Trial of Deacon Brodie
by unknown · English · Gutenberg #49405 · 749,529 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trial of Deacon Brodie
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Trial of Deacon Brodie
Other: William Brodie
Editor: William Roughead
Other: George Smith
Release date: July 9, 2015 [eBook #49405]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49405
Credits: Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF DEACON BRODIE ***
_Notable Scottish Trials_
Deacon Brodie
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM HODGE AND COMPANY
GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH
1906
[Illustration: The first meeting of Deacon Brodie and George Smith.
(_After Kay._)]
Trial of
Deacon Brodie
EDITED BY
William Roughead
Writer to the Signet
[Illustration]
GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH
WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY
TO
THE HONOURABLE LORD DUNDAS
THIS VOLUME
IS
BY KIND PERMISSION
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY
THE EDITOR
PREFATORY NOTE.
The following report of this interesting trial is prepared from the
original record, with additional particulars from contemporary sources.
No connected account of the life of William Brodie having hitherto been
attempted, the Editor has endeavoured to give in the introduction as
complete a view as is now possible of his remarkable career.
To Sheriff Moffatt, Lanark, and Mr. William Brown and Mr. John A.
Fairley, Edinburgh, the Editor is under obligation for the use of MSS.,
books, and prints in connection with the subject. His thanks are also
due to Dr. Joseph Anderson, Keeper of the Scottish National Museum of
Antiquities, who has allowed him to photograph Deacon Brodie’s lantern
and keys and to make excerpts from the records of the Cape Club. For
permission to publish for the first time facsimiles of Brodie’s letter
to the Duchess of Buccleuch and the MS. register in his Family Bible,
the Editor is respectively indebted to the courtesy of Mr. Alexander
Anderson, Librarian of the Edinburgh University Library, and the Plans
and Works Committee of Edinburgh Town Council.
Mr. Bruce J. Home has not only kindly permitted the reproduction of two
drawings from his well-known work, “Old Houses in Edinburgh,” but has
made a drawing of the old Excise Office, Chessel’s Court, expressly for
the present volume.
W. R.
EDINBURGH, _November, 1906_.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction, 9
The Trial--
FIRST DAY--WEDNESDAY, 27TH AUGUST, 1788.
Indictment, 72
List of Witnesses for Prosecution, 74
List of Assize, 75
List of Witnesses for Defence, 76
Interlocutor on the relevancy, 78
List of the Jury, 79
Objection to specification of Crown productions, 80
Objection repelled, 87
_Evidence for Prosecution._
1. William Scott, 87
2. Joseph Mack, 88
3. Thomas Longlands, 89
4. John Geddes, 90
5. Margaret Tweddle or Geddes, 94
6. Robert Smith, 94
7. James Laing, 95
8. John Macleish, 95
9. John Duncan, 96
10. William Mackay, 96
11. Alexander Thomson, 97
12. Laurence Dundas, 98
13. Janet Baxter, 98
14. James Bonar, 99
15. Isobel Wilson, 99
16. John Kinnear, 99
17. Grahame Campbell, 100
18. Mary Hubbart or Hubburt called, 101
Debate as to the admissibility of Hubbart, 101
Objection that she is the wife of Smith repelled, 104
Witness withdrawn owing to misnomer, 106
19. Daniel Maclean, 106
20. John Clerk, 106
21. David Robertson, 107
22. William Middleton, 107
23. Alexander Williamson, 108
24. James Murray, 109
25. George Williamson, 109
26. Andrew Ainslie called, 111
Debate as to the admissibility of Ainslie, 111
Objection to Witness repelled, 115
Ainslie’s evidence, 115
Objection to production of Five-pound Note, 119
Objection sustained, 121
27. John Brown, _alias_ Humphry Moore, called, 122
Debate as to the admissibility of Brown, 122
Objection to Witness repelled, 132
Brown’s evidence, 132
Declarations of George Smith, 138
Declaration of William Brodie, 149
Letter, William Brodie to Matthew Sheriff, 150
Two Letters, William Brodie to Michael Henderson, 152
Copy Letter or Unsigned Scroll, No. I., 154
Copy Letter or Unsigned Scroll, No. II., 156
Account or State of William Brodie’s affairs, 158
Letter, Lee, Strachan & Co., to Emmanuel Walker & Co., 159
_Evidence for Defence._
1. Matthew Sheriff, 160
2. Jean Watt, 161
3. Peggy Giles, 162
4. Helen Alison or Wallace, 163
5. James Murray, 164
6. James Laing, 164
7. Robert Smith, 164
The Lord Advocate’s Address to the Jury, 165
Mr. John Clerk’s Address to the Jury, 174
The Dean of Faculty’s Address to the Jury, 181
The Lord Justice-Clerk’s Charge to the Jury, 197
SECOND DAY--THURSDAY, 28TH AUGUST, 1788.
Verdict of the Jury, 201
Plea in Arrest of Judgment, 202
Plea repelled, 208
Address to the Prisoners and Sentence, 209
APPENDICES.
I. Notes on the Trial of Deacon Brodie, 211
II. A brief Account of the Judges and Counsel engaged on the Trial
of Deacon Brodie, 217
III. A List of Publications on the Subject of or having Reference to
the Trial of Deacon Brodie, 232
IV. The Brodie Family Bible, 238
V. Excerpts from the Records of the Cape Club, 243
VI. Excerpts from the Guild Registers of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 245
VII. Excerpts from the Records of the Edinburgh Town Council, 246
VIII. Advertisements relating to certain of the Robberies committed by
Deacon Brodie, 251
IX. Narrative of the Facts respecting the Robbery of Bruces’ shop, 257
X. State of the Process at the instance of John Hamilton, 262
XI. An Account of Mr. Brodie’s being seized at Amsterdam, 264
XII. The Journal of Mr. Groves, 265
XIII. Copies of Two Autograph Letters of Deacon Brodie, 268
XIV. Speech which George Smith intended to have made at his Trial, 270
XV. An Account of the Execution of the Prisoners, 272
XVI. The Old Excise Office, 277
XVII. An Account of the Proceedings against John Brown, _alias_
Humphry Moore, at the Old Bailey, in April, 1784, 278
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
The first meeting of Deacon Brodie and George Smith, _Frontispiece_
Foot of Brodie’s Close, Cowgate, _facing page_ 12
Cock-fighting Match between the Counties of Lanark and
Haddington in 1785, 15
Head of Brodie’s Close, Lawnmarket, 25
The Old Excise Office, Chessel’s Court, Canongate, 31
Deacon Brodie’s Dark Lanthorn and False Keys, 43
George Williamson, King’s Messenger for Scotland, 50
George Smith at the Bar, 55
The Old Tolbooth of Edinburgh, 62
Deacon Brodie, 66
The Solicitor-General (Robert Dundas), 81
Lord Hailes, 105
Lord Eskgrove, 113
Lord Stonefield, 130
Charles Hay (afterwards Lord Newton), 160
The Lord Advocate (Ilay Campbell), 165
John Clerk (afterwards Lord Eldin), 174
The Dean of Faculty (Hon. Henry Erskine), 181
The Lord Justice-Clerk (Lord Braxfield), 197
Facsimile of first page of MS. Register in the Brodie Family
Bible, 238
Facsimile of Deacon Brodie’s Letter to the Duchess of
Buccleuch, 269
DEACON BRODIE.
INTRODUCTION.
Few cities have preserved more faithfully than Edinburgh the traditions
of former days, and none is richer in the material of romance.
Throughout the length of the Royal mile extending from Holyrood to the
Castle Hill, each tortuous wynd and narrow close owns its peculiar
association, each obscure court and towering “land” has contributed, if
but by a footnote, to the volume of the city’s history. And where these
visible memorials have perished beneath the slow assault of time, or
succumbed to the more lethal methods of modern improvement, the legends
which they embodied survive their dissolution and serve in turn to
perpetuate their fame.
Of the many memories that haunt the lover of old Edinburgh, wandering
to-day among the vestiges of her romantic and insanitary past, perhaps
the most curious is that of William Brodie, Deacon of the Wrights and
doyen of the double life; by day “a considerable house carpenter” and
member of the Town Council; by night a housebreaker and the companion of
thieves.
It is nearly a hundred and twenty years since Deacon Brodie played out
his twofold part at the west end of the Luckenbooths one grey October
afternoon in 1788; but the close in the Lawnmarket which bears his name
remains to this day. Here he was born and lived, man and boy, robber and
decent burgess, for many reputable years; here his old father passed
away, happy in the possession of so excellent a son; and from hence did
the son essay that “last fatal” adventure, the issue of which was, for
him, discovery and the scaffold.
The house itself has long since vanished--a victim to the indiscriminate
destruction which has swept away so much else worthy of preservation.
You can no longer see the heavy oaken door with the cunning lock of the
Deacon’s own contriving, and the turnpike stair down which, with mask
and lantern, he so often stole at midnight upon his secret and criminous
affairs. But if you follow him in fancy down the High Street and past
the Nether Bow, to where a gloomy “pend” leads into Chessel’s Court, you
will find the tall front of the old Excise Office still rising within
its “palisadoes,” behind which lurked the trembling Ainslie; and if it
be about the dusk of the evening, and your imagination is informed with
the spirit of the place, you may even see the man rush wildly forth from
the doorway up the court, and hear, in the succeeding silence, the three
blasts of an ivory whistle.
* * * * *
The trial of Deacon Brodie has many claims upon the attention of a later
age. It is of value to the antiquarian for the vivid picture it presents
of the manners and customs of our forbears at a time when the life of
Edinburgh yet flowed in the ancient arteries of the old city on the
ridge, although beginning to circulate more freely in the spacious
thoroughfares of the New Town already invading the fields across the
valley. To the lawyer it is notable as affording a singularly graphic
view of the old-time practice of our criminal Courts, as well as for the
galaxy of legal talent engaged upon its conduct--with such men as
Braxfield on the bench and Henry Erskine and John Clerk at the bar the
proceedings could lack neither picturesqueness nor importance. The
psychologic interest of the chief actor’s character and the dramatic
elements in which his career abounds make a more general appeal; and so
long as human nature remains the same will the story of the Deacon’s
downfall be accorded an indulgent hearing.
That story had for Robert Louis Stevenson a strong attraction. As early
as 1864 he prepared the draft of a play founded upon it, which--after
being at various times re-cast--finally took shape in the melodrama,
“Deacon Brodie, or the Double Life,” written in collaboration with the
late W. E. Henley, and published in 1892. It may even be that the
conception of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” was suggested to Stevenson by
his study of the dual nature so strikingly exemplified in his earlier
hero; while in other of his writings he has touched the Deacon with a
felicitous and kindly hand.
Introduction.
The birth of Deacon Brodie is thus recorded in the Register of Births
for the city of Edinburgh--
“Monday, 28th September, 1741. To Francis Brodie, wright, burgess,
and Cecil Grant, his spouse, a son named William.
Witnesses--William Grant, writer in Edinburgh, and Ludovick Brodie,
Writer to the Signet. Born the same day.”
It is an inexplicable circumstance, although by no means uncommon, that
so goodly a family tree as that of the Brodies should, in due course of
nature, bear such degenerate fruit as the subject of this entry was
destined to prove. His great-grandfather, Francis Brodie of Milnton,
Elginshire, was a member of a family well known in the North of
Scotland, and his grandfather, Ludovick Brodie of Whytfield, was a much
respected Writer to the Signet in Edinburgh, who, on his death in 1758,
was the oldest member of the Society. His father, Francis Brodie, was
born in 1708, and in 1740 married Cecil, daughter of William Grant,
writer in Edinburgh, with whose family he was already connected. Both
the Deacon’s grandfathers, therefore, were members of the legal
profession.
There will be found in the Appendix a copy of a MS. Register of Births
and Deaths kept by Francis Brodie in his family Bible, together with
some account of that interesting volume, from which it appears that
William was the eldest of eleven children, most of whom died in infancy.
The entry relating to his birth has been cut out of the Register,
presumably on his public disgrace some forty-seven years later.
Francis Brodie was a substantial wright and cabinetmaker in the
Lawnmarket of Edinburgh, where he carried on an extensive and prosperous
business. In 1735 he was made a Burgess, and in 1763, a Guild Brother of
his native burgh. That he stood high in the estimation of his
fellow-craftsmen is evidenced by his being, in 1775 and 1776, elected a
member of the Town Council as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights,
and again in 1779 and 1780, in the same capacity; while in 1776 he also
represented the Incorporated Trades of the city as their Deacon
Convener. A further proof of the position and circumstances of the
family is to be found in the fact that the close in which their house
was situated became known by their name.
This mansion, the most important in the close, was originally the town
residence of the Littles of Craigmillar, having been built by William
Little, a magistrate of Edinburgh, in 1570, whose brother, Clement
Little, was the founder of the University Library. In the earlier titles
of the property the close bears the name of its old residenters; but in
Edgar’s map of 1742 it appears as Lord Cullen’s Close, from the eminent
judge, Sir Francis Grant of Cullen, who in turn resided there. Brodie’s
Close was formerly a “throwgang” or thoroughfare passing from the
Lawnmarket to the Cowgate, the upper portion of which alone has escaped
the “improvements” that have so effectively changed the features of this
part of the Old Town. The area occupied by the Deacon’s dwelling is now
covered by Victoria Terrace, the building having been demolished about
1835, when the principal carved stones of the mansion were transported
by Clement Little’s descendants, in whose possession the property
remained, to the garden of the family seat, Inch House, near Liberton,
as relics of the habitation of their ancestors. The lower extremity of
the close, in which were situated the Deacon’s workshops and woodyard,
survived until a later date, the last traces of it disappearing to make
way for the foundations of the Free Library.
In the fine old tenement at the head of the close--often erroneously
described as Brodie’s residence--is still to be seen the decorated hall
of the Roman Eagle Lodge, a famous Masonic society of the eighteenth
century, immediately beyond which, on the east side of an open court,
stood the Deacon’s house. It is thus described by Chambers in his
“Traditions of Edinburgh” as it existed in 1825--“Brodie’s house is to
be found in its original state, first door up a turnpike stair in the
south-east corner of a small court near the foot of the close. The outer
door is remarkable for its curious, elaborate workmanship. The house is
well built, and the rooms exhibit some decorations of taste. The
principal apartment, of which the ceiling is remarkably high, contains a
large panel painting of the ‘Adoration of the Wise Men,’ and has an
uncommonly large arched window to the west.” What became of this
painting, which was attributed to Alexander Runciman, is now unknown.
Of the early years of William Brodie we have, unfortunately, no record,
but it may be assumed that he received an education suitable for the son
of a well-to-do burgess. He was apprenticed
[Illustration: Foot of Brodie’s Close, Cowgate.
(From a Drawing by Bruce J. Home.)]
to his father’s trade, and in due time became associated with him in his
thriving business. In those days no self-denying ordinance obtained in
the Town Council, and Francis Brodie’s municipal connection secured for
him and his son the most of the city work. The young man had the ball at
his foot, as the saying goes, and only good behaviour and application to
business were required for the attainment of an assured position.
Unhappily for himself, however, he soon exhibited that taste for
dissipation which ultimately led to such dire results; and while his
days were occupied in following his respectable employment, in which he
speedily obtained proficiency, his nights were largely devoted to
gambling and kindred pursuits.
The social customs of the time were not conducive to steadiness and
sobriety among the youthful citizens. It was the Edinburgh of Humphrey
Clinker and of Topham’s Letters; the “Auld Reikie” of Fergusson’s
convivial muse--
Auld Reikie! wale o’ ilka town
That Scotland kens beneath the moon;
Whare couthy chiels at e’ening meet
Their bizzing craigs and mou’s to weet:
And blythly gar auld Care gae bye
Wi’ blinkit and wi’ bleering eye.
The early hours of the evening were at that period universally spent by
Edinburgh tradesmen in one or other of the innumerable taverns of the
old town. So soon as the business of the day was over, as Fergusson
tells us--
When auld Saunt Giles, at aught o’clock,
Gars merchant louns their shopies lock,
There we adjourn wi’ hearty fock
To birle our bodies,
And get wharewi’ to crack our joke,
And clear our noddles.
“All the shops in the town,” says Chambers, “were then shut at eight
o’clock, and from that hour until ten--when the drum of the Town Guard
announced at once a sort of licence for the deluging of the streets with
nuisances, and a warning of the inhabitants home to their
beds--unrestrained scope was given to the delights of the table.” At the
latter hour the more reputable roysterers sought their homes; but it was
then that the clubs, which formed so prominent a feature of the old city
life, began the business of the evening. Fergusson, who has given us in
his incomparable “Auld Reikie” a glowing picture of the Edinburgh of his
day, thus alludes to the subject--
Now Night, that’s cunzied chief for fun,
Is wi’ her usual rites begun;
Thro’ ilka gate the torches blaze,
And globes send out their blinking rays.
Now some to porter, some to punch,
Some to their wife, and some their wench,
Retire, while noisy ten-hours drum
Gars a’ your trades gae dandring home.
Now mony a club, jocose and free,
Gi’e a’ to merriment and glee;
Wi’ sang and glass, they fley the pow’r
O’ care that wad harass the hour.
But chief, O Cape! we crave thy aid,
To get our cares and poortith laid:
Sincerity, and genius true,
Of Knights have ever been the due:
Mirth, music, porter deepest dy’d,
Are never here to worth deny’d;
And health, o’ happiness the queen,
Blinks bonny, wi’ her smile serene.
Of this, the most famous of the Edinburgh social clubs, Brodie was
admitted a member on 25th February, 1775. The Cape Club usually held its
festivals in James Mann’s tavern, facetiously known as “The Isle of Man
Arms,” situated in Craig’s Close. The roll of the Knights Companions of
the Cape contains many celebrated names, including those of David Herd,
the antiquarian; Robert Fergusson, the poet; Alexander Runciman, the
painter; and Sir Henry Raeburn--William Brodie’s election occurring four
months after Fergusson’s death. Each member was required to assume some
fanciful title, Brodie taking that of “Sir Lluyd.” On the margin of the
roll prefixed to the minute-book an ingenious member has drawn a
representation of his last public appearance on the new drop, some
thirteen years later. The insignia of the Sovereign of the Cape are in
the possession of the Society of Antiquaries, together with the club
records, excerpts from which relating to Deacon Brodie will be found in
the Appendix.
Had young Brodie been satisfied with the legitimate and very ample
convivialities afforded by the Cape Club it would have been better for
himself. But he became a frequenter of a disreputable tavern kept by
James Clark, vintner, at the head of the Fleshmarket Close, where
gambling by means of
[Illustration: Cock-fighting Match between the Counties of Lanark and
Haddington in 1785, at which Deacon Brodie was present.
(_After Kay._)]
dice was nightly practised in a select company of sharpers and their
dupes. It is probable that this house still survives in the truncated
portion of the close remaining between the High Street and Cockburn
Street. He also developed, among other “gentlemanly vices,” a passion
for cock-fighting, at that time a fashionable recreation among the young
bloods of the capital, and was a regular attender at the _mains_ held in
the cock-pit belonging to Michael Henderson, stabler in the
Grass-market, of whom we shall hear further in the sequel. Brodie, who
is said to have lost large sums in betting on his favourite sport, was
present, among other “eminent cockers,” at the historic match between
the counties of Lanark and Haddington, of which an account is given in
“Kay’s Portraits.” In allusion to this contest, Kay observes--“It cannot
but appear surprising that noblemen and gentlemen, who upon any other
occasion will hardly show the smallest degree of condescension to their
inferiors, will, in the prosecution of this barbarous amusement, demean
themselves so far as to associate with the very lowest characters in
society.” Brodie himself kept game-cocks in a pen in his woodyard, and
retained to the last his attachment to the “art of cocking.” Between his
bets at the cock-pits and his gambling at Clark’s, the young man must
have got rid of a good deal of money; and it is believed that he had
already begun to supplement his income by the nefarious means which
later he certainly employed.
One night in August, 1768, the counting-house of Johnston & Smith,
bankers in the Exchange, was entered by means of a false key, and
upwards of £800 in bank notes carried off. Two nights afterwards £225 of
the money was found, wrapped in paper, at the door of the Council
Chamber; but the balance was never recovered, and no clue to the
delinquent could be obtained. The discovery, many years afterwards, of
Deacon Brodie’s exploits induced a strong suspicion that he was
concerned in the affair. It was then recollected that, prior to the
robbery, the Deacon had been employed in making various repairs on the
premises, and had frequent occasion to be in the bank. The key of the
outer door, from which it was ascertained he had taken an impression in
putty, usually hung in the passage, a custom of which the Deacon, as we
shall find, often afterwards took unscrupulous advantage.
At this time, however, no one dreamt of suspecting Brodie, whose secret
dissipations were known only to his disreputable associates. Outwardly
he was following worthily in his father’s footsteps, and, on 9th
February, 1763, was, like him, made a Burgess and Guild Brother of
Edinburgh. In September, 1781, he also became a member of the Town
Council as Deacon of the Incorporation of Wrights, and his connection
with the Council continued from that date till the year before his
apprehension, as follows:--Deacon of the Wrights in 1782 and 1783;
Trades Councillor in 1784, and, again, Deacon of the Wrights in 1786 and
1787. In 1785 he was not a member of the Town Council. Robert Fergusson,
in his poem, “The Election,” has, with his usual felicity, portrayed the
humours of an Edinburgh municipal election according to the old mode,
when--
... Deacons at the counsel stent
To get themsel’s presentit:
For towmonths twa their saul is lent,
For the town’s gude indentit.
The minute of Deacon Brodie’s last election, on 20th September, 1786,
will be found in the Appendix, together with other excerpts from the
Council records, bearing upon his official life.
In the new Deacon’s first year of office occurred the political contest
between Sir Laurence Dundas, who had represented the city in Parliament
from 1760 to 1780, and William Miller, afterwards Lord Glenlee. The Town
Council was divided into two hostile camps, and extraordinary efforts
were made by each party to secure the return of its own candidate. Both
claimed to have been duly elected member for Edinburgh; but, as the
result of a parliamentary inquiry, Sir Laurence retained the seat.
Deacon Brodie made a conspicuous figure in this election by keeping back
his promise to vote for either party, in consequence of which he became
a man of great moment to both the candidates, because upon his vote the
election turned.
* * * * *
On 1st June, 1782, Convener Francis Brodie “died of the Palsy att his
own house in Edinburgh, att 5 o’clock afternoon, in the 74th year of his
age”; and William, his son, reigned in his stead. We read in the
_Annual Register_ for 1788--“However extraordinary it may appear, it is
a certain fact that Mr. Brodie at the death of his father, which
happened about six years ago, inherited a considerable estate in houses
in the city of Edinburgh, together with £10,000 in specie; but by an
unhappy connection and a too great propensity to that destructive,
though too predominant passion, gaming, he is reduced to his present
deplorable situation.” That the Deacon owned some heritable property
other than the family mansion in Brodie’s Close, appears from a
statement by the author of “Kay’s Portraits” (1877, vol. I., pp. 141-2).
It is there said that a house in Gourlay’s Land, Old Bank Close, was
purchased from the trustee for the Deacon’s creditors in 1789 by William
Martin, bookseller and auctioneer in Edinburgh, who subsequently sold
the property to the Bank of Scotland in 1793. From the state of affairs,
which he prepared at a later date as aftermentioned, it is evident that
Brodie owned, in addition to this property, three other tenements,
respectively situated in Horse Wynd, at the Nether Bow, and in World’s
End Close. We also find from the Council records that, in 1785, he was
speculating in the building lots of the New Town.
The “unhappy connection” above mentioned refers to the Deacon’s two
mistresses, Anne Grant and Jean Watt. Anne Grant resided in Cant’s
Close, and her relations with William Brodie must have been long
continued, for she had borne three children to him, the eldest, Cecil,
being a girl of twelve at the time of his trial. To Anne Grant he
addressed one of the letters written after his escape from Scotland, by
which, as will be seen, he was traced and brought to justice. Jean Watt,
by whom he had two boys, lived in Libberton’s Wynd, close to his own
house, and was the principal witness to the _alibi_ attempted to be set
up for him at his trial. Each of these women was presumably ignorant of
the other’s existence, and the Deacon’s connection with both appears to
have been unknown to his family and friends. After his father’s death
his sister, Jean Brodie, presided over his household; his other sister,
Jacobina, to whom he refers in his letters as “Jamie,” having married
Matthew Sheriff, an upholsterer in Edinburgh.
It seems incredible, regard being had to the confined and crowded stage
on which the old city life was played, that Deacon Brodie’s protracted
peccadilloes escaped the notice of those “stairhead critics,” who,
Fergusson tells us--
Wi’ glowring eye,
Their neighbours’ sma’est faults descry.
But, if the facts were generally known, the estimable reputation which
he nevertheless enjoyed is characteristic of the social conventions of
his day.
Had it not been for the Deacon’s unhappy propensity for gambling and
dissipation, his circumstances at this time should have been highly
satisfactory. During his term of office he was regularly employed by his
fellow-Councillors to execute wrightwork in connection with the
town--his accounts for the year 1782-3, for instance, amounting to
upwards of £600. In addition to the city work, his social and official
position had secured for him the best cabinetmaking business in
Edinburgh; but, notwithstanding these advantages, he was frequently at a
loss for money.
Deacon Brodie was already, in Stevenson’s striking phrase, “a man
harassed below a mountain of duplicity,” and to one so circumstanced it
is not surprising that the idea occurred of putting his professional
opportunities to an unlawful use. He knew the locks and bolts of all the
houses of his customers; was familiar with their internal arrangements
and the habits of the owners; and could, without incurring remark,
exhibit in such matters a professional interest in the houses of his
friends and acquaintances. No doubt he was sometimes consulted, at a
later stage, as to the best means of defence against his own infraction.
He was shortly, as we shall see, to become the leader of a gang of
robbers, whose mysterious depredations, under his skilful conduct, were,
during eighteen months, to baffle the authorities and strike terror to
the hearts of wealthy burgesses; but at the outset of his career of
crime the Deacon worked alone.
“Many a citizen,” says Stevenson, “was proud to welcome the Deacon to
supper, and dismissed him with regret at a timeous hour, who would have
been vastly disconcerted had he known how soon, and in what guise, his
visitor returned. Many stories are told of this redoubtable Edinburgh
burglar, but the one I have in my mind most vividly gives the key of all
the rest. A friend of Brodie’s, nesting some way towards heaven in one
of these great ‘lands,’ had told him of a projected visit to the
country, and afterwards, detained by some affairs, put it off and stayed
the night in town. The good man had lain some time awake; it was far on
in the small hours by the Tron bell; when suddenly there came a creak, a
jar, a faint light. Softly he clambered out of bed and up to a false
window which looked upon another room, and there, by the glimmer of a
thieves’ lantern, was his good friend the Deacon in a mask.”
Another story, illustrative of the methods of this pioneer of amateur
cracksmen, is as follows:--One Sunday an old lady, precluded by
indisposition from attending the kirk, was quietly reading her Bible at
home. She was alone in the house--her servant having gone to
church--when she was startled by the apparition of a man, with a crape
over his face, in the room where she was sitting. The stranger quietly
lifted the keys which were lying on the table beside her, opened her
bureau, from which he took out a large sum of money, and then, having
locked it and replaced the keys upon the table, retired with a
respectful bow. The old lady, meanwhile, had looked on in speechless
amazement, but no sooner was she left alone than she exclaimed, “Surely
that was Deacon Brodie!”--which subsequent events proved to be the fact.
On both of these occasions it is to be noted that, although the Deacon
was recognised, no action was taken by his victims. In the first
instance the man hesitated to denounce his friend; in the second the old
lady preferred to doubt the evidence of her senses--a striking proof of
the advantages conferred by a respectable reputation.
Apart altogether from the question of gain, it is probable that Deacon
Brodie, in adopting these criminal courses, was influenced by the
dramatic possibilities of his new part. The minor duplicities which
hitherto he had so successfully practised would thus be capable of
development upon a larger stage; and, to one of his peculiar
temperament, the prospect doubtless afforded fascinating opportunities
for deception. To rob a friend’s house of an evening, and in the morning
condole with him upon his loss; to carry through some daring burglary
overnight, and gravely deliberate next day in the Council Chamber as to
offering a reward for discovery of the perpetrator--these were
situations after the Deacon’s heart.
Throughout the whole course of the robberies which we are about to
consider, it is to be kept in view that Deacon Brodie retained the
respect and esteem of his fellow-citizens--for his reputation among the
associates of his secret life is immaterial; daily pursued his lawful
avocations; and regularly attended the meetings of the Council, taking
his share in the conduct of the town’s affairs. And so masterly was his
performance of this dual _rôle_ that no suspicion of the Deacon’s
integrity was aroused, until the failure of the “last fatal” business of
the Excise Office and the treachery of an accomplice shattered, at once
and for ever, the elaborate fabric of his deceit.
We can form a vivid impression of the appearance of Deacon Brodie about
this time from the description of him which was circulated some two
years later. From this it appears that he was a small man--“about 5 feet
4 inches”--of a slender build, and looking younger than his age. He had
“dark brown, full eyes, with large black eyebrows, and a cast with his
eye that gave him somewhat the look of a Jew,” a sallow complexion, and
a peculiar manner of speaking, “which he did full and slow.” From the
minute details of his dress and toilet it is evident that the Deacon was
something of a dandy, or, in the language of the day, “a macaroni.” He
had also “a particular air in his walk, and moved in a proud, swaggering
sort of style,” while the advertisement includes such particulars as the
size of his ankles and the turn of his calves. We shall afterwards find
that this very candid portrait was not appreciated by its original.
* * * * *
About the month of July, 1786, there arrived in Edinburgh a man who was
to exercise a powerful influence for evil upon the Deacon’s fortunes.
This was George Smith, a native of Boxford, near Newburgh, in Berkshire,
who was travelling the country as a hawker with a horse and cart. He was
a stranger to Edinburgh, and put up at Michael Henderson’s house in the
Grassmarket, having heard it mentioned on the road as a traveller’s inn.
Soon after his arrival he fell sick, and, his illness lasting for some
four months, he was reduced to selling his goods, and finally his
horse, in order to support himself and his wife, for whom he had
meanwhile sent into England to join him. Among the frequenters of
Michael Henderson’s tavern were two men, Andrew Ainslie and John Brown
_alias_ Humphry Moore, of whom, prior to their doings in connection with
the robbing of the Excise Office, but little is known. Ainslie is
designed in the Crown list of witnesses as “sometime shoemaker in
Edinburgh,” but his attention to his professional practice was less
marked than his addiction to dicing and the company of cheats.
Brown--like Smith, an Englishman--was a noted sharper, and had been
convicted of theft at the Old Bailey in April, 1784, and sentenced to
transportation beyond the seas for a term of seven years. He had,
however, contrived to escape from justice, and was then lurking in
Edinburgh, ready for any villainy that might prove remunerative.
With these two agreeable acquaintances Smith beguiled the tedium of
convalescence in various games of hazard, in which, owing to the skill
of the players, but little was left to the blindness of Fortune; and at
this time he first made the acquaintance of Deacon Brodie, who, in
connection with his cock-fighting proclivities, had long been a patron
of the house. It is probable that, at this juncture, the Deacon’s
resources were at a low ebb. Notwithstanding the income he derived from
his varied interests and pursuits, his passion for gambling was a
constant drain upon his purse, and the expense of maintaining no less
than three establishments at once must also have been considerable,
while the success of his earlier robberies doubtless induced him to
extend his future operations by the assumption of a partner.
Be that as it may, we have it from Smith’s second declaration that
Brodie, early in the intimacy which, in spite of the disparity in their
social positions, speedily sprang up between them, suggested to him in
the course of conversation “that several things could be done in this
place, if prudently managed, to great advantage, and proposed that they
should lay their heads together for that purpose.” Smith is said to have
been at one period of his career a locksmith in Birmingham, and his
abilities in this direction may have first led the Deacon to select him
as an accomplice. From the readiness with which Smith embraced this
proposition we may assume that his past record was not so blameless as
he would have us believe.
In the following account of the burglaries (other than that of the
Excise Office) committed by Deacon Brodie and his associates, the
details are given from the various statements made by Smith, and, so far
as possible, in his own words; but there is good reason for believing
that these by no means disclose the full extent of the depredations for
which the gang was responsible.
When the invalid was sufficiently recovered, the new friends, “in
consequence of this concert, were in use to go about together in order
to find out proper places where business could be done with success.” In
the course of these interesting excursions, Smith relates that one
evening in November, 1786, they visited a hardware shop in Bridge Street
belonging to Davidson M‘Kain, armed with false keys, an iron crow, and a
dark lantern. Having opened the outer door, Smith entered the shop, his
companion remaining outside to watch. Smith was inside for about
half-an-hour, and Brodie, becoming impatient, called out what made him
stay so long--was he taking an inventory of the shop? The result appears
to have been disappointing; but among the goods removed was a red
pocket-book, which Smith presented, as a token of gratitude, to “Michael
Henderson, stabler in Grassmarket, his daughter.”
About a fortnight later the two worthies again repaired to M‘Kain’s shop
with the view of making a more thorough clearance. The same methods were
adopted; but before Smith could get to work he was disturbed by
movements in a neighbouring room, and fled, shutting the shop door after
him. Brodie had already beaten a retreat. A little later, however, the
pair walked arm-in-arm down Bridge Street to reconnoitre the premises,
but, seeing a man on the watch, “and a guard soldier standing opposite
at the head of the stair which goes down to the Fleshmarket, they passed
along the bridge, and afterwards went to their several homes, as nothing
could be done further that night.” This, according to Smith, was their
first joint depredation; but there is reason to believe that a much more
important robbery, which was committed on 9th October, the previous
month--when a goldsmith’s shop near the Council Chambers was broken into
and many valuable articles carried off--was also the Deacon’s
handiwork.
An ostensible occupation had been found for Smith, and he was
established in a house in the Cowgate, where his wife and he kept a
small grocery shop. Brodie had now introduced his new friend to his own
favourite “howff”--Clark, the vintner’s at the head of the Fleshmarket
Close--where it was their habit to foregather nightly for the purpose of
gambling and discussing future opportunities for the exercise of their
felonious talents. Hither, also, came Ainslie and Brown, from the
lodging which they occupied together at the foot of Burnet’s Close, but
who were not yet admitted to share the others’ councils. On 8th
December, we read that “the shop of John Law, tobacconist in the
Enchange, was broken into, and a cannister containing between ten and
twelve pounds of money carried off.” This robbery, though not confessed
to by Smith, was probably committed by him and Brodie.
Stimulated to further efforts by the inadequate results of these
operations, the Deacon now proposed to Smith a more important
undertaking. He had recently been employed by the magistrates, in
consequence of the lowering of the streets, to alter the door of the
shop in Bridge Street belonging to Messrs. John & Andrew Bruce,
jewellers, there. This, he said, “would be a very proper shop for
breaking into,” as it contained valuable goods, and his familiarity with
the lock would make it an easy matter to effect an entrance. It was
accordingly agreed that they should meet at Clark’s on the evening of
Saturday, 24th December, for the purpose of carrying out the robbery.
Arriving there, they fell to playing hazard with other members of “the
club,” as it was called by the questionable characters who frequented
the house, and Smith, the luck being against him, soon lost all his
money. Brodie, on the other hand, was winning steadily, and refused to
leave, turning a deaf ear to his friend’s repeated reminders that
business should come before pleasure and their work awaited them. It was
nearly four in the morning when Smith decided to wait no longer, “as the
time for doing their business was going,” and started by himself upon
the exploit. The lock presented no difficulties, and, by the light of
his dark lantern, he was able to reap an excellent harvest. “Ten
watches, five of them gold, three silver, with the whole rings, lockets,
and other jewellery and gold trinkets in the show-boxes,” were all
stuffed into two old black stockings and carried by Smith to the
hospitable Mr. Henderson’s stable, where he hid them in a manger, and
was at last free to seek the shelter of his grocery establishment in the
Cowgate.
Smith was up betimes on the Sunday, and by eight o’clock was “tirling”
at the door in Brodie’s Close, to inform the Deacon of what he had
missed. The maid told him, however, that her master was still in bed, so
Smith left a message that he wanted to see him, and returned home. Later
in the day the Deacon called upon him, and Smith, having meantime
fetched the black stockings from the Grassmarket, poured out upon the
bed their glittering contents, remarking, “You see what luck I have been
in; you might have been there, but, as you did not go, you cannot expect
a full share. But there are the goods; pick out what you choose for
yourself”--which certainly seems handsome behaviour on Smith’s part,
although Brodie afterwards complained that he had been treated badly in
the matter. The Deacon accordingly selected for his own use a gold seal,
a gold watch-key set with garnet stones, and two gold rings. They valued
the whole articles at £350 sterling, and must have been good judges, for
that was the figure which the owners themselves subsequently put upon
the goods.
That same day they walked past Bruce’s shop several times to see if the
robbery had been discovered, but found everything as they had left it.
Delighted at the success of his coup, Smith boldly proposed returning
that night “in order,” as he said, “to sweep the shop clean,” but Brodie
dissuaded him from so hazardous an attempt. They then consulted as to
the safest means of disposing of the goods, with the result that, on the
following Wednesday, Smith set off with them on foot to Dunbar, and from
thence took the mail-coach to Chesterfield, where he parted with them to
one John Tasker _alias_ Murray--who had previously been banished from
Scotland--for £105. The Deacon had advanced five and a half guineas for
the expenses of the journey, and, on his return, Smith repaid this sum,
and entrusted Brodie with the balance to keep for him, and give him as
he required it; but Brodie “gained a great part of it at play.” The
Deacon, therefore, did not do so badly after all.
[Illustration: Head of Brodie’s Close, Lawnmarket.
(From a Drawing by Bruce J. Home.)]
It is interesting to note in passing that during this period--the winter
of 1786-7--Deacon Brodie had for an opposite neighbour no less a person
than Robert Burns. While the poet was sharing his friend Richmond’s
lodgings in Baxter’s Close, Lawnmarket, there also dwelt in the adjacent
Wardrop’s Court Alexander Nasmyth, the artist, whose portrait of Burns
was painted at this time. It is probable that the poet, the painter, and
the Deacon foregathered with other kindred spirits at Johnnie Dowie’s
tavern in Libberton’s Wynd, the recognised resort of the Edinburgh wits
of that day.
* * * * *
The partners seem to have rested satisfied with the substantial profits
of their last transaction for a considerable time, for the next robbery
of which we have any details was not carried out till 16th August, 1787.
In this, for the first time, they had the advantage of Ainslie’s
assistance, he being taken into their confidence for that end. The three
repaired to Leith, to the shop of John Carnegie, a grocer at the foot of
St. Andrew Street, which Ainslie and Smith entered by means of
pick-locks--Brodie remaining without to watch--and carried off “350
pounds of fine black tea,” at that period a very valuable haul. Two
wallets were filled from the chests in the shop, but “Ainslie being ill
at this time and Brodie being weakly,” they were forced to abandon one
of the wallets, which they hid in a shed in a field by the Bonnington
Road, where it was afterwards recovered. The Deacon objected to the
other wallet being taken to his house, and what became of it is not
known.
In their next undertaking the company was raised to its full strength by
the accession of John Brown _alias_ Humphry Moore, whose previous
experiences in England eminently qualified him to take an important part
in such criminal enterprises. Brown appears to have been spending the
autumn in Stirlingshire, but his visit was suddenly brought to a close
in September on his banishment from that county by the Justices of the
Peace for a theft committed by him within their jurisdiction. This was a
more boldly conceived robbery than the gang had yet attempted--no less
than the theft of the silver mace belonging to the University of
Edinburgh. The Deacon, in the course of those walks with Smith, in which
healthful exercise was combined with an eye to business, “carried” the
latter “to the College Library, where, having observed the mace
standing, Brodie said that they must have it.” Ainslie was accordingly
sent to see where the mace was usually kept, and reported that it was in
the Library, where the others had seen it. Accordingly, on the night of
29th October, 1787, the quartet proceeded to the University. “Having got
access at the under gate, they opened the under door leading to the
Library with a false key, which broke in the lock; and thereafter they
broke open the door of the Library with an iron crow, and carried away
the College mace.” The magistrates offered a reward of ten guineas for a
discovery of the thieves, but without success. The mace was forthwith
despatched to the accommodating Tasker, of Chesterfield, at the
appropriate address of the “Bird in Hand,” and the macer thereof knew it
no more.
Brown appears entitled to the credit of planning the next robbery, and
took a leading part in its execution. In those days the merchants of
Edinburgh usually resided above their business premises, and the key of
the shop was hung on the inside of the door--a habit highly appreciated
by the Deacon’s little band. Brown brought to Smith the key of a shop
belonging to one John Tapp, which, he said, also opened the door of that
gentleman’s house; and Smith, having cast a professional eye over same,
assured him “there was nothing in it.” Thereafter, one evening about
Christmas time, between nine and ten o’clock, Brown dropped in upon John
Tapp, whom he detained in his shop over a friendly and seasonable
bottle. His associates, meanwhile, opened the house door with a false
key and rifled the good man’s repositories, making off with “eighteen
guinea notes, and a twenty shilling one, a silver watch, some rings, and
a miniature picture of a gentleman belonging to Tapp’s wife, which
picture they broke for the sake of the gold with which it was backed.”
One wonders if Mrs. Tapp mentioned the loss to her husband. These
valuables accompanied the mace to Chesterfield, where John Tasker
_alias_ Murray seems to have driven a brisk, though illegitimate, trade,
along with a letter to him, written by Brown in Smith’s name, arranging
for their disposal.
Soon after this the Deacon, ever on the alert for a good stroke of
business, suggested to his partners the “doing” of the shop of Messrs.
Inglis & Horner, silk mercers at the Cross of Edinburgh, “as the goods
there were very rich and valuable, and a small bulk of them carried off
would amount to a large sum.” He and Smith frequently went to examine
the padlock, “which they did most commonly on the Sunday forenoon when
the people were in church.” They found this necessary, as the lock
proved to be of a difficult construction. Brodie made a key for it
himself, and went one night alone to test its efficacy, probably with
the view of stealing a march upon the rest, and doing a little private
practice outwith the knowledge of his colleagues. When he tried the key,
however, although it unlocked the padlock it would not lock it again,
and he had to disclose the state of matters to the others. On learning
of his attempt “they were all very angry with him, and said that he had
more than likely spoilt the place after all the trouble they had been
about; but Brodie told them he hoped not, as he had fixed the padlock
with a bit stick in a way that it would not be discovered, and upon
looking at the place afterwards, which they all did, they found the lock
to be just as it was.” Eventually Smith made a key that was more
reliable, and on the night of 8th January, 1788, an entry was effected,
and silks and cambrics to the value of between £300 and £400
successfully removed.
Next day a reward of £100 was offered by the Procurator-Fiscal for the
discovery of the criminals, but, as usual, without success. The owners,
however, did not let the matter rest there, and on their representations
the Government, on 25th January, offered an increased reward of £150 to
any one who, within six months, would give such information as should
lead to the discovery and conviction of the perpetrators, and twenty
guineas for the names of the offenders whether they should be convicted
or not. In addition, “His Majesty’s gracious pardon” was promised to any
accomplice who should within the like period procure the apprehension of
the guilty parties. Though this offer elicited no information at the
time, it was, ultimately, as we shall see, the means of breaking up that
dangerous association from whose depredations the inhabitants of the
good town of Edinburgh had so long and severely suffered.
From the spoils of Inglis & Horner’s shop Smith tells us that Brown
selected “a piece of plain white sattin, a piece of variegated ditto,
and a lead-coloured silk, in quantity about ten yards, which he gave to
a girl, an acquaintance of his of the name of Johnston.” One is pleased
to notice in passing this indication of a gentler element in Mr. Brown’s
rugged nature. The remainder of the goods were concealed in a cellar
which Ainslie had hired for the purpose in Stevenlaw’s Close, and were
subsequently despatched in two trunks--one by the Berwick carrier and
the other by the Newcastle waggoner--to our old friend at the “Bird in
Hand,” Chesterfield. We shall hear more of them later.
The reader must have been struck, in following the account of the
robberies committed by Deacon Brodie, with the singular incapacity
displayed by the official guardians of the public safety. These were the
Old Town Guard, a body of armed police which existed in Edinburgh from
an early date until 1817, when it was finally disbanded. The corps was
composed of some hundred and twenty veterans, chiefly drawn from the
Highland regiments, who were in continual conflict with the youth of the
capital. Fergusson, in his poems, has many a hit at the peculiarities of
this “canker’d pack”--
And thou, great god of _aqua vitæ_!
Wha sways the empire of this city--
When fou we’re sometimes capernoity--
Be thou prepar’d
To hedge us frae that black banditti,
The City Guard.
Indeed, so frequently does he refer to them that Scott, in “The Heart of
Midlothian,” calls him their poet laureate. Evidently these antiquated
warriors were no match for the Deacon and his merry men.
* * * * *
Notwithstanding the many calls upon his time, owing to the varied
character of his engagements and pursuits, Deacon Brodie managed to drop
in at the club in the Fleshmarket Close of an evening as frequently as
ever, and, in spite of the magnitude of his recent operations, was not
above winning a few guineas from any one foolish enough to lose them. On
the night of the 17th of January, therefore, Brodie, Smith, and Ainslie
were at Clark’s, according to their own account, “innocently amusing
themselves with a game of dice over a glass of punch,” when their
privacy was intruded upon by John Hamilton, a master chimney-sweep in
Portsburgh, who insisted on joining them at play. This person was,
within a surprisingly short time, relieved by the trio of “five guinea
notes, two half guineas in gold, and six shillings in silver,” and being
apparently a bad loser, he promptly seized the dice, which, on
examination, were found to be “loaded, or false dice, filled at one end
or corner with lead.” Here was a pretty scandal for the respectable
Deacon to be mixed up in! Outraged innocence was of no avail--the dice
spoke for themselves.
But the master sweep’s blood was up, and the matter was not allowed to
end there. Hamilton forthwith presented to the magistrates of Edinburgh
a petition and complaint against Brodie, Smith, and Ainslie, setting
forth his meeting with them at Clark’s, and his being invited to join
them in a friendly game, with the result above narrated. The petitioner
concluded with praying for a warrant to apprehend and incarcerate the
said persons until they should repeat the sum of which he had been so
defrauded, and pay a sum over and above in name of damages and expenses.
Answers were lodged for Brodie, and separate answers for Smith and
Ainslie, in which it was stated that if false dice were used it was
unknown to the defenders, as the dice they played with belonged to the
house; that Brodie had only gained seven and sixpence; and that “the
petitioner himself was a noted adept in the science of gambling, and it
was not very credible that he would have allowed himself to be imposed
upon in the manner he had alleged.”
Hamilton’s replies to these answers are conceived in a fine vein of
irony--“Mr. Brodie knows nothing of such vile tricks--not he! He never
made them his study--not he! Mr. Brodie never haunted night houses,
where nothing but the blackest and vilest arts were practised to catch a
pigeon, nor ever was accessory, either by himself or others in his
combination, to behold the poor young creature plucked alive, and not
one feather left upon its wings--not he, indeed! He never was accessory
to see or be concerned in fleecing the ignorant, the thoughtless, the
young, and the unwary, nor ever made it his study, his anxious study,
with unwearied concern, at midnight hours, to haunt the rooms where he
thought of meeting with the company from which there was a possibility
of fetching from a scurvy sixpence to a hundred guineas--not he, indeed!
He is unacquainted altogether either with packing or shuffling a set of
cards--he is, indeed!” This, one would think, must have been painful
reading for the Deacon’s fellow-Councillors; but nothing further appears
to have been done in the matter, and the affair blew over without
damaging the worthy man’s repute: a singular comment on the moral
standard of the time.
* * * * *
In spite of the consummate skill with which Deacon Brodie had hitherto
sustained his double character, one is hardly prepared, in view of his
manner of life, to find him figuring in a criminal trial in any other
capacity than that of the central figure. Strange as it may seem,
however, his next public appearance was in the jury-box of the High
Court of Justiciary, when, on 4th February, 1788, Allan M‘Farlane,
officer of Excise, and Richard Firmin, soldier in the 39th Regiment of
Foot, were placed at the bar charged with the murder of Dougald
Fergusson, ferryman at Dunoon, Argyllshire.
The facts brought out at the trial were, briefly, as follows:--A party
of Excise officers, accompanied by some soldiers, had, in the previous
July, gone to Dunoon and seized certain illicit stills, which they put
on board their boat. Fergusson, a zealous freetrader, had rung the kirk
bell, assembled a mob, who pelted the officers with stones, and,
boarding the boat, had knocked down the two boatmen and attempted to
carry off the stills. In these circumstances, M‘Farlane ordered Firmin
to fire, which he did, killing Fergusson on the spot. The charge against
Firmin was abandoned by the Lord Advocate in his address, as it was
proved that he had only acted under orders; and the point for the jury
to consider was whether M‘Farlane was justified in giving the order to
fire in self-defence, in view of the danger to which the Excise party
were exposed from the hostile mob behind them, had Fergusson succeeded
in carrying off the boat. The jury unanimously found both panels not
guilty.
Thus did the Deacon, at the very time when all Edinburgh trembled at his
depredations and the authorities were straining
[Illustration: The Old Excise Office, Chessel’s Court, Canongate.
(From a Drawing by Bruce J. Home.)]
every nerve to discover the guilty author, calmly officiate upon a jury
to judge of the crimes of others. But, although he may have laughed in
his sleeve at this ironical situation--for he had a pretty wit, and
doubtless relished the humour of it keenly--fate had prepared for him
one yet more dramatic. A few months later he himself would sit in that
dock on trial for his life, the same counsel would conduct the
prosecution, the same judges occupy the bench; but the verdict would be
a different one, and the sentence to follow upon it, death.
* * * * *
Undisturbed by any shadow of coming disaster, and emboldened by his
previous successes, Deacon Brodie now decided to carry out a robbery
upon a grander scale than any he had previously attempted, the daring
and danger of which were commensurate with the advantages to be gained.
The General Excise Office for Scotland was at that period kept in a
large mansion, enclosed by a parapet wall and iron railing, situated in
Chessel’s Court, Canongate. The building had formerly been occupied as a
dwelling-house, and was by no means a secure repository for the great
sums of money which in those days were collected there from all parts of
the country. The Deacon, in his professional capacity, was familiar with
the arrangements of the office, his men having at various times executed
repairs on the premises. A connection of his, Mr. Corbett, of Stirling,
too, was in the habit of coming to Edinburgh frequently on Excise
business, and Brodie took the opportunity of accompanying him upon these
occasions with a view to studying how the land lay.
Having learned all that was necessary for his purpose, the Deacon went
one day to the office with Smith, on pretence of inquiring for Mr.
Corbett, and while he thus engaged the attention of the cashier, Smith
took an impression in putty of the key of the outer door, which,
according to the prevailing ingenuous custom, was hung upon a nail
inside it. From this Brodie prepared a drawing of the wards, and Smith
filed a key of similar pattern. The next step was to ascertain the
habits of the watchman who guarded the premises, and for this purpose
Ainslie--whose department seems to have been scouting--was deputed to
observe the office on several successive nights. He found that it was
usually closed for the day at eight o’clock; that when all the clerks
had left the outer door was locked, and the key taken to Mr. Dundas,
“the housekeeper,” who lived in the court, and that the night watchman
did not come on duty until ten o’clock. The Excise Office was thus left
wholly unguarded between the hours of eight and ten at night.
Smith and Brown had already tried the efficiency of the new key, which
readily opened the outer door, but the lock of the inner door to the
cashier’s room refused to yield to their persuasive methods. Smith was
of opinion that its resistance could only be overcome by violence,
observing that the coulter of a plough would be a suitable instrument
for that purpose. Accordingly, on the afternoon of Friday, 28th
February, Ainslie and Brown repaired to Duddingston as a likely spot for
picking up such an implement. Having refreshed themselves after their
walk with a bottle of porter at a house in the village, they entered a
field in the neighbourhood, where they had seen a man ploughing, and,
when his back was turned, removed the coulter of the plough and two iron
wedges, which on their way home by the King’s Park they hid in Salisbury
Crags. Unfortunately for themselves and Smith, they were accompanied
upon this country ramble by a black dog, belonging to the latter, named
“Rodney,” which, curiously enough, was at a later stage to bear
testimony against its master before the Sheriff.
On Tuesday, 4th March, a final consultation was held by the four
desperadoes at Smith’s house in the Cowgate to arrange the details of
the attack upon the Excise Office, which was fixed for the following
night, when, as they had ascertained, it was the turn of an old man, who
watched night about with the other porter, to be on guard. According to
Smith’s second declaration, “it was concerted by Brodie, in case of
interruption by the man coming into the office before the business was
accomplished, to conceal themselves quietly until he was gone to rest,
and then to secure him; and they were, if this happened, to personate
smugglers who came in search of their property that had been seized; and
the declarant had a wig of Brodie’s father in his pocket in order to
disguise himself.” Little did that decent old gentleman dream to what
base uses his respectable wig would one day be assigned by his cynical
and degenerate offspring. The Deacon also furnished Smith with a coil of
rope to be knotted into a ladder, so that if taken by surprise they
could lock the outer door of the office and make good their escape by
the back windows into the garden behind. Having decided upon their plan
of campaign, the meeting adjourned till the following afternoon.
Wednesday, the 5th of March, 1788, was a busy day for the Deacon.
Between two and three o’clock he was back at Smith’s, attired in “the
white-coloured clothes he usually wore,” with various requisites for the
night’s adventure--pick-locks, false keys, an ivory whistle, “a strong
chisel with a brass virral,” and a spur, which was to be left on the
scene of the robbery, “to make it believed it had been done by some
person on horseback, in order that it might appear, when found, to have
dropped from the foot by its being torn by accident at the buckle.”
By three o’clock he was presiding in his own dining-room, with the panel
painting and the great arched window, at a dinner-party consisting of
his aunt, his two sisters, Matthew Sheriff, his brother-in-law, and “a
stranger gentleman” whose identity was not disclosed. “We drank
together,” says Mr. Sheriff, “from dinner to tea, which I think was
brought in about six o’clock, and then the stranger gentleman went
away.” Probably he thought discretion the better part of valour. The
brothers-in-law, however, continued the sederunt till shortly before
eight o’clock, when Sheriff retired to his residence in Bunker’s
Hill--the name by which St. James’ Square was then known. The moment his
guest had gone the Deacon, hastily attiring himself in an old-fashioned
black suit, a cocked hat, and a light-coloured great-coat, put his
pistols and dark lantern in his pocket, and hurried off to the business
of the evening.
It had been arranged that the gang should assemble at Smith’s house at
seven o’clock, since which hour the others had been impatiently awaiting
their leader’s arrival. The Deacon was in a merry mood; his spirits were
high as his hopes, and the potations of the afternoon had doubtless
contributed to their elation. He burst in upon his anxious friends with
a pistol in his hand, singing a stave from his favourite “Beggar’s
Opera”--
Let us take the road;
Hark! I hear the sound of coaches!
The hour of attack approaches;
To your arms, brave boys, and load.
See the ball I hold;
Let the chemists toil like asses
Our fire their fire surpasses,
And turns our lead to gold.
It was a raw and wintry evening of a type familiar to the Edinburgh
spring--that “meteorological purgatory” of Stevenson; there had been a
considerable fall of snow, followed by an intense frost, and few people
were out of doors. Smith, Brown, and Ainslie were sitting in an upper
room beguiling the time with a light refection of herrings and chicken,
washed down by draughts of gin and “black cork,” _i.e._, Bell’s beer.
Ainslie and Brown had, whenever it was sufficiently dark, brought the
coulter of the plough and the iron wedges from their hiding-place in
Salisbury Crags. No time was to be lost, and so soon as the Deacon
arrived the final arrangements were quickly made. Three brace of
pistols--one of which had been obligingly lent by Michael
Henderson--were loaded by Smith with powder and ball, each member of the
party, excepting Ainslie, being armed with a pair, “as they were
determined not to be taken, whatever should be the consequence.” Three
crape masks were also prepared for the use of Smith, Ainslie, and Brown.
To Smith and Brown was appointed the task of forcing the doors and
rifling the premises; the Deacon was to be stationed in the hall behind
the outer door to prevent a surprise; while it was Ainslie’s duty to
keep watch within the “palisadoes” outside the office, where, concealed
by the parapet wall, he could command a view of the court and entry.
Ainslie was provided with a whistle of ivory, purchased by Brodie the
night before, with which, if the watchman appeared, he was to give one
whistle, so that they might be prepared to secure him; and, if more than
one man or any appearance of danger was perceived, he was to give three
whistles, and then make the best of his way to the gardens behind, in
order to assist the others in escaping by the back windows. Brodie, on
hearing the signal, was, in turn, to give the alarm to Brown and Smith
within the building.
In pursuance of this arrangement, Ainslie left first for the scene of
action in Chessel’s Court, carrying with him the coulter, and, having
taken up his position within the “palisadoes,” saw the porter come out
with a light and lock the outer door behind him. Shortly thereafter
Smith arrived. On hearing that the coast was clear, he lost no time in
opening the front door with his false key and went into the office. He
was followed five minutes later by Deacon Brodie, who, learning that
Smith was within, but that Brown had not yet put in an appearance, went
back up the court to look for him. They met in the entry and returned
together, Brown explaining that, on his arrival, he had seen the old man
who usually locked up the office leaving the court, and had dogged him
home as a precautionary measure. Brown then inquired of Ainslie “whether
or not he had ‘Great Samuel’?”--by which playful appellation he referred
to the coulter--and Ainslie handed it to him through the railings. The
Deacon and Brown then entered the office, leaving the outer door on the
latch, behind which the former ensconced himself.
Smith had meanwhile opened the spring catch of the inner door with a
pair of curling irons or “toupee tongs” which he had prepared for that
purpose, and was awaiting Brown in the hall. By means of the coulter and
an iron crow--“Little Samuel,” in Brown’s humorous phraseology--the two
burglars at length succeeded in forcing the door of the cashier’s room,
and by the light of the Deacon’s lantern they proceeded to prize open
every desk and press which it contained. In the cashier’s desk they
found and appropriated two five-pound notes, six guinea notes, and some
odd silver; but after half-an-hour’s diligent searching their utmost
efforts failed to discover the accumulated riches which they had
confidently expected to secure.
In the hurry of the search, by a curious chance, a secret drawer,
concealed beneath the cashier’s desk, containing no less than £600
sterling, escaped their notice.
Unwilling to accept their defeat, the two men were ransacking the desks
afresh when they heard the front door open, but, supposing Brodie to be
at his post, paid no attention. They were about to leave the room to
prosecute their investigation of the premises when they heard some one
come hastily down the stairs, “which made them stop or they must have
met him.” Upon this Brown whispered, “Here must be treachery; get out
your pistols and cock them!” They then heard the front door close with a
crash. Perceiving that something was wrong, they now hastened into the
hall, when, to their amazement, they found that the Deacon had vanished,
and, on opening the door, that Ainslie also had disappeared. Cursing
their ill luck and the defection of their companions, the puzzled
burglars hurried through the court into the Canongate; and, quite at sea
as to what had happened, made the best of their way to Smith’s house,
leaving behind them in the office the heavy coulter and the spur which
was designed to mislead the discoverers of the robbery.
We must now return to Ainslie, whom we left on the watch behind the
railings. A servant girl, returning from a message to her master’s house
in the court, saw him looking over the wall, and, “judging him to be a
light or suspicious person”--in which diagnosis she was not far
wrong--sought safety within doors. He had not been long at his post when
the silence of the court was broken by the sound of a man running into
it from the street, and Ainslie, peering through the railings, was
alarmed to see him go in at the open door of the Excise Office. At the
very moment of his entrance another man rushed from the doorway and fled
at full speed up the court; and before Ainslie could recover from his
surprise at this unlooked-for situation, a third man, as he supposed,
came immediately out of the office and also disappeared towards the
Canongate after the other.
The scanty oil lamps with which in those days the city was “illuminated”
after nightfall served but as feeble foils to the surrounding darkness,
and to Ainslie, in the dimly-lighted court, friend and foe were equally
indistinguishable. These mysterious and unlooked-for doings proved too
much for the watcher’s nerve; so, having hastily given the agreed-on
signal of retreat by three blasts upon his whistle, he, too, made for
the entry, and, turning down St. John’s Street, came through the gardens
of the Canongate to the back of the Excise Office. Finding no trace of
his associates there, Ainslie in his turn repaired to Smith’s.
The explanation of these occurrences, which had dispersed the gang in
bewilderment and consternation, was singularly simple, but the issue
might have been very different. Mr. James Bonar, Deputy Solicitor of
Excise, had returned to the office about half-past eight o’clock to get
certain papers which he had left in his room. Finding the outer door on
the latch, he assumed that some of the clerks were still in the
building, and was entering the office when the Deacon, who appears to
have lost his usual presence of mind, bounced out from behind the door,
and, brushing past him, fled hastily from the court. Mr. Bonar attached
no importance to this incident, thinking the person belonged to the
office, and, being pressed for time, ran upstairs to his own room, got
what he wanted, and hastened from the building, slamming the outer door
after him.
If Ainslie had not lost his head at the sudden entrance and exit of the
Solicitor and the Deacon, but had blown his whistle, as he should have
done, whenever the former appeared, Smith and Brown, rushing out with
their pistols cocked, would have encountered Mr. Bonar in the lobby, and
murder would doubtless have been done. As it was, that gentleman
probably owed his life to the pusillanimity of Ainslie and Brodie, the
latter of whom could, from his ambush, easily have closed with him as he
entered the hall.
After his undignified flight from the Excise Office, Deacon Brodie
reached his own house about nine o’clock, where he once more changed his
attire, putting on the fine white suit he usually wore. He then hurried
to the house of his mistress, Jean Watt, in Libberton’s Wynd, where he
remained till the following morning. Meanwhile, at Smith’s house the
other three were discussing the disappointing result of the night’s
expedition and indulging in mutual recriminations. The non-appearance of
Brodie added to their uncertainty, and they parted for the night in no
amiable mood, Ainslie and Brown going over to the New Town, where, in a
tavern kept by one Fraser, they sought consolation in a bowl of punch.
The next day--Thursday--the Deacon came to Brown and Ainslie’s lodging
in Burnet’s Close and laughingly told them that Smith had accused him of
deserting his post the previous night. He was received but sourly by
Brown, who made no secret of sharing Smith’s opinion. These, however,
were minor matters, the vital question being whether or not suspicion
would be directed to themselves. It was arranged that they should all
meet at Smith’s the following night, when the sixteen pounds--miserable
recompense of so much risk and labour!--was to be equally divided among
them.
Accordingly, upon the Friday evening, in the upper room of Smith’s
house, each man received his share, amounting to a little over four
pounds. Ainslie, to whom Brodie owed a “debt of honour,” took occasion
to require payment, and got one of the five-pound notes and some gold
from him. The Deacon, who had staked infinitely more, thus made less
than any of them by the adventure. Brown, so soon as he had received his
share, went out, like Judas, and for a similar purpose.
The reader may remember the two trunks in which the silks stolen from
Inglis & Horner’s shop were packed with a view to transmission to John
Tasker at Chesterfield. One of these had been despatched some time
before by the Berwick carrier, the other had been forwarded that week by
the Newcastle waggoner, and Smith’s wife was to leave for England on the
Saturday in order to treat personally with the proprietor of the “Bird
in Hand,” who was probably a difficult customer to deal with. Smith and
Ainslie therefore proceeded to the New Town, where, at the inn kept by
William Drysdale, they purchased a ticket for Mrs. Smith by the
mail-coach to Newcastle on the following day. The five-pound note was
tendered in payment, and they received the change, less the price of the
ticket.
* * * * *
Let us now see how prudent Mr. Brown had been improving his time. Daily
since the 25th of January there had appeared in each of the three
Edinburgh newspapers advertisements offering £150 reward and a free
pardon to whoever should disclose the robbers of Inglis & Horner’s shop.
The excitement occasioned by that crime had been revived and increased
tenfold by the discovery of the attack upon the Excise Office, which was
made by ten o’clock on the night of its occurrence, and the vigilance of
the authorities was proportionally augmented.
Brown stood in a more ticklish situation towards the outraged majesty of
the law than any of his companions, for over him hung the sentence of
transportation, which he had hitherto successfully evaded; and it would
go hard with him if he fell into the hands of justice in connection with
any of his later villainies, which might happen at any moment. He was,
moreover, profoundly disgusted with the manner in which the Excise
business had miscarried through no fault of his own, and would not be
sorry to steal a march on his cowardly associates. He was also cunning
enough to foresee that, if he turned informer, he would not only earn a
handsome reward, but enjoy immunity for his past performances, as it
would be necessary for the public prosecutor to obtain a pardon for his
old offence also, before his evidence could be made available against
his fellow-criminals.
Having carefully considered his position, therefore, and immediately
after securing his dividend at Smith’s, Brown proceeded to William
Middleton, of the Sheriff-Clerk’s Office, and informed him that he had
certain discoveries to make concerning the robberies recently committed
in the city. Late as it then was--eleven o’clock--Middleton at once took
Brown to the Procurator-Fiscal, to whom he told the whole story,
suppressing, however, in the meantime, all mention of Deacon Brodie’s
name in connection with the crimes. His object in taking this course was
doubtless to secure a hold upon the Deacon which would enable him, at
his leisure, to blackmail that respectable gentleman with impunity. At
his own request the Procurator-Fiscal and Middleton went with him that
same night to Salisbury Crags, where Brown pointed out a number of false
keys underneath a stone, hidden there by Smith after the affair at the
Excise Office, of which the Fiscal took possession.
The next morning, Saturday, 8th March, Brown, accompanied by Middleton,
left for Chesterfield in pursuit of Inglis & Horner’s goods by the very
coach in which Mrs. Smith was to have performed the same journey. How
they fared upon their errand is not recorded, but it would have been
interesting to know what happened when John Tasker’s unexpected guests
dropped in at the “Bird in Hand.”
The same day Ainslie, Smith, and his wife, and servant-maid were
apprehended; and, having been examined before the Sheriff, were
committed to the Tolbooth, the two women being subsequently set at
liberty.
That Saturday evening the rumour of the prisoners’ arrest spread like
wildfire through the city, and on Deacon Brodie, confident in his fool’s
paradise, the intelligence must have fallen like a thunderbolt. Apart
from his temporary loss of nerve at the Excise Office, he was
undoubtedly a man of courage and resource, and the step he now
determined to take might well have daunted a less intrepid character.
This was to visit the Tolbooth in person and obtain speech with Smith
and Ainslie, so as to induce them, if it were not too late, to hold
their tongues. To do this, knowing nothing of where he stood or how much
had come out, was to put his head into the lion’s mouth; but he saw
that, at all costs, he must ascertain what had happened. Accordingly,
having taken his cane and cocked hat, the Deacon, with that “particular
air” which characterised his walk, sallied forth upon his desperate
errand. The Tolbooth was but a few paces from his own door, and he was
familiar with the jail, both as a Town Councillor and in the ordinary
course of his employment. Arrived there, he congratulated the officials
on their capture, and expressed his curiosity to see the redoubtable
burglars with whose deeds all Edinburgh was then ringing, but was
informed that no one was allowed access to them. He was therefore
compelled to return home no wiser than he went, where, it is probable,
the owner of the house in Brodie’s Close passed a sleepless and
remorseful night.
Next morning, realising that the game was up, and that he must prepare
for the worst--for he might now be arrested at any moment--Deacon Brodie
sent for his foreman, Robert Smith, at eight o’clock, told him that he
was about to leave town for a day or two on business, and gave him a
message about a waistcoat and a pair of breeches he required for the
journey. He then casually asked “if there were any news about the people
who had broke into the Excise.” The foreman answered that Smith was in
custody, and that Brown had been sent to England; and, knowing his
master’s intimacy with these men, added that he hoped he (Brodie) was
not concerned with them, to which the other made no reply.
If he was to fly the country it was essential that the Deacon should be
in touch with his relations in Edinburgh, upon whose assistance he would
principally have to rely. He therefore promptly called upon his
cousin--whose name was considerately withheld in the subsequent
proceedings--and explained the situation. This gentleman’s feelings, as
he listened to the disclosures of his respectable relative, may readily
be imagined. But the honour of the family was at stake, and he seems to
have done everything he could to further the Deacon’s plans. The
necessary arrangements made, early in the forenoon of Sunday, 9th March,
while the good folks of Edinburgh were still in church, Deacon Brodie
burnt his boats and stole secretly out of the city.
Had the Deacon’s confidence in the loyalty of his late companions been
stronger, it is possible he might even yet have weathered the storm, for
neither Smith nor Ainslie in the declarations emitted by them on the
Saturday had admitted their guilt or made any reference to his
connection with them. So far, therefore, the statements of Brown were
uncorroborated; and if, in modern parlance, Brodie had decided “to face
the music” and remain in Edinburgh, his fortunes might have taken a
different turn.
In the course of Smith’s first examination before the Sheriff a curious
incident occurred. He was confronted with the ploughman, John Kinnear,
whose coulter had been stolen by Ainslie and Brown as before narrated,
in order to try if that person could identify him. Kinnear, never having
seen him before, failed to do so. At this moment, however, Smith’s dog
“Rodney,” having followed his master to the Sheriff-Clerk’s Office, came
into the room, and the ploughman at once recognised it as the black dog
which he had seen with the men in the field at Duddingston. The animal
ran up to Smith and fawned upon him, thus, in spite of his denial,
establishing the fact of his ownership. “Rodney” figures in Kay’s sketch
of the first meeting of Brodie and Smith.
On Monday, 10th March, Smith, learning that the Deacon had decamped, and
no doubt hoping to secure more favourable terms for himself, sent for
the Sheriff and informed him “that he wished to have an opportunity of
making a clean breast and telling the truth.” He thereupon emitted his
second declaration, laying bare the whole operations of the gang, and
implicating Brodie to the fullest extent, his admissions being
afterwards confirmed by Ainslie.
The following paragraph appeared next day in the _Edinburgh Evening
Courant_:--“The depredations that have been committed by housebreakers
in and about this city for this some time past have been no less
alarming than the art with which they have been executed, and the
concealment that has attended them has been surprising. From a
discovery, however, just made, there is reason to hope that a stop will
soon be put to such acts of atrocious villainy. With what amazement must
it strike every friend to virtue and honesty to find that a person is
charged with a crime of the above nature who very lately held a
distinguished rank among his fellow-citizens? With what pity and
compunction must we view the unfortunate victim who falls a sacrifice to
justice for having violated the laws of his country, to which violation
he was perhaps impelled by necessity, when rank, ease, and opulence are
forfeited in endeavouring to gratify the most sordid avarice? For to
what other cause than avarice can we impute the late robbery committed
upon the Excise Office, when the situation of the supposed perpetrator
is considered? No excuse from necessity can be pled for a man in the
enjoyment of thousands, who will run the risk of life, honour, and
reputation in order to attain the unlawful possession of what could in a
very trifling degree add to his supposed happiness.--See the
advertisement from the Sheriff-Clerk’s Office.”
The advertisement to which this article refers--a copy of which will be
found in the Appendix--was the offer by the Procurator-Fiscal of a
reward of two hundred pounds for the apprehension of “William Brodie, a
considerable house carpenter, and burgess of the city of Edinburgh,”
together with the minute and somewhat unflattering description of that
gentleman’s personal appearance, to which we have already alluded. So
the murder was out at last, and the ex-Town Councillor became a fugitive
from justice with a price upon his head.
In consequence of the revelations of Smith, the officers of justice
proceeded on Monday, 10th March, to search the house in Brodie’s Close.
There Smith, who accompanied them, unearthed the Deacon’s pistols,
buried in his woodyard. His dark lantern, several pick-locks, and a
parcel of false keys were also found--the first “in a pen where
game-cocks had been
[Illustration: Deacon Brodie’s Dark Lanthorn and False Keys.
(From the originals in the Museum of The Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland.)]
kept”--together with “a black case, with a lid to it, the case full of
potty,” with which it had been the Deacon’s amiable habit to take
impressions of his friends’ door keys, and of which Smith remarked that
he “approved of Brodie keeping the potty in a case, as the lid prevented
an impression of a key, when taken, from being defaced.” On a subsequent
occasion, Smith conducted the sheriff-officers to the foot of
Warriston’s Close, where the iron crow--“Little Samuel”--the “toupee
tongs,” and the false key for the Excise Office door were discovered
hidden “in an old dyke.” The Deacon’s dark lantern and twenty-five false
keys were, on 13th December, 1841, presented by the then Clerk of
Justiciary to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, in whose museum
they still remain.
On Tuesday, 11th March, George Williamson, King’s Messenger for
Scotland, was deputed to search for the missing Deacon. He tried several
of Brodie’s haunts in Edinburgh and Leith--even examining the enclosed
tombs in Greyfriars Churchyard, which had more than once sheltered
living offenders against the law--but without success. Prosecuting his
inquiries along the London Road, Williamson first got scent of his
quarry at Dunbar, which the fugitive had left at four o’clock on the
Sunday afternoon in a post-chaise, and afterwards traced him to
Newcastle, where he had taken the “Flying Mercury” light coach for York
and London. From the coachman of that vehicle Williamson learned that
Deacon Brodie had left the coach at the foot of Old Street, Moorfields,
instead of proceeding to the “Bull and Mouth,” where the coach stopped,
and there all trace of him was lost. His pursuer repaired to the
billiard tables, hazard tables, cock-pits, tennis courts, and other
likely places, without hearing anything of him, and pushed his inquiries
as far as Margate, Deal, and Dover, with the like result. Finally, after
eighteen days’ fruitless search, the King’s Messenger was compelled to
return to Edinburgh and confess himself at fault.
* * * * *
We must now, in our turn, set forth in search of Mr. Brodie; and as to
his doings after leaving Edinburgh we have the evidence of his own
letter to Michael Henderson. He writes--“Were I to write you all that
has happened to me, and the hair-breadth escapes I made from a
well-scented pack of bloodhounds, it would make a small volume. I
arrived in London on Wednesday, 12th March, where I remained snug and
safe in the house of an old female friend until Sunday, 23rd March
(whose care for me I shall never forget, and only wish I may ever have
it in my power to reward her sufficiently), within five hundred yards of
Bow Street. I did not keep the house all this time, but so altered,
excepting the scar under my eye, I think you could not have rapt [swore]
to me. I saw Mr. Williamson twice; but although countrymen commonly
shake hands when they meet from home, yet I did not choose to make so
free with him notwithstanding he brought a letter to me. He is a clever
man, and I give him credit for his conduct. My female gave me great
uneasiness by introducing a flash man to me, but she assured me he was a
true man, and he proved himself so, notwithstanding the great reward,
and was useful to me. I saw my picture [his description in the
newspapers] six hours before, exhibited to public view, and my
intelligence of what was doing at Bow Street Office was as good as ever
I had in Edinburgh. I make no doubt but that designing villain Brown is
now in high favour with Mr. Cockburn [the Sheriff], for I can see some
strokes of his pencil in my portrait. May God forgive him for all his
crimes and falsehoods.” It is evident that the impartial terms of this
description were unpalatable to its subject.
The scar to which the Deacon here alludes was a souvenir of his
membership of the club in the Fleshmarket Close, and the occasion of his
receiving it is thus referred to in the answers of Hamilton, the master
sweep, in the process before mentioned--“Mr. Brodie, in all his innocent
amusements, never met with any person who, after having been fleeced of
money to the amount of a hundred pounds, and detected of the vile and
dishonest methods by which it had been abstracted from him, received, as
a return for his moral rectitude, a very handsome incision on the
eye--never he, indeed! He never was in such company, nor ever met with
such an accident--not he!” This scar may be observed in the portraits of
the Deacon by Kay.
Deacon Brodie had brought with him to London an introduction from his
cousin to Mr. William Walker, attorney in the Adelphi, who busied
himself in the fugitive’s affairs, lent him twelve guineas, and
arranged to have him shipped safely off to the Continent so soon as the
coast was sufficiently clear.
On Sunday, 23rd March, that “constant trader,” the sloop “Endeavour,” of
Carron, John Dent, master, bound for the port of Leith, lay at her
anchor at Blackwall. About twelve o’clock that night the captain, who
had gone ashore, came aboard with the owners, Messrs. Hamilton and
Pinkerton, and an elderly gentleman, apparently in feeble health. After
a short conversation the owners left the ship; the passenger, who had
been “allotted a bed in the state-room near the fire, as he was sick,”
withdrew to the privacy of his cabin; and the “Endeavour” began her
voyage. Off Tilbury Point, however, she went aground, and did not clear
the Thames for a fortnight. No one seems to have thought this
misadventure at all remarkable, and such incidents were doubtless common
enough in those spacious days, when time, generally speaking, was no
object.
The only other passengers on board were John Geddes, a tobacconist in
Mid-Calder, and his wife, who were returning to Leith after a visit to
the metropolis. The leisurely methods of the “Endeavour” afforded ample
opportunity for cultivating the acquaintance of their fellow-passenger,
whose name they found was Mr. John Dixon. They passed the time agreeably
together, and Mr. Dixon on one occasion entertained his fellow-voyagers
to dinner at a neighbouring village, though for the most part, while the
vessel was aground, he remained on board.
At length, having been successfully refloated, the “Endeavour” resumed
her interrupted voyage. No sooner, however, were they well out at sea
than Mr. John Dixon produced and handed to Captain Dent sealed orders
from the owners, wherein he was instructed to make sail for Ostend,
where Mr. Dixon was to be landed, before proceeding to Leith, and the
vessel was accordingly headed for the coast of Flanders. Owing to thick
weather and cross winds, she failed to make that port, and finally put
in to Flushing. Even this fresh delay appears in no way to have
disturbed the equanimity of the easy-going Geddeses; and, having arrived
on the 8th of April at their unlooked-for destination, they improved the
occasion by making some purchases of contraband goods as a memento of
their visit. Mr. John Dixon, meanwhile, before leaving the ship, wrote
three letters--which he entrusted to the care of Geddes for delivery on
his arrival in Edinburgh--directed respectively to Michael Henderson,
stabler in the Grassmarket; Mrs. Anne Grant, Cant’s Close; and Mr.
Matthew Sheriff, upholsterer in Edinburgh. Having taken a cordial
farewell of each other, Mr. Dixon and Geddes parted company, the
former--in whom the astute reader has ere now discerned the perfidious
Deacon--setting out for Ostend in a skiff, and the latter resuming his
protracted voyage.
When the “Endeavour” eventually arrived at Leith, where her
non-appearance had caused considerable anxiety, Geddes, on perusing the
newspapers, saw the Deacon’s description; but, though satisfied that the
letters he carried were written by the notorious William Brodie, for
three weeks after making the discovery he did nothing further in the
matter. Perhaps a dilatory habit had been induced by his late
experiences, or his conscience may have required some persuasion. Having
at last decided to open the letters, he showed them to various persons,
and subsequently delivered them over to the Sheriff. In taking this
course, Geddes was probably actuated less by a sense of duty to his
country than by a desire to secure the reward. If so, it is satisfactory
to find that he did not receive it. The authorities had now, through the
Deacon’s singular imprudence, obtained the necessary clue to his
whereabouts, and no time was lost in following it up.
What were the contents of the letter to Anne Grant we have now no means
of knowing, for that document was not produced at the trial, but the
other two letters will be found at length in the following report. In
all the contemporary accounts of the trial the names of persons referred
to by Deacon Brodie in his letters were, for obvious reasons, omitted.
These are now printed in full for the first time from the originals in
the Justiciary Office, Edinburgh. In that addressed to his
brother-in-law, Matthew Sheriff, dated 8th April, the Deacon writes--“My
stock is seven guineas; but by I reach Ostend will be reduced to less
than six. My wardrobe is all on my back, excepting two check shirts and
two white ones; one of them an old rag I had from my cousin Milton, with
an old hat (which I left behind). My coat, an old blue one, out at arms
and elbows, I also had from him, with an old striped waistcoat and a
pair of good boots. Perhaps my cousin judged right that old things were
best for my purpose. However, no reflections; he is my cousin and a
good prudent lad, and showed great anxiety for my safety; rather too
anxious, for he would not let me take my black coat with me. I could not
extract one guinea from him, although he owes me twenty-four pounds for
three years past. He cannot help his natural temper.” Evidently the
spruce and dapper gentleman keenly felt the sartorial straits to which
his cousin’s parsimony had reduced him. He requests that wearing
apparel, tools, and certain articles connected with his trade be
forwarded to him at an address in New York; desires that his remittances
may be as liberal as possible--“for without money I can make but a poor
shift”; and adds in a postscript, “Let my name and destination be a
profound secret, for fear of bad consequences.”
To Michael Henderson he writes, on 10th April, after the passages
already quoted, asking what is likely to become of “poor Ainslie, Smith,
and his wife; I hope that neither you nor any of your connections has
been innocently involved by these unfortunate men. Write me how the Main
went; how you came on in it; if my black cock fought and gained, &c.,
&c.”--from which we are pleased to note that the Deacon, amid the ruin
of his fortunes, retained his kindly disposition and sporting instincts.
One hopes that the black cock came off victorious. It is interesting to
find in the _Edinburgh Evening Courant_ of 5th April, 1788, the
following advertisement of the “Main” to which the Deacon refers:--
COCK FIGHTING.
The LONG MAIN betwixt William Hamilton, Esq., of Wishaw, and
Captain Cheap of Rossie, begins at twelve o’clock on Monday, the
7th curt., and will continue at the same hour every day during the
week, at HENDERSON’S PIT, Grassmarket.
SUNLEY and SMALL, Feeders and Handlers.
Brodie concludes his letter thus--“I am very uneasy on account of Mrs.
Grant and my three children by her; they will miss me more than any
other in Scotland. May God in His infinite goodness stir up some
friendly aid for their support, for it is not in my power at present to
give them the smallest assistance. Yet I think they will not absolutely
starve in a Christian land, where their father once had friends, and who
was always liberal to the distressed. My eldest daughter, Cecil, should
be put apprentice to the milliner or mantuamaking business; but I wish
she could learn a little writing and arithmetic first. I wish to God
some of my friends would take some charge of Cecil; she is a fine,
sensible girl, considering the little opportunity she has had for
improvement.” Here we have a glimpse of another and better element in
the complex character of this extraordinary man.
Information of the circumstances disclosed in these letters was
instantly despatched to the authorities in London, and the Secretary of
State, Lord Carmarthen, at once communicated with Sir John Potter, the
British Consul at Ostend, in consequence of which Deacon Brodie was
traced to Flushing and Middleburgh, and from thence to Amsterdam.
Application was immediately made to Sir James Harris, British Consul
there, with the result that the Deacon was apprehended in an alehouse,
through the instrumentality of John Daly, an Irishman, on the eve of
embarking for America.
The circumstances of his capture were as follows:--Daly, armed with an
exact description of the fugitive, ascertained his whereabouts in
Amsterdam from two Jews “who attend the passengers that arrive in the
treck schoots.” On reaching the alehouse where Brodie was lodged, the
landlord told him that the gentleman he inquired for was above. Daly
proceeded to the first floor, knocked once or twice at the door, and,
receiving no answer, entered the room. It was seemingly empty, but a
search of the apartment disclosed the unlucky tenant hiding in a
cupboard. “How do you do, Captain John Dixon _alias_ William Brodie?”
said Daly; “come along with me”; and the Deacon, realising that
resistance was useless, surrendered at discretion, and was duly lodged
in the Stadthouse. It is disappointing to find our hero yielding thus
tamely to his Irish captor, but it must be remembered that, physically,
the Deacon was a small man, and, moreover, at this time was not in good
health. Having seen his captive safely disposed of, John Daly left for
London to claim and receive the reward.
On 1st July, Mr. Groves, Messenger-at-arms, was despatched from London
to bring the prisoner back to England. The journal kept by Groves on
this expedition--a copy of which is contained in the Appendix--gives an
interesting account of the proceedings before the magistrates at
Amsterdam in connection with the extradition of the Deacon. There was
some difficulty in establishing the prisoner’s identity, the evidence of
two witnesses on oath to that effect being required by the law of
Holland. One witness, who had seen Brodie in Edinburgh, stated that he
had no doubt he was the same man, “but would not swear he had no
doubt”--a nice distinction. The Deacon would admit nothing. Ultimately
the magistrates declared themselves satisfied, and the prisoner was
delivered up to Mr. Groves, who conducted his charge in triumph to
Helvoetsluys.
The journey was accomplished, with all the pomp and circumstance
befitting so important an occasion, in “two carriages, and four guides,
with four horses in each carriage,” and the poor Deacon “properly
secured” inside. Next day they sailed for Harwich, the prisoner being
“watched two hours alternately on board by the ship’s crew, his hands
and arms confined, and his meat cut up for him, &c.” Mr. John Dixon must
have recalled with regret the comforts of his earlier voyage.
On 11th July the pair arrived in London, where Deacon Brodie was
examined at Bow Street before Sir Sampson Wright, chief magistrate, and
Mr. Longlands, solicitor to the Treasury, in whose presence he admitted
his identity. He was accordingly committed to Tothilfields Bridewell,
pending his removal to Scotland.
At Bow Street two trunks belonging to Brodie were opened, and in one of
them was found a bundle of papers. Among these were two draft letters or
unsigned scrolls, afterwards produced at the trial, and printed in the
following report, which throw much interesting light upon the writer’s
position and prospects. They were evidently intended for friends in
Edinburgh, and written subsequent to the letters which he had intrusted
to the treacherous Geddes. He writes--“I hope to embark in the first
ship for America, to whatever port she is bound, which will probably be
Charlestown, South Carolina, as there is a ship lying-to for that port.
I will settle there, if I think I can do better than at Philadelphia or
New York.” He asks his correspondent to inform him “what has been done
with the two unfortunate men Smith and Ainslie, and the greater villain,
John Brown _alias_ Humphry Moore? Was John Murray _alias_ Jack Tasker
brought from England? I shall ever repent keeping such company; and
whatever they may allege, I had no direct concern in any of their
depredations, excepting _the last fatal one_, by which I lost ten pounds
in cash. But I doubt not all will be laid to my charge, and some that I
never heard of.” The last quoted passage told strongly against him at
the trial, and it is difficult to see why he had preserved such
compromising documents.
In the same trunk was found an account or state of Brodie’s affairs
prepared by himself on 24th March, the day after he embarked in the
“Endeavour.” This document was founded on in the indictment and produced
at the trial; but Creech tells us, in the introduction to his report,
that, “although laid on the table for the inspection of the jury, yet,
being of a private nature and not necessarily connected with the crime
charged, the jury had too much delicacy to look into; and it is hoped
the same motive will be a sufficient apology for not laying it before
the public.” It was, accordingly, not published in any of the
contemporary accounts of the trial, and is now for the first time
printed in the following report from the original MS. in the Justiciary
Office. From this most interesting document we are able to learn the
financial position of Deacon Brodie at the time of his flight, and it is
surprising to find that he brings out a balance in his favour of upwards
of £1800.
Our old friend, George Williamson, the King’s Messenger, was sent from
Edinburgh to conduct the reluctant Deacon back to his native city. On
the journey north, Williamson tells us, “Mr. Brodie was in good spirits,
and told many things that had happened to him in Holland.” Among other
items of interest, he mentioned that, while in Amsterdam, he had formed
the acquaintance of a gentleman living in that city on the proceeds of a
successful forgery committed upon the Bank of Scotland. Forgery was a
branch of the learned professions which the Deacon had hitherto
neglected, and he was receiving instruction from this obliging
practitioner, when his studies were abruptly terminated by Mr. Daly’s
call. “Brodie said he was a very ingenious fellow, and that, had
[Illustration: George Williamson, King’s Messenger for Scotland.
(_After Kay._)]
it not been for his own apprehension, he would have been master of the
process in a week.” Before arriving in Edinburgh the Deacon, ever
careful of his personal appearance, was anxious to obtain a shave--a
luxury to which, in the turmoil of his affairs, the dapper gentleman had
been for some days a stranger. Williamson, afraid to trust a razor to
one so circumstanced, himself essayed the task. His intention must have
been superior to his execution, for, when the operation was over, the
patient remarked, “George, if you’re no better at your own business than
at shaving, a person may employ you once, but I’ll be d----d if ever he
does so again!”
On 17th July the _Caledonian Mercury_ was able to announce to its
readers--“This morning early Mr. Brodie arrived from London. He was
immediately carried to the house of Mr. Sheriff Cockburn, at the back of
the Meadows, or Hope Park, for examination. Mr. George Williamson,
Messenger, and Mr. Groves, one of Sir Sampson Wright’s clerks,
accompanied Mr. Brodie in a post-chaise from Tothilfields Bridewell. He
was this forenoon committed to the Tolbooth. They were only fifty-four
hours on the road.”
* * * * *
While their leader was enlarging his experience of life on the
Continent, Smith and Ainslie had varied the monotony of existence in the
Tolbooth by a vigorous attempt to regain their liberty. We read in the
_Scots Magazine_ for May, 1788, that “in the night between the 4th and
5th of May, George Smith, prisoner in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, accused
of shop-breaking and theft, had the ingenuity to make his way from his
own apartment to that of Andrew Ainslie, a supposed accomplice in the
same crimes, though Ainslie’s room was situated two storeys above that
occupied by Smith. This, it would appear, was achieved by his converting
the iron handle of the jack or bucket of the necessary into a pick-lock,
and one of the iron hoops round the bucket into a saw. By a dextrous use
of these instruments Smith took off one door from the hinges, and opened
the other which led to Ainslie’s apartment. They then both set to work,
and cut a hole through the ceiling of Ainslie’s room, as well as through
the roof of the prison itself. Luckily, however, the falling of the
slates and lime into the street, between three and four o’clock in the
morning, attracted the attention of the sentinel upon duty, who
immediately gave the alarm, and the inner keeper had them soon after
properly secured. In order to let themselves down from the top of the
prison they had prepared 16 fathoms of rope, which they had artfully
manufactured out of the sheets of their beds.”
This daring and ingenious bid for freedom deserved a better fate, and it
is a testimony to Smith’s skill that he was able to achieve so much by
means so grotesquely inadequate. Little wonder that, with liberty and
his tools, he was a competent and successful practitioner.
Mr. Brown, that unamiable informer, was, strangely enough, also at this
time an inmate of the Tolbooth. The _Edinburgh Magazine_ for the same
month gives an account of his arrest, along with George White, tanner,
and William Peacock, flesher, charged with being concerned in the murder
of James M‘Arthur, change-keeper in Halkerston’s Wynd, during a quarrel
in the latter’s house--“alleged not to be one of very good repute”--in
which M‘Arthur was fatally assaulted with a bottle. The consequences of
this regrettable incident were, so far as Brown was concerned, averted
by the pardon aftermentioned. White, however, was brought to trial and
found guilty of culpable homicide.
The law officers of the Crown were now busily preparing their case
against Brodie, Smith, and Ainslie; and as, apart from the testimony to
be borne by Brown, there was no direct evidence of the commission of the
crime available, it was decided to accept Ainslie as King’s evidence,
and proceed only against Brodie and Smith upon the charge of breaking
into and robbing the General Excise Office for Scotland. Accordingly, on
19th July, an indictment was served upon them, the trial being fixed to
take place on 4th August. Owing, however, to some additional evidence
having come to the knowledge of the Public Prosecutor, on 11th August, a
new indictment had to be served, and the trial postponed until the 27th
of that month.
Meanwhile, on 28th July, His Majesty’s most gracious pardon had been
obtained for John Brown _alias_ Humphry Moore, which, in law, rendered
that miscreant, as a witness, “habile and testable,” notwithstanding
the baseness of his character and his infamous record.
Deacon Brodie had, since his apprehension, been kept in close
confinement in the Tolbooth. He was carefully watched day and night by
two soldiers of the City Guard, and was not allowed either knife or fork
with which to eat his victuals in case of dangerous consequences. On
account of this inconvenient restriction, the Deacon, shortly before his
trial, addressed the following remonstrance to a brother member of the
Town Council and one of the magistrates of the city:--
“Edinburgh, 17th August, 1788.
“Dear Sir,
“The nails of my toes and fingers are not quite so long as
Nebuchadnezzar’s are said to have been, although long enough for a
Mandarine, and much longer than I find convenient. I have tried
several experiments to remove this evil without effect, which no
doubt you’ll think says little for your Ward’s ingenuity; and I
have the mortification to perceive the evil daily increasing.
“Dear Sir, as I intend seeing company abroad in a few days, I beg
as soon as convenient you’ll take this matter under consideration,
and only, if necessary, consult my Guardian and Tutor _sine qua
non_; and I doubt not but you’ll devise some safe and easy method
of operation that may give me a temporary relief. Perhaps the
faculty may prescribe a more radical cure.
“Dear Sir, if not disagreeable to you, I’ll be happy to see you.
You’ll be sure to find me at home, and all hours are equally
convenient.
“Believe me to be, with great esteem,
“Your most affectionate Ward, and very humble servant,
“WILL. BRODIE.
“To Don. Smith Esq.
“Edinburgh.”
This curious instance of a sense of humour retained in the most
unfavourable circumstances throws an interesting sidelight on the
Deacon’s character.
On the Friday before the trial Smith, who appears to have abandoned all
hope of an acquittal, wrote a letter to the Board of Excise, saying
“that he was not to give them any trouble, for he would plead Guilty.”
He also prepared a written statement, which it was his intention to have
read to the Court, but he was dissuaded from this course by his agent,
Mr. Morrison, and finally decided to take his chance and plead not
guilty. In this remarkable document--a copy of which is contained in the
Appendix--Smith gives, _inter alia_, the following list of “such
robberies as my accomplices and myself had determined to commit, had we
not been timeously prevented:--
“1. On Dalgleish & Dickie, watchmakers.
2. On White & Mitchell, lottery-office keepers.
3. On a rich baker near Brodie’s Close--the name forgot.
4. The Council Chamber, for the mace.
5. The Chamberlain’s Office, for money.
6. Forrester & Co.’s, jewellers.
7. Gilchrist & Co.’s, linen drapers.
Besides these, and as depredations of greater magnitude--
8. The Bank of Scotland (or Old Bank) was to have been broke into.
9. The Stirling stage coach, carrying a thousand pounds to pay the
Carron workmen, was to have been stopped and robbed.
10. Mr. Latimer, Collector of Excise for the Dalkeith district,
reported to have generally from one to two thousand pounds, was to
have been robbed.”
This comprehensive catalogue of the gang’s prospective arrangements was,
doubtless, perused with much interest by the intended victims, and the
rich baker must have congratulated himself on escaping the attention of
his respectable neighbour. The only one of these contemplated robberies,
towards the accomplishment of which any steps would seem to have been
taken, was that of the office of the City Chamberlain. We read in
Smith’s third declaration that “a false key was made by Brodie for the
purpose of opening the door of the Chamberlain’s cash-room of the city
of Edinburgh; the declarant and Brodie had frequently been at the door
of the Chamberlain’s Office, in order to take the impression of the
keyhole; that Brodie showed the declarant the said key after it was
made; and Brodie told the declarant that it did not answer”--which was
fortunate for the City Chamberlain. But the laudable intention which
Smith, since his apprehension, had evinced “of making a clean breast”
was not destined to gain for him any temporal advantage.
[Illustration: George Smith at the Bar.
(_After Kay._)]
The public interest in the approaching trial was intense, both on
account of the magnitude of the late robberies and the prominent
position which Deacon Brodie had so long occupied in Edinburgh. His
escape and capture had further whetted the popular excitement, and at an
early hour on the morning of Wednesday, 27th August, 1788, every part of
the Justiciary Court was crowded to its utmost capacity. A detachment of
the 7th Regiment of Foot from the Castle lined the Parliament Square for
the purpose of securing an easy access for the members of the Court and
jurymen, and to prevent any confusion that might arise from the great
crowd assembled at the doors.
At a quarter to nine o’clock the prisoners were brought from the
Tolbooth into Court. “They were conveyed, upon their request, in chairs,
but each having a sentinel of the City Guard on the right and left, with
naked bayonets, and a sergeant’s guard behind, with muskets and fixed
bayonets.” A contemporary account informs us that “Mr. Brodie was
genteelly dressed in a new dark-blue coat, a fashionable fancy
waistcoat, black satin breeches, and white silk stockings, a cocked hat,
and had his hair fully dressed and powdered.” In contrast to the dashing
appearance cut by his companion, Smith, we are told, was “but poorly
clothed, having had no money since his confinement, which had already
lasted six months.” The Deacon affected an easy and confident demeanour;
Smith, on the contrary, looked timid and dejected.
At nine o’clock the five judges, preceded by a macer bearing the
Justiciary mace, and headed by the formidable Braxfield, took their
seats, “and, the Court being fenced and the action called in the usual
manner,” the trial then commenced. As a _verbatim_ report of the
proceedings is contained in the following pages, and some account of the
judges and counsel engaged therein will be found in the Appendix, it is
only necessary here briefly to comment upon the more salient incidents
which occurred in the course of the trial.
It is worthy of note that among those who served upon the jury were
William Creech, the celebrated Edinburgh publisher and man of letters,
and also Sir William Fettes, afterwards Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and
James Donaldson, the well-known printer and pioneer of cheap literature,
to whose munificence the city is indebted for the famous college and
palatial hospital which bear the names of their respective founders.
The interest of the Deacon’s friends had secured for him the services of
Henry Erskine, then Dean of Faculty, and the chief ornament of the Scots
bar, with whom were Alexander Wight, and Charles Hay, afterwards the
jovial Lord Newton; while Smith’s case was entrusted to the celebrated
John Clerk of Eldin, at that time an inconsiderable junior, and Robert
Hamilton, in later years the colleague of Sir Walter Scott. The Lord
Advocate (Ilay Campbell) and the Solicitor-General (Robert Dundas),
assisted by two Advocates-depute, conducted the prosecution.
Both prisoners pleaded not guilty; no objections were taken to the
relevancy of the indictment; and it was stated for Brodie that he
intended to prove an _alibi_. An objection taken by the Dean of Faculty
to the specification of certain of the articles libelled on having been
repelled, John Clerk attempted to make some observations on behalf of
Smith, which resulted in the first of those passages of arms between him
and Braxfield, whereby the dignified course of the proceedings was
frequently enlivened. Clerk had then been at the bar less than three
years; this was the most important case in which he had yet been
employed; and it is said to have been his first appearance in the
Justiciary Court. The remarkable and characteristic energy with which on
that occasion he conducted his client’s defence attracted the attention
of the profession, and laid the foundations of his subsequent reputation
and practice.
An interesting point of law arose in connection with the calling of
Smith’s wife as a witness for the prosecution against Brodie. Her
proposed evidence was vigorously objected to by Clerk on account of the
relation in which she stood to his client--both panels were included in
one indictment, and it was impossible to criminate the one without the
other. A sharp encounter with Braxfield ensued; but the Court admitted
the witness. When Mrs. Smith entered the box, however, Alexander Wight,
for Brodie, stated a fresh objection, viz., that the maiden name of the
witness was wrongly given in the Crown list as “Mary Hubbart,” whereas
her real name was “Hibbutt,” which, on her being requested by Braxfield
to sign her name, turned out to be the fact. In view of this misnomer
the objection was sustained and the witness dismissed.
Another legal point of interest arose when it was proposed to identify
the five-pound bank-note libelled on, the Dean of Faculty objecting that
it was not a “bank-note,” as described in the indictment, having been
issued by a private banking company in Glasgow. The Court sustained the
objection, holding that nothing was to be deemed a bank-note but one
issued from a bank established by Royal Charter.
The crucial question of the case, however, both for the prosecution and
the defence, was whether or not Ainslie and Brown should be admitted as
witnesses to prove the panels’ guilt. So far the proof of their
complicity in the robbery was mainly circumstantial. Although Smith, in
his second declaration, had confessed his accession to the crime, yet,
having pleaded not guilty, this was not in itself sufficient to convict
him; while as regards the Deacon, apart from the statements of Smith,
his guilt was only to be inferred from his flight and certain passages
in his letters. It was, therefore, of vital importance to the prisoners
that the direct evidence of their accomplices should be excluded, while
the Crown case equally depended for a verdict upon its admission.
To the determining of this question each side accordingly addressed its
strongest efforts, and the debate which followed will be found both
lively and instructive. The authority of Sir George Mackenzie was quoted
against the admission of the witnesses; but that venerable jurist was
somewhat severely handled. The principal objection to Ainslie, as stated
by the Dean of Faculty, was that he had been himself accused of the
crime he was now to fasten upon another, and that the Sheriff of
Edinburgh had offered him his life if he would criminate Brodie, of
whose complicity he had hitherto said nothing. In the case of Brown, the
battle was joined upon the precise effect of the pardon which had been
obtained for that interesting criminal, and to what extent the pristine
purity of his character was thereby restored. The Court, however,
repelled the objections, and admitted both witnesses; and the evidence
which they gave finally disposed of all chance of the panels’
acquittal.
At the conclusion of Brown’s evidence the Lord Justice-Clerk addressed
that truculent scoundrel as follows:--“John Brown, you appear to be a
clever fellow, and I hope you will now abandon your dissipated courses,
and betake yourself to some honest employment.” To which Brown suitably
replied, “My Lord, be assured my future life shall make amends for my
past conduct.” He then left the box, and so passes out of the story, of
which he was undoubtedly “the greater villain,” and surely never did
witness less merit judicial commendation than John Brown _alias_ Humphry
Moore.
The Crown case closed with the reading of the prisoners’ declarations
and the Deacon’s letters, such portions of the former as related to
matters unconnected with the trial being withheld from the jury. For the
defence no witnesses were called for Smith, and an attempt to prove an
_alibi_ made on behalf of Brodie was entirely unsuccessful, the
principal witnesses to it being his brother-in-law, Matthew Sheriff, and
his mistress, Jean Watt, both obviously friendly to the Deacon’s
interests.
At one o’clock on the morning of Thursday, 28th August, the exculpatory
proof was closed, and the Lord Advocate began his address to the jury.
His Lordship’s speech, while an able and convincing statement of the
Crown case, was marred by one or two passages which would now be
considered to exceed the limits of legitimate advocacy. Such are the
references to facts “which would have been likewise sworn to by Smith’s
wife, if she had been allowed to be examined”; the assumption that the
Deacon’s foreman, Robert Smith, was convinced of his master’s guilt; the
use made of Ainslie’s declaration, which that witness was told had been
destroyed, and which was not before the Court; and the passage in the
peroration referring to the “consequences to the inhabitants of this
populous city” of the Deacon’s acquittal.
At the conclusion of the evidence the Dean of Faculty and John Clerk had
held a final consultation, when it was arranged that Clerk should speak
first for Smith, and that Erskine should follow for Brodie, and
strengthen or take up such points as he might think necessary. In order
to put himself in fighting form, Clerk, we are told, drank a bottle of
claret before commencing his address. This speech, the only extant
example of his celebrated method of advocacy, was, in all the
contemporary reports, reduced to a minimum for fear of offending the
judges. Fortunately, however, a later writer, Peter Mackenzie, has
preserved, in his “Reminiscences of Glasgow” (Glasgow, 1866), a full
account of the suppressed passages, which he gives on the unquestionable
authority of Æneas Morrison, the agent for Smith, who himself furnished
the author with these particulars. They have accordingly been
incorporated in the following report.
When Clerk, in the course of his address, came to deal with the evidence
of Ainslie and Brown, a scene, almost incredible to us nowadays,
occurred between the irrepressible young advocate and the overbearing
judge. Clerk informed the jury that, in his opinion, these witnesses
ought never to have been admitted, a statement which the bench naturally
resented, and he went on to insist that, notwithstanding the ruling of
the Court, the jury should discard their evidence entirely, as they (the
jury) were to judge of the law as well as of the fact. In the course of
the discussion which followed, the intervention of the Lord Advocate was
met by a graceful allusion to His Majesty’s Tory Administration as
“villains” likely to contaminate the Crown.
A heated altercation between Clerk and Braxfield ensued, and, finally,
the latter bade him go on with his speech at his peril. On Clerk
refusing to proceed unless allowed to do so in his own way, Braxfield
invited the Dean of Faculty to commence his address for Brodie, which
that gentleman declined to do. Thereupon the Lord Justice-Clerk was
about to charge the jury himself, when Clerk, starting to his feet and
shaking his fist at the bench, cried out, “Hang my client if ye daur, my
Lord, without hearing me in his defence!” These amazing words, the like
of which had seldom echoed in judicial ears, caused the utmost sensation
in Court, and, after an awful pause, the judges left the bench to hold a
consultation. But, on their return, instead of anything tremendous
taking place, his Lordship civilly requested Clerk to continue his
address, and the incident terminated.
Thus was the redoubtable Braxfield forced to yield to the persistence of
the fiery young counsel. On reading the discussion as reported, one
cannot but think that Clerk was clearly in the wrong, and that his
contention as to the jury being judges both of the fact and of the law
was, as Braxfield roundly put it, “talking nonsense.” Nor does it
appear that the line which he saw fit to adopt could in any way benefit
his unfortunate client, whose interests would have been better served by
more temperate methods. Clerk, however, was thoroughly pleased with his
performance, and subsequently observed that it was “the making of him”
professionally.
It is said that Clerk’s indignant repudiation of the prosecutor’s
argument that the King’s pardon made Brown an honest man reached the
ears of Robert Burns, and led him afterwards to write the famous lines--
A prince can mak’ a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an’ a’ that;
But an honest man’s aboon his might,
Gude faith, he mauna fa’ that!
At three o’clock in the morning the Dean of Faculty rose to address the
jury on behalf of Deacon Brodie. In spite of the fact that he had been
continuously engaged upon the case since nine o’clock the preceding
morning, no signs of exhaustion appear in his eloquent and powerful
speech. Every point telling in favour of the prisoner was given due
prominence, and the utmost was made of the somewhat flimsy material of
the _alibi_; the whole address forms a fine example of forensic oratory.
At half-past four o’clock the Lord Justice-Clerk--who is said never to
have left the bench since the proceedings began--delivered his charge to
the jury, which, one is glad to find, notwithstanding what had
previously occurred, was a fair and impartial review of the evidence.
His Lordship having concluded his charge at six o’clock on Thursday
morning, the Court adjourned until one o’clock afternoon; the jury were
inclosed; and the prisoners taken back to prison.
The _Edinburgh Advertiser_ remarks--“Mr. Brodie’s behaviour during the
whole trial was perfectly collected. He was respectful to the Court, and
when anything ludicrous occurred in the evidence he smiled as if he had
been an indifferent spectator.”
When the Court met again at one o’clock, the Chancellor of the jury
handed in their written verdict, sealed with black wax, which
unanimously found both panels guilty of the crime libelled, and the Lord
Advocate formally moved for sentence.
A final effort was now made on behalf of the prisoners. Counsel for
Brodie stated a plea in arrest of judgment, in respect that the verdict
found the panels guilty “of breaking into _the_ house in which the
General Excise Office for Scotland was kept,” whereas it appeared from
the evidence that there were, in fact, two separate and distinct houses
occupied as the Excise Office. This objection was, after argument,
repelled by the Court, and the prisoners were sentenced to death, their
execution being appointed to take place on Wednesday, 1st October.
When the sentence was pronounced, we are told “Mr. Brodie discovered
some inclination to address himself to the Court, but was restrained by
his counsel,” and contented himself with bowing to the bench. The
prisoners were then removed to the Tolbooth, escorted by the City Guard,
amid a great concourse of spectators, and the proceedings terminated.
Æneas Morrison, the agent for Smith, adds the following
particulars:--“The panels behaved in a manner different from each other,
Smith appearing to be much dejected, especially at receiving his
dreadful sentence, although in many instances he showed very great
acuteness in his remarks upon the depositions of the witnesses and in
the questions to them which he suggested. Mr. Brodie, on the other hand,
affected coolness and determination in his behaviour. When the sentence
of death was pronounced he put one hand in his breast and the other in
his side and looked full around him. It is said that he accused his
companion of pusillanimity, and even kicked him as they were leaving the
Court. Thus ended a trial which had excited the public curiosity to an
extraordinary degree, and in which their expectations were not
disappointed. During the space of twenty-one hours--the time it
lasted--circumstances continually followed each other to render it
highly interesting, and more particularly to the gentlemen of the law,
on account of the great variety and importance of the legal topics which
were discussed and decided.”
The prisoners were lodged in the condemned cell of the Tolbooth, along
with two men, James Falconer and Peter Bruce, then under sentence of
death for breaking into and robbing the office of the Dundee Banking
Company. They were each chained by one foot to an iron bar, but a
contemporary account records that “Brodie’s chain is longer than the
rest, as he can sit at a table and write by himself. They have behaved
tolerable well, considering the small room they have on the goad, which
goes across the room, very securely fixed from one end to the other in
the wall, and hath four divisions or places on which the chains are
fixed, with strong iron supporters fastened into the stone floor, and
each has a mattress to lie on opposite to himself.”
A terrible change this, for the unfortunate Deacon, from the comfortable
chambers of his house in Brodie’s Close and the social advantages which
he had so long and undeservedly enjoyed. He seems, notwithstanding, to
have kept up his spirits, and is said to have been as particular as ever
in the matter of his dress. Having contrived to cut out the figure of a
draughtboard on the stone floor of his dungeon, he amused himself by
playing with any one who would join him, and in default of such, with
his right hand against his left. The author of “Traditions of Edinburgh”
states that this diagram remained in the room, where it was so strangely
out of place, till the demolition of the Old Tolbooth in 1817. Many of
his friends came to see him, for, until the time of his execution drew
near, no restriction was placed upon their visits, and every effort was
made by them to obtain a commutation of the death sentence to one of
transportation for life.
In furtherance of this object Deacon Brodie, on 10th September, wrote
letters to the Right Hon. Henry Dundas, afterwards Viscount Melville,
and to the Duchess of Buccleuch, soliciting their influence in support
of an application then being made to the Government on his behalf.
Copies of these most interesting documents, which have never before been
published, will be found in the Appendix--that addressed to the Duchess
being also given in facsimile. This lady was Elizabeth, daughter of
George, Duke of Montague, and wife of Henry, third Duke of Buccleuch,
the friend of Sir Walter Scott, whose daughter-in-law, when Countess of
Dalkeith, inspired “The Lay of the Last Minstrel.” It is noteworthy
that, in spite of his position and presumed education, the Deacon’s
spelling is more remarkable for originality than accuracy. His friends’
“aplication above,” however, proved unsuccessful, and the inevitable end
had to be faced.
[Illustration: The Old Tolbooth of Edinburgh, showing the beam upon
which criminals were executed.
(From a Drawing by D. Somerville.)]
Deacon Brodie continued to bear up bravely, referring to his approaching
exit as “a leap in the dark,” and is said to have only once broken down,
when he was visited by his eldest daughter, Cecil, on the Friday before
his execution. On the Sunday preceding his death, the other two
prisoners, Falconer and Bruce, who were to have been executed on the
same day, were granted a respite of six weeks. Smith observed that six
weeks was but a short time; whereupon the Deacon exclaimed, “George,
what would you and I give for six weeks longer? Six weeks would be an
age to us!” On the Tuesday he was visited by a friend, when, we are
told, “the conversation turning upon the female sex, he began singing
with the greatest cheerfulness from the ‘Beggar’s Opera’ ‘‘Tis woman
that seduces all mankind,’ &c.”
The “Beggar’s Opera,” the well-known work of the poet and dramatist,
John Gay, appears to have been a special favourite with the Deacon, for
it will be remembered that he sang a stave from it on the night of the
robbery of the Excise Office. The opera was frequently performed at the
Old Theatre Royal, Edinburgh, at this period, and he had, no doubt, had
many opportunities of hearing it. Commenting on this incident, the
_Edinburgh Advertiser_ remarks--“Brodie seemed to take the character of
Captain Macheath as his model, and the day before his death was singing
one of the songs from the ‘Beggar’s Opera.’ This is another proof of the
dangerous tendency of that play, which ought to be prohibited from being
performed on the British stage. It is inconceivable how many highwaymen
and robbers this opera has given birth to.” The editor of the
_Advertiser_ was evidently less gifted with a sense of humour than the
Deacon, and had never read Fergusson’s lines “To Sir John Fielding, on
his attempt to suppress the ‘Beggar’s Opera.’”
* * * * *
On the night before the execution, Deacon Brodie complained of the noise
made by the workmen in effecting the alterations on the gibbet
necessitated by the reprieve of the other prisoners, Falconer and Bruce;
and it is stated in a contemporary report of the trial, published by
Robertson on 2nd October, 1788, the day after the execution, that Brodie
then said “he planned the model of the new place of execution, he
purchased the wood, and gave his assistance in finishing it--but little
did he imagine at the time that he himself would make his exit on it.”
The _Edinburgh Advertiser_ of 3rd October, 1788, describing the
execution, says--“It is not a little remarkable that Brodie was the
planner, a few years since, of the new-invented gallows on which he
suffered”; and Robert Chambers, in his “Minor Antiquities of Edinburgh,”
(1833, p. 168), remarks--“As the Earl of Morton was the first man
executed by the ‘Maiden,’ so was Brodie the first who proved the
excellence of an improvement he had formerly made on the apparatus of
the gibbet. This was the substitution of what is called the ‘drop’ for
the ancient practice of the double ladder. He inspected the thing with a
professional air, and seemed to view the result of his ingenuity with a
smile of satisfaction.” William Chambers, however, in his “Book of
Scotland” (1830, pp. 327-8), takes a different view, holding that the
drop was first employed at Newgate in 1784, and had already been used in
Edinburgh at an execution in 1785.
Popular tradition, with a fine sense of the requirements of poetic
justice, has steadfastly held that Deacon Brodie was the first to test
the efficacy of the drop which he himself invented, and was thus, in a
double sense, the artificer of his own downfall. And although such a
circumstance would be well in keeping with the Deacon’s singularly
dramatic career, it must unfortunately be dismissed as a picturesque
improvement on the literal truth.
A careful examination of the Council records discloses the following
facts, now for the first time published:--On 18th August, 1784, the Town
Council remitted to Convener Jameson (mason), Deacon Hill (wright), and
Deacon Brodie to inspect the west wall of the Tolbooth and consider in
what manner a door or passage could be made in order that criminals
might be executed there, and to report. Up till that time all public
executions had taken place in the Grassmarket at the foot of the West
Bow; and it was now proposed that criminals should be executed upon a
platform to be erected on the low building which projected from the west
gable of the Tolbooth. The report of the committee on the subject does
not appear on the record; but in September the new Council was elected
for the ensuing year, and Deacon Brodie was not chosen a member of it.
On 24th November, 1784, “pursuant to a late remit to the Magistrates to
consider as to fitting up a place adjoining to the Tolbooth of this city
for the execution of criminals,” estimates by Convener Jameson and
Deacon Hill (who were members of the new Council) were accepted for the
mason and wright work respectively. On 11th April, 1785, estimates by
the same two Councillors were accepted for rebuilding the shops affected
by the proposed alterations, “exclusive of the wright work for the
platform and the machinery for an execution, conform to a former
estimate.” On the 13th of the same month, the Dean of Guild having
inspected the work and reported favourably upon it, the magistrates
passed an Act of Council appointing the west end of the Tolbooth to be
the common place of execution in all time coming; and ordained Archibald
Stewart, then under sentence of death for housebreaking, to be executed
there in pursuance of his sentence. The execution was accordingly
carried out on 20th April, 1785, but not, it would appear, upon the
moveable platform or drop. On 7th September of that year, five months
after Stewart’s death, the Council for the first time authorised Deacon
Hill “to make a _moveable_ platform for the execution of criminals in
terms of his estimate”; and among certain accounts ordered to be paid by
the City Chamberlain on 13th September, 1786, we find one due “To Thomas
Hill for erecting a _second_ platform, west end of the Tolbooth,
twenty-one pounds, seven shillings and elevenpence halfpenny”--his
account for the former work being also mentioned.
This was, without doubt, the drop upon which, two years later, Deacon
Brodie was to suffer the penalty of the law. It is possible, and indeed,
from the contemporary evidence already quoted, probable that he himself
designed the model, adopting the improvement recently introduced in
England. He may even have sent in an estimate for the work, but, as he
was not that year a member of Council, Deacon Hill had the better chance
of securing the contract, and certainly obtained it.
It was, therefore, on the platform above referred to that the execution
of William Brodie and George Smith took place, at half-past two o’clock
on the afternoon of Wednesday, 1st October, 1788, in presence of an
immense crowd of spectators, great numbers having come from all parts of
the country to witness the event. The _Caledonian Mercury_
observes--“The crowd on this occasion was the greatest ever known; the
whole space from the prison to the Castle Hill being filled with
spectators, pressed together in one compact and immoveable column.” The
proceedings were conducted with more than usual solemnity; the
magistrates attended in their robes of office, “with white gloves and
white staves”; ministers of divers denominations were present in their
gowns and bands; and the City Guard formed a cordon round the place of
execution. We read that “the great bell tolled during the ceremony,
which had an awful and solemn effect.” This is said to have been the
first occasion of the kind on which the bell of St. Giles’ Church was
tolled. It is characteristic of the man that, on his last public
appearance, we are informed, “Mr. Brodie appeared in a handsome suit of
black clothes, and had his hair powdered and dressed with taste.” Twice,
owing to some defect in the adjustment of the ropes, did the Deacon
descend from the platform and enter into conversation with his friends;
but, notwithstanding this dreadful delay, his fortitude remained
unshaken, and he met his fate with a courage and equanimity worthy of a
better cause:
Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it.
With his hand thrust carelessly into the open front of his vest, as we
see him in his portrait, the Deacon calmly took that step out of the
world which his own ingenuity is said to have shortened.
The _Edinburgh Evening Courant_ of 2nd October, 1788, voices the popular
sentiment of the time as follows:--“Thus ended the life of William
Brodie, whose conduct, when we consider his situation in life, is
equally singular and contradictory. By the low and vicious connections
he formed he had everything to lose--he could gain little even if
successful; for, from the moment he embarked in the enterprises of his
desperate associates, his property, his life, was at their mercy.
Indeed, his crimes appear to be rather the result of infatuation than
depravity; and he seemed to be more attracted by the dexterity of
thieving than the profit arising from it. To excel in the performance of
some paltry legerdemain or slight-of-hand tricks, to be able to converse
in the cant or flash language of thieves, or to chant with spirit a song
from the ‘Beggar’s Opera,’ was to him the highest ambition. Those who
knew him best agree that his
[Illustration: Deacon Brodie.
(_After Kay._)]
disposition was friendly and generous, and that he had infinitely more
of the dupe than the knave in his composition; and was, indeed,
admirably fitted for designing and wicked men to work upon.” The Deacon,
even in his own day, did not lack apologists. And though there may be
some diversity of opinion regarding the precise shade which that unhappy
gentleman had stained a character in other respects not without
redeeming traits, there can be none as to the monstrous injustice of the
penalty exacted by the law for his offence. In these more merciful
times, when conscientious juries hesitate to convict the guilty upon a
capital charge, and rather than deliver a fellow-being to an irrevocable
doom will sometimes evade responsibility by the _via media_ of “not
proven,” it is difficult to realise the callous indifference to human
life for which our criminal code was formerly notorious. At that period
a man might, literally, as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb; and
that the Deacon should suffer a punishment so disproportionate to his
deserts would, however repugnant to modern feeling, seem natural enough
to his stoical contemporaries.
* * * * *
In explanation of the singular degree of coolness exhibited to the last
by Deacon Brodie, a curious story became current. Much anxiety had
undoubtedly been shown both by himself and others that his body might
not be detained in prison, but should be delivered to his friends so
soon as the execution had taken place. With this view the Deacon, on the
forenoon of the fatal day, addressed to the Lord Provost the following
remarkable letter:--
“Edinburgh Tolbooth,
“Oct. 1, 1788, Eleven o’clock.
“My Lord,
“As none of my relations can stand being present at my dissolution,
I humbly request that your Lordship will permit ---- to attend, it
will be some consolation in my last hour; and that your Lordship
will please give orders that my body after be delivered to and by
no means to remain in gaol; that he and my friends may have it
decently dressed and interred. This is the last request of
“Your most obedient
but most unfortunate,
WILL. BRODIE.”
“Both of which requests,” we are told, “his Lordship most readily
granted.” It is said, by the author of the letterpress in “Kay’s
Portraits” (1877, vol. 1., pp. 262-3), on the authority of an
eye-witness of the execution, that Brodie had been visited in prison by
a French quack, Dr. Peter Degravers, who undertook to restore him to
life after he had hung the usual time; that, on the day preceding the
execution, this individual had marked the Deacon’s temples and arms with
a pencil, in order to know the more readily where to apply his lancet;
and that with this view the hangman had been bargained with for a short
fall. “The excess of caution, however, exercised by the executioner in
the first instance in shortening the rope proved fatal by his
inadvertency in making it latterly too long. After he was cut down his
body was immediately given to two of his own workmen, who, by order of
the guard, placed it in a cart and drove at a furious rate round the
back of the Castle. The object of this order was probably an idea that
the jolting motion of the cart might be the means of resuscitation, as
had once actually happened in the case of the celebrated ‘half-hangit
Maggie Dickson.’ The body was afterwards conveyed to one of Brodie’s own
workshops in the Lawnmarket, where Degravers was in attendance. He
attempted bleeding, &c., but all would not do. Brodie was fairly gone.”
The irregular practitioner above mentioned was certainly in Edinburgh
about that time, for we read in the newspapers of the day
advertisements, which he issued from his rooms in Charles Street,
offering his professional services to the public at the moderate fee of
half-a-crown “in all cases.” Judging by the testimonials from grateful
patients which he also published, the doctor must have given wonderful
value for the money; but in the somewhat exceptional circumstances of
the Deacon’s case he would, if successful, have surely been entitled to
a larger fee.
A more picturesque, if less probable version of the same story is given
by the author of “Reminiscences of Glasgow,” on the authority of Æneas
Morrison. It is there stated that any attempt to effect the Deacon’s
rescue by overpowering the City Guard or breaking into the Tolbooth
having, after due consideration, been abandoned by his friends as
hopeless, the following elaborate scheme was to be attempted to save his
life. Shortly before the hour of his execution, the Deacon was to beg
that he might speak to certain of his friends alone for a few moments
upon his private affairs. This request being complied with, the
opportunity should be seized for introducing into his throat and mouth a
small silver tube made for the purpose, with the view of preventing
suffocation, and wires were to be carried down his sides from head to
foot to save the jerk from the scaffold. The executioner was to be
induced to give him a short drop, and other liberties were to be taken
with the fatal rope. A surgeon--doubtless the philanthropic
Degravers--was to be in attendance to bleed him as soon as the body was
cut down; and, if this succeeded, the Deacon was to lie quiet in his
coffin, exhibiting no symptom of life, till such time as it could be
safely removed to his own house for presumed interment by his relatives.
Whether or not this remarkable programme was ever carried out is not
recorded.
It would appear from these reports that an attempt of some kind was made
with a view to resuscitate the Deacon; and there is no doubt that many
people believed at the time that he had “cheated the wuddy” after all.
It was said that he had actually revived and made good his escape from
Scotland; that he was afterwards seen and conversed with in Paris. His
coffin was certainly interred in the north-east corner of the
burying-ground of St. Cuthbert’s Chapel of Ease--now Buccleuch Parish
Church; but there is a tradition that, on a subsequent occasion, the
grave was opened, when no trace of his body could be found.
These stories are probably apocryphal; but they are curious as showing
the exceptional interest which the Deacon’s strange career aroused in
the minds of his fellow-townsmen. And although his mortal remains,
wheresoever situated, must long since have crumbled into dust, the name
and doings of Deacon Brodie are indissolubly associated with the annals
of that ancient city in which, to a conclusion so disastrous, he played
his double part.
THE TRIAL
WEDNESDAY, 27TH AUGUST, 1788.
The Court met at Nine o’clock.
_Judges Present_--
THE LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (_Lord Braxfield_).
LORD HAILES.
LORD ESKGROVE.
LORD STONEFIELD.
LORD SWINTON.
_Counsel for the Crown_--
THE LORD ADVOCATE (_Ilay Campbell_).
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (_Robert Dundas_).
WILLIAM TAIT and JAMES WOLFE MURRAY, Esqs.,
_Advocates-Depute_.
_Agent_--
Mr. ROBERT DUNDAS, Clerk to the Signet.
_Counsel for the Pannel William Brodie_--
THE DEAN OF FACULTY (_Hon. Henry Erskine_).
ALEXANDER WIGHT and CHARLES HAY, Esqs., _Advocates_.
_Agents_--
Mr. ROBERT DONALDSON, W.S., and Mr. ALEXANDER PATERSON,
Writer, Edinburgh.
_Counsel for the Pannel George Smith_--
JOHN CLERK and ROBERT HAMILTON, Esqs., _Advocates_.
_Agent_--
Mr. ÆNEAS MORRISON, Writer, Edinburgh.
CURIA JUSTICIARIA S. D. N. REGIS, Tenta in Nova Sessionis domo de
Edinburgh, Vicesimo Septimo die Augusti millesimo septingentesimo
Octogesimo octavo, Per Honorabiles Viros; ROBERTUM M‘QUEEN de
Braxfield, Dominum Justiciarium Clericum; Dominum DAVIDEM DALRYMPLE
de Hailes, Baronetum; DAVIDEM RAE de Eskgrove; JOANNEM CAMPBELL de
Stonefield; et JOANNEM SWINTON de Swinton, Dominos Commissionarios
Justiciariae dict. S. D. N. Regis.
Curia Legitime Affirmata.
INTRAN. William Brodie, sometime Wright and Cabinetmaker in
Edinburgh, and George Smith, sometime Grocer there, both prisoners
in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh,
PANNELS.
INDICTED and ACCUSED at the instance of Ilay Campbell, Esq., His
Majesty’s Advocate for His Majesty’s Interest, for the Crime of
Theft attended with House-breaking, in manner mentioned in the
Criminal Indictment raised against them thereanent, bearing as follows:--
WILLIAM BRODIE, sometime Wright and Cabinetmaker in Edinburgh, and
GEORGE SMITH, sometime Grocer there, both prisoners in the Tolbooth
of Edinburgh, You are indicted and accused at the instance of Ilay
Campbell, Esq., His Majesty’s Advocate, for His Majesty’s interest:
THAT ALBEIT, by the laws of this, and of every well-governed realm,
THEFT, more especially when attended with house-breaking, and when
committed by breaking into a house used or kept as an Excise
Office, or other public office, under cloud of night, and from
thence abstracting and stealing money, is a crime of an heinous
nature, and severely punishable: YET TRUE IT IS, AND OF VERITY,
That You, the said William Brodie, and George Smith, are both, and
each, or one or other of You, guilty actors, or art and part, of
the said crime, aggravated as aforesaid: IN SO FAR AS, upon the
night of the 5th day of March, last, in this present year of our
Lord 1788, or upon one or other of the days or nights of that
month, or of February immediately preceding, or of April
immediately following, You, the said William Brodie, and George
Smith, did, by means of false keys, or other instruments, wickedly
and feloniously break into the house in which the General Excise
Office for Scotland was then kept, in Chessels’s buildings, on the
south side of the High-street of Canongate of Edinburgh, within the
royalty or liberties of the city of Edinburgh, and county of
Edinburgh, and did thence feloniously abstract and steal money, to
the amount of Sixteen pounds Sterling, or thereby, consisting
partly of Bank-notes, and partly of silver and halfpence. And You,
the said George Smith, having been afterwards apprehended, and
brought before Archibald Cockburn, Esq., Sheriff-depute of the
county of Edinburgh, did, in his presence, emit three several
declarations; the first of date the 8th day of March, the second of
date the 10th day of March, and the third of date the 19th day of
March, all in this present year of our Lord 1788: And having
afterwards been brought before John Stewart, Esq.,
Sheriff-substitute of the said county, You did, in his presence,
emit a fourth declaration, of date the 17th day of July, likewise
in this present year 1788: The first of which declarations was
signed by the said Archibald Cockburn, the second and third by you,
the said George Smith, and the said Archibald Cockburn, and the
fourth by you, the said George Smith, and the said John Stewart.
AND FURTHER, You, the said William Brodie, having, in the month of
March last, when the said George Smith was committed to prison,
left Edinburgh, and fled from this country; and having afterwards
been brought back, and taken into custody, did, upon the 17th day
of July, in this present year 1788, in presence of the said
Archibald Cockburn, Esq., emit a declaration, which was signed by
you, the said William Brodie, and the said Archibald Cockburn; the
whole of which declarations, together with a letter written by You,
the said William Brodie, and signed John Dixon, dated at Flushing,
Tuesday, 8th April, 1788, twelve o’clock forenoon, and addressed to
Mr. Matthew Sheriff, upholsterer, Edinburgh; another letter, or two
letters, on one sheet of paper, written by You the said William
Brodie, and signed with your initials, dated Thursday, 10th April,
1788, and addressed to Mr. Michael Henderson, Grass-market,
stabler, Edinburgh; an unsigned scroll, or copy of a letter, in the
hand-writing of You, the said William Brodie, marked No. 1. without
date or address; another unsigned scroll, or copy of a letter, in
the hand-writing of You, the said William Brodie, marked No. 2.
without date or address; an account, or state, in the hand-writing
of You, the said William Brodie, entitled, “A state of my affairs,
as near as I can make out at present from memory, having no other
assistance”; a letter, dated London, 1st May, 1788, signed Lee,
Strachan, and Co. and addressed to Mess. Eml. Walker and Co.,
merchants, Philadelphia; a gold watch, with a chain, seal, and key;
a chest, or trunk, containing various articles; a five-pound
bank-note; an iron coulter of a plough; two iron wedges; an iron
crow; a pair of curling irons or toupee tongs; a spur; a dark
lanthorn; a pair of pistols; several false keys and pick-locks; and
two spring-saws; are all to be used in evidence against You the
said William Brodie and George Smith; and, for that purpose, will
be lodged in the hands of the clerk of the High Court of
Justiciary, before which You are to be tried, in order that You may
have an opportunity of seeing the same: AT LEAST, time and place
foresaid, the said house in which the General Excise Office for
Scotland was then kept as aforesaid, was feloniously broke and
entered into, and a sum of money feloniously and theftuously taken
and stolen therefrom as aforesaid; and You the said William Brodie,
and George Smith, above complained upon, are both, and each, or one
or other of You, guilty thereof, actor or actors, or art and part.
ALL WHICH, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an
assize, before the Lord Justice-General, Lord Justice-Clerk, and
Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, You, the said William Brodie,
and George Smith, OUGHT to be punished with the pains of law, to
deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming.
ILAY CAMPBELL.
LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE ADDUCED IN THE TRIAL FOR THE
PROSECUTOR.
1. John Brown _alias_ Humphry Moore, sometime residing in Edinburgh,
present prisoner in the Tolbooth of Canongate of Edinburgh.
2. Andrew Ainslie, sometime shoemaker, present prisoner in the Tolbooth
of Canongate of Edinburgh.
3. Mary Hubbart or Hubburt, spouse of the said George Smith.
4. Grahame Campbell, sometime servant to the said George Smith.
5. Alexander Thomson, accountant of Excise in Edinburgh.
6. Peter M‘Farlane, clerk in the office of the cashier of Excise there.
7. Adam Pearson, assistant secretary of Excise in Edinburgh.
8. Janet Baxter, servant to the said Adam Pearson.
9. William M‘Kay, porter in the Canongate of Edinburgh.
10. John Duncan, doorkeeper to the Excise Office, Edinburgh.
11. Laurence Dundas, housekeeper of the said Excise Office.
12. Margaret Black, late servant to the said Laurence Dundas.
13. Margaret Bain, late servant to the said Laurence Dundas.
14. James Bonar, deputy-solicitor of the Excise, Edinburgh.
15. Robert Smith, wright in Edinburgh, late foreman to the said William
Brodie.
16. Isobel Gilmour, spouse of John Gilmour, ropemaker in West Bow,
Edinburgh.
17. Daniel M‘Lean, waiter to William Drysdale, innkeeper in the New Town
of Edinburgh.
18. Patrick Taylor, smith in Edinburgh.
19. Charles M‘Leod, apprentice to the said Patrick Taylor.
20. Jacobina Pearson, spouse of Hugh Macpherson, shoemaker in
Duddingston, near Edinburgh.
21. John Kinnear, servant to the Earl of Abercorn at Duddingston.
22. Robert Tait, servant to the Earl of Abercorn there.
23. Isobel Wilson, spouse of Adam Robertson, wright in Duddingston.
24. John Clerk, book-keeper to William Drysdale, innkeeper in the New
Town of Edinburgh.
25. David Robertson, merchant in Edinburgh.
26. John Geddes, tobacconist in Mid-Calder and county of Edinburgh.
27. Margaret Tweddle _alias_ Geddes, spouse to the said John Geddes.
28. James Laing, writer in Edinburgh.
29. John M‘Leish, clerk to Mr. Hugh Buchan, City Chamberlain of
Edinburgh.
30. George Williamson, messenger-at-arms in Edinburgh.
31. William Middleton, indweller in Edinburgh.
32. James Murray, sheriff-officer there.
33. Alexander Williamson, sheriff-officer there.
34. James Fraser, sheriff-officer there.
35. Archibald Cockburn, Esq., Sheriff-depute of the county of Edinburgh.
36. John Stewart, Sheriff-Substitute of the said county.
37. William Scott, Procurator-Fiscal of the county of Edinburgh.
38. William Augustus Wishart, clerk to the said William Scott.
39. Joseph Mack, writer in the Sheriff-Clerk’s Office, Edinburgh.
40. Alexander Fraser, grocer and change-keeper in the New Town,
Edinburgh.
41. Laurence Blair, servant to Mr. Charles Hope, advocate.
42. Thomas Longlands, solicitor-at-law in London.
ILAY CAMPBELL.
LIST OF ASSIZE.
1. Andrew Bonar, banker in Edinburgh.
2. Alexander Houston, banker there.
3. Robert Forrester, banker there.
4. Robert Allan, banker there.
5. Henry Jamieson, banker there.
6. John Hay, banker there.
7. William Creech, bookseller there.
8. James Carfrae, merchant there.
9. William Gillespie, merchant there.
10. William Simpson, banker there.
11. George Kinnear, banker there.
12. John Black, merchant there.
13. Francis Blair, merchant there.
14. Elphingston Balfour, bookseller there.
15. Peter Forrester, merchant there.
16. John Thomson, insurance-broker there.
17. Thomas Elder, merchant there.
18. Edward Innes, confectioner there.
19. John Balfour, merchant there.
20. William Fettes, merchant there.
21. John Milne, founder there.
22. Dunbar Pringle, tanner there.
23. Peter Robertson, goldsmith there.
24. Thomas Campbell, merchant there.
25. William Turnbull, merchant there.
26. Alexander Brown, merchant there.
27. Charles Cowan, merchant there.
28. David Paterson, insurance-broker there.
29. Francis Sharp, merchant there.
30. James Donaldson, printer there.
31. John Hutton, stationer there.
32. John Balfour, papermaker there.
33. Robert Young, upholsterer there.
34. John Learmonth, junior, tanner there.
35. Thomas Cleghorn, coachmaker there.
36. Thomas Hutcheson, merchant there.
37. James Craig, corn merchant there.
38. Alexander Bruce, merchant there.
39. Benjamin Yule, baker there.
40. William Smellie, printer there.
41. Orlando Hart, shoemaker there.
42. James Ranken, merchant there.
43. William Young, baker there.
44. William Brown, grocer there.
45. Alexander Weir, painter there.
ROB. M‘QUEEN.
DAV. DALRYMPLE.
DAV. RAE.
LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE ADDUCED IN EXCULPATION OF
WILLIAM BRODIE.
1. Robert Smith, wright in Edinburgh, late foreman to the said William
Brodie.
2. George M‘Intosh, also wright, and late journeyman to the said William
Brodie.
3. John Niel, also wright, and late journeyman to the said William
Brodie.
4. Arthur Giles, wright in Edinburgh.
5. William Watson, wright in Canongate.
6. William Retson, or Reston, nailer, Portsburgh.
7. James Cargill, ironmonger, Edinburgh.
8. Alexander Miller, ironmonger there.
9. George Burton, ironmonger there.
10. James Goldie, ironmonger there.
11. Daniel MacLean, waiter to William Drysdale, vintner in Edinburgh.
12. George Lees, coachmaker there.
13. Alexander Fergusson, dyer there.
14. Patrick Taylor, smith there.
15. Charles MacLeod, apprentice to Patrick Taylor.
16. Agnes Finlay, spouse to Michael Henderson, stabler, Grassmarket.
17. Alexander MacKay, inner turnkey in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh.
18. James Reid, indweller in Edinburgh, and present prisoner in the
Tolbooth.
19. Alexander Brodie, baker, Nether Bow.
20. James Murray, sheriff-officer.
21. Helen Alison, spouse to William Wallace, mason, Libberton’s Wynd.
22. Jane Watt, residenter there.
23. Peggy Giles, servant to--Grahame, publican at Mutton-hole, near
Edinburgh.
24. Matthew Sheriff, upholsterer in Edinburgh.
Under protestation to add and eik.
ALEXANDER WIGHT, for the pannel.
The diet having been called “at the instance of Ilay Campbell, Esquire,
His Majesty’s Advocate, for His Majesty’s interest, against William
Brodie, sometime wright and cabinetmaker in Edinburgh, and George Smith,
sometime grocer there,” the Lord Justice-Clerk desired the pannels to
attend to the indictment then to be read.
Mr. NORRIS, Depute-Clerk of Court, then read aloud the indictment, after
which,
The pannels having been asked to stand up,
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--William Brodie, you have heard the indictment
raised against you by His Majesty’s Advocate--are you guilty of the
crime therein charged, or not guilty?
WILLIAM BRODIE--My Lord, I am not guilty.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--George Smith, you have heard the indictment
raised against you by His Majesty’s Advocate for His Majesty’s
interest--are you guilty of the crime therein charged, or not guilty?
GEORGE SMITH--Not guilty, my Lord.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK then asked the counsel for the pannels if they
had any objection why the said indictment should not be remitted to the
knowledge of the assize.
Mr. CHARLES HAY--My Lords, I appear as counsel for William Brodie, the
prisoner at the bar. I do not observe anything in this indictment upon
which I can found an objection to the relevancy of it, and therefore I
will at present confine myself to a simple denial of the charge against
Mr. Brodie, and your Lordships will fall to pronounce the usual
interlocutor on the relevancy, in which the prisoner will be allowed a
proof of all facts and circumstances tending to his exculpation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--My Lords, I desire to know the nature and
tendency of the exculpatory evidence proposed to be adduced, in order
that, in the course of leading the proof upon the part of the
prosecutor, we may be prepared to meet it.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--It is not sufficient for the prisoner to deny
the charge if he intends to prove any facts in exculpation; it is but
fair to the public prosecutor and to the gentlemen of the jury that
these should now be mentioned that they may have them in their view in
the course of the trial.
The DEAN OF FACULTY--My Lords, I likewise appear as counsel for William
Brodie, the prisoner at the bar. I admit that it is fair to mention the
facts which are to be insisted on in his defence; and therefore,
adhering to the general denial of the crime charged, we undertake to
prove that Mr. Brodie went, before eight o’clock of that night in which
the Excise Office is said to have been broken into, to the house of
Janet Watt, a person residing in Libberton’s Wynd, with whom he had a
particular connection, and that he remained in that house from the said
hour until about nine o’clock the next morning. This will be instructed
by the woman herself and by other unexceptionable witnesses.
Mr. ROBERT HAMILTON--My Lords, I appear as counsel for the prisoner
George Smith. No objection appears to me upon the relevancy of the
indictment, and the prisoner rests his defence upon a general denial of
the facts charged, having no exculpatory proof to offer.
The Court then pronounced the following interlocutor:--
The Lord Justice-Clerk and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary,
having considered the criminal indictment raised and pursued at the
instance of Ilay Campbell, Esq., His Majesty’s Advocate, for His
Majesty’s interest, against the said William Brodie and George
Smith, pannels, they find the indictment relevant to infer the
pains of law, but allow the pannels and each of them to prove all
facts and circumstances that may tend to exculpate them or
alleviate their guilt, and remit the pannels with the indictment as
found relevant to the knowledge of an assize.
ROBERT M‘QUEEN, I.P.D.
The Court were proceeding to select fifteen from amongst the forty-five
gentlemen summoned as jurymen, when it was discovered that some of the
witnesses had not come forward. In about half-an-hour they all arrived.
The Lord Advocate then moved the Court to inflict some fine on those
witnesses by whom the delay had been occasioned; but it being found upon
inquiry that the hour of cause, but no particular hour, was specified in
the citations given them, his Lordship, in respect that the hour of
cause was understood to mean ten o’clock, withdrew his motion, and the
Lord Justice-Clerk, to prevent similar delays, gave directions that in
time coming the citations given to jurymen and witnesses should bear a
specified hour at which their attendance is to be required.
Out of the above forty-five jurymen the following fifteen persons were
named to pass upon the assize of the pannels; and the pannels being
asked if they had any objections why they should not pass upon this
assize, and no objections being made on the contrary, they were all
lawfully sworn in by the following oath, five at a time:--
You swear by Almighty God, and as you shall answer to God at the great
day of judgment, that you will truth say, and no truth conceal, so far
as you are to pass upon this assize.
1. Robert Forrester, banker.
2. Robert Allan, banker.
3. Henry Jamieson, banker.
4. John Hay, banker.
5. William Creech, bookseller.
6. James Carfrae, merchant.
7. John Kinnear, banker.
8. William Fettes, merchant.
9. John Milne, founder.
10. Dunbar Pringle, tanner.
11. Thomas Campbell, merchant.
12. Francis Sharp, merchant.
13. James Donaldson, printer.
14. John Hutton, stationer.
15. Thomas Cleghorn, coachmaker.
The jury being impanelled and furnished with pen, ink, and paper, and
copies of the indictment being laid before them, the Court ordered the
counsel for the prosecutor to proceed to the evidence.
At this stage, before the evidence was led,
Mr. WIGHT--My Lords, I likewise attend your Lordships on the part of Mr.
Brodie, and although there does not appear upon the face of this
indictment any sufficient ground for an objection to the relevancy of
it, yet there are some particulars of which I consider it my duty to
take notice; and, in order to save time and trouble to the Court, I
propose to do it now rather than hereafter.
The law of this country has been very careful to give unhappy men in the
situation of the prisoners every opportunity of preparing for their
trials; they are allowed fifteen days after being served with their
indictments; they are furnished with a list of the witnesses’ names and
designations who are to be adduced against them; and the declarations,
writings, and articles to be used in evidence in the course of the trial
are particularly specified. The present indictment, though not
irrelevant, is perhaps laid in the most vague and general manner I have
ever seen. Here there are certain letters and declarations founded on,
and other articles, such as a gold watch with a chain, and seal, and
key, a chest or trunk containing various articles, a five-pound
bank-note, an iron coulter of a plough, &c. These are mentioned in so
vague a manner as not to distinguish them from other articles of the
same kind, consequently in such a manner as not to give the pannels
proper opportunity of preparing for their defence. This is the more
inexcusable that all of these articles admitted of a more accurate
description.
[Here Mr. Wight was interrupted by the Court.]
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--Mr. Wight, these objections are out of place;
they ought to be stated when the articles you mention come to be
produced by the prosecutor.
The DEAN OF FACULTY--It is no doubt true that the objection to each of
these articles falls properly to be stated when they are founded upon by
my Lord Advocate; but it was thought proper and respectful to the Court
to state the general objection at this stage of the business in order to
save time.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--My Lords, I wish that Mr. Wight may be allowed to
proceed.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--Mr. Wight, go on.
Mr. WIGHT--I say, my Lords, that the articles mentioned in the
indictment admitted of a more accurate description than that which my
Lord Advocate has given them. The maker’s name and number of the watch
might have been mentioned, the device on the seal, too, ought to have
been specified, also the number of the note and by whom it was issued;
and as to the chest or trunk, which is only described by saying that it
contained sundry articles, there is no particular description of it, or
of any of the articles it contained. It is not said that it is a hair
trunk, or the size or shape of it, or any other
[Illustration: The Solicitor-General (Robert Dundas).
(_After Kay._)]
mark condescended upon, whereby it could be distinguished. It might have
been mentioned what sort of a trunk it was, whether made of fir, of oak,
or of ash; to whom it belonged, and where and in whose possession it was
found.
To show your Lordships that this is no immaterial objection, I must beg
leave to mention a circumstance that occurred in the present case. Some
days ago, Mr. Brodie’s agent went to the Justiciary Office to examine
the articles founded on in the indictment; and upon inquiring for the
trunk, he was shown a black trunk, a trunk different from the one now to
be used in evidence. Thereafter the counsel for the Crown discovered
they had committed a mistake; they were so much misled by this want of
description that they had sent the trunk referred to, or meant to be
referred, in the libel to the prison to Mr. Brodie, and had lodged a
wrong trunk with the Clerk of Court. They did not discover this mistake
till yesterday morning, and they then applied to the Sheriff for a
warrant to recover the trunk, which is now in Court, out of the
possession of Mr. Brodie, and which was only lodged in the Justiciary
Office yesterday.
Although I have thrown out this general objection, I do not mean to
plead it to the effect of setting aside the libel altogether; yet, when
the prosecutor attempts to apply his evidence to these articles, I
reserve to myself the liberty of making special objections to each
article, as it shall be referred to.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL--My Lords, I will not take up the time of the
Court in making any answer to the objection stated, as to the manner in
which the watch and the other articles are described in the indictment,
as I have no hesitation to say that it does not deserve one. All these
articles, as well as the other articles libelled on, have been for weeks
past lying in the hands of the Clerks of Court, where the counsel and
agents for the pannels have had full opportunity of examining and taking
from them whatever description they might think proper.
As to the story of the trunk, it is shortly this: there were two trunks
the property of Mr. Brodie; and one of them, containing linens and other
articles, was, from motives of humanity, allowed to remain in his
possession. This was the trunk referred to in the indictment; the other
was, however, sent by mistake to the Justiciary Office, but as soon as
the error was discovered, Mr. Brodie was applied to to deliver up the
proper trunk. This he refused to do, and therefore it became necessary
to apply to the Sheriff, who granted a warrant; in consequence of which
it was recovered from the prisoner and lodged in the Justiciary Office.
This is the plain state of the fact, and, having laid it before your
Lordships, I do not consider it necessary to add one word more to the
subject.
The LORD ADVOCATE--My Lords, if it had been intended to charge the
prisoners with stealing the watch, or any of the other articles, a more
accurate description might have been necessary, but here there is no
such intention--the crime of which the prisoners are accused is breaking
into the Excise Office.
From the nature of the thing, my Lords, as well as from the tenor of the
indictment, it must be evident to every one that it is only meant to
produce these articles in evidence, to refer to them when the witnesses
are examined. It may be necessary, for example, to prove that certain
letters were found in the chest, and to whom the chest belonged; it is
no matter of what form the chest is, and not of the smallest consequence
whether it is identified or not; nay, more, my Lords, there was no
necessity for producing it at all. If every nail of a trunk or every
trinket of a watch, or other articles which it might be necessary to
found upon in trials of this kind, were to be so particularly described
as Mr. Wight has contended for, it would swell indictments to a very
inconvenient and unnecessary length.
The objection that the proper trunk was not produced in sufficient time
to give the prisoner an opportunity of examining it is certainly a very
uncommon one, when it is considered that it was allowed to remain in his
own possession until yesterday; and with regard to the watch, all the
use I mean to make of it is to identify some letters from Mr. Brodie,
which are sealed with the seal appended to it.
The DEAN OF FACULTY--My Lords, what may be the consequence to the
prisoners at the bar of your Lordships repelling the present objection I
do not know. The gentlemen on the other side of the table have taken
care to lay their indictment in such a manner as to leave the counsel
for the prisoners altogether in the dark as to the nature of the proof
they mean to lead and the manner in which these articles are to be used
in evidence; but, my Lords, sure I am of this, that the decision of the
present question is of the greatest importance to the law of this
country. I am not surprised that the Solicitor-General should say that
he will make no answer to the objection, because I am convinced that it
admits of none.
It is no light matter the framing of an indictment; the specification of
the proofs by which it is to be supported is of the utmost consequence.
I am persuaded, my Lords, that I would have no difficulty to satisfy
your Lordships, from the nature of the thing itself, that this objection
is well founded. But I resort to better evidence. I appeal to the Books
of Adjournal on your Lordships’ table, and I call upon the counsel for
the Crown to point out one single instance recorded in them where
articles have been founded on in an indictment and produced in evidence
without being specially described. Having so respectable an authority as
the uniform practice of your Lordships and your predecessors to support
the objection now stated, you will think well before you introduce an
innovation that may be attended with the most dangerous consequences.
We are told that some of the articles in question are of no consequence;
if so, why are they here? I will not enter into the question whether the
trunk was really produced in the Justiciary Office in proper time or
not, as all the indictment says is, that “it will be produced.”
My Lords, there are two kinds of articles produced in criminal trials,
first the _corpora delicti_, to prove that the crime was actually
committed; and, secondly, articles from which the leading circumstances
are to be inferred. The Lord Advocate admits that the first of these
must be particularly described, but denies the necessity of describing
the second. This is a distinction not known in the law of this country,
and directly contrary to the established forms of criminal procedure.
What would be the consequence were it recognised? Suppose, for instance,
that a person breaks into a house and leaves his hat behind him; nothing
could establish his guilt more clearly than to prove that this hat was
his. But although this is only a leading circumstance, would it be
enough to say that a hat was to be produced in evidence, without
specifying where it was found, or any circumstances attending it, so as
to give the accused an opportunity of proving that it belonged to
another, and not to him?
I will appeal, my Lords, to the practice of the public prosecutor
himself, to show that no such distinction exists. A declaration is an
article used in evidence as well as a gold watch, yet his Lordship does
not think it sufficient to say “a declaration,” without specifying any
other circumstances, such as before whom, and of what date, it was
emitted. On the contrary, there are several declarations referred to in
this indictment, and they are all particularly described. It is the duty
of the public prosecutor to specify every particular, and to say what is
meant to be proved by each article, or in what manner it has been used
in the commission of the crime charged. In the case of Gordon, the
sheep-stealer, a man for whom I was counsel at this bar several years
ago, and who still languishes in prison, notwithstanding his having
received His Majesty’s pardon[1]--your Lordships refused to allow an
article to be produced in evidence which had not been libelled on: and
the articles objected to might as well not have been libelled on at all,
as in the general and vague manner in which they are mentioned in the
indictment.
My Lords, there is another circumstance to which I beg to draw your
Lordships’ particular attention. It is our good fortune to live under a
mild Government; to live in days when there is no danger to be
apprehended from the conduct of the public prosecutor; but worse times
may arrive, and it is for your Lordships to reflect upon what use might
then be made of the present practice if your Lordships were to allow it
to be now introduced. The public prosecutor may, for example, libel upon
a watch, and the Clerk of Court may show one watch in the Justiciary
Office to the prisoner’s counsel or agent, and against the day of trial
may produce another in Court. The principal reason why articles such as
the present are mentioned in the indictment is that the prisoner may be
certain that these articles, and these articles alone, are to be used in
evidence against him; and it is clear that this certainty must be
withdrawn from the prisoner if a vague description is permitted to be
given of them, because, as I have already mentioned, others may be
substituted in their place. If an article of evidence be not
particularly described so as to prevent the possibility of doubt with
regard to the identity of it, the dearest rights of mankind might be
endangered and at the mercy of corrupt men, and no one could say how
fatal the consequences might be.
The LORD ADVOCATE--My Lords, I admit the justice of what the Dean of
Faculty has stated if such an objection as the present were made to the
description of the _corpora delicti_. If the prisoners were charged with
having stolen the watch or trunk mentioned in the indictment, the
description there given of them would not be sufficient; but, as they
are not the _corpora delicti_, and are only referred to as circumstances
of evidence, I contend that the description is sufficient; but, rather
than detain the Court longer with an objection of this kind, I will give
up the trunk altogether, as I do not suppose that I shall stand in need
of it; I, however, submit the matter to the Court.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--Your Lordships have heard the objection and
answers on this point. What is your opinion?
Lord HAILES--My Lords, there is no objection made to the production of
the different papers founded on in the indictment, and I do not perceive
that there is any force in the objection as to the gold watch; because,
although the pannel’s counsel cannot know, from the manner in which it
is described in the indictment, what is meant to be proved by it,
neither do they know what is intended to be proved by the different
witnesses who are cited.
The objection with regard to the trunk appears to me to be much more
strong; and I confess that I never saw any article so vaguely stated in
an indictment as it is in the present case, viz., “a trunk containing
various articles.” It is no good answer to the objection that the proper
trunk was not timeously produced, that it was allowed to remain in
Brodie’s possession, because that article is founded on in the libel
against Smith as well as against him. I am therefore inclined to sustain
the objection as to the trunk, but no further.
Lord ESKGROVE--My Lords, I am not disposed to abridge in the smallest
degree the security of the subjects of this country, although the law is
here more attentive to the safety of persons accused than in any other
country whatever. Here the pannel must not only be furnished with the
names and designations of the witnesses, but he must also be made
acquainted with every document and article to be used in evidence
against him.
In the present case there are a number of writings, and likewise a
variety of articles, founded on in the indictment; there is no objection
to the production of the papers, but it is objected on the part of the
pannel that the other articles are not particularly described. I do not
think, my Lords, that this objection is much aided by the argument
founded on the declarations and other parts of the libel being more
particularly described than these articles.
The Dean of Faculty has referred your Lordships to the Books of
Adjournal, from which he says that it appears to have been the practice
to describe such articles more minutely; but I have no doubt that a
perusal of these books would furnish many instances where articles have
been described as loosely as they are said to be in the present libel;
and, my Lords, as the pannel’s counsel have neither produced, nor
offered to produce, any decision of this Court finding libels irrelevant
from the articles referred to in them being thus described, I am bound
to hold the objection to be of no force.
My Lords, I can see no injury that will be sustained by the prisoners by
the repelling of the present objection; all the articles were lodged in
the hands of the Clerk of Court, and their agent and counsel had an
opportunity of examining them. The trunk is no doubt vaguely described,
but that appears to me not to be material, because it will not be
sufficient for a witness to say that he found papers or other articles
in a trunk; he must say that he found them in the trunk shown to him in
Court, otherwise his evidence in that particular will be of no
consequence. If the pannels should say that this is a different trunk,
and that they never saw it before, I would listen to the objection; but
as they cannot, and as I can figure no injury to the prisoners in
repelling this objection, I am for over-ruling it.
Lord STONEFIELD--My Lords, I think the description in this case is
sufficiently full; therefore I am for repelling the objection.
Lord SWINTON--My Lords, the present objection is made in the wrong
place; and I cannot so well judge of it in this general shape as I
could have done had it been stated when the particular articles came to
be used in evidence; but I must judge of it in the form in which it has
been brought before the Court.
I think, my Lords, that it ought to be repelled for the reasons your
Lordships have already heard, and because no injury can be done to the
pannels from these articles not having been more particularly described,
as they will have an opportunity of traversing the evidence that may be
brought relating to them. There are many of the articles, such as two
iron wedges, an iron crow, &c., that would not admit of a more
particular description than has been given. Upon the whole, my Lords, I
am for repelling the objection.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--My Lords, the present question is of great
importance to the law of this country. I am one of those who are always
for giving fair-play to pannels, and will never allow any advantage to
be taken of them; but I am likewise for giving fair-play to evidence. It
is frequently necessary, my Lords, that the testimony of witnesses
should be elucidated by articles referred to being produced; but if the
present objections were sustained, I am afraid it would strike against
the admissibility of this kind of evidence altogether; because, let a
public prosecutor describe such articles with the greatest attention, it
still may be contended that they admitted of a more accurate description
than the one given.
By the former state of our law the prosecutor was not allowed to prove
anything that was not particularly specified in the libel; but the Act
153, Parliament 11th, James VI., was introduced to obviate this defect
in our law, and by that Act the prosecutor is allowed to prove every
circumstance to substantiate the charge, or in general art and part of
the charge. It is very true, my Lords, that the humanity of public
prosecutors of late years has induced them to be more special than they
had any occasion to be, but surely they are not cut off from the
generality allowed them by law, although such generality may have been
deviated from through lenity in practice. Apply this to the present
case. It is true that the Lord Advocate, as public prosecutor, has been
induced to state particular circumstances, and to specify the articles
to be founded on; yet that does not alter the law, nor deprive him of
the generality which he is allowed by law. As the names of witnesses are
given, without specifying what they are to say, in the same way it is
only necessary to state that such articles are to be produced in
evidence, but not necessary to specify a description of them; and it is
the duty of the prisoner himself, or those who act for him, to survey
them when lodged in the Justiciary Office. As there is no precise time
against which articles to be founded on are required to be lodged in
the Justiciary Office, there appears to be no undue delay in lodging
this trunk. Had it been pled that it was not lodged _debito tempore_,
and that the pannel had been injured thereby, then a delay of the trial
must have taken place.
I remember it once happened on a circuit that the articles founded on in
the libel were only lodged the very morning of the trial in the Clerk’s
hands; but I then refused to allow them to be founded on, because the
pannel had not a reasonable time to prepare himself against evidence
that might arise from the production of these articles; but the present
case is very different, and therefore, upon the whole, I am for
repelling the objection.
Mr. JOHN CLERK--My Lord Justice-Clerk, before the interlocutor is
written out, I beg leave to make one objection in behalf of the pannel,
George Smith.
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--What! After the Court have delivered their
opinions, it is not decent in you to propose to say anything, and I
apprehend the prisoners are in no danger of suffering anything by your
not being allowed to supply the defects of the Dean of Faculty.
Mr. JOHN CLERK--My Lord, the Dean of Faculty has no authority to plead
for my client.
The DEAN OF FACULTY then moved the Court to allow the general objection
to be entered upon record, and proposed to repeat it and refer to it as
often as any of the particular articles came to be produced in evidence,
which was accordingly agreed to, and the following interlocutor was
pronounced repelling the objection:--
The Lord Justice-Clerk and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary having
considered the foregoing debate, they repel the objection stated to
producing and founding on the articles specified in the objection
and mentioned in the indictment, and allow them to be adduced in
the course of the trial.
ROBT. M‘QUEEN, I.P.D.
The prosecutor, for proof of the indictment, then proceeded to adduce
the following witnesses, who were all lawfully sworn, purged of malice
and partial counsel, and emitted their depositions _viva voce_ in
presence of the Court and jury, without being reduced in writing, in
terms of the late statute.
Evidence for Prosecution.
[Sidenote: William Scott]
1. WILLIAM SCOTT, Procurator-Fiscal of the county of Edinburgh, called
in and sworn.
Examined by Mr. MURRAY--Mr. Scott, you know the prisoners at the bar?
Were you present when they emitted certain declarations before the
Sheriff-depute of Edinburgh and his substitute?
WITNESS--I was.
Mr. MURRAY--Look at these declarations, and tell the Court and the
gentlemen of the jury if they were emitted in your presence by the
pannel, George Smith, freely and voluntarily.
WITNESS--They were; and the prisoner appeared to me at the time cool and
recollected.
Mr. MURRAY--Look at this declaration. Was it emitted in your presence by
the other pannel, William Brodie, freely and voluntarily, and he was
cool and recollected?
WITNESS--It was emitted in my presence freely and voluntarily, and he
was cool and recollected.
Mr. MURRAY--Do you know anything concerning a warrant that was applied
for against William Brodie in the month of March last? If you do, tell
the Court and the gentlemen of the jury what happened in consequence of
it?
WITNESS--Upon the afternoon of Monday, the 10th of March last, I, as
Procurator-Fiscal, gave in a petition in my own name to the Sheriff of
Edinburgh, charging Mr. Brodie with breaking into the Excise Office, and
praying for a warrant to apprehend him. A warrant was accordingly
granted, and search diligently made for him that night, but he was not
found, and I afterwards learned that he had gone off for London on the
day preceding.
Cross-examined by Mr. JOHN CLERK, for George Smith--Mr. Scott, you say
you were present when George Smith emitted the declarations which have
been shown you; did Smith, in the course of his different examinations,
say anything more than is contained in these declarations?
WITNESS--I do not think he did; everything material was taken down. No
compulsion or undue means was used to induce the prisoners to sign these
declarations.
[Sidenote: Joseph Mack]
2. JOSEPH MACK, writer in the Sheriff-Clerk’s Office of Edinburgh,
called in and sworn, and shown the declarations above mentioned.
WITNESS--These declarations were written by me, to the dictation of the
Sheriff, and were emitted by the pannels freely and voluntarily, and the
pannels appeared to me to be cool and recollected when emitting them.
Cross-examined by Mr. JOHN CLERK--Was everything which Smith declared
when examined taken down?
WITNESS--Everything that was material. With regard to the robbery of
Bruce’s shop--[Here the Court stopped the witness, as that was a matter
which was not before them.]
The LORD JUSTICE-CLERK--Did he desire anything to be taken down that was
not?
WITNESS--No.
[Sidenote: Thomas Longlands]
3. THOMAS LONGLANDS, solicitor-at-law in London, called in and sworn.
Examined by MR. WILLIAM TAIT--Mr. Longlands, did you hear of William
Brodie, the prisoner at the bar, having fled from this country in March
last, and of his having been brought back? Tell the Court and the
gentlemen of the jury what you know of the matter?
WITNESS--In the month of June or July last I was employed by the
officers of the Crown for Scotland to take such steps as appeared to me
to be proper for the discovery of Mr. Brodie. In consequence of this
employment I called frequently at the Secretary of State’s Office, and
had several conversations with Mr. Fraser, Under-Secretary in the office
of Lord Carmarthen, and gave them the information I had received from
Scotland. I likewise waited upon Sir Sampson Wright, of the Public
Office, Bow Street, whose assistance I judged necessary to call in as to
the proper measures to be pursued. As the information received gave
reason to suspect that Mr. Brodie was at Flushing, Ostend, or some place
in Holland, it was agreed upon to send a messenger immediately in search
of him. Sir Sampson Wright recommended to me a Mr. Groves from his
office as a proper person to send to the Continent in search of Mr.
Brodie, and I accordingly despatched him with proper instructions. Mr.
Groves traced Mr. Brodie to Ostend, and learned that he had been there
upon the 4th of June, His Majesty’s birthday, and he was afterwards
traced to Amsterdam, where he was apprehended, identified, and committed
to prison. Upon proper application, he was delivered up to Mr. Groves,
and was brought from thence to London by him. Immediately upon his
arrival at London he was examined before Sir Sampson Wright, and
committed to Tothilfields Bridewell; some time afterwards he was sent to
this country. I was present at the examination of the person brought
back from Amsterdam, and I know the prisoner at the bar to be him. There
was a trunk containing linens and a variety of other articles, belonging
to Mr. Brodie, brought with him from Amsterdam; and I received from Mr.
Cartmeal, one of the persons who came along with him, two watches,
twenty crowns, and some other articles, which he said were found upon
Mr. Brodie; and the watch now upon the table I know to be one of them,
having taken particular notice of the maker’s name and number. [The
counsel for the pannels here repeated the objection against adducing the
watch,
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/49405