The Diary of a Resurrectionist, 1811-1812 / To Which Are Added an Account of the Resurrection Men in London and a Short History of the Passing of the Anatomy Act

by James Blake Bailey

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.