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.
MARGARET LAIRD or HARE.
as she appeared in the witness-box,
taken in Court.
Published by Thomas Ireland Junr. 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.
Edinburgh, 13th Feb. 1829.
Sir,—I think it very unnecessary to return any particular reply to your two last letters.
Since you will not condescend to say what would satisfy Mr. Swanston, I shall publish in the forthcoming number of the work, your first letter of the 7th, and my answer of the 11th.
If you wish any thing further inserted, you can let me know in the course of to-morrow forenoon. I am, Sir, your very obedient servant,
(Signed) THOMAS IRELAND, Jun.
To John Johnson, Esq.
4, Grove Street, Edinburgh.