Joseph Wall, the unfortunate subject of the following trial, was the scion of a very respectable Irish family, and was the eldest son of Garrett Wall, Esq., of Derryknavin. He was born in 1737, and entered the British army at an early age. He was a brave and honourable man, but of a severe and rather unaccommodating temper, and was not popular among the officers and men, though he rapidly advanced in his profession, having obtained early promotion for the gallantry he displayed at the reduction of the Havannah in 1762. It was while Lieut.-Colonel and Governor and Commandant of Goree, an island on the coast of Africa, that he committed the offence which brought him to the scaffold—viz., the murder of one Benjamin Armstrong, by ordering him to receive eight hundred lashes on the 10th July, 1782, of which he died in five days afterwards. Wall’s emoluments were, at the time, very considerable, as, besides his military appointments, he was Superintendent of Trade to the colony. His family was Roman Catholic, but, according to the exigency of the then penal laws, he had to conform to Protestantism, to enable him to hold his commission.

Some time after the account of the murder of Armstrong reached the Board of Admiralty, a reward was offered for Wall’s apprehension, who had come to England, and he was taken. He, however, contrived to escape while in custody at Reading, and fled to the Continent, and sojourned there, sometimes in France and sometimes in Italy; but mostly in France, under an assumed name, where he lived respectably and was admitted into good society. He particularly kept company with the officers of his own country who served in the French army, and was well known at the Scotch and Irish colleges in Paris. He now and then incautiously ventured into England and Scotland. While thus, at one time in Scotland, he made a high match. He wedded a scion of the great line of Kintail—viz., Frances, fifth daughter (by his wife, Lady Mary Stewart, daughter of Alexander, sixth Earl of Galloway) of Kenneth MacKenzie, Lord Fortrose, M.P., and sister of Kenneth, last Earl of Seaforth. Wall came finally to England in 1797. He was frequently advised by the friend who then procured him a lodging to leave the country again, and questioned as to his motive for remaining; he never gave any satisfactory answer, but appeared, even at the time when he was so studiously concealing himself, to have a distant intention of making a surrender, in order to take his trial. It is very evident his mind was not at ease, and that he was incapable of any firm resolution either one way or the other. Even the manner in which he did at last surrender himself showed a singular want of determination, as he left it to chance whether the Minister should send for him or not; for rather than go and deliver himself up, he wrote to say “he was ready to do so”—a less becoming, but not a less dangerous mode of encountering danger. His high-born wife showed him throughout his troubles the greatest devotion: she was with him in Upper Thornhaugh Street, Bedford Square, where he lived under the name of Thompson when he was apprehended. It is most probable that, had he not written to the Secretary of State, the matter had been so long forgotten, that he would never have been molested; but once he was in the hands of the law, the Government had but one obvious course, which was to bring him to trial. This was accordingly done, and the judicial investigation took place, at the Old Bailey on the 20th January, 1802. The judges who presided were—The Right Hon. Sir Archibald MacDonald, Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer; the Hon. Sir Soulden Lawrence, one of the justices of the Court of King’s Bench; and the Hon. Sir Giles Rooke, one of the justices of the Court of Common Pleas.

The counsel for the Crown were the Attorney-General, Sir Edward Law (afterwards Lord Ellenborough and Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench); the Solicitor-General, the Hon. Spencer Percival (afterwards First Lord of the Treasury, and, while so, assassinated by Bellingham); Mr. Wood (afterwards Sir George Wood and a baron of the Exchequer); Mr. Plumer (afterwards Sir Thomas Plumer, and successively Vice-Chancellor of England and Master of the Rolls); Mr. William Fielding (afterwards a metropolitan police-magistrate, son of Henry Fielding, the novelist); and Mr. Abbott (afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench and Lord Tenterden).

The counsel for the defence were Mr. Knowlys (afterwards Recorder of London), Mr. Gurney (afterwards Sir John Gurney, a baron of the Exchequer), and Mr. Alley.

The indictment was opened by Mr. Abbott; and while he was stating the charge, the prisoner from the dock said to the Chief Baron, “My lord, I cannot hear in this place; I hope your lordship will permit me to sit near my counsel.” In which the Chief Baron replied, “It is perfectly impossible; there is a regular place appointed by law—I can make no invidious distinctions.”

The Attorney-General stated the case for the prosecution in a remarkably able and lucid speech, which so fully details the whole horrible affair, that I cannot do better than give the greater portion of it. After a few preliminary remarks on the nature of the crime, the Attorney-General’s address proceeded as follows:—

“Gentlemen of the jury,—The crime imputed to the prisoner I have stated to you to be murder; the prisoner is charged, upon the present indictment, with the murder of a person of the name of Benjamin Armstrong, who was a soldier and serjeant in the garrison at Goree, of which the prisoner at the bar was, at the time of Armstrong’s death, the commander and governor. The circumstances that led to the punishment which was the cause of the death of this person it will be for me presently to state to you; and it will be for me, after I have so done, to discuss in some manner that which is the probable, and which is not only the probable, but which, from circumstances antecedent, I know to be the actual, ground of defence which the prisoner will rely upon before you for his deliverance this day.

“Gentlemen, Mr. Wall was, in the year 1782, commandant of the garrison of Goree, which is an island upon the coast of Africa; he had under him in command there a Captain Lacy, who afterwards succeeded him in the command of that garrison; he had under him, likewise, a Lieutenant Fall, a Lieutenant O’Shanley, an Ensign Ford, and Ensign Deering; these, with Major Phipps, an officer of artillery, were, I believe, all the military officers then at the place—at least, it does not occur to me, at present, to mention any other military officer as then being there.

“The circumstances of the case now before us, you will recollect, arose in the year 1782; the 10th of July, 1782, is the time when that death was occasioned which is imputed to the prisoner at the bar as murder. The prisoner returned to this country in the month of August, 1782; he was apprehended for this offence in the month of March, 1784, under a warrant from the Privy Council. You will bear in mind, gentlemen, that most of the persons who, in respect to their local and official situations, were the most material witnesses to establish his innocence—if innocent he be—were living, and within the reach of process from the criminal courts of this country, and might have been then brought forward to establish his vindication, if, by such evidence, he felt that he could have been vindicated from the charge now under your consideration.

“In the year 1782, this gentleman had a garrison under his command, as I have stated, in which there were the several officers whose names and whose commissions I have already mentioned; I believe the whole military force under his command consisted of at least 140 or 150 men. The garrison had been, for some time prior to the period at which he announced, in public orders, that he was about to depart from the garrison (and which departure was so announced as immediately about to take place on the 11th of July), put under short allowance in point of provisions. That measure was, I presume, adopted from fair and proper reasons of prudence and probable necessity. The men who had been put under such short allowance, and who were thus restricted in point of supply, in the articles of usual and necessary consumption, with a view to general convenience and the eventual safety of the garrison, and in order merely that the existing stock of provisions might last out till a farther supply might arrive, were at all times very properly allowed some compensation of a pecuniary kind, on account of their reduced allowance in point of actual provisions. The gentleman at the bar had announced his departure, as I stated before, for the 11th of July; there was also about to depart, at the same time, with him for England, the ensign of the name of Deering, the paymaster of the garrison. In the hands of that person were, of course, these stoppages, and these stoppages were usually commuted with the men, and compensation made to them on account thereof, either in money or in that which was, for the purpose of supplying their immediate necessities, equivalent to money—that is to say, articles of convenient barter and truck at that place. When Ensign Deering, the paymaster, upon whom the garrison had demands for their short provisions, was so about to depart, the garrison was, of course, anxious that their account with him might be settled; and as the period of his departure drew so near, it will be given you in evidence that a considerable number of the soldiers who had demands of this kind had resorted to the house where the paymaster lived, in order to obtain the payment of them. For what reason Governor Wall mixed himself in the consideration of these short allowances—what personal reasons he might have to interpose himself between these men and the application for a settlement and adjustment of the claims made by them on this account, I am not apprised—at least, I shall not suggest any to you. The application was made, as I have stated, by those persons in considerable numbers; they resorted to the house of Mr. Deering, and were desirous of having satisfaction for their pay before he should leave the island, which was to be on the day following. After that period a vast ocean would separate them from their debtor; and, considering the precariousness of human life, and particularly in that unhealthy settlement, if they did not press their demand at that period, it is possible they might not be in a situation afterwards to urge it with any beneficial effect to themselves.

“Upon their coming in a considerable number, as you will have it in evidence, towards the house of the paymaster, and when, in doing so, they passed by the governor’s house (who lived in the way to the paymaster’s), and were going on to the paymaster’s, it appears that Governor Wall came out, and with language of some anger reprehended the men for resorting to the house of the paymaster upon this occasion, and ordered them, with some menaces of punishment, to go away; the men, as it is stated to me, and as I shall lay it before you in evidence, retired dutifully upon this admonition. About an hour and a-half afterwards, several persons came; whether they were the same who came before I know not, but one of them was the deceased Armstrong, whose death, and the causes of whose death, are alone now in question before you,—I say alone, for I would wish and desire you to lay out of your consideration any circumstances which point at the supposed death of any person. If you happened to be in court, and heard any indictments read, upon any former occasion, which were applicable to the deaths of any other persons, I request you to lay that matter wholly out of your attention; for we are to confine our attention merely to the circumstances and cause of the death of Armstrong, and no other circumstances will be gone into but such as are immediately connected, in point of fact, with the death of that person. If, indeed, subsequent transactions connecting and inseparably mixing themselves with matters which respect the deaths of other persons should necessarily, in point of fact, make a part of our proof in respect to the charge now before you, these facts are not shut out from us, in point of legal use and application, because they may conduct to, or in themselves make a part of, the proof of any other substantive crime conjointly with the present: but no substantive crime, except the one charged in the indictment, and which you are sworn to try, can come immediately and properly under your consideration for the purpose of affecting the prisoner upon this occasion.

“Gentlemen, I have stated the appearance of the soldiers upon their first application. Upon a second application to the paymaster for their pay, Armstrong (the deceased) appeared with the persons who were making that application. Governor Wall came out to them again from his house, and I do not think that, upon this occasion, he used the language of menace which he did before, but he spoke to the deceased Armstrong; and Armstrong, as it will be given you in evidence, by a person who had the best means of knowing and seeing all that passed, being the orderly serjeant immediately attendant upon the person of the governor the whole of that day, this person of the name of Armstrong, so far from behaving in any undutiful and disrespectful manner, or from manifesting any disregard to the command of his lawful superior, pulled off his hat, and bowed with all proper deference to him; and then, without entering into any contest as to the right to make the application they were about to make, having merely stated that they came there in order to settle with the paymaster, upon receiving an intimation from the governor that what they were doing ought not to be done, he respectfully retired; and from that period (if there be truth in the evidence I have to lay before you) till the period of the punishment which was afterwards on that day inflicted upon Armstrong, and which punishment is charged to have been the cause of his death, there did not exist in the place the least symptom of tumult, discontent, riot, disorder, or anything that bore the appearance of mutiny, or disobedience to the lawful commands of a military superior....

“The application for pay was made in the morning by the soldiers to the paymaster, who was about to depart; there was an interval, respecting which it will certainly be incumbent upon Governor Wall to give some account in evidence, and to show that it did not entirely pass in tranquillity and quiet. Why, if there was anything that required investigation, was it not filled up and occupied, as far as it might be, by some forms of trial? Upon this subject there is an entire silence. We hear nothing with respect to these men, or to any transaction in the island in which Governor Wall is concerned, till the evening or towards the evening of that day. Somewhere towards six o’clock, I think, it will be in evidence that the drum beat what they called ‘the long roll,’ which was for calling the soldiers upon the parade. The orderly serjeant who attended Governor Wall will state to you that this was beat by Governor Wall’s direction; the men who immediately attended were ordered to fall into their ranks as they were, unarmed; several in their jackets, as they happened to be, without waiting for that preparation in point of dress which would have fitted them for their ordinary appearance upon the parade upon any other occasion; they were then ordered to form a circle upon the parade, Captain Lacy, Lieutenant Fall, Ensign Ford, and Lieutenant O’Shanley being present. The circle being formed, the witnesses will state that some conversation passed, in their presence, between the officers, there being, I think, at the same time, brought forward upon the parade a gun-carriage, and persons attending to perform the office which was presently afterwards performed by them.

“After a short communication (a few words only having passed) between the governor and the officers assembled there, whom I have already mentioned, this man, Armstrong, was ordered by Governor Wall to be stripped. He was accordingly stripped, and was then tied to the gun-carriage; black men came forward—not the persons who usually apply military punishment, but black men came forward—and began to inflict the punishment which was ordered; they changed about, each took his turn; each, I think, inflicting twenty-five lashes, till the number of eight hundred lashes had been completely inflicted upon the body of this unfortunate person. Punishments of this sort are usually inflicted by drummers or other soldiers of the regiment. It was in this instance, you observe, inflicted by black men ordered to attend there for that purpose; and this punishment was not inflicted with the usual instrument with which military punishments are inflicted, which is a cat-o’-nine-tails, formed, as I understand, of a log line of about one-eighth of an inch in thickness, but with a rope of one inch in diameter; one of the very ropes used on the occasion, or one at least exactly resembling it, but I believe one of the ropes themselves (and from circumstances I have little reason to doubt its identity), will be exhibited to you in evidence. During the time of inflicting this punishment, I am instructed it will be proved to you that Governor Wall urged these black men to the performance of their task in language which it will be enough for you to hear once from the mouths of the witnesses; very harsh expressions are stated to have been used by him, some of which I would gladly be spared the mention of, that he several times called out “Cut him to the heart! Cut him to the liver!” that Armstrong begged for mercy, and that Governor Wall then said that the sickly season was coming on and that this punishment would do for him. That after receiving a great number of lashes Armstrong was conducted to the hospital; that he was in a situation which made it probable that his death would be the consequence of what he had suffered. Accordingly, at periods some time subsequent, you will hear that he made declaration, which, if they appear to be (and which will be a question for the judgment of their lordships) declarations made under the expectation and belief of an immediately impending dissolution, and with that solemn consciousness of duty which belongs to that awful situation, a situation which places the mind under sanctions at least tantamount in point of obligation to tell the truth, to what are impressed upon it by the solemnity of a judicial oath; you will in that case hear, as proceeding from this man, a declaration that he expected his death, and that he had been punished without any form of trial, and without having committed any offence whatever; this evidence, under the circumstances I have supposed, will be undoubtedly competent, and if it comes under those views, I shall be able to lay it before you.

“After this punishment had been inflicted upon Armstrong—I will not, however, travel into circumstances which relate to any other person; I close the business of the punishment, as far as respects Governor Wall, here. On the next day, as he had announced his intention to do, Governor Wall, together with Ensign Deering, the paymaster, an officer who is not now living, and Major Phipps, took his departure for England.

“There may be circumstances—it will be for Governor Wall to show that such circumstances existed—which may constitute a sufficient, adequate, and full defence for a military officer in the infliction of punishment without either a general or a regimental court-martial; for if there be that degree of imminent necessity which supersedes the recourse to any ordinary tribunal, if there be actually existing that flagrant mutiny which must either be suppressed by force, and by the immediate though irregular application of severe punishment, or must be left to rage uncontrolled at the utmost peril of public safety, that which I was just now pronouncing to be irregular becomes, if the more regular and appropriate course of proceeding in such cases cannot be resorted to, itself regular and capable of being justified upon every principle of public duty; for it imports the public safety that the means of resisting an enormous and over-bearing evil should be as strong, sudden, and capable of application as the evil itself is capable of immediate mischievous effect, and if this has been the case here it will carry its own justification with it.

“Gentlemen, upon this occasion, therefore, it will be most important for the prisoner to establish that there existed, in point of fact, a mutiny. When he has established in point of fact (if he can do so) that there existed a mutiny, if he can go farther and show that the ordinary modes of trial could not be resorted to, and that upon conference with the officers, that which on the emergency was thought best to be done was done, and that there was no wanton abuse of power in the infliction of punishment, the prisoner will be entitled to go quit of the charge made upon him by this indictment. But if, instead of that, it should appear to you that there existed no crime in the deceased, that there was, in fact, no trial of him, where trial might have been had if crime had existed; if it shall appear to you that there was not only neither crime nor trial, but that, in addition to the absence of both crime and trial, there was much malignity of motive influencing the conduct of this gentleman to impute crime and to deny trial to this unhappy sufferer, I am afraid the contrary of that conclusion to which I was just now leading you must, in the proper discharge of your duty, become to....

“If the prisoner can make out such a defence, if he can make out substantially the crime of mutiny, I should be sorry to press him with the non-observance of any of the minor forms of trial, that is, supposing that there existed the crime of mutiny, and that the crime was announced to the party charged therewith, and that he had any opportunity for his defence against it. But if there existed no crime, if none was charged at the time, if a silence is observed by the prisoner respecting the existence of any such crime at the time when, upon his return, he should have announced both it and the rigorous measures he had been obliged to adopt thereupon, to those to whom he was immediately accountable for the conduct of his government; if you find, in contradiction to the idea of any supposed mutiny, that he ventured to withdraw himself from his government at a moment when it would have been in violation of every duty which he owed his Majesty’s service as a soldier and an officer so to have done, if a mutiny so dangerous as to supersede the necessary forms of law had existed on the very eve of his departure, and might be supposed not to have been even then fully suppressed, he will, in that case, have a difficult task of defence thrown upon him. If, however, he can, upon the whole, give reasonable evidence of delinquency on the part of the person upon whom this punishment was executed, and a reasonable degree of necessity for executing it at the time and in the manner and way in which it was executed, God forbid, not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the discipline of the army and for the safety of us all, which in some degree depends upon the due enforcement of order and obedience in every department of public service, God forbid that a hair of his head should be touched. But if, after all, the charge of mutiny shall evidently appear to you to be but a pretence brought forward to cover a malicious and unauthorised act on his part at the time when it was done; and if, from all the concomitant circumstances, if, from circumstances immediately consequent upon the act at the time of his return—if, from his flight shortly after that period, and his not proceeding to trial when the witnesses, who he would have you to believe could have spoken immediately and effectually to his justification, were living and capable of being produced—if from these and other circumstances your minds shall be induced to form a conclusion wholly adverse to the prisoner; and if the facts shall fairly warrant you in so doing, however painful the result may be to the prisoner at the bar, his relatives, and friends; however painful the steps which lead to such result may be to the feelings of those who are now urging the demands of public justice against him; however painful it may be, more especially to you, gentlemen, upon whose verdict, as a jury of the country, that result will immediately depend—it is still my duty to ask, and your duty to give, that verdict which the facts of the case, and the due application of the law of the country to such facts may require, and to find him guilty of the crime charged upon him, if, in the conscientious discharge of the solemn function cast upon you, you are warranted and required so to do. It will give me great satisfaction if he is able to establish that there existed in this case such circumstances as will make the crime with which he is charged not entitled to be denominated and considered as murder.”

The evidence adduced (of which I need only give some material points) bore out faithfully this opening statement of the Attorney-General, and was in nowise shaken by the able and severe cross-examination of the counsel for the defence.

Evan Lewis, the first witness called, stated that he was the orderly-sergeant at Goree on the 10th July, and that the men in their application behaved peaceably. He thus described the actual flogging of Armstrong:—

Were any orders given them when they came upon the parade?—Lewis: They were ordered to form into a circle.

Who ordered them?—I do not know whether it was Governor Wall that gave the order, or one of the officers. Governor Wall was there.

I think you said Captain Lacy was there?—He was.

Do you remember the names of any other officers that were there?—Mr. Ford was there, I believe, and Lieut. Fall and Lieut. O’Shanley were there also; I believe they were there before the end of the business; I do not know whether they were there at the beginning.

Did they form any part of the circle?—They were in the middle of it.

What size was the circle?—It was but small; there were not three hundred men there.

Was it formed one or two deep?—To the best of my recollection, two deep.

Do you know what the number of the whole garrison was at that time?—I believe not three hundred; I am almost sure it was not.

What situation were you in?—Close to the circle on the outside.

Where was the governor?—He was inside.

Were you near enough, were you in such a situation that you could hear what was passing within the circle?—I was; I heard some words that passed.

Could you see what passed?—Yes, very well; I was leaning rather between the men, with my head over, to listen and see.

What did you observe to pass within the circle when it was formed?—There was a carriage of a six-pounder brought in, I believe, just after the circle was formed.

Do you know who brought it in?—There were some blacks there, I saw, but I do not know whether it was they that brought it in or not.

Did you observe anything pass between the officers?—I saw the governor speak to the rest of the officers, but what they said I do not recollect.

Was the gun-carriage brought in before you observed the governor speaking to the officers, or after?—I cannot pretend to say.

Did you hear the governor say anything that you do recollect?—Not to the officers.

To any one else did you hear him speak?—Yes, I heard him call Benjamin Armstrong out of the ranks.

Where was Armstrong at that time?—Among the rest of the men in the circle, in his proper place.

Did he come out?—He did.

What happened when he came out?—He was ordered to strip by Governor Wall, and was tied up to the carriage of the cannon, and Governor Wall ordered him to be flogged, and he was flogged by black men.

Were more than one person employed in it?—There were five or six, to the best of my recollection; I believe six; they changed as the drummers in the army do; I cannot exactly tell how often; I believe about every twenty-five lashes.

Do you recollect how many lashes he received?—No, I do not; he had a great many.

Do you know how long it was about?—I cannot tell.

Were you near enough to see what the instrument was with which he was flogged?—It was a kind of rope.

Can you tell the size of the rope?—No, I cannot pretend to say now.

Was it the usual instrument of punishment?—No, I never saw any one punished before with a rope of that kind, nor by blacks before.

Were these blacks any part of the regiment?—They were not.

Did you ever see anybody punished in that way before, and with such an instrument?—I never did, neither before nor since.

Where was Governor Wall during the time that this punishment was inflicted?—He was in the circle just by the person that was punished, urging them to do their duty, and threatening them if they did not.

Do you recollect any expressions he made use of at the time?—I heard him say several times, “Cut him to the heart! Cut him to the liver!” I heard him say that several times.

Did you hear Armstrong say anything to him during the time the punishment was inflicted?—I believe he begged for mercy, but I do not remember the words.

Did the governor say anything to him?—I heard him say something during the punishment, but I am not certain whether it was to Armstrong or any of the others.

You do not recollect whether the expressions you remember to have heard from the governor were made use of during the punishment of Armstrong, or any other person?—I have not said what you mentioned; what I have said was during the punishment of Armstrong.

What became of Armstrong after the punishment?—I believe he was taken to the hospital between two men; I saw him going away from the circle.

At this time was there any appearance of mutiny or disobedience among the soldiers?—I did not see the least, nor hear of any.

Roger Moore, a private soldier at Goree in 1782, supplied the evidence as to the actual chastisement:—

With what sort of instrument was the punishment inflicted?—Moore: It was a rope.

Did you see the rope?—At a distance.

Could you form any judgment of the size of the rope?—It looked at a distance near upon an inch.

In diameter?—Yes.

Were there any knots in it?—Not that I know or ever heard.

What number of lashes were given?—Armstrong received eight hundred.

How do you know?—I counted them myself.

Lieutenant Poplett, of the African corps, an eyewitness of the flogging, though himself under arrest at the time, was in his evidence asked:—

After the circle had been formed, what did you see done to Armstrong?—Poplett: I saw Armstrong stripped, fastened to a gun-carriage, and flogged on his bare back by several black men, frequently changed, I believe, at every twenty-five lashes.

Can you tell how many lashes were inflicted?—I think eight hundred.

After these lashes were inflicted, what became of Armstrong?—I saw him supported towards the hospital.

Did you observe the rope that he was flogged with?—I did at a distance.

What might the distance be?—About forty yards, on an elevation of eleven feet.

Could you distinctly see what passed?—I could.

What sort of a rope was it that was used?—I can produce one.

Mr. Gurney: Is it the same rope that was used?—I had it on the evening of the 11th from one of the men who used it in the punishment of the 10th.

Mr. Gurney: That will not do.

Mr. Wood: Was it such a rope as that you have got there?—I believe it was.

Mr. Wood: Be so good as to produce that which you have. (The witness produces a rope.)

Mr. Wood: Did you observe whether the rope that was used was knotted at the end in the same manner as that is?—I could not at that distance say positively that it was, but I believe it was.

Is it usual to inflict punishment with a rope like that?—I never saw such a thing done in the army before.

What is the usual instrument of punishment upon those occasions?—A cat-o’-nine-tails composed of small cord; if severe, generally of small log-line; but, if moderate, generally whipcord.

Do you happen to know whether Armstrong had ever been tried or convicted of any offence before this punishment was inflicted?—Not about that time, to my knowledge.

Mr. Peter Ferrick, the surgeon, corroborated the proof as to the punishment, and he was then asked:—

Did you attend this man to the hospital after the punishment had been gone through?—Ferrick: Yes.

How long did he live?—It was done on the 10th, and I think he lived till the 15th.

Did you attend him from day to day after the punishment till his death?—Yes, twice a day.

What do you think was the cause of his death?—I have supposed, from that time to this, that the punishment was the cause of his death.

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald: By “supposed,” do you mean that it is your opinion?—Yes.

Mr. Fielding: You said you did not arrive within the circle till the man was undergoing this punishment; therefore I will simply ask you, if, during the course of that day, or at that time, you saw any appearance of disorderly behaviour, tumultuous or mutinous?—Not the smallest.

Did you know of any?—Not any; I never heard of any till I heard it at the Privy Council the other day.

Were you near Armstrong shortly before the time of his death?—I visited him on the day on which he died.

If there are bruises occasioned by this instrument, is mortification more likely to ensue from that punishment being inflicted with this rope than with a common cat of nine tails?—Certainly; but that is reasoning from experience; I did not know that before.

Then, as a surgeon, looking upon this instrument as likely by its bruises to produce more mischief than a cat of nine tails, I ask what your opinion must necessarily be of a punishment to the extent of eight hundred lashes being inflicted upon a human body, whether the effect is not likely to be attended with death?—It is.

Mr. Justice Rooke: What was this man’s state of health before he received this punishment?—I believe he was in so good a state of health that he was never in my hands at all.

William Rosser, assistant-surgeon, gave the following evidence:—

Was Armstrong brought into the hospital after receiving punishment?—Rosser: He was.

You attended him till his death?—Yes.

Did you ever learn from him before his death that he expected he should die?—Yes; he said that, the minute he came into the hospital, to the men that brought him in.

What did he say?—He said he had been punished, and that he should die, by order of Governor Wall, by black men, without a court-martial; that was what he said when he was brought in first.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gurney:—

He did not drink any spirits in the hospital with your knowledge, I suppose?—No, except the garrison allowance that was brought in.

How much was the garrison allowance?—Half a pint of brandy, or a pint of wine.

He had his garrison allowance while he was in the hospital?—Yes, either half a pint of brandy or a pint of wine each day.

That he had every day?—Yes.

That he drank it?—That I cannot answer for.

He had it?—Yes, and he might drink it.

Did you ever see him leave any?—Indeed, I cannot tell, for I did not examine his bottle.

For anything you know, he did drink it; he had it if he chose?—He had it if he chose.

Had you any reason to see, or to observe, that he hurt himself by drinking any quantity of spirits after he came into the hospital?—I had not.

Mr. Justice Lawrence: Did you at any time see him drink any spirits?—I cannot recollect.

Mr Justice Rooke: Had you any order not to let him drink spirits?—I had not any orders not to let him drink his garrison allowance, for that came into the hospital, and he might do as he thought fit with it.

The prisoner thus spoke in his defence:—

“I shall endeavour to state to your lordships and the gentlemen of the jury in as brief a manner as possible the real facts of the case.

“Finding my health in a very precarious state, I determined, in July 1782, to give up the government of Goree, and return to England. On the 10th of July, I rather think the 11th, but I will confine myself to the 10th, I prepared to embark on board a ship for England to return to Europe; in the morning of the 10th, I had a certificate from the officers of the garrison that the arrears were cleared off, and was perfectly satisfied that the account was settled. On the 10th, about eleven o’clock in the morning, all the men of the corps that were off duty came to the government house; I went out to them; they made a demand of short allowance of provisions that was due to them from Captain Adams; I explained that business to them so fully that I had not a right to pay it, that the men, in a very short time, dispersed and returned to the barracks. About two o’clock in the day they returned again very much intoxicated with liquor, and insisted on having the demand complied with. I expostulated with them for a length of time to no effect, and ordered Sergeant Armstrong to march the men back again to the barracks; he was then in the front, standing with his hat on; he refused, and said “he would be damned if he would until it was settled or the demand complied with.” I ordered the whole of them to face to the left and march off to the barracks; the answer to that was, “they would be damned if they would not immediately break open the stores and satisfy themselves.” Finding them seriously bent upon proceeding to extremities, and having no resource, if they had done so, nearer to me than England, I begged an hour or two to consider of it, and that I would give them an answer. They hesitated for some time, but at length they acquiesced, upon condition that I was not to leave the island till the business was settled. Armstrong then marched the men off without taking any further notice, shouting and making a very great noise, and saying that they had gained the victory.

“When I returned into the government house I sent for the officers of the corps; and in the interval, till the officers arrived, I walked out and was proceeding to the main-guard, to know the state of the garrison, to know if the main-guard were in support of those that were off duty. On my way I met Armstrong, Upton, Patterson, and several more, who told me that I had promised not to quit the island till they were satisfied, and that I should not go to the waterside until then. When I returned to the government house I found the officers there, who all agreed that immediate punishment was necessary to put a stop to the mutiny. I ordered Lieut. O’Shanley to go to the drum-major to desire him to have cats ready when called for. Lieutenant O’Shanley returned and reported to me that the drum-major had told him that the cats had been destroyed, and that I had best get away as soon as I could, for that the men would not suffer any punishment to be inflicted upon any one of them, inasmuch as they were all agreed.

“Captain Lacy then proposed punishing them by the linguist and his assistants, which was acquiesced in by the other officers; from the time of the soldiers departing it took up some time, till about four o’clock, when I told Captain Lacy that I would go down to the main-guard and have the mutineers brought upon the parade, and for him to come down with the linguist and his assistants as soon as he found the ring formed, that the people at the barracks might not be alarmed at knowing they were going to receive punishment. Immediately upon the parade being formed, the officers arrived, and the circle was formed; Captain Lacy, Lieutenant Fall, Lieutenant O’Shanley, and Mr. Ferrick, the surgeon, were on the parade in a very short time after. When I came upon the parade I asked the men if they had any claim to make upon me. A man, whose name I do not recollect, came forward and said he had, of the short allowance money that was due to him from Governor Adams. I then called upon Armstrong, he having no claim whatever, to account for his mutiny; when Armstrong was standing forward, Ensign Ford came running to me from the main-guard to inform me that the man that was confined was breaking from his arrest and was coming to the parade. I asked the ensign if he could not confine him; he told me he could not; that his guard would not obey him. Seeing there was no time to be lost to put a stop to it, I went off myself to the main-guard, and left Captain Lacy in charge of the parade. Upon the soldier seeing me coming he retired behind the guard that was turned out, in a manner as if he expected to be supported by the guard; but upon seeing me coming up to him, he was retiring, and I forced him into the guard-house. I was following him into the guard-house to see him well secured, when the sentry at the door clapped his bayonet to my breast and desired me to keep off, saying that I should not enter. I struck the bayonet out of his hand and put him prisoner with the other, and after having reprimanded the guard for disobedience of Ensign Ford’s orders, I returned to the parade. I ordered the artillery to be on the parade this evening, as I was afraid of the African corps; it was a circumstance which never happened in the garrison—the artillery being upon the parade at a punishment of the African corps—before.

“Upon my coming upon the parade I ordered Capt. Lacy, Lieut. Fall, and Lieut. O’Shanley to form a court-martial. Mr. Ferrick was at this time upon the parade. Armstrong was brought forward and charged by me with the mutiny; but as I did not choose to take away their lives I chose to try them by a regimental court-martial; and indeed I had it not in my power to form any other. Whilst Captain Lacy and Lieutenant O’Shanley were trying Armstrong, I was outside the circle; Captain Lacy came to me and reported that the court had sentenced Armstrong to receive eight hundred lashes. I returned into the circle and told the prisoner the sentence of the court-martial, which was, that he was to receive eight hundred lashes, to be inflicted by the linguist and his assistants with a small rope’s end, which is a small cord that was produced upon the parade by the linguist and shown to the surgeon before Armstrong had felt it. The surgeon approved of the cord, by saying it was not so bad as a cat-of-nine-tails. The punishment was then inflicted upon Armstrong; there was no other mode of punishment in the garrison; the African corps never had a halberd delivered to them; tying the person to the timbers of a six-pounder was the usual mode. Armstrong received his punishment and walked away with little appearance of concern, and with very little appearance of punishment. I beg to know, my lord, if I am to go further with respect to the other people?”

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald: “No, we have only this single case before us at present.”

Prisoner: “Armstrong, on the evening he was taken to the hospital, drank spirituous liquors, so as to be intoxicated. The day after this punishment, the sickly season advancing fast, I thought it was necessary for the preservation of my life to get away, the climate being very bad, and I having been for a length of time before very ill. I arrived in England some time in August in the same year. Upon my arrival at the Secretary of State’s office, I found there had been a number of charges exhibited against me by Captain Crawford, then a lieutenant of the African corps, and Mr. ——. These charges upon trial about ten months after appeared to be totally groundless, and Captain Crawford was reprimanded highly by his Majesty for presuming to bring such charges against me; many of the other charges were found groundless, and very much exaggerated. As soon as the inquiry into these charges was over, I went down to Bath, and heard nothing farther, either of the punishment of the men, nor anything concerning them, until two messengers came down to me at Bath. The man who was the chief messenger told me he came down on a message to me from Lord Sidney. I asked him, in the presence of two people, if he had a warrant; he said he had not, yet I suspected that he had a warrant. I told him, ‘I will comply with my Lord Sidney’s command immediately.’ I sent to the Bear Inn for a post coach and four horses, and I and the two messengers got into it quickly. We travelled three miles out of town, and I stopped the coach, as I had occasion for a person that was then in Bath to be in town, and I sent for this person; we then proceeded on our way to London. I paid the expenses of the carriage: I paid the dinner bill at Marlborough, and when we came to Reading I ordered supper in the usual way. I did not think it was absolutely necessary for me to tell the messengers I was going away. I left Reading about eleven o’clock at night, nor did I absolutely know what the charges were. I did not know whether they called it an arrest or not when the business took place; and from the persecution I had met with before, I thought it was dangerous to appear at that time; for all the newspapers were full of false paragraphs, some of them asserting that I had fired men from the mouths of cannon; others, that I had additional means of punishment added to the ropes with which the men were punished. It terrified me so that I could not face it till I thought men’s minds were cool to listen to the truth without prejudice. This is all that I have to say. I am here now to answer for it, and I commit myself to the protection of your lordships and of the gentlemen of the jury.”

Several witnesses were called for the defence, the principal of whom was Mrs. Lacy, widow of the Captain Lacy, who was with Wall at the flogging of Armstrong; and certainly, if her evidence was to be taken, the conduct of the men, with Armstrong at their head, was riotous and mutinous. Part of her examination was as follows:—

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald: Who headed these men the first time?—I do not know; but the second time I perfectly recollect it was Armstrong.

Mr. Knowlys: But whoever they were, they addressed themselves to the governor, and he answered them?—Yes; they addressed themselves to the governor and demanded the short allowance due from Governor Adams.

Do you recollect what he said to them?—I think it was to return to their barracks and give him time to consider of it.

Then he did this in person, not by any messenger?—No, in person.

Did they go away to their barracks at the desire of their governor?—They did.

After they had gone this first time, did you see them come again?—I did; in about an hour and a half’s time they came again.

In what way did they come then, and to what number?—They came headed by Sergeant Armstrong, Upton, and Patterson; and these were the chief of the African corps, to about seventy or eighty in number.

In what way did they come?—They came in a most riotous and mutinous manner.

Were they apparently sober?—From their manner one would not suppose that they were.

Did you see them before they reached the government house?—I saw them at the time they came there.

State everything you saw pass.—I heard them swear that if the governor did not satisfy their demands they would open the stores and satisfy themselves.

Where was the governor at the time they uttered this expression?—He was speaking to them.

How came he to speak to them?—I heard what passed from the soldiers.

At the time they came up, was the governor outside the government house or did he go out to them?—He went out to them.

Did you hear the governor say anything to any particular person in the company? you said Armstrong was one amongst them?—Yes.

Do you recollect Armstrong saying anything to the governor, or he to him?—I heard Armstrong swear that if the governor did not satisfy his demands he would open the stores.

What else passed between Armstrong and the governor?—After the governor spoke to him he went off with the men shouting and making a great noise in every state of mutiny.

Were any orders given by the governor to Armstrong?—I do not know.

Did the governor consent to their staying there in that way?—Certainly not.

What did he say to them about their staying there?—I cannot repeat what the governor said; I heard them behave in a mutinous manner.

Did the governor say anything to them about their staying there or departing from that place?—He ordered them to depart.

When the governor ordered them to depart, what was the answer made by Armstrong or any of the company?—They behaved in a riotous manner.

What answer did they make to him?—They would not for some time; they declared they would break open the stores and supply themselves.

That was the answer they made to the governor’s orders to depart, was it?—It was.

Did Armstrong or any of the company with him say anything about his leaving the island at that time?—They were, I believe, very mutinous for some time before.

Did they say anything about his departing or not from the island?—I do not know. They said they would not let him leave the island till they were satisfied.

Who was the spokesman upon this occasion?—Armstrong, Upton, and Patterson were the three spokesmen.

Did they express their determination in a peaceable and quiet manner, or the contrary?—They spoke it in a most threatening manner.

Was it in an alarming manner?—Indeed it was.

From the conduct and manner which the people observed towards the governor at the time, did you yourself at that time apprehend mischief?—Upon my word, I did.

Upon your oath?—Upon my oath, I did.

It should here be observed on this testimony of Mrs. Lacy, that, if not otherwise exaggerating, she certainly overstated one fact—viz., as to the number of men assembled being seventy or eighty—as none of the witnesses, except Mrs. Faulkner, who came on the same side after her, made them out even up to a third of eighty. Mrs. Lacy was also, in all probability, wrong in positively asserting, against the convincing evidence for the Crown, that the first witness, Lewis, was not the orderly-sergeant, and was not present on the day in question. She was shown to be still more at fault when she stated that her deceased husband was incapacitated in consequence of a coup de soleil from coming forward to exculpate Governor Wall when first apprehended. Mrs. Faulkner, the next witness, even went beyond Mrs. Lacy in describing the violence of the supposed mutiny, and she was much shaken on cross-examination. Her husband, Faulkner, one of the garrison, though testifying to some mutinous behaviour on the part of the men, quite broke down in endeavouring to show that there was a real court-martial. He was asked:—

During the time the officers were inside the ring, what took place?—Armstrong was called forward and asked what he had to say for his own defence; he said nothing; he did not reply at all.

Mr. Justice Rooke: Did they tell him what he was charged with?—By being mutinous.

Mr. Alley: What was said to Armstrong?—Captain Lacy said, “What have you to say for yourself, Armstrong, being in this mutinous affair?”

Did he make any answer?—He made no reply.

Mr. Justice Rooke: Did they tell him what mutinous affair it was?—Stopping the governor from going on board; and threatening to bring his stores on shore if he did not settle with them.

Did Captain Lacy or anybody else say all that to Armstrong?—Yes, Captain Lacy told him.

Now let us hear all Captain Lacy said?—Captain Lacy told him he was tried for stopping the governor from going on board and threatening to bring his stores on shore.

You heard Captain Lacy say this yourself, did you?—Yes, I did. He was then tried by Captain Lacy, Lieutenant Fall, and Lieutenant O’Shanley.

Lord Chief Baron Macdonald: Was there any more trial than telling him he had wished to prevent the governor from going, and that was a mutinous affair? Was there anything more?—There was no more trial.

Then the trial was acquainting him with that and asking him what he had to say for himself?—Yes.

Mr. Alley: Did he say anything for himself?—No, he did not.

Do you recollect whether anything further was said?—Nothing farther was said.

Did you see the surgeon there?—Yes, I did.

Do you recollect anything further that passed at that time?—The surgeon and linguist were both there at the time.

Do you recollect whether any sentence was pronounced?—There was.

What was said?—Captain Lacy told him he was to receive eight hundred lashes by the linguist; he was then tied up and received them; the surgeon was there present the whole time.

In confutation of the last assertion, the surgeon had already stated that he was not present the whole time. The other witnesses for Wall, one of whom was proved not credible on oath, did not carry his case any further. A few respectable witnesses gave him a character for humanity, but their testimony was feeble; and one of them, on cross-examination, would not go so far as to state Wall bore a general reputation of being humane.^[19]

One glaring contradiction to Wall’s line of defence was his own letter to Government on his return from Goree, in which (it was read at the trial) he makes no allusion to any mutiny or riot having occurred. There also remained unanswered the facts that Armstrong had not the shadow of a trial, and that he was punished in a monstrous way, with an unusual instrument and with an excessive number of blows. Upon all this the learned Chief Baron pointedly commented in his lucid summing up, from which I give the following introductory remarks, as most apt and explanatory on the subject of suppressing military and naval mutiny, and on corporal correction in general.

“This case,” said the Chief Baron, “will, gentlemen of the jury, for many reasons, in my apprehension, require your closest and best attention. In the first place, the charge against the prisoner at the bar is the heaviest which our law knows; his life is at stake; and that of itself would, I am sure, be sufficient to excite every degree of care and attention in you; but in other respects it seems to me to be of peculiar importance, for on the one hand, as the Attorney-General has most liberally and most sensibly said, when a well-intentioned officer is at a great distance from his native country, having charge of a member of that country, and it shall so happen that circumstances may arise which may alarm and disturb the strongest mind, it were not proper that strictness and rigour in forms and in matters of that sort should be required, where you find a real, true, and genuine intention of acting for the best for the sake of the public. You see they are in a situation distant from assistance and from advice; in these circumstances, if a man should be so much thrown off the balance of his understanding as not to conduct himself with the same care and attention that any one in the county of Middlesex would be required to do, and does not exceed greatly the just and proper line of his duty, allowances for such circumstances ought unquestionably to be given to him.

“But, on the other hand, it is of consequence, that where a commander is so circumstanced—that is, at a distance from his native country—at a distance from inspection—at a distance from immediate control—and not many British subjects being there—if he shall, by reason of that distance, wanton with his authority and his command, it will certainly be the duty of the law to control that, and to keep it within proper bounds. The protection, therefore, of subjects who are serving their country at that distance, on the one hand, is one of the objects you are to have in view to-day. The protection of a well-intentioned officer—if such he be—who does not by his conduct disclose a malevolent mind, but may disclose human infirmity to a certain extent, who, being in trepidation and alarm of mind, overlooks some things he ought otherwise to have regarded;—such a man’s case is, on the other hand, deserving of great attention....

“I would also mention to you, that in all cases of corporal punishment, as I conceive, where there is lodged a discretion, regard is to be had to the extent of that punishment and to the means of inflicting it; because legitimate punishment may be inflicted in such a manner as to show that the infliction of the punishment was made the ground of wilfully carrying it to an extent and excess that would be attended with the destruction of him who is the object of it. I conceive, for example, that a regimental court-martial, although it is to act by discretion, and is not strictly meted and bounded in the degree of punishment by act of Parliament—nor are many subordinate punishments which are discretionary in other courts—that such tribunals cannot go to any excess that they please, either in the extent of that punishment or in the mode of administering it. I conceive that a regimental court-martial, and those who are to see its sentence put into execution, are bound by the rules which good sense, experience, and humanity point out, as not being so excessive as upon the very face of them to be possibly the means of executing a sentence they could not pronounce, namely, a sentence of death.

“Now, gentlemen, to make this extremely familiar. It is perfectly clear that many persons have authority to correct in a certain degree. A master has to correct his servant. A parent has not only the power, but it is his duty to correct his child; but let me suppose that instead of inflicting five or six strokes with a few birch twigs upon that child, you inflict five or six hundred; although the instrument may be a legal instrument, and cannot be quarrelled with, yet the extreme excess of the quantity may denote an intent to do mischief, not bridled by that which ought to bridle human actions. I will put it likewise that the instrument itself is improper. Suppose, instead of five or six strokes with a rod, you give five or six blows with a cudgel, you would say that was an instrument likely to kill the child, and would be an excess with respect to the instrument itself. So also, I conceive, it is not to go abroad to the world that a court-martial is to inflict an over-great number of strokes with an instrument likely to do much more mischief than the ordinary instrument. It may be that a hundred strokes with a particular instrument may do more mischief than a thousand with the instrument ordinarily used. I take it they are bound to inflict that measure of punishment which has been known ordinarily to be inflicted and borne; and it may be a question whether the quantity be inordinate in proportion to the instrument, that may not be evidence of such malice as may constitute that which would otherwise be justifiable, a murder according to the definition of the law of England.”

The Judge then went elaborately through the evidence; and after he had concluded, the jury went out for some time, and returned with a verdict of “Guilty.”

The Recorder proceeded to pass sentence of death upon Wall, that he should be executed the following morning, and that his body should be afterwards delivered to be anatomised according to the statute.

Mr. Wall seemed sensibly affected by the sentence, but said nothing more than requesting the court would allow him a little time to prepare himself for death.

On the 21st of January a respite was sent from Lord Pelham’s office, deferring his execution until the 25th. On the 24th he was farther respited till the 28th. His wife lived with him for the last fortnight prior to his conviction. He, before trial, although allowed two hours a day, from twelve till two, to walk in the yard, did not once embrace this indulgence; and during his confinement never went out of his room, except into the lobby to consult his counsel. He lived well, and was sometimes in good spirits. He was easy in his manners and pleasant in conversation; but during the night he frequently sat up in his bed and sung psalms, being overheard by his fellow-prisoners. He had not many visitors; his only attendant was a prisoner, who was appointed for that purpose by the turnkey.

After trial he did not return to his old apartment, but was conducted to a cell; he was so far favoured as not to have irons put on, but a person was employed as a guard to watch him during the night, to prevent him doing violence to himself. His bed was brought to him in the cell, on which he threw himself in an agony of mind, saying it was his intention not to rise until they called him on the fatal morning; and he kept his word.

The sheriffs were particularly pointed and precise in their orders with respect to confining him to the usual diet of bread and water preparatory to the awful event. This order was scrupulously fulfilled. The prisoner during a part of the night after sentence slept, owing to fatigue and perturbation of mind. The next morning his wife applied, but was refused admittance without an order from one of the sheriffs. She applied to Mr. Sheriff Cox, who thereupon himself attended her to the prison.

From the time of the first respite until twelve o’clock on Wednesday night, Wall did not cease to entertain hopes of his safety. The interest made to save him was very great. The whole of Wednesday occupied the great law officers; the judges met at the Lord Chancellor’s in the afternoon. The conference lasted upwards of three hours, but ended unfavourably to Wall.

The prisoner had an affecting interview with his wife, the Hon. Mrs. Wall, the night before his death, from whom he was painfully separated about eleven o’clock. This disconsolate and affectionate lady, unremitting in her solicitude, caused Wall to write a note to Mr. Kirby, the jailor, about nine o’clock, requesting that she might be permitted to remain in the cell until eleven, thus cordially manifesting her fond but delusive hopes to the very latest moment. Mr. Kirby, with a feeling of humanity, readily complied with this request. But no tidings of mercy arrived, and at eleven o’clock she saw the end of all her earthly joys. After many tender embraces, the wife reluctantly departed, overwhelmed with grief and bathed in tears, while the unfortunate husband declared that he could now, with Christian fortitude, submit to his unhappy fate. During the greater part of the night he slept but little.

When, the following Thursday morning, Wall ascended the scaffold, accompanied by the Rev. Ordinary, there arose three successive shouts from an innumerable populace, the brutal but determined effusion of one common sentiment, for the public indignation had never been so high since the hanging of Mrs. Brownrigg, who had whipped her apprentices to death.

The wretched Wall bowed his head under this extreme pressure of ignominy, and almost immediately afterwards was, without signal, launched into eternity. After hanging a full hour his body was cut down, put into a cart, and immediately conveyed to a building in Cowcross Street to be dissected. Wall was dressed in a mixed-coloured loose coat, with a black collar, swandown waistcoat, blue pantaloons, and white silk stockings. He appeared a miserable and emaciated object, never having quitted the bed of his cell from the day of condemnation till the morning of his execution.

The body of the unfortunate governor was not exposed to public view as usual in such cases. Mr. Belfour, Secretary to the Surgeons’ Company, applied to Lord Kenyon, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, to know whether such exposure was necessary; and finding that the forms of dissection only were required, the body, after those forms had passed, was consigned to the relations of the unhappy man upon their paying fifty guineas to the Philanthropic Society. The remains were interred in the churchyard of St. Pancras.

The “Gentleman’s Magazine” of 1802 thus refers to the execution of Governor Wall:—

“Thursday, Jan. 28, 1802.—This day Joseph Wall, Governor of the island of Goree, after a trial at the Old Bailey, which occupied the time of the court from nine in the morning till near eleven at night, was, for the wilful murder of Benjamin Armstrong, a sergeant in an African corps, executed pursuant to his sentence. The gallows-hunters behaved with great indecorum, hissing, groaning, and shouting, even to his very last moments. Mr. Wall was six feet four inches high, and of a genteel appearance. He behaved with great steadiness and composure during his long and painful trial, which lasted fourteen hours. He was sixty-five years of age, but did not look so old. He was respectably connected with several families of distinction in Ireland. His brother, Counsellor Wall, was a literary gentleman, who excited great notice in his day, and was the author of several literary productions; but what was most remarkable was, that he was the first person who presumed to publish Parliamentary Reports with the real names of the speakers prefixed. Dr. Johnson (in our Magazine) dressed them in Roman characters; others gave them as Orators in the Senate of Liliput. Mr. Wall laid the foundation of a practice which, we trust, for the sake of Parliament and of the nation, will never be abandoned.”

It is quite clear, from the periodicals and from the squibs and verses about it at the time, that Wall’s execution was approved of by the public, and was looked on as a praiseworthy act of retributive justice.