Cock Lane ghost

A 19th-century illustration of Cock Lane. The haunting took place in the three-storey building on the right.

The story of the Cock Lane ghost attracted mass public attention in 18th-century England before being exposed as a hoax. Cock Lane is a short alleyway adjacent to London's Smithfield market, a few minutes' walk from St Paul's Cathedral, and in 1762 an apartment along the alley became the focus of attention over a reported haunting. The story centred on three people: William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk, and his daughter Elizabeth. Following the death of his wife Elizabeth Lynes during childbirth, Kent had become romantically involved with her sister, Fanny. The couple were prevented by canon law from marrying, but moved to London, where they lodged at a property owned by Parsons. While there, reports were made of strange knocking sounds and ghostly apparitions. Kent also loaned Parsons a sum of money, which the latter did not repay, and Kent responded by suing him.

Fanny became pregnant and the couple moved out, at which point the knocking sounds ceased, but she later died of smallpox. About 18 months later, once Kent had successfully sued Parsons for the outstanding loan, the latter claimed that his property was haunted by Fanny's ghost. The hauntings appeared to centre around his eldest daughter, Elizabeth, and regular séances were held to determine "Scratching Fanny's" motives; Cock Lane was often made almost impassable by the throngs of interested spectators who gathered there. A commission, whose members included Samuel Johnson, investigated the matter, and it concluded that the supposed haunting was a fraud. Further investigations proved that the scam was being perpetrated by Elizabeth Parsons, under duress from her father. The conspirators were prosecuted, and Richard Parsons was pilloried, and sentenced to two years in prison.

The story became a focus of controversy between the Methodist and Anglican churches, and is frequently referenced in contemporary literature. Charles Dickens is one of several Victorian authors who allude to the story in their work, and the pictorial satirist William Hogarth referenced the story in two of his prints.

Background

In about 1756–57 William Kent, a usurer from Norfolk, married Elizabeth Lynes, the daughter of a grocer, from Lynham. Their relationship was apparently filled with "great love, harmony, and friendship", and after about 11 months they moved to Stoke Ferry, where Kent kept an inn, and took the post office. Elizabeth's sister, Frances (or Fanny as she was commonly known), moved in with the couple to provide companionship for Elizabeth. Shortly after however, Elizabeth died during childbirth. Fanny cared for the infant, who soon died, and then stayed on to look after the house. William and Fanny soon began a relationship, but canon law appeared to rule out any possibility of marriage. Kent travelled to London to seek advice on the matter, and was told that a union was impossible, as before she died Elizabeth had borne him a living son. In January 1759 therefore, Kent gave up the post office, left Fanny, and moved to London, intending to "purchase a place in some public office" in the hope that "business would erase that passion he had unfortunately indulged". Fanny meanwhile went to stay with one of her brothers, at Lynham.

Despite her family's disapproval, Fanny began to write letters to Kent, and he eventually allowed her to join him in London. The two stayed at lodgings near the Mansion House, where Kent loaned his landlord £20 (based on the RPI, about £27,400 as of 2010) The latter refused to repay the loan, so Kent had him arrested. The couple left their home, and while attending early morning prayers at the church of St Sepulchre-without-Newgate they met Richard Parsons, the officiating clerk. Parsons was sympathetic to their plight, and also had lodgings of his own for rent, and an agreement was reached in short order. Parson's lodgings were at what was (in 1965) 20 Cock Lane, to the north of St Sepulchre's. A narrow, winding thoroughfare similar to most of central London's streets, it was a respectable area, although in decline. The property in question was a three-storey house, with a room to each floor, each connected by a winding staircase.

Fanny

Parsons had a wife and two daughters, the eldest of which was Elizabeth, who was described as a "little artful girl about eleven years of age". He was generally considered a respectable man, but was known locally as a drunk, and was struggling to provide for his family. No sooner had Mr and Mrs Kent (as they now called themselves) moved in than Kent agreed to loan him 12 guineas, to be repaid at a rate of a guinea per month. Kent later attended a wedding in the country, and he asked Elizabeth to keep Fanny company, by sharing her bed. The two reported hearing scratching and rapping noises, which were attributed by Mrs Parsons to a neighbouring cobbler, but Fanny—then six months pregnant—took a sombre view, believing that the noises were a foretelling of her own death. James Franzen, landlord of the nearby Wheat Sheaf public house, called at Parson's house and also heard the rapping noises. He also reported seeing a ghostly white figure ascend the stairs. Terrified, he went home, and was soon visited by Parsons, who claimed also to have seen the Ghost.

With a baby on the way, Kent had made arrangements to move to Bartlet's Court in Clerkenwell, but upon his return in January 1760 the house was not ready. Although Fanny was now eight months pregnant, they moved to an "inconvenient" apartment nearby, intending to stay for only a short time. Kent's relationship with Parsons meanwhile had deteriorated, as the latter had not repaid Kent's loan. He therefore instructed his attorney to sue the clerk, who by now owed about three guineas.

Fanny became ill on 25 January. The attending doctor diagnosed that she was not in labour, but was suffering the early stages of an eruptive fever. At a critical time in her pregnancy, the doctor agreed with Kent that their lodgings were inadequate, and Fanny was moved, by coach, to Bartlet's Court. The following day her doctor returned and met with her apothecary, both of whom agreed that Fanny's symptoms were indicative of smallpox. Fanny had made out a will several months earlier, and on hearing the diagnosis she sent for an attorney to ensure that Kent would be the recipient of all she owned. She was attended to by the Reverend Stephen Aldrich of St John's at Clerkenwell, who reassured her that she would be forgiven for her sin. Fanny died on 2 February 1760.

As the executor of Fanny's will, Kent ordered a coffin, but for fear of prosecution should the nature of their relationship become known, asked that it remain nameless. When he registered the burial, however, he was forced to give her a name, and he gave her his own. Her family was notified, and her sister Ann Lynes (who lived nearby at Pall Mall) attended the funeral, which took place at St John's. When Ann learned of the terms of Fanny's will, which left her and her brothers and sisters half a crown each—and Kent the rest—she attempted to block it in Doctors' Commons, unsuccessfully. Kent became a stockbroker, and in 1761 married again. Included in his inheritance was Fanny's share of her dead brother Thomas's estate, which amounted to £150. The estate also included some land that was sold to Thomas by his and Fanny's brother, John Lynes. Kent also received Fanny's share of that land, which her family resented. Legal problems with the sale meant that each of Thomas's beneficiaries had to pay £45 in compensation, but Kent refused, claiming that he had already spent the money in settling Fanny's debts. In October 1761 John Lynes began proceedings in Chancery against Kent.

Haunting

A 19th-century illustration of the room where the haunting took place

By January 1762, Kent had successfully recovered the debt he was owed by Parsons. At about the same time, the mysterious noises at Cock Lane—which had stopped when William and Fanny had left—started again, and were increasing in frequency. Catherine Friend, who lodged at Parsons' shortly after the couple had left, moved out when she found the noises could not be stopped. Elizabeth Parsons, around whom the noises apparently emanated, suffered fits, and the house was regularly disturbed by unexplained noises, likened at the time to the sound of a cat scratching upon a chair. Reportedly determined to discover their source, Richard Parsons had a carpenter remove the wainscotting around Elizabeth's bed—but found nothing. Parsons approached the Methodist John Moore, assistant preacher at St Sepulchre's since 1754 and since June 1761 rector of St Bartholomew-the-Great in West Smithfield. The two concluded that the ghost which Parsons and Franzen had seen as Fanny lay dying, must have been Elizabeth Kent, and that the spirit now haunting Parsons' house must be that of Fanny Lynes herself. That two spirits were apparently so restless, was an obvious sign that they each had important news to disclose.

Parsons and Moore devised a method of communication with the spirit; a single knock for yes, and a double knock for no. Under this system, the spirit claimed that Fanny had been murdered. The ghost which appeared when Fanny was dying was, it was conjectured, that of Elizabeth, there to warn her sister that she was about to suffer her fate. This charge against Kent—that he murdered his first wife—was never pressed, but through repeated questioning it was divined that Fanny had died not from smallpox, but of arsenic poisoning. The deadly toxin had apparently been administered by William about two hours before her death, and now, it was supposed, her spirit wanted justice. Moore had cause to suspect foul play; he had heard from Richard Parsons how Kent had pursued him for a relatively small sum of money, and he had also heard from Ann Lynes, who had complained that she had not been able to see Fanny's corpse, as the lid was screwed down. This was evidence, Moore supposed, that Fanny had no visible signs of smallpox, something which Kent would have wished to hide had she been poisoned instead. The Public Ledger began to publish detailed accounts of the phenomenon, and Kent fell under public suspicion as a murderer.

Séances

After reading the veiled accusations the press made against him (newspaper reports, fearing litigation, often censored his name to read K——), he determined to clear his name, and accompanied by a witness he went to see John Moore. The Methodist showed Kent the list of questions for the Ghost that he and Parsons had drawn up. One of those questions concerned William and Fanny's marital status, and Kent admitted that they had not been married. Moore told Kent he did not believe he had murdered Fanny, but that the presence of the spirit indicated that "there was something behind darker than all the rest, and that if he would go to Parson's house, he might be a witness to the same and convinced of its reality". On 12 January therefore, Kent enlisted the aid of the two physicians who attended Fanny in her last days, and with the Methodist Reverend Thomas Broughton, went to Cock Lane. On the upper floor of the house, Elizabeth Parsons was publicly undressed, and put in bed with her younger sister. The audience sat around the bed, which was in the middle of the room, and the séance began. Mary Frazer, a relative of Parsons, ran around the room, shouting "Fanny, Fanny, why don't you come? Do come, pray Fanny, come; dear Fanny, come!" to no avail. The group were told that the Ghost would not come as they were making too much noise. Moore asked them to leave the room, so that he could attempt to contact the Ghost by stamping his foot. This they did, and about ten minutes later they were told that the Ghost had started knocking, and that they could return. Moore then started to run through the list of questions that he and Parsons had prepared.

"Are you the wife of Mr. Kent?" —Two knocks.

"Did you die naturally?" —Two knocks.

"By poison?" —One knock.

"Did any person other than Mr. Kent administer it?" —Two knocks.

English Credulity or the Invisible Ghost (1762). The Ghost appears, over the two children in the bed. Also visible are John Fielding (left) and a companion. The two portraits on the wall are of The Bottle Conjuror and Elizabeth Canning. The artist is unknown, but may have been Oliver Goldsmith.

One of those in the room said: "Kent, ask this Ghost if you shall be hanged". The question was answered by a single knock. Kent exclaimed "Thou art a lying spirit, thou are not the ghost of my Fanny. She would never have said any such thing." Two days later, Elizabeth was removed to the house of a Mr Bray, where in the presence of two guests, the knocking continued. She was returned to Cock Lane, and on 18 January Kent attended another séance with the apothecary and the Reverend Stephen Aldrich—his local parish priest and incumbent of St John Clerkenwell. More questions were asked of the Ghost, which "refused" to answer when a clergyman used a candle to look under the bed; Frazer explained this by claiming that the Ghost "she loving not light". After a few minutes, the knocking recommenced. Frazer refused to ask if the Ghost would appear in court. A layman present asked "If you are really a spirit, knock on this bedpost". The challenge was answered by scratching noises.

While staying at Cock Lane, William and Fanny had employed a maid, Esther "Carrots" Carlisle. Carrots had since moved to a new job, and knew nothing of the haunting. Parsons and Moore required proof of Fanny's poisoning, and Moore now went to question the servant. Carrots told Moore that Fanny had been unable to speak in the days before she died, and so Moore invited her to a séance. When she arrived, she was asked if she would confirm that Fanny had been poisoned, but Carrots remained adamant that Fanny had said nothing to her, and reminded the party that William and Fanny had been "very loving, and lived very happy together." Kent arrived later that night, this time with James Franzen, and the Reverends William Dodd and Thomas Broughton. Frazer began with her usual introduction before Moore sent her out; he then asked the party of about 20 to leave the room, calling them back a few minutes later. This time, the questioning centred on Carrots, who asked if she could speak to the Ghost:

"Are you my mistress?" —One knock, followed by scratches

"Are you angry with me, Madam?" —One knock

"Then I am sure, Madam, you may be ashamed of yourself for I never hurt you in my life."

At this, the séance was ended. Frazer and Franzen remained alone in the room, the latter reportedly too terrified to move. Frazer asked if he would like to pray, and was angered when he apparently could not. The séance resumed, and Franzen later returned to his home. Once there, he was apparently tormented by the Ghost's repeated knocking.

Investigation

On 20 January another séance was held, this time at the home of a Mr Bruin, on the corner of Hosier Lane. Among those attending was a man "extremely desirous of detecting the fraud, and discovering the truth of this mysterious affair", who later contributed an account of the night to the London Chronicle. He arrived with a small party which included the Reverend James Penn of St Ann's in Aldersgate. Inside the house, a member of the group positioned himself against the bed, but was asked by one of the Ghost's sympathisers to move. He refused, and following a brief argument, the supporters left. The gentleman then asked if Parsons would allow his daughter to be moved to a room at his house, but was refused. For the remainder of the night, the Ghost made no sound. Elizabeth Parsons, now extremely agitated, was displaying signs of convulsions. When questioned, Elizabeth confirmed that she had seen the Ghost, but that she was not frightened by it. At that point several of the party left, but at about 7 am the next morning the knocking commenced. Following the usual questions about the reason for Fanny's death, and who was responsible, the interrogation turned to her body, which was lying in the vaults of St John's.

Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany, attended a séance on 30 January 1762.

Parsons was then asked if on 22 January he would allow his daughter to be moved to the Reverend Aldrich's house for further testing, to which he said yes. On the morning of the agreed day however, Penn, accompanied by a man of "veracity and fortune", called on Parsons, and asked for Elizabeth. Parsons said she was not there, and he refused to reveal her whereabouts. During the interval, Parsons had been speaking with his friends, and was apparently worried that Kent had been busy with his own investigations. Instead, Parsons allowed Elizabeth to be moved that night to St Bartholomew's Hospital, where another séance was held. Nothing was reported until about 6 am, when three scratches were heard—apparently while the girl was asleep. The audience of about 20 began to complain that the affair was a deception. Elizabeth woke, started crying, and once reassured that she was safe admitted that she was afraid for her father, "who must needs be ruined and undone, if their matter should be supposed to be an imposture." She also admitted that while she had appeared to be asleep, she was fully aware of the conversation going on around her.

Whereas several advertisements have appeared in the papers reflecting upon my character, who am father of the child which now engrosses the talk of the town; I do hereby declare publicly, that I have always been willing and am now ready to deliver up my child for trial into the hands of any number of candid and reasonable men, requiring only such security for a fair and gentle treatment of my child, as no father of children or man of candour would refuse.

Richard Parsons, the Public Ledger, 26 January 1762

After receiving several requests to intercede, Samuel Fludyer, Lord Mayor of London, was on 23 January approached by Alderman Gosling, John Moore, and Richard Parsons, who told him of their experiences. However, Fludyer was reminded of the recent case of the fraudster Elizabeth Canning, and refused to have Kent or Parsons arrested (on a charge of murder or conspiracy respectively). Instead, against a backdrop of hysteria caused in part by the relentless reporting of the case in the media, he later ordered that Elizabeth be tested at the Reverend Aldrich's house. Meanwhile, Elizabeth was again the subject of study, in two séances held 23–24 January. Parsons was told of the Lord Mayor's decision, and gave his assent, however he asked that "some persons connected with the girl might be permitted to be there, to divert her in the day-time". This was refused, as were two similar requests, and Aldrich and Penn insisted that they would only accept "any person or persons, of strict character and reputation, who are housekeepers". Parsons agreed, and Aldrich and Penn issued an account of their negotiations with him. Clearly perturbed, Parsons defended his position in the Public Ledger, which prompted Aldrich and Penn to issue a pointed retort in Lloyd's Evening Post: "We are greatly puzzled to find Mr. Parsons asserting that he hath been always willing to deliver up the child, when he refused a gentleman on Wednesday evening the 20th inst. [...] What is to be understood, by requiring security"?

The story had by now spread across London, and by the middle of January the crowds gathered outside the property were such that Cock Lane was rendered impassable. Parsons charged visitors an entrance fee to "talk" with the Ghost, which, it was reported, failed to disappoint. The St. James's Chronicle and the London Chronicle each published detailed accounts of the phenomenon, the latter more cynical than the former. Elizabeth was taken on 26 January to the house of Jane Armstrong, and slept in a hammock. When the noises continued, the Ghost's supporters had their resolved strengthened. The ceaseless reporting of the case continued; Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford, announced that he was to visit the haunting on 30 January, along with the Duke of York, Lady Northumberland, Lady Mary Coke, and Lord Hertford. After struggling through the throngs of interested visitors, they were ultimately disappointed; the Public Advertiser observed that "the noise is now generally deferred till seven in the morning, it being necessary to vary the time, that the imposition may be the better carried on".

Exposure

Together with Lord Dartmouth, Aldrich now began to draw together the people who would be involved in his investigation. They chose the matron of a local lying-in hospital as principal lady-in-waiting, the critic and controversialist Bishop John Douglas, and Doctor George Macaulay. A Captain Wilkinson was also included on the committee; Wilkinson had attended one séance, armed with a pistol and a stick—the pistol for shooting the source of the knocking, and the stick for making his escape (the Ghost had remained silent on that occasion). James Penn and John Moore were also on the committee but its most prominent member was Dr Samuel Johnson, who documented the séance, held on 1 February 1762:

Dr Samuel Johnson concluded that the supposed haunting was a hoax.

On the night of the 1st of February many gentlemen eminent for their rank and character were, by the invitation of the Reverend Mr. Aldrich, of Clerkenwell, assembled at his house, for the examination of the noises supposed to be made by a departed spirit, for the detection of some enormous crime. About ten at night the gentlemen met in the chamber in which the girl, supposed to be disturbed by a spirit, had, with proper caution, been put to bed by several ladies. They sat rather more than an hour, and hearing nothing, went down stairs, when they interrogated the father of the girl, who denied, in the strongest terms, any knowledge or belief of fraud. The supposed spirit had before publickly promised, by an affirmative knock, that it would attend one of the gentlemen into the vault under the Church of St. John, Clerkenwell, where the body is deposited, and give a token of her presence there, by a knock upon her coffin; it was therefore determined to make this trial of the existence or veracity of the supposed spirit. While they were enquiring and deliberating, they were summoned into the girl's chamber by some ladies who were near her bed, and who had heard knocks and scratches. When the gentlemen entered, the girl declared that she felt the spirit like a mouse upon her back, and was required to hold her hands out of bed. From that time, though the spirit was very solemnly required to manifest its existence by appearance, by impression on the hand or body of any present, by scratches, knocks, or any other agency, no evidence of any preter-natural power was exhibited. The spirit was then very seriously advertised that the person to whom the promise was made of striking the coffin, was then about to visit the vault, and that the performance of the promise was then claimed. The company at one o'clock went into the church, and the gentleman to whom the promise was made, went with another into the vault. The spirit was solemnly required to perform its promise, but nothing more than silence ensued: the person supposed to be accused by the spirit, then went down with several others, but no effect was perceived. Upon their return they examined the girl, but could draw no confession from her. Between two and three she desired and was permitted to go home with her father. It is, therefore, the opinion of the whole assembly, that the child has some art of making or counterfeiting a particular noise, and that there is no agency of any higher cause.

— Samuel Johnson (1762)

The Reverend Moore had already told Kent that he did not believe him to be responsible for Fanny's death, but disappointed that the Ghost had not revealed itself he now told him that he believed that the Ghost was not Fanny, but an imposter. Kent asked him to admit the truth and write an affidavit of what he knew, but Moore refused, telling Kent that he still believed a spirit was at work, and that its presence was a reminder of his sin (Kent did, however, manage to issue an affidavit, which was signed by Fanny's doctor and her apothecary on 8 February). It was a view shared by many other people, including Mrs Parsons, who believed that the supposed ghost of Elizabeth Kent had disapproved of her sister's new relationship. On 3 February the Ghost was again the subject of a séance, and the knocking continued.

The piece of wood used by Elizabeth Parsons, and a map of the haunted room, as illustrated in 1762

Parsons now found himself in an extremely difficult—and serious—situation. Keen to prove that the Ghost was not an imposture, he allowed his daughter to be subjected to even more tests. She was examined each day at a house on The Strand, from 7–10 February. On 14 February she was moved to a house at Covent Garden, and tested in a variety of ways, including being swung up in a hammock, her hands and feet extended. As expected, the noises commenced, but stopped once Elizabeth was made to place her hands outside the bed. For two nights the Ghost was silent, and Elizabeth was told that if no more noises were heard by Sunday 21 February she and her father would be committed to Newgate Prison. Her maids then witnessed Elizabeth concealing on her person a small piece of wood, 6 by 4 inches (150 by 100 mm), and informed the investigators. More scratches were heard but the observers concluded that Parsons was using his daughter to create a hoax ghost, and that Elizabeth was making the noises under duress.

Elizabeth was allowed home on 22 February. The next day, The Mystery Revealed was published, most likely written by Oliver Goldsmith. The pamphlet was sympathetic to Kent's case, who two days later—still trying to clear his name—was to be found in the vault of St John's, along with Aldrich, the undertaker, the clerk, and the parish sexton. They were there to prove beyond any doubt that a recent newspaper report, which claimed that the removal of Fanny's body from the vault accounted for the Ghost's failure to knock on her coffin, was false. For Moore, this final action was too much, and he published his retraction:

In justice to the person, whose reputation has been attacked in a most gross manner, by the pretended Ghost in Cock-lane; to check the credulity of the weak; to defeat the attempts of the malicious, and to prevent further imposition, on account of this absurd phenomenon, I do hereby certify, that though, from the several attendances on this occasion, I have not been able to point out, how, and in what manner, those knockings and scratchings, of the supposed Ghost, were contrived, performed, and continued; yet, that I am convinced, that those knockings and scratchings were the effects of some artful, wicked contrivance; and that I was, in a more especial manner, convinced of its being such, on the first of this month, when I attended with several persons of rank and character, who assembled at the Rev. Mr. Aldrich's, Clerkenwell, in order to examine into this iniquitous imposition upon the Public. Since which time I have not seen the child, nor heard the noises; and think myself in duty bound to add, that the injured person (when present to hear himself accused by the pretended Ghost) has not, by his behaviour, given the least ground of suspicion, but has preserved that becoming steadfastness, which nothing, I am persuaded, but innocence could inspire.

— John Moore (1762)

This statement did not protect Moore from the authorities, and along with Richard Parsons and his wife, Mary Frazer, and Richard James (a tradesman responsible for some of the newspaper reports which appeared to defame Kent), he now found himself charged with conspiracy.

Trial

The case was tried by Lord Chief Justice William Murray.

The trial of all five began at 10 am on 10 July 1762, at the Guild Hall. Presiding over the case was Lord Chief Justice William Murray. The courtroom was crowded with spectators, who watched as Kent gave evidence against those in the dock. He told the court of his relationship with Fanny, and of her resurrection as "Scratching Fanny" (so-called because of the scratching noises the "Ghost" made") James Franzen followed, his story later corroborated by Fanny's servant, Esther "Carrots" Carlisle. Dr Cooper, who had served Fanny at her last, repeated the statement he had made in his affidavit, and her apothecary James Jones backed up his testimony. Several other witnesses for the prosecution described how the "Ghost" had been revealed, and how Richard James was responsible for some of the more offensive material published in the Public Ledger.

Witnesses for the defence included some of those who had cared for Elizabeth Parsons, and who presumably still believed that the Ghost was real. Other witnesses included the carpenter who had removed the wainscotting from Parsons' apartment, and Catherine Friend, who had left the house to escape the Ghost's noises. The Reverend Thomas Broughton was also called, as well as the Reverend Ross, who had asked several of the questions put to the Ghost. Lord Mansfield asked him "Whether he thought he had puzzled the Ghost, or the Ghost had puzzled him?" John Moore was offered support by several esteemed gentlemen, and presented Mansfield with a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Secker, who sought to intercede on his behalf. Mansfield placed the letter in his pocket, unopened, and said that "it was impossible it could relate to the cause in question." Richard James and Richard Parsons also received support from various witnesses, some of whom acknowledged that while Parsons was a known drunk, they could not believe he was guilty.

The trial ended at about 9:30 pm. The judge spent about 90 minutes summing up the case, and the jury reached their verdict in about 15 minutes—all guilty. The following Monday, two others responsible for defaming Kent were found guilty, and later fined £50 each. The conspirators were brought back on 22 November, but sentencing was delayed in the hope that they could agree damages with Kent. They returned on 27 January 1763, having been unable to reach an agreement, and were committed to the King's Bench Prison until 11 February. John Moore and Richard James were admonished, and released. The following day, the rest were sentenced:

The Court chusing [sic] that Mr. Kent, who had been so much injured on the occasion, should receive some reparation by punishment of the offenders, deferred giving judgment for seven or eight months, in hopes that the parties might make it up in the meantime. Accordingly, the clergyman, and tradesman agreed to pay Mr. Kent a round sum—some say between £500 and £600 to purchase their pardon, and were, therefore, dismissed with a severe reprimand. The father was ordered to be set in the pillory three times in one month—once at the end of Cock–Lane; Elizabeth his wife to be imprisoned one year; and Mary Frazer six months in Bridewell, with hard labour. The father appearing to be out of his mind at the time he was first to standing in the pillory, the execution of that part of his sentence was deferred to another day, when, as well as the other day of his standing there, the populace took so much compassion on him, that instead of using him ill, they made a handsome subscription for him.

— Annual Register, vol cxlii. and Gentleman's Magazine, 1762, p. 43 and p. 339

Parsons, all the while protesting his innocence, was also sentenced to two years imprisonment.

Legacy

In William Hogarth's Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism, the Cock Lane ghost is shown at the top of the thermometer, knocking to the girl in the bed. A Methodist preacher is seen to slip an icon of the ghost into the bodice of a young woman.

The Cock Lane ghost was a focus for a contemporary religious controversy between the Methodists, and the orthodox Anglicans. Belief in a spiritual afterlife was a requirement for most religions, particularly Christianity, and in every instance where a spirit had supposedly manifested itself in the real world, the event was cherished as an affirmation of such beliefs. In his youth, John Wesley had been strongly influenced by a supposed haunting at his family home. His experiences were carried through to the religion he founded, which was regularly criticised for its position on witchcraft and magic; Methodism, although far from a united religion, became almost synonymous with a belief in the supernatural. Some of its followers therefore gave more credence to the reality of the Cock Lane ghost than did the Anglican establishment, which considered such things to be relics of the country's Catholic past. This was a view that was epitomised in the conflict between the Methodist Reverend John Moore, and the Anglican Reverend Stephen Aldrich. In his memoirs (published in 1845), Horace Walpole, who had attended one of the séances, accused the Methodists of actively working to establish the existence of ghosts. He described the constant presence of Methodist clergymen near Elizabeth Parsons, and implied that the church would recompense her father for his troubles.

Samuel Johnson was committed to his Christian faith, and shared the views of author Joseph Glanvill, who, in his 1681 work Saducismus Triumphatus, wrote of his concern over the advances which atheism and scepticism had made, against religion, and a belief in witchcraft. Johnson, for whom the idea of annihilation was an appalling thought, believed in a spiritual afterlife, and also that such spirits could protect and counsel those still living. Although the author kept himself distant from the more credulous Methodists, he recognised that Christianity required proof of an afterlife. Ever a sceptic, in his discussions with his biographer James Boswell, he said:

Sir, I make a distinction between what a man may experience by the mere strength of his imagination, and what imagination cannot possibly produce. Thus, suppose I should think I saw a form, and heard a voice cry, "Johnson, you are a very wicked fellow, and unless you repent you will certainly be punished;" my own unworthiness is so deeply impressed upon my mind, that I might imagine I thus saw and heard, and therefore I should not believe that an external communication had been made to me. But if a form should appear, and a voice tell me that a particular man had died at a particular place, and a particular hour, a fact which I had no apprehension of, nor any means of knowing, and this fact, with all its circumstances, should afterwards be unquestionably proved, I should, in that case, be persuaded that I had supernatural intelligence imparted to me.

— Samuel Johnson

Johnson's role in revealing the nature of the hoax did not keep the satirist Charles Churchill from mocking his apparent credulity, in his 1762 work The Ghost. Churchill, who resented Johnson's lack of enthusiasm for his writing, used the satire to highlight a "superstitious streak" in his subject with the character of 'Pomposo'—written as one of the more credulous of the Ghost's investigators. Johnson paid scant attention to this, but was said to have been more upset when Churchill again mocked him, for the delay in releasing Shakespeare. Initially, publishers were wary of attacking those involved in the supposed haunting, but Churchill's satire was one of a number of publications which, following the exposure of Parsons' deception, heaped scorn on the affair. The newspapers searched for evidence of past impostures, and referenced older publications such as Reginald Scot's Discoverie of Witchcraft (1584). The Ghost was referenced in an anonymous work entitled Anti-Canidia: or, Superstition Detected and Exposed (1762), which sought to ridicule the credulity of those involved in the Cock Lane case. The author described his work as a "sally of indignation at the contemptible wonder in Cock-lane". Works such as The Orators (1762) by Samuel Foote, were soon available. Farcical poems such as Cock-lane Humbug were released, theatres staged plays such as The Drummer, and The Haunted House.

Hogarth's The Times, Plate 2. Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Secker can be seen in the shade, behind the pilloried figures of both the Cock Lane ghost and John Wilkes.

Oliver Goldsmith, who had in February 1762 published The Mystery Revealed, may also have been responsible for the satirical illustration, English Credulity or the Invisible Ghost (1762). The image shows a séance as envisioned by the artist, with the Ghost hovering above the heads of the two children in the bed. To the right of the bed, a woman deep in prayer exclaims: "O! that they would lay it in the Red Sea!" Another cries: "I shall never have any rest again". The English magistrate and social reformer John Fielding, who was blind, is pictured entering from the left, saying "I should be glad to see this spirit", while his companion says "Your W——r's had better get your Warrant back'd by his L—rds—p", referring to a Middlesex magistrate's warrant requiring endorsement by the Lord Mayor, Samuel Fludyer. A man in tall boots, with a whip in hand, says: "Ay Tom I'll lay 6 to 1 it runs more nights than the Coronation", and his companion remarks: "How they swallow the hum". Several clergymen are also present, one of whom says: "I saw the light on the Clock". Another asks: "Now thou Infidel does thou not believe?", which prompts his neighbour to reply: "Yes if it had happen'd sooner 't would have serv'd me for a new Charater in the Lyar the Story would tell better than the Cat & Kittens". Another clergyman exclaims: "If a Gold Watch knock 3 times", and a Parson asks him: "Brother don't disturb it". On the wall, an image of The Bottle Conjuror can be seen alongside an image of Elizabeth Canning, whose fraud had so worried Samuel Fludyer that he had refused to arrest either Parsons or Kent.

Playwright David Garrick dedicated the enormously successful The Farmer's Return to the satirical artist, William Hogarth. The story concerns a farmer who, during a trip from London for the coronation of the King, regales his family with an account of his talk with Miss Fanny. The comedy is derived from the reversal of traditional roles—the sceptical farmer poking fun at the credulous city-folk. Hogarth made his own observations of the scandal, by including obvious references to the Cock Lane ghost in Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism (1762). The illustration makes a point of attacking Methodist ministers, one of whom is seen to slip a phallic "Ghost" into the bodice of a young woman. He again attacked the Methodists in The Times, Plate 2 (1762–1763), by placing an image of Thomas Secker (who had tried to intervene on behalf of the Methodists) behind the Cock Lane ghost, and by putting the Ghost in the same pillory as the radical politician John Wilkes he implied a connection between the demagoguery surrounding the Methodists, and the Pittites. The print enraged Bishop William Warburton, and although he was a vocal critic of Methodism, he wrote:

I have seen Hogarth's print of the Ghost. It is a horrid composition of lewd Obscenity & blasphemous prophaneness for which I detest the artist & have lost all esteem for the man. The best is, that the worst parts of it have a good chance of not being understood by the people.

— William Warburton,

The 19th-century author Charles Dickens—whose childhood nursemaid Mary Weller had affected him with a fascination for ghosts—made reference to the Cock Lane ghost in several of his books. In Nicholas Nickleby, one of the main characters, Mrs. Nickleby (who provides much of the novel's comic relief) makes the claim that her great-grandfather "went to school with the Cock-lane Ghost", and that "I know the master of his school was a Dissenter, and that would in a great measure account for the Cock-lane Ghost's behaving in such an improper manner to the clergyman when he grew up." Dickens also very briefly mentions the Cock Lane ghost in his novels A Tale of Two Cities, and Dombey and Son.

References

Footnotes

Notes

Bibliography

• Addington Bruce, H. (1908), Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters, USA: The Plimpton Press Norwood Mass.
• Amerongen, J. B. (1972) [1926], Actor in Dickens (illustrated ed.), New York: Ayer Publishing, ISBN 0405082045
• Bate, Walter Jackson (1977), Samuel Johnson, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, ISBN 0151792607.
• Benedict, Barbara M. (2002), Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226042642
• Boswell, James; Malone, Edmond (1791), The life of Samuel Johnson (Second ed.), Printed by Henry Baldwin, for Charles Dilly, in the Poultry
• Chambers, Paul (2006), The Cock Lane Ghost: Murder, Sex and Haunting in Dr Johnson's London, Stroud: Sutton, ISBN 0750938692
• Clery, E. J. (1999), "The Rise of Supernatural Fiction, 1762–1800", Volume 12 of Cambridge studies in Romanticism (illustrated ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521664586
• Cody, Lisa Forman (2005), Birthing the nation: sex, science, and the conception of eighteenth-century Britons (Illustrated, reprint ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0199268649
• Davies, Owen (1999), Witchcraft, magic and culture, 1736–1951 (illustrated ed.), Manchester: Manchester University Press, ISBN 071905656X
• Dickens, Charles (1838–39), Nicholas Nickleby, Philadelphia: University Library Association
• Dickens, Charles (1859), A Tale of Two Cities, Chapman & Hall
• Dickens, Charles (1867), Dombey and Son, Cambridge: University Press, Welsh, Bigalow & Co.
• Dobson, Austin (2000), William Hogarth, Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 1402184727
• Grant, Douglas (1965), The Cock Lane Ghost, London: Macmillan
• Goldsmith, Oliver; Cunningham, Peter (1854), Peter Cunningham (ed.), The works of Oliver Goldsmith, London: J. Murray
• Hawkins, Edward (1883), Frederic George Stephens (ed.), "Division I. Political and personal satires", Catalogue of prints and drawings in the British Museum, vol. IV, London: British Museum trustees
• Lang, Andrew (1894), Cock Lane and Common-Sense, London: Longmans, Green and Co, ISBN 1426463774
• MacKay, Charles (1852), Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, London: Publisher Office of the National Illustrated Library
• Paulson, Ronald (1993), Hogarth: Art and Politics 1750–1764 (Illustrated ed.), Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., ISBN 0718828755
• Slater, Michael (1983), Dickens and women (illustrated ed.), London: Stanford University Press, ISBN 0804711801
• Walpole, Horace; Le Marchant, Denis (1845), Denis Le Marchant (ed.), Memoirs of the reign of King George the Third, London: Lea & Blanchard
• Westwood, Jennifer; Simpson, Jacqueline (2005), The Lore of the Land: A Guide to England's Legends from Spring-Heeled Jack to the Witches of Warboys, London: Penguin

Further reading

• Churchill, Charles (1762), The Ghost, London: Printed for the author and sold by William Flexney

External links

• A 'Fortean Times' article about the Cock Lane Ghost