Difference between revisions 123500631 and 123500632 on dewiki

[[File:Cock lane ghost.png|250px|thumb|alt=A monochrome illustration of a narrow street, viewed from a corner, or intersection. A large three-storey building is visible on the right of the image. The ground floor has three windows, the first and second floors have two windows each. The roof appears to contain a row of windows, for a loft space.  The word "KING" is written between the first and second floors, and a sign, "Gas meter maker" hangs above the ground floor windows.|A 19th-century illustration of Cock Lane.  The haunting took place in the three-storey building on the right.]]
The '''Cock Lane ghost''' attracted mass public attention in 18th-century England before being exposed as a hoax.  [[Cock Lane]] is a short road adjacent to London's [[Smithfield, London|Smithfield]] market, a few minutes' walk from [[St Paul's Cathedral]].  In 1762 an apartment there became the focus of attention over a reported haunting, centred around three people: William Kent, a [[usury|usurer]] from Norfolk, Richard Parsons, a parish clerk and his daughter, Elizabeth.

Following the death during childbirth of his wife, Elizabeth Lynes, Kent became romantically involved with her sister, Fanny.  [[Canon law]] prevented the couple marrying but they nevertheless moved to London and lodged at a property owned by Parsons.  Reports were made there of strange knocking sounds and ghostly apparitions.  Kent loaned Parsons a sum of money which the latter did not repay, prompting Kent to sue him and when Fanny became pregnant, the couple moved out.  At that point, the knocking sounds ceased, but about 18 months after Fanny died of [[smallpox]], and once Kent had successfully sued Parsons for the outstanding loan, the latter claimed that his property was haunted by her ghost.  The hauntings, which appeared to centre around Parsons' eldest daughter, Elizabeth, prompted regular séances to determine "Scratching Fanny's" motives.  Cock Lane was often made impassable by the throngs of interested spectators who gathered there.  A commission whose members included [[Samuel Johnson]] investigated the matter, concluding that the supposed haunting was a fraud.  Further investigations proved the scam was perpetrated by Elizabeth Parsons, under duress from her father.  Those responsible were prosecuted, while Richard Parsons was [[pillory|pilloried]] and sentenced to two years in prison.

The Cock Lane ghost became a focus of controversy between the [[Methodist]] and [[Anglican church]]es and is referenced frequently in contemporary literature.  [[Charles Dickens]] is one of several Victorian authors whose work alluded to the story and the pictorial [[satirist]] [[William Hogarth]] referenced the Ghost in two of his prints.

==Background==
In about 1756–57 William Kent, a [[usurer]] from [[Norfolk]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Benedict|2002|p=171}}</ref> married Elizabeth Lynes, the daughter of a [[grocer]] from [[Lyneham, Wiltshire|Lyneham]].  Apparently very much in love, after about 11&nbsp;months they moved to [[Stoke Ferry]], where Kent kept an [[Public_house#Inns|inn]], and also the local [[post office]].  To provide companionship for Elizabeth, her sister Frances, commonly known as Fanny, moved in with the couple.  When Elizabeth died during childbirth Fanny took responsibility for the infant, but the child died, and rather than leave, Fanny 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.  When Kent travelled to London to seek advice he was told that as Elizabeth had borne him a living son, a union with Fanny was impossible.  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 stayed with one of her brothers at Lyneham.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=6–7}}</ref>

Despite her family's disapproval, Fanny began to write letters to Kent, and he eventually allowed her to join him in London.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=7–8}}</ref>  The two stayed at lodgings near the [[Mansion House, London|Mansion House]] but when their landlord refused to repay a sum of money Kent had loaned him (about £20){{#tag:ref|Based on the [[Retail Prices Index (United Kingdom)|RPI]], about&nbsp;£27,400 as of 2010)<ref>{{Citation | last = Officer | first = Lawrence H. | title = Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Present | url = http://www.measuringworth.com/ppoweruk/ | publisher = measuringworth.com | accessdate = 2010-01-13}}</ref><!-- old estimate in case of argument - (about £{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|20|1759|r=-2}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}).{{Inflation-fn|UK}} -->|group="nb"}} he had him arrested.{{#tag:ref|Grant (1965) theorises that the landlord may have learnt of the relationship from Fanny's disapproving family, and expressed his contempt by refusing to pay.<ref name="Grantp10">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=10}}</ref>|group="nb"}}  While attending early morning prayers at the church of [[St Sepulchre-without-Newgate]] they met Richard Parsons, the officiating [[clerk (choral)|clerk]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=4–6}}</ref>

==Fanny==
Parsons had a wife and two daughters; the eldest, Elizabeth, was described as a "little artful girl about eleven years of age".<ref name="ElizabethODNB">{{Citation | last1 = Seccombe | first1 = Thomas | last2 = Shore | first2 = Rev Heather | title = Parsons, Elizabeth (1749–1807) | format = {{ODNBsub}} | work = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2004 | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21456 | accessdate = 2009-12-21 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/21456}}</ref>  Although he was generally considered respectable, Parsons was known locally as a drunk and was struggling to provide for his family.  Nevertheless he was sympathetic to William and Fanny's plight and offered them lodgings at what (in 1965) was 20&nbsp;Cock Lane, to the north of St Sepulchre's.  Located along a narrow, winding thoroughfare similar to most of central London's streets, the three-storey house was in a respectable but declining area, and comprised a single room on each floor, connected by a winding staircase.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=4–6}}</ref>

Shortly after Mr and Mrs Kent (as they called themselves) moved in, Kent loaned Parsons 12&nbsp;[[guinea (British coin)|guineas]], to be repaid at a rate of a guinea per month.<ref name="Grantp10"/>  It was while Kent was away at a wedding in the country that the first reports of strange noises began.  Kent had asked Elizabeth to keep Fanny company and to share her bed, and the two reported hearing scratching and rapping noises, attributed by Mrs Parsons to a neighbouring [[Shoemaking|cobbler]].  Fanny, six months pregnant, took a different view; she believed that the noises foretold her death.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lang|1894|p=164}}</ref>  The noises were also heard by James Franzen, landlord of the nearby Wheat Sheaf [[public house]].  On visiting the house in Cock Lane he reported seeing a ghostly white figure ascend its stairs, and terrified, left to go home.  Parsons also claimed to have seen a ghost.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|pp=39–40}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=14–15}}</ref>

As Fanny was only weeks away from giving birth, Kent made arrangements to move to a property at Bartlet's Court in [[Clerkenwell]].  However, by January 1760 the house was unfit to live in, and although Fanny was by then eight months pregnant they moved to an "inconvenient" apartment nearby, intending only to stay temporarily.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|p=28}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=12–13}}</ref>  However, on 25&nbsp;January Fanny fell ill.  The attending doctor diagnosed the early stages of an eruptive fever and agreed with Kent that their lodgings were inadequate for someone at so critical a stage of pregnancy.  Fanny was therefore moved, by coach, to Bartlet's Court.  The next day her doctor returned and met with her apothecary.  Both agreed that Fanny's symptoms were indicative of [[smallpox]].  On hearing this, Fanny sent for an attorney, to ensure that in the event she died Kent would inherit her estate.  On 2&nbsp;February, shortly after the Reverend Stephen Aldrich of [[St John Clerkenwell]] reassured her that she would be forgiven for her sins, Fanny died.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=13–16}}</ref>

As executor of Fanny's will Kent ordered a coffin, but fearful of being prosecuted should the nature of their relationship become known, asked that it remain nameless.  When he registered the burial he gave her name as his own.  Fanny's family was notified and her sister Ann Lynes, who lived nearby at [[Pall Mall, London|Pall Mall]], attended the funeral at St John's.  When Ann learned of the terms of Fanny's will, which left her brothers and sisters half a crown each and Kent the rest, she attempted to block it in [[Doctors' Commons]], unsuccessfully.  Included in Fanny's will was her share of her dead brother Thomas's estate, which amounted to £150.  This also included some land sold to Thomas by his brother, John Lynes, and Kent received Fanny's share of that land too.  Her family resented this.  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 [[Court of Chancery|Chancery]] against Kent.  Meanwhile Kent became a [[stockbroker]], and in 1761 married again.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=16–19}}</ref>

==Haunting==
[[File:Cock lane room.png|left|thumb|alt=A monochrome illustration of a ramshackle room. Windows allow light to stream in, from the right of the image. Plaster is missing from the ceiling. A large fireplace dominates the far wall, and is surrounded by various cupboards and containers.  The floor appears to be formed from planks of wood.|A 19th-century illustration of the room where the haunting took place]]
Parsons had not repaid Kent's loan, of which about three guineas was outstanding, and Kent therefore instructed his attorney to sue him.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|p=28}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=12–13}}</ref>  He managed to recover the debt by January 1762, just as the mysterious noises at Cock Lane began again.<ref name="ElizabethODNB"/>  Catherine Friend had lodged there shortly after the couple left but moved out when she found the noises, which became more frequent, could not be stopped.  They apparently emanated from Elizabeth Parsons, who also 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.<ref name="ElizabethODNB"/>  Reportedly determined to discover their source, Richard Parsons had a carpenter remove the [[Panelling|wainscotting]] around Elizabeth's bed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Lang|1894|p=165}}</ref> He approached the Methodist John Moore, assistant preacher at St Sepulchre's since 1754 and rector of [[St Bartholomew-the-Great]] in [[Smithfield, London|West Smithfield]] since June 1761.  The two concluded that the spirit haunting Parsons' house must be that of Fanny Lynes herself.  That two spirits were apparently so restless was to both of them an obvious sign that each ghost had important news to disclose.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=20–21}}</ref><!-- p21 about commonly held ghost beliefs -->

Parsons and Moore then devised a method of communication with Fanny's ghost; a single knock for yes, and a double knock for no.  Using this system, Fanny's ghost appeared to claim that she had been murdered.  The ghost witnessed by Parsons as Fanny lay close to death was, it was conjectured, that of Elizabeth, there to warn her sister.  The 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 rather [[arsenic]] poisoning.  The deadly toxin had apparently been administered by William about two hours before she died and now, it was supposed, her spirit wanted justice.  Moore had heard from Parsons how Kent had pursued the debt he was owed, and he had also heard from Ann Lynes, who had complained that as Fanny's coffin lid was screwed down she had not been able to see her sister's corpse.  Moore supposed that Fanny's body might not show any visible signs of smallpox and that if Kent had murdered her, he would have wished to keep that hidden.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=23–25}}</ref>  ''[[The Public Ledger]]'' began to publish detailed accounts of the phenomenon, and Kent fell under public suspicion as a murderer.<ref name="Benedictp172">{{Harvnb|Benedict|2002|p=172}}</ref>{{-}}

==Séances==
After reading the veiled accusations the press made against him (newspaper reports, fearing litigation, often censored his name to read K——),<ref name="Addington"/> Kent determined to clear his name.  Accompanied by a witness, he went to see John Moore.  The Methodist showed Kent the list of questions he and Parsons had drawn up for the ghost to answer.  One concerned William and Fanny's marital status, prompting Kent to admit that they never married.  Moore told Kent he did not think he was a murderer, rather, he believed the spirit's presence 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&nbsp;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 house's upper floor Elizabeth Parsons was publicly undressed, and with her younger sister was put to bed.  The audience sat around the bed, positioned in the centre of the room, and the séance began.  A relative of Parsons, Mary Frazer,<ref name="ElizabethODNB"/> ran around the room shouting "Fanny, Fanny, why don't you come?  Do come, pray Fanny, come; dear Fanny, come!"  The group were told{{Who|date=March 2011}} 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.  About ten minutes after leaving the room they were told that the ghost was making knocking sounds, and that they could return.<ref name="Grantpp2629">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=26–29}}</ref>  Moore then started to run through his and Parsons' list of questions:

:"Are you the wife of Mr. Kent?"&nbsp;—Two knocks.
:"Did you die naturally?"&nbsp;—Two knocks.
:"By poison?"&nbsp;—One knock.
:"Did any person other than Mr. Kent administer it?"&nbsp;—Two knocks.

[[File:English credulity or the invisible ghost 1762.jpg|thumb|250px|alt=A small audience of people surround a bed, in which two children lie. A ghostly figure hovers above the children, a hammer in one hand.  One man looks under the bed, with a candle.  Speech bubbles are visible from each member of the audience.  To the right of the image, several women are engaged in prayer.|''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]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Hawkins|1883|p=45}}</ref>]]
A member of the audience exclaimed "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."<!-- fill this gap -->  Two days later Elizabeth was removed to the house of a Mr Bray, where in the presence of two guests the knocking sounds continued.<ref name="Grantpp2629"/>  She was returned to Cock Lane, where<!-- check location --> on 18&nbsp;January Kent attended another séance with the apothecary and his local parish priest and incumbent of [[St John Clerkenwell]], Reverend Stephen Aldrich.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|pp=80–87}}</ref>  The ghost "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".  Following a few minutes of silence the knocking sounds recommenced.  Frazer refused to ask the ghost if it would appear in court.  When a layman present asked "If you are really a spirit, knock on this bedpost", his challenge was answered by scratching noises.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=30–32}}</ref>

When they lived at Cock Lane William and Fanny had employed a maid, Esther "Carrots" Carlisle.  She had since moved to a new job and knew nothing of the haunting, but seeking evidence of Fanny's poisoning, Moore went to question her.  Carrots told him that Fanny had been unable to speak in the days before she died, so Moore invited her to a séance.  Once there, she was asked to confirm that Fanny had been poisoned, but Carrots remained adamant that Fanny had said nothing to her, telling 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&nbsp;20 to leave the room, calling them back a few minutes later.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=32–34}}</ref>  This time, the questioning centred on Carrots, who asked if she could speak to the ghost:

:"Are you my mistress?"&nbsp;—One knock, followed by scratches
:"Are you angry with me, Madam?"&nbsp;—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 reportedly tormented by the ghost's repeated knocking.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=34–36}}</ref>

==Investigation==
On 20&nbsp;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 sent his account of the night to the ''London Chronicle''.  He arrived with a small party which included Reverend James Penn of [[St Anne and St Agnes|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 ghost's 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, while Elizabeth Parsons, now extremely agitated, displayed signs of convulsions.  When questioned she 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&nbsp;am the next morning the knocking once more recommenced.  Following the usual questions about the cause of Fanny's death and who was responsible, the interrogation turned to her body, which lay in the vaults of St John's.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=38–41}}</ref>

[[File:Edward, Duke of York (Pompeo Batoni).jpg|left|thumb|upright|alt=A three-quarter portrait of a young man.  His hair is light grey/blonde.  He wears pale leggings, a pale waistcoat decorated with gold lace, a large blue sash, and a blue and gold lace blazer.  His right arm rests on a chair, his left hand points to a painting behind him.|[[Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany]], attended a séance on 30&nbsp;January 1762.]]
Parsons agreed to move his daughter to Reverend Aldrich's house for further testing on 22&nbsp;January, but when that morning Penn and a man of "veracity and fortune" called on Parsons and asked for Elizabeth, the clerk told them she was not there and refused to reveal her whereabouts.  Parsons had spoken with friends and was apparently worried that Kent had been busy with his own investigations.{{#tag:ref|Evidence of these investigations exists in a letter which appeared in a newspaper in February 1762, signed by a "J. A. L.", which gave a detailed report on how Fanny had arrived in London, and which claimed that Kent had drawn up Fanny's will in his favour.  It made no specific accusations, but as its author observed, Kent's actions had had "the desired effect".  Kent later claimed to know the identity of its author, who, Grant (1965) surmises, was a member of the Lynes family.  Grant also writes that the letter was printed to maintain pressure on Kent.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=43}}</ref>|group="nb"}}  Instead, he allowed Elizabeth to be moved that night to [[St Bartholomew's Hospital]], where another séance was held.  Nothing was reported until about 6&nbsp;am, when three scratches were heard, apparently while the girl was asleep.  The approximately 20-strong audience complained that the affair was a deception.  Once Elizabeth woke she began to cry, 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 although she had appeared to be asleep, she was in fact fully aware of the conversation going on around her.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=41–44}}</ref>

{{Quote box |quoted=true |bgcolor=#FFFFF0 |salign=center |width=33% |align=right |quote=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. |source=Richard Parsons, the ''Public Ledger'', 26&nbsp;January 1762<ref name="Grantp54"/>}}
After receiving several requests to intercede, [[Sir Samuel Fludyer, 1st Baronet|Samuel Fludyer]], [[Lord Mayor of London]], was on 23&nbsp;January approached by Alderman Gosling, John Moore and Parsons.  They told him of their experiences but Fludyer was reminded of the then recent case of fraudster [[Elizabeth Canning]] and refused to have Kent or Parsons arrested (on charges of murder and conspiracy respectively).  Instead, against a backdrop of hysteria caused in part by the media's relentless reporting of the case, he ordered that Elizabeth be tested at Reverend Aldrich's house.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth was again the subject of study, in two séances held 23–24&nbsp;January.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=44–45, 51–52}}</ref>  Parsons accepted the Lord Mayor's decision, but 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, Aldrich and Penn insisting that they would accept only "any person or persons, of strict character and reputation, who are housekeepers".  Aldrich and Penn's account of their negotiations with Parsons clearly perturbed the clerk, as he defended his actions in the ''[[The Public Ledger|Public Ledger]]''.  This 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"?<!-- QM appears outside quote in source --><ref name="Grantp54">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=54}}</ref>

TBy this point 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 Gghost, which, it was reported, failed to disappoint.<ref>{{Harvnb|MacKay|1852|p=232}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Westwood|Simpson|2005|pp=463–464}}</ref>  The ''[[St. James's Chronicle]]'' and the ''[[London Chronicle]]'' each published detailed accounts of the phenomenon, the latter the more sceptical thanof the formertwo.<ref name="Benedictp172"/>  Elizabeth was taken on 26&nbsp;January to the house of Jane Armstrong, and slept there in a hammock.  When tThe noises continued, the Ghost's supporters had their resolved strengthened.  Thestrengthening the resolve of its supporters, while the press's ceaseless reporting of the case continued;.  [[Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford]], announced that he was to visit the haunting on 30&nbsp;January, along with the [[Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany|Duke of York]], [[Lady Northumberland]], [[Lady Mary Coke]], and [[Francis Seymour-Conway, 1st Marquess of Hertford|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".<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=55–56}}</ref>

==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|lying-in hospital]] as principal [[lady-in-waiting]], the critic and controversialist Bishop [[John Douglas (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]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=56–57}}</ref> who documented the séance, held on 1&nbsp;February 1762:

[[File:Samuel Johnson by Joshua Reynolds.jpg|right|thumb|upright|alt=A half-length portrait of an elderly, and overweight, gentleman.  He wears a brown waistcoat and blazer, with gold buttons, a white collar, and a grey wig.  His left hand hovers close to his abdomen.  The background is a dark, solid blue/black.|Dr [[Samuel Johnson]] concluded that the supposed haunting was a hoax.]]
{{Quote | 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)<ref>{{Harvnb|Boswell|Malone|1791|pp=220–221}}</ref>}}

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&nbsp;February).<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=77}}</ref>  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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|pp=39–42}}</ref>  On 3&nbsp;February the Ghost was again the subject of a séance, and the knocking continued.<ref name="Grantpp7376">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=73–76}}</ref>

[[File:Cock lane ghost wooden board.jpg|right|thumb|upright|alt=An illustration of an oblong and vaguely human-shaped piece of wood, viewed from the top, and an plan view diagram of the haunted room.|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 [[Strand, London|The Strand]], from 7–10&nbsp;February.  On 14&nbsp;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&nbsp;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&nbsp;inches (150 by 100&nbsp;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.<ref name="Grantpp7376"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Lang|1894|p=169}}</ref>

Elizabeth was allowed home on 22&nbsp;February.  The next day, ''The Mystery Revealed'' was published, most likely written by [[Oliver Goldsmith]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Goldsmith|Cunningham|1854|p=364}}</ref>  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 (office)|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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=76–77}}</ref>  For Moore, this final action was too much, and he published his retraction:

{{Quote | 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)<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=77–78}}</ref>}}

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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=80}}</ref>

==Trial==
[[File:Mansfield Old.jpg|right|upright|thumb|alt=A full-length portrait of an elderly man, seated.  He wears long flowing red and white robes, a long grey wig, and holds a rolled document in his left hand.  His right hand rests on a table littered with documents.  Behind him, the corner of a room, with ornate plaster architrave, is visible.|The case was tried by [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice]] [[William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield|William Murray.]]]]
The trial of all five began at 10&nbsp;am on 10&nbsp;July 1762, at the [[Guildhall, London|Guild Hall]].  Presiding over the case was [[Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales|Lord Chief Justice]] [[William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield|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")<ref name="ElizabethODNB"/> 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''.<ref name="Grantpp110112">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=110–112}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Grantpp110112"/>

The trial ended at about 9:30&nbsp;pm.  The judge spent about 90&nbsp;minutes summing up the case, and the jury reached their verdict in about 15&nbsp;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&nbsp;November, but sentencing was delayed in the hope that they could agree damages with Kent.  They returned on 27&nbsp;January 1763, having been unable to reach an agreement, and were committed to the [[King's Bench Prison]] until 11&nbsp;February.  John Moore and Richard James were admonished, and released.  The following day, the rest were sentenced:<ref name="Grantpp113114">{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=113–114}}</ref>

{{Quote|The Court chusing 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<ref name="Walpolep148">{{Harvnb|Walpole|Le Marchant|1845|p=148}}</ref>}}

Parsons, all the while protesting his innocence, was also sentenced to two years imprisonment.<ref name="Grantpp113114"/>

==Legacy==
[[File:William Hogarth - Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism.png|thumb|alt=A chapel full of people, many of whom hold small ghostly idols.  A woman is lying on the floor, rabbits leaping from under her skirts. A preacher stands in the pulpit, preaching to his congregation.  On the right of the image, a large thermometer is capped by an idol of a ghost.|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.<ref name="Codypp143144">{{Harvnb|Cody|2005|pp=143–144}}</ref>]]
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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|p=60}}</ref>  In his youth, [[John Wesley]] had been strongly influenced by a supposed haunting at his family home and these 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Davies|1999|pp=12–14}}</ref>  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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Chambers|2006|pp=47–54, 87}}</ref>  In his 1845 memoirs, [[Horace Walpole, 4th Earl of Orford|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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Walpole|Le Marchant|1845|pp=146–147}}</ref>

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 made against religion and a belief in witchcraft, by atheism and scepticism.  For Johnson the idea of annihilation was an appalling thought.  He 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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=60–63}}</ref>  Ever a sceptic, in his discussions with his biographer [[James Boswell]], he said:

{{Quote|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<ref>{{Harvnb|Boswell|1791|p=219}}</ref>}}

Johnson's role in revealing the nature of the hoax was not enough to keep the satirist [[Charles Churchill (satirist)|Charles Churchill]] from mocking his apparent credulity in his 1762 work ''The Ghost''.<ref>{{Citation | last = Sambrook | first = James | title = Churchill, Charles (1732–1764) | work = Oxford Dictionary of National Biography | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 2006 | edition = online | url = http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5397 | accessdate = 2009-12-21 | doi = 10.1093/ref:odnb/5397}}</ref>  He resented Johnson's lack of enthusiasm for his writing and with the character of 'Pomposo', written as one of the more credulous of the Ghost's investigators, used the satire to highlight a "superstitious streak" in his subject.  Johnson paid this scant attention, but was said to have been more upset when Churchill again mocked him for his delay in releasing ''[[The Plays of William Shakespeare (1765)|Shakespeare]]''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Bate|1977|pp=352–353}}</ref>  Publishers were at first 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).<ref>{{Harvnb|Grant|1965|pp=81–82}}</ref>  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".<ref>{{Citation | last = Anon | title = Anti-Canidia: or, Superstition Detected and Exposed | year = 1762 | location = London | publisher = Printed for R. And J. Dodsley in Pall-mall; and sold by J. Hinman in Pater-noster-Row}}</ref>  Works such as ''The Orators'' (1762) by [[Samuel Foote]], were soon available.<ref name="Addington">{{Harvnb|Addington Bruce|1908|pp=81–101}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Benedict|2002|p=173}}</ref>  Farcical poems such as ''Cock-lane Humbug'' were released, theatres staged plays such as ''The Drummer'', and ''The Haunted House''.<ref name="Clerypp1416">{{Harvnb|Clery|1999|pp=14–16}}</ref>

[[File:William Hogarth - The Times, plate 2.png|thumb|250px|alt=A monochrome illustration of an outdoor scene.  In the background, a building is under construction.  A tall church, and other ornate structures, are also visible.  To the left, a judge, seated high above everybody else, watches over the scene before him.  Below him, riflemen shoot at a dove of peace flying through the air.  In the middle of the image, two gardeners tend to a display of shrubbery.  One pumps water from a large ornate fountain, the other struggles with a wheelbarrow.  To the right, two figures, a man and a ghost, are stood in a pillory.  Behind them, in the shade, a wigged man tends to his followers.|Hogarth's ''The Times, Plate&nbsp;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]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Dobson|2000|p=300}}</ref>]]
[[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&nbsp;to&nbsp;1 it runs more nights than the Coronation",{{#tag:ref|''The Coronation'' was a theatrical play based on the coronation of [[George III]].<ref name="Hawkinsp46"/>|group="nb"}} 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".{{#tag:ref|''The Lyar'' was a comedy in three acts produced by the dramatist [[Samuel Foote]].<ref name="Hawkinsp46">{{Harvnb|Hawkins|1883|p=46}}</ref>|group="nb"}}  Another clergyman exclaims: "If a Gold Watch knock 3&nbsp;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.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hawkins|1883|pp=45–46}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Clerypp1416"/><ref name="Paulsonp366">{{Harvnb|Paulson|1993|p=366}}</ref>  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.<ref name="Codypp143144"/>  He again attacked the Methodists in ''The Times, Plate&nbsp;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#Pittites|Pittites]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Paulson|1993|pp=392–393}}</ref><ref>{{Harvnb|Walpole|Le Marchant|1845|p=150}}</ref>  The print enraged [[Bishop]] [[William Warburton]], and although he was a vocal critic of Methodism, he wrote:

{{Quote|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|<ref name="Paulsonp366"/>}}

The 19th-century author [[Charles Dickens]]—whose childhood nursemaid Mary Weller{{#tag:ref|Slater (1983) theorises that Weller may not have provided Dickens with the ghostly stories that affected his childhood.<ref>{{Harvnb|Slater|1983|p=383}}</ref>|group="nb"}} had affected him with a fascination for ghosts<ref>{{Harvnb|Amerongen|1972|p=218}}</ref>—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."<ref>{{Harvnb|Dickens|1838–39|p=655}}</ref>  Dickens also very briefly mentions the Cock Lane ghost in his novels ''[[A Tale of Two Cities]]'',<ref>{{Harvnb|Dickens|1859|p=1}}</ref> and ''[[Dombey and Son]]''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dickens|1867|p=64}}</ref>

==References==
;Footnotes
{{reflist|group="nb"}}

;Notes
{{reflist|colwidth=25em}}

;Bibliography
{{refbegin}}
* {{Citation | last = Addington Bruce | first = H. | title = Historic Ghosts and Ghost Hunters | url = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28699/28699-h/28699-h.htm | publisher = The Plimpton Press Norwood Mass. | location = USA | year = 1908}}
* {{Citation | last = Amerongen | first = J. B. | title = Actor in Dickens | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PPjc2wTPNaQC | publisher = Ayer Publishing | edition = illustrated | year = 1972 | origyear = 1926 | isbn = 0-405-08204-5 | location = New York}}
* {{citation|last=Bate|first=Walter Jackson|authorlink=Walter Jackson Bate|title=Samuel Johnson|year=1977|publisher=Harcourt Brace Jovanovich|location=New York|isbn=0-15-179260-7}}.
* {{Citation | last = Benedict | first = Barbara M. | title = Curiosity: A Cultural History of Early Modern Inquiry | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JY5WgEAZ-6kC | publisher = University of Chicago Press | location = Chicago | year = 2002 | isbn = 0-226-04264-2}}
* {{Citation | last1 = Boswell | first1 = James | last2 = Malone | first2 = Edmond | title = The life of Samuel Johnson | url = http://books.google.com/?id=HeINAAAAQAAJ | edition = Second | publisher = Printed by Henry Baldwin, for Charles Dilly, in the Poultry | year = 1791}}
* {{Citation | last = Chambers | first = Paul | title = The Cock Lane Ghost: Murder, Sex and Haunting in Dr Johnson's London | year = 2006 | publisher = Sutton | location = Stroud | isbn = 0-7509-3869-2}}
* {{Citation | last = Clery | first = E. J. | title = The Rise of Supernatural Fiction, 1762–1800 | work = Volume 12 of Cambridge studies in Romanticism | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=2b8stRwMQPIC | edition = illustrated | publisher = Cambridge University Press | location = Cambridge | year = 1999 | isbn = 0-521-66458-6}}
* {{Citation | last = Cody | first = Lisa Forman | title = Birthing the nation: sex, science, and the conception of eighteenth-century Britons | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pm-rAexjKXgC | edition = Illustrated, reprint | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford | year = 2005 | isbn = 0-19-926864-9}}
* {{Citation | last = Davies | first = Owen | title = Witchcraft, magic and culture, 1736–1951 | edition = illustrated | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ImX_21SScc8C | publisher = Manchester University Press | year = 1999 | location = Manchester | isbn = 0-7190-5656-X}}
* {{Citation | last = Dickens | first = Charles | authorlink = Charles Dickens | title = [[Nicholas Nickleby]] | publisher = University Library Association | location = Philadelphia | year = 1838–39}}
* {{Citation | last = Dickens | first = Charles | title = [[A Tale of Two Cities]]  | publisher = [[Chapman & Hall]] | year = 1859}}
* {{Citation | last = Dickens | first = Charles | title = [[Dombey and Son]]  | publisher = University Press, Welsh, Bigalow & Co. | location = Cambridge | year = 1867}}
* {{Citation | last = Dobson | first = Austin | title = William Hogarth | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m_ZmJmt2KKoC | publisher = Adamant Media Corporation | location = Boston | year = 2000 | isbn = 1-4021-8472-7}}
* {{Citation | last = Grant | first = Douglas | title = The Cock Lane Ghost | year = 1965 | publisher = Macmillan | location = London}}
* {{Citation | last1 = Goldsmith | first1 = Oliver | last2 = Cunningham | first2 = Peter | editor = Peter Cunningham | title = The works of Oliver Goldsmith | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tPkQAAAAMAAJ | publisher = J. Murray | location = London | year = 1854 }}
* {{Citation | last = Hawkins | first = Edward | editor = Frederic George Stephens | work = Catalogue of prints and drawings in the British Museum | title = Division I. Political and personal satires | volume = IV | url = http://www.archive.org/details/catalogueofprint04brituoft | publisher = British Museum trustees | location = London | year = 1883}}
* {{Citation | last = Lang | first = Andrew | authorlink = Andrew Lang | title = Cock Lane and Common-Sense | url = http://www.archive.org/details/cocklanecommonse00langrich | year = 1894 | publisher = Longmans, Green and Co | location = London | isbn = 1-4264-6377-4}}
* {{Citation | last = MacKay | first = Charles | title = Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NmEOAAAAQAAJ | publisher = Publisher Office of the National Illustrated Library | location = London | year = 1852}}
* {{Citation | last = Paulson | first = Ronald | title = Hogarth: Art and Politics 1750–1764 | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2c7L7UvYYgoC | edition = Illustrated | publisher = James Clarke & Co. | location = Cambridge | year = 1993 | isbn = 0-7188-2875-5}}
* {{Citation | last = Slater | first = Michael | title = Dickens and women | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GyuH6-eZZaQC | edition = illustrated | publisher = Stanford University Press | year = 1983 | isbn = 0-8047-1180-1 | location = London}}
* {{Citation | last1 = Walpole | first1 = Horace | authorlink = Horace Walpole | last2 = Le Marchant | first2 = Denis | title = Memoirs of the reign of King George the Third | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z0EJAAAAIAAJ | editor = Denis Le Marchant | publisher = Lea & Blanchard | location = London | year = 1845}}
* {{Citation | last1 = Westwood | first1 = Jennifer | last2 = Simpson | first2 = Jacqueline | title = The Lore of the Land: A Guide to England's Legends from Spring-Heeled Jack to the Witches of Warboys | publisher = Penguin | location = London | year = 2005 | isbn = }}
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
*{{Citation | last = Churchill | first = Charles | authorlink = Charles Churchill (satirist) | title = The Ghost | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8UXOAAAAMAAJ | publisher = Printed for the author and sold by William Flexney | year = 1762 | location = London}}

==External links==
*[http://www.sarahbakewell.com/Other%20Writing.html#scratchingfanny A 'Fortean Times' article about the Cock Lane Ghost]
{{featured article}}

[[Category:Ghosts]]
[[Category:Hoaxes in the United Kingdom]]

{{Link FA|fr}}

[[fr:Fantôme de Cock Lane]]
[[ja:コック・レーンの幽霊]]