Again she says: "Which of us would not lay down life itself to know that he had spoken yesterday with the darling of our souls dead years ago?" Not one of you! The expression is rather hysterical in its intensity. The majority of your ultra-sceptical class would not even spend a day or an hour in the pursuit, for you have neglected the opportunities which have been open to all the world. You might have held a pair of slates in your own hands, secured in any manner, with no pencil between them; might have heard the writing in progress, then opened them and recognized the message of your own darling--perhaps the handwriting also. Thousands of modest, honest seekers of truth have done these things. But the Pharisees who talk of heaven and then fly from its approach have "religiously shunned" them; that is the way they express it, and you are their apologist. But what is your apology? You give a graphic description of a cheap style of dishonest mediumship with vulgar surroundings, in which, nevertheless, there are wonderful revelations, "the golden thread of a truth that is worth having," and you suggest that the truth must now be "garnered" by a psychical research society, intimating that if they do not garner it, it will cease to be recognized as truth, and that the mediums must bring it all to them for sanction, or cease to be respected by honorable people. Was ever a more unfair and delusive statement made by a hired attorney? The grandeur of the theme has not inspired a spirit of fairness or justice. The question lies between the eternal and holy verities of spiritual science or religious science and the conscience of the inquirer. The poor, illiterate, and obscure people who exhibit for a living whatever capacity they may have, have nothing to do with it. Would our lady critic select a cheap sign painter to represent the beauty and glory of art, or the exhibitors of laughing gas to illustrate the science of Sir Humphrey Davy, or the performances of an illiterate quack to illustrate the dignity of the medical profession? Is our critic so profoundly ignorant of the progress of psychic science as to think such representations fair or allowable? A science is represented by its leaders, its authors, its teachers, not its camp followers. Examine the writings of Alfred Russell Wallace, Professor Crookes of London, Epes Sargent, William Howitt, Professor Hare--of Swedenborg, Kerner, Ennemoser, Du Prel, Hellenbach, Fichte, Varley, Ashburner, Flammarion, Aksakoff, and a score of others of the highest rank, and criticize if you can the magnificent philosophy of these and of many an ancient writer. Consider the well attested facts and sublime religion that you will find in them, and observe that the facts are a hundred times better attested and a thousand times more critically observed than any of those upon which the world's great religions rest, before which our critic reverently bows.