And bids Destruction walk the dreadful round.

Though stranger long to Britain's ifle, Propitious deign at length to smile; At length propitious deign to turn afar The horrid edge of wide-destroying war. Britain, with native blood distain'd, Implores at length thy saving hand; While war licentious spreads the ample plain

With blood and dust, and mountains of the flain.

From the fair mansions of the sky, Where thou, enthron'd, dost fit on high; Goddess, defcend! tho' of celestial birth, Revisit, once again, the sons of earth.

For thee, at first, th' Almighty Power, Call'd forth in the creating hour, Bade jarring elements their difcord ceafe, And anarch chaos yield the throne to peace. Defcend, bright Power, and bring with Thy well-belov'd, fair Liberty; And Plenty blithe, that 'midit thy fhining train

thee

ABRAHAM Darnford and William

Newton were indicted for a robbery committed on the pertot. of James Watts, Clerk to Meffrs. Smith, White, and Grey, bankers. Mr. Silvester was Countel for the profecution, and painted in pretty ftrong colours, the confpiracy of the prifoners to rob, if not also to murder, the Cierk. He lamented that religious fcruples should prevent the Clerk from taking an oath, and appearing to give evidence him felf, ftill he trufted, that the law would not be robbed of its victims on that account, as there was evidence fufficient to convict the prisoners independent of the Clerk's.

James Watts was called, Mit refused to take an oath. Judge Buller reafoned with him a long time; but it was in vain that he obferved, that an affirmation and an oath were fubftantially the fame, both being appeals to God, and differing only in form. In vain he told the young man, that, laft fummer, five very respectable Quakers had been induced, by this mode of reafoning, to take oaths before him in the Court of King's Bench: the young man modeftly replied, that he was a Quaker; that, according to the principles of his faith, he could not take an oath of any kind; for the exprefs words of Christ were, Swear not at all.'

The next person called was Southby, a Clerk in the fame house with Watts. Luckily he was not a Quaker, and was fworn. He proved that the prisoner, Darnford, had applied to him in the compting house, to request that he would call at No. 21, Water-lane, Blackfriars, on the 5th of August, for the payment of a bill of 371. 10s. which would become due that day; his reason for making this request was, he faid, that he was going into the country for a short time, during which the bill would become payable He proved Jikewife, that, on the 5th of August in the morning, James Watts went out with a pocket-book, containing notes to the amount of 4000l.; he produced the pocket book, and fwore that it was the property of Meffrs. Smith, White, and Grey. It appeared, on the teftimony of other witneffes, that the prifoners had got the key of the house, No. 21, Water-lane, had examined the premises, given half guinea earnest, and taken the key with

3

a

them, faying, that in a few days they

would return and give their final answer about the house. The owner, not getting the key in return, defired Mrs. Boucher, who lives directly oppofite the house, to fend word as foon as the should fee any people go into it.

Mrs. Boucher proved, that on the 5th of August, about three quarters before nine o'clock, she saw the two prifoners go into the house, and at nine she saw another man come up to the door; he knocked, and was instantly let in: in lefs than a minute the heard a cry of Murder, and immediately she ran to the door, and, looking through the key-hole, faw the three men ftruggling. She instantly flew to the parlour-window, threw it up, and, getting about half-way in, she saw in the passage, the parlour-door being open, the prifoner Darnford holding the Clerk by the collar, and the prifoner Newfon put his hand into his pocker, and forcibly pull out the pocket book. Newton, seeing Mrs. Boucher, immediately dropped the book, and, opening the door, endeavoured to escape, but was taken, before he could get out of her fight, by a carman. She herself feized the other prifoner, and held him. She saw and handled the pocket-book at the time; Southby, the first witness, produced one, which the swore was the identical pocket-book that Newton took from James Watts.

Payne the conftable proved, that on the kitchen-stairs two doors had been made, one near the bottom, the other about halfway down; that both were so ttrong, that it would be impoffible for any man, once enclosed between them, to free himself without help; and that it would be almost as difficult for him to make himself heard, because the stair-cafe ran through the middle of the house, between the front and back parlour.

Another witness proved, that no such doors were on the stairs, when the prisoners took away the key; so that it might be prefumed, that knowing the Clerk would call on the 5th, and that it was extremely probable, that he would have cash to a confiderable amount about him, they had contrived this dark prifon to lock him up in, after they should have robbed him. Whether they had killed him before they should shut him in, or not, would be a matter of little little consequence, as, in all probability, he would have perished in this hole before any affistance could be given to him.

Mr. Morgan, Counsel for Darnford, refted his defence in points of law. He contended, that as, in order to constitute a robbery, the party robbed must have beep put in dread and fear, so no person but the party himself could prove this circumftance. He argued likewise, that it was impossible to infer justly, from the evidence given in, that force had been made ufe of; for though the parties were seen struggling, and the book had been absolutely taken, yet it was fair to prefume, that fome misunderstanding having arisen about their own bill, which the Clerk was come to get paid, the prisoners had endeavoured to take by force what he might have been unwilling to deliver up by fair means: this prefumption, he contended, ought to have its full weight for the prifoners, as no evidence had been given to overturn it.

He argued also, that, according to the itatute, robberies committed in houses, unless some person belonging to the family had been put in dread and fear, did not take away the benefit of Clergy. The house was described in the indictinent the house of Elifabeth Brown,' when it was clear from the evidence that it was then the property of the prisoners. He insisted alfo, that the charge against them, even if proved, did not come within the statute that made a robbery committed near the King's highway' the fame as a highway robbery. In his opinion therefore, the indictment was not fupportable, and consequently ought to be quashed.

The Court however, though it admitted the ingenuity of Mr. Morgan's reasoning, by no means concurred with him in opinion. Mr. Buller faid, that it was not necessary in law that the party robbed should himself prove that he had been put in fear; if he had fince died, the crime might fill be brought home. He observed that the struggle in the passage was an indication of force; and that, the book not having been taken out before the struggle began, it was highly probable that the conteft on the part of the prisoners was not merely to get poffeffion of their own bill. With refpect to the description of the house in the indictment, it was of consequence, for it was a matter of indifference where the robbery had been committed. This he proved by several cases from the Law books,

no

Mr. Justice Gould obferved, that the

cry of murder sufficiently excited force on the one ide, and fear on the other, the two elfentials to conftitute the robbery. The struggle could not have been made on the part of the prisoners for the recovery of their own note, because it was clear that not a minute had elapfed from tlie time the door had been opened, till the cry of murder was heard by Mrs. Boucher. As for the argument crawn from the statutes, that some one belonging to the family must be put in fear, in order to conftitute a robbery without benefit of Cl.rgy, it was grounded on a wrong interpretation : for the ftatute in that instance had only in view the preservation of property or chattels belonging to the house, but did not in the least advert to property on the perfon of a stranger in, but not belonging to, the house. That this was a juft interpretation appeared from the cafe of Lowe in the year 1705, when a special verdict was found, that Jasper Howard had been knocked down in a public-house in Smithfield, and robbed of 131. The indictment was laid for a robbery near the King's highway; the Judges, to whom the cafe was referred, were all of opinion, that it was not a robbery near the King's highway; but they also were unanimous, that it was a robbery without benefit of Clergy. This he faid was a oafe in point: and proved that the defcription near the King's highway' was not necessary in the indictment; and confequently that it was no flaw. The fame decifion of the Judges proved that it was immaterial where, or in whose house, the crime was committed; it was a capital felony; and therefore Mr. Morgan could not avail himself of the circumstance that the house in question was the house of the prisoners, and not of the perfon to whom the indictment supposed it to belong.

Mr. Morgan produced evidence to the character of Darnford; and indeed it was matter of surprise how fuch a man could ever have been guilty of fuch a crime; for, by the evidence of fifteen respectable witneffes, it appeared that he bore a molt excellent character. Some knew him for eleven, some for fifteen, fome for twenty years and all agreed that he had hitherto led a moft irreproachable life; nay, one old Gentleman went fo far as to say, that he looked upon Dainford's character as the beit in his parish. The other prifoner got alfo a good character from his witnesses. Mr. Juftice Buller fummed up, and obferved, that the character of the prifoners oughs

Uz