Sketches of Imposture, Deception, and Credulity

by R. A. Davenport

In the next instance of imposture which occurred, those who were misled could hardly be considered as blameworthy, the circumstances being such as to account for their erroneous judgment. The case to which allusion is here made, was that of Elizabeth Canning, in the year 1753. This female, who was about eighteen years of age, after having been absent twenty-eight days, returned home in a squalid and apparently half-starved condition. The story which she told was that, as she was proceeding at night from her uncle’s to the house of the person with whom she lived as servant, she was attacked by two men, in Moorfields, who first robbed her, gave her a blow on the temple, and then dragged her along, she being part of the time in fits, till they reached a house of ill-fame, kept by Susannah Wells, at Enfield Wash.

On her arrival there, she was accosted by a gipsy, named Mary Squires, who asked her if she would “go their way; for if she would, she should have fine clothes.” Supposing that Squires alluded to prostitution, Canning replied in the negative; Squires, upon this, ripped up the lace of her stays with a knife, took away the stays, and thrust her into a back room like a hayloft, the window of which was boarded inside. In that room she was imprisoned for twenty-seven days; her only subsistence being a scanty portion of bread, some water, and a small mince-pie, which she chanced to have in her pocket. At last, she bethought her of breaking down the board, after which she crept on a penthouse, whence she dropped on the ground. She then made the best of her way home.

Universal pity was excited by the tale of her sufferings, and a subscription was raised for her. The most violent public indignation was expressed against the two criminals; and, while this ferment was at its height, Wells and Squires were brought to trial. The evidence of Elizabeth Canning was corroborated by that of Virtue Hall, and by various circumstances, and the jury found both of the prisoners guilty. Squires was condemned to death, and Wells was ordered to be branded, and imprisoned for six months.

Squires would certainly have suffered had not Sir Crisp Gascoyne, who was then Lord Mayor, fortunately interposed in her favour. Squires herself solemnly declared that she could bring many witnesses to prove that she was in the west of England during the whole of the time that was sworn to by Canning. There were besides some startling discrepancies between Canning’s evidence and the real situation of places and things; and, to render the matter still more doubtful, Virtue Hall, the main prop of Canning’s story, retracted her evidence. Sir Crisp Gascoyne succeeded in obtaining a respite for Squires, during which time so much testimony was obtained in her behalf, that a free pardon was granted to her. Such, however, was the general prejudice in Canning’s favour, that the benevolent exertions of Sir Crisp rendered him extremely unpopular. Floods of ink were expended in pamphlets by her defenders, among whom was the highly gifted author of Tom Jones. Her opponents were equally active.

The mass of evidence against Canning at length became so enormous, that it was resolved to put her upon her trial for perjury. The trial lasted five days, and more than a hundred and twenty witnesses were examined. Upwards of forty of them were brought forward to testify as to the movements of Squires, and they traced her journeyings day by day, and proved, by a chain of evidence of which not a single link was wanting, that during the whole of the time charged against her by Canning she was far distant in the west of England. The story told by Canning was also shown to be in some parts contradictory, and in others at variance with the facts. In conclusion, she was found guilty, and was sentenced to seven years transportation. In August 1754, she was conveyed to New England, where she is said to have married advantageously. Some time before her departure, she published a declaration in which she repeated her charge against Squires, in spite of the triumphant manner in which that charge had been refuted; and, blindly faithful to her cause, many of her partisans obstinately persevered in asserting her innocence.

A few years subsequently to the affair of Elizabeth Canning, there occurred an event, which amply proved that superstition and credulity were as flourishing as ever. In January 1762 the whole town was thrown into a state of excitement by the imposture which bears the name of “the Cock-lane Ghost,” so called from the place where the mummery was performed, and the supposed agent in the performance. The scene in which the farce commenced was the house of one Parsons, the parish clerk of St. Sepulchre’s. As a preliminary to the proceedings, it was reported that, nearly two years before the affair gained notoriety, alarming knockings and scratchings had been heard by the daughter of Parsons, a girl about twelve years old, and that she and others had seen, at her father’s house, the apparition of a woman, surrounded by a blazing light. The girl, on being questioned as to whom the apparition resembled, said it was like Mrs. Kent, who had formerly been a lodger there, and had died of the smallpox since her removal. The next step was to throw out mysterious hints that Mrs. Kent had been murdered.

These rumours were soon spread abroad, and the credulous and the curious rushed with headlong haste to witness the new marvels. The knockings and scratchings had by this time become exceedingly violent. It was now sagely resolved that several gentlemen, among whom a clergyman acted a prominent part, should sit up by the bed-side of Miss Parsons, to question the supposed ghost. As the ghost, it was imagined, might be dumb, or have forgotten its native tongue, the clergyman settled that it should reply by knocks; one knock being an affirmative answer, and two knocks a negative. This arrangement having been made, the ghost was interrogated, and it replied, that it was the spirit of a woman named Kent, who had been poisoned.

As some persons suspected imposture, the girl was removed from her home, and was successively put to bed at several houses; the number of watchers was increased to nearly twenty, several of whom were clergymen and ladies. Still the knockings and scratchings were continued, and the same answers as before were made to questions. At length, on being pressed to give some proof of its veracity, the ghost consented to attend one of the gentlemen into the vault where the body was buried, and manifest its presence by a knock upon the coffin.

When the appointed hour arrived, “the spirit was 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, went into the church, and the gentleman to whom the promise was made, went, with one more, 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 ghost 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.”

This want of punctuality in the ghost gave a fatal blow to its reputation. Even the most besotted of the believers were staggered by it. A flimsy attempt was therefore made to restore the ghost’s credit, by asserting that the coffin and corpse had been removed, which, of course, had prevented the spirit from giving the signal; but on examination they were found to be safe in the vault. Stricter precautions were now taken to guard against deception being practised by the girl; her bed was slung like a hammock, in the middle of the room, and she was closely watched. Driven to her last shifts, she contrived to secrete, but not unseen, a bit of board previously to her being put to bed, and having, as she thought, secured the necessary materials for carrying on the trick, she ventured to declare that she would bring the ghost at six the next morning. In the morning she accordingly began to make the accustomed sounds, and, on being asked if she had in the bed any wood to strike upon, she positively denied the fact. The bed-clothes were then opened, the board was found, and this simple process annihilated the Cock Lane Ghost.