Owing to the long and most important discussions, which at this period were carried on in both houses of parliament, upon the subject of the claims of the catholics for relief, it was not until Thursday, the 12th of March, that this subject could be brought under the attention of the legislature. Mr. Warburton then moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill to legalise and regulate the supply of dead bodies for dissection. The honourable gentleman in stating to the house the general grounds upon which he made his motion, said that his first object would be, to confer a species of legality on the practice of anatomy; and with this view he should propose—first, an enactment to render anatomy lawful, both in its practice and as a mode of instruction in all cities or towns corporate wherein there were schools which conferred degrees in anatomy, or wherein there were hospitals which were capable of receiving fifty patients at a time. The next difficulty to surmount would be the obtaining a sufficient number of subjects for the purposes of science and instruction. His project had for its basis the practice of the French government in the city of Paris. He, therefore, should propose that the overseers of the poor, in certain cases, and the governors of hospitals, should be empowered by the bill to give up to surgical examination the bodies of such persons as fell victims to disease whilst in the hospital, and were not claimed within a certain time after their decease. Here he begged that he should not be understood to treat the feelings of the lower orders with the slightest degree of disrespect by the present enactment. He begged them to take this into their consideration, and also to reflect, that in the case of the late disclosures of the horrid atrocities committed in order to obtain a supply of subjects for dissection in Edinburgh, the lower classes had in all cases been the victims. The motion of the hon. member was fully approved of by the House, and a bill was on the same night introduced, embodying the general principles which he had detailed. The bill passed the House of Commons in the course of the same session, but upon its reaching the House of Lords, so many noble individuals were found who objected to its principle, by which, it was said, the poor were subjected to what might be considered an evil, in which the rich did not participate, that it was withdrawn.

It was not until the recurrence of events in the metropolis of London, similar in character to those which we have just described,—the murders committed by Bishop and Williams,—that the subject again received the attention of parliament. In the session of 1831, Mr. Warburton once more moved for leave to introduce a bill, the provisions of which, although they were mainly the same as those of his former measure, differed from it in some important respects. By the new bill, the consent of the party whose body was to be submitted to dissection was required to be obtained before his death, as a condition precedent to its being handed over to the surgeons, and the whole system was to be placed under the superintending direction of inspectors and commissioners appointed for that purpose. This bill was introduced on Thursday, Dec. 15, and after undergoing considerable discussion, it at length passed into a law in the same session.

The act having been in operation during a period of upwards of eight years, has been found to have been attended with the most advantageous results, and the exertions of Dr. Southwood Smith, who holds a responsible situation under its provisions, have tended in no small degree to secure this admirable effect. The offence of body-snatching is now no longer heard of; for the object of the crime having been removed, the crime itself has ceased to be committed.

Happy would it have been for the interests of the community, if, before these dreadful scenes were witnessed and brought to light, some similar plan had met the approbation of the legislature.

EDWARD BARNETT.
EXECUTED FOR MURDER.

THE dreadful murder for which this young man was executed, was scarcely less frightful in its nature than that of the unfortunate Maria Marten.

It was on the morning of Sunday, September 28th, 1828, that this deed of blood was discovered, when the murdered remains of a woman named Esther Stevens were found in a house which she occupied in the town of Monmouth. The wretched woman, it appeared, was born on the Kymin, a high mountain near Monmouth, and from her being in the habit of frequenting certain districts of the hill of her birth, she passed by the familiar epithet of “Hall of the Kymin.” At an early age she was married to a man named Stevens, a bargeman, to whom in later years, however, she appears to have exhibited considerable dislike. Stevens’ employment necessarily called him from home for considerable periods, and during these absences, his unhappy wife formed acquaintances with other men, of a criminal nature,—a step to which eventually she owed her murder. Amongst these guilty companions of her adultery was a man named William Davis, living at a village called Christchurch, near Carleon, on the Newport road, to whom she represented herself as a single woman, and to whom also she had promised marriage. A later connexion, however, was formed by her with Barnett, who resided in Monmouth—the miserable subject of this sketch.

Barnett, it appears, was strongly attached to Mrs. Stevens, and looked with the most uncontrollable feelings of jealousy upon her connexion with Davis. Immediately before the murder she had been living with Davis under an assumed name at Carleon, during her husband’s absence, and Barnett discovering her position, quitted his mother’s house, where he resided, in order to endeavour to induce her to return to Monmouth. In this effort he succeeded, and on Friday, 26th September, they quitted Carleon together. Mrs. Stevens, however, passed that night in the great wood on the Kymin, and Barnett was observed to leave her at the skirts of the wood in the morning. He proceeded home again, and on his arrival produced a loaded pistol from his pocket, and these circumstances, coupled with the contents of a letter, sent by the unfortunate woman to Davis, in which she stated that something dreadful was going to happen, led to a supposition that a threat of murder was made by Barnett on that night, in the event of her again joining her paramour at Christchurch. On Saturday afternoon Barnett received a letter from Mrs. Stevens, desiring an interview, and he quitted his home in order to obey the request which she made. At this time he had in his possession a shot-bag containing 30l. in notes, gold, and silver, and was attired in a shooting jacket and laced boots. He did not again return home, and on the following morning the wretched woman was found lying in her house, brutally murdered.

Her husband was at first supposed to have been the author of this revolting act, in revenge upon his discovering her perfidy to him; but upon an attentive examination of the appearances which presented themselves, and a due inquiry into the circumstances which had preceded the murder, his innocence and the guilt of Barnett became evident. At the time of the discovery of the murder, the door of the house was found open, and some persons, led on by curiosity, upon going up stairs, were horror-struck at perceiving the mangled remains of Mrs. Stevens lying on the floor of the bedroom. Upon the constables of the place being informed of the circumstance, they immediately proceeded to investigate the affair. Upon inquiry of a man named Pearce, residing next door, they found that in the course of the night Mrs. Stevens had been heard to go up stairs, as if slip-shod, and directly afterwards they heard screams; but as such events were common, as arising out of frequent quarrels between the deceased and her husband, they took no notice of the occurrence. From further inquiries, however, it was ascertained that Stevens had not slept at home on that night, and from the discovery of Barnett’s shot-bag and money, his shooting coat and boots in the room, it became obvious that he had been a partner in the unhappy woman’s bed, and having murdered her, had fled to avoid his apprehension. From the statement of Pearce, and certain appearances which presented themselves in the house, it was supposed that Mrs. Stevens had risen in the night in order to prepare the lower room for the morning meal, as the kettle was found full on the fire, and the usual utensils were laid ready for use, and it was concluded that Barnett waking just as the wretched woman was returning to the sleeping apartment, was excited by some jealous apprehension of her having quitted his bed to meet some other paramour, and had rushed upon her and murdered her.