the prisoner was remanded, in order that the matter might be discussed
before the superior judges. Solomon was kept in suspense during a period
of ten months; but at length, on the 13th of May 1831, he received an
intimation that the opinion of the judges was against him, and sentence
of seven years' transportation was passed on each indictment.
Upon this sentence he was conveyed to the hulks, and, on the 31st of May
1831, he once more sailed from Portsmouth. In obedience to an order made
upon a petition which he had caused to be presented at the Home Office,
he was conveyed to Hobart Town, where his family was, instead of to
Sydney; and, upon his arrival at that place, he found his son still
carrying on the business which he had commenced. By good conduct,
Solomon eventually obtained for himself the rank of overseer of
convicts, and we believe that he still retains that situation.
Some anecdotes of the mode in which he conducted his business in London
will not be uninteresting, exhibiting as they do the general habits of
receivers of stolen goods.
It may be admitted, as an established fact, that no man who does not
possess very considerable connexions can attempt to carry on the
business of a "fence" with success. An acquaintance and co-partnery with
persons residing at the out-ports, and with the itinerant dealers in
jewellery, travelling inland, are necessary to enable them to put off
the proceeds of their dishonest dealings; for while by the former, bank
notes, and other property, the identity of which cannot be destroyed,
can be despatched abroad, by the latter, watches and other articles of
trifling value can be distributed among towns and villages in remote
districts, from which it is unlikely they will ever find their way to
the great mart of London, where they can be recognised. Diamonds, and
other valuable stones, may be taken out and re-set according to another
fashion, while the settings are destroyed; but in most instances
receivers admit no articles into their houses until they are satisfied
that they cannot be recognised. In the first of these respects Solomon
was amply provided with associates, and he was too good a judge in most
cases to permit any possibility of detection to arise. When a large
robbery was contemplated, he was always apprised of it, and the place
and time were fixed at which he should go and look over its produce. The
first thing he said when he met the parties was, "Now I am to offer you
a price for these things; first assist in removing all the marks, and
then I will talk to you." When the goods consisted of linen or cloth,
every means of identification was removed; the head and fag ends being
cut off, and occasionally the list and selvage, if they were peculiar.
The marks on the soles of boots and shoes were obliterated by hot irons,
and those on the linings were as speedily removed by their being cut
out, and others placed in their stead. After this, he found no
difficulty in vending every species of property which could be converted
into apparel, to the numerous ready-made, and slop-shops, in which trade
so many Jews are engaged. Watches of great value, which could find
purchasers only in large towns, were either metamorphosed by skilful
hands, or sent to the continent. If a watch were valuable for its works
more than its case, the interior was soon entombed in another. A boot
and shoe-maker, some years since, in Princes-street, Soho, was, in one
night, robbed of his stock, value 300_l._; the whole was carried away in
sacks in coaches, and the next morning found its way, before twelve
o'clock, to the premises of our hero. By threats and offers to one of
the coachmen, who happened to be recognised by a servant in the
neighbourhood, as having been at the door the night before, he was
induced to give
[Illustration: _Doing a Jew._]
information of the place to which the goods had been conveyed. The
shoemaker sent a man to watch the premises, while he went to seek for
two officers; the man was in time to see the goods removed to the house
of Solomon. When the shoemaker and the officers arrived they entered the
premises, but Ikey defied them to touch an article, so carefully had the
marks been removed. The shoemaker was compelled to admit that he could
not swear to them, and at once saw that he stood no chance of procuring
the restoration of his goods. Solomon then said that he had purchased
them fairly, but, out of mere compassion for his loss, whether the goods
had been his or not, he would sell them for the price which he had paid
for them. The robbed man was glad to accept of these terms, and it cost
him upwards of one hundred pounds to re-stock his shop with his own
goods.
Solomon was allowed to be a most ready and superior judge of the
intrinsic value of all kinds of property, from a glass bottle to a five
hundred guinea chronometer; how it could be disposed of, and what was
the value thieves generally estimated it at. He established among the
rogues a regular rule of dealing, which is continued to this day,
namely, to give a fixed price for all articles of the same denomination.
For instance, a piece of linen was in his view a piece of linen, whether
fine or coarse; the same with a piece of print, a silver watch, or a
gold one: taking the good, as he used to tell the young and
inexperienced thief, with the bad vons. By this plan he sometimes
obtained very valuable watches at a moderate rate. He, however, outbid
all his opponents in the purchase of stolen bank-notes; this he was for
a long time enabled to do, in consequence of his connection with Jews in
Holland. All stolen bank-notes which come into the hands of those who
buy them, are sent to the Continent, to pass in the way of purchases
through some regular mercantile house, when they find their way, by
remittances to London houses, into the Bank, where they must be paid.
The price given by Solomon for large notes, was 15_s._ in the pound; and
he calculated that on an average he could send them their circuit of
safety for 1_s._ in the pound: thus securing for himself 4_s._ profit on
each 20_s._, that is twenty per cent., and this is now the regular price
for stolen notes with the London fences.
At the time of Solomon's apprehension his chief store was in
Rosemary-lane, and he was reported to have had goods of the value of
20,000_l._ then collected there. A very great proportion of this
property was seized, and Solomon bitterly complained of the manner in
which he was deprived of his goods. A great portion of the articles were
restored to their owners; but as late as the year 1832, a considerable
amount was sold, which was avowed to have belonged to this notorious
offender.
WILLIAM GILCHRIST, GEORGE GILCHRIST, and JAMES BROWN.
TRIED FOR A COACH ROBBERY.
The ingenuity of thieves has been frequently referred to in the course
of this work, and many instances have been afforded by a perusal of its
pages of the extreme perseverance with which the practitioners in this
dishonest calling carry on their proceedings. In the case of Huffey
White a striking instance is afforded of the laborious determination of
men, whose object was to rob the Glasgow bank; in the instance with
which we are now about to present our readers no less ingenuity and
determination are exhibited than by that case; and the daring effrontery
with which the robbery, the circumstances of which we are about to
detail, was committed, must strike them with astonishment.
It was on Thursday, the 24th of March, 1831, that this most impudent
robbery was committed; and the circumstance of its occurrence was first
notified to the public in a Glasgow newspaper in a paragraph, of which
the following is a copy, which being compared with the real facts of the
case as they were proved at the trial, will sufficiently inform our
readers of the remarkable measures adopted by thieves at this time,
first to commit robberies, and then so to conceal the real circumstances
attending their commission, as to mislead the public and the police as
to the persons, or even the description of the persons concerned in the
depredation:--"Another of those dexterous tricks in abstracting a bank
parcel from one of the public coaches was on Thursday week successfully
practised in a somewhat novel manner. The following is an account of the
transaction:--The parcel in question, which contained notes and gold to
the amount of 5,700_l._, had been entrusted by the Commercial Bank's
branch in Glasgow, to be forwarded to the head office in Edinburgh, by
the Prince Regent coach, which left Glasgow at noon on the Thursday. The
parcel had been put into a tin box, which was, as usual, placed in the
boot of the coach, but was missed by the coachman who drives the last
stage. It was then found that the stuffing inside had been cut, and a
hole made in the body of the coach by piercing it first by a brace-bit,
and then cutting out the piece with a saw, by which means the thieves
got at the box, which they forced open and rifled of its contents. The
paper in which the parcel was packed, with part of one of the notes,
were left. After committing the robbery, in order to elude observation,
the lining of the coach, which had been cut, was pinned neatly together.
We understand that the whole of the inside seats had been taken in
Glasgow, four in the name of Mrs. Gordon, and two in the name of Mr.
Johnston, but no inside passengers came forward when the coach started.
When about three miles from Glasgow, however, two passengers, a man and
a woman, were taken up, who continued to travel with the coach until
within three miles from Airdrie, and no suspicion was raised against
them when they left the conveyance. The notes were principally of the
Commercial Bank, and consisted of 20_l._, 5_l._, and 1_l._ notes. A
number of them had blue borders of a peculiar description, not generally
in circulation, and which will easily be detected. It is said there were
about 300_l._ in gold. Immediately on the intelligence of this daring
robbery reaching Glasgow, an officer, accompanied by one of the
gentlemen of the Branch Bank at that place, set off in the direction of
Airdrie in search of the robbers, but hitherto without success. The
driver of the coach is quite unable to give any account of the
appearance or dress of the man and woman who were in the coach; but we
believe the passenger who assisted them out, has been able partially to
furnish one." The latter part of this paragraph is peculiarly worthy of
notice, for it turns out that Brown was the outside passenger, and he,
no doubt, affecting ignorance of the persons within, endeavoured to gull
the police by giving an erroneous description of the thieves.
A long and searching inquiry into all the circumstances of the affair
took place, and at length, through the arduous and persevering exertions
of the Glasgow police-officer named Nish, the three prisoners whose
names head this article, together with a man named Simpson, were
committed for trial.
During the period which intervened before the inquiry took place before
the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, the investigation which had
been commenced was carried on by Mr. Nish; but the main evidence at the
trial was that of Simpson, who was admitted a witness against his
accomplices.
The trial came on at Edinburgh on Wednesday, July the 14th, 1831. It was
then proved that the prisoner George Gilchrist was a coach-proprietor
residing on the road between Glasgow and Edinburgh; and that being aware
of the frequent transmission of money by the coach from one place to the
other, he formed the design of abstracting the parcel containing it from
the boot, and carrying it off. He communicated his object to his
brother, and to Brown and Simpson, as well as to two other persons who
were to assist them. The parcel of the 24th of March was fixed upon to
be attempted; and in order to render their operations secure from
observation, the whole of the inside of the coach was taken for the use
of the party.
On the 24th of March, William Gilchrist and Brown started from Glasgow
on the outside of the coach, and about two or three miles from that
place they met with George Gilchrist and Simpson, whom Gilchrist had
hired to assist him. George Gilchrist was dressed in female apparel, and
Simpson carried a small basket, which contained centre-bits and other
instruments of that description. Simpson, on his examination said, "When
they got into the coach they put up the windows, when Gilchrist took off
the straw bonnet and shawl, and took out the tools; he then ripped up
the cloth of the coach, and bored five holes horizontally with the brace
and bit; the place between the holes was cut with a chisel; they then
attempted to cut the tin box with the chisel, but finding they could not
do so, they pressed the lid up with a chisel, and in doing this raised
up the lock. They took out two parcels of notes and a packet, which,
from its weight, he supposed was gold. They left some parcels in the
box, which he believed were bills, and put some of them under the
cushion. Having effected the robbery, they pressed the lid of the box
down, and it then had the same appearance as if locked. He put part of
the notes and gold about his person, and Gilchrist put the rest about
him, and again put on the bonnet and shawl. All this occupied about an
hour. When at Airdrie, he heard some one say, 'John, get on, remember
the opposition.' William Gilchrist said it was Brown that said so, and
that he would drive on if he saw any danger. Gilchrist said to witness
that no one should get into the coach, and he would keep one side, and
directed witness to keep the other; that they would get out in about a
mile and a half; and that witness should look out of the window, and
Brown would see him: this, he believed, was a signal that all was right;
and he thought Brown observed him look out. He was desired by Gilchrist
to call out to stop at the first entry on the left hand. The coach
stopped at the place, and Brown came down and opened the door, and said
to the coachman, 'John, I've got half-a-crown for you.' When they came
out, witness carried the basket, and the coach immediately drove off. He
and Gilchrist proceeded down the avenue about half a mile, and went into
a planting. He saw a man coming down the avenue, when he told Gilchrist,
who said he was a friend. The woman's clothes were put into the basket,
and Gilchrist put on his own clothes. All the money was put into a silk
handkerchief."
The trial continued until twelve o'clock on Thursday forenoon, when the
jury unanimously found George Gilchrist Guilty of the charges; by a
plurality of voices the libel Not Proven against James Brown; and
unanimously finding the libel Not Proven against William Gilchrist. The
lord justice clerk then passed the awful sentence of death on the
prisoner, George Gilchrist, and ordered him for execution on the 3rd of
August.
The prisoner, however, subsequently made communications to the officers
of justice, in consequence of which a great portion of the stolen
property was recovered, and his punishment was commuted to
transportation for life.
JOSEPH PLANT STEVENS.
TRANSPORTED FOR ROBBERY.
This fellow was one of the class called "magsmen." The robbery of which
he was convicted sufficiently explains the name, and affords a good
specimen of the arts of London sharpers. The trick to which he resorted
has now become very stale, and is sufficiently notorious; but flats are
still to be found who foolishly submit to be robbed with their eyes open
in the same manner.
At the Surrey sessions, on the 25th of May 1831, Joseph Plant Stevens
was indicted for stealing 30_l._ from the person of Thomas Young, a
farmer and hop-grower of Sevenoaks, Kent.
The prosecutor, who was an elderly man, stated, that being in town in
the previous month of April, as he was proceeding along
Bishopgate-street, he was accosted by a well-dressed young man of
diminutive stature, who asked him if he was not a hop-grower out of
Kent. The reply being in the affirmative, the stranger and he then
entered into conversation, which turned to politics; and after
discussing the then all-absorbing Reform question, they proposed to call
at the Three Tuns, in the Borough, near which tavern they had now
arrived, to have some gin-and-water. During the time they were drinking
it, the young man spoke of the respectability of his own family, saying
that he was a native of Brighton, and that he had come up to London to
make some inquiries respecting a rich relative, from whom he had
expectations. While sitting in the room conversing on the subjects
alluded to, the prisoner walked in, and, seating himself at the same
table with them, called for a glass of brandy-and-water. He affected to
be a stranger; and after sipping a little of his liquor, he began to
talk on the question of Reform. Having passed a high eulogium on the
king and his ministers, he began to talk about himself, and commenced by
saying that he was a very lucky fellow, a chancery suit having been just
decided in his favour; adding, that he had 800_l._ then in his
possession, and that he had fallen into 800_l._ per annum by the
decision of the court. The farmer perceiving him take a roll of what
appeared to be bank-notes out of his pocket, advised him strongly to put
up the money again, telling him at the same time that London was
infested with sharpers, and that if he did not take great care, he would
assuredly be "choused" out of it by some of the knowing ones, who lurked
about in all quarters in search of their prey. The prisoner spoke in a
broad country dialect; and after the farmer had given him the advice
just mentioned, the short young man, who no doubt was in league with the
prisoner, said to the latter, "This is a nice steady old gentleman, and
I think the least you can do is to present him with a gown-piece for his
wife, as some acknowledgment for his good advice." The prisoner at once
assented to the proposition, and, taking a sovereign out of his fob,
said, that he thought it better to give the farmer a guinea for his
wife, and that she could then please herself as to the pattern. The
prisoner desired the farmer to give him his purse, in order that he
might place the guinea with the rest of the money. The farmer very
foolishly did as he was required, and the result was, that the prisoner,
by a dexterous movement, slipped some tissue-paper into the purse, in
lieu of six 5_l._ notes which had been previously there; and so
skilfully was the trick managed, that the farmer never dreamt that he
had been robbed, until some time afterwards, on visiting Mr. Stevens, a
hop-factor, in Union-street, when recounting to that gentleman the kind
treatment he had experienced at the Three Tuns, the discovery of the
tissue-paper being substituted for his Bank of England notes took place.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty; and after the verdict was delivered,
it was stated to the court, that a poor man from Oxfordshire was then in
court, who had been robbed by him in the November before under similar
circumstances.
The chairman said there was no doubt the prisoner was one of a gang of
thieves who had recently committed many robberies of this description;
and as it was necessary to make an example in this instance, the
sentence of the court was, that he should be transported for life.
We are sorry to be unable to afford any account of the previous career
of this fellow; but whatever may have been his conduct antecedent to the
period of his conviction, there can be no doubt that in this instance he
received no more than the just punishment for his crime.
WILLIAM KING.
IMPRISONED FOR ROBBERY.
The offence of which this man was convicted, was attended by a
fraudulent misrepresentation of his character, which we should have
imagined would have made him a fit object of severe punishment.
At the time of his conviction he was fifty-two years of age, and
appeared to be a person of some respectability. He, however, declined
giving any account of himself.
He was indicted at the Bridgewater assizes, on the 7th of August 1831,
for assaulting Elias Cashin upon the king's highway, putting him in
fear, and taking from his person and against his will a box containing
twenty-four gold seals, forty-five brooches, and a variety of other
articles of jewellery.
The robbery was alleged to have been committed at Huntspill, on the 10th
of March, and Cashin, who was a member of the Jewish persuasion, stated,
that on that day he was offering his wares for sale at Huntspill, when
the prisoner came up to him, and representing himself to be an inspector
of pedlars' licences, demanded to see his licence. He admitted that he
had none, upon which the prisoner seized his box containing his
jewellery, and took him by the collar, saying, that he must accompany
him to a magistrate's. They went together to the house of a Mr. Rockett,
where the prisoner behaved with much violence, in consequence of which
Cashin rung the bell. Young Mr. Rockett appeared, who said that his
father was not at home, and the prisoner then desired the Jew to meet
him on the next day, at the house of a Mr. Phippen, another magistrate,
residing at a short distance off. Cashin begged for his box, but the
supposed inspector refused to give it up, and the poor Jew was at length
compelled to go away, leaving his property in the hands of the prisoner.
On the next day he was faithful to his appointment, but neither the
prisoner nor his box was to be seen; and Cashin added, that he could
never meet him afterwards, until a short time before the trial, when he
accidentally ran against him in Bristol. He now, in turn, became the
assailant, and seizing the prisoner by the collar, demanded his box. He
at first denied all knowledge of him, but then finding that the Jew was
determined to take decisive steps against him, said that he had been
robbed of it himself. Cashin, however, called in the aid of the police,
and upon the prisoner being searched, a pair of spectacles was found
upon him, which had been in the box, when he had carried it off.
The jury at once declared the prisoner guilty, but of the mitigated
offence of larceny only, negativing the capital charge; and he was
sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment.
MARY ANNE HIGGINS, AND EDWARD CLARKE.
TRIED FOR MURDER.
The trial of these prisoners, which took place at the Warwick assizes,
on the 9th of August, 1831, excited the most intense interest in the
county in which it occurred, owing to the peculiar circumstances under
which the crime, with which they stood charged, was committed, and the
relative position of the persons accused, and the deceased. The female
prisoner, Mary Anne Higgins, was rather a good-looking girl, with a
fresh complexion, and pleasing, though un-intellectual expression of
countenance, and her appearance produced almost universal sympathy.
Clarke, however, was the object of very different feelings; and although
previously to the trial his guilt was involved in much doubt, the
indifference which he exhibited on being introduced to the dock,
procured for him a very unfavourable consideration amongst the crowd of
persons assembled.
The indictment charged that the prisoners had been guilty of the wilful
murder of William Higgins, at Coventry, on the previous 22nd of March,
by administering to him three drachms of arsenic. In a second count
Clarke was charged as an accessory to the murder, by aiding and abetting
Higgins in its commission. Clarke was twenty-one years of age, and his
fellow-prisoner only nineteen years.
Upwards of forty witnesses were called, and the investigation lasted
from nine o'clock in the morning until an advanced hour in the evening;
the material facts of the case, however, as elicited from the evidence,
may be stated in a comparatively small compass:--
William Higgins, the deceased, was a man in an humble station of life,
who had saved a little money, upwards of 100_l._ of which he had placed
out at interest. Upon the death of his only brother, who left four or
five children behind him, the deceased, being unmarried, took one of the
children (the female prisoner) to live with him, and reared her as he
would his own child, intending also to leave her the little money he
possessed at his death.