A CHECK
On the day following that memorable meeting of Senatus, S. J.-B. had a
curious conversation with the wife of one of the professors:
“Mrs. A. tells me Christison actually threatened to resign if women
are admitted!—and to the Medical Faculty this is a formidable threat.
She thinks also ‘the professors haven’t treated me fairly’ (which I
deny) in not letting me know how much they dislike the whole thing.
Doubtless A. does,—and the babble of her bourne is magnified to her.
Still I know all is not yet gained. Yet surely very much _is_. And can
‘He so far have brought me’—? Not that that is a real argument,
because if it fails we must suppose failure is right in one sense.
Amusing how much personal power Mrs. A. attributes to me, ‘You’ve just
turned them round your thumb,—I don’t believe there’s another woman
could have done it,—_you_ are wholly exceptional, etc.’ I say ‘very
complimentary, but I think not quite true.’ She thinks I’ve been
‘wonderfully clever,’ and when I object to the phrase, ‘have really
shown wonderful _power_ and tact.’
I’m afraid one can’t help being a little pleased to think one’s own
effort has done something,—and yet the other feeling lies deeper:
‘If Thou didst will, a mighty sword
Out of my stem should grow.’
By the bye U. D. thinks my poem[53] the saddest in the book, ‘Poor
child’ [she says] ‘_how_ sorry I am for you! Oh, if the atmosphere of
Easter joy which is bright round me were only your’s too, ... Such an
“only this,”—it would be better to be in the blackest night with the
hope of stumbling into broad daylight some time or other. It is the
sort of hopelessness of any more light to come that makes the poem so
sad to me.’
I don’t agree. I think the ‘only this’ is just everything,—enough to
live on and die on, though not enough (what is?) to prevent life being
very hard and stony. It seems to me just the essence of the—
‘... strenuous souls for belief and prayer—
Who stand in the dark on the lowest stair
Affirming of God,—He is certainly there.’
And did even Christ keep that much always?—
I believe Miss Cobbe is right,—in every Calvary there must be
‘darkness over the face of all the land’ for awhile.
Well, indeed, if we can always keep a firm grip of—
‘Only this, that He knoweth the way that I tread,
And His banner of crimson is over my head.’
And again,—
‘This only for solace,—God knoweth indeed
Where the poverty galls,—of what things we have need.’
At 1.30 came Mrs. Evans with her clear good eyes and face. Much
disposed at least to Botany. _How_ I hope she will!”
Footnote 53:
“Walking in Darkness.”
Meanwhile S. J.-B. was undoubtedly the woman of the moment, and she had
the satisfaction—by no means an unbroken one as life went on—of feeling
herself a thoroughly popular person. She lunched with this dignitary and
dined with that; some of the wives of the Professors offered to
accompany her to the lectures if no other women came forward to join
her; and some students whom she met at dinner told her they thought the
students would be delighted that she should join the class.
Apparently this sanguine view was a mistaken one, for an agitation was
raised among some of the men—at whose instigation we have no means of
knowing—which resulted in another appeal to the University Court against
the decision of the Senatus.
Very characteristically, but with Professor Masson’s approval, S. J.-B.
had called on Professor Muirhead to ask him the grounds of his appeal.
He told her he had appealed because he did not think the question had
been fully considered, and he thought the vote of the Senatus had
settled the question too finally for _all_ women. He pointed out that,
as things stood, she _must_ matriculate even to go to the lectures, but
held out hopes that the University Court could give tentative
permission. He was “not at all unfriendly,” and showed her cases of
mediaeval women doctors to add to the strength of her armoury.
Meanwhile Lord Advocate Moncrieff had proved “kindly and favourable,”
and the Lord Provost, “very lordly in his big chair, but rather
gracious” had promised to give the question “his best consideration.”
Sir Alexander Grant thought the thing was won with the Professors, and
had “hardly a doubt” of the University Court.
* * * * *
When, on March 31st of that eventful year, S. J.-B. returned to
Brighton, she fully believed that her cause was so far gained, and there
is not the smallest doubt that a number of the professors shared her
belief. One cannot read the diary and the letters of the periods without
feeling how much cause there was for confident anticipation; but we have
only to turn to dry-as-dust facts, to the constitution of Edinburgh
University, in order to realize how precarious the situation was.
There were no less than four bodies whose business it was to consider
the question at stake, and who—in addition to the Chancellor—had to be
consulted before any important change could be made:
1. The Medical Faculty, consisting of Medical Professors only.
This hurdle, as the reader is aware, had been somewhat unexpectedly
passed.
2. The Senatus, comprising all the Professors of every Faculty.
This obstacle, too had been passed.
3. The University Court, composed of the Rector, the Principal, the
Lord Provost of Edinburgh,—with five others appointed respectively by
the Chancellor, the Rector, the Senatus, the Town Council of
Edinburgh, and the General Council of the University.
4. The General Council, comprising all those graduates who register
their names as members.
Mr. Sidgwick’s remarks about Convocation naturally occur to one at this
stage; but what mainly strikes one on facing these particulars is the
extraordinary constitution of No. 3 as a body authorized to reconsider
the decisions of No. 2. The Rector was some distinguished man who might
never have been in Edinburgh in his life; the Lord Provost may be fairly
supposed to have his hands pretty full without taking upon him the
consideration of highly technical questions that lay outside his sphere.
As for some of the other members,—one can only say that the manner of
their election calls up possibilities concerning them too varied for the
human mind to grasp.
No doubt there were occasions on which this “lay control” had its
advantages; but, when one considers how much must depend on the point of
view from which the case was laid before the Court, one cannot but feel
that it lay in the power of so singularly-constituted a body to defeat
the very end for which it was created.
From S. J.-B.’s point of view then, as we have seen, two hurdles had
been successfully passed; but the dangers of the third may be estimated
from the fact—the importance of which she as an outsider could not
possibly gauge—that her avowed and implacable opponent, “our Nestor,”
Dr. Robert Christison, was the only Professor and the only medical man
who had a seat on the University Court. He had in fact the unique
distinction of belonging to every body by which the interests of the
women had to be decided, viz. the Medical Faculty, the Senatus, the
University Court, the University Council, and the Infirmary Board.
Add to all this that he was a respected and representative citizen, one
who made a strong appeal to the religious and church-going public. “No
man,” said Professor Masson about this time, “walks the streets of
Edinburgh whom I more respect; ... but this is not the first time, and I
suppose it will not be the last, when grave and wise men will be found
defending a dying tyranny.”
Professor Masson’s feeling for the great man was destined to be sorely
tried.
It will surprise no one, then, to learn that on April 19th, the
following resolution was passed at a meeting of the University Court
held, as was the custom, in strict privacy:
“That the Court, considering the difficulties at present standing in
the way of carrying out the resolution of the Senatus, as a temporary
arrangement in the interest of one lady, and not being prepared to
adjudicate finally on the question whether women should be educated in
the medical classes of the University, sustains the appeals and
recalls the resolution of the Senatus.”
“As a temporary arrangement in the interests of one lady.”
Supposing that the decision of the University Court was really to be
taken at its face value, so to speak, it was one of which nobody could
fairly complain. Was it not simply another way of saying,—“If this
counsel or this work be of men it will come to nought”? For, although it
be true that “God and one man make a majority,” the fighter who has God
on his side does not indefinitely remain alone, even so far as his
fellow men are concerned.
The mere fact of the adverse decision is recorded in the diary almost
without comment. One is glad to think that when S. J.-B. received the
news she was among her friends in the south, and no longer so dependent
on the lonely solace of an unwritten page. On April 26th she wrote to
Dr. Sewall:
“You will have seen my bad news in the papers I sent you on Saturday,—
I can no longer urge you to come and settle in Edinburgh, for all my
plans there have been overturned again. The University Court has
actually vetoed the permission given by the Medical Faculty and
confirmed by the whole Senatus (or conjoined faculties).
This is very unusual and seems _very_ hard.
I expect to go to Scotland in a week or two still, to see whether
nothing can be done about it. If I had any legal standpoint I would
take the matter into the Courts.[54] If I _can’t_ get in at Edinburgh,
then I shall try Glasgow, etc., but I should very much prefer
Edinburgh....
You see it is very well that I asked you not to talk about Edinburgh
to other folks. When I really succeed, you may ‘boast’ as much as you
please! I am sure that anything I ever do in Medicine will be all
yours.
I am so glad that you are prospering so well, and getting patients
sent you by the men. Thank you for all the papers you send me,—when
you send whole papers, do _mark_ the paragraph....
I am glad you like my Essay. It will be a good deal better when it is
rewritten, for I have a good deal of new evidence to bring in. It
_may_ be out in July, or it may wait till October.
I have had terrible wear and tear to go through the last two months.
Edinburgh was _very very_ tiring work,—to repeat endless arguments to
an endless succession of people took so very much out of one,—and then
too there was really a great deal to _do_, and tho’ I took cabs
recklessly I could not but get very tired....
I am sure you are right about women being fitter to understand women.
I will put in some more about that. Do you know whenever it comes home
to me personally I am more and more amazed how women _can_ go to men
for uterine treatment. I think that, sooner than go to any, I would
come across the Atlantic again to you. I wish you would let me know
how often doctors have sent you their own relations. I wish Dr. Cabot
or some leading doctor would publish a pamphlet or something
expressing his strong belief in the ‘_need_ of women doctors for young
girls.’ This is the point that hits the public hardest, I think. If he
could write me a short note that I could quote in my Essay, with or
without his name, I would do so....
There is such a nice girl here,—Ursula Du Pre (a sort of connection of
Mrs. Jenkinson’s) who would like very much to study medicine, but her
Mother objects strongly and she is too ill to be worried, she thinks.
It is a thousand pities, for she would make a splendid doctor;[55]
and, being extremely ‘well-born,’ it would have an excellent effect
for her to study. She is very anxious to see you,—she has fallen in
love with your picture. I tell everybody that neither that nor
anything else can tell them _how_ good and sweet you are, my dear
child.
Your very aff.
S. L. J.-B.”
Footnote 54:
This suggestion had been made to her by one of the legal professors.
Footnote 55:
“Tell me everything that happens,” writes Miss Du Pre about this time,
“so that I may not lose the thread of your history. I think I know
most of the people’s names now, and should not require much
explanation. You need not tell me in _every_ letter that Sir A. Grant
is the Principal. I’ll try to remember that fact.”
Meanwhile she was not left without sympathy from those whose sympathy
was a distinction in itself. On April 5th Professor Masson had written:
“DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Here is the latest news. The case was to come up today before
the University Court—with these two new elements,—of which I heard
only on Saturday: viz. (i) That Professor Turner has appealed
independently to the Court, and (2) That there is a petition against
you to the Court by a large number of students—not gainsaying the
propriety of women studying or practising Medicine, but laying stress
on the difficulty and the injury to male students, should a lady
student be admitted to open lectures on certain medical subjects, so
that a Professor should be forced to abstain from exhaustive treatment
of those subjects.
It was known at a Senatus meeting on Saturday, that the appeal, with
these new conditions, might come before the University Court today;
and, in view of this, Professor Balfour and myself were deputed to
appear before the Court and defend the vote of the Senatus,—
representing the reasons of the majority of the Senatus for the vote
and replying to any new objections.
We were at our post for the purpose today; but the University Court—
whether from an excess of business, or because of a desire for delay
in this particular question,—postponed the consideration of your case
till the 19th of this month. So nothing was done today.
On the whole I am of opinion that delay will do no harm. Prof.
Muirhead appeals (as far as I can understand him) not as an enemy, but
in order that there may be farther discussion. Professor Turner’s
appeal is grounded, I believe, on his own difficulty as regards
Anatomy. And then there will be time for outside influences, and the
considerations they may induce....
Had I known in time that I should be deputed to defend the case, I
would have written to you to request suggestions. As it is, there is
plenty of time now, and what occurs to me immediately is that any
facts showing the prevalence of right opinion in British Society (both
Whig and Tory) might be converted into argument. Please write to me
anything that you can collect on this head, i.e. facts and names to
prove that the tendency to open the profession to women is approved by
eminent and representative personages, of different political
opinions, throughout the country.
I will write again. Meanwhile, with doubled zeal for all that has
happened, I am,
resolutely Yours,
DAVID MASSON.
P.S. Prof. Balfour received this morning a letter from the Medical
Dean at Zurich of very satisfactory tenor.”
“3, Rosebery Crescent,
April 20th, 1869.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I regret to have to tell you that it went against you at the
University Court yesterday. After the three appellants (Profs.
Muirhead, Turner and Laycock) had been heard on the one side, and
Prof. Balfour and I on the other, we left the Court to their private
deliberations. These were long, and resulted, I understand, in an
agreement to something like this effect—that considering the extreme
inconvenience that would attend any present arrangement for the end in
view, especially when that is demanded for only one lady, the Court,
without pronouncing on the general question whether ladies ought to be
educated in the medical classes at the University, do not consider it
expedient, etc. I tried to get the exact terms of the resolution, but,
not having seen the Secretary, report the substance as it was told me
by Principal Sir A. Grant, and Mr. Nicolson. The _Scotsman_ of
tomorrow will probably have the communicated report: if so, I will
send it to you.
Only five of the Court were present,—the Principal, Mr. Gordon, Dr.
Christison, Mr. Phin and Mr. Nicolson. I believe the petition of the
180 students against you was really the determining argument,—the
Court foreseeing the chance of a disturbance, and not being prepared
to run the risk. Except two, I rather gathered that those present
favoured the notion of the medical education of women, if
circumstances would permit, and, on the whole, what has occurred to
me, since I learnt the decision, is, that, if a new attempt were to be
made, on the University of Edinburgh (and I hope there will), and if
it were to come in the form of a joint and simultaneous application
from a few ladies (say from half a dozen to a dozen), then our
authorities would be obliged to yield and to betake themselves to the
consideration of the means whereby such a class could be best
conducted—how far along with the men, how far apart.
Much chagrined at the result, but with the firm conviction that your
application and visit have done great good, and led to an advance in
the right direction beyond what could have been anticipated.
I am,
dear Miss Jex-Blake,
Yours very truly,
DAVID MASSON.”
“Aberdour, Fife, April 20th.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Your letter has followed me to this place, which must be my
apology for not replying to it at once. I was indeed annoyed at the
reversal of our judgment in your case at the University Court,—the
more so considering how the Court,—at all times a most absurd body to
review the decisions of the Senate—was constituted on that particular
occasion. I have not a copy of the Universities Act with me, and I
cannot therefore express any opinion as to whether this decision falls
under the category of those which are reversible by the Queen in
Council. If it does belong to this category I should say that your
best course was at once to carry it there, and I should say, with the
majority you had both in the Medical Faculty and in the Senatus, that
the reversal of the decision of so very insignificant and prejudged a
body as the Court was which judged of your case was pretty nearly
certain. If this cannot be done—which Masson or Playfair or Sir A.
Grant will at once tell you,—then I suspect the best thing is to bring
the case before the next meeting of the University Council. It has no
power to decide, but it may recommend to the University Court, and
that will bring the matter up again, and the constitution of the Court
can be better looked after than it appears to have been this time. It
may be also—though here again I am speaking without the Act, that such
a recommendation could be carried beyond the Court to the Queen in
Council. Any claim to admission on a legal construction of the Charter
would involve you in a law-suit which would not be decided for years
and would cost _x_=£s.!! Against that course I have no hesitation in
advising you, as a question of personal interest and comfort, though
of the legal merits of the question I can say nothing. I certainly, in
your case, however, would lose no time in seeing the Lord Advocate.
Substantially, I think he will be with you, and his advice in all such
matters is of great value, and will, I feel sure, be willingly given.
Mrs. Lorimer joins me in very kind regards, and in sympathy for the
annoyance which you are subjected to, and I am,
Yours very faithfully,
J. LORIMER.”
In a later letter Professor Lorimer says:
“There is one point on which I find I am with you against many of my
colleagues—even those who are guided by reason and not by tradition,
viz. as to whether Medicine ought to be taught to ladies separately,
or in the open classes along with the male students. As regards the
question of delicacy, I am clearly and strongly of opinion that in
holding the latter view your female instincts have guided you right.
The root of indelicacy is immodesty, and the root of immodesty is
immorality, and the arrangement that would in my opinion be immodest,
and might be immoral, would be that such subjects should be taught by
_one_ man to _one_ woman. The farther you recede from _that_
arrangement, the more you separate yourself from the circumstances in
which according to a well-known legal _brocard_, ‘charity ceases.’
The opposite pole as it seems to me, is the teaching of science
publicly in an open class, irrespective of the sex, age, or other
peculiarities of the audience; and mindful only of _truth_.
I am aware, however, that there are other considerations which
influence Sir Alexander Grant, and other members of Senatus who would
probably agree with me on this point. If young men and women were
thrown together daily, they say, imprudent marriages and the like
would come of it. Even here, however, I think the balance of evil is
on the existing arrangement, and not on that which you propose to
substitute for it. I have not seen Mr. Mill’s ‘Subjection of Women’
and I don’t go in much for that sort of thing, but I cannot see why
greater harm should come of men and women meeting at their occupations
than at their amusements; and I think imprudent marriages are just as
likely to come of croquet parties and riding-lessons as of medical
lectures.
As in later life one is sometimes apt to be deceived as to one’s
earlier feelings, I asked a young bachelor whom most Edinburgh Mamas
would _not_ consider ‘an imprudent marriage’ what his feelings were on
the subject; and his reply was ‘Anything rather than those dreary
balls and idiotic evening parties which at present afford the only
occasions on which men who go in for work in the early part of the day
can make the acquaintance of persons of the other sex.’
It can scarcely be doubted that by _working_ together men and women
would learn to know each other better, and that many _mistakes_ that
are now committed, would be avoided.
With kind regards from Mrs. Lorimer, believe me.
Yours very truly,
J. LORIMER.”
No one who has grasped something of S. J.-B.’s character will imagine
that she was likely to mistake a check for a checkmate, though she
sometimes made the converse mistake. She seems to have had some little
correspondence with Professor (afterwards Sir Lyon) Playfair, for the
following letter is among her papers:
“Athenæum Club,
London, 10th May, 1869.
DEAR MISS BLAKE,
I was much obliged by the list of women graduates and grieved at the
result of your case in Edinburgh.
There is no power of appeal against the decision of the University
Court. You had overcome the prejudices of the profession, but not
those of the students. With their strong opposition the University
Court could not possibly decide otherwise, for Scottish Universities,
without endowments, cannot go in face of the Constituency by which
they are supported. It would not do to ruin classes by the admission
of one pupil against the opinion of all the others. Though I regret
the result, I am not surprised at it. In the face of this prejudice,
the only hope that I see is for intending female graduates presenting
themselves in sufficient numbers to induce the Universities to give
them a separate education though a common graduation.
Yours truly,
LYON PLAYFAIR.”
“What I thought and think,” wrote Sir Alexander Grant, “is that if a
sufficient number of ladies could be found to constitute a small extra-
academical class in medical subjects, the University of Edinburgh would
be willing to make arrangements for the teaching of such a class, and to
examining the lady pupils with a view to awarding them medical degrees.”
In her diary S. J.-B. writes,
“Tuesday, May 11th.... Wrote today to ask to see Goschen,—see if
anything _can_ be made of appeal.”
“Friday. Saw Goschen, who will have the Act ‘looked up’ about appeals.
Lord Advocate also to ‘write.’ Slept at Hampstead Heath.”
“Saturday. Croquet. Came to Brighton by noon train.”
She used to recall many years later how on these much-prized visits to
the Corderys, some of the young folks got up at 6 o’clock in the morning
to have another game of croquet before the work of the day began.
“Wednesday. Met U. at Waterloo Bridge. It did me good to see her. Had
just heard ‘No appeal’ from Moncrieff, and no support except for
private classes from Grant.”
Here then she was obliged to stop and take breath. Failure? Surely not.
I think no one can view the subject all round, as we have done in the
foregoing chapters,—realizing something of the forces that were arrayed
against her—without a feeling of amazement that she should have
accomplished so much. Whatever the mistakes and failures of her
subsequent life, that first campaign must surely be pronounced an
astonishing success.