Commons Sitting of 11 April 1832

MINUTES.
Bill brought in. By Sir CHARLES BURRELL, for the better Employment of Labourers in Agricultural Parishes.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the Report, Estimate, and Plan of the proposed New Docks and River Wall at Woolwich Yard.
Petitions presented. By Lord CASTLEREAGH, from Magherally, County of Down, against the proposed System of Education in Ireland; and by Lord COLE, to the same effect from Rathkeale, in the County of Limerick:—By Mr. WYSE, from Mr. Darcy Mahon, one of the late Commissioners of Stamps in Ireland, for Compensation for the loss of his place:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the Inhabitants of Stoke Damerel, for the Amendment of 43 Geo. 3rd, relating to Burial Grounds:—By Mr. HUNT, from Bury, and the Township of Pilkington, Lancashire, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.

DURHAM GAOL—PETITION.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from William Tynemouth, a Prisoner in Durham Gaol, complaining of Cruelty on the part of the Gaoler, and neglect by the Visiting Magistrates. The petitioner was a total stranger to him, but his petition was accompanied by an assurance, that he was able to substantiate on oath the allegations contained within it. He was afraid it was the practice of visiting Magistrates to authorize gaolers to punish such persons as he represented to them were refractory; that
304
he understood was the case with the unfortunate person whose petition he held in his hand; and, as he had not been able to get relief from the Judges of Assize, to whom he had complained, he had no other means of obtaining redress but by applying to that House for protection. He (Mr. Hunt) well knew there was a disposition on the part of gaolers and visiting Magistrates to stretch the power allowed them to the utmost, to the great discomfort of the unhappy persons subject to their authority.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that the petitioner had been for many years in Durham gaol, and his conduct during that time was of a most annoying character, approaching to that of a maniac, so much so, that the visiting Magistrates would be happy if they could get him removed to any other prison, as the only means by which they could get rid of the annoyance. The governor of Durham gaol was universally respected by the gentlemen of the neighbourhood, and, on a late occasion, upwards of forty prisoners, discharged from his custody under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, presented to him an address of thanks for his kindness, attention, and humanity. He could only add, on the part of the gaoler, he was quite prepared to enter into any investigation into his conduct.
Sir Hedworth Williamsonsaid, he must add his testimony to the general good conduct and character of the governor of Durham gaol; and, he was sure, if the hon. member for Preston would visit the prison, he would see there was no inhumanity practised, but that the establishment was conducted on the best principles. He had himself, as foreman of the Grand Jury, known that the petitioner had, on various occasions, brought forward charges against the governor, for which, on an investigation taking place, there did not appear the slightest ground.
Mr. Huntsaid, he did not impeach the character of the gaoler on his own knowledge, he had merely repeated the allegations in the petition. He believed that the statements of the hon. Members might be correct, but there was a possibility of Magistrates and Grand Jurors being liable to imposition.
Petition laid on the Table.

POST-OFFICE—NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from certain Newsvenders, complaining that their Privileges were infringed upon by the Post-

305
office Clerks, and praying that the Illegal Traffic in Newspapers by the latter might be stopped.
Lord William Lennoxfelt the inconvenience of introducing any discussion upon the presentation of petitions; it was a system he highly deprecated in a general point of view. There were, however, instances in which he thought the House would agree with him that some remarks were necessary: those were, when the petitioners founded their grievances upon false grounds; or when the petition contained any unfounded attack upon the character of any individual. On these grounds he would trespass upon the House for a few moments, not only with a view of putting the House right as to the privilege enjoyed by the Clerks of the Roads, but also to defend his noble brother, the Postmaster General, from the unfounded attack contained in the petition. He did not accuse the hon. member for Preston of participating in the attack, he only blamed him for not having thoroughly investigated the question before he brought it forward. Now, as to the "illegal traffic." The privilege of forwarding newspapers was one enjoyed by the Clerks of the Roads from time immemorial. In the 4th Geo. 3rd, cap. 24, sec. 6, the privilege is granted in the following words:—'Forasmuch as it has been usual for the Clerks in the Offices of his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and also for certain Officers in the Office of his Majesty's Postmaster General, to frank printed Notes and Proceedings in Parliament, and printed Newspapers, to be sent by the Post, be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful for such Clerks and Officers as aforesaid, being thereunto licensed by his Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, or his Majesty's Postmaster General respectively, to continue to frank such printed Notes and Proceedings in Parliament, and printed Newspapers, as they have heretofore been accustomed to frank the same.' At that period there was no free trade in newspapers, for none, except the above-mentioned and Members of Parliament, could frank newspapers. In the 9th Geo. 3rd, the Clerks in the Secretary of State's office were deprived of this privilege, and a sum of 1,500 l. granted to them as a compensation, which was afterwards raised to 2,500 l. The privilege of the Clerks in the Post-office (of which there are now about eighteen interested)
306
was left undisturbed. So much for the illegality. He would now very briefly point out the advantage gained to the revenue, and to the public convenience. The salaries of the Clerks who enjoyed the privilege were very trivial, their advantages being taken into consideration; it was a saving of some thousands to the revenue. With regard to the public convenience, the advantages were great. The publishers of the evening papers were enabled to send their late editions through the Clerks of the Post-office after the box of the public had been closed. It was necessary to close the box for the newspapers at six o'clock; and even a few weeks ago the letters were delayed twenty minutes, owing to the mass of newspapers. The public can put newspapers in until half-past seven by the payment of one halfpenny on each. The Clerks have the privilege until near eight o'clock, when they are put in, ready sorted, and free of charge. It had been stated, that the Clerks of the Roads altered newspaper directions to advance their own sale; such could not be the case, even if they were disposed to act so dishonestly, for the newspapers were sorted in quite a different office. He was aware many mistakes happened with regard to newspapers, and he would point out the reason. In one week last month, nearly 200 newspapers were put into the General Post-office with wrong addresses—many from being put in wet with the covers torn off. The practice in the Post-office is to return all misdirected newspapers to the publishers, and to send all papers fitting them to the covers that are found in the newspaper-box. By such means mistakes happened. These mistakes, caused by the carelessness of the newsvenders, were vented upon the Post-office.
Mr. Humewas not before aware of the fact just named by the noble Lord, and such being the case, he hoped a measure would be introduced to take away a privilege which operated in violation of the interests of the public, and he was sure that the House would not hesitate to grant such compensation to the Clerks of the Roads as would be just. He, therefore, with pleasure, supported the prayer of the petition.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonpresented a Petition from the Ministers, Elders, and Inhabitants of Aberdeen, praying that the Annual Grant to

307
Maynooth College be discontinued. The petitioners expressed their sorrow to feel themselves compelled to approach that House on the subject of the grant recently made by it, for the purpose of educating individuals for the Roman Catholic Church. They considered the principle on which this support to the Roman faith was given as unconstitutional; and they called the attention of the House to those countries where that faith prevailed, in order to demonstrate the melancholy evils which flowed from its profession. They submitted, that the view they took, in their petition, must be received and acceded to by every man who examined the sacred Scriptures for himself; and that, indeed, no other could be received on any truly religious principle. They said, that such a grant, on the mere ground of expediency, could not be defended; and they did not see how it was possible for any evil to the State to arise from withholding it; and they concluded by imploring the House to discontinue the grant accordingly. He agreed with the prayer of the petition, for he was convinced the Government was violating the Protestant principle by encouraging the Roman Catholic priests to make extracts from the Bible for the education of Protestant children. He understood that the proportion of the money paid by Scotland for the purpose of educating the Catholic clergy already amounted to 50,000 l., and he, as a Presbyterian, felt that such a course ought no longer to be continued.
Mr. James E. Gordonsupported the prayer of the petition, which, he could assure the House, emanated from an exemplary and intelligent body, whose sentiments were entitled to the most serious consideration. It was wholly unjust, in his opinion, that money should be allowed for the education of Catholic priests, when the Scriptural education in the Kildare-street Society's schools was suppressed.
Colonel Torrenswas surprised at the obliquity of understanding which could induce hon. Members to support such preposterous petitions as that now brought before the House. It was asserted, that it was wrong for a Protestant country to appropriate money for the education of Catholic priests, but did it not strike hon. Members, who made that observation, that it was equally as wrong to make the Irish Catholics support the Protestant Church?
Mr. Trevorsupported the petition. He thought there was nothing whatever in it
308
which merited the term preposterous. If any thing could be called preposterous, it was the withdrawal of a grant from a Society that had done so much good by the promotion of Scriptural education in Ireland, whilst encouragement was to be held out, by a grant to this Catholic College, for the education of Roman Catholic priests.
Mr. Humethought the grant to Maynooth a most politic measure, because it enabled the Roman Catholic priests to be educated, without going, as formerly, to foreign lands, and he thought to withdraw this grant would be at once unjust, illiberal, and impolitic. If the principles of the hon. Members who accused the Roman Catholics of intolerance were acted on, a truly practical state of intolerance would be the result. The Protestants of Ireland, living, he might say, in a Catholic country, received a large sum from the public, but in England the Catholics got not a farthing from the public. The Presbyterians in Scotland received much more than all the 6,000,000 of Catholics in Ireland. He knew the petitioners to be excellent men in private life, but their views of things were very limited.
Mr. Lefroydiffered in his opinion of the law and policy of the hon. member for Middlesex. The grant to Maynooth College was founded in the worst policy, for the State ought not to support opposite and conflicting religious opinions. When a part of the Catholic Church thought fit to reform itelf, its livings and its property continued in the hands of its members: they only changed their religion; but that part of the Church lands which was connected with monasteries was granted by Parliament to the Crown, who transferred it to lay holders. If there were any Church robbers, the laity were the guilty parties. The Protestants had never despoiled the Catholics, therefore, he doubted the law of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that the subject of complaint was, that the grant should be continued to Catholics and withheld from Protestants. The only ground on which the grant could be defended was, as a sort of national compact formed at the Union but other compacts of the same nature had been altered, and he saw no reason why this should be maintained inviolate. He fully agreed with the remark of the hon. Member who preceded him, that the property had never been

309
taken by Protestants from Catholics, but was equally Church property before the Reformation.
Mr. James Grattansaid, that it was distressing to hear such discussion every night—to hear Irish Members saying that the two religions were not compatible. Ministers would find it difficult to govern a country with such conduct on the part of Members. Were the hon. Gentlemen doing their duty when they had suffered the grant to Maynooth College to go on from 1795, without complaining. Now they came forward only because they were sore on another subject, which had no relation to this. The grant at first was very politic; it was given in order that the College students of divinity might study in Ireland, instead of going to France, where such violent principles then prevailed
Sir Frederick Trenchsaid, in answer to the observation of the hon. Member (Mr. Grattan), that he was one who was always opposed to the grant to Maynooth College.
Mr. Lambertconceived the grant to Maynooth to rest upon this point—are the Catholics to be educated as Christians, or not at all? If the former was intended, then the grant was highly proper.
Mr. Andrew Johnston, in moving that the petition be printed said, that some of the petitioners were persons well known for their scientific acquirements, and he considered their opinion well worth attending to.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellbegged the House to remember that the grant had not been sought by the Catholics: the Government of the time had thought proper to propose it to them. He would defy the Gentlemen who opposed it to give an instance in which the Catholic priests had not endeavoured to preserve the peace; he had met them politically and spiritually, and he always found their efforts devoted to the maintenance of quiet.
Petition to be printed.

THE ANATOMY BILL.
Mr. Warburtonmoved that the Bill for regulating schools of Anatomy be recommitted.
Mr. Huntmust again express himself hostile to the Bill altogether, and considered there was not one word in it which would afford protection to the public, for which purpose it was said to be intended that it should be passed.
The House resolved itself into Committee.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that it was not his original intention to extend the Bill to Ireland, but to leave it to the Members for that country to bring forward any suggestion they thought proper. He had, however, been waited upon by two deputations from the College of Surgeons in Dublin, and another medical body, soliciting the extension of the provisions of the Act to that country; and he, therefore, should move an addition to the first clause, extending the operation of the Act to Ireland.
Mr. Wasonsaid, the effect of this Bill would be to deprive surgeons of the benefits which they now derived from practising anatomy at their private residences; and he must also condemn that part of it which legalised the sale of dead bodies, which was not only unnecessary, but would also lead to very unbecoming practices.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, it was his intention to propose an amendment, to the effect that all licenses to be granted for the establishment of schools of anatomy should receive the signature of two resident Magistrates of the city or district, certifying that the applicants were proper persons to have such establishments, and that a duty of 20 l. be paid on receiving the first license for a-year, and that 5l. per annum be paid on its renewal.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he never objected to the expenditure of the public money when the interests of the poorer classes, as in the present instance, were at stake; and he, therefore, intimated his intention of proposing an amendment, that three inspectors be appointed for the city of Westminster and Southwark, and one for each county.
On the question, that the word "Ireland" be inserted in the first clause,
Mr. Ruthvensaid, that he should oppose the addition of the word to the clause, being perfectly convinced that the effect of introducing such a Bill into Ireland would be to tend to the demoralization of the people. It would encourage the parent to traffic with the body of his child, and the child with that of the parent. The church-yards were more unprotected in Ireland than in England, and he was sure, therefore, that the people would view the introduction of the Bill with horror.
Mr. Robinsonobjected to the introduction of a clause of such importance in Committee. It ought to have been inserted in the Bill before it had been read a second time, He disapproved of the Bill

311
as it regarded England, and, therefore, should support the opposition made to extending it to Ireland, where its provisions would be still more pernicious.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he had been induced to introduce the clause at the request of the profession of Ireland, provided it did not interfere with the mode in which the College of Surgeons in Dublin was supplied, and the privileges of the Royal Infirmary were not meddled with.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the objection formerly urged against the Bill by the Irish Members was, that it did not extend to Ireland. He could see nothing in the objection of the hon. Member for Worcester to prevent its application to Ireland. The object was two-fold—namely, to facilitate science and to prevent crime. Surely if it were a good Bill for one country, it must be equally good for another.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, if the Bill did not extend to Ireland, a traffic in dead bodies would take place from Ireland to England and Scotland, which would produce appalling results. He understood that the College of Surgeons in Dublin had lately come to an opposite conclusion, and were now averse to the extension of the Bill to Ireland.
Mr. Sheilcould see no reason why the Bill should be less suitable to Ireland than to England. He was not aware that the people of Ireland were opposed to it, for there had been no expression of public opinion on the subject. Unless its application was common to both countries, he quite agreed with his hon. friend (the Solicitor General for Ireland), that it would afford an encouragement to the traffic in human bodies between the two countries. The Bill was calculated to improve science and prevent crime.
Mr. Robinsondenied, that this Bill would prevent crime, although it might advance science. He thought that the people of Ireland should have time for consideration; and, whether it were a proper measure for England or not, in point of principle he thought that the people of Ireland should not be bound by the measure. The people who would be affected by this Bill should be consulted; and, failing that, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. member for Downpatrick.
Sir Charles Wetherelladmitted, that the proposed objects of the Bill were to prevent crime and promote the furtherance of anatomical science; but, nevertheless, he did not think that this Bill would effect either
312
of these two very important objects. He very much doubted the legal operation of this Act to deliver over dead bodies happening to be in the possession of strangers, whether surgeons or others; and he was quite satisfied that the poorer classes would feel a greater objection to the Bill than the higher. In legislating upon this subject the wishes and the interests of the poorer classes should be considered; and after all, as he had just said, the clause relative to the legal custody of dead persons would not, in his opinion, confer a right to deliver over the body or bodies of dead persons to the surgeons for dissection. Suppose a man to die tinder a shed, or under a parcel of straw, over which other persons had an ownership, would it, he asked, be right that such owner or owners should have the legal right of disposal of such bodies? To such a clause he would object, and particularly on the ground that the period of human life might be abridged in some instances for the sake of the body, which Bill as it now stood enabled the person possessing the body to dispose of it.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that it was not fair to raise objections on account of circumstances which might by possibility occur in the operation of the Bill. They ought to look at the present state of the law, and see what remedy could be supplied to remove all, or the greater portion, of the evil. His object was not merely to promote the ends of science, but to bring that science to the poor man's door, that the practitioner who attended the poorest man might be equally qualified with the practitioner who attended the rich. It was objected that many of the persons who were in the hospitals, whose bodies by this Bill were to be given up for dissection, might have their deaths accelerated for the purpose of having their bodies to dispose of. He conceived that he had provided against this by the necessity of officers being first required to examine the body. But was not such a practice pursued now, without any means whatever to prevent or check it? The only way to prevent those monstrous practices which were known to have prevailed was, to reduce the price for subjects for dissection. He thought, when the Bill came into operation, the facilities for committing these horrible crimes would be a hundred degrees less than at present.
Mr. Alderman Woodconsidered that, when the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) was added, the Bill would prove of great utility.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, in order that such a measure as this should have a fair trial, he would first propose that the Bill should be in force for a year and a day. He would propose further, that the obligation which the parish were at present under, to be at the expense of burying a pauper, should be transferred to the officers appointed under this Act.
Mr. Huntobserved, that it would be better to try the Bill as an experiment in England. If it worked well, then extend it to Ireland. The hon. member for Bridport had wished an impossibility if he desired to extend the benefit of science to the poor, for, if a bungler existed, that bungler would gain the attendance on the poor. He was of opinion that the sale of dead bodies when legalized would not prevent crime. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had legalized the sale of game with the view of preventing poaching; but had it effected the desired object? The same want of success would attend this Anatomy Bill.
Mr. Weylandthought it would be better to leave matters in this respect as they were, rather than adopt the Bill before them. He was persuaded that this measure would assist the work of the resurrection-men and others. It was impossible to say that the sale of the bodies of the poor would not lead to the worst effects. The inspectors ought to have power to adopt proceedings in case they should discover anything wrong. A poor man, who thought that the body of his deceased relative had been improperly made away with, had no remedy but an expensive prosecution, which it was known he could not afford.
Mr. Shawthought that the Bill ought to be extended to Ireland, and that the laws ought always to be assimilated, as much as possible, between the two countries: if it were not so extended, there would be connivances to evade the Bill.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellfelt it his duty to oppose the extension of this Bill to Ireland.
The Committee divided on the Amendment extending the Bill to Ireland: Ayes 43; Noes 3—Majority 40.
Sir Robert Inglismoved an Amendment on the clause giving the power of licence and inspection of anatomical schools to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to the effect that all such licences should be granted only to licentiates and graduates in surgery and medicine, and other persons legally qualified to practise in medicine and surgery.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the proposed verbal Amendment of the hon. Member would prevent private schools of anatomy being kept by private surgeons, from whose skill and science great advantages were derived to the students of anatomy and surgery. Having this opinion, he must oppose the Amendment. He wished to give every facility to the students in anatomy, and, if this Amendment were agreed to, the most unnecessary restrictions would be imposed upon that branch of their studies. He thought that every security would be afforded by this Bill for the protection of the public, because no person would be permitted to open a school without the consent of a regular professor, supported by the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. On the Continent the study of anatomy occupied five or six years—in this country only a year and a half, or two years; and it would be very injurious to prevent the student from having every advantage which he could derive from that source, during his limited period of study.
Sir Robert Ingliswas induced to move this Amendment, because he thought some security should be afforded to the public against a repetition of those crimes which had disgraced this country. It was not many years since a medical practitioner himself had been suspected of a participation in those crimes, but the power of inspection would, he hoped, prevent any suspicion attaching itself to any member of the medical profession.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he would rather give up the Bill entirely than consent to the Amendment; for, without private dissection, no progress in anatomical science could be made.
Lord Althorpdisapproved of the Amendment, and concurred with the hon. member for Bridport in thinking it was calculated to impede the progress of medical science.
Mr. Wasonsaid, the Amendment tended to afford protection to the public, and he thought it would not in any degree prevent private dissection, and, consequently, could not interfere with the interest of science.
Lord William Lennoxsaid, if the only object of the Bill was to benefit the practitioner, then he would not make the objection he did to students being allowed to have part of the subjects to dissect at their own house. But the public feeling ought to be consulted. A whole body might be

315
recognized, but, if parts were mangled, would it not be an encouragement to individuals to murder and cut them up before sale to prevent discovery?
Mr. John Campbellconsidered it to be a reproach to the law of England, that Judges should have decided that the possession of portions of the human body for the purposes of science should be considered so heinous an offence as it had hitherto been.
Mr. Warburtonwould consent to the Amendment proposed, on the condition of adding a provision by which students should not be excluded from the benefits of private dissection, and also that a certificate would be required from two Magistrates before any licence should be granted.
Mr. Huntsaid, that, notwithstanding what had been then said, he would divide the Committee on the Amendment of the hon. member for Oxford.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 6; Noes 50—Majority 44.
Mr. Wasonmoved an Amendment on the same clause, to the effect that no entire human body should be taken to any private house for the purpose of dissection.
Mr. Warburtonopposed the Amendment, as it would prevent the country practitioner from renewing his acquaintance with his profession from time to time, as was indispensable, or compel him to come up to London, or elsewhere, in order to avail himself of the practice of the schools of anatomy.
Mr. John Campbellconsidered the Amendment was perfectly unnecessary, for no person would have an entire body when he only wanted a part. He thought it would materially injure the Bill.
Colonel Sibthorprequested that the further consideration of the Bill might be postponed till there was a more full attendance of Members. He was astonished at the language used by the hon. member for Stafford upon this occasion. The Amendment gave encouragement to the wholesale cutting up of the bodies of the poor, joint by joint.
Mr. Humedid not understand the commiseration expressed for the poor by hon. Members, who would, at the same time, prevent surgeons acquiring that knowledge, the want of which was most felt by that class of persons. He hoped the hon. member for Ipswich would not persevere in his Amendment.
Mr. Huntwould not be deterred by any observations from moving his Amendments to this disgusting Bill. He had an Amend-
316
ment on every clause. He detested the whole measure. He wished those rich Gentlemen, who talked about the poor, would give up their bodies. He would move, that every Gentleman who voted for the Bill, as well as all sinecurists, should be given up for dissection.
Mr. Philip Howardsaid, that the Bill had the sanction of a Prince of the Blood, who had promised to give up his body for the benefit of science; and if he (Mr. Howard) could be of any use after his death, he should be happy to do the same. He supported the clause as it stood, and reminded the member for Preston that it was the poor, and not the rich, who suffered from the defective state of anatomical knowledge, which was most sensibly felt in the country and in small towns, where professional men, notwithstanding their eagerness to obtain such knowledge, were debarred from doing so by the state of the law.
Mr. Hunt, in reference to the last remark of the hon. member for Carlisle, said, that he always understood the bodies of the Royal Family were embalmed, and, therefore, the royal Duke had really done nothing.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that, if he were asked to give an opinion, he would say, that, although we had in the metropolis some of the ablest anatomists in the world, there were many country practitioners exceedingly deficient in their knowledge of anatomy.
Amendment negatived.
Sir Robert Inglismoved a clause imposing a fee of 20 l., a stamp on the licences of 5l., and an annual tax of 1l. on the admission of persons to practise anatomy in the schools, which would raise a fund for defraying the expense of carrying the Act into execution.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. He had numerous representations against the proposition in a former Bill, of paying 2l. on each licence. It would defeat the object of the measure.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the effect of this Amendment would be, to press unfairly upon the junior members of the profession.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Huntproposed, as an Amendment, that there should be an Inspector for the city of London, one for the city of Westminster, another for the borough of Southwark, and one for each county in England and Wales.
Mr. Warburtonthought it was better to wait till they saw how the Bill worked. He was informed that one Inspector, with

317
the assistance of some policemen, would be sufficient. The Bill left it discretionary with the Secretary of State to appoint more if it should be deemed necessary.
Sir Charles Burrellsaid, every precaution ought to be taken to ensure an efficient superintendence; and one Inspector did not appear to him sufficient for that purpose.
Mr. Briscoethought the salary of 100 l. for an Inspector quite inadequate. The duty would require constant attention, and no person, calculated for the situation, would accept it with so small a remuneration.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Humesuggested that some regulation should be entered into for rendering the duty of searchers in parishes more effective.
Mr. Lambsaid, there had been a measure under consideration to regulate the duties of those searchers, but be was not then prepared to state what progress had been made in it.
Mr. Huntthen moved, that one Inspector be elected in every county, in the way that Coroners are elected.
Mr. Warburtonthought it would be better, as proposed by the Bill, to leave that matter to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who could appoint such numbers of Inspectors as might be found necessary.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 10; Noes 52—Majority 42.
An Amendment, proposed by Mr. Hunt, "that the Inspectors should make monthly returns of subjects dissected to the Secretary of State," was agreed to.
Mr. Weylandwished to propose, as an Amendment, that the Inspectors should be allowed at any time to visit any private house where he heard that anatomy was practised.
Mr. Warburtonobserved it was impossible any such Amendment could be agreed to: it would give the Inspector power to enter any man's house, whenever he might desire to do so. Such an Amendment would interfere with the liberty of the subject.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Hunthad then to move, that the salary to the Inspector should be paid out of the county-rates, and he allowed by the Magistrates in the usual way. He thought 100 l. a-year for each Inspector was not
318
enough. They would take that sum, and, in the neighbourhood of an anatomical school, make 1,000 l. of it.
Mr. Warburtondid not consider the salary too small; indeed, he had received several letters from some highly respectable gentlemen expressive of their readiness to accept that salary. He thought, also, it was but fair that, as the Secretary of State had the appointments, the salaries were properly chargeable on the Consolidated Fund.
Amendment withdrawn, and clause agreed to.
On time next clause, which empowers any person having the legal custody of a dead body to dispose of it for dissection, if it be not proved that the deceased had objected to such a disposal of his or her body, being moved,
Sir Robert Inglisproposed to add a clause, making it a misdemeanour, punishable with a fine of 500 l., if any person not duly licensed should practise dissection; and, also, a misdemeanour for any governor of a hospital, or gaoler, to sell or dispose of subjects. It was his object to supply bodies from parishes, and he would also propose, that all persons found dead, and unclaimed for the space of three days should be given up to the parish authorities; and, after an inquest duly held, might be disposed of by them for the purposes of dissection. He should not now move, but reserve the Amendments to a later stage of the Bill.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had also an Amendment to move to the effect that no body should be disposed of for dissection, unless the consent of the deceased, in writing, duly authenticated by two respectable witnesses, should be produced.
Mr. Robinsonthought there was something most unseemly and revolting in the Commons' House of Parliament legislating on such a clause, by which the sale of the dead, of the wife by the husband, of the son by the father, and relatives trafficking in the remains of relatives, was legalized. He never would be a consenting party to a proposition so monstrous. He knew the public were opposed to this clause, and he would not consent to such an outrage on public feeling. There was already a prejudice amongst the poor, that the rich had no sympathy in their sufferings, and this clause would tend materially to increase that prejudice. If the clause passed the Committee, which he sincerely hoped it would not, an addition ought to be in-

319
serted, making it imperative that proof should be first given that the deceased party had himself consented, before death, that his remains should be given for dissection.
Mr. Warburtoncould not consent to this proposition. It was already provided by the Bill, that the consent of the nearest relations must be first had and obtained before the subject could be disposed of for dissection, and what more could the hon. Gentleman wish for? With respect to the observations of the hon. member for Oxford to prevent, the sale of bodies in the way he mentioned, he should say, it would be impossible to watch or to discover such a transaction, and he never would be a party to such hypocritical legislation.
Mr. Wasonsaid, when he first read this Bill, he thought, and such was still his opinion, that it was, from beginning to end, a perfect specimen of hypocritical legislation; for it proposed one thing to the House, and another to the people. He should, with much pleasure, support the proposition of the hon. member for Oxford, and confine the supply to the workhouses.
Mr. Fanesaid, he must deprecate the apparent indifference of some Members in that House to the dissection and indecent exposure of their nearest and clearest relations.
Mr. Briscoethought this so important a clause, that he should move that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Wasonseconded the Motion.
Mr. Humeput it to the hon. Mover, if it was fair, or at all the practice of the House, to make such a motion, when the clause had been discussed.
Mr. Robinsondenied that the clause had been discussed, at least not sufficiently.
Mr. Dawsonwas entirely opposed to the Bill, which was calculated to expose the poor, and to protect the rich. He thought, also, it was high time that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Sir John Sebrightdenied the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and considered the Bill was eminently calculated to protect the poor; and it was on that account the Bill had his support.
Mr. Warburtoncould not but remind the House of the enormities practised; and he would then ask, if the time was not now come when they should endeavour, at least, to prevent them?
Mr. Dawsonstill thought that the Bill was calculated rather to increase than to diminish the crime called burking.
Sir Robert Peelthought the clause now before the House involved the whole principle of the Bill. He begged to ask the House, what had been the consequence of the sanction of the law for the sale of subjects having been so long withheld. It was manifest and notorious that sales took place, and the supply was kept up by continued robberies, committed by persons of the most desperate and degraded characters. To add to the supply, it had been clearly proved, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that systematic murders had been perpetrated, and though, in Scotland and in this metropolis, only three criminals had suffered the extreme penalty of the law, it was impossible to say how many murders had been committed for the sake of disposing of the bodies. He was informed, some years ago, by two highly respectable medical practitioners, that, when they paid twelve guineas for a subject, they did so with remorse, feeling that so large a sum was but an incentive to the commission of the most atrocious crime. Now, as the penalties for dissecting were annihilated, the only means of remedying the dreadful evils at present existing was, by legalizing the supply. The Bill afforded all classes an opportunity of protesting against their bodies being subjected to anatomical examination, by leaving a writing to that effect. He dissented entirely from the proposition of the hon. member for Oxford, that the supply should be made, not from the hospitals, not from the gaols, but from the poor-houses. He contended it was not fair to cast such an odium on the poor, and to subject them to a law from the provisions of which the rich were relieved, and he thought the law should be made to operate generally on all classes. This, he considered, was effected by the clause at present before the House, and he should, therefore, support it.
Mr. Hunthad heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet with surprise. The Bill threw the supply entirely on the poor. How could the poor man in gaol make a protest to save himself from dissection? A poor wretch dying in gaol could never hope to receive the least advantage from a protest. No one would be ready to prove such a protest. It might be called in that House a Bill for the benefit of the poor, but it would not be so called out of that House. It was a Bill calculated to brutalize the human race. He had hopes that

321
the Bill would never pass in another House.
Lord Althorpsaid, the argument of the member for Preston went to prove there ought to be no anatomical examination at all. What was the case at present? Was there any way of preventing dissection; and was it not better to insure a supply without so many horrible excesses as they knew were committed? The object was to take away the temptation to commit breaches of the law. The Bill would put rich and poor on the same footing.
Mr. Courtenaycontended that it was virtually admitted, that the clause in question allowed the sale of the bodies of the poor to the highest bidder, and, therefore, it should be submitted to a more serious debate.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, it was manifest the object of the clause was to put an end to the dreadful system which had been clearly proved in the Courts of Justice of the country, and, therefore, it ought to be passed without undue delay. The tone assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite had, through the evening debate, been addressed to the jealous passions of the most uneducated, or least informed, in the community, and was calculated to render Members of this House loth to offer any suggestions in support of this measure, lest they should subject themselves to that degree of opprobrium which had been so lavishly heaped on the hon. member for Bridport, whose laudable exertions entitled him to the best thanks of the country.
Mr. Dawsonentertained a totally different opinion. He could not see the clause in the same point of view in which it had been put by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It was a Bill in support of science against humane feeling.
Mr. Briscoemust press his Motion to a division.
The Committee divided on the Motion to report progress: Ayes 11; Noes 59—Majority 48.
Mr. Dawsonrepeated his objections to the Bill, and insisted on the propriety of an adjournment of the debate. It was impossible that the clause could pass that night, and he was astonished at the pertinacity with which the hon. Members opposite opposed Gentlemen sitting on his (Mr. Dawson's) side of the House.
Mr. Warburtonwas well aware of the heavy duties of hon. Gentlemen holding office, and was perfectly willing to place himself in the hands of the noble Lord and those having official duties to discharge.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he should remain to the last moment to support a Bill which was so advantageous to the public. They had gained, in the course of the debate, an admirable speech from the right hon. member for Tamworth, whose opinion might have silenced all opposition to the measure.
Lord Althorpthought the clause then in dispute had been discussed, and the House was at liberty to come to a decision on it; he, therefore, recommended his hon. friend to persevere.
Mr. Briscoeexpressed a hope that the adjournment would not be opposed.
The Attorney Generaldid not support the measure in his official character, but on the conviction that the measure was essential, and he would remain to the last to support it.
Lord Althorprecommended his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, to persevere with the clause before the House, which had already been so fully discussed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that, valuing as he did the time of his noble and right hon. friends near him, he should not, at that late hour, further oppose the adjournment of the debate.
Lord Ebringtoncomplained of the hon. member for Bridport yielding to the Gentlemen who had opposed the measure. He wished the proposition of the Attorney-General should be adopted. For himself, he would sit here till to-morrow morning to support the measure.
Mr. Warburtoncould not, under the circumstances to which he had already alluded, refuse the adjournment.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the doors of the gallery were closed for the last three-quarters of an hour, and the reporters had been excluded, When he mentioned this just now, the Attorney General had unequivocally denied that the gallery was closed, but that the reporters had got tired of the debate and gone away. Now, what was the fact? The moment the doors were opened, the reporters were again at their posts.
The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.