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.1 The scientific attitude to medicine underlined much
of the anatomical success Britain achieved in the eighteenth century. 2
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 1752.3 This allowed the bodies of criminals hanged for murder
to be donated to anatomists for dissection. However, anatomical demand
exceeded homicide rates.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
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

3 Hurren, Elizabeth T, The dangerous dead: dissecting the criminal corpse, The
Lancet, 382 (2013), pp302-303
4 Hurren (2013), p302
1

British medicine became a victim of its own technological success as more

anatomy schools opened (particularly in London during the 1790s5), 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.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.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 communities8,
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
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
2

dregs of degradation.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.

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 Guineas10, an extortionate sum in those times. From

9 Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568 (1828), p18

10 Knott (1985)
3

the period between when Cooper first became an anatomist up to 1828

the price had quadrupled.11
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.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.13 Three similar cases of Burking were reported
in London in 1831.14 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 crime15,
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

11 Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568

(1828), pp14-18, pp70-72, pp120-122
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)
4

acts of Burke and Hare were to the body-dealing trade, the anatomists
prestige, the public loathing of dissection, and stimulus to subsequent
legislation.
The result of this governmental intervention was the Anatomy Act of 1832.
In fact, work towards the formation of the Act began in 1828.16 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.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.
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?18 and has not the difficulty [of
16 Knott (1985)
17 Knott (1985), p5
18 Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy (1828), p16
5

obtaining bodies] been for a series of years on the increase?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.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.
The Select Committee published a report of their findings in July 1828.21 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.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

19 Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy (1828), p17

20 Durey (1976)
21 Knott (1985)
22 Knott (1985), p6
6

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.
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.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.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
measure25 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
23 Knott (1985)
24 Durey (1976)
25 Mr. Warburtons Bill. The Lancet editorial, 1 (1829), p818
7

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.
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 Warburton26, was appointed the government inspector for England and
Wales (and later Scotland in 183627) 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.
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
26 Durey (1976)
27 Richardson, R, Death, dissection and the destitute (London and New York,
1987)
8

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.28 Another achievement of the Act was a steep reduction in bodysnatching 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.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)
10

Figure 2; Number of bodies available in London per annum, 1832-50. [Source: Durey (1976), p214]

11

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.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.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.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.
30 Knott (1985)
31 Durey (1976)
32 Richardson (1987)
12

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.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.34
Ultimately, it was public opinion which initiated Somervilles demise.

33 Richardson (1987)
34 Knott (1985)
13

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 Bloodstained 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.35 Initial unrest began after hearing a woman inside
the anatomy school screaming murder!35 A crowd quickly developed and
35 Richardson (1987)
14

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.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

36 Knott (1985)
15

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.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.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
16

The fact the Reform Bill was passed along with the Anatomy Act in 1832
was perhaps not coincidental.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.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.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
39 Richardson (1987)
40 Knott (1985)
41 Knott (1985)
17

perception of the three bills, they drastically widened the already great
social class divide.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.

42 Richardson (1987)
18

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.

Bibliography
Historical exhibition, Hunterian museum of the RCS, London
19

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
Hurren, Elizabeth T, The dangerous dead: dissecting the criminal corpse,
The Lancet, 382 (2013), pp302-303
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
Report from the Select Committee on Anatomy. Parliamentary Papers 568
(1828), pp14-18, pp70-72, pp120-122
Gill, G, Burrell, S, and Brown, J, Fear and frustrationthe Liverpool cholera
riots of 1832, The Lancet, 358 (2001), pp233237
Mr. Warburtons Bill. The Lancet editorial, 1 (1829), pp818-821
Richardson, R, Death, dissection and the destitute (London and New York,
1987)

20