The Man Who Was Jekyll and Hyde (12 page)

The noble and honourable justice of the Town of Amsterdam, upon request by me, Henry Pye Rich, consul & agent for His Majesty the King of Great Britain, have been so good as to apprehend and hand over to me to be transported to England, one William Brodie.

Therefore, in my aforementioned quality, I herewith declare that this transfer will not be used to damage the Justice of Amsterdam, not by me nor by anyone else, and so in consequence to the disadvantage or reduction of the rights, authority and jurisdiction of the aforementioned Town, and also that I will not indicate this act in any different way than as a matter of service to Justice, for which I am prepared to declare it is excused, while I also accept to reimburse any costs that have been made after they were declared.

[signed] Henry Pye Rich,

Amsterdam, 8 July, 1788

But before releasing the prisoner to the British authorities, the Dutch had to be absolutely sure he was who he was said to be.

***

Meanwhile, one John Groves, a public officer clerk of London's famous crime-fighting Bow Street, had been also on the miscreant's trail, only to be beaten to the prize by the Irishman; yet he was still expected to take charge of the prisoner and bring him back to face his fate in his own country. How had Groves become involved? That was later explained at Brodie's trial, when London solicitor Thomas Longlands was sworn in as a prosecution witness and asked to recall his role in the case. He was asked: ‘Did you hear of William Brodie, the prisoner at the bar, having fled from this country in March last, and of his having been brought back? Tell the court what you know of the matter.'

He replied:

In the month of June or July last I was employed by the officers of the Crown for Scotland to take such steps as appeared to me to be proper for the discovery of Mr Brodie. In consequence of this employment I called frequently at the Secretary of State's Office, and had several conversations with Mr Fraser, Under-Secretary in the office of Lord Carmarthen, and gave them the information I had received from Scotland.

I likewise waited upon Sir Sampson Wright, of the Public Office, Bow Street, whose assistance I judged necessary to call in as to the proper measures to be pursued. As the information received gave reason to suspect that Mr Brodie was at Flushing, Ostend, or some place in Holland, it was agreed upon to send a messenger immediately in search of him. Sir Sampson Wright recommended to me a Mr Groves from his office as a proper person to send to the Continent in search of Mr Brodie, and I accordingly despatched him with proper instructions.

Mr Groves traced Mr Brodie to Ostend, and learned that he had been there upon the 4th of June, His Majesty's birthday, and he was afterwards traced to Amsterdam, where he was apprehended, identified, and committed to prison. Upon proper application, he was delivered up to Mr Groves, and was brought from thence to London by him.

What follows is Groves' account of his ‘expedition-and-extradition' experience in his own words, taken from his journal:

On Tuesday, the 1st July, I left London, and arrived at Harwich at three o'clock the next morning.

Wednesday, waited on Mr Coxe, the agent for the packet, with Mr [William] Fraser's letter, and also on the Captain, who dined with me. At half-past four in the afternoon sailed out of the harbour, and lost sight of land at nine.

Thursday, got sight of Helvoetsluys [the principal port for the English packets from Harwich] at twelve next day, – dead calm four leagues from shore, – rowed into the harbour in the long boat, with Captain Hearne, and Carpmeal, (Sir S. Wright's officer), with the mail, and a woman going as Lady's maid to Sir James Harris's Lady, – drove back by tide, and almost out to sea again, – landed on sand, walked to several farmhouses, leaving the mail and baggage on the sand, guarded, in quest or a waggon, – refused; – a boor, at last, went at an extravagant price; we had walked seven miles on hot sands, and parched with thirst; at eight o'clock waggon came with the mail, &c. – set out for the Brill, but, within two miles, waggon broke down, and obliged to procure boors to carry mail, &c. arrived at the Brill at half past nine; – Brooks, the messenger, came from Helvoetsluys to meet us, where he had been waiting, — had heard nothing of any person (Englishman) being in custody at Amsterdam, which much alarmed me, nor had Hutchinson, the collector of the passports, – more alarmed; – delivered Mr Fraser's letter to Brooks; – at ten set off with Brooks for Maslinsluys, arrived there at half-past eleven, got to Delft at three-quarters past twelve; – arrived at the Hague at three in the morning in an open post waggon, with heavy rain, thunder and lightning.

Friday, waited on Sir James Harris [British ambassador in The Hague] at ten in the morning, – introduced to Brooks, – treated with great affability, and received a letter from Sir James, which he had already wrote, directed to Mr Henry Rich [British consul in Amsterdam]. Sir James having first informed me that Brodie was safe in the Stadthouse, – consulted Sir James on the mode of obtaining him, – informed that, if the magistrates of Amsterdam required an official application to the States General, to come back immediately to him, and he would obviate all difficulties; but he did not think it would be necessary: – it was Sir James's opinion the magistrates would give him up without, if not, was certain they would detain him till an answer to Sir James's application to the States could be obtained; – set off for Amsterdam, and arrived there the same evening; waited on Mr Rich, – politely received; and we consulted on measures, – Mr Rich to wait on one of the magistrates that evening, and to send to me early next morning. – Waited on Mr Duncan, a Scots gentleman, and father-in-law to Mr Gerard, a minister at Amsterdam, with Mr Longlands's letter; – Mr Duncan seemed willing to identify Brodie; but on being called out into another room by Mr Gerard and his wife, on his return, Mr D. said, as far as his word of honour as a gentleman would go, and his belief, he would say he was the man; but, if an oath was required he would not. – Saw then a manifest reluctance in Mr D. and had no doubt his daughter and the parson would endeavour to persuade him to decline troubling himself in the matter; but judged he could not go back from what he had said to Mr Rich.

N.B. No mischief but a woman or a priest in it, – here both.

Saturday morning, received a message from Mr Rich, – most of the magistrates gone to their country-houses, – nothing could be done till Monday; – Mr Rich entertained no doubt, but said a magistrate had informed him, that a formal requisition must be made by him, in writing, to the magistrates; – he produced the copy of one, requiring the person of William Brodie to be delivered up; I corrected it, by inserting ‘otherwise John Dixon', as the magistrates of Amsterdam knew of no William Brodie; Mr Rich agreed it was proper; – informed him of my suspicions respecting Mr Duncan, and the steps that would be taken by his family to make him, if possible, recant; – my fears further increased, as Mr Duncan lodged in the same tavern with me, I had frequent opportunities of conversation with him, and could plainly see a sorrow for what he had said, and a wish to retract.

Monday, waited on Mr Rich, – found, by a mistake in not inserting ‘otherwise John Dixon' in the requisition, that the business must be delayed till the next day ten o'clock, when a general meeting of the magistrates, with the grand schout (high sheriff) to consider on the application; – mistake corrected, and requisition presented.

Tuesday, sent for by the magistrates to the Stadthouse; – from their manner, judged Brodie's delivery as predetermined; – Mr Duncan sent for.

Predetermined perhaps, but not so simple to execute. As it happened, while everyone involved in the case knew who the prisoner was, some difficulty was encountered in formally establishing his identity, and John Groves – sometimes referring to himself in the third person – reported further on the challenge of getting sworn witnesses (preferred by Dutch law) at the showdown meeting between Brodie and the Amsterdam magistrates questioning him. The attitude of the aforementioned Mr Duncan proved frustrating for the meeting. Why? He said he was not a native of Edinburgh but of Aberdeen, that he frequently visited Edinburgh on business and that eight, ten or twelve years before – he couldn't say which – the man now calling himself John Dixon was pointed out to him as Deacon Brodie. He had seen him several times after that and always understood him to be Deacon Brodie, though he did not know his Christian name. He had no doubt this was the same man, but ‘he would not swear he had no doubt – a nice distinction'.

Brodie was ordered to be brought in and, as he faced the magistrates with an unusually downtrodden expression, he seemed nonetheless also determined to err seriously on the side of caution, being prepared to admit nothing.

Here is Grove's reporting of the High Sheriff's relevant exchange with the prisoner, who was first asked the following:

What is your name?

John Dixon
.

That is the name you go by here – but is not your real name William Brodie?

My Lords, I stand here and claim the protection of the laws of this country, which require two witnesses, on oath, to prove me William Brodie
.

You shall have the protection of the laws of this country, but they do not require two oaths to identify you; it requires that the magistrates shall be satisfied you are the same man.

Mr Groves – I beg leave he may be asked, if he is not a native of Edinburgh?

Question put – the answer,
I have been at Edinburgh
.

Mr Groves – Is he a Deacon of Edinburgh?

Prisoner replied –
I claim the protection of the laws
.

Mr Groves – Does he know Mr William Walker, Attorney at law, of the Adelphi, London?

Prisoner replied –
I know such a man
.

Mr Groves – Then that William Walker procured the escape of this William Brodie from London, which I can prove by extracts of letters now in my pocket, the originals of which are here in the hands of your officers. I can swear to Mr Walker's writing.

Here the Magistrates asked me [Groves] if I was ready to swear that, from the pointed description of him and all said circumstances, he was, to the best of my belief, the man required to be given up? – I told them I was.

Mr Duncan was then asked if, from what he knew and what he had heard, he would swear he had no doubt, and believed him to be the man.

Mr Duncan's reply –
I am only a visitor here; and being called on such an occasion, it might, in my own country where I am a Magistrate, have the appearance of forwardness if I was to swear. I am a man of honour and a gentleman, and my word ought to be taken. I do believe, and I have no doubt, that he is the same man; but I decline to swear it; I'll take no oath
.

The Magistrates expostulated, but unsuccessfully, on the absurd idea of saying, ‘I have no manner of doubt, and verily believe' and refusing to swear (that) ‘I have no manner of doubt'.

As I had previously drawn up an information for Mr Duncan and myself to that effect, he was asked if he would sign it without swearing? – Mr Duncan said he would.

The Magistrates then said that they should pay the same compliment to me they did to Mr Duncan, and take my signature to the certificate, without an oath, even to my belief. – [Certificate signed].

The prisoner was then ordered in, and the certificate read to him, and asked if he had not a father? – He replied,
None
.

But you had a father, said the Judge – was not his name Brodie?

Prisoner replied –
There are more Brodies than one.

Then by that, said the Judge, you confess your name is Brodie?

A lapsus linguae, my Lord.

It was, indeed, a sensational lapse, or slip of the tongue. Realising that he had blundered like a mouse into a clever legal eagle's claws, Brodie tried desperately to struggle out by again stressing what he believed was a technical requirement for witnesses' oaths. But the judge told him bluntly that the matter was closed; that all they wanted was to be satisfied about his identity, which they now were from what had been signed by Mr Duncan and Mr Groves, and partly from that virtual confession of his own. It was time to go home, the captured fugitive was told. He was duly marked for delivery to Mr Groves, who was advised by the judge that he should have a guide and waste no time in setting off that day.

As it happened, when the journey-ready Bow Street clerk returned to the Stadhuis to get going with Brodie at 4 p.m., there were no fewer than four guides waiting for him, not to mention eight horses pulling two carriages, into one of which the ‘properly secured' Brodie was sharply bundled. A ‘prodigious crowd' had gathered to watch them leave like some kind of royal party and, had he had his hands free, no doubt the Deacon would have waved regally to them like some kind of royal personage. It's not hard to imagine that, despite his recent refugee status, the self-regarding little man would have resented the severe lack of dignity he was now suffering. And it was to get worse even after they arrived at Helvoetsluys around lunchtime the next day. Here the packet had been waiting for them after Groves had written to Sir James Harris on the Saturday requesting that it be detained – ‘who informed me by Mr Rich, with whom I dined on the Monday, that it should be detained to the last moment'.

When they sailed for Harwich, the erstwhile Mr John Dixon was ‘watched two hours alternately on board by the ship's crew, his hands and arms confined, and his meat cut up for him, &c' and must have registered some regret that he was not enjoying the comforts of his earlier voyage, not to mention the much greater regret he felt about not managing to follow through his major life plan.

Groves ended his story by saying, ‘On Thursday night, eleven o'clock, we arrived at Harwich – supped – set off immediately, and arrived next day at noon at Sir Sampson Wright's, before whom, and Mr Longlands, Brodie confessed he was the person advertised.'