unerring tokens of some most extraordinary treatment she had received.

The answer attempted to these uncontradicted facts, is, all this was practised for the sake of gain-to become a false object of charity, or more probably, says Mr. Davy, to cover the reproach of whoredom. To this answer I will make no other reply, than ask this one question,-what fact of distress, however uncontroverted, may not be supposed to have proceeded from a design to deceive and impose? And, in this instance, we bave had nothing but mere suppositions to induce your belief, that all Canning's sufferings were fraudulent.

other head, is the well-known story of a steward's son belonging to a noble family*If I remember, it was the Gainsborough family; bat that is not material. There the steward was missing, and a large sum of money sup posed to have been taken from him; his own son accused himself, his mother, and his sister, of the murder and robbery, and that they had thrown the body into such a pit-The pit was searched, and no body found; and yet, as the son persisted in his own accusation, they were indicted, tried, and hanged. Yet, some time after, the father returned, gave a particu lar account of his absence, and the cause of it.

Now, in both these instauces, who, on the first relation, could either assent to the truth of the one, or would doubt the truth of the other?

And yet the one was uncontrovertibly proved to be true, and the other demonstrably false. I mention these facts, to shew the great danger of acquitting or condemning against positive proof on oath, on refined arguments of impro bability, which we see are thus capable of deceiving.

If this was the fact, I shall venture to pronounce she might have made more of her means of secrecy, than by any distress she could counterfeit, even in these charitable days. -But to give such a supposition, as Mr. Davy's, the least colour of truth, we must suppose that Canning, poor, illiterate, and friendless, has succeeded in an attempt, that money, art, and friends have scarce ever effected.

I will therefore, leave this part of the prosecutor's case, upon which, I am sensible, I have taken up more of your time, and the court's, than may have been necessary; not only as 1 think the supposed motives of all Canning's story, at least, as improbable, as the facts related by her; but also, as I hope this will be the last prosecution, where I shall hear a conviction of wilful and corrupt perjury contended for on the mere improbability of any facts, which have been credited by twelve men on their oaths, and that too in a case where the merciful ear is ever most, open. Since, gentlemen, it is not to be denied, here at least, where I can vouch the annals of this place for my assertion, -that things, seemingly impossible for human power to have performed, have been proved true-things, the most unlikely to be attested as true, if false, bave been credited, and yet have been utterly false.

There are two known instances of this kind: the one, that most improbable ride from a place near this city to York in one day, on the same horse: I had almost said, as improbable a performance as Mr. Davy's flight round the atmosphere! yet this was a certain fact done, was attested and believed in this court, and by that proof the prisoner was acquitted of robbery, which he confessed himself actually guilty of, as soon as acquitted. Under the

And, indeed, I cannot but express some de

nature should have been thus laboured by the prosecutor,-as he has contended for, and has endeavoured to produce proof of facts, which, if credited, would make all resort to supposition useless. I infer, therefore, that even touching on suppositions and arguments of improbability implies a diffidence in their proof of facts.

But having done with this part of the case, which rests on the head of improbability, it now remains to examine how the charge is other wise supported; and how it is to be answered on our part. And, after the great attention you have given, I need not remind you, that the stress of the proof has been levelled to shew Mary Squires was elsewhere; on which Mr. Davy has logically concluded, (ergo) Canning has wilfully sworn false. But this is not a necessary consequence. How does it necessarily follow, that though Squires was else where, Canning has maliciously perjured her self? May there not be a similitude in de formity, that may deceive, as well as there may be in the more admired part of the sex?

But having, in general, denied the truth of Mr. Davy's inference, I shall waive this part of my defence so far as to agree with Mr. Davy, that Squires is so stampt, that it is scarce possi ble to mistake her. Canning has sworn she is not mistaken; twelve men upon their oaths have believed her; and her defence now is, that she is not mistaken. It will be as needless as prolix, to go minutely through every branch of the prosecutor's evidence, that is meant to prove the contrary. The witnesses are many however, all their force is direct and obvious to a single point, viz. to prove Squires at Abbotsbury and other places, from the 29th

See the Case of the Perrys in this Collection, vol. 14, p. 1312. See it cited in Barbot's Case, vol. 18, p. 1294.

of December 1752, to the 1st of February 1753: when we shall endeavour to prove she was at Enfield.

But when once brought to Abbotsbury, without any cause opened or proved, they are at once to balt, not as gypsies, but become, in an instant, remarkable guests; live in the new part of the house, instead of lying in a barn; instead of being gypsies, that every one avoids, except such as want to deal in fortune-telling and smuggled goods, they are now companions of those of the best rank in the place, and at two balls in one week. This so ugly and desformed woman, whom they have brought a man that subsisted on charity at Enfield, to swear that he chose rather to sit in the cold, than by the fire where she was in company; I say, this extraordinary piece of deformity you are to believe at Abbotsbury present at all meet ings usual at this season, and caressed as a principal guest.

One remark will suffice for all this particularity of description at Abbotsbury. This time was necessary to be consumed somewhere, or the alibi evidence, prior in point of time, would not defeat the gypsey's arrival at Enfield, in contradiction to evidence, which they are aware we have to produce. You will now observe, that it has been thought necessary to have some standard to resort to, as a reason for all this particular series of evidence and recollection, relative to all these three gypsies. It happens, that most of the evidence have chosen the late change of stile as their common object of memory.---Scarce one, who did not remember this or that particular fact, by the era of old or new Christmas.---I wish this may be the only scene of falsehood and confusion flowing from this law. I was myself against it, as I thought it likely to be productive of mistakes in evidence, and don't yet see any use it ever can be of to the public.

It is, however, I confess, natural to confirm our remembrance of particular persons or things by remarkable teras in point of time. But I much doubt, whether this is not the occasion of the whole mistake in this case; not, perhaps, designed by all, though by others calculated merely to add a credit to facts, that a mere positive averment would fail to establish.

And in the evidence of the second witness, Alice Farnham, at Winyard's Gap, (which was

had then the least intent of being at Winyard's Gap again at old Christmas; but this is very reconcilable, supposing it the year before, that these wanderers were in those parts. And this is no unnatural supposition; for the change of stile was then enacted into a law, though it bad not taken place; and therefore the first old Christmas was no uncommon day of return for these gypsies, as dissenters from the New Stile, to fix on. But surely, gentlemen, if this extensive scene of alibi proof ought to find credit with you, it is evident George and Lucy Squires were the most proper evidence to support the truth of it.

To this I desired to appeal, as being the best evidence, when I observed those two in court, after all other witnesses were, by order, obliged to withdraw. The prosecutor's counsel saw the force of this appeal, and agreed to call these two witnesses in succession.-George was called.-If Lucy had been ventured, and they two had agreed in points of facts, of persons, and times, as they must have done, if true in the accounts they gave-I say, if this had been done, I then agreed, and I still say, that I must have submitted, that the defendant was at least mistaken in her evidence against Mary Squires.

But, gentlemen, you have heard George alone. From his cross-examination, the danger of a manifest contradiction became too apparent. George hardly supported himself.→ If Lucy was called, and faultered, the whole alibi was gone:-Such a trial was therefore not to be ventured. I re-demanded this test of the truth of the alibi; but the prosecutor absolutely refused it.-A reason indeed was as signed; but, like many others, the effect of a quick invention, unsupported by proof. Both these witnesses were, at once, made almost ideots. Nothing of this was mentioned in the opening, or as an excuse for not calling them, when at first demanded.

But as Locy was not called, (which I really think would have determined this whole affair) let me remark a little on the conduct of George. And, gentlemen, where did there appear any defect of understanding, during his examina tion on behalf of the prosecution? He was clear, quick, and minute, both as to times, names, and places, that were within the route to be proved. Of other places, certainly as remarkable, certainly as natural objects of memory, not a tittle was to be remembered; for to have remembered any thing, would have given a clue.

relative to, or material in, a proof of Canning's guilt.

It is therefore one of the corner-stones to the credit of this sort of proofs, that the several witnesses should be uniform in all their circumstances, and particularly in such, which they themselves might not think a necessary or essential part of the case which they are brought to prove. But, gentlemen, you may remember, that in such circumstances there were many contradictory accounts: one in particular was most material, either in establish ing or overthrowing George Squires's account of his mother's famous walk to Abbotsbury and back again. To give this a seeming probability, all the subsequent witnesses were to bring them into Abbotsbury very late in the evening; and yet John Ford, one of the gang's most intimate and old acquaintance, swore positively, that he kissed Lucy before three o'clock in the afternoon at Abbotsbury. Mr. Davy was aware, that so signal a token of remembrance would weigh strongly against some of the former evidence; and therefore this witness is directly called drunk. There is another of this sort very material: Hawkins at Litton, though in and about his house the whole morning, remembers not a tittle of this morning's walk by the old woman to Abbotsbury.

How material therefore would it have been, in | this part of their case, to have had this wrong Mr. Clarke, to whom this love-epistle was sent by mistake? We should then, at least, have been sure, that it was not of an earlier date than 1753: and, when I come to observe on the letter itself, as produced to the Court, I think some suspicions, on this head, will not appear to be groundless. Mr. Davy with great confidence asserted, that this piece of evidence alone was sufficient to detect the whole imposture. I have allowed how strong it would be, accompanied with some requisites, that, I submit, do not now accompany it. An essential one is, that the letter should, beyond a doubt, appear to you to be wrote on the 18th of January 1753. Mr. Davy and Mr. Willes have therefore, on all occasions, mentioned this date of the letter, as a fact not disputable, or, indeed, to be disputed. But, gentlemen, you, on oath, must from the appearance of the letter itself, at least think this uncertain; for, however often the date has been repeated 1753, it, in fact, has no other figures than 175; the corner, where the fourth figure should stand, is torn or rubbed off. That corner alone, gentlemen, out of four, though all equally secured by the fold and make of the letter, has suffered by time. When an obliteration, or other accident, happens in so material a part of so very material a piece of evidence, it naturally excites some suspicion. And here again, how material would it have been to have had the Wrong Mr. Clarke, who could not, I am sure, have perused so unexpected a letter without some degree of attention? And from him we might possibly have known how the date appeared, when delivered to him.

Tis also unlucky for this material point of evidence, that the post-mark is by no means plain enough to give any satisfactory account of the time, when this letter actually passed through the post. This, I own, is a defect not in the prosecutor's power to have cured; but therefore it was the more incumbent on him to bave authenticated the time and date of the letter, by such means as were in his power; and therefore, I think, the absence of Mr. Clarke greatly discredits the authority of this piece of evidence; for, as I have before said, on the truth and exactness of time depends the whole force of this alibi evidence. I doubt I have appeared very prolix on this part of the case: but as the conduct of the prosecution seemed to make this so very material, I hope I have not seemed to trespass too much on that indulgence, which has been so remarkable through this whole cause. I shall therefore close my observations on the other numerous witnesses to this alibi part of the case, that however they may agree in general facts, that Squires was at this and that place, as sworn, such account may either be false or immaterial in this prosecution; may be, as other alibi defences too often are, absolutely false, or false in point of time; and the one, as well as the sther, equally invalidates the whole of this, as

Having gone through this range of the prosecutor's evidence, and troubled you with such observations as occurred to me on those parts which they seemed to lay their greatest stress on; I am now in course brought nearer home, and am to see how far another class of witnesses have produced any substantial charge against the defendant. And I hope, gentlemen, I shall have occasion to be much less prolix on this part; because the evidence, in its own nature, is much weaker; and whatever weight it may carry, allowing every tittle of it to be true, there are scarce any three persons to be found, who will agree in drawing the same inferences from the facts related by the set of witnesses 1 am now come to; that is, gentlemen, those witnesses, who have given you an account of the several occurrences before alderman Chitty, and at the time Canning was down at Enfield, and at other times, when she has, either in ordinary discourse, or in obedience to the civil magistrate, made her confinement and delivery the subject of any description. I will not go through the several parts of these transactions, which the gentlemen for the prosecution have endeavoured to paint so contradictory to each other, as must necessarily stamp the whole for a fiction and forgery. You, gentlemen, have had these different accounts, both the written and related, laid before you. Your understanding and judgment is too sound for me to imagine myself capable of reconciling you to the truth of any contradictions by any observations. It therefore becomes me only to state this branch of the evidence. If it contains any contradictions in facts material, I cannot lessen the force of