beyond all doubt that the whole of the story of the prosecutrix was founded in gross and horrible perjury. For instance, she had sworn she was a married woman, and that a fellow, of the name of Haythorpe, who was a witness to bolster up the case, was her husband. She even stated the church in which they were married, which, by an enquiry afterwards set on foot by respectable and intelligent persons, was found to be a falsehood, invented for the occasion of hanging the man; she being a person who had run away with Haythorpe, from a House of Industry in Norfolk, having first committed a larceny by stealing clothes, and for which she and the man, with whom she was living in prostitution, were themselves liable to the cognizance of the criminal law. The man, we understand, has been since taken into custody; but the woman, though apparently in good health on the trial, suddenly died—whether from remorse of conscience, or dread of detection, is not known. The keeper of the House of Industry made a deposition, disclosing a series of her misdoings, and concluding by stating that she was ⚫ the most notorious liar he ever knew,' and that he would not believe any thing she stated on her oath.

The man was respited on the eve of execution; but, though his life was spared by the Secretary for the Home Department, he is about to be transported for life, upon the perjured evidence which we have so fully exposed!—If this be called justice, it is a sort of justice which, instead of protecting the innocent, and punishing the guilty, exposes the former to the most dreadful perils, while it holds out encouragement to the perjuries of the latter. Under the circumstances which we have stated, we contend that Folkes was entitled to a free pardon. We are glad to find that the Earl of ALBEMARLE (Master of the Horse) has kindly undertaken to present a petition to THE KING on the subject, and that Lord HOLLAND has been humanely active on his behalf. We trust their efforts will not be unavailing to procure for the prisoner, and his unfortunate family, the

redress which, it is not clemency suggests, but, justice demands.-Morning Herald, Saturday, July 7, 1832.

Final Result in the case of Robert Folkes.

Our readers will recollect that we several times brought under the notice of Government and the public the case of Robert Folkes, who was left for execution on the Ely Circuit, upon a conviction obtained by the perjured evidence of an infamous woman, whose polluted testimony we sifted and exposed.

It will also be recollected that the unfortunate man was respited on the eve of his execution, and subsequently sent on board the hulks, to be transported for life.

We contended that, under all the circumstances, he was entitled to a free pardon, and ought to be restored to his home and his family. We have now the gratification of stating that His Majesty's free pardon has been extended to the prisoner; and it is due to Lord HOLLAND and the Earl of ALBEMARLE to add, that their humane interference has been auxiliary to this result.

If, in the case of the crime for which Folkes was convicted, the law had ordained, as in cases of murder, that execution should follow conviction in forty-eight hours, nothing could have saved this man. He must have perished on the scaffold; and the discovery of the perjured evidence of the prosecutrix would have only added another to the long list of fatal errors committed by passionate and precipitate law.-Morning Herald, Wednesday, July 11, 1832.

The Practice of offering Rewards in criminal Cases.

We have more than once deprecated, as a temptation to perjury and murder, rather than an aid to justice, the practice of giving rewards for blood, which is so much practised by the Government of this country, that it seems to have become a part of the settled machinery by which the execu

tive power keeps in motion the system of sanguinary law. We are glad to find the Courier has taken up the same subject, and expressed such sentiments upon it as naturally suggest themselves to those minds which are anxious not only that the fountains of knowledge should be pure, but that they should be above all suspicion of taint.

The Courier says—

'It appears from a Parliamentary Return, that the amount of "rewards paid in 1830 for the discovery of offenders in the disturbed 'districts, was £31,843. 88. 8d., being at the rate of £17 per head, the ' number of prisoners having been 1,887. The amount is not large; 'but the principle of rewards partakes too much of the blood-money 'system to be tolerated in a country, the police of which ought to be ' on a good footing. We are not aware that rewards are given in any ⚫ of the Continental States for the discovery of offenders, except, indeed, ❝ in the way of remuneration to spies, who are part of the police force; ' and it would be well if they were not known in this country: for, however desirable it may be to detect offenders by regular means, it ⚫ cannot be desirable to make man-hunters of a portion of the community "whose only object can be filthy lucre.'

We will add, that where evidence is solicited by a reward, and a conviction bought with money, the zeal to punish crime is too often the cause of the worst of crimes, by stimulating those man-hunters to spread their snares for innocent blood.

It is one of the maxims of our law, in relation to questions of property, that a person who has a pecuniary interest in the matter at issue, is not a competent witness to give evidence before a Jury, although the party against whom he comes to give evidence, would have the opportunity of sifting his testimony by cross-examination. Thus careful is the law that the evidence should be above suspicion, where property only to the value of a few pounds is concerned; but where the life of man is at stake-where the decision of a Court of Justice affects no less than the temporal fate, and, perhaps, the eternal destinies of a fellow-creature, the most depraved wretch that ever bartered the remnant of a conscience for

gold, is admissible to give evidence against the prisoner; and his polluted testimony is often the preponderating weight in the scales of Justice. Hence the sacrifice of many innocent lives, from time to time, in our Courts of Criminal Law, especially in times of excitement, and under Special Commissions; for, when there is alarm in the public mind, tales, otherwise incredible, are believed with a fatal credulity; and in a community where we find wretches who, for a guinea or two, will deliberately slaughter man, woman, or child, for the purpose of supplying their bodies to the surgical shambles, who can wonder at the efficacy of £50, £100, or £200 reward offered by the Crown, or other prosecutor, for the apprehension and conviction of any person whom the worst miscreants in society may choose to charge with the perpetration of a particular crime? It is possible under this system that a gang of Burkites might find it more profitable, and less dangerous, to slay by due process of law, than by the agency of the sleeping draught and suffocation; for, if even the crime be detected, this species of murder, by corrupt and perjured evidence, is not punishable with death.

In the case of a man named Kidden, who was unjustly charged at the Old Bailey with a highway robbery, the inducement to the crime of the three conspirators who swore away his life, was the reward of £40, which was, at that time, given by Act of Parliament for the conviction of a highway robber. This innocent man, who was an industrious porter, in the City, was convicted and executed ; and soon after his death the foul conspiracy was discovered, which had torn an honest and hard-working man from his family, and sent him to an untimely and ignominious grave. The conspirators—namely, Macdaniel and Berry, and one Mary Jones-were thereupon indicted for murder, and convicted; but the Court respited them, in order that a point of law might be considered on motion in arrest of judgment. The Attorney-General of that day declined, for what reason we know not, to argue the point of law, and the prisoners

were subsequently discharged of that indictment. This happened about the year 1755; and it does not appear that they, in fact, suffered any punishment whatever for this atrocious crime; but being, along with others of this mandestroying gang, convicted of another conspiracy, founded on a charge against two individuals of mock robbery, also for the purpose of getting the reward, they were sentenced to the pillory, and imprisonment for seven years.

The case of a blood-money conspiracy of Vaughan and others, a few years ago, which nearly cost four poor men their lives, is too fresh in the recollection of the public to require any particular notice here. But though some of these judicial murders, for the purpose of obtaining the rewards of blood, have been detected from time to time, it is impossible to say how many innocent victims have fallen by such arts, where the villany, that cut them off from the earth, has been so well contrived, or so fortunate, as to have met with no detection. It is only within a year or two that two men were convicted of a highway robbery, and left for execution at Lancaster, upon the mock charge of a villain, whose diabolical contrivance was only discovered in time to save their lives, in consequence of an enquiry set on foot after the trial by some humane and considerate persons, who entertained doubts which had not occurred to the minds of the Judge or Jury.

A great proportion of men tried on charges affecting their lives, are not able to employ either Attorney or Counsel; consequently, the perjured testimony of false witnesses, if plausibly contrived, undergoes no searching cross-examination. (See Note, at p. 233.)

Another great hardship and injustice is, that the law allows the prosecutor's Counsel to make a speech against the prisoner, and to give to the facts all the colouring of ingenious eloquence; while the Counsel for the prisoner is not allowed to make any comment on the evidence, or to shew by any speech how the facts may be explained consistently