Duties of the Inspector. He shall keep an account of all the schools of anatomy licensed by the secretary of state within the district for which he shall be appointed, with the names and residences of the teachers.

He shall make a quarterly return to the secretary of state of the body of every deceased person that during the preceding quarter has been removed for anatomical examination to every separate place in his district where anatomy is carried on; distinguishing the sex, and, as far as is known at the time, the name and age of each person whose body has been so removed as aforesaid.

He shall visit and inspect from time to time every place within his district, of which place notice has been given that it is intended there to practise anatomy; he shall take care that the provisions of the Act of Parliament are enforced, and shall report to the secretary of state any irregularities or offences against the Act which he shall observe.

He shall enter in a register kept for the purpose the returns from each school separately, and shall keep copies of all his returns and reports to the secretary of state, and shall enter all the correspondence relating to the duties of his office in a letter-book.

It will be observed that this Act says nothing respecting the supply of dead bodies, and the only ostensible source is that indicated in section VIII., viz. the bequest by any one of his or her own body, provided none of the "nearest known relatives" object. This source we may readily imagine to be not quite sufficient for the wants of the profession, yet this is the only, or at least the chief, source clearly pointed out. So far, then, the Act might seem, to ordinary observers, to resemble the play of Hamlet, without the part of the Prince of Denmark. It would, indeed, appear to be an Act for Regulating

Schools of Anatomy, but not for Supplying them.

But when we look more closely, we shall see that dead bodies are implied to be a property—a legal property. But with whom? With relatives, of course. Others have also a legal right to dispose of the bodies of the deceased, at least such a right is dimly hinted at in the 7th section, which we reprint.

"VII. And be it enacted, That it shall be lawful for any executor or other party having lawful possession of the body of any deceased person, and not being an undertaker or other party entrusted with the body for the purpose

only of interment, to permit the body of such deceased person to undergo anatomical examination, unless, to the knowledge of such executor or other party, such person shall have expressed his desire, either in writing at any time during his life, or verbally in the presence of two or more witnesses during the illness whereof he died, that his body after death might not undergo such examination, or unless the surviving husband or wife, or any known relative of the deceased person, shall require the body to be interred without such examination."

Thus the parties having the disposal of dead bodies are declared to be "any executors or other party having lawful possession," "not being an undertaker, or other party entrusted with the body for the purpose only of interment." So an executor may dispose of the body, provided there be no relatives to object, and provided also the deceased has expressed no objection before death. To. get a body, in short, from an executor there must be no repugnant near relations, no previous objection on the part of the patient, and finally the executor himself must be willing. We fancy we need not expect much from executors. The question then comes to be this, can the words "other party" apply to overseers, and will they be induced to consider them as applicable. It is quite apparent that they may or they may not, that in fact they have the option of even construing the Act as totally inapplicable to them. Here then we are left at the mercy of the individual overseer, and all that we obtain from him must be from motives of interest, or it must be an obligation. Those who are acquainted with overseers will best know what they may expect from their courtesy; for our own parts we are little versed in parish arcana. Self-interest may work in two ways. First, the parish may escape the pauper's burial; and secondly, they may even drive a bargain for his corpse. The latter we presume will not be attempted. The expense then taken from the parish must naturally fall on him who obtains the body, that is upon the pupil. The London Medical Journal

asserts that funeral expenses and burial fees will amount, on the lowest calcu lation, to from three to five pounds in every instance, and that if this be added to the sum which must be paid to relatives the price will be considerably increased.

So much for the question of expense, but the great point after all is the adequacy of supply. In Massachusetts a simple method has been adopted—the unclaimed poor have been dedicated to the purposes of dissection. The supply is defined, liable to no misconception, and we believe that it is adequate. Here there is no obvious supply at all, but a dark and a quiet league is to be struck between the anatomist and the parish. In point of efficiency no one, we believe, admits that such a provision, or rather want of provision, is comparable for a moment to the plain, consistent, and straight forward declaration that those who die friendless in public institutions may be dissected. It is right, however, to state that the advocates of the Act declare that it will work well, that the supply will be sufficient, and the expenses moderate. A short trial will determine the justice or otherwise of this expectation.

But supposing all this to be true, there are other, and very important considerations behind. The aim of a legislator on anatomy, we conceive to be, to confer the greatest quantum of benefit on science, with the least amount of injury to private feelings and public morals. This is the problem to be solved. Now which is most likely to foster prejudice, and engender vicethe plain and open declaration that the bodies of the friendless will be dissected -or a dark, cogging, intriguing covenant between the surgeon and the parish, or the surgeon and the relations of the dead? For our own parts we do not hesitate for one instant to prefer the former, and to express our unqualified disapprobation of the latter. By the one piece of legislation all is clear and undisguised, and the pauper to be dissected knows that this is one of the many evils which his vices or his misfortunes have brought upon him. By the other law, our own law, a door is

opened to intrigue, sordid feelings, and even to a base traffic in dead bodies, on the part of mercenary relatives. A parish may determine, if it please, to sell its dead paupers, or the father may turn a penny by the corpse of his child, the wife by the body of her husband. Thus the trade in anatomy will be kept alive, and the private companies of resurrectionists may be superseded by huge parish monopolies, or licensed retailing relations. It will be said that these are idle fears. They may be so, but we are sure that the principle of the Act admits of these mal-practices, and is far more calculated to destroy morality than to encourage it. The other law may be stern, may in some degree be cruel, may be looked on as offering the pauper to the Moloch of science, but at least it is inflexible, it says to him, "you are vicious or unfortunate and poor, and we anatomize you when dead for the benefit of your species; but be assured that we do not make you an instrument of private or of public barter, we do not bring your corpse to a secret and unholy market." Our space is too limited to suffer us to proceed further in these observations but we have thought it right to record our deep-seated objections against the constitution of the Act, now that it is about to be brought into operation. None will feel greater pleasure than we shall, if those objections should prove to be unfounded, but we feel a conviction too deep to be easily shaken, that less prejudice would ultimately have been excited, and that a more efficient, as well as a more honourable supply of dead bodies would have been obtained, by declaring manfully and honestly that the unclaimed poor would be dissected.*

* It appears that one of those taxes upon knowledge in which this country is so rife, has been mixed up with the Act in its operation. The clerks of the Home-Office, have been the first to make something by the dead, and £2. 2s. 6d. is charged for the license. Lord Melbourne having been written to, replied, very justly, that "the fee is in accordance with the invariable usage of

LIV.

UNDERCLIFFE-ISLE OF WIGHT.

We beg to solicit the attention of our brethren to the following points. Mr. Whiskard, a surgeon, who was afflicted with pulmonary consumption, resided for some time at Undercliffe, in the Isle of Wight, and was so much benefitted and pleased with the situation, that he purchased a house there, and received invalid boarders. There is no doubt that he would have succeeded as far as pecuniary matters were concerned; but, unfortunately, his complaint had too far advanced, and he has just departed this world, leaving a widow and four orphans totally unprovided for, unless the patronage of the profession enables her to carry on the establishment which had been completed by her husband. We can safely recommend the situation for invalids requiring a mild sea air, sheltered from the northern winds, and the accommodations, we believe, in Mrs. Whiskard's house, will be found both comfortable and reasonable-the terms being two guineas a week for board and lodging. We hope and trust that the humane among our brethren, who may happen to have an opportunity of recommending patients to this delightful and salubrious retreat will not forget the widow and orphans of Mr. Whiskard.

the office," and his Lordship might have added, of every other office in this country. It must indeed be a legislative caput mortuum, which can afford in its passage through executive presses, no extract in the shape of fees. The living and the dead are equally rife in precious ore to the searching fingers of these official anatomists. It is well remarked by our contemporary, the London Medical and Surgical Journal, that the medical profession is the only one expected to give certificates for nothing. Those who are directed by the Act to sign the certificate of the patient's decease, &c. would not find it the invariable usage of the Home-Office to remunerate them.

LV.

PROVINCIAL MEDICAL AND SURGICAL

ASSOCIATION.

On the 19th July, upwards of fifty medical men met in the board-room of the Worcester Infirmary, to found an association bearing the above title. Its object is to promote cordial and social feeling among its members, and, by the publication of Transactions, to benefit the community and advance science. The Association owes its origin to the talent and energy of Dr. Hastings, a man who does as much honour to his profession as it can confer on him. We need scarcely say that we approve of such an association most warmly, we need scarcely add, that we would wish to see the social principle it developes, diffused yet more widely amongst the medical practitioners of these Isles. Such associations are productive of benefit in several ways-first, by promoting harmony in a profession which is said to want it-secondly, by encouraging the publication of public and private experience-thirdly, by contributing to raise the professional and intellectual character of provincial surgeons and physicians. In a few years, the libeller or satirist may search in vain for that "low-born, cell-bred, selfish, servile crew," that private practitioners have, in former times, been said to be. With increased advantages of education, and such associations as these, the character of the whole profession is elevated.

LVI.

Obituary.

DR. J. ALLsop.

It is with unfeigned sorrow we record the death of a young, but a most zealous and talented physician of Birmingham, Dr. Josias Allsop, who fell a victim to the fatal epidemic, on the 6th of August last, after a short illness. He had been at Tipton (a village about 9 miles from Birmingham) where cholera was raging violently, and attended the poor there, day and night, for a fortnight, scarcely allowing himself any time for repose. He returned home on

Saturday night, the 4th of August, greatly jaded and fatigued, observing to his wife that he had not had more than three hours sleep during the preceding week. On Sunday morning he seemed drowsy, but he dressed and went out to see some patients-returned to dinner-and appeared to have regained his strength and spirits. At 9 o'clock in the evening he ate a hearty supper, and retired to rest about 10 o'clock, apparently in health. At four o'clock in the morning he was called out of bed to see some patients, and returned at six o'clock. His wife, who had been recently confined of her third child, was soon informed by the nurse that her husband was very ill, and she instantly arose and went to him. The unfortunate lady was horrified at beholding her husband sitting up in bed, more like a corpse than a living being, and taking down notes of his own case! He expressed himself glad at having an attack of the epidemic, and said he would now be able to understand and to treat the disease better than before! But he soon became extremely weak, and gave up his pen to his wife, while he dictated to her the symptoms which he felt. The violence of the cramps soon compelled him to give over this task also, and after severe sufferings for some hours, he fell into a state of insensibility, from which he never after recovered! Thus perished, at the early age of 27 years, a most accomplished and intelligent physician, who, we have no doubt, fell a victim to his zeal in the investigation of a mysterious epidemic. Our readers are aware that Dr. Allsop wrote several papers on cholera in our contemporary the Medical Gazetteand we may here state that he was the author of the article “ Progress of Cholera in England," from page 645 to 674 in our last volume, bearing the signature A.-to which we can confidently refer for proof of the learning, talents, and judgment of its author.

Deeply do we regret to add that Dr. Allsop has left an amiable widow and three orphans to deplore the premature death of an affectionate parent, who, had life been spared, would have honourably distinguished himself in his profession, and provided amply for his family.