The lawyers are bitter enemies to those in our way. They do not care that any body should get a clandestine livelihood but themselves.
The Begga’s Opera.
IN LOOKING through a volume of the old Scots Magazine—that admirable journal, which cries aloud for a general index—one cannot fail to light upon something that interests, amuses, or instructs. Every subject in the heavens above and in the earth beneath and in the waters under the earth (from balloons to diving-bells) finds a place in its brave pages. Art, literature, and law; historical affairs and domestic intelligence; politics and poetry; characters, anecdotes, and correspondence; matters topical and topographical; births, marriages, and deaths; and beyond all, in my esteem, reports of criminal trials. Such a heading as “Horrid Murders” lightens agreeably the heaviness of articles like “Account of Marble Quarries in the North of Scotland,” or “General View of the Principles of Pantomime”; and from the mine of solid information provided, one recovers, with patience, an occasional gem.
For example, in the book now before me (being volume 75, for the year 1813), my expert eye encounters (at page 475) this attaching notice:
ATROCIOUS MURDER
On the 12th of May, between nine and ten o’clock in the evening, Mr. William Muirhead, smith in Calton, Edinburgh, was robbed and murdered on the road from Corstorphine to Edinburgh, a little to the westward of Coltbridge. Next day, John M‘Donald was apprehended on suspicion of committing this horrid crime, and on the 15th, James W. Black was also apprehended for the same offence. They were soon afterwards indicted, and on the 7th of June stood trial before the High Court of Justiciary, the particulars of which are given in a preceding part of this number.—Page 429.
And sure enough, on turning up the page referred to, I find there, and in the nine succeeding pages, an adequate report of that interesting trial.1 The case, though by no means a cause célèbre, is worth recalling for divers reasons: it adds a new item to my collection of Edinburgh crimes, and it is remarkable for the precocious depravity of the youthful perpetrators, who, in the words of the presiding Judge, “after making systematic preparation in providing themselves with deadly weapons, coolly and deliberately sally forth to the public highway, with the diabolical and premeditated purpose, not only of robbing of their property, but of embruing their hands in the blood of, their unoffending fellow-citizens, if they should give them even the slightest ‘salute’,” conduct which his Lordship well described as exhibiting “a degree of savage barbarity altogether unparalleled in the annals of the world, that was indeed sufficient to make us ashamed of human nature itself, if it did not in fact appear more characteristic of demons than of men,” But then the Lord Justice-Clerk spoke according to the dim lights of his day, and could have no conception of the immense progress in brutality to be achieved by professors of modern Nazi doctrines and practice, as applied to the gentle arts of spoliation and murder.
Additional interest attaches to the case from the fact that, as recorded in the obituary notice of the murderers, “the circumstances attending their execution were quite unprecedented in this part of the kingdom”: they were hanged upon the very spot where the deed was done.
I
On Monday, 7th June, 1813, before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, took place the trial of John M‘Donald, painter, and James Williamson Black, slater, for murder and robbery. The Lord Justice-Clerk (Boyle) presided, the other Judges being Lords Meadowbank, Gillies, Succoth, and Pitmilly.1 The Lord Advocate (Archibald Colquhoun), assisted by H. Clephane, advocate, appeared for the Crown; James Simpson and Samuel M‘Cormick, advocates, for M‘Donald; and John Tawes and Andrew Gillies for Black. The charges against the pannels, as set forth in the indictment, to which both pleaded Not Guilty, were, briefly, that on the evening of Wednesday, 12th May, on the road leading westward from Coltbridge to the village of Corstorphine, they attacked William Muirhead, blacksmith, residing in the Calton, Edinburgh, and discharged at him a pistol loaded with slugs, one or more of which passed through his heart and occasioned his death; after which they robbed him of his silver watch. “The trial excited great interest,” says the Edinburgh Advertiser. “The Court was crowded in every part, and many persons could not get access. M‘Donald was 19 or 20 years of age, and Black only 18. Both were slenderly made, and very youthful in their appearance.” No objection being made to the relevancy of the indictment, the prosecutor adduced his proof.
The first witness was William Muirhead, blacksmith, son of the deceased, who, being sworn, deponed that he resided in his father’s family. On 12th May last there was a meeting in the Calton of the Trade Corporation, to which his father belonged, but which his father said he did not mean to attend, as he meant to take a walk in the country. He accordingly left the house between the hours of six and seven in the evening. Witness waited up for him till midnight, when he became uneasy, “thinking that some persons whom he knew might have persuaded him to go to another meeting,” and then went out to seek him, “leaving his sister in bed, and a candle burning.” When he returned he was told that two gentlemen had called, who wanted to see him, and “left word that somebody wished to impose on his father.” He immediately went out again to seek his brother-in-law, James Brown, whom he met about the middle of Leith Wynd, and who told him that his father was murdered. They went together to the Guard-house, where they saw the body of the deceased. Witness then went home to inform his sister of what had happened, “and got a table-cloth to cover him.” His father was 73 years of age. The body had a wound on the left breast and was “very bloody.” Deceased had a silver watch, which the deponent saw him wearing when he left the house that evening. It had appended to it a steel chain and a brass seal, which witness now identified as produced.
James Brown, last-maker, a son-in-law of the deceased, stated that he and Mr. Muirhead were members of the same Corporation. On 12th May he attended a meeting thereof; deceased was not present. Between twelve and one o’clock he was called out of the room by Bailie Johnston and Captain Brown of the City Police, who told him that his father-in-law had not come home. Witness said he might have gone to another meeting, and went out to seek him; but when half-way down the Calton Hill they informed him that the old man was murdered and that his body was then in the Guard-house. They went there, and saw the body “quite dead.” It had a large wound in the breast, measuring four inches by two and a half. Going home, he met young Muirhead in Leith Wynd, who begged for God’s sake to tell him the worst, as he was prepared for it. Witness told him his father was “actually killed.” They watched the body in the Guard-house all next day, “to prevent improper visitors being admitted.” The body was inspected there by surgeons on Thursday, and again on Saturday in the deceased’s own house. On the second occasion, witness saw three balls taken out of the body, one quite flat, which one of the surgeons wrapped in a piece of paper and put in his pocket.
Robert Young, writer, stated that on 12th May he travelled from Glasgow to Edinburgh in the Telegraph coach, leaving that city at four o’clock and arriving at eleven that night, “which he believes is later than usual.” About half a mile on the west side of Coltbridge he saw a man lying face-downward on the road. The coach was stopped; witness got out, and on examining the body found a large wound on the left breast, with a great deal of blood on the footpath below where the man was lying. On the waistcoat being opened, “the wound appeared so large that a man could have put his three fingers into it.” The pockets of the deceased were examined by the guard, but neither watch nor money was found in them; only two keys, which were replaced. It was then about ten o’clock, and bright moonlight. Leaving the body where it lay, the coach proceeded to Coltbridge, where the alarm was given.
Adam M‘Coul, servant to Mr. Lindsay, Coltbridge, stated that he was desired by his master to take a cart and bring in the body of a man, who was said to have been found west of the road to Ravelston, a quarter of a mile from Coltbridge. He did so, and conveyed the body to the West Port police office, whence he was desired by Captain Brown to carry it to the City Guard, which he did, when it was laid up on a kind of board or bench in the Guard-house. Witness saw the wound, which was very large. The body was put into the cart about a quarter past ten.
Dr. Farquharson, physician in Edinburgh, stated that on 13th May he was called in to inspect the body of the deceased. It lay in the back room of the Guard-house, which was dark, and from the amount of coagulated blood covering the wound, he could only examine it generally. He put his hand into the wound, which was very large; and on pressing forward one of his fingers he felt a hole through the heart, which he thought sufficient to have caused death. On the 15th witness made a further examination, together with Mr. Andrew Inglis, surgeon, in the deceased’s own house. The wound was in the left breast, of a triangular shape, about four inches and a half long on the one side, three and a half on the other, and two and a half at the base. Three bullets were taken out of the body, two complete and one flattened and shattered; these were sealed up and delivered to the Sheriff, with a report of the post-mortem, which witness now read. “The heart was holed through, as also the left lobe of the lungs.” He identified the bullets as shewn to him. Andrew Inglis, surgeon, examined, corroborated, and concurred in the medical report.
Helen Binny stated that she lived with her mother, who kept an alehouse at Coltbridge. In the beginning of May two lads came to the house one evening between six and seven, and called for a bottle of porter. One of them—Black—she had seen before and now identified. She shewed them into a room, where they sat an hour over their porter—which witness thought suspicious; and on looking through a hole in the door “she saw Black tying something tight round his middle,” He thrust some object into his left breast and pulled his coat down on it. “The other lad [M‘Donald] who was leaning on the table looked at him and winked.” They then went out, after calling for a gill of whisky, the big one (M‘Donald) paying the reckoning, nd. They walked westward out of her sight. Some time later she went down to the bridge over the Water of Leith, where, between nine and ten, she heard two pistol shots. She was standing on the bridge and her brother was fishing below when she heard the reports: “there was no time between them.” The lads had left the house between nine and ten. The Glasgow coach came up about half an hour after she heard the shots; an alarm was given and a cart sent to bring in the body. Witness was positive as to Black, having known him for five years, but could not swear to M‘Donald.
John Binny, brother of Helen, corroborated her as to the coming of the two lads and their consumption of liquor. He knew Black by sight, but had never seen the other and could not swear that M‘Donald was that person. While they were refreshing themselves in the sitting-room, witness “went out to the fishing in the water, close by Coltbridge.” There he remained, with what success is not recorded, until a quarter to ten. While he was fishing he heard two shots fired, “first one crack and then another, just as hard as they could fire them.” The sound came from the westward and seemed at no great distance. It would then be about half-past nine. Witness had gone to bed when the Glasgow coach came in with the news that a man had been murdered. He arose, dressed, and went to Mr. Lindsay’s to get a cart sent to fetch the body. Having done so, he went in to Edinburgh and informed the police of what had happened, giving them a description of the persons who had been at his mother’s house that day. He saw the body brought in at the West Port and deposited in the Guard-house.
Margaret Smith, tenant-in Coltbridge, stated that on Wednesday, 12th May, two lads came to her house between six and seven, and asked whether she sold spirits. She replied that she did not, “but they would find them next door, over the bridge,” They went eastwards. Witness lived westward of the bridge. She identified the prisoners as the lads in question. At ten minutes after eight they came back and asked what o’clock it was; her son, a little boy, looked and told them. They continued to lounge about for some time and at nine o’clock they went away west; the bigger (M‘Donald) first, the shorter one waited a little and then went after him. Witness said, loud enough to be heard by them, “it was a pity they were not followed, as she thought they had some bad intentions.” They walked west very hard. When the Glasgow coach came past half an hour later, she told the guard she suspected two young men, “one of whom had a halt.“
Alexander Muirhead, tenant in Corstorphine, stated that as he went into Edinburgh that evening he met and passed on the road two lads, going westwards. On his return from town about half-past eight he met the same two lads, coming eastwards, “a little on this side of the road which leads to Ravelston” (now named Ellersly Road), and was jostled by them, but passed on his way and went straight home. It would be about half-past nine when he passed the foot of the Ravelston road, and there was then no dead body lying thereon. As he was entering his own house in Corstorphine the Telegraph coach went by. A little below the Ravelston road and “Belmont” he met an old man named Muirhead, coming towards Edinburgh, whom he knew as a smith in the Calton. He had a staff in his hand and was quite sober; witness stopped and spoke to him, asking whether he was not afraid to go into Edinburgh alone. The old man answered No; it was a fine night and he had no fear, upon which they parted and went their several ways. This was some 200 yards distant from the place where he had met the lads going east. Witness heard no shots fired; the wind was in the west.
William Inglis, butcher in Corstorphine, stated that going home that night about eight or nine he met the two lads near Ravelston “entry” (Ellersly Road). A good many people were on the road at the time. Witness recognized one of them and called: “Hallo, Black, is that you?” and went on. He did not see them again.
George Dechmont, one of the sheriff officers for the county, stated that he was present at the examination of the prisoners before the Sheriff. He afterwards went with another officer, John Auld, and the accused M‘Donald in a coach to a place on the Queensferry road, to which the prisoner directed them. “They went by Blackhall, and turned up the road leading to Ravelston quarry.1 They came to a crooked tree, and Auld and the coachman went to a wheaten field, while he remained with M‘Donald in the coach, and searched the ridges, where they were informed by the prisoner the pistols were hid; and in one of the ridges, to which they were directed by the prisoner, they found the pistols stuck in the ground. Auld gave the pistols to the witness; M‘Donald marked them with a knife by his desire; and witness delivered them to the Sheriff.” He now identified the weapons as produced. John Auld, his fellow-officer, examined, corroborated.
John Kyle, clerk to John Muir, late hardware merchant, in the Royal Exchange, being called, was objected to by counsel for the defence, as not being clerk to Mr. Muir at present; but he stating that he had only ended his engagement on Saturday last, and was a clerk at the time the indictment was served, the objection was not persisted in. Witness stated that on Monday the 3rd, or Tuesday the 4th of May, a young man came into the shop when witness was in the back-shop, and going into the fore-shop he found the shop-boy, or apprentice, shewing the customer pistols. Witness said the price was 22s. the pair; the young man said he could only give 16s. This being refused, he offered 17s., then 20s., both of which being also refused and he saying he could not give more, witness agreed to let him have them for 21s. The lad then offered 19s. Witness stuck out for 20s., whereupon he went to the door and returned with another lad, and got the two pistols for 20s. Witness believed that the prisoners were the same lads, but would not swear to them—“is pretty certain they are the same, but he could not positively say”—a mental attitude with which those acquainted with the ways of witnesses are only too familiar. The pistols now shewn to him were similar to those he sold, but witness would not swear to them, the shop mark having been rubbed off; “but he thinks them the same.”
Before this witness left the box, the Lord Justice-Clerk admonished him that if in future he should deal in such dangerous weapons, he ought to be extremely careful how he sold them, especially to persons of the appearance of the prisoners, as, however the event of this trial might turn out, it must be a matter of serious regret to him to think that he may possibly have furnished weapons from which consequences similar to those under trial might have ensued.
John Bruce, apprentice to David Tait, hardware merchant, being called, counsel for the pannels objected to his evidence, as he was wrongly designed apprentice to Mr. Tait, and not to Mr. Muir, he (counsel) having then in his hand an indenture, binding witness to Mr. Muir, upon which there was no transfer of service. Mr. Tait, being called, deponed that Bruce was not his apprentice; that he had been merely “left” in the shop by Mr. Muir; and that witness considered him at liberty to leave whenever he chose. He paid him his weekly wages, and told Mr. Muir he had no intention of keeping him, as he expected a person from London. Bruce was then examined. He stated his age as 16, and said that he was Mr. Muir’s apprentice and not Mr. Tait’s; he was only with Mr. Tait for a while, till his nephew came from London. On being asked whether he understood that the time he served with Mr. Tait was to be considered in his indentures with Mr. Muir, witness said he thought so, if Mr. Muir agreed. He had described himself as apprentice with Mr. Tait, but to Mr. Muir.
Counsel on both sides having been heard upon this nice point, the Lord Justice-Clerk expressed regret that so delicate a question had at present been urged, as it involved a point of law of great importance. “The plurality of the Judges thought the designation sufficient, as it enabled the pannels easily to find out the witness by inquiring at Mr. Tait’s. On the other hand, it was agreed that the law was: that where a witness was so designated as even possibly to occasion a mistake, he was improperly designated. A witness was not to be sought after by a chain of inquiry, but cited by direct, positive information; and the objection in the present case ought to be sustained,” The objection being by a majority of the Court repelled, the witness was examined; but as he proved unable to identify either the pannels or the pistols, there had been much ado about nothing: the mountain had not even produced a mouse.
John Ormiston, solicitor-at-law, stated that on the morning of 15th May he was consulted by Mrs. Watterson, residing in the Cowgate. She asked his advice how to get rid of certain police officers, who had applied for a warrant to search her house and that of her son-in-law, Robert Graham, for the purpose of recovering a watch. Witness advised her to procure the watch and bring it to him, which she did. Witness handed the watch to the Procurator-Fiscal, and now identified it as produced.
Mrs. Jean Watterson stated that some police officers came to her house to search for a watch, on which she went to Mr. Ormiston to ask his advice. “As her man was coming home, she wanted the police officers sent away,” As advised by Mr. Ormiston she went to her son-in-law, who, she understood, had given stockings and shoes in exchange for a watch; she got it, and gave it to Mr. Ormiston “not half an hour after.” It was a silver watch like that now shewn to her.
Robert Graham, shoemaker in the Cowgate, shewn a watch, identified it as that referred to. On Thursday evening, 13th May, two lads, whom he now recognized as the prisoners at the bar, came to his house and asked him if he could mend a shoe. Witness said he could do so, “always when at home, but in summer he travelled the country, selling goods, and did not mend shoes,” They then asked what kind of goods he sold, and he said stockings. He offered a pair at 2s. 6d., which M‘Donald agreed to take; also a pair of shoes, which, as they fitted him, that young gentleman also took. But, remarking that he had not enough money on him to pay for them, he said he would leave his watch as a pledge, and would return in half an hour with the cash. He and his companion accordingly left, taking the goods with them; but witness saw them no more until shewn them in the Police Office. The watch was No. 67; he did not notice the maker’s name. It had no chain or seal. Witness was certain it was the very watch produced in Court. On going to Leith he took the watch with him in hope of meeting the lads. Returning, he met his mother-in-law coming to seek him; she told him the police had been “after” the watch. He gave it to her, and bade her for God’s sake give it up directly.
Andrew Inglis, serjeant-major of the Edinburgh City Police, stated that in the beginning of May a person came to the office with information that a man had been murdered. At two o’clock in the morning Captain Brown desired him to go out to the place where the murder was said to have been committed, and try to find any weapons, such as pistols, etc., with which the crime might have been perpetrated. A quarter of a mile past Coltbridge witness saw a great quantity of blood on the road, on examining which he noticed something glittering. He took it up and found it was part of a steel chain; he also found a seal and a button, all of which he now identified. Three men came up, one of whom was the deceased’s son-in-law, who recognized the chain and seal. Witness made inquiries at Corstorphine and Coltbridge regarding any suspicious persons seen in the vicinity. So soon as he heard of two lads, of whom one had a lame leg, thick lips, and black hair, he knew immediately that it was the prisoner Black, whom witness had often seen at the police office—in what capacity is not recorded. Next day he accompanied Captain Brown to the spot, and narrowly examined the adjacent wall to see whether it bore any marks of bullets, but could find none. Witness could easily have known shotmarks, having been over 24 years in the army.
David Arthur, edge-tool maker, son-in-law to the deceased, identified the watch, which the old man had got from Mr. Gibson, Black Bull Inn, Calton. He also identified the chain. John Gibson, vintner, stated that at the end of last harvest he and the deceased exchanged watches. The one now shewn him was that which he gave to Mr. Muirhead; witness saw it in his possession the day before he was murdered. William Lockhart, watchmaker, Canongate, stated that he cleaned deceased’s watch on 26th December, 1812. He identified the watch, chain, and seal.
Robert Adam, clerk to Mr. Edmonstone, hardware merchant, West Bow, stated that he knew the prisoner M‘Donald as an occasional customer. He bought shot from witness once or twice. The last time he did so was in the beginning of the week of the murder, when he asked for the shot he had got formerly—“swan or Bristol large shot.” He made no mention of his purpose, nor did witness ask him. Shewn a paper containing shot brought from the Sheriff-Clerk’s office, witness said it was the same kind as supplied by him to M‘Donald. The balls extracted from the body were of the same size. “Swan shot is marked with 2 B’s, all of the large shot.”
William Rae, Sheriff-Depute of the county, and James Wilson, Sheriff-Clerk-Depute, proved the several declarations of the prisoners, as freely emitted by them when in their sober senses. The pannels’ declarations were then read. These documents are sufficiently remarkable to be given at length. It is manifest that the young declarants were born before their time, and were equally unfortunate in their age and country. In those dark days not only were their brilliant gifts wholly unappreciated by their contemporaries, but the authorities rewarded their achievement with a gibbet. Had they been privileged to be subjects of some enlightened Totalitarian State, how different would be their lot! Their precocious depravity and ruthless savagery would win for them an honoured place among the choicest spirits of that happy land, and their memorial would be writ for all time in the bright blood of their victims.
In his first declaration, emitted on 14th May, M‘Donald denied all knowledge of the murder and robbery. He admitted that he and Black were at Coltbridge on the afternoon of that day, and had a drink at a house there; but he maintained that they returned to town by eight o’clock. In a second declaration of the 15th he stated that his former declaration was “erroneous,” and that he now wished to tell the truth. Warned by the Sheriff to be careful what he said, as that functionary could not assure him of safety, “he persevered notwithstanding in his resolution to tell the truth.” Which, it appeared, was this. He and Black went out that evening with the determined purpose of robbing some person. After they had waited for a time the deceased was seen approaching from the westward. Black asked him “what was the clock,” and the old man having held out his watch for them to see, Black made a snatch at it and broke off the chain. “Immediately thereafter Black fired his pistol, by which Mr. Muirhead was brought to the ground. Then he, M‘Donald, also fired his pistol, but in such a manner as to do no damage. Thereafter Black rifled the body, and they made the best of their way up the road which leads to Ravelston [Ellersly Road], and hid the pistols at the end of a ridge in a wheat-field.”
Black also made two declarations. On 17th May he, like M‘Donald, denied all knowledge of the crimes; but next day, being duly warned, he expressed a desire to make a clean breast of the whole facts. On the Monday before the deed was done M‘Donald and he went out on the Musselburgh road with intent to commit a robbery. They found no opportunity of doing so, and accordingly spent the night in Musselburgh. Next day they visited Haddington, and returning from that town in the evening, met a gentleman on horseback, whom they deemed a suitable subject for their purpose. So M‘Donald attempted to seize his bridle; but the gentleman, having clapped spurs to his horse, got past him, M‘Donald firing his pistol after him without effect. On the day of the murder they went out on the Coltbridge road on a robbing expedition, “M‘Donald alledging it was a good opportunity, being the market-day; and having proposed the Coltbridge road on account of the easy escape that could be made up the road leading to Ravelston. After waiting some time, a person carrying a bundle [the witness Alexander Muirhead] was seen coming from the westward, and him they determined to attack”; but most fortunately for him he got past, after having been jostled off the footpath. It was thereupon resolved to attack the first person who came up, and to shoot him if the smallest resistance were made. Presently the old man Muirhead approached, and the murder and robbery were effected. But Black’s version of the deed differed notably from that of his associate. He averred that M‘Donald made the snatch at the watch, and shot the old man, “having first threatened to blow his brains out,” to which the venerable victim mildly made answer: “Oh no, my man, you’ll surely no’ do that.” Whereupon the other fired his pistol and shot him dead upon the spot.
I think there can be little doubt that Black’s is the true version of the tragedy, for M‘Donald was manifestly throughout the leading spirit and the greater villain. It is characteristic that he should seek to lay the blame of the crime on his confederate’s shoulders.
The Crown case was here closed, and no evidence was led for the defence. The speeches of counsel and the charge of the learned Judge are not reported; but we read: “The jury were addressed by the Lord Advocate for the Crown, and by James Simpson, Esq., for M‘Donald, and John Tawse, Esq., for Black; after which the Lord Justice-Clerk summed up the evidence, when the jury were inclosed, and desired to return their verdict on Tuesday, at two o’clock.”
Accordingly on that day, 8th June, the jury returned their verdict, “all in one voice finding the pannels Guilty.” The Judges then delivered “at considerable length” their several opinions regarding the enormity of the pannels’ guilt, and expressed their astonishment that in a country so long distinguished for knowledge and virtuous conduct so many instances of youthful depravity had lately occurred, and their fear of being obliged to revert to “those more striking and awful punishments which our law enjoins.”
The Lord Justice-Clerk, in passing sentence, observed that he entirely concurred in what had been so properly and eloquently said by the Judges who preceded him. Addressing the pannels his Lordship, having reviewed the circumstances of the crimes charged and complimented the jury on their verdict—“the justice of which was most manifest not only to the Court, but to every person who heard the evidence,” remarked that after what had been said as to the heinousness of the crimes, he did not propose to add more than to declare that of all the cases within his personal experience, or of which he had either heard or read, that of the pannels’ seemed the one of the most marked atrocity and attended with the least palliation. That persons of the early years of the pannels should, as clearly appeared in evidence and from their own declarations, after making systematic preparation in providing themselves with deadly weapons, coolly and deliberately sally forth to the public highway, with the diabolical and premeditated purpose, not only of robbing of their property, but of embruing their hands in the blood of, their unoffending fellow-citizens if they should give them even the slightest “salute,” was a degree of savage barbarity altogether unparalleled in the annals of the world. Such conduct was indeed sufficient to make us ashamed of human nature itself, if it did not in fact appear more characteristic of demons than of men. The case had happily demonstrated the excellence of that system of police which the inhabitants of the city now possessed. Every one of similar habits with the pannels must now be convinced that his person is marked, that the eyes of the officers of justice are upon him, and that however secretly and systematically crimes may be committed, their punishment will be equally certain and immediate. His Lordship further observed that, looking to the unprecedented magnitude of the pannels’ guilt, he had strongly participated in the sentiments expressed by Lord Meadowbank, and had once thought it was necessary that the mode of punishment should be no less signal and exemplary, by their Lordships ordaining them to be hung in chains, that their carcases and bones might wither in the winds of heaven, and afford a lasting example to their associates of the just vengeance of the law. But on further reflection he had become disposed to forgo this procedure, from a consideration of the uneasiness it must occasion to the innocent neighbourhood, but from no regard to the feelings of the relatives of the pannels, who seem to have paid so little attention to their conduct. It was, however, necessary that their punishment should take place in no ordinary manner, and that they should expiate their crimes as near as possible to the spot where the blood of that old and unoffending man, so barbarously murdered, was crying out against them from the ground; and that their bodies should afterwards be publicly anatomized, and their skeletons preserved to future ages as monuments of youthful depravity.
His Lordship, tempering justice with mercy, then gave the young scoundrels much good and godly counsel as to the means whereby they might escape yet greater penalties in another world. He had noticed, he observed, with the utmost horror and regret, the callous and hardened demeanour which M‘Donald had exhibited from the first moment of the trial; and pointed out that unless he and his associate repented of their crimes, a punishment ten thousand times more severe than that now to be awarded would infallibly be pronounced against them. His Lordship then sentenced both to be executed at, or as near as possible to, the place where the murder was committed, upon Wednesday, 14th July next, and thereafter their bodies to be publicly dissected and anatomized. The prisoners were then removed and the Court rose.
“We have never,” says the Edinburgh Evening Courant in concluding its account of the case, “witnessed anything so shocking as the conduct of M‘Donald during the whole course of the trial. He behaved with the utmost apathy, and more than once interrupted both the witnesses and counsel. He received the dreadful sentence of the law with an indifference which excited equal horror and disgust. During the address of the Lord Justice-Clerk he frequently interrupted his Lordship in the most indecent manner; and on the conclusion of the sentence, when his Lordship wished Almighty God to have mercy upon his soul, he loudly replied: ‘He will have none upon yours!’ Black conducted himself with firmness and resignation.”
II
The last public appearance of our young ruffians had a good Press.1 “The execution of these unfortunate young men,” remarks the Scots Magazine, “took place on Wednesday, the 14th of July, pursuant to their sentence by the High Court of Justiciary, for the murder and robbery of Mr. William Muir-head, smith in Cal ton, on the 12 th of May last; and as the circumstances attending their execution were quite unprecedented in this part of the kingdom,2 the following correct account of the particulars seems worthy of insertion.”
The wanton cruelty of the crime, the youthfulness and determination of the criminals, the truculent behaviour of M‘Donald at the bar, and the poetic justice of the penalty being paid on the very spot where the deed was done, all appealed largely to the popular imagination and stimulated interest in the final act of the tragedy.
At half-past eleven o’clock on the fatal morning the cart in which the condemned lads were to be conveyed to the place of expiation was brought from the College Yard by the City Guard to the door of the Tolbooth, or prison of Edinburgh, wherein they were confined. A Lieutenant and half a troop of the 7th Dragoon Guards, with 200 men from the Castle garrison, under the command of a Field Officer, took up their positions in the Lawnmarket around the prison. At half-past twelve the four Bailies of the city, preceded by the town officers and accompanied by their proper attendants, proceeded from the Council Chamber to the Tolbooth. The prisoners were brought out and placed in the cart, and the procession moved on in the following order:
A body of the High Constables.
The city officers, with their halberts.
The Magistrates in their robes, with their staves
of office.
The Rev. Professor Ritchie, Mr. Porteous, chaplain
of the, jail, and Mr. Badenoch, a Roman Catholic
clergyman, who attended M‘Donald.THE CART
with the two criminals, who were drawn with their
backs to the horse and the executioner
fronting them.
Another body of the High Constables followed, the whole being escorted by detachments of the 7th Dragoon Guards, of the Norfolk and Northampton militia, and a party of the police.
In this manner the procession marched through the Lawnmarket, along Bank Street, down the Mound, and along Princes Street. At the West End they were met by William Rae, Esq., Sheriff-Depute of the county, and Harry Davidson, Esq., one of his substitutes, with his proper officers on horseback, accompanied by a troop of the Mid-Lothian yeomanry cavalry. Here the Sheriff received the prisoners from the Magistrates, who, with the constables, the dragoons, and the guard from the Castle, returned to the city. The clergymen and other attendants having entered the carriages provided for them, the procession moved on by the Corstorphine road, till it arrived at the place “where the late Mr. Muirhead was found lying, a little more than a quarter of a mile from Coltbridge, and nearly 30 yards to the west of the road which leads to Ravelston.”
A gibbet had been erected on the highway, and was so constructed that the feet of the criminals would be suspended above the very spot where they committed the crime. They were then loosed from the cart and brought upon the scaffold; a psalm was sung, and suitable prayers were offered by the Revs. Ritchie and Porteous. Mr. Badenoch, the Roman Catholic priest, also prayed and exhorted M‘Donald, “who was of that persuasion.”
At twenty minutes to three o’clock the criminals took their stand upon the drop. There for some more minutes “they continued to implore the Divine pardon, Black with a firm voice, M‘Donald in one less audible. At last Black, turning round, asked M‘Donald if he was ready, and on obtaining an answer in the affirmative (not, however, till the question had been thrice repeated), he grasped him by the hand and kissed him, and exclaiming, ‘Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on our souls!’ he dropped the signal and they were launched into eternity. Black’s body was a good deal convulsed; M‘Donald scarcely moved.”
After hanging the usual time, the bodies were cut down and put into the cart, and “with the view of impressing the spectators with more awe,” they were exposed without any covering, and so conveyed to the College for dissection, in terms of the sentence. The principals, we read, were decently dressed and behaved with decorum and firmness, particularly Black.
The concourse of spectators during the procession was immense, every viewpoint being crowded with people. Great numbers attended the place of execution, “which was on the south edge of a very large pasture inclosure.” Unfortunately the weather, as so often happens at outdoor functions in Edinburgh, did its best to spoil the spectacle. “About half-past two o’clock a very heavy rain came on, and as the roads had been previously very dusty, the people who had to return were completely wet and dirty before they reached town.” Still, having seen that which they went forth to see, doubtless they were well content with the show. On the other hand, it is satisfactory to know that everything was conducted with the utmost propriety and regularity; “and we are happy to add,” says our authority, “that notwithstanding the immense crowd, no accident, that we have heard of, happened, excepting that of an individual who was driven over the side of the Mound by the pressure of the crowd, and received some slight bruises,” The roadway of the Mound, connecting the Old Town with the New, as may be seen in contemporary prints, was then unfenced.
I cannot find that the Judge’s order that the skeletons of the malefactors should be preserved for the benefit of posterity was implemented. At least, if they were in fact articulated to that end, they have now ceased to be available. The Anatomical Museum in the University of Edinburgh contains the bony structure of one Jock Howison, described as the Cramond murderer and the last criminal whose remains were judicially devoted to scientific purposes. The collection is further enriched by the possession of Mr. William Burke’s bones, which rendered such good service in the late owner’s partnership with Mr. William Hare, when the firm’s business, conducted in the West Port, conferred upon that ill-favoured thoroughfare world-wide fame. But I saw no signs of the other young partners in blood with whom we have been concerned.
Accompanying these gentlemen in their glass show-case when last I visited them, was the skeleton of a young female, purporting to be the framework whereon once displayed, for the delight of the curious in feminine charms, the fair face and form of Mary Paterson, most attaching of Burke and Hare’s many victims. But I doubt the authenticity of this relic. Her body was the property of Dr. Knox, the extra-mural lecturer on anatomy at Surgeons’ Hall, who had paid the firm £8 for it, preserved it for a time in spirits, and employed divers artists to make drawings of its manifold perfections. I cannot conceive of him disposing of any portion of his so prized purchase, least of all to his hated rival, Professor Monro, the official exponent of their common art. And we know that so soon as suspicion arose of his connection with the murder factory, Knox’s first care was to dismember the body of Daft Jamie, upon which he was then lecturing to his class, and to disperse the same among the students, in order to defeat identification. Would he have risked keeping so remarkable and conspicuous a “subject” as the dead beauty? No; however painful to his feelings, personal and professional, the sacrifice of such loveliness might prove, poor Mary would infallibly have to be, in nautical parlance, broken up.
Note.—EXECUTION AT THE PLACE OF THE CRIME
The hanging of our malefactors at the scene of their crime, described in the contemporary Press as “quite unprecedented in this part of the world,” in itself afforded a precedent for the execution of other two highway robbers in the following year. These later rascals, who did not go the length of murder, Irishmen named Thomas Kelly and Henry O’Neil, were tried in the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh on 19th December, 1814. The third count in the indictment charges them “with attacking, on the 23rd of the said month of November, David Loch, carter in Biggar, then travelling along the road from Briggs of Braid, or Braid’s-burn, to Edinburgh, pulling him from his horse, striking him on the head with the butt end of a pistol, to the effusion of his blood, threatening to knock out his brains if he made any resistance, and then and there robbing him of four one pound bank notes, twenty shillings in silver, a twopenny loaf of bread, and a spleuchan or leather tobacco pouch,” The first and second charges relate to assaults and robberies committed respectively (1) “upon a cross road near to the farmhouse of Howmuir, in the county of Haddington on 22nd November,” and (2) “upon the high road betwixt Dunbar and Haddington, near Hailes houses,” on the 23rd, prior to the attack at Braid; the spoil including, in addition to money, the hats, coats, shoes, and gaiters of their victims, as well as a green cotton umbrella! An account of the case will be found in the Scots Magazine for January, 1815 (Vol. 77, pp. 26-31).
Although the first two outrages were much graver than the third, the scene of the last was that selected for their expiation. The Lord Justice-Clerk, in passing sentence of death, ordained the pannels to be executed on Wednesday, the 25th of January, “not at the ordinary place, but on the spot at Braid’s burn where you committed the assault and robbery upon David Loch.” I remember, as a small boy on Sunday walks in Morningside, having my young attention drawn to two stones, set in the middle of the causeway in the old Braid Road, as a memorial both of the crime and of the punishment. So salutary was the lesson thus early inculcated, that since that now distant day I have steadfastly abstained from the commission either of assault or highway robbery!
Footnotes
1 The proceedings are also reported in the Edinburgh Advertiser of 8th June, and in the Edinburgh Evening Courant of 10th June, 1813.
1 Books of Adjournal, Justiciary Office.
1 Long a favourite of mine; but I have failed to find either the crooked tree or the wheat-field, which, in the course of time and nature, have long since vanished. The house of “Belmont” still survives above the first bend of Ellersly Road.
1 Edinburgh Evening Courant, 15th July, 1813; Edinburgh Advertiser, 16th July; and Scots Magazine for that month, pp. 522-524.
2 NOTE.—Execution at the place of the crime.