X, Y, Z, W, are all expressed by the following conventional phrases ; X, "C'est facile;" Y, "C'est bien facile;" Z, "C'est très facile ;" W, "Annoncez à present."

If, for example, the letter X were asked for, the operator would remark, "C'est facile de dire cette lettre."

It will be seen from this table that, with a fluent command of words, any idea whatever may be unmistakeably conveyed by the operator to the subject without the slightest apparent trace of collusion. As, however, many different words commence with the same letters, and have nearly the same sound, it is necessary to indicate by the form of the question whether it refer to an animal, a card, a flower, or other object.

The possibility of any mistakes from such a cause is prevented by an arrangement that if the question refer to any part of the body of a man or an animal, the verb "indiquer" is used;

If it refer to dress," toucher" is employed;

For all immoveable objects, furniture, &c., "regarder” is made use of; All large objects are referred to by en quoi ;'

66

All small portable objects, rings, fans, &c., are distinctly spoken of as "objets."

For example: one of the audience points to his own body, the French word for which (corps) has its three first letters, and its sound, in common with another word (cor) which means a horn.

The operator asks, "Dites promptement si-vous voyez ce que j'in

The use of the word "indique," tells the subject at once that the question refers to the body; but if it had been expressed "Dites

c

promptement si vous connaissez cet instrument," he would have per

ceived that his reply must be "a horn."

The hesitation in the question shows the limit of the words which convey the point.

In cards, diamonds are expressed by "C'est bien" (before the question); spades by "Très bien;" clubs by "Parfaitement;" and hearts by

"Bien."

The nine of hearts would thus be conveyed by " Bien nommez la carte;"

9

the king of spades by "Très bien-savez-vous la carte ;" the six of diar (roi) monds by "C'est bien-annoncez la carte,"

6

The facility of such means of giving secret information about cards should be remembered by young gentlemen who (of course to their own great astonishment) invariably have bad luck at écarté when they play with doubtful strangers.

Examples might be given in every possible form, so as to show the extent and capacity of this well-arranged system; but a very few will be sufficient to fully explain its nature, and to enable those who are blessed with good memories and ready tongues to astonish their less learned friends with an exhibition of" double vue.'

The following words are selected as being in ordinary every-day use :
Couteau-Dites, pour vous un pareil-objet n'est pas difficile.

Epingle-Facilement-quel objet (conventional phrase for a pin).
Livre-Maintenant jugez-ah! sachez faire-connaitre l'objet.

1

e

Savon-Très bien, annoncez promptement-l'objet.

Parapluie-Quel objet ai-je pris à monsieur (convention)?

Lys-Madame, je tiens-à ce que vous demandiez vous-même le nom de cette fleur.

1

i s

Camélia-Dites bien; nommez facilement; madame, je balance—

quelquefois pour des noms de fleurs difficiles; mais, &c., &c. Iris-Jugez, sachez juste trouver—la fleur.

i a

Angleterre-Bien-oh! hâtez vous maintenant, faites savoir le nom

Asie-Bien, trouvez juste le nom de cette partie du monde.

Hollande-Il peut, monsieur, bien dire le nom de ce pays.

ho

1

Ecaille-Facilement; dites bien juste maintenant en quoi, &c.

1

Noir-Oh! précisez juste si vous voyez cette couleur.

n

Champagne-Dites immédiatement; bien, nommez quel vin.

Hermitage-Il faut savoir nommer juste le nom de ce vin.

Coq-Dites promptement, regardez―quel est l'oiseau.

The names of the months and days are conveyed by their order in the year or week.

Mai-Quel mois ?

5

Septembre-Nommez le mois.

9

Vendredi-A présent le jour.

6

The operator may vary his performance by asking aloud, "Will any gentleman present, who has been in the army, be good enough to write down the number and name of his regiment:" the subject hearing this prepares accordingly.

The 10th regiment of Cuirassiers may be named:

u i

r

The operator says, "Demandez; vous jugerez s'il peut répondre sans que je parle-demandez, monsieur."

1

c

The separation here between the two parts of the sentence serves to indicate the nature and number of the regiment in question.

It only remains to show how correct answers can be obtained from the subject when the operator does not speak, but simply touches a bell.

This is done by holding up preconcerted objects, in alphabetical order; and though, at first sight, it may appear improbable that the objects wanted can always be obtained, yet it will be found that in a crowded audience no difficulty will arise on that ground.

Objects beginning with alternate letters, for instance, may be taken:

A NNEAU.

CHAPEAU.
E PINGLE.

G ANT.

K very few common words begin with K; it may therefore be arranged to answer "nothing" at this point, which will produce a marvellous effect.

M ONTRE,

and so on.

It is unnecessary to add more to this explanation of "second sight;" the simplicity of the trick will astonish everybody, but most people will be generous enough to admire the dexterous perfection of the mechanism by which they have been deluded.

If it were never directed to any other purpose than the amusement and astonishment of the public, this exposition of its nature would not have been given; but it has been often employed with very different ends, and the believers in magnetism will possibly be henceforth disposed to a little more scepticism about the all-seeing power which they fancy its subjects to possess.

LITERARY LEAFLETS.

BY SIR NATHANIEL.

No. III.-KINGSLEY'S PHAETHON.

THEORY and practice do not always assimilate, or even dovetail together. The theory may be severely and logically correct, and yet be contradicted to its august face by the actuality of which it professes to be the principle and the philosophy. An honest gentleman tourist, as the story goes, was once most illegally apprehended and put in the stocks by a village beadle, one fine Sunday morning, because he was loitering through the hamlet during service, and declined to satisfy the fussy dignitary with a full and particular account of himself. The penalty was discordant with the theory of Englishman's law, but never mind-there he was in effect, had by the leg, or legs, as unmistakeably and uncomfortably as the stout Earl of Kent himself. However, a passenger of rigid abstract ideas, curious to know what hath brought him to this pass, makes up to our captive friend, and, as a speculator in stocks, begs to be informed of the origin of this exhibition. The origin is indignantly explained. "But," with equal indignation remonstrates the critic, “but, my friend, they can't put you in the stocks for that!" They have, though," rejoins the victim; "whether they can or no, you see the thing's done." 66 But, my good fellow," insists the other, "they can't do it; it's out of the question; nobody could put you in the stocks for that." "All very good," replies the half-amused captive, "but seeing's believing, you know; and here I am, whatever you may say or think of it." 66 Nonsense, nonsense," reiterates his excited visitor; man alive! I tell you they can't do it-the thing's impossible-you can't be put in the stocks for that!" And so theory and practice went on jangling-the lofty logic of the idealist growing more and more peremptory in the teeth of facts.

66

66

Scores of parallel antinomies occur in every-day life. Among them is the ever-agitated question of the true dogmatic character of the Church of England. She is High Church beyond a doubt, says one goodly company; and overwhelming citations from her formularies, her confessors, her apologists, her scholars, her clara et venerabilia nomina from Ridley down to Denison, are tendered as evidence, and defy all crossexamination from the wiliest of counsel. She is Low Church without all controversy, shout crowds of the opposition benches; and they ply you with ponderous excerpts from the literature of their favourites, beginning with the Parker Society, and ending with the voluminous authorities of Bickersteth and Birks. The theory of each party is considered intangible, infallible, self-evident. Meanwhile the practical aspect of things favours neither party, and this by harbouring both. In effect, the Church is neither high nor low, but, as it has been said, broad. A. may tell B. he has no business within its pale; yet B. is all the while eating its bread, and, as he believes, preaching its doctrines. B. may assure A. that he does not belong to the Church, that he has no jot or tittle of belief in common with it, that he is not and cannot be in it; yet A. is

there, in spite of perfect demonstration to the contrary. We say nothing as to the theoretical, or doctrinal dispute between High and Low; but we do say that in practice, in fact, in the actual working of things, the Church is Broad to a remarkable degree. On the same episcopal bench sit right reverend representatives of the most antagonistic opinions. It supports uncompromising champions of orthodoxy, and is not too hot to hold pliant and plastic latitudinarians. From diocesan Exeter to diocesan Manchester is a distance the very mention of which suggests something akin to the expression, "From Cornwall to Caithness." If you are an eclectic in your ecclesiastical tendencies, and have itching ears for a brilliant succession of novelties in the sermons you hear, then take a tour of the parish churches in your neighbourhood; and in one you will hear the follower of Dr. Pusey, in another of Dr. Hook, in a third of Dr. M'Neile, in a fourth of Dr. Arnold, in a fifth of Dr. Maitland, in a sixth of Professor Maurice, and so on, with an illimitable series of spirits, black, white, and grey, mingling as they may.

Mr. Kingsley, perhaps, stands out with too clearly pronounced a development of his own, to be referred to either of the sections to which we have just assigned, in each case, a real or imaginary head; otherwise his position is at the feet (as he would place himself), or by the side (as others would place him) of Professor Maurice. And Mr. Kingsley is just the sort of man about whom opposite thinkers unhesitatingly affirm that he can't be in the Church. Nor is it easy to deny that, on the face of it, there does appear something odd, something eccentric and abnormal in his position. A rector and canon, he yet perplexes oldfashioned Church-people, and minds not given to change, by his adventurous essayings in the literature of the day. As Parson Lot, he writes letters in Politics for the People and in the Christian Socialist, and in a tone and style which divide the honours (as an examination of the placards at the John-street Institution, and similar places, would show) with Messrs. Harney and Holyoake, Bronterre O'Brien and Thomas Cooper, G. Reynolds and Ernest Jones. He is advertised (on whatever pretence) as a contributor to the Leader, in common with the names of Thornton Hunt and G. H. Lewes, Francis Newman and Frederic Foxton. He bewilders matter-of-fact readers by a life of "Alton Locke," Chartist tailor and poet; he puts them in a ferment with "Yeast;" he incurs public rebuke from the reading-desk, while he is himself standing in the pulpit,* for expounding "untruths" in his "Message of the Church to Labouring Men." Little marvel, therefore, is it, if a prediction of episcopal prosecution is perpetually uplifted in terrorem against him-if he is continually threatened by more orthodox brethren with the alarum, "The Bishops be upon thee, O Socialist!"-if he is periodically warned to look out for squalls extraordinary from his cloudcompelling ordinary-as though in the words of the Theban princess, Σιγα πορευονται γαρ ώδε δη τινες

Χρονῳ παλαιοι, της έδρας ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΙ.

* At this painful exhibition in one of our metropolitan churches it was our illfortune to be present. Whatever our opinion of the merits of the case, there was, at least, one thing we could respect; and that was the demeanour of Mr. Kingsley under so novel and distressing an infliction. 2 F

Dec.-VOL. XCVI. NO. CCCLXXXIV.