rescued from death for a similar offence:-he was in the rank of a gentleman. Shall the life of a poor man be of less account?— Morning Herald, Friday, April 13, 1832.

The Case of Robert Folkes continued.

A Correspondent, of whom we have no personal knowledge, and, who signs himself 'A Friend of impartial Justice,' has addressed a communication to us, which he was induced to write by reading the statement which we made on Friday, of the circumstances under which Robert Folkes has been left for execution by the Chief Justice of Ely. Our readers will recollect that Folkes was convicted of a capital offence against the person of Elizabeth Haythorpe, and that the most remarkable circumstance connected with his case was, the singular fact of the Jury having found the prisoner guilty upon evidence which, in regard to another person accused of the same offence, they wholly discredited. The convict, and a man named Levy Ladds, were tried together for this offence; and the woman swore positively to both, and not with more positiveness to one than the other. Ladds was able to call witnesses to rebut her testimony, whom the Jury believed, and acquitted him. By doing so, the Jury gave the strongest proof of their own opinion that the woman had either sworn falsely, or under a mistake scarcely less culpable than a crime-against the life of one of the men. On what principle of ethics, or by what process of logic, they could believe her as to the other, far surpasses our comprehension to divine. We have heard of persons who could blow hot and cold' with one breath; but how any person can swear falsely and truly at the same moment, or, supposing falsehood and truth to be mixed up together, how the truth is to be separated from the falsehood, so that the awful question of life or death can be satisfactorily solved by a just apportionment of belief and disbelief to the same testimony, we are at a loss to conceive. It is the maxim of the English law, that, if the Jury entertain a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner, they should acquit him: and surely to find that the prosecutrix had sworn wrongfully against the life of one of the prisoners, was cause enough to throw a reasonable doubt upon her evidence as to the guilt of the other.

Our Correspondent gives a case similar, as to the main point— namely, the conviction of one prisoner, and the acquittal of another, on the same charge, and on the same evidence. There are persons

in this country, who, if that case stood alone, would say that the Jury had arrived at their conclusion by a species of peculiar, Irish ratiocination. Yet it is precisely the same logic in the case at Ely as that in Ireland.

We shall now give the statement of our Correspondent, which he says he was induced to make by having just read the Case of Robert Folkes' in our Paper. He says-' A man named Coyle ' was indicted for a forcible abduction, and violence to the person * of a female, named Mary Mitten; and a Roman Catholic Clergyman, named ****, for aiding and assisting in the abduction and violence. Another Roman Catholic Clergyman was under 'accusation for marrying the parties with a knowledge of these 'circumstances, they being of different religions. The case, ' which occurred in a northern county in Ireland, was tried before 'Judge MOORE. At a late hour the Jury returned their verdict, 'finding Coyle guilty-the priest not guilty. The evidence was the 'same as to both: they were tried upon the same indictment. The Judge observed, in very strong and feeling language, upon 'the inconsistency of the Jury, who, discrediting the testimony of 'the prosecutrix, acquitted the person at whose house, and by whose 'assistance, she swore her person was violated, and, at the same 'time crediting a part of her evidence, found Coyle guilty. In passing 'sentence of death afterwards on Coyle, his Lordship observed 'that he could not reconcile it to his feelings or to justice, to allow his life to be sacrificed under such circumstances:—that, had the Jury found both prisoners guilty, he could not have afforded to ' either the slightest hopes of mercy; but, as the verdict threw a strong shade of doubt on the credibility of the prosecutrix, he felt it ' his duty to the unfortunate man to state that he would recommend 'his case for an extension of mercy. He was shortly afterwards ' reprieved.'

Now, besides the inconsistent verdict of the Jury, which throws a strong shade of doubt upon the credibility of the prosecutrix' in Folkes's case, there is the other important circumstance of the prosecutrix stating that she had communicated the matter to a female friend, who, when called into the witness-box, deposed, that, although the prosecutrix had been in her company two hours on the day after the alleged offence was said to have been committed, she never said one word to her about it. There is also the contradiction given to the evidence of the prosecutrix, by the man who let her, her husband, and two other men into the hayloft,

6

in which they slept the night but one before the transaction occurred. There is also the contradiction given to the husband by a respectable farmer, who stated that the husband told him, contrary to what he deposed in Court, that he was willing to settle it for a few shillings; and, that if the prisoners would not settle it, he * would seek for compensation elsewhere.'-Under all these circumstances, we trust the Secretary for the Home Department will see that he is bound, whether the Judge reports the case or not, to prevent such a verdict operating to the sacrifice of life.—Morning Herald, Monday, April 16, 1832.

Continuation of the case of Robert Folkes.

When we commented upon this case before, we were not aware of what has since transpired, to stamp utter discredit on the evidence, and infamy on the character, of the prosecutrix, and the man whom we then, in our ignorance, called her husband. It now aspears that the woman who called herself, upon her oath, Elizabeth Haythorpe, and who swore that she had been lawfully married to Haythorpe, and mentioned even the church at which she alleged they were married, and the clergyman who married them, was a girl whose name was Elizabeth Twite, not married to Haythorpe, but living with him in a state of prostitution, and in other respects of vicious mind and profligate habits.

It is one of the remarkable circumstances connected with this ease, that the prosecutrix died suddenly while her victim was awaiting the dreadful fate which, on her evidence, had been awarded him. Enquiries had been previously set on foot respecting her pretended marriage, of which we will give the result in an extract from a letter written by a respectable Solicitor, not having any thing to do with the defence, and who only interfered from motives of humanity. He says, 'Very active enquiries have been made ⚫ during the last week by our highly-respected Chief and Deputy Bailiff's (Colonel Watson and Mr. Wing,) and the worthy Chaplain (the Rev. Mr. King,) to ascertain the real facts of the case; ⚫ the result of which has been, that they have proved, beyond all doubt, that the prosecutrix was never married to Haythorpe, and ⚫ a letter to that effect is now in the hands of the Chief Justice STORKS, or the Secretary of State ;-so that the conclusion must be, the whole of her evidence began and ended in wilful and 'corrupt perjury. Mr. Wing's confidential clerk went over to

Gressinghall, and had an interview with the Rev. Mr. Hill (the clergyman who she swore had married her), and also searched the 'Register, but no entry was there; and the Rev. Gentleman, who ⚫ stated that he knew the parties, avows that they never were mar'ried. The woman died on Thursday night, at seven o'clock; and an inquest was held, and a verdict returned of " Died by the visita'tion of God." Haythorpe has since been put in our cage, and ⚫ broke out during the night; and it is said Knight (a companion ⚫ of the woman and Haythorpe, and a witness,) and another man, are in custody, under a warrant for running away from the House ⚫ of Industry with the parish clothes: and these are people upon 'whose evidence a man's life is to be forfeited! Yesterday our 'town was full of people waiting for the execution.'

6

We will now give some account of the conduct and character of Elizabeth Twite, as contained in a deposition of Mr. Edward Tice, Governor of the House of Industry, of Gressinghall, in the county of Norfolk.

He states the first time she came into the house was four ' years ago. She was then about thirteen years of age. After 'being there some time, she was taken out by the Parish of Dun'ham, and put to service. She remained there, and was tried at 'the Norwich Sessions for robbing her master, Mr. Rex, and acquit'ted. I was present at the trial, and had no doubt of her moral 'guilt. About two years ago she returned to the house; and she ⚫ did not, to the best of my remembrance, leave it until the 6th of 'February, except on two occasions, when she was committed to prison for misconduct in the house, in leaving it in the night time ' without permission, to associate with men, one of whom has since 'been transported:-two other women absconded with her on one 'occasion, and, with three men, slept in a barn. Her pretended 'marriage with Haythorpe is wholly false-there is no foundation ' for it whatever. On the first night of her absconding, on the 6th ' of February last, Haythorpe and she slept together at Litcham. 'The general character of Elizabeth Twite is as bad as can be—she is the most notorious liar I ever knew.' He then goes on to state that on the 6th of December last she left the house without leave, and was out all night; and, in contradiction to a plausible account which she gave of herself, it was proved that she had been at Gressinghall Fair in company with soldiers. She subsequently admitted the falsehood of her story, and was committed to the House of Correction at Walsingham for twenty-one days.

Such was the mode of education by which this wretched woman was qualified to become a witness, under our sanguinary laws, to take away the life of man. Many men are hanged upon such testimony in this highly civilized, and moral, and Christian country-testimony on which the life of a dog ought not to be sacrificed. The Jury were of opinion that her death had been accelerated by previous mental excitement. It is to be hoped it was the excitement produced by remorse. -Morning Herald, Thursday, April 26, 1832.

Case of Robert Folkes-Further remarks.

It will be recollected that we brought under the notice of the public, some time ago, the case of a man named Robert Folkes, who had been convicted at the last Assizes at Wisbeach of a capital offence against the person of a woman calling herself Mary Haythorpe, and left for execution by the Chief Justice of Ely (Mr. Serjeant STORKS).

As to the verdict, its value, in a logical point of view, may be easily estimated by any one of common sense, who knows that the same Jury, in the same Court, in the same breath, and on precisely the same evidence of the prosecutrix, found one man guilty, and acquitted another. It is true, one man called witnesses for an alibi, and the other did not; but, as the prosecutrix swore as positively to one as to the other, the Jury must have possessed very peculiar powers of reasoning, who could have declared her, in the same voice, as being both a credible witness, and one wholly unworthy of belief; yet such, from the same premises, was their contradictory conclusion.

But we did not confine our objections on the former occasion to the verdict, which was, in itself, bad enough, ss a warrant on which to take the life of a fellow-creature. We shewed contradictions in the evidence which ought to have disentitled the prosecutrix to all credit; and, in addition, we were enabled to lay before the public facts which had been ascertained since the trial, and which placed it