Knox remained silent under all these charges, but Paterson could not, and he wrote a letter on the 15th January to the editor of the Caledonian Mercury. He contended that he had been shamefully wronged by “the many false and cruel accusations made against him,” and stated that he had “only kept silence by advice of Dr. Knox, as he was, according to promise, to espouse my cause, and clear my innocence; but which I now find he has cruelly failed to perform. And I now most solemnly protest, and can prove, that throughout all the services rendered by me to Dr. Knox, I acted entirely under his own guidance and direction.” He also denied a statement to the effect that he had absconded, and had been dismissed from Dr. Knox’s service; and he called upon the authorities, if they conceived him in any way guilty in the transaction, to bring him to a public trial, and either let him be found guilty or have the benefit of an honourable acquittal. To this letter the editor of the Mercury appended some questions, but these will be best explained by a quotation from a letter from Paterson, dated 17th January, 1829, in reply to them. He says:—“After the publication of my letter to you in this day’s paper, I observe you have inserted the following queries:—First, whether it be true or the reverse, that about one o’clock on the morning of 1st November last, I, in conjunction with another individual whom I well know, offered the body of a woman for sale to a highly-respectable lecturer on anatomy? My answer is simply, No. Secondly, whether or not I asked fifteen pounds for the subject, stating at the same time, that Dr. Knox would give only twelve?—Answer, No. Thirdly, whether I did not say, that I wished to have no further dealings with the Doctor, because he had handed us over to his (the Dr.’s) assistants? My answer is, No. And lastly, whether the body so offered was or was not the body of the woman Docherty? To this I answer, that having no body to offer, the transaction could not take place.” Paterson proceeded to explain, however, that about three weeks before the murder of Docherty a friend of the “most respectable anatomist,” referred to by the Mercury, called on him and asked where the individuals lived that were in the habit of supplying Dr. Knox with subjects. He did not know, so he could not give any information, but as the sum of fifteen pounds was offered for a subject he promised that the next time he saw the resurrectionists he would mention the matter to them, provided, always, that Dr. Knox was supplied. Paterson again gave a most emphatic denial to the statement of his dismissal, which the Mercury had reported upon the authority of Dr. Knox himself, and he enclosed a copy of a letter from that gentleman, dated the 11th January, asking him to return to his employment.
Again the Mercury returned to the charge, and said:—“Now this is not a question of probability but of fact; and we again ask him (Paterson), whose was the corpse he confessedly offered for sale an hour or an hour and a-half after Burke had, according to his own evidence in the witness-box, told him he had ‘something for the doctor, which would be ready in the morning.’” Paterson replied to this on the 23rd January, and complained that he was being made “the scape-goat for a personage in higher life.” As his letter is not only interesting in itself, but also because there is introduced in it an account of a transaction with Andrew Merrilees—the Merry Andrew of an early chapter of this work—it is worth quoting pretty fully.
“I will now give you,” says Paterson, “what I trust the public will consider a satisfactory explanation of the transaction alluded to in your paper of the 22nd, which will at the same time answer the queries in the Caledonian Mercury of the 17th. About three weeks before the murder of Docherty, a Mr. —— called upon me, who was very intimate (or appeared to be so) with Dr. ——. During the conversation, in a walk along the Bridges, the topic turned upon the scarcity of subjects amongst the lecturers. I was asked how Dr. —— was supplied; and after informing him to the best of my knowledge, he, Mr. ——, said he understood that Dr. —— could not get one, and that he had offered him fifteen pounds if he could get one for him. My answer was, that I thought there was nothing more easy, as there were plenty of resurrection men came about Dr. ——’s rooms, who might procure one for him. He then requested me to accompany him to Dr. ——’s house, and he would ascertain if Dr. —— had got one. I did so. Dr. —— and Mr. —— talked for some time on various matters, when the discourse turned upon the matter in question. I heard Dr. —— offer fifteen pounds for a subject, as he was in great straits. I took no part in the conversation, nor made any remark; but after we had left Dr. ——, Mr. —— strongly urged me to allow a subject to go to Dr. ——’s rooms, when any should arrive, without the knowledge of Dr. ——, for which no doubt I was to receive a remuneration for my trouble. Dr. —— about that time had fifteen subjects, and I did resolve to allow one to Dr. —— at the first opportunity. Shortly after this time, Burke and Hare brought a subject, but not having an opportunity of speaking to them that night, resolved to do so when I next saw them, or any other of the resurrectionists. A few days after a notorious resurrectionist called at the rooms and informed me that he was going to the country upon business, and inquired if the Dr. was in want of goods. I replied that possibly he might, but that I wanted one for a friend, and would pay him when he returned. The bargain was struck, and he received earnest and a trunk, saying he had two customers before me, and it might be eight or ten days before he could supply me, as the grounds were strictly watched. This passed over, and on Friday evening, the 31st October, a person brought a letter addressed to Mr. ——, Surgeon’s Square. This turned out to be from Andrew M——s (or Merry Andrew, as he was styled). The following is a literal copy:—
“‘Oct. 29.
“‘Doctor am in the east, and has been doin little busnis, an short of siller send out abot aught and twenty shilins way the carer the thing will bee in abot 4 on Saturday mornin its a shusa, hae the plase open.
“‘And. M——s.’
Just after I received this letter I went with Mr. —— to spend the evening, and returned home about twelve o’clock. I found Burke knocking at the door of my lodgings.... After my return from Burke’s, which was only a few minutes past twelve o’clock, I went to bed: the letter had escaped my memory. I slept none: the suspicions I had entertained of Burke and Hare, and the determination I had come to to examine the body of the subject they were to send, and a retrospective view of their late conduct, passed before me. The letter now came into my mind; it was between three and four o’clock: I went to Dr. ——; did say I expected a subject from his friend: did not say what place. The Doctor desired it to be sent to his lecture-rooms, as his assistants were or would be in waiting. He did not refuse it, as has been alleged. The Doctor did not receive it, however, as Mr. Andrew M——s thought proper to address it to another quarter—a very common trick with him, especially if he received part in advance.... I confess that the circumstance of the subject coming from the east at the nick of time Docherty was murdered looks rather suspicious. But when I inform you that I have seen three subjects at the same time of day sent to the lecture-room from different quarters, your suspicions will cease.” For the third time he denied that he had been dismissed by Dr. Knox, and said that since his last letter the Doctor had sent for him, expressing the most friendly intentions towards him.
But a more serious charge than that was made against David Paterson in a communication from Dr. Knox’s principal assistants, also published in the Caledonian Mercury. These gentlemen, after declaring that Paterson was not “keeper of the museum belonging to Dr. Knox,” though he was cited and gave his evidence at the trial of Burke as such, said:—“With regard to his connexion with Burke and Hare, he was so far associated with them, that he was on the eve of entering into an agreement with one of these miscreants to accompany him to Ireland, that they might (as he said) procure a greater supply of subjects, and at less price, the people being poorer there.” Whether this was the case or not was never made clear; but it was certainly stated by Burke in his Courant confessions that such a project was on foot, though he did not state who the other party was. Popular belief was that it was Paterson.
Paterson had taken another method of repelling the allegations brought against him. This was a pamphlet, in the form of a letter to the Lord Advocate, under the title of “An Echo from Surgeon’s Square.” The Courant of Thursday, 22nd January, gave an account of this document, and taking it all in all, after making allowance for the prejudice the paper exhibited in common with the great mass of the public against the man, it is a fair indication of its contents. The statement, it said, had for its object the vindication of Mr. D. Paterson, the late assistant of Dr. Knox, and of course threw the blame on others. The pamphlet contained a good deal of irrelevant matter, and sundry details as to the means of procuring subjects for the anatomical schools which were not of great interest, and rather calculated to do injury. It contained, however, “information of greater importance, if it can be depended on, which we have no doubt will be eagerly sought after in the present general excitation.” The document stated that D—— P—— was first in the employment of Dr. —— in the year 1824 or 1825, for about one year, and, on his return from the army at the close of 1827, he applied to Dr. —— for his former situation, and was engaged in the beginning of February, 1828, as museum keeper; his salary was very small, but from the fees paid him by the students, he contrived to make a very comfortable livelihood. He had nothing whatever to do with the subjects (or bodies) brought to the lecture room; his sole duty was to keep the museum. At that time he did not know how the doctor obtained his subjects. Shortly after he saw Burke and Hare (Burke was called John, and Hare, William), and understood from a conversation that passed between them and one of the assistants that they had been in the habit of supplying subjects previous to that time. He threw the blame of negociating with these two men on one of Dr. Knox’s assistants, and said that once, after he began to be suspicious of the true nature of the calling of these two men, he asked Burke where he got the body he was then offering. The man replied sternly—“If I am to be catechised by you where and how I get subjects, I will inform the doctor of it, and if he allows you to do so, I will bring no more to him, mind that.” In other respects the “Echo” was very similar to the letter by Paterson already quoted.
But before concluding this part of the subject it will be proper to give Leighton’s opinion of Paterson’s position in the dispute. Writing in 1860 on the complicity of the doctors, he gives this calm testimony in Paterson’s favour:—“As for the curator, who is still a respectable inhabitant of Edinburgh, and upon whom the short-lived blind fury of some newspapers of the time fell, with much surprise to himself, and much indignation elsewhere, he was, of all the parties concerned, the most free from blame; nor did any one but himself come forward and assist the authorities in the prosecution. Nay, it is understood that, under a passing reflection that the number of apparently unexhumed bodies brought by these men required explanation; he mentioned the circumstance to his principal, and that gentleman silenced him at once by the statement that they had long known of the practice of sale and purchase, and so the suspicion passed away.” Viewing the whole matter after the lapse of fully half a century, there seems no reason to doubt that Paterson, though certain of his acts were, to say the least of it, shady, and morally reprehensible, if not legally punishable, was made, as he himself said, “the scape-goat for a personage in higher life.”