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.