_"The Complicity of the Doctors"--Numerous Disappearances--Dr. Knox
and David Paterson--Paterson Defends Himself--"The Echo of Surgeon's
Square"--The Scapegoat._
As time went on the excitement among the public increased, and the
newspapers, thoroughly roused to the importance of the West Port murders,
and freed from restraint by the decision of the court, spoke out
fearlessly. "The complicity of the doctors," as it was called, came in for
a large share of attention and severe comment; while rumours as to the
action the authorities intended to take regarding Hare and his wife were
eagerly canvassed. It was stated that Hare, after the trial, made
important disclosures, confessing to having been concerned in no less than
twelve different acts of murder, in some of which he was the principal, in
others an accessory; and that he knew of another, though he was not in any
way a party to the commission of it. Then it was said that Burke had
confessed to having sold some thirty or thirty-five uninterred bodies
during the previous two years, and it was argued that these could only
have been obtained by murder, notably the murder of unfortunate women,
large numbers of whom had mysteriously disappeared in that time, no one
knew how. Natural deaths had become very rare among that class, and for
some time the interment of one of them was a thing almost unknown. This,
it was argued, showed that a gigantic conspiracy to murder, for the
purpose of obtaining subjects for dissection, had been going on in
Edinburgh, and it was suspected that the gang was larger than it really
was. A medical man informed a journalist that in the autumn of 1828 the
body of a woman was offered for sale by some miscreants--"probably of
Burke's gang," was the opinion hazarded--to the assistant of an eminent
teacher of anatomy in Edinburgh. The assistant did not know them, for they
were not regular resurrectionists--he knew _them_ well enough--but as he
required a subject, he told them to bring the body, and if it were
suitable he would purchase it. The body was conveyed to the
dissecting-room the same evening, and on being turned out of the sack the
assistant was startled to see it was that of a woman of the town, with her
clothes and shoes and stockings on. He carefully examined the body, and
found there was an enormous fracture on the back of the head, and a large
portion of the skull driven in, as if by the blow of a hammer. With an
oath he asked them where and how they got the body, and one of them coolly
replied that it was the body of an unfortunate who had been _popped_ in a
brawl in Halkerston's Wynd. The "subject" was refused, and the merchants
had to take it elsewhere.
This and many similar stories naturally gave rise to a demand for a
searching investigation alike in the public interest and in the interests
of the teachers of anatomy themselves. It was advocated that all the
anatomical teachers, and others who used _cadavera_ for their classes,
both in and out of the university, ought to be examined as to the manner
in which they were accustomed to receive their subjects. In particular,
the assistants and students of Dr. Knox during the two previous sessions
ought to undergo an examination as to the quarter whence bodies were
procured, the state in which they were received, and the manner in which
they were dissected. Without such a complete and thorough examination, it
was argued, the public could have no guarantee that every anatomical
teacher in Edinburgh had not a Burke in his pay; for it seemed to be the
impression in the minds of the people "that one gentleman stands in the
same relation to Burke that the murderer of Banquo did to Macbeth."
The _Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle_ was especially outspoken in respect to
Dr. Knox. "With regard to Dr. Knox," this journal said, "too much delicacy
and reserve have been maintained by a part of the press. When the
atrocities in question first transpired, it was stated that Knox conducted
himself with the utmost civility towards the police officers who went to
his house in search of the body, when the fact is, he swore at them from
his window, and threatened to blow their brains out; and it was only upon
their proceeding to force the door of his lecture-room, that it was opened
by one of the keepers." From Knox, the _Chronicle_ passed on to Paterson,
his curator or porter, who, that journal asserted, "actually offered
Docherty for sale to a respectable gentleman in the profession before she
was despatched; he saw her in Burke's house immediately after the spark of
life had been extinguished; and he then again offered her for fifteen
pounds to the same gentleman, who indignantly ordered him out of his
house." The _Caledonian Mercury_ was equally plain, and would give no
countenance to the idea that Knox and his assistants had been imposed upon
by Burke and Hare, and gave all its weight in favour of the "complicity"
idea. It also repeated the story of the supposed negotiations between
Paterson and "the most respectable teacher of anatomy" as to the sale of
Docherty's body for fifteen pounds, with this addition that he stated to
the gentleman in question, on his second visit, "that the body he wished
to dispose of was the body of a woman; and that he had 'a desperate gang'
in his pay, through whom he could procure as many subjects as he wished
for."
Knox remained silent under all these charges, but Paterson could not, and
he wrote a letter on the 15th January to the editor of the _Caledonian
Mercury_. He contended that he had been shamefully wronged by "the many
false and cruel accusations made against him," and stated that he had
"only kept silence by advice of Dr. Knox, as he was, according to promise,
to espouse my cause, and clear my innocence; but which I now find he has
cruelly failed to perform. And I now most solemnly protest, and can prove,
that throughout all the services rendered by me to Dr. Knox, I acted
entirely under his own guidance and direction." He also denied a
statement to the effect that he had absconded, and had been dismissed from
Dr. Knox's service; and he called upon the authorities, if they conceived
him in any way guilty in the transaction, to bring him to a public trial,
and either let him be found guilty or have the benefit of an honourable
acquittal. To this letter the editor of the _Mercury_ appended some
questions, but these will be best explained by a quotation from a letter
from Paterson, dated 17th January, 1829, in reply to them. He
says:--"After the publication of my letter to you in this day's paper, I
observe you have inserted the following queries:--First, whether it be
true or the reverse, that about one o'clock on the morning of 1st November
last, I, in conjunction with another individual whom I well know, offered
the body of a woman for sale to a highly-respectable lecturer on anatomy?
My answer is simply, No. Secondly, whether or not I asked fifteen pounds
for the subject, stating at the same time, that Dr. Knox would give only
twelve?--Answer, No. Thirdly, whether I did not say, that I wished to have
no further dealings with the Doctor, because he had handed us over to his
(the Dr.'s) assistants? My answer is, No. And lastly, whether the body so
offered was or was not the body of the woman Docherty? To this I answer,
that having no body to offer, the transaction could not take place."
Paterson proceeded to explain, however, that about three weeks before the
murder of Docherty a friend of the "most respectable anatomist," referred
to by the _Mercury_, called on him and asked where the individuals lived
that were in the habit of supplying Dr. Knox with subjects. He did not
know, so he could not give any information, but as the sum of fifteen
pounds was offered for a subject he promised that the next time he saw the
resurrectionists he would mention the matter to them, provided, always,
that Dr. Knox was supplied. Paterson again gave a most emphatic denial to
the statement of his dismissal, which the _Mercury_ had reported upon the
authority of Dr. Knox himself, and he enclosed a copy of a letter from
that gentleman, dated the 11th January, asking him to return to his
employment.
Again the _Mercury_ returned to the charge, and said:--"Now this is not a
question of probability but of _fact_; and we again ask him (Paterson),
_whose_ was the corpse he confessedly offered for sale an hour or an hour
and a-half _after_ Burke had, according to his own evidence in the
witness-box, told him he had 'something for the doctor, which would be
ready in the morning.'" Paterson replied to this on the 23rd January, and
complained that he was being made "the scape-goat for a personage in
higher life." As his letter is not only interesting in itself, but also
because there is introduced in it an account of a transaction with Andrew
Merrilees--the Merry Andrew of an early chapter of this work--it is worth
quoting pretty fully.
"I will now give you," says Paterson, "what I trust the public will
consider a _satisfactory_ explanation of the transaction alluded to in
your paper of the 22nd, which will at the same time answer the queries in
the _Caledonian Mercury_ of the 17th. About three weeks before the murder
of Docherty, a Mr. ---- called upon me, who was very intimate (or appeared
to be so) with Dr. ----. During the conversation, in a walk along the
Bridges, the topic turned upon the scarcity of subjects amongst the
lecturers. I was asked how Dr. ---- was supplied; and after informing him
to the best of my knowledge, he, Mr. ----, said he understood that Dr.
---- could not get one, and that he had offered him fifteen pounds if he
could get one for him. My answer was, that I thought there was nothing
more easy, as there were plenty of resurrection men came about Dr. ----'s
rooms, who might procure one for him. He then requested me to accompany
him to Dr. ----'s house, and he would ascertain if Dr. ---- had got one. I
did so. Dr. ---- and Mr. ---- talked for some time on various matters,
when the discourse turned upon the matter in question. I heard Dr.
----offer fifteen pounds for a subject, as he was in great straits. _I
took no part in the conversation, nor made any remark_; but after we had
left Dr. ----, Mr. ---- strongly urged me to allow a subject to go to Dr.
----'s rooms, when any should arrive, without the knowledge of Dr. ----,
for which no doubt _I was to receive a remuneration for my trouble_. Dr.
----about that time had fifteen subjects, and I did resolve to allow one
to Dr. ---- at the first opportunity. Shortly after this time, Burke and
Hare brought a subject, but not having an opportunity of speaking to them
that night, resolved to do so when I next saw them, or any _other_ of the
resurrectionists. A few days after a notorious resurrectionist called at
the rooms and informed me that he was going to the country upon business,
and inquired if the Dr. was in want of goods. I replied that possibly he
might, but that I wanted one for a friend, and would pay him when he
returned. The bargain was struck, and he received earnest and a trunk,
saying he had two customers before me, and it might be eight or ten days
before he could supply me, as the grounds were strictly watched. This
passed over, and on Friday evening, the 31st October, a person brought a
letter addressed to Mr. ----, Surgeon's Square. This turned out to be from
Andrew M----s (or Merry Andrew, as he was styled). The following is a
literal copy:--
"'OCT. 29.
"'Doctor am in the east, and has been doin little busnis, an short of
siller send out abot aught and twenty shilins way the carer the thing
will bee in abot 4 on Saturday mornin its a shusa, hae the plase open.
"'AND. M----S.'
Just after I received this letter I went with Mr. ---- to spend the
evening, and returned home about twelve o'clock. I found Burke knocking at
the door of my lodgings.... After my return from Burke's, which was only a
few minutes past twelve o'clock, I went to bed: the letter had escaped my
memory. I slept none: the suspicions I had entertained of Burke and Hare,
and the determination I had come to _to examine the body of the subject
they were to send_, and a retrospective view of their late conduct, passed
before me. The letter now came into my mind; it was between _three and
four o'clock_: I went to Dr. ----; did say I expected a subject from his
friend: _did not say what place_. The Doctor desired it to be sent to his
lecture-rooms, as his assistants were or would be in waiting. He did not
refuse it, as has been alleged. The Doctor did not receive it, however, as
Mr. Andrew M----s thought proper to address it to another quarter--a very
common trick with him, especially if he received part in advance.... I
confess that the circumstance of the subject coming from the east at the
nick of time Docherty was murdered looks rather suspicious. But when I
inform you that I have seen three subjects at the same time of day sent to
the lecture-room from different quarters, your suspicions will cease." For
the third time he denied that he had been dismissed by Dr. Knox, and said
that since his last letter the Doctor had sent for him, expressing the
most friendly intentions towards him.
But a more serious charge than that was made against David Paterson in a
communication from Dr. Knox's principal assistants, also published in the
_Caledonian Mercury_. These gentlemen, after declaring that Paterson was
not "keeper of the museum belonging to Dr. Knox," though he was cited and
gave his evidence at the trial of Burke as such, said:--"With regard to
his connexion with Burke and Hare, he was so far associated with them,
that he was on the eve of entering into an agreement with one of these
miscreants to accompany him to Ireland, that they might (as he said)
procure a greater supply of subjects, and at less price, the people being
poorer there." Whether this was the case or not was never made clear; but
it was certainly stated by Burke in his _Courant_ confessions that such a
project was on foot, though he did not state who the other party was.
Popular belief was that it was Paterson.
Paterson had taken another method of repelling the allegations brought
against him. This was a pamphlet, in the form of a letter to the Lord
Advocate, under the title of "An Echo from Surgeon's Square." The
_Courant_ of Thursday, 22nd January, gave an account of this document, and
taking it all in all, after making allowance for the prejudice the paper
exhibited in common with the great mass of the public against the man, it
is a fair indication of its contents. The statement, it said, had for its
object the vindication of Mr. D. Paterson, the late assistant of Dr. Knox,
and of course threw the blame on others. The pamphlet contained a good
deal of irrelevant matter, and sundry details as to the means of procuring
subjects for the anatomical schools which were not of great interest, and
rather calculated to do injury. It contained, however, "information of
greater importance, if it can be depended on, which we have no doubt will
be eagerly sought after in the present general excitation." The document
stated that D---- P---- was first in the employment of Dr. ---- in the
year 1824 or 1825, for about one year, and, on his return from the army at
the close of 1827, he applied to Dr. ---- for his former situation, and
was engaged in the beginning of February, 1828, as museum keeper; his
salary was very small, but from the fees paid him by the students, he
contrived to make a very comfortable livelihood. He had nothing whatever
to do with the subjects (or bodies) brought to the lecture room; his sole
duty was to keep the museum. At that time he did not know how the doctor
obtained his subjects. Shortly after he saw Burke and Hare (Burke was
called John, and Hare, William), and understood from a conversation that
passed between them and one of the assistants that they had been in the
habit of supplying subjects previous to that time. He threw the blame of
negociating with these two men on one of Dr. Knox's assistants, and said
that once, after he began to be suspicious of the true nature of the
calling of these two men, he asked Burke where he got the body he was then
offering. The man replied sternly--"If I am to be catechised by you where
and how I get subjects, I will inform the doctor of it, and if he allows
you to do so, I will bring no more to him, mind that." In other respects
the "Echo" was very similar to the letter by Paterson already quoted.
But before concluding this part of the subject it will be proper to give
Leighton's opinion of Paterson's position in the dispute. Writing in 1860
on the complicity of the doctors, he gives this calm testimony in
Paterson's favour:--"As for the curator, who is still a respectable
inhabitant of Edinburgh, and upon whom the short-lived blind fury of some
newspapers of the time fell, with much surprise to himself, and much
indignation elsewhere, he was, of all the parties concerned, the most free
from blame; nor did any one but himself come forward and assist the
authorities in the prosecution. Nay, it is understood that, under a
passing reflection that the number of apparently unexhumed bodies brought
by these men required explanation; he mentioned the circumstance to his
principal, and that gentleman silenced him at once by the statement that
they had long known of the practice of sale and purchase, and so the
suspicion passed away." Viewing the whole matter after the lapse of fully
half a century, there seems no reason to doubt that Paterson, though
certain of his acts were, to say the least of it, shady, and morally
reprehensible, if not legally punishable, was made, as he himself said,
"the scape-goat for a personage in higher life."