From the 1850s until the early part of the twentieth century Church of England clergy expressed concerns that spiritualism was widespread. Despite this anxiety, there was no ‘official’ response to spiritualism until 1920, when the Lambeth Conference briefly discussed spiritualism, along with Christian Science and Theosophy, and concluded that there were ‘grave dangers’ in the ‘tendency to make a religion of spiritualism’. It was not until 1936, however, that a small committee, gathered by the archbishop of Canterbury, began to consider spiritualism formally for the Church, presenting its report to the bishops in 1939. Seven of the ten members of the committee concluded in the report that, despite the instances of fraud associated with séances, it was ‘probable’ that in some cases discarnate spirits did indeed communicate with the living. The majority advised the Church to maintain contact with ‘intelligent’ spiritualists. The three other members of the committee advised that spiritualism needed to be investigated further by scientists, rather than clergy. The report was suppressed, much to the annoyance of some spiritual-ists, who had heard rumours that the conclusions of the majority were favourable towards spiritualism.

With the exception of the comments made at Lambeth in 1920, between 1852 and 1939 there was no official Church of England response to modern spiritualism. Despite this, there were many unofficial responses in this period, as spiritualism was discussed and analysed in sermons, pamphlets, newspapers and journals, and at the Church Congress. Historians of spiritualism have tended to assume that, apart from a few interested clergymen, the Church was ‘cautious’ and ‘negative’ about spiritualism. Janet Oppenheim sees this exemplified by an article written by Edward White Benson for the first edition of the spiritualist newspaper Borderland in 1893, which condemned spiritualism as uncivilised and for people of low intellect. The fact that this was the same Benson who had been a member of the Ghost Club some years earlier, however, ought to discourage the easy assumption that condemnation of spiritualist séances was the same as condemnation of any communication between the living and the departed.

In fact, although there were undoubtedly some clergymen who were ‘negative’ and ‘cautious’, there were others who were as curious as anyone else about spiritualism and who visited séances; a small but significant number were prepared to admit this in public.