On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    contemplate without pain , the total and immediate extinction of the remains of those who were justly dear to them in life . A feeling of this kind has been supposed to have caused the preference of burial to the process of

    burning , and has likewise given rise to extravagant mean 3 for preserving human remains for a period of time long after the term at which any mefcriory of the individuals themselves , or any affection of their survivors , can be supposed to extend . Amongst such extravagances the use of coffins is not to

    be numbered ; they are temporary securities , certainly not of longer duration than is necessary for the protection of the bodies they contain from the ravages of the reptiles of th « earth , if any such ravages are to be apprehended . In later ages , and in populous cities , other more formidable invasions are to be

    apprehended ; more , I mean , committed by persons employed in furnishing subjects for dissection ; an employment which , whatever be its necessity , is certainl y conducted not without lamentable violations of natural feelings , and occasionally of public decency itself .

    It is particularly , I presume , with a view to prevent such spoliations of the dead , that the use of the coffins in question is pressed in the present application to the Court . The purpose of security against such spoliations is ,

    as I understand , proposed to be effected by some ingenious mechanical contrivance which prevents these iron coffins being opened when pnce effectually closed . I don't find that any objection is made to the contrivance itsell on the

    ground of inefficacy or any other . The objection is to the metal of which the coffin is composed , the metal of iron ; and I must say , that , knowing of no rule of law that prescribes coffins , and

    certainly none that prescribes coffins of wood exclusively , and knowing that modern and frequent usage admits coffins of lead , a metal of a much more indestructible nature than iron , I find

    a difficulty in pronouncing that the use of this latter metal is clearly and universally unlawful in the structure of coffins , and that coffins so composed are inadmissible upon any terms what- / ever . These coffins , being composed of thin lamina , occupy , I presume it is alleged , rather less space than those of wood itBelf ;—there is , then , no objec-

    Untitled Article

    tion on that ground ; and the objection that they may be magnified to aaay inconvenient size , seems to apply to coffins constructed of this substance no

    more than to those of any other . But the claim on the part of these coffins is , ( which is quarrelled with , though not distinctly avowed , ) that they shall be admitted on the same terms of

    pecuniary payment as the ordinary wood . This claim cannot , I think , be reasonably maintained but under the support of one or other of these propositions : either that there is no difference in the duration of the coffins of

    wood and coffins of iron , or that the difference of duration , be it what it may , ought to make no difference in the terms of admission . Upon the first of these points , the comparative duration , a wish was expressed by the Court , that it might be

    assisted by opinions obtained from persons more scientifically conversant in such subjects than I can describe myself to be ; but , being left to my own unassisted apprehensions on such a matter , I must confess that it was not without a violent revolt of every

    notion that I entertain , that I heard it rather , indeed , insinuated in argument than directly asserted or maintained , that iron coffins would not keep a longer possession of the ground than those of wood . To me it appears ,

    without any experimental knowledge that I can venture to cl ^ im , that , upon all common theory , it must be otherwise : rust is the process by which iiwi travels to its decomposition . If the iron coffin deposited in the ground contracts no rust at all from want of

    air or moisture , then it preserves its integrity unimpaired ; but , contra , if from the moisture of the soil in which it is deposited , or from the occasional access of a little air , it contracts rust , that rust , until it scales off , forms an external covering , which protects the interior parts , and retards their

    decomposition ; whereas the decay of the external parts of the wood , propagates inwardly its own corruption , and promotes and hastens the dissolution of

    the whole . It is the fault of the party complainant , if , being left by him to judge of this matter without sufficient information , I judge amiss in holding that coffin 8 of iron are much more , perhaps doubly more ., durable than those of wood *

    Untitled Article

    Sir W . Scote r s Judgment on the Patent Coffin Case . 699

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1820, page 699, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2495/page/11/