"Scratching Fanny" the Ghost of Cock Lane. a Report By

"SCRATCHING FANNY" THE GHOST OF COCK LANE. A REPORT BY NEW HORIZONS FOUNDATION. Copyright! New Horizons Research Foundation. October 1986. CO COCK-LANE HUMBUG. A Ballad of the time. The Town it long has "been in pain About the phantom in Cock Lane, To find it out they strove in vain, Not one thing they neglected; The«j searched the bed and room compleat to see if there was any cheat. While little Miss that looks so sweet, Was not the least suspected. Then soon the knocking it begun, And then the scratching it would come, Twas pleased to answer any one, And that was done by Knocking. If you was poisoned tell us true, For yes knock once, for No knock two, Then she knocked I tell to you, Which needs must make it shocking. On Friday night as many know, A noble Lord did thither go, The Ghost its knocking would not show Which made the Guest to mutter; They being gone then one was there, Who always called it my dear, Fanny was pleased tis very clear, And then began to flutter. The Ghost some gentlemen did tell, If they would go to Clerkenwell, Into the Vault where she did dwell, That they three knocks should hear. On Monday night away they went, The man accused he was present, But all as death it was silent, The De'il a knock was there Sir. The Gentlemen returned again, And told young missy flat and plain, She was the Agent of Cock Lane, Who knocked and Scratched for Fanny, Twas false each person did agree, Miss begged to go with her daddy, And then went into the Country, To knock and scratch for Fanny. INTRODUCTION. This paper forms one of a group of papers we have written recently dealing with poltergeist phenomena. The story of the Cock Lane Ghost is an old story, the events took place in 1762, hut we feel it is worth reconsideration for several reasons. If the events that happened then occurred today we would approach the matter in an entirely different manner especially in the light of our knowledge acquired since the "Philip" experiment. The events are noteworthy in that among the many people who investigated the goings on was Samuel Johnson, Charles Churchill, the satirist, and many other people of repute including doctors, clergymen, apothecaries and the like. The story also illustrates a fact that we have mentioned previously. Although many many poltergeist cases include all the 'ingredients' that fall under that heading, such as noises, objects moving, fires, apportation, etc. etc. a quite large proportion of cases, even those such as this one that proceed over a long period of time exhibit only one type of phenomena, with perhaps a very occasional manifestation of other types of phenomena. In this case the manifestations were almost exclusively of knockings and scratchings. Two or three times in the early days some people alleged they actually saw a phantom or ghost, and on one occasion mysterious whispering was heard. Generally speaking however it was a phenomenon of noises, knockings and scratchings, and the supposed ghost became known eventually as "scratching Fanny". The two original accounts of the happenings were published in 1762 and 1170 respectively. In 1762 Oliver Goldsmith published an account entitled The Mystery Revealed; Containing a Series of Transactions and Authentic Testimonials, Respecting the Supposed Cock Lane Ghost; Which have hitherto been concealed from the Public. (Londons W. Bristow, 1762). In 1770 an anonymous author published an account The Cock Lane Ghost: Being an Authentic Account of that Extraordinary Affair which happened in the beginning of the year 1762, to the great Terror and Surprise of all London (London: J. Ker, 1770). We ourselves are indebted to the careful research and meticulous account of the proceedings as contained in the book The Cock Lane Ghost by Douglas Grant (St. Martin's Press, New York, 1965). Douglas Grant was a graduate of Merton College, Oxford. He served with the Commandos during World War II, retiring with the rank of captain. He was then, in turn, Lecturer in English Literature, Edinburgh; Professor of English at Toronto for twelve years; Visiting Professor at Leiden, and first Visiting Brooks Fellow at Brisbane. He was first holder of the Chair of American Literature in Britain at Leeds. He has written many scholarly books. His book on the Cock Lane Ghost is exceedingly well researched and written and has the extra advantage of being entirely unbiased. Professor Grant lays no claim to expertise in the field of parapsychological research and attempts no explanations for the phenomena. He has however recorded the events meticulously, and we are enormously indebted to him, as well as to other authors like him, who record these events in such detail and with such care. For further speculation on the subject we are indebted to Trevor Hall for the historical note he published on the Cock Lane Ghost in the International Journal of Parapsychology in the Winter/1962 edition. Trevor Hall is also a historian and archivist of some note and his research is equally meticulous, but he draws his own conclusions from the events; conclusions with which we do not always agree. THE STORY. Our story begins in October 1759 in the church of St.Sepulchre's, which stands on the north side of Snow Hill and opposite to where Newgate prison once stood, in the City of London. The church was severely damaged in, the Great Fire of London, and was almost entirely rebuilt in I67O. The churchyard itself had been discontinued for burials for about fourteen years, and it abutted so far into the street on the south side that it made the passage narrow and dangerous. One Richard Parsons was the officating clerk of St. Sepulchre's and on this October morning he noticed a genteel couple standing in the aisle, and showed them to a pew. After the service this couple introduced themselves as Mr. and Mrs. William Kent and said they were in search of lodgings. They were leaving their present lodgings after a quarrel with the landlord. Mr. Kent said he had lent his landlord twenty pounds and had had to resort to the law to get its return. Parsons was interested as it so happened that he had lodgings in his own house available for rent, and he took the Kents home to view the accommodation. They decided to take the lodgings. The Parsons home was in Cock Lane, which runs behind St. Sepulchre's to the north, and it was, in fact still is, a steep winding thoroughfare. The Parsons house is the one now numbered 20, and it still stands, presently being used as offices, the name J. Lidstone and sons, builders and contractors, appearing on the masonry. It is a plain-fronted house of three stories, with a room to each floor, connected by a winding staircase; one would have thought it too small for the family to squeeze in lodgers. But, of course, one should remember that the lodgers in that time would have lived 'en famille' and not separately, having only a bedroom to themselves. The Parsons had two children, Elizabeth aged eleven years and a younger sister. The Kents were expecting a child. But the Kents had a guilty secret, at that time unknown to the family with whom they were living. They were not married, and by law could not be, although they neither of them had a living spouse. In 1757 William Kent had married Elizabeth Lynes of Lynham in Norfolk, she being the daughter of a prosperous grocer. They moved to the village of Stoke Ferry where Kent kept an inn and also looked after the local post office. Elizabeth died shortly after the move there in childbirth. During Elizabeth's pregnancy her sister Frances, or Fanny, as she was called by the family, had come to live with her as a companion, and after her sister's death Fanny stayed on, at first to nurse the bahy, and after it died shortly after its mother, she continued to care for her stricken and sorrowing brother-in-law. This was not an uncommon picture of the times, many women ran the risk of dying within a year of their marriage in those days. Fanny was very like her sister, and inevitably, over the course of time, she and Kent were attracted to each other and eventually fell in love and wished to marry. Unfortunately however they were prohibited from law by marrying. It was a strange law; had there been no child, or had the child been miscarried, or stillborn, there would have been no barrier to Kent marrying his dead wife's sister. But the fact that a child had been bom, and had survived even if only for a very short time, placed Fanny in a prohibited degree, and marriage was' illegal for them. Kent gave up the post office and moved to London in January 1?59» intending to'purchase a place in some public office,' and Fanny went back to Lynfem to live at her brother's home. However, the parting was more difficult than they had anticipated, and according to Kent later, Fanny continually wrote letters begging for their reunion. Eventually they decided that she should indeed come to London and join him, which she did in due time, and they decided to live together, and look upon each other as man and wife. To prove their sincerity they made wills in each other's favour. It would seem that the advantage in this was to Fanny, as she had only a bare hundred pounds, and he had a considerable fortune.

Load more