levelled with the ground at present in the Nether Bow. It was one of the
finest specimens of a class of houses which extended nearly the whole
length of the High Street in former times--having wooden fronts
projecting four or five feet in front of the masonry, thus giving the
erection a more pasteboard appearance than the labourers who pull them
down find to be in reality the case. While glass was still a luxury, and
light to be enjoyed had to be sought for outside the dwelling, the old
Edinburgh citizen, when building his house, took care to erect in front
of its windows a wooden balcony, resting on sturdy pillars, that rose to
the edge of the roof. Thus a piazza was formed on the ground floor under
which the wares of the shop-keepers of the period were exposed, and a
series of galleries above, where the burghers would step out from their
houses of an evening to enjoy the air, and particularly the light, while
watching the passers-by below, and where their children would play when
the rain made the street not so agreeable for that purpose. In course of
time, when glass came generally into use, the front of these balconies
was boarded up and pierced with windows, and in many cases the shops
below advanced a step, so as to keep flush with the frontage above.
Hence the singular appearance of many of these tenements. Of this class
was the old Excise Office. Its front was somewhat ornamental. Neat
wooden pilasters divided the windows from each other. At its eastern
corner, immediately below Baron Grant’s Close, an outside stair that
projected into the street before the alteration we describe led to a
spiral stair, over the door leading to which was the pious inscription,
“Devs Benedictat,” and the date 1606. From this it would seem that the
building was anything but new when taken possession of by the Hanoverian
Excisemen. It is probable that it lodged more gentle persons and people
who were held in better estimation than the officials that were regarded
as the detested fruit of the Union. They took possession of the premises
soon after that event in our history, stuck up the Royal arms on the
face of the building, and set themselves to levy duty on the merchandise
that entered the city by its principal gate, the Nether Port, the then
direct avenue from the neighbouring seaport. Since George the Second’s
reign the Excise Office has had many a shift, and the building in Nether
Bow many other strange occupants. While the character of the latter has
been steadily declining, the prosperity of the Excise has been as
uniformly increasing. The office was shifted to a more commodious house
in the Cowgate, pulled down subsequently for the southern piers of
George IV. Bridge; then to a house in Chessel’s Court, in the Canongate,
where the notorious Deacon Brodie committed his great robbery; next to
Sir Lawrence Dundas’ mansion in St. Andrew Square; afterwards to
Bellevue House, in Drummond Place, since pulled down; and subsequently
to where it is now. Two closes passed underneath the old Excise Office
tenement; one was Baron Grant’s Close, and the other Society Close. The
Baron’s fame has not descended to these days, and his name only lives on
the wynd that once was his. But the other close has had rather a
remarkable history. On its west side there was a curious old house with
the following inscription over its main door:--“R. H. Hodie mihi eras
tibi cur igitur curas.” The date was obliterated by time. A curious
turnpike stair led to the flats above. The tenement was the property of
Aleson Bassendyne, the famous old Scottish topographer, who issued, in
1574, a beautiful folio Bible. The close at first bore his name;
subsequently it was called after a Baron of Exchequer belonging to the
house of Panmure, and last of all Society Close, from the circumstances
that in a large stone mansion which the judge occupied, at the foot of
the close, was afterwards housed the Society for the Propagation of
Christian Knowledge founded in 1701, and erected into a body corporate
by Queen Anne. There were many other buildings in the narrow wynd of
great age and much interest, but they have been swept away. Now that
these buildings have been removed, the obstruction presented to the
traffic of the street by John Knox’s house and church is more
observable. But we would suffer much greater inconvenience ere we
consented to the removal of the house of our venerable Reformer.
APPENDIX XVII.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JOHN BROWN _alias_ HUMPHRY MOORE
AT THE OLD BAILEY IN APRIL, 1784.
Humphry Moore was indicted for feloniously stealing, on the 5th of
February last, twenty guineas, value £21, and four pieces of foreign
gold coin called doubloons, value £14 8s., the property of John Field,
in the dwelling-house of John Brown.
The material circumstances of this case, as they appeared in evidence,
were as follow:--The prosecutor, John Field, was walking along James
Street, Convent Garden, when a person unknown joined company with him,
and soon afterwards picked up a purse which was lying at a door. The
prosecutor was persuaded to go to a public-house with him, being told
that he was entitled to half the contents. From one end of the purse the
stranger produced the following receipt:--“Feb. 2. 1784.--Bought of
William Smith, one brilliant diamond-cluster ring, value £210, and
received at the same time the contents, in full of all demands, by me,
William Smith;” and from the other end he pulled out the ring itself. In
the course of the conversation the prisoner entered the room, praised
the beauty of the ring, and offered to settle the division of its value.
Upon the stranger’s lamenting that he had no money about him, the
prosecutor said that he had forty or fifty pounds at his lodgings at
Chelsea. “That sum will just do,” said the prisoner. A coach was
immediately called, and all three were drawn to the prosecutor’s
lodgings. The prosecutor and stranger went into the house, leaving the
prisoner at the Five Fields, and they afterwards joined him at the
Cheshire Cheese. The prisoner said, “I will give you your share of the
ring if you will be content until to-morrow.” The prosecutor put down
twenty guineas and four doubloons, which the stranger took up and
carried away, leaving the ring with the prosecutor, and appointed him to
meet next day to have the money returned and £100 for his share of the
ring. The prosecutor attended the next morning at the place of
appointment, but neither of the parties came. The ring was of a very
trifling value.
The jury were of opinion that the prisoner was confederating with the
person unknown for the purpose of obtaining the money by means of the
ring, and did therefore aid and assist the person unknown in obtaining
the twenty guineas and four doubloons from the prosecutor. They
accordingly found him guilty of stealing, but not in the dwelling-house
subject to the opinion of the twelve judges whether it was felony.
* * * * *
Mr. JUSTICE WILLES (after stating the indictment and the circumstances
that appeared in evidence, proceeded thus)--This matter was submitted to
the opinion of all the judges, the first day of last Michaelmas term,
except Lord Mansfield, who was absent, and they all agreed in the
distinction between the parting with the possession and the parting with
the property; that in the first case it was a felony, and in the last
case it was not. Nine of the judges were of opinion that in this case
possession only was parted with, it being merely a pledge, till the
supposed value of the ring was delivered. Two of the judges thought that
the doubloons were the same as money, and were of opinion it was a loan,
and was a parting with the property; but nine of the judges were of
opinion it was felony, and the judges could not distinguish this from
the following case of the King and Patch. The prisoner was indicted for
stealing a watch and some money. He picked up a ring and a purse in the
street, and, pretending he had found it, offered to divide the money
with the prosecutor, and opening the purse there was a ring and bill of
parcels, stating the ring to be a diamond one, of £147 value, and a
receipt for that sum. Different modes were proposed for the
distribution; at last the prisoner asked the prosecutor if he would give
him his money and watch and take the ring? Two other men that were in
company took up the watch and money, and the prisoner got the prosecutor
out of the room, under pretence he had something particular to say to
him, and the two men ran away with the watch and money. The prosecutor
was uneasy, and the prisoner said he knew the two men. The prisoner was
apprehended, and the ring was found to be of the value of 10s. only. It
was objected by the counsel for the prisoner that it was not a felony.
But Mr. Justice Gould, Mr. Baron Perryn, and Mr. Justice Buller held it
should be left to the jury to say what was the intention of the prisoner
to get the money and watch, for if the whole was a scheme of the three
men, it was felony, according to the case of the King and Peers, where a
horse was hired for the day by two men who went directly and sold him;
and Mr. Justice Gould left it to the Jury whether the prisoner and the
other two men were not all in concert together. Upon the whole,
therefore, of your case the majority of the judges are of opinion that
you are guilty of the felony, and not merely of a fraud, and that
judgment must be passed upon you accordingly.
* * * * *
Mr. RECORDER--Humphry Moore, when upon your trial I reserved this case;
it was not from any doubt of your guilt, but doubting whether it was of
that kind to support the indictment. That doubt has been submitted to
the opinion of all the judges, and a great majority of them have
concurred in opinion that the indictment was sufficiently supported, by
the circumstances given in evidence against you. I never entertained any
doubt that the offence of which you was clearly proved to be guilty, was
deserving of as high a punishment as any felony committed under similar
circumstances. If, therefore, no doubt in point of law had occurred I
should have passed sentence upon you, to be transported for seven years.
No reason occurs to me now for changing that opinion of your offence,
but as the necessity of laying your case before the judges has
occasioned some delay since your conviction, I shall take care the term
of your transportation shall be computed accordingly. Therefore the
sentence of the Court is, that you, Humphry Moore, be transported beyond
the seas, for the term of seven years from the time of your conviction,
to such place or places as His Majesty, by the advice of his Privy
Council, shall think fit to direct or appoint.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Appendix I., Note 1.
[2] See Appendix I. note 2.
[3] See Appendix I. note 3.
[4] See Appendix I. note 4.
[5] See Appendix I. note 5.
[6] See Appendix I. note 5.
[7] See Appendix I. note 6.
[8] See Appendix I. note 7.
[9] See Appendix I. note 8.
[10] See Appendix I. note 9.
[11] See Appendix XVII.
[12] See Appendix I. note 10.
[13] See Appendix I. note 11.
[14] See Appendix I. note 12.
[15] See Appendix I. note 13.
[16] See Appendix I. note 14.
[17] See Appendix I. note 15.
[18] See Appendix I. note 16.
[19] See Appendix I. note 17.
[20] See Appendix I. note 18.
[21] See Appendix I. note 19.
[22] See Appendix I. note 20.
[23] See Appendix I. note 21.
[24] See Appendix I. note 22.
[25] See Appendix I. note 23.
[26] See Appendix I. note 24.
[27] Now the Head Office of the Royal Bank, St. Andrew Square.
[28] See Appendix I. note 25.
[29] The title of this member was Sir Nun and Abbess.
* * * * *
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
I am informed, are £50 per cent. dearer in America than here.=> I am
informed, are 50 per cent. dearer in America than here. {pg 155}
be said that this cricumstance renders his evidence=> be said that this
circumstance renders his evidence {pg 187}
was born on 5th January, 1759,=> was born on 5th January, 1719, {pg 226}
hatto & Windus=> Chatto & Windus {pg 237}
shall lead to a discoving=> shall lead to a discovering {pg 253}
to transporation seems strongly=> to transportation seems strongly {pg
272}
with him on their own own business=> with him on their own business {pg
260}