“I may add that it is quite clear that the people about the place—some of whom, on my leaving, I vainly tried to draw—have been threatened not to talk about the ghost. There was no mystery about it whatever last year, the station officials being exceedingly loquacious and full of information....”
The above are the circumstances which The Times correspondent thus describes:—
“Lord Bute’s confidence has been grossly abused by some one. It was represented to him by some one that he was taking the ’most haunted house in Scotland,’ a house with an old and established reputation for mysterious if not supernatural disturbances. What he has got is a house with no reputation whatever of that kind, with no history, with nothing germane to his purpose beyond a cloud of baseless rumours produced during the last twelve-month. Who is responsible for the imposture it is not my business to know or to inquire, but that it is an imposture of the most shallow and impudent kind there can be no manner of doubt. I interviewed in P—— a man who has the district at his finger-tips, and was ready to enumerate in order all the shooting properties in the valley. He had never heard until the moment I spoke to him of B—— possessing any reputation, ancient or modern, for being haunted, although he is familiar with the estate, and has slept in the house. It has no local reputation of the kind even now beyond the parish it stands in. The whole thing has been fudged up in London upon the basis of some distorted account of the practical jokes of the H——s.”
As the writer in question obtained his admission to the house as a guest by Sir James Crichton-Browne’s solicitation through Sir William Huggins and Lord Bute, it might naturally have been supposed that the real facts were known to him, at least so far as they were concerned. It appears, however, that he cherished a voluntary ignorance upon the subject, to judge from the phrase, “it is not my business to know or to inquire.” Of such a writer, and of such statements, the reader will now form his own opinion; but that the correspondent in question should continue to cling to his journalistic anonymity, is little to be wondered at.