§ Mr. Warburton 895 moved the third reading of the Anatomy Bill.
§ Colonel Sibthorpalways had opposed this Bill, and he always would oppose it, for many important reasons. The Bill consigned the bodies of those who died in the hospitals to dissection, which was decidedly a brutal act. The hon. member for Preston recommended the introduction of a clause for giving to dissection the bodies of all placemen and pensioners; but, whatever might be his hostility to those classes, he could not agree with the member for Preston in assigning their bodies to dissection.
Mr. Fanesaid, the three professed objects of this Bill were, to do away with Burking—to suppress the resurrection-men—and to afford a sufficient supply of dead bodies for the schools of anatomy. If there was any value in the system of registration proposed by this Bill, he would at once admit that it would be the means of preventing murder, and the plunder of the grave. But, on the other hand, if that system of registration did not prove efficient, the Bill would be a premium to murder, by enabling the murderer to escape with impunity. The responsibility resting on the hon. Member who had introduced this Bill was, therefore, immense. As to the supply of bodies, the main question was, what was the amount wanted? [Mr. Warburton: 1,200 in London.] That calculation would probably give 4,000 or 5,000 for the whole country. Until it was proved that this supply could not be procured without turning our hospitals into human shambles, he could never consent to such an arrangement, nor would the House be justified in perverting the stream of charity, under the name of science. He had no doubt that the voluntary supply would prove sufficient. There were those in great cities who did not scruple to barter the chastity of their daughters; and why, therefore, should it be supposed that there were none brutal enough to sell the bodies of their own children to the surgeon? "their poverty," if "not their will," would consent to such acts, and it would be much better for the Legislature to throw a veil over such transactions, so as not to disgust the mind of every man possessed of the common feelings of human nature. Every hon. Gentleman with whom he had ever conversed upon this matter, had shown that he entertained great aversion to this Bill; he, therefore, could not help regretting, that all those who concurred in this sentiment 896 had not taken an opportunity of assembling in that House, when they might have got rid of a Bill which insulted the lower orders by pretending, that it was enacted for their benefit.
§ Mr. Ruthvenconsidered that the making the sale of bodies legal was highly objectionable, even when a certificate was requisite, for the signature of a medical man or medical student might be easily obtained. The poor, whose benefit was to be the principal object of this Bill, might always have the best possible medical and surgical assistance at hospitals, and he was quite sure, that of late years the science had materially advanced under the existing laws, which nobody would attribute to the practice of Burking. This Bill held out a temptation to the poor and needy to traffic in the bodies of their friends or relations; and, as such, no civilized nation ought to suffer such a law. Ireland, which was now included in the operation of this Bill would be more influenced by it than England, and, though it had been asserted that the members of the medical profession in that country had requested that the Bill might be extended to Ireland, yet he knew that at a meeting of the Irish College of Surgeons, at which forty-eight members were present, it was unanimously resolved, that it would be inexpedient that this Bill should be extended to Ireland. In his opinion, this Bill, instead of mitigating, would increase materially the existing evils.
Sir Robert Batesoncould not support this Bill, though most anxious to put a stop to the late atrocious practices, for he was confident that it would produce no such effect.
§ Lord William Lennoxknew he could not prevent the third reading of this Bill, but meant to record, by his vote, his decided hostility to the measure. It had been carried through the House in a most disgraceful manner, there rarely being more than forty Members present during the discussions concerning it. He hoped that the Upper House would consider the feelings of the lower classes sufficiently to prevent this Bill passing into a law.
Mr. Humethought nothing more unfair and unjust than some of the observations upon this Bill. He denied that it had for its object inflicting injury on the lower orders, and he much regretted that those who had said so had not had an opportunity of hearing the evidence given before the Select Committee on that subject. He, for one, felt much indebted to his hon. friend 897 for the patience and perseverance with which he had conducted this measure through the House.
§ Mr. Trevorsaid, he would again vote against this Bill, which appeared to him to proceed on unfair principles, and to be an insult to the poor, whom it pretended to protect. It placed individuals who died in hospitals on a footing with murderers, for the bodies of both were to be given up to dissection. He wished the Bill had had a fairer consideration in that House, instead of being shamefully neglected. If he stood alone, he would still continue his opposition to that Bill.
Mr. Rigby Wasonadmitted that the lower orders were not meant to be injured by the Bill. He would, however, observe, that the Committee of which the hon. member for Middlesex spoke, had sat three years ago, and shortly afterwards, when the evidence then given was fresh in every body's mind, the hon. member for Bridport had introduced a bill different from the present. It was entitled: "An Act to prevent the unlawful disinterment of human bodies, and to regulate the Schools of Anatomy." This bill passed the House by an immense majority. The present Bill was entitled "A Bill to regulate the Schools of Anatomy," though there was not a word concerning them in any one of its clauses. It only attempted to regulate anatomical dissection at the private dwellings of surgeons. If the Bill should pass he should be sorry, for it would be a bad conclusion to the acts of an Administration which had otherwise done so much to earn the good wishes of the people. If the hon. Member had meant to benefit the rich and poor alike, why did he not adopt the amendment which went to allow, that the supply in the first instance should be gratuitous. If that had not proved sufficient to prevent Burking and exhumation, he (Mr. Rigby Wason) would have concurred with the hon. Member in going a step further, and making the sale of bodies legal. The hon. member for Stafford had stated, the other night, that this Bill was fit only for a country of cannibals. The Attorney General was in the House; and, in the most respectful manner, he would request him to tell that House, whether this Bill did not permit dead bodies to be bought and sold? That hon. and learned Gentleman's candour would never allow him to deny that it did. The hon. Member had not advanced a single argument to show, why bodies ought to be bought and sold—or what was the 898 necessity of providing for further anatomical examination. And, indeed, how could he have done this, when there was his other Bill before the House, which confined anatomical examinations to public schools? He certainly should have liked to see a Bill for the purpose of putting an end to the crime of Burking; but he was afraid, as had too often been the case, that legislation on the subject came too late, and the crime had grown to such a height, that now hon. Gentlemen were willing to adopt any Bill, rather than allow the present system to continue.
Sir Robert Inglisfelt very sorry that the amendments which he had thought it right to suggest had not been adopted. Though he concurred in the propriety of opposing the Bill, he knew that to divide the House would be utterly in vain. As a question had been asked of the Attorney General, he would also put two questions to him—first, whether or no it was lawful, at this moment, to be possessed of a dead body for the purpose of dissection?—and, secondly, whether, under this Bill, it would not be lawful so to be possessed of a dead body, having purchased the same?
The Attorney Generalwould endeavour to give the best answer in his power, though he was afraid that it would not be very satisfactory; for, as it was a common-law question, the last decision formed the law on the subject. There could be no doubt that exhumation was a gross violation of public decency, and punishable as a misdemeanour. The last decision on this subject, which took place at Lancaster, before Mr. Baron Hullock, appeared to professional men to be a great extension of former precedents, and seemed startling and new. Some time ago the hon. and learned member for Huntingdon had entered into a very able argument, for the purpose of showing, that what was then laid down by Mr. Baron Hullock could not be law. He would here observe, that one of the evils which this Bill was to remedy, was the present uncertainty of the law on the question. He also hoped, that it would make it unnecessary to resort to the violation of the grave for the purpose of procuring subjects. As to the sale of bodies, he certainly believed that this Bill would legalize it. That, assuredly, was a thing which could not be contemplated without disgust, but it could not be remedied; it was an evil, too, that already existed; and, as far as the control of relations, and the medical care of surgeons were likely to be of any avail, the formality 899 of a license, would to a certain extent, be beneficial. On the whole, this Bill was framed for the benefit of the poor. To them health and strength were of the greatest importance; they, too, were most subject to accidents, and they, therefore, wanted that skill of the surgeon which could only be attained by frequent examination of the dead subject. Another thing worthy of observation was, that Burking had always been confined to the poor: in fact, it was a crime that could not be practised on the rich, or those who had others interested in their welfare. If the hon. member for Bridport had seen any better remedy he would have been ready to adopt it; and it was only because he saw none better than this that, after the lapse of three years, he had brought forward the present measure. He believed that all, whether for or against the Bill, had laboured with the one desire of benefitting the poor; and, now that the Bill was on the eve of passing that House, they ought all to join in bidding God speed it, which he did most heartily, not only because he thought that it would prove advantageous, but also because, owing to circumstances more particularly connected with his own life, he felt peculiar interest on this subject.
§ Mr. Sadlerdiffered altogether from the allegations brought forward by the supporters of this measure, as to the necessity of making a further provision of subjects for the anatomical schools. If the mortality in foreign hospitals (where the sale of the human body was legalized) were compared with the mortality in English hospitals, it would be found that the proportion had been much larger in the former. He was not quite aware that the subject would come before the House that evening, or he would have refreshed his memory on the subject: the deaths in the Paris hospitals were as one in six; while those in the London hospitals were not more than as one in twelve. In this country, public decency was respected; the sale of quarters of the human carcase, first to one and then to another, was not consonant either with the law of the land, or with the feelings of the people: and yet, so far from our anatomical science having suffered by this restriction, it was notorious that, in that respect, England stood unrivalled among the nations of Europe. The learned Attorney General had given his opinion on the law of the ease; but, if he (Mr. Sadler) might be allowed to say so much, he could not help thinking, that the application to the learned Gentleman 900 was ill-judged, when it was remembered that the name of Denman was connected with the highest anatomical knowledge, and that that great reputation was gained long before it was proposed thus to outrage the honourable and praiseworthy feelings of the people of England. In addition to what he had already stated, he would add, that, owing to there being no permanent provision for the poor in Paris, much slighter cases were taken to the hospitals there than to our hospitals; and in his opinion, enough had been said to show that the argument in favour of this Bill, on account of the necessity for a larger supply of subjects, was altogether fallacious. The great mass of the British public was alive to this subject, and they contemplated with extraordinary disgust any advancement in science that was to be made at their expense. The simple operations of anatomy—such as that of the amputation of a limb—required o peculiar degree of scientific knowledge; and it was those operations which were most frequently necessary in the case of the lower classes. With respect to those experiments which had more immediate reference to the vital and internal organs of man, it was true that scientific knowledge might be enlarged by frequent examinations in such cases; but much practical knowledge could not thereby be acquired which might operate in favour of human longevity. And even supposing that by this means some few hours could be added to the life of a man, was it worth while, for the sake of such an object, to outrage human feelings to an extent that would be scouted and decried in the most barbarous and savage communities? Even if this Bill should do any good, it would be at the expense of the morality, the decency, and the proper feelings of the living. If it were not pedantic, he could quote the highest authorities on this subject in favour of his opinion; but he preferred applying to the general sentiments of mankind for the broad basis of his argument. It was said, that this Bill was to prevent the crime of Burking; but the former measure of the hon. member for Bridport was brought forward before that crime was known, and, therefore, its principle could not in any way have reference to it. Besides, he sincerely believed that this Bill would do for Bucking, what the late alteration as to game had done for the Game-laws; by facilitating the sale, the crime would be multiplied. With some modern theorists, their favourite scheme for doing away with adultery, was by mak- 901 ing all women common; and so here, for the sake of doing away with Burking, a method was suggested for making murder easy and general. He was as much alive as any man to the interests of science. He wished to see all knowledge that tended to make life happy and comfortable, increase; but it could not be a just mode of advancing science, the first step of which was to be taken on the ruins of public decency. The great father of medicine made his discoveries—those discoveries which had left his successors little to do but to follow his footsteps—at that early period when his life would have been endangered had he been known to be in possession of a dead body;—why, therefore, if that great man was able to pursue his researches with such eminent benefit to mankind without any such public provision of dead bodies as this Bill proposed, should that be made legal which science did not demand, and which all good sense and right feeling repudiated? This Bill had not been unanimously adopted even by the medical profession; for the College of Surgeons of Ireland had petitioned against it—and he knew that the opinion of a professional man—who was held in the highest respect, not only in England but throughout Europe—was decidedly against it. He thought it a measure which would be productive of the most pernicious consequences to society, without being of any benefit whatever to medical science. Medical science had been constantly upon the advance in this country, and our medical men were now the most accomplished in their profession, and fully efficient to perform all those operations which the various ills and accidents of human life occasionally rendered necessary. He did justice to the enlightened benevolence of the hon. promoter of this Bill—long known as the encourager and friend of science; and he regretted that he could not agree with him in thinking, that this measure would be for the benefit of the people. But if the prejudice against dissection prevailed only amongst the lower orders of the people, why not let the provisions of this Bill fall more lightly upon them, by requiring the richer classes to contribute a larger proportion of bodies from among their own order, for the advancement of medical science. If his carcase was worth having, he was willing to give it up; but let them spare the poor from being made the sole objects and victims of this Bill. His wish had been, that the hon. Member would bring in a Bill to facilitate 902 the introduction of dead bodies from countries where the prejudices mentioned did not prevail. Some gentlemen in the medical profession, with whom he was acquainted, had expressed a wish to that effect, and had given him a detail of the impediments they experienced on one occasion in landing twenty-eight dead bodies, although they had obtained them without difficulty in a neighbouring country; and though all other things were smuggled in with facility.
§ Mr. Robinsonhad no doubt that legislation was required upon this subject; but the question between the opponents of the Bill and the hon. Mover of it was, whether its provisions would accomplish what all parties acknowledged to be desirable The medical men of the city he had the honour to represent, had intrusted him with a petition against the Bill, stating their anxiety for some legislative measure, but expressing their opinion, that the crime of Burking, under the public horror of which this Bill was introduced, would be facilitated by it. That crime had been a great deal adverted to in the course of these discussions; but his belief was, that in very few of the supposed cases of the crime had it really been perpetrated. The commission of such a crime must be conducted with the greatest secrecy, for the mere possession of a dead body by the class of persons likely to commit the crime was, of itself a sufficient ground of suspicion. But, if this Bill sanctioned the sale of dead bodies, the facilities for Burking would become incalculably increased. The hon. Member's whole argument went upon the assumption, that the temptation to the crime was increased by the high price of subjects, and that, if that were lowered, the crime would be diminished. But the question was, whether, after the passing of this Bill, the facilities for disposing of the body which it would afford, would not be sufficient to counterbalance whatever diminution might take place in the price of subjects. Philosophically speaking, a dead human body was like the earth to which we must all return, and he was ready to admit, that it was a prejudice to object to its dissection; but, when the universality of this prejudice was considered, and how closely it was connected with feelings which it was desirable to encourage, he must confess that he had no wish to disturb it. The hon. Member had said, that this Bill was for the benefit of the poor, but he could assure him, that the poor did not 903 thank him for the care he took of them, and that the tendency of passing this Bill would be, to bring the House into disrepute. For all these reasons he would move that the Bill be read a third time this day six months.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, as the arguments and assertions of the hon. Member had bean so fully answered on former occasions, he did not feel himself called upon to say more than that he opposed the Amendment.
§ The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question. Ayes 42; Noes 4—Majority 38.
§ Bill read a third time.
§ On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. Wasonsaid, some of the most respectable surgeons of the metropolis—and, in particular, one gentleman, who stood the highest in his profession—declared, that this Bill would so disgust the public with anatomical dissection, that its practice would be more difficult after the passing of this measure than at present. They thought that the clauses legalizing the sale of dead bodies would chiefly conduce to that effect. The hon. and learned member for Stafford declared, that if this Bill did legalize the sale of dead bodies, it was not fit for a Christian country—not fit for any country, or only for a country of cannibals. Since that, however, they had had the opinion of the legal adviser of the Crown, who had informed them, that this Bill really would legalize the sale of dead human bodies: by the Amendment he was about to propose, such sale would be prevented; and if, after the experience of a year or two, it should be found that there was not a sufficient gratuitous supply, a bill to amend this could be brought in, and he should then be among the first to support such a proposition. The only argument that could be urged against his Amendment was, that the number of bodies which could be furnished would not be sufficient for the purposes of the due encouragement and extension of the science of anatomy; but he did not see what weight could be given to that argument, when the number of unclaimed dead bodies annually produced by two parishes of the metropolis was found to be no less than 1,100. The effect of his Amendment would be, to equalize the operation of the Bill between the richer and poorer classes. If this Bill enacted that dead bodies might be bought and sold, it could not be imagined that the rich would sell their bodies, or those of their relatives. Why, then, cast a stigma upon anatomy, by ren- 904 dering bodies the subject of sale? Individuals might really wish to give up their bodies, or those of their relatives, to the purposes of science; but would they do so if the parties were placed under the imputation of so acting for the sake of a paltry bribe? The only argument urged, on a former occasion, against a similar proposal to that he was about to make was, that an amendment of the kind was hypocritical; for, if it were enacted that bodies should be given away, sales would, in fact, still take place. But were they, from a love of science and philosophy, to pass a bad law, because, forsooth, a good law would be evaded? No law could ever be passed which might not be evaded; but, if this were evaded, let the transgressors be punished, as in any other case. He did not mean to propose a precise penalty for the breach of this particular clause, but would leave the question of punishment to be decided by the general clause at the end of the Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving the insertion of words to prevent any fee or reward being given or received for permission to use bodies for dissection.
§ Mr. Huntrose for the purpose of seconding the motion of the hon. Member near him, for it would be a cannibal bill if it legalized the sale of human bodies. The Attorney General had assured the House that it did, and there was no doubt that this was the very object of the Bill. If this was legislating for the poor, they would not thank the hon. member for Bridport for his law. The system of selling dead bodies was inconsistent with English feeling, with the Christian religion, and if Christian burial was done away with, there would soon be an end to Christianity. He hoped the Bishops in the House of Lords would strenuously oppose this Bill. They had brought discredit upon themselves by their conduct on the Reform Bill, and they now had an opportunity to retrieve their lost popularity, by opposing this obnoxious Bill.
§ The House divided on the Amendment. Ayes 5; Noes 43; Majority 3.
§ Bill passed.