Why was the Anatomy Act of 1832 passed, and was it successful?

The eighteenth century saw important scientific advances in British medicine. One of the most prominent changes was in the practice of the barber-surgeon. During this period the practice evolved from its medieval roots into a research-based science carried out in the dissecting room. Famous anatomists such as John Hunter began using experimental research and observation for the basis of their anatomical education and surgical intervention.[footnoteRef:1] The scientific attitude to medicine underlined much of the anatomical success Britain achieved in the eighteenth century.[footnoteRef:2] [1: Historical exhibition, Hunterian museum of the RCS, London] [2: Knott, J, Popular Attitudes to Death and Dissection in Early Nineteenth Century Britain: The Anatomy Act and the Poor, Labour History 49 (1985), pp1-18]

This caused an increase in demand for corpses for dissection. However, there was no resultant increase in body supply to meet the demand. In order to tackle this emerging problem, the Murder Act was proposed and passed in 1752.[footnoteRef:3] This allowed the bodies of criminals hanged for murder to be donated to anatomists for dissection. However, anatomical demand exceeded homicide rates.[footnoteRef:4] Not only did dissection of executed murderers insufficiently cater to demand, it reinforced popular belief in dissection as a punishment.1 Surgeons became the public face of an unpopular criminal justice system.3 [3: Hurren, Elizabeth T, The dangerous dead: dissecting the criminal corpse, The Lancet, 382 (2013), pp302-303] [4: Hurren (2013), p302]

British medicine became a victim of its own technological success as more anatomy schools opened (particularly in London during the 1790s[footnoteRef:5]), the demand-supply deficit widened. This led to a body-dealing black market emerging. The illicit trade market involved anatomists, petty criminals and sometimes bribed clergymen. A new job had been created in post-Murder Act Britain: the resurrectionist.[footnoteRef:6] The thought of bodies being dug up from their graves in the dark of night and even the rhetoric of terms such as resurrection man, body-snatcher and grave-robber naturally caused controversy. Thus resurrectionists were disliked among the public, particularly within the working class whose graveyards were primarily targeted.[footnoteRef:7] The grave-robbing of peoples relatives and close friends was a constant fear for many throughout this period. The anxiety frequently led to public outrage especially among Londons poorest communities[footnoteRef:8], exemplified in the 1795 Lambeth graveyard riots in which three men were found snatching five bodies.7 People broke into the graveyard and began tearing up the ground to get to their loved ones coffins and see if their grave had been robbed. The incident resulted in increased vigilance around graveyards by voluntary working men or women.7 The general animosity towards resurrectionists was felt by many anatomists. Sir Astley Cooper, a prominent surgeon of the time, described them as the lowest dregs of degradation.[footnoteRef:9] However, anatomists necessary association with these criminals further reinforced public distaste towards dissection and the profession. Figure 1 accurately describes the distasteful popular opinion of dissection, resurrectionists and anatomists. [5: Durey, MJ, Bodysnatchers and Benthamites: The implications of the Dead Body Bill for the London Schools of Anatomy, 1820-42, London Journal, 2 (1976), pp200-25] [6: Knott (1985), p2] [7: Knott (1985)] [8: Hunterian museum of the RCS] [9: Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568 (1828), p18]

Figure 1; Death in the Dissecting Room by Thomas Rowlandson, c.1815 [Source: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604176381/images?imageId=fx2&sectionType=blueGrey]

Popular vigilance helped constrict body supply and gradually increased body price to sixteen Guineas[footnoteRef:10], an extortionate sum in those times. From the period between when Cooper first became an anatomist up to 1828 the price had quadrupled.[footnoteRef:11] [10: Knott (1985)] [11: Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568 (1828), pp14-18, pp70-72, pp120-122]

The economical supply problem for anatomists and resurrectionists alike became increasingly desperate throughout the late 1700s and into the 1800s. This culminated in the horrific Burke and Hare incident in Edinburgh in 1828. Burke and Hare murdered at least sixteen people to provide bodies for the respectable anatomist Robert Knox.[footnoteRef:12] There was substantial coverage of the scandal and the populace were mortified. Public opinion escalated to hatred of resurrectionists and anatomists. The incident even contributed to a new word being coined: Burking, meaning murdering for dissection.[footnoteRef:13] Three similar cases of Burking were reported in London in 1831.[footnoteRef:14] Crucially, the majority of the murderers or Burkers involved were known resurrectionists.14 This solidified the often suggested and generally believed link between resurrectionists and violent crime[footnoteRef:15], and highlighted dissections criminal relationship. The fact these incidents happened in London had significant political importance as it raised the urgency of the problem in Westminster and forced the government into parliamentary action. It cannot be further stressed how significant the acts of Burke and Hare were to the body-dealing trade, the anatomists prestige, the public loathing of dissection, and stimulus to subsequent legislation. [12: Durey (1976)] [13: Gill, G, Burrell, S, and Brown, J, Fear and frustrationthe Liverpool cholera riots of 1832, The Lancet, 358 (2001), pp233237] [14: Durey (1976)] [15: Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy (1828)]

The result of this governmental intervention was the Anatomy Act of 1832. In fact, work towards the formation of the Act began in 1828.[footnoteRef:16] It is interesting to note that the major pressure forcing the House of Commons to deliberate the matter was from the medical profession not the public.16 This pressure was initiated after William Gill, an esteemed anatomist from Liverpool, was fined 30 for possessing a dead body knowing it to be unlawfully disinterred.[footnoteRef:17] The fact this medical persuasion stimulated government discussions, not the vast negative public opinion, already begins to explain the governments stance on the matter from the Acts earliest beginnings. [16: Knott (1985)] [17: Knott (1985), p5]

Henry Warburton was appointed head of the House of Commons Select Committee on Anatomy which was tasked to listen to evidence from distinguished anatomists including Cooper, three unnamed resurrectionists and a few magistrates and parish overseers.1516 There was a clear neglect towards the voice of angered and fearful working men and women. Questions asked by Warburton to Cooper such as if the attainment of anatomy is rendered difficult and expensive, who will be the principal sufferers, the rich or the poor?[footnoteRef:18] and has not the difficulty [of obtaining bodies] been for a series of years on the increase?[footnoteRef:19] seem strongly implicit of a perspective favouring the medical profession. When looking at the evidence presented by the witnesses it strongly suggests witnesses were chosen for their favour towards the European system of body supply which exploited the unclaimed bodies, predominantly of the poor, from public institutions.[footnoteRef:20] Only one witness out of all the medical professionals interviewed opposed the planned legislative action.20 This suggests the viewpoint of Warburton and the government was of utility and heavily in favour of the anatomists. It seems the Warburton Committee had a certain planned agenda and the hearings felt almost fixed. The outcome of the hearings therefore was likely to signify a defeat for the concerned vulnerable population. [18: Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy (1828), p16] [19: Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy (1828), p17] [20: Durey (1976)]

The Select Committee published a report of their findings in July 1828.[footnoteRef:21] It suggested no longer dissecting executed murderers and recommended that the unclaimed bodies of those who had died in workhouses, hospitals or other charitable institutions be donated to anatomists.20 John Knott states paupers feelings were to be sacrificed in order that the rest of society could rest peacefully in their graves.[footnoteRef:22] The rationale was that their lives had been maintained at public expense so owed something back to society. It was claimed that taking these unclaimed bodies would minimise the distress of relatives yet ignored the fact that the body not being claimed could be an indicator of extreme poverty.21 This further highlighted the exploitation of the poorest and most vulnerable social groups. [21: Knott (1985)] [22: Knott (1985), p6]

The Burke and Hare incident strengthened the Warburton Committee report and accelerated the Acts introduction to Parliament. It was withdrawn from the House of Lords on the basis that it denied the Christian burial of bodily remains.[footnoteRef:23] Religion had a central role in society in nineteenth century Britain. The Acts negligence towards the importance of Christian burials not only contributed to its initial failure in Parliament, but highlights the narrow-mindedness of Warburton and others behind the Act and their disregard to the largely Christian public. Only two years later, however, more Burking scandals occurred in London which brought the report back into Westminster. Warburton had altered the Act slightly to appease the political opposition, offering provision of Christian burials. There was still opposition to the Act, however, constituting mainly of an unusual mixture of backbench Tories and humanitarian radicals.[footnoteRef:24] In 1829 the Lancet, whose editor Thomas Wakley extremely opposed the Act23, wrote; Burke and Hare ... it is said, are the real authors of this measure[footnoteRef:25] implying Parliament acted out of fear because of the murders and would never have passed the Act given deliberative wisdom.25 Ultimately, the political opposition had little influence because of their disorganisation against the united Utilitarians, even though they would have had great public support.24 Thus the Anatomy Act was passed into law in 1832. [23: Knott (1985)] [24: Durey (1976)] [25: Mr. Warburtons Bill. The Lancet editorial, 1 (1829), p818]

In order to accurately assess whether the Act was successful it is important to understand the aims of the Act itself. It was established primarily to tackle the inadequate legal supply of bodies to dissect that were necessary for a medical students education. Therefore its purposes were to provide an adequate lawful supply of bodies for the countrys anatomy schools and to abolish crimes associated with dissection. Dr James Somerville, a witness in the Select Committee and public supporter of Warburton[footnoteRef:26], was appointed the government inspector for England and Wales (and later Scotland in 1836[footnoteRef:27]) tasked with efficient application of the Anatomy Act. He was given three specific objectives: prevent murder for dissection; prevent exhumation (grave-robbing); and adequately supply London anatomy schools with bodies without stimulating the feelings of friends and relatives of the body.26 Analysis of these three objectives will effectively form the basis of an evaluation for the success of the Anatomy Act. [26: Durey (1976)] [27: Richardson, R, Death, dissection and the destitute (London and New York, 1987)]

Our understanding of the success of the Act can become more detailed and informed if we analyse the Acts objectives on a more local basis, such as exclusively in London which serves as a good representative of Britain as a whole because London in the nineteenth century possessed many key demographics. A substantial Irish immigrant population, the absolute poor and exceptionally wealthy are key social demographics while geographically London contained highly industrialised, urbanised areas with less urban areas in the outskirts. Additionally, London was where many anatomy schools were concentrated therefore had great anatomical demand and was the location for most of Somervilles focus and attention.Was Burking eradicated in London because of the Anatomy Act under Somerville? In short yes.26 One of the major successes of the Anatomy Act was no more reported cases of murdering for dissection across Britain. It is important to consider, however, that there could have been unreported cases which is relatively likely given its secretive, criminal nature.[footnoteRef:28] Another achievement of the Act was a steep reduction in body-snatching incidents, these became only rare and isolated events in London.28 While this success is commendable it must be taken with a pinch of salt. Somerville was tasked with eradicating exhumation therefore failed this objective. Additionally, outside of London grave-robbing was still very common throughout the 1830s.[footnoteRef:29] This can be partially explained by provincial anatomy schools heavier reliance on more strongly opposed and therefore less resourceful parishes (rather than hospitals and workhouses).28 This problem could have been countered by stronger legally-binding legislation within the Act although this will have certainly worked to further anger the public including parish clergymen. [28: Durey (1976)] [29: Knott (1985)]

Figure 2; Number of bodies available in London per annum, 1832-50. [Source: Durey (1976), p214]Figure 2 shows the body supply for London in the eighteen years succeeding the Acts introduction. It proves Somerville initially achieved some success in adequately supplying Londons anatomists thus attaining one aspect of his final objective to sufficiently supply anatomy schools. He even managed to increase body supply in the year 1836-37. Since the peak of that year, however, the number of bodies available fell significantly to only just more than the supply before the Act.[footnoteRef:30] The reasons behind this dramatic fall are numerous. Perhaps the most noteworthy factor was adverse popular opinion dissuading public institutions to donate bodies. This public attitude was fuelled by influential figures such as the surgeon William Roberts who personally visited workhouses informing workers of their right to opt out of the Act.[footnoteRef:31] One may ask why anatomists would want to effectively decrease body supply? This was because many anatomists body supply detoriorated and were worse off post-Anatomy Act owing to uneven distribution of bodies. This was perhaps more apparent than real as supply after the Act was not significantly lower than before.[footnoteRef:32] However, the fact the situation had not improved at all supply-wise frustrated many anatomists. They detested the Act and, perhaps wrongfully, blamed Somerville as responsible for this. Some London anatomists, in particularly Roberts, tirelessly sought to undermine the Act in London.31 There was some controversy concerning the actual distribution of bodies between the London anatomy schools. This could be attributed to student number fluctuations but opponents of Somerville frequently used this information against him to suggest favouritism.31 Somerville was known to be quite brusque and did not gain many friends while becoming the public face of this much loathed Act.31 After significant pressure from influential figures and institututions which included Roberts and the Royal College of Surgeons the government relieved Somerville of his duties in 1842.30 Retrospectively, Somerville was scapegoated and never possessed the sufficient legislative powers to be successful.32 The fact he was replaced by three inspectors for London, Scotland, and the provinces supports this.[footnoteRef:33] His replacement for London, Rutherford Alcock, was argubaly even more incompetent. This is supported by the number of bodies available post-1842 in figure 2. Crucially however, Alcock worked behind the public scope, perhaps assisted by the disguise of the New Poor Law of 1834 and its commissioners who became the new public face for discontent.[footnoteRef:34] Ultimately, it was public opinion which initiated Somervilles demise. [30: Knott (1985)] [31: Durey (1976)] [32: Richardson (1987)] [33: Richardson (1987)] [34: Knott (1985)]

Popular opinion is a pivotal marker of success for any governmental legislation that affects the public domain. Parliament realised this and attempted to avoid a public backlash over the Act by restricting press coverage via late night sittings in Westminster and limiting reporter access to the gallery.34 The Act also fortuitously benefitted from less press coverage due to attention being directed to more noteworthy matters that occurred in 1832 such as the reform crisis and cholera epidemic.34 Still, popular names for the Act such as the Dead Body Bill and the Blood-stained Anatomy Act indicate the public were interested in the Act and strongly implies their viewpoint of it.34 The final and most important dimension of Somervilles objectives was to not rouse the feelings of relatives and friends of the donated bodies. With this aspect in mind, Somerville failed atrociously. It is important to remember that the public were very much against dissection and strongly associated it as being dark, criminal and unnatural before the Acts introduction. Somerville had to tackle these preconceptions but his brash nature and notable fall-outs with influential figures were detrimental to this cause. The public fear of body-snatching and Burking still persisted. If anything the Act worked to exacerbate the anxiety as the working class had this new fear of the perception of totalitarian yet completely legal mass exploitation of their deceased loved ones. One of the most destructive anti-dissection riots occurred in Sheffield in 1835 where rioters entirely destroyed an anatomy school on Eyre Street.[footnoteRef:35] Initial unrest began after hearing a woman inside the anatomy school screaming murder!35 A crowd quickly developed and began smashing and breaking the schools possessions. Police constables were called to restore order and disperse the crowd before guards were sent to protect the premises.[footnoteRef:36] However, rioters returned the next morning the moment the protection was reduced, they burnt more possessions and drove off further constables that were called in. The furniture, doors and floorboards were all torn out and firefighters sent to tackle the growing blaze were fought away. Eventually, a troop of Dragoons were deployed to stop the unrest and succeeded, but the crowd reappeared after the Dragoons were sent back to their barracks. The crowd then completed their total demolition of the school.36 The violent disturbances in Sheffield provide an illustration of the intense fear of Burking that prevailed, and how violently people were prepared to react to this terror. What is significant is that no police, firefighters, Dragoons or anatomists were severely injured, only the utensils used for this apparent evil act. It shows the rioters were not out of control and ignorant, exacting what they considered to be appropriate revenge. This is contrary to how Parliament tended to present them as uncontrollable, ferocious mobs.36 Similar, yet less fierce, anti-dissection riots occurred throughout the mid-1830s in Cambridge, Hull, Spalding and Newcastle upon Tyne.36 [35: Richardson (1987)] [36: Knott (1985)]

While the Act appeared to benefit from the cholera epidemic and consequential averted press coverage, public fears over cholera transcended to the Act as well. Accounts of the violent cholera riots in Liverpool in 1832 offer an insight into the anti-dissection fears that stimulated the disturbances. The riots lasted approximately two weeks, they constituted mainly of working class people and were started by an infected woman being transported to a hospital.[footnoteRef:37] Why would a woman being taken to a place to treat her and make her feel better provoke outrage? The fundamental fear behind the riots was Burking. Crowds surrounded the hospital shouting Burker and murderer towards doctors, it was believed doctors were killing these vulnerable cholera patients for dissection.37 Cholera predominantly affected the poorest communities who were also the most vulnerable from the Anatomy Act. The majority of the protestors were women and boys of the lowest order.[footnoteRef:38] The riots highlight the complete distrust of the medical profession, which had its origins in dissection of murderers and the Burke and Hare incident of 1828. [37: Gill, Burrell, and Brown (2001)] [38: Gill, Burrell, and Brown (2001), p235]

The fact the Reform Bill was passed along with the Anatomy Act in 1832 was perhaps not coincidental.[footnoteRef:39] The time period witnessed a change of attitude towards the working classes from that of paternalistic sympathy to a more hardened regard. Both Acts signified this change of feeling. The changed attitude may have contributed to the Anatomy Acts initial failure in 1828 and eventual success alongside the Reform Bill in 1832. Both Acts sought to undermine and exploit the values, rights and, ultimately, lives of the working classes. The Anatomy Act is often seen as a precursor to the New Poor Law of 1834.39 The New Poor Law forced unemployed, undeserving paupers to workhouses where they would effectively be worked and starved to their death.[footnoteRef:40] The Anatomy Act and New Poor Law were perceived by the working class and political opponents to work synergistically to provide a continuous supply of bodies for dissecting rooms. Workhouses were sometimes referred to as burking houses.[footnoteRef:41] In actual fact, fundamentally the two bills would effectively work against each other. The New Poor Law sought to reduce the number of paupers in society whereas the Anatomy Acts intentions was to increase paupers and bodies available for dissection.41 The key was the working classes perception of how the two bills worked. In their view, they epitomised class exploitation and oppression. The working class reaction to this cruelty was fear which led to antipathy towards the medical profession and higher classes, and occasionally violent outrage. Regardless of the perception of the three bills, they drastically widened the already great social class divide.[footnoteRef:42] A major long-term ambition of the Act was to improve the lives of the poorest through an enhanced medical knowledge which would have previously been only accessible to the richest. This intention was to promote social and cultural harmony. Instead, the Act resulted in further social disintegration and cultural conflict.41 This can be principally pinpointed to the fact that, while a greater medical understanding would improve all social classes, only the poorest were to be abused and exploited in the perceived dark and immoral science of dissection. [39: Richardson (1987)] [40: Knott (1985)] [41: Knott (1985)] [42: Richardson (1987)]

It would seem inevitable that the Anatomy Act would be controversial and loathed. However, the leaders behind the Act such as Warburton and Somerville were perhaps blinded by their honest intention of a legal, adequate body supply. This naivety was as extreme as it was genuine, highlighted by their inept disregard of powerful religious, social and cultural beliefs and fears of the public. It is true that popular negative preconceptions of the medical profession, specifically anatomy, would have damaged any credibility and potential success of the Act. Still, within London, the Act achieved significant success in practically abolishing Burking and exhumation, and adequately providing bodies to a lesser extent. Insufficient legislative power, professional uncooperativeness and influential political opposition initiated the demise of Somerville and failure of the Act. None of this could have been possible, however, without the vast and vociferous negative public opinion concerning the Act. This stemmed from the perceived oppression of the poorest, which was demonstrated as the most passionate public opposition came from the working classes. The Anatomy Act offers a thought-provoking insight into early nineteenth century Britain regarding popular opinion of the medical profession, traditional utilitarian theory and class exploitation. Ultimately, it was these aspects and their perceptions by the working classes which caused the Anatomy Act to fail so significantly.

BibliographyHistorical exhibition, Hunterian museum of the RCS, LondonKnott, J, Popular Attitudes to Death and Dissection in Early Nineteenth Century Britain: The Anatomy Act and the Poor, Labour History 49 (1985), pp1-18Hurren, Elizabeth T, The dangerous dead: dissecting the criminal corpse, The Lancet, 382 (2013), pp302-303Durey, MJ, Bodysnatchers and Benthamites: The implications of the Dead Body Bill for the London Schools of Anatomy, 1820-42, London Journal, 2 (1976), pp200-25Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568 (1828), pp14-18, pp70-72, pp120-122Gill, G, Burrell, S, and Brown, J, Fear and frustrationthe Liverpool cholera riots of 1832, The Lancet, 358 (2001), pp233237Mr. Warburtons Bill. The Lancet editorial, 1 (1829), pp818-821Richardson, R, Death, dissection and the destitute (London and New York, 1987)15