FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71  
72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   >>  
to the House of Commons that the establishment of a Board, such as that proposed by the Bill, was virtually placing the whole profession of surgery under the control of Commissioners, not one of whom need be a member of the profession, and the majority of whom must not be so. Another fault of the Bill was that it did not apply to Ireland. A large supply of bodies was regularly sent from that country to England and Scotland, and it was felt that to exclude Ireland from the provisions of the Bill, was simply increasing the temptation for bodies to be still more largely exported therefrom. It was also argued that the Bill would tell hardly against the poor, as they would refuse to go into workhouses or hospitals if they thought that their bodies would be dissected after death. For this objection there was no foundation, and Mr. Peel pointed out, in the debate on the third reading, that "it was the poor who would really be benefited by the measure. The rich could always command good advice, whilst the poor had a strong interest in the general extension of anatomical science." The Bill passed the Commons, but was lost in the Lords. In 1830, Lord Calthorpe was to have again introduced the Bill into the Upper House, but the intention was abandoned on account of the threatened dissolution of Parliament. As the _Lancet_ expressed it, "Dissolution has so many horrors, that a discussion on the _subject_ at the present time would be by no means agreeable." Public feeling was now very strong in favour of some law to prevent the wholesale spoliation of graves, which was going on practically unchecked. But, as has happened frequently in legislation, the absolute necessity for a change in the law was brought within the range of practical politics by a crime of a most diabolical character, one which, in this country, created a sensation equal to that raised in Scotland by the atrocities of Burke and Hare in Edinburgh. On November 5th, 1831, two men, named Bishop and May, called at the dissecting-room at King's College, and asked Hill, the porter, if he "wanted anything." On being interrogated as to what they had to dispose of, May replied, "A boy of fourteen." For this body they asked 12 guineas, but ultimately agreed to bring it in for 9 guineas. They went off, and returned in the afternoon with another man named Williams, _alias_ Head, and a porter named Shields, the latter of whom carried the body in a hamper. The appear
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71  
72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   >>  



Top keywords:

bodies

 

country

 

porter

 

Scotland

 
guineas
 
profession
 

Commons

 

strong

 

Ireland

 

brought


absolute

 

necessity

 

change

 

politics

 

created

 

sensation

 

raised

 
character
 

diabolical

 

practical


Public
 
agreeable
 

feeling

 

horrors

 

discussion

 

subject

 

present

 
favour
 

unchecked

 

happened


frequently

 
practically
 

atrocities

 
prevent
 

wholesale

 

spoliation

 
graves
 
legislation
 

returned

 

fourteen


ultimately

 

agreed

 

afternoon

 

carried

 

hamper

 

Shields

 
Williams
 

replied

 
Bishop
 

called