Enigma of Borley Rectory

by Harry Ludlum

  The report also delves into the contradictory nature of the evidence of Mrs Mabel Smith, the late Guy Smith's widow. The beginnings of Mabel Smith's 'about face' on Borley is quoted in the form of a letter she submitted to The Church Times in 1945.

  'Sir,

  I have read with interest your articles and letters on "Thump Ghosts", and as I was in residence for some time at Borley Rectory, Sussex ("the most haunted house in England"), I would like to state definitely that neither my husband nor myself believed the house haunted by anything else but rats and local superstition.

  We left the Rectory because of its broken-down condition, but certainly found nothing to fear there.'

  Hastings pointed out the error in placing Borley in Sussex, but did at the same time allow for the possibility of a printer's error.

  Also quoted by Hastings was the Rev. Henning's expression of surprise at the contents of Mabel Smith's letter to The Church Times, a copy of which he duly forwarded to Harry Price with the following comments:

  'I was astounded to read the enclosed letter from Mrs Smith in The Church Times. There are still people in Borley who remember Mrs Smith showing them the mystery light and then taking them into the Rectory and finding no light in the room. It may be true that the Smiths did not leave because of the hauntings, but that they had no strange experiences is something new to me.'

  Hastings goes into considerable detail over the many variations between Mabel Smith's testimony and that of her husband. It is in this section that Mabel Smith's contrariness is most graphically demonstrated, and the whole section of the Hastings' report makes fascinating reading.

  Among many other aspects of the allegations re-examined by Hastings, there are the arguments about the medals found at Borley and some very telling points that directly contradict the accusations against Price over the bone fragments found in 1943. In fact, in the light of Hastings' findings, the accusations become rather weak, if not ridiculous.

  Also dealt with are the misgivings expressed by Major Douglas Home over the discovery of a roll of cellophane among the contents of Price's ghost-hunting kit, which Home was convinced had been used to create a sound of a swishing garment during a visit to Borley Rectory at which he was present.

  Hastings argued with some force that there would have been perfectly legitimate reasons for the presence of the cellophane among Price's various bits and pieces. He also expressed the view that if Price had wanted to create fake phenomena by using cellophane, he would have cut off only what he needed before departing for the Rectory, rather than carry the whole roll in his case where it could be, and was, quickly discovered.

  The next fully fledged volume on Borley was The Ghosts of Borley, which was penned jointly by Peter Underwood and the late Dr Paul Tabori, and was published by David and Charles in 1973.

  This was a broadly based revisit to the Borley saga and in view of the fact that the 1956 Haunting of Borley Rectory shows itself to be somewhat unreliable, it is not unreasonable to view The Ghosts of Borley as a natural successor to The End of Borley Rectory.

  Among the most interesting contents of this volume are the details relating to the post-war unearthing of the legendary tunnel and also the curious contradictions and oddities surrounding the enigmatic Marianne Foyster, on which Peter Underwood has commented on various occasions.

  Also incorporated is a goodly sprinkling of curious events that have involved people such as James Turner and his wife, who lived in the stable cottage from 1947 to 1950, and the Bacon family who came there afterwards.

  It is in The Ghosts of Borley that more information comes to light about that odd character Francois d'Arles, or to give him his true name, Frank Charles Pearless, long believed to be French Canadian but revealed by the authors to be nothing of the sort!

  After 1948, Dr Paul Tabori became Price's literary executor and back in 1950 he published a biography of Price, which also contains a lengthy chapter on Borley Rectory. Dr Paul Tabori is, alas, no longer with us, but Peter Underwood is very much alive and spends much of his time involved in research on mysteries of paranormal phenomena.

  Over the years there have been many newspaper and magazine articles on Borley Rectory, of varying interest and accuracy, ranging from the V. C. Wall article of June 1929 in the Daily Mirror to pieces in the Suffolk Free Press. Another curio from among those printed in the popular press is an article by Captain Gregson that appeared in East Anglian Magazine for 1939, and from which the photograph of the Captain has been reproduced in this volume by kind permission.

  Another fairly recent publication (1984) containing references to Borley was Arthur C. Clarke's World of Strange Powers, compiled by John Fairley and Simon Welfare, a publication associated with a popular television series. In this book, published by Collins, the Borley episode is presented as having been exposed by the 1956 allegations.

  I tackled the writers on the subject of Borley Rectory and Harry Price's role in the episode, but while they acknowledged the Hastings' report (not even mentioned in the book) in a reply from Simon Welfare, it was obvious that they too have fallen into the same trap as others, in particular by being impressed by the writings of T. H. Hall, the failings of whose work have already been discussed.

  In a further letter to Simon Welfare, I suggested that to fail to give their readers both sides of the Borley story was a disservice to the late Harry Price, but regrettably it would seem that this may be another instance where a balanced presentation was subordinated to the interests of commercial popularity.

  Even the inimitable Readers' Digest has had a brief flirtation with the Borley story, in particular in a volume entitled Strange Stories - Amazing Facts, in which, on page 410 among some details of the Rectory story, is a lovely photograph of the place, dating from somewhere between 1900 and 1914.

  Most of the countless books and articles on Borley can be found in public libraries or the Harry Price Library. Readers of this work could do worse than to track down all these writings on the subject of Borley and read them through for themselves.

  CHAPTER 26

  Glanville's Locked Book

  Glanville's Locked Book fell into the hands of Trevor Hall, the author of The Search for Harry Price, which seemed to be aimed at destroying Price's reputation and the value of his work at Borley, was at one time head of Leeds Library and, I believe, partly responsible for securing its future.

  He gained a remarkable record of research achievements yet, at the same time, apparently had an unusual lack of ethics.

  Compiled by Price's close associate, Sidney Glanville, the Locked Book, consisting of drawings, photos and records of séances at the Rectory, was given to Harry Price, who used much of the contents for his two major works on Borley.

  In fact, it was of such great value that Price said that if he ever lost all his notes on Borley, he could still have written a complete history of the case solely from the contents of the leather-bound volume.

  However, the Locked Book was eventually given by Glanville to Trevor Hall 'in appreciation' of his help and encouragement 'when the making of a restatement of the history of Borley Rectory' seemed beyond Glanville's capacity.

  A point of argument remains though, for Dr H. P. Pafford, the then curator of the Harry Price Library, implied in 1959 that there was a strong suspicion that the Locked Book was removed from the library 'under debatable circumstances'. This feeling is echoed by Mr Wesencraft, the current curator, who voiced his doubts to me about Hall's claim to the ownership and his right to eventually sell it to an American for over £1,000.

  Nevertheless, Sidney Glanville's son, Roger, felt that the ownership rested with his father and understood that the gift to Hall was arranged during a lengthy meeting at his home.

  It must be remembered though that Dr Pafford claimed that Sidney Glanville asked him if he could borrow the book from the library, implying that he, Glanville, felt the work was owned not by him but by the library, and was therefore, not his property to give to Hall.

/>   The real ownership of the valuable record at the time it was sold is a moot point, but it is certainly another example of conflict of interests, of possible theft and a further mystery to add to the 'Enigma of Borley'.

  CHAPTER 27

  In Conclusion

  In this book I have sought to retell the story of Borley Rectory for the benefit of newcomers to the episode, to tell the reader something of the many characters involved, and to reveal some of the contents of the lengthy report on the case by the late Robert J. Hastings, because it directly contradicted a view of the inaccurate story that had become fashionable.

  As we have seen, Borley Rectory was constructed for the Rev. Henry Dawson Ellis Bull in 1862/63 and was occupied by various members of the Bull family until 1927.

  The Rectory, built on the remains of at least two older buildings, stood on that site for some 76 years as an intact structure, before being damaged beyond repair by the fire of February 1939. During that time, Borley Rectory, against a background of controversy that has rumbled on ever since, attained the reputation of being the most haunted house in England, and was ultimately viewed as being so by its chief investigator, the late Harry Price.

  To help reach a conclusion on Borley, I am putting all the elements of the story into chronological order as follows:

  1. The historical possibilities attached to stories about the history of the Rectory site, including the matter of the monastery involvement, the story of Sir Edward Waldegrave, the matter of the nun, and the role of each of these in the possible cause of the hauntings at Borley Rectory.

  2. The era of the Bull family, and aspects of their lives that seem to relate to additional possible causes of the hauntings at Borley Rectory.

  3. The role of the Smiths and the Foysters in the overall picture.

  4. The role of Harry Price in the investigations into Borley.

  5. The role of Captain Gregson leading up to the fire of 1939.

  We begin with the popular belief that Borley Rectory stood on the site of an old monastery. This is not provable from historical records, but what is provable from historical records is that Sudbury Priory lay on the opposite bank of the River Stour, in sight of the parish of Borley, and it appears to have had access to woodland in Borley.

  We also know that the Priory was in existence during the plague epidemics of the late 1340s, and that some monks may therefore have died there. It has long been suggested that the knoll on which Borley Rectory was later built was originally a plague burial pit, though there is no evidence to prove this.

  We also have clear evidence that part of Borley once belonged to Barking Monastery and that the manor of Borley belonged to the monastery of Christchurch, Canterbury.

  There is also the possibility of another monastic cell actually on the Rectory site, of which no remains or records have survived. Without documentary proof, only very extensive excavation would provide an answer to that possibility but, unless fresh information comes to hand, Sudbury Priory will remain the most likely origin of stories about a Borley monastery.

  The next episode in Borley's history that I feel does suggest a cause for the hauntings at Borley Rectory is that connected with the life and downfall of Sir Edward Waldegrave because of the following points.

  Firstly, there is archaeological evidence that there was a brick building on the site during Tudor times.

  Secondly, Sir Edward Waldegrave was Lord of the Manor of Borley during the time of Henry VIII and was, during that period, responsible for the provision and upkeep of a Rectory at Borley.

  Thirdly, Sir Edward was a Catholic and this brought him into direct conflict with the Protestant church that was vigorously maintained under Elizabeth I. Sir Edward Waldegrave was arrested in 1561 on charges of heresy, but the writer has also discovered from public archives that against the background to his arrest were plots to oust Queen Elizabeth I from the throne.

  Furthermore, Sir Edward now appears to have been betrayed by a fellow Catholic, himself a priest, and who in turn may well have been betrayed by a manservant in Sir Edward's employ. Following this, Waldegrave, still a devout Catholic, was ultimately buried in a Protestant grave.

  Some four centuries later, in Henry Bull's huge Victorian rectory, one of his daughters was disturbed by the figure of a man sitting on her bed. The figure was dressed in what she described as old-fashioned costume and a tall hat!

  That suggests the sort of clothing commonplace during the time of Elizabeth I. It is on this basis that I suggest that the fate of Sir Edward Waldegrave constitutes a possible historical cause for hauntings at Borley Rectory.

  From Sir Edward Waldegrave we move on now to the story of the nun, who is probably the most elusive of all the characters linked to Borley Rectory.

  There are stories that she came from France, or that she tried to elope from Borley in a horse-drawn carriage during the 13th century, but most of these stories when checked against known history show themselves to be fascinating but fallacious.

  The long-standing belief that the nun was connected with the Waldegraves is by no means so ridiculous. Historical archives show that numerous daughters of the Waldegrave family were nuns, almost all of them with expatriate English orders in exile on the Continent, at a time when such religious houses were banned from England.

  Furthermore, records show that two Waldegrave nuns came from Borley, being the daughters of Sir Nicholas Waldegrave of Borley. One of them, Barbara Apollonia Waldegrave, died in Brussels when only in her thirties.

  There is a further source of interest in that a monk from the dissolved Clare Priory turns up 27 years later as Rector of Borley and that his former order, the Austin Friars, included at least one Waldegrave from a previous generation.

  One factor in all of this brings us back to the Waldegraves, who came from Borley anyway, and any candidate for the identity of the nun must have a high probability of having come from Borley in the first place.

  Whatever the merits of the various theories about France or elsewhere, none of those answer the question as to why the figure of a nun should appear at Borley at all. When you have two Waldegrave nuns who were both born in that branch of the family, and when it is known for certain the cause of death of one of them (Jeronima ... who died from consumption), the one who is left must surely be the most likely candidate.

  Although it may never be possible to prove that Barbara Waldegrave is the sad figure so often seen drifting about the grounds of Borley Rectory, perhaps we should view the matter in the 'spirit' of the adventure of The Sign of the Four where Sherlock Holmes says to Watson, 'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'

  Now we come to the Bull era at Borley Rectory and it is here that, in my opinion, there lies the bulk of the historical causation of the hauntings. It is this, coupled with the documentary evidence that ironically seems to vindicate the suggested background to the hauntings that the late Harry Price didn't investigate.

  Had he done so, it's likely his critics would have had little to attack him over the Borley story. Only in his recording of the séance results did Price touch vaguely on the fringes of the role of the Bull family as a possible basis for the hauntings.

  For example, though he detailed the séance sessions at which the character of Kate Boreham came to light and stated that her existence was proved by the parish records, he failed to attach much importance to the necessity of delving deeper into the matter.

  Over the years various things have been alleged concerning the Bull family, and these have appeared to be a mixture of fact and village gossip. It has been suggested that Henry Dawson Bull indulged in relationships with village girls, and that he died from syphilis.

  That there was an affair (or affairs) is certainly possible, supported by documents in public archives indicating that Henry Dawson Bull died from an illness directly related to syphilis, Locomotor Ataxia, which is associated with tertiary syphilis. Also on
record is the fact that he died at 59, not a great age even for those days.

  Also in support, Kate Boreham certainly gave birth to at least one child whose date of baptism indicates it to have been born out of wedlock and, though that doesn't prove that Henry Bull was the father, the suspicion is hard to avoid.

  The census returns for the parish of Borley fail to prove beyond doubt that Kate Boreham was employed as a maid at Borley Rectory, but between the census for 1881 and 1888, when she died, there is a period of her life and the records of the Rectory that cannot be definitely accounted for, during which time she could well have taken up a post at the Rectory.

  At the time of the 1871 census she was too young to be a maid, while by the time of the 1891 census she was dead! When we come to the matter of her death, there are two very telling points. Firstly, she is recorded as dying in Sudbury in a house that is not listed in any public records as ever having belonged to or been rented to the Boreham family. Secondly, she is recorded as having died from cerebritis, but this is shown to be unreliable as a cause of death.

  The medical opinion does suggest that death from lead poisoning, incurred while trying to abort an unwanted pregnancy, might very well have been the true state of affairs. In addition to this, the recording of Kate Boreham as being buried in the churchyard at Borley at Easter 1888, which is what was entered by the Rev. Bull in the parish records, is not true.

  I further suggest that what really happened to Kate was known to the Swiss governess, Maria Rolf, who was with the family in 1881, and who was very likely still there in 1888. A final point as to the truth of the Katie story lies in the reported finding of a part-used bottle of sugar of lead, which is a soluble substance, in a cupboard in the Rectory.

  I strongly suggest that the Kate Boreham episode is at the root of psychic disturbances at the Rectory, and that this matter came to light during the séance sittings of 1937, without the sitters realising the significance of the results.