county Tyrone; served seven years in the army, most of that time as an
officer’s servant in the Donegal militia; he was married at Ballinha,
in the county of Mayo, when in the army, but left his wife and two
children in Ireland. She would not come to Scotland with him. He has
often wrote to her, but got no answer; he came to Scotland to work at
the Union Canal, and wrought there while it lasted; he resided for
about two years in Peebles, and worked as a labourer. He worked as a
weaver for 18 months, and as a baker for five months; he learned to
mend shoes, as a cobbler, with a man he lodged with in Leith; and he
has lived with Helen M‘Dougal about 10 years, until he and she were
confined in the Calton Jail, on the charge of murdering the woman of
the name of Docherty, or Campbell, and both were tried before the High
Court of Justiciary in December last. Helen M‘Dougal’s charge was not
proven, and Burke found guilty, and sentenced to suffer death on the
28th January.
Declares, that Hare’s servant girl could give information respecting
the murders done in Hare’s house, if she likes. She came to him at
Whitsunday last, went to harvest, and returned back to him when the
harvest was over. She remained until he was confined along with his
wife in the Calton Jail. She then sold twenty-one of his swine for L.3,
and absconded. She was gathering potatoes in a field that day Daft
Jamie was murdered; she saw his clothes in the house when she came home
at night. Her name is Elizabeth M‘Guier or Mair. Their wives saw that
people came into their houses at night, and went to bed as lodgers, but
did not see them in the morning, nor did they make any inquiries after
them. They certainly knew what became of them, although Burke and Hare
pretended to the contrary. Hare’s wife often helped Burke and Hare to
pack the murdered bodies into the boxes. Helen M‘Dougal never did nor
saw them done. Burke never durst let her know; he used to smuggle and
drink, and get better victuals unknown to her; he told her he bought
dead bodies and sold them to doctors, and that was the way they got the
name of resurrection-men.
[Illustration: FAC-SIMILE OF BURKE’S HAND-WRITING.]
Enough has been said of the two principal actors in the horrid
proceedings. The memory of Burke may be left to that infamy which his
unparalleled atrocities merits, when his deeds are recollected, and
Hare may be allowed to seek some corner of the world where he may skulk
unknown until his miserable existence be terminated. It remains for
us only to notice briefly the two subordinate agents who, by their
connection with the principal culprits, and participation in their
crimes, have gained such an unenviable degree of notoriety. Of these,
the first is
HELEN M‘DOUGAL.
She is a native of the small village of Maddiston, in the parish of
Muiravonside, and county of Stirling, where she resided in her early
life. Her maiden name was Dougal. Her character does not appear to
have been good at any time, and her conduct speedily dissipated any
doubts that might have existed upon the subject. At an early period of
her life she formed an unlawful connection with a man who resided in
the same village, to whom she bore a child during the lifetime of his
wife. After her death, their intercourse continued; and after a short
interval, they cohabited publicly together, she bearing his name of
M‘Dougal, and passing for his wife. At this period they came to reside
in Leith, where M‘Dougal followed his occupation of a sawer, until he
took the typhus fever at the time that that disease first raged so
fearfully in Edinburgh. He became a patient in the hospital opened in
Queensberry-house, where he died. His partner, upon his decease, again
returned to her native village, and father’s house. Shortly after her
return she met with Burke, who was a labourer on the Canal, when their
adulterous intercourse commenced, and in about a year from their first
acquaintance, they agreed to live together as man and wife. From that
time up to his apprehension, she followed his fortunes, and adhered to
him in all his wanderings.
Wherever they resided, her character seems to have been the same. In
Edinburgh, Leith, Peebles, and Pennycuik, she was distinguished for her
drunken dissolute habits, and was universally disliked, and considered
unworthy even of Burke. Notwithstanding their many quarrels, in which
she was frequently the aggressor, she seems to have cherished an ardent
effection towards him, and at the termination of his career, to have
felt sincerely upon the subject of his unhappy fate. Her own condition,
indeed, is not less pitiable, although a Jury has been found who could
return a verdict of “not proven” that she was a participator in the
murder for which he has suffered death, notwithstanding her being
present and aiding him in the stratagems which preceded, and the sale
of the murdered body, she is guilty in the eyes of God and man, and
is doomed to wander on the face of the earth an outcast from human
charities, and an opprobrium to human nature. It would almost have
been charity to have convicted her along with Burke. Her wretched life
is precariously preserved under miseries more horrible than hanging
would have been. It was predicted upon her enlargement, that she would
realize the fable of the wandering jew, and it seems to have been
hitherto fulfilled to the letter. Hunted about from place to place,
without being able to find a temporary refuge from her tormentors, she
has discovered no person who would maintain social intercourse with
her; but, on the contrary, her detection was certainly followed by
every species of ill usage and annoyance. We have already adverted to
the reception she met with upon her visiting her old haunts in the West
Port, and it has only been a sample of what awaited her whenever she
went. The next place that she essayed was her father’s residence in the
village of Redding in Stirlingshire; here she experienced a similar
reception, and was obliged to save herself by a precipitate retreat.
She has since made various attempts to discover a resting place with a
like effect. She has hitherto been recognised wherever she went, and
the summary vengeance of the mob exercised upon her. By the latest
accounts we find that she has appeared at Newcastle, where again she
has been rescued from an infuriated populace by the police officers,
who afforded her temporary protection and shelter in the prison. Their
sympathy, however, does not appear to extend beyond this, and she was
as speedily as convenient escorted by constables to the “blue stone,”
the boundary of the counties of Northumberland and Durham, and there
transferred to the safe conduct of the functionaries of the latter
county, for what purpose further than to get rid of the “accursed
thing” does not appear.
MARGARET LAIRD OR HARE.
This other virago seems to have been accounted if possible still more
depraved than M‘Dougal, and to have possessed all the essentials
of that disgusting character, a brutal and abandoned woman. She is
a native of Ireland and accompanied her first husband Log to this
country. Log bore the character of a decent hard-working man, while
she was chiefly remarkable for her masculine and bold habits. Log was
a sort of undertaker on the Union Canal, engaging with the contractor
to cut small pieces upon the line, and for some time worked at it with
a detachment of his countrymen in the neighbourhood of Winchburgh,
where his wife worked along with them in the capacity of a labourer,
with a man’s coat on, wheeling a barrowfull of rubbish as stoutly as
any of her fellow-workmen. At that time they inhabited a temporary hut
on the banks of the canal, and whatever her conduct afterwards proved
she then exhibited no want of industry. At the conclusion of the work
Log settled in Edinburgh and still industriously pursued his course,
selling articles about the street and keeping a lodging-house for
vagrants. Upon his death this property devolved upon his widow, and she
conducted the establishment. She cohabited with one of the lodgers who
is described to have been a young and well-looking man, but he quickly
broke up their intercourse and left her, when her connection with Hare
commenced.
[Illustration: MARGARET LAIRD or HARE.
as she appeared in the witness-box,
taken in Court.
_Published by Thomas Ireland Jun^r. Edinburgh._]
In an eastern tale, we read of a woman forsaking her husband’s
society to keep company with a “_goule_,” with whom she feasted in a
burying-ground upon dead bodies. Mrs. Hare appears to have had similar
propensities. Her brutal husband, in savageness of disposition, as
well as appearance, furnishes an apt illustration of the _goule_;
while the horrible means of livelihood he adopted, is not a bad
prototype of the revolting banquet of the Oriental monsters. Her
whole conduct now became utterly debauched; she was continually in
a state of intoxication, and presented at all times the slatternly
ferocious aspect of a confirmed and regardless drunkard. Hare and she
are surmised to have used foul means in disposing of a child to which
she gave birth about the commencement of their intercourse; perhaps
her subsequent bad odour may have contributed to this opinion. It is
certain, however, that the child, if not murdered, perished through
want of proper care and attention. The body was put into a box, and
buried in the waste ground at the bottom of Tanner’s close. It is
surprising that the wretched infant who still survives all the hard
usage it has experienced, did not fall a victim in the same way. Her
slovenly and careless conduct extended even to this youngest of her
offspring, and she is described as carrying it about more like a cat or
a dog than an infant. Even after her connection with Hare, she usually
went by her former name of Log, to which was appended the familiar
title of “_Lucky_,” and the nature of her affinity to Hare was better
indicated by their indulging in the connubial luxuries of scolding and
fighting, than by any manifestations of affection or regard.
During her confinement in the jail, she kept herself generally retired,
remaining principally in the day-room of the ward tending her sick
baby, and conducted herself in a peaceable manner.
She was recognised by the populace almost immediately upon her release,
and a crowd speedily collected round her. It was a wet, snowy day, and
she was unmercifully pelted with snow-balls, mud, and stones, and had
some commiseration not been felt for the child which she carried, she
would in all probability have fallen a victim to the violence of the
mob. She was rescued by the police, and conveyed to the Police-office,
where she found shelter and protection. In a few days, she wandered
away to Glasgow, where the following account, abridged from the Glasgow
Chronicle, will show that her treatment was no better:--
The celebrated Mrs. Hare was this afternoon rescued from the hands
of an infuriated populace by the Calton Police, and, for protection,
confined in one of the cells. She had left Edinburgh Gaol a fortnight
ago, with an infant child, and has since been wandering about the
country. She stated that she had lodged in this neighbourhood four
nights, with her child, and “her bit duds,” without those with whom
she lodged knowing who she was, and she was in hopes of quitting
this vicinity without detection. For this purpose she remained in
her lodging all day, but occasionally, early in the morning, or at
twilight, she ventured the length of the Broomielaw, in hopes of being
able to procure an immediate passage to Ireland, but had hitherto been
disappointed. She had gone out this morning with the same object,
and when returning, a woman who, she says, was drunk, recognised her
in Clyde Street, and repeatedly shouted--“Hare’s wife--Burke her!”
and threw a large stone at her. A crowd soon gathered, who heaped
every indignity upon her, and with her child she was pursued into
Calton, where she was experiencing very rough treatment, when she
was rescued by the police. She says she wrought sixteen years ago in
Tureen Street powerloom factory, till she was married to her first
husband. About three years ago she unfortunately fell in with Hare, and
then her misery commenced. She married him, and has since had three
children--one of whom is dead, and another is left behind in Edinburgh.
She describes Hare as devoted to the “devil and laziness.” She admitted
it was needless to deny she knew “something” of the murders, and had a
suspicion of what was going on, but not to the full extent.
Hare was often drunk--their house was a complete hell of iniquity,
and she was often on the point of exposing his hidden conduct--but
was afraid to do so. She left his house three times on account of his
brutal usage. She says she would much rather be killed outright than
suffer what she has done. She did not require to beg, having had a
little money, but she had now scarcely as much as would pay her passage
to Ireland.
She was quite ignorant of what had become of her husband since she
left Edinburgh. She asked if he had been subsequently tried, and
expressed the utmost indifference respecting his fate. She said she was
determined never more to associate with him, or have any thing to do
with him.
It was truly melancholy to see her stretched on the guardbed of
the cell, in tears, with her infant, eleven months old, clasped to
her breast; and, as “the mother of eleven children,” imploring the
protection of the police, and that they would not make “a show of
her.” She occasionally burst into tears while deploring her unhappy
situation, which she ascribed to Hare’s utter profligacy, and said,
all she wished was to get across the Channel, and end her days in some
remote spot in her own country, in retirement and penitence. She has
since left Greenock in the Fingal, Belfast steam packet.
* * * * *
The public, in various country towns and villages seem to be absurdly
lawless in their conduct towards any unfortunate individuals in whom
they choose to recognise a resemblance to the miserable outcasts.
Several unfortunate individuals have been subjected to rough treatment
in consequence of some fancied likeness to the murderers, and all
efforts to undeceive their tormentors rendered unavailing by their
determination to execute summary justice upon some one, and their
disinclination to allow the victim to escape out of their hands. This
inordinate desire of working vengeance has sometimes been exhibited
when it was scarcely possible to suppose that the populace could be so
senseless as believe that the veritable culprit was in their hands.
While it was perfectly well known that Hare was detained in close
confinement, possessing the usual complement of members, a poor
itinerant flute blower, who contrives to manage his instrument with
one hand and a stump substituted for the other, was assaulted in
consequence of some idle reports that he was Hare, and it was with
some difficulty that he was rescued. Another unlucky wight was also
mistaken for Hare at Kirkliston a few days back, and maltreated in such
a manner that he is now a patient in the Royal Infirmary. Although he
is directly dissimilar to him in appearance, being a tall dark Scot,
and speaking his mother tongue with a true lowland accent, and we
might add many like instances. Even some rural dignitaries have taken
occasion to adopt summary measures, towards those whose condition
allowed them some pretence to display the vigour of the law. In a
West Country Burgh, the following narrative is given of a search for
M‘Dougal;--“The principal rendezvous of ‘randy gangrel bodies’ was
searched; the whole thirty-six beds were overhauled, but she was
nowhere to be found; the search however warranted the suspicion that
some of the Cadgers who frequented the house had no lawful trade by
which their earnings could equal their expenditure,--marked attention
was drawn to Pig Jock, as it was evident all the rags he took to
Edinburgh, and all the crockery he brought in return, even though
stolen, was not sufficient to pay his weekly bill; and it being
surmised that the keeper of the house was not ignorant of the ways of
his guests, he and Jock have been banished forth of the town.”
There seems really very little _legal_ evidence against poor Jock,
while the landlord’s being made accountable “for the ways of his
guests” is a stretch of despotism scarcely allowable in a very small
township.
Indeed the whole island appears to be “frightened from its propriety,”
and each town vies with another in adding its quota of alarm. The Burke
mania seems destined to exercise as great an influence on the minds of
the poorer classes especially, as almost any other mania on record.
Nearly every city or hamlet throughout the empire has had its tales
of direful attempts at assassination, with their usual accompaniments
of waylaying and pitch plaisters applied to the unfortunate victims,
while the records of the police courts of the metropolis and other
large cities furnish ample testimony of the extent to which the black
catalogue of crimes has excited the fears of the people. From all
accounts, we cannot doubt that some wicked and heartless individuals
have been keeping alive the excitation by their foolish tricks, but we
forbear giving extension to the evil by detailing any of them.
On the afternoon of Thursday the 12th of February, occurred what will
probably prove the last ebullition of popular feeling on this subject
in Edinburgh. It commenced with the dressing on the Calton Hill of
an effigy intended to represent a celebrated anatomist. After this
ceremony was concluded, the figure was paraded through the principal
streets, borne aloft on men’s shoulders, with a placard on the back. A
countless host of men, women, and children, accompanied the procession
to Dr. Knox’s house in Newington, where the effigy was _Burked_
and torn to pieces, and the windows of the house broken. The mob then
attempted to do the same at Surgeons’ Square, but were prevented by the
police, and dispersed, after traversing several streets, and breaking a
number of panes in the College windows, &c.
A gentleman who rode up to Dr. Knox’s house, with the view of
undergoing a surgical operation, was mistaken for him, and had nearly
suffered from the violence of the crowd.
We have already exceeded the limits that we had prescribed, and
still have not been able to touch upon the important subject of the
best means for supplying the anatomical theatres with bodies for
dissection, and we cannot now enter upon it. It is admitted by all
enlightened people, that subjects must and will be procured, and that
severe legislative enactments only tend to increase the difficulty,
and enhance the price. The recent proceedings present a fearful
illustration of this opinion; but out of evil, if properly considered,
good may be extracted; and these transactions will, indeed, have
failed in their effect, should some plan not be devised which, while it
saves the feelings of relatives from outrage, may prevent a recurrence
of such frightful scenes.
FINIS.
EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY A. BALFOUR AND CO. HIGH STREET.
_The following correspondence has taken place between the
publisher and Mr. Johnson, law agent for Mr. Swanston, who
conceives himself aggrieved by a passage in Janet Brown’s
statement, contained in No. 6. As the best way of giving Mr.
S.’s justification, we print the letters entire._
_Edinburgh, 7th February, 1829. 4, Grove Street._
SIR.--Mr. William Swanston spirit-dealer in the Canongate, feels
himself much aggrieved by the unwarrantable falsehood under
which he is represented in the sixth number, page 126, in the
account which you choose to publish of the West Port Murders.
Mr. Swanston knowing the statement to be entirely false, must
necessarily think, that in associating his name in such a manner
with the late wretched Burke, and singling him out individually
in this way, must have been done with a malicious intention of
doing an injury, not only to his character, but to his trade.
You must have been aware when you published this account, that
every person in Edinburgh would have shuddered at the very
thoughts of having, however innocently, exchanged words with
Burke in his life time; but what must have been your feeling
when you have represented Mr. Swanston as his companion at
five o’clock in the morning, and given it again to the public
as truth. You were bound as a publisher, in justice to every
individual, to have inquired into the truth or falsehood of the
statement, and to have asked permission to publish it, supposing
the statement to have been correct: because, whether true or
false, must have been a great annoyance to any person possessed
of any degree of moral feeling.
Mr. Swanston has therefore instructed me to institute an action
of damages against you, for reparation for the injury which he
must sustain in his own feelings and in his business, as well as
in the eye of the public, who must have an inveterate grudge at
him, and consequently must shun him in all civil intercourse,
resulting from such false, injurious, malicious and calumnious
statement, represented by you as an “authentic and faithful
history” published by you for your _lucre_.--I am, Sir,
your most obedient servant,
(Signed) JOHN JOHNSON.
Mr. THOMAS IRELAND,
Bookseller and Publisher, 57, South Bridge Street.
* * * * *
_Edinburgh, 10th February, 1829._
SIR,--In consequence of your having taken no notice of my letter
to you of the 7th instant, on the subject of your late libellous
publication on Mr. Swanston, I presume you mean to justify the
fact. I have therefore to intimate to you that the case will
be forthwith put into a shape of a summons of damages against
you.--I am, Sir, your most obedient servant.
(Signed) JOHN JOHNSON.
Mr. THOMAS IRELAND, Jun.
Publisher and Bookseller, 57, South Bridge Street.
* * * * *
_Edinburgh, 57, South Bridge Street.
February 11, 1829._
SIR,--I have to apologise to you for not answering sooner your
letter of the 7th current, complaining of the notice taken of
Mr. Swanston in the Trial of Burke at present publishing by me.
In answer to it, and your second of yesterday, I have to state,
that I am very sorry that Mr. Swanston should feel at all
injured by what has been said of him, and though my information
as to what is stated of him was from the best authority,[8]
still I would not wish in the smallest degree, even by
implication, to injure his feelings or his character, and I
shall be ready to insert in the shape of a note, in the number
about to be published, any statement you and he may wish to
make, such statement not to be inconsistent with what is due to
myself in such a matter.
Your threat of damages is too fanciful to require from me any
serious answer. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant.
(Signed) THOMAS IRELAND, JUN.
To JOHN JOHNSON, Esq.
4, Grove Street, Edinburgh.
* * * * *
_Edinburgh, 11th Feb. 1829._
SIR,--I am favored with your letter of this date, in answer to
my letters of the 7th and 10th inst. And in answer to it I have
to inform you that the summons of damages to which I formerly
alluded is now in the press with the intention of being served
upon you to-morrow. I shall, however, this moment send for Mr.
Swanston and shew him your letter; but I conceive that although
it is very proper to put a note in any new edition which you
may throw off to the purport you mention, still it will not
be a whitewasher of the injury which the previous publication
has already done. With regard to the action of damages, I can
assure you that the notion of it did not originate with himself,
but with his acquaintances who first read the publication, and
pointed out the injurious tendency of it last Saturday, when
I first wrote you on the subject. He felt the effects of it
before this, but he did not know a reason then to which he could
attribute a _____[9]. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
(Signed) JOHN JOHNSON.
Mr. THOMAS IRELAND, Jun.
Bookseller and Publisher, 57, South Bridge, Edinburgh.
* * * * *
_Edinburgh, 12th Feb. 1829._
SIR,--With reference to my letter to you last night, I have
now to inform you that I have since seen Mr. Swanston, to whom
I read your letter of the 11th inst., and he desires me to
say, that as you propose no definite pallinode of the injury
which he has sustained, of which you seem to think lightly, he
has no farther observation to make, because, were he to make
any specific proposition, it would be inconsistent with the
view which you take of the matter, and therefore it is quite
clear that the parties could not meet each other to the mutual
satisfaction. I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
(Signed) JOHN JOHNSON.
THOMAS IRELAND, Jun. Esq.
Bookseller, 57, South Bridge, Edinburgh.
* * * * *