He wrote to her after some time, apologising for the delay on the score of illness, begging to know if it were still possible for him to be admitted, and whether he might bring with him a scientific friend.  Miss Freer consented, and he then wrote announcing his arrival and that of a nephew, a student at Oxford, interested in science.  He then asked, by telegram, whether a third guest could be admitted, to which she also consented, and his two friends, one of whom is believed to have been the anonymous Times correspondent, accordingly came, four days after the phenomena had, as has been stated, apparently ceased.  The way in which this hospitality was repaid is a matter of common knowledge.  Their hostess knew of no intention to make copy of their visit, with full names, geographical indications, and repetition of private conversations, until the publication of the Times’ article of June 8th.  They remained from Saturday evening till Monday morning, and, like others, saw and heard nothing; and much time was spent in repeating the already often repeated experiments as to possible sources of the sights and sounds observed at B——.  Their observations appeared to be able to penetrate no further than the mark of the shoe which Miss Freer pointed out on the door in the wing, made subsequently to the flight of the H——­ family, a passage under the roof, with which the household had long been as familiar as with the hall-door, and the suggestion that a certain stream might run under the house, the which stream runs nowhere near the house at all, as Miss Freer was already well aware, a fact which she demonstrated for their benefit on a map of the estate.

This is perhaps a suitable point at which to add a letter from the head-gardener who has been referred to more than once, more especially as an important witness to the phenomena of the H——­s’ tenancy.

He writes to Miss Freer in reference to a statement by The Times correspondent:—­

“July 8th, ’97.—­ ...  I might also mention to you, while writing, that ‘the intelligent gardener’ that was made mention of in The Times was a journeyman, and not myself, as many have supposed.  I thought it proper to tell you, madam, because I told you and several others that I was in the house and had heard something.”

The Times correspondent’s statement is as follows:—­

“An intelligent gardener whom I questioned told me that he had kept watch in the house on two separate occasions, abstaining from sleep until daylight appeared at seven o’clock, but without hearing a sound.”

The under gardener’s experience of two nights is as exhaustive of the subject as that of The Times correspondent and his friends, who also remained two nights, but do not allege that they “abstained from sleep.”