OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON BILL. (Hansard, 15 April 1828)

§ Earl Grey
said, he had no objection to the passing of the bill, but he rose to object to one of its clauses. Their lordships would find in the clause directing the punishment for the crime of murder, the usual punishment of the dissection of the criminal's body was omitted, and power was given to the judge of ordering the criminal to be hung in chains. He was certainly not one of those who on common occasions contended for severity of punishment. It had, indeed, been remarked, that the law of this country was much too sanguinary. The punishment of death was unhappily extended to many offences of an inferior nature to the crime of murder; and the distinction made by dissecting the murderer's body appeared to him to give an additional terror against 1443 the commission of that greatest offence next to treason, and it was for the interest of the community that the distinction which had hitherto prevailed between that and minor offences should be kept up. That no effect would be produced on the individual murderer, who had made up his mind to the completion of the horrible crime, by the punishment and the consequences which would follow the act, he must perhaps, admit; but still the additional punishment of dissection had operated, by a salutary terror on the community, to keen up that horror of the crime of murder for which the English people had hitherto been distinguished. The ground on which the alteration in the law was now proposed was, according to the statements of the petitions which had been presented to their lordships, the great difficulty which existed in procuring subjects for dissection, by which the science of surgery was impeded, to the great detriment of the community, whose interest it was to have surgeons properly educated. He believed that that difficulty was complained of with some foundation, but he was of opinion, that that difficulty was not likely to be diminished by public discussion in their lordships' House. That difficulty was, however, the ground upon which the clause had been introduced; because it was presumed, that the dissecting the body of the criminal had the effect of a stigma, or acted as an aggravation of punishment on the feelings of society, which increased the dislike in people to give up the bodies of their relations for dissection after death. That might be the case; but their lordships would see that it was purely theoretical and speculative, and that there was great doubt whether it was founded in truth; and if theory and speculation were put in the balance, in contradistinction to established fact, the one could not be considered in any degree of comparison with the other. He did, therefore, wish their lordships to reconsider the clause, and alter it; and if that were the opinion of their lordships, he should suggest, that they leave the punishment of murder as it now stood by law. About thirty years ago, a bill of a very different character was introduced in the other House of Parliament, which went to extend the punishment of dissection after death to burglaries and highway robberies. He remembered that that bill was most ably and eloquently opposed by 1444 Mr. Serjeant Adair, who stated, that it was of importance to confine that aggravation of punishment to the crime of murder; because it had the salutary effect of increasing that general terror which existed in this country against that species of crime. On these grounds he opposed the extension of the punishment of dissection to other crimes than murder. And, as the converse of that position, he thought it not expedient to continue the clause as it stood, which removed almost the only distinction which existed between the punishments of the most aggravated and the minor offences, to which the punishment of death was unhappily affixed. Hanging the murderer in chains, as provided by the present bill, would not operate in the same salutary way on the minds of the people. He had thought it his duty to submit his doubts to their lordships, and to suggest the expunging of that part of the clause which took away the punishment of dissection, on grounds theoretical and speculative.

§ Lord Tenterden
concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble earl. When the bill was committed a first time, the noble marquis proposed the alteration in the law now alluded to. It was then understood, that he had no objection to the clause, though he desired another opportunity for further consideration on the subject, when the bill should be recommitted. Upon that occasion he happened not to be present, and had lost the opportunity of expressing his opinion. If it were not now too late to make an amendment, he should be desirous that the clause should be restored to its original shape. The object of omitting the punishment from the bill was, because it attached a stigma to the practice of dissection, which, if done away with, would give greater facility for a supply of subjects, and thereby promote the science of surgery. Whether that would be the case he had great doubt; and when it was a matter of doubt, he should be unwilling that any alteration should be made in the law as it now stood, which law he hoped would serve as an additional terror to induce persons, if any thing could induce them, from the commission of that most horrible of crimes. He perfectly agreed in what the noble earl had said, that when a man had made up his mind to the commission of murder, no consideration of the punishment could divert him from it; but 1445 he thought that when the first idea arose in the mind of the commission of that unlawful act, it might be checked, from a consideration of the disgraceful punishment of dissection; and if such a circumstance were only to take place once in twenty years, the law would have proved beneficial.

The Marquis of Lansdowne
said, that the ground on which the punishment of dissection was omitted in the clause, was the statement of persons in the surgical profession, who represented that they would rather remain without the assistance of that small supply of bodies which the law afforded them, if by that means a stigma would be removed, by which removal they hoped to obtain a sufficient number of bodies for purposes of science, without being obliged to make use of a system, which had the effect of exciting crime in another direction: he alluded to the practice of body-snatchers, a practice which placed men in a situation, by which they were gradually led on to the commission of other crimes. So long as the present law afforded the only supply of bodies for surgeons, a road would be kept continually open to crime. As long as the supply of subjects was inadequate to the purposes of instruction, the medical student would be driven out of this country to complete his education. It could not, however, be an idle theory, that condemning the murderer to be dissected operated to prevent people from giving their bodies, after death, for the same purpose. As long as it was thought necessary to preserve this distinction between murder and other crimes, by adding dissection to death, so long would innocent persons have an abhorrence to submit to what was regarded as a great punishment. No persons would voluntarily expose themselves or their friends to that which was inflicted on murderers; though it was of great importance to science that persons should, after death, be dissected. He would not, however, persevere; and it was yet quite time for his noble friend to move his amendment.