V. Our Mode of Action.

(a) By the holding of circles and the development of mediums of various kinds, so as to avail ourselves of the aid, information, and testimony of those who are already in the summer land.

(b) The systematic employment of literature, by the establishment of libraries and the circulation of books, periodicals, tracts, and other publications.

(c) By exercising the missionary character constantly, persistently, page 64 yet judiciously, and thus bring the whole phalanx of individual influence of those who are "apt to teach" to bear on the community in a fraternal and consistent manner.

(d) That a place may be made for woman as well as man in all positions, employments, and liberties, as her tastes and capabilities may suit or impel her.

(e) By giving lectures and popular expositions of all the sciences that inform the people of the nature of man, physical, phrenological, and spiritual.

(f) By the employment of missionary mediums, whose consistent lives, devotion, and capabilities consecrate them to the work of oral and conversational teaching, addressing meetings, and the exhibition of phenomena. By the cooperation of spiritualists through this association, many of such useful pioneers might be kept constantly employed; and their operations could be facilitated and directed by resident brethren in the localities where they visited, who would at the same time be glad to find entertainment for these instructors.

(g) By the establishment of a free and independent weekly or monthly periodical for the "discovery and application of truth," and as a means of communication amongst reformers.

(h) By the holding of an annual convention, and the wide diffusion of the report of proceedings thereat.

(i) By deputing delegates as speakers or mediums to attend the usual meetings of societies or circles, to foster the formation of new circles, to attend district conventions and special meetings, and otherwise by their experience lead and encourage all action that may be taken in the cause of human progress, within reach of their several localities.

J. Burns having finished reading and expounding the nature and bearings of these propositions, said that they blamed no one, nor bound no one, but were suggested for the consideration of the Convention, so as to elicit their best thoughts upon fundamental principles and practical operations; and if, on examination, they were found to contain truth and practicality, they might, in like manner, be offered to the public as an indication of the necessities of the times, with suggestions for supplying them.

These propositions were listened to with considerable uneasiness and manifest signs of opposition. The preamble and first and second sections were passed by vote with apparent indifference, but on the third being read, the clouds of opposition gathered thicker and darker, followed by a descending torrent of various forms of objections, but not one sentence of reasonable argument. Several speakers were afraid of lending their influence in "limiting God." Others said the proposition was not true, but did not show how. Another would object, that though there might be an abstract truth in it, yet it would not be expedient to page 65 tell the world the truth, for they could not appreciate it. Several discussionists wonderfully changed their tactics during the storm, and allowed themselves to float supinely on the billows of overruling opinion. And the last, but not the least, item of the "Discussion" was personal missiles levelled at the devoted individuality who proposed the resolutions.

During these proceedings J. Burns several times rose, and quietly and logically defended the truth embodied in the proposition. He said he believed it to be truth; and though the position was much against his feelings and popularity, yet he dared not to compromise or shelve an irresistible necessity. If there was anything objectionable or untrue he would be glad of the correction, as it was to elicit truth that the resolutions were proposed. Had he known that they would have been received in the manner they were, he would never have proposed them; but as he was cooperating with a Convention of Progressive Spiritualists, he thought that truth would be preferred to expediency, and, at least, be favoured with a calm and dispassionate hearing.

The popular voice declared that the proposition should be thrown out without any further discussion. The proposer then said his task was accomplished. While it was the order of the meeting that the proposition was under consideration, it was his duty to defend it, and devote his best services to the cause of truth; but now that the meeting had thrown it out, his duties in that capacity were at an end, and he would gladly listen to the productions of other minds. It was then suggested that the other propositions should be proceeded with, rejecting (a) of Proposition III.; but J. Burns said this could not be, as the propositions were so related to one another that if one was accepted, the other necessarily followed. If we took one brick from an arch the whole structure would fall. In fact, the rejected clause was a necessary consequent to the propositions that had just been accepted, and he felt the necessity of warning them from proceeding in a course that would appear illogical on future examination. During this part of the proceedings the Convention adjourned for tea, after which the