blavatsky did not forge the "evidential"
postmark; that post-office peons were none of them bribed to mark [25] or
deliver a letter otherwise than in due course; that the letter enclosed by
Mr.Sinnett in the envelope was actually despatched in that envelope; that
previous to its despatch the contents were known to no one but Mr.
Sinnett, and that no one acquired any knowledge of the contents before
the letter reached Madame Blavatsky's hands. Under these circum-
stances it would still have been possible for Madame Blavatsky to have
read the letter, and to have telegraphed the right reply to a confederate
in Jhelum, who might then have penned or pencilled the telegram to Mr.
Sinnett in sufficiently close imitation of the Koot Hoomi handwriting
ordinarily produced by Madame Blavatsky, to have deceived Mr. Sinnett.
I have made all the above suppositions for the purpose of drawing the
reader's notice to the fact that, presuming that the Jhelum telegram docu-
ment, afterwards inspected by Mr. Sinnett, was actually the document
handed in as the message to be despatched to him, we should require
some further evidence of the identity of its handwriting with that of Mr.
Sinnett's Koot Hoomi documents generally, than that furnished by the
examination of Mr. Sinnett himself, who appears not to have observed
the numerous traces of Madame Blavatsky's handiwork in the earliest
Koot Hoomi letters he received.

I think it probable, however, that the document in question was,
as a matter of fact, written by Madame Blavatsky herself, and that Mr.
Sinnett's letter reached her, either in the envelope in which he enclosed
it, or in another^ before the 27th. It surprised me considerably to find
that Amritsur was only 21 hours [26] from Simla, and Jhelum only 8 hours
from Amritsur. Madame Blavatsky is said to have received Mr,
Sinnett's envelope not earlier than the afternoon of October 2 7th, so that,
if the Amritsur postmark was bond Jid^^ it probably left Simla on
October 26th. Mr. Sinnett's letter was written on October 24th. This
large hiatus of time is not alluded to in Mr. Sinnett's account, which
is remarkable for the scantiness of its detail concerning the most impor-
tant conditioning elements. He does not explicitly mention either when,
he wrote his letter (the date appears on p. 83 in the Koot Hoomi
quotation) or when or by whom the letter was posted. He does not
mention the Simla post-mark, nor does he make any suggestion, for the
benefit of the English reader, as to the distances between Simla,
Amritsur, and Jhelum. Yet Mr. Sinnett seems to have regarded this
fragmentary evidence as likely to appeal to other minds besides his own
("Occult World," p. 80); no doubt it may do so if they take for
granted that the details neglected contribute to the marvellousness of
the phenomenon.

With reference to the portraits drawn in Mr. Sinnett's house ("Occult
World," pp. 137-139), it is not necessary to say any moi*e, considering
the exiguity of Mr. Sinnett's account, than that Madame Blavatsky is
exceedingly skilful in the use of both pencil and brush. I have seen
specimens of her handiwork, not only in certain playing-cards, which
Colonel Olcott showed me — each card being a clever, humorous sketch,
— but in drawings, precisely similar to that mentioned by Mr. Sinnett,
where the face on the white paper was defined by contrast with " cloudy
blue shading." [27]

On the whole, then, I think I am justified in saying that the
phenomena relied upon by Mr. Sinnett in "The Occult World " can be
accounted for much more satisfactorily than can the performances of
any ordinary professional conjurer by the uninitiated observer, however
acute; that the additional details which I have been enabled to furnish
in connection with some of the incidents Mr. Sinnett has recorded,
clearly show that he has not been in the habit of exercising due caution
for the exclusion of trickery; and that he has not proceeded in accordance
with those " scientific modes of investigation " which he explicitly
declares (" Occult World," p. 35) he regarded as necessaiy for the task
he attempted.

Evidence of Mr. A. O. Hume
(Late Government Secretary of India).

As Mr. Hume took a prominent part in the early development of
the Theosophical Society in India, and even published two pamphlets
on the subject, "Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," Nos. 1 and 2, it
seems to me desirable to draw special attention to the considerable
change which has taken place in his opinion concerning the phenomena
connected with Madame Blavatsky. I enjoyed, while in India, the
opportunity of having various long interviews with Mr. Hume, and
have already referred to his conclusion (reached after a most careful
inquiry) in connection with the incident of the recovery of Mrs. Hume'&
brooch, that Madame Blavatsky may very well have obtained the brooch
previously by ordinary methods. Long before the publication of the
Blavatsky-Coulomb letters in the Christian College Magazine^ Mr.
Hume had discovered that some of Madame Blavatsky's phenomena
were fraudulent, and that some of the professed Mahatma writing was
the handiwork of Madame Blavatsky herself. Once or twice he had
seen notes on some philosophic question which had been made by M.r.
Subba Row (Vakil of the High Court, Madras), a leading native
Theosophist. The substance of these notes appeared afterwards worked
up into a Mahatma document (received by either himself or Mr.
Sinnett), and worsened in the working. I inquired of Mr. Subba
Kow, the ablest native Theosophist I have met, whether he was
aware of the episodes which Mr. Hume had described. He replied
laconically, " It may be so." When the Blavatsky-Coulomb letters
were first published Mr. Hume expressed his opinion publicly that
Madame Blavatsky was too clever to have thus committed herself;
latterly, however, and partly in consequence of the evidence
I was able to lay before him, he came to the conviction that
the letters in question were actually written by Madame Blavatsky.
Further, he had never placed the slightest credence in the Shrine-
phenomena, wliich he had always supposed to be fraudulent. I may
state also that his conclusions, reached independently of my own and
from different circumstances, concerning the untrustworthiness of
Messrs. Damodar, Babajee, and Babula, entirely corroborated those
to wliich I had been forced. Yet Mr. Hume was originally just as fully
committed to the genuineness of certain phenomena as Mr. Sinnett him>
self, as will be manifest from a perusal of his " Hints on Esoteric
Theosophy," from which some of the narratives quoted in our First
Beport were taken. His present attitude is an admirable testimony not
only to his readiness to accept the truth at the cost of negating so
extensively his own past opinions, but also to the systematic pains be
has taken in sifting the antecedents of the apparently marvellous
phenomena which occurred in close connection with himself. For
example, he received a Koot Hoomi communication in a letter coming
from a person who had no connection with Theosophy. This may
have been the incident referred to by Mr. Sinnett (" Occult World,"
p. 21), as follows: —

"When this Society [the Simla branch of the Theosophical Society] was
formed, many letters passed between Koot Hoomi and ourselves, which were
not in every case transmitted through Madame Blavatsky. In one case, for
example, Mr. Hume, who became President for the firsi year of the neAv
Society ... got a note from Koot Hoomi inside a letter received
through the post from a person wholly uuconnected with our occult pur-
suits, who was writing to him in connection with some mimicipal business."

Mr. Hume has informed me that he himself received the letter^
which was large and peculiar in appearance, from the postman's hands.
A long time afterwards, when reinvestigating a number of supposed
phenomena (not published) which had occurred at his house, he learnt
incidentally from one of his servants that just such a letter had been
taken by Babula from the postman early one morning, and carried off
to Madame, and had been returned to the postman, when the postman
came by again, Babula, who said that it was not for Madame but for
Mr. Hume. The servant had wondered at the time why Babula had
not taken the letter to Mr. Hume himself, and he said that he
thought he remembered that Babula had taken and returned
letters in the same way on other occasions. We suggested a somewhat
similar procedure on the part of Babula in our First Report as an
explanation of instances analogous to that of Mr. Hume's. In various
cases, which it is unnecessary to reproduce in this Report, it will be
seen that Madame Blavatsky may have been enabled in a similar way
to tamper with the letters before they actually reached the addressees.
It may be instructive here to quote Mr. Hume's testimony to the fact
that peculiar envelopes and paper, like those generally used by Madame
Blavatsky for the Mahatma communications, are procurable in the
neighbourhood of Darjeeling, that they were not used for the earliest
Mahatma documents, which appeared before Madame Blavatsky had
visited Darjeeling, but were first brought into requisition for that
purpose at a time which coincided with her visit to that place. Mr.
Hume's position at present is that " despite all the frauds perpetrated,,
there have been genuine phenomena, and that, though of a low order^
Madame [Blavatsky] really had and has Occultists of considerable
though limited powers behind her; that K. H. is a real entity, but by
no means the powerful and godlike being he has been painted, and that
he has had some share, directly or indirectly— though what Mr. Hume
does not pretend to say —in the production of the K. H. letters." The
reader already knows that I cannot myself discover sufficient evidence
for the occurrence of any " occult phenomenon" whatever in connection
with the Theosophical Society.

-------

I have thus far postponed the consideration of the handwriting
purporting to have been " precipitated." The specimens of such writing
which came under my notice in India were of three, kinds, and were
alleged to have emanated from Mahatma Koot Hoomi, Mahatma M.^
and the Chela, "Bhola Deva Samia," respectively. I made a minute
and prolonged examination of these and otiier manuscripts with a view
to determining by whose hand the supposed " precipitated " communica-
tions were written. The conclusions I reached were such as fully to
confirm the results of my investigations in other directions, and they
are generally and briefly as follow: —

That the one specimen of the Chela B. D. S. writing which I had
the opportunity of carefully examining was the handiwork of Mr.
Babajee D. Nath: that the several specimens of Mahatma M. (M. C.)
writing which I had the opportunity of carefully examining were the
handiwork of Madame Blavatsky: and that of the several specimens of
Mahatma Koot Hoomi (K. H.) writing which I had the opportunity of
carefully examining, one was the handiwork of Mr. Damodar K.
Mavalankar, the others were the handiwork of Madame Blavatsky.

Since my return to England I have been strengthened in this last
conclusion by an examination of a large quantity of K. H. MSS.
forwarded to me by Mr. Hume, [28] a series of K. H. documents entrusted
to us by Mr. Sinnett, and a K. H. document sent to us by Mr. Padshah
for comparison with other K. H. writings. The K. H. communica-
tion belonging to Mr. Padshah is, in my opinion, the handiwork of
Mr. Damodar, and the K. H. documents sent by Mr. Hume and Mr.
Sinnett the handiwork of Madame Blavatsky. It is probable, therefore,
that various K. H. communications received in India during Madame
Blavatsky's absence in 1884 were written by Mr. Damodar. Many of
these were produced under circumstances which absolutely precluded
the possibility that Madame Blavatsky could have written them,
but under which it would have been easy for Mr. Damodar to have
written them. My justification for the conclusions I have expressed
above concerning the authorship of the handwriting will be found in
Part II. of this Report, to which I now proceed.

_______________

Notes:

1. "Some Account of my Intercourse with Madame Blavatsky," &c.

2. Marquis and Marquise are names given by Madame Blavateky to M- and
Madame Coulomb.

3. A later and longer account, intended by General Morgan to prove that
there could have been no deception, will be found in Appendix II.

4. M. Faciole and Co., Popham's Broadway.

5. For the evidence on which this account is based, see Appendix IV.

6. This was admitted to me by Madame Blavatsky herself, who alleged that
the Shrine was so made in order that it might he more easily taken to pieces
and packed in case of removal. But the rest of the Shrine appears to have
been of solid conBtmction, and it is difficult to see vfh&t great convenience
for travelling purposes there could have been in merely taking out portions of
the back.

7. See Appendix V.

8. See Mrs. Morgan's evidence in Appendix IV.

9. For a case where this panel seems to have been used in the new position »
see Appendix VI.

10. One ground given for this opinion was that the sliding panels worked
stiffly, as if new and unosed. Disuse for a few months, or a little grit, would, I
hink, account for this fact. See comments on the evidence of Mr. J. D. B.
Gribble, Appendix TV.

11. Dr. Hartmann stated that Mr. Damodar was not one of these three*
That they should not take him into confidence in the matter is natural, as they
probably sincerely believed in the ** superstitions awe " with which he regarded
the Shiine, and thought that it would lead him to disapprove of their pro-
ceedings.

12. The use of the word *' parties" seems to me a suspicious circumstance.
Why should this general and rather odd word be used if it were not to cover
possible but unforeseen contingencies? The word "boys" would have been
shorter and more natural.

13. Some remarks on the alleged appearances of Mr. Damodar in London will
be found at p. 388.

14. It may also be urged in Colonel 01oott*s favour that his later experiences
with M. T. in Bombay would tend to olwcnre their earlier relations; but
against this again we must place the fact that Colonel Olcott appears from
his letters to liave regarded these earlier relations as very specially memorable.

15. Hints on Esoteric Theosophy," p. 90.

16. This is the flat roof above the ground floor of the bungalow, marked on
the Plan as Terrace, Only a portion of it is represented within the limits of the
Plan.

17. Some Account of my Intercourse with Madauie Blavatsky," pp. 48-50.

18. Another statement made by Colonel Olcott in his deposition concerning "
the above incident is worthy of remark. He said: '' One of those present
suddenly called attention to a collection of vapour that had that instant
appeared in the air up towards the comer of the room; and all present, looking,
saw this take the form of a letter." The letter which fell was addressed, '* To
Tookaram and Others," according to the account given to me by Mr. Tookaram
Tatya himself ( '* merchant and commission-agent, and the active member
working at the Homasopathic Charitable Dispensary established at Bombay
under the auspices of the Theosophical Society, and practising mesmerism in
its curative branch both at home and at the dispensary"). Concerning the fall
of the letter, Mr. Tookaram states: ''The grandson of lyalu Naidu said he
saw a flash of light near the ceiling, which contracted into a letter, and fell
fluttering on the floor. I saw the letter just as it struck the floor."

How a little dust can blind one's eyes!

19. It is the more important to notice this, because in describing the incident
in " The Occult World," 4th ed., p. 132, Mr. Sinnett says the cards were "written
on by them at the time," an expression which certainly suggests that some one
besides Madame Blavatsky had written on them. That this was not the case
may be inferred from the above accounts. Moreover, Mrs. Gordon describes the
writing on the cards received at Howrali, but makes no allusion to any except
that of Madame Blavatsky and Mahatmas Koot Hoomi and M., so that if
others did write on them at Bombay there was a want of correspondence between
^he cards seen at Bombay, and those seen at Howrah.

20. M. Coulomb declares that the arrangements were as here described.

21. From a contemporary account of the occurrence sent by Mr. Sinnett to
Mr. Hume, on Marcli 14th, and from the copy of a contemporary letter written
liy Colonel Olcott to Madame Blavatsky on March 12th, it would appear that on
March 11th Mr. Sinnett put a note addressed to Mahatma M, into his drawer,
from which on March 12th it had disappeared. But there is no mention of any
note to Koot Hoomi except the one given to Mr. Bhavani Rao on the 13th, and
it is implied in a copy of a letter from Mr. Bhavani Rao to Mr. Daniodar on
March 14th, that this was the first letter which he had received for " trans-
mission " to a ** Brother." Is it possible that there is a mistake in ** The Occult
World," and that by the first note to Koot Hoomi is really meant the note to
^I. put into the drawer? The documents which I liave mentioned point clearly
to this conclusion. What seems to have happened during Mr. Bhavani Rao's
viait is that Mr. Sinnett wrote a note to Mahatma M» on March 11th, and not
only did he get no reply whatever at the time to this note, hut it led to no
comrannication of any sort at the time from Mahatma M,; he received, however,
a K. H, communication on March 12th, and on March 13th addressed a letter to
Koot Hoomi in which he suggested that certain other things should he done, and
which he gave to Mr. Bhavani Rao to be " transmitted." On March 14th, he
received from Mr. Bhavani Rao a K.H^ communication which merelv said,
"impossible; no power; will write through Bombay." The latent form of this
incident as published by Mr. Sinnett occurs in the Appendix to the fourth edition
of "The Occult World," p. 155, where, referring to Mr. Bliavani Rao, he ^mtes:
" During the visit I speak of, he was enabled to pass a letter of mine to the
Master, to receive back his reply, to get off a second note of mine, and to receive
back a little note of a few words in reply again." I find it inipos.sible to reconcile
this account vnlh. the documents which I have mentioned, and it api)ears also to
differ slightly from the account which Mr. Sinnett gives on p. 130, from which I
infer that the note which he slBiys he wrote to Koot Hoomi and gave to Mr.
Bhavani Rao on March 11th, was not answercdhy the Koot Hoomi note presented
by Mr. Bhavani Rao on March 12th. If I am right in this inference I may
venture to make another, and that is that Mr. Sinnett was himself dissatisfied
at not receiving, in Koot Hoomi's communication of March 12th, a reply to his
letter of March 11th, and that when he wrote the words that he did, after ally
exchange letters with Koot Hoomi, it was with the feeling that his dissatisfac-
tion had been partly if not altogether removed by the final Koot Hoomi note.
Does Mr. Sinnett think that this final note referred so specially to his own
suggestions that it could not have been prepared before his o^vn letter w&«i
written? In this case it would be interesting to know the exact words of
both documents, and to examine the handwriting of the Koot Hoomi reply.

22. Whether he had received his first Koot Hoomi note is not manifest; he
had certainly not received his second.

23. I have seen a newspaper accoant in which it was said that Madame
Blavatsky expressed the "Adept's " opinion that if the note were to drop into
Mrs. Sinnett's lap, it might be urged afterwards that Madame Blavatsky had
managed the phenomenon by sleight of hand, and that therefore he (the Adept)
proposed putting the note into a certain tree. This objection was not made in
cases where the witnesses happened to be sitting under creviced beams or
intersticed ceilings.

24. I may here mention a carious document which was unintentionally lent to
me for several days by Mr. Damodar. I had with some difficulty obtained
several specimens of Mahatma writing, and in an envelope enclosing some of
these I afterwards found a slip of paper, which had not — as I concluded when
later I discovered that it was not ennmerated among those lent to me —
been observed in the envelope when Mr. Damodar gave me permission to
take the specimens away. This document was a single small fragment of
thin paper, undated and unsigned. On one side of it were written the following
words in red ink, and the writing resembles that attributed to Mahatma M.:

"Send this by copying telegram and original telegram to A.P.S. Charge to
my account and send bill. Let Deb study more carefully his part." Whether
this document had anything to do with the above incident I can of course only
conjecture. The relation between Gwala K. Deb and Mr. Babajee haa been
already considered (p. 247).

25. While at Madras I was informed of a recent case where the defendant had
secured an elaborate misuse of the post-office stamps for the purpose of falsely
proving an alibi.

26. Simla to Umballa, 94 miles — horse conveyance — 12 hours. Umballa to
Amritsur, 155 miles — train — 9 hours. Amritsur to Jhelum, 135 miles — ^train —
8 hours.

27. Blue pencil is a favoured instmment at the Theosophical headquarters.
I possessed a specially convenient form of a patent blue pencil, and having
handed this to Mr. Babajee for the purpose of enabling him to write a name
and address which he wished to give me, he remarked, as he regarded it with
spontaneous admiration, " Oh! this would do well for ," the Koot Hoomi
scriptures, thought I, but my spoken comment was different; Mr. Babajee's
head was bowed, his tongue was dumb, and the sentence was never completed.

28. I have now in my hands numerous documents which are concerned with
the cxperiencefl of Mr. Hume and others in connection with Madame Blavatsky
and the Theosophical Society. These documents, including the K. H. MSS.
above referred to, did not reach me till August, and my examination of them,
particularly of the K. H. Mss., has involved a considerable delay in the i^roduc-
tion of this Report.

Go to Next Page