WAITING MORTUARIES.

Of all the various methods that have been suggested or introduced for the prevention of premature interment, none has been attended with such satisfactory results as the erection of mortuaries (LeichenhÄuser) in Germany. These structures, described in pp. 294 et seq., ought to be provided, as far as practicable, in every parish, and certainly in every Sanitary District in the United Kingdom, and by the Boards of Health in the United States, and adapted to the requirements of the population. They should be of chaste and elegant design, well ventilated; their atmosphere made antiseptic with living plants and flowers, and by plenty of light; provided with baths and couches, and a skilled attendant—edifices where both the dead and the apparent dead can be deposited pending burial, cremation, or resuscitation. Separate compartments are necessary for cases where death has been due to accidents and for those who have succumbed to infectious diseases. Every modern appliance should be introduced for the restoration of such as may exhibit signs of returning consciousness, and of those in whom, after sufficient time had elapsed, no sign of putrefaction was observable. The temperature of the room should be kept at eighty-four degrees, as suggested by Sir Benjamin Ward Richardson, and no interment, cremation, post-mortem, or embalming should be permitted until a medical examination by one or more experienced physicians showed unequivocal signs of putrefaction. Perhaps the Royal Humane Society, which during the last one hundred and fifty years has done such splendid work in restoring the drowned and asphyxiated, might be willing to extend the field of its benevolent operations to other neglected forms of suspended animation where intelligent direction and supervision is so much required.

A writer in the British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, 1855, vol. xv., p. 75, says:—“The earliest movements in the direction of means for the prevention of premature interments originated with Winslow in France, followed by other well-known writers upon the signs of death. It was Madame Necker, however, who embodied their suggestions in a practicable form as submitted to the National Assembly, in 1792, by Count Berchshold. In the ninth year of the first French Republic (1801) a project was entertained for the erection of six ‘temples funeraires’ in Paris, but came to no good, as attendant evils preponderated. To Germany belongs the credit of having executed these designs in such wise that they should not prove the positive sources of more danger to the living than could be counter-balanced by the occasional preservation of an individual from the risk of premature interment. Believing that this risk had been prodigiously diminished since the establishment of these institutions for the reception of cases where doubt of the reality of death has existed, Hufeland, in Weimar, devised the plan that Frankfort-on-the-Maine incorporated with its reform in sepulture and establishment of extra-mural cemeteries, in 1823. Hufeland’s plans have subsequently been adopted and carried out in many other German States.... As a sanitary measure the separation of the dead from the living, especially from among the crowded poor, would be, apart from the not less important point of verification of death, an incalculable benefit.... It behoves us in this matter to learn another lesson from our neighbours, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence of catastrophes too fearfully horrible to contemplate in thought, too dreadful for the most vivid imagination to realise. Science can hold out no token by which to recognise the certainty of death. Sanitary police, at least in England, is indifferent about the risk of a few burials alive, and thinks it superfluous to prevent their occurrence.”

That the people have a right to protection by the State against preventable sources of danger, all civilised nations have acknowledged, by the making of laws that guard their citizens from the invasion of diseases of domestic or foreign origin, as well as many other perils. THE GERMAN SYSTEM.But the German-speaking countries have gone further than any other in this humane direction by recognising apparent death as a special peril to be guarded against by law, in order to prevent living burials. For this purpose they have established mortuaries connected with cemeteries, in which the apparently dead are placed, under the observation of physicians and attendants. Here the bodies are placed upon tables, dressed in their ordinary clothes, amidst light, warmth, and ventilation, surrounded by plants and floral tributes. Thus they are kept from forty-eight to seventy-two hours, unless decomposition sets in earlier, or the death was due to an infectious disease. Further delay is allowed on application by the attending physician, or by some member of the family interested. Cords connected with an alarm bell are attached to the fingers, under the conviction that the least movement of the body would arouse the attendant in an adjoining room. No doubt these mortuaries have saved a certain number from being buried alive; but the system can be improved by extending the observation until such time as death is certain, for experience shows that no stated limit of time can apply to all cases of trance and catalepsy, which are the chief causes of apparent death. Some of these continue for a week, and cases of even longer duration are not unknown. It often happens that returning vital activity consists merely in scarcely perceptible movements of the eyelids or the mouth, a change of the complexion, slight moisture on the face, or a faint action of the heart, or a warmth in that region, or feeble thoracic movements—all of which might escape observation until the allotted time had expired, and no contrivance, however delicately adjusted, could announce their presence. Time alone will test the existence of life or death in such cases.

The extensive literature on this subject shows that the struggle to bring about the existing mortuary system in Germany was kept up for many years before it obtained its measure of success. It was legalised about the year 1795, after the physicians of Germany, France, and Austria had shown the absolute necessity for it.

Mortuaries have continued in high favour with the people wherever they have once been properly established; none, so far as the author has been able to learn, have ever been abolished. At the present time the city of Munich is constructing a mortuary at the Southern cemetery upon a costly scale, surpassing in sumptuous accessories anything of the kind before attempted in Germany. It will be not unworthy of the public buildings of the city. This is an emphatic endorsement of the necessity of the system by a people that for more than fifty years has given it a thorough trial; and it is a strong argument for its adoption elsewhere.

The question suggests itself here: Why should not the English-speaking peoples accept the long experience of a philosophical, painstaking, clear-minded people like the Germans, supported as it is by many sanitary and medical authorities in France, England, and the United States, and establish these institutions in connection with existing cemeteries, with such modifications as national habits, local tastes, and customs may dictate?

The following practical suggestions are from a paper in the Medical Times, vol. xvi., No. 415, p. 574, September 11, 1847, entitled, “On the construction of houses for the reception of the dead; and on the means to be used for the recovery of those who are only in trances or fits, or in whom life is only impassive,” by Robert Brandon, Esq., Great Russell Street, Bloomsbury:—

Referring to the universal fear of burying relatives alive, the Lancet, September 20, 1845, vol. ii., p. 321, observed:—“It is but little use to descant upon an evil without pointing out a remedy. In Frankfort, Munich, and in various other towns, houses, properly situated, have been fitted up for the temporary reception of the dead. Corpses are there deposited immediately after death, and taken care of until the signs of decomposition have become unequivocal, medical assistance being at hand should symptoms of vitality manifest themselves. By this simple plan all the objections which attend on the retention of the dead in the dwellings of the poor may be obviated, and at the same time their dread of burying their relatives whilst still alive respected. This plan is evidently much preferable to that which is followed in France. In the latter country, in the large towns, there is in every district a medical inspector of the dead. The inspector is informed of the death as soon as it has taken place, and within a very limited time is bound to inspect the body and give a formal certificate. This guarantee having been obtained, the inhumation of the deceased is enforced by law within two or three days of the death. Notwithstanding this precaution, cases have occurred, even during the last few years, which appear to prove that inhumation has taken place before life was quite extinct. We doubt, also, whether such early interment could under any circumstances be enforced in our own country. Some modification of the German plan is evidently what we must look for in any system of legislation which may hereafter be decided on.” These admirable suggestions from the leading medical journal were made more than half a century ago; since that time, every year has brought to light cases of living burial, and confirmed the urgent need of reform; but nothing has been done until quite recently to awaken public attention to their importance. The subject is of such a gruesome, unpleasant, and depressing character that few people care to have their names associated with a movement of this character, beneficent though it is, and certain to save thousands of unfortunate people, particularly women and children (who are more especially liable to various forms of suspended animation), from such tragic occurrences.

The Undertakers’ and Funeral Directors’ Journal, August 22, 1895, referring to the fact that in 1892 thirty-one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two inquests were held in England, and to the urgent necessity for the erection of mortuaries, says:—

MORTUARIES OF LONDON.

Each of the sanitary districts in the Metropolis is supposed to have a mortuary of some kind for the reception of bodies from hospitals, infirmaries, hotels, private houses, as well as from the river and streets, or in transit to and from foreign countries, where they are kept without charge for about five days, unless the public health requires earlier interment. Hospitals, hotels, and families are thus relieved of the presence of corpses, for convenience, and for purposes of inquest. The mortuaries are nearly all plain, gloomy, and depressing structures of brick. The best of them comprise a coroner’s courtroom, coroner’s private room, the caretaker’s rooms, waiting room, post-mortem room, chapel, and viewing room connected. There is no physician in attendance, and no autopsies are performed except by surgeons upon their own cases, or for purposes of inquests. There are no appliances or conveniences for resuscitation, as all the bodies are regarded as dead, having been, for the most part, certified as such by a medical practitioner, the exceptions being such as are taken from the water or street by the police, or left there for inquest. The buildings are usually well lighted, and some of the rooms contain fire-places, but they are devoid of taste or ornamentation of any kind. The bodies are kept in coffins, which, if there is any odour proceeding from them, are screwed down. Permission is afforded for inspection by doctors or by any of the family of the deceased on application to the keeper. These mortuaries are kept clean, and decent and respectful treatment of the bodies is enforced by regulations.

The London County Council issued a return (No. 157) dated March 9, 1894, in pursuance of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, relating to coroners’ courts, mortuaries, etc., from which it appears that there were fifty-one mortuaries in the sanitary districts of London up to September 30, 1893. In most of these the accommodation is described as “sufficient,” “good,” “well arranged,” “excellent,” “convenient.” Others are of an opposite character. The one attached to the Town Hall, Holborn district, is reported as “very small (about nine feet by nine feet), inconvenient, and badly situated.” In the Poplar district the mortuary “is an old crypt, quite unfit for the purpose, and has no convenience for post-mortems.” At Ratcliffe, in the Limehouse district, the mortuary “consists of a railway arch, and is very unsuitable.” “There is a very small mortuary in the church-yard” at Shadwell. The mortuary under the church-yard of St. Martin’s Church (St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields) is reported “very imperfect.” The one in the Southern Coroner’s district is situated under a railway arch, and there is no mortuary-keeper. At St. Paul’s, Deptford, the mortuary contains only one room, which serves for mortuary and post-mortem room. Plumstead is possessed of an underground mortuary in the church-yard, reported as “unsatisfactory.” The Lewisham district has an “unsuitable” mortuary at the cemetery. Rotherhithe has “an inadequate mortuary in the old burial-ground.” At St. George the Martyr (Southwark) the mortuary is reported to be “inadequate and unsuitable.” In the Strand district there is “no proper mortuary, but a small dead-house attached to the Savoy Chapel is used.” Eltham, Lea, and Kidbrooke, in the Plumstead district, have no mortuaries. The part of Lambeth, S. and S.E., up the Clapham and Kennington Park roads, is without a mortuary, and bodies awaiting inquest are kept in private houses. Nor are there any mortuaries in the Greenwich district (Hatcham), Wapping, or Mile End Old Town. Arrangements are reported to be in progress for the enlargement of some of these establishments and the erection of others.

No resuscitations are reported from any of these places, except in the case of Ernest Wicks, a boy two years old, who was found lying on the grass in Regent’s Park apparently dead, and resuscitated in St. Marylebone Mortuary (after being laid out on a slab as dead) in September, 1895, by the keeper, Mr. Ellis, assisted by Mrs. Ellis. When the doctor arrived, the child was breathing freely, though still insensible. The child was taken to the Middlesex Hospital, and was reported by the surgeon to be recovering from a fit.

The London mortuaries stand well in the estimation of the authorities, medical practitioners, and the people, on account of their usefulness and convenience in relieving hotels and private houses of the dead pending funerals, and in cases of deaths from infectious diseases, as well as from accidents and acts of violence (amongst which suicides are included) which require investigation. In consequence of this, there is a disposition on the part of the authorities to enlarge and improve the older and smaller ones, and to introduce the later conveniences. Those in St. Marylebone and St. Luke’s are the latest examples, and could, with comparatively little outlay, be rendered creditable and useful establishments. First of all, they require the means of resuscitation, such as are in use at the Royal Humane Societies’ DepÔts, and at the German mortuaries; also baths, couches, plants, flowers, and mural ornaments, with a skilled nurse or caretaker, and a medical practitioner either on the establishment or within telephone call. A fundamental regulation should be added to the standing orders that, when there is no sign of decomposition, bodies should be treated not as dead but as sick needing attention, and to be kept under careful observation. Such simple and inexpensive alterations, gradually introduced by County, Parish, and District Councils, would, in the course of time, bring about a greater respect for the dead, with proper consideration for the apparently dead, besides increasing the feeling of the sanctity of human life. In the course of time these improvements would educate the public, and lead to the erection of new and handsome structures of beautiful design, with appropriate artistic decorations, such as are to be found in Munich and other parts of Germany.

The Medical Times, September 5, 1896, p. 569, says:—

“In a recent issue of the Nursing Record, there is an interesting article on hospital mortuaries by a special commissioner.... At Guy’s the mortuary only contains room for one body. There is a bier, covered by a cradle and a red and white washing pall, and over this is a shelf, on which are placed a cross, fresh flowers, and candles. At St. Bartholomew’s the mortuary itself is certainly not a place where one would care to find one’s dead. The bare, white-washed walls, the sloping floor, the black lidless shells, covered by white sheets, would depress most people even if they had no special interest in them. That this is felt to some extent by the hospital authorities is evident from the fact that, when a member of the staff dies, they do their best to make other arrangements for the disposal of the body until it is removed from the hospital. There is an hospital not named [continues the Medical Times] where the only place available as a mortuary is the wash-house. It would appear that the managers of metropolitan hospitals do not believe in the reality of death-counterfeits, and therefore make no arrangements for resuscitation.”

MORTUARIES IN THE PROVINCES.

With the object of ascertaining the utility of these establishments, the author wrote to the clerks or other officials in all the larger towns in the United Kingdom, fifty in number, requesting copies of the regulations, reports, etc. To these communications twenty-four replies were received. Of these, only three sent copies of reports, furnishing particulars of the number of bodies received, and the number of inquests and post-mortems; three sent copies of regulations; and the remainder do not publish either reports or regulations. One, however (Poplar), states that the by-laws in use are approved by the Local Government Board. The Chief Constable at the Town Hall, Salford, writes, July 26, 1896—“There are three mortuaries in the borough, but a separate record of the bodies laid in the mortuaries is not kept, and no papers exist respecting them.” Mr. Hagger, the Vestry Clerk of the Parish of Liverpool, says—“I know of no public mortuary in Liverpool which is considered to be of such importance as to call for anything in the shape of periodical reports.” Mr. R. Davidson, Governor of the City Parish Poorhouse, Glasgow, writes, July 27, 1896—“I have never had any reports relating to the mortuary here.” Mr. J. Jackson, Chief Constable, Sheffield, writes, July 29—“We have never had papers or reports connected with it (the mortuary), except the ordinary rules and regulations for preserving decency, cleanliness, etc.” Similar replies were received from Manchester, Swansea, Scarborough, Wigan, Bristol, St. Mary’s (Islington), Dundee, and Catford. Mr. Robert Clinton, Master of the Bethnal Green Workhouse, writes, July 30—“That their mortuary has not been the subject of any reports,” and continues, “The subject of persons being buried alive is a very important one, and should arouse the interest of every intelligent person. Some method ought certainly to be devised that will prevent anyone being subjected to so horrible a fate.”

IRELAND.

The following extracts are from the report by Dr. J. E. Kenny, M.P., Coroner for the City of Dublin, received in January, 1894:—

“There are no local laws in Dublin or in Ireland relative to the mode of disposal of the dead, but the Sanitary Acts, which refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, can be availed of when necessary to compel the burial of the dead within a reasonable period, on the ground that an unburied body is a nuisance dangerous to public health. There is, however, no fixed period. Among Roman Catholics it is customary to bury the dead on the third or fourth day after death, but there is no hard-and-fast rule.... The local burial authorities usually require a medical certificate of death before opening the grave, but there is no legal sanction for this, and it is merely the custom. The coroner’s order for burial where an inquest is held does away with the necessity of such certificates as those above referred to, but post-mortem examinations in these cases are the exception, not the rule. A good many, however, are held on those who die in local hospitals when the consent of the relatives or friends can be obtained. I have not heard of any case of cremation in Ireland, and earth-burial is the universal practice. Occasionally, when so ordered by the will of the deceased, a body is removed to England for cremation. I am myself rather in favour of cremation as a more scientific and safer method of disposing of the dead.

“There are no chambers (mortuaries) of the kind referred to in this question in Dublin, nor, so far as I know, in Ireland. I know of no law as to the signs of death which must be recognised to exist before burial is permitted, nor is there any officer on whom is thrown the duty of ascertaining or deciding whether such exist or not.

“If cremation be generally adopted, it ought not to be performed earlier than the third day after death, or perhaps not until some unmistakable sign of decomposition has set in. I think this rule of some such sign of decomposition setting in ought to apply to all methods of disposal of the dead. Whenever well-marked warmth of the body exists after apparent death, burial of any kind ought not to take place until after a full and exhaustive examination by a competent authority. In all doubtful cases I would suggest the application of either a hot iron to some sensitive part of the body, or that a small incision should be made over the course of some small artery, a person being left to watch the result for some time in the latter case, so as to take proper precautions against hÆmorrhage, should the person be not really dead. It might perhaps with advantage be made the law that in every case of death or supposed death the body should be viewed by a medical man, who, having satisfied himself that death had taken place, would sign a certificate to that effect. If I understand rightly, such is the law in France. I would, however, be opposed to any law making an autopsy necessary in every case. The existence of such a public officer as a coroner is undoubtedly of advantage in reference to cases of sudden death or supposed death, as it is among such cases that mistakes are most likely to occur. I can see no objection to the establishment, at the public expense, of chambers for the reception of dead bodies under certain circumstances.”

In reply to a similar inquiry Sir Charles A. Cameron, Superintendent Medical Officer of Health, writes, August 10, 1896—“There is no public mortuary in Dublin, but we are taking steps for the establishment of one.”

It need hardly be said that the mortuaries described in these reports have little in common with certain LeichenhÄuser of Germany or the Mortuaires d’ Attente urgently called for by various writers of France, and proposed to be erected. The English mortuaries may more appropriately be described as morgues or depositories for the homeless and neglected dead—useful for this purpose, but in no respect fulfilling the requirements of the present day. Without skilful attendants and scientific appliances for the restoration of suspended life, to which all are liable, the apparently dead, if deposited in such chilling establishments, would, through neglect, be more likely to lose what spark of life remained than to have it kindled into a flame and recover. The erection of mortuaries for the sake of death-counterfeits, and in order to give peace of mind to doubting friends, would no doubt be opposed chiefly on the ground of expense. The outlay must come from the pockets of the rate-payers, who have been accustomed to accept the cursory inspection of “the corpse” and the certificate of the doctor as a satisfactory solution of any misgivings as to the actuality of death. Under the circumstances it would not be surprising if the unreflecting majority preferred to take what they would consider to be an infinitesimal risk rather than to incur the expense of the necessary outlay. This volume has been written to remove such apathy, and, if possible, to arouse public attention to the subject; and if the facts are, as the author believes, absolutely true, and the danger real, other and abler contributions furnishing the results of wider and more extensive investigations may be expected to follow. It is believed that the expense of constructing tastefully designed mortuaries in all populous districts could be met by a rate of from a farthing to a penny in the pound, and in the smaller or thinly populated districts groups of parishes could unite in providing such useful institutions. At present, under existing customs, probably ten times the amount required is annually expended in funeral trappings, mourning habiliments, costly wreaths, and ornamental monuments (mainly for the purpose of ostentatious display) than would provide temporary resting-places for the real and apparently dead in every part of the United Kingdom. The erection of such establishments, where the fact of death in every case could be unequivocally demonstrated before burial or cremation, would remove an ever present and consuming load of anxiety from the hearts of thousands of sensitive souls.

CONTINENTAL MORTUARIES.

The author is indebted to a “Treatise on Public Health,” by Albert Palemberg and A. Newsholme, London, 1893, for the following details:—

The first modern mortuary was opened at Weimar, Germany, in 1791.

In a “Handbook for Travellers in Europe” for 1890, by W. Pembroke Fetridge, p. 622, is the following description of the model mortuary in Weimar:—

“The New Church-yard is a sweet place of its kind. Here may be seen an admirable arrangement to prevent premature burials in cases of suspended animation. In a dark chamber, lighted with a small lamp, the body lies in a coffin. In its fingers are placed strings, which communicate with an alarm clock; the least pulsation of the corpse will ring the bell in an adjoining chamber, where a person is placed to watch, when a medical attendant is at once supplied. There have been several cases where persons supposed to be dead were thus saved from premature burial.”

The Middlesborough Gazette of 11th October, 1895, says:—

“Those who have visited burying grounds in some parts of the South of England are well aware that tombs made in the shape of ‘waiting rooms’ are largely in vogue with the well-to-do classes. One in a little church-yard in Sussex was elegantly fitted up. The coffins were placed on one side of the well-lighted vault, while on the opposite side was a couch, chairs, and a table, together with books. The relatives of the deceased—eccentric they may have been, we are not prepared to say—visited the vault, access to which was gained by a flight of steps, and there passed much of their time in reading, the ladies doing needle work. But this sort of thing is only for the rich. The poor must be protected from being buried alive by other and more economical methods—namely, by stricter attention to the actual and unmistakable evidences of death, and by careful registration on medical certificates only.”

It would appear by the following announcement, that an effort is being made to supply one of the several properly fitted mortuaries needed in the French capital:—

“The Pall Mall Gazette of September 21, 1895, announces a decided novelty in the way of limited liability companies—the Mortuary Waiting-room Company, which, it says, is on the point of being floated in the French capital. Our contemporary says that the amount for subscription is stated to be £20,000, and dividends at the rate of at least 100 per cent. may, it is claimed, be confidently looked for. The company undertake to provide separate waiting-rooms, of two classes, in a large mortuary building. The alleged corpse will be comfortably deposited there upon a couch, and carefully looked after till the fact that it is a corpse shall have been established beyond question. The waiting-rooms will be tastefully decorated, with everything about them to welcome the revived tenant agreeably back to life. It is interesting to hear that no shareholder’s heirs will be allowed to visit him.”

Some sanitarians and funeral reformers urge with much reason that the presence of the dead should not be allowed to endanger the health of the living, and recommend that if death has occurred from infectious disease, the body should be covered with charcoal and conveyed at once to a mortuary chamber; and others advise early burials for all as soon as possible. If, however, this volume has not demonstrated the danger of such early burials, except where decay of the earthly vesture is visible, it will have been written in vain.

The following recommendation from a well-known physician and surgeon appears in London, p. 613, September 27, 1894:—

THE UTILITY OF MORTUARIES.

During the discussion on Premature Burials in the press, the erection of mortuaries (chambres mortuaires d’attente) has been objected to (1) on the ground of expense to the rate-payers; and (2) because the results by way of resuscitation of those constructed in Germany have not justified the cost of their erection and maintenance, and that if they had not already been in existence they would not now, it is said, be established. The most recent investigations on this subject have been made by Monsieur B. Gaubert, the results of which appear in his work, “Les Chambres Mortuaires d’Attente,” a volume of 308 pages, published in Paris, 1895. The author shows by the citation of facts that both in France and Germany numerous cases of resuscitation of persons certified as dead, and deposited in mortuaries, in spite of many drawbacks connected with their management, have occurred, and that their continuance is amply justified on the ground of utility. In the report of the Municipal Council of Paris for 1880, No. 174, p. 84, is a letter from THE MAYOR OF MUNICH’S OPINION. Herr Ehrhart, Mayor of Munich, May 2, 1880, who says:—“The lengthy period during which these establishments have been utilised, the order which has always prevailed, the manner in which the remains are disposed and adorned, the resuscitation of some who were believed to be dead, have all contributed to remove any sentimental objections to these establishments. The bodies are transported to the LeichenhÄuser twelve hours after death, without the least opposition on the part of the relatives.” The expense of these institutions would, no doubt, in the aggregate be a considerable sum, but not nearly so large as that voted for the erection and maintenance of public libraries, now so common; but in the presence of so serious and real a danger as that of living burial, to which any of us is liable, it is hardly worth considering. For peace of mind the cost of such insurance would be cheerfully paid by thousands, and ought to be provided for the poor and for those who would in time come to value it. This is a matter that might appropriately be taken up by the County, District, and Parish Councils and Boards of Guardians, under the powers granted to them by the Local Government Act of 1894.

Dr. Josat, in his treatise “De la mort et de ses caractÈres,” shows by numerous arguments and examples that, as there is an interval or condition provided by nature between disease and health known as convalescence, and the transition between the one and the other is preceded by a variety of phenomena known as a crisis, so there is an interval between the termination of a fatal malady and real death (erroneously described as the agony), the symptoms which denote intermediate or apparent death. But while the result of an error may be of little moment in the first case, it may in the other become disastrous, by abandoning the dying before absolute death. It is during this interval, between (so called) death agony and absolute death, which sometimes has been known to last a week, that the transfer to a suitable mortuary should be made.

The following may be cited as typical illustrations of the utility of mortuaries in discovering the existence of life after apparent death.

H. L. Kerthomas in “DerniÈres ConsidÉrations sur les Inhumations PrÉcipitÉes,” Lille, 1852, p. 17, relates that—

“The same recent writer quotes the following on the testimony of the surgeons Louis and Junker:—

“BERLIN.

“‘A Berlin apothecary wrote to me lately’ (says Dr. LÉnormand) ‘in this town to the effect that during an interval of two years and a-half, ten people stated to be dead had been recalled to life. I shall quote only the following:—

“FRANKFORT-ON-THE-MAINE.

“Dr. Josat said that during his sojourn in Germany, Herr Schmill, director of the mortuary at Frankfort, related to him a case of apparent death which occurred under his own eyes.

“‘In the year 1840, a girl of nineteen years died of acute pleuro-pneumonia. Her body, during very hot weather, was exposed in the mortuary for a period of eight days in a state of perfect preservation. Her face retained its colour, the limbs were supple, and the substance of the cornea transparent, whereas in ordinary cases decomposition shows itself on the third day. The parents could not reconcile themselves to have their daughter buried, and found themselves much troubled. Finally on the ninth day the supposed dead suddenly awoke without any premonitory indications of life.’ (Ibid., p. 180.)

“BELGIUM.

“There was a case at Brussels in January, 1867, of a person who returned to life just as the bearers arrived at the mortuary.

“‘A workman of the suburbs, employed by a firm of carriers, fell ill, and in a few days died. This suddenness of the death caused doubts as to its reality, and after the usual delay he was taken to the mortuary connected with the cemetery. The body was left for a few days’ observation. As soon as they arrived a noise escaped from the coffin, and arrested the attention of the people present. At once they hastened towards the coffin, and tried to restore him, and in a short time he came to life. The same evening he was able to return to his home. On the following day he went himself to the authorities to annul the record of his supposed death.’” (P. 182.)

M. Gaubert continues:—“We have collected in Germany fourteen cases of apparent death followed by return to life in mortuaries, in spite of all that has been done for the prevention of such occurrences.” (P. 182.)

LILLE.

The Paris Figaro, March 31, 1894, on the authority of the ProgrÉs du Nord, April 2, 1894, reports that:—

“M. Vangiesen, aged eighty-one years, awakened from supposed death on the flagstones of the mortuary at the CharitÉ Hospital at Lille.”

The Undertakers’ Review, January 22, 1894, reports that Lena Fellows, aged twenty-two years, a servant in the employ of A. R. Knox, of Buffalo, fell dead, as was thought, while at work on December 8. The remains were taken to the morgue in a coffin, but next morning when morgue-keeper McShane began to lift the supposed corpse into the refrigerator he found that the woman was alive. It was a case of catalepsy.

The case of a child found apparently dead in Regents’ Park, London, and carried to the Marylebone Mortuary, where it subsequently revived, has already been noticed. The incident caused a good deal of comment, and suggested, doubtless, to the reflective reader that other cases of suspended animation might have a less fortunate issue.

It is quite impossible on the Continent for an enquirer, as the author knows from experience, to obtain reliable information with regard to what takes place within the walls of mortuaries, because of the numerous officials and others who are interested in covering up any errors of previous death-certification that may come to light in them. These comprise the health authorities, and the police in places where the latter regulate funerals, as well as the physicians, whose credit is at stake, and the nurses and undertakers. In many districts in Germany the original object of the mortuaries—the prevention of premature burial—advocated by Hufeland and others, has not been kept in view, but the edifices have rather been used for the convenience of the undertakers and their assistants, the bodies in many cases being removed before actual dissolution was established by evidence of putrefaction. This will need to be guarded against by more careful supervision.