ABDUCTION OR FAKE?

Shannon News, 9 February 1926, Page 3

ABDUCTION OR FAKE?

THE CANNING WONDER. STORY OF A GIRL'S IMAGINATION At the very time when Henry Fielding, author of ‘Tom Jones’ was burning out his frail life in ardent measures for the suppression ol* burglars all London (writes J. M. Bulloch, in the ‘Sunday Chronicle’) was reading a newspaper advertisement, which ran as follows: — Lost, ,a girl about eighteen years ot age, dressed in a purple masquerade stuff gown,, a white handkerchief and api on, a black quilted petticoat, a green undercoat, black shoes, blue stockings, a white shaving hat with gretift ribbons and had a very fresh colour. Whoever informs Mrs Cannons (Canning), a scowror (sawyer) a-‘. Aldcrmaubury Postern concerning her shall be handsomely rewarded for their trouble. This advertisement appeared on January 4, 1753, and, incredible as it may seem to people, to-day, for whom such sensations chase each other with lightning rapidity, London did little else but ring with the ease for the next sixteen months. The heroine of the case was Elizabeth Canning, the daughter of a widow living at Aldermanbury Postern, girl of the rosy and chubby kind. She set out to see her uncle and' aunt near Smithfield on New Year’s Day, staying with them until 9 o’clock at night, when the uncle, who was a glass-blower, saw her home as far as Aldgate. Near what is now Liverpool street station (so she said) two “lusty men” both in greatcoats pounc - ed upon Elizabeth, stripped her of her gown, her apron, and her coat, and struck her so severely that she was unconscious for six hours.

A Strange Adventure. When she came fully to her senses she’ found herself (so she said) in the house of a wicked old woman named Susannah Wells, who lived at Enfield Wash, eleven miles away. Sitting in the kitchen there was a horrible ugly ohl gipsy, Mary Squires, who took a knife cut of a drawer in the dresser, cut Elizabeth’s stay laces, and took away her stays; then slapped her soundly and even threatened tq cut the girl’s throat. Finally the gipsy took her to a hay loft four or five steps away from the kitchen. Here (Elizabeth alleged) she was imprisoned with no fire or bed, with only a gallon of water and twen-ty-four dry pieces of bread,' until January 29. Then, getting desperate she took a board off, her window, jumped 10ft. into a clay field, and, clad in nothing but a dirty old bed gown and a handkerchief found her way in an emaciated and terribly unclean condition back to her mother’s house at Aldermanbury Postern. The excitement in the neighbourhood knew no bounds and very sjfcn the whole town was ringing with the story. The Round-Up, It is far from clear how Elizabeth knew the locality of her prison at Enfield Wash, and still less how she knew the names of her gaolers, hut she and her friends set off by coach to the place, preceded by a posse of men, oiv horseback, who arrested the j whole of the 1 inmates. They were brought to town and committed for tnal, chiefly on the highly uncircumstantial evidence of Elizabeth. It was a day of penal savagery and in no lime Mary Squires, merely indicted for stealing “one pair of stays, value 10/-,” was condemned to death; while tae court decided that Mother Wells was to be burned in the hand, a sentence which was executed forthwith to the delight of the exeited crowd at the Old Bailey. But the Lord Mayor, Sir Crisp Gascoyne, who had presided at the trial with the evidence, all the more as one of the witnesses, named Virtue HaJl, recanted. His Lordship had been particularly impressed with the evidence of three countrymen, who swore that the gipsy had been in Dorsetshire at the time. So Mary Squires was reprieved and set at liberty. But this was anything but the last of the case, for Londoners began to take violent sides for and against Elizabeth Canning. , Perjury Trial. More than that, the Canningites instigated a trial for perjury against the three Dorset men who had declared that the gipsy was down Dorchester way—but the prosecution collapsed. But even then the affair was ndt done. Indeed, so hotly was it discussed that the authorities took up the | mystery, but in this case from a to- ’ tally different angle. In April 1754 1 that is to say, sixteen months after the original “abduction” —Elizabeth was put on her trial at the Old Bai’si-. ey for wilful and- corrupt perjury.. The case lasted eight days .during which the most contradictory state- , ment swere made. The case turned l on whether Mary Squires, the gipsy ’ woman, was at Enfield Wash at the

time. Thirty-eight people swore the time. At first the bewildered jury found that Elizabeth had been guilty of perjury but not wilful and corrupt. Aa tlio Recorder refused to accept this verdict, they found her guilty with a recommendation to mercy. Then, when she came up to receive judgment, eight members of the court were for six months* imprisonment, while nine were in favour of giving her seven years’ transportation. The nine prevailed and the attempt to get a fourth trial was rejected. So in due course Elizabeth,' was transported to New England where she is said to have married an “opulent Quaker” named Trent-.