Trial of Mr. Richard England. tunity of hearing what was faid by the person who fhot Mr. Rowles; when the witness went towards Mr. Rowles, he did not fee much life in him. He then faw two gentlemen come from the field, put their piftols in a box, put it into a chaife, and make the best of their way towards London. He did not hear one word pafs between the gentlemen all the time that he could understand. He should not know any of the gentlemen again. He knew Mr. Rowles very well, but not one of the others. John Farmer faid, that he lives at Hounflow. He recollected the time when this bufinefs happened at Cranford Bridge; he was at work at the inn at the time making fome harnefs. He faw the duel that took place in the field. He heard the report of two piftols go off almost together. He went into the meadow where it was, and laid down. A fhot came very near him. He then went to the cart-house, and was at that time about a dozen or fourteen yards from them. He faw that Mr. Rowles had his coat off; Mr. Rowles and Mr. Denif thorp then went to the right fide. They then walked up to the other gentleman. The witnefs faid, he thought he heard one perfon fay, I will give you 100l. and he thought he heard another fay, I will have two. Then Mr. Rowles turned fhort, and went to his ground and fired. The witness fuppofed a minute or two might have elapfed before they fired. He could not fay which it was that faid, I will give 100l. Nor could he fay which faid, No, I will have zool. It was a great length of time ago, and he had had two fevere fevers that had affected his memory very much. He was fo much affected by this 271 fever, that he was a long time afraid he would not be able ever again to do his bufinefs. Mr. Juftice Rook obferved, from the witness's account of his memory, it was hardly worth while to put to him another question. John Sandiford was called up again, and he said, that the piftol that was fired laft was a confiderable time before it was fired, fo that there might be a good aim taken. William Scragg faid, he lived at Cranford Bridge in June, 1784; he was gardener there. He was there on the morning when this duel happened; he was at work at Mr. Goddard's garden, nailing trees against the wall. He did not know these gentlemen. He saw both the gentlemen with pistols, and faw them while they fought the battle. He could not fwear to the men, for he never faw either of them before nor fince. He faw only two fires, and he faw Mr. Rowles fall, and that was all he knew about the matter. He heard the report of four or five piftols; but he only faw two fired, by the laft of which Mr. Rowles fell. Lord Cremorne (the then Lord Dartry) was next examined. His lordfhip faid he faw this duel at Cranford Bridge, where he ftopped. He heard the report of a piftol fhot. He immediately went into the garden, in which there was ten or twelve people. He left Lady Dartry in the bower of the garden, and went to endeavour to prevent the mischief; the Reverend Mr. Burrows, who was with his lordship, addreffed himself to the gentlemen, and begged the matter might be quieted. Upon this Mr. Rowles' fecond came to them, and defired them not to interfere, for that they had no bufinefs there. He faid it was no 272 Trial of Mr. Richard England. no bufinefs of theirs, and begged of them to go away, upon which there was no answer made. Mr. England then advanced three or four fteps, and took off his hat, and faid, "Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated. I have been injured in my honour and my character, let there be a reparation made, and I am ready to have done this moment." Immediately on this, Mr. England returned to his ground again. Mr. Rowles' fecond addreffed them a fecond time; he advised them, as it was no affair of theirs at all, to retire, and, if they did not go, he would, however reluctantly, be obliged to apply to them the word impertinent. Lady Dartry then intreated them not to be offended, for that there was no intention of giving them offence; that they only interfered with a wish to make it up. Mr. Rowles' fecond again begged of them to go away. Lady Dartry then retired, and his Lordship ftood at the bower in the garden until he faw Mr. Rowles fall. He faw the perfon who fhot him, and he understood it to be Mr. England. There was no converfation whatever in the field which his lordship could hear; they spoke fo low that he could not hear them. On his cross-examination by Mr. Erskine, his lordship faid, he did not find any thing in the dif.. pofition of Mr. England that led him to believe that Mr. England was not ready for a reconciliation; but Mr. Rowles' second behaved with great violence.-The Noble Lord was then defired to quit the bench, and to go into the body of the court, to point out Mr. England from a number of perfons who furrounded him. His lordship was not fure that he knew Mr. England. William Woolhoufe, a grazier, faid, he believed it was now about twelve years fince he faw the prifoner at the bar. He knew him very well about that time, and had known him for four or five years. In June, 1784, he re collected the affair at Cranford Bridge. He came there on the morning of the duel by Mr. Rowles' defire, which was made the day before the duel, and foon after the quarrel. He heard pistols fire, but he did not fee any, for he did not go into the field; he ftaid all the time in the house. He faw the prisoner after the duel was over; he met him on his return from the field, and go. ing into the chaife. He heard Mr. England fpeak to a girl as he came from the field. The girl faid, "Good God! Mr. Rowles is fhot." "Yes," fays Mr. England," and I fhould not have fhot him, if he had behaved like a gentleman." Mr. Frogley, a furgeon, who examined the body of Mr. Rowles, about an hour after his death, gave it as his opinion that he died of the wound from the ball with which he was fhot. Lord Derby being asked a queftion again, faid, he believed that the duel was fought the day after the quarrel at Afcot. He did not know but from rumour; be believed that. PRISONER'S DEFENCE. The prifoner being called upon for his defence, he gave in a written one, and prayed that his counfel might be permitted to read it. Mr. Juftice Rooke observed, that the precedent of allowing counsel to read a defence for a prifoner, might lead to the making a fpeech to the jury, which was never Trial of Mr. Richard England. never allowed in criminal cafes, and might be a dangerous innovation. He fhould order the officer of the court to read it. In this paper the prifoner folemnly protested before God that he had gone to this unfortunate meeting with very different fentiments from thofe of his antagonist, who feemed determined that nothing but one of their deaths fhould put an end to the difpute, while he went merely to refcue his fame and honour from the invidious reports which Mr. Rowles had fpread, and without which life was not worth preferving. That he had no alternative between difhonour and a duel; that he endeavoured to keep as far at a diftance from the deceafed as he could to avoid difgrace; that he wifhed folely to rescue his honour; and, being fatisfied in his own confcience, he fecurely left his life or death in the hands of the jury. The firft witness called was the Marquis of Hertford, who faid he had no opportunity of knowing Mr. England previous to this unfortunate affair, but that he had fince been witness to his excellent behaviour on the Continent, and particularly at Spa, where he was highly diftinguished by acts of charity towards his diftreffed countrymen and instead of promoting quarrels, he was on many occafions very ftrumental in preventing them. : in Mr. Whitbread, junior, faid he became acquainted with Mr. England in the year 1783. He had frequently met him in places of public refort. He met him at Spa in 1787. His behaviour, as far as it came under his obfervation, was decent and gentlemanly. He knew that his deportment, inftead of being that of feeking quarrels, was that of a man who VOL. VII. No, XLI. 273 In was ftrenuous to avoid them. fhort, from the refult of the inftances which were in his own mind, Mr. England appeared to him to be of a difpofition the reverfe of a quarrelfome one. He would add, that his opinion, with refpect to Mr. England, was formed previous to the, unhappy accident, and his opinion had continued the fame ever fince. Colonel Bishopp faid he never faw Mr. England the leaft difpofition to quarreling. He had always confidered him as a wellbehaved man, and a well-bred man. Colonel Woolafton gave the prifoner a good character alfo; and gave an inftance of his having been of fervice to him against the enemy at Nieuport, and that he was ready to rifk his life in the fervice of his country. Mr. Breton knew him twenty years, aud spoke very highly of his character. Lord Derby faid he had known Mr. England for fifteen or fixteen years. His lordship's general opinion of his character was, that he was a very civil, well-bred, polite gentleman, and on all occafions more ftudious to avoid quarrels than to feek them. His lordship added, that Mr. England's behaviour at the races, where this unfortunate quarrel happened, was more temperate and moderate than his lordship himself should have been from the provocation that he received. Mr. Juftice Rook then obferved to the jury, that the prifoner at the bar, Richard England, ftood indicted for the murder of Peter Le Rowles, by fhooting him with a pistol. It appeared in the courfe of the evidence, that the death of Mr. Rowles was in con. fequence of a duel: and therefore it was proper they should open the Trial of Richard England. no 274 their minds to the law of the land on the fubject of duels; and he believed he fhould have the concurrence of his learned brother upon the bench in the law, as he should lay it down upon this occafion. There was doubt whatever, that where parties met deliberately in the field. to fight, and no matter who gave the challenge, if either of them fell, it was clearly murder in the perfon by whofe hand he fell. This was the law laid down by the great and learned Lord Coke himself, and by every learned and the most humane judges that ever graced the profeffion, from that hour to this. Lord Hale, Lord Holt, Lord Raymond, Mr. Juftice Forfter, and all the celebrated lawyers down to the time of Mr. Juftice Blackstone, agreed that if parties met to fight in cool blood, that is, when they are not fo overpowered by the fudden guft of paffion as to be deprived of the ufe of reason, and in that cool ftate the one is killed, it is clear murder in the perfon by whofe hand he falls.-The learned judge then quoted the opinions of all the learned judges he had mentioned, to prove that proposition. With regard to the prifoner's defence, he faid he fought for his honour; now, it was the learned judge's duty, he said, under his oath, to tell the jury that this notion of honour is falfe, and could not be a juftification where there was a deliberate killing in a duel. Here the learned judge read the whole of his notes of the evidence to the jury, and then proceeded to obferve to them, that it was under thefe circumstances the prifoner's cafe was to be left to them. He had ftated to them pofitively what the law is upon this fubject, and what it requires; and upon the facts they had heard, the whole cafe was to be left to them. a He should now tell the jury, that deliberate duel, upon whatever provocation, in the eye of the law, is murder; for the law does mean to reprefs thofe feelings that lead to outrage. The law was defigned to keep the peace, and will keep the peace diligently and carefully; it will not allow perfons to meet deliberately in the field, and take away each other's lives. At the fame time, if they meet under a fudden paffion, fo that they are deprived of their reafoning faculty, a man who, in that condition, takes away the life of another, is guilty of manslaughter only. Here was a quarrel at Afcot Heath; a quarrel on both fides. The next day the parties met at Cranford Bridge. It did not appear that they had met in the room on the morning before they fought in the field, fo that their paffion might have been inflamed; but the jury found there was great violence on the part of Mr. Rowles' fecond. But on the part of Mr. England, it did not appear that he had had any intercourfe with Rowles this morning. Regularly fpeaking, it refted with the prifoner to fhew that he had received immediately before the duel fome ground of provocation. There was nothing of that kind fhewn on the part of the prisoner. It appeared by Lord Cremorne's evidence, that the prifoner took off his hat, and faid "Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in my character and honour; let there be a reparation made, and I am ready to be done this mo ment." The jury would confider whether thefe were the words of an angry |