Seamus Breathnach’s Irish-criminology.

com examines Irish society through its norm-creating as well as its

norm-breaking agencies. These include the Church controls of Ireland’s State -- its Schools, Law, Police,
Courts, Prisons, Media and much more...

15.) Addenda
!
15c.) The Carlow calendar (Book #19)

Irish-criminology.com
(Cursai Coireolaiochta Na h-Eireann)
Created By Seamus Breathnach.

Studies In Irish Criminology: Book 19

15.c. The Carlow Calendar

 The Trial of Arthur Wallace

Tuesday, August 5th 1800 was no ordinary day in Carlow. According to Bernard O’Neill
(Carloviana,1949),

T!h!e! !A!ss!i!z!e!s! !w!e!r!e! !o!n!,! !b!r!i!n!g!i!n!g! !t!o! !t!h!e! !t!o!w!n! !t!h!e! !u!s!u!a!l! !i!n!f!l!u!x! !o!f! !J!u!d!g!e!s!,! !G!r!a!n!d! !J!u!r!y!,! !
" C!a!v!a!l!r!y!,! ! L!i!t!i!g!a!n!t!s!,! !a!n!d! !t!o! !t!h!e! !C!o!u!r!t!h!o!u!s!e!,! !w!h!i!c!h! !i!s! !n!o!w! !t!h!e! !D!e!igh!t!o!n! ! H!a!l!l!,! ! a! !c!r!o!w!d!
" o! !f! !h!i!g!h!l!y! !i!n!t!e!r!e!s!t!e!d! !t!o!w!n!s!p!e!o!p!l!e!,! !f!o!r! !t!h!e! !t!r!i!a!l! !w!h!i!c!h! !o!p!e!n!e!d! t!h!a!t! !d!a!y! !w!a!s! !t!h!a!t! !o!f! !a! "
" f! !e!l!l!o!w!-"! t!o!w!n!s!m!a!n!..

At least one book, The Trial of Arthur Wallace commemorated the day’s events and
recalled how Arthur Wallace was charged committing forgeries upon Carlow’s Post Office.
Understandably, perhaps, there is little or no mention made of Arthur Wallace’s execution.
This unfortunate lacuna was due – in part at least – to the fact that , at the time, the press
in most capital cases said little or nothing of the execution that followed. Furthermore,
while everyone could not afford time-off to watch a prolonged trial, people could witness
for themselves all there was to be seen of an execution. Indeed, coachloads of visitors
from outside the county were known, occasionally, to attend ‘big hangings’.

Apart, therefore, from the judge-of-trial’s solemn pronouncement of the death sentence
and a few lines in the local newspaper mentioning the culprit’s final departure, little by way
of commentary or social- analysis followed the nineteenth-century execution. And the
eighteenth- century execution was even more dismissive! In the case of Arthur
Wallance, people from far and near gathered in Barrack Street, Carlow, to witness the
gruesome event for themselves.

Ever since the mid-eighteenth century the execution of a man after sentence took place
with indecent haste. Under the Murder Act (1752) convicted murderers were to be hanged
within 48 hours of conviction. And the only thing that prolonged this very short stay of
execution in which an appeal might lie, further evidence might be revealed, or the
defendant might get his worldly affairs in order, was the fact that if the execution-date fell
on a Sunday, the execution was put back to the following Monday. The same act also
made provision for the dissection of persons so executed, their bodies to be sent to
surgery for dissection (anatomised).

There were several reasons why executions might not be reported in any great detail.
Even though they were common, they were sometimes spectacular and people sometimes
came in droves from far away to witness them. In so doing, they hardly needed to have the
event described to them again on a newspaper. Apart from the fact that public executions
were plentiful, print was at a premium, spontaneity of action rather than of reflection was
the order of the day, and death had a finality that even defied the Christian insistence to
the contrary. Additionally, there was always the ingredient of ‘good taste’, which prevented
the newspapers, with some exceptions, from indulging in anything beyond a factual
description of an execution, especially where female executions were concerned.

Nevertheless, some anecdotal evidence exists in Arthur Wallace’s case to suggest that he!
!m!a!d!e! !a l!a!s!t-ditch! !e!f!f!o!r!t! !t!o! get free of his captors. According to Bernard O’Neill he used
some unknown ‘ c!o!n!t!r!i!v!a!n!c!e! !o!f! !h!i!s! !o!w!n! !i!n!v!e!n!t!i!o!n’ to escape!. In the absence of a better
account, one suspects that he !suffered an injury while trying to escape – which is why,
perhaps,
he had to be conveyed to the scaffold !i!n Barrack Street! in a !s!e!d!a!n! !c!h!a!i!r!,
where on Augumanner.

A Popular Post Master

So, who was Arthur Wallace?

Arthur Wallace was a small inoffensive, civil, colourful and popular man about town. Born
and educated in county Mayo, he lived with his wife and family in Carlow, where as a
journeyman, he served his time to Mr Reed, the Carlow Apothecary. In time, Arthur
Wallace succeeded his master. His ‘apprenticeship’, it might be recalled, was not
altogether without incident; Mr Reed claimed that he (Wallace) had beendishonest in his
dealings. !W!a!l!l!a!c!e was outraged and suitably retaliated by suing Reed! !f!o!r! !d!e!f!a!m!ing his
character!. The defamation-action failed, thereby putting Wallace to considerable expense.
Notwithstanding his losses, however, it was thought that he emerged unscathed: his name
remained intact, and the action served more to reinforce his personal prestige, than
diminish it. Indeed, Arthur Wallace never looked back. Through his industry, charm, and
forthright attitude, he came to enjoy the confidence of a large and influential coterie of
friends, He came to be described affectionately as a!‘man ‘!o!f! !g!r!e!a!t! !a!d!d!r!e!s!s’.

Some, of course, thought that Arthur Wallace’s popularity was attributable as much to his
enviable wealth and generosity as it had been to his winning charm and character. Several
accounts were given to prove that he had accumulated his wealth long before he ever
entered the service of the Post Office. Accoaffluent circumstances.’! !

" ‘I! !k!n!e!w! !h!i!m! !i!n !J!a!n!u!a!r!y!,! !1!7!9!8! !t!o! !l!e!n!d! !a! !g!e!n!t!l!e!m!a!n! £!5!5!0! !b!e!f!o!r!e! !h!e! !g!o!t! !t!h!e! P!ost Office !;! !i!t!
"! w!a!s! !C!a!p!t!a!i!n! !L!o!f!t!u!s! !o!f! !t!h!e! !9!t!h! !d!r!a!g!o!o!n!s!.’

According to the eminent historian and lawyer, Jonah Barrington, (famous for his Personal
Sketches), Wallace was earning £700 to £900 a year as an apothecary. Barrington, who
was friend to Wallace for some nine years prior to his trial, testified that he became
Wallace’s confidante in financial matters. From this vantage point he said he knew him ‘to
be a romantic’. By this he meant that Wallace’s first marriage to Ms Byrne, a local girl, had
been for love. He described it as a ‘a runaway affair’. This description also had another
meaning. In a rakish age characterised by the Chaugraun, Tom Jones, Moll Flanders, Don
Giovanni, widespread Abductions, incorrigible Bucks, Fops and Dandies, not to mention
the Bucks of the Hell’s Fire Club – marrying for love meant marrying without a dowry – a
circumstance which was almost unthinkable amongst gentlemen, Protestant or Catholic.
And even in Arthur Wallace’s case the spontaneity of romance was soon tempered with
considerations of ‘geld’; for, shortly after their wedding, we learn that the gallant received
an undisclosed fortune from the Byrnes, his parents-in-law. According to Barrington – who
obviously knew about these things -- Wallace’s second marriage was more‘ regular’ in that
his betrothed came to him with a dowry of £500 up front.

Further testimony of his ‘financial’ status came from ! !M!r!.! !S!a!m!u!e!l! B!o!i!l!e!a!u, a ! !D!u!b!l!i!n!
!wholesaler and !d!r!u!g!g!i!s!t. Boileau testified t!h!a!t! !Arthur W!a!l!l!a!c!e!’!s! !a!c!c!o!u!n!t! !w!i!t!h! !h!i!m! !w!a!s!
worth !£!5!0!0! !p!e!r! !a!n!n!u!m. He added, speculatively -- ‘a!n! !a!p!o!t!h!e!c!a!r!y! !m!a!k!e!s! !m!o!r!e! !t!h!a!n! !5!0!%!
!p!r!o!f!i!t!.!’

Apart from his charm and energy, Wallace was also an astute businessman, ever with an
eye to turning a shilling. And with this in mind, he made !t!h!e! !a!c!q!u!a!i!n!t!a!n!c!e! !o!f! !M!r!s!.! !L!y!d!i!a!
!W!a!l!l!,! Carlow’s !P!o!s!t!-!M!i!s!t!r!e!s!s!. She happened at the time to be on the look-out for !a!n!
!a!s!s!i!s!t!a!n!t!.! !Wallace, so the story goes, ‘h!a!d! !a! !w!a!y! !w!i!t!h! !h!i!m!.’ He managed to convince the
Post Mistress that he was her man. Under the arrangements entered into by both parties
shortly before the ’98 Rebellion, !M!r!s!.! !W!a!l!l would ! !r!e!s!e!r!v!e ! !t!o! !h!e!r!s!e!l!f! her Post-Mistress’s
s!a!l!a!r!y,! !while allowing !Wallace !t!h!e ‘i!n!c!i!d!e!n!t!a!l! !pr!o!f!i!t!s’ accruing to his service in the Post
Office. Within the space of little more than two years, Arthur Wallace was making incidental
profits in the amount of £!6!0! !per annum while continuing his practice as an Apothecary. He
virtually ran the Post Office. In due course he acquired a great expertise in dealing with
large sums of money and managed to !amass a veritable !f!o!r!t!u!n!e in the process!.!
!!!
Wallace’s wealth might go some way to explain the unusual number of well-wishers he
attracted from both sides of one of the most enduring religious divides in human history.
One is even tempted to believe that the commercial classes at the time were less
susceptible to expressions of religious animosity, and were, in other words, more inclined
than the poorer sections of society to take such sentiments cum grano salis, particularly
when the wind blew strongest from soap box and pulpit. But such an analysis does not
stand up historically. Indeed, the higher one went in the social structure in nineteenth
century Ireland, the more one touched the religious intolerance that rested sqarely upon
the original convictions which begot the Christian conquest. And it is this that makes one
appreciate all the more the abilities of Arthur Wallace to attract to himself respectable
members of an Irish bourgeoisie that flourished on both sides of an irreconcilable
Christianity. And how they all found a shared space in the Deighton Hall, remcuriosity as
does Wallace’s personality.

Testimonials

Some of the opinions and testimonials submitted on Wallace’s behalf were designed to
impress the court.

One Dublin Druggist said:

" “I! !h!a!v!e!,! !k!n!o!w!n! !t!h!e! !p!r!i!s!o!n!e!r! !n!i!n!e! !o!r! !t!e!n! !y!e!a!r!s!,! !a!n!d! ! I! !n!e!v!e!r! !k!n!e!w a! ! m!o!r!e! !p!u!n!c!t!u!a!l! !m!a!n!
" i! !n! !a!l!l! !h!i!s! !d!e!a!l!i!n!g!s!.!”

E"d"w"a"r"d" "D"u"gg"a"n" "s"w"o"r"e as follows: "

! “ I! !k!n!o!w! !t!h!e! !p!r!iso!n!e!r!,! !an!d! !h!a!v!e! !k!n!o!w!n! !h!i!m! si!x! !y!e!a!r!s!.! !I! !n!e!v!e!r! k!n!e!w! !a! !f!a!i!r!e!r! !o!r! !b!e!t!t!e!r!
" c! !h!a!r!a!c!t!e!r! !i!n! !t!h!e! !w!h!o!l!e! !c!o!u!r!s!e! o!f! !m!y! !l!i!f!e!.”

More circumspectly R"o"b"e"r"t" "C"o"r"n"w"a"l"l"," "E"s"q".", "s"w"o"r"e:

! “ I! !h!a!v!e! !n!o!t! !k!n!o!w!n! !t!h!e! !p!r!i!s!o!n!e!r! !b!u!t! !b!y! !c!h!a!r!a!c!t!e!r! !u!n!t!i!l! !v!e!r!y! !l!a!t!e!l!y!,! !a!n!d! !w!h!e!n! !t!h!e! !
" s!t!a!m!p! !o!f!f!i!c!e! !o!f! !t!h!i!s! !t!o!w!n! !b!e!c!a!m!e! !v!a!c!a!n!t!,! !I! !p!r!o!c!u!r!e!d! !h!i!m! !t!h!e! !a!p!p!o!i!n!t!m!e!n!t!.! !I! !n!e!v!e!r! !h!a!d!
" a!n!y! !r!e!a!s!o!n! !t!o! !t!h!i!n!k! !o!f! !h!i!m! !b!u!t! !a!s! !a! !m!a!n! !o!f! !i!n!t!e!g!r!i!t!y! !a!n!d! !h!o!n!e!s!t!y! !u!n!t!i!l! !t!h!i!s! !c!h!a!r!g!e!.”!

J"o"h"n" "A"l"e"x"a"n"d"e"r" "swore: "

!" “ I! !k!n!o!w! !t!h!e! !p!r!i!s!o!n!e!r! !e!i!g!h!t! !o!r! !n!i!n!e! !y!e!a!r!s!;! !h!i!s! !g!e!n!e!r!a!l! c!h!a!r!a!c!t!e!r! !h!a!s! !b!e!e!n! !a!l!w!a!y!s! !t!h!a!t! !o!f!
" a! !n! !u!p!r!i!g!h!t!,! !h!o!n!e!st !,! !s!o!b!e!r!,! ! a!n!d! !i!n!d!u!s!t!r!i!o!u!s! !m!a!n!.”!

M"r"." "R"o"b"e"r"t" "C"o"o"t"s" "s"w"o"r"e:

! “ I! !h!a!v!e! !h!a!d! !d!e!a!l!i!n!g!s! !w!i!t!l!i! !M!r!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e!;! !h!e! !h!a!s! !o!f!t!e!n! g!i!v!e!n! !m!e! !l!a!r!g!e! !b!a!n!k! !n!o!t!e!s! !f!o!r!
" s! !m!a!l!l! !o!n!e!s! !;! !t!h!i!s! !w!a!s! !b!e!f!o!r!e! !h!e! !g!o!t! !t!h!e! !P!o!s!t!-!o!f!f!i!c!e!.! !O!n! !o!n!e! !o!c!c!a!s!i!o!n! !h!e! !l!e!n!t! !m!e! !a!b!o!v!e!
" f!i!f!t!y! !p!o!u!n!d!s!.”!

"M"r"." "C"h"a"r"l"e"s" "C"o"x" "sw"o"r"e:".

! “ I! !k!n!o!w! !t!h!e! !p!r!i!s!o!n!e!r! !n!i!n!e! !o!r! !t!e!n! !y!e!a!r!s! !;! !d!u!r!i!n!g! !t!h!a!t! !p!e!r!i!o!d! !h!i!s! !g!e!n!e!r!a!l! c!h!a!r!a!c!t!e!r! !h!a!s!
" b
! !e!e!n! !v!e!r!y! !g!o!o!d!,! !a!s! !a! !m!a!n! !o!f! !p!r!o!b!i!t!y! !a!n!d! !i!n!t!e!g!r!i!t!y!.! !I! w!o!u!l!d! !e!n!t!r!u!st! !h!i!m! !w!i!t!h! !h!a!l!f! !w!h!a!t! !I!
" p! !o!ssess!.”

Despite the weight of all this testimony to wealth and character, it never really
touched the matter of the indictment, and it was here that the case lacked any realistic
defence. The crux of the matter was that Arthur Wallace found himself facing an
"i"n"d"i"c"t"ment for defrauding the mail: -- more specifically -- "t"h"a"t"‘" o"n" "t"h"e" 1"s"t" "M"a"r"ch, " "i"n"
"t"h"e" "4"0"t"h" "y"e"a"r" "o"f" "t"h"e" "K"i"n"g"," "a"t "C"a"r"lo"w"," "... he "f"e"l"o"n"i"o"u"s"l"y" "d"i"d" "s"e"c"r"e"t"e" "a"n"d" "e"m"b"e"z"z"l"e" "a" "
"p"a"c"k"e"t" "d"i"r"e"c"t"e"d" "t"o" "H"e"n"r"y" "L"o"f"t"u"s" "T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m" "a"t" "R"o"s"s"," "w"h"i"c"h" "p"a"c"k"e"t" "w"a"s" "s"e"n"t" "b"y" "t"h"e"
"p"o"s"t...’

The indictment contained a list of thirteen other counts, each charging him with
detaining or appropriating promissory notes tooverall value of £1,000. And however
gentlemanly he may haveappeared before the fraud, such testimonials could never
constitute a defence. Once the charges were proved, such testimonials amounted to
humbug. In the decisive words of a remarkable plod named De Joncourt, the
ambivalent nature of the trust in which Wallace was held was made quite clear:
" “I! !h!a!v!e! !h!a!d! !d!e!a!l!i!n!g!s! !a!n!d! !i!n!t!e!r!c!o!u!r!s!e! !w!i!t!h! !t!h!e! !p!r!i!s!o!n!e!r!,! !a!n!d! !u!n!t!i!l! !m!y! !f!i!r!s!t! !s!u!s!p!i!c!l!o!n! !o!f!
" h ! !i!m! !a!r!o!s!e!,! !I! !h!a!d! ! a!s! !g!o!o!d! !a!n! !o!p!i!n!i!o!n! !o!f! !h!i!m!,! !a!s! !a! !m!a!n! !o!f! !h!o!n!o!u!r! a!n!d! !i!n!t!e!g!r!i!t!y!,! !a!s! !I! !h!ad!
" o! !f! !a!n!y! !o!t!h!e!r! !m!a!n.”

As soon as Arthur Wallace pleaded Not Guilty to the several charges, the onus fell on the
Crown to prove its detailed allegations – none of which would have been possible without
the evidence of De Joncourt.
!

An Important Case

While the case of Arthur Wallace was one of many serious cases, it nevertheless attracted
enormous attention. This can be seen from the array of legal talent present. Six counsel on
either side, the Attorney General leading for the Crown. The famous lawyer John Philpot
Curran, father of Robert Emmet’s sweetheart, Sarah Curran, led the defence. Another
luminary in the Deighton Hall was the trial Judge, Lord Kilwarden. (Three years after
sentencing Arthur Wallace to death, !Lord Kilwarden !l!o!s!t! !h!i!s own! !l!i!f!e! !i!n! !t!h!e! !E!m!m!e!t! !R!i!s!i!n!g! !i!n!
!D!u!b!l!i!n!.) !There was no doubt about it – and everyone knew it -- !t!h!e! !G!o!v!e!r!n!m!e!n!t! wanted a
conviction and, if it could be achieved, to make an example of Arthur Wallace. But this
deterrent strategy of ‘making an example’ of someone only works – if at all -- when there
are few other examples like it. In Arthur Wallace’s day capital sentences were too
commonplace for his execution to constitute an ‘example.’ Nevertheless, it was a time of
revolution, and the government, to restore faith in Ireland’s capacity to conduct secular and
civil business, desperately needed to clamp down on financial crime. Highway robberies
and frauds were so ntimes civil government did not seem to be working.

Perhaps it should be recalled that at the end of the Eighteenth century, the routes to and
from towns and cities were always vulnerable to attack. Though very small and one time
walled, Carlow as conurbation was always open to attack. There was always the Castle
and the nexus of lanes and alleyways around it, but progress and demographic growth
was particularly slow. In 1800, indeed, Carlow town was a mere crossroads. Or, in the less
diplomatic language of one traveller, it consisted (in 1788)of‘ one main street, and another
not so large that crosses it in the middle, together with two or three back lanes.’ If we look
at Speed’s sketch of Carlow for 1735, we get a good idea of the skeletal background and
extent of the urban area of the town. By 1790 Topham Bowden observed the‘ many new
buildings’ that were being erected in Carlow. More than anything else it was the security of
the public roads that was under constant threat. The Tullow road, for example, was
infested with armed banditti, presenting the greatest insecurity to the postman and the
official mail (Carloviana, Jan., 1948). And banditti were constantly expected on the main
Kilkenny- Carlow-Dublin Road, which featured Milford, Castledermot (and Athy) -- all
haunts for periodic mail-and-coach spotters.

The increasing use of banks and Negotiable Instruments -- bank notes, cheques,
promissory notes and the like – made wealth all the more mercurial. It also made it easier
to appropriate and to convert money to one’s own use. Moreover, with the aid, ease and
secrecy of the postal services, it made money easier to conceal, to carry and to transfer.
Indeed, money’s new mercurial nature required greater government protection, for if
civilised commerce was to be safe-guarded, then it depended quite unmistakably upon the
safety of the mail, whether in transit or temporarily housed in the country’s Post Offices.

Ever since its inception in May 1784 (as a separate Irish institution), the reliability of the
Irish Post ran parallel in importance to the King’s peace and the safety of the King’s
highway, the security of the open Highway reflecting the trustworthiness of the Post
Office’s in-house dealings. Conversely, an unsafe highway was synonymous with an
unreliable post: and Carlow’s post office, though small, was nevertheless central in
significance to the advancement of civil society in Ireland. It was this civility and the inner
security of the mail that Arthur Wallace threatened – hence the importance of his case –
not to mention the severity of his sentence. And Carlow, once the seat of government, had
long since fallen from such brief central grace and was at times closer to the Marchlands
of Laois than it was to the pale it purported to inhabit. There was also the fact that
disaffection had been all too evident two years earlier – which is why the Union was
enacted in the first place.

Th!e! concern of the !L!e!g!i!s!l!a!t!u!r!e was to protect the mail (as it had protected coinage , the
highways and other essential public services). Where possible it tried to stop the rising tide
of frauds. It was no surprise, then to find that Post Office-frauds were !p!u!n!i!s!h!a!b!l!e! !b!y! !d!e!a!t!h!.!
However draconian such deterrent measures seem to us in the twenty first century,
perhaps it should be remembered that, while the Post Office was a rather sacrosanct
institution in 1800, most other crimes, particularly before the 1830s, also attracted a capital
sentence. Offences like stealing a horse, an ass, a cow, even clothes or potatoes,
housebreaking, rape and its attempts, robbery and possession of arms, coinage,
defenderism, whiteboyism, and highway robberies – all were punishable by hanging. !

A High Risk Crime

It is pertinent to ask whether Arthur Wallace, an otherwise sensible man, had been aware
of the risks he ran. Certainly there were plenty of reminders as to the seriousness with
which the protection of the mails was regarded.

In December 1792, for example, The Hibernian Journal stated that

“... Two women were condemned to be hanged for robbing the Wicklow mail, and …
two men, father and son, had been executed for feloniously opening a post-letter
and taking bills therefrom.”

Nearer home, in February 1799, Finn’s Journal described how

“...A troop of Midlothian cavalry arrived at Thomastown for the purpose of protecting
the Dublin mails to and from Luke’s well.”

And at the same time as Handel’s Messiah was being celebrated in the Dublin Evening
Post (April 10,1800,) a further warning was being sent to embezzlers like Arthur Wallace:

“At the adjournment of the Quarter Sessions held before the Recorder on Tuesday
last, 40 prisoners were tried. The only trial which engrossed the attention of the
court was that of Thomas Cravey, who was found guilty, and received sentence of
death, for uttering notes of the Bank of Ireland, knowing them to be forged.”

Even as close as Athy, another unfortunate, John McGrath, was tried contemporaneously
with Wallace for ‘robbing the Carlow mail coach’. He was similarly sentenced to death the
same month. (PPC 1413, document dated 19/08/1801)

Why these other cases, intended as examples (among so many), did not deter Wallace
and others like from contemplating the same and similar crimes is a mystery. According to
Finn’s Journal (April 4, 1801) the culprits came in gangs:

“We hear that two of the numerous banditti who lately robbed the mail coach near
Carlow have been taken up somewhere about Athy, in the vary act of attempting to
 pass some of the notes which they had taken out of the mail. The notes have been
positively identified and there can be little doubt that these villains must soon
discover the entire gang of their companions.”

So far as the mail was concerned, the death sentence was almost automatic:

“Patrick Horan, for burglary and robbery; John Dempsey, alias Captain Dwyer, for
the same and W. Pritchard, Sergeant Major of the Meath Militia, for robbing the mail
near Birr, and taking out several bank notes, the property of Messrs Armit and
Borough capitally convicted – Sentenced to be executed on the 1st of May”

(Finn’s Leinster Journal, From Saturday 17 to Wednesday April 21,1802) Even twenty
years later – as generally throughout the nineteenth century – Highway Robbery was still
popular. On December 9, 1817 The Carlow ‘Morning Post’ reported of the infestation of
robbers on the Carlow-Tullow road, and in a further issue reported:

“The Tullow road still continues to be infested by armed banditti. The Postman who
conveys the mail between Tullow and this town had a very narrow escape on
Tuesday night last. His safety and that of the mail may be attributed to the swiftness
of his horse. Since the above date the man has been obliged to wait for daylight to
ensure the safe delivery of thethis town to Tullow, Clonegal and Newtownbarry.”

The Trial

Defrauding the mails, however risky, was not an easy type of prosecution to prove.
Crown counsel would have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Arthur
Wallace actually had interfered with the mail and had broken his position of trust by
deliberate acts of fraud.

After several ‘peremptory challenges’ on behalf of the Post Master to those who
would do jury-service, the Jury was at last sworn. The surnames of the Jury may still
resonate in Carlovian ears: these were -- Herring, Budds, Butler, Bennet, Brown,
Barker (2), Nicholson, Morton, Nowlan, and Little (2).

It was the Crown’s case that Wallace’s fraudulent activities went tected because he
was in the habit of ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’. Theoretically speaking , such a
scheme could go on forever, if one thought with a certain loose logic and an
inordinate amount of mathematical optimism. More particularly, however, Arthur
Wallace lifted notes to the tune of £1,000 out of Henry Loftus Tottenham’s package
and replaced them with notes, which he in turn appropriated from other packages.

H"e"n"r"y" "L"o"f"t"u"s" "T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m", " "d"e"s"c"r"i"b"e"d" "a"s" "a" "g"e"n"t"l"e"m"a"n" " h"o"l"d"i"n"g" "o"f"f"i"c"e" "u"n"d"e"r" "t"h"e" "C"r"o"w"n","
lived in New Ross. As officer of the Crown it was "customary" "f"o"r" "h"i"m" "t"o" "t"r"a"n"s"m"i"t" "l"a"r"g"e"
"s"u"m"s" "o"f" "m"o"n"e"y". Accordingly, in February, 1800, he sent " "a" "p"a"c"k"age" "c"o"n"t"a"i"n"i"n"g" "£"1","0"0"0"
"f"r"o"m" "t"h"e" "B"a"n"k" "o"f" "S"i"r" "T"h"o"m"a"s" "L"e"i"g"h"t"o"n" "a"n"d" "C"o"." "D"u"b"l"i"n"," "t"o" "h"i"s" a"d"d"r"e"s"s" "i"n" "N"e"w" "R"o"s"s". "
"The package contained a" "l"e"t"t"e"r", some" old "n"o"t"e"s" "a"n"d" "b"i"l"l"s. It was duly sent" "t"o" "M"r"."
"T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m" "a"t" "N"e"w" "R"o"ss." "T"o" "g"e"t" "t"o" "R"o"s"s", however, " "t"h"e" "p"a"c"k"age" "h"a"d" "t"o" "pass" "t"h"r"o"u"g"h"
"C"a"r"l"o"w" "a"n"d"," " b"e"c"a"u"s"e" "o"f" "t"h"e" "d"i"f"f"i"c"u"l"t"i"e"s" "with rights of passage in "t"h"e" "c"o"u"n"t"y" "a"t" "t"h"e"
"t"i"m"e"," "n"i"g"h"t" "t"r"a"v"e"l" "with the "m"a"i"l"s" "w"a"s out of the question"". " "C"a"r"l"o"w became the place of
rest -- which meant that t"h"e" "m"a"ils" "f"o"r" "R"o"s"s"," "C"o"r"k"," "a"n"d" "T"u"l"l"o"w" "a"r"r"i"v"e"d" "i"n" "C"a"r"l"o"w" "a"t" "5"
"p"."m"." "a"n"d" "d"e"p"a"r"t"e"d" "a"t" "6" a.m. the "following" "m"o"r"n"i"n"g". The mail was, herefore, in the
custody and control of Carlow’s Post Office, which meant, in effect , that it came
under the overnight control of Arthur Wallace.

The court had been told much about the lax condition obtaining in the Post Office,
especially as it related to the mail runs. It was allegd that money was found on the
ground outside as well as behind the Post Office, that the mailbags were strewn on
the floor of the office, often in unexamined and uninspected disarray.

One witness, P"a"t"r"i"c"k" "M"u"r"p"h"y", for example, a ‘letter-carrier’ and witness for the
defence recounted the following incident:

! “I! !k!n!o!w! !M!r!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e!.! ! !I! !l!i!v!e! !i!n! !t!h!e! !c!e!l!l!a!r! !u!n!d!e!r! !t!h!e! !n!e!x!t! !h!o!u!s!e! !t!o! !h!i!m!.! !I!n! ! A!u!g!u!s!t! !l!a!s!t!. !I!
" f! !o!u!n!d! !a! !p!a!per! !o!n! !t!h!e! !g!r!o!u!n!d! !o!u!t!s!i!d!e! !h!i!s! !d!o!o!r!. I!t! !w!a!s! !a!b!o!u!t! ! t!w!e!l!v!e! !o!’!c!l!o!c!k! i!n! !t!h!e! !d!a!y!.! !I!
" b ! !r!o!u!g!h!t! !i!t! !t!o! !M!r!s!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e! !i!n! !h!a!l!f! !a! !m!i!n!u!t!e! !a!f!t!e!r! !I! ! f!o!u!n!d! !i!t!.! !I! !h!a!n!d!e!d! !i!t! !t!o! !h!e!r!,! !a!n!d!
" s! !a!i!d!,! !m!y! ! f!o!r!t!u!n!e! !w!a!s! !m!a!d!e!.! !S!h!e! !o!p!e!n!e!d! !o!n!e! ! o!f! !t!h!e! !p!a!p!e!r!s!;! !i!t! !c!o!n!t!a!i!n!e!d! !t!h!e! !h!a!l!v!e!s! !o!f!
" f! !o!u!r! !t!e!n! !p!o!u!n!d! !n!o!t!e!s!.! !W!e! !w!e!n!t! !i!n!t!o! ! t!h!e! !p!a!r!l!o!u!r!,! !M!r!s!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e!,! !M!r!s!.! !J!e!n!n!i!n!g!s!,! !a!n!d!
" m ! !y!sel!f!,! !a!n!d! !a!f!t!e!r! !e!x!a!m!i!n!i!n!g! !t!h!e! h!a!l!v!e!s!,! !w!e! !c!o!u!l!d! !n!o!t! !g!e!t! !a!n!y! !t!w!o! !o!f! !t!h!e!m! !t!o! !a!g!r!e!e! !i!n!
" n ! !u!m!b!e!r!s!.! !

" M!r!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e! ! w!a!s! !n!o!t! !a!t! !h!o!m!e!.! !M!r!s!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e! !s!a!i!d!,! !t!h!e!y! !m!u!s!t! !h!a!v!e! !b!e!e!n! !d!r!o!p!p!e!d! !t!h!e!r!e!
" b ! !y! ! so!m!e! !p!erso!n! !w!h!o! !w!o!u!l!d! !b!e! !u!n!easy...!,! !a!n!d! !t!h!a!t! !sh!e! !w!o!u!l!d! !k!e!e!p! !t!h!e!m! !t!i!l!l! !M!r!.! !
" W!a!l!l!a!c!e! !c!a!m!e! !i!n!.! !S!h!e! !f!o!l!d!e!d! !t!h!e!m! !u!p! !l!i!k!e! !a! !n!e!w!sp!a!p!e!r!,! !o!p!e!n! !a!t! !t!h!e! !e!n!d!s!,! !a!n!d! !p!u!t! !t!h!e!m!
" i! !n! !h!e!r! !p!o!c!k!e!t!.

" Th!i!s! !w!a!s! !F!r!i!d!a!y! !t!h!e! !2!5!t!h! !o!f! !A!p!r!i!l. I! !r!e!m!e!m!b!e!r! !i!t!;! !i!t! !w!a!s! !t!h!e! !l!a!st! !d!a!y! !o!f! !t!h!e! ! q!u!a!r!t!e!r!
" s! ession.! !W!h!e!n! !M!r!.! !W!a!l!l!a!c!e! !c!a!m!e! !h!o!m!e! !I! !w!a!s! !i!n! !t!h!e! ! p!a!r!l!o!u!r!,! !h!e! !a!s!k!e!d! !m!e! !h!o!w! !a!n!d!
" w ! !h!e!n! !I! !h!a!d! !f!o!u!n!d! !t!h!e!m! ! !H!e! !t!o!l!d! m!e! !h!e! !w!o!u!l!d! !g!e!t! !t!h!e!m! !a!d!v!e!r!t!i!s!ed!;! !a!n!d! !n!e!x!t! !d!a!y! !h!e!
" d!e!s!i!r!e!d! !m!e!,! !w!h!e!n! !I! !w!o!u!l!d! !g!o! !o!u!t! !w!i!t!h! !l!e!t!t!e!r!s!,! !t!o! !s!a!y! !t!h!a!t! ! s!u!c!b! !t!h!i!n!g!s! !w!e!r!e! !f!o!u!n!d!,! !a!n!d!
" i! !n! !h!i!s! !c!u!s!t!o!d!y!.! !I! !c!a!r!r!i!e!d! !o!u!t! !l!e!t!t!e!r!s! !f!o!r! !h!i!m!,! !a!n!d! !w!h!e!n!e!v!e!r! !I! !c!a!r!r!i!e!d! !l!e!t!t!e!r!s! !w!i!t!h! !m!o!n!e!y!,!
" h ! !e! !a!l!w!a!y!s! !m!a!d!e! !m!e! !b!r!i!n!g! !h!i!m! !a!n! !a!c!k!n!o!w!l!e!d!g!m!e!n!t!.!

" I! ! !h!a!v!e! !o!f!t!e!n! !b!e!e!n! !i!n! !t!h!e! !h!o!u!se! !w!h!e!n! !t!h!e! !m!a!i!l!s! !c!a!m!e! !i!n!. T!h!e! ! C!l!o!n!e!g!a!l! !b!a!g! !w!a!s! !o!f!t!e!n!
" b ! !r!o!u!g!h!t! !w!i!t!h!o!u!t! !a! !s!e!a!l!,! !a!n!d! !t!h!r!o!w!n! ! o!n!.!t!h!e! !o!f!f!i!c!e! !f!l!o!o!r!.! O!n!e! !d!a!y! !t!h!a!t! !I! ! s!a!w! !i!t! !t!i!e!d! !w!i!t!h!
" a! ! !l!i!t!t!l!e! !s!t!r!i!n!g!,! !I! !said! !t!h!e!r!e! !w!a!s! !t!h!e! !d!e!v!i!l! !i!n! !t!h!e! !b!a!g!,! !a!n!d!,! !o!n! !e!x!a!m!i!n!i!n!g it!,! !I! !f!o!u!n!d! !i!n! !i!t! !a!
" b ! !r!a!c!e! !o!f! !w!i!l!d! !f!o!w!l!,! !a!n!d! !t!h!e! !l!e!t!t!e!r!s! !a!l!l! (!!encased?)! ! w!i!t!h! !t!h!e! !b!l!o!o!d!.! !

" T!h!e! !m!a!i!l! !g!u!a!r!d! !d!i!d! !n!o!t! !c!o!m!e! !f!o!r! !t!h!e! !b!a!g!s! !a!b!o!v!e! !o!n!c!e! !i!n! !a f!o!r!t!n!i!g!h!t!.! !T!h!e! ! p!e!o!p!l!e! !t!h!a!t!
" c! !l!e!a!n!e!d! !t!h!e! !h!o!r!se!s! --! !o!r! !l!i!t!t!l!e! !b!o!y!s! !a!b!o!u!t! !t!h!e! !st!a!b!l!e!s! --!u!s!e!d! !t!o! !b!e! !s!e!n!t! !f!o!r! -- !t!h!e!m! !t!o! !
" c!a!r!r!y! !t!o! !the! !m!a!i!l!-!c!o!a!c!h! !h!o!t!el W!a!l!l!a!c!e! !e!m!p!l!o!y!e!d! !m!e! !t!o! !a!r!r!a!n!g!e! !t!h!e!m!.”!

When suspicion first fell on Arthur Wallace, the most immediate question centred on
figuring out how he did the fraud. How could he interfere with the mail, which was in
transit? When could he physically manage it? And where and how did he dispose of the
booty? In a word, what evidence was there against him to support the charges made?

Wallace, apparently, found a packet with the signature of one Mr Tottenham. It so

happened that amongst his other talents Arthur Wallace was an ‘ingenious penman,’ such
that, according to Crown counsel, he could now forge Tottenham’s signature with
consummate conviction. By forging the signagture of Tottenham, Wallace was able to cash
some monies and redistribute other monies , by using other accounts if needs be. In this
way, some bills that required to be kept in circulation were, and new accounts were used
to supplement the short fall in the older ones.

In many respects Wallace was playing banker and , like all banks, he managed
everyone’s affairs on the basis and in the knowledge that on no given day would everyone
demand their assets in cash. At least that was the theory -- but theory is one thing,
customary human behaviour another. Eventually some notes that were drawn in
Tottenham’s name were presented for payment at Leighton’s Bank, only to be
dishonoured. This signalled a crisis that required a preliminary investigation, which in turn
revealed that Tottenham never received the package addressed to him. This sounded the
bank’s security bells and threw the whole postal service into paroxysms of doubt.
!Something special was called for.

A Detective and a Gentleman

!To clear up the mess! !M!r!.! !D!e! !J!o!n!c!o!u!r!t! entered the frame. De Joncourt was regarded as a
man ‘of considerable sagacity’, ! !a! ‘g!e!n!t!l!e!m!a!n! !o!f! !c!o!n!s!i!d!e!r!a!b!l!e! !t!r!u!s!t! !i!n! !t!h!e! !D!e!p!a!r!t!m!e!n!t! !o!f!
!t!h!e! !G!e!n!e!r!a!l! !P!o!s!t! !O!f!f!i!c!e!.’ De Joncourt was no ordinary detective. On the contrary, he was
specialised !i!n the sole business of ! !p!r!o!t!e!c!t!i!n!g! !t!h!e! !mails! !f!r!o!m all the! considerable !f!r!a!u!d!s! !t!o!
!w!h!i!c!h! the service had since its inception become ! !e!x!p!o!s!e!d. And a !m!o!r!e! !a!c!t!i!v!e! sleuth !o!r a!
!m!o!r!e! !u!s!e!f!u!l! !o!f!f!i!c!e!r! !h!i!s! !M!a!j!e!s!t!y! !never possessed.

It was he who initially copped on to the fact that the T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m" "s"i"g"n"a"t"u"r"e"s" "o"n"
"S"mith’s "b"i"l"l"s" " "w"e"r"e" " "f"o"r"g"e"r"i"e"s". Thereafter several " "o"t"h"e"r" "o"f" "t"h"e" "’T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m" "n"o"t"e"s’" "i"n"
"c"i"r"c"u"l"a"t"i"o"n" "were found. T"he "e"v"i"d"e"n"c"e" "p"o"i"n"t"e"d" "in" "W"a"l"l"a"c"e"’"s" "direction.

These initial suspicions bore fruit and eventually, De Joncourt got himself into such a
confident position that he had a w"a"r"r"a"n"t" "i"s"s"u"e"d" "f"o"r" "Wallace’s" "a"r"r"e"s"t"." This was a bold
move, for De Joncourt knew that, while he could give evidence about how Wallace
was defrauding the Post Office and its subscribers, that evidence would not of itself
carry the
prosecution to a secure conviction. Further evidence would be necessary.

Before leaping to have an arrest-warrant issued, therefore, he advised the Crown

prosecutors to hold back until he set a trap for Wallace. Of course it wasn’t at that
time called a ‘trap’. Even in 1800 the rules of evidence could be pernickety, and
provoking or inducing Wallace to do something that he might not ordinarily do,
would still amount to the shenanigans of an Agent Provocateur , and that meant he
would run the unlikely risk of rendering vital evidence inadmissible – or, worse –
having the whole case thrown out of court. No; De Joncourt wasn’t interested in
setting a ‘trap’, but he was most particular to carry out what he otherwise called it --
“a full and fair experiment” aimed at proving
Wallace’s guilt or innocence.

In this police-like vein, and with the assistance of Mr Waddy, Solicitor to the Post
Office, De Joncourt arranged to have some easily identifiable letters containing
marked bills to be written and submitted for posting in Carlow. They were no sooner
posted than an inside man, Waddy’s clerk, observed Arthur Wallace lift up the cover
of the receiver-mail bag and take these letters, amongst others, into his sorting office.

T"h"e following "m"o"r"n"i"n"g" De Joncourt stopped and examined the mail at Castle
Dermot. He confirmed" "t"h"a"t" "a" "n"o"t"e" "e"n"c"l"o"s"e"d and directed to a Mr O’ Rigney" "h"a"d" "b"e"e"n"
"removed and replaced by "o"n"e" "o"f" "M"r"." "T"o"t"t"e"n"h"a"m"'"s" "securities. It was this "a"d"d"i"t"i"o"n"a"l"
"p"r"o"o"f" "pointing to Wallace’s "g"u"i"l"t" "that sent De Joncourt in search of "M"a"j"o"r" "S"w"a"n".
Suitably armed with a warrant Major Swan and his men " "surrounded Wallace’s h"o"u"se.
Wallace was arrested and" "s"e"a"r"c"h"e"d".
"
But he only possessed a guinea note. They" " "a"s"k"e"d" him if" "b"e had" "a"n"y" "m"o"r"e money"." "H"e"
"declared ‘upon his honour’ that he had none. Major W. B. Swann – a doubting
Thomas of the old school of doubters – wasn’t having any of Wallace’s gentlemanly
charm. As he himself testified:

! “ !I! !m!a!d!e! !h!i!m! !t!a!k!e! !o!f!f! ! his! !s!h!o!e!s!.! !I! !o!p!e!n!e!d! !h!i!s! ! w!a!i!s!t!c!o!a!t! !a!n!d! !f!o!u!n!d! !a! !r!e!d! !w!a!i!s!t!c!o!a!t! ! "!
" u!n!d!e!r! !h!i!s! !o!u!t!s!i!d!e! !w!a!i!s!t!c!o!a!t!,! !a!n!d! !i!n! !a! !p!o!c!k!e!t! !i!n! !i!t! !s!o!m!e! !l!i!t!t!l!e! !p!a!c!k!e!t!s!.! ! !I! !o!p!e!n!e!d! !o!n!e! !o!f!
" t! !h!e! !p!a!c!k!e!t!s! !a!n!d! !f!o!u!n!d! !i!n! !i!t! !som!e! !b!a!n!k!n!o!t!e!s.!”

The half notes found tallied with the markings ascribed to them by De Joncourt. And
in Wallace’s pocketbook was found the same note that was taken out of the letter to
O’Rigney and put into the office the evening before by Mr Waddy’s clerk.

"Details of " "a"l"l" "t"h"e" "n"o"t"e"s" "w"e"r"e" "g"i"v"e"n" "i"n" "t"h"e" "r"e"p"o"r"t" "o"f" "t"h"e" "t"r"i"a"l. In effect there was little
or no defence and the" "J"u"r"y saw through the testimonials. "I"t" "t"o"ok" " "t"h"e"m" "o"n"l"y" "t"w"e"n"t"y"-"
f"i"v"e" "m"i"n"u"t"e"s" "t"o" "f"i"n"d Arthur" "W"a"l"l"a"c"e" "g"u"i"l"t"y". "
Note: An account of the trial of Arthur Wallace was p u b l i s h e d b y J o h n R e a , 5 7
E x c h e q u e r S t r e e t , D u b l i n , i n t h e y e a r 1 8 0 0 , and thanks to Mr Thomas
King, Carlow Librarian, Tullow Street, Carlow, a photocopy of it was provided freely to the author.
Herein also by kind permission of Mr King is a copy of the inner page of the trial.

***
The Carlow Standard, Monday, Feb. 20th, 1832
!

You are visitor number

Home | Site Overview | Books for Sale | Links | Contact Us | Website Map

© 2007 by Irish-Criminology.com - Last Update: 28/09/08 - Contact Webmaster - Cpanel - Mail

Login