LON 
flier, who lived near Moorfields. The ftory, notwith- 
ftanding its improbability, operated fo powerfully on the 
paflions of many, even of the beft informed chiles, that 
large fubfcriptions were raifed for the profecution of the 
fuppofed delinquents; and the miftrefs of the houfe at 
Enfield, her fervant, and an old gipfey-woman, whom 
Canning charged with having robbed her of her flays, 
were apprehended and tried. Wells was acquitted of the 
felony, but was punifhed as a bawd. Hall, the fervant, 
being intimidated by the magiftrate who examined her, 
turned evidence for Canning ; and Squires, the gipfey, 
was convifled of the robbery, though (he produced the 
moft convincing evidence that (he was at Abbotftmry, in 
Dorfetftiire, cn the night it was faid to have been com¬ 
mitted. During the courfe of the trial. Canning and her 
witneffes contradidfed themfelves in many particulars; 
but the prepoffeffion in her favour was fo great, that the 
moft palpable falfehoods advanced by her and her adhe¬ 
rents were admitted as incontrovertible truths; while the 
witneffes for Squires were either fo overawed by the rab¬ 
ble that they durft not appear in court, or, if they had 
fufficient resolution to give evidence in her favour, were 
infulted in fuch a manner, that their lives were fometimes 
endangered. 
Sir Crifpe Gafcoigne, who was at this time lord-mayor 
of London, conducted hirnfelf in this affair with the great- 
eft juftice and impartiality. Confidering the improba¬ 
bility of the charge, and the heat, paffion, and furious 
zeal, with which it was profecuted, and being convinced 
of tlie old woman’s innocence by a great number of affi¬ 
davits, voluntarily fent up from the country by perfons 
of undoubted veracity, he, in conjunction with fome other 
worthy citizens, determined to oppofe the torrent of po¬ 
pular prejudice. Application was made to the throne 
for mercy. The affair was referred to the attorney and 
folicitor general, who, having examined the witneffes on 
both Tides, made their report in favour of Squires, who 
was firft refpited, and afterwards received his majefly’s 
free pardon. 
A bill of indictment was preferred by the lord-mayor 
againft Elizabeth Canning for perjury. Her friends did 
the like againft the witneffes from Abbotlbury in favour 
of Squires. The Abbotlbury people appeared ; but, no 
evidence coming againft them, they were acquitted. Can¬ 
ning, being admitted to bail, at firft abfconded, but after¬ 
wards furrendered to take her trial, which continued by 
adjournment five days; when fhe was convicted of per¬ 
jury, and committed to Newgate. When fhe was brought 
up to receive fentence, a new trial was moved for on the affi¬ 
davit of two of the jurors, who fwore, that, although they 
believed her guilty of perjury, they did not believe it to be 
wilful and corrupt. The deciiion of this point was put off 
till the next feflions; and, on the 30th of May, 1754, it 
was adjudged by five judges then on the bench, that the 
verdiCt was good, and agreeable to evidence. After which 
the court pafl'ed judgment, that fhe fliould fufter one 
month’s imprifonment, and then be tranfported for feven 
years. Her fupporters, however, made fuch diligent ap¬ 
plications in her favour, that they obtained permiffion for 
her to tranfport herfelf; and fhe went to America, in a 
private fhip, with every accommodation money could pro¬ 
cure her, and means were ufed to fecure her a favourable 
reception on her arrival. So truly fenfible were the citi¬ 
zens of London of the reftitude of fir Crifpe Gafcoigne’s 
conduCl in this affair, that, at the expiration of his mayor¬ 
alty, thanks were voted to him by the common-council 
“ for his fleady perfeverance in the caufe of juftice ; his 
generous protection of the diftreffed, and his remarkable 
humanity.” 
A very important caufe was tried in Michaelmas term, 
in the court of King’s Bench, Guildhall, on an aCtion 
brought by Mr. Richard Holland, a leather-feller, in New- 
gate-ltreet, againft the collectors of tell, in Smifhfield, 
during the time of Bartholomew-fair; when Mr. Holland’s 
witneffes were examined ; but, no perfon appearing on the 
VOL. XIII. No. i'ju 
D O N. 101 
other fide, a verdiCt was given in favour of Mr. Holland, 
on fifteen iifues, with colts of fuit. By which determi¬ 
nation,' all the citizens of London are exempted from pay¬ 
ing toll at the faid fair for the future. In fupport of the 
ancient privilege of the citizens of London, to be exempt 
from toll for their goods throughout all England, Mr. 
Holland had alfo applied for, and obtained, a certificate, 
from the lord-mayor and court of aldermen, in the mayor¬ 
alty of fir William Calvert, by which the privilege of 
exemption was not only allowed to him, but extended to 
every freeman of the city of London. The publiofpirited 
example of this gentleman was immediately followed by 
the freemen redding in the feveral markets of the city, 
who determined to oppofe the oppreffive demands of the 
farmers of them, in exacting toll. In confequence of this 
determinatkm, twelve different addons were brought by 
the farmers of Newgate-market, againft the houfekeepers 
around it, for refuting to pay the toll they had been ac- 
cuftomed to demand and receive; and in July, 1754, one 
of the iffues was tried in the court of Common Pleas, st 
Guildhall, and the plaintiffs were nonfuited ; ever fince 
which, the people have continued free and unmolefted. 
An act of parliament was paffed, on the 20th of March, 
1755, to prevent the holding of a market in the Borough 
High-ftreet; which was foon followed by another, on thi 
petition of the inhabitants of Southwark, to hold a market 
on a fpot of ground, weft of the High-ftreet, called the 
Triangle. 
The fithery of the river Thames has always been an ob¬ 
ject of care for the rnagiftrates of the city of London. A 
beautiful and productive river, which, while its furface 
carries, in innumerable (hips, the treafures of the world B 
harbours in its watery recedes, and in the free and exten- 
five body of its waters, all forts of wholefome and deli¬ 
cious fi(h, is certainly worthy of the moft ltri.Ct and pro¬ 
vident attention. The lord-mayor and aldermen were em¬ 
powered, by an aCt of parliament of this year, to make 
rules and ordinances, from time to time, for the govern¬ 
ment of all perfons concerned in that fifhery. 
In the year 1758, London-bridge underwent a thorough 
repair, and the lioufes, which had continued thereon for at 
lead: three hundred and fifty years, were entirely removed. 
When this bridge was originally founded is not known 
with any accuracy. We read in Stow’s Survey, that “in 
the yeere of Chrift 994, Sweyn king of Denmarke be- 
fieging the citie of London, both by water and by land, 
the citizens manfully defended themfelves and Ethelred 
(king of Kent), fo as part of their enemies were daine in 
battaile, and part of them were drowned in the river of 
Thames, becaul'e in their haftie rage they tooke no heed, of the 
bridge." Surely this obfervation cannot give us any great 
idea of that wooden fabric ; for, had it been of any height 
or confequence, the Danes could not have overlooked it. 
However, it appears to have been built between the years 
993 and 1016 ; for in the former of thefe years, Unlaf the 
Dane, according to the Saxon Chronicle, failed up the river 
as far as Staines ; and in the latter, Canute king of Den¬ 
mark, when he belieged London, caufed a channel to be 
formed on the fouth fide of the Thames, about llother- 
hithe, for conveying his (hips above the bridge. Accord¬ 
ing to traditional accounts, London was indebted for the 
ancient wooden bridge to the laft prior of St. Mary Overy’s 
convent; though it leems more probable that the monks 
only gave their confent to the ereClion of the bridge, 011 
receiving a recompenfe for the lofs of the ferry, by which 
they had been fupported ; and that this conjecture is not 
without foundation, appears from the appropriation of 
lands for the fupport of London-bridge at lo early a pe¬ 
riod as the reign of Henry I. “In the yeere 1114, the 
14 of Henry I, the river of Thames," fays Stow, “ was fo 
dryed up, and fuch want of water there, that between the 
Tower of London and the bridge, and under the bridge, 
not only with horfe, but alio a great number of men, wo¬ 
men, and children, did wade over on foot;” which we 
may fuppofe to have happened at neap-tides, whilft a 
D U flronof 
