CHAPTER XXVII.
The Legal Position of Hare and his Wife—Gossip about Burke—Mrs. Hare and her Child—Constantine Burke—Anatomical Instruction—Mrs. Docherty’s Antecedents.
But in addition to this outcry against Paterson, the public mind was, as has already been indicated, agitated by the rumours that no further action was to be taken against Hare, and that he and his wife were to be liberated. The Caledonian Mercury was greatly exercised over the following passage in the charge given to the jury at the trial by the Lord Justice-Clerk:—“They (the jury) had been told of the Hares being concerned in the murders. With what murders they might be chargeable, he did not know; but to a certainty they could not be libelled on either of the charges contained in the indictment now under trial, and which had not been sent to the jury.” The Mercury argued, and quoted legal authorities, too, that Hare and his wife were liable to be tried for the murders of Mary Paterson and Daft Jamie, regarding which they had not given evidence; and that the protection of the court only extended to any self-crimination in the case in which they had given evidence. “The public prosecutor,” it was contended, “has discharged all title to molest them in regard to the murder of Docherty, the only part of the libel against Burke which went to trial, because they gave evidence and criminated themselves in regard to the crime; but he has not discharged this title to pursue them for the murder of Paterson or Daft Jamie; and, accordingly, when Mr. Cockburn proposed to interrogate Hare in his cross-examination, concerning his connection with the latter crime, the Court interposed, by telling the witness that he was entitled to decline answering such a question as tending to criminate himself, and as beyond the reach of the protection afforded him for his evidence in the case of Docherty. It was frequently stated from the bench, that his answering the question put by Mr. Cockburn would implicate himself in the crime. And how else could he have been entitled to decline answering it? As a protected socius, he was bound to answer every question that should be asked him within the compass of that protection; and if it had extended to and included the murder of Jamie, which was included in the same charge, the obligation to answer would, of course, have been co-extensive with the protection.” The Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle lamented “the acquittal of the fiend M‘Dougal,” and said there had been some very painful suspicions that the investigation of these murders was not to be further prosecuted. “We happen to know,” they said, “that a certain public functionary (not the Lord Advocate, whose zeal in forwarding the late trial is beyond all praise) remarked the other day that they were perfectly sick of the business, and were resolved to stir no further in it, lest it should bring shame on the city!... In the present state of the public mind, no Lord Advocate will dare to say, ‘Thus far—(to the death of Burke)—shall the tide of public vengeance flow, and no farther.’... It is satisfactory to reflect, however, that our law has wisely restricted the Lord Advocate’s prerogative, so that, even were he disposed, he cannot screen a murderer from justice, if the deceased’s relations incline to prosecute him. The law says that murder shall not go unavenged, if either the public, represented by the Lord Advocate, or those who have been deprived by it of a near relative, insist for punishment. Will not, then, the friends of some of the butchered individuals, whose blood calls to Heaven for retribution, be roused to prosecute the butchers? No one can doubt that money would be liberally provided by the inhabitants to defray all expenses.”
The rumours which so alarmed these newspapers, and, it must also be said, a large portion of the public, had foundation in fact. After Hare and his wife had given evidence against Burke, they were recommitted to jail under a warrant of the Sheriff. This was done, probably, to allow the Lord Advocate time to consider in what relationship he stood towards them—whether he could try them on the first two charges in the indictment, or whether he was bound to release them, they having turned King’s evidence. He seems to have come to the conclusion that he must liberate them, and, accordingly, on the 19th of January, the commitment was withdrawn. This was a wise decision, notwithstanding all that was said to the contrary at the time in the public prints and elsewhere. If the Crown could not gain a conviction against Burke of the murder of Docherty without the aid of two of his accomplices, it was not at all likely that it would be able to convict Hare and his wife without similar evidence. Thus, so far as the public prosecutor was concerned, the two informers were free; but proceedings of another kind were taken against Hare, who was detained in prison pending their settlement, though his wife was liberated on the 19th of January.
Other matters were also attracting the attention of the people, for every issue of the newspapers gave circulation to gossipy stories about Burke or his accomplices, or relating to circumstances bearing in some way or other upon the subject which was causing such universal interest. It was stated, for instance, that at one time Burke made considerable sums of money among the unlettered inhabitants of the West Port by writing begging petitions, and that while working at the construction of the Union Canal he for the first time engaged in the trade of a resurrectionist. Whatever truth there may have been in the first part of this statement, there is good reason to believe that the latter part was founded upon mere idle rumour. It was also alleged that in the course of the preceding summer Burke made an attack upon an unfortunate girl in St. Cuthbert’s Entry, at the head of the West Port, evidently with murderous intent. She escaped from his grasp, and ran to the watch-house, where she gave a particular description of her assailant to the police, who would certainly have been able to apprehend him had he not judiciously left the city for a time until the hue and cry was given up. It is difficult to believe that Burke would have acted so incautiously—that he should have sought to dispense with that drugging with whisky which so often did half his work for him. His friendly relationship with certain members of the police force was emphasised by a statement that he was in the habit of going home at any hour of the night or morning, always accompanied by the constable on the beat, to whom he gave a glass or two of whisky out of a bottle he carried with him, and it was urged that an inquiry should be made into this breach of discipline.
Such were the items of gossip about Burke, to which publicity was given by the newspapers, but a charge of a serious kind was made against Mrs. Hare in the issue of the Courant published on the 1st January, 1829. It was stated that Mrs. Hare, after Log’s death, and at the beginning of her relationship with Hare, bore a child, which the people of the neighbourhood asserted was murdered by her. So confidently was this allegation put forward that it was added that there would be no difficulty in obtaining sufficient evidence to establish a case against her for destroying the life of the infant. A singular fact was mentioned in the same paper in connection with Hare. His mother and sister from Ireland arrived in Edinburgh a day or two before, purposing to visit him, and it was not until they were within two miles of the city that they were apprised of the fact that he was involved in a series of the most shocking murders. Another statement was that Hare, in the course of the summer of 1828, had murdered a young woman who was a servant to one of the city clergymen. This, if true, would point to the identity of the body over the proceeds from the sale of which Burke quarrelled with his colleague.
Another person who came in for a share of public attention was Constantine Burke, the brother of the condemned man, in whose house in the Canongate, it has been seen, Mary Paterson was murdered. After the trial he was continually in danger of being maltreated by the mob, and at last the Sheriff gave him a small sum of money to enable him and his family to leave the city. According to the Courant, Constantine had always been a sober, industrious, poverty-pressed man. He admitted having once taken a chest to Surgeon’s Square, being conducted to the place by his brother and Hare, although he was not aware of its contents or its destination. Receiving ten shillings for his trouble, he suspected his employers were resurrectionists, and he then declared he would do no work for them again.
While all these stories were in circulation, thoughtful persons were considering the revelations in their most practical bearing. They admitted the necessity for teachers of anatomy being supplied with a sufficient number of subjects for dissection, for it was apparent that had the legitimate supply been adequate, there would have been little temptation to any one to enter upon a career of crime. Theories were started as to how the evident defect was to be remedied, letters on all aspects of the subject were sent to the newspapers, and a wordy battle was fought out. Amid all this clamour, on the 5th of January, 1829, several of the anatomical teachers in Edinburgh had an interview with the Lord Advocate; and on the 7th of the same month the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons held a meeting at which they passed resolutions expressing regret that anatomical instruction, which they conscientiously believed to be an essential part in the education of medical men, should ever have furnished a temptation to such unexampled atrocities, and calling upon the Legislature to remove the restrictions under which such instruction was then given.
This, however, was only one side of the question, and the resolutions, right and proper in themselves, only served to inflame the public mind, for they showed that bodies obtained at least in a surreptitious manner were being used. Other incidents added to the general excitement. Several boys, belonging to respectable families, disappeared suddenly, and the conclusion at once jumped at by their despairing relatives was that they had been stolen away to supply the dissecting tables of the teachers of anatomy. No other explanation seemed at all tenable, until the missing lads were discovered, some days later, in a village some miles from Edinburgh, whither they had gone to hawk broadside or pamphlet accounts of the trial of Burke and M‘Dougal. Another matter which gave additional cause for anxiety was an attempt to steal the body of a man from a house in Edinburgh. Early on the morning of Tuesday, the 20th January, some passers-by observed a curious-looking package being lowered by means of a rope from the upper window of the house. On examination, it was found to be the body of a man named M‘Donald, better known locally as “Nosey,” on account of the size of his nasal organ, who had died the day before. The thieves had broken into the house, where the corpse was lying unattended, and were in the act of removing it when the discovery was made. They managed to escape by the back of the house and were never captured.