habitually overlook and neglect several of them. I am convinced also
that not a little of the popular belief concerning the sensitivity
of the blind is due to exaggerated claims on their part that have
not been verified. Two instances of this have fallen within my own
experience, in both of which the blind persons claimed to have the
power of judging by the echo of their voice and by certain other
feelings, the one when they were approaching objects, even though
the object was so small as a handrail, and the other to tell how far
the door of the room in which he was standing was open. I used all
the persuasion I could to induce each of these persons to allow me
to put their assertions to the test; but it was of no use. The one
made excuses, the other positively refused. They had probably the
same tendency that others would have who happened to be defective in
any faculty that their comrades possessed, to fight bravely against
their disadvantage, and at the same time to be betrayed into some
overvaunting of their capacities in other directions. They would be
a little conscious of this, and would therefore shrink from being
tested.

The power of reading by touch is not so very wonderful. A former
Lord Chancellor of England, the late Lord Hatherley, when he was
advanced in years, lost his eyesight for some time owing to a
cataract, which was not ripe to be operated on. He assured me that
he had then learned and practised reading by touch very rapidly.
This fact may perhaps also serve as additional evidence of the
sensitivity of able men.

Notwithstanding many travellers' tales, I have thus far been
unsuccessful in obtaining satisfactory evidence of any general large
superiority of the senses of savages over those of civilised men. My