CHAPTER III.
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 £20, and Blundell to a fine of £5.
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.
![[Larger Image]](#5716094773984915885_i113.jpg.id-864414858104011789.wrap-0.html.html){kind=link}
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 £50 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.
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 Hôpitaux, Hospices et Secours à 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.