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 (see p. 120); as, however, they were
all submitted 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:--
“_Query_ 1.--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.
“_Query_ 2.--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.
“_Queries_ 3 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 of _four_, 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.”
“_Query_ 5.--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.
“_Query_ 6.--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.’
“_Query_ 7.--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.
“_Query_ 8.--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 James VI., 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, and _students_
within 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, by sec. 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 secret _coup d’état_ was 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 conduct _could_ be 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 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 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 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 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 Wood
Vexation and bother eneuch, sirs.
_Chorus_--Did 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.’