Into this whirl of political and social strife came the first whisper to me of the Theosophical Society, in the shape of a statement of its principles, which conveyed, I remarked, “no very definite idea of the requirements for membership, beyond a dreamy, emotional, scholarly interest in the religio-philosophic fancies of the past.”  Also a report of an address by Colonel Olcott, which led me to suppose that the society held to “some strange theory of ‘apparitions’ of the dead, and to some existence outside the physical and apart from it.”  These came to me from some Hindu Freethinkers, who asked my opinion as to Secularists joining the Theosophical Society, and Theosophists being admitted to the National Secular Society.  I replied, judging from these reports, that “while Secularists would have no right to refuse to enrol Theosophists, if they desired it, among their members, there is a radical difference between the mysticism of Theosophy and the scientific materialism of Secularism.  The exclusive devotion to this world implied in the profession of Secularism leaves no room for other-worldism; and consistent members of our body cannot join a society which professes belief therein."[27]

H.P.  Blavatsky penned a brief article in the Theosophist for August, 1882, in which she commented on my paragraph, remarking, in her generous way, that it must have been written “while labouring under entirely misconceived notions about the real nature of our society.  For one so highly intellectual and keen as that renowned writer to dogmatise and issue autocratic ukases, after she has herself suffered so cruelly and undeservedly at the hands of blind bigotry and social prejudice in her lifelong struggle for freedom of thought seems, to say the least, absurdly inconsistent.”  After quoting my paragraph she went on:  “Until proofs to the contrary, we prefer to believe that the above lines were dictated to Mrs. Besant by some crafty misrepresentations from Madras, inspired by a mean personal revenge rather than a desire to remain consistent with the principles of ‘the scientific materialism of Secularism.’  We beg to assure the Radical editors of the National Reformer that they were both very strangely misled by false reports about the Radical editors of the Theosophist.  The term ‘supernaturalists’ can no more apply to the latter than to Mrs. A. Besant and Mr. C. Bradlaugh.”

H.P.  Blavatsky, when she commented, as she occasionally did, on the struggles going on in England, took of them a singularly large-hearted and generous view.  She referred with much admiration to Mr. Bradlaugh’s work and to his Parliamentary struggle, and spoke warmly of the services he had rendered to liberty.  Again, in pointing out that spiritualistic trance orations by no means transcended speeches that made no such claim, I find her first mention of myself:  “Another lady orator, of deservedly great fame, both for eloquence and learning—­the good Mrs. Annie Besant—­without