Chapter II: Part 2

Mr. GEORGE DUCHOZ, surgeon, of 34, Golden-square, was then sworn and examined. I attended the _post mortem_ examination of the boy on Sunday evening last, and my opinion is, that he died suddenly, from external violence, and that the injuries at the back of the neck were quite sufficient to have caused death. I have seen similar appearances, however, in the body of a man, who died from having fallen down stairs. There is no doubt but that death, in this instance, must have been instantaneous, and might certainly have been produced by a blow from a bludgeon on the back of the neck. I observed a mark on the right wrist, apparently produced by pressure. Mr. Duchoz _stated his firm opinion that the boy had first been stunned by a blow on the head, and afterwards that his neck had been dislocated, in the same manner as it was usual to wring the neck of a duck_.

We have given the latter part of this opinion in Italics, as, when we come to contrast it with the confession of Bishop, it will be found that just as much value ought to be attached to it, and that it was just as consistent with the real truth, as if Mr. Duchoz had declared that the boy had died by natural means. We speak it not personally, but it is sometimes deplorable to hear the opinion of professional men touching certain points connected with life and death, and which are afterwards to be made the groundwork of a criminal prosecution. We see no reason to dispute the veracity of Bishop or Williams' confessions; for in the awful situation in which they stood, falsehood could not avail them anything, nor can any ostensible motive be discovered for their leaving behind them an erroneous statement, which went to exonerate no one from any imputed charge, nor which subtracted in the least degree from their own criminality. They confess not only to one but to other murders; but they declare that the boy, whose corpse they attempted to sell at King's College, and on which they were apprehended, was not Carlo Ferrari, but a Lincolnshire youth, who had brought a drove of cattle from that county. What then becomes of the identity of Bernasconi, Starbuck, and Perrigalli? What becomes of the evidence of the professional men as to the cause of the death of the presumed Carlo Ferrari, when it is found, by the confession of the murderers themselves, to have been effected by wholly different means? And, lastly, we may ask, (and we shall have occasion, at a future period, to dilate more fully on the subject,) what sort of a character does the prosecution itself exhibit to the country, when three individuals can be arraigned at the bar for the murder of a certain boy by a blow or blows on the back of the neck with an instrument, according to the jargon of the law, _of no value whatever_; that these same individuals shall be convicted of the crime, according to the declaration of the Recorder, on the most _conclusive_ and _incontrovertible_ evidence; and then, in less than twenty-four hours afterwards, it shall transpire, that the boy so murdered was not the boy for whose murder the parties were arraigned--that his death was not occasioned by any blow, but actually by suffocation, and consequently that the conviction took place on evidence which, throughout, was decidedly false.

We are willing to bestow on Mr. Thomas all the credit which he deserves for his meritorious exertions in bringing the miscreants to the bar of their country to answer for their crimes; but we cannot refrain from observing, that in collecting the evidence for the prosecution, recourse has been had to some measures which appear highly overstrained, and which, in fact, could never be received as evidence in any English court of justice. We will select the following as an instance.

Mr. Duchoz having informed the jury that the neck of the boy appeared to be dislocated in the same manner _as it is usual to wring the neck of a duck_, Mr. Thomas proceeded to state, that in consequence of a communication which he received on Saturday afternoon from the King's College, he sent officers to that place to take the four men into custody, which was done, after a desperate resistance had been made by the prisoners. Witness sent for the body, and asked Bishop what he was. He replied, "A b----y body-snatcher." He had seen the four prisoners within the last fifteen minutes, and asked them if they had any wish to see the jury. May replied, "Not I--I have nothing to say about it." Bishop said, "The body is mine; and if you want to know how I got it, you may find it out if you can." Shields' answer was, that he was employed by Bishop to carry the body from Guy's Hospital to the King's College. The prisoner Williams said, that he knew nothing at all about the matter, and that he merely went with the prisoners to see the King's College. Mr. Thomas added, that he received a letter that afternoon, stating that a tortoise, similar to the one which it is supposed the deceased was in the habit of carrying about, was exhibited for sale in a shop in Middle Row, Holborn. He immediately went to the shop, and took possession of the tortoise now produced, (for which act Mr. Thomas rendered himself liable to an action for felony). He asked the woman of the shop how she became possessed of it; and she answered, that her husband had purchased it in Leadenhall Market, of a person whom she did not know; adding, that such things were usually bought and sold there.

Joseph Perrigalli, husband of the woman already examined, was then sworn, and stated, that he had known the deceased boy for nearly twelve months, and well recollected his having carried a tortoise with him. The tortoise, which he was in the habit of carrying, was _very like the one_ now produced; and he, witness, saw it in the possession of the deceased about a month ago. The deceased used to carry mice as well. He examined the body last Sunday morning, and _was quite certain_ it was the boy whom he knew so well.

Now, would the evidence of the tortoise have been admitted in any court of justice whatever? It was well known that the Italian boy carried a tortoise; Mr. Thomas hears of a tortoise being in Middle Row, Holborn--hurries to take possession of it--produces it before the jury--and calls a Frenchman to depose that it is _very like_ the tortoise which the Italian boy carried about with him. We believe that all tortoises are alike, and that it would not be so easy to prove the identity of any individual of the species, as has been evinced in the proof of the identity of Carlo Ferrari. If Mr. Thomas had received a letter, stating that a tortoise was in either of the two great Zoological Gardens, and it is just as probable that the tortoise of Carlo Ferrari should have fallen into the possession of the proprietors of those establishments, as into that of the woman in Middle Row,--would Mr. Thomas have so far committed himself, as to repair to the Gardens, and bring the animal away with him? It is by no means an uncommon thing to see a tortoise exposed for sale in Leadenhall Market, and Mr. Thomas had it not in his power to produce an iota of proof, that the tortoise which the woman purchased in that market, was the identical one of Carlo Ferrari, but simply that _it was very like it_. It is true, that the configurations of the shell of the tortoise are not always similar; but on that point no proof is produced that the tortoise of Carlo Ferrari, and of the woman in Middle Row, resembled each other; and, therefore, we cannot forbear expressing our regret, that any recourse should have been had to such a flimsy evidence, and which would have been immediately rejected by the judge appointed to try the criminals.

Mr. Thomas, in continuation of the statement, said, that since the deceased had been brought to the Station House, he had had no less than eight applications to see the body by parents, who had, within a very short space of time, lost their sons, who were generally described as boys about the age of thirteen or fourteen. The parents could in no way account for their absence, and they all appeared in the greatest distress of mind. One of the boys so lost was deaf and dumb.

The coroner and the jury expressed their greatest surprise at the statement, and Mr. Cribb, the foreman of the jury, observed, that he had no doubt whatever of the fact, for he had himself seen the parents of two boys who had disappeared, call at the Station House on Sunday morning, in order to see the body of the deceased.

A juryman said, that the fact stated by Mr. Thomas afforded the strongest possible reason for pursuing the present inquiry to the utmost.

After some further conversation, the jury wished the room to be cleared, in order, we believe, to discuss the propriety, either of adjourning the inquest, with a view to obtain further evidence, or to call the parties charged before them, in order to hear any further explanation touching their possession of the body, which they might feel inclined to give.

The room was accordingly cleared at seven o'clock, and after remaining together about twenty minutes, it was announced that the inquest was adjourned until five o'clock on Thursday evening next.

Mr. Corder, the vestry clerk of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, was present, and took notes of the proceedings on behalf of the parish, who, in the event of the case being sent for trial to the Old Bailey, will become the prosecutors.

Pursuant to the adjournment, the jury again met on Thursday evening, the 10th of November, at the same house, and the room, as before, was crowded in every part, and a crowd of persons were outside, anxious to hear the verdict.

After the jury had been sworn, Mr. Cribb, the foreman, produced a letter, which he said he had received from Mr. Starbuck, the stock-broker in the city. The letter was handed to the coroner, who read it to the jury. It stated that Mr. Starbuck _had been mistaken_ with regard to the identity of the boy whom he supposed to be an Italian lad, and whom he had seen near the Bank on the night of Thursday. He had since seen that boy alive.

Here then, we find one individual retracting his opinion of the identity of the boy; and it therefore now solely rests on the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Parragalli, who are just as likely to have been mistaken as the worthy Quaker.

The evidence of the witnesses was then resumed.

JOSEPH HIGGINS, constable of the F division of police, sworn.--I live at No. 8, Newton Street, Holborn. Yesterday, about four o'clock, I went to a public-house in Giltspur Street, called the Fortune of War. I there saw Mrs. Bishop, and Mrs. Williams her daughter, coming out, and I told them I must take them to the Station House. Mrs. Bishop begged of me to let her go home for her child, which I consented to do, but I said I must go with her. I then went with them to No. 3, Nova Scotia Gardens, Crabtree Row, Hackney Road. I proceeded to search the house, and found the implements I now produce. I said, "I know what those are for;" and she replied, "I dare say you do, but do not speak before the children." I found two crooked chisels, which Mrs. Bishop admitted were for opening coffins. I also found a brad-awl with dry blood upon it; I said, "this is for punching out teeth." She replied, "her husband had used it for mending shoes." I also found a file. I then searched Mrs. Bishop, and found upon her the petition which I now produce. She told me it was from her husband, and three other persons for pecuniary assistance, saying that they were resurrectionists, and they had no means of defending themselves from the offence for which they were charged. The petition, which was as follows, was then read:--

The humble Petition of JOHN BISHOP, and three others, Most humbly
showeth,

'That your petitioners have supplied many subjects on various
occasions to the several hospitals; and being now in custody,
they are conscious in their own minds that they have done nothing
more _than they have been in the constant habit of doing_ as
resurrectionists, but, being unable to prove their innocence
without professional advice, they humbly crave the commiseration
of gentlemen who may feel inclined to give some trifling
assistance, in order to afford them the opportunity of clearing
away the imputation alleged against them. The most trifling sum
will be gratefully acknowledged; and your petitioners, as in duty
bound, will ever pray.'

This petition was not signed.

She admitted, that Williams was not her son-in-law's right name, but said, he did not wish it to be known, as he had been out with her husband not more than two or three times. She added, that her husband went out the night before he was taken into custody, accompanied by her son-in-law, Williams, and that he came home the next morning, and washed his hands in a basin, at the bottom of which she saw a great deal of mud.

JAMES WEEKS, examined.--I am assistant to Mr. Davis, porter at the dissecting-room, Guy's Hospital. I know May and Bishop; and on Friday the 4th instant, about five minutes past seven, I went to the hospital and saw them there. They left a sack at the hospital, containing something, and I saw projecting through a hole in the sack a portion of a knee of a human being. I heard May say to Mr. Davis, 'The fact is, the subject don't belong to me, but to Bishop.' Mr. Davis on this request allowed them to leave the sack with its contents in the hospital. They then went away, and came to the hospital the next morning about one o'clock, with two other persons, and I delivered the sack, with its contents to May and Bishop. The sack was locked up in a room the whole of the night, and it was delivered just as it was received the night before. The body could not have been changed. I do not think the subject was a full-grown person. The parties brought a hamper with them, into which they put the sack.

JAMES APPLETON, of No. 4, St. George's-road, near New Kent-road, procurator to Mr. Grainger, Surgeon, sworn.--On Friday evening, about half-past seven, May and Bishop came to Mr. Grainger's Theatre of Anatomy, Webb-street, Southwark, where I was, and they asked if I wanted a subject. I inquired the age and sex, and the reply was, a boy about fourteen years old. I declined to purchase it. They told me it was a very fresh subject. They then went away, and came again to me at the theatre next morning (Saturday) about eleven o'clock, and inquired again if I would purchase the body, but I again declined it.

Mr. THOMAS here produced a letter, in which it was stated that Mr. Appleton had declared to a postman, that the body was warm when offered for sale to him, and that he declined the purchase for that reason.

The CORONER asked if the fact were so?

The witness declared he never saw the body, and positively declared that he never spoke a word to a postman on the subject.

Mr. CRIBB, the foreman of the jury, asked the witness whether he had any particular reason for declining to purchase the body.

The witness replied that he had no other reason than that of not wanting it, as the theatre was already supplied.

A JUROR.--What was your motive for asking the sex of the subject?

WITNESS.--Because many of the pupils prefer a male to a female subject.

After a long desultory conversation as to whether the inquiry should proceed further,

Mr. CORDER said, that he really did not think there was any further evidence to produce at present, tending to throw any additional light upon the inquiry. If, however, the jury should return a verdict of wilful murder against some person or persons unknown, the inquiry would be pursued at Bow-street Office, where the four men were now in custody. He (Mr. Corder) had reason to believe that his Majesty's Government, struck with the importance of the inquiry, would lend every facility tending to bring the affair into a proper train, in order that public justice might not be defeated. He then suggested that the accused should be sent for, with a view to see whether or not they felt inclined to account for the possession of the body.

A JUROR observed, that they were as yet proceeding in the dark, inasmuch as they had not yet ascertained the name of the deceased or to whom he belonged.

Mr. CORDER replied, that he understood, from inquiries that he had made, that the name of the murdered boy was Giovanni Montero, and that he was brought to this country, from Italy, about a year ago, by a native of that country, named Peter Massa.

JOSEPH PARRAGALLI here said, that from inquiries he had made at the Alien Office, and from the description given of Massa's boy in his passport, he was quite sure that he could not be the same boy, whose death was now the subject of inquiry.

It was here determined by the Jury to have the prisoners before them.

The Prisoner MICHAEL SHIELDS was then brought forth strongly guarded, and the Coroner addressing him said, 'You are not obliged to answer any questions that may be put to you unless you please, but I tell you fairly, that we have sufficient evidence before us to prove, that the deceased boy came to his death by unfair means; and having traced the body into your custody, we wish to know whether you are inclined to give any explanation touching your possession of the body in question. Should you feel inclined to state what you know, I am anxious to caution you to speak the truth.' The prisoner said, he was willing to speak the truth, and having been sworn, he deposed as follows:-

My name is Michael Shields. I live at No. 6, Eagle Street, Red Lion Square. I am a porter; and on Saturday last, the 5th instant, about ten o'clock in the morning, I was hired by Bishop, whom I met in Covent Garden. Bishop said, he had a little job to do, to go over London Bridge. I said I would go. I then went with him to a public-house, right opposite Guy's Hospital, where he left me, and returned in about an hour, in company with May and Williams. We then went together into Guy's Hospital, and, after waiting there half an hour, I saw a man in a flannel jacket; that man and Bishop had a hamper, directed to ---- Hill, Esq., King's College. They then put the hamper on my knot, telling me to be careful not to fall down. I went off with the hamper over London Bridge, accompanied by May, Bishop, and Williams. Had never been to the King's College before. They went first, and I followed into the College. The door was opened by a man, and they (Bishop, May, and Williams) took the hamper from me, leaving me outside. About three-quarters of an hour after this I was apprehended by the police, previously to which Bishop, Williams, and May, were apprehended also.

CORONER.--Is that all you have to say?

PRISONER.-That is all, your honour; if I was to speak my last words I did not know what the hamper contained. I sometimes assist the grave-digger of St. Giles's parish in digging graves, whenever he is overrun.

CORONER.--How long have you known Bishop?

PRISONER.--About eight or nine months, I should think. I don't know, in particular, how he got his livelihood. I don't know as he dealt in dead bodies before now; I was never employed 'in this way' by Bishop before. I was to be paid half-a-crown for this job. I can swear that May and Williams never employed me to carry dead bodies. I can't say that I never worked for a resurrectionist before. I had no reason to suspect, prior to this event, that Bishop, May, and Williams were resurrectionists. I do not know where they lived. It was on London Bridge that I met Williams, who had an empty hamper, which I took from him, and carried it to Guy's Hospital, and some person there took it from me and brought it in, and I then went to the public-house. I have carried hampers and boxes before to hospitals and dissecting-rooms.

Mr. CORDER.--Were you at the Fortune of War public-house on Friday last?

PRISONER.--I might have been.

Mr. CORDER.--Did you not see Bishop and May there?

PRISONER.--They might be there. (The prisoner, on being further pressed, admitted that they were there; and said, that Bishop told him he should want him the next morning to do a job for him.) I very often go to the Fortune of War. I remained there for about half an hour, and I met Bishop and May there by accident. They went away before I left. When I said that I met Bishop and May in Covent Garden at ten o'clock on Friday morning, I did not speak the truth. I now state that I met him at the Fortune of War, on the Friday morning, at eight o'clock.

Mr. CORDER.--I suppose that you know that the Fortune of War is a sort of house of call for resurrectionists?

PRISONER.--It may be. I have seen several respectable persons there.

Mr. CRIBB.--Now, Shields, answer this question truly. Do you know anything relating to the death of the deceased?

PRISONER.--Bishop said, while coming to Bow-street, in the van, that the body was got from the ground, and that he knew where it was got from. He smiled as he said so, adding, that if he was brought before the Jury he would give them ease about it.

The examination of Shields having been concluded, the prisoner Bishop was brought before the Jury; and the Coroner cautioned him as to the awkward situation in which he stood, there being no doubt but that the boy had been unfairly dealt by.

BISHOP.--I dug the body out of the grave: the reason why I decline to say the grave I took it out of is, that there were two watchmen on the ground, and they intrusted me, and being men of family, I don't wish to 'deceive' them. I don't think I can say anything more. I took it for sale to Guy's Hospital, and, as they did not want it, I left it there all night and part of the next day, and then I removed it to the King's College. That is all I can say about it. I mean to say that this is the truth. I shall certainly keep it a secret where I got the body. I know nothing as to how it died.

CORONER.--You have a right not to implicate yourself; and certainly I must say, that the account which you have given is by no means satisfactory.

Bishop was then removed, and the prisoner May was brought forward, and cautioned in the same way as the other prisoners. He was told that the result of the inquiry might affect his life, and if he said anything, it would be produced as evidence against him.

The prisoner said he wished to say what he knew, and would speak the truth. He then said, that his name was James May, and that he lived in Dorset-street, Newington. He went into the country on Sunday week, and returned on the evening of Wednesday, and went to Mr. Grainger's, in Webb-street, with a couple of subjects. On the following morning (Thursday) he removed them to Mr. Davis's, at Guy's; and, after receiving the money, he went away to the Fortune of War, in Smithfield, and stayed there about two or three hours. Between four and five o'clock, to the best of his recollection, he went to Nag's-head-court, Golden-lane, and there he stopped with a female until between eleven and twelve o'clock the next day (Friday). From Golden-lane he went to the Fortune of War again, and stopped drinking there until six o'clock, or half-past. Williams and Bishop both came in there, and asked him, if he would stand anything to drink? which he did. Bishop then called him out, and asked him, where he could get the best price for 'things?' he told him where he had sold two (meaning Guy's); and he (Bishop) then told him, that he had got a good subject, and had been offered eight guineas for it. He (May) replied, that he could get more for it; and then Bishop said, all that he could get over nine guineas he might have for himself. He agreed to it; and they went from thence to the Old Bailey, and had some tea at the Watering-house there, leaving Williams at the Fortune of War. After tea they called a chariot off the stand, and drove to Bishop's house. When there, Bishop showed him the lad in a box or trunk. He (May) then put it into a sack, and brought it to the chariot, and conveyed it to Mr. Davis, at Guy's. Mr. Davis said, you know, John, I can't take it, because I took two of you yesterday, and I have not got names enough down for one, or I would take it. He (May) then asked him if he could leave the body there that night? and he said he might. Bishop then desired Mr. Davis not to let any person have it, as it was his subject, but to deliver it to his own self. He (May) also told Davis not to let the body go without him, or he should be money out of pocket. May then went on to state, that he went to his own house, and slept there that night, and the next morning he went to Guy's, and Bishop and Shields came in with a hamper, which was taken to King's College, where he was taken into custody. The prisoner said that he had spoken the truth, and nothing else. He was then removed, and the other prisoner,

JOHN WILLIAMS, was brought in; and being cautioned not to say anything to criminate himself, he stated that, in the first place, he met Bishop on last Saturday morning, in Long-lane, Smithfield, and asked him where he was going? He said he was going to the King's College. They then went into the Fortune of War public-house, and after that Bishop went to Guy's Hospital, and then to the King's College. May and the porter met them against the gate. Bishop went in, and he (Williams) asked him to let him go in with him. That was all he had got to say, except that a porter took a basket from the Fortune of War to Guy's Hospital, and he (Williams) helped him a part of the way with it.

The prisoner was then removed.

JAMES SEAGROVE, a cabriolet driver, swore positively, that a quarter before six o'clock on Friday evening he was sitting in a public-house in the Old Bailey, when two men (May and Bishop) came in, and the taller of the two told him that they wanted him to do a job. Witness answered that there were a great many jobs, long and short ones. May then said, that he wanted him to carry a 'stiff un.' Witness asked what he meant to pay him for it. The witness then went on to state, that he declined the offer of May and Bishop, and afterwards saw them trying to make a bargain with a coachman on the stand. May had previously offered witness a guinea for the job. The witness added that he meant to do them, and appeared to consent at first merely for the purpose of hearing a little of the tricks of body-snatchers.

The room was about to be cleared, when

WILLIAM HILL, the porter at the dissecting-rooms, King's College, begged to add to his former evidence, that when there was a delay in paying Bishop and May for the body, the former said to Mr. Partridge, Give me what money you have got in your purse, and I will call for the remainder on Monday. It was very unusual for persons selling dead bodies to go away with part payment only, unless something was wrong; they generally wait for their money.

The room was then cleared, and at half-past ten o'clock the Jury came to the following verdict:--

We find a verdict of WILFUL MURDER against some person or persons
unknown; and the Jury beg to add to the above verdict, that the
evidence produced before them has excited very strong suspicions
in their minds against the prisoners Bishop and Williams, and they
trust that a strict inquiry will be made into the case by the
Police Magistrates.

We understand that Mr. Corder received directions from the Home Office to forward the result of the examination before the Coroner to the Secretary of State, as soon as it should be made known; and it was further stated, that a reward would be forthwith offered for such evidence as might tend to fix the crime upon the guilty parties. The prisoners still remained in custody on the charge, namely, suspicion of murder, for which they were brought to Bow-street on the previous Saturday night; and Mr. Minshull, before whom the examination then took place, expressed his determination to pursue the inquiry to the utmost.

Previously to entering into any further statement of the measures adopted for obtaining the necessary evidence to bring the commission of the crime home to the accused parties, we may be allowed to offer a few reflections on the indelible disgrace which is attached to this country, by the tacit encouragement which is given to the horrid vocation of the resurrectionists, and which has now become such a settled system, that not only the sanctuary of the grave is violated, but human life is sported with as if the laws had no restraining hand upon the criminals, and they were to be allowed, in the open face of day, to carry on their murderous trade, in defiance of humanity, religion, and the laws. Would it be credited, were it not obviously true, that after the discovery of such till then unheard-of depravity as that exhibited in the crimes of Burke and Hare, two years should elapse without any measure being adopted by the Legislature to amend the system which tempts to such horrors, and that the subject should be forgotten until similar atrocities are repeated in the metropolis of the kingdom, at the very source of legislation, and under the very eye of a police supposed to be the most efficient in Europe? People talk, or rather used to talk, of some species of crime not being English--Alas! that England should now stand indelibly stained by guilt of so foul, so unnatural a blackness, that all other 'detested sins' which, when exposed, 'stood bare and naked, trembling at themselves,' compared with this, are blanched into the complexion of natural, perhaps generous impulses, culpable only in their misdirection and excess! It seems reserved for the British schools of anatomy to offer a premium for murder not prompted by passion, not provoked by injury, not justified even to the murderer by revenge, but premeditated with cold, diabolical, mercantile calculation, as to the price which will be given for the corpse of the victim.

The depravation of the actors of these crimes appears to us almost inexplicable. It has been said, that all are not men who bear the form of men; and the resurrectionist, in his horrid vocation, bears no alliance to humanity; 'the common damned shun his society;' but can we acquit of blood guiltiness, those who having authority to legislate on the subject, and knowing such practices to exist, try not every possible means, and we may almost say impossible ones, to prevent them? There existed formerly in Portugal an officer of state whose duty it was to ask pardon formally for every person condemned to death, whatever were the nature and number of his offences. It is recorded, that when the officer was interceding, as usual, in favour of a person condemned to die for his twentieth murder, the king refused the pardon asked, on the plea that the number of the crimes rendered the criminal an object unfit for mercy. 'He is as fit an object now, replied the officer, as he was at first. He is only guilty of the first murder: your Majesty, by overlooking that, is responsible for all the others.'

The senseless clamour which was raised against Mr. Warburton's Bill, on account of the pain which it would cause to the feelings of a few paupers, provokes us to wish, that all those who excited it may be haunted with the anguish of that unutterable dread which led Mr. Hare to view the body of the murdered stranger boy, in the horrid expectation that it might be that of his lost son. In regard to the outrage on the feelings of the pauper, we suspect that, were a law to be enacted, giving the body of every pauper, not claimed by any relative, for dissection, it would have a very salutary effect in thinning the workhouses of a number of paupers, who throw themselves on the parish as being too idle to work, and who would never think of entering a workhouse if they thought dissection was to be their fate after death.

We shall have occasion, in the progress of this work, to enter more fully into the important question of the great encouragement which is given to murder by the facility with which the corpse is disposed of to the hospitals and the dissecting-rooms; and therefore, for the present, we shall merely ask, whether a study carried on by means, which, setting the murders out of the question, deteriorate the moral sense, has prolonged life beyond the limits of human existence in the days of Galen and Hippocrates? Whether, if it have, a degree of science sufficient for general utility might not be obtained from those perfect representations in wax of the internal machinery of the human frame, such as are found on the Continent, and from bodies which might be legitimately obtained? And whether, if the answer be in the negative, the preservation of the perishable part of one being for a few days longer than it might otherwise enjoy or suffer, be not too dearly purchased by the depravation of the spirit which is to live for ever? Perish the science of prolonging life, if we are constrained to maintain it at such a cost!

From the day on which the Coroner's inquest terminated, to the 18th of November, Mr. Corder was most actively employed in obtaining that information which could trace the commission of the murder to the four men who stood charged with the crime; and, on the above day, they were brought to the Public Office, Bow Street, and placed at the bar, before Mr. Minshull, the presiding magistrate, who was assisted by Dr. Robinson and Mr. Mallard, county magistrates, and Mr. Swabey, late of Union Hall. The office was crowded to excess long before the examination commenced, and the greatest anxiety was exhibited to get a view of the prisoners, and hear the evidence produced against them. The bench was also crowded by gentlemen, many of whom were surgeons.

Mr. CORDER, who appeared on behalf of the Parish of St. Paul's, Covent-garden, said, he should, in the first instance, call evidence to show that the prisoners had not met in the manner they had described when before the Coroner's jury, and with this view he called

HENRY LOCKER, who deposed that on Friday, the 4th of November, instant, he was waiter at the Fortune of War public-house, in Giltspur-street. He knew the prisoners, who used to frequent that house. Bishop, May, and Williams called in between eleven and twelve o'clock on Friday morning, and had something to drink; they remained in the tap-room about an hour and a half, and then went away. They returned about three o'clock, and remained until it was dusk, when they went away again, and came back again at eight o'clock or past. They had with them a strange man, who appeared to be a hackney-coachman. They said they had had a ride, and went into the tap-room and had something to drink. Shortly after, the prisoner May came out of the tap-room and went to the bar. He had a handkerchief in his hand, which seemed to contain something. He poured some hot water on the handkerchief, and began to wipe its contents, which proved to be human teeth. Witness remarked that they seemed to be the teeth of a young person, and that they were worth something. May answered, that they were as good to him as two pounds. The prisoners and the other man soon after went away. On the following morning (Saturday), Bishop, Williams, and Shields called again, and had some beer to drink. Bishop asked what they should do for a hamper, and Williams said, there was one inside the railings of the hospital (Bartholomew's). The prisoner Shields went and fetched it, and all three went away.

Mr. MINSHULL asked the witness to describe May's dress when he first saw him.

WITNESS.--I do not exactly remember.

Prisoner MAY.--How can you tell the hour when you first saw me?

WITNESS.--Although I cannot speak to your dress, I am certain as to the hour.

The WITNESS, in reply to a question by Mr. Minshull, said, that when May was engaged in washing the teeth, he had on a dark-coloured smock-frock.

Mr. CORDER said, that as it was not intended on this examination to offer any evidence with respect to the exchange of clothes in Field-lane, it was not very material as to the dress of the prisoner. With respect to that circumstance, evidence would be produced on a future occasion.

JAMES SEAGROVE, the cabriolet driver, who gave evidence before the coroner, was again called forward. He stated, that on the Friday evening, about six o'clock, being at tea in a watering-house in the Old Bailey, he was called out to the prisoners Bishop and May. The latter asked him if he wanted a job, and added, 'I want you to carry a stiff un,' adding, 'we will stand a guinea for it.' Witness declined the job, and left the prisoners apparently making a bargain with a hackney-coachman.

Mr. MINSHULL asked the prisoners if they wished to put any questions to the witness.

MAY.--No: the man answers perfectly correct.

THOMAS TAVERNOR, the waterman at the stand in the Old Bailey, proved, that he was directed by two men to call out the last witness from the Watering-house: they said, they wanted to hire his cab. Witness, however, could not identify the man, as the night was dark.

Mr. MINSHULL asked, if the men were carrying anything, and whether the witness saw the coach in which they drove off?

The WITNESS replied, that the men were not carrying anything when he saw them, and he did not see in what manner they left the place, for he went away as soon as he had called the witness Seagrove.

GEORGE GISSING, a boy about fifteen, proved that he was the son of a publican, who lived in Birdcage-walk, Bethnal-green. On Friday evening, between six and seven o'clock, he was standing at his father's door, when he saw a yellow-bodied chariot stop at the corner of Nova Scotia-gardens. The prisoners, Bishop, May, and Williams, jumped out of it, and the two former went up Nova Scotia gardens; they were dressed in smock-frocks, and May had a pipe in his mouth. Williams, who had on a light fustian jacket, remained leaning against the fore-wheel of the chariot, in conversation with the coachman. Bishop and May returned in a short time, carrying a sack containing something heavy. May had the sack on his back, and Bishop was holding it up behind; the sack was placed in the chariot, and after the prisoners had taken their places, it drove off through Crabtree-row, in the direction of Shoreditch Church.

THOMAS TRADER, another boy about the same age as the last witness, gave similar evidence, having seen everything which Gissing had witnessed. Mrs. Cannell, who was also present, told witness that something strange was going forward, and she told him to go down the gardens and watch the motions of the two men (May and Bishop), but witness declined to do so.

ANN CANNELL corroborated the statement of the last witness, and added, that she saw two men jump out of the coach. They both wore dark smock-frocks, and one of them had a pipe in his mouth. (The witness was here directed to look well at the prisoners Bishop and May, and after doing so, she declared that she could not identify them as the two men whom she had so seen.) The last witness stood by, and she (witness) said to him, 'This looks strange; see where they are going so quick.' The lad replied, 'I am sure I won't go after them, for if I did, they would not mind giving me a topper.' The coachman never got off his box until the men returned, and this circumstance excited her suspicions the more.

JOHN CHAPMAN, having been sworn, stated that he was porter at Guy's Hospital. At seven o'clock on the evening of Friday, the 4th instant, the two prisoners, Bishop and May, drove to the Hospital in a hackney-coach or chariot. They came to his (witness') lodge, and he let them in. They had a sack with them, which the shorter man (Bishop) carried. Witness did not know what the sack contained: they went towards the dissecting-room.

By Dr. ROBINSON.--The sack appeared to contain something heavy. It is usual for coaches to draw up to the gate of the Hospital, and no questions are asked. I knew the persons of the men before, but did not know their names.

BISHOP.--Now, John, are you certain that it was I who carried the sack?

WITNESS.--Yes, I am.

MAY.--Why it was I who carried the sack, and not Bishop. It is a matter of no moment, but it only shows how careful men ought to be when on their oath.

JAMES DAVIS, the porter to the dissecting-room at Guy's Hospital, repeated the evidence which he gave before the Coroner, as to the body having been offered for sale to him, by Bishop and May, on the night of Friday; and after he had declined to purchase it, Bishop requested him to take charge of it all night, which he did. Witness observed a human foot protruding from the sack, (a previous witness has sworn that it was the knee,) and from the size of the foot he concluded, that the subject was either a youth or a female. The body was removed from the Hospital on the following morning, James Weeks, the assistant porter, having delivered it to May and Bishop. Witness saw them both at the Hospital in the morning, in company with the prisoner Shields, and another man.

JAMES WEEKS, the person referred to, proved that he delivered the body to May and Bishop. When they were at the Hospital the previous night, May said, 'The fact is, the subject belongs to Bishop and not to me.' Witness was positive that when May and Bishop came for the body in the morning, the prisoners, Shields and Williams, accompanied them.

MAY.--When we were going to leave 'the thing,' did not Bishop say it belonged to him?

WITNESS.--No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Had anything been said that you remember?

WITNESS.--Yes; May said, 'Don't let the subject go, unless I am here with Bishop.' Bishop said so likewise.

JAMES DAVIS recalled.--I don't recollect that May said, Don't let the body go; but some conversation having passed to that effect, the impression that it left upon my mind was, that the body was not to be removed from the Hospital, unless both prisoners were present.

JOHN APPLETON, porter to Mr. Grainger's Theatre of Anatomy, Webb-street, Borough, proved, that on Friday night, after May and Bishop had left Guy's, they came and asked if he wanted a subject. Witness answered in the negative, and they went away.

WILLIAM HILL, porter at the dissecting-room, King's College, repeated the evidence which he had previously given, and added, that after he had communicated with Mr. Partridge, and had offered Bishop nine guineas for the body, May, who appeared to be tipsy, said, they ought to have ten guineas. May then slipped aside, and Bishop, who appeared to be more anxious to sell the body than May, said, 'I will bring it in for nine guineas; he (meaning May) is tipsy.' The witness then proceeded to state, that on the same afternoon, the four prisoners brought the body of the deceased in a hamper to the College, and after describing the appearances which it presented, and stating the suspicions which were excited in consequence, added, that Bishop wanted Mr. Partridge to give him whatever money he had in his purse, and said, they would call again for the remainder. While they were waiting to be paid, Bishop wished witness to give him but eight guineas in the presence of Williams, saying, that he wanted the other guinea for himself, and he promised witness half-a-crown for himself if he would do so.

BISHOP.--Yes, you get many a guinea in that way.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Is it customary for persons in your situation to receive such presents?

WITNESS.--Yes, sir, sometimes.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Did you perceive any marks of dirt upon the body, as if it had been scraped with a dirty sleeve, or smeared over with a hand?

WITNESS.--I did perceive such marks.

Mr. SWABEY.--Did they appear to have been made by design or accident?

The witness could not say; but in answer to a question by Mr. Corder, he gave it as his clear opinion, that the body had neither been laid out nor buried.

BISHOP.--It is impossible for you to tell that. You know nothing about raising bodies. Is there not a difference in soil? Besides could not clay have got into the coffin?

The witness went on to state, that when the body was taken from the sack, at the College, the left arm was doubled up. The hand also was clenched.

MAY.--When the body was laid on the floor, was the arm doubled up?

WITNESS.--Yes, and I unclenched the fingers myself, and observed that the limbs were very stiff.

BISHOP (smiling). The fact is, you are not in the habit of seeing fresh subjects, and you don't know anything about it. (Here Bishop and May both laughed.)

Mr. THOMAS suggested to the prisoners, that they had better be quiet, as they were doing themselves no good.

BISHOP.--I can do myself no harm at all events.

Mr. BEAMAN, the surgeon, who had minutely examined the body after death, was again called forward and re-sworn. He repeated his former opinion, founded on the _post mortem_ examination of the body, that death had been produced by extravasation of blood in the spinal canal, an effect, which must have been produced by violence on the back of the neck. The violence might have been produced by a blow from a round stick or bludgeon, or even by the wrist of a strong man's arm. It was barely possible, certainly, that the injury might have been occasioned by a fall down stairs.

Mr. PARTRIDGE, demonstrator of anatomy at the King's College, agreed with Mr. Beaman in every particular, in regard to the causes which had produced death.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Is it your opinion, then, that the boy came to his death by violence--in short, that he was murdered?

Mr. PARTRIDGE.--I certainly do believe that the death of the deceased was effected by violence.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Is it from the state of the neck merely, or from other appearances, that you have come to that conclusion?

Mr. PARTRIDGE.--I believe the immediate cause of death to have been a blow on the back of the neck by some blunt instrument, but I judge of the violence which must have been used, from other circumstances, namely, the freshness of the body, the rigidity of the limbs, the swollen state of the face, the bloodshot eyes, and their perfect freshness.

In answer to a question by Mr. Swabey, the witness said that the superficial dirt on the thighs, belly and chest of the deceased, might have been done designedly or by accident. Trailing the body along a dirty floor would leave such marks.

Mr. MINSHULL.--Could the deceased have committed suicide?

WITNESS.--It is just barely possible that a person might inflict a blow on the back of his own neck which would cause death. It was, however, exceedingly improbable, and almost impossible.

Mr. BEAMAN said, he could not see how suicide could be at all effected in that way. A man might certainly break the back part of his neck, by flinging himself from a height on a bar, but he could not, in his opinion, inflict the same injury on himself, by means of a stick or bludgeon.

Mr. THOMAS MILLS, a dentist, residing on Newington Causeway, having been sworn, stated, that on Saturday morning, the 5th of November last, the prisoner May came to his shop and offered him a set of teeth for sale, for which he asked a guinea. Witness observed that one of the front teeth was chipped, and said that it did not belong to the set: upon which May said, 'Upon my soul to God, they all belonged to one head, and that not long since, and that the body had never been buried.' He ultimately agreed to take twelve shillings for the teeth.

Mr. CORDER asked the witness, if he had not observed something peculiar about the teeth.

WITNESS.--Yes, portions of the gums were adhering to them, and part of the jaw-bone. There could be no doubt, but that the teeth had been forcibly removed immediately after death. I said to May, that from appearance the teeth belonged to a female. His reply was, 'the fact is they belonged to a lad about 14 or 15 years of age.'

While this witness was giving his evidence, the prisoner May appeared for the first time to change countenance, and lose that hardness of nerve, which distinguished him throughout the whole of the proceedings. He stared at the witness at first rather wildly, and compressed his lips while listening attentively to the evidence, and as soon as it was concluded, he endeavoured to resume his composure, and forced a laugh; but almost in a moment afterwards, his countenance underwent another change, and he muttered to himself, as he looked over to the witness, 'The b----y rascal.' He then asked the witness, if he was quite sure of the exact words he had used, when he brought him the teeth, with regard to the body not having been buried.

WITNESS.--You said that the body had never been buried.

Mr. THOMAS, the superintendent of the police, was then examined, and repeated the evidence he had given before the coroner. He went to the house of the last witness, who gave him the twelve teeth now produced.

The hamper and sack which contained the body were here produced, the latter had stains of blood upon it.

HIGGINS, a police constable of the F division, produced a heavy iron instrument, one end of which was bent and nearly as sharp as a chisel, and the other thick and round. He also produced a brad-awl clotted with blood. A question arose as to the use to which the latter had been applied, when May at once said, 'I took the teeth out with that brad-awl.'

The other instrument was then handed to Mr. Partridge, who gave it as his opinion, that the sharp end might have inflicted the wound on the forehead of the deceased, and that the thick rounded end was likely to have inflicted the blow on the back of the neck, and which, in his opinion, was the immediate cause of death.

The witness Higgins said, that he found these instruments, together with a rope with a noose at the end of it (which he produced) at the house of Bishop. He also found the pair of breeches now produced, belonging to the prisoner, and he discovered the marks of blood upon them. He saw some fresh blood on the floor of the room, where he found the breeches.

MAY explained that the blood was that of a jackdaw, which cut its leg, and afterwards hopped upon the breeches.

Mr. THOMAS said, that, in fairness, he must say, that as the breeches were not found until a week after the prisoner was taken into custody, he thought that the blood was entirely too fresh to connect it with the murder.