A few years ago, I was one day exchanging reminiscences of a long bygone

generation with a brother journalist, when, on this gruesome subject being

mentioned, he placed in my hands a report of the trial of the murderers of

Carlo Ferrari, which appeared to have been detached from a volume of

criminal trials. No feature of the horrible record impressed me so much as

the cool, business-like manner in which the wretches concerned in the

crime hawked the corpse of their victim from one school of anatomy to

another, and the equally cool and business-like manner in which the matter

was dealt with by those with whom their nefarious occupation brought them

in contact. The procuring of corpses for anatomical purposes was, in fact,

a regular trade, and the biographer of Sir Astley Cooper states that "the

Resurrection-men were occasionally employed on expeditions into the

country to obtain possession of the bodies of those who had been subjected

to some important operation, and of which a _post mortem_ examination was

of the greatest interest to science. Scarcely any distance from London was

considered an insuperable difficulty in the attaining of this object, and

as certainly as the Resurrectionist undertook the task, so certain was he

of completing it. This was usually an expensive undertaking, but still it

did not restrain the most zealous in their profession from occasionally

engaging these men in this employment." The price of a subject ranged from

seven to twelve guineas, but when the "body-snatchers" were specially

employed to procure some particular corpse, the incidental expenses were

often as much more.

As an illustration of the times in which such horrors were possible, the

story of the murder of Carlo Ferrari may, at this distance of time from

the event, be worth telling. In the autumn of 1831, there lived in one of

a row of small houses, known as Nova Scotia Gardens, in the

poverty-stricken district of Bethnal Green, a man named John Bishop, with

his wife and three children. He had formerly been a carrier at Highgate,

but had long been suspected of "body-snatching," as the practice of

robbing graves was termed, and had no visible means of honest living. He

had the look of a man whose original rustic stolidity had been

supercharged with cockney cunning. The house adjoining Bishop's was

occupied by a man named Woodcock, who had succeeded in the tenancy a

glass-blower named Thomas Williams, described as a little, simple-looking

man, of mild and inoffensive demeanour. About two o'clock on the morning

of the 4th of November, Woodcock was awakened by a noise, as of a scuffle,

in Bishop's house, and afterwards heard two men leave it and return in a

few minutes, when he recognised the voices as those of Bishop and

Williams. At noon the same day these two men were in a neighbouring

public-house, accompanied by two other men, one of whom was known as James

May, who had formerly been a butcher, but for the last few years had been

suspected of following the same ghastly and revolting occupation as

Bishop. In the afternoon three men alighted from a cab at Nova Scotia

Gardens, two of them being recognised as Bishop and Williams, and

afterwards returned to the vehicle, when the former and the third man were

carrying something in a sack, which they placed in the cab. The three men

then entered, and it was driven off.

About seven o'clock the same evening, Bishop and May presented themselves

at Guy's Hospital, carrying something in a sack, and asked the porter if a

"subject" was wanted. Receiving a negative reply, they asked him to allow

"it" to remain there until the next morning, to which he consented.

Half-an-hour later, the two traffickers in human flesh called at

Grainger's anatomical theatre, in Webb Street, Southwark, and told the

curator they had "a very fresh male subject, about fourteen years of age."

The offer being declined, they went away, and later on they were,

accompanied by Williams, in a public-house, where May was seen by a waiter

to pour water on a handkerchief containing human teeth, and then rub the

teeth together, remarking that they were worth two pounds to him.

Next morning, May called upon a dentist named Mills, on Newington

Causeway, and sold a dozen teeth to him for a guinea, observing that they

were the teeth of a boy fourteen years of age. On examining them, Mills

found that morsels of the gums and splinters of the jaw were adhering to

them, as if much force had been used to wrench them out. Two hours later,

Bishop and May called again at the anatomical theatre in Southwark, and

repeated their offer of the preceding evening, which was again declined.

Shortly afterwards, they went to Guy's Hospital, accompanied by Williams

and a man named Shields, to remove the "subject" left there the evening

before, and it was given to them in the sack, as they had left it, and

placed in a large hamper, which Shields had brought for the purpose. There

was a hole in the sack, through which the porter saw a small foot

protruding, apparently that of a boy or a woman.

About midnight, the bell of King's College was rung, and the porter, on

going to the gate, found there Bishop and May, whom he had seen there

before, it seems, and on similar business. May asked him if anything was

wanted, and receiving an indifferent answer, added that they had a male

"subject," a boy about fourteen years of age. The porter inquired the

price, and was told they wanted twelve guineas for it. He then said he

would ask Mr. Partridge, the demonstrator in anatomy, and they followed

him to a room adjoining the dissecting room. Nine guineas were offered,

which May, with an oath, refused, and went outside. Bishop then said to

the porter, "Never mind May, he is drunk; it shall come in for nine in

half-an-hour." They then went away, returning at the stipulated time,

accompanied by Williams and Shields, the latter carrying on his head the

hamper containing the corpse brought from Guy's Hospital. It was taken

into a room, where it was opened, and the corpse turned out of the sack by

May. The porter, observing a cut on the left temple, and that the left arm

was bent and the fingers clenched, conceived suspicions of foul play, and

communicated them at once to Mr. Partridge. That gentleman thereupon

examined the corpse, and mentioned its condition to the secretary, who

immediately gave information to the police.

In order to detain the men until the arrival of the police, the

demonstrator showed them a L50 note, observing that he must get it changed

for gold before he could pay them. Several constables were soon on the

spot, and the four men were arrested, and taken to the station-house in

Vine Street, Covent Garden. On being charged on suspicion with having

unlawful possession of a corpse, May said he had nothing to do with it,

and had merely accompanied Bishop. A similar statement was made by

Williams, and Bishop said he was only removing the corpse from St.

Thomas's Hospital to King's College. Shields, who was known as a porter,

said he was employed to carry the hamper, which he did in the exercise of

his vocation. They were all then removed to the cells.

The evidence given at the coroner's inquest by Partridge and two other

surgeons left no doubt that the unfortunate lad, respecting whose identity

there was no evidence, had been killed by a violent blow on the back of

the neck, which had affected the spinal cord. The four accused men were

present in custody during the inquiry, and Bishop, after reading a bill

relating to the murder, which was displayed on the wall of the room, was

heard by a constable to say, in a subdued tone, to May, "It was the blood

that sold us." Volunteering to give evidence, he said he got the corpse

from a grave, but declined to name the place whence he had got it,

alleging that the information would get into trouble two watchmen, who

had large families. May also made a voluntary statement, to the effect

that he got two "subjects" from the country, which he took first to

Grainger's theatre of anatomy, and afterwards to Guy's Hospital,

subsequently meeting Bishop, who promised him all he could get for a

"subject" above nine guineas if he would sell it for him. The inquest was

adjourned, and the police proceeded with their investigation.

The houses of Bishop and May had been promptly visited and searched by the

police, who found at the former's a sack, a large hamper, and a brad-awl,

the last showing recent bloodstains. At May's house in Dorset Street, New

Kent Road, they found a pair of breeches, stained with blood at the back.

On a second visit to Bishop's house the garden was dug over, and a jacket,

trousers, and a shirt found in one spot, and in another a coat, trousers,

a vest with blood on the collar and one shoulder, and a shirt with the

front torn. When the brad-awl was produced at Bow Street police-court, May

said, "That is the instrument I punched the teeth out with." Shields was

eventually discharged from custody, but the other three prisoners were

committed for trial on the capital charge.

The identity of the victim remained a mystery until the 19th of November,

a fortnight after the murder, when the corpse was recognised by a

foreigner named Brun as that of a boy named Carlo Ferrari, whom he had

brought from Italy two years before, but had not seen since July, 1830.

The boy picked up the means of living by exhibiting a tortoise and a pair

of white mice in the streets. He had been seen by several persons in or

near Nova Scotia Gardens on the 3rd of November, but he had not been seen

since, nor had he returned on that day to his miserable lodgings in

Charles Street, Drury Lane. The clothes found in Bishop's garden

corresponded with the description given of those worn by him when he was

last seen, and a little boy who played with Bishop's children stated that

they had, on the following day, shown him two white mice in a cage similar

to the one carried by Ferrari.

The incidents of the crime, as revealed from day to day, and the mystery

in which the identity of the victim was for some time veiled, created so

much excitement in the public mind, that when the prisoners were placed

in the dock at the Old Bailey, early in December, the court was crowded,

and a guinea each was paid for seats in the gallery, the occupants of

which, all fashionably dressed, as might be expected of those who could

afford to pay that price for the gratification of their love of the

sensational, had taken their seats the day before. Though the evidence was

but a recapitulation of the story told before in the police-court and the

inquest-room, it was listened to with the utmost avidity. The witnesses

for the defence were few, and their evidence valueless, except in the case

of May, for whom an _alibi_ was established in respect of the time between

the afternoon of the day preceding the murder and noon on the following

day. The prisoners were sentenced to death, but in May's case the sentence

was commuted into transportation for life. A sea-faring relative of mine,

who was second officer of the vessel in which May was sent out to Sydney,

described him as an athletic, wiry-looking man, with features expressive

of sternness, and a determined will, quite a different-looking man,

therefore, to his two companions in crime, who were duly hanged at

Newgate.

The crime of these men, and the deeds of Burke and Hare, created such a

scare, and exposed so vividly the temptation to murder afforded by the

prices paid by surgeons for "subjects," that the attention of parliament

was directed to the matter, and a Select Committee of the House of Commons

was appointed to inquire and report as to the facilities which might be

given for obtaining bodies for anatomical purposes in a legitimate manner.

Sir Astley Cooper, who was one of the eminent surgeons who gave evidence

before this committee, was asked whether the state of the law prevented

teachers of anatomy from obtaining the body of any person, which, in

consequence of some peculiarity of structure, they might be desirous of

procuring. He replied:--"The law does not prevent our obtaining the body

of an individual if we think proper; for there is no person, let his

situation in life be what it may, whom, if I were disposed to dissect, I

could not obtain.... The law only enhances the price, and does not prevent

the exhumation. Nobody is secured by the law; it only adds to the price of

the subject." The result of this inquiry was the passing of the Anatomy

Act, by which the bodies of persons dying in hospitals and workhouses, if

unclaimed by the relatives, may be placed at the disposal of the schools

of anatomy.

Reminiscences of the Cholera.

BY THOMAS FROST.

It is now more than sixty years since the strange and mysterious

visitation, as it was then considered, known as the cholera morbus, for

which fearsome name that of Asiatic cholera has since been substituted,

made its first appearance in this country, or anywhere west of the Ural

Mountains. Coming first from India, from the banks of the Ganges and the

Indus, the dread pestilence moved steadily westward and north-westward

until, creeping along the rivers of Russia, and desolating all the most

considerable towns of that country, it reached St. Petersburg. There it

raged with fearful severity, mowing down as with the scythe of Death more

than a thousand persons daily. So dreadful were the features of the

unknown malady, and so rapidly were its victims carried off, that the

ignorant populace of the capital attributed it to poison administered by

the doctors. A fearful tumult was excited by this belief, and it was with

great difficulty that it was suppressed.

From Russia the dire disease spread rapidly into almost every country in

Europe, and wherever it appeared created the profoundest awe and the most

bewildering terror. In Paris it broke out with extreme malignity in March,

1832, and soon raged there with greater virulence than it had exhibited in

any other city in Europe except St. Petersburg. The deaths soon reached

from four to five hundred daily, and during April they rose to a total for

the month of twelve thousand seven hundred. It was hinted that the ravages

of this new and dreadful disease were caused by the poisoning of the meat

sold in the markets and the water in the public fountains; and the

dwellers in the slums became so infuriated by this horrible and absurd

rumour that mobs perambulated the streets howling for vengeance on the

poisoners. Many unfortunate persons were murdered in the streets on being

denounced as the perpetrators of these imaginary crimes, and so paralysed

was the arm of justice by the influence of terror that nothing was done to

vindicate the majesty of the law. Everyone who could afford to leave Paris

fled from it with precipitation, and the city was abandoned to desolation

and anarchy. The legislative labours of the two Chambers were suspended,

and the peers and deputies were the first to set the example of flight,

though Louis Philippe and his family continued to reside at the Tuileries,

with an occasional sojourn of a few days at Neuilly.

I have a vivid recollection of the mingled awe and terror which this fell

disease inspired when it was announced that it had crossed the sea and

made its first victims in this country. It had made its way across the

continent from town to town on the banks of the great rivers, but into

England it was imported by sick sailors. Many generations had passed away

since anything like a pestilence had been known in England, and the

cholera therefore created a panic among all classes of the people, which

served to augment its virulence and render those of a nervous temperament

more liable to be attacked by it. Doctors were utterly unacquainted with

its proper treatment, and indeed had no knowledge whatever of the disease.

Hence it raged without check wherever it appeared, and the rapidity with

which it carried off its victims added to the terror inspired by its

approaches. The first death at Lower Norwood, where my parents then

resided, was that of the pastor of the Independent Chapel, situated only

two doors from my father's house. He died in a few hours from the time he

experienced the premonitory symptoms, and such was the dread of infection

that the corpse was buried the same night by torchlight, in the

burial-ground of the chapel, wrapped in a sheet coated with pitch.

Though a period of seventeen years separated the first cholera epidemic

from the second, the lessons which the former should have taught had not

been so well learned as they should have been, and the latter, with which

these reminiscences are chiefly concerned, inspired a wild, unreasoning

terror in only a little less degree than that of 1832.

I remember a case at Mitcham, in which the women attending a patient were

seized with a panic on the approach of death, and rushed out of the house,

leaving the poor wretch, a woman, to die alone, the corpse being

afterwards found rigid and distorted.

The apparently erratic manner in which the disease spread, sometimes

carrying off victims from one side of a street and sparing the other side,

sometimes smiting every member of a family in one house, and passing over

all the other houses in the same street, was a puzzle to persons who had

given no attention to the causes of the disease, and were content to

regard it as a sign of the wrath of God, reasoning about the matter as

little as did the Israelites whose relatives were swept off at

Kibroth-hattaavah. They had not given sufficient attention to the laws of

health to understand that the disease found its victims where those laws

were neglected, whether from carelessness or from ignorance.

I remember two cases at Croydon in which all the inmates of the houses in

which the disease manifested its dread presence were carried off by it.

One occurred in a cottage in St. James's Road, one of a row which had

originally been level with the road, but had become overshadowed by the

approach to the railway bridge. There were three victims in that house,

and no other case in the same row, or in the neighbourhood. The other case

occurred in King Street, one of several narrow, closely-built streets in

the centre of the town, and the victims were a widow and her only child,

the latter dying not alone, for, like Byron's Haidee,--

"----she held within

A second principle of life, which might

Have dawned a fair and sinless child of sin;

But closed its little being without light,

And went down to the grave unborn, wherein

Blossom and bough lie withered with one blight."

A remarkable incident occurred while the fell disease was in the full

swing of its ravages. The wife of a working man living in the Old Town, a

low-lying and densely populated quarter, was attacked by it, and at once

removed to a temporary hospital that had been established on Duppas Hill,

a tabular eminence overlooking the town, and in the thirteenth century the

scene of the tournament in which the son of Earl Warrenne was by

misadventure slain. There her husband went, on his return from labour, to

ascertain her condition, and heard with a shock which the reader may

imagine that she was dead. When the poor fellow had in some degree

recovered from the blow, he expressed a wish to see the corpse and take it

to his home. He seems to have been unable to realise that his wife was

really dead, though the nurses and doctors assured him that she had passed

away. The idea that life yet lingered in the form that was apparently

lifeless grew upon him as he gazed and though he may never have read "The

Giaour," he may have felt the force of the thought so finely expressed by

Byron in the lines that introduce his picture of the Greece of his day:--

"He who hath bent him o'er the dead,

Ere the first day of death is fled,

The first dark day of nothingness,

The last of danger and distress

(Before Decay's effacing fingers

Have swept the lines where beauty lingers),

And marked the mild angelic air,

The rapture of repose that's there,

The fixed yet tender traits that streak

The languor of the pallid cheek,

And--but for that sad shrouded eye,

That fires not, wins not, weeps not, now,

And but for that chill, changeless brow,

Where cold Obstruction's apathy

Appals the gazing mourner's heart,

As if to him it could impart

The doom he dreads, yet dwells upon;

Yes, but for these, and these alone,

Some moments, aye, one treacherous hour,

He still might doubt the tyrant's power;

So fair, so calm, so softly sealed,

The first, last look by death revealed!"

Whether it was feeling or reason that inspired the thought that life yet

lingered in the apparently inanimate, but not yet rigid form, which the

loving husband conveyed to his humble dwelling, it was undoubtedly to that

inspiration that the woman owed her preservation from death. For she was

not dead. Signs of returning animation were perceived when the supposed

corpse was placed upon the bed, and the neighbour women who came in to

perform the last sad offices for the dead were there to welcome her on her

return to life. I will not attempt to describe the feelings with which the

husband beheld the eyelids of his wife unclose, and the rose-tints return

to the pallid cheeks. Like the Greek painter who, conscious of the

inadequacy of his art to fully portray the grief of Agamemnon for the loss

of his son, covered the countenance of the old king with a veil, I draw

the curtain upon the scene, and leave it to the imagination of the reader.

Among the remedies for the cholera which came into vogue during the

prevalence of the epidemic of 1849, the rubbing of the stomach with brandy

and salt obtained a considerable degree of repute; and the chemists vied

with each other, as in the recent epidemics of influenza, in the

concoction and advertising of various cholera mixtures, one of the most

efficacious of which was a preparation of opium and chalk.

The lessons of the cholera were not so entirely neglected on this occasion

as they were after the epidemic of 1832; but it is a sad reflection on our

legislation that we were indebted to the ravages of disease, or rather to

the fear inspired by them, for sanitary reforms which ought to have

resulted from foresight. There had been sanitary inquiries by Royal

Commissions between 1842 and 1849, but little had been done towards

carrying out the recommendations which resulted from them. The existence

of cholera in India, and the causes which produced it, had long been

known; but so long as its ravages were confined to the people of that

country no one seemed to think that it concerned the people of England. It

was known, too, that whatever might be the true causes of zymotic

diseases, concerning which medical opinions differed, accumulations of

filth, contaminated sources of water supply, and an impure condition of

the atmosphere tended to produce their outbreaks, and to aggravate their

virulence. But then we had been used to these evils since the days of the

Plantagenets, and though they had become intensified with the increase of

population and the growth of the large towns, had not Malthus taught us

that epidemics of disease were one of the means used by divine providence

to prevent the numbers of the human race from exceeding the means of

subsistence?

The cholera epidemic of 1849 roused the public mind from its lethargy, and

prepared it to act upon the recommendations of the General Board of Health

and to comply with the Sanitary Act of that year. The old wells of London

were closed, and the like course was adopted in Croydon, where a constant

supply of practically pure water was obtained by boring down to the chalk.

Other towns followed the example, one of the foremost being Birmingham,

which received a supply which enabled the inhabitants to dispense with the

insalubrious rain-water butt. Sewerage works were undertaken where no

efficient system of drainage had before existed. Attention was called to

the important questions of sewage disposal and the pollution of rivers;

and though much even now remains to be done in this direction, and in the

improvement of the water supply of the large manufacturing towns of

Yorkshire and Lancashire, sanitation has been cleared of most of its

difficulties by better knowledge of the philosophy of cause and effect, so

that we no longer regard the calamities resulting from our own ignorance

and neglect of the laws of nature as the inflictions of Providence.

Some Old Doctors.

BY MRS. G. LINNAEUS BANKS.

It is not my intention to go back to those Greek fathers of the healing

art, Hippocrates and Galen, or to dwell on the days when every monastery

held within its walls some learned brother accredited to administer to

bodies as well as souls diseased, or when the mistress of every feudal

castle, every baronial-hall, was trained and skilled in leechcraft,

distilled herbs, concocted potions and unguents, and not only physicked

her household, but was prepared to staunch and dress the gaping wounds

received in siege or tournay. Nor yet have we ought to do with those

pretenders to science who mingled astrology with pharmacy, ascribed to

every plant its ruling planet, and held that the potency of all herbs

depended on the conjunction of planets, or the phase of the moon under

which they were gathered--a belief, indeed, under which old Nicholas

Culpepper compiled his well-known "Herbal" early in the seventeenth

century.

The Doctor in History, Literature, Folk-Lore, Etc. · 第 8 / 13 段