> From: Charani <[email protected]> > Subject: [B&D] John HORWOOD hanged 1821 Bristol New Gaol > Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:37:40 +0000 > www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11711858 > This is an interesting piece, with a somewhat gruesome twist, about > John HORWOOD, the first man to be publically hangedin Bristol's New > Gaol, in 1821, goes to show what you might turn up during research. > The full story is here: > www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/3240914647/ < This story has just appeared on the GENBRIT list under the thread header "Nasty shock for family historians". Apparently, a collateral descendant (not a direct one) of John Horwood has won a court order releasing his skeleton for burial after it has been at Bristol University for almost 200 years. Personally - and I am well aware that some will not agree with me - I find this somewhat bizarre for the following reasons.... I find it difficult to believe that the descendant is a genuine family historian. No real family historian would surely get upset about something that happened almost 200 years ago and go to the somewhat bizarre lengths of claiming the bones of an ancestor and having them reburied. I find it hard to believe that the court acceeded to the claim, either. Here are a few points to bear in mind..... 1) In the early 19th century it was a very common occurrence indeed for people who were executed for murder to have their bodies given over to the doctors for medical science research. It was a ROUTINE event in those very different times. For the descendant to talk about, as she does, "barbaric" treatment in having the body dissected and his skin used to bind a book cover strongly suggests to me that she cannot be a real historian or she would surely have known this fact? She is making the usual mistake that so many beginners make of looking at things that happened in an earlier century through a mindset of modern values! Yes, of course it was barbaric to us today to think of someone being skinned and the skin sold as souvenirs. However, this is exactly what happened in another case from the same period with which I am very familiar, having researched and written about it and lectured on it. I refer to that of MARY BATEMAN, the notorious Yorkshire Witch, who was hanged at York in 1809 for murder by poisoning. Her body was transported from York to Leeds by cart, accompanied by a large multitude of people and greeted by thousands on arrival at Leeds. It was than put on public display and fashionable ladies and gentlemen paid threepence each to watch a distinguished surgeon carry out the post mortem and dissection of the Witch's body. Leeds Infirmary raised some £30 with this unusual form of fund-raising, plus her skin was tanned and sold as souvenirs. As I have explained, this was quite a common occurrence where the bodies of executed murderers were concerned. Much of the skeleton of Mary Bateman, minus legs and arms, still exists today in the Thackray Medical Museum in Leeds and is on display in a case. Presumably, any living descendants of Mary Bateman - and I happen to know of a girl in Leeds who claims to be one - could bring a similar claim to a court to have the remains of Mary Bateman released to them for reburial. This would be a travesty, since the Witch's skeleton is an important part of the museum's displays and, as such, surely belongs to the museum and also to the public who still pay money today to view it. 2) Nowhere can I see which court it was that made the decision to hand over the skeleton of the hanged man in Bristol, however I find it difficult to credit that a judge could have done so. If the dissection was part of the original sentence (and apparently it was), then the body ceased to be the property of the family and became the property of whatever hospital it was bequeathed to. According to the law as it existed at the time, the victim's family ceased to have any rights in it. And when we take it upon ourselves to right the perceived wrongs of an earlier age, almost two centuries ago, we are going down a very dangerous road of political correctness indeed !!! Who knows what lawsuits and legal battles might overwhelm our courts if we accepted the principle that descendants of people who were executed long ago had the right to sue today? HM The Queen, for one, would NEVER be out of the courts, considering the vast numbers executed by her ancestors ! 3) As I said, this woman is NOT apparently a direct descendant but a collateral one descended from a different line of the family. Has she shown she is the only descendant or nearest next of kin? 4) Were descendants of the girl murdered by John Horwood traced and asked for their views? -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE