West Port murders, or an authentic account of the atrocious murders committed by Burke and his associates; containing a full account of all the extraordinary circumstances connected with them. Also, a report of the trial of Burke and M'Dougal. With a description of the execution of Burke, his confessions, and memoirs of his accomplices, including the proceedings against Hare, &c.

  • Burke, William, 1792-1829.
Date:
1829
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: West Port murders, or an authentic account of the atrocious murders committed by Burke and his associates; containing a full account of all the extraordinary circumstances connected with them. Also, a report of the trial of Burke and M'Dougal. With a description of the execution of Burke, his confessions, and memoirs of his accomplices, including the proceedings against Hare, &c. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    41/392 (page 31)
    Even the case of 1784 itself was not opposed to the principle. There, there was connection. The case of Surridge and Dempster was mentioned as a case of two murders, as a case where more than one murder was charged in the indict- ment; but these were clearly partes ejusdem negotii; they were committed in immediate sequence and in furtherance of the same “ foul and atrocious design.” It was quite plain, therefore, that the cases quoted did not apply ; that they had no bearing whatever on the present case, where three different and unconnected murders were charged against the same indivi- dual, and where another party was mixed up with him in one of the alleged crimes. Were they not entitled, then, to ask their Lordships, in the exercise of a sound discretion, (which it was not denied the Court possessed) “ to divide and parcel out” the charges in this indictment, and to find it incompetent to go to trial upon it as it presently stood ? The Learned Counsel then adverted to the state of the law of England on this sub- ject, commenting on the passage quoted by Mr. Robertson from the work of Chitty, and concluded by observing that this was in all respects a most serious case, and deserved the utmost at- tention of the Court. No instance of three murders charged in one indictment had happened in his time ; many instances had indeed occurred in former times; yet it had never been the practice to try the charges in cumulo. But the more anomalous and unprecedented the case, the more necessary was it to the ends of justice, and the more important to the law, that it should be proceeded in with the utmost caution. Their Lordships then delivered their opinions on the ob- jection which had been raised and so ably argued by the pri- soner’s Counsel. Lord Pitmilly.—The Court were peculiarly circum- stanced in being called upon to give an opinion on an indictment in a case, part of which must unquestionably go to trial. He was quite clear that one of the charges must undergo an investigation ; that the trial to that extent must proceed. But Counsel were by no means precluded from stating the objection they had brought forward, and which, appearing to them in the light it did, it became their duty to press upon the attention of the Court. This accordingly they had done with equal zeal and ability, in a manner which did honour to themselves, and reflected credit on the Bar of Scotland. But it was the duty of the Court to be calm and guarded; to express their opinions in a dignified and dispassionate manner ; and to avoid any thing which was either calculated to unsettle the established principles of that