Lucrative
Gambling

Jack Tether, Bob W--r, Tom H--ll, Captain O'Kelly, and others, spent with Dick England a great part of the gambling plunder of poor Clutterbuck, a clerk of the Bank of England, who not only lost his all, but robbed the Bank of an immense sum to pay his `debts of honour.'

A Mr B--, a Yorkshire gentleman, proposed to his brother-in-law, who was with him, to put down ten pounds each and try their luck at the `Hell' kept by `the Clerks of the Minster,' in the Minster Yard, next the Church. It was the race-week. There were about thirteen Greeks there, Dick England at their head. Mr B-- put down L10. England then called `Seven the main--if seven or eleven is thrown next, the Caster wins.' Of course Dick intended to win; but he blundered in his operation; he landed at six and the other did not answer his hopes. Yet, with matchless effrontery, he swore he had called six and not seven; and as it was referred to the majority of the goodly company, thirteen honest gentlemen gave it in Dick England's favour, and with him divided the spoil.

A Mr D--, a gentleman of considerable landed property in the North, proposed passing a few days at Scarborough. Dick England saw his carriage enter the town, and contrived to get into his company and go with him to the rooms. When the assembly was over, he prevailed on Mr D-- to sup with him. After supper Mr D-- was completely intoxicated, and every effort to make him play was tried in vain.

This was, of course, very provoking; but still something must be done, and a very clever scheme they hit upon to try and `do' this `young man from the country.' Dick England and two of his associates played for five minutes, and then each of them marked a card as follows:--`D-- owes me one hundred guineas,' `D-- owes me eighty guineas;' but Dick marked his card--`I owe D-- thirty guineas.'

The next day, Mr D-- met Dick England on the cliff and apologized for his excess the night before, hoping he had given no offence `when drunk and incapable.' Having satisfied the gentleman on this point, Dick England presented him with a thirty-guinea note, which, in spite of contradiction, remonstrance, and denial of any play having taken place, he forced on Mr D-- as his fair winning -adding that he had paid hundreds to gentlemen in liquor, who knew nothing of it till he had produced the account. Of course Mr D-- could not help congratulating himself at having fallen in with a perfect gentleman, as well as consoling himself for any head-ache or other inconvenience resulting from his night's potation. They parted with gushing civilities between them.

Soon afterwards, however, two other gentlemen came up to Mr D--, whom the latter had some vague recollection of having seen the evening before, in company with Dick England; and at length, from what the two gentlemen said, he had no doubt of the fact, and thought it a fit opportunity to make a due acknowledgment of the gentlemanly conduct of their friend, who had paid him a bet which he had no remembrance of having made.

No mood could be better for the purpose of the meeting; so the two gentlemen not only approved of the conduct of Dick, and descanted on the propriety of paying drunken men what they won, but also declared that no gentleman would refuse to pay a debt of honour won from him when drunk; and at once begged leave to `remind' Mr D-- that he had lost to them 180 guineas! In vain the astounded Mr D-- denied all knowledge of the transaction; the gentlemen affected to be highly indignant, and talked loudly of injured honour. Besides, had he not received 30 guineas from their friend? So he assented, and appointed the next morning to settle the matter.

Fortunately for Mr D--, however, some intelligent friends of his arrived in the mean time, and having heard his statement about the whole affair, they `smelt a rat,' and determined to ferret it out. They examined the waiter--previously handing him over five guineas--and this man declared the truth that Mr D-- did not play at all--in fact, that he was in such a condition that there could not be any real play. Dick England was therefore `blown' on this occasion. Mr D-- returned him his thirty guineas, and paid five guineas for his share of the supper; and well he might, considering that it very nearly cost him 150 guineas--that is, having to receive 30 guineas and to pay 180 guineas to the Greeks--profit and loss with a vengeance.

Being thus `blown' at Scarborough, Dick England and his associates decamped on the following morning.

He next formed a connection with a lieutenant on half pay, nephew to an Irish earl. With this lieutenant he went to Spa, and realized something considerable; but not without suspicion--for a few dice were missed.

Dick England returned to London, where he shortly disagreed with the lieutenant. The latter joined the worthy before described, Captain O'Kelly, who was also at enmity with Dick England; and the latter took an opportunity of knocking their heads together in a public coffee-room, and thrashing them both till they took shelter under the tables. Dick had the strength of an ox, the ferocity of a bull-dog, and `the cunning of the serpent,' although what the latter is no naturalist has ever yet discovered or explained.

The lieutenant determined on revenge for the thrashing. He had joined his regiment, and he `peached' against his former friend, disclosing to the officers the circumstance of the dice at Spa, before mentioned; and, of course, upset all the designs of Dick England and his associates. This enraged all the blacklegs; a combination was formed against the lieutenant; and he was shot through the head by `a brother officer,' who belonged to the confraternity.

The son of an earl lost forty thousand pounds in play to Dick England; and shot himself at Stacie's Hotel in consequence--the very night before his honourable father sent his steward to pay the `debt of honour' in full--though aware that his son had been cheated out of it.

But the most extraordinary `pass' of Dick England's career is still to be related--not without points in it which make it difficult to believe, in spite of the evidence, that it is the same `party' who was concerned in it. Here it is.

In the _Gentleman's Magazine_, in Gilchrist's Collection of British Duels, in Dr Millingen's reproduction of the latter, the following account occurs:--

`Mr Richard England was put to the bar at the Old Bailey, charged with the "wilful murder" of Mr Rowlls, brewer, of Kingston, in a duel at Cranford-bridge, June 18, 1784.

`Lord Derby, the first witness, gave evidence that he was present at Ascot races. When in the stand upon the race-course, he heard Mr England cautioning the gentlemen present not to bet with the deceased, as he neither paid what he lost nor what he borrowed. On which Mr Rowlls went up to him, called him rascal or scoundrel, and offered to strike him; when Mr England bid him stand off, or he would be obliged to knock him down; saying, at the same time--"We have interrupted the company sufficiently here, and if you have anything further to say to me, you know where I am to be found." A further altercation ensued; but his Lordship being at the other end of the stand, did not distinctly hear it, and then the parties retired.

`Lord Dartrey, afterwards Lord Cremorne, and his lady, with a gentleman, were at the inn at the time the duel was fought. They went into the garden and endeavoured to prevent the duel; several other persons were collected in the garden. Mr Rowlls desired his Lordship and others not to interfere; and on a second attempt of his Lordship to make peace, Mr Rowlls said, if they did not retire, he must, though reluctantly, call them impertinent. Mr England at the same time stepped forward, and took off his hat; he said--"Gentlemen, I have been cruelly treated; I have been injured in my honour and character; let reparation be made, and I am ready to have done this moment." Lady Dartrey retired. His Lordship stood in the bower of the garden until he saw Mr Rowlls fall. One or two witnesses were called, who proved nothing material. A paper, containing the prisoner's defence, being read, _the Earl of Derby, the Marquis of Hertford, Sir Whitbread, jun., Colonel Bishopp, and other gentlemen_, were called to his character. They all spoke of him as a man of _decent gentlemanly deportment_, who, instead of seeking quarrels, was studious to avoid them. He had been friendly to Englishmen while abroad, and had rendered some service to the military at the siege of Newport.

`Mr Justice Rooke summoned up the evidence; after which the jury retired for about three quarters of an hour, when they returned a verdict of "manslaughter."

`The prisoner having fled from the laws of his country for twelve years, the Court was disposed to show no lenity. He was therefore sentenced to pay a fine of one shilling, and be imprisoned in Newgate twelve months.'

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 Gambling 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. The following is a curious case in point. A gentleman of the highest standing and greatest respectability was accosted by a stranger to whom he said--`Sir, you have the advantage of me.' `Oh!' rejoined the former, `don't you remember when we used to meet at certain parties at Bath many years ago?' `Well, sir,' exclaimed the gentleman, `you may speak to me should you ever again meet me at certain parties at Bath, but nowhere else.'

Partners: