The Story of Elizabeth Canning Considered

by John Hill

This she declares to be the Fact; and what can be more natural? There is as much Face of Truth in her Recantation seen in this Light, as there would be Absurdity if it were looked upon in another.

But their Informations, you repeat, are so alike! Sir, I must tell you, they are too like: why do not you also see it? Indeed the Term like is improper; they are not like, for they are in Effect the same: And farther, which is an Observation that must sting somewhere, though these their Informations are thus like, their Evidence upon the Tryal was not so. That we may know whether these could be so like without having a common Truth for their Foundation, let us examine into the Circumstances.

Had Virtue Hall ever heard the Story of Canning before she gave this Information? For if she had, allowing it all to be false, she would assuredly make it like hers, by repeating the same Circumstances. Let us enquire then, whether she had ever heard the Story? Yes, she had heard it many times. It appears by her Account, and by the Concurrence of all other Testimonies, that she had heard it from Canning's own Mouth at Enfield on the 1st of February; on the same Day also she says she heard it, and undoubtedly she did, at Mr. Tyshmaker's: For, eight Days after this, the Story of this Canning, as herself had repeated it now twice in the Hearing of this Hall, was published in the News-Papers, to raise Subscriptions. Hall can read; or, if she could not, she had Ears, and she must have heard this from all who came to her.

Now let us see when 'twas she gave this weighty Information. 'Twas after all this Opportunity of knowing what it was Canning said; 'twas on the fourteenth of February, and not before, that she was examined by Mr. Fielding. There, as himself informs us, she was under Examination from six to twelve

at Night, and then, after many hard Struggles and stout Denials, such are his own Words, she did, what? why she put her Mark to an Information; and swore what it contained was true. What it contained was the same that contained which had before been sworn by Canning. The same Person drew both; and that not the Magistrate, no, nor his Clerk: Who then?—why the Attorney who was engaged to manage the Prosecution.

Now, Syllogist, where is your Argument! Can two Persons who swear the same thing agree in all Particulars, and yet that thing be false? Yes certainly, if one has heard the other's Story. As certainly if the same Hand drew up both the Informations, and both that swear are perjured. This is the true State of the Question: You beg too much, as you have put it.

But let us see how these, who agreed so well in the written Informations, agreed in verbal Evidence. We shall find they did not coincide in that; and we shall find a Court of Justice is not satisfied with a few Questions.

Let those who would know this examine the printed Tryal. They will, in that, find Canning swearing that no body came into the Room all the time she was there, and that she found the Pitcher there: And they will find Hall swearing that the Pitcher was put into the Room three Hours afterward by the Gipsy. They will find tho' both agree in the Fact, yet a Difference in the Circumstances even of the Robbery: Canning swears the two Men took her Stays and went out, while she was yet below; but Hall swears this was done after she was put up into the Room.