_The Confessions of Burke--The Interdicts against the "Edinburgh
Evening Courant"--Burke's Note on the "Courant" Confession--Issue of
the Official Document--Publication of both Confessions._
Passing mention was made in a previous chapter of the confessions of his
crimes made by Burke while he was in prison awaiting the time fixed for
carrying out the final sentence passed upon him by the High Court of
Justiciary, and it was then stated that the curious history of the second,
or _Courant_, confession, must be reserved for the proper time. Part of
that history has already been related, for it has been seen how, when the
_Courant_ announced the Monday before Burke's execution that that document
would be published in its columns on the following Thursday, the High
Court granted interdict prohibiting the publication until the proceedings
against Hare were concluded. The _Courant_ bowed to this decision, but
promised at the same time to lay before its readers the interesting paper
as soon as possible.
This, however, was only the beginning of the difficulty. In its issue of
Thursday, 5th of February, the _Courant_ stated that the interdict granted
by the High Court of Justiciary, on the application of Mr. Duncan M'Neill,
as counsel for Hare, having expired on the Monday previous (the 2nd of
February), the publishers fully intended to have inserted the confession
by Burke in their paper of that day. But, unfortunately, they had been
laid under a new interdict by the Sheriff, at the instance of Mr. J.
Smith, S.S.C. This Mr. Smith was the gentleman who had applied to the Lord
Advocate some weeks before for permission to visit Burke in prison for the
purpose of receiving from him a full confession of his crimes, and who, on
being refused, had unsuccessfully appealed to the Home Secretary. On
Tuesday, 3rd February, this gentleman applied to the Sheriff, craving that
the _Courant_ be interdicted from publishing the confessions of Burke. The
application was founded upon an allegation that the document in the
possession of the editor of the _Courant_ was intended by Burke to be
delivered to Mr. Smith, and had been given by the condemned man to a
fellow-prisoner named Ewart for that purpose. Ewart entrusted it to the
care of Wilson, a turnkey, who had disposed of it to the editor of the
_Courant_. By this means, it was alleged, the intention of Burke was
defeated; and it was further stated that the night before his execution,
in the presence of Bailie Small, Mr. Porteous, and Mr. James Burn, Burke
signed a document authorising Mr. Smith to uplift from the editor of the
_Courant_ the declaration now under discussion. This paper was in these
terms:--"The document or narrative, which I signed for ---- Ewart, was
correct, so far as I had time to examine it; but it was given under the
express stipulation that it should not be published for three months after
my decease. I authorise J. Smith to insist upon the delivery of the paper
above alluded to from the _Courant_, or any other person in whose
possession it may be; and, at the same time, I desire Bailie Small to be
present when the papers are demanded and got up, and that they may be
taken to the Sheriff's office and compared with my declaration made before
the Sheriff, which is the only full statement that can be relied on." The
Sheriff granted interdict, but on the following day a petition was
presented on behalf of the _Courant_ praying for its recall. In support of
this it was stated that Wilson, the turnkey, had disposed of the
confession to the editor of that journal for a fair price, while the
document itself had not come unfairly into his hands. The question of the
right or power of a condemned criminal to bequeath property of any
description was also raised, but was not seriously entered into. The
Sheriff, however, did not see his way to recall the interdict, and said it
was worthy of some attention whether the document given to Ewart was not
to be published until three months after the death of Burke.
But whatever may have been the method adopted by the _Courant_ to obtain
possession of the confession, it is at least certain that the document,
though its publication for a time was laid under interdict, was not
uplifted, and that it was ultimately issued to the public long before the
period stipulated for by Burke. This was probably due to the fact that a
new set of outside circumstances emerged which rendered it imperative that
the private confession should be published if any profit was to be gained
or enterprise shown. The Lord Advocate had given orders for the issue of
the official confession to all the newspapers, and the competitors for the
ownership of the other document were thus forced to come to a mutual
arrangement.
On the 5th of February, the day on which Hare was liberated, the Sheriff
addressed a letter to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, in the course of
which he said:--"As it is now fully understood that all proceedings of a
criminal nature against William Hare have terminated, it has appeared to
the Lord Advocate that the community have a right to expect a disclosure
of the contents of the confessions made by William Burke after his
conviction. I have, therefore, to place those confessions in your
lordship's hands with the view to their being given to the public, at such
a time, and in such a manner, as you may deem most advisable.... It may be
satisfactory to your lordship to know, that in the information which Hare
gave to the Sheriff on the 1st December last (while he imputed to Burke
the active part in the deeds which the latter now assigns to Hare), Hare
disclosed nearly the same crimes in point of number, of time, and of the
description of persons murdered, which Burke has thus confessed; and in
the few particulars in which they differed, no collateral evidence could
be obtained calculated to show which of them was in the right. Your
lordship will not be displeased to learn, that after a very full and
anxious inquiry, now only about to be concluded, no circumstances have
transpired, calculated to show that any other persons have lent themselves
to such practices in this city, or its vicinity; and that there is no
reason to believe that any other crimes have been committed by Burke and
Hare, excepting those contained in the frightful catalogue to which they
have confessed."
This action on the part of the Lord Advocate was simply a formal way of
making the public aware of the contents of the confession, the Lord
Provost being the official representative of the citizens of Edinburgh.
He, in his turn, sent the document to the newspapers for publication. Of
course, when the people read it they would be initiated into the secrets
of the conspiracy engaged in by Burke and Hare, and the _Courant_ managers
saw that it would forestall their confession, even though it was fuller in
detail. There must have been a hasty consultation with Mr. Smith, for on
Saturday, the 7th February, the two confessions appeared in that journal,
accompanied by the following editorial note:--
"The interdict of the Sheriff on the publication of the confession and
declaration of Burke, which has been for some time in our possession,
having been withdrawn in consequence of a mutual compromise, we now
publish this document, along with a declaration signed before the
Sheriff, and sent by him to the Lord Provost for publication the day after
he had pronounced an interdict against the _Courant_. It will be observed
that the declaration before the Sheriff is dry and meagre in its details.
The declaration which we publish is much fuller, and contains minute and
striking circumstances which were never before laid before the public. The
publication of this declaration and confession has been delayed by various
proceedings; of which, however vexatious, we are not disposed to complain.
The interdict of the Court of Justiciary being deemed essential to the
ends of justice, we yielded an immediate and respectful obedience to this
order. The first interdict by the Sheriff, at the instance of a private
party, was granted as a matter of course; and that interdict, after our
application to have it recalled, was continued by a well meant but
erroneous judgment. However we might be disappointed by the decision, we
did not conceive that we had any right to complain. But we certainly do
complain, that, after the Sheriff had laid the declaration which we
possessed under an interdict, he should, the very next day, have
published, or sent for publication, another declaration. We complain of
this the more, because the very ground on which he decided to continue the
interdict against us was, that our interest would be less injured by delay
than that of the other party by removing the interdict; and yet, in the
face of this decision, he publishes a document which, for ought he knew,
might be identically the same as ours, and by the publication of which our
interest would not merely be injured, but utterly ruined. We certainly
think that this is an extraordinary mode of procedure. A judge in the case
first interdicts the publication of a certain confession or declaration,
telling one of the parties that he cannot suffer much injury by the delay,
and the very next day publishes a declaration by the same person, to the
injury, perhaps to the utter destruction of any interest the party had in
the matter at issue. We really think that the dangers of delay are here
exemplified in a very instructive manner; for if we had known that the
very paper, as we could judge, about which parties were at issue, would be
published the next day by the Sheriff himself, how would this have
strengthened our argument against the continuance of the interdict? Such
are the facts of the case; considering them carefully, they certainly
appear to be somewhat irregular; and the effect was certainly calculated
to prejudice, nay, to ruin our interest, if the paper in the possession of
the Sheriff had not been so meagre and unsatisfactory, compared with the
declaration we publish."
The _Courant_ showed its annoyance at the turn affairs had taken, but
while doing so it made every effort, and that successfully, to outstrip
its contemporaries. Besides publishing the two confessions in full, it
gave a _fac simile_ of the note in Burke's handwriting, appended to the
document in their own possession, over which there had been so much
dispute. There is one thing in favour of the _Courant_, or unofficial,
confession, and that is the paper signed by Burke the night before his
execution. He there testifies as to its accuracy, so far as he had had
time to examine it. At the same time, in view of the many discrepancies
between the two documents themselves, and what was brought out by
subsequent investigation, it must be admitted that in many respects they
are defective as records of the terrible series of crimes in which Burke
and Hare participated.