Lords Sitting of 19 June 1832

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Juries (India).—Read a second time:—Charitable Funds.—Read a third time:—Representative Peers (Scotland); Tithe Prescription; and Churches Building Act Amendment.

SCHOOLS OF ANATOMY.
The Earl of Minto, in moving the second reading of the Bill for Regulating Schools of Anatomy, stated, that, as the law now stood, the bodies of persons convicted of murder were alone legally subjected to dissection, and the number of those persons was so small as to prevent persons engaged in the acquisition of surgical knowledge from obtaining a sufficient number of subjects, without resorting to that class of persons called "resurrection-men," who

823
carried on their trade in defiance of the law. The great inconvenience to which lecturers on surgery were subjected, from the scarcity of subjects, had led, of late years, to that horrible crime at which human nature revolted, and the perpetration of which would not have been believed if it had not been put beyond all doubt by proof in a Court of Justice. He need scarcely say, he alluded to the crime called Burking. He trusted their Lordships would not refuse to entertain a measure which was calculated, not only effectually to prevent the repetition of that horrible crime, but which, he believed, would go far to remove the difficulties with which the surgical profession now had to contend from the deficiency of subjects for dissection.
The Earl of Malmesburywas exceedingly sorry that he was obliged to differ from his noble relative who had just sat down, in his opinion on this subject. It was, in his opinion, a most difficult subject to legislate upon, and the difficulty was augmented by the circumstance that one of the first and best feelings of human nature operated in this country against that practice which the present Bill went to sanction. The Bill went to legalize the sale of dead bodies, and it was peculiarly objectionable, because it did not afford protection to the poor man who died in the hospital from an accident, or in the workhouse from poverty. It might be said, that the relations of parties dying in such situations had the power, under the Bill, to dissent from such an appropriation of the bodies of their friends, but unfortunately, such persons were not always in a state to dissent, and might not be acquainted with the death of their relative until it was too late to prevent the dissection of his remains. Another of his objections to the Bill was, that it did not sufficiently protect the bodies of those that were accidentally killed; for it might well happen that a stranger in London might be run over, and so meet with his death, and his body be submitted to the dissecting knife before his friends in the country could hear of the accident, and come to town to claim his remains. The clause under which this distressing circumstance might occur, was that which, instead of requiring the previous assent of the deceased, made his non-dissent sufficient. True it was there were Inspectors appointed under the Bill, but, in his opinion, the
824
provisions with respect to Inspectors were complicated without being efficient. As he had touched on that point, he felt it his duty also to observe, that, in his opinion, the Inspectors ought not to be medical men, as they were the persons most interested. The sanction of the law once given, human bodies might be sold in the open market, but he feared the effect would be as little beneficial to the public as the sale of game in open market. The bill for legalizing the sale of game was recommended on the ground that it would check poaching, instead of which, he appealed to noble Lords if it had not facilitated poaching; and he feared that the present Bill would be as inefficacious in preventing that horrible crime of Burking to which his noble relative had alluded. There was another point in which he considered the present measure objectionable. It went to interfere with the decent rites of sepulture; for he did not see how it was possible that the rites of burial could be provided for under this Bill. But they were, in his opinion, of that sacred nature, that the utmost care ought to be taken that they were not needlessly violated; and certainly, to allow dead bodies to be publicly hawked about, was little calculated to promote a proper or decorous feeling among the living. At the present stage he would not enter further into a statement of his objections to this Bill, as he did not mean to divide the House, being anxious to see what might be done in Committee. He had other and equally serious objections, however, to the measure, to which he should probably call their Lordships' attention at some future stage.
The Earl of Roseberystated, in support of the Bill, that he was a visitor of Edinburgh College, and that all the medical men connected with that College had given their testimony in favour of the present measure. They stated, that they could not obtain a sufficient supply of subjects for the use of the pupils resorting to the College, even at an enormous cost, and that the interests of science were seriously injured by the system which now prevailed. The measure before their Lordships had been opposed on the ground that it injuriously affected the interests of the poorer classes. Now, in his opinion, the poorer classes were the persons chiefly benefitted by the measure. The higher classes might always afford to purchase the advice of those who had ac-

825
quired a competent knowledge of surgery, even at a great cost, but the poorer classes were necessarily at the mercy of persons who were imperfectly educated, in consequence of the great expense of acquiring knowledge by dissection. That a strong feeling existed on the subject he was willing to admit. Indeed, the feeling was so strong in some places, particularly in the north of England, and such was the vigilance of the people in protecting the bodies of their deceased friends, that it had become almost impossible to get a subject, under any circumstances or at any cost. It was unnecessary, he thought, to argue that such a deficiency was a great injury to science, and a great detriment to society. Indeed, things had arrived at such a point, that it was absolutely necessary that the Legislature should interfere; and it was a fact worthy of remark, that Edinburgh, the place where the horrible crime of Burking had made its appearance, was the very place of all others where the greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining a supply of dead bodies for the use of the schools of anatomy. The present measure went to obviate, if not to remove, this evil, and should, therefore, have his support.
Lord Wynfordobjected to the principles of the Bill, and also to the mode in which those principles were carried into execution; and so strongly did he feel on both those points, that he should divide the House, even if he had to go below the Bar alone. He admitted that it would be most desirable to provide a sufficient number of bodies for the purpose of dissection, and for the advancement of surgical science; but, in his opinion, such a number might be provided without outraging some of the best feelings of humanity, as was done by this Bill. Every man admitted the importance of finding remedies for disease, but it was better, in his opinion, that the bodies of the people of this country should be subjected to disease, than that their minds should be contaminated, which, he contended, would be the effect of the present measure. He spoke from experience when he pronounced the opinion, that the giving up of the bodies of persons convicted and executed for capital crime for dissection was a useful and effective part of the punishment. In the situation in which he was once placed, he had reason to know the effect which this portion of the punish-
826
ment produced on the minds of criminals. He had been told by a convicted criminal, with whom he felt it his duty on one occasion to communicate, that he looked with perfect composure on his approaching death, but that he felt the most intense horror at the idea of dissection. When such was the feeling of a man of so much firmness as Colonel Despard—a person who had been described by the illustrious Nelson, as a most determined man—it was not too much to say, that the fear of dissection might deter men of less firmness from the perpetration of crime; and, for his own part, he hoped that part of the law which enabled Judges to order the bodies of criminals to be given for dissection would never be relaxed. Surely it would be much better that the bodies of such persons should be given for dissection than that the corpses of the honest members of the community should be handed over for that purpose. He admitted that something ought to be done, but he contended, that there were other places besides workhouses and the prisons of debtors, from which an ample supply might be procured. The bodies of criminals, and of those who destroyed themselves, might be given for dissection without any injustice. Instead of the properties of suicides being forfeited, and their bodies buried in an ignominious manner, which was, until very recently, the case, it would be some reparation to the public if their bodies were given for the purposes of science. As the Bill now stood, it was unjust, for its practical operation was to protect the bodies of the rich, whilst it left the poor unprotected. The Bill gave to any man in the lawful possession of a dead body, the power of selling that body. Now, who was the lawful possessor of a dead body? The executor or administrator of the deceased. But the poor had no executors or administrators, and the matron of a workhouse or the keeper of a prison would be in lawful possession of the poor man's body. His view was, that the bodies of persons convicted of felony, whether executed or dying in prison, should be given for dissection; but that the body of the debtor who died in prison, or any man who was only charged and not convicted of crime, should not be dissected. The Bill also gave a power to men to dispose of their own bodies after death. Now, it was well enough for a man to dispose of his body

827
by will, which was usually done upon deliberation; but it was a horrible thing that a man might dispose of his body after death in a moment of excitement or intoxication, perhaps to supply some temporary want. The effect would be, that they should hear of men selling their bodies to Jews, who would exact the pound of flesh, or extravagant compensation for it, from the miserable wretch who, in the moment of thoughtlessness or dissipation, had entered into such a horrible contract. If their Lordships agreed to the measure in its present form, it appeared to him that they would be sending forth an Act which would reflect the highest disgrace on the British Legislature, without effecting any corresponding benefit to science. If he thought the Bill could, by any possibility, be amended, he should have no objection to its going into a Committee; but his decided opinion was, that it could not. He should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, he could never sanction the principle of partial legislation upon a subject like the present. He did not see why the bodies of the poor and friendless should be particularly selected for the dissecting-knife. He admitted that a good deal of ingenuity had been displayed in drawing up this Bill, for the gross indecorum of the former Bill had been in a great measure avoided. But, still it came at last to much the same thing, and he could not consent that the bodies of persons who had been guilty of no offence to the community should be given up for dissection. He could not vote for having this done by law, and he thought it best to say no more about it.
The Lord Chancellorfelt a great deal of difficulty in dealing with the question, for he must admit that it was very difficult to discuss it without hurting the feelings and prejudices of many. But he hoped that what had been stated by one noble Judge was not law, otherwise the bare opening of a body with a view to ascertain the cause of death would be punishable. It had been decided that the bare having in possession a body that had been disinterred was punishable. But the consequences of this state of the law was, that while a surgeon was punishable for want of due skill in his profession, he was also punishable for resorting to the only means by which competent skill could be acquired;
828
and a very eminent surgeon had declared, that unless something were done, the profession might become a curse instead of a blessing. The same surgeon (Sir Astley Cooper) had declared, that the consequence of the system was, not the preservation of dead bodies, but an increase of the price, and that there were no bodies, of high or low, that he might not have for a good price if he chose. The same surgeon had stated, that the body-snatchers were most abandoned and desperate wretches; and he wished their Lordships to consider the effects of high price with reference to the security of the living, and the atrocious and frightful practice for which some miscreants had of late suffered. He was not prepared to say, that he approved of every provision of the Bill. But it appeared to be generally admitted that something ought to be done, and in his opinion, they ought to go into Committee on the Bill, in order to try whether it might not be made such as to afford some remedy for the existing evil. As to the giving up of the bodies of all persons dying under sentence of felony, that might enhance the penalty on some felonies, but would lower it in cases of murder, supposing that dissection ought to be made the sentence for murder, which some doubted.
The Earl of Fifeadmitted, that this was a subject on which their Lordships ought to proceed cautiously. But the time had come when something must be done, and he was, therefore, for going into the Committee, in order to try whether this might not be made a beneficial law.
The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Contents 15; Not Content 10—Majority 5.
The Bill read a second time.