It is well-nigh impossible to read of all these misdoings and not to ask
why the Government did not step in and put a stop to them? It was urged by
many that a short Act should be passed, making the violation of a grave a
penal offence, as it was in France. There was a general agreement that
anatomical education was absolutely necessary for medical men, and that
this education was an impossibility without a supply of subjects; yet
there was a great reluctance to interfere by legislation. The Home
Secretary told a deputation that there was no difficulty in drawing up an
effective Bill; the great obstacle was the prejudice of the people against
any Bill; this impediment, he added, had not been trifling.
By no class of men was legislation more earnestly asked for than by the
teachers of anatomy; to them the system then in vogue was not only
degrading, but it meant absolute ruin.
There was at that time no property in a dead body, and a prosecution for
felony could not take place unless some portion of the grave-clothes or
coffin could be proved to have been stolen with the body. The
resurrection-men were well aware of this fact, and generally took
precaution to keep themselves out of the meshes of the law.
There had been some successful prosecutions like that of Holmes and
Williams before mentioned, but magistrates would not always convict.
In 1788 this question first came before the Court of King's Bench in the
case of Rex _v._ Lynn. The indictment charged the prisoner with entering a
certain burial-ground, and taking a coffin out of the earth, and removing
a body, which he had taken from the coffin, and carrying it away, for the
purpose of dissecting it. For the defence the following passage from Lord
Coke was quoted: "It is to be observed that in every sepulchre that hath a
monument two things are to be considered, viz., the monument, and the
sepulture or burial of the dead: the burial of the cadaver is _nullius in
bonis_, and belongs to Ecclesiastical cognizance; but as to the monument,
action is given at the common law for defacing thereof." The only Act of
Parliament which was said to bear on the subject was that of 1 Jac. I., c.
12, which made it felony to steal bodies for purposes of witchcraft. The
Court, however, held in this case of Rex _v._ Lynn that to take a body
from a burial-ground was an offence at common law, and _contra bonos
mores_. In the judgment it was stated that as the defendant might have
committed the crime through ignorance, no person having been before
punished for this offence, the Court only fined him five marks. The
reference here, to no one having been previously punished for a like
offence, refers only to the Superior Courts, as there had been convictions
at the Police Courts and the Old Bailey. Despite this decision of the
Court, prosecutions were very seldom undertaken, although Southwood
Smith[19] states that there had been fourteen convictions in England
during the year 1823. In examination before the Committee on Anatomy, in
1828, Mr. Twyford, one of the magistrates at Worship Street Police Court,
stated that he had not had more than six cases in as many years.
The following account of proceedings at Hatton Garden Police Court, in
1814, will show the difficulty of getting a conviction. In this case there
seems to have been no one to identify the bodies. It is very improbable
that in a case of this sort the authorities of burial-grounds would come
forward to give evidence, and so confess their own negligence.
"HATTON GARDEN.
"T. Light, W. Arnot, and ---- Spelling, were brought up on Wednesday. It
appeared that the prisoners were going up Holborn about half-past four
o'clock on Tuesday afternoon, with a horse and cart; they were observed by
two officers, who, knowing the prisoners to be resurrection-men, stopped
the horse and cart, and, after a hard contest, succeeded in securing the
prisoners. They then examined the contents of the cart, and found it
contained seven dead bodies of men and women; one of the bodies was
headless, but how it came to be so remains as yet to be cleared up. They
were packed up in bags and baskets. The prisoners were followed by an
immense crowd to Hatton Garden Office, whence they were committed to
prison, and the bodies deposited in the lock-up house. The cart was hired
at Battle Bridge. Some of the officers were sent to make enquiry at the
different burying-grounds. The Office was crowded with men and women, who
had some of their relatives buried on Sunday last, to see if they could
recognize any of the bodies. They were brought up again on Thursday, and
discharged."
In 1822 the case of Rex _v._ Cundick was tried at Kingston Assizes,
_coram_ Graham.[20] This was an indictment for misdemeanour. A man named
Edward Lee was executed in the parish of St. Mary, Newington; George
Cundick was employed by the keeper of the gaol to bury the body of Lee,
and for this he was paid. Instead of burying the corpse, he sold it for
dissection, or, in the words of the indictment, he "for the sake of wicked
lucre and gain did take and carry away the said body, and did sell and
dispose of the same for the purpose of being dissected, cut in pieces,
mangled, and destroyed, to the great scandal and disgrace of religion,
decency, and morality, in contempt of our Lord the King, and his laws, to
the evil example of all other persons in like cases offending." The
evidence showed plainly that Cundick had had possession of the body, and
that he had received the burial fees. On the friends of Lee wishing to see
the corpse, Cundick declared that it was already buried; but several days
after this he clandestinely went through the ceremony of burying a coffin
filled with rubbish. It was also proved that Cundick had been seen to
remove a heavy package from his house at night, and that the body of Lee
had been identified in a dissecting-room. The defence was, in the first
place, that the indictment was bad "as a perfect anomaly in the history of
criminal pleading." In the second place, if the indictment were good, it
was unsupported by evidence. It was argued by counsel that the only
evidence before the Court was that the body was not buried, and that it
was found at a dissecting-room. Without the production of the owner of the
dissecting-room, and the proof that he had bought the body from Cundick,
the jury could not be asked to give a verdict against the defendant. The
Judge, however, over-ruled these objections, and the jury found the
prisoner guilty.
These trials and verdicts made it still more difficult than before to get
subjects for dissection, as even men of the Resurrectionist class
hesitated to run the risk of getting the punishment, which now the
superior Courts had upheld. Those who did run this risk very naturally
expected a price proportionate to the danger, and so the cost of subjects
was still more increased.
But to surgeons, and to teachers of anatomy, by far the most important
trial of all was that of John Davies and others, of Warrington, for
obtaining the body of Jane Fairclough, which had been taken from the
chapel-yard belonging to the Baptists, at High Cliff, Appleton, Cheshire,
in October, 1827. This case was tried at Lancaster Assizes, March 14th,
1828. The defendants were John Davies (a medical student at the Warrington
Dispensary), Edward Hall (a surgeon and apothecary in practice at
Warrington), William Blundell (an apprentice to a stationer in the same
town), and Richard Box. Thomas Ashton was also included in the indictment,
but no evidence was offered against him. There were fourteen counts in the
indictment, ten charging the defendants with conspiracy, and four charging
them with unlawfully procuring and receiving the body of Jane Fairclough.
It appears, from the report of the trial, that Davies called on Dr. Moss,
one of the Physicians to the Dispensary, and obtained permission to use a
building in his garden for the purpose of dissecting a subject which he
had purchased. Mr. Hall, on behalf of Davies, paid four guineas to the men
who brought the body to a cellar in Warrington, but he knew nothing more
of the transaction; from the cellar the body was removed to Dr. Moss'
premises by Blundell and another man, and was received by Davies and a
servant of Dr. Moss. Information of the exhumation seems to have quickly
got about. The funeral was on a Friday; on the Monday following the grave
was undisturbed, but on Tuesday the soil was spread about, and an
examination of the grave showed that the corpse had been removed. The
body was identified at Dr. Moss' house, and was taken away before any
dissection had been performed on it.
In charging the jury, Mr. Baron Hullock said that, as conspiracy was an
offence of serious magnitude, they should be satisfied, before finding a
verdict of guilty on the former part of the indictment, that the conduct
of the defendants was the result of previous concert.... If any of the
defendants were in possession of the body under circumstances which must
have apprized them that it was improperly disinterred, the jury would find
them guilty of the latter part of the charge. The only bodies legally
liable to dissection in this country were those of persons executed for
murder. However necessary it might be, for the purposes of humanity and
science, that these things should be done, yet, as long as the law
remained as it was at present, the disinterment of bodies for dissection
was an offence liable to punishment. The jury found all the defendants not
guilty of the charge of conspiracy, but they pronounced Davies and
Blundell guilty of possession of the body, with knowledge of the illegal
disinterment. The defendants were brought up for judgment in London in
May, 1828. Mr. Justice Bayley, in passing sentence, said that "there were
degrees of guilt, and in this case the defendants were not the most
criminal parties." He sentenced Davies to a fine of L20, and Blundell to a
fine of L5.
It will be noted that in this trial there is no charge against anyone for
violating the grave, or stealing the body. The fines were inflicted on
Davies and Blundell for having the body in their possession, knowing it to
have been disinterred. This decision, therefore, as before stated, was of
the utmost importance to teachers of anatomy, as they were clearly liable
to punishment for all the subjects supplied to them by the
Resurrectionists. The teachers knew well the sources from which the bodies
were obtained, and were only driven to get them in the way they did
through there being no regular supply of subjects from a legitimate
source. The feeling that legislation on this subject was absolutely
necessary, was more keenly felt than ever, and the teachers did all they
could to get a change in the laws. Many pamphlets were issued from the
press, urging this duty upon Parliament; it was pointed out that if a
supply of bodies could be regularly obtained in a legal way, the trade of
the Resurrectionist would at once cease. There were many who doubted this,
but subsequent events proved the statement to be strictly accurate.
[Illustration: _Surgical Operations, or a New method of Obtaining
Subjects._]
It was very strongly urged that the Act of Geo. II., which ordered the
bodies of all murderers executed in London and Middlesex to be anatomized
by the Surgeons' Company, ought to be repealed. No doubt this provision
much increased the dislike of the poor to any regulations by which the
bodies of their friends might be given up for dissection after death. It
was felt that dissection by the Surgeons was part of the sentence passed
on a murderer, and therefore carried with it shame and disgrace. To make
provision by law, therefore, for the dissection of the bodies of any other
class of persons was, not unnaturally, distasteful, in that it partly put
them in the same position as murderers.
The answer to the desire for the repeal of this obnoxious clause was that
nothing must be done to weaken the law; it was stated that to withdraw the
part of the sentence which related to dissection would rob the punishment
of its prohibitive effect. It is somewhat difficult to understand the
argument; surely if the risk of suffering the extreme penalty of the law
would not keep a man from crime, the extra chance of being dissected after
death could hardly be expected to do so. As Sir Henry Halford said, "I
certainly think that while that law remains they [the public] will connect
the crime of murder with the practice of dissection; an order to be
dissected, and a permission to be dissected, seem to be too slight a
distinction."
Another objection to the dissection of murderers came from the teachers.
They stated that when the body of a notorious criminal was lying at either
of the Anatomical Schools, the proprietor was pestered by persons of a
morbid turn of mind for permission to view the body. This difficulty was
also felt by the College of Surgeons, and in consequence a placard was
hung up outside the place where the dissections were made, giving notice
that no person could be admitted, unless accompanied by a member of the
Court of Assistants.
To make dissection less distasteful to the general public, and to show the
advantages of anatomy, some endeavours were made to explain the structure
of the human body to non-professional persons. In Ireland Sir Philip
Crampton lectured with open doors, and gave demonstrations in anatomy to
poor people. These persons, he tells us, became interested in the subject,
and often brought him bodies for dissection. A newspaper cutting of 1829
shows that this was also tried in London. A surgeon called in the
overseers and churchwardens of St. Clement Danes, and gave a demonstration
on a body, explaining its construction, and the use of the internal
organs. "By this means," says the paragraph, "he so fully absorbed the
self-interest of his audience as to extinguish the pre-conceived notions
of horror and disgust attached to the idea of a spectacle of this
description. The enlightened governors of the parish assented to the _post
mortem_ examination of the body of every unclaimed pauper, an enquiry into
whose case might appear conducive to the interests of medical science."
It has been already pointed out that, to try to overcome the repugnance to
dissection, some persons left specific instructions that their bodies
should be used for this purpose.
The representations of the teachers were so far successful, that in 1828 a
Select Committee was appointed by the House of Commons "to enquire into
the manner of obtaining subjects for dissection in the Schools of Anatomy,
and into the state of the law affecting the persons employed in obtaining
and dissecting bodies." Amongst those who gave evidence before the
Committee were the principal teachers of anatomy, and three of the
resurrection-men. The tone of the Report was decidedly in sympathy with
the teachers, but it strongly condemned the way in which they were
compelled to obtain bodies for dissection. After showing how badly off
English students were for opportunities of learning anatomy, as compared
with those of foreign countries, and pointing out that those students who
really wished to master their art were compelled to go abroad, the Report
proceeds: "These disadvantages affecting the teachers are such, that
except in the most frequented schools, attached to the greater hospitals,
few have been able to continue teaching with profit, and some private
teachers have been compelled to give up their schools. To the evils
enumerated it may be added, that it is distressing to men of good
education and character to be compelled to resort, for their means of
teaching, to a constant infraction of the laws of their country, and to be
made dependent, for their professional existence, on the mercenary
caprices of the most abandoned class in the community."
In March, 1829, Mr. Warburton obtained leave to introduce into the House
of Commons "A Bill for preventing the unlawful disinterment of human
bodies, and for regulating Schools of Anatomy." In this Bill it was
enacted that persons found guilty of disinterring any human body from any
churchyard, burial-ground or vault, or assisting at any such disinterment,
should be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months for the first
offence, and two years for the second offence. Seven Commissioners were to
be appointed; the majority of these were not to be either physicians,
surgeons, or apothecaries. All unclaimed bodies of persons dying in
workhouses or hospitals, were, seventy-two hours after death, to be given
over for purposes of dissection; but if within this specified time a
relative appeared and requested that the body might not be used for
anatomical purposes, such request was to be granted. Another proposed
change in the law was that a person might legally bequeath his body for
dissection; in such cases the executors, administrators, or next-of-kin
had the option of carrying out the wishes of the testator, or declining to
do so, as they thought fit. A heavy penalty was laid on persons who were
found carrying on human anatomy in an unlicensed building, and it was made
an offence to move a body from one place to another, without a licence for
so doing. All bodies used for dissection were to be buried; the penalty
for failing to do this was fifty pounds.
One great blot on this Bill was the neglecting to repeal the clause which
ordered the bodies of murderers to be given up for dissection. As pointed
out on page 87, this was one of the great reasons which made dissection so
hateful to the poor. During the debate, a motion was made by Sir R. Inglis
"to repeal so much of the Act 9 Geo. IV. cap. 31, as empowers judges to
order the bodies of murderers to be given over for dissection." This,
however, was lost, eight members only voting for the amendment, and forty
against.
There was strong opposition to the Bill outside the House. Some of the
private teachers were very uneasy as regarded the effect of the Bill on
themselves. The measure spoke of "recognized teachers" and "hospital
schools," and all those who were to be entitled to the benefits of the Act
were to have licences from one of the Medical Corporations. The
proprietors of the smaller schools felt that this would result in their
extinction, and that the teaching would all pass to the large schools. In
the country, too, there was strong opposition to the Bill, as
practitioners there felt that they were excluded from any benefit. The
_Lancet_, always ready in those days with a nickname, dubbed the measure
"A Bill for Preventing Country Surgeons from Studying Anatomy." The
College of Surgeons also petitioned against the Bill. The Council felt
that the appointment of Commissioners, who were to have complete control
over all schools and places of dissection, would greatly interfere with
the privileges of the College. It was pointed out to the House of Commons
that the establishment of a Board, such as that proposed by the Bill, was
virtually placing the whole profession of surgery under the control of
Commissioners, not one of whom need be a member of the profession, and the
majority of whom must not be so.
Another fault of the Bill was that it did not apply to Ireland. A large
supply of bodies was regularly sent from that country to England and
Scotland, and it was felt that to exclude Ireland from the provisions of
the Bill, was simply increasing the temptation for bodies to be still more
largely exported therefrom.
It was also argued that the Bill would tell hardly against the poor, as
they would refuse to go into workhouses or hospitals if they thought that
their bodies would be dissected after death. For this objection there was
no foundation, and Mr. Peel pointed out, in the debate on the third
reading, that "it was the poor who would really be benefited by the
measure. The rich could always command good advice, whilst the poor had a
strong interest in the general extension of anatomical science."
The Bill passed the Commons, but was lost in the Lords.
In 1830, Lord Calthorpe was to have again introduced the Bill into the
Upper House, but the intention was abandoned on account of the threatened
dissolution of Parliament. As the _Lancet_ expressed it, "Dissolution has
so many horrors, that a discussion on the _subject_ at the present time
would be by no means agreeable."
Public feeling was now very strong in favour of some law to prevent the
wholesale spoliation of graves, which was going on practically unchecked.
But, as has happened frequently in legislation, the absolute necessity for
a change in the law was brought within the range of practical politics by
a crime of a most diabolical character, one which, in this country,
created a sensation equal to that raised in Scotland by the atrocities of
Burke and Hare in Edinburgh.
On November 5th, 1831, two men, named Bishop and May, called at the
dissecting-room at King's College, and asked Hill, the porter, if he
"wanted anything." On being interrogated as to what they had to dispose
of, May replied, "A boy of fourteen." For this body they asked 12
guineas, but ultimately agreed to bring it in for 9 guineas. They went
off, and returned in the afternoon with another man named Williams,
_alias_ Head, and a porter named Shields, the latter of whom carried the
body in a hamper. The appearance of the subject excited Hill's suspicion
of foul play, and he at once communicated with Mr. Partridge, the
Demonstrator of Anatomy. A further examination of the body by Mr.
Partridge confirmed the porter's suspicions.[21] To delay the men, so that
the police might be communicated with, Mr. Partridge produced a L50 note,
and said that he could not pay until he had changed it. Soon after, the
police officers appeared upon the scene, and the men were given into
custody. At the coroner's inquest a verdict of "Wilful murder against some
person or persons unknown" was brought in, the jury adding that there was
strong suspicion against Bishop and Williams. The prisoners were not
allowed to go free, but were kept in custody. Bishop, Williams, and May
were tried at the Old Bailey, December, 1831. The evidence given against
them showed that they had tried to sell the body at Guy's Hospital; being
refused there, they tried Mr. Grainger, at his Anatomical Theatre, but
with no success. Then they tried King's, where their crime was detected.
The body was proved to be that of an Italian boy, named Carlo Ferrari, who
obtained his living by showing white mice. The boy's teeth had been
extracted, and it was proved that they had been sold by one of the
prisoners to Mr. Mills, a dentist, for twelve shillings. The jury found
all three prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to death.
From the subsequent confessions of Bishop and Williams, it was shown that
they had enticed the boy to their dwelling in Nova Scotia Gardens; there
they drugged him with opium, and then let his body into a well, where they
kept it until he was suffocated. To the last the prisoners declared that
the deceased was not the Italian boy, but a lad from Lincolnshire. They
seem to have had great difficulty in disposing of the body, as Bishop, in
his confession, said that, before taking it to Guy's, they had tried Mr.
Tuson and Mr. Carpue, both in vain. Bishop and Williams confessed, also,
to the murder of a woman named Fanny Pigburn, and a boy, whose name was
supposed to be Cunningham. Both of these bodies they sold for dissection.
May was respited, and was sentenced to transportation for life. On hearing
of his respite, May went into a fit, and for some time his life was
despaired of; he, however, partially recovered, but his feeble state of
health was aggravated by the annoyance he received from the other convicts
on board the hulks. He died on board the _Grampus_ in 1832.
May can hardly be described as even a minor poet, if the following verse,
written whilst in prison, may be taken as a fair sample of his
compositions:
"James May is doomed to die,
And is condemned most innocently;
The God above, He knows the same,
And will send a mitigation for his pain."
At the execution of Bishop and Williams, there was a scene of the most
tremendous excitement. By some mistake, three chains hung from the
gallows; one was taken away as soon as the error was noticed, and this was
recognized by the crowd as a sign that May had been reprieved.
The _Weekly Dispatch_ sold upwards of 50,000 copies of the number which
contained the confessions of the murderers. Many persons were injured in
the crowd, and the _Dispatch_ states that those who were hurt were
attended to "by Mr. Birkett, the dresser to Mr. Vincent, who had been in
attendance [at St. Bartholomew's Hospital] to receive any accident that
might be brought in."
Bishop was the son of a carrier between London and Highgate, and on the
death of his father he succeeded to the business. This he soon sold, and
became an informer. He got mixed up with some of the resurrection-men, and
then regularly took to the occupation. Williams, _alias_ Head, was
Bishop's brother-in-law, and was a well-known member of the
resurrection-gang.
In the _Weekly Dispatch_ for December 11th, 1831, the following curious
information respecting Williams appeared:
"EXCISE COURT.--YESTERDAY.
"THE KING _v._ THOMAS HEAD, _alias_ WILLIAMS, THE MURDERER.--The Court was
occupied during a great part of the morning in hearing the evidence in
the case of Head, _alias_ Williams (who was hung with Bishop) for carrying
on an illicit trade in the manufacture of glass. It appeared that the
deceased was a _Cribb Man_, or regular porter, to private glass blowers.
There were found on the premises at No. 2, Nova Scotia Gardens (the scene
of the late murders), a regular furnace, and all the necessary apparatus
for the manufacture of glass, which trade it appears was carried on to a
very considerable extent on the premises. Alexander M'Knight, an officer
of Excise, deposed that on the 6th of August last, he went to No. 2, Nova
Scotia Gardens, and made a seizure of 68 cwt. of manufactured glass, 24
cwt. of cullet, and 16 cwt. of iron, articles used in the manufacture of
glass. In about half-an-hour afterwards he saw Williams come out of
Bishop's yard; Williams spoke to witness, and called him by an opprobrious
name for having made the seizure. Judgment 'abated,' the goods to be
returned to the Excise Office to be condemned."
May had been brought up as a butcher, but this trade he gave up, and
became possessed of a horse and cart with which he was supposed to ply
for hire. The real business of the vehicle, however, seems to have been to
convey bodies from place to place for the Resurrectionists. Shields, the
porter to the gang, had been watchman and grave-digger at the Roman
Catholic Chapel in Moorfields, so that he was most useful to the other
Resurrectionists in giving information, and in granting facilities for the
removal of bodies. No evidence was offered against him in connection with
the murder of the Italian boy. Soon after the trial he attempted to get
work as a porter in Covent Garden Market, but on his being recognized by
those working there, a shout of "Burker!" was raised, and Shields narrowly
escaped with his life, and took refuge in the Police Office.
[Illustration: JOHN HEAD, _alias_ THOMAS WILLIAMS. JOHN BISHOP. Executed
December 5, 1831. From Drawings by W. H. CLIFT, made directly after the
execution.]
This one incident as regards Shields gives an idea of the public feeling
towards the resurrection-men, and that feeling was quite as bitter towards
the anatomists. It was therefore absolutely necessary that some determined
steps should be taken as regards legislation.
In December, 1831, Mr. Warburton again introduced a Bill into the House of
Commons; it passed safely through both Houses, and became law on August
1st, 1832. By this new Act the Secretary of State for the Home Department
in Great Britain, and the Chief Secretary in Ireland, were empowered to
grant licences for anatomical purposes to any person lawfully qualified to
practise medicine, to any professor or teacher of anatomy, and to students
attending any school of medicine, on an application signed by two justices
of the peace, who could certify that the applicant intended to carry on
the practice of anatomy. It was enacted that executors, or other persons
having lawful possession of a body (provided they were not undertakers, or
persons to whom the body had been handed over for purposes of interment),
might give it up for dissection unless the deceased had expressed a wish
during his life that his body should not be so used, or unless a known
relative objected to the body being given up. If a person had expressed a
wish to be dissected, this wish was to be carried out unless the relatives
raised any objection. No body might be moved for anatomical purposes until
forty-eight hours after death, nor until the expiration of a twenty-four
hours' notice to the Inspector of Anatomy; a proper death certificate had
also to be signed by the medical attendant before the body could be moved.
Provision was made for the decent removal of all bodies, and for their
burial in consecrated ground, or in some public burial-ground in use for
persons of that religious persuasion to which the person, whose body was
so removed, belonged. A certificate of the interment was to be sent to the
Inspector within six weeks after the day on which the body was received.
No licensed person was to be liable to any prosecution, penalty,
forfeiture, or punishment for having a body in his possession for
anatomical purposes according to the provisions of the Act.
Perhaps the most important clause was that which did away with the
dissection of the bodies of murderers. This was done by Section XVI.,
which ran as follows:
"And whereas an Act was passed in the Ninth Year of the Reign of His late
Majesty, for consolidating and amending the Statutes in England relative
to Offences against the Person, by which latter Act it is enacted, that
the Body of every Person convicted of Murder shall, after Execution,
either be dissected or hung in Chains, as to the Court which tried the
Offender shall deem meet; and that the Sentence to be pronounced by the
Court shall express that the Body of the Offender shall be dissected or
hung in Chains, whichever of the Two the Court shall order. Be it enacted,
That so much of the said last-recited Act as authorizes the Court, if it
shall see fit, to direct that the Body of a Person convicted of Murder
shall after Execution, be dissected, be and the same is hereby repealed:
and that in every case of Conviction of any Prisoner for Murder, the Court
before which such Prisoner shall have been tried shall direct such
Prisoner either to be hung in Chains or buried within the Precincts of the
Prison in which such Prisoner shall have been confined after conviction,
as to such Court shall deem meet; and that the sentence to be pronounced
by the Court shall express that the body of such Prisoner shall be hung in
Chains, or buried within the Precincts of the Prison, whichever of the two
the Court shall order."
Three Inspectors were appointed to carry out the provisions of the Act.
The first Inspectors were Dr. J. C. Somerville, for England; Dr. Craigie,
of Edinburgh, for Scotland; and Sir James Murray, of Dublin, for Ireland.
There was no provision for punishing persons found violating graves; it
had been already decided that this was an offence at common law; and
presumably the framers of the Act had, at last, sufficient faith in their
measure to believe that it would put an end to the proceedings of the
resurrection-men. If that were so, they were not disappointed. After the
passing of the Act the resurrection-man, as such, drops out of history;
his occupation was gone, and one of the most nefarious trades that the
world has ever seen came completely to an end. Public feeling against
these men did not all at once subside; this strongly militated against
their getting employment, and some of them moved to other quarters, where
they lived under assumed names.
In looking back it is impossible not to regret that Parliament was so slow
to believe that legislation in the direction of the Anatomy Act would do
away with the evils of the resurrection-men. This fact was urged upon them
by the teachers; but popular feeling was so dead against the anatomists,
who were thought to be responsible for even the worst crimes of the
resurrection-men, that Parliament seemed to fear to do anything which
favoured the teachers, although the great disadvantages under which they
suffered were thoroughly well known. Perhaps the best tribute to the
success of the Act, is the very small alterations which have been made in
it between 1832 and the present day.
A glance at the regulations in force in foreign countries for the supply
of bodies, at the time of the passing of the Anatomy Act, shows that when
a fair provision was made by law for the supply of bodies, the
resurrection-men were unknown. The great advantages of the student on the
Continent, as compared with his brethren in England, were thus pointed out
to the Committee by Mr. [afterwards Sir] William Lawrence: "I see many
medical persons from France, Germany, and Italy, and have found, from my
intercourse with them, that anatomy is much more successfully cultivated
in those countries than in England; at the same time I know, from their
numerous valuable publications on anatomy, that they are far before us in
this science; we have no original standard works at all worthy of the
present state of knowledge." It was also shown that this fact was chiefly
the result of the greater opportunities for getting subjects abroad, and
that teachers found that those English students who had been to foreign
schools were the best informed.
* * * * *
Before the Revolution in France the hospitals of Paris were supported by
voluntary contributions, and each had separate funds and Boards of
Management, similar to the hospitals in London at the present day. At the
Revolution these Boards were consolidated, and one administrative body was
formed. This "Administration des Hopitaux, Hospices et Secours a Domicile
de Paris," carried into effect the law passed by the Legislative Assembly,
that the bodies of all those persons who died in hospitals, which were
unclaimed within twenty-four hours after death, should be given up for
anatomical purposes. The distribution from the hospitals to the medical
schools was systematically carried out, generally at night. By Art. 360
of the Penal Code, the punishment for violation of a place of sepulture
was imprisonment for a term varying from three months to a year, and a
fine of from 60 to 200 francs. The result of these regulations was that
exhumation for anatomical purposes was quite unknown.
* * * * *
In Germany the bodies of persons who died in prisons, or penitentiaries,
and those of suicides, were given up for dissection, unless the friends of
the deceased cared to pay a certain sum to the funds of the school; in
this case the body was handed over to the friends. Other sources of supply
were the bodies of those persons who died without leaving sufficient to
pay the cost of burial, poor people who had been supported at the public
cost, all persons executed, and public women. Although these regulations
were not rigorously carried out, there was an ample supply of bodies for
anatomical purposes, and the resurrection-men were unknown.
* * * * *
In Austria, if the medical attendant thought necessary, a _post mortem_
was made on all patients who died in hospital, but only unclaimed bodies
were used for dissection; these were given up to the teachers forty-eight
hours after death. In Vienna the supply came from the General Hospital;
this was sufficient for all purposes, and there was no recourse to
exhumation.
* * * * *
The supply in Italy came from a source similar to that of the other
countries named. The rule was that all bodies of persons who died in
hospital were given up for dissection if required; but, by paying the cost
of the funeral, friends could, if they wished, take away the body. This,
however, was seldom done. There was generally a sufficient supply of
bodies; but, if this ran short, the subjects were obtained from "the
deposit" of poor people who died and were buried at the public cost. In
every parish church in Italy there was a chamber in which all the dead
bodies of the poor were deposited during the day-time, after the religious
ceremonies had been performed over them in the church; at night these
bodies were removed either to the dissecting-room or to the burial-fields,
outside the town. Body-snatching was quite unknown.
* * * * *
There was an ample supply of bodies in Portugal from similar sources.
Mortality was very high amongst infants, who were put into _roda_, or
foundling cradles; the bodies of these children could be obtained without
any difficulty. In Portugal the resurrection-man did not exist.
* * * * *
In Holland there was no lack of material for teaching anatomy, and for
students to learn operative surgery on the dead body. The Dissecting
School at Leyden was supplied from the civil hospitals at Amsterdam. There
was no prejudice against dissection in Holland; in all the principal towns
lectures on anatomy were publicly given, and dissected subjects were
exhibited. Here, again, exhumation was not necessary, and was unknown.
* * * * *
In the United States the laws relating to anatomy varied very considerably
in the different States; there was no regular supply for the schools, and,
consequently, subjects had to be obtained by the aid of resurrection-men.
In Philadelphia and Baltimore, the two great Medical Schools of the United
States in those days, the supply of bodies was obtained almost entirely
from the "Potter's Field," the burial-place of the poorest classes. This
exhumation was carried on by an understanding with the authorities that
the men employed by the schools in this work should not be interfered
with. Dissection in the United States was, as in this country, looked upon
with great aversion; this was, no doubt, mainly owing to the fact that the
bodies used for this purpose were obtained from the graves.