This trial took place in the year 1796, and the facts in evidence give a strange picture of the times. A duel actually fought in the garden of an inn, a noble lord close by in a bower therein, and his lady certainly within _HEARING_ of the shots, and doubtless a spectator of the bloody spectacle. But this is not the point,--the incomprehensible point,--to which I have alluded--which is, how Lord Derby and the other gentlemen of the highest standing could come forward to speak to the character of _DICK ENGLAND_, if he was the same man who killed the unfortunate brewer of Kingston? Here is _ANOTHER_ account of the matter, which warrants the doubt, although it is fearfully circumstantial, as to the certain identity:-- 'Mr William Peter le Rowles, of Kingston, brewer, was habitually fond of play. On one occasion he was induced--when in a state of intoxication--to play with Dick England, who claimed, in consequence, winnings to the amount of two hundred guineas. Mr le Rowles utterly denied the debt, and was in consequence pursued by England until he was compelled to a duel, in which Mr le Rowles fell. Lord Dartrey, afterwards Lord Cremorne, was present at Ascot Heath races on the fatal occasion, which happened in 1784; and his evidence before the coroner's inquest produced a verdict of wilful murder against Dick England, who fled at the time, but returned twelve years afterwards, was tried, and found guilty of manslaughter only. He was imprisoned for twelve months. England was strongly suspected of highway robberies; particularly on one occasion, when his associate, F--, was shot dead by Col. P-- on his return from the Curragh races to the town of Naas. The Marquis of Hertford, Lords Derby and Cremorne, Colonels Bishopp and Wollaston, and Messrs Whitbread, Breton, &c., were evidences in the trial.'(145) (145) _The Gaming Calendar_, by Seymour Harcourt. It may seem strange that such a man as Dick England could procure such distinguished 'witnesses to character.' The thing is easily explained, however. They knew the man only as a turf companion. We can come to no other conclusion,--remembering other instances of the kind. For example, the case of Palmer, convicted for the poisoning of Cooke. Had Palmer been on his trial merely for fighting a fatal duel; there can be no doubt that several noblemen would have come forward to give him a good character. I was present at his trial, and saw him _BOW TO ONE, AT LEAST, OF OUR MOST DISTINGUISHED NOBLEMEN_ when the latter took his seat near the judge, at the trial. There was a _TURF ACQUAINTANCESHIP_ between them, and, of course, all 'acquaintanceship' may be presumed upon, if we lay ourselves open to the degradation.