June 15, 2017 | Leave a comment Titter ye not, as the late British comedian Frankie Howerd would have said. This particular tale takes us back to a time when Fanny was nothing more than an abbreviated form of the name Frances, and as you will be aware, a cock is a male chicken. Okay, now that we have cleared that up; on with the story. In the year 1756, a young man by the name of William Kent got married in Norfolk, a county in the east of England. William and his bride, one Elizabeth Lynes, almost immediately moved to London. Sadly, Elizabeth died in childbirth in 1757, and their baby passed away only a short time later. Stricken with grief, William turned to Elizabeth’s sister Frances, also known as Fanny, for solace; she having been living with them in the capacity of housekeeper. One thing led to another, and the two were soon romantically involved. As Fanny was William’s sister-in-law, they were not, at that time, permitted to marry. Consequently, the couple decided to “live in sin”. Whilst this was not a socially acceptable arrangement in the middle of the eighteenth century, the couple decided that since they hailed from distant Norfolk, it was unlikely their secret would come to light in such a busy and bustling metropolis. Subsequently, they moved from the rented accommodation they had shared with Elizabeth, and set up home as man and wife. Their new home was at 33 Cock Lane, where they rented some rooms from the owner of the property, a Richard Parsons. Parsons had a reputation as a drunk, and was habitually short of money, owing to his excessive drinking. Parsons soon approached William for a loan, and borrowed the sum of 12 guineas, promising to repay the loan in monthly instalments. A guinea was a sum of money equivalent to one pound and one shilling, and 12 guineas would equate to about £2,500 in today’s terms. For some reason William must have trusted the oft sozzled Parsons, as not only did he lend him quite a large sum of money, but he also confided in him that he and Fanny were not actually married. William Kent would live to regret his naivety. Cock Lane in The Eighteenth Century By the autumn of 1759 Fanny was pregnant, and when William announced that he needed to go away on business for a few days, she expressed concern at being left alone in her delicate condition. As a result, William made arrangements for Parsons’ eleven year old daughter Elizabeth, to stay with Fanny for the duration of his absence. It was at this point that events took a purportedly paranormal turn. Their sleep was disturbed by knocking or scratching sounds that began emanating from the wall to an adjoining property. As a cobbler lived next door, Fanny assumed he was simply working late in order to clear a backlog of work. However, when the sounds continued on the following Sunday night, when Fanny knew the house next door was empty, she began to assign a supernatural explanation to the noises. Whether William agreed with Fanny’s interpretation of the events is unclear, however he did make arrangements for he and Fanny to move to new accommodation. As Parsons had not even begun to repay the loan, William instructed a solicitor to take legal action against Parsons to recover his money. Parsons, by way of retaliation, elected to betray William’s confidence, and made it known to all and sundry that William Kent and Fanny Lynes were not legally married. He even claimed that the knocking and scratching sounds were caused by William’s deceased wife Elizabeth, seeking revenge for the unprincipled behaviour of her widowered husband. Unfortunately, fate had not finished with William yet, and was to deal him one more blow. Tragically, Fanny contracted smallpox and, by February of 1760, was dead, along with her unborn child. Parsons, who claimed that the unearthly noises had continued at his property, despite the fact that William was no longer living there, now claimed that the sounds were messages from Elizabeth, and possibly also her sister, the recently deceased Fanny. An unusual example of poltergeist nepotism, presumably! It was around this time that Parsons began conducting seances, encouraged by a Methodist minister, the Reverend John Moore, who was keen to prove the existence of an afterlife, through contact with the deceased. During these seances, Parsons claimed to have contacted the spirit of Fanny, who through knocking, asserted that she had in fact been murdered by William Kent, and that the method he had employed was arsenic poisoning. William soon heard about the seances, and decided it would be in his best interests to attend any future such gatherings in person. At one such meeting, Parsons claimed that Fanny had proclaimed that William Kent would be hanged for her murder. William was, by now, ready to deal with Parsons absurd allegations, and had brought with him his solicitor as well as the pharmacist who had cared for Fanny during her illness. However, despite their confirmations that Fanny had indeed died of smallpox, many in the community believed Parsons, and demanded that William pay for his crime with his life. It was at this point that the press gave the ghost of Cock Lane the nickname of ‘Scratching Fanny’. Cartoon of a Cock Lane Seance Such was the furore, that the Lord Mayor of London became involved, and he decided to sort the thing out once and for all. He noticed that Parsons daughter Elizabeth always seemed to be present when the knocking and scratching occurred. After protracted questioning, Elizabeth confessed to producing the noises herself, by means of a wooden board that she kept hidden under her bed. Initially she had only intended to frighten Fanny, but once her father had realised that he could use Elizabeth’s trickery to avoid repaying his debt to William Kent, he colluded with his daughter to implicate Kent in Fanny’s demise. As if further proof were needed, the investigating committee decided to visit the crypt in which Fanny had been interred. The notion being that if Fanny was capable of producing disembodied knocking sounds in the walls of 33 Cock Lane, it would surely be a piece of cake for her knock on her own coffin lid! Needless to say, with Elizabeth Parsons not in attendance, Fanny failed to respond when requested to make her presence known. William Kent’s reputation was thus restored, and he went on to live an otherwise unremarkable life, with his new wife Bathsheba. Parsons and the Revered Moore were arrested, and Parsons was imprisoned for two years. Additionally, he and the inept Revered were made to pay damages of almost £600 to William; more than £100,000 in current terms. How Richard Parsons must have lived to regret welching on the loan! Cock Lane as it is Today A couple of additional facts about Cock lane that might be of interest to you. Firstly, it was the point at which the Great Fire of London finally burned itself out in 1666. Secondly, during the medieval period, Cock Lane was the site of a large number of brothels. Upon reflection, my assertion about a poultry related source for the name, may have been somewhat wide of the mark! Oh all right, go on then; ye may titter after all! Sources: Ashford Jenny (2017). The Unseen Hand. BleedRed Books and CreateSpace. http://www.walksoflondon.co.uk/35/true-ghost-stories-the-co.shtml inflation.stephenmorley.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_Lane