HC Deb 15 December 1831 vol 9 cc300-7
Mr. Warburton,

in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Schools of Anatomy, of which he had given notice, would take that opportunity of informing those Members who were not present in former Parliaments, that a Committee had been appointed in 1828 to make inquiry on the best mode of remedying the present defective system, and that, in 1829, he introduced a Bill, emanating from that Committee, which passed the Commons, and was thrown out by the Lords. The political changes which had taken place so frequently since that period, had prevented him from renewing the Bill, and would best explain the delay which had occurred. The Bill which he proposed to introduce on the present occasion, if permitted so to do, would differ, in some respects, from the measure he formerly brought forward. In the former Bill he proposed that all persons practising anatomy should take out licenses. That proposition was objected to by the profession generally; and after deliberately considering the subject, he was induced to believe, that it would be sufficient if inspectors were to be appointed by the Home Secretary, by whom reports should be made as to what passed in the different schools. He thought, if this were done, and if these officers were authorized, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to inspect the anatomical schools, it would be a sufficient precaution. With regard to the particular manner in which these schools were to be supplied, the present Bill would differ in many respects from the former one. It was urged as an objection to the former Bill, that it subjected the poor to considerable hardships, inasmuch as its operation was, in a great degree, confined to them. He intended to introduce a clause into the measure which should be equally applicable to all classes of society; and he hoped, more particu- larly when he reflected upon the dreadful enormities which had recently been committed, the results of the law requiring one thing, and necessity demanding another—that this Bill would have the effect of supplying the different schools of anatomy with the subjects necessary for their purposes, and of reducing the price which they were now obliged to give for them. He knew, that human beings were always, more or less, governed by their feelings or their prejudices; and he was also aware, that any Legislator who could disregard the feelings and sympathies of mankind, would have no claim to the satisfaction of the people or to their ready concurrence and approbation. However deeply impressed he might be with that feeling, yet he must not lose sight of the necessity of affording proper facilities for the study of anatomy. He would put it to the House, whether it was not also impressed with the importance of the subject. He would venture to say, that there was not one individual in that House who, if it were necessary that he himself should undergo a severe surgical operation, would not be anxious to have, as his attendant, a thorough anatomist. They must recollect, too, that there were cases, in which the feelings and wishes of mankind were made to succumb to the service of the state. What could be more savage than war? And yet when the service of the State, the preservation of the nation, and the welfare of the people were at stake, we set aside private feelings, and scenes of bloodshed and suffering-were the consequence. Again, in Courts of Justice, stern necessity required to doom fellow creatures to banishment and death. In such cases, in such instances, the wishes and feelings of individuals were held as nothing, when compared with the interests of the nation at large. Why, then, should they hesitate to make some sacrifice when a question was at issue which so materially affected the welfare of every human being? Having said thus much, and having reminded the House, that on a former occasion it passed a Bill which he had the honour of introducing—admitting that, but for the necessity of the case it would be most desirable that there should be no further legislation on the subject—he would not trouble the House with any further observations, but begging the House to consider the urgency and necessity of the case, he would move for leave to bring in a Bill for regulating Schools of Anatomy.

Mr. Hunt

regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman say, that the present Bill was, in some respects, similar to the measure which he introduced before on the same subject. [Mr. Warburton said, it differed from that Bill.] He was glad of it, for if it resembled the former Bill, he should evince his hostility towards it, to the utmost extent of the powers given him as a Member of that House. The last Bill enacted that men and women, males and females, who died in workhouses, or who had the misfortune to die in hospitals without being claimed within a certain time after death, should be sold to the anatomist for the purpose of being placed under the dissecting-knife. He had said before, that when that Bill was brought in he should move an amendment, at all events, to the effect, in the first instance, that the anatomical schools should be licensed; and, in the next place, that no young surgeon should enter a school of anatomy, or be allowed to touch a dissecting-knife, unless he chose to register his name as an individual willing to give up his body for dissection. This would be the best way of getting rid of that vulgar prejudice of which they heard so much. Other hon. Members might oppose the Bill on different grounds;—some might do so on the score of Christian burial; but he should leave that to the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, and some others. He trusted that the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) would introduce a clause into his Bill, empowering any person to sell his body before he died. He understood that, as the law at present existed, a person could not dispose of his body, because it belonged to his executors. He thought that if this practice were legalized, and if dissecting-rooms were placed under the inspection of the Secretary of State, subjects might be procured with much greater facility, and without outraging the natural feelings of mankind. Yes, he said natural. Look at the case of Dr. Hunter; it was wished to dissect him; but he who had dissected so many himself, up to the very last moment of his life declared that he objected to the operation being performed on him. He had heard the anecdote from one of Dr. Hunter's best pupils, Mr. Brown, a surgeon, who lived in Stamford-street, Blackfriars. He was sorry to mention private names, but the hon. Gentleman obliged him to do so. Something must be done to put an end to the dreadful practices which had recently occurred. Could any thing be more horrible than the exposure of dead bodies which took place? The cutting up and mangling of the bodies of human beings was done with as little concern in those human shambles, as the bodies of beasts were cut up in Newgate, Smithfield, or any other market. He hoped and trusted the hon. Member would be very cautious what clauses he introduced into his Bill.

Mr. Sadler

said, the natural objection to the exposure and dissection of the remains of one who was dear to the survivor, might be denominated a prejudice; but it was a feeling which had existed in every age of the world and in every country. It was one which had survived every form of religion, and so far from being a prejudice, it was a principle of such a nature, and one which was so deeply planted in the human mind, that it could not be uprooted without tearing from the heart some of the best feelings of human nature. The assertion made by the hon. member, with respect to Dr. Hunter, might be equally well applied to some of the most eminent individuals in the medical profession at the present moment. He knew an instance of an individual of high rank and great eminence in his profession, who had invariably affected to despise the feelings to which he had just adverted—who considered them as prejudices—but, when it came to his turn to have the test applied to himself, when a beloved member of his family circle died, under circumstances of considerable distress—when great doubts were entertained as to the nature of her disease, and when it was proposed to him, that that individual should be subjected to surgical examination, he shrunk with horror from the proposal. He recollected the moment himself, and he remembered well the shudder which crept over that man at the bare idea of submitting a being whom he had so fondly loved—who had been to him a source of so much solicitude—to such an exposure. That sentiment would survive while there was feeling or virtue extant in society. If it be called a prejudice, let those deal with it who were above it—let the Bill which was to be brought forward, merely refer to that class of society who were superior to so gross and degrading a prejudice. It was well known, that the lower classes had the greatest possible objection to this mutilation of the remains of their friends—and to pass a law to claim the bodies of the unprotected poor, would be to close the doors of all hospitals and houses of mercy, and to drive the man, whose crime was poverty and whose fault was prejudice, to perish in the streets. He agreed so far with the hon. Member below him, as to think that the French schools of anatomy were better conducted: let such be the case here; but let them not be carried on at the expense of those feelings which he had endeavoured to describe—feelings which might lie dormant in a man's breast, but which one breath of affection for the memory of a departed friend or affectionate relative would fan into a flame. If our neighbours were so entirely free from these prejudices, he would beg to ask, why might not the principles of free trade, which were so liberally applied to other matters, be applied to this? By adopting this mode, they might have subjects supplied from abroad. As long as a traffic at a high price for human bodies after death was carried on, such atrocities as had been committed on the living subject must be expected. The poor of England would not bear any proposition which would fix upon them the supplying of the anatomical schools. How stood the law on the subject at present? It was objectionable in some points of view, certainly, but still, in one, it answered a valuable purpose. The man who violated the sanctuary of the grave, was not placed in a very perilous position, but the law of common decency compelled him to proceed on his illicit career in secret: the body of the dead could not suffer, and the feelings of the survivors were spared by the necessity of secresy. He repeated once more, that the Bill which the hon. Gentleman formerly introduced, was one which the poor of the country would never bear. If there were any mode of subjecting the different classes of society equally to the operation of such a law, for the benefit of the living, well and good; but justice and common feeling alike prohibited the adoption of any measure which weighed peculiarly heavily on the poor, while it spared the better classes of society.

Sir Richard Vyvyan

observed, he was sorry that the hon. member for Bridport had not thought it prudent to postpone the consideration of the measure before the House, to a more convenient period; and although it was not his intention to make any remarks on it at that moment, yet, after what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, and from other hon. Members, as to the cruelty exercised by the surgeons in their schools, he could not refrain from making a few observations. To begin; there was wanting in the last bill a clause which made it so objectionable, that he was compelled to oppose it, and he hoped the omission would be supplied in any bill which the hon. member for Bridport might then introduce. By law, those who were convicted of murder were delivered over for dissection, and a clause repealing that Act would be absolutely necessary, before the people would feel indifferent about being treated after death in the same manner as murderers. It was evident, that an advantage could not be derived from those feelings on both sides of the question. If it was intended to deter men from crime by adding to capital punishment the dissection of the body, the feeling of abhorrence which was entertained against that operation would be cherished; but if, on the contrary, to further the ends of science, the prejudices that exist against dissection are to be allayed, that, feeling of degradation which was now associated with it in the public mind must be removed. He quite agreed with what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Aldborough, as to the feelings which were experienced by the relations of the dead on the subject of dissection, and he also agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that it would be well if those who spoke so strongly against the prejudices of others, and more especially those of the poor, would set the example of self-devotion to the cause of science, and would shew to the public, that they were ready to abjure their prejudices, and to give up their bodies for the general good. Was there any man of philosophy or of religion, who believed, that anything could affect the body after death, whether it were deposited in the silent tomb, or cast into the sea, or were made the subject of scientific investigation? To persons who entertained such feelings, it would matter very little in what way their bodies were disposed of when life was extinct. Although he deprecated the discussion of the question at the present moment, and blamed the hon. member for Bridport for bringing it forward, calculated as he conceived it to be to inflict considerable pain on the minds of the people, yet he wholly exonerated the hon. Member from entertaining any such intention, and he (Sir R. Vyvyan) was convinced, that in his conduct he was actuated by the best and purest motives. He differed altogether from what had been said by the hon. member for Preston, upon the inutility of the science of anatomy, and of the discoveries which were made in early times by the anatomists. What had been the discoveries made by the aid of that science during the last two centuries? Even that grand discovery, the circulation of the blood, would not have been known had it not been for dissection. He believed, that if any hon. Member would take the trouble to look over the evidence which was given to the House last Session on that subject, he would find, that in consequence of not allowing bodies to be dissected, or by making it half criminal to do so (for such was in reality the situation of every anatomist), in consequence of these penal laws, a set of men in this metropolis and in other parts of the kingdom, had sprung up, dead to all those feelings which human nature would seem most dearly to cherish. A melancholy proof of this had been afforded by the trials which had lately taken place. He hoped, therefore, whatever might be the fate of this Bill, that the hon. Gentleman would insert nothing in it to hurt the feelings of the poor. Those who died in the poor-house, or in the hospital, were as much entitled to the protection of the law as those who died in palaces. He did not, however, mean to say, that he would repeal all the laws that existed against violating the church-yards. He was of opinion that some law must and ought to exist against taking bodies in general; but he would have the law so altered as to render it less penal to dissect bodies, though, at the same time, he would not remove that barrier which the laws now threw around the receptacles for the dead. At the same time, he would do all he could to remove the prejudice that existed in the minds of the people on the subject. He knew they had to deal with a paradox; and it was hard to plead at one and the same time the cause of feeling and of philosophy. Yet, if it had not been for the discoveries made by the anatomist, what would have been our progress in the science of physiology? The poor had, indeed, been the greatest gainers by those discoveries; for were it not for dissection, those able and experienced surgeons who were now to be met with in all walks of society could not have existed, and whose numbers, before anatomy was generally studied, were so few that it was with the greatest difficulty even the rich were able to obtain the advantage of their skill.

Mr. Warburton

thought he had distinctly stated, that there would be a clause in his Bill which would make it clearly unobjectionable, and that that clause would provide, that the measure should equally apply to rich and poor. The clause was to this effect, that neither against the consent of the party himself while living, nor against the consent of the relations when dead, should the body be given up for dissection. He had hoped, and still did hope, that that clause would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman. Something had been said about the subject of religion. He knew that the fathers of the Church were not in such repute as they were in former ages; yet there were many passages to be found in their works which went to the full extent of the doctrines which the hon. Member had laid down. He did not think, that it mattered at all to the person who was dead what was done with his body; and as to the burial service of the Church, he considered that to be said rather for the benefit of the living than the dead. He would read a passage from one of the fathers of the Church, which was applicable to that part of the subject. It was from St. Augustin, in his work on Genesis. Quasi vero quidquam intersit ad nostram utilitatem, istar caro jam examinis in naturæ profunda secreta per quos transitus eat! St. Augustin called the anxiety that men evinced for the manner in which their bodies should be treated after death, "inanes curas examinatorum corporum suorum." In many other passages that author alluded to the same subject, and taught us not to care what became of our bodies after death, for that could have nothing to do with our spiritual well-being. He trusted that, with this explanation of the nature of the Bill, and of its impartial application both to the rich and poor, the hon. Member would give it his support.

Mr. Sadler

only wished to state, that what he was anxious to see was, an equal course taken by the hon. Gentleman in this measure with regard to the poor and the rich. It would be most unfair if that and the other House of Parliament should make a law of such a nature apply to that class of society who regarded dissection as a great punishment, and at the same time exempt those from its operation who had so largely benefitted by it. He was in a great degree reconciled to the principles of the Bill since the explanation that had been given.

Leave given.