THE CASE OF ISABEL KINGSLEY AND THE SOCIALIST STANDARD

By Emma-Louise Rhodes

In 1926, Spiritualist convert and communist supporter Isabel Kingsley Henderson wrote the booklet Is Materialism the Basis of Communism? The case against Materialism from the Revolutionary Standpoint. The publication of this material sparked a great deal of interest, in particular by J. Fitzgerald of the Socialist Standard, who attacked Kingsley on a whole range of issues, including her belief in Spiritualism.

The correspondences (published in the Socialist Standard and spanning nearly a year) are interesting in terms of the fact that, regardless of the political issues addressed, they draw a clear distinction between the clouded mind of the Spiritualist convert and the scientific projections of a student of Darwin.

THE FIRST CROSSING OF SWORDS

In his initial reply to the writing, Fitzgerald stated that Kingsley brought against ‘… the huge accumulation of facts, the scientific deductions and the splendid generalisation that supports the Materialist Conception of History’ something which was nothing more than childish magic, terming it the :

‘… combination of cheap charlatanism and
crude superstition, derived from savages that
is known as Spiritism.’

Fitzgerald continued to denounce Kingsley’s work by noting that:

‘After pages of abuse of Marx and the
materialist philosophy in general, we are
offered as a substitute the sentimental
mouthings of old women of both sexes and
the superficial conjuring tricks of mediums
that Stuart Cumberland says would not
obtain a 30s. a week engagement on a
music-hall for most of its exponents.’

A reply from Kingsley in letter form (published the next month) followed, where the author suggested that ‘it is possible that spiritualism and theosophy, perhaps in alliance with reformed Roman Catholicism, will sweep Socialism aside.’ Kingsley also reinforced her belief that the Spiritualist movement was ‘wholly proletarian in its origin’.

Fitzgerald’s reply criticised, not only Kingsley’s belief in the Spiritualist faith, but also the convictions held by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, referencing a particular debate between the prominent Spiritualist and Joseph McCabe, where:

‘(when) Conan Doyle’s bubble of bluster had been
coolly pricked, when his statements of
supposed facts were shown to be wrong in
every essential particular, his only reply was,
“My opponent has not read the books, or
if he has he does not understand them”.’

Fitzgerald’s response to the origin of Spiritualism as understood by Kingsley was that ‘such “origin” does not excuse its superstitions any more than those of the other mental deficients around us’ adding that ‘ …the puerile conjuring tricks of "mediums," can’t be of any "importance" to Socialism—except as a stumbling block to be cleared out of the way.’

Thus their public quarrel shed its initial ramblings on Kingsley’s understanding of Communism and reinvented itself as a disagreement solely based on the relevance of Spiritualism in society of the 1920s.

THE SCEPTIC AND THE SPIRITUALIST

Kingsley’s reply to the Socialist Standard relied on the fact that over forty volumes had been published of the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research and that these journals recorded evidence of the validity of Spiritualism based on scientific investigation. Kingsley ended with the question:

‘If Socialists object to taking the plunge
straight away into survival and spirit
communication, let them begin by
studying the question of the supernormal
powers of man. Is there anything
unreasonable in asking them to do this?’

In turn, the reply was published in the newspaper in March, 1927, stating that the Society for Psychical Research was, in fact, set up by believers of Spiritualism to sustain their claims and that their volumes contained ‘ … dreary drivel, childish chatter, and imbecile ramblings, but precious little "evidence."’

Fitzgerald illustrated his knowledge of the reports of the Society by quoting one particular incident related by F.W.H Myers, who he termed ‘the great God of the Spiritists’, where medium Eusapia Palladino was investigated. Myers had written of the experiments, which were conducted at Cambridge:

'I cannot doubt that we observed much
conscious and deliberate fraud which
must have needed long practice to bring
to its present level of skill .... I do not think
there is adequate reason to suppose that
any of the phenomena at Cambridge were
genuine.’

Several replies followed, one from Geo T. Foster who confessed that he was ‘at a loss’ to comprehend Fitzgerald’s attitude to Spiritualism, citing that prominent men such as Sir Oliver Lodge and Sir William Crookes (both who are now seen as having been severely blighted in their view of the afterlife for reasons of a personal nature*) had investigated psychic claims and found them to be true.

Fitzgerald addressed this issue in another letter published in May 1927 by stating that:

‘ … the "evidence" that men like Sir Oliver
Lodge and Sir William Crookes consider
convincing, would not impose on a child.
The medium that "convinced" Sir William
Crookes was twice exposed as a fraud in his
presence, but he had not the honesty, or
moral courage, to admit his mistake.’

The very next month’s addition of the Socialist Standard saw the return of the correspondence of Isabel Kingsley, where she accused Fitzgerald of stooping to ‘personal abuse’ to uphold the ‘weakness of his case’. Kingsley denied that the Society for Psychical Research had been ‘founded by Spiritists’ and listed prominent members of the Society including Madame Curie. Attacking Fitzgerald’s stance on psychic powers being nothing more than sleight of hand, Kingsley wrote:

‘ …the chief discovery of occultism is the
supernormal powers of man, and modern
science has by hundreds of recorded
laboratory experiments by first-class men,
incontrovertibly proved that the phenomena
due to these powers are true occurrences in
nature.’

J. Fitzgerald’s reply was lengthy. He brought to Kingsley attention the fact that the Society for Psychical Research was founded by Frederick W. H. Myers, Henry Sidgwick, Edmund Gurney and William Barrett, who were all well-know followers of the Spiritualist faith. Furthermore, Fitzgerald recounted the following regarding the experiments made by the Society:

‘"Eva C.," one of Conan Doyle's "white
angels”, insisted upon her clothing being left
in a certain manner to suit herself. The
Thomas brothers—other of Conan Doyle's
loudly advertised marvels from Wales—
refused to allow Stuart Cumberland to be
present at the séance they gave in London.
Unfortunately for the mediums, the latter
gentleman was allowed to assist in arranging
the preliminaries with the result that nothing
more wonderful happened than a pair of
braces being thrown upon a sitter's knees—
a terrible disappointment to those who
thought there "must be something in it,”
because of Conan Doyle's extravagant claims.’

Fitzgerald concluded that the feats of mediums were no more impressive than those of a conjurer on a music-hall stage and that the ‘…trick of quoting names is, of course, an old one with defenders of Spiritism.’ Furthermore, Fitzgerald noted that Kingsley’s defence of the Spiritualist faith was made up of ‘…vague assertions without a single fact or quotation to support them.’

Isabel Kingsley’s reply focussed on the Society of Psychical Research and the fact that she asserted that its four founders were not Spiritualists at the time they founded the Society, but were converted during their research in such phenomena. In answer to Fitzgerald’s comment about conjurers, Kingsley wrote:

‘They have been challenged time and again
to produce the physical phenomena of
spiritualism under the same conditions as the
mediums, and they have never done it. Their
opinions on the subject are therefore
worthless.’

This was to be the final thought from Isabel Kingsley published in the Socialist Standard. The Editor decided that the final instalment of the argument should come from J. Fitzgerald, therefore bringing closure to a debate that had raged for nearly a year.

THE LAST WORD

In his finishing reply, J. Fitzgerald wrote of Kingsley’s correspondence that:

‘We have refuted many of her assertions and
claims by quotations from the very sources
she refers her reader to for evidence,
particularly the volumes of Proceedings of
the Society for Psychical Research. An
important point emerges from these facts.
Either Isabel Kingsley has read these
volumes, and is guilty of deliberate
falsification, or she has not read them and
is guilty of brazen bounce.’

Furthermore, Fitzgerald noted that Isabel Kingsley’s claims, that the Society had been founded by four members who were at the start non-Spiritualists, were unfounded and that there was no evidence to support these. He asserted that the amount of scandal and false allegations which had come to light had forced certain Spiritualists to form such committees in order to save the faith.

‘They had to warn " even educated and
scientific Spiritualists " against defending
frauds who had been exposed over and
over again, though this warning has not
saved Conan Doyle and others from still
following that course.’

Fitzgerald continued his conviction that the Spiritualist was a close relative to the conjurer by citing tricks performed by the likes of J. N. Maskelyne and the Davenport Brothers. He also referred to the infamous American Spiritualist Ann Diss Debar along with the less-known “Masked Lady”. The later had allegedly convinced Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who regarded her performance to be "most successful and convincing," and "clear proof of clairvoyance", before her show was revealed to be nothing more than trickery (Fitzgerald referenced Stuart Cumberland’s book Spiritualism: The Inside Truth as the source for this).

To finish, names of mediums who had been proven to be false, such as Dr Henry Slade and Eglington were mentioned, before the aforementioned note from the editor concluded the debate, stating:

‘In view of Miss Isabel Kingsley's failure to
give evidence and authority for her assertions
and claims, we do not feel that any useful
purpose would be served by allowing more
space for the repetition of these assertions.’

J. Fitzgerald’s comments had the very obvious advantage over anything written by Isabel Kingsley, due to the fact that the debate raged in the pages of the newspaper of which the former was a reporter. Yet still, the very nature of the argument presented by Kingsley was entirely reminiscent of many Spiritualist converts of the time and is significant due to this fact. It provides an extremely interesting insight into the nature of a discussion which, since the beginning of the Spiritualist movement, has surfaced in a number of different guises - from that of the political through to that of the religious and the scientific – the dialogue of Spiritualist ‘true believer’ and the sceptic.

FOOTNOTES

* Sir Oliver Lodge’s son, Raymond, was killed during the First World War and, although he had strongly asserted his belief in Spiritualism in his 1909 book The Survival of Man, the publication of Raymond, after the death of his son, saw his belief in the Spiritualist movement enter a new and more irrational phase.

Sir William Crookes researched a number of Spiritualists, but the most well-known of these was Florence Cook and her spirit materialisation of Katie King. Recent research has revealed that it was believed at the time that Crookes was having an affair with Florence Cook and that he was party to her deception (see Pearsall R. The Table Rappers).

With grateful thanks to Adam Buick for supplying me with this wealth of material.