Resurrection Men: Stalking the Dead
Background
Imagine being a resident of London during 1795. One fall morning word
gets about that three men were apprehended in the vicinity of the Lambeth
burial ground, a site where relations happened to be interred, and these
men were carrying sacks containing the remains of five human beings. What
would one's natural reaction to this news have been? To rush to the site
to determine if the relations remained properly buried? Probably. This
did, in fact, occur during the fall of 1795. Upon hearing the news a large
crowd of people descended on the Lambeth burial ground demanding entrance.
Parish officers were called out to keep the crowd at bay but were unable
to halt the flow of angry people. The crowd gained admittance and began
to dig frantically at the ground, unearthing many empty coffins. This caused
a reaction of those involved: "Great distress and agitation of mind was
manifest in every one, and some, in a kind of phrensy, ran away with the
coffins of their deceased relations" (Richardson, 1988, 78). This was characteristic
of a dark and gruesome period in the history of the United Kingdom termed
the resurrection times (Montgomery, 1989). Resurrection times spanned some
eighty years between approximately 1750 and 1832 when the passage of the
Warburton Anatomy Act brought an end to the period. During resurrection
times and especially during the latter thirty years of the era citizens
living in the major cities of the realm suffered from the very real fear
that no sooner than their friends and relatives were buried they were 'resurrected'
by thieves termed sack-em-up gentlemen, body snatchers, ghouls, or resurrection
men to be sold to the highest bidder (Montgomery, 1989). Those who paid
for these things were not Frankensteins, but surgeons, medical school administrators,
and teachers and students of anatomy. Rural churchyards were not immune
from this threat- if they happened to be located near a medical school.
The police were subtly encouraged to look the other way and could offer
little protection. The motive behind such monstrous acts lay originally
in humanitarian concerns because subjects were needed for scientific reasons.
But towards the end of resurrection times the motive became one less noble-
profit. In some cases profit drove body snatchers to murder.
The phenomenon was not confined to Great Britain.
The young American colonies suffered the attentions of resurrection men.
The rest of Europe did not share in the resurrection era, however, because
the factors of popular animosity against dissection and political decisions
reinforcing this animosity were not present. The other countries of the
Continent established early laws dealing with anatomical subjects and did
not share the abhorrence against dissection. In considering the social,
economic and political climate of the resurrection era it was perhaps inevitable
that the human corpse became a commodity. Popular opinion was decidedly
negative towards the dissection of human remains. Not only did dissection
offend religious beliefs, it offended the working class as the subjects
of anatomical study were most often drawn from the ranks of the poor. The
quest for medical knowledge led to a rise in the use of anatomy for education.
Private medical schools opened attracting greater numbers of students.
Subjects were needed to educate these students, yet the only legal source
from which to obtain these subjects was the gallows. Again, most often
those being executed were the poor. England had embarked on an industrial
expansion during this time which advanced her economy in comparison with
other countries. The wealth accrued from increased agricultural production,
manufacturing, trade and finance was shared among the aristocratic and
mercantile classes. Little trickled down to the working class. The population
also expanded at a rapid rate, increasing from approximately six million
during 1730 to twelve million by 1811 (Cooper, 1974). The cities swelled
with people looking for employment, creating a new class of urban poor.
Conditions were wretched for this class and food riots, looting and mob
violence were commonplace. The wealthy upper classes reacted by urging
the passage of harsher laws with more severe penalties against crime and
by 1820 statutes defining crimes with capital punishments numbered over
two hundred (Cooper, 1974). In the words of barrister Charles Phillips,
"We hanged for everything- for a shilling- for five shillings- for five
pounds- for cattle- for coining- for forgery, even for witchcraft- for
things that were and things that could not be" (Cooper, 1974, 27). An act
of Parliament during 1752 further outraged the public by making hanging
in chains or dissection of those condemned to death for murder mandatory.
While execution was bad enough the public was further outraged by the thought
of the condemned being dissected and fought to keep the remains out of
surgeon's hands. During 1788 a case of grave robbing was brought before
a court where the court decided that as the body was not property the theft
of human remains could not be considered a crime. This made prosecution
of body snatchers futile and frustrated the efforts of police to halt the
trade in human remains. While the public decried the work of resurrectionists
police had their hands tied by the courts.
Chronological development
The business of opening graves to rob the dead of their jewelry and
such can be traced back to Ancient Egyptians, with grave diggers sharing
in the spoils with robbers (Adams, 1972). Exhuming bodies from graves for
medical education purposes can be traced back to the twelfth century. The
first documented case of body snatching occurred in Mondino, Italy, during
1319. Four medical students were apprehended and accused of resurrecting
the body of an executed criminal from its grave and transporting it to
the medical school to be dissected. Unfortunately no final disposition
of the case is recorded (Lassek, 1958). Concern of grave robbing in England
can be seen as early as 1615, evidenced by the epithet on William Shakespeare's
tombstone: Good friend, for Iesus sake forebeare To digge the dust encloased
heare. Bleste be ye man (that) spares these stones, And curste be he (that)
moves my bones. (Richardson, 1988, 54).
Social
Factors Influencing the Resurrection Era
A Short History of
British Dissection
When contemplating the social factors surrounding
the resurrection era it is important to note the history of dissection
in Great Britain as it compared to the remainder of the Continent. The
people of the United Kingdom had only negative feelings towards the cutting
up of human cadavers for any reason. Religious beliefs fueled this resistance.
Most devout Christians were convinced that any such mutilation of the corpse
would interfere with the plan of Divine Resurrection, when the faithful
would be bodily gathered around the heavenly throne (Montgomery, 1989).
Destruction of the body after death could result in the loss of identity
forever. The lingering dread was that on the last day of judgment when
the dead were resurrected the dissected corpse would be seen wandering
around searching for its lost parts (Walker, 1997). Dissection was socially
unacceptable and the use of executed criminals served to exacerbate these
negative feelings by equating dissection with crime and punishment. The
history of dissection in the United Kingdom is far more complex than those
of the other countries of the continent. Medical education was controlled
not by the universities but by the guilds of Barbers, Surgeons, and Apothecaries
(Frank, 1976). Legal recognition of the need for cadavers to advance medical
knowledge was first recognized in Scotland during 1504, when James IV granted
the Edinburgh Guild of Surgeons and Barbers the bodies of certain executed
criminals for dissection (Lassek, 1958). In England King Henry VIII had
an interest in medicine and was one of the first kings to allow human dissection.
Parliament and King Henry granted a royal charter to the Companies of Barbers
and Surgeons during 1540 which united the companies as a guild, and during
1541 they were granted the annual right of the bodies of four executed
felons for anatomy. Queen Elizabeth I during 1565 granted four bodies annually
to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and during 1663 Charles II increased
Henry's original grant to six. This allowed the Barber-Surgeons Company
and the College of Physicians to maintain a monopoly on dissection by provision
of common law which kept the demand for anatomical subjects low. By the
turn of the eighteenth century this monopoly began to lose strength, however,
as Parliment realized British medical education had fallen far behind its
Continental rivals. Aspiring doctors often went abroad to Italy or Paris
for their medical training. They observed the methods in vogue in these
countries which included hands-on anatomy by students (Lassek, 1958). To
compensate for Great Britain's lack of progress Parliament dissolved the
two-hundred year-old Barber-Surgeons Guild during 1745, allowing private
medical schools to open and compete for executed criminals (Montgomery,
1989). The great London hospitals St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew also began
to offer classes in anatomy (Lassek, 1958). Increasing numbers of students
were drawn to the study of medicine. During 1793 there were only about
two hundred medical students in London, but by 1823 there were over a thousand,
all in competition for scarce legally allowed subjects (Frank, 1976). In
Edinburgh there were some nine hundred medical students (Douglas, 1973).
By 1760 it had become customary for students to dissect for themselves.
In order to be granted a license from the former Barber-Surgeons Company,
now the Royal College of Surgeons, a course in dissection was mandatory
which increased the need for anatomical subjects to a height unable to
be satisfied by execution (Frank, 1976). Legally the acceptable method
to obtain subjects was still at the gallow's foot. Providing adequate numbers
of subjects was not a problem in other countries on the continent which
advanced their medical knowledge compared to Great Britain. In France cadavers
were obtained from civil hospitals, prisons and alms houses after the bodies
remained unclaimed for twenty-four hours. Germany allowed the bodies of
those who had died in prison or committed suicide to be used by medical
schools. Others made available were the bodies of those who had died as
paupers and those who had been supported by the public provided friends
or relatives did not come forward to claim the body. If the body was claimed
the friend or family paid a sum to the schools in order to collect. Executed
criminals could also be used by medical schools. This system functioned
well enough to provide an adequate supply of subjects so exhumation was
largely unknown. Australia also used unclaimed bodies to supply the medical
schools after a wait of forty-eight hours. Most activity was in Vienna
where subjects came from the general hospital. There was no need to resort
to illegal means. Italian governmental regulations were the most liberal.
All persons who died in the hospitals were automatically given up for anatomy
unless someone came forward with the money necessary for burial. Body snatching
was virtually unknown. As anatomizing began in these countries two centuries
before, laws were enacted early which were modified and liberalized to
fit the needs of medical schools. The use of executed criminals as the
sole source of subjects was uniformly eliminated, thereby removing any
infamy associated with dissection which adversely affected obtaining bodies.
In 1790 France repealed laws allowing dissection of convicted murders,
removing the stigma attached to the practice (Lassek, 1958). During the
same time period residents of Great Britain were in a difficult situation.
The rise in medical schools and increasing number of students created a
demand for something the people were not willing to relinquish, and instead
of attempting to remedy the situation the government made decisions which
exacerbated the problem.
Political Factors
The penal practices of Great Britain had an unintended positive effect
on the advancement of medical knowledge and an intended negative effect
on the public morale which would eventually serve to outweigh the positive.
The common law allowing the bodies of up to ten executed felons per annum
was made statutory during 1752 by an act of Parliament and King George
II. This act, entitled 'An Act for better preventing the horrid Crime of
Murder', contained the preamble: "Whereas the horrid Crime of Murder
has of late been more frequently perpetrated than formerly and particularly
in and near the Metropolis of this Kingdom, contrary to known Humanity
and natural Genius of the British Nation: And whereas it is thereby become
necessary, that some further Terror and peculiar Mark of Infamy be added
to the Punishment of Death, now by Law inflicted on such as shall be guilty
of the said heinous Offense;..." (Radzinowich, 1943, 206). The motive
behind the Act was not in the interests of science but to horrify a public
who already had a deep-seated fear of dissection. The substance of the
Act gave the sentencing judge the discretion to either have the body of
the condemned delivered to surgeons for dissection or to be hung in chains,
but on no account was the body of a convicted murderer to be allowed a
proper burial unless dissected first (Radzinowich, 1943).
Hanging in chains was a gruesome way to dispose
of a body. After the condemned was hung the body would remain suspended
at the site until decomposed as a warning to the 'lower orders', often
near places where crime occurred and occasionally in front of the criminal's
house (Cooper, 1974, 1). Despite this humiliation criminals often preferred
hanging in chains to dissection by surgeons. The fear of dissection was
so great one condemned man sent letters to his former friends begging them
to form a company to prevent the surgeons "...in their designs upon his
body." He would rather have been hung in chains, and asked the court of
justice for this sentence (Gatrell, 1994, 192). Failure to comply with
the provisions of the Act was punishable. Gaolers who evaded the provisions
could be punished by forfeiture of their office and a fine of twenty pounds.
If one attempted to rescue the body of the felon before or after the execution
of the sentence the punishment was transportation for seven years (Radzinowich,
1943).
The Act, in effect, made the surgeon or anatomy
student the executor of the sentence and linked dissection with the criminal
justice system. In order to receive a body the receptor had to follow the
criteria prescribed by law. The hangings were usually on Monday mornings
at eight o'clock with the cut-down at nine. The body was placed on a cart,
accompanied by the city marshal. The marshal was required to be in attendance
and properly witness the anatomizing in order for the sentence to be lawfully
completed. This witnessing was usually brief on the part of the marshal,
who would stay long enough to see a superficial incision in the chest of
the body. He would then ride back to report to his superiors that the procedure
was properly discharged (Lassek, 1958).
Just as executions were public during this period
so were some dissections. In many eighteenth century towns public anatomy
lessons became social events which often drew fashionable yet voyeuristic
audiences. After the execution of murderer William Corder in Bury St. Edmonds
during 1828 his body was placed on public display in the shire hall. The
half naked body was opened at the chest by a surgeon and lay with the internal
organs exposed. People were as anxious to gain a peek at the mangled body
as they were intent upon witnessing the actual execution (Gatrell, 1994).
The Court of King's Bench added another political
encouragement to the resurrection era. During 1788 the case of Rex v.
Lynn came before the court. Lynn was charged and sentenced for the
offense of disinterring a corpse for purposes of dissection. His counsel
submitted that the offense was solely of ecclesiastical concern but the
court found the offense was criminal in that it was morally offensive.
As English common law does not allow the body to have a property value
the offense could not be construed as a theft, therefore provision was
made to define it as a common misdemeanor punishable by fine and, at the
court's discretion, a brief incarceration (Ross, 1976). The theft of grave
clothes, however, was a felony. For this reason shrouds were returned to
coffins. Such a sentence is astonishing considering that a conviction for
theft of a fowl carried a sentence of transportation (Linebaugh, 1975).
Sentences for disturbing a grave handed down even
before this decision were not severe. In the 1777 case of a grave digger,
his assistant and an accomplice prosecuted for stealing an exhumed body
the two principles were sentenced to six months incarceration and a whipping.
The accomplice was dismissed (Bailey, 1896). It was also difficult to get
a conviction as illustrated by a Hatton Garden Police Court case during
1814. Two men carrying seven dead bodies packed in sacks and baskets were
apprehended by officers on a Tuesday. The men were arrested and committed
to prison and the bodies deposited in a lock up house. By Thursday, despite
the damning evidence, the men were discharged. Often cemetery keepers were
reluctant to prosecute because this alerted the public to the situation,
causing uproar (Bailey, 1896).
Economic Factors
Several economic factors served to encourage the
resurrection era. As previously stated the growth of the United Kingdom's
economy during industrialization created a new class of urban poor. Unemployment
was widespread along with job lay-offs and wage decreases. Sudden destitution
from the insecurities of credit and the vagarities of the market was commonplace
(Linebaugh, 1975). The resurrection business was a better way to make a
living than turning to other types of crime when one could be hanged for
the theft of a peruke valued at seven shillings (Linebaugh, 1975). The
cost of providing burial to paupers was another consideration. Records
of the 127 parishes situated in London, Westminister, Southwark and the
immediate vicinity during 1827 show that out of 3,744 persons who died
in workhouses 3,103 were buried at parish expense, and of those about 1,108
were not attended to the grave by any relations (Bailey, 1896). Resurrection
men claiming to be relatives of those who died in workhouses must have
been somewhat welcome. To reduce these costs pit burial of the poor became
common practice throughout London and in inner city areas all over Britain.
"Such graves are dug by orders of parish officers and others and are frequently
kept open for many weeks, until charged nearly to the surface with dead
bodies." (Richardson, 1988, 61). Such graves encouraged body snatching
as they were seldom guarded by police and therefore easily looted.
The cost of obtaining bodies legally available also
began to rise as public opposition to dissection of the condemned escalated.
Surgeons had to bribe the Sheriff and his officers, tip their assistants
for each body seized at Tyburn, and pay constables to protect them and
their halls when a body was delivered. When surgeons attempted to prosecute
those who rescued bodies the costs exceeded fifteen pounds (Linebaugh,
1975). It became far less expensive to pay resurrection men for subjects.
Methods: How To Snatch A Body
During the early years of the resurrection era body
snatching was predominately the work of anatomy students, school administrators
and teachers, and surgeons, hence the term "sack- em-up gentlemen" (Montgomery,
1989). A 1721 clause of the Edinburgh College of Surgeons prohibiting students
from engaging in the practice suggests that students probably had been
robbing graves for subjects. It was also said that in Scotland students
could pay tuition in corpses rather than money (Richardson, 1988). In some
schools students were encouraged to form a physician-apprentice relationship
with their teachers, and it seems almost a rite of passage that the student
supply a subject for dissection (Schultz, 1992).
The methods employed by students were often clumsy
and involved the use of spirits, therefore easily detected. In an account
given by a young medical student during 1751 the student related that after
passing an evening drinking in the anatomy room a party decided to resurrect
the body of a woman executed for theft the day before. At half past twelve
the student, along with several other students and an assistant of the
school's administrator set out with spades and grappling hooks. The party
arrived at the graveyard where the woman's body was interred yet had some
difficulty finding the correct grave. After one of the students literally
fell into the correct grave while sitting on the ground the body was snatched
and stuffed into a foul smelling sack. The students then fled the graveyard
without attempting to cover their actions and the next morning drew lots
to determine the disposal of the various parts of the corpse (Gray, 1937).
This activity carried the danger of disease transmission. In locating the
grave the students inadvertently dug up a coffin which when opened "did
prove to contain an old woman very foul...I pray with all my heart...so
that we caught not some enervating distemper..." (Gray, 1937, 35).
Students were also in danger of violent response
from the watchers of graves. In an account from Glasglow, Scotland students
on a snatching expedition accidently tripped the wire of a booby-trap,
killing one. The remaining two students fled, fearing scandal, bringing
the body back to their lodgings. The following morning they presented the
death as a suicide (Adams, 1972). The sack-em-up gentlemen were a brave
lot to risk themselves for science. But fearful of the dangers of resurrection
teachers and students began to rely on others to provide services and subjects
for a fee. This created a market for corpses and a willing work force to
fill the needs of that market. By the turn of the century London anatomists
appear to have delegated the procuration of subjects entirely (Richardson,
1988). Some resurrected on a part-time basis while others made body snatching
a criminal profession and were able to make a comfortable living at their
trade (Richardson, 1988). The average price for bodies was about four pounds
for adults. "Smalls", meaning children, were sold at so much per foot.
Teeth were also valuable as dentists used them in making dentures. One
enterprizing resurrection man by the name of Murphy gained entry to a vault
on the pretense of selecting a burial place for his wife. He was able to
leave an entry way opened, and returned later at night. He collected enough
teeth make sixty pounds (Bailey, 1896).
There was a difference between grave robbing and
body snatching in that the former involved opening a grave while the latter
involved subterfuge in obtaining a corpse. In the early days of resurrection
the grave was opened and the body wrenched from the shattered coffin. The
raiders would then flee leaving the grave disturbed, which quickly led
to the discovery of the act.
As resurrection evolved into a criminal profession
and gangs began to operate in cities such as London and Edinburgh snatchers
learned to restore graves to their original state as closly as possible-
not out of respect to families of the dead but to insure future return
for more loot. The speed with which bodies were removed was remarkable.
Professionals learned through experience and developed techniques enabling
the removal of the contents of a grave in less than an hour depending on
the number of men involved (Adams, 1972). The tools of the trade included
lanterns, ropes, hooks, sometimes a firearm, and shovels. Grave robbers
favored short wooden spades which made less noise and would not cause a
chink of metal against the occasional stone. Sacks were used to contain
the bodies, and in later years a cloth tied crossed corners was used (Adams,
1972).
There has been some controversy over the method
employed in robbing a grave (Bailey, 1896). What follows is probably close
to the method most often used. After a funeral a spy would mingle with
mourners to take note of any obstacles such as markers or booby-traps.
The winter hours were best, and in Scotland snatchers worked between six
and eight o'clock as night fell early and police did not come on duty until
after eight (Adams, 1972). Any markers would be removed, along with any
booby-traps such as spring-guns. A hole was then dug down only to the top
of the coffin, about where the head and shoulders lay. Canvas was spread
to catch the loose soil. When the head of the coffin was reached two hooks
or a crowbar would be used to pry up the lid, snapping it off against the
weight of earth covering the other two-thirds of the coffin. Sacking could
be used to deaden the noise of tearing wood. Using hooks to pull the body
out it was then stripped of its shrould, doubled in half, and shoved into
a sack. The soil was then replaced on the grave along with any markers
and booby-traps (Adams, 1972). One former student who had accompanied professional
snatchers described this method, stating "A considerable force was required,
and this was mainly exerted round the neck by means of a cord and other
appliances. Now, withdrawing the contents of a coffin by a anrrow aperture
was by no means an easy process, particularly at dead of night and whilst
the actors were in a state of trepidation. A jerking movement is said to
have been more effective than violent dragging" (Adams, 1972, 35).
Another method involved the excavation of a long
sloping tunnel beginning some fifteen to twenty feet from the grave. Through
this tunnel the coffin would be pulled to the surface, opened, robbed,
then pushed back into the grave. Such a method would require a considerable
amount of time and digging and leave robbers open to the eyes of potential
witnesses, suggesting this method was part of
a myth (Bailey, 1896).
One sucessful resurrectionist by night, grave digger
by day told a different story. He would take the body out of the coffin
prior to burial and place it in a sack on top. While burying the coffin
it was easy to pull the sack up as the soil level rose. At the top of the
grave the body would be covered with a thin laver of soil, easily removed
when he returned for the body under cover of night (Bailey,1896).
Corpses were also obtained before burial. Snatchers
watched the crowded lodging and workhouses in cities, paying careful attention
to news of sickness and imminent death. As soon as death struck snatchers
could appear claiming to be grieving relaatives of the deceased. Merry
Andrew, a member of an Edinburgh resurrection gang, would present himself
as a relation of the departed and after mourning over the body would depart-
ostensibly to arrange the funeral. He would quickly return with a horse
and hearse, often accompanied by another gang member called Praying Howard.
Howard, dressed as a minister, prayed over the body before the two took
their leave with the corpse and with the confidence of the residents (Douglas,
1973). Body snatchers were also known to have hired women to pose as grieving
relatives at workhouses to claim the bodies of dead paupers. Usually little
was done to verify these claims because giving over these bodies represented
one less funeral at public cost (Richardson, 1988). Unclaimed bodies and
those awaiting inquest were always targets as they had to be stored somewhere
(Bailey, 1896). Even private homes were not safe from snatchers. It was
customary that after a family member died the body would be watched in
a room of the house for a time before burial. A London police officer responsible
for the recovery of more than fifty bodies burgled from private homes was
rewarded with a silver staff by grateful citizens (Richardson, 1988).
The body snatching gangs that evolved during the
era were of a lower moral order than the early robbers because their motive
was profit. The Borough gang operated in London between 1802 and 1825 to
supply some of the biggest anatomical schools including that of Sir Astley
Cooper. Members included former hospital porter Ben Crouch and Joseph Naples.
Naples kept a kind of diary during 1811 to 1812 describing the activities
of the gang which was later published. Typical entries include: "Tuesday
24th. At twelve at midnight a party went to Wyngate got 3 small, came back
and got 2 large at Newington, came home and settled with Ben, each man's
share L.8, 16s. 8d., at home all night."..."Friday 27th. Went to look out,
came home met Ben and Dan at 5 o'clock, went to Harps, got 1 large ...",
"Saturday 28th. At 4 o'clock in the morning got up, with the whole party
to Guy's and St. Thomas's crib (burial ground), got 6 took them to St.
Thomas. Came home and met at Thomas's again, packd up 3 for Edinbro...",
"Monday 10th. Met. went to St. James. got 9 large & 4 small, took them
to Barthol." "Tuesday 11th. Went to Barthol. Moved the things. Home all
night." (Bailey,189 6).
Before each term a gang member would haggle with
school administrators to decide how much they were to be paid for each
subject, the amount of "starting money" needed for bribes and agree upon
the amount of "finishing money" that would be paid at the end of the term.
This "finishing money" served as a bonus for a successful session at the
school (Frank, 1976, 402). These gangs competed fiercely for 'contracts'
with schools, and would sabotage each other. If one gang had knowlege that
a rival gang was raiding a particular cemetary evidence of resurrection
would be left there, drawing the attention of citizens and police. This
would spoil that area for robbing for some time, and frustrated the rival
gang. If a member discovered a free-lance operator this man could be denounced
to the police, thereby putting him out of business for a while (Frank,
1976). The anatomy schools were at the mercy of such gangs, who could punish
them for low prices or dealing with other gangs by leaving putrid corpses
on their doorsteps, causing public outrage against the school. If a school
bought bodies from free-lance operators the gangs would break into the
school and sabotage the subjects (Frank, 1976). Teachers responded to this
extortion by forming an anatomical club, and through this attempted to
cooperate amongst themselves to hold prices down by fixing a set price
and then agreeing not to pay any more for subjects. Prices increased, however,
demonstrating the agreement was not kept (Bailey, 1896).
As the police and public attention on gang activity
increased so did the prices demanded for subjects. The average price of
four pounds and change increased to some seven pounds by 1812 (Montgomery,
1989), and to between nine and ten pounds by 1828 (Frank, 1976). When gang
members got into trouble with the law it was not uncommon for their patrons
to take care of them and their families financially. Sir Astley Cooper
bailed his procurors out of jail and paid them for time served.
During 1827 a gang from London, including one of
Cooper's men Vaughan, rented a house located near a churchyard in Varmouth.
With the help of the local grave digger the gang operated for two months,
stripping the churchyard of bodies and packing them up to be sent to London
before being discovered by the local police. Three members, including Vaughan,
were apprehended but only Vaughan was sent to London for trial. Cooper
sent bail money, and paid Vaughan an allowance during the six month prison
sentence he received (Richardson, 1988).
Bodies could also be imported and exported. Many
bodies came from mpoverished Ireland due to famine, and the cost of obtaining
them was low. Bodies were packed into innocent looking containers labeled
'books' or 'pianos' and sent across the Irish Sea in steamboats. During
1813 an Irish sloop berthed at Glasgow with a shipment of bales. The man
who was to receive this shipment refused delivery because of high freight
charges, so the bales were left on the quayside in a shed. In the next
few days an evil stench swept the dock, causing complaints. When the city
guard cut open the bales decomposing bodies of men, women, and children
tumbled out (Adams, 1972). During 1826 three casks consigned for shipment
to Edinburgh were left on a Liverpool dock overnight, and the next day
the stench attracted attention. The police were notified and investigated,
finding eleven bodies packed inside the casks (Lassek, 1958).
The high price commanded by subjects eventually
led some people to create their own supply through murder. John Wilson,
an Edinburgh resident, allegedly mixed arsenic with snuff which he would
then offer to unsuspecting travelers. He was supposed to have spent two
or three years as a killer, making a considerable sum of money (Bailey,
1896). Helen Torrence and Jean Waldie, also residents of Edinburgh, shocked
the country during 1752 by stealing and killing a child, the body of which
they sold to an anatomist for a small fee and the price of a dram (Adams,
1972).
The worst case of murder for anatomy was that of
Burke and Hare, also occuring in Edinburgh. William Burke immigrated to
Scotland from Ireland during the 1820s to find work as a laborer on the
Union Canal. He made a friend of a fellow countryman, William Hare, who
had also immigrated in the hope of finding work. Hare and his common-law
wife, Lucky Logue owned a flophouse and rented a room to Burke and his
female companion Helen McDougal. The four spent a lot of time drinking
together and not much time working. When one of the residents of the flophouse
died they decided to sell his body to the anatomists. After all, the dead
man owed money to Hare and money was needed for expensives such as liquor.
They made seven pounds from the sale, which was far more than could be
made from honest work, and were told to come back anytime with more bodies.
When another lodger became ill the two were more than happy to sit with
the sick man. When the sick man slipped into a coma Burke finished him
off by smothering him with a pillow. They were paid ten pounds this time,
and were so pleased with this easy money that they went on to kill fifteen
more people. Their victims were lured to the flophouse with shelter and
liquor. Once the victim became stupefied with liquor Hare held the victim
while Burke smothered him or her to death, hence the term 'burking'. Their
career was cut short, however, when a visitor to the flophouse spied a
victim before the body could be transported to the anatomy school. When
the public discovered the murders they were so enraged that the judges
believed there could not be a fair trial unless incontrovertible evidence
was obtained. The bodies of the first fifteen victims were gone, so the
judges gave Hare immunity from prosecution in return for a full confession
implicating Burke. Burke was tried and executed for the crimes, and his
body dissected. Dr. Knox, the anatomy teacher who paid for the bodies,
was not charged with anything but the incident ruined his career (Douglas,
1973).
A similar case occured in England during 1831. John
Bishop and James May, two well known resurrectionists, offered a body for
sale to King's College at a unusually high price. The men assured the porter
with whom they haggled that the body was worth the price as it was very
fresh. Once the price was set the men left to fetch the body and returned
with a colleague, Thomas Williams. When the porter actually saw the body
he became suspicious, as there were marks of violence on the head. The
anatomy demonstrator agreed, and surrepticiously sent for the police. Bishop,
Williams and May were told the reason for the delay was to get change for
a fifty-pound note, and so they waited for their fee. The police arrived
instead of money and took the men into custody. Upon investigation it was
revealed that both Guy's Hospital and Grainger's Anatomical Theatre had
refused the body. The body was identified as that of a well- known street
urchin who had been seen in the company of the three men two days previously.
The police searched Bishop's home and found tools bearing fresh blood.
Bloodstained clothing belonging to the victim was found at May's. Williams
confessed that he and Bishop were responsible for the murder, and of the
murders of a woman and another boy earlier. Their method was simple-Bishop
and Williams offered liquor laced with laudanum to the victim. As the drug
took effect the men would lower the victim head first into a well in Bishop's
garden. Bishop and Williams were convicted for the crimes but the evidence
was inconclusive against May, so he was reprieved. The two were executed
four days after the verdict and their bodies were given to the surgeons
for dissection (Douglas, 1973).
Public Response versus Official Response
Public Response
The response to the resurrection era depended on
one's station in life. Wealthy people could afford to maintain private
cemeteries surrounded by walls topped with broken glass, loose stones,
or sharp spikes. The entrance gate would be large, strong, and padlocked
at night. Watchmen might be hired by night and paid by relatives to keep
the bodies of loved ones safe (Lassek, 1958). In addition, watch-houses
were often erected to house guards and any persons suspected of resurrecting.
Constables would arrive at first light to take charge of any prisoner (Adams,
1972). These were not insurmountable obstacles to resurrection men. Watchmen
and cemetery sextons could be bribed, usually on a piecework wage basis.
It was easy enough work to leave a gate unlocked then receive a fee of
so much per body raised (Lassek, 1958). Watchmen were not supposed to drink
spirits on duty, but did resort to alcohol to pass the time as evidenced
by an incident in Aberdeenshire, Scotland. A medical student was captured
by watchmen and imprisoned in the watch-house. The student's friends did
not desert him, but instead returned to ply the unsuspecting guard with
a jug of whisky. As they drank and exchanged stories the imprisoned student
burrowed his way through the roof of the house and escaped. The drunken
guard spent the rest of the night guarding an empty room (Adams, 1972).
Wealthy people could also afford to build private
tombs in burial grounds where bodies could be kept under lock and key (Adams,
1972). Public vaults also appeared during this time where, for a fee or
subscription, bodies could be housed until they were putrid and of no use
to resurrection men. Such a house is still standing at Crail, near Aberdeen,
Scotland with an inscription over the entrance which reads, "Erected for
securing the Dead" (Bailey, 1896, 80).
During 1818 at the height of resurrection times an enterprising
London undertaker by the name of Edward Bridgman patented a coffin made
of wrought-iron. The coffin had no screws, hinges or movable parts and
appeared to be imperishable. An outcry was raised by churchwardens and
sextons that the iron coffins would prevent the future use of cemeteries,
yet Bridgman advertised in newspapers, playing on sentiment. He warned
that "many hundred dead bodies will be dragged from their wooden coffins
this winter, for the anatomical lectures which have just commenced...the
violation of the sanctity of the grave is said to be needful, for the instruction
of the medical pupil...," but let it be one of your relations? (Adams,
1972, 54). These coffins were too expensive for the working class and often
required an additional fee to be buried.
The poor began to collect money amongst themselves
to pay for the establishment of watches over the graves of their dead as
they could not expect police protection. The problem with this was that
resurrection men paid higher wages (Richardson, 1988). Church officers
attempted to aid their poorer members by providing deterrence against grave
robbing in the form of massive stone slabs to lay on top of graves. Later
these were replaced by mortsafes. Mortsafes resembled iron cages which
would encase the coffin and be buried with it until the body inside decomposed,
upon which it would be removed to use for the next funeral. It was said
that the mortsafe at a Quaker cemetery in Aberdeenshire required ten men
to handle, and was equipped with a trick lock (Adams, 1972).
The poor also attempted to protect their graves by mixing
clumps of thatch or heather in with the soil to discourage easy digging.
The surface of graves could be sprinkled with markers such as shells or
pebbles that could be monitored, and if displaced indicated the grave had
been disturbed. Quick lime in the coffin would have ended the problem,
but this practice was not popular for religious reasons (Adams, 1972).
Graves could be booby-trapped with spring guns or crude landmines. All
of these deterrents were not effective as determined body snatchers found
ways around them. A spy might be sent to observe the funeral then later
warn snatchers of impediments such as markers or booby-traps.
Poor people also responded to the humiliation of
dissection sentences handed down by courts by attempting to prevent the
cause of the humiliation. Riots at execution sites such as Tyburn and Newgate
were common as friends, relatives, and co-workers fought against the surgeons
for possession of executed felon's bodies (Linebaugh, 1975). Much has been
written about the public spectacle and disorder surrounding public executions,
(Cooper, 1974, Gatrell, 1994) but few accounts mention that a main cause
of such disturbances lay in the relationship between the judges sitting
at Old Bailey and the physicians and surgeons around the corner in Warwick
lane and Cripplegate (Linebaugh, 1975). The Court of Aldermen responded
to disturbances by ordering executions to be attended by both sheriffs
of London and their constables, arousing the civil officers of Middlesex
to guard the crowds, and by providing arms to sergeants who attended as
guards. Parish officers and the Foot Guards were also often used as reinforcement.
By 1749 the situation had become so dangerous that the Sheriff of London,
Theodore Janssen, took matters into his own hands and adopted a policy
of delivering the bodies of the condemned to friends or relations. By 1750
hangings at Tyburn were "...attended (as usual) by Mr. Sheriff Janssen
with five High Constables, and their Petty Constables; and but a few of
the London and Middlesex Officers...The Execution was over by a little
after Ten O'clock, and the Bodies being cut down by Order of the Sheriff,
were delivered to their friends." (Linebaugh, 1975, 101). This policy
was contrary to the Common Law allowance of bodies and to the 1752 Statute
but the Sheriff was not punished for his decision.
Riots also occurred around jails housing suspected
resurrection men and at anatomy schools. During 1742 Edinburgh was torn
by riots caused by rumors of body snatching activities. The shop of a barber-surgeon
was laid siege to, and the homes of several surgeons were attacked and
the windows knocked out. The home of a beadle, dubbed 'resurrectionist
hall' was destroyed by fire, and many people were injured (Adams, 1972).
Medical students in Glasgow, fearing violence, had to retain a party of
soldiers for protection during 1803, and a full scale riot threatened the
city during 1813 when a grave was found empty. An angry mob attacked the
home of the professor of anatomy breaking every window (Adams, 1972). The
worst riot occurred during 1831 at the Aberdeen anatomical theatre of a
Doctor Moir. A dog digging at the rear of the theatre discovered a bone,
which caused rumors that hundreds of dismembered corpses were buried there.
An angry mob quickly formed which stormed the theatre, members of which
beating teachers and students alike. The doctor and his students escaped
and Moir was able to reach his home. The mob's fury became directed at
both the house and the theatre; Moir was forced to flee. The theatre was
set ablaze. When the Lord provost marshal arrived with his magistrates,
town sergeants and a posse of special policemen the crowd could not be
contained. Soldiers of the Cameron Highlanders were called but played no
part in quelling the riot which by now had swelled to between ten and twenty
thousand people. After the theatre had burned to the ground the mob turned
on anyone resembling a medical student, harassing them. Within a few hours
the riot was spent. It was said Moir passed the night hiding in a cemetery
(Adams, 1972).
Friends of a man hanged and dissected during the
1820s took their revenge by attacking all the medical men involved. One
man was killed and another shot in the face (Richardson, 1988).
Police had a difficult time protecting their prisoners
if the prisoners were suspected resurrectionists. Mobs gathered around
jails or courts hearing cases of resurrection, threatening violence. Police
often kept suspects in jail, not as part of a sentence but for their own
protection. Charles Darwin witnessed such a disturbance during 1830, and
wrote: "Two body snatchers had been arrested, and whilst being taken
to prison had been torn from the constable by a crowd of the roughest men,
who dragged them by their legs along the muddy and stony road. They were
covered from head to foot with mud, and their faces were bleeding from
having been kicked...they looked like corpses...the two men were got onto
the prison without being killed." Such incidents were common during
this period and considered an occupational hazard of the resurrection business
(Richardson, 1988, 90).
Official Response
The official response to the era was also divided
along class lines. During the early 1800s a large group of people had become
dependent on resurrectionists for several reasons. Surgeons, having wealthy
clients, needed subjects upon which to practice operations before subjecting
their patients to life threatening procedures (Frank, 1976). Anatomy school
teachers and administrators needed subjects to attract students, and dentists
needed teeth from cadavers to use in dentures for the wealthy (Richardson,
1988). This group was socially closer to the upper classes. As public officials
came from this class they tended to side with anatomists by being lenient
with cases of body snatching and on occasion connived with them in their
quest for subjects.
Sir Astley Cooper, professor of anatomy at St. Thomas
hospital, was a member of this protected class. During 1801 the gang supplying
his subjects adopted a plan whereby bodies packed in large baskets were
left at night in the courtyard in front of his house, awaiting transport
to the hospital by coach. On one occasion this procedure was interrupted
by a police officer who demanded to speak with Cooper. Cooper claimed to
have no responsibility for anything left in his courtyard as the gates
were left open until eleven o'clock. The officer left, stating his intention
to report the incident to the Lord Mayor of London on the following morning.
Cooper preempted the officer by arranging a meeting of his own, and during
breakfast recounted the incident himself to the Mayor. The Mayor assured
Cooper that he would not be bothered by police again (Lassek, 1958). Bransby
Cooper, nephew and biographer of Sir Cooper, wrote: "There was nothing
singular in the conduct of the Lord Mayor on this occasion. At the period
when the event occurred, magistrates, fearful of obstructing the progress
of medical education, and of unnecessarily exciting and exasperating popular
feeling and prejudice, always avoided taking cognizance of the reception
of subjects by surgeons for purposes of dissection, unless attended by
some flagrant breech of propriety; and hence arose the prevailing opinion
of the members of the profession, that they were legally justified in such
proceedings." (Cooper, 1843, 344). This statement epitomized the relationship
between physicians and high ranking officials. It was even said that Home
Secretary Sir Robert Peel had gone out of his way to avoid prosecuting
surgeons or resurrectionists (Douglas, 1973).
Orders were also passed down to police officers
to turn a blind eye to the thefts of pauper bodies from public burial grounds.
The rank and file officers were closer socially to the working class and
tended to take their side. This created a conflict between the officers'
private beliefs their and commitment to law and order. Officers could be
ordered not to be overzealous in seeking out who was responsible for or
the whereabouts of stolen bodies. Officers who disobeyed could loose their
positions (Richardson, 1988).
The relationship between physicians and high ranking
officials is also reflected in the way the courts disposed of body snatching
prosecutions. The activity was rarely prosecuted, although Southwood Smith
stated that there had been fourteen convictions in England during 1823.
Mr. Twyford, a magistrate at the Worship Street Police Court recounted
that he had not seen more than six cases prosecuted in as many years (Bailey,
1896). This appears to be a very small number considering how prevalent
the practice was. Resurrectionists were occasionally handed down light
sentences for their actions. One man who was convicted of removing the
body of a child from its' coffin received a sentence of six months imprisonment
(Bailey, 1896). Three Aberdeen robbers were caught red-handed by a watchman
during 1813. The sheriff fined both twenty pounds (Adams, 1972). Penalties
became stiffer with the passing years. During 1815 a body snatcher received
a two- week jail sentence and a hundred dollar fine for robbing an Aberdeen
grave (Adams, 1972). The courts were inconsistent in their sentences and
until the late 1820s only the resurrectionists bore any criminal responsibility
for the activity.
Those who purchased or used the product of this
activity were not touched by law until the 1828 prosecution by the Lancaster
Assizes of John Davies and Edward Hall. Davies, a medical student, and
Hall, a surgeon, were brought up on charges after removing a body from
a chapel yard. The indictment contained fourteen counts which included
conspiracy and unlawfully procuring and receiving a body. The two principles
were found guilty- not of violating the grave or stealing the body but
of receiving and possessing a body knowing it to have been unlawfully disinterred.
Fines of some twenty-five pounds were given (Bailey, 1896). The precedent
set by this case was of paramount importance as it opened the door for
future prosecutions against
anyone knowingly accepting possession of an illegally obtained
body. This included teachers and students of anatomy. This precedent, along
with the recent cases of 'burking' set the stage for the development and
passage of the Warburton Anatomy Act.
The Warburton Anatomy
Act
Several sources attribute Parliament's decision
to consider an act regulating the supply of human cadavers for education
purposes to have been in reaction to the public's fear of being murdered
for dissection (Douglas, 1973, Montgomery, 1989, Adams, 1972). But this
was only one influence. As the cost of obtaining subjects continued to
increase, during 1810 a small Parliamentary body began to ineffectively
campaign for reform but Parliament was reluctant to legislate on such a
controversial matter. The Home Secretary at the time told a deputation
that "There was no difficulty in drawing up an effective bill; the great
obstacle was the prejudice of the people against any bill...this impediment
had not been trifling." (Bailey, 1896, 89). After the precedent allowing
prosecution for possession of unlawfully obtained bodies was set the physicians
and teachers became more adamant about a bill, and as they were backed
by men in high places they interested certain distinguished individuals
such as Henry Warburton, a member of the House of Commons. Through the
influence of this group a select committee was formed during 1828 in the
House to make inquiries into the matter (Lassek, 1958). The people who
gave evidence before the committee included eminent physicians such as
Sir Astley Cooper and Thomas Wakely, founder and editor of The Lancet.
The committee must have been horrified to hear Cooper's statement "There
is no person, let his station in life be what it may, whom, if I were disposed
to dissect, I could not obtain...The law only enhances the price, it does
not prevent the exhumation." (Frank, 1976, 407). Cooper and other physicians
testified with facts and figures describing the shortage of subjects and
reminded the committee that subjects were necessary as the surgeon was
required to know anatomy. Three members of the gang supplying Sir Cooper
with subjects also gave evidence before the committee, including Naples,
author of the diary. Naples quoted statistics to show the number of bodies
he had lifted, referring to his "little book." (Douglas, 1973, 148).
Despite this damning testimony the committee's report
was filled away and nothing was done. The Burke and Hare murders brought
the subject back to the attention of Parliament during 1828, and Warburton
introduced a bill into Parliament during 1829 "for preventing the unlawful
disinterment of human bodies and for regulating Schools of Anatomy." (Douglas,
1973, 149). The Bill passed successfully through the House of Commons but
was blocked by the House of Lords. No further action was taken until the
Bishop and May case came to the attention of the public during 1831. Less
than a week after the two were executed the College of Surgeons presented
a new petition to the Home Secretary which stated: "The large prices which
have of late been given for Anatomical Subjects have operated as a premium
for murder." (Douglas, 1973, 153). Warburton introduced a new Bill, better
than the first, for regulating the schools and this time it passed through
both houses. The Bill permitted persons having lawful possession to give
up bodies for dissection after forty- eight hours after death, unless the
person had expressly stated otherwise. This gave those in charge of workhouses
and similar institutions the right to assign unclaimed bodies to the anatomists.
Inspectors of anatomy were to be appointed to oversee the operation. The
Bill also abolished the practice of dissecting the bodies of executed criminals,
removing the age- long association between anatomy and crime (Douglas,
1973). By 1832 the resurrection era was over in Great Britain.
Significance
While the resurrection era was a morbidly fascinating
period of history it is significant for reasons other than entertainment.
Not only does the period provide an excellent illustration of the class
hatred felt by the wealthy towards the poor it provides an example of how
the government can actually create crime through poor legislation and legal
precedent. And as the social abhorrence against dissection and the use
of executed felons for anatomical subjects followed the early settlers
to America the situation was recreated. Class hatred in Great Britain was
demonstrated by the increasing numbers of statutes punishing crimes of
theft with death that were enacted as the wealthy sought to protect their
possessions from an increasingly large poor and working class. The upper
classes were aware of social stigma associated with dissection because
they feared it themselves. To include dissection as part of the already
severe sentencing practices was a way to further humiliate and degrade
the lower class. While the Anatomy Act did end the predation of snatchers
on the bodies of the poor it did not end the practice of exploitation of
the poor by the wealthy. By relying on the bodies of unclaimed paupers
to fill the need for subjects the Bill expected the poor to accept being
singled out for what had before been an extreme criminal punishment solely
on the basis of social class. Donation of one's own body was permitted
by the Bill but the public was slow to accept this. Enlightened thinkers
such as Jeremy Bentham were the first to donate their remains, helping
to overcome the stigma (Montgomery, 1989). Proper legislation could have
prevented the black-market in human corpses that developed between the
surgeons and the resurrection men. It is no wonder that many turned to
selling human remains because there was so much profit to be realized.
The London borough gang was credited with having supplied some four hundred
bodies to the schools during the term of 1811 to 1812 alone. If the majority
of these bodies were of adults in prime condition and the average price
seven pounds, each member of the gang could have grossed about five hundred
pounds that year alone. This would have amounted to around 40,000 dollars
in today's money (Montgomery, 1989). Even excluding the sale of teeth resurrection
was a very lucrative business. The practice of handing down lenient sentences
by the courts for body snatching during a time of severe penalties for
the smallest theft reinforced the idea that resurrectionists were above
the law. Light penalties did nothing to deter body snatching, they only
increased the price of subjects. The public knew how leniently body snatchers
were treated by the courts and this knowledge allowed many a burglar to
escape arrest by claiming to be "only a body snatcher." (Frank, 1976, 403).
As resurrectionist activities increased the ruling
class could have legislated for a solution to the problem of supply and
demand but because they were better able to protect themselves from resurrectionists
they chose not to address the problem. Most of the bodies being stolen
were from public cemeteries containing the remains of paupers so the wealthy
were able to ignore the problem. When Sir Cooper informed the select committee
of his ability to obtain the body of any person despite their station in
life it must have come as quite a shock to the wealthy Members of Parliament.
And while some have attributed the passage of the Bill to the murders committed
for subjects it must be remembered that the worst case, that of Burke and
Hare, occurred during 1828 yet the Bill did not pass until 1831. The victims
in the 'burking' cases were from the lower classes, not from the ruling
class.
The legal status of dissection in the American colonies,
and then in the states, was similar to that of Great Britain. Early New
England was governed by the common and statutory laws of England, laws
which provided no penalty for the exhumation of a human body. Removal of
a shroud or any garment, however, constituted a felony (Lassek, 1958).
Bodies of executed murderers were available for dissection shortly after
the first settlers arrived. The demand for bodies never rose as high in
the States as it did in Great Britain as aspiring doctors often traveled
to Europe for their medical education. The need for subjects did not create
a problem until after 1762 when Doctor William Shippen offered the first
organized medical instruction in the colonies (Frank, 1976). The number
of medical schools increased from one during 1765 to 159 by 1901 (Lassek,
1958). As the number of schools increased so did the need for anatomical
subjects. The grave robbing that took place was undertaken predominantly
by medical students and porters which caused the public fury that developed
as a result to be directed towards this group and the schools they attended
(Frank, 1976).
Public outrage took the same form as in Great Britain.
Riots occurred, teachers and students were attacked and schools were vandalized.
Between 1765 and 1852 at least thirteen riots occurred within the United
States (Lassek, 1958). Bodies were obtained from public cemeteries as in
Great Britain, but with one difference- black bodies were more frequently
stolen than white. Medical colleges used black janitors and porters to
obtain the bodies of other blacks. The Medical College of Georgia even
purchased a man to do this job. Grandison Harris was bought at auction
for seven hundred dollars by the college during 1852. At this time it was
illegal for a slave to be taught to read and write yet faculty members
taught Grandison so he could follow the obituaries in the newspapers. He
snatched his subjects from a black cemetery and when word got out to the
black community about the use of their dead it almost caused a riot. When
Grandison died of heart failure at age ninety-five he was buried in the
same cemetery that he had robbed for years (Hunter, 1997).
Cadavers were also imported and exported between the states via the rail
system, similar to the use of steamships by British resurrectionists (Shultz,
1992).
The wealthy were not immune to body snatching. When
John Scott Harrison, father of Benjamin Harrison, was buried during 1878
it was noticed that a nearby grave was disturbed and the body interred
there had disappeared. Because of this discovery extra precautions were
made to ensure the safety of Harrison's body by placing it in a metal coffin
encased in cemented marble slabs. A search for the missing body ensued,
leading to the Ohio Medical School where the body of Harrison was found
instead, hanging upside down in a shaft, stolen a few hours after burial
despite the extra precautions (Shultz, 1992).
The riots that occurred as a result of resurrection
activities were as violent and destructive as those occurring for any reason,
and first appeared in America during 1765 when William Shippen begin to
lecture on anatomy. The public was opposed to dissection and a mob stoned
the house where the lectures were given several times, smashing all the
windows. Shippen was forced to flee the house through a private alley (Shultz,
1992).
During 1788 a riot occurred in New York as a result
of the silly antics of a medical student. His waving of a dismembered arm
from an upper story window attracted the attention of a group of children
below, who brought over a ladder to get a better look. Peering inside the
window they saw the interior of the anatomy room which contained many cadavers,
both black and white, in various stages of dissection. The news reached
the public and an angry mob formed, stormed the New York Hospital, and
threatened students and teachers for several days. The hospital was raided
of its' collection of rare pathological specimens which were burned in
the street. Eventually the New York militia dispersed the mob (Shultz,
1992). Baltimore was host to a similar riot during 1807, when boys looking
into a dissection room spread the word of what they saw. A mob soon formed
and destroyed the anatomy hall and other buildings that had been erected
at the expense of Doctor John Davidge. As a result of the mobs' actions
the school remained deserted for seven years, and did not establish another
anatomy laboratory for twenty-five (Shultz, 1992). Riots also occurred
at the Yale Medical College during 1824, the Worthington Medical College
in Ohio during 1837 which resulted in the destruction of the school, and
at the McDowell Medical College during 1844, where the school was also
destroyed by angry citizens (Shultz, 1992).
By the late 1890s body snatching was less common
and by the next century had all but disappeared. Embalming was introduced
between 1875 and 1890, making it possible to keep bodies for long periods
of time which regularized the demand (Frank, 1976). Unlike Great Britain
the United States did not legislate a national anatomy law but riots and
public outrage over body snatching activity triggered individual states
to pass legislation addressing the issue. A case in point is the John Harrison
snatching incident. John, as the son of and father to a president, came
from a distinguished wealthy family. When his corpse was discovered in
an Ohio medical college the uproar accompanying the incident caused changes
in the anatomical laws of several states (Lassek, 1958).
Conclusion
In examining the resurrection era of Great Britain
it can be concluded that the potential for such a situation to develop
is present in any society where there is an unequal distribution of power
between various groups of people. This potential is further enhanced when
the group having the most power creates an outclass of the less powerful
group. Members comprising this outclass are so delegated by an arbitrary
accident of birth, and not by any other criteria. The people controlling
the purse strings in Great Britain regarded the poor and working classes
as being of a lower order and thus open to exploitation. Few members of
the ruling class objected to this treatment; on the contrary, they profited
through the exploitation of the outclass. The working class was used by
the ruling class as a source of cheap labor. If they became disenchanted
with this arrangement and tried to take something away from the wealthy
by stealing they could simply be eliminated. After being eliminated at
the gallows they could still serve the wealthy by acting as subjects for
physicians to use in research. The fruits of this research were unavailable
to the poor and working classes as they had not the means to pay for the
services of physicians. Paupers had to depend on the hospitals for treatment
rather than on private physicians, and treatment there was often equated
with experimentation. A free market economy is ruled by the law of supply
and demand. When the commodity in question happened to be human corpses
such as during the resurrection era the outclass of the poor was on the
supply side, with the wealthy creating the demand. When the demand exceeded
the supply it was inevitable that some people would find ways to profit
from the situation. Yet the resurrectionists were also members of the outclass,
and no matter how much profit they realized from the sale of bodies it
was never enough to change their status. The real profit was realized by
the wealthy who could afford to avail themselves of the medical advances
(and who could afford to buy dentures).
In America the ruling class treated the outclass,
blacks, in much the same way. Black people were exploited first by being
bought and sold as slaves, then by having their remains used for research.
They had even less power than the British poor and could not overcome their
status as it was inherent in the color of their skin. It can be argued
that to form classes in society based on arbitrary criteria such as skin
color, monetary resources or religious background is part of human nature,
and therefore difficult to change. While this may be true the government
should function to control the exploitation of one class by another, more
powerful, class. This, however, is often not the case. The situation that
developed in Nazi Germany leading to the Jewish population becoming an
outclass is, of course, not comparable in terms of severity of treatment
but there are parallels. Jewish residents of Germany during the Nazi period
were delegated into an outclass by Hitler's government, then exploited,
first by being stripped of their businesses and valuables then by being
used as a source of cheap labor and subjects for medical research. While
the numbers who died at the gallows in Great Britain do not compare to
the genocide of the Jewish population it still remains that their status
as an outclass was derived from the arbitrary criterion of which faith
one was borne into. In conclusion, society must always be wary of situations
where there is an unequal distribution of power allowing the formation
of an outclass. Because if it is human nature to classify people the potential
always exists for exploitation and elimination. In the present American
society we seem to be ignoring the lessons of history by allowing an outclass
comprised of the same familiar members- those who happen to be poor and
those who happen to have dark skin. Whether or not this outclass is exploited
is debatable, and although society does not eliminate through execution
it can be argued that the outclass is eliminated through imprisonment.
References:
Adams, Norman. (1972). Dead and Buried: The Horrible History of Body
Snatching. Aberdeen: University Press.
Bailey, James Blake. (1896). The Diary of a Resurrectionist,
1811-1812. London: Swan Sonnenschein.
Cooper, Bransby. (1843). The Life of Sir Astley Cooper, Bart.
volume one. London: John W. Parker.
Cooper, David. (1974). The Lesson of the Scaffold. Athens, Ohio:
Ohio University Press.
Douglas, Hugh. (1973). Burke and Hare: The True Story. London:
R. Hale.
Frank, Julia Bess. (1976). A Grave Medical Problem. The Yale
Journal of Biology and Medicine, 49: 411-413.
Gatrell, V.A.C. (1994). The Hanging Tree. Execution and the English
People 1770-1868. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gray, Earnest. (1937). The Diary of a Surgeon in the Year 1751- 1752.
New York: Apple Century Company.
Lassek, A.M. (1958). Human Dissection: Its Drama and Struggle.
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Company.
Linebaugh, Peter. (1975). The Tyburn Riot Against the Surgeons.
In Hay, Douglas Et. Al.(eds.) Albions Fatal Tree. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Montgomery, Horace. (1989). Resurrection Times. The Georgia
Review, 43(3): 531-545.
Radzinowich, Leon. (1943). A History of English Common Law. Volume
one. London: Stevens and Sons Limited.
Richardson, Ruth. (1988). Death, Dissection, and the Destitute.
London: Penguin Books.
Ross, Ian. (1976). Body snatching in Nineteenth Century Britain.
British Journal of Law and Society, 6: 108-118.
Shultz, Suzanne. (1992). Body Snatching: The Robbing
of Graves for the Education of Physicians in Early Nineteenth Century America.
London: McFarland and Company.
Web Sites:
Evans, John. History on Body Donation. http//www.meded.uci.com
Hunter, Staphanie. 'Resurrection Man' Dug Way Into History. http//www.bmjpg.com
Walker, Victoria. From Body Snatching to Bequeathing. http//www.cris.com
Resurrection Men: Stalking The Dead is owned by laura Want to join The
Writer's Realm Writing Ring? [Prev Site][List Sites] [Top Sites ] [Next
Site]
Back to Stalk Talk...
This page has been visited 
times.