me to acquire those
numerous vices which are so ordinary amongst the common sort of men, who
betake themselves to a military employment. Then he came over into
England and lived here, as he himself said, by working at his own trade;
though certain it is, that he led a most debauched and dissolute life,
associating himself with those of his countrymen who of all others were
the most abandoned in their characters. In fine, in all the associations
of his life he seemed to proceed without any other design than that of
gratifying his vicious inclinations.

In the midst of this terrible course of folly and wickedness he was
apprehended for a highwayman, committed to Newgate, and at the ensuing
sessions capitally indicted for two robberies, the one committed on
William Hucks, Esq., and the other on William Bridges, Esq. On the first
indictment it was deposed by the prosecutor that he believed Wileman to
be the person who attacked him. John Doyle, who owned himself to have
been an accomplice in the robbery, swore that Wileman and he committed
it together, and that he paid Wileman five guineas and a half for his
share of the gold watch and other things which were taken from the
gentleman. As to the second fact, Mr. Bridges gave evidence that he was
robbed on the highway and lost a sword, a hat, a pocket-book and a
bank-note for twenty pounds. Doyle gave evidence in this, as in the
former case, declaring that Wileman and he committed the fact together.

Then Elizabeth Jones being produced, swore that the same day she met
Doyle and Wileman booted and spurred and very dirty in Bedford Row, and
that they showed her the bank note, which when shown to her, she deposed
to be the same. Arabelle Manning deposed that on the night of the day
the robbery was committed, the prisoner Wileman and Doyle gave her a
dram at a gin-shop in Drury Lane, and that one of them let fall a paper,
and taking it up again, said that the loss of it would have been the
loss of twenty pounds.

The prisoner objected to the character of Doyle, Jones and Manning, and
called some persons as to his own, but the jury thinking the fact
sufficiently proved, found him guilty on both indictments. Under
sentence of death, his behaviour was very regular, professing a deep
sorrow and repentance for a very loose life which he had led, and at the
same time peremptorily denying that he had any hand in, or knew anything
of either of those facts which had been sworn against hi