Who you gonna call? The Pembroke debating society!

The Pembroke library is an amazing place, filled with treasures beyond what you see on the upper floors.  There’s the rare book collection, the Incunabula, and some 20^th century Ghostbusters.

When one is exploring the collection of a highly distinguished academic such as Aubrey Attwater (1911) (author of The short history of Pembroke), one might be surprised to come across a document entitled ‘College Apparitions’.  One might even assume that ‘apparitions’ is here used in some strange Cambridge way, to mean what kind of biscuits are served to Fellows, or something of that kind. However, this document is exactly what it says on the tin.  In Attwater’s distinctive handwriting it is declared that a committee was formed “on Sat. Mar 2^nd to consider the relation of the College to certain apparitions seen in the College courts” – ghosts.  It becomes clear, later in the text, that the committee is formed of the current College Debating Society, although the reason for this is not entirely clear.  Attwater matriculated in 1911, and as such this event would have taken place in the Lent term of his first year, perhaps explaining why he was assigned to take meeting notes rather than take a more active role in questioning witnesses (corporeal or otherwise).

The events detailed here were set in motion by the experiences of Messrs. Piggott and Coulson, who claimed to have seen a tall thin figure dressed in a long dark gown pass them in Ivy Court before disappearing into the wall of what is described by Attwater as ‘the Pitt building’ – the college geography in relation to today’s layout is a little uncertain.  There seems to have been some doubt among the witnesses as to whether the figure was in possession of a face.  Quite sensibly, the committee questioned the two men as to the state they had been in, as the hour had been late on a Friday night. Mr Coulson answered that he was in his normall state, whilst Mr Piggot said that he was “witty, fascinating, and smoking a cigarette”. All witnesses, it should be noted, were questioned as to whether they believed in ghosts, and whether they suffered from hallucinations.

A third witness was Mrs Porter, bedmaker for the staircase in question, who “alleged that never in her whole life had she seen or heard anything unnatural in the court, except Mr So-and-so’s socks, and Mr whats-his-name’s laugh.” In relation to claims that footsteps had been heard on the staircase when there was no one to make them, Mrs Porter responded that she had many times heard footsteps, “when a gentleman was coming up the stairs”.  She had also, it transpired, heard footsteps when no one was coming up the stairs, and questioned further as to the circumstances responded it was “when they were going down”.  Several further witnesses followed, and it seems were closely questioned by Mr Wright, who as we shall later see was evidently sceptical about the presence of apparitions in college.

The next natural step was to consult a specialist.  Here the committee experienced difficulty, as Mr Wright and the President strongly believed “that the gentleman coopted should be an economist”.  The Rev. Moyley, for more obvious reasons, suggested the Priest at Kings. Unable to agree on external help the committee decided to “co-opt the ghost himself”.  To achieve this, “the President, Mr Davies, began to invoke the ghost in an oration of considerable length in which he touched upon Home Rule, Free Trade, and the Economics of Strikes”, continuing the theme of using economics to reach the ‘other side’ as it were.   Regardless, it seemed to work, and they were greeted by a “sepulchral” voice that claimed to be the original founder of the debating society, doomed to walk the earth on the hundredth anniversary of its founding.

Ever aware of facts, the President here interrupted to point out that the society was founded in 1862, and as such was only 50 years old.  The ghost was not deterred, claiming that the current society was simply unaware of its true roots, and went on to suggest that the President might think about resigning rather than suffer the complaints of his peers and votes of censure.  The ghost referred to the resignation as a removal of “your martlet scarf”, to which Mr Wright replied; “you are the only man who ever wore a martlet, and we made you change it behind a screen”. Again, the ghost was ‘unashamed’, and determined to continue:

"when you have shuffled off your martlet scarf

you may be re-elected.

For who would hear the cries of ‘late’ or ‘tired’

The opposers’ speech, the opposers’ weary jokes

The fangs of questioned rulings, votes of censure,

The dullness of additional members

When he himself might his quietus make

By resignation? Who would martlets wear,

and rule and suffer question every moment (or: and sit upon the uncomfortable seat)

But for the dread that after resignation

From the ex-presidential land of rest

He must return, restored and re-elected.”

Here Mr Wright interrupted again, the lights were turned on, and he engaged in an argument with Mr Moyley that the ghostly presence was merely a result of somnolence induced by the economic séance.   Whilst the committee were otherwise unanimous in their belief that they had indeed been visited by a college apparition, Mr Moyley removed himself from the proceedings with a memorandum in which he decries the committee’s scientific method, and states his belief that any further investigation would be both unfounded and a “gross interference” into the lives of the members of the college who would be affected.

The remaining committee members came up with a series of suggestions for the college going forward:

“The committee is therefore of the opinion that the following proposals ought to be carried out

1. That Mr Hadley be requested to enter the name of the said ‘Ivy Court Ghost’ for the previous examination
2. That Mr Chapman lay a place at the High table for the said ghost every evening at second hall
3. That the ghost be elected a member of this house

They are divided between the two views as to its identity

1. A religious or political refugee, who was in hiding in Ivy Court and whose skeleton would most probably be found in some secret chamber in the rooms of the Hon Secretary of this Society
2. An ex-President of this society who died from heart-failure at the shock of a meeting without either a vote of censure or a questioned ruling”

The report ends thus:

“The committee therefore beg to offer this report together with the following memorandum by Mr Wright, ex-president.  They are of the opinion that on an occasion so historic as this nothing would be better than the presence in this house of the Ivy Court Ghost.  They therefore did their best to assure his presence, but not even an invitation to dinner nor a promise of the presidency of this society for the evening seemed practicable.  They therefore abandoned all attempts to bring the honourable gentleman to this house, and contented themselves with drawing up a report in favour of his existence.

Signed by the three gentlemen”

It is followed by Mr Wright’s memorandum:

In the first place, I wish to enter an emphatic protest against the scientific method in which this enquiry has been conducted.  In this, so called twentieth century I should have thought that all enlightened men had abandoned the fruitless attempt to arrive at truth by scientific enquiry.  For my own part, I have earnestly endeavoured not to be influenced in my opinion by any of the evidence which we have heard, although I must confess that the views of Mrs Porter coincided so closely with my own that I am sure she is a wise woman.

Secondly, I wish to modify the conclusions of my fellow members of this Committee by submitting the following considerations: -

1. I don’t believe in ghosts, I never have believed in ghosts, and if I ever do believe in ghosts it will be a sign of senile decay
2. I do not believe that there is any spiritual being in Ivy Court, saving an exception Mr H. G. Comber.
3. I believe Mr Comber to be a rational as well as a spiritual being and I therefore expect him to enter a building by the door and not through the wall
4. In spite of the last consideration and in view of the fact that the said being has a large proctorial experience I admit that on occasion he may enter or have entered a building, College or place by an unusual route.

Thirdly and lastly, I protest against any further enquiry into the habits of the being under discussion, as a gross interference with the private life of a member of this House.

(signed)

Harold Wright

Disclaimer:

Several parts of the written report are crossed out and repeated, with notes to ‘cut this down’.  This implies that there is a certain amount of artistic license applied to the final telling.  How seriously the individuals in question took this matter is entirely unclear, although the active rejection of the process by Mr Wright suggests that he at least thought that his colleagues seriously believed in the presence of a ghost.  That said this blog should not be taken as a declaration either way as to the existence of ghosts.  Cambridge is rife with ghost stories and it is more remarkable that until now Pembroke has been absent from these stories.  Despite our age there has been a distinct lack of otherworldly activity in our history.  It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that, at least once, members of the college experience an apparition in their midst.

Illustrations by Rachel Davidson