_The Legal Position of Hare and his Wife--Gossip about Burke--Mrs.
Hare and her Child--Constantine Burke--Anatomical Instruction--Mrs.
Docherty's Antecedents._
But in addition to this outcry against Paterson, the public mind was, as
has already been indicated, agitated by the rumours that no further action
was to be taken against Hare, and that he and his wife were to be
liberated. The _Caledonian Mercury_ was greatly exercised over the
following passage in the charge given to the jury at the trial by the Lord
Justice-Clerk:--"They (the jury) had been told of the Hares being
concerned in the murders. With what murders they might be chargeable, he
did not know; but to a certainty they could not be libelled on either of
the charges contained in the indictment now under trial, and which had not
been sent to the jury." The _Mercury_ argued, and quoted legal
authorities, too, that Hare and his wife were liable to be tried for the
murders of Mary Paterson and Daft Jamie, regarding which they had not
given evidence; and that the protection of the court only extended to any
self-crimination in the case in which they had given evidence. "The public
prosecutor," it was contended, "has discharged all title to molest them in
regard to the murder of Docherty, the only part of the libel against Burke
which went to trial, because they gave evidence and criminated themselves
in regard to the crime; but he has not discharged this title to pursue
them for the murder of Paterson or Daft Jamie; and, accordingly, when Mr.
Cockburn proposed to interrogate Hare in his cross-examination, concerning
his connection with the latter crime, the Court interposed, by telling the
witness that he was entitled to decline answering such a question as
tending to criminate himself, and as beyond the reach of the protection
afforded him for his evidence in the case of Docherty. It was frequently
stated from the bench, that his answering the question put by Mr. Cockburn
would implicate himself in the crime. And how else could he have been
entitled to decline answering it? As a protected _socius_, he was bound to
answer every question that should be asked him within the compass of that
protection; and if it had extended to and included the murder of Jamie,
which was included in the same charge, the obligation to answer would, of
course, have been co-extensive with the protection." The _Edinburgh Weekly
Chronicle_ lamented "the acquittal of the fiend M'Dougal," and said there
had been some very painful suspicions that the investigation of these
murders was not to be further prosecuted. "We happen to know," they said,
"that a certain public functionary (not the Lord Advocate, whose zeal in
forwarding the late trial is beyond all praise) remarked the other day
that _they_ were perfectly sick of the business, and were resolved to stir
no further in it, lest it should bring shame on the city!... In the
present state of the public mind, no Lord Advocate will dare to say, 'Thus
far--(to the death of Burke)--shall the tide of public vengeance flow, and
no farther.'... It is satisfactory to reflect, however, that our law has
wisely restricted the Lord Advocate's prerogative, so that, even were he
disposed, he cannot screen a murderer from justice, if the deceased's
relations incline to prosecute him. The law says that murder shall not go
unavenged, if either the public, represented by the Lord Advocate, or
those who have been deprived by it of a near relative, insist for
punishment. Will not, then, the friends of some of the butchered
individuals, whose blood calls to Heaven for retribution, be roused to
prosecute the butchers? No one can doubt that money would be liberally
provided by the inhabitants to defray all expenses."
The rumours which so alarmed these newspapers, and, it must also be said,
a large portion of the public, had foundation in fact. After Hare and his
wife had given evidence against Burke, they were recommitted to jail under
a warrant of the Sheriff. This was done, probably, to allow the Lord
Advocate time to consider in what relationship he stood towards
them--whether he could try them on the first two charges in the
indictment, or whether he was bound to release them, they having turned
King's evidence. He seems to have come to the conclusion that he must
liberate them, and, accordingly, on the 19th of January, the commitment
was withdrawn. This was a wise decision, notwithstanding all that was said
to the contrary at the time in the public prints and elsewhere. If the
Crown could not gain a conviction against Burke of the murder of Docherty
without the aid of two of his accomplices, it was not at all likely that
it would be able to convict Hare and his wife without similar evidence.
Thus, so far as the public prosecutor was concerned, the two informers
were free; but proceedings of another kind were taken against Hare, who
was detained in prison pending their settlement, though his wife was
liberated on the 19th of January.
Other matters were also attracting the attention of the people, for every
issue of the newspapers gave circulation to gossipy stories about Burke or
his accomplices, or relating to circumstances bearing in some way or other
upon the subject which was causing such universal interest. It was stated,
for instance, that at one time Burke made considerable sums of money among
the unlettered inhabitants of the West Port by writing begging petitions,
and that while working at the construction of the Union Canal he for the
first time engaged in the trade of a resurrectionist. Whatever truth there
may have been in the first part of this statement, there is good reason to
believe that the latter part was founded upon mere idle rumour. It was
also alleged that in the course of the preceding summer Burke made an
attack upon an unfortunate girl in St. Cuthbert's Entry, at the head of
the West Port, evidently with murderous intent. She escaped from his
grasp, and ran to the watch-house, where she gave a particular
description of her assailant to the police, who would certainly have been
able to apprehend him had he not judiciously left the city for a time
until the hue and cry was given up. It is difficult to believe that Burke
would have acted so incautiously--that he should have sought to dispense
with that drugging with whisky which so often did half his work for him.
His friendly relationship with certain members of the police force was
emphasised by a statement that he was in the habit of going home at any
hour of the night or morning, always accompanied by the constable on the
beat, to whom he gave a glass or two of whisky out of a bottle he carried
with him, and it was urged that an inquiry should be made into this breach
of discipline.
Such were the items of gossip about Burke, to which publicity was given by
the newspapers, but a charge of a serious kind was made against Mrs. Hare
in the issue of the _Courant_ published on the 1st January, 1829. It was
stated that Mrs. Hare, after Log's death, and at the beginning of her
relationship with Hare, bore a child, which the people of the
neighbourhood asserted was murdered by her. So confidently was this
allegation put forward that it was added that there would be no difficulty
in obtaining sufficient evidence to establish a case against her for
destroying the life of the infant. A singular fact was mentioned in the
same paper in connection with Hare. His mother and sister from Ireland
arrived in Edinburgh a day or two before, purposing to visit him, and it
was not until they were within two miles of the city that they were
apprised of the fact that he was involved in a series of the most shocking
murders. Another statement was that Hare, in the course of the summer of
1828, had murdered a young woman who was a servant to one of the city
clergymen. This, if true, would point to the identity of the body over the
proceeds from the sale of which Burke quarrelled with his colleague.
Another person who came in for a share of public attention was Constantine
Burke, the brother of the condemned man, in whose house in the Canongate,
it has been seen, Mary Paterson was murdered. After the trial he was
continually in danger of being maltreated by the mob, and at last the
Sheriff gave him a small sum of money to enable him and his family to
leave the city. According to the _Courant_, Constantine had always been a
sober, industrious, poverty-pressed man. He admitted having once taken a
chest to Surgeon's Square, being conducted to the place by his brother and
Hare, although he was not aware of its contents or its destination.
Receiving ten shillings for his trouble, he suspected his employers were
resurrectionists, and he then declared he would do no work for them again.
While all these stories were in circulation, thoughtful persons were
considering the revelations in their most practical bearing. They admitted
the necessity for teachers of anatomy being supplied with a sufficient
number of subjects for dissection, for it was apparent that had the
legitimate supply been adequate, there would have been little temptation
to any one to enter upon a career of crime. Theories were started as to
how the evident defect was to be remedied, letters on all aspects of the
subject were sent to the newspapers, and a wordy battle was fought out.
Amid all this clamour, on the 5th of January, 1829, several of the
anatomical teachers in Edinburgh had an interview with the Lord Advocate;
and on the 7th of the same month the Royal College of Physicians and
Surgeons held a meeting at which they passed resolutions expressing regret
that anatomical instruction, which they conscientiously believed to be an
essential part in the education of medical men, should ever have furnished
a temptation to such unexampled atrocities, and calling upon the
Legislature to remove the restrictions under which such instruction was
then given.
This, however, was only one side of the question, and the resolutions,
right and proper in themselves, only served to inflame the public mind,
for they showed that bodies obtained at least in a surreptitious manner
were being used. Other incidents added to the general excitement. Several
boys, belonging to respectable families, disappeared suddenly, and the
conclusion at once jumped at by their despairing relatives was that they
had been stolen away to supply the dissecting tables of the teachers of
anatomy. No other explanation seemed at all tenable, until the missing
lads were discovered, some days later, in a village some miles from
Edinburgh, whither they had gone to hawk broadside or pamphlet accounts of
the trial of Burke and M'Dougal. Another matter which gave additional
cause for anxiety was an attempt to steal the body of a man from a house
in Edinburgh. Early on the morning of Tuesday, the 20th January, some
passers-by observed a curious-looking package being lowered by means of a
rope from the upper window of the house. On examination, it was found to
be the body of a man named M'Donald, better known locally as "Nosey," on
account of the size of his nasal organ, who had died the day before. The
thieves had broken into the house, where the corpse was lying unattended,
and were in the act of removing it when the discovery was made. They
managed to escape by the back of the house and were never captured.
This desultory chapter may be brought to a close by an interesting item
regarding Mrs. Docherty, the last victim of the West Port murderers, to
which publicity was given by the _Glasgow Herald_ shortly after the
conclusion of the trial. "The poor woman Sally Docherty or Campbell," it
was stated, "was well known amongst the inhabitants of the Old Wynd,
Glasgow, about two years ago, where she kept a lodging-house for indigent
people. She was a thin-faced woman, generally wore a red duffle-cloak, and
had, of course, experienced a great deal of hardships in the station of
life to which she was habituated. At the period alluded to, she had a son,
a shoemaker, and a young man for a husband, of the name of Campbell. The
last time she appeared in the Glasgow police office was as the complainer
against this fellow, who is still living, for demolishing all the
crockery, and pulling down her grate from the fire-place." It was in
search of the son mentioned in this notice that Mrs. Docherty went to
Edinburgh, where she met with a death the violent nature of which was not
inconsistent with the sad life she had lived. But it is a remarkable fact
that while the murder of this poor woman was the crime which led to the
discovery of the dreadful conspiracy in which Burke and Hare were engaged,
and to the execution of the former, the popular mind speedily lost hold of
the fact, and oral tradition in many parts of the country--in the city of
Edinburgh itself--even to this day, has it that Burke suffered the last
penalty of the law on the scaffold for the murder of Daft Jamie.