THE ANATOMY BILL. (Hansard, 11 April 1832)

Mr. Warburton
moved that the Bill for regulating schools of Anatomy be recommitted.

§ Mr. Hunt
must 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.

Mr. Warburton
said, 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. Wason
said, 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 Inglis
said, 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 20l. be paid on receiving the first license for a-year, and that 5l. per annum be paid on its renewal.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, 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.

§ Mr. Ruthven
said, 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. Robinson
objected 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. Warburton
said, 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 Rice
said, 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. Crampton
said, 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. Sheil
could 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. Robinson
denied, 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 Wetherell
admitted, 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. Warburton
observed, 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 Wood
considered that, when the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis) was added, the Bill would prove of great utility.

Sir Robert Inglis
said, 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. Hunt
observed, 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. Weyland
thought 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. Shaw
thought 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'Connell
felt it his duty to oppose the extension of this Bill to Ireland.

Sir Robert Inglis
moved 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. Warburton
said, 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 Inglis
was 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. Warburton
said, 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 Althorp
disapproved of the Amendment, and concurred with the hon. member for Bridport in thinking it was calculated to impede the progress of medical science.

Mr. Wason
said, 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 Lennox
said, 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 Campbell
considered 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. Warburton
would 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. Hunt
said, that, notwithstanding what had been then said, he would divide the Committee on the Amendment of the hon. member for Oxford.

Mr. Wason
moved 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. Warburton
opposed 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 Campbell
considered 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 Sibthorp
requested 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. Hume
did 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. Hunt
would 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 Howard
said, 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. Warburton
said, 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.

Sir Robert Inglis
moved a clause imposing a fee of 20l., 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. Warburton
said, 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. Robinson
said, the effect of this Amendment would be, to press unfairly upon the junior members of the profession.

§ Mr. Hunt
proposed, 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. Warburton
thought 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 Burrell
said, every precaution ought to be taken to ensure an efficient superintendence; and one Inspector did not appear to him sufficient for that purpose.

§ Mr. Briscoe
thought the salary of 100l. 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.

Mr. Hume
suggested that some regulation should be entered into for rendering the duty of searchers in parishes more effective.

Mr. Lamb
said, 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. Hunt
then moved, that one Inspector be elected in every county, in the way that Coroners are elected.

Mr. Warburton
thought 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. Hunt
said, he should take the sense of the Committee on his Amendment.

§ Mr. Weyland
wished 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. Warburton
observed 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.

§ Mr. Hunt
had 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 100l. a-year for each Inspector was not 318 enough. They would take that sum, and, in the neighbourhood of an anatomical school, make 1,000l. of it.

Mr. Warburton
did 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.

Sir Robert Inglis
proposed to add a clause, making it a misdemeanour, punishable with a fine of 500l., 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. Hunt
said, 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. Robinson
thought 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. Warburton
could 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. Wason
said, 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. Fane
said, 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. Briscoe
thought this so important a clause, that he should move that the Chairman should report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Wason
seconded the Motion.

Mr. Hume
put 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. Robinson
denied that the clause had been discussed, at least not sufficiently.

§ Mr. Dawson
was 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 Sebright
denied 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. Warburton
could 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. Dawson
still thought that the Bill was calculated rather to increase than to diminish the crime called burking.

Sir Robert Peel
thought 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. Hunt
had 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 Althorp
said, 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. Courtenay
contended 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-General
said, 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. Dawson
entertained 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. Briscoe
must press his Motion to a division.

§ Mr. Dawson
repeated 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. Warburton
was 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-General
said, 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 Althorp
thought 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. Briscoe
expressed a hope that the adjournment would not be opposed.

The Attorney General
did 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 Althorp
recommended his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, to persevere with the clause before the House, which had already been so fully discussed.

Mr. Warburton
said, 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 Ebrington
complained 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. Warburton
could not, under the circumstances to which he had already alluded, refuse the adjournment.

§ Mr. Hunt
said, 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.