are open to all registered and matriculated students were such as to
leave no doubt on our minds that we should be admitted; if, therefore,
our exclusion should be finally determined, we shall suffer great
pecuniary loss and damage by this departure of the Managers from their
advertised regulations.
“7. That if we are granted admission to the Infirmary by your
honourable Board, there are physicians and surgeons on the hospital
staff who will gladly afford us the necessary clinical instruction,
and find no difficulty in doing so. In support of the above assertion,
we beg to enclose the accompanying papers, marked A. and B.
“8. That we are fellow-students of systematic and theoretical surgery
with the rest of Dr Watson’s class in Surgeons’ Hall, and are
therefore unable to see what legitimate objection can be raised to our
also attending with them his hospital visit.
“9. That a large proportion of the patients in the Infirmary being
women, and women being present in all the wards as nurses, there can
be nothing exceptional in our presence there as students.
“10. That in our opinion no objection can be raised to our attending
clinical teaching, even in the male wards, which does not apply with
at least equal force to the present instruction of male students in
the female wards.
“11. That we are unable to believe it to be in consonance with the
wishes of the majority of the subscribers and donors to the Infirmary
(among whom are perhaps as many women as men) that its educational
advantages should be restricted to students of one sex only, when
students of the other sex also form part of the regular medical
classes.
“We beg respectfully to submit the above considerations to the notice
of your honourable Board, and trust that you will reconsider your
recent decision, which threatens to do us so great an injury, and
that you will issue directions that we, who are _bona fide_ medical
students, registered in the Government register by authority of the
General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United
Kingdom, be henceforth admitted to your wards on the same terms as
other students.--We are, my Lord and Gentlemen, yours obediently,
“SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE, MARY EDITH PECHEY, ISABEL J. THORNE, MATILDA C.
CHAPLIN, HELEN EVANS, MARY A. ANDERSON, EMILY BOVELL.”
“November 5, 1870, 15 Buccleuch Place.”
November 5, 1870.
_Paper A._--“We, the undersigned physicians and surgeons of the
Royal Infirmary, desire to signify our willingness to allow female
students of medicine to attend the practice of our wards, and to
express our opinion that such attendance would in no way interfere
with the full discharge of our duties towards our patients and other
students.--J. HUGHES BENNETT, GEORGE W. BALFOUR,
PATRICK HERON WATSON.”
In _paper B_, Dr Matthews Duncan and Dr Joseph Bell expressed their
readiness, if suitable arrangements could be made, to teach the female
students in the wards separately.
(2.)--_Letter from, Dr Handyside and Dr Watson._
November 5, 1870.
“MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,--As lecturers in the Edinburgh
Medical School, we beg most respectfully to approach your honourable
Board, on behalf of the eight female students of this school whom,
we understand, you object to admit to the practice of the Royal
Infirmary. On their behalf we beg to state:--
“1. That they are regularly registered students of medicine in this
school.
“2. That they are at present attending, along with the other students,
our courses of anatomy, practical anatomy, demonstrations of anatomy,
and systematic surgery, in the school at Surgeons’ Hall.
“3. That as teachers of anatomy and surgery respectively, we find no
difficulty in conducting our courses to such mixed classes composed of
male and female students, sitting together on the same benches; and
that the presence of those eight female students has not led us to
alter or modify our course of instruction in any way.
“4. That the presence of the female students, so far from diminishing
the numbers entering our classes, we find both the attendance and the
actual numbers already enrolled are larger than in previous sessions.
“5. That in our experience in these mixed classes the demeanour of the
students is more orderly and quiet, and their application to study
more diligent and earnest, than during former sessions, when male
students alone were present.
“6. That, in our opinion, if practical bedside instruction in the
examination and treatment of cases is withheld from the female pupils
by the refusal to them of access as medical students to the practice
of the Infirmary, we must regard the value of any systematic surgical
course thus rendered devoid of daily practical illustration, as
infinitely less than the same course attended by male pupils, who have
the additional advantage of the hospital instruction under the same
teacher.
“7. That the surgical instruction, being deprived of its practical
aspect by the exclusion of the female pupils from the Infirmary, and
therefore from the wards of their systematic surgical teacher, the
knowledge of these female students may very reasonably be expected to
suffer, not only in class-room examinations, but in their capacity to
practise their profession in after life.
“8. That our experience of mixed classes leads us to the conviction
that the attendance of the female students at the ordinary hospital
visit, along with the male students, cannot certainly be more
objectionable to the male students and the male patients than the
presence of the ward nurses, or to the female patients than the
presence of the male students.
“9. That the class of society to which these eight female students
belong, together with the reserve of manner, and the serious and
reverent spirit in which they devote themselves to the study of
medicine, make it impossible that any impropriety could arise out of
their attendance upon the wards as regards either patients or male
pupils.
“In conclusion, we trust that your honourable Board may see fit, on
considering these statements, to resolve not to exclude these female
students from the practice of, at all events, those physicians and
surgeons who do not object to their presence at the ordinary visit
along with the other students.
“Such an absolute exclusion of female pupils from the wards of the
Royal Infirmary as such a decision of your honourable Board would
determine, we could not but regard as an act of practical injustice
to pupils who, having been admitted to the study of the medical
profession, must have their further progress in their studies
barred if hospital attendance is refused them.--We are, my Lord and
Gentlemen, your obedient servants,
“P. D. HANDYSIDE, PATRICK HERON WATSON.”
At a meeting of the lecturers of the Extra-mural School, held in
Surgeons’ Hall, on Wednesday, Nov. 9, the following resolution was
proposed and carried, a corresponding communication being laid before
the Managers at their meeting on Saturday, Nov. 12, 1870:--
“That the extra-mural lecturers in the Edinburgh Medical School do
respectfully approach the Managers of the Royal Infirmary, petitioning
them not to offer any opposition to the admission of the female
students of medicine to the practice of the institution.”
The following letter was also submitted at the next meeting:--
“15 Buccleuch Place, Nov. 13, 1870.
“MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,--To prevent any possible
misconception, I beg leave, in the name of my fellow-students and
myself, to state distinctly that, while urgently requesting your
honourable Board to issue to us the ordinary students’ tickets for the
Infirmary (as they alone will ‘qualify’ for graduation), we have, in
the event of their being granted, no intention whatever of attending
in the wards of those physicians and surgeons who object to our
presence there, both as a matter of courtesy, and because we shall be
already provided with sufficient means of instruction in attending the
wards of those gentlemen who have expressed their perfect willingness
to receive us.--I beg, my Lord and Gentlemen, to subscribe myself your
obedient servant, SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.”
“To the Honourable the Managers of the Royal Infirmary.”
NOTE L, p. 102.
As ballads are said to be even more significant than laws of the
popular feeling, I do not apologise for appending the following:--
THE CHARGE OF THE FIVE HUNDRED;
A LAY OF MODERN ATHENS.
(_Suggested by a recent Students’ Song, containing the following
verse_:--
“_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!_”)
* * * * *
ONCE more 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.
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 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--_they_ know no shame,
“Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of name
To glorious victory!
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!--_now_ men stand
To guard their _craft_ from female hand,
In nineteenth century!
“_Women_ to claim _our_ lordly state!”
Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate.
“_Women_ to strive _our_ gains to share!”
Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair,
“While five fair sons have I!”
“That _English_ girls 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 greet
The dreadful enemy!
Seven women yield, they must confess
On t’other side is _major 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 the _Chemistry Class of the University_
on 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 of _such_ petitioners. 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 knowledge of 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 Right Hon. 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 Nicholas V. at the suit of James II. 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.