in whose house they lived, it was pretended that Paterson had gone
off to Glasgow with a _packman_; but this reply did not satisfy
Brown, as she knew that Paterson was a well-educated girl, and could
write sufficiently well to send an account to her friends if she had
left Edinburgh, which she certainly would have done; her clothes also
remained unclaimed. No more satisfactory intelligence, however, could
be obtained, and she never heard farther tidings of her until after the
murder of the woman Campbell, when the mystery was developed, and the
clothes which Paterson wore were found in the West Port. Upon being
confronted with Burke and M‘Dougal, she readily recognised them.
She believes firmly that Constantine Burke and his wife were cognizant
of the proceedings, both from their manner at the time and the conduct
of Constantine afterwards when she questioned him about Paterson.
Whenever she saw him, which she frequently did at his work early in the
morning, she inquired after her. His answers were always very surly;
on two occasions saying, “How the h--ll can I tell about you sort of
people; you are here to-day and away to-morrow;” and on another, as if
in allusion to the horrid transaction, “I am often out upon my lawful
business, and how can I answer for all that takes place in my house in
my absence.”
She represents Paterson to have been irregular in her habits, but not
so low as has been represented, and appears indignant at a paltry
print of her, in which she is represented in the garb of a servant, a
dress in which she never appeared. She had been well educated for one
in her situation, and possessed a fine person, for which she was more
remarkable than beauty of face. The story which has appeared in the
newspapers about her mother being a housekeeper in the west country,
Brown alleges to be unfounded. She was a native of Edinburgh, and her
mother is dead.
* * * * *
MURDER OF “DAFT JAMIE.”
The second murder charged in the indictment was that of James Wilson,
commonly known by the name of “Daft Jamie;” and the circumstances
attending it were even more revolting than those of the women Paterson
and Campbell. None of their misdeeds has excited a greater feeling of
indignation in the public mind. Jamie was very generally known, and
was a universal favourite. His appearance marked the imbecility of his
mind, and was such as to make every one regard him with a feeling of
tenderness and sympathy. He was perfectly harmless and inoffensive,
and possessed apparently great kindliness of heart. To all who had
occasion to be on the streets of Edinburgh, whether at an early or late
hour, Jamie’s appearance was perfectly familiar--wandering about, in
every sort of weather, bare-headed, and without stockings or shoes,
and his good-humoured laugh and salutation, by an awkward bow and
twitch of the front lock of hair, were readily recognised and replied
to. Though roaming almost constantly about in this guise, he was never
known as a beggar, but occasionally visited certain houses, where he
was admitted as a familiar guest, and kindly entertained, while even
in these he conducted himself in a modest unobtrusive manner. He used
to allege that he did not need money, as he had sometimes the “feck
o’ half-a-croun on him.” Jamie was by no means, however, the moping
idiot that he has been represented. Though undoubtedly imbecile
and incapable of any continuous mental exertion, he possessed some
small portion of intellect. To the boys of Edinburgh, his knowledge
of the days of the month and week, and facility in computing on what
day of the week any given time would fall, were well known; indeed,
he sometimes appeared to serve in place of a kalendar to them. His
musical talents were also appreciated, and he was often called upon to
entertain his juvenile acquaintances with a song, which he executed in
tolerable style.
He was scrupulously clean in his person and linen, changing it
frequently. His hands and feet, though uncovered, were also observed
to be always clean. They were peculiarly formed, and by his feet he
is said to have been recognised by some of the students in Dr. Knox’s
dissecting-rooms.
It is a curious fact, that almost all the _naturals_ who have lately
been known on the streets of this city, have met with a violent and
untimely end. Bobby Auld, a contemporary and acquaintance of Jamie’s,
was killed by the kick of an ass, and afterwards became also a subject
for dissection. There is an anecdote told concerning them, which is
a curious instance of blindness to a personal deficiency, joined to
a just perception of it in another, and at the same time exhibits
in a strong light what we have said of Jamie’s innocent and artless
disposition. It is narrated that the two met accidentally one day
somewhere in the neighbourhood of the Grassmarket. “It’s a cauld day,
Bobby.” “Aye is’t, Jamie,” replies Bobby. “We wud be the better o’ a
dram--hae ye ony siller? I hae tippence;” “and I hae fourpence,” says
Jamie. “Oh, man,” rejoins Bobby, “that’ll get half a mutchkin.” They
then adjourned to a neighbouring public-house, where the money was
produced, and the liquor ordered. But before any of them had partaken
of it, Bobby inquired anxiously, if Jamie had seen “the twa dougs
fechting on the street?” “No,” says Jamie, “I saw nae dougs fechting.”
“It’s a grand fecht though,” replies Bobby, “and has lasted half an
hour; its weel worth your seeing, and you had better gang to the door
and see it.” Jamie accordingly proceeded unsuspectingly to the street
to witness this wonderful dog fight, but speedily returned with the
intelligence that he could discover no such conflict. “They’ll be dune
then,” coolly observes Bobby. “But what’s come o’ the whisky?” said
Jamie, on observing the stoup standing empty. “Ou, man,” says the
treacherous Bobby, “ye bade sae lang I couldna wait.” Upon Jamie’s
being questioned what he had done to Bobby for this false play, he
replied, “Ou what could ye say to puir Bobby? he’s daft, ye ken.”
Jamie, however, though inferior to Bobby in trickery and low cunning,
was much his superior in intellect. His father is said to have been a
decent religious man, and took him regularly to a place of worship in
the old town on Sabbaths, which Jamie, after his death, perhaps from
habit, continued to attend. When examined by a respectable member, it
was found that his religious knowledge was far beyond what could have
been expected, and superior to many whose appearance promised more. His
answers to questions were intelligent, and out of the usual routine.
It is probable that this poor creature had been for some time watched
by the gang of murderers, and marked out as one that might be easily
taken off without exciting suspicion. They had very much miscalculated
however, both the notice that would be taken of his disappearance,
and the degree of resistance he was capable of making. Accident
unfortunately threw him in their way. He was met by Burke at nine
o’clock one morning in the beginning of October last, wandering about
in his usual way in the Grassmarket. He instantly accosted him in
his fawning manner, and inquired of him whether he was in search of
any one; he told him he was seeking his mother, to whom, as he was a
creature of kindly dispositions, he was warmly attached. The wretch at
once saw that he now had him within his grasp, and instantly commenced
his schemes for drawing him away to some convenient place where he
might be murdered. He contrived to persuade him that he knew where
his mother had gone, and would take him to the place, and by coaxing
and flattery he at length decoyed him into Hare’s house. Here those
monsters of iniquity, exulting over their deluded victim, began to
pretend the greatest kindness for him, and having procured liquor, they
pressed it upon him. He at first decidedly refused to taste it, but
they so far wrought upon his good nature by their assumed kindness,
that they induced him to join them in their cups, and then plied him
so effectually, that he was soon overpowered, and laying himself down
on the floor, fell asleep. Burke, who was anxiously watching his
opportunity, then said to Hare, “Shall I do it now?” to which Hare
replied, “He is too strong for you yet; you had better let him alone
a while.” Both the ruffians seem to have been afraid of the physical
strength which they knew the poor creature possessed, and of the use he
would make of it, if prematurely roused. Burke, accordingly, waited a
little, but impatient at length to accomplish his object, he suddenly
threw himself upon Jamie, and attempted to strangle him. Oppressed as
he was with the influence of liquor, he was roused at once by this
assault to a full sense of his danger; and, by a dreadful effort, he
threw off Burke, and sprung to his feet, when the mortal struggle
began. Jamie fought with all the fury of despair, and would have been
an overmatch for any one of his ruffian assailants. Burke had actually
the worst of the struggle, and was about to be overpowered, when he
called out furiously to Hare to assist him, crying that he would stick
a knife into him if he did not do so. Hare rushing forward turned the
balance of the unequal conflict by tripping up Jamie’s heels; and
afterwards dragging him along the floor, with Burke lying above him.
None were present at this murder, which was completed before mid-day,
except the two ruffians themselves.
This will be readily recognised as Hare’s account, and, of course,
it is fitted to show him in the most favourable light which the
circumstances will admit of. It is but justice, however, to give the
statement of his companion in guilt, who, if there is any choice, is,
after all, perhaps the one whose testimony is most entitled to credit.
Burke states that it was Hare who decoyed Jamie into the house, and
then sent for him to assist him in his inhuman design,--that Jamie
not only peremptorily refused to taste the liquor presented to him at
first, but actually did drink very little of it, and not nearly so
much as to produce intoxication,--that he then sat down upon the bed,
reclining backwards and leaning upon his arm, and that Hare sat beside
him in the same position,--and after some time, impatient for his
prey, began to attempt to suffocate him in the usual way, by pressing
his hands over his nose and mouth. Jamie, however, when he found him
using violence, resisted stoutly, and grappled with him; and during
the struggle, both fell off the bed, and rolled on the floor. Hare
then called for Burke’s assistance, which he effectually rendered,
by falling upon Jamie’s body, when, by their united efforts, he was
dispatched.
Jamie fought manfully, and did inflict some injuries upon them; but it
is a mistake to suppose that Burke’s cancer was produced in consequence
of the bite which he is said to have given. It was originally the
effect of heat and fatigue in walking, which he had neglected, and
leading a dissipated dissolute life afterwards, it reached the
dangerous state which it has now assumed. After Jamie’s death, Burke
remarked that his clothes would answer his brother, to whom they were
given, and a pair of trousers were afterwards recognised upon him by a
baker in the Cowgate, whose they had been, and who had given them to
Jamie. It was also observed that his son wore his kerchief.
* * * * *
DISCUSSIONS RELATIVE TO THE TRIAL OF HARE AND THE _SOCII CRIMINUM_.
Since the condemnation of Burke a very important question has been
agitated, not only among lawyers, but in society and the public
prints,--namely, whether or not Hare, or any of the other parties who
were concerned in the two murders that were libelled in the indictment
against Burke, but which were not brought to trial,--can now, after
having been admitted as evidences for the crown, be legally put upon
their trial for participation in those murders? This is a very nice
and intricate question indeed, and it is likely to be brought on
for immediate discussion in a regular shape, as the mother of James
Wilson, one of the victims, has been advised that it is competent to
her, as a private party, to prosecute Hare, or any of the other guilty
persons, notwithstanding any arrangements into which the Lord Advocate,
as public prosecutor, has entered with them as king’s witnesses on
Burke’s trial;--and such is the strong current of public feeling in
support of an attempt to bring Hare to justice, that a subscription
has been set on foot, and some of our nobility and gentry of high rank
have given the sanction of their names, and the aid of their purses,
to support the poor woman, while eminent counsel and an agent--as we
formerly mentioned--have undertaken the conduct of the proceedings.
Preparatory to such a prosecution, application has been made, in name
of Wilson’s mother, to the Court of Justiciary, to have Hare and his
wife detained in custody until an indictment shall be served, and the
other preliminary steps gone through, preparatory to a solemn trial of
the question.
In the meantime, it may be interesting as a chapter in the history
of this frightful drama of real life, to combine with the details
formerly given such a selection from the arguments which have already
been maintained on this point, as will afford a concentrated view
of the discussions which lie scattered over a number of different
publications. And in doing this, we shall take the liberty of lopping
off such parts of the controversy as are extraneous to the mere point
of law, and as might tend to prolong any of that irritation and
personality which very naturally, although not necessarily, mingle
themselves in public discussions.
We regret that the length to which these discussions necessarily
extend will prevent us from giving, so early as was intended, a
complete account of the Life of William Burke, and the circumstances
attending the murders, including many interesting particulars hitherto
unpublished. This will appear immediately after, and in the meantime we
trust that the public will appreciate the importance of the question
now presented to their notice.
The first publication, we believe, on this subject was an article in
the Caledonian Mercury, of which the substance is as follows:
It is now certain that no further proceedings are to be
taken against the persons concerned either as principals or
accessories in the late murders; at least, we have seen a
document issued from a high quarter, the gist and bearing of
which lead directly to this inference. But the matter cannot
possibly be allowed to rest here. The united voice of society
calls loudly for further, deeper, and fuller investigation; and
if the Public Prosecutor refuse to obey that call, and redeem
his pledge to probe and sift the whole system of iniquity to
the bottom, there is another place where the universal cry for
justice, which now rings throughout the land, will be listened
to and respected, and where even that high functionary himself
may be called to account for the mode in which he has exercised
the almost unlimited, certainly undefined, powers of his office.
We are quite prepared to give him credit for the perfect
purity and uprightness of his motives in abstaining from the
institution of further inquiries, and in wishing to allow the
veil, of which a corner only had been withdrawn, to drop for
ever on scenes too horrid and bloody to be contemplated without
fear and trembling. He may have come under a promise to the
prime _particeps criminum_ which, as a man of honour, he cannot
violate; and he may be actuated by a desire to avoid, as far as
possible, every thing calculated, as he believes, to injure the
schools of anatomy in this city. But, in regard to the first of
these grounds of forbearance, (which the reader will observe we
put merely as suppositions) the public have nothing whatever to
do with any private and extrajudicial obligations of this sort,
which however expedient or necessary in some cases they may be
thought, are in every case illegal; and the answer made to such
an apologetical plea will unquestionably be, that justice is
not to be stifled, nor a horde of murderers, and accessories
to murder, suffered to escape, because one of the horrid gang
was induced to “peach” by a promise of impunity and protection.
That incomparable miscreant, steeped to the very teeth in
blood and slaughter, the originator of the assassinations,
Burke’s master in the art of murder, and a principal or an
accessory in every crime which has been committed,--in short,
if there be any gradations of guilt in atrocities such as were
never before heard of or paralleled in any age or country,
the most guilty,--was not surely a fit subject to be selected
for clemency upon the condition of betraying his accomplices:
especially, where these were so numerous that others less
deeply implicated might have been found equally capable of
revealing the whole mystery of iniquity. Besides, his evidence,
if evidence it may be called, was unnecessary and useless.
It was unnecessary, because, exclusive of his revelations,
there was abundant evidence to bring home the crime charged
to _both_ of the prisoners; and it was useless, for what Jury
would credit the testimony of a wretch whose only title to
be believed consisted in his having been concerned in the
perpetration of _three_, perhaps _thirty_ murders,--who coolly
admitted in the box that he had stood or sat by, with perfect
composure and unconcern, while Burke was strangling the unhappy
woman for whose murder his life has been forfeited,--who had
the most powerful of all human motives, and the very strongest
conceivable interest in saying every thing which he deemed
calculated to effect the destruction of his quondam pupil and
associate,--and who must have exchanged places with the pannel,
if the pannel had been acquitted? We say, therefore, that we are
utterly at a loss to conceive upon what principle this execrable
villain was admitted to “peach.”
* * * * *
This was followed by an answer, reply, and various replications, which
we shall content ourselves with inserting in their order, denuded only
of such portions as might have perhaps been spared, but which must
have crept in unadvisedly, in the heat and hurry of composition for
newspapers.
_Edinburgh Advertiser._
Much dissatisfaction has been expressed that no more of the horrid gang
of murderers are likely to be brought to trial, and, consequently, that
Burke is the only victim who is to be sacrificed to public justice; but
the decision to which the Court came in restricting the Prosecutor to
the proof of one of the three charges exhibited against Burke, however
it may have been consistent with strict justice, was attended with the
necessary effect of preventing the disclosure of the circumstances
connected with the other two murders, namely, those of Mary Paterson
and of “Daft Jamie,” for which the Lord Advocate so strenuously
contended, in the view of satisfying the public mind; for, after Burke
had been convicted under the third charge, it was out of the question
to proceed to try him a second and a third time on the two previous
accusations. The limited nature of the disclosure thus produced has
naturally led the public in the present state of excited feeling, to
call for the farther trial and punishment of this atrocious gang.
We have heard, however, that no farther trials will take place, and
we can figure the reasons why. It is apparent that there were just
four persons engaged in these horrid deeds, viz. Hare and his wife,
Burke and M‘Dougal; the latter of whom, though not actually married
to Burke, had lived with him as his wife, and had borne his name for
ten years, and was thus legally his wife. After being detained weeks
in jail, we understand, that not one of these four prisoners, when
examined as accused persons, would acknowledge any share of guilt.
In such circumstances, if these persons had been all indicted, it
is obvious that the evidence against them would have been merely
presumptive, and considering the difficulty even in convicting Burke,
when two eye-witnesses swore to the way in which the deed was done, it
is plain that all the four would have been acquitted. What effect such
a result would have had on the public mind it is needless to inquire.
_The only course left to secure a conviction was to admit a part of
the gang as witnesses against the rest._ To have taken the women
as king’s evidence against the men, if they had been willing to speak
out, which it is believed they were not, could have availed nothing,
as by law their testimony could not have been received against their
husbands; besides, their knowledge could not be of that extended nature
which it was desirable to possess. The only resource, therefore, must
have consisted in taking Hare, who, however criminal, _was not the
leader of the gang_. It may be well supposed that Hare would not
have been so well dealt with, unless he had agreed to disclose, not
merely the circumstances connected with the murder of Docherty, but
with _every other crime of that nature in which he and Burke had
been concerned_, and that his wife, against whom _he_ could
not give evidence, should confirm his statements so far as consistent
with her knowledge. Such information was clearly indispensable for
the safety of the public. It is known that it was solely from Hare’s
consequent disclosures that the murders of Mary Paterson and Daft Jamie
were ascertained, and that collateral evidence was obtained sufficient
to warrant a charge against Burke as connected with these murders. In
both these cases, it is certain that the bodies were recognised in the
dissecting-room, and in both, part of the clothes of the unfortunate
persons murdered, were found in Burke’s possession. If no other case
was charged, it may well be supposed to have arisen from the absence
of such collateral evidence, without which no conviction could have
been looked for. If we are right in this statement, _and we have
been at some pains in obtaining accurate information_, it would be
_impossible_ to bring Hare or his wife to trial for crimes which
they had disclosed under such circumstances, even if there could be
evidence against them, which is no ways likely.
M‘Dougal has been tried, and a jury has thought fit to acquit her of
the only charge of which evidence could be obtained of her accession;
and Burke has been convicted, and he is to be executed. Deeply as
we regret that punishment should not reach a greater number of those
miscreants, we cannot shut our eyes to the obstacles which may thus
present themselves to its accomplishment, and must console ourselves
with the reflection, that if farther trials are not to take place, the
public functionaries are now well informed not only of the extent but
of the nature of such practices; and, thus alive as they must be to
the dreadful consequences of such crimes, the public has good reason
to trust to the effect of their vigilance and exertions in affording
security to the lives of the unprotected.
_The Caledonian Mercury._
In a contemporary journal of Friday last, we observe an article
entitled “The West Port Murders,” which we think deserving of our
special notice; and as it is substantively an answer to our legal
argument respecting the liability of Hare to be tried for the murders
of Mary Paterson and Daft Jamie, as well as a defence of the Public
Prosecutor, for declining to bring any more of “the horrid gang of
murderers” to trial, we feel ourselves called upon to reply to it.
In doing so, however, we shall not fail to keep in mind that we
have to deal with a question of law and of fact merely, and that,
differing as we do _toto coelo_, from the Lord Advocate, in the view
which he has taken of his duty upon this occasion, there is but one
opinion as to the purity and uprightness of the motives by which he
has been actuated, and of his desire, (unless opposed by technical
difficulties,) to afford the fullest satisfaction to the public. His
Lordship, to his infinite honour, has uniformly paid attention to the
strongly expressed sentiments of the country.
The article in question sets out as follows,--for quotation see pages
141 and 142, paragraph commencing, “Much dissatisfaction, &c.