CONFIRMS THE FOREGOING.

423

she was kneeling down making her fire one morning, when up she started with a cry like. I heard her, and came in to see what was the matter. 'Oh,' says she, 'nurse, if I didn't hear the rustling of a silk dress all across the kitchen!' 'Well, cook,' says I, 'you know it couldn't be me, being I never wear silk.' 'No,' says she, and she sort of laughed, no, I knew it wasn't you, for I've heard the same three or four times already; and whenever I look round there's nothing there."'"

I thanked the good woman, and then went to see the sister-in-law, who fully confirmed her part of the story. But as all this afforded no clew either to the Christian name, or the date of occupation, or the year of Mr. Children's death, I visited, in search of these, the church and graveyard at Leigh, the nearest to the Ramhurst property, and the old church at Tunbridge; making inquiries in both places on the subject. But to no purpose. All I could learn was, that a certain George Children left, in the year 1718, a weekly gift of bread to the poor, and that a descendant of the family, also named George, dying some forty years ago, and not residing at Ramhurst, had a marble tablet, in the Tunbridge church, erected to his memory.

Sextons and tombstones having failed me, a friend suggested that I might possibly obtain the information I sought by visiting a neighboring clergyman. I did so, and with the most fortunate result. Simply stating to him that I had taken the liberty to call in search of some particulars touching the early history of a Kentish family of the name of Children, he replied that, singu larly enough, he was in possession of a document, coming to him through a private source, and containing, he thought likely, the very details of which I was in search. He kindly intrusted it to me; and I found in it, among numerous particulars regarding another member of the family, not many years since deceased, certain extracts

424

THE FAMILY OF CHILDREN.

from the "Hasted Papers," preserved in the British Museum; these being contained in a letter addressed by one of the members of the Children family to Mr. Hasted. Of this document, which may be consulted in the Museum library, I here transcribe a portion, as follows:

"The family of Children were settled for a great many generations at a house called, from their own name, Childrens, situated at a place called Nether Street, otherwise Lower Street, in Hildenborough, in the parish of Tunbridge. George Children of Lower Street, who was High-Sheriff of Kent in 1698, died without issue in 1718, and by will devised the bulk of his estate to Richard Children, eldest son of his late uncle, William Children of Hedcorn, and his heirs. This Richard Children, who settled himself at Ramhurst, in the parish of Leigh, married Anne, daughter of John Saxby, in the parish of Leeds, by whom he had issue four sons and two daughters," &c. Thus I ascertained that the first of the Children family who occupied Ramhurst as a residence was named Richard, and that he settled there in the early part of the reign of George I. The year of his death, however, was not given.

This last particular I did not ascertain till several months afterward; when a friend versed in antiquarian lore, to whom I mentioned my desire to obtain it, suggested that the same Hasted, an extract from whose papers I have given, had published, in 1778, a history of Kent, and that, in that work, I might possibly obtain the information I sought. In effect, after considerable search, I there found the following paragraph:

"In the eastern part of the Parish of Lyghe, (now Leigh,) near the river Medway, stands an ancient mansion called Ramhurst, once reputed a Manor and held of the honor of Gloucester." . . . "It continued in the Culpepper family for several generations." . . . "It passed by sale into that of Saxby, and Mr. William Saxby con

ADDITIONAL CORROBORATIVE FACTS.

425

veyed it, by sale, to Children. Richard Children, Esq., resided here, and died possessed of it in 1753, aged eightythree years. He was succeeded in it by his eldest son, John Children, of Tunbridge, Esq., whose son, George Children, of Tunbridge, Esq., is the present possessor."*

Thus I verified the last remaining particular, the date of Richard Children's death. It appears from the above, also, that Richard Children was the only representative of the family who lived and died at Ramhurst; his son John being designated not as of Ramhurst, but as of Tunbridge. From the private memoir above referred to I had previously ascertained that the family seat after Richard's time was Ferox Hall, near Tunbridge.

It remains to be added that in 1816, in consequence of events reflecting no discredit on the family, they lost all their property, and were compelled to sell Ramhurst, which has since been occupied, though a somewhat spacious mansion, not as a family residence, but as a farmhouse. I visited it; and the occupant assured me that nothing worse than rats or mice disturbed it now.

I am not sure that I have found on record, among what are usually termed ghost-stories, any narrative better authenticated than the foregoing. It involves, indeed, no startling or romantic particulars, no warning of death, no disclosure of murder, no circumstances of terror or danger; but it is all the more reliable on that account; since those passions which are wont to excite and mislead the imaginations of men were not called into play.

It was communicated to me, about fourteen months only after the events occurred, by both the chief witnesses, and incidentally confirmed, shortly afterward, by a third.

* That is, in 1778, when the work was published. See, for the above quotation, Hasted's History of Kent, vol. i. pp. 422 and 423.

The social position and personal character of the two ladies to whom the figures appeared preclude, at the outset, all idea whatever of willful misstatement or deception. The sights and sounds to which they testify did present themselves to their senses. Whether their senses played them false is another question. The theory of hallucination remains to be dealt with. Let us inquire whether it be applicable in the present case.

Miss S first saw the figures, not in the obscurity of night, not between sleeping and waking, not in some old chamber reputed to be haunted, but in the open air, and as she was descending from a carriage, in broad daylight. Subsequently she not only saw them, but heard them speak; and that always in daylight. There are, however, cases on record in which the senses of hearing and sight are alleged to have been both hallucinated; that of Tasso, for example. And if the case rested here, such is the interpretation which the physician would put upon it.

But some weeks afterward another lady sees the appearance of the selfsame figures. This complicates the case. For, as elsewhere shown,† it is generally admitted, by medical writers on the subject, that, while cases of collective illusion are common, it is doubtful whether there be on record a single authentic case of collective hallucination: the inference being that if two persons see the same appearance, it is not mere imagination; there is some objective foundation for it.

It is true, and should be taken into account, that Miss S had described the apparition to her friend, and that for a time the latter had some expectation of witnessing it. And this will suggest to the skeptic, as

"Essay towards a Theory of Apparitions," by John Ferriar, M.D., London, 1813, p. 75.

† See Book IV. chap. i.

FOREGOING NARRATIVE.

427

explanation, the theory of expectant attention. But, in the first place, it has never been proved* that mere expectant attention could produce the appearance of a figure with every detail of costume, to say nothing of the phosphorescent letters appearing above it, which Mrs. R certainly did not expect; and, secondly, Mrs. R― expressly stated to me that, as four weeks had elapsed and she had seen nothing, she had ceased to expect it at all. Still less can we imagine that her thoughts would be occupied with the matter at the moment when, hurried by a hungry and impatient brother, she was hastily completing, in a cheerfully-lighted room, her dinner-toilet. It would be difficult to select a moment out of the twenty-four hours when the imagination was less likely to be busy with spiritual fancies, or could be supposed excited to the point necessary to reproduce (if it can ever reproduce) the image of a described apparition.

But conceding these extreme improbabilities, what are we to make of the name Children, communicated to the one lady through the sense of hearing and to the other through that of sight?

The name is a very uncommon one; and both the ladies assured me that they had never even heard it before, to say nothing of their being wholly ignorant whether any family bearing that name had formerly occupied the old house. This latter point they seek to clear up; but neither servants nor neighbors can tell them any thing about it. They remain for four months without any explanation. At the end of that time, one of the servants, going home, accidentally ascertains that about a hundred years ago, or more, a family named Children did occupy that very house.

What could imagination or expectation have to do

*The contrary appears. See page 347.