"SCRATCHING FANNY"

THE 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 , 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 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 , 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 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 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. Fanny left everything she had, or might expect to have to William Kent, with the exception of a few half crowns to her brothers and sisters. She appointed Kent her sole executor. He reciprocated in his own will, and they began to live together as man and wife.

Unfortunately for them, however, Fanny's family strongly disapproved of their actions, and apparently, in order to make clear this disapproval of offences both against Church law and moral laws,made known to many people the fact that William and Fanny were not in fact married. Concealment was made more difficult by the fact that one of Fanny's sisters, Arm, was living in London in Pall Mall.

The couple first took lodging near the Mansion House, while searching for a suitable house to buy. Here it was that apparently Kent lent the landlord a sum of twenty pounds, and when the landlord refused to repay the loan, Kent called in the police. It has been generally supposed later that it was probable that in the meantime the landlord had learned of Fanny's and William's relationship and hoped he could keep the twenty pounds as the price of his silence. Perhaps it was an attempt at blackmail. So the Kents had to move, and they moved in to the tome of Richard Parsons, and they were not ihere for very long before Parsons approached Kent for a loan of twelve guineas. It was said Parsons was having difficulty in supporting his family, and that although he was a nice enough fellow he was inclined to drunkenness. However, the Kents settled in quite happily and comfortably in their new lodgings. They took with them also a servant girl, Esther Carlisle, nicknamed "Carrots" on account of her red hair, and we must presume that she also had a corner to live in in this small house. However, it is reported that when Kent had to be out of London on business for a few nights it was the daughter of the house, Elizabeth, that Fanny asked to share her bed, instead of asking "Carrots".

During this period when Elizabeth was sleeping with Fanny they both complained one morning that they had been disturbed during the night by most violent noises. Mrs. Parsons wondered if it were the shoemaker, who lived nearby, and who might have been working late. However, on the following Sunday, when the shoemaker was definitely not working, the noises broke out again, even worse than before. Nothing further seems to have happened however at this time.

Fanny was now six months pregnant and Kent put her under the care of Dr. Thomas Cooper of Northumberland Street, Charing Cross, a doctor with a good reputation. But Kent's relations with Parsons were undergoing a change. Whether Parsons was unable to repay the loan Kent had made him, or whether he made the same mistake as the previous landlord, and having learnt of the relationship between Fanny and Kent, decided to try a little blackmail for himself, we do not know, but he did not repay the money he owed, and Kent put the matter in the hands of his attorney. He seem to have been a man of impulsive action, since Parsons had apparently paid some of the jpone^y back, and one would think the situation might have called for some restraint. However he decided to leave the Parsons' home, and took a house in Bartlet's Court, off Red Lyon Street, Clerkenwell, not far from St. John's Church. The rector of this church, the Rev. Stephen Aldrich,w*a very orthodox priest compared with the Methodistically inclined minister at St. Sepulchre's where Kent had first met Parsons. However the house was not yet ready when Kent decided to leave Cock Lane, and so they took an apartment nearby, belonging to a jeweller, Mr. Hunt.

Fanny woke on January 25 > in this new apartment, with an acute pain in her back, which she interpreted as the beginnigs of labour, but the doctor said that she was suffering from an eruptive fever, and decreed that she be taken to the new house to be nursed in more comfort than the temporary apartment could afford. She was removed hy coach that very afternoon, and immediately put to bed, where the doctor 'ordered her to be blooded and prescribed such cordial medicines as I thought were proper to throw out an eruption". A nurse was immediately provided and all the necessaries for the care of a sick patient. The following day Dr. Cooper called on her again, in the company of her apothecary, James Jones, of Grafton Street, Soho. The symptoms displayed by Fanny led to only one conclusion, one which the doctor had feared the day before; she was suffering from a confluent smallpox of a very virulent nature. She was blistered and dosed with cordial medicines, and treated with every attention, but her condition continued to worsen.

Fanny herself recognising the fact that she would likely die sent for Mr. Morse, an attorney, to be assured that her will was in order and that everything she possessed would go to Kent as she wished. She was reassured on the point. She began to find it difficult to swallow, and was obviously dying. The news spread about the neighbourhood, and Parsons, after the row about the loan, felt entitled to spread abroad the details of the relationship between Fanny and William Kent. Plenty there were who were willing to regard her illness as a visitation of God upon sinners.

There was further gossip. The noises previously referred to had continued to occur after Kent and Fanny had left the lodgings, and the story went that the house in Cock Lane was haunted. The local publican, one James Franzen, having one evening called on Parsons, and finding him out, was sitting with Mrs. Parsons and her daughter. The noises began to occur, and Franzen was told they came every night. He was extremely frightened, and go up to go home. But as he opened the kitchen door 'he saw pass him something in white, seemingly in a sheet, which shot by him and upstairs'. Franzen was convinced he had seem a ghost; deeply shaken he took his leave and went home. As he sat by his kitchen fire, trying to recover his nerve, Parsons came knocking at his door, in a terrible state of fright. "What is the matter?" asked Franzen. The reply came "Oh Franzen, just as I was going into my house just now I saw the Ghost". "And so did I" groaned Franzen, "What can be the meaning of it?"

Parsons was able to enlighten him. As Fanny was still dying the ghost could not be hers; it must be the ghost of her dead sister Elizabeth. This restless spirit must be the cause of all the noises and disturbance that were occurring in the Parsons' house.

Fanny, meanwhile, was in a hopeless condition, and the doctor advised Kent to send for a minister of religion. The Rev. Stephen Aldrich of St. John's ministered to her, and assured her that there would be forgiveness even for her sin - a sin that would cease to be within a hundred years. He tried also to comfort William Kent. Fanny weakened rapidly, and finally died on the evening of February 2, 1?60. Of course the baby died with her. William Kent was grief stricken at this second loss of a wife and child. The Rev. Aldrich visited several times and recorded that he had never seen'a grief more expressive or a tenderness more affecting'. In accordance with the terms of Fanny's will making him sole executor he ordered from the undertaker as good a coffin as he could make both lined and covered. He had no name put on the coffin fearing prosecution if he used his own, but when he went to register the burial and found he had to give a name he gave his own 'being determind she should not suffer reproach, whatever might be the result'. He notified her family, and particularly her sister Ann who was living in Pall Mall. Ann came, and later, when it was asserted that the coffin was already screwed down, thus depriving Ann of a last look at her sister's body,Kent was in fact able to produce witnesses who stated that Ann spent some time weeping over her sister's body while it was still exposed. Kent offered her part of all Fanny's clothes, which she refused. The funeral services were conducted at St. John's Church Clerkenwell, and the body was laid to rest in the vaults of that church.

When Ann learnt the terms of Fanny's will, which had left her and her brothers and sisters only half a crown each, and the rest to Kent, she tried by entering a caveat to prevent Kent from proving the will in Doctors' Commons, on February 6, four days after Fanny's death. The will was legally unvulneraDie, but the Lynes family believed that Kent had influenced Fanny to draw it up in nis favour, and could not forgive him.

Kent tried to put the unhappy past behind him and set about rebuilding his shattered life. He set up as a stockbroker and by the middle of 1761 he married for the third time. This woman was supposed to have a fortune of about three thousand pounds - truly a large sum at that time. He was negotiating to go into parternship with her brother by the end of that year.

There was however an unforseen consequence of Fanny's will. Her will left Kent not only with all she had, but all that she might expect'to inherit herself. Her elder brother Thomas was alive when she drew up her will, but he died in a

— August 1959, some six months before Fanny's death. Fanny's share of her brother's estate was one hundred and fifty pounds, and this was the bulk of the money Kent had inherited under her will. But Thomas had also left some land to be sold, to be divided among his beneficiaries, and the proportion to fall to William Kent of this was some ninety four pounds and a few shillings. The family much resented Kent's claim Hi to this sum. But ill feelings were stirred up further by the fact that when selling this land a mistake had been made in regard to the freehold. The land had been sold as y freehold, when in fact it was only copyhold, and some of the money had to be returned, forty five pounds to be precise, this being divided equally between the beneficiaries. Kent's i share would amount to a very small sum, but he refused to • pay, saying he had spent the money settling Fanny's debts. John Lynes had recourse to law, and on October 31 l?6i, he began proceedings in Chancery to make Kent repay his proportion. y It would seem Kent acted most unwisely in refusing to repay this small sum, and he must have bitterly regretted this action later. He was already married to his third wife, y and it would seem he could easily have paid the money if he had wished. There is no doubt that the whole neighbourhood was abuzz with gossip about his affairs, the deaths of his two wives and children, his marriage to yet a third wife, 1 a wealthy woman, and his obduracy in repaying a small debt to a family so cruelly bereaved of two daughters while living with him. In addition his previous landlord, Richard gg Parsons was in no way loathe to vilify him, and spread gossip among the neighbours. The reader must remember how much smaller London was in those days, and in the City itself j there existed a community spirit and neighbourliness that would be like that of a small town today.

d SCRATCHING FANNY

During this same period of time while Fanny was ill and dying, and when Kent was rebuilding his life, the noises that had started in the Parsons' home while the Kents were living there continued to be heard. Elizabeth ,the twelve year old daughter started to have convulsive fits during 1760 and Mr. Gammon, the local apothecary, attended her. Many people in the neighbourhood knew about the noises, and Parsons told a neighbour on one occasion that he believed that thieves were responsible. But they were becoming a nuisance; a lodger who lived with them subsequent to the Kents left because of the disturbances, and the Parsons were finding them trying also. Parsons ca-lled in a carpenter, and had the wainscoting taken down to see if anything could be found that might be the cause, to no effect, and the wainscoting was replaced. Parsons was deeply puzzled himself, and consulted John Moore, the assistant preacher at St. Sepulchre's for help. Moore was a man of very good character, deeply respected and devout, although his devotion was Methodistical we are told. Parsons discussed the noises, and one night at ten o'clock when the noises were particularly bothersome sent for Moore to come see for himself. He hurried round and from then on became deeply involved in their interpretation.

There was much discussion as to the cause of the knockings, and of course, inevitably, the conclusion was reached that it could only be a spirit. This reminded people of the ghost that had been seen when Fanny was on her deathbed, which was then supposed to have been the ghost of her sister, Elizabeth. So the conclusion was reached that now the house was haunted not only by the spirit of Elizabeth, but by that of Fanny herself, and therefore if the two women were coming back to earth in so restless a manner, it could only be because they could not rest quiet until they had revealed some information that must be worrying them. This was not a novel viewpoint, many people at the time would have regarded it as quite a natural deduction. One must remember that the family of Samuel Wesley had experienced similar poltergeist type phenomena which they had attributed to a ghost "Old Jeffrey". The Rev. Moore would have been perfectly familiar with the happenings that had taken place in the Wesley household earlier in the century. It should also be noted that this particular event in Cock Lane coincided with a period of intesnse and successful missionary activity on the part of the Methodists in and around the London area . It only remained to discover the information that the sisters were trying to impart. Again, just as Samuel Wesley had communicated with "Old Jeffrey" by means of knocking in code, so did the Rev. Moore suggest that this method should be used in communicating with the sisters - one knock for yes, and two knocks for No. The ghost itself, apparently, made it clear to them that it would express displeasure by scratching. (The reader might note that in the "Philip" seances the group realised that scratching occurred when the answer to the questions put was either not known, or that different members of the group had differing views on the answer - it really expressed doubt). The noises had by now been recognized as associated exclusively with Elizabeth, the twelve year old girl. Wherever she went the ghost went too, and made its presence known, especially at night, after Elizabeth and her sister had been put to bed.

Preliminary questioning established that the ghost had returned to earth to talk of 'murder most foul, strange and unnatural' - this murder going unpunished. It was conjectured that the first spirit that had appeared while Fanny was dying was that of Elizabeth come to warn of the terrible fate awaiting Fanny, and that after Fanny's death her spirit was the one that came. The neighbours and the curious gathered nightly to talk with Fanny's ghost. As in many such seances one person took on the role of interrogator - in this case Mary Frazer, an elderly servant of the Parsons' fulfilled this role. She "stage-managed" the questioning to a very large extent.

Of course, the main disadvantage of the "Yes", "No" method of questioning is that the questioner has to put the words in the mouths of the ones being questioned. You cannot say "Who are you?" "Tell us what happened" - the"ghost"cannot answer this type of question except by an elaborate code which involves a diffeieit number of knocks for each letter of the alphabet. This is extremely cumbersome and time consuming. Some spiritualist circles work by this method, but it is very frustrating. On the other hand, if you adopt the method of asking the questions direct - "Are you Fanny?" "Were you mudered?" "Did you die of poison?" the answers may be more direct and precise, either yes or no, but the assumption has been made beforehand in the minds of all the listeners as to what the answer will be. It is a method which is not allowed in courts of law, for very good reasons. The events in Cock Lane took on something of the nature of a "soap opera" as we understand it in our modern days. One needs to remember that the poor were starved of entertainment, and this kind of event must have drawn people from far and wide. There were many times when the house was full to overflowing and people lining up in the streets.

In answer to the questioning the ghost alleged that Fanny had died by poison, administered to her in purl, which was an infusion of herbs and ale, and was a popular restorative at the time. The poison had been given to her by Kent about two hours before she died. She had returned to earth to knock for justice to be done. Moore called in another clergyman, the Rev. Thomas Broughton, who was also convinced of the ghost's authenticity. Word spread of the happenings and soon the story was published in the newspaper of the day, the Public Ledger. Kent was very upset on reading of this account, and when the story was repeated in later editions he became terrified, and decided to call on the Rev. Moore and attempt to warn him off continuing the seances. However the meeting was fairly amicable, and Moore apparently became somewhat doubtful as to whether Kent had indeed murdered Fanny. He suggested that Kent attend a seance, and on the evening of January 12 he went with Moore, and Dr. Cooper and Mr. Jones, the doctor and apothecary who had attended Fanny during her last illness. The Rev. Thomas Broughton also went with them.

At Elizabeth Parens' bedtime she was undressed publicly and put to bed with her younger sister "with proper solemnity". The bedroom was a very small one, and the bed was stood in the middle, so the audience could sit all round. Those who attended were told that the ghost did not like being ridiculed, and might well refuse to knock if they did not show a proper respect. Mary Frazer, as usual took the part of interrogator. It was said that Mary had not the best of reputations, but the accounts do not enlarge upon this, except to say later that when she called for a prayer this was totally out of character.

At first the ghost did not respond, and the visitors had to go downstairs for a while. Moore stayed in the room, with M#ry Frazer, and shortly after came down and said that the ghost was now knocking. The ghost then repeated, in answer to the questions, the statements made previously. Kent's consternation became greater when,in answer to a question put by one of those present, the ghost alleged he would be hanged for the offence. He protested that his Fanny would never have said such a thing, and called the communicator a "lying spirit". But Kent was unsuccessful in repelling the ghost's charges, and the seances continued, the crowds increasing in numbers as word of what was happening spread. It was discovered at this time that the ghost accompanied Elizabeth Parsons wherever she went. Two days after Kent's visit Elizabeth was taken to the house of a Mr. Bray in the neighbourhood, and put to bed with a servant, but the knockings continued. Rather reminiscent of the voice in the Dagg case which we discussed in an earlier paper, Fanny's ghost claimed to be a good spirit, sent from God. Bray later testified that while Elizabeth was at his house two noblemen came to visit, and it was believed that one of these was the Earl of Dartmouth, who was known as a Methodist sympathiser. After it was known that members of the nobility were interested and visiting Elizabeth, various other newspapers took up the story, and the happenings became very widely known indeed. From then on there was no turning back. The ghost was committed to continually performing, and there was no way the charges being urged against Kent could be withdrawn. The affair had gone past the point of no return.

After staying some days with Mr. Bray, Elizabeth was returned to her own home, and on Monday, January 18, Kent again attended a seance, taking with him Stephen Aldrich of St. John's and Mr. Jones, the apothecary, as well as several others. When they arrived they were told the spirit had already begun to scratch. Apparently there were just as many scratchings as knockings! As before Mary Frazer acted as the interpreter and mistress of ceremonies. The questioning went on as before, interspersed with questions about the people present, their numbers, professions and so on. As the evening wore on the questions became increasingly frivolous as the audience tried in vain to catch the ghost out, or to make it prove its authenticity in ways within the limited range of its compass and abilities.

However one fact emerged from this, interview that was new to the listeners. The spirit asserted that "Carrots", Fanny Lynes* servant, would support her assertion that Fanny had been poisoned. Moore and Parsons were intent upon somehow bringing home to Kent the charges that were being made by the ghost, and so were anxious to find earthly corroboration of the spirit's assertions. "Carrots" had moved to a new position after Fanny's death, but she was found and brought to Moore on January 19th. "Carrots" had heard nothing of the mysterious happenings? this would not be surprising. She was almost certainly illiterate and would have no access to newspapers, while her new employers would almost certainly not gossip to the servants about what was happening. It is likely they had no idea that their new maid had anything to do with what was happening in Cock Lane.

As we have said she was brought first to Moore, who explained to her that the house was haunted by the ghost of her dead mistress. Moore went on to tell "Carrots" about the ghost's accusations, and to say that the ghost itself had said that the maid could corroborate the fact that Kent had poisoned his wife by giving her some poisoned purl two hours before she died, and that.: Fanny-'had'-herself told "Carrots" of the poisoning just before she died. The amazed servant replied "Bless me sir, my mistress could not speak for four days before she died". Moore replied that "she said so, though perhaps you might not understand her, and to convince you you shall hear her say so yourself".

It was then arranged that she should go to the house that evening and hear her dead mistress' spirit for herself. She arrived early, and on being told again about the poison she denied any knowledge of such a thing, asserting that her master and mistress were very loving, and lived very happily together. Moore tried to convince her further by saying that the ghost had said that "Carrots" could go before a magistrate and give an account of the murder, for Fanny had told nobody but "Carrots" She sturdily repeated her denials, and said she was going home to her new place. Apparently she did not particularly want to stay and confront the spirit. However Kent arrived shortly after with a number of friends and witnesses, and Mary Frazer began her usual coaxing of the ghost. The ghost was asked if Carrots was present, and whether she knew anything of the murder, and whether she would confess in front of a magistrate. Along with the confirmatory knockings of the ghost there was heard a sound like the fluttering of wings, a phenomenon which had happened from time to time, and was taken as a sign that the ghost was pleased - it was the opposite of the scratching noise.

Carrots asked if she could question her late mistress, and on being given permission asked the ghost if it were indeed her mistress. The ghost replied with one knock. She then asked "Are you angry with me Madam?" One knock came in reply. "Carrots" replied "Then I am sure Madam you may be ashamed of yourself for I never hurt you in my life". This sharp and honest retort brought the sitting to an end.

Kent was now in a very unhappy situation. He was the centre of what had become a major public scandal, his reputation in tatters, and his new business affairs in a state of suspension. The house in Cock Lane was almost in a state of seige by the crowds who continually poured in by day and night. It is reported that Elizabeth was now frequently in a state of strong convulsions, a return of the fits from which she had suffered earlier, and this led many people to believe in the reality of the ghost. A further seance which took place at the home of Mr. Bruin, a pawnbroker of Hosier Lane, brought forth (in answer to the usual leading questions, of course) that Fanny was poisoned by arsenic. It was also alleged that if the corpse were disinterred the poison could be discovered. The ghost was reported to have agreed that the clergymen present should insist upon taking up the body for postmortem examination.

Some of the investigators present again wished Elizabeth to be moved from Cock Lane, and examined in another environment. James Penn of St. Ann's asked Parsons if Elizabeth could be moved to the home of the Aldrich's for examination. Parsons and Elizabeth agreed ±hat.„she .should..go and be put to bed in a bed standing by itself in the middle of a large empty room. No one hitherto connected with her was to be in the room during the examination; chairs were placed all around the bed. The examiners were to be a physician, a surgeon, an apothecary, a justice of the peace, and members of the clergy. Other gentlemen of reputation, both of the laity and clergy were also asked to attend. The seance was arranged for Friday night the 22nd January. But Parsons reneged at the last moment, and would not allow Elizabeth to go to the home of the Aldriches, but he did allow her to be transferred that night to the house of the matron of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, keeping the rendezvous secret in order to escape the crowds. Only about twenty people atten^d that night, and it is reported that nothing happened.

Elizabeth had evidently overheard some of the gentlemen discussing what could happen to the family if the matter should be discovered to be an imposture, and the next morning she was in a state of tears and crying.

The whole affair was getting out of hand, and certain people felt that the only person who could resolve the matter was the himself. Accordingly a Mr. Watson went to Alderman Gosling, who accompanied Watson and John Moore to the Lord Mayor begging him to intervene. Kent meantime prepared his own deposition of the relevant circumstances to lay before the Lord Mayor.

The Lord Mayor was very reluctant to be drawn into the matter. He had recently been involved in two scandals with many similarities in their implications to the Cock Lane ghost and had been badly 'burned' by the resulting publicity. He did not want to lay himself open to another bout of ridicule and calumny. He refused to issue warrants for the arrest of either Kent on a charge of murder, or Parsons on a charge of conspiracy, but directed instead that the scheme of enquiry as proposed to be held at Stephen Aldrich's house, and as outlined above, should be carried out, and he ordered that neither trouble nor expense should be spared in arriving at the truth.

Aldrich and James Perm told Parsons of the Lord Mayor's decision, and although Parsons stalled for some time, he finally agreed to the examination. Elizabeth went to the home of Aldrich. It was also agreed that the ghost be asked to fulfil an earlier promise it had made and which had been repeated several times. This was that the ghost would accompany Kent into the vaults of St. John's, Clerkenwell, where Fanny's coffin lay, and that the ghost would signify her presence by knocking three times on the coffin.

Aldrich drew up his committee of investigators. It consisted of Mrs. Oakes, the matron of the Lying-in-Hospital in Brownlow Street, Dr. John Douglas, regarded as a most shrewd exposer of imposters, Dr. George Macaulay, a well-known physician and husband of Catherine Macaulay, later to become famous as a Whig historian, as well as a Captain Wilkinson, James Penn and John Moore. But the most prominent member of the committee was Samuel Johnson.

Johnson was a man who wanted dearly to believe, but he was not credulous. A belief in was a religious requirement of the times, and Johnson fervently believed in the spirits, but he was also well aware of the tricks imagination can play and looked for hard proofs for his beliefs. He was undoubtedly extremely interested in the possibility that the ghost was really the spirit of the deceased Fanny, but equally he felt that if it should turn out to be an imposture it was essential to expose it as such in order that the reverence essential to religion should not be undermined. Johnson also had a sympathetic feeling for Kent should the matter be proved to be an imposture, and Douglas Grant remarks in his book The Cock Lane Ghost that if superstition was marked in Johnson's character, Kent's predicament as a man would have moved him to action sooner than the lure of a ghost.

The examination took place on Monday evening February 1st, 1762. Elizabeth was examined and put to bed and the party waited for the ghost to manifest itself by knocking. They sat for rather more than an hour, when hearing nothing they went downstairs to interrogate Parsons, who denied in the strongest of terms any knowledge or belief of fraud. While they were thus questioning Parsons, they were called "back into the bedhhamber by some of the ladies who said they had heard knockings and scratchings. The child was asked to place her hands outside the bedclothes, and no further sounds were heard. The committee members then decided to take the ghost up on its promise to knock on Fanny's coffin, and the company adjourned to the church and the members of the committee, along with Kent, went down to the vaults, but nothing was heard from the coffin. The men then went back to the bedroom and examined th'e child, but were unsuccessful in extracting any kind of confession from her regarding fraud. Johnson himself wrote an account of the proceedings of that night, and came to the conclusion himself that the spirit was a deception. Johnson felt he had himself exposed the affair to be a fraud, and that his report had "undeceived the world". John Moore was so cast down by the ghost's failure to knock on the coffin that he was also prepared to believe it to be an imposter, but when requested by Kent to help clear his name if he really believed this he wavered yet again, and said that if he had not murdered Fanny as the ghost had charged, yet this visitation was plainly a judgement on him for having lived in sin.

Other people felt much the same, and on February 3rd knocking was still occurring, especially about the time that the bell of Newgate prison was tolling for a man about to be hanged. It was on this day that the only recorded event of a movement of objects occurred - it was recorded that a curtain ring spun rapidly and independently...on .its.rod at the time the bell was tolling, and at a later time in the day extremely violent knocking was heard. One has to say here, in the light of what we know know about poltergeist type happenings, that it is remarkable that the events were not more dramatic in light of the gruesome circumstances that surrounded this young girl's life.

Parsons realized that his own position was serious, and that he had somehow to prove that the ghost was not an imposture. He voluntarily agreed to submitting the girl to tests by another set of examiners. On February 7 she was taken to the house of a gentleman near the Strand to stay. Nothing happened on that day, but on the next day, after she had been searched and put to bed in the same room as the husband and wife, as it grew towards dawn the usual knockings and scratchings were heard. The husband rang a bell for the servant to bring a light, and carrying it over to where the girl slept he found her lying quite still. But as he watched an unaccountable whispering began. "What are you whispering about?" his wife asked from the bed. "We're not whispering" he replied "it's something else, I'm trying to understand what is being said"

He never made out the meaning behind the voice, but he, his wife, and the servant were prepared to swear to the whispering and that the child's lips never moved.

This whispering is a form of direct voice that is sometimes manifested in poltergeist cases - the reader will remember the Dagg case and the voice that was heard outside, apparently coming from thin air. Direct voice is relatively rare in such cases, but there are several recorded cases where it has happened. It is significant, we think, that this occurred shortly after the curtain ring episode, as if the phenomena were perhaps undergoing a change of nature. On Tuesday night the noises were again absent, but on Wednesday they broke out so violently that the household was terrified, and asked for the girl to be moved. It is recorded that the disturbances continued several days after she had left. Again, the reader will note that though this is a rare occurrence, there are a few cases where it seems the phenomena continue for a while after the person who is the apparent focus has left.

This unfortunate child was then taken to the house of a Mr. Missiter, near for further inquisition. The first night a maid slept with the girl, but though she lay with her legs across the child, and held her hands, the knockings continued. The next night a bed was made up for her in the middle of the room and Missiter and a friend slept in the room. The noises sounded, questions were put and answered, and the friend declared the "impulses were within less than six inches of his ear". On succeeding nights the noises continued. It is recorded that she lay well clear of the walls and any wooden object and seemed to rest motionles the noises seemed to come from a glass fixed against one side of the room. She was usually asleep (again this is unusual in poltergeist cases; the noises are usually happening only when the person is awake), but when awakened and being made to put her hands out of bed the noises usually ceased.

The investigators finally put her to bed in a hammock, spreadeagled out, with her hands and feet tied, and the knockings and scratchings held their peace. She was told that she had only the next night to prove her innocence; unless the ghost was heard she, her father and mother, would all be sent to Newgate. They then set servants to watch her through a peephole, and they saw the girl get out of bed and take a piece of board from the chimney with which she produced knockings. Interestingly enough in spite of this the listeners noted that the questions answered were answered ''in so different a sound that it was very apparent this method of operating was a fresh contrivance". They went even further, they said "they immediately perceived that the sound was in the bed, and not in distant parts of the room as it used to be". The wood was found. The child was allowed to go home the next day. The ghost was almost laid. Meanwhile Kent himself had busied himself, attempting to scotch the rumours still in circulation. He issued affidavits signed by both Dr. Thomas Cooper and James Jones the apothecary, recounting their attendence on Fanny during her pregnancy and at the time of her death. They stressed that she had been incapable of swallowing for fifty hours before she died, and what little fluid she had taken was administered by one or the other of them. The newspapers had made much of the fact that the ghost had not been able to produce knocks on Fanny's coffin, and some speculated that perhaps it had not been the right coffin, that Fanny's coffin had been moved. Kent had the coffin opened, and Fanny's remains identified to scotch that rumour.

The Rev. John Moore, who had believed in the ghost from the beginning finally retracted on February 25th and stated that although he could not point out how the knockings and scratching were contrived, he was now convinced these were the effects of some artful wicked contrivance.

On July 10th The Rev. John Moore, Richard James, Richard Parsons, Mrs. Parsons and Mary Frazer were in the dock at Guildhall before Lord Mansfield, charged with conspiracy to take away the life of William Kent by charging him with the murder of Frances Lynes by giving herpoison whereof she died. The court was crowded, as might be expected. Many people testified, but unlike today's proceedings when such a trial would be expected to last for weeks, if not months, with all kinds of expert witnesses on both sides, the trial only lasted one day, from ten in the morning until nine thirty at night. Lord Mansfield took an hour and a half to sum up, the jury fifteen minutes to reach their verdict - all guilty.

The following week two people responsible for publishing.'in newspapers against Kent were fined fifty pounds apiece. Sentencing was postponed against the main offenders until November 22nd in the hope that they would find some way of agreeing with Kent in the matter of compensation, and John Moore and Richard James paid five hundred and eighty eight pounds to Kent, and so were reprimanded .and dismissed from the case. Parsons was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and to stand three times in the pillory, his wife was_sentenced to one year in prison, and Mary Frazer to six months in Bridewell. Parsons continued to protest his innocence. He denied having been arrested for debt in the matter of owing Kent money, and said he bore no malice against Kent. Moreover, he protested, many many people had heard the knockings. It was clear that many people did in fact agree with Parsons and he had much sympathy, for it is recorded that when he stood in the pillory on March 16 for the first time, the pillory being situated at the end of Cock Lane, he was very kindly treated, and a "handsome sum" was collected for him. He was stood again on March 30 at the Royal Exchange and on April 8 at Charing Cross; on both these occasions also he was treated well, and collections were taken for him. It was clear that public opinion was on his side. Crowds could be very violent if they disapproved of anyone put in the pillory, usually the victims were pelted with refuse and rotten vegetables, but there were instances where the unfortunate person was killed by a crowd.

All the conspirators disappeared after the trial. John Moore's death was reported in 1?67, but the rest were never heard of again. Elizabeth was supposed to have died in Chiswick in 1805, having been married twice. William Kent was also never heard of again.

The ghost of Cock Lane, however, was by no means forgotten. It remained the subject of plays, poetry, ballads, comedies, pantomimes and various theatrical performances for many a year. Pamphlets were published and songs were circulated. These are too many to recount in detail, Douglas Grant gives an excellent summary of some of these in his book The Cock Lane Ghost. We can howver, mention a few. Addison's comedy, The Drummer was revived on the London stage. This plot was based on the story of the Tedworth poltergeist - another famous case where continuous knocking was heard, but the Cock Lane story was woven into the revived version. At Covent Garden the opera The Beggar's Opera was introduced with a new prologue, wittily referring to the Cock Lane Ghost; also at Covent Garden, the p|ntomime Apollo and Daphne, which was attended by the King and Queen contained a new scene taking off the ghost; harlequin, scampering around the stage until he comes upon a bed with a child in it, and then putting on a hat and taking up pen and pencil asks Miss Ghost questions which are answered by knoekingI

David Garrick, a very popular actor at the time played the lead in his new interlude, The Fa rme r's Re turn, which also featured the ghost. The farmer returns from a visit to the big city and recounting his adventures among them a visit to a ghost. It is not recorded whether Garrick himself actually visited the Cock Lane house, he was apparently present at the trial of the conspirators as they were called, as were many other famous people. Hogarth immortalised the play by painting Garrick in his role, as also did an artist from Bavaria, Zoffany. Reviews of the painting also perpetuated the story, a review of the painting states "We see our favourite Garrick in the act of saying for yes she knocked once - and for no she knocked twice " Garrick continued to use the story in various other productions as did also , a popular mimic of the day, whose specialty was taking off other famous actors. A popular production of his was one which parodied the trial of Parsons and the others. Endless verses were printed in the various newspapers and journals of the day.

Charles Churchill had the reputation of being the finest and most dangerous satirist to have appeared since the death of Pope. He had already published many fine works. He also wrote a satire of the ghost. Grant says in The Cock Lane Ghost that Churchill must have certainly visited Fanny himself and may have watched Kent's descent into the vault on February 1. He was also certainly in court on the day of the trial.

Perhaps the last word lies with Sameul Johnson who observed in relationship to a story later told by . Boswell asked Johnson, on April 17 1778, "Pray Sir, what has Wesley made of his story of a ghost"? "Why Sir, he believes it" Johnson replied "but not on sufficent authority" .... I am sorrythat John did not take more pains to enquire into the evidence for it" "What Sir, about a ghost?" Miss Seward exclaimed astonished, "Yes, Madam" Johnson answered with solemn vehemence "this is a question which after five thousand years, is yet undecided; a question, whether in theology or philosophy, one of the most important that can come before the human understanding". CONCLUSIONS.

We have chosen to describe this case in detail because it is one of the most fascinating of poltergeist stories, as well as one of the most reliably documented. It also affords an excellent picture of life in the City of London at the time of Samuel Johnson, Horace Walpole, David Garrick and many other famous people. It also gives a graphic picture of the kind of life that many ordinary people lived; one's heart goes out to the unfortunate child, Elizabeth Parsons, living opposite Newgate prison, hearing the bell toll every time someone was hanged, and people were hanged for the most minor of offences in those days. One is made aware also of the risks that women ran in marrying and becoming pregnant; we are told it was not uncommon for young women to die within a year of their marriage in childbirth. We are also made familiar with the ravages of smallpox, and the inability of the medical profession at that time to cure the disease.

It is also important to realise the effect of the religious thought of the time. People firmly believed in the survival of the spirit; one would imagine life would be unutterably unbearable if one could not have hope for redemption in a future life. It was equally logical that such spirits could come back to warn and protect their loved ones left behind. The Methodists of the time firmly believed this, and was gaining much ground in and around London. Those engaged in investigating the spirit of Fanny were in no doubt that somewhere there was a spirit of the dead woman, and that it could in fact return and communicate; the only question was, was this particular manifestation the real Fanny, or an imposter?

The City of London, as we have mentioned in the text, was a small area, with a community spirit not unlike that of a modern small provincial town. The area has always been only about one square mile, and in those days almost everyone would know everybody else. Rumour, gossip, slander, stories of all kinds spread like wildfire. There was no entertainment for the poor, only the rich went regularly to the opera or theatre*, the poor had to find other forms of entertainment.

In our modern day and age it is doubtful if the Cock Lane ghost would rate more than a story or two in the National Enquirer or perhaps some of the more popular Sunday papers. And as parapsychologists we would certainly have a very different understanding of what was happening than the people surrounding Elizabeth Parsons had so many years ago. Anyone who has read of our Philip experiment will he at once struck by the similarities between what happened in Cock Lane and the phenomena conjured up in the name of Philip. Here, around Elizabeth Parsons was a group of people who were aware of the titillating fact that Fanny and William Kent had not been married, that his first wife and child had died within a year of the marriage, and now he was married again. The noises and knockings, that are so obviously of a normal poltergeist type, and which had been happening for some months, were ripe to be personified. The family and visitors had become convinced they could not be of normal origin, they must come from some spirit, what better candidate than the unquiet spirit of Fanny Kent? We have already mentioned in the text that the tremendous disadvantage of the "yes" "no" type of questioning is that the questioner puts the answers in the "mouth" so to speak of the "spirit," and most certainly in the minds of the other people present; so that when an answer came, just as with Philip, it was a concensus of opinion of the members of the group. To us it is interesting that in fact there was so much scratching - to the extent that the ghost was known not as "Knocking Fanny" but "Scratching Fanny". In the Philip experiment we clearly observed over a long period of experimentation that scratching occurred when the members of the group were not united in their opinion as to what the answer should be; the more concensus of opinion, the more forceful the knocks. It would indicate to us that even at the height of the phenomena there were those who had their doubts as to whether Fanny really was a spirit and telling the truth. But the Parsons decided that the scratchings merely indicated the displeasure of the spirit.

We believe that the phenomena were in fact genuine, except for that very last occasion when the child tried to hide a board and produce the knockings in response to a threat - later carried out, as it happens, - that if she did not 'perform' her parents would be charged and imprisoned. It seems natural, that in desparation, in case the knocks did not come, she hid the board and fraudulently produced noises. It is significant that the investigators present commented that the noises produced this were in fact different from the normal knockings, and that they obviously came from the bed, wheras they normally came from other areas in the room. It is difficult to believe that with all the attention and observation given the child she should have been able to hide pieces of wood and produce fraudulent rappings on all the other occasions. Unfortunately, as in so many cases, when the situation has resulted in a great deal of publicity the family and the girl had been forced into a 'defensive' position; instead of "being the victims of a puzzling and frightening phenomenon they were being forced to defend themselves.

The phenomena bear all the hallmarks of a typical poltergeist case. Like so many other young victims Esther was subject to convulsions or 'fits' (Esther Cox, Virginia Campbell, and many others come to mind). These may have coincided with the onset of puberty. The events happened at bedtime initially, and for a good deal of the time. In Elizabeth's case we are told that they often happened while she was asleep, this is unusual for this type of event. There were not many other types of poltergeist phenomena, but we are told of a curtain ring spinning rapidly, and there was the strange episode of the whispering in the bedroom of a house where she was visiting. Direct voice is rare in these cases, but there are several recorded instances, notably the Dagg case. Also, unusually, but again it happens sometimes, in one instance at least it is recorded that the noises continued after she had left the house, for a few days. We remember that at Baldoon, when the officers of the law moved the McDonald family to another home to investigate the happenings, noises continued in the old home, as well as in the new accommodation.

What is clear is that there was nobody for the family to turn to who could help deal with what was happening. The investigations and observations of the various clergy, as well as the neighbours, had more the effect of an attempted exorcism than a calming down effect of reason, and the story continued to build up till it got to the point of no return. Everyone became committed to believing that Kent had murdered hiswife, and then what to do about it? One cannot but agree with the crowds who showed their sympathy for Parsons by collecting money for him at the pillory that he was essentially an innocent man, caught up in a situation over which he had no control, and with which he was ill equipped to deal. One can also sympathise with Kent, who was probably also innocent, although Trevor Hall in his monograph referred to in the Introduction makes something of a case for Kent's possible guilt. In our view this is unlikely though, and the story of the murdered Fanny is, in our minds, just the kind of juicy gossip that gives fuel to an incipient poltergeist outbreak.