“The little band plied the battering ram,With General Blake at its head,When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong,And raised the siege—they fled,Brave Boys!”)Oncemore the trumpets sound to arms!Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms!Once more be Scotia’s host poured forthTo guard the bulwarks of the North—The foe is o’er the Tweed!Bring forth the banner Flodden saw,Rear high the standard of the war!Let every Gael in battle stand,To drive the invader from the land—Speed to the rescue, speed!What mean the rushing footsteps fleet?What mean the squadrons in the street?“Five hundred specials” now appearing—Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering,Wild and disorderly!Strange oaths pollute the evening air,Foul jests the banners proudly bear;What mean these bands in fierce array?Champions of “delicacy” they,And manly modesty.Then marked the bard who stood afarThe gallant leaders of the war—The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood,Who for his sons in battle stood,A Christison hard by!A Turner, Laycock, Lister too,All met for deeds of derring-do;Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shameShould fall on that time-honoured name!),Dun-Edin’s chivalry.To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh,“Five hundred specials” do or die!Admiring Europe’s eyes are castOn Scotia’s greatest fight, and last,O’er her Infirmary!Press on! press on! Immortal gods!What matter if o’erwhelming oddsMake others blush—theyknow no shame,“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of nameTo glorious victory!The foe at last! With modest mienAnd gentle glance, at length are seenThe seven women, whom to crushThe noble hundreds onward rush,Undaunted to the fray!What if in idle tales of yoreThe man to guard the woman swore!Such trash is bygone!—nowmen standTo guard theircraftfrom female hand,In nineteenth century!“Womento claimourlordly state!”Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.“Womento striveourgains to share!”Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,“While five fair sons have I!”“ThatEnglishgirls should thus aspire!”Quoth Christison in Scottish ire.“Though their princess to Scotland come,We’ll drive these errant damsels home,For hospitality!”“Great is Diana!” loudly cry,Be imprecations heard on high!Be mud upgathered from the street,And flung with ribald oaths, to greetThe dreadful enemy!Seven women yield, they must confessOn t’other side ismajor vis;Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice!Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice,Pæans of victory!Scotsman,Feb.10, 1871.NOTE M,p.103.The following letter is an excellent illustration of the indignation felt by the more manly students at the events referred to:—“Edinburgh, November 19, 1870.“Sir,—As a certain class of medical students are doing their utmost to make the name of medical student synonymous with all that is cowardly and degrading, it is imperative upon all those who wish to be regarded as men, either individually or collectively, to come forward and express, in the strongest possible terms, their detestation of the proceedings which have characterised and dishonoured the opposition to ladies pursuing the study of medicine in Edinburgh. In the name, then, of all that is courteous and manly, I, as a student of medicine, most indignantly protest against such scenes as were enacted at the College of Surgeons on the evenings of Thursday and Friday last, and indeed on several occasions during the week.“I would it were possible to point out to public execration the movers and actors in such scenes; but it is difficult to decide where the responsibility begins.“Are only the hot-headed youths to be blamed who hustle and hoot at ladies in the public streets, and by physical force close the College gates before them? Or are we to trace their outrageous conduct to the influence of the class room, where their respected professor meanly takes advantage of his position as their teacher to elicit their mirth and applause, to arouse their jealousy and opposition, by directing unmanly inuendoes at the lady students? If such conduct be permissible on the part of the professors, alas for the school whose teachers have not even but one halfpennyworth of manliness to their intolerable deal of nastiness, or boasted philanthropy, as the case may be, and whose students crowd the academic precincts to hustle, hoot at, cover with mud, and even to strike at, ladies who have always shown themselves to be gentle and noble women.“The current report is, that these disgraceful outrages were originally and principally carried out by students of the College of Surgeons. This is contrary to fact. Certainly the majority of them conducted themselves in a most contemptible manner, roused, not by a word or look from the ladies, but by the possibility of being outstripped by them in the race for honours; and therefore did they elect to end the rivalry by an appeal to brute force. The truth, however, is that the rioters were called together by a missive, circulated by the students in theChemistry Class of the Universityon Friday morning, on the back of which was written, “To be opened by those who signed the petition to the managers against the admission of female students.” This missive called upon the petitioners to assemble at the College of Surgeons before four o’clock, for the purposes which they so thoroughly carried out. The proceedings of Friday will therefore enable the public now to judge of the value which the majority of the managers of the Infirmary ought to have attached to the prayers ofsuchpetitioners. Moreover, the professor who is to receive the complimentary address which is being got up by the same memorialists for his exertions in their cause, must feel highly flattered by the implied association.“What now is to be done with this vexed question of female education? Will it be settled by continuing those brutal exhibitions, or by asking the ladies to withdraw? Neither course is likely to prove successful. Another and a more honourable course has been suggested by some of the original memorialists, who—considering their honour dearer to them than their sympathies—declare that the blot can only be wiped away by their joining to aid the ladies who have been so thwarted and so abused in obtaining the object for which they have wrought so hard and endured so bravely.—I am,&c.,Vir.”Scotsman, November 22, 1870.NOTE N,p.107.The following is the petition referred to:—“To the honourable the Managers of the Royal Infirmary.“My Lord and Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned Students of Medicine, moved solely by feelings of honour and justice, desire to approach your honourable board on behalf of our female fellow-students, whom, we understand, you object to admit to the practice of the Infirmary, under any circumstances whatever.“We do not pretend to offer any opinion on the question of mixed classes, or on the medical education of women; but we consider that, as the University of Edinburgh has admitted those ladies as students of medicine, and as they have now been engaged for some time in striving honourably and successfully to gain a knowledgeof our profession, it is great injustice to attempt to bar their further progress by refusing them permission to attend the practice of the Infirmary.“We also have certain pretensions to feelings of decency and morality, but we are not aware that the lady students have either attempted or succeeded in outraging them. On the contrary, our feelings have been outraged by the unthinking and misguided of those of our own class who oppose them; for their disgraceful actions we would seek to atone by asking your honourable Board to make some arrangement by which the ladies may be admitted to the practice of the wards.“As a matter of compromise, we would respectfully request that the ladies be admitted to the wards of the three medical gentlemen who are willing to receive them. On our part we beg leave to express our perfect willingness to attend with them in considering the most serious and delicate cases in the wards.“We feel proud to assert our ability to study those cases from scientific and philanthropic points of view, with those feelings of delicacy and kindness which ought to actuate every medical man who has female patients under his care.”NOTE O,p.109.The results of the winter session 1869–70 have been given in the text. During the succeeding summer session all the lady students (six in number) appeared in the prize lists in both classes which they attended, viz., Botany and Natural History. During the next winter, 1870–71, the classes taken were Anatomy and Surgery. Out of seven ladies, three were in honours in Anatomy (one of them in two departments), and four in Surgery. During the summer of 1871 there were five lady medical students in the Botany Class, and of these three appeared in the prize lists,—one of them in two departments. During the winter 1871–72, nine ladies attended Chemistry, and, of these, seven appeared in first-class honours, Miss Pechey, in this her second course, obtaining 100 per cent.; nine also attended Physiology, and, of these, two obtained first-class and three second-class honours; six being also in honours in Practical Physiology.It must be understood that, in the above statement, I have included only those ladies who were regular students of medicine; other ladies, on several occasions, joined the classes, and also appeared in the prize lists.NOTE P,p.110.“COMMITTEE FOR SECURING A COMPLETE MEDICAL EDUCATION TO WOMEN IN EDINBURGH.“In view of the determined opposition from certain quarters which has met every effort made by ladies to obtain a medical education in Edinburgh, it was resolved, in January 1871, that a Committee should be formed, comprising all those who felt the injustice of the present arbitrary exclusion of women from the medical profession, and who desired to co-operate in the following objects:—(1.) To arrive at a thorough understanding of the real difficulties of the case, distinguishing clearly between those hindrances which are interposed by prejudice or self-interest, and the real obstacles (if any) which are inherent in the question. (2.) To secure the admission of women to Edinburgh University on the ordinary terms, though not necessarily in the same classes with men. (3.) To provide the means of qualifying Hospital instruction in Edinburgh for all ladies who are registered students of medicine.“To these primary objects the circumstances of the case have subsequently led the Committee to add the following:—(4.) To make such temporary arrangements as may be required to provide the ladies with qualifying instruction, in accordance with the present incomplete regulations of the University, until such time as the authorities themselves may see fit to make complete and adequate arrangements. (5.) To co-operate, from time to time, with the lady students, whenever necessary, and especially to aid them in obtaining such legal assistance as may be required to ascertain and assert their rights as matriculated students of the University, and as registered students of medicine.“Of this Committee the Lord Provost of Edinburgh consented to act as chairman; and the following ladies and gentlemen constituted the original Executive Committee: The RightHon.The Lord Provost; Dr G. W. Balfour; Professor Bennett, M.D.; Dowager Countess of Buchan; Mrs Hill Burton; Professor Calderwood; Treasurer Colston; Andrew Coventry,Esq.; James Cowan,Esq.; Mrs Fleeming Jenkin; Mrs Henry Kingsley; Professor Lorimer; Professor Masson; Miss Agnes M‘Laren; David M‘Laren,Esq.; Dr Macnair; John Muir,Esq., D.C.L.; Mrs Nichol; Dr Niven; Alexander Nicholson,Esq.; Admiral Sir W. Ramsay, K.C.B.; Dr Heron Watson; Miss Eliza Wigham. W. S. Reid,Esq.,Hon.Treasurer; Miss L. Stevenson,Hon.Secretary.”NOTE Q,pp.110, 120.The case, drawn up by order of the Committee and submitted to Counsel, contained the facts relating to the Edinburgh lady students, which are narrated in the text, and further proceeded, as follows:—“ ... It is stated in ‘Maitland’s History of Edinburgh’ that the first mention of erecting a College in Edinburgh was found in the will of Robert Reid, Bishop of Orkney, who, dying in 1558, bequeathed eight thousand Scottish merks towards founding a College ‘for the education of youth.’“In the subsequent benefactions and charters granted by Queen Mary in 1566, and by King James in 1582, no stipulation is made as to the sex of the students for whose benefit the College was to be established; and in 1583 proclamation was made inviting ‘all who were inclined to become scholars therein’ to enter their names in a certain book opened for the purpose.“The older University of Glasgow was founded under a Bull granted by Pope NicholasV.at the suit of JamesII.of Scotland, and in this Bull it was expressly stated that the University of Bologna was to be followed as a model, and that the doctors, masters, and students of Glasgow were to enjoy all the privileges and rights possessed by those of Bologna. There is abundant historic evidence that women were never excluded from the University of Bologna, but frequently studied and took degrees there during the Middle Ages, and that no less than seven women at different times filled professorial chairs in this University, three of them being in the Medical Faculty, viz.:—“Dorotea Bucca, Professor of Medicine, early in the fifteenth century; Anna Morandi Mazzolini, Professor of Anatomy, 1750; Maria Della Donne, Professor of Midwifery, 1810.“It appears that the University of Edinburgh was founded generally on the same model, and the University Calendar states that ‘in 1621 an Act was passed by the Scotch Parliament which ratified to the University, in ample form, all the rights, immunities, and privileges enjoyed by other Universities in the kingdom.’“There does not appear, in any of the statutes or ordinances subsequently issued, any regulation that male students alone should attend the University; nor in the recent Act of 1858 is there any such regulation. As a matter of fact, no applications for admission to the University of Edinburgh seem to have been made by women until the year 1869, as above mentioned.“In the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1858, section 12, power was given to the University Court ‘to effect improvements in the internal arrangements of the University, after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, provided that all such proposed improvements shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’“By the same act (section 21), provision was made for ‘providing additional teaching by means of assistants to the Professors in any professorships already established or to be established,’ and several assistants were accordingly appointed by the Commissioners under the Act; and, subsequently, the Senatus appointed certain other assistants, and made them allowances out of the University revenues. None of these assistants have, however, hitherto delivered courses of lectures qualifying for graduation, though there does not appear to be any clause in the Act which forbids their doing so. The only course of instruction qualifying for medical graduation which is given entirely by an assistant is that of practical chemistry.“During the illness or absence of professors, temporary substitutes to lecture in their stead have frequently been appointed by the Senatus, with the sanction of the University Court.”The following Queries were not all asked in the first instance, but in part on a subsequent occasion (seep.120); as, however, they were allsubmitted on the same case, and concern the same subject, I give them here consecutively, arranged in the order in which the Opinions obtained thereon were presented to the Senatus or University Court:—“Query1.—In the permission given to women to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh (bearing date November 12, 1869), was it involved in clauses 1, 2, and 6, that they should be allowed to pass the ordinary professional examinations and to proceed to the degree of M.D. in the University, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the said regulations; and is it therefore incumbent on the Medical Faculty to admit them to the necessary examinations to the extent of the subjects in which they are already qualified to pass?“Opinion.—Reading the regulations referred to in connection with the resolutions of the Medical Faculty which were approved of by the Senatus, the University Court, and the General Council, we think that their import and meaning is that, subject to the restrictions laid down in the regulations, women shall be allowed not merely to qualify themselves for the ordinary professional examinations with a view to obtain a medical degree in the University, but also, when so qualified, to be admitted to these examinations. We are, therefore, of opinion that it is the duty of the Medical Faculty to admit them to examination accordingly.“Query2.—If this was not involved, is it in the power of the Senatus, either alone or in conjunction with the University Court, to accord the required permission to admit them to professional examination with a view to graduation?“Opinion.—Upon the ground of keeping faith with the women who have, in reliance upon the regulations and in compliance with the terms thereby prescribed, qualified themselves for professional examination with a view to graduation, we are of opinion that the Senatus is entitled to direct that they shall be admitted to examination; and we also think that, without any further direction or authority than the regulations necessarily imply, the Medical Faculty is entitled to admit them to examination.“Queries3 and 4.—Is it competent for the Senatus, either directly or in conjunction with the other University authorities, to appoint special lecturers to deliver qualifying courses of lectures to women who are matriculated and registered students of medicine, when such instruction cannot be obtained from the professors of the special subjects in question? Is it competent for the Senatus or other University authorities so far to relax the ordinary regulations with respect to extra-mural classes as to authorise women to attend outside the University those courses of lectures which are denied to them by the Professors within the walls, such courses being held to qualify for graduation beyond the number offour, as contemplated in the present regulations?“Opinion.—If the existing regulations with respect to graduation in medicine stand upon statutes passed by the University Commissioners, whose powers have now expired, it is competent for the University Court to alter them with the written consent of the Chancellor and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council. This is provided by section 19 of the Act of 1858. If they stand on the authority of the Court, or of any other power in the University itself, we should think that they may be altered by the University Court under section 12 of the Act, ‘after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor,’ but with the proviso that the proposed alteration ‘shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’ In one or other of these ways it appears to us that any provision which may be deemed necessary, or proper and reasonable, for enabling women to complete their medical studies, with a view to graduation, maybe made.”“Query5.—Whether the Senatus, University Court, University Council and Chancellor, had collectively the power of granting to women the permission to matriculate as students as they did in 1869, and whether the regulations issued officially (November 12, 1869) are valid as regards such matriculation?“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court, in virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the 12th section (2) of the Act 1858, have power, after communication with the Senatus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, and after the University Council have considered the subject, to grant permission to women (as they did in 1869) to matriculate as students, and the resolutions of the Court in that year are valid.“Query6.—Whether the medical Professors are exonerated from obligation to teach, in some way or other, all matriculated students, by the fact, that, in clause 3 of the regulations quoted above, it is merely stated that they ‘shall be permitted to have separate classes for women?’“Opinion.—The University Court having statutory powers to ‘effect’ improvements in the ‘internal arrangements of the University,’ and it being within their power, under this enactment, to allow women to be educated at the University,we are of opinion that this resolution must be carried out in good faith and obeyed by the Professors. The third resolution of the University Court of November 1869, which ‘permits’ the Professors to have separate classes for women, in no way derogates from the resolution of the Court that women ‘shall be admitted to the study of medicine.’“Query7.—In case such women as are matriculated students of medicine in the University are refused instruction by the individual medical Professors, what is their legal mode of redress, and against whom should it be directed?“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court can compel, by action, the medical Professors to obey the resolutions of November, 1869, by holding separate classes for the education of women. With respect to the title of the women, we think that those of them who have matriculated and passed the preliminary examinations have a title, and may enforce their rights by action. The proper form of action is, we think, a declarator against the Professors refusing to obey the resolution of the University Court, with petitory conclusions to the effect that they should be ordained to hold separate classes for the instruction of the pursuers, they receiving their due remuneration.“Query8.—Whether, in the first constitution or charter of the University, or in any of the subsequent statutes, there is anything which limits the benefits of the University to male students.“Opinion.—The Charter of Erection and Confirmation of the ‘College of Edinburgh’ by King JamesVI., dated 14th April, 1582, granted certain lands and revenues to the Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, with a license to employ those revenues, and such others as well-disposed persons might bestow on them, in the erecting of suitable buildings for the use of professors and ‘scholars’ of grammar, humanity, and languages, philosophy, theology, medicine, and laws, and other liberal sciences. The King, by this charter (as interpreted by decision of the Courts), delegated to, or conferred upon, the magistrates and Town Council the character of patron and founder of this new seminary of education. The powers of superintendence and control thus conferred upon the Magistrates and Council remained with them till the Act of 1858 was passed, by which the more important powers were transferred to the University Court. The Magistrates and Council never conferred upon the College any independent constitution, so as to enable the members of it to exercise any power of internal government. As founders, patrons, and delegates intrusted by the royal grant, the Magistrates and Council remained in the full right of management, regulation, and tutelage of their own institution.“An Act of Parliament was passed in 1621 (c. 79), which may be considered as the charter of erection of the University. It narrates the charter of 1582, and the licence thereby given to found a College and choose Professors, and sets forth the King’s zeal for the growth of learning, and his purpose to grant the College all immunities enjoyed by other colleges. The statute then confirms the erection of the College, and ratifies all the mortifications made to the town by the King or others towards its support. It bestows on the College the name of ‘King James’ College,’ and grants to the Magistrates ‘in favour of the said burgh of Edinburgh, patrons of the said College, and of the College, and of rectors, regents, bursars, andstudentswithin the same, all liberties, freedoms, immunities, and privileges pertaining to a free College, and that in as ample a form and large manner as any College has or bruickis within His Majesty’s realm.’“The statute concludes with ordaining a new charter to issue, if need be, for erecting the College, with all such privileges and immunities. No such charter was ever issued; but the statute itself may be held equivalent to a charter. It was a charter in favour of the Magistrates and Council as founders and patrons, and in no way prejudiced, but on the contrary confirmed their power of superintendence, control, and regulation of all matters concerning the internal government of the University.“We are of opinion that, in virtue of the powers they thus possessed, the Magistrates and Town Council could at any time, during their 266 years of University rule, have done what the University Court did in 1869—grant permission to women to be educated at the University.“On examining the records, we find that the superintendence of the patrons was active and constant. They made, at various times during the two centuries and a half while their jurisdiction lasted, sets of laws and regulations for the College, which embrace all things connected with the duties and rights of professors and students, the series and order of studies, the days and hours of lecture, the books to be read, the conduct of students in and out of College hours, the modes of trial and graduation, the attendance of the professors at their classes, attendance at church, dress to be worn by students, fees to be paid,&c.,&c.“All these regulations proceed on the footing that only male students attended the University; many of them were inapplicable to females, and we cannot find any trace of its being contemplated by the patrons that females might be students. And we do not find any evidence of a female having attended the University.“Therefore, while we are of opinion that the Magistrates and Council had the power to pass a regulation authorising the attendance of women at the University, and to compel the professors to teach them, yet as they never passed any such regulation, no women could have insisted upon admission to University education as a legal right prior to 1869.“The University Court, bysec.12 (2), are now vested with all the powers of internal management and regulation formerly possessed by the Magistrates and Council; they have done what the latter never did, although they lawfully might. They have, by their resolution of November 1869, given to women the right to demand, equally with male students, admission to the University.”NOTE R,p.111,“The extraordinary history of the vicissitudes endured by the lady students seems at last to have reached its most extraordinary phase. It appears, as stated in our columns of yesterday, that on Saturday last the Medical Faculty of the University of Edinburgh—a body which, collectively, forms one of the law-makers of the College—passed a vote by a majority whereby they instructed their Dean deliberately to break a law of the University, or rather expressly ‘interdicted’ him from complying with it. What makes the matter the more remarkable is that this special law was in the first instance inaugurated by themselves, and subsequently approved by the Senatus and other authorities, and incorporated in the official regulations published in the ‘Calendar.’ ... It would seem clear enough that a decision which had been deliberately confirmed by each university authority successively, and which had thus become law, could not be disturbed by any one except after an equally formal process of revocation. It is, however, well known that, though all the bodies enumerated passed the above regulations by a majority, there was in most cases a dissatisfied minority, who wished that all privileges should be withheld from the lady students. It would have surprised no one to hear that a formal attempt had been made to obtain the withdrawal of the privileges conferred; but the public were probably sufficiently astonished to learn yesterday that, though no such open and honourable attempt had been made, a secretcoup d’étatwas planned, by which it was apparently hoped, at the very last moment, when no appeal to the Senatus, or other authorities was possible, to crush the hopes of the medical ladies, at least for the present year. At the Faculty meeting to which we have referred, a vote was actually passed to ‘interdict’ the Dean, whose friendliness to the ladies was well known, from giving to any women who were about to join the medical class the papers necessary to enable them to pass the preliminary examination in Arts, which is indispensable before registration—this examination having been not only previously allowed, but actually passed by numerous ladies on no less than four occasions! At this same notable meeting, a vote was also passed that the Medical Faculty should disregard alike their own previous resolutions, the official regulations of the ‘Calendar,’ and the tickets of admission already paid for and obtained by those other ladies who are now ready to proceed to their first professional examination; and, accordingly, a letter was sent to each of these three ladies, informing them that their tickets had been granted ‘in error,’ and that they could not be examined ‘without the sanction of the Senatus Academicus,’ as if that sanction had not been already given in the most emphatic manner!“The story is not a pleasant one. That a minority, obliged to acquiesce in an act of liberality on the part of the majority, should, when unable to prevail by fair means, endeavour to compass their end by a side-wind and in an underhand manner, is sufficiently discreditable; but that, rather than relinquish their own dogged resolution to obstruct the ladies, these Professors should deliberately abstain from all previous warning of the means they intended to employ—should allow many months of severe study to be passed with a definite aim and hope, and should then silently dig a pitfall at the very threshold of the door through which the ladies must pass, and hope, by an arbitrary exercise of authority against a few wholly unprepared women, completely to destroy their prospects, for the present year at least—is something almost too monstrous to be believed, did the circumstances admit of any doubt in the matter. Whether these medical gentlemen really supposed that, by their unsupported fiat, they could set aside all the existing regulations of the University, or whether they trusted to the ladies’ want of knowledge in legal matters not to challenge their authority, it is of course impossible to say, but one would rather believe in the ignorance of law implied by the former alternative, than in the lamentable want of honourable feeling that would be conveyed in the latter. Be this as it may, it is not easy to exaggerate the damaging effect that a story of this kind is likely to have on the minds of the public. That such a line of conductcouldbe planned and carried out by a body of men claiming the name of gentlemen, and belonging to a profession that calls itself ‘liberal’ and ‘learned,’ is perhaps as striking a proof as could be given of the fatally blinding influence of professional prejudice and unreasoning trades-unionism.”Scotsman,Oct.20, 1872.“We confess that the conduct of the medical faculty amazes us. Can they suppose that such obstructions are calculated to stop the movement? Why should they not show a little practical sense, and choose their fighting-ground with reasonable judgment? A single Professor, whose classes must be attended according to present regulations, might have hoped successfully to resist the demand that he should teach mixed classes. There are many people who do not look with particular complacency upon the efforts of a few ladies to obtain a place in the medical profession; but paltry persecutions like these, and little dodges sprung upon them suddenly, will assuredly turn the popular tide in their favour. The medical profession seem to think that they have only got to get behind these too devoted students, and shout ‘bo!’ loud enough to frighten them out of their five wits. They might surely have known Miss Jex-Blake better by this time. Are the Edinburgh Medical Faculty really afraid of the competition of the ladies? Do they look upon them as ‘knobsticks,’ against whom the doors must be closed in spite of law, reason, and liberty? They are welcome to their fears—narrow as they are—and to their opinions on the question of lady doctors; but we trust that the University of Edinburgh will see that its regulations are maintained. Having given permission to females to study medicine under conditions which are strict enough, and even somewhat hard, the University must prevent any combination of Professors from taking the matter into their own hands, and debarring the ladies from the privileges for which they have so gallantly fought. In the meantime, we congratulate the five ladies on the prompt spirit in which they have repelled the insidious attempt of a majority of the medical faculty—we believe only a very small majority—to cut their studies short. We need not urge them to persevere, for they seem to have that ‘faculty’ in predominance, but we think we can assure them that every victory that they gain, and every defeat that they suffer, adds to the number of their sympathisers, and breaks down no inconsiderable portion of the mountain of prejudice that they had to face when they commenced their career as students. If the Medical Professors want to defeat them, they must get better advisers, and not court humiliation. Their present counsellor is like Adversity, ugly and venomous in appearance only. Without the ‘precious jewel,’ the treasure of ill-judged and unreasonable persecutions, which he carries in his head, the little forlorn hope of courageous ladies, whose ranks are thinned from time to time by marriage and other maladies, would hardly be so likely to plant their triumphant flag on the top of the Castle rock at last.”Glasgow Herald, October 20, 1871.NOTE S,p.119.The following verses are no bad indication of the popular feeling respecting the incidents narrated above, and this is rendered the more characteristic by the national form in which it finds expression:—THE BARRIN’ O’ OOR DOOR.(A New Version o’ an Auld Sang,)Dedicated without special permission to Sir Robert Christison, Bart., and intended to be sung at the next convivial meeting of the “Infirmary Ring.”By Gamaliel Gowkgrandiose, M.D.It fell aboot the New-Year time,And a gay time it was then, oh!That the lady students in oor auld toonHad a fecht wi’ us medical men oh!Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel,The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.When first they cam’ tae learn oor craftWe laughed at them in oor sleeve oh!That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark,What medical man could believe oh!Chorus—For the barrin’,&c.So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae usFor lecture or for Exam. oh!We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bareAs was ever a sheep or a lamb oh!Chorus—A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we found they meant to useThe knowledge for which they had paid oh!And on the trade o’ us medical menMicht mak’ a furious raid oh!Chorus—We began the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs;It gied Sir Robert and Andrew WoodVexation and bother eneuch, sirs.Chorus—Did the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Oor students got up a bonny bit mobTo gie the ladies a fright, sirs;Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark,Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs.Chorus—And help the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.We frightened the douce Infirmary folksW’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs;They werena just true—but what o’ that?We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Scandals we spread owre a’ the toonAgainst the ladies’ guid fame, sirs;We drove them frae the Infirmary gate,Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doonWi’ true feminine perversity—They roused the folk owre a’ oor town’Gainst oor clique in the University.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.A year gaed by, and then they triedAgain tae force their way, sirs,Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oorsUntil oor dying day, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip,And Turner put on the screw, sirs;Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day,For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs.Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote,And Turner he tore his hair, sirs;He forgot there wasna muckle to tear,Sae deep was his despair, sirs,Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Andrew Wood fell into the airmsO’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs;“Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo,For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.”Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine,And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs,As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaffO’ the class he had that day missed, sirs.Chorus—And the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Lister wept owre his petulant speech,When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs,If women entered the hospital wards—Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we cam to oor senses a’,We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs,Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firmsThat supported the ladies’ men, sir.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The firms may leave us—we carena a straw—The Infirmary may sink, sirs,If we may but keep females aff oor preserve,We carena what folk think, sirs.Chorus—O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The Infirmary meeting against us gaed,But the Court o’ Session befriends us;Oot o’ the hospital managing boardNeither women nor traders shall send us!Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Confusion, then, let each man drinkTo the ladies and their supporters, sirs;For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’,Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs!Chorus—Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel!The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!Scotsman,Feb.13, 1872.NOTE T,p.125.This correspondence is so remarkable that I subjoin it entire.(1)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, November 21, 1871.“Gentlemen,—It is now two years since you passed a series of resolutions, dated 12th November 1869, to the effect that ‘women shall be admitted to the study of medicine in the University.’“In the time that has since elapsed, I and those ladies who matriculated with me at that date, have completed one-half of the studies necessary for graduation in the University of Edinburgh. Nearly five months ago, I ventured to point out to the Senatus Academicus that, unless further arrangements were made, it would be impossible for us to complete the studies which we have begun with your express sanction. After pointing out the existing difficulties, I ventured further to make two suggestions, either of which, if adopted, might enable us to complete our education in the University. In reply, however, I was informed that the Senatus, ‘having taken the opinion of counsel with reference to the proposals contained in the memorial of date 26th June 1871, find themselves unable to comply with either of those proposals.’“I understand, however, that since the date referred to, another legal opinion has been obtained from the Lord Advocate and Sheriff Fraser, and has been laid before the Senatus, and by them forwarded to your honourable Court. As, however, the Senatus still appear unwilling to initiate any measure by which we may be relieved from our present difficulties, I feel constrained now to appeal to you, in my own name and that of my fellow-students, to take such action as shall enable us to complete our studies.“I beg to represent to you that we have all paid matriculation fees for the present year, and are by our tickets declared to be ‘Cives Academiæ Edinensis,’ and that yet we, who commenced our studies in 1869, are unable during the present session to obtain any further classes whatever towards completing our required course of study.“We understand from those friends who have taken legal opinion on the subject—and doubtless such opinion will be laid before you simultaneously with this letter—that we are entitled to demand from the University the means of completing our studies, and that, failing any other alternative measures, we can claim the instruction of the Medical Professors to the extent needed to complete our curriculum.“We beg, therefore, most respectfully to request that, unless any other mode of supplying our needs seems preferable to you, you will vouchsafe to ordain that the Professors, whose courses we are bound by the University regulations to attend, shall give us the requisite instruction.—I beg to subscribe myself, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(2.)Minute of University Court of January 8, 1872.“The University Court have had under consideration the letters of Miss Jex-Blake and Miss Louisa Stevenson, of 21st November, 1871, and other relative documents laid before them on behalf of the women who have been admitted by the regulations of the Court of November 10th, 1869, to study medicine in the University.“In these papers it is stated that certain Professors of the Faculty of Medicine have declined to give separate classes of instruction to women; and the Court are asked either (1) to extend, in the case of female medical students, the privilege granted by ordinance by the Universities’ Commissioners, to lecturers, not being Professors in a university, of qualifying for graduation by their lectures, which privilege is now restricted to four of the prescribed subjects of study; or (2) To authorise the appointment of special lecturers to give, in the University, qualifying courses of instruction in place of those Professors who decline to do so; or (3.) To ordain that the Professors referred to shall themselves give the necessary courses of instruction to women.“The second course suggested it is not in the power of the Court, or other University authorities, singly or jointly to adopt.“The third course is equally beyond the power of the Court. The Act of 1858 vests in the Court plenary powers to deal with any Professor who shall fail to discharge his duties, but no Professor can be compelled to give courses of instruction other than those which, by the use and wont of the University, it has been the duty of the holders of his chair to deliver.“The first of the proposed measures would imply an alteration in one of the ordinances for graduation in medicine (No.8, clausevi., 4). Such alteration could be made by the University Court only with the consent, expressed in writing, of the Chancellor, and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council.“But to alter, in favour of female students, rules laid down for the regulation of graduation in medicine would imply an assumption on the part of the Court, that the University of Edinburgh has the power of granting degrees to women. It seems to the Court impossible to them to assume the existence of a power that is questioned in many quarters, and which is both affirmed and denied by eminent counsel. So long as these doubts remain, it would, in the opinion of the Court, be premature to consider the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which may be held not to apply to women.“Though the Court are unable to comply with any of the specific requests referred to, they are at the same time desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women,—provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.“The Court are of opinion that the question under reference has been complicated by the introduction of the subject of graduation, which is not essential to the completion of a medical or other education. The University of London, which has a special charter for the examination of women, does not confer degrees upon women, but only grants them ‘certificates of proficiency.’ If the applicants in the present case would be content to seek the examination of women by the University for certificates of proficiency in medicine, instead of University degrees, the Court believe that arrangements for accomplishing this object would fall within the scope of the powers given to them by section 12 of the Universities’ (Scotland) Act. The Court would be willing to consider any such arrangements which might be submitted to them.”(3.)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, January 18, 1872.“Gentlemen,—I have received from your Secretary a copy of your minute of the 8th instant, and I beg you to allow me most respectfully, but at the same time most emphatically, to protest against the decision therein contained, on the following grounds:—“1. That when women were admitted to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh, and were required to pay the ordinary matriculation fees asCives Academiæ Edinensis, in addition to those for instruction, it was believed to be involved that, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the regulations of November 12, 1869, we should be allowed to complete our education, and should, as a matter of course, proceed to the degree of M.D., no official intimation to the contrary being given to us at the time, nor indeed until now, when we have half completed our University curriculum. You will allow me to remind you further, that we have very high legal authority for believing that these expectations were well founded, and that matriculation does involve necessarily all the privileges of studentship, including graduation, as was indeed recently admitted by a legal Professor, who has always been one of our most determined opponents, when addressing your honourable Court in favour of rescinding the present regulations.“2. That, except with a view to ultimate graduation, it was quite meaningless to require us to pass, as we did, the preliminary examination in Arts, which has not any necessary connection with the study of medicine itself, but is expressly stated to be ‘the first examinationfor the medical degree.’“3. That we have all along pursued our studies with a view to the further professional examinations; that, in the resolutions passed by the Medical Faculty on July 1, 1869, it was distinctly stated that ‘ladies be allowed to attend medical classes and to receive certificates of attendance qualifying for examination;’ that, further, on April 9, 1870, the Senatus Academicus expressly ordained that exactly the same University certificates of attendance should be issued to students of both sexes, for the special purpose of qualifying for professional examination.“4. That no kind of official notice was ever given to us that a doubt existed respecting our admission to the ordinary professional examinations, until certain of our number had completed their preparations for the first professional examination, and had paid their fees for, and received tickets of admission to, the same; and that, when the matter was brought before the Senatus, it was by them decided that ladies should be admitted to the examination, and accordingly the ladies in question were examined in the ordinary course and passed the examination successfully.“5. That under the existing Act of Parliament it is impossible for any person to practise medicine under legal sanction, without a distinct ‘qualification’ as defined by the said Act of Parliament.“6. That the only ‘qualification’ which it is in the power of the University of Edinburgh to grant, is the ordinary medical degree, and that no ‘certificates of proficiency’ would possess the slightest legal value unless a special Act of Parliament was passed making such certificates registrable qualifications.“7. That the difficulty and expense of procuring such a special Act of Parliament would be very much greater than that of obtaining the sanction of the Queen in Council to such minor alterations in the University Ordinances as are alone necessary to enable us to complete our education by means of additional extra-mural classes; even if your honourable Court declines to make the necessary arrangementswithinthe University.“8. That we are informed on high authority that it is at present within the power of your honourable Court, in conjunction with the Senatus, to make the necessary arrangements within the University, without any external sanction; either by ordaining that the present Professors shall instruct women in separate classes, or by appointing special lecturers for that purpose. As regards the former course, I venture to remark that several Professors in the Faculty of Arts are already delivering two or more lectures daily, and that, as I presume it was always contemplated that each Professor should instruct all matriculated students desiring to study his subject, it is quite conceivable that it might become necessary from the number of students, or otherwise, for the medical Professors also to be required to deliver two courses; and that, therefore, it could hardly be considered a hardship if they should be required to deliver a second course, with proper remuneration for the same, to those matriculated students who are forbidden by the University to attend in the ordinary classes. As regards the second alternative, I believe that it has never been doubted that the Senatus and University Court, conjointly, have the power of appointing any number of assistants or special lecturers in any faculty, if they are required for the efficient performance of the teaching of the University.“9. That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date, and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements,so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.“10. That we are informed by high legal authorities that we are entitled, as matriculated students, to demand from the University complete arrangements for our instruction, and that we are further entitled to bring an action of declarator to obtain the same from the several Professors if no alternative measures are devised, and that we shall inevitably be driven to pursue this course, with whatever reluctance, if your honourable Court persistently refuses to make, in any form whatever, such arrangements as may enable us to complete our education, and to obtain a legal qualification to practise.“Earnestly commending the above considerations to your most favourable notice, I have the honour,&c.,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(4.)From the Secretary of the University Court.“University of Edinburgh, 5th February 1872.“Madam,—I am desired by the University Court to inform you that your letter, dated the 18th ultimo, has been laid before them and considered.“In reply, I am to say that in several points of your view of the past history and present position of the question relative to the medical education of women in Edinburgh the Court are unable to concur.“Without going into the discussions which might be raised on these points, it appears to the Court that it is only necessary for them to enter upon the subject of your ninth paragraph, in which you say:—“‘That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date; and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements, so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.’“On this I am desired to inform you that you appear to ask no more than was offered by the Court in their resolution of the 8th ultimo, in which it was stated that while the Court were restrained by legal doubts as to the power of the University to grant degrees to women, from considering ‘the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which might be held not to apply to women,’ they were, ‘at the same time, desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women: provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.’“On the assumption, therefore, that while you at present decline the offer made by the Court with reference to certificates of proficiency, you now ask merely that arrangements should be made for completing the medical education of yourself and the other ladies on behalf of whom you write, I am to state that the Court are quite ready to meet your views. If, therefore, the names of extra-academical teachers of the required medical subjects be submitted by yourself, or by the Senatus, the Court will be prepared to consider the respective fitness of the persons so named to be authorised to hold medical classes for women who have in this or former sessions been matriculated students of the University, and also the conditions and regulations under which such classes should be held.“It is, however, to be distinctly understood that such arrangements are not to be founded on as implying any right in women to obtain medical degrees, or as conferring any such right upon the students referred to.“I have,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.”(5.)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, February 9, 1872.“Gentlemen,—I beg to thank you sincerely for the resolution to which you came on Monday the 5thinst., and which, if I understand it rightly, will, I trust, prove a satisfactory solution of our present difficulties.“We will, if you wish it, very gladly prepare and submit to your honourable Court a list of extra-academical lecturers and of gentlemen prepared to qualify as such, who may, with your sanction, instruct us in the various subjects which we have to study; but before doing so, I venture to beg for official confirmation of my interpretation of your late resolution in two essential particulars.“I trust that I am correct in understanding—“1. That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be accepted if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.“2. That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.“You will, I am sure, understand that, while we are quite willing to accept present arrangements for instruction without any pledge that they will confer a right to graduation, it would be useless for us to attend any classes which would be incapable of qualifying for graduation, and impossible for us to acquiesce in any agreement which might prejudice the claim which we believe ourselves to possess to the ultimate attainment of the medical degree.I am,&c.,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(6.)From the Secretary of the University Court.“University of Edinburgh, 24th February 1872.“Madam,—Your letter dated 9th instant has been considered by the University Court. In it you say:—“‘I trust that I am correct in understanding—-“‘I.That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be so accepted, if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.“‘II.That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.’“In reply, I am desired to point out that no extra-mural courses, beyond the number of four allowed by the Ordinance of the Universities Commissioners, could either qualify for graduation, or for the ordinary professional examinations, except under a change in the ordinance; which change could be made only by a resolution of the Court sanctioned by the Chancellor, and approved by the Queen in Council.“The Court have already declared, in their resolution of the 8th of January last, that they cannot even enter on the consideration of the expediency of such a change in the ordinance until the legality of female graduation has been determined.“It would not only be premature for the Court to express at present any views or intentions on the points to which you refer, but it would be clearly contrary to their duty to do so. For, supposing the legal question to be decided in a way favourable to your wishes, those points would then doubtless be referred to the Court for their decision, when various parties would probably desire to be heard with regard to them.“I am to add that in your letter of the 18th January, you appeared merely to ask that the Court ‘will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education,’ and that the Court offered, as stated in my letter of the 5thinst., to meet your views in the only way which appeared to lie within their competency. The Court are still of opinion that it is quite impossible for them at present to add anything to that offer.”I have the honour,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.NOTE U,p.133.I am anxious to guard myself from being supposed to attribute to Scotch nationality the exceptionally bad conduct of certain students in Edinburgh, during 1870–71. I cannot but hope that such behaviour as I have described would have been impossible in any English Medical School, but, in so saying, I do not by any means wish to imply that Scotch students have less good feeling than others, when their superiors set them an example of courtesy. In point of fact, moreover, some of those who took most pains to make themselves obnoxious were not Scotchmen at all, but Englishmen of an extremely low class. Some Scotch lads no doubt behaved very badly, but, on the other hand, the guard of honour (see page 104) was almost wholly composed of Scotch and Irish students, who showed the utmost indignation at the conduct of the rioters.
“The little band plied the battering ram,With General Blake at its head,When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong,And raised the siege—they fled,Brave Boys!”)Oncemore the trumpets sound to arms!Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms!Once more be Scotia’s host poured forthTo guard the bulwarks of the North—The foe is o’er the Tweed!Bring forth the banner Flodden saw,Rear high the standard of the war!Let every Gael in battle stand,To drive the invader from the land—Speed to the rescue, speed!What mean the rushing footsteps fleet?What mean the squadrons in the street?“Five hundred specials” now appearing—Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering,Wild and disorderly!Strange oaths pollute the evening air,Foul jests the banners proudly bear;What mean these bands in fierce array?Champions of “delicacy” they,And manly modesty.Then marked the bard who stood afarThe gallant leaders of the war—The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood,Who for his sons in battle stood,A Christison hard by!A Turner, Laycock, Lister too,All met for deeds of derring-do;Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shameShould fall on that time-honoured name!),Dun-Edin’s chivalry.To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh,“Five hundred specials” do or die!Admiring Europe’s eyes are castOn Scotia’s greatest fight, and last,O’er her Infirmary!Press on! press on! Immortal gods!What matter if o’erwhelming oddsMake others blush—theyknow no shame,“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of nameTo glorious victory!The foe at last! With modest mienAnd gentle glance, at length are seenThe seven women, whom to crushThe noble hundreds onward rush,Undaunted to the fray!What if in idle tales of yoreThe man to guard the woman swore!Such trash is bygone!—nowmen standTo guard theircraftfrom female hand,In nineteenth century!“Womento claimourlordly state!”Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.“Womento striveourgains to share!”Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,“While five fair sons have I!”“ThatEnglishgirls should thus aspire!”Quoth Christison in Scottish ire.“Though their princess to Scotland come,We’ll drive these errant damsels home,For hospitality!”“Great is Diana!” loudly cry,Be imprecations heard on high!Be mud upgathered from the street,And flung with ribald oaths, to greetThe dreadful enemy!Seven women yield, they must confessOn t’other side ismajor vis;Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice!Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice,Pæans of victory!Scotsman,Feb.10, 1871.
“The little band plied the battering ram,With General Blake at its head,When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong,And raised the siege—they fled,Brave Boys!”)Oncemore the trumpets sound to arms!Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms!Once more be Scotia’s host poured forthTo guard the bulwarks of the North—The foe is o’er the Tweed!Bring forth the banner Flodden saw,Rear high the standard of the war!Let every Gael in battle stand,To drive the invader from the land—Speed to the rescue, speed!What mean the rushing footsteps fleet?What mean the squadrons in the street?“Five hundred specials” now appearing—Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering,Wild and disorderly!Strange oaths pollute the evening air,Foul jests the banners proudly bear;What mean these bands in fierce array?Champions of “delicacy” they,And manly modesty.Then marked the bard who stood afarThe gallant leaders of the war—The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood,Who for his sons in battle stood,A Christison hard by!A Turner, Laycock, Lister too,All met for deeds of derring-do;Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shameShould fall on that time-honoured name!),Dun-Edin’s chivalry.To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh,“Five hundred specials” do or die!Admiring Europe’s eyes are castOn Scotia’s greatest fight, and last,O’er her Infirmary!Press on! press on! Immortal gods!What matter if o’erwhelming oddsMake others blush—theyknow no shame,“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of nameTo glorious victory!The foe at last! With modest mienAnd gentle glance, at length are seenThe seven women, whom to crushThe noble hundreds onward rush,Undaunted to the fray!What if in idle tales of yoreThe man to guard the woman swore!Such trash is bygone!—nowmen standTo guard theircraftfrom female hand,In nineteenth century!“Womento claimourlordly state!”Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.“Womento striveourgains to share!”Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,“While five fair sons have I!”“ThatEnglishgirls should thus aspire!”Quoth Christison in Scottish ire.“Though their princess to Scotland come,We’ll drive these errant damsels home,For hospitality!”“Great is Diana!” loudly cry,Be imprecations heard on high!Be mud upgathered from the street,And flung with ribald oaths, to greetThe dreadful enemy!Seven women yield, they must confessOn t’other side ismajor vis;Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice!Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice,Pæans of victory!Scotsman,Feb.10, 1871.
“The little band plied the battering ram,With General Blake at its head,When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong,And raised the siege—they fled,Brave Boys!”)
“The little band plied the battering ram,
With General Blake at its head,
When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong,
And raised the siege—they fled,
Brave Boys!”)
Oncemore the trumpets sound to arms!Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms!Once more be Scotia’s host poured forthTo guard the bulwarks of the North—The foe is o’er the Tweed!Bring forth the banner Flodden saw,Rear high the standard of the war!Let every Gael in battle stand,To drive the invader from the land—Speed to the rescue, speed!
Oncemore the trumpets sound to arms!
Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms!
Once more be Scotia’s host poured forth
To guard the bulwarks of the North—
The foe is o’er the Tweed!
Bring forth the banner Flodden saw,
Rear high the standard of the war!
Let every Gael in battle stand,
To drive the invader from the land—
Speed to the rescue, speed!
What mean the rushing footsteps fleet?What mean the squadrons in the street?“Five hundred specials” now appearing—Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering,Wild and disorderly!Strange oaths pollute the evening air,Foul jests the banners proudly bear;What mean these bands in fierce array?Champions of “delicacy” they,And manly modesty.
What mean the rushing footsteps fleet?
What mean the squadrons in the street?
“Five hundred specials” now appearing—
Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering,
Wild and disorderly!
Strange oaths pollute the evening air,
Foul jests the banners proudly bear;
What mean these bands in fierce array?
Champions of “delicacy” they,
And manly modesty.
Then marked the bard who stood afarThe gallant leaders of the war—The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood,Who for his sons in battle stood,A Christison hard by!A Turner, Laycock, Lister too,All met for deeds of derring-do;Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shameShould fall on that time-honoured name!),Dun-Edin’s chivalry.
Then marked the bard who stood afar
The gallant leaders of the war—
The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood,
Who for his sons in battle stood,
A Christison hard by!
A Turner, Laycock, Lister too,
All met for deeds of derring-do;
Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shame
Should fall on that time-honoured name!),
Dun-Edin’s chivalry.
To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh,“Five hundred specials” do or die!Admiring Europe’s eyes are castOn Scotia’s greatest fight, and last,O’er her Infirmary!Press on! press on! Immortal gods!What matter if o’erwhelming oddsMake others blush—theyknow no shame,“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of nameTo glorious victory!
To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh,
“Five hundred specials” do or die!
Admiring Europe’s eyes are cast
On Scotia’s greatest fight, and last,
O’er her Infirmary!
Press on! press on! Immortal gods!
What matter if o’erwhelming odds
Make others blush—theyknow no shame,
“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of name
To glorious victory!
The foe at last! With modest mienAnd gentle glance, at length are seenThe seven women, whom to crushThe noble hundreds onward rush,Undaunted to the fray!What if in idle tales of yoreThe man to guard the woman swore!Such trash is bygone!—nowmen standTo guard theircraftfrom female hand,In nineteenth century!
The foe at last! With modest mien
And gentle glance, at length are seen
The seven women, whom to crush
The noble hundreds onward rush,
Undaunted to the fray!
What if in idle tales of yore
The man to guard the woman swore!
Such trash is bygone!—nowmen stand
To guard theircraftfrom female hand,
In nineteenth century!
“Womento claimourlordly state!”Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.“Womento striveourgains to share!”Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,“While five fair sons have I!”“ThatEnglishgirls should thus aspire!”Quoth Christison in Scottish ire.“Though their princess to Scotland come,We’ll drive these errant damsels home,For hospitality!”
“Womento claimourlordly state!”
Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.
“Womento striveourgains to share!”
Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,
“While five fair sons have I!”
“ThatEnglishgirls should thus aspire!”
Quoth Christison in Scottish ire.
“Though their princess to Scotland come,
We’ll drive these errant damsels home,
For hospitality!”
“Great is Diana!” loudly cry,Be imprecations heard on high!Be mud upgathered from the street,And flung with ribald oaths, to greetThe dreadful enemy!Seven women yield, they must confessOn t’other side ismajor vis;Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice!Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice,Pæans of victory!Scotsman,Feb.10, 1871.
“Great is Diana!” loudly cry,
Be imprecations heard on high!
Be mud upgathered from the street,
And flung with ribald oaths, to greet
The dreadful enemy!
Seven women yield, they must confess
On t’other side ismajor vis;
Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice!
Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice,
Pæans of victory!
Scotsman,Feb.10, 1871.
The following letter is an excellent illustration of the indignation felt by the more manly students at the events referred to:—
“Edinburgh, November 19, 1870.“Sir,—As a certain class of medical students are doing their utmost to make the name of medical student synonymous with all that is cowardly and degrading, it is imperative upon all those who wish to be regarded as men, either individually or collectively, to come forward and express, in the strongest possible terms, their detestation of the proceedings which have characterised and dishonoured the opposition to ladies pursuing the study of medicine in Edinburgh. In the name, then, of all that is courteous and manly, I, as a student of medicine, most indignantly protest against such scenes as were enacted at the College of Surgeons on the evenings of Thursday and Friday last, and indeed on several occasions during the week.“I would it were possible to point out to public execration the movers and actors in such scenes; but it is difficult to decide where the responsibility begins.“Are only the hot-headed youths to be blamed who hustle and hoot at ladies in the public streets, and by physical force close the College gates before them? Or are we to trace their outrageous conduct to the influence of the class room, where their respected professor meanly takes advantage of his position as their teacher to elicit their mirth and applause, to arouse their jealousy and opposition, by directing unmanly inuendoes at the lady students? If such conduct be permissible on the part of the professors, alas for the school whose teachers have not even but one halfpennyworth of manliness to their intolerable deal of nastiness, or boasted philanthropy, as the case may be, and whose students crowd the academic precincts to hustle, hoot at, cover with mud, and even to strike at, ladies who have always shown themselves to be gentle and noble women.“The current report is, that these disgraceful outrages were originally and principally carried out by students of the College of Surgeons. This is contrary to fact. Certainly the majority of them conducted themselves in a most contemptible manner, roused, not by a word or look from the ladies, but by the possibility of being outstripped by them in the race for honours; and therefore did they elect to end the rivalry by an appeal to brute force. The truth, however, is that the rioters were called together by a missive, circulated by the students in theChemistry Class of the Universityon Friday morning, on the back of which was written, “To be opened by those who signed the petition to the managers against the admission of female students.” This missive called upon the petitioners to assemble at the College of Surgeons before four o’clock, for the purposes which they so thoroughly carried out. The proceedings of Friday will therefore enable the public now to judge of the value which the majority of the managers of the Infirmary ought to have attached to the prayers ofsuchpetitioners. Moreover, the professor who is to receive the complimentary address which is being got up by the same memorialists for his exertions in their cause, must feel highly flattered by the implied association.“What now is to be done with this vexed question of female education? Will it be settled by continuing those brutal exhibitions, or by asking the ladies to withdraw? Neither course is likely to prove successful. Another and a more honourable course has been suggested by some of the original memorialists, who—considering their honour dearer to them than their sympathies—declare that the blot can only be wiped away by their joining to aid the ladies who have been so thwarted and so abused in obtaining the object for which they have wrought so hard and endured so bravely.—I am,&c.,Vir.”Scotsman, November 22, 1870.
“Edinburgh, November 19, 1870.
“Sir,—As a certain class of medical students are doing their utmost to make the name of medical student synonymous with all that is cowardly and degrading, it is imperative upon all those who wish to be regarded as men, either individually or collectively, to come forward and express, in the strongest possible terms, their detestation of the proceedings which have characterised and dishonoured the opposition to ladies pursuing the study of medicine in Edinburgh. In the name, then, of all that is courteous and manly, I, as a student of medicine, most indignantly protest against such scenes as were enacted at the College of Surgeons on the evenings of Thursday and Friday last, and indeed on several occasions during the week.
“I would it were possible to point out to public execration the movers and actors in such scenes; but it is difficult to decide where the responsibility begins.
“Are only the hot-headed youths to be blamed who hustle and hoot at ladies in the public streets, and by physical force close the College gates before them? Or are we to trace their outrageous conduct to the influence of the class room, where their respected professor meanly takes advantage of his position as their teacher to elicit their mirth and applause, to arouse their jealousy and opposition, by directing unmanly inuendoes at the lady students? If such conduct be permissible on the part of the professors, alas for the school whose teachers have not even but one halfpennyworth of manliness to their intolerable deal of nastiness, or boasted philanthropy, as the case may be, and whose students crowd the academic precincts to hustle, hoot at, cover with mud, and even to strike at, ladies who have always shown themselves to be gentle and noble women.
“The current report is, that these disgraceful outrages were originally and principally carried out by students of the College of Surgeons. This is contrary to fact. Certainly the majority of them conducted themselves in a most contemptible manner, roused, not by a word or look from the ladies, but by the possibility of being outstripped by them in the race for honours; and therefore did they elect to end the rivalry by an appeal to brute force. The truth, however, is that the rioters were called together by a missive, circulated by the students in theChemistry Class of the Universityon Friday morning, on the back of which was written, “To be opened by those who signed the petition to the managers against the admission of female students.” This missive called upon the petitioners to assemble at the College of Surgeons before four o’clock, for the purposes which they so thoroughly carried out. The proceedings of Friday will therefore enable the public now to judge of the value which the majority of the managers of the Infirmary ought to have attached to the prayers ofsuchpetitioners. Moreover, the professor who is to receive the complimentary address which is being got up by the same memorialists for his exertions in their cause, must feel highly flattered by the implied association.
“What now is to be done with this vexed question of female education? Will it be settled by continuing those brutal exhibitions, or by asking the ladies to withdraw? Neither course is likely to prove successful. Another and a more honourable course has been suggested by some of the original memorialists, who—considering their honour dearer to them than their sympathies—declare that the blot can only be wiped away by their joining to aid the ladies who have been so thwarted and so abused in obtaining the object for which they have wrought so hard and endured so bravely.—I am,&c.,Vir.”
Scotsman, November 22, 1870.
The following is the petition referred to:—
“To the honourable the Managers of the Royal Infirmary.“My Lord and Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned Students of Medicine, moved solely by feelings of honour and justice, desire to approach your honourable board on behalf of our female fellow-students, whom, we understand, you object to admit to the practice of the Infirmary, under any circumstances whatever.“We do not pretend to offer any opinion on the question of mixed classes, or on the medical education of women; but we consider that, as the University of Edinburgh has admitted those ladies as students of medicine, and as they have now been engaged for some time in striving honourably and successfully to gain a knowledgeof our profession, it is great injustice to attempt to bar their further progress by refusing them permission to attend the practice of the Infirmary.“We also have certain pretensions to feelings of decency and morality, but we are not aware that the lady students have either attempted or succeeded in outraging them. On the contrary, our feelings have been outraged by the unthinking and misguided of those of our own class who oppose them; for their disgraceful actions we would seek to atone by asking your honourable Board to make some arrangement by which the ladies may be admitted to the practice of the wards.“As a matter of compromise, we would respectfully request that the ladies be admitted to the wards of the three medical gentlemen who are willing to receive them. On our part we beg leave to express our perfect willingness to attend with them in considering the most serious and delicate cases in the wards.“We feel proud to assert our ability to study those cases from scientific and philanthropic points of view, with those feelings of delicacy and kindness which ought to actuate every medical man who has female patients under his care.”
“To the honourable the Managers of the Royal Infirmary.
“My Lord and Gentlemen,—We, the undersigned Students of Medicine, moved solely by feelings of honour and justice, desire to approach your honourable board on behalf of our female fellow-students, whom, we understand, you object to admit to the practice of the Infirmary, under any circumstances whatever.
“We do not pretend to offer any opinion on the question of mixed classes, or on the medical education of women; but we consider that, as the University of Edinburgh has admitted those ladies as students of medicine, and as they have now been engaged for some time in striving honourably and successfully to gain a knowledgeof our profession, it is great injustice to attempt to bar their further progress by refusing them permission to attend the practice of the Infirmary.
“We also have certain pretensions to feelings of decency and morality, but we are not aware that the lady students have either attempted or succeeded in outraging them. On the contrary, our feelings have been outraged by the unthinking and misguided of those of our own class who oppose them; for their disgraceful actions we would seek to atone by asking your honourable Board to make some arrangement by which the ladies may be admitted to the practice of the wards.
“As a matter of compromise, we would respectfully request that the ladies be admitted to the wards of the three medical gentlemen who are willing to receive them. On our part we beg leave to express our perfect willingness to attend with them in considering the most serious and delicate cases in the wards.
“We feel proud to assert our ability to study those cases from scientific and philanthropic points of view, with those feelings of delicacy and kindness which ought to actuate every medical man who has female patients under his care.”
The results of the winter session 1869–70 have been given in the text. During the succeeding summer session all the lady students (six in number) appeared in the prize lists in both classes which they attended, viz., Botany and Natural History. During the next winter, 1870–71, the classes taken were Anatomy and Surgery. Out of seven ladies, three were in honours in Anatomy (one of them in two departments), and four in Surgery. During the summer of 1871 there were five lady medical students in the Botany Class, and of these three appeared in the prize lists,—one of them in two departments. During the winter 1871–72, nine ladies attended Chemistry, and, of these, seven appeared in first-class honours, Miss Pechey, in this her second course, obtaining 100 per cent.; nine also attended Physiology, and, of these, two obtained first-class and three second-class honours; six being also in honours in Practical Physiology.
It must be understood that, in the above statement, I have included only those ladies who were regular students of medicine; other ladies, on several occasions, joined the classes, and also appeared in the prize lists.
“COMMITTEE FOR SECURING A COMPLETE MEDICAL EDUCATION TO WOMEN IN EDINBURGH.“In view of the determined opposition from certain quarters which has met every effort made by ladies to obtain a medical education in Edinburgh, it was resolved, in January 1871, that a Committee should be formed, comprising all those who felt the injustice of the present arbitrary exclusion of women from the medical profession, and who desired to co-operate in the following objects:—(1.) To arrive at a thorough understanding of the real difficulties of the case, distinguishing clearly between those hindrances which are interposed by prejudice or self-interest, and the real obstacles (if any) which are inherent in the question. (2.) To secure the admission of women to Edinburgh University on the ordinary terms, though not necessarily in the same classes with men. (3.) To provide the means of qualifying Hospital instruction in Edinburgh for all ladies who are registered students of medicine.“To these primary objects the circumstances of the case have subsequently led the Committee to add the following:—(4.) To make such temporary arrangements as may be required to provide the ladies with qualifying instruction, in accordance with the present incomplete regulations of the University, until such time as the authorities themselves may see fit to make complete and adequate arrangements. (5.) To co-operate, from time to time, with the lady students, whenever necessary, and especially to aid them in obtaining such legal assistance as may be required to ascertain and assert their rights as matriculated students of the University, and as registered students of medicine.“Of this Committee the Lord Provost of Edinburgh consented to act as chairman; and the following ladies and gentlemen constituted the original Executive Committee: The RightHon.The Lord Provost; Dr G. W. Balfour; Professor Bennett, M.D.; Dowager Countess of Buchan; Mrs Hill Burton; Professor Calderwood; Treasurer Colston; Andrew Coventry,Esq.; James Cowan,Esq.; Mrs Fleeming Jenkin; Mrs Henry Kingsley; Professor Lorimer; Professor Masson; Miss Agnes M‘Laren; David M‘Laren,Esq.; Dr Macnair; John Muir,Esq., D.C.L.; Mrs Nichol; Dr Niven; Alexander Nicholson,Esq.; Admiral Sir W. Ramsay, K.C.B.; Dr Heron Watson; Miss Eliza Wigham. W. S. Reid,Esq.,Hon.Treasurer; Miss L. Stevenson,Hon.Secretary.”
“COMMITTEE FOR SECURING A COMPLETE MEDICAL EDUCATION TO WOMEN IN EDINBURGH.
“In view of the determined opposition from certain quarters which has met every effort made by ladies to obtain a medical education in Edinburgh, it was resolved, in January 1871, that a Committee should be formed, comprising all those who felt the injustice of the present arbitrary exclusion of women from the medical profession, and who desired to co-operate in the following objects:—(1.) To arrive at a thorough understanding of the real difficulties of the case, distinguishing clearly between those hindrances which are interposed by prejudice or self-interest, and the real obstacles (if any) which are inherent in the question. (2.) To secure the admission of women to Edinburgh University on the ordinary terms, though not necessarily in the same classes with men. (3.) To provide the means of qualifying Hospital instruction in Edinburgh for all ladies who are registered students of medicine.
“To these primary objects the circumstances of the case have subsequently led the Committee to add the following:—(4.) To make such temporary arrangements as may be required to provide the ladies with qualifying instruction, in accordance with the present incomplete regulations of the University, until such time as the authorities themselves may see fit to make complete and adequate arrangements. (5.) To co-operate, from time to time, with the lady students, whenever necessary, and especially to aid them in obtaining such legal assistance as may be required to ascertain and assert their rights as matriculated students of the University, and as registered students of medicine.
“Of this Committee the Lord Provost of Edinburgh consented to act as chairman; and the following ladies and gentlemen constituted the original Executive Committee: The RightHon.The Lord Provost; Dr G. W. Balfour; Professor Bennett, M.D.; Dowager Countess of Buchan; Mrs Hill Burton; Professor Calderwood; Treasurer Colston; Andrew Coventry,Esq.; James Cowan,Esq.; Mrs Fleeming Jenkin; Mrs Henry Kingsley; Professor Lorimer; Professor Masson; Miss Agnes M‘Laren; David M‘Laren,Esq.; Dr Macnair; John Muir,Esq., D.C.L.; Mrs Nichol; Dr Niven; Alexander Nicholson,Esq.; Admiral Sir W. Ramsay, K.C.B.; Dr Heron Watson; Miss Eliza Wigham. W. S. Reid,Esq.,Hon.Treasurer; Miss L. Stevenson,Hon.Secretary.”
The case, drawn up by order of the Committee and submitted to Counsel, contained the facts relating to the Edinburgh lady students, which are narrated in the text, and further proceeded, as follows:—
“ ... It is stated in ‘Maitland’s History of Edinburgh’ that the first mention of erecting a College in Edinburgh was found in the will of Robert Reid, Bishop of Orkney, who, dying in 1558, bequeathed eight thousand Scottish merks towards founding a College ‘for the education of youth.’“In the subsequent benefactions and charters granted by Queen Mary in 1566, and by King James in 1582, no stipulation is made as to the sex of the students for whose benefit the College was to be established; and in 1583 proclamation was made inviting ‘all who were inclined to become scholars therein’ to enter their names in a certain book opened for the purpose.“The older University of Glasgow was founded under a Bull granted by Pope NicholasV.at the suit of JamesII.of Scotland, and in this Bull it was expressly stated that the University of Bologna was to be followed as a model, and that the doctors, masters, and students of Glasgow were to enjoy all the privileges and rights possessed by those of Bologna. There is abundant historic evidence that women were never excluded from the University of Bologna, but frequently studied and took degrees there during the Middle Ages, and that no less than seven women at different times filled professorial chairs in this University, three of them being in the Medical Faculty, viz.:—“Dorotea Bucca, Professor of Medicine, early in the fifteenth century; Anna Morandi Mazzolini, Professor of Anatomy, 1750; Maria Della Donne, Professor of Midwifery, 1810.“It appears that the University of Edinburgh was founded generally on the same model, and the University Calendar states that ‘in 1621 an Act was passed by the Scotch Parliament which ratified to the University, in ample form, all the rights, immunities, and privileges enjoyed by other Universities in the kingdom.’“There does not appear, in any of the statutes or ordinances subsequently issued, any regulation that male students alone should attend the University; nor in the recent Act of 1858 is there any such regulation. As a matter of fact, no applications for admission to the University of Edinburgh seem to have been made by women until the year 1869, as above mentioned.“In the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1858, section 12, power was given to the University Court ‘to effect improvements in the internal arrangements of the University, after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, provided that all such proposed improvements shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’“By the same act (section 21), provision was made for ‘providing additional teaching by means of assistants to the Professors in any professorships already established or to be established,’ and several assistants were accordingly appointed by the Commissioners under the Act; and, subsequently, the Senatus appointed certain other assistants, and made them allowances out of the University revenues. None of these assistants have, however, hitherto delivered courses of lectures qualifying for graduation, though there does not appear to be any clause in the Act which forbids their doing so. The only course of instruction qualifying for medical graduation which is given entirely by an assistant is that of practical chemistry.“During the illness or absence of professors, temporary substitutes to lecture in their stead have frequently been appointed by the Senatus, with the sanction of the University Court.”
“ ... It is stated in ‘Maitland’s History of Edinburgh’ that the first mention of erecting a College in Edinburgh was found in the will of Robert Reid, Bishop of Orkney, who, dying in 1558, bequeathed eight thousand Scottish merks towards founding a College ‘for the education of youth.’
“In the subsequent benefactions and charters granted by Queen Mary in 1566, and by King James in 1582, no stipulation is made as to the sex of the students for whose benefit the College was to be established; and in 1583 proclamation was made inviting ‘all who were inclined to become scholars therein’ to enter their names in a certain book opened for the purpose.
“The older University of Glasgow was founded under a Bull granted by Pope NicholasV.at the suit of JamesII.of Scotland, and in this Bull it was expressly stated that the University of Bologna was to be followed as a model, and that the doctors, masters, and students of Glasgow were to enjoy all the privileges and rights possessed by those of Bologna. There is abundant historic evidence that women were never excluded from the University of Bologna, but frequently studied and took degrees there during the Middle Ages, and that no less than seven women at different times filled professorial chairs in this University, three of them being in the Medical Faculty, viz.:—
“Dorotea Bucca, Professor of Medicine, early in the fifteenth century; Anna Morandi Mazzolini, Professor of Anatomy, 1750; Maria Della Donne, Professor of Midwifery, 1810.
“It appears that the University of Edinburgh was founded generally on the same model, and the University Calendar states that ‘in 1621 an Act was passed by the Scotch Parliament which ratified to the University, in ample form, all the rights, immunities, and privileges enjoyed by other Universities in the kingdom.’
“There does not appear, in any of the statutes or ordinances subsequently issued, any regulation that male students alone should attend the University; nor in the recent Act of 1858 is there any such regulation. As a matter of fact, no applications for admission to the University of Edinburgh seem to have been made by women until the year 1869, as above mentioned.
“In the Universities (Scotland) Act of 1858, section 12, power was given to the University Court ‘to effect improvements in the internal arrangements of the University, after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, provided that all such proposed improvements shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’
“By the same act (section 21), provision was made for ‘providing additional teaching by means of assistants to the Professors in any professorships already established or to be established,’ and several assistants were accordingly appointed by the Commissioners under the Act; and, subsequently, the Senatus appointed certain other assistants, and made them allowances out of the University revenues. None of these assistants have, however, hitherto delivered courses of lectures qualifying for graduation, though there does not appear to be any clause in the Act which forbids their doing so. The only course of instruction qualifying for medical graduation which is given entirely by an assistant is that of practical chemistry.
“During the illness or absence of professors, temporary substitutes to lecture in their stead have frequently been appointed by the Senatus, with the sanction of the University Court.”
The following Queries were not all asked in the first instance, but in part on a subsequent occasion (seep.120); as, however, they were allsubmitted on the same case, and concern the same subject, I give them here consecutively, arranged in the order in which the Opinions obtained thereon were presented to the Senatus or University Court:—
“Query1.—In the permission given to women to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh (bearing date November 12, 1869), was it involved in clauses 1, 2, and 6, that they should be allowed to pass the ordinary professional examinations and to proceed to the degree of M.D. in the University, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the said regulations; and is it therefore incumbent on the Medical Faculty to admit them to the necessary examinations to the extent of the subjects in which they are already qualified to pass?“Opinion.—Reading the regulations referred to in connection with the resolutions of the Medical Faculty which were approved of by the Senatus, the University Court, and the General Council, we think that their import and meaning is that, subject to the restrictions laid down in the regulations, women shall be allowed not merely to qualify themselves for the ordinary professional examinations with a view to obtain a medical degree in the University, but also, when so qualified, to be admitted to these examinations. We are, therefore, of opinion that it is the duty of the Medical Faculty to admit them to examination accordingly.“Query2.—If this was not involved, is it in the power of the Senatus, either alone or in conjunction with the University Court, to accord the required permission to admit them to professional examination with a view to graduation?“Opinion.—Upon the ground of keeping faith with the women who have, in reliance upon the regulations and in compliance with the terms thereby prescribed, qualified themselves for professional examination with a view to graduation, we are of opinion that the Senatus is entitled to direct that they shall be admitted to examination; and we also think that, without any further direction or authority than the regulations necessarily imply, the Medical Faculty is entitled to admit them to examination.“Queries3 and 4.—Is it competent for the Senatus, either directly or in conjunction with the other University authorities, to appoint special lecturers to deliver qualifying courses of lectures to women who are matriculated and registered students of medicine, when such instruction cannot be obtained from the professors of the special subjects in question? Is it competent for the Senatus or other University authorities so far to relax the ordinary regulations with respect to extra-mural classes as to authorise women to attend outside the University those courses of lectures which are denied to them by the Professors within the walls, such courses being held to qualify for graduation beyond the number offour, as contemplated in the present regulations?“Opinion.—If the existing regulations with respect to graduation in medicine stand upon statutes passed by the University Commissioners, whose powers have now expired, it is competent for the University Court to alter them with the written consent of the Chancellor and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council. This is provided by section 19 of the Act of 1858. If they stand on the authority of the Court, or of any other power in the University itself, we should think that they may be altered by the University Court under section 12 of the Act, ‘after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor,’ but with the proviso that the proposed alteration ‘shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’ In one or other of these ways it appears to us that any provision which may be deemed necessary, or proper and reasonable, for enabling women to complete their medical studies, with a view to graduation, maybe made.”“Query5.—Whether the Senatus, University Court, University Council and Chancellor, had collectively the power of granting to women the permission to matriculate as students as they did in 1869, and whether the regulations issued officially (November 12, 1869) are valid as regards such matriculation?“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court, in virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the 12th section (2) of the Act 1858, have power, after communication with the Senatus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, and after the University Council have considered the subject, to grant permission to women (as they did in 1869) to matriculate as students, and the resolutions of the Court in that year are valid.“Query6.—Whether the medical Professors are exonerated from obligation to teach, in some way or other, all matriculated students, by the fact, that, in clause 3 of the regulations quoted above, it is merely stated that they ‘shall be permitted to have separate classes for women?’“Opinion.—The University Court having statutory powers to ‘effect’ improvements in the ‘internal arrangements of the University,’ and it being within their power, under this enactment, to allow women to be educated at the University,we are of opinion that this resolution must be carried out in good faith and obeyed by the Professors. The third resolution of the University Court of November 1869, which ‘permits’ the Professors to have separate classes for women, in no way derogates from the resolution of the Court that women ‘shall be admitted to the study of medicine.’“Query7.—In case such women as are matriculated students of medicine in the University are refused instruction by the individual medical Professors, what is their legal mode of redress, and against whom should it be directed?“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court can compel, by action, the medical Professors to obey the resolutions of November, 1869, by holding separate classes for the education of women. With respect to the title of the women, we think that those of them who have matriculated and passed the preliminary examinations have a title, and may enforce their rights by action. The proper form of action is, we think, a declarator against the Professors refusing to obey the resolution of the University Court, with petitory conclusions to the effect that they should be ordained to hold separate classes for the instruction of the pursuers, they receiving their due remuneration.“Query8.—Whether, in the first constitution or charter of the University, or in any of the subsequent statutes, there is anything which limits the benefits of the University to male students.“Opinion.—The Charter of Erection and Confirmation of the ‘College of Edinburgh’ by King JamesVI., dated 14th April, 1582, granted certain lands and revenues to the Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, with a license to employ those revenues, and such others as well-disposed persons might bestow on them, in the erecting of suitable buildings for the use of professors and ‘scholars’ of grammar, humanity, and languages, philosophy, theology, medicine, and laws, and other liberal sciences. The King, by this charter (as interpreted by decision of the Courts), delegated to, or conferred upon, the magistrates and Town Council the character of patron and founder of this new seminary of education. The powers of superintendence and control thus conferred upon the Magistrates and Council remained with them till the Act of 1858 was passed, by which the more important powers were transferred to the University Court. The Magistrates and Council never conferred upon the College any independent constitution, so as to enable the members of it to exercise any power of internal government. As founders, patrons, and delegates intrusted by the royal grant, the Magistrates and Council remained in the full right of management, regulation, and tutelage of their own institution.“An Act of Parliament was passed in 1621 (c. 79), which may be considered as the charter of erection of the University. It narrates the charter of 1582, and the licence thereby given to found a College and choose Professors, and sets forth the King’s zeal for the growth of learning, and his purpose to grant the College all immunities enjoyed by other colleges. The statute then confirms the erection of the College, and ratifies all the mortifications made to the town by the King or others towards its support. It bestows on the College the name of ‘King James’ College,’ and grants to the Magistrates ‘in favour of the said burgh of Edinburgh, patrons of the said College, and of the College, and of rectors, regents, bursars, andstudentswithin the same, all liberties, freedoms, immunities, and privileges pertaining to a free College, and that in as ample a form and large manner as any College has or bruickis within His Majesty’s realm.’“The statute concludes with ordaining a new charter to issue, if need be, for erecting the College, with all such privileges and immunities. No such charter was ever issued; but the statute itself may be held equivalent to a charter. It was a charter in favour of the Magistrates and Council as founders and patrons, and in no way prejudiced, but on the contrary confirmed their power of superintendence, control, and regulation of all matters concerning the internal government of the University.“We are of opinion that, in virtue of the powers they thus possessed, the Magistrates and Town Council could at any time, during their 266 years of University rule, have done what the University Court did in 1869—grant permission to women to be educated at the University.“On examining the records, we find that the superintendence of the patrons was active and constant. They made, at various times during the two centuries and a half while their jurisdiction lasted, sets of laws and regulations for the College, which embrace all things connected with the duties and rights of professors and students, the series and order of studies, the days and hours of lecture, the books to be read, the conduct of students in and out of College hours, the modes of trial and graduation, the attendance of the professors at their classes, attendance at church, dress to be worn by students, fees to be paid,&c.,&c.“All these regulations proceed on the footing that only male students attended the University; many of them were inapplicable to females, and we cannot find any trace of its being contemplated by the patrons that females might be students. And we do not find any evidence of a female having attended the University.“Therefore, while we are of opinion that the Magistrates and Council had the power to pass a regulation authorising the attendance of women at the University, and to compel the professors to teach them, yet as they never passed any such regulation, no women could have insisted upon admission to University education as a legal right prior to 1869.“The University Court, bysec.12 (2), are now vested with all the powers of internal management and regulation formerly possessed by the Magistrates and Council; they have done what the latter never did, although they lawfully might. They have, by their resolution of November 1869, given to women the right to demand, equally with male students, admission to the University.”
“Query1.—In the permission given to women to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh (bearing date November 12, 1869), was it involved in clauses 1, 2, and 6, that they should be allowed to pass the ordinary professional examinations and to proceed to the degree of M.D. in the University, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the said regulations; and is it therefore incumbent on the Medical Faculty to admit them to the necessary examinations to the extent of the subjects in which they are already qualified to pass?
“Opinion.—Reading the regulations referred to in connection with the resolutions of the Medical Faculty which were approved of by the Senatus, the University Court, and the General Council, we think that their import and meaning is that, subject to the restrictions laid down in the regulations, women shall be allowed not merely to qualify themselves for the ordinary professional examinations with a view to obtain a medical degree in the University, but also, when so qualified, to be admitted to these examinations. We are, therefore, of opinion that it is the duty of the Medical Faculty to admit them to examination accordingly.
“Query2.—If this was not involved, is it in the power of the Senatus, either alone or in conjunction with the University Court, to accord the required permission to admit them to professional examination with a view to graduation?
“Opinion.—Upon the ground of keeping faith with the women who have, in reliance upon the regulations and in compliance with the terms thereby prescribed, qualified themselves for professional examination with a view to graduation, we are of opinion that the Senatus is entitled to direct that they shall be admitted to examination; and we also think that, without any further direction or authority than the regulations necessarily imply, the Medical Faculty is entitled to admit them to examination.
“Queries3 and 4.—Is it competent for the Senatus, either directly or in conjunction with the other University authorities, to appoint special lecturers to deliver qualifying courses of lectures to women who are matriculated and registered students of medicine, when such instruction cannot be obtained from the professors of the special subjects in question? Is it competent for the Senatus or other University authorities so far to relax the ordinary regulations with respect to extra-mural classes as to authorise women to attend outside the University those courses of lectures which are denied to them by the Professors within the walls, such courses being held to qualify for graduation beyond the number offour, as contemplated in the present regulations?
“Opinion.—If the existing regulations with respect to graduation in medicine stand upon statutes passed by the University Commissioners, whose powers have now expired, it is competent for the University Court to alter them with the written consent of the Chancellor and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council. This is provided by section 19 of the Act of 1858. If they stand on the authority of the Court, or of any other power in the University itself, we should think that they may be altered by the University Court under section 12 of the Act, ‘after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor,’ but with the proviso that the proposed alteration ‘shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’ In one or other of these ways it appears to us that any provision which may be deemed necessary, or proper and reasonable, for enabling women to complete their medical studies, with a view to graduation, maybe made.”
“Query5.—Whether the Senatus, University Court, University Council and Chancellor, had collectively the power of granting to women the permission to matriculate as students as they did in 1869, and whether the regulations issued officially (November 12, 1869) are valid as regards such matriculation?
“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court, in virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the 12th section (2) of the Act 1858, have power, after communication with the Senatus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, and after the University Council have considered the subject, to grant permission to women (as they did in 1869) to matriculate as students, and the resolutions of the Court in that year are valid.
“Query6.—Whether the medical Professors are exonerated from obligation to teach, in some way or other, all matriculated students, by the fact, that, in clause 3 of the regulations quoted above, it is merely stated that they ‘shall be permitted to have separate classes for women?’
“Opinion.—The University Court having statutory powers to ‘effect’ improvements in the ‘internal arrangements of the University,’ and it being within their power, under this enactment, to allow women to be educated at the University,we are of opinion that this resolution must be carried out in good faith and obeyed by the Professors. The third resolution of the University Court of November 1869, which ‘permits’ the Professors to have separate classes for women, in no way derogates from the resolution of the Court that women ‘shall be admitted to the study of medicine.’
“Query7.—In case such women as are matriculated students of medicine in the University are refused instruction by the individual medical Professors, what is their legal mode of redress, and against whom should it be directed?
“Opinion.—We are of opinion that the University Court can compel, by action, the medical Professors to obey the resolutions of November, 1869, by holding separate classes for the education of women. With respect to the title of the women, we think that those of them who have matriculated and passed the preliminary examinations have a title, and may enforce their rights by action. The proper form of action is, we think, a declarator against the Professors refusing to obey the resolution of the University Court, with petitory conclusions to the effect that they should be ordained to hold separate classes for the instruction of the pursuers, they receiving their due remuneration.
“Query8.—Whether, in the first constitution or charter of the University, or in any of the subsequent statutes, there is anything which limits the benefits of the University to male students.
“Opinion.—The Charter of Erection and Confirmation of the ‘College of Edinburgh’ by King JamesVI., dated 14th April, 1582, granted certain lands and revenues to the Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, with a license to employ those revenues, and such others as well-disposed persons might bestow on them, in the erecting of suitable buildings for the use of professors and ‘scholars’ of grammar, humanity, and languages, philosophy, theology, medicine, and laws, and other liberal sciences. The King, by this charter (as interpreted by decision of the Courts), delegated to, or conferred upon, the magistrates and Town Council the character of patron and founder of this new seminary of education. The powers of superintendence and control thus conferred upon the Magistrates and Council remained with them till the Act of 1858 was passed, by which the more important powers were transferred to the University Court. The Magistrates and Council never conferred upon the College any independent constitution, so as to enable the members of it to exercise any power of internal government. As founders, patrons, and delegates intrusted by the royal grant, the Magistrates and Council remained in the full right of management, regulation, and tutelage of their own institution.
“An Act of Parliament was passed in 1621 (c. 79), which may be considered as the charter of erection of the University. It narrates the charter of 1582, and the licence thereby given to found a College and choose Professors, and sets forth the King’s zeal for the growth of learning, and his purpose to grant the College all immunities enjoyed by other colleges. The statute then confirms the erection of the College, and ratifies all the mortifications made to the town by the King or others towards its support. It bestows on the College the name of ‘King James’ College,’ and grants to the Magistrates ‘in favour of the said burgh of Edinburgh, patrons of the said College, and of the College, and of rectors, regents, bursars, andstudentswithin the same, all liberties, freedoms, immunities, and privileges pertaining to a free College, and that in as ample a form and large manner as any College has or bruickis within His Majesty’s realm.’
“The statute concludes with ordaining a new charter to issue, if need be, for erecting the College, with all such privileges and immunities. No such charter was ever issued; but the statute itself may be held equivalent to a charter. It was a charter in favour of the Magistrates and Council as founders and patrons, and in no way prejudiced, but on the contrary confirmed their power of superintendence, control, and regulation of all matters concerning the internal government of the University.
“We are of opinion that, in virtue of the powers they thus possessed, the Magistrates and Town Council could at any time, during their 266 years of University rule, have done what the University Court did in 1869—grant permission to women to be educated at the University.
“On examining the records, we find that the superintendence of the patrons was active and constant. They made, at various times during the two centuries and a half while their jurisdiction lasted, sets of laws and regulations for the College, which embrace all things connected with the duties and rights of professors and students, the series and order of studies, the days and hours of lecture, the books to be read, the conduct of students in and out of College hours, the modes of trial and graduation, the attendance of the professors at their classes, attendance at church, dress to be worn by students, fees to be paid,&c.,&c.“All these regulations proceed on the footing that only male students attended the University; many of them were inapplicable to females, and we cannot find any trace of its being contemplated by the patrons that females might be students. And we do not find any evidence of a female having attended the University.
“Therefore, while we are of opinion that the Magistrates and Council had the power to pass a regulation authorising the attendance of women at the University, and to compel the professors to teach them, yet as they never passed any such regulation, no women could have insisted upon admission to University education as a legal right prior to 1869.
“The University Court, bysec.12 (2), are now vested with all the powers of internal management and regulation formerly possessed by the Magistrates and Council; they have done what the latter never did, although they lawfully might. They have, by their resolution of November 1869, given to women the right to demand, equally with male students, admission to the University.”
“The extraordinary history of the vicissitudes endured by the lady students seems at last to have reached its most extraordinary phase. It appears, as stated in our columns of yesterday, that on Saturday last the Medical Faculty of the University of Edinburgh—a body which, collectively, forms one of the law-makers of the College—passed a vote by a majority whereby they instructed their Dean deliberately to break a law of the University, or rather expressly ‘interdicted’ him from complying with it. What makes the matter the more remarkable is that this special law was in the first instance inaugurated by themselves, and subsequently approved by the Senatus and other authorities, and incorporated in the official regulations published in the ‘Calendar.’ ... It would seem clear enough that a decision which had been deliberately confirmed by each university authority successively, and which had thus become law, could not be disturbed by any one except after an equally formal process of revocation. It is, however, well known that, though all the bodies enumerated passed the above regulations by a majority, there was in most cases a dissatisfied minority, who wished that all privileges should be withheld from the lady students. It would have surprised no one to hear that a formal attempt had been made to obtain the withdrawal of the privileges conferred; but the public were probably sufficiently astonished to learn yesterday that, though no such open and honourable attempt had been made, a secretcoup d’étatwas planned, by which it was apparently hoped, at the very last moment, when no appeal to the Senatus, or other authorities was possible, to crush the hopes of the medical ladies, at least for the present year. At the Faculty meeting to which we have referred, a vote was actually passed to ‘interdict’ the Dean, whose friendliness to the ladies was well known, from giving to any women who were about to join the medical class the papers necessary to enable them to pass the preliminary examination in Arts, which is indispensable before registration—this examination having been not only previously allowed, but actually passed by numerous ladies on no less than four occasions! At this same notable meeting, a vote was also passed that the Medical Faculty should disregard alike their own previous resolutions, the official regulations of the ‘Calendar,’ and the tickets of admission already paid for and obtained by those other ladies who are now ready to proceed to their first professional examination; and, accordingly, a letter was sent to each of these three ladies, informing them that their tickets had been granted ‘in error,’ and that they could not be examined ‘without the sanction of the Senatus Academicus,’ as if that sanction had not been already given in the most emphatic manner!“The story is not a pleasant one. That a minority, obliged to acquiesce in an act of liberality on the part of the majority, should, when unable to prevail by fair means, endeavour to compass their end by a side-wind and in an underhand manner, is sufficiently discreditable; but that, rather than relinquish their own dogged resolution to obstruct the ladies, these Professors should deliberately abstain from all previous warning of the means they intended to employ—should allow many months of severe study to be passed with a definite aim and hope, and should then silently dig a pitfall at the very threshold of the door through which the ladies must pass, and hope, by an arbitrary exercise of authority against a few wholly unprepared women, completely to destroy their prospects, for the present year at least—is something almost too monstrous to be believed, did the circumstances admit of any doubt in the matter. Whether these medical gentlemen really supposed that, by their unsupported fiat, they could set aside all the existing regulations of the University, or whether they trusted to the ladies’ want of knowledge in legal matters not to challenge their authority, it is of course impossible to say, but one would rather believe in the ignorance of law implied by the former alternative, than in the lamentable want of honourable feeling that would be conveyed in the latter. Be this as it may, it is not easy to exaggerate the damaging effect that a story of this kind is likely to have on the minds of the public. That such a line of conductcouldbe planned and carried out by a body of men claiming the name of gentlemen, and belonging to a profession that calls itself ‘liberal’ and ‘learned,’ is perhaps as striking a proof as could be given of the fatally blinding influence of professional prejudice and unreasoning trades-unionism.”Scotsman,Oct.20, 1872.“We confess that the conduct of the medical faculty amazes us. Can they suppose that such obstructions are calculated to stop the movement? Why should they not show a little practical sense, and choose their fighting-ground with reasonable judgment? A single Professor, whose classes must be attended according to present regulations, might have hoped successfully to resist the demand that he should teach mixed classes. There are many people who do not look with particular complacency upon the efforts of a few ladies to obtain a place in the medical profession; but paltry persecutions like these, and little dodges sprung upon them suddenly, will assuredly turn the popular tide in their favour. The medical profession seem to think that they have only got to get behind these too devoted students, and shout ‘bo!’ loud enough to frighten them out of their five wits. They might surely have known Miss Jex-Blake better by this time. Are the Edinburgh Medical Faculty really afraid of the competition of the ladies? Do they look upon them as ‘knobsticks,’ against whom the doors must be closed in spite of law, reason, and liberty? They are welcome to their fears—narrow as they are—and to their opinions on the question of lady doctors; but we trust that the University of Edinburgh will see that its regulations are maintained. Having given permission to females to study medicine under conditions which are strict enough, and even somewhat hard, the University must prevent any combination of Professors from taking the matter into their own hands, and debarring the ladies from the privileges for which they have so gallantly fought. In the meantime, we congratulate the five ladies on the prompt spirit in which they have repelled the insidious attempt of a majority of the medical faculty—we believe only a very small majority—to cut their studies short. We need not urge them to persevere, for they seem to have that ‘faculty’ in predominance, but we think we can assure them that every victory that they gain, and every defeat that they suffer, adds to the number of their sympathisers, and breaks down no inconsiderable portion of the mountain of prejudice that they had to face when they commenced their career as students. If the Medical Professors want to defeat them, they must get better advisers, and not court humiliation. Their present counsellor is like Adversity, ugly and venomous in appearance only. Without the ‘precious jewel,’ the treasure of ill-judged and unreasonable persecutions, which he carries in his head, the little forlorn hope of courageous ladies, whose ranks are thinned from time to time by marriage and other maladies, would hardly be so likely to plant their triumphant flag on the top of the Castle rock at last.”Glasgow Herald, October 20, 1871.
“The extraordinary history of the vicissitudes endured by the lady students seems at last to have reached its most extraordinary phase. It appears, as stated in our columns of yesterday, that on Saturday last the Medical Faculty of the University of Edinburgh—a body which, collectively, forms one of the law-makers of the College—passed a vote by a majority whereby they instructed their Dean deliberately to break a law of the University, or rather expressly ‘interdicted’ him from complying with it. What makes the matter the more remarkable is that this special law was in the first instance inaugurated by themselves, and subsequently approved by the Senatus and other authorities, and incorporated in the official regulations published in the ‘Calendar.’ ... It would seem clear enough that a decision which had been deliberately confirmed by each university authority successively, and which had thus become law, could not be disturbed by any one except after an equally formal process of revocation. It is, however, well known that, though all the bodies enumerated passed the above regulations by a majority, there was in most cases a dissatisfied minority, who wished that all privileges should be withheld from the lady students. It would have surprised no one to hear that a formal attempt had been made to obtain the withdrawal of the privileges conferred; but the public were probably sufficiently astonished to learn yesterday that, though no such open and honourable attempt had been made, a secretcoup d’étatwas planned, by which it was apparently hoped, at the very last moment, when no appeal to the Senatus, or other authorities was possible, to crush the hopes of the medical ladies, at least for the present year. At the Faculty meeting to which we have referred, a vote was actually passed to ‘interdict’ the Dean, whose friendliness to the ladies was well known, from giving to any women who were about to join the medical class the papers necessary to enable them to pass the preliminary examination in Arts, which is indispensable before registration—this examination having been not only previously allowed, but actually passed by numerous ladies on no less than four occasions! At this same notable meeting, a vote was also passed that the Medical Faculty should disregard alike their own previous resolutions, the official regulations of the ‘Calendar,’ and the tickets of admission already paid for and obtained by those other ladies who are now ready to proceed to their first professional examination; and, accordingly, a letter was sent to each of these three ladies, informing them that their tickets had been granted ‘in error,’ and that they could not be examined ‘without the sanction of the Senatus Academicus,’ as if that sanction had not been already given in the most emphatic manner!
“The story is not a pleasant one. That a minority, obliged to acquiesce in an act of liberality on the part of the majority, should, when unable to prevail by fair means, endeavour to compass their end by a side-wind and in an underhand manner, is sufficiently discreditable; but that, rather than relinquish their own dogged resolution to obstruct the ladies, these Professors should deliberately abstain from all previous warning of the means they intended to employ—should allow many months of severe study to be passed with a definite aim and hope, and should then silently dig a pitfall at the very threshold of the door through which the ladies must pass, and hope, by an arbitrary exercise of authority against a few wholly unprepared women, completely to destroy their prospects, for the present year at least—is something almost too monstrous to be believed, did the circumstances admit of any doubt in the matter. Whether these medical gentlemen really supposed that, by their unsupported fiat, they could set aside all the existing regulations of the University, or whether they trusted to the ladies’ want of knowledge in legal matters not to challenge their authority, it is of course impossible to say, but one would rather believe in the ignorance of law implied by the former alternative, than in the lamentable want of honourable feeling that would be conveyed in the latter. Be this as it may, it is not easy to exaggerate the damaging effect that a story of this kind is likely to have on the minds of the public. That such a line of conductcouldbe planned and carried out by a body of men claiming the name of gentlemen, and belonging to a profession that calls itself ‘liberal’ and ‘learned,’ is perhaps as striking a proof as could be given of the fatally blinding influence of professional prejudice and unreasoning trades-unionism.”
Scotsman,Oct.20, 1872.
“We confess that the conduct of the medical faculty amazes us. Can they suppose that such obstructions are calculated to stop the movement? Why should they not show a little practical sense, and choose their fighting-ground with reasonable judgment? A single Professor, whose classes must be attended according to present regulations, might have hoped successfully to resist the demand that he should teach mixed classes. There are many people who do not look with particular complacency upon the efforts of a few ladies to obtain a place in the medical profession; but paltry persecutions like these, and little dodges sprung upon them suddenly, will assuredly turn the popular tide in their favour. The medical profession seem to think that they have only got to get behind these too devoted students, and shout ‘bo!’ loud enough to frighten them out of their five wits. They might surely have known Miss Jex-Blake better by this time. Are the Edinburgh Medical Faculty really afraid of the competition of the ladies? Do they look upon them as ‘knobsticks,’ against whom the doors must be closed in spite of law, reason, and liberty? They are welcome to their fears—narrow as they are—and to their opinions on the question of lady doctors; but we trust that the University of Edinburgh will see that its regulations are maintained. Having given permission to females to study medicine under conditions which are strict enough, and even somewhat hard, the University must prevent any combination of Professors from taking the matter into their own hands, and debarring the ladies from the privileges for which they have so gallantly fought. In the meantime, we congratulate the five ladies on the prompt spirit in which they have repelled the insidious attempt of a majority of the medical faculty—we believe only a very small majority—to cut their studies short. We need not urge them to persevere, for they seem to have that ‘faculty’ in predominance, but we think we can assure them that every victory that they gain, and every defeat that they suffer, adds to the number of their sympathisers, and breaks down no inconsiderable portion of the mountain of prejudice that they had to face when they commenced their career as students. If the Medical Professors want to defeat them, they must get better advisers, and not court humiliation. Their present counsellor is like Adversity, ugly and venomous in appearance only. Without the ‘precious jewel,’ the treasure of ill-judged and unreasonable persecutions, which he carries in his head, the little forlorn hope of courageous ladies, whose ranks are thinned from time to time by marriage and other maladies, would hardly be so likely to plant their triumphant flag on the top of the Castle rock at last.”
Glasgow Herald, October 20, 1871.
The following verses are no bad indication of the popular feeling respecting the incidents narrated above, and this is rendered the more characteristic by the national form in which it finds expression:—
(A New Version o’ an Auld Sang,)
Dedicated without special permission to Sir Robert Christison, Bart., and intended to be sung at the next convivial meeting of the “Infirmary Ring.”
By Gamaliel Gowkgrandiose, M.D.
It fell aboot the New-Year time,And a gay time it was then, oh!That the lady students in oor auld toonHad a fecht wi’ us medical men oh!Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel,The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.When first they cam’ tae learn oor craftWe laughed at them in oor sleeve oh!That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark,What medical man could believe oh!Chorus—For the barrin’,&c.So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae usFor lecture or for Exam. oh!We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bareAs was ever a sheep or a lamb oh!Chorus—A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we found they meant to useThe knowledge for which they had paid oh!And on the trade o’ us medical menMicht mak’ a furious raid oh!Chorus—We began the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs;It gied Sir Robert and Andrew WoodVexation and bother eneuch, sirs.Chorus—Did the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Oor students got up a bonny bit mobTo gie the ladies a fright, sirs;Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark,Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs.Chorus—And help the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.We frightened the douce Infirmary folksW’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs;They werena just true—but what o’ that?We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Scandals we spread owre a’ the toonAgainst the ladies’ guid fame, sirs;We drove them frae the Infirmary gate,Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doonWi’ true feminine perversity—They roused the folk owre a’ oor town’Gainst oor clique in the University.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.A year gaed by, and then they triedAgain tae force their way, sirs,Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oorsUntil oor dying day, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip,And Turner put on the screw, sirs;Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day,For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs.Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote,And Turner he tore his hair, sirs;He forgot there wasna muckle to tear,Sae deep was his despair, sirs,Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Andrew Wood fell into the airmsO’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs;“Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo,For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.”Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine,And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs,As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaffO’ the class he had that day missed, sirs.Chorus—And the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Lister wept owre his petulant speech,When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs,If women entered the hospital wards—Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we cam to oor senses a’,We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs,Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firmsThat supported the ladies’ men, sir.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The firms may leave us—we carena a straw—The Infirmary may sink, sirs,If we may but keep females aff oor preserve,We carena what folk think, sirs.Chorus—O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The Infirmary meeting against us gaed,But the Court o’ Session befriends us;Oot o’ the hospital managing boardNeither women nor traders shall send us!Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Confusion, then, let each man drinkTo the ladies and their supporters, sirs;For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’,Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs!Chorus—Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel!The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!Scotsman,Feb.13, 1872.
It fell aboot the New-Year time,And a gay time it was then, oh!That the lady students in oor auld toonHad a fecht wi’ us medical men oh!Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel,The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.When first they cam’ tae learn oor craftWe laughed at them in oor sleeve oh!That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark,What medical man could believe oh!Chorus—For the barrin’,&c.So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae usFor lecture or for Exam. oh!We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bareAs was ever a sheep or a lamb oh!Chorus—A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we found they meant to useThe knowledge for which they had paid oh!And on the trade o’ us medical menMicht mak’ a furious raid oh!Chorus—We began the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs;It gied Sir Robert and Andrew WoodVexation and bother eneuch, sirs.Chorus—Did the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Oor students got up a bonny bit mobTo gie the ladies a fright, sirs;Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark,Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs.Chorus—And help the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.We frightened the douce Infirmary folksW’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs;They werena just true—but what o’ that?We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Scandals we spread owre a’ the toonAgainst the ladies’ guid fame, sirs;We drove them frae the Infirmary gate,Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doonWi’ true feminine perversity—They roused the folk owre a’ oor town’Gainst oor clique in the University.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.A year gaed by, and then they triedAgain tae force their way, sirs,Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oorsUntil oor dying day, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip,And Turner put on the screw, sirs;Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day,For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs.Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote,And Turner he tore his hair, sirs;He forgot there wasna muckle to tear,Sae deep was his despair, sirs,Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Andrew Wood fell into the airmsO’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs;“Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo,For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.”Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine,And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs,As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaffO’ the class he had that day missed, sirs.Chorus—And the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Lister wept owre his petulant speech,When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs,If women entered the hospital wards—Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.But when we cam to oor senses a’,We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs,Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firmsThat supported the ladies’ men, sir.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The firms may leave us—we carena a straw—The Infirmary may sink, sirs,If we may but keep females aff oor preserve,We carena what folk think, sirs.Chorus—O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.The Infirmary meeting against us gaed,But the Court o’ Session befriends us;Oot o’ the hospital managing boardNeither women nor traders shall send us!Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.Confusion, then, let each man drinkTo the ladies and their supporters, sirs;For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’,Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs!Chorus—Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel!The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!Scotsman,Feb.13, 1872.
It fell aboot the New-Year time,And a gay time it was then, oh!That the lady students in oor auld toonHad a fecht wi’ us medical men oh!Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel,The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.
It fell aboot the New-Year time,
And a gay time it was then, oh!
That the lady students in oor auld toon
Had a fecht wi’ us medical men oh!
Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel,
The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.
When first they cam’ tae learn oor craftWe laughed at them in oor sleeve oh!That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark,What medical man could believe oh!Chorus—For the barrin’,&c.
When first they cam’ tae learn oor craft
We laughed at them in oor sleeve oh!
That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark,
What medical man could believe oh!
Chorus—For the barrin’,&c.
So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae usFor lecture or for Exam. oh!We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bareAs was ever a sheep or a lamb oh!Chorus—A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae us
For lecture or for Exam. oh!
We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bare
As was ever a sheep or a lamb oh!
Chorus—A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But when we found they meant to useThe knowledge for which they had paid oh!And on the trade o’ us medical menMicht mak’ a furious raid oh!Chorus—We began the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But when we found they meant to use
The knowledge for which they had paid oh!
And on the trade o’ us medical men
Micht mak’ a furious raid oh!
Chorus—We began the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs;It gied Sir Robert and Andrew WoodVexation and bother eneuch, sirs.Chorus—Did the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’
Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs;
It gied Sir Robert and Andrew Wood
Vexation and bother eneuch, sirs.
Chorus—Did the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Oor students got up a bonny bit mobTo gie the ladies a fright, sirs;Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark,Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs.Chorus—And help the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Oor students got up a bonny bit mob
To gie the ladies a fright, sirs;
Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark,
Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs.
Chorus—And help the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
We frightened the douce Infirmary folksW’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs;They werena just true—but what o’ that?We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
We frightened the douce Infirmary folks
W’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs;
They werena just true—but what o’ that?
We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Scandals we spread owre a’ the toonAgainst the ladies’ guid fame, sirs;We drove them frae the Infirmary gate,Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Scandals we spread owre a’ the toon
Against the ladies’ guid fame, sirs;
We drove them frae the Infirmary gate,
Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doonWi’ true feminine perversity—They roused the folk owre a’ oor town’Gainst oor clique in the University.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doon
Wi’ true feminine perversity—
They roused the folk owre a’ oor town
’Gainst oor clique in the University.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
A year gaed by, and then they triedAgain tae force their way, sirs,Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oorsUntil oor dying day, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
A year gaed by, and then they tried
Again tae force their way, sirs,
Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oors
Until oor dying day, sirs.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip,And Turner put on the screw, sirs;Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day,For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs.Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip,
And Turner put on the screw, sirs;
Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day,
For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs.
Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote,And Turner he tore his hair, sirs;He forgot there wasna muckle to tear,Sae deep was his despair, sirs,Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote,
And Turner he tore his hair, sirs;
He forgot there wasna muckle to tear,
Sae deep was his despair, sirs,
Chorus—Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
And Andrew Wood fell into the airmsO’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs;“Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo,For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.”Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
And Andrew Wood fell into the airms
O’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs;
“Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo,
For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.”
Chorus—Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine,And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs,As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaffO’ the class he had that day missed, sirs.Chorus—And the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine,
And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs,
As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaff
O’ the class he had that day missed, sirs.
Chorus—And the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Lister wept owre his petulant speech,When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs,If women entered the hospital wards—Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Lister wept owre his petulant speech,
When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs,
If women entered the hospital wards—
Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But when we cam to oor senses a’,We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs,Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firmsThat supported the ladies’ men, sir.Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
But when we cam to oor senses a’,
We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs,
Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firms
That supported the ladies’ men, sir.
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
The firms may leave us—we carena a straw—The Infirmary may sink, sirs,If we may but keep females aff oor preserve,We carena what folk think, sirs.Chorus—O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
The firms may leave us—we carena a straw—
The Infirmary may sink, sirs,
If we may but keep females aff oor preserve,
We carena what folk think, sirs.
Chorus—O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
The Infirmary meeting against us gaed,But the Court o’ Session befriends us;Oot o’ the hospital managing boardNeither women nor traders shall send us!Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
The Infirmary meeting against us gaed,
But the Court o’ Session befriends us;
Oot o’ the hospital managing board
Neither women nor traders shall send us!
Chorus—For the barrin’ o’ oor door,&c.
Confusion, then, let each man drinkTo the ladies and their supporters, sirs;For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’,Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs!Chorus—Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel!The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!Scotsman,Feb.13, 1872.
Confusion, then, let each man drink
To the ladies and their supporters, sirs;
For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’,
Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs!
Chorus—Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel!
The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!
Scotsman,Feb.13, 1872.
This correspondence is so remarkable that I subjoin it entire.
(1)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, November 21, 1871.“Gentlemen,—It is now two years since you passed a series of resolutions, dated 12th November 1869, to the effect that ‘women shall be admitted to the study of medicine in the University.’“In the time that has since elapsed, I and those ladies who matriculated with me at that date, have completed one-half of the studies necessary for graduation in the University of Edinburgh. Nearly five months ago, I ventured to point out to the Senatus Academicus that, unless further arrangements were made, it would be impossible for us to complete the studies which we have begun with your express sanction. After pointing out the existing difficulties, I ventured further to make two suggestions, either of which, if adopted, might enable us to complete our education in the University. In reply, however, I was informed that the Senatus, ‘having taken the opinion of counsel with reference to the proposals contained in the memorial of date 26th June 1871, find themselves unable to comply with either of those proposals.’“I understand, however, that since the date referred to, another legal opinion has been obtained from the Lord Advocate and Sheriff Fraser, and has been laid before the Senatus, and by them forwarded to your honourable Court. As, however, the Senatus still appear unwilling to initiate any measure by which we may be relieved from our present difficulties, I feel constrained now to appeal to you, in my own name and that of my fellow-students, to take such action as shall enable us to complete our studies.“I beg to represent to you that we have all paid matriculation fees for the present year, and are by our tickets declared to be ‘Cives Academiæ Edinensis,’ and that yet we, who commenced our studies in 1869, are unable during the present session to obtain any further classes whatever towards completing our required course of study.“We understand from those friends who have taken legal opinion on the subject—and doubtless such opinion will be laid before you simultaneously with this letter—that we are entitled to demand from the University the means of completing our studies, and that, failing any other alternative measures, we can claim the instruction of the Medical Professors to the extent needed to complete our curriculum.“We beg, therefore, most respectfully to request that, unless any other mode of supplying our needs seems preferable to you, you will vouchsafe to ordain that the Professors, whose courses we are bound by the University regulations to attend, shall give us the requisite instruction.—I beg to subscribe myself, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(2.)Minute of University Court of January 8, 1872.“The University Court have had under consideration the letters of Miss Jex-Blake and Miss Louisa Stevenson, of 21st November, 1871, and other relative documents laid before them on behalf of the women who have been admitted by the regulations of the Court of November 10th, 1869, to study medicine in the University.“In these papers it is stated that certain Professors of the Faculty of Medicine have declined to give separate classes of instruction to women; and the Court are asked either (1) to extend, in the case of female medical students, the privilege granted by ordinance by the Universities’ Commissioners, to lecturers, not being Professors in a university, of qualifying for graduation by their lectures, which privilege is now restricted to four of the prescribed subjects of study; or (2) To authorise the appointment of special lecturers to give, in the University, qualifying courses of instruction in place of those Professors who decline to do so; or (3.) To ordain that the Professors referred to shall themselves give the necessary courses of instruction to women.“The second course suggested it is not in the power of the Court, or other University authorities, singly or jointly to adopt.“The third course is equally beyond the power of the Court. The Act of 1858 vests in the Court plenary powers to deal with any Professor who shall fail to discharge his duties, but no Professor can be compelled to give courses of instruction other than those which, by the use and wont of the University, it has been the duty of the holders of his chair to deliver.“The first of the proposed measures would imply an alteration in one of the ordinances for graduation in medicine (No.8, clausevi., 4). Such alteration could be made by the University Court only with the consent, expressed in writing, of the Chancellor, and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council.“But to alter, in favour of female students, rules laid down for the regulation of graduation in medicine would imply an assumption on the part of the Court, that the University of Edinburgh has the power of granting degrees to women. It seems to the Court impossible to them to assume the existence of a power that is questioned in many quarters, and which is both affirmed and denied by eminent counsel. So long as these doubts remain, it would, in the opinion of the Court, be premature to consider the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which may be held not to apply to women.“Though the Court are unable to comply with any of the specific requests referred to, they are at the same time desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women,—provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.“The Court are of opinion that the question under reference has been complicated by the introduction of the subject of graduation, which is not essential to the completion of a medical or other education. The University of London, which has a special charter for the examination of women, does not confer degrees upon women, but only grants them ‘certificates of proficiency.’ If the applicants in the present case would be content to seek the examination of women by the University for certificates of proficiency in medicine, instead of University degrees, the Court believe that arrangements for accomplishing this object would fall within the scope of the powers given to them by section 12 of the Universities’ (Scotland) Act. The Court would be willing to consider any such arrangements which might be submitted to them.”(3.)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, January 18, 1872.“Gentlemen,—I have received from your Secretary a copy of your minute of the 8th instant, and I beg you to allow me most respectfully, but at the same time most emphatically, to protest against the decision therein contained, on the following grounds:—“1. That when women were admitted to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh, and were required to pay the ordinary matriculation fees asCives Academiæ Edinensis, in addition to those for instruction, it was believed to be involved that, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the regulations of November 12, 1869, we should be allowed to complete our education, and should, as a matter of course, proceed to the degree of M.D., no official intimation to the contrary being given to us at the time, nor indeed until now, when we have half completed our University curriculum. You will allow me to remind you further, that we have very high legal authority for believing that these expectations were well founded, and that matriculation does involve necessarily all the privileges of studentship, including graduation, as was indeed recently admitted by a legal Professor, who has always been one of our most determined opponents, when addressing your honourable Court in favour of rescinding the present regulations.“2. That, except with a view to ultimate graduation, it was quite meaningless to require us to pass, as we did, the preliminary examination in Arts, which has not any necessary connection with the study of medicine itself, but is expressly stated to be ‘the first examinationfor the medical degree.’“3. That we have all along pursued our studies with a view to the further professional examinations; that, in the resolutions passed by the Medical Faculty on July 1, 1869, it was distinctly stated that ‘ladies be allowed to attend medical classes and to receive certificates of attendance qualifying for examination;’ that, further, on April 9, 1870, the Senatus Academicus expressly ordained that exactly the same University certificates of attendance should be issued to students of both sexes, for the special purpose of qualifying for professional examination.“4. That no kind of official notice was ever given to us that a doubt existed respecting our admission to the ordinary professional examinations, until certain of our number had completed their preparations for the first professional examination, and had paid their fees for, and received tickets of admission to, the same; and that, when the matter was brought before the Senatus, it was by them decided that ladies should be admitted to the examination, and accordingly the ladies in question were examined in the ordinary course and passed the examination successfully.“5. That under the existing Act of Parliament it is impossible for any person to practise medicine under legal sanction, without a distinct ‘qualification’ as defined by the said Act of Parliament.“6. That the only ‘qualification’ which it is in the power of the University of Edinburgh to grant, is the ordinary medical degree, and that no ‘certificates of proficiency’ would possess the slightest legal value unless a special Act of Parliament was passed making such certificates registrable qualifications.“7. That the difficulty and expense of procuring such a special Act of Parliament would be very much greater than that of obtaining the sanction of the Queen in Council to such minor alterations in the University Ordinances as are alone necessary to enable us to complete our education by means of additional extra-mural classes; even if your honourable Court declines to make the necessary arrangementswithinthe University.“8. That we are informed on high authority that it is at present within the power of your honourable Court, in conjunction with the Senatus, to make the necessary arrangements within the University, without any external sanction; either by ordaining that the present Professors shall instruct women in separate classes, or by appointing special lecturers for that purpose. As regards the former course, I venture to remark that several Professors in the Faculty of Arts are already delivering two or more lectures daily, and that, as I presume it was always contemplated that each Professor should instruct all matriculated students desiring to study his subject, it is quite conceivable that it might become necessary from the number of students, or otherwise, for the medical Professors also to be required to deliver two courses; and that, therefore, it could hardly be considered a hardship if they should be required to deliver a second course, with proper remuneration for the same, to those matriculated students who are forbidden by the University to attend in the ordinary classes. As regards the second alternative, I believe that it has never been doubted that the Senatus and University Court, conjointly, have the power of appointing any number of assistants or special lecturers in any faculty, if they are required for the efficient performance of the teaching of the University.“9. That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date, and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements,so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.“10. That we are informed by high legal authorities that we are entitled, as matriculated students, to demand from the University complete arrangements for our instruction, and that we are further entitled to bring an action of declarator to obtain the same from the several Professors if no alternative measures are devised, and that we shall inevitably be driven to pursue this course, with whatever reluctance, if your honourable Court persistently refuses to make, in any form whatever, such arrangements as may enable us to complete our education, and to obtain a legal qualification to practise.“Earnestly commending the above considerations to your most favourable notice, I have the honour,&c.,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(4.)From the Secretary of the University Court.“University of Edinburgh, 5th February 1872.“Madam,—I am desired by the University Court to inform you that your letter, dated the 18th ultimo, has been laid before them and considered.“In reply, I am to say that in several points of your view of the past history and present position of the question relative to the medical education of women in Edinburgh the Court are unable to concur.“Without going into the discussions which might be raised on these points, it appears to the Court that it is only necessary for them to enter upon the subject of your ninth paragraph, in which you say:—“‘That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date; and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements, so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.’“On this I am desired to inform you that you appear to ask no more than was offered by the Court in their resolution of the 8th ultimo, in which it was stated that while the Court were restrained by legal doubts as to the power of the University to grant degrees to women, from considering ‘the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which might be held not to apply to women,’ they were, ‘at the same time, desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women: provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.’“On the assumption, therefore, that while you at present decline the offer made by the Court with reference to certificates of proficiency, you now ask merely that arrangements should be made for completing the medical education of yourself and the other ladies on behalf of whom you write, I am to state that the Court are quite ready to meet your views. If, therefore, the names of extra-academical teachers of the required medical subjects be submitted by yourself, or by the Senatus, the Court will be prepared to consider the respective fitness of the persons so named to be authorised to hold medical classes for women who have in this or former sessions been matriculated students of the University, and also the conditions and regulations under which such classes should be held.“It is, however, to be distinctly understood that such arrangements are not to be founded on as implying any right in women to obtain medical degrees, or as conferring any such right upon the students referred to.“I have,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.”(5.)To the University Court.“15 Buccleuch Place, February 9, 1872.“Gentlemen,—I beg to thank you sincerely for the resolution to which you came on Monday the 5thinst., and which, if I understand it rightly, will, I trust, prove a satisfactory solution of our present difficulties.“We will, if you wish it, very gladly prepare and submit to your honourable Court a list of extra-academical lecturers and of gentlemen prepared to qualify as such, who may, with your sanction, instruct us in the various subjects which we have to study; but before doing so, I venture to beg for official confirmation of my interpretation of your late resolution in two essential particulars.“I trust that I am correct in understanding—“1. That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be accepted if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.“2. That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.“You will, I am sure, understand that, while we are quite willing to accept present arrangements for instruction without any pledge that they will confer a right to graduation, it would be useless for us to attend any classes which would be incapable of qualifying for graduation, and impossible for us to acquiesce in any agreement which might prejudice the claim which we believe ourselves to possess to the ultimate attainment of the medical degree.I am,&c.,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”(6.)From the Secretary of the University Court.“University of Edinburgh, 24th February 1872.“Madam,—Your letter dated 9th instant has been considered by the University Court. In it you say:—“‘I trust that I am correct in understanding—-“‘I.That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be so accepted, if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.“‘II.That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.’“In reply, I am desired to point out that no extra-mural courses, beyond the number of four allowed by the Ordinance of the Universities Commissioners, could either qualify for graduation, or for the ordinary professional examinations, except under a change in the ordinance; which change could be made only by a resolution of the Court sanctioned by the Chancellor, and approved by the Queen in Council.“The Court have already declared, in their resolution of the 8th of January last, that they cannot even enter on the consideration of the expediency of such a change in the ordinance until the legality of female graduation has been determined.“It would not only be premature for the Court to express at present any views or intentions on the points to which you refer, but it would be clearly contrary to their duty to do so. For, supposing the legal question to be decided in a way favourable to your wishes, those points would then doubtless be referred to the Court for their decision, when various parties would probably desire to be heard with regard to them.“I am to add that in your letter of the 18th January, you appeared merely to ask that the Court ‘will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education,’ and that the Court offered, as stated in my letter of the 5thinst., to meet your views in the only way which appeared to lie within their competency. The Court are still of opinion that it is quite impossible for them at present to add anything to that offer.”I have the honour,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.
“15 Buccleuch Place, November 21, 1871.
“Gentlemen,—It is now two years since you passed a series of resolutions, dated 12th November 1869, to the effect that ‘women shall be admitted to the study of medicine in the University.’
“In the time that has since elapsed, I and those ladies who matriculated with me at that date, have completed one-half of the studies necessary for graduation in the University of Edinburgh. Nearly five months ago, I ventured to point out to the Senatus Academicus that, unless further arrangements were made, it would be impossible for us to complete the studies which we have begun with your express sanction. After pointing out the existing difficulties, I ventured further to make two suggestions, either of which, if adopted, might enable us to complete our education in the University. In reply, however, I was informed that the Senatus, ‘having taken the opinion of counsel with reference to the proposals contained in the memorial of date 26th June 1871, find themselves unable to comply with either of those proposals.’
“I understand, however, that since the date referred to, another legal opinion has been obtained from the Lord Advocate and Sheriff Fraser, and has been laid before the Senatus, and by them forwarded to your honourable Court. As, however, the Senatus still appear unwilling to initiate any measure by which we may be relieved from our present difficulties, I feel constrained now to appeal to you, in my own name and that of my fellow-students, to take such action as shall enable us to complete our studies.
“I beg to represent to you that we have all paid matriculation fees for the present year, and are by our tickets declared to be ‘Cives Academiæ Edinensis,’ and that yet we, who commenced our studies in 1869, are unable during the present session to obtain any further classes whatever towards completing our required course of study.
“We understand from those friends who have taken legal opinion on the subject—and doubtless such opinion will be laid before you simultaneously with this letter—that we are entitled to demand from the University the means of completing our studies, and that, failing any other alternative measures, we can claim the instruction of the Medical Professors to the extent needed to complete our curriculum.
“We beg, therefore, most respectfully to request that, unless any other mode of supplying our needs seems preferable to you, you will vouchsafe to ordain that the Professors, whose courses we are bound by the University regulations to attend, shall give us the requisite instruction.—I beg to subscribe myself, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
“Sophia Jex-Blake.”
“The University Court have had under consideration the letters of Miss Jex-Blake and Miss Louisa Stevenson, of 21st November, 1871, and other relative documents laid before them on behalf of the women who have been admitted by the regulations of the Court of November 10th, 1869, to study medicine in the University.
“In these papers it is stated that certain Professors of the Faculty of Medicine have declined to give separate classes of instruction to women; and the Court are asked either (1) to extend, in the case of female medical students, the privilege granted by ordinance by the Universities’ Commissioners, to lecturers, not being Professors in a university, of qualifying for graduation by their lectures, which privilege is now restricted to four of the prescribed subjects of study; or (2) To authorise the appointment of special lecturers to give, in the University, qualifying courses of instruction in place of those Professors who decline to do so; or (3.) To ordain that the Professors referred to shall themselves give the necessary courses of instruction to women.
“The second course suggested it is not in the power of the Court, or other University authorities, singly or jointly to adopt.
“The third course is equally beyond the power of the Court. The Act of 1858 vests in the Court plenary powers to deal with any Professor who shall fail to discharge his duties, but no Professor can be compelled to give courses of instruction other than those which, by the use and wont of the University, it has been the duty of the holders of his chair to deliver.
“The first of the proposed measures would imply an alteration in one of the ordinances for graduation in medicine (No.8, clausevi., 4). Such alteration could be made by the University Court only with the consent, expressed in writing, of the Chancellor, and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council.
“But to alter, in favour of female students, rules laid down for the regulation of graduation in medicine would imply an assumption on the part of the Court, that the University of Edinburgh has the power of granting degrees to women. It seems to the Court impossible to them to assume the existence of a power that is questioned in many quarters, and which is both affirmed and denied by eminent counsel. So long as these doubts remain, it would, in the opinion of the Court, be premature to consider the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which may be held not to apply to women.
“Though the Court are unable to comply with any of the specific requests referred to, they are at the same time desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women,—provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.
“The Court are of opinion that the question under reference has been complicated by the introduction of the subject of graduation, which is not essential to the completion of a medical or other education. The University of London, which has a special charter for the examination of women, does not confer degrees upon women, but only grants them ‘certificates of proficiency.’ If the applicants in the present case would be content to seek the examination of women by the University for certificates of proficiency in medicine, instead of University degrees, the Court believe that arrangements for accomplishing this object would fall within the scope of the powers given to them by section 12 of the Universities’ (Scotland) Act. The Court would be willing to consider any such arrangements which might be submitted to them.”
“15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, January 18, 1872.
“Gentlemen,—I have received from your Secretary a copy of your minute of the 8th instant, and I beg you to allow me most respectfully, but at the same time most emphatically, to protest against the decision therein contained, on the following grounds:—
“1. That when women were admitted to study ‘for the profession of medicine’ in the University of Edinburgh, and were required to pay the ordinary matriculation fees asCives Academiæ Edinensis, in addition to those for instruction, it was believed to be involved that, subject only to the restrictions laid down in the regulations of November 12, 1869, we should be allowed to complete our education, and should, as a matter of course, proceed to the degree of M.D., no official intimation to the contrary being given to us at the time, nor indeed until now, when we have half completed our University curriculum. You will allow me to remind you further, that we have very high legal authority for believing that these expectations were well founded, and that matriculation does involve necessarily all the privileges of studentship, including graduation, as was indeed recently admitted by a legal Professor, who has always been one of our most determined opponents, when addressing your honourable Court in favour of rescinding the present regulations.
“2. That, except with a view to ultimate graduation, it was quite meaningless to require us to pass, as we did, the preliminary examination in Arts, which has not any necessary connection with the study of medicine itself, but is expressly stated to be ‘the first examinationfor the medical degree.’
“3. That we have all along pursued our studies with a view to the further professional examinations; that, in the resolutions passed by the Medical Faculty on July 1, 1869, it was distinctly stated that ‘ladies be allowed to attend medical classes and to receive certificates of attendance qualifying for examination;’ that, further, on April 9, 1870, the Senatus Academicus expressly ordained that exactly the same University certificates of attendance should be issued to students of both sexes, for the special purpose of qualifying for professional examination.
“4. That no kind of official notice was ever given to us that a doubt existed respecting our admission to the ordinary professional examinations, until certain of our number had completed their preparations for the first professional examination, and had paid their fees for, and received tickets of admission to, the same; and that, when the matter was brought before the Senatus, it was by them decided that ladies should be admitted to the examination, and accordingly the ladies in question were examined in the ordinary course and passed the examination successfully.
“5. That under the existing Act of Parliament it is impossible for any person to practise medicine under legal sanction, without a distinct ‘qualification’ as defined by the said Act of Parliament.
“6. That the only ‘qualification’ which it is in the power of the University of Edinburgh to grant, is the ordinary medical degree, and that no ‘certificates of proficiency’ would possess the slightest legal value unless a special Act of Parliament was passed making such certificates registrable qualifications.
“7. That the difficulty and expense of procuring such a special Act of Parliament would be very much greater than that of obtaining the sanction of the Queen in Council to such minor alterations in the University Ordinances as are alone necessary to enable us to complete our education by means of additional extra-mural classes; even if your honourable Court declines to make the necessary arrangementswithinthe University.
“8. That we are informed on high authority that it is at present within the power of your honourable Court, in conjunction with the Senatus, to make the necessary arrangements within the University, without any external sanction; either by ordaining that the present Professors shall instruct women in separate classes, or by appointing special lecturers for that purpose. As regards the former course, I venture to remark that several Professors in the Faculty of Arts are already delivering two or more lectures daily, and that, as I presume it was always contemplated that each Professor should instruct all matriculated students desiring to study his subject, it is quite conceivable that it might become necessary from the number of students, or otherwise, for the medical Professors also to be required to deliver two courses; and that, therefore, it could hardly be considered a hardship if they should be required to deliver a second course, with proper remuneration for the same, to those matriculated students who are forbidden by the University to attend in the ordinary classes. As regards the second alternative, I believe that it has never been doubted that the Senatus and University Court, conjointly, have the power of appointing any number of assistants or special lecturers in any faculty, if they are required for the efficient performance of the teaching of the University.
“9. That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date, and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements,so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.
“10. That we are informed by high legal authorities that we are entitled, as matriculated students, to demand from the University complete arrangements for our instruction, and that we are further entitled to bring an action of declarator to obtain the same from the several Professors if no alternative measures are devised, and that we shall inevitably be driven to pursue this course, with whatever reluctance, if your honourable Court persistently refuses to make, in any form whatever, such arrangements as may enable us to complete our education, and to obtain a legal qualification to practise.
“Earnestly commending the above considerations to your most favourable notice, I have the honour,&c.,
“Sophia Jex-Blake.”
“University of Edinburgh, 5th February 1872.
“Madam,—I am desired by the University Court to inform you that your letter, dated the 18th ultimo, has been laid before them and considered.
“In reply, I am to say that in several points of your view of the past history and present position of the question relative to the medical education of women in Edinburgh the Court are unable to concur.
“Without going into the discussions which might be raised on these points, it appears to the Court that it is only necessary for them to enter upon the subject of your ninth paragraph, in which you say:—
“‘That as the main difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date; and in case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements, so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present legal position of the University.’
“On this I am desired to inform you that you appear to ask no more than was offered by the Court in their resolution of the 8th ultimo, in which it was stated that while the Court were restrained by legal doubts as to the power of the University to grant degrees to women, from considering ‘the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which might be held not to apply to women,’ they were, ‘at the same time, desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women: provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.’
“On the assumption, therefore, that while you at present decline the offer made by the Court with reference to certificates of proficiency, you now ask merely that arrangements should be made for completing the medical education of yourself and the other ladies on behalf of whom you write, I am to state that the Court are quite ready to meet your views. If, therefore, the names of extra-academical teachers of the required medical subjects be submitted by yourself, or by the Senatus, the Court will be prepared to consider the respective fitness of the persons so named to be authorised to hold medical classes for women who have in this or former sessions been matriculated students of the University, and also the conditions and regulations under which such classes should be held.
“It is, however, to be distinctly understood that such arrangements are not to be founded on as implying any right in women to obtain medical degrees, or as conferring any such right upon the students referred to.
“I have,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.”
“15 Buccleuch Place, February 9, 1872.
“Gentlemen,—I beg to thank you sincerely for the resolution to which you came on Monday the 5thinst., and which, if I understand it rightly, will, I trust, prove a satisfactory solution of our present difficulties.
“We will, if you wish it, very gladly prepare and submit to your honourable Court a list of extra-academical lecturers and of gentlemen prepared to qualify as such, who may, with your sanction, instruct us in the various subjects which we have to study; but before doing so, I venture to beg for official confirmation of my interpretation of your late resolution in two essential particulars.
“I trust that I am correct in understanding—
“1. That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be accepted if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.
“2. That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.
“You will, I am sure, understand that, while we are quite willing to accept present arrangements for instruction without any pledge that they will confer a right to graduation, it would be useless for us to attend any classes which would be incapable of qualifying for graduation, and impossible for us to acquiesce in any agreement which might prejudice the claim which we believe ourselves to possess to the ultimate attainment of the medical degree.
I am,&c.,“Sophia Jex-Blake.”
“University of Edinburgh, 24th February 1872.
“Madam,—Your letter dated 9th instant has been considered by the University Court. In it you say:—
“‘I trust that I am correct in understanding—-
“‘I.That though you at present give us no pledge respecting our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, and that you will take such measures as may be necessary to secure that they will be so accepted, if it is subsequently determined that the University has the power of granting degrees to women.
“‘II.That we shall be admitted in due course to the ordinary professional examinations on presentation of the proper certificates of attendance on the said extra-mural classes.’
“In reply, I am desired to point out that no extra-mural courses, beyond the number of four allowed by the Ordinance of the Universities Commissioners, could either qualify for graduation, or for the ordinary professional examinations, except under a change in the ordinance; which change could be made only by a resolution of the Court sanctioned by the Chancellor, and approved by the Queen in Council.
“The Court have already declared, in their resolution of the 8th of January last, that they cannot even enter on the consideration of the expediency of such a change in the ordinance until the legality of female graduation has been determined.
“It would not only be premature for the Court to express at present any views or intentions on the points to which you refer, but it would be clearly contrary to their duty to do so. For, supposing the legal question to be decided in a way favourable to your wishes, those points would then doubtless be referred to the Court for their decision, when various parties would probably desire to be heard with regard to them.
“I am to add that in your letter of the 18th January, you appeared merely to ask that the Court ‘will now make arrangements whereby we can continue our education,’ and that the Court offered, as stated in my letter of the 5thinst., to meet your views in the only way which appeared to lie within their competency. The Court are still of opinion that it is quite impossible for them at present to add anything to that offer.”
I have the honour,&c.,J.Christison, Secretary.
I am anxious to guard myself from being supposed to attribute to Scotch nationality the exceptionally bad conduct of certain students in Edinburgh, during 1870–71. I cannot but hope that such behaviour as I have described would have been impossible in any English Medical School, but, in so saying, I do not by any means wish to imply that Scotch students have less good feeling than others, when their superiors set them an example of courtesy. In point of fact, moreover, some of those who took most pains to make themselves obnoxious were not Scotchmen at all, but Englishmen of an extremely low class. Some Scotch lads no doubt behaved very badly, but, on the other hand, the guard of honour (see page 104) was almost wholly composed of Scotch and Irish students, who showed the utmost indignation at the conduct of the rioters.