<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0033" id="link2H_4_0033"></SPAN></p>
<br/>
<h2> MRS. BOOTH'S GHOST. </h2>
<p>The Booth family have all keen eyes for business. If they shut their eyes
you can see it by their noses. It is not surprising, therefore, to find
Mrs. Booth-Tucker capping Mr. Stead's ghost stories with a fine romance
about her dead mother. While the "Mother of the Salvation Army" was dying,
the Booth family made all the capital they could out of her sufferings;
and when she expired, her corpse was shunted about in the financial
interest of their show. Perhaps they would be exhibiting her still if
there were no law as to the disposition of corpses. But as that avenue to
profit is closed, the only alternative is to make use of Mrs. Booth's
ghost, and this has just been done by one of her daughters.</p>
<p>Mrs. Booth-Tucker contributes her ghost story to the Easter number of <i>All
the World</i>. No doubt Easter was thought a seasonable time for its
publication. Christians are just then dreaming about the great Jerusalem
ghost, and another "creeper" comes in appropriately.</p>
<p>Mr. Stead catches up Mrs. Booth-Tucker's ghost story and prints it in the
<i>Review of Reviews</i>. He admits the want of evidence "as to its
objectivity," which is a euphemism for "no evidence at all," and then
observes most sapiently that if it was only a dream, "the coincidence of
its occurrence at the crisis in her illness is remarkable"—which is
precisely what it is not.</p>
<p>Mrs. Booth-Tucker was very ill on board a steamer when she saw her mother,
fresh from "the beautiful land above." "Those with me," she says, "thought
I was dying, and I thought so too." When a person is in that state, after
a wasting illness, the brain is necessarily weak. But this was not all. "I
had not slept," the lady says, "for some days, at any rate not for many
minutes together." Her brain, therefore, was not only weak, but
overwrought; and in ingenuously stating this at the outset the lady gives
herself away. Given a wasted body, weakness "unto death," a brain ill
supplied with blood and ravaged with sleeplessness; does it, we ask,
require a "rank materialist" to explain the presence of "visions" without
the aid of supernaturalism?</p>
<p>"Suddenly," Mrs. Booth-Tucker says, "I saw her coming to me." But how
"coming"? The lady tells us she was lying in "a small sea cabin." This
does not leave much room for the "coming" of the ghost. We should also
like to know why a lady thought to be dying was <i>left alone</i>. It is
certainly a very unusual circumstance.</p>
<p>Mrs. Booth's ghost, after as much "coming" as could be accomplished in "a
small cabin," at last "sat beside" her sick daughter "on the narrow bunk."
No doubt the seat was rather incommodious, but why should a ghost sit at
all? It really seems to have been a mixed sort of ghost. Apparently it
came through the ship's side, or the deck, or the cabin-door, or the
key-hole; yet it was solid enough to touch Mrs. Booth-Tucker's hand and
kiss her? Nay, it was solid enough to carry on a long conversation, which
does not seem possible without lungs and larynx.</p>
<p>Mrs. Booth's ghost said a great deal. "<i>Wonderful words</i> they were,"
says Mrs. Booth-Tucker. This whets our curiosity. We are always listening
for "wonderful words." But, alas, we are doomed to disappointment. The
lady knows her mother's words were "wonderful," but she cannot reproduce
them. Here memory is defective. "I can remember so few of the actual
words," she says. Nevertheless, she gives us a few samples, and they do
not seem <i>very</i> "wonderful." Here are two of the said samples: "Live,
live, live, remembering that night comes always <i>quickly</i>, and all is
nothingness that dies with death!" "Fight the fight, darling; the sympathy
of Christ is always with you, and every effort you make is heaping up
treasure for you in Heaven."</p>
<p>We fancy we have heard those "wonderful words" before. For all their
wonderfulness, ghosts are seldom original. Mrs. Booth-Tucker reminds us of
the gushing lady novelist, who describes her hero as divinely handsome and
miraculously clever, but when she opens his mouth, makes him talk like a
jackass.</p>
<p>"General" Booth's daughter does not see that she found words for her
mother's ghost. She is not so sharp as Dr. Johnson, who carried on a
discussion with an adversary in a dream, and got the worst of it. For a
time he felt humiliated, but he recovered his pride on reflecting that he
had provided the other fellow with arguments.</p>
<p>When Mrs. Booth-Tucker tells that "the radiance of her face spoke to me,"
we can easily understand the subjective nature of her "vision," and as
readily dispense with a budget of those "wonderful words."</p>
<p>Nor are we singular in incredulity. Mr. Stead cannot put his tongue in his
cheek at a member of the Booth family, but the <i>Christian Commonwealth</i>
says "the story is both improbable and absurd," and adds, "it is just such
fanaticism as this that brings religion into contempt with many educated
people." Our pious contemporary, like any wretched materialist, declares
that many persons have seen ghosts "when under the influence of fever or
in a low state of health."</p>
<p>All this is sensible enough, and in a Christian journal very edifying. But
if our pious contemporary only applied this criticism backwards, what
havoc it would make with the records of early Christianity! Mrs.
Booth-Tucker is not in all points like Mary Magdalene, but she resembles
her in fervor of disposition. Out of Mary Magdalene we are told that Jesus
cast "seven devils," which implies, rationalistically, that she was
strongly hysterical. She was more likely to be a victim of "fanaticism"
than Mrs. Booth-Tucker. Yet the ghost story of Mrs. Booth's daughter is
discredited, and even stigmatised as discreditable, while the brain-sick
fancies of Mary Magdalene are treated as accurate history. She was at the
bottom of the Jerusalem ghost story, and her evidence is regarded as
unimpeachable. So much do circumstances alter cases!</p>
<p>Our pious contemporary regards all modern ghosts as "fever dreams." So do
we, and we regard all ancient ghosts in the same light The difference
between ancient and modern superstition is only a question of environment.
Superstition itself is always the same; it no more changes than the
leopard's spots or the Ethiopian's skin. But the environment changes. From
the days when there was no scientific knowledge or rigorous criticism we
have advanced to an age when the electric search-light of science sweeps
every corner and criticism is remorseless. Hence the modern ghosts are
served up in Christmas "shockers," while the ancient ghosts are worshipped
as gods. But this will not last for ever. The rule of "what is, has been,"
will eventually be applied to the whole of human history, and the greatest
ghost of the creeds will "melt into the infinite azure of the past."</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />