But admitting the merit of the examples of personal sacrifices, and allowing that they ought to influence the pretended sages who think themselves peculiarly entitled to be called the guardians of the poor, because they pander to their lowest passions, and foster their most unreasonable suspicions; we are still not of an opinion that they supply the strongest argument with the poorer classes, for abandoning their present antipathies to dissection and for giving their voluntary assent to a change in the existing law. That strongest argument is, that they at present afford nearly all the subjects for our anatomical theatres; that they are the chief sufferers by the imperfection of our surgical knowledge, and that they would be the chief gainers by an extension of medical skill.

When a clamour is raised against a proposition for giving up the unclaimed bodies of those who die in hospitals or poorhouses to be dissected, it is, of course, pretended, that at present the poor are exempted from the imaginary calamity. Now what is the real state of the case? Are not the poor as exclusively the subjects of anatomical examination now, as they could be under any change of the law? Whither do the body-snatchers go when they receive an order for the exercise of their repulsive contraband? Do they not bargain with some gravedigger, or the porter of some charitable establishment, for the connivance in seizing bodies which belonged to the poorer classes? The rich are not often disturbed in their tombs by the unhallowed intrusion of the resurrection-man. They are allowed to slumber in their inaccessible vaults, while their poorer neighbours are raised and dissected for the benefit of posterity. If some Bishop or Williams, unable to supply the trade with the fruits of plundered churchyards, think of making subjects, whom do they entice into their den of murder? Not the affluent, the respected, or the known, but the poor unfriended wretches, for whom nobody is supposed to care, and whose loss nobody will deplore,—the very parties, in short, who would, most probably, be borne to their grave, at the public expense, from the wards of a hospital, or the cells of a poor-house. It is not likely, notwithstanding Sir Astley Cooper's remarks, that persons possessed of property more valuable than their bodies, would be killed to obtain their bodies. Neither an alderman, a bishop, nor a member of parliament, could be supposed to labour under any apprehension of being Burked; and, therefore, the source of supply, to whatever extent it proceeded, remained exclusively with the poor.

Nor could the poor avoid being almost the only sufferers by the deficiency of surgical skill, which an efficient supply of subjects for dissection would necessarily occasion. The wealthy can always purchase the best portion of knowledge and experience which is in the market. They are not likely to submit their limbs or organs to a bungling operator, or take advice from an unskilful physician; and if scientific medical practitioners cannot be educated at home, they can pay them for the accomplishments and knowledge which they must acquire in foreign countries; but the poor must be contented with ignorance and inexperience, if their prejudices debar the less wealthy portion of the profession from the means of acquiring anatomical science.

We, therefore, are of opinion, that it would be chiefly for the benefit of the lower classes themselves, that those who die in hospitals, in workhouses, in prisons, or in penitentiaries, and whose bodies are not claimed for interment by any relative, should be distributed amongst the anatomical schools, under such sanctions, and with such formalities, as religion and decency require; the supply of subjects from this source would be sufficient, and from none other.

We recommend the following letter of Sir J. Sewell, on this subject, to the attention of our readers in which other classes of supply are enumerated; although, we think, several provisions of his measure are unnecessary, and one or two would be injurious to his object.

The suggestion which he makes of giving up the bodies of suicides for dissection would be a good one, if anything like an adequate supply could be furnished by such a course; but as this would not be the case, a great injury would result from a plan which would aggravate the already existing prejudice arising from the intimate connexion in the public mind between dissection and ignominious punishment. We are further convinced, that the surrender of the body of the suicide to the anatomical schools will never become a part and parcel of the law of the land. It would encroach too much upon the higher stations in life; for where there is one pauper who destroys himself, we could enumerate a dozen in the most elevated ranks of society. If the law declared that the body of the wretched being, who, by the pressure of poverty or misfortune, had sought a remedy for his sorrows by the sacrifice of his own life, should be given up,—the same law ought to be made to apply to a Whitbread, a Romilly, a Castlereagh, and a Calcraft, all being, at the time of their death, legislators of the nation, from the assembly of whom is to emanate the very law which is to consign their bodies, in case of suicide, to the knife of the anatomist.

The following is the letter of Sir J. Sewell:—

'Sir,

'Having dined yesterday with some of my brother magistrates, I learned, upon information, which I have no reason to distrust, that beside the confessions published, another was made on Sunday, the 4th, which comprehended a catalogue of about sixty murders, and would have probably gone on to a much greater extent, but for the interference of the Ordinary.

'When to this is added the large supply which, by the published confessions, Bishop appears to have furnished for dissection, the great number of persons employed in the same way, the probable profligacy of such persons, and, as asserted, a great falling off in the number of burials, notwithstanding the increased population of this metropolis, there is certainly but too much reason to believe that this system of murder amongst the poor which Bishop said he resorted to as both less expensive and less hazardous than collecting from cemeteries, is become extremely common; that it is in a state of progression; and that new and extraordinary modes, however inconvenient to the professors and students of anatomy, must be had recourse to for the prevention of such atrocious crimes.

'The plan which I now submit to your consideration is not offered as a perfect one, or as approaching to perfection; and the greater part of it is the result of reflection upon the subject, since receiving the information above-mentioned; but it may suggest improvements to those who are capable of making them, and though the process proposed will be necessarily attended, in the procurement of subjects, with difficulties and expenses which do not belong to the present course of practice, the aggregate charge will, I hope, very soon be diminished; and that a commerce, which is asserted, by the faculty in general, to be of very great public consequence, may be carried on to the satisfaction of all the parties interested, and without the commission of a crime in any of them.

Suggestions for a New Act of Parliament as to the Supply of Bodies for Dissection.

1. That from and after the ——, the bodies of all persons convicted of felony, and who, in consequence of such conviction, shall die in any place of confinement, in the United Kingdom, may be sold for dissection. The sale to be by public auction, the proceeds to be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the prison shall be, and applied in aid of the county rates.

2. So also the bodies of all under commitment for felony, if not claimed within —— hours after death.

3. So also the unclaimed bodies of those who die in hospitals and workhouses.

4. Suicides.

5. Unclaimed bodies of persons found dead.

6. To legalize the sale by persons while living, of their bodies after death.

7. To secure the due delivery to the purchaser on demand.

8. With certain exceptions, no dissections of the bodies of persons dying in Middlesex, or in certain parishes in Essex, Kent, and Surrey, to be permitted before the body shall have been exhibited at an appointed place, with evidence of name, residence, cause of death, &c. satisfactory to a magistrate assisted by a surgeon.

9. That the magistrate be one of the police magistrates in his turn, and that the attendance be every day at —— except Sunday, and for so long a time as may be needful in respect to bodies brought in before that hour.

10. That the magistrate give a certificate of his satisfaction as to the death, and a permit for removal and dissection.

11. That the body permitted be branded, or otherwise marked indelibly, upon the skin of every part which is commonly purchased by students who have not occasion for the whole.

12. That a register be kept of the name, residence, and cause of death, and of every person whose body is produced.

13. That the only exceptions allowed to this course be the post mortem examinations by dissection under the special directions of a coroner or other magistrate, or which are performed in the dwelling of the deceased, with the knowledge and consent of the family.

14. That whoever shall dissect a body, or any part of a body, as a separate portion, not being duly marked, or shall be possessed of them, shall be subject to ——.

15. That the forgery, or aiding or abetting, of the brand or mark, of the certificate or permit, shall subject the party to ——.

16. That similar provisions be made for other parts of the kingdom.

'I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your very humble servant,
J. Sewell.'

21, Cumberland-street, Portman-square, December 8.

In corroboration of the plan of Sir J. Sewell, the following very able remarks were addressed to the Editor of The Times.

'Sir,

'Having read Sir John Sewell's "Suggestions for a new Act of Parliament as to the Supply of Bodies for Dissection," I trust to your kindness in enabling me to express publicly my humble opinion on the same, conceiving them to be good and just in every respect excepting one, the idea of which I cannot but believe must disgust very many: I allude to the public sale of the body. Why, may I ask that gentleman, need it be sold at all, much less in so offensive a manner? Surely there can be no necessity whatever. Let, then, the bodies, as they ought in every instance, be presented gratuitously. Wheresoever the death may occur, or the inquest be held, let the coroner of the district be empowered to assign the body to the hospital of that district, or to bequeath it for the public good, according to any other satisfactory arrangement that may be concluded on the occasion.

'To Sir J. Sewell I would say, by presenting, instead of vending, you would go far towards annihilating the traffic of the "resurrection man" whose profits must thereby be materially diminished, as what hospital would they find anxious to purchase subjects of them at all, much less at the price they must necessarily demand, to compensate them for the risk encountered in procuring them, when these establishments can be sufficiently supplied in a lawful manner gratis?

'In conclusion, I humbly conceive that a law, based on Sir J. Sewell's "Suggestions," severally and collectively (save the one assumed to be offensive), would effect the utmost good; and if really so, ought accordingly to satisfy the people.

'It is, in every respect, such a plan as can alone defeat the sanguinary designs of body-snatching monsters; and once made law, would, no doubt, in a short time destroy their infernal commerce altogether.

'I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
W. H. E.'

Saturday, December 10.

'P. S. With regard to Sir J. Sewell's suggestion as to the workhouse, in accordance with which the bodies of all such as have been maintained, and are about to be buried, at the parish expense, are to be given up for anatomical purposes, I am inclined to believe it would, if adopted, be productive of a twofold service, inasmuch as the practice might tend also to diminish the numbers of this class (who generally speaking prefer a life of degraded ease to one of honourable employment), by its inciting (which is likely) those most sensitive on the "subject" to work out an independent subsistence by their own assiduity; and with respect to such as cannot exist but by poor-house maintenance, their bodies, I should say, might nevertheless, in justice, be rendered serviceable after death, on the score of the important benefits experienced by them whilst living.

'W. H. E.'