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the Life of William Burke, and the circumstances attending the murders, including many interesting particulars hitherto unpublished.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abstaining from the institution of further inquiries, and in wishing to allow the veil, of which a corner only had been withdrawn, to drop for ever on scenes too horrid and bloody to be contemplated without fear and trembling.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.