No ghost story is more celebrated than that of Old Jeffrey, the spiritso named by Emily Wesley, which disturbed the Rectory at Epworth,chiefly in the December of 1716 and the spring of 1717. Yet thevagueness of the human mind has led many people, especiallyjournalists, to suppose that the haunted house was that, not of SamuelWesley, but of his son John Wesley, the founder of the WesleyanMethodists. For the better intelligence of the tale, we must know whothe inmates of the Epworth Rectory were, and the nature of theircharacters and pursuits. The rector was the Rev. Samuel Wesley, bornin 1662, the son of a clergyman banished from his living on "BlackBartholomew Day," 1666. Though educated among Dissenters, SamuelWesley converted himself to the truth as it is in the Church ofEngland, became a "poor scholar" of Exeter College in Oxford,supported himself mainly by hack-work in literature (he was one of theeditors of a penny paper called The Athenian Mercury, a sort ofAnswers), married Miss Susanna Annesley, a lady of good family, in1690-91, and in 1693 was presented to the Rectory of Epworth inLincolnshire by Mary, wife of William of Orange, to whom he haddedicated a poem on the life of Christ. The living was poor, Mr.Wesley's family multiplied with amazing velocity, he was in debt, andunpopular. His cattle were maimed in 1705, and in 1703 his house wasburned down. The Rectory House, of which a picture is given inClarke's Memoirs of the Wesleys, 1825, was built anew at his ownexpense. Mr. Wesley was in politics a strong Royalist, but havingseen James II. shake "his lean arm" at the Fellows of MagdalenCollege, and threaten them "with the weight of a king's right hand,"he conceived a prejudice against that monarch, and took the side ofthe Prince of Orange. His wife, a very pious woman and a strictdisciplinarian, was a Jacobite, would not say "amen" to the prayersfor "the king," and was therefore deserted by her husband for a yearor more in 1701-1702. They came together again, however, on theaccession of Queen Anne.Unpopular for his politics, hated by the Dissenters, and at odds withthe "cunning men," or local wizards against whom he had frequentlypreached, Mr. Wesley was certainly apt to have tricks played on him byhis neighbours. His house, though surrounded by a wall, a hedge, andits own grounds, was within a few yards of the nearest dwelling in thevillage street.In 1716, when the disturbances began, Mr. Wesley's family consisted ofhis wife; his eldest son, Sam, aged about twenty-three, and thenabsent at his duties as an usher at Westminster; John, aged twelve, aboy at Westminster School; Charles, a boy of eight, away from home,and the girls, who were all at the parsonage. They were Emily, abouttwenty-two, Mary, Nancy and Sukey, probably about twenty-one, twentyand nineteen, and Hetty, who may have been anything between nineteenand twelve, but who comes after John in Dr. Clarke's list, and isapparently reckoned among "the children". {212} Then there was Patty,who may have been only nine, and little Keziah.All except Patty were very lively young people, and Hetty, afterwardsa copious poet, "was gay and sprightly, full of mirth, good-humour,and keen wit. She indulged this disposition so much that it was saidto have given great uneasiness to her parents." The servants, RobinBrown, Betty Massy and Nancy Marshall, were recent comers, but wereacquitted by Mrs. Wesley of any share in the mischief. The family,though, like other people of their date, they were inclined to believein witches and "warnings," were not especially superstitious, andregarded the disturbances, first with some apprehension, then as ajoke, and finally as a bore.The authorities for what occurred are, first, a statement and journalby Mr. Wesley, then a series of letters of 1717 to Sam at Westminsterby his mother, Emily and Sukey, next a set of written statements madeby these and other witnesses to John Wesley in 1726, and last andworst, a narrative composed many years after by John Wesley for TheArminian Magazine.The earliest document, by a few days, is the statement of Mr. Wesley,written, with a brief journal, between 21st December, 1716, and 1stJanuary, 1717. Comparing this with Mrs. Wesley's letter to Sam of12th January, 1716 and Sukey's letter of 24th January, we learn thatthe family for some weeks after 1st December had been "in the greatestpanic imaginable," supposing that Sam, Jack, or Charlie (who must alsohave been absent from home) was dead, "or by some misfortune killed".The reason for these apprehensions was that on the night of 1stDecember the maid "heard at the dining-room door several dreadfulgroans, like a person in extremes". They laughed at her, but for thewhole of December "the groans, squeaks, tinglings and knockings werefrightful enough". The rest of the family (Mr. Wesley alwaysexcepted) "heard a strange knocking in divers places," chiefly in thegreen room, or nursery, where (apparently) Hetty, Patty and Keziahlay. Emily heard the noises later than some of her sisters, perhaps aweek after the original groans. She was locking up the house aboutten o'clock when a sound came like the smashing and splintering of ahuge piece of coal on the kitchen floor. She and Sukey went throughthe rooms on the ground floor, but found the dog asleep, the cat atthe other end of the house, and everything in order. From her bedroomEmily heard a noise of breaking the empty bottles under the stairs,but was going to bed, when Hetty, who had been sitting on the loweststep of the garret stairs beside the nursery door, waiting for herfather, was chased into the nursery by a sound as of a man passing herin a loose trailing gown. Sukey and Nancy were alarmed by loud knockson the outside of the dining-room door and overhead. All this timeMr. Wesley heard nothing, and was not even told that anything unusualwas heard. Mrs. Wesley at first held her peace lest he should thinkit "according to the vulgar opinion, a warning against his own death,which, indeed, we all apprehended". Mr. Wesley only smiled when hewas informed; but, by taking care to see all the girls safe in bed,sufficiently showed his opinion that the young ladies and their loverswere the ghost. Mrs. Wesley then fell back on the theory of rats, andemployed a man to blow a horn as a remedy against these vermin. Butthis measure only aroused the emulation of the sprite, whom Emilybegan to call "Jeffrey".Not till 21st December did Mr. Wesley hear anything, then camethumpings on his bedroom wall. Unable to discover the cause, heprocured a stout mastiff, which soon became demoralised by hisexperiences. On the morning of the 24th, about seven o'clock, Emilyled Mrs. Wesley into the nursery, where she heard knocks on and underthe bedstead; these sounds replied when she knocked. Something "likea badger, with no head," says Emily; Mrs. Wesley only says, "like abadger," ran from under the bed. On the night of the 25th there wasan appalling vacarme. Mr. and Mrs. Wesley went on a tour ofinspection, but only found the mastiff whining in terror. "We stillheard it rattle and thunder in every room above or behind us, lockedas well as open, except my study, where as yet it never came." On thenight of the 26th Mr. Wesley seems to have heard of a phenomenonalready familiar to Emily--"something like the quick winding up of ajack, at the corner of the room by my bed head". This was alwaysfollowed by knocks, "hollow and loud, such as none of us could everimitate". Mr. Wesley went into the nursery, Hetty, Kezzy and Pattywere asleep. The knocks were loud, beneath and in the room, so Mr.Wesley went below to the kitchen, struck with his stick against therafters, and was answered "as often and as loud as I knocked". Thepeculiar knock which was his own, 1-23456-7, was not successfullyechoed at that time. Mr. Wesley then returned to the nursery, whichwas as tapageuse as ever. The children, three, were trembling intheir sleep. Mr. Wesley invited the agency to an interview in hisstudy, was answered by one knock outside, "all the rest were within,"and then came silence. Investigations outside produced no result, butthe latch of the door would rise and fall, and the door itself waspushed violently back against investigators."I have been with Hetty," says Emily, "when it has knocked under her,and when she has removed has followed her," and it knocked underlittle Kezzy, when "she stamped with her foot, pretending to scarePatty."Mr. Wesley had requested an interview in his study, especially as theJacobite goblin routed loudly "over our heads constantly, when we cameto the prayers for King George and the prince". In his study theagency pushed Mr. Wesley about, bumping him against the corner of hisdesk, and against his door. He would ask for a conversation, butheard only "two or three feeble squeaks, a little louder than thechirping of a bird, but not like the noise of rats, which I have oftenheard".Mr. Wesley had meant to leave home for a visit on Friday, 28thDecember, but the noises of the 27th were so loud that he stayed athome, inviting the Rev. Mr. Hoole, of Haxey, to view the performances."The noises were very boisterous and disturbing this night." Mr.Hoole says (in 1726, confirmed by Mrs. Wesley, 12th January, 1717)that there were sounds of feet, trailing gowns, raps, and a noise asof planing boards: the disturbance finally went outside the house anddied away. Mr. Wesley seems to have paid his visit on the 30th, andnotes, "1st January, 1717. My family have had no disturbance since Iwent away."To judge by Mr. Wesley's letter to Sam, of 12th January, there was notrouble between the 29th of December and that date. On the 19th ofJanuary, and the 30th of the same month, Sam wrote, full of curiosity,to his father and mother. Mrs. Wesley replied (25th or 27th January),saying that no explanation could be discovered, but "it commonly wasnearer Hetty than the rest". On 24th January, Sukey said "it is nowpretty quiet, but still knocks at prayers for the king." On 11thFebruary, Mr. Wesley, much bored by Sam's inquiries, says, "we are allnow quiet. . . . It would make a glorious penny book for JackDunton," his brother-in-law, a publisher of popular literature, suchas the Athenian Mercury. Emily (no date) explains the phenomena asthe revenge for her father's recent sermons "against consulting thosethat are called cunning men, which our people are given to, and _ithad a particular spite at my father_".The disturbances by no means ended in the beginning of January, nor atother dates when a brief cessation made the Wesleys hope that Jeffreyhad returned to his own place. Thus on 27th March, Sukey writes toSam, remarking that as Hetty and Emily are also writing "soparticularly," she need not say much. "One thing I believe you do notknow, that is, last Sunday, to my father's no small amazement, histrencher danced upon the table a pretty while, without anybody'sstirring the table. . . . Send me some news for we are excluded fromthe sight or hearing of any versal thing, except Jeffery."The last mention of the affair, at this time, is in a letter fromEmily, of 1st April, to a Mr. Berry."Tell my brother the sprite was with us last night, and heard by manyof our family." There are no other contemporary letters preserved,but we may note Mrs. Wesley's opinion (25th January) that it was"beyond the power of any human being to make such strange and variousnoises".The next evidence is ten years after date, the statements taken downby Jack Wesley in 1726 (1720?). Mrs. Wesley adds to her formeraccount that she "earnestly desired it might not disturb her" (at herdevotions) "between five and six in the evening," and it did not routin her room at that time. Emily added that a screen was knocked at oneach side as she went round to the other. Sukey mentioned the noiseas, on one occasion, coming gradually from the garret stairs, outsidethe nursery door, up to Hetty's bed, "who trembled strongly in hersleep. It then removed to the room overhead, where it knocked myfather's knock on the ground, as if it would beat the house down."Nancy said that the noise used to follow her, or precede her, and oncea bed, on which she sat playing cards, was lifted up under her severaltimes to a considerable height. Robin, the servant, gave evidencethat he was greatly plagued with all manner of noises and movements ofobjects.John Wesley, in his account published many years after date in hisArminian Magazine, attributed the affair of 1716 to his father'sbroken vow of deserting his mother till she recognised the Prince ofOrange as king! He adds that the mastiff "used to tremble and creepaway before the noise began".Some other peculiarities may be noted. All persons did not alwayshear the noises. It was three weeks before Mr. Wesley heard anything."John and Kitty Maw, who lived over against us, listened severalnights in the time of the disturbance, but could never hear anything."Again, "The first time my mother ever heard any unusual noise atEpworth was long before the disturbance of old Jeffrey . . . the doorand windows jarred very loud, and presently several distinct strokes,three by three, were struck. From that night it never failed to givenotice in much the same manner, against any signal misfortune orillness of any belonging to the family," writes Jack.Once more, on 10th February, 1750, Emily (now Mrs. Harper) wrote toher brother John, "that wonderful thing called by us Jeffery, howcertainly it calls on me against any extraordinary new affliction".This is practically all the story of Old Jeffrey. The explanationshave been, trickery by servants (Priestley), contagious hallucinations(Coleridge), devilry (Southey), and trickery by Hetty Wesley (Dr.Salmon, of Trinity College, Dublin). Dr. Salmon points out that thereis no evidence from Hetty; that she was a lively, humorous girl, andhe conceives that she began to frighten the maids, and onlyreluctantly exhibited before her father against whom, however, Jeffreydeveloped "a particular spite". He adds that certain circumstanceswere peculiar to Hetty, which, in fact, is not the case. The presenteditor has examined Dr. Salmon's arguments in The Contemporary Review,and shown reason, in the evidence, for acquitting Hetty Wesley, whowas never suspected by her family.Trickery from without, by "the cunning men," is an explanation which,at least, provides a motive, but how the thing could be managed fromwithout remains a mystery. Sam Wesley, the friend of Pope, andAtterbury, and Lord Oxford, not unjustly said: "Wit, I fancy, mightfind many interpretations, but wisdom none". {220}As the Wesley tale is a very typical instance of a very large class,our study of it may exempt us from printing the well-known parallelcase of "The Drummer of Tedworth". Briefly, the house of Mr.Mompesson, near Ludgarshal, in Wilts, was disturbed in the usual way,for at least two years, from April, 1661, to April, 1663, or later.The noises, and copious phenomena of moving objects apparentlyuntouched, were attributed to the unholy powers of a wanderingdrummer, deprived by Mr. Mompesson of his drum. A grand jurypresented the drummer for trial, on a charge of witchcraft, but thepetty jury would not convict, there being a want of evidence to provethreats, malum minatum, by the drummer. In 1662 the Rev. JosephGlanvil, F.R.S., visited the house, and, in the bedroom of Mr.Mompesson's little girls, the chief sufferers, heard and saw much thesame phenomena as the elder Wesley describes in his own nursery. The"little modest girls" were aged about seven and eight. Charles II.sent some gentlemen to the house for one night, when nothing occurred,the disturbances being intermittent. Glanvil published his narrativeat the time, and Mr. Pepys found it "not very convincing". Glanvil,in consequence of his book, was so vexed by correspondents "that Ihave been haunted almost as bad as Mr. Mompesson's house". A reportthat imposture had been discovered, and confessed by Mr. Mompesson,was set afloat, by John Webster, in a well-known work, and may stillbe found in modern books. Glanvil denied it till he was "quitetired," and Mompesson gave a formal denial in a letter dated Tedworth,8th November, 1672. He also, with many others, swore to the facts onoath, in court, at the drummer's trial. {221}In the Tedworth case, as at Epworth, and in the curious Cideville caseof 1851, a quarrel with "cunning men" preceded the disturbances. InLord St. Vincent's case, which follows, nothing of the kind isreported. As an almost universal rule children, especially girls ofabout twelve, are centres of the trouble; in the St. Vincent story,the children alone were exempt from annoyance.
