The case of the London Burkers inspired some fantastically arch and acidic journalism in the posh papers of the day. Here is one of the best examples – an anonymous article entitled “The Philosophy of Burking, by a Modern Pythagorean” in Fraser’s Magazine, February 1832.

It begins with reflections on Edinburgh murderer William Burke (as in Burke and Hare) “one of the most ardent friends of science the world ever saw… Since the death of Mr Burke, there is a chasm in the annals of the science, which we have been unable to fill up. It cannot be doubted that the example of the friends [Burke and Hare] must have been followed to a considerable extent by others, who had, or fancied they had, the same desire to advance science; but whatever triumphs may have been achieved in this way can only be left to conjecture.

“Such, at least, was the state of things till the recent appearance before the public of Messrs Bishop and Williams. These gentlemen possessed many qualities in common with the founder of the system. It must be admitted, however, that they more nearly resembled Mr Burke than his great master, both in the character of their genius and in the state of their personal feelings. It is not to be inferred from this that they equalled even him, for in some points their inferiority is palpably manifest. . . The inferiority of the two London professors over their Irish prototypes is manifest in nothing more strongly than in the speedy detection of their plans – they only succeeding in sending three ‘shots’ to the dissecting room undiscovered; in attempting to pass the fourth, a poor Italian boy, named Carlo Ferrari, they were detected.

“Now, Messrs Hare and Burke were ascertained to have proof of superior discretion and skill. Indeed, the genius possessed by Messrs Bishop and Williams, though in many respects praiseworthy, was ill-directed, and by much too ambitious in proportion to its powers. In proof of this, they were not contented with treading faithfully in the footsteps of their masters, but must needs try to improve upon their process, this pretended improvement consisted in holding the victim of science by the heels into a well till he was disposed of. Nothing could be worse judged; and it strikes us that in so doing they were influenced by no small portion of self-conceit, as well as a vain wish to rival the renown of their masters.

“It is idle to imagine that change necessarily involves improvement, and more idle still is the hope to render more perfect that which is perfect in itself…the comparative weakness of Messrs Bishop and Williams was made manifest when brought into contrast with the peculiar energy of their great teachers. It is the more necessary to remark these circumstances, for an attempt has recently been made to elevate Mr Bishop to a height to which he is not at all entitled, and to strip its honours from the head of Mr Burke… What are we to think of the press when it made an effort to give Mr Bishop’s name to the system, and to baptise it ‘Bishoping’ instead of ‘Burking’? Yet the attempt has been made, and made, too, by publications with which on other points we have the pleasure of agreeing, and for whose talents and industry we have the highest respect…

“True, this change has been proposed, not from any apparent insensibility to the transcendent merits of Mr Burke or any overweening admiration of Mr Bishop’s merits, but appears to proceed from the fact of the bishops having been accessory to Burking the Reform Bill in the House of Lords.

“. . .But with every drawback, these two professors were creditable to the English name, and conferred no small honour on London. Like Mr Burke, they died in the cause of science, and went to the scaffold rejoicing that anatomy would in some slight degree be benefited by their own ‘shots’; while, at the same time, they experienced the regret of generous minds that they were prevented by the perverse cruelty of the law from carrying into effect their meditated plans for its improvement.

“As for May, who was accused along with them, and condemned, he was a poor creature, and quite unworthy of perishing with them in their glorious cause. He had no grasp of mind, and was destitute of that courage necessary for the system. Messrs Bishop and Williams, in fact, were ashamed of him; they saw that science would be disgraced by his execution, and shewed with success that he had not the honour to be associated with them in any of their enterprises. . . They alone had the honour of dying in the good cause.”