7. As to the theory that comparatively few (of those who die) make good communicators, I may be permitted to suggest, perhaps, a tentative explanation of the rarity of good communicators (and communications), based upon this principle. Certain it is that special adaptability and idiosyncrasy are necessary to the one on this side--this constituting, in fact, a "medium," as we understand it. It seems highly probable that a medium is born and not made, that the gift is hereditary, and that it depends but little, if at all, upon physical, mental, or moral characteristics, but rather upon a peculiar and innate make-up which is independent of all of these. A person is a good psychic or medium just as another is a good painter or sculptor or pianist. It can be cultivated by training, but the "germ" must be latent within the individual, in order that its development may be possible at all. Granting all this, it seems to me very natural to suppose that some similar characteristic might be essential to the one on the "other side," in order that _he_ might be a good communicator. Only a few might possess this special gift--without which communication would be impossible--no matter how gifted or clever the individual might be, in other respects, or how much he longed to communicate. Further, it might be that this deceased person could only get _en rapport_ with our world when some one on this side was also and simultaneously endeavouring to reach him. Neither alone could effect the communication, could bridge the chasm. Let me make the theory clearer by means of an analogy. One theory of consciousness contends that it depends for its existence altogether upon the touching or inter-connection of certain nervous fibres, without which consciousness would be impossible, and is, in fact, abolished--as in sleep. When these "dendrites" touch, communication is established; when this contact is broken, it is non-existent.