1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Niedrigster Preis in 30 Tagen: 1,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Booksell-Verlag
- Kategorie: Krimi
- Sprache: Englisch
- Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
"West Port Murders" is a gripping anthology that delves into the shadowy depths of Victorian criminality, weaving together narratives inspired by the infamous Burke and Hare murders. The book employs a tapestry of literary styles, each tale reflecting the distinct voice of its author, yet collectively evoking a sense of dread and fascination characteristic of the Gothic tradition. The stories not only unveil the chilling reality of grave-robbing and murder but also serve as a critique of the societal norms and moral quandaries of the 19th century, thus embedding the narratives in a rich literary context framed by both historical accuracy and imaginative embellishment. The anthology features contributions from various writers, each bringing their unique insights and stylistic flair. This collaboration is particularly significant as it echoes the communal nature of crime fiction in the Victorian era, where tales of horror and fascination emerged from real-life events to capture the public'Äôs imagination. As scholars have noted, the Victorian obsession with death and the macabre often drew from the cultural anxieties surrounding medical ethics and human dissection, which are critically examined throughout the collection. For readers who are intrigued by the interplay between fiction and historical events, "West Port Murders" is an essential addition to their library. It elegantly encapsulates the anxieties and complexities of its time while providing a thrilling reading experience that provokes thought about morality and human nature. This anthology beckons to all who dare to explore the dark corridors of human history.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Ähnliche
West Port Murders
Table of Contents
LIST OF PLATES.
Portrait of Burke, to face title
Ground Plan of Burke’s House
36
Portrait of Helen M‘Dougal
97
Burke’s House from the Back Court
120
View of Burke’s Execution
237
Portrait of Hare
272
Fac-simile of Burke’s Hand-writing
352
Portrait of Mrs. Hare
355
THE WEST PORT MURDERS.
We have heard a great deal of late concerning “the march of intellect” for which the present age is supposed to be distinguished; and the phrase has been rung in our ears till it has nauseated us by its repetition, and become almost a proverbial expression of derision. But we fear that, with all its pretended illumination, the present age must be characterized by some deeper and fouler blots than have attached to any that preceded it; and that if it has brighter spots, it has also darker shades and more appalling obscurations. It has, in fact, nooks and corners where every thing that is evil seems to be concentrated and condensed; dens and holes to which the Genius of Iniquity has fled, and become envenomed with newer and more malignant inspirations. Thus the march of crime has far outstripped “the march of intellect,” and attained a monstrous, a colossal development. The knowledge of good and evil would seem to have imparted a fearful impulse to the latter principle; to have quickened, vivified, and expanded it into an awful and unprecedented magnitude. Hence old crimes have become new by being attended with unknown and unheard-of concomitants; and atrocities never dreamt of or imagined before have sprung up amongst us to cover us with confusion and dismay. No one who reads the following report of the regular system of murder, which seems to have been organised in Edinburgh, can doubt that it is almost wholly without example in any age or country. Murder is no novel crime; it has been done in the olden time as well as now; but murder perpetrated in such a manner, upon such a system, with such an object or intent, and accompanied by such accessory circumstances, was never, we believe, heard of before, and, taken altogether, utterly transcends and beggars every thing in the shape of tragedy to be found in poetry or romance. Even Mrs. Radcliffe, with all her talent for imagining and depicting the horrible, has not been able to invent or pourtray scenes at all to be compared, in point of deep tragical interest, with the dreadful realities of the den in the West Port. To show this, we shall endeavour to exhibit a faint sketch of the more prominent circumstances attending the murder of the woman Campbell or Docherty, as proved in evidence at the trial.
In the morning of a certain day in October last (the 31st) Burke chances to enter the shop of a grocer, called Rymer; and there he sees a poor beggar woman asking charity. He accosts her, and the brogue instantly reveals their common country. The poor old woman’s heart warms to her countryman, and she tells him that her name is Docherty, and that she has come from Ireland in search of her son. Burke, on the other hand, improves the acquaintance, by pretending that his mother’s name was also Docherty, and that he has a wondrous affection for all who bear the same euphonous and revered name. The old woman is perfectly charmed with her good fortune in meeting such a friend in such a countryman, and her heart perfectly overflows with delight. Burke, again, seeing that he has so far gained his object, follows up his professions of regard by inviting Mrs. Docherty to go with him to his house, at the same time offering her an asylum there. The poor beggar woman accepts the fatal invitation, and accompanies Burke to that dreadful den, the scene of many previous murders, whence, she is destined never to return. Here the ineffable ruffian treats her to her breakfast, and as her gratitude rises, his apparent attention and kindness increase. This done, however, he goes in search of his associate and accomplice Hare, whom he informs that he has “got a shot in the house,” and invites to come over at a certain time and hour specified “to see it done.” Betwixt eleven and twelve o’clock at night is fixed upon by these execrable miscreants for destroying the unhappy victim whom Burke had previously seduced into the den of murder and death; and then Burke proceeds to make the necessary arrangements for the commission of the crime. Gray and his wife, lodgers in Burke’s house, and whom the murderers did not think it proper or safe to entrust with the secret, are removed for that night alone: another bed is procured for them, and paid for, or offered to be paid for, by Burke. By and by the murderers congregate, and females, cognisant of their past deeds, as well as of the crime which was to be perpetrated, mingle with them in this horrid meeting. Spirituous liquor is procured and administered to the intended victim; they all drink mere or less deeply; sounds of mirth and revelry are heard echoing from this miniature pandæmonium; and a dance, in which they all, including the beggar woman, join, completes these infernal orgies. This is kept up for a considerable while, and is the immediate precursor of a deed which blurs the eye of day, and throws a deeper and darker shade around the dusky brow of night.
At length the time for “doing it” arrives. Burke and Hare got up a sham fight, to produce a noise of brawling and quarrelling, common enough in their horrid abode; and when this has been continued long enough as they think, Burke suddenly springs like a hungry tiger on his victim, whom one of his accomplices had, as if by accident, thrown down,—flings the whole weight of his body upon her breast,—grapples her by the throat,—and strangles her outright. Ten minutes or a quarter of an hour elapse while this murderous operation is going on, and ere it is completed; during the whole of which time Hare, by his own confession in the witness-box, sat upon the front of the bed, a cool spectator of the murder, without raising a cry or stretching out a hand to help the unhappy wretch thus hurried into eternity by his associate fiend Burke. As to the women (Helen M‘Dougal, Burke’s helpmate, and the wife of the miscreant Hare) they seem to have retreated into a passage closed in by an outer door, “when they saw him (Burke) on the top of her” (Docherty), and to have remained there while he was perpetrating the murder; without, however, uttering a single sound or doing a single act, calculated to interrupt the murderer in his work of blood, or to procure assistance to the dying victim. These she-devils were familiar with the work of death; and one of them, the wife of Hare, confessed it in the witness-box. She had seen, she said, such “tricks” before.
No language can add to the impression which these facts are calculated to produce. The succeeding events, however, are not less picturesquely horrifying. The murder was committed at eleven o’clock, and in an hour after, or at twelve, Burke fetches Paterson, the assistant or servant of a teacher of Anatomy in Edinburgh, to whom he was in the habit of selling the bodies of his victims, to the spot—the murdered body being by this time stuffed under the bed and covered with straw; and, pointing to that truly dreadful place, tells him that he has got a subject for him there, which will be ready for him in the morning. The demons then appear to have recreated themselves with fresh dozes of liquor; and about four or five in the morning, the two women already mentioned, with a fellow of the name of Broggan who had joined the party, after the deed was done,—laid down in the bed, beneath which the murdered body of Docherty, not yet cold in death, had been crammed, and went to sleep, some of them at least, as coolly as if nothing of the kind had occurred. When daylight returned, the tea-box, so often mentioned in the course of the trial, was procured, and the slaughtered body crammed into it, and sent off by the porter M‘Culloch, to Surgeons’ Square; after which Burke and his accomplice Hare set off for Newington to obtain the whole or part of the price of the subject they had procured by murder, and actually got five pounds, being one-half of the price agreed upon.[1]
Such is an imperfect and feeble outline of the facts of this case, in the course of which was disclosed the horrid and appalling fact, that, in certain holes and dens, both in the heart and in the outskirts of this city, murder had been reduced into a system, with the view of obtaining money for the bodies murdered; and that it was perpetrated in the manner least likely to leave impressed upon the body any evident or decisive marks of violence, being invariably committed by means of suffocation or strangling, during partial or total intoxication. The public is therefore to consider the present as only one out of many instances of a similar nature which have occurred. Hare’s wife admitted that she had witnessed many “tricks” of the same kind; and Hare himself, when undergoing the searching cross-examination of Mr. Cockburn—a cross-examination such as was never before exemplified in any Court of Justice—durst not deny that he had been concerned in other murders besides that of Docherty;—that a murder had been committed in his own house in the month of October last;—that he himself was a murderer, and his hands steeped in blood and slaughter: we say he durst not deny it, and only took refuge in “declining to answer” the questions put to him; which the Court of course apprised him he was entitled to do in regard to questions that went to criminate himself so deeply, and but for which caution we have little doubt that he would have confessed not merely accession, but a principal share in several murders. In fact, this “squalid wretch,” as Mr. Cockburn so picturesquely called him, from the hue and look of the carrion-crow in the witness-box, was disposed to be extremely communicative, and apparently had no idea that any thing he had stated was at all remarkable or extraordinary. Daft Jamie was murdered in this miscreant’s house, and he has mentioned some circumstances connected with the destruction of this poor innocent, calculated to form a suitable pendant to the description we have already given of the murder of Docherty. Jamie was enticed into Hare’s house by Burke, the usual decoy-duck in this traffic of blood (the appearance of Hare himself being so inexpressibly hideous that it would have scared even this moping idiot,) and he was plied with liquor for a considerable time. At first he refused to imbibe a single drop; but by dint of coaxing and perseverance, they at last induced him to take a little; and after he once took a little, they found almost no difficulty in inducing him to take more. At length, however, he became overpowered, and laying himself down on the floor, fell asleep. Burke, who was anxiously watching his opportunity, then said to Hare, “Shall I do it now?” to which Hare replied, “He is too strong for you yet; you had better let him alone a while.” Both the ruffians seem to have been afraid of the physical strength which they knew the poor creature possessed, and of the use he would make of it, if prematurely roused. Burke, accordingly, waited a little, but getting impatient to accomplish his object, he suddenly threw himself upon Jamie, and attempted to strangle him. This roused the poor creature, and, muddled as he was with liquor and sleep, he threw Burke off and got to his feet, when a desperate struggle ensued. Jamie fought with the united frenzy of madness and despair, and Burke was about to be overpowered, when he called out furiously to Hare to assist him. This Hare did by tripping up Jamie’s heels; after which both the ruffians got upon him, and, at length, though not even then without the greatest difficulty, succeeded in strangling him.
And all this has happened and has been carried on in a Christian country, and in the Metropolis of Scotland, without a breath of suspicion having been excited as to the existence of such hellish atrocities, till Gray lodged information at the Police Office of the murder of the woman Campbell or Docherty. It was said at the trial, that the public mind had been excited and inflamed on the subject to a degree wholly unprecedented; but how is it conceivable or possible that even the lightest whisper of such infernal deeds—of an organised system of murder—could find its way to the public, without producing this excitement, without kindling up every feeling of horror and indignation which the darkest and most unheard-of atrocities could possibly rouse in virtuous and untainted minds? This was a natural result of a great and unparalleled crime, or rather system of crimes; it was a result which no power or influence could prevent; it was a result which, even if it had been possible, ought not to have been prevented. But as this excitement existed—as it had more or less pervaded every mind—and as it might eventually, if not controlled, have interfered with and affected the administration of stern justice, it was right, nay it was necessary, both for the sake of public justice and also for the satisfaction of the country, that the prisoners should be ably and powerfully defended. Under this conviction, the head of the Bar of Scotland, in conjunction with some other of its brightest ornaments, came forward to offer their gratuitous services on the occasion; and certainly never was there a defence in any case conducted with more consummate ability—never perhaps was there a trial in which higher talent, greater experience, or more splendid and overmastering eloquence were displayed. And we rejoice that such has been the case. Conduct like this reflects eternal honour on the Bar; because there are instances in which it may throw a shield around innocence; while, in every case, it is calculated to preserve the course of justice pure and undefiled, as well to give additional satisfaction to the country, to create additional confidence in the purity of the law, and to beget a stronger feeling of security in the protection which it affords. The most atrocious crimes are precisely those which ought to be most cautiously and fully investigated; where prejudice of all sorts ought to be most anxiously excluded or counteracted; where every facility in the power of the Court to give, ought to be afforded to the prisoner, both in preparing for his defence and on his trial; where the rules of evidence ought to be most strictly adhered to, in so far as regards either the admissibility or credibility of testimony; where the accused should have the fullest benefit of every presumption in his favour; and where his defence, ought if possible, to be conducted with the greatest legal ability. Now Burke had all these advantages. The Court, in the exercise of the discretion with which it is entrusted, adjudged the trial of the prisoner to proceed upon only one of three separate acts of murder charged against him in the indictment; while the splendid array of Counsel, who voluntarily and gratuitously undertook the conduct of his defence, exerted their whole skill, talents, and eloquence, in his behalf. And we repeat that we rejoice at this; for, as was well observed by the Lord Advocate in addressing the Jury for the Crown upon the evidence which had been led, if the prisoner had any good defence, it was thus sure to have ample justice done to it; and if a conviction was obtained, it would be more satisfactory to the country, and infinitely more important to the purity and efficacy of the law.
In these circumstances, however, a conviction has been obtained against the pannel Burke—the prime murderer—the immediate and direct agent by whom the crime charged was committed—the agent also, we firmly believe, by whom not three but thirteen persons were slaughtered, with the intent of excambing their murdered bodies for gold; this monster, we say, has been convicted, and adjudged to suffer the highest punishment of the law: and, with a sort of poetical justice, he who made subjects of others, is to be made a subject himself, and he now knows that his vile carcass, when the hangman is done with it, will be subjected to the same process with the bodies of his murdered victims. The idea of hanging him in chains would have been out of all keeping with his crime; and hence, though once entertained, it was most properly and judiciously abandoned. But the conviction of Burke alone will not satisfy either the law or the country. The unanimous voice of society in regard to Hare is, Delendus est; that is to say, if there be evidence to convict him, as we should hope there is. He has been an accessory before or after the fact in nearly all of these murders; in the case of poor Jamie he was unquestionably a principal; and his evidence on Wednesday only protects him from being called to account for the murder of Docherty. We trust, therefore, that the Lord Advocate, who has so ably and zealously performed his duty to the country upon this occasion, will bring the “squalid wretch” to trial, and take every other means in his power to have these atrocities probed and sifted to the bottom.
Trial of William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal.
No trial in the memory of any man living has excited so deep, universal, and, we may almost add, appalling an interest as that of William Burke and his female associate, Helen M‘Dougal, which took place on Wednesday, 24th December, 1828. By the statements which from time to time appeared in the newspapers, public feeling had been worked up to the highest pitch of excitement, and the case, in so far as the miserable pannels were concerned, to a certain extent prejudiced by the natural abhorrence which the account of a new and unparalleled crime was calculated to excite. This, however, is an evil inseparable from the freedom, activity, and enterprise of the press, which is necessarily compelled to lay hold of the events of the passing hour, more especially when these are of an extraordinary or unprecedented kind: but it was more than atoned for by many countervailing advantages of the greatest moment to the interests of the community; and, besides, we are satisfied that any prejudice or prepossession thus created, was anxiously and effectually excluded from the minds of the jury, by whom this singular case was tried, and that they were swayed by no consideration except a stern regard to the sanction of their oaths, the purity of justice, and the import of the evidence laid before them. At the same time, it was not so much to the accounts published in the newspapers, which merely embodied and gave greater currency to the statements circulating in society, as to the extraordinary, nay, unparalleled circumstances of the case, that the strong excitement of the public mind ought to be ascribed. These were without any precedent in the records of our criminal practice, and, in fact, amounted to the realization of a nursery tale. The recent deplorable increase of crime has made us familiar with several new atrocities. Poisoning is now, it seems, rendered subsidiary to the commission of theft: stabbings, and attempts at assassination, are matters of almost every day occurrence: and murder has grown so familiar to us, that it has almost ceased to be viewed with that instinctive and inexpressible dread which the commission of the greatest crime against the laws of God and society used to excite. But the present was the first instance of murder alleged to have been perpetrated with the aforethought purpose and intent of selling the murdered body as a subject for dissection to anatomists: it was a new species of assassination, or murder for hire: and as such, no less than from the general horror felt by the people of this country at the process, from ministering to which the murderers expected their reward, it was certainly calculated to make a deep impression on the public mind, and to awaken feelings of strong and appalling interest in the issue of the trial.
Of the extent of the impression thus produced, and the feelings thus awakened, it was easy to judge from what was every where observable on Monday and Tuesday. The approaching trial formed the universal topic of conversation, and all sorts of speculations and conjectures were afloat as to the circumstances likely to be disclosed in the course of it, and the various results to which it would eventually lead. As the day drew near, the interest deepened; and it was easy to see that the common people shared strongly in the general excitement. The coming trial, they expected, was to disclose something which they had often dreamed of, or imagined, or heard recounted around an evening’s fire, like a tale of horror, or a raw-head-and-bloody-bones story, but which they never, in their sober judgment, either feared or believed to be possible; and hence, they looked forward to it with corresponding but indescribable emotions. In short, all classes participated more or less in a common feeling respecting the case of this unhappy man and his associate; all expected fearful disclosures; none, we are convinced, wished for any thing but justice.
As it was morally certain that a vast crowd would be assembled early on Wednesday, arrangements were made on Tuesday, under the immediate superintendence of Mr. Sheriff Duff, for the admission of jurymen by the door which connects the Signet Library with the Outer House, and also for the accommodation of the individuals connected with the public press. One half of the Court, the narrow dimensions of which have been often complained of, and in fact were never more seriously felt, was, as usual on such occasions, reserved for the members of the Faculty and the Writers to the Signet in their gowns.
So early as seven o’clock in the morning of Wednesday, a considerable crowd had assembled in the Parliament Square, and around the doors of the Court; and numerous applications for admission were made to the different subordinate functionaries, but in vain. The regulations previously agreed upon were most rigorously observed; while a large body of police, which was in attendance, maintained the utmost order, and kept the avenues to the Court unobstructed. The individuals connected with the press were conducted to the seats provided for them a little before eight o’clock; the members of the Faculty and of the Society of Writers to the Signet were admitted precisely at nine; and thus, with the jurymen impannelled, and a few individuals who had obtained the entrée in virtue of orders from the Judges, the Court became at once crowded in every part.
About twenty minutes before ten o’clock, the prisoners, William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, were placed at the bar. The male prisoner, as his name indicates, is a native of Ireland. He is a man rather below the middle size, but stoutly made, and of a determined, though not peculiarly sinister expression of countenance. The contour of his countenance, as well as his features, are decidedly Milesian. His face is round, with high cheek bones, grey eyes, a good deal sunk in the head, a short snubbish nose, and a round chin, but altogether of a small cast. His hair and whiskers, which are of a light sandy colour, comport well with the make of the head, and with the complexion which is nearly of the same hue. He was dressed in a shabby blue surtout, buttoned close to the throat, a striped cotton waistcoat, and dark-coloured small clothes, and had, upon the whole, what is called in this country a waugh rather than a ferocious appearance; though there is a hardness about the features, mixed with an expression in the grey twinkling eyes, far from inviting. The female prisoner is fully of the middle size, but thin and spare made, though evidently of large bone. Her features are long, and by no means disagreeable,—a pair of large, full, black eyes, imparting to them even something of interest and expressiveness; but the upper half of her face is out of proportion to the lower. She was miserably dressed in a small stone-coloured silk bonnet, very much the worse for the wear, a printed cotton shawl, and a cotton gown. She stoops considerably in her gait, and has nothing peculiar in her appearance, except the ordinary look of extreme penury and misery, common to unfortunate females of the same degraded class. Both prisoners, especially Burke, entered the Court without any visible signs of perturbation, and both seemed to attend very closely to the proceedings which soon after commenced.
The Court met at precisely a quarter past ten o’clock. The Judges present were, the Right Honourable the Lord Justice Clerk, and Lords Pitmilly, Meadowbank, and Mackenzie. Their Lordships having taken their seats, and the instance having been called,
The Lord Justice Clerk said—William Burke, and Helen M‘Dougal, pay attention to the indictment that is now to be read against you.
Mr. Patrick Robertson.—I object to the reading of the indictment. It contains charges which I hope to be able to show your Lordships are incompetent, and the reading of the whole of the libel must tend materially to prejudice the prisoners at the bar.
The Lord Justice Clerk.—I am unaccustomed to this mode of procedure. It depends upon the Court whether the indictment shall be read or not.
Mr. Patrick Robertson.—Certainly, my Lord; but I understand it is not necessary to read the indictment; and we object to its being done on the present occasion.
Lord Justice Clerk.—We have found but little advantage to result from the practice recently introduced of not reading the indictment. It has rendered constant explanations necessary, and consumes more time the one way than the other.
Mr. Cockburn.—We object to the indictment being read, because it is calculated to prejudice the prisoner. Our statement is, that it contains charges, the reading of which cannot fail to operate against him, and that these charges make no legal part of the libel.
Lord Meadowbank.—I am against novelties; I am against interfering with the discretion of the Court.
The indictment was then read as follows:—
William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, both present prisoners in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, you are indicted and accused at the instance of Sir William Rae of St. Catharine’s, Bart. his Majesty’s Advocate for his Majesty’s interest: That albeit, by the laws of this and of every other well governed realm, Murder, is a crime of an heinous nature and severely punishable: Yet true it is and of verity, that you the said William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal are both and each, or one or other of you, guilty of the said crime, actor or actors, or art and part: In so far as, on one or other of the days between the 7th and 16th days of April 1828, or on one or other of the days of that month, or of March immediately preceding, or of May immediately following, within the house in Gibb’s Close, Canongate, Edinburgh, then and now or lately in the occupation of Constantine Burke, then and now or lately scavenger in the employment of the Edinburgh Police Establishment, you the said William Burke did, wickedly and feloniously, place or lay your body or person, or part thereof, over or upon the breast or person and face of Mary Paterson or Mitchell, then or recently before that time, or formerly preceding, with Isabella Burnet or Worthington, then and now or lately residing in Leith Street, in or near Edinburgh, when she, the said Mary Paterson or Mitchell was lying in the said house, in a state of intoxication, did, by the pressure thereof, and by covering her mouth and nose with your body or person, and forcibly compressing her throat with your hands, and forcibly keeping her down, notwithstanding her resistance, or in some other way to the Prosecutor unknown, preventing her from breathing, suffocate or strangle her; and the said Mary Paterson or Mitchell was thus, by the said means or part thereof, or by some other means or violence, the particulars of which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly bereaved of life by you the said William Burke; and this you did with the wicked aforethought intent of disposing of, or selling the body of the said Mary Paterson or Mitchell, when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon, or some person in the employment of a physician or surgeon, as a subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious intent to the Prosecutor unknown. (2.) Further, on one or other of the days, between the 5th and 26th days of October 1828, or on one or other of the days of that month, or of September immediately preceding, or of November immediately following, within the house situated in Tanner’s Close, Portsburgh, or Wester Portsburgh, in or near Edinburgh, then and now or lately in the occupation of William Haire or Hare, then and now or lately labourer, you the said William Burke did wickedly and feloniously attack and assault James Wilson, commonly called or known by the name of Daft Jamie, then or lately residing in the house of James Downie, then and now or lately porter, and then and now or lately residing in Stevenlaw’s Close, High Street, Edinburgh, and did leap and throw yourself upon him, when the said James Wilson was lying in the said house, and he having sprung up, you did struggle with him, and did bring him to the ground, and you did place or lay your body or person, or part thereof, over or upon the person or body and face of the said James Wilson, and did by the pressure thereof, and by covering his mouth and nose with your person or body, and forcibly keeping him down, and compressing his mouth, nose, and throat, notwithstanding every resistance on his part, and thereby, or in some other manner to the Prosecutor unknown, preventing him from breathing, suffocate or strangle him; and the said James Wilson was thus, by the said means, or part of them, or by some other means or violence, the particulars of which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly bereaved of life and murdered by you the said William Burke; and this you did with the wicked aforethought and intent of disposing of or selling the body of the said James Wilson, when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon, or to some person in the employment of a physician or surgeon, as a subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious intent or purpose, to the Prosecutor unknown. (3.) Further, on Friday the 31st day of October 1828, or on one or other of the days of that month, or of September immediately preceding, or of November immediately following, within the house then or lately occupied by you the said William Burke, situated in that street of Portsburgh, or Wester Portsburgh, in or near Edinburgh, which runs from the Grassmarket of Edinburgh to Main Point, in or near Edinburgh, and on the north side of the said street, and having an access thereto by a trance or passage, entering from the street last above libelled, and having also an entrance from a court or back court on the north thereof, the name of which is to the Prosecutor unknown, you the said William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, did both and each, or one or other of you, wickedly and feloniously place or lay your bodies or persons, or part thereof, on the body or person or part thereof of one or other of you, over or upon the person or body and face of Madgy or Margery or Mary M‘Gonegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Docherty, then or lately residing in the house of Roderick Stewart or Stuart, then and now or lately labourer, and then and now or lately residing in the Pleasance, in or near Edinburgh; when she, the said Madgy or Margery, or Mary M‘Gonegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Docherty, was lying on the ground, and did, by the pressure thereof, and by covering her mouth and the rest of her face with your bodies or persons, or the body or person of one or other of you, and by grasping her by the throat, and keeping her mouth and nostrils shut, with your hands, and thereby, or in some other way to the Prosecutor unknown, preventing her from breathing, suffocate or strangle her; and the said Madgy or Margery, or Mary M‘Donegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Docherty, was thus, by the said means, or part thereof, or by some other means or violence, the particulars of which are to the Prosecutor unknown, wickedly bereaved of life, and murdered by you the said William Burke, and you the said Helen M‘Dougal, or one or other of you; and thus you, both and each, or one or other of you, did, with the wicked aforethought intent of disposing of or selling the body of the said Madgy or Margery or Mary M‘Gonegal, or Duffie, or Campbell, or Docherty, when so murdered, to a physician or surgeon, or to some person in the employment of a physician or surgeon, as a subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious intent or purpose to the Prosecutor unknown: And you, the said William Burke, having been taken before George Tait, Esq. sheriff-substitute of the shire of Edinburgh, you did in his presence, at Edinburgh, emit and subscribe five several declarations of the dates respectively following, viz.:—The 3d, 10th, 19th, and 29th days of November, and 4th day of December 1828: And you, the said Helen M‘Dougal, having been taken before the said sheriff-substitute, you did in his presence, at Edinburgh, emit two several declarations, one upon the 3d and another upon the 18th days of November 1828, which declarations were each of them respectively subscribed in your presence by the said sheriff-substitute, you having declared you could not write: which declarations being to be used in evidence against each of you by whom the same were respectively emitted; as also the skirt of a gown; as also a petticoat; as also a brass snuff-box, and a snuff-spoon, a black coat, a black waistcoat, a pair of moleskin trowsers, and a cotton handkerchief or neckcloth, to all of which sealed labels are now attached, being to be used in evidence against you, the said William Burke; as also a coarse linen sheet, a coarse pillow-case, a dark printed cotton gown, a red-stripped cotton bed-gown, to which a sealed label is now attached; as also a wooden box; as also a plan, entitled “Plan of Houses in Wester Portsburgh and places adjacent,” and bearing to be dated Edinburgh, 20th November 1828, and to be signed by James Braidwood, 22, Society, being all to be used in evidence against both and each of you, the said William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, at your trial, will for that purpose be in due time lodged in the hands of the clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, before which you are about to be tried, that you may have an opportunity of seeing the same. All which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an assize, or admitted by the respective judicial confessions of you the said William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, before the Lord Justice-General, the Lord Justice Clerk, and the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, you, the said William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal, ought to be punished with the pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming.
A. WOOD, A.D.
LIST OF WITNESSES.
1 George Tait, Esquire, sheriff-substitute of the shire of Edinburgh.
2 Archibald Scott, procurator-fiscal of said shire.
3 Richard John Moxey, now or lately clerk in the sheriff-clerk’s office, Edinburgh.
4 Archibald M‘Lucas, now or lately clerk in the sheriff-clerk’s office, Edinburgh.
5 Janet Brown, now or lately servant to, and residing with, Isabella Burnet or Worthington, now or lately residing in Leith Street, in or near Edinburgh.
6 The foresaid Isabella Burnet or Worthington.
7 Elizabeth Graham or Burke, wife of Constantine Burke, now or lately scavenger in the employment of the Edinburgh police, and now or lately residing in Gibb’s close, Canongate, Edinburgh.
8 The foresaid Constantine Burke.
9 Jean Anderson or Sutherland, wife of George Sutherland, now or lately silversmith, and now or lately residing in Middleton’s Entry, Potter-row, Edinburgh.
10 William Haire or Hare, present prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
11 Margaret Laird or Haire or Hare, wife of the foresaid William Haire or Hare, and present prisoner in the tolbooth of Edinburgh.
12 Jean M‘Donald or Coghill, wife of Daniel Coghill, now or lately shoemaker, and now or lately residing in South St. James’s street, in or near Edinburgh.
13 Margaret M‘Gregor, now or lately servant to, and residing with, John Clark, now or lately baker, and now or lately residing in Rose street, in or near Edinburgh.
14 Richard Burke, son of, and now or lately residing with, the foresaid Constantine Burke.
15 William Burke, son of, and now or lately residing with, the foresaid Constantine Burke.
16 Janet Wilson or Downie, wife of James Downie, now or lately porter, and now or lately residing in Stevenlaw’s close, High street, Edinburgh.
17 Mary Downie, daughter of, and now or lately residing with, the foresaid James Downie.
18 William Cunningham, now or lately scavenger in the employment of the Edinburgh police, and now or lately residing in Fairley’s Entry, Cowgate, Edinburgh.
19 George Barclay, now or lately tobacconist in North College street, in or near Edinburgh.
20 David Dalziell, now or lately copperplate printer, and now or lately residing with his father, George Dalziell, now or lately painter, and now or lately residing in North Fowlis’ close, High street, Edinburgh.
21 Margaret Newbigging or Dalziell, wife of the foresaid David Dalziell.
22 Joseph M‘Lean, now or lately tinsmith, and now or lately residing in Coul’s close, Canongate, Edinburgh.
23 Andrew Farquharson, now or lately sheriff-officer in Edinburgh.
24 George M‘Farlane, now or lately porter, and now or lately residing in Paterson’s court, Lawnmarket, Edinburgh.
25 John Brogan, now or lately in the employment of John Vallence, now or lately carter, and now or lately residing in Semple street, near Edinburgh.
26 Janet Lawrie or Law, wife of Robert Law, now or lately currier, and now or lately residing in Portsburgh or Wester Portsburgh, in or near Edinburgh.
27 Ann Black, or Connaway, or Conway, wife of John Connaway or Conway, now or lately labourer, and now or lately residing in Portsburgh or Wester Portsburgh aforesaid.
28 The foresaid John Connaway or Conway.
29 William Noble, now or lately apprentice to David Rymer, now or lately grocer and spirit-dealer in Portsburgh or Wester Portsburgh aforesaid.
30 James Gray, now or lately labourer, and now or lately residing with Henry M‘Donald, now or lately dealer in coals, and now or lately residing in the Grassmarket, Edinburgh.
31 Ann M‘Dougall or Gray, wife of the foresaid James Gray.
32 Hugh Alston, now or lately grocer, and now or lately residing in Portsburgh or Wester Portsburgh aforesaid.
33 Elizabeth Paterson, daughter of, and now or lately residing with, Isabella Smith or Paterson, now or lately residing in Portsburgh or Wester Portsburgh aforesaid.
34 The foresaid Isabella Smith or Paterson.
35 John M‘Culloch, now or lately porter, and now or lately residing in Alison’s close, Cowgate, Edinburgh.
36 John Fisher, now or lately one of the criminal officers of the Edinburgh police establishment.
37 John Findlay, now or lately one of the patrole of the Edinburgh police establishment.
38 James Paterson, now or lately lieutenant of the Edinburgh police establishment.
39 James M‘Nicoll, now or lately one of the serjeants of the Edinburgh police establishment.
40 Mary Stewart or Stuart, wife of Roderick Stewart or Stuart, now or lately labourer, and now or lately residing in the Pleasance, near Edinburgh.
41 The foresaid Roderick Stewart or Stuart.
42 Charles M‘Lauchlan, now or lately shoemaker, and now or lately residing with the foresaid Roderick Stewart or Stuart.
43 Elizabeth Main, now or lately servant to the foresaid William Haire or Hare.
44 Robert Knox, M. D. lecturer on Anatomy, now or lately residing in Newington place, near Edinburgh.
45 David Paterson, now or lately keeper of the Museum belonging to the foresaid Dr. Robert Knox, and now or lately residing in Portsburgh, or Wester Portsburgh aforesaid, with his mother, the foresaid Isabella Smith or Paterson.
46 Thomas Wharton Jones, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in West Circus place, in or near Edinburgh, with his mother, Margaret Cockburn or Jones.
47 William Ferguson, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in Charles street, in or near Edinburgh, with his brother, John Ferguson, now or lately writer.
48 Alexander Miller, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in the lodgings of Elizabeth Anderson or Montgomery, now or lately residing in Clerk street, in or near Edinburgh.
49 Robert Christison, M. D. now or lately Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in the University of Edinburgh.
50 William Pulteny Alison, M. D. now or lately Professor of the Theory of Physic in the University of Edinburgh.
51 William Newbigging, now or lately surgeon, and now or lately residing in St. Andrew’s square, Edinburgh.
52 Alexander Black, now or lately surgeon to the Edinburgh police establishment.
53 James Braidwood, now or lately builder, and master of fire-engines on the Edinburgh police establishment.
54 Alexander M‘Lean, now or lately sheriff-officer in Edinburgh.
55 James Evans, student of medicine, now or lately residing with Mr. James Moir, surgeon, residing in Tiviot-row, in or near Edinburgh.
A. WOOD, A. D.
Dean of Faculty.—We have given in separate defences, which may as well be read now,—beginning with the defences for the male prisoner.
The defences for Burke was then read as follows:
The pannel submits that he is not bound to plead to, or to be tried upon a libel, which not only charges him with three unconnected murders, committed each at a different time, and at a different place, but also combines his trial with that of another pannel, who is not even alleged to have had any concern with two of the offences of which he is accused. Such an accumulation of offences and pannels is contrary to the general and the better practice of the Court; it is inconsistent with right principle, and indeed, so far as the pannel can discover, is altogether unprecedented; it is totally unnecessary for the ends of public justice, and greatly distracts and prejudices the accused in their defence. It is therefore submitted that the libel is completely vitiated by this accumulation, and cannot be maintained as containing a proper criminal charge. On the merits of the case, the pannel has only to state that he is not guilty, and that he rests his defence on a denial of the facts set forth in the libel.
The defences for Helen M‘Dougal were next read as follows:
If it shall be decided that the prisoner is obliged to answer to this indictment at all, her answer to it is, that she is not guilty, and that the Prosecutor cannot prove the facts on which his charge rests. But she humbly submits that she is not bound to plead to it. She is accused of one murder committed in October 1828, in a house in Portsburgh, and of no other offence. Yet she is placed in an indictment along with a different person, who is accused of other two murders, each of them committed at a different time, and at a different place, it not being alleged that she had any connection with either of these crimes. This accumulation of pannels and of offences is not necessary for public justice, and exposes the accused to intolerable prejudice, and is not warranted, so far as can be ascertained, even by a single precedent.
Mr. Patrick Robertson then addressed the Court in support of the defences. In this indictment there were two prisoners named, but these two prisoners did not appear on the face of it to have any connection with each other. The major proposition contained a simple charge of murder, without specifying any aggravation. In the minor proposition, however, there were three distinct and totally unconnected charges of murder. The first was against Burke alone, and was charged as having been committed in April last, in a house in the Canongate. But it was not stated that he had any accomplices. He was the sole person charged with that offence. It appeared, indeed, from the description of the crime, that he was charged “with the wicked, aforethought purpose and intent, of disposing of and selling the body, when murdered, as a subject for dissection, or with some other wicked and felonious purpose and intent to the Prosecutor unknown.” But, while, on the one hand, there was no aggravation laid in the major proposition; yet on the other the Prosecutor did not confine himself to one species of intent, but libelled two—the intent to sell the body to the surgeons, and some other sort of vague undefined species of intent to the Prosecutor himself unknown. The second article in the indictment charged another murder, alleged to have been committed in the month of October, in a place called Tanner’s Close, in Wester Portsburgh. In this charge also William Burke is the only person accused of that offence, and the intent laid is the same as in the former instance. Then there was a charge of a third murder, committed at a different place and time, viz. at a house in Portsburgh on the 31st October; in which charge both William Burke and Helen M‘Dougal were included: and, after describing the offence, the intent libelled is the same as in the two former cases. Thus we had three murders charged against the prisoners; two against Burke alone, and one against Burke in conjunction with M‘Dougal; all of which were committed at different times and in different places, without any connection whatever between them: and these charges were laid without any aggravation. Then five different declarations by Burke, and two by M‘Dougal, were also libelled on, together with eight articles to be adduced as evidence against the former, and six against both; and in addition to all this, they were served with a list of fifty-five witnesses by whom these different and totally unconnected charges were to be proved. Now the question was, whether this charge, involving such an accumulation of unconnected offences, was consistent with our practice, with the humane principles of our law, and with that sound and proper discretion which the Court was not only entitled, but bound to exercise. But the first and most material point was, whether the prisoners would suffer prejudice by the mode in which the libel had been framed; for if that could be made out, it would justify their Lordships in the exercise of the discretion with which they were entrusted, in separating the different charges, or in selecting one prisoner, and postponing another, according to the circumstances of the case. The question then was, whether the prisoners would suffer prejudice in going to trial with the libel as it now stood. And, in considering this, it would be observed that it was not charged that there was any natural connection between the crimes committed. There was certainly none in law; and with the exception of the mode of the murder and the intent, there was not the slightest pretence for saying there was any connection between them. But the intent was not laid absolutely and peremptorily. It was conditional: “Either you committed these acts with the wicked, aforethought purpose and intent of selling the bodies to the surgeons for dissection, or with some other purpose or intent to the Prosecutor unknown.” This indeed would compel the Prosecutor to prove that the murder was committed for the purpose of handing over the bodies to dissection; but he might also bring in under it a very different purpose or object, as, for example, that it was done for the purpose of robbery, or to gratify private revenge. In the major proposition, however, there was no aggravation; and it was not said that there had been any conspiracy, that these murders were part of a system; they were laid as three unconnected offences, committed at different times and at different places. Now he prayed their Lordships to keep in mind that murder was not like any of the other offences which usually occurred in the practice of the Supreme Criminal Court; it was one which, in every case, when brought home to a pannel, was visited with the highest punishment of the law; and therefore it differed from all the offences to which it was sometimes likened, and required greater caution on the part of those by whom it was to be tried. As applicable to the case of Burke, however, three murders were charged; and this charge was calculated in the most serious degree to prejudice him. Each specific offence, it might be said, would require to be supported by its own specific evidence; but it was impossible to find any jury so dispassionate as not to borrow some light from the one to enable them to decide on the other; it was impossible for the jury to separate the evidence in one case from that in another; it was impossible that one murder not proved could be separated from any light thrown upon it by another not proved; nay, though neither the one nor the other might be proved, it might still be held, that upon the whole, from the massing or blending of unconnected acts, enough was made out to warrant a conviction. And all this was aggravated by the prejudice arising from the manner in which the alleged murders were said to have been committed, and in regard to which so strong a degree of excitement existed in the public mind. Then observe the oppression in the preparation of the trial; observe the situation in which the pannels were placed. Three murders were charged, with a list of fifty-five witnesses; besides seven declarations, five by the one, and two by the other. One set, it might be said, was against one prisoner, and the other against the other; but it was impossible so to separate, or to analyse the evidence as not to admit against the one evidence which was calculated to affect the other; and by thus mixing up and massing together the whole into an unnecessary accumulation of crime, to come to the same conclusion in regard to both. Look to the case of Helen M‘Dougal, and it will be seen the prejudice must operate still more strongly against her. She is accused of only one crime, and it is not said that she had any connection with the others. But this charge of murder, committed in the latter end of October, is brought to trial, combined with two others committed, one in April, six months previously, and the other in the beginning of October. Where is this to stop? If the Prosecutor is allowed to proceed in this way, may he not on the same principle combine ten murders against ten prisoners, accused of ten different offences, committed in as many different counties? He submitted that there must be some limitation; and the question was, whether the Court could sustain the present charge by which one individual, accused of one offence, is mixed up with another, accused of two, with which she is not alleged to have had any concern. Imagine this case. At the end of the indictment, eight articles were specified against Burke, and six more against Burke and M‘Dougal conjointly. Take the first—the skirt of a gown—and suppose it proved against Burke alone. It could not be adduced as evidence against Helen M‘Dougal. But suppose it was traced into her possession, and that a witness was called to prove that it belonged to Mary Paterson or Mitchell. This would be conclusive as to M‘Dougal’s connection with Burke. But it might be said that the Judge would tell the Jury to strike this out of their notes. That was an easy operation; but could they strike it out of their minds as easily as out of their notes? Then in what circumstances would Helen M‘Dougal be placed? An article not libelled against her would be checkmate to her defence. She would be taken by surprise,—she would be thrown off her guard; and although the gown had come fairly and honestly into her possession she could produce no evidence to instruct the fact. He put this as an illustration. So far as the female prisoner was concerned it would be fatal.
But was this a legal proceeding? If there be a prejudice existing, the prisoner is entitled to the fairest possible defence. The more atrocious the offence, the more guarded and cautious ought to be the modes of procedure. So far, however, as they could discover from the records of the Court, this was the first case in which it had been attempted to charge three murders in the same indictment. There had been several instances of three persons slain at the same time, as in the Aberdeen riots, by a discharge of musketry, and in the case where a whole family was poisoned: these, however, as Mr. Hume observed, were all parts of the same foul and atrocious offence. But there was no example, in the history of the Court, of combining three unconnected offences against one person; far less of combining three against one person who was not alleged to have any connection with two of them, and was only implicated in a third, which had no manner of connection with those which preceded it. Sir George Mackenzie, who would not be suspected of any partiality to the prisoner, laid down the principle most clearly, that different parties ought not to be thus combined in an indictment. “A person accused,” says he, “was not obliged to answer of old but for one crime in one day, except where there were several pursuers, Quoniam Attachiamenta, cap. 65. by which, accumulation of crimes was expressly unlawful, sed hodie aliter obtinet, for now there is nothing more ordinar nor to see five or six persons in one summonds or indictment; and to see one accuser pursue several summondses; and yet seeing crimes are of so great consequence to the defender, and are of so great intricacy, it appears most unreasonable that a defender should be burthened with more than one defence at once; and it appears that accumulation of crimes is intended, either to læse the fame of the defender, or to distract him in his defence.” Title 19, § 7. Here the principle was brought out in the clearest manner—that salutary principle which says that no man ought to be called upon to answer to more than one crime in one libel; since the accumulation of crimes was calculated “either to læse the fame of the prisoner, or to distract him in his defence.” The learned Counsel then referred to the work of Mr. Baron Hume. That learned author treats of the accumulation of crimes under different heads: first, of those which are of one name and species, and of one class and general description; secondly, of those criminal acts, though of different kinds and appellations, have a natural relation and dependence; and, thirdly, of that sort of cumulatio actionum, which consists in the charging of several persons in the same libel with separate and unconnected crimes. The first of these, he argued, had no relation to the present case, because it did not include murder. All the cases referred to were cases of housebreaking and theft; and though the former was a capital offence, yet it was a very different one from murder. No case of the latter was indeed quoted. The author treated merely of connected crimes, as robbery and murder. But no injury was done by such accumulation. They were parts of the same foul and atrocious proceeding, and they had a natural and necessary dependence. But in the present case there was no natural dependence, and not even an allegation that the prisoners were connected.
He then proceeded to the consideration of heterogenous charges, as of murder and of theft. Some of these, he said, were not cases to be followed at the present day: and he instanced that of Walter Buchanan, who was accused of ten different crimes in one libel; namely, fire-raising, attempts at fire-raising, attempts to poison, theft, reset of theft, the harbouring, out-hounding, and maintaining of thieves and robbers, sorning and levying black mail, and killing and eating of other people’s sheep. Here, however, the Lords restricted the trial to the more special charges. He now came to the principle, and mentioned a case in 1784, when the Lord Advocate did depart from several of the charges. In regard to accumulation of parties, Mr. Hume put a case of several persons being called to answer in one libel for the same fact; but then, observe the remedy. “On any occasion when they see cause, especially if it appear that the Prosecutor meant to lay the pannels under this disadvantage (he begged to disclaim any insinuation that such was the intention of the Prosecutor in the present instance,) the Court may and will separate the trials of the several culprits, and send those to an assize, in the first place, by themselves, who are meant to be called as witnesses for the others,” vol. ii. p. 170. The learned Counsel then proceeded to the third sort of cumulatio actionum, that of charging several persons in the same libel with separate and unconnected offences, and contended very ably that the case before the Court fell under this description.
