THE QUESTION OF PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION
Apart from the ghost—which was a pure joy, though a very exciting one—S.
J.-B.’s holiday was broken in upon by very disturbing rumours.
It was whispered by some of those who might have been supposed to know,
that—notwithstanding the paragraphs that still stood in the _University
Calendar_ (see p. 260)—an effort would be made to prevent any new women
candidates from undergoing the Preliminary Examination, and from
matriculating. Worse than this, it was hinted that a similar effort
would be made to prevent the women who had been studying for that
express purpose for two years, from presenting themselves for the First
Professional Examination.
There were positive difficulties apart from these vague rumours. In a
previous chapter we saw that the President of the Royal College of
Physicians and the President of the Royal College of Surgeons had
refused to preside at the prize-giving “if lady students were to be
present and to receive their prizes on that occasion.” This announcement
was followed by a decision on the part of the lecturers at Surgeons’
Hall “to rescind the permission given last summer to those lecturers who
desired to admit ladies to their classes,”—“it being, however,
understood that the prohibition should not extend to the instructions by
Dr. Keiller [in Midwifery] and others, of women who were not registered
students of medicine.”
It was still open to the women, of course, to get Extra-Mural lecturers
to teach them elsewhere, if rooms could be found and the necessary
arrangements made; but, as regarded the original students, an automatic
deadlock arose at this point of which certain Professors unhappily
elected to avail themselves:
By the rules of the University only four classes might be taken from
Extra-Mural (non-professorial) teachers, and the original students had
already taken these four. Professor Christison’s class was one of those
that came next in turn, and it would, perhaps, have been expecting too
much of human nature that he should have chosen this moment in which to
lay down his arms. In any case, he refused point blank.
In this dilemma, the women appealed to the Senatus,—(1) to appoint
special University lecturers (assistants to the Professors or others)
whose payment the women would guarantee; or (2) alternatively, to relax,
in the case of the women, the ordinary regulations, so that they might
take an increased number of Extra-Mural classes.
Counsel’s opinion was taken by the Senatus as to the powers of the
University in this respect, and, an opinion adverse to the wishes of the
women having been received, the Senatus decided by a majority of one to
take no action in the matter.
Promptly S. J.-B. and her Committee submitted the facts to other counsel
(the Lord Advocate and Sheriff Fraser) and received the opinion (1) that
it was quite competent to the University authorities to make any
necessary provision for the completion of the ladies’ education: and (2)
that the Medical Faculty were bound to admit the ladies to professional
examination on the subjects in which they were already qualified to
pass.
This latter point was included with special reference to the incredible
rumours referred to above.
As the day of the examinations drew near and nothing happened, the
leaders among the women began to feel reassured. The following letters,
however, show how well-founded their fears were:
“Private.
Oct. 2. 71.
MY DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I shall be at the Senatus any day you like, unless prevented by
something of which I have no present prospect.
I was glad to hear, from my wife, ... that Mr. Fraser has given you a
favourable opinion. His view that the Professors are _bound_ to teach
all persons who present Matriculation tickets to them, is what I have
always held, and I believe often expressed to you. In the same way I
should say, they are bound to examine them. What you must do now,
then, I fancy, is to present your Mat: tickets and class fees and
_demand_ class tickets, and present your Certificates, etc., and
_demand_ Examination, and, on either or both being refused, claim a
legal remedy. If possible you ought to go to the Court of Session and
not to the University Court; and to the 2nd Division, if you have to
go beyond the Lord Ordinary. Moncrieff will be much influenced by
Fraser’s opinion, whereas Inglis will be influenced, if at all, in the
wrong direction. As Chancellor, however, I should think he would
himself decline to sit as a Judge in a case which may come before him
in the former capacity.
With kind regards from Mrs. Lorimer, believe me,
Yours very truly,
J. LORIMER.”
“16 Charlotte Square,
Edinburgh.
Friday, Oct. 13th. 1871.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
... I should very much like to see the legal opinion you have
obtained upon the point of legal responsibility as incurred by the
University Court in their pragmatic sanction of the lady students
matriculating and passing their preliminary examination.
A legal opinion depends so entirely upon the manner in which the
matter is laid before counsel, and usually leaves so many loopholes
for escape unperceived by a non-professional eye, that I am always
jealous of such opinions unless the interpretation thereof is given by
someone of good common sense and legal experience....
I shall be at home tomorrow (Saturday) evening at 7.40 p.m. when it
will give me the greatest pleasure to see you, if that will suit your
convenience.
Is it true that Mrs. de Lacy Evans is engaged to Mr. Russel of the
Scotsman?!!!
Most faithfully yours,
PATRICK HERON WATSON.”
Here is a significant little letter, too, from the Secretary to the
University:
“Inveresk. Oct. 13.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I have instructed Mr. Gilbert[89] to receive the money [for the First
Professional Examn.] and give the customary acknowledgments, so that
you may be all right with the Dean.
I am bound to call a meeting of Senatus upon a requisition signed by 3
Professors. Secure a day likely to suit your friends. Saturday is not
a good day generally, and on Friday 2 or 3 are coming down here to
dine,—at least they are asked to do so.
How would Thursday or Monday do?
Yours truly,
JOHN WILSON.”
Footnote 89:
Clerk of the University.
That afternoon, we are told, there was a “furious row” in the Medical
Faculty, and a day or two later each of the women candidates for the
First Professional Examination received a copy of the following letter:
“University of Edinburgh,
October 14th, 1871.
MADAM,
I am instructed by the Medical Faculty to inform you that your
name and your fees have been received in error by the Clerk of the
University as a candidate for the first professional examination
during the present month, but that the Faculty cannot receive you for
such examination without the sanction of the Senatus Academicus.
I am, Madam,
Your obedient servant,
J. H. BALFOUR,
Dean of the Medical Faculty.”
Two days later S. J.-B. received the following letter with reference to
the Preliminary Examination:
“University of Edinburgh, Oct. 16. 1871.
MADAM,
I am desired by the Dean of the Medical Faculty to inform you
that he has been interdicted by the Faculty from giving examination
papers to ladies on the 17th and 18th curt.
Kindly communicate this fact to the ladies whose names you some time
ago handed in to me for this examination.
I am, etc.,
THOMAS GILBERT.”
It will be noticed that the letter was dated on the day previous to that
on which the examination was to take place. Three ladies had come—or
were on their way—from various parts of the kingdom to submit to it. If
they were not allowed to enter, they would be thrown back in their
professional studies for a whole year.
Most women—and men—would have sat down under this blow. S. J.-B. went
straight to her solicitor and took him with her to see the advocate (Mr.
Fraser). The following is a copy of the letter that was sent by them to
the Dean of the Medical Faculty:
“Chambers, 8 Bank Street,
Edinburgh. Oct. 16th. 1871.
DEAR SIR,
We have been instructed to obtain the opinion of counsel with
reference to the legality of your refusal to admit ladies to the
Preliminary Examination in Arts, which will take place tomorrow.
We beg now to enclose the memorial submitted, and the opinion given
thereon by Mr. Patrick Fraser, for your perusal, and request that you
will, at your earliest convenience, return them to us.
We beg to point out that you are individually responsible if the
refusal is persisted in, and that we have been instructed, in that
case, to raise actions for damages against you at the instance of each
of the memorialists. You will also observe that the instructions of
the Medical Faculty, being in themselves illegal, will be no defence
against such actions.
We trust that you will, in these circumstances, reconsider the matter,
and see fit to retract the refusal, and prevent the necessity of
further proceedings.
We are, etc.,
MILLAR, ALLARDICE & ROBSON, W.S.
Professor Balfour, M.D.,
Dean of the Medical Faculty.”
There was no loss of time in receiving the reply:
“University of Edinburgh, Oct. 16th., 1871.[90]
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I have received the legal notice from your solicitor. Under
these circumstances I shall not take the responsibility of refusing
the ladies admission to the preliminary examination as heretofore. But
I must inform you that I admit them provisionally until the matter is
decided by the proper authorities, and without prejudice as regards
myself.
I am, etc.,
J. H. BALFOUR.”
Footnote 90:
The dates of these three letters are correctly given. They were all
delivered by hand.
So the ladies were duly examined in the ordinary course.
On applying for Matriculation tickets, however, they were informed by
the clerk that the Principal of the University had written him word
that, in consequence of representations made to him by Professor
Christison, no ladies were at present to be allowed to matriculate. “Of
course,” said a friendly professor, “the Principal had no more authority
to issue this decree than had the janitor.”
In this case, fortunately, there was time to call a meeting of Senatus,
as referred to by Professor Wilson above (letter of October 13), and the
necessary requisition was signed by Professors Crum Brown, Tait, and
Liston.
[Diary.] “Tuesday 17th. Preliminary examination all right,—Mundy,
Dahms, and Miller. Dr. Alex. Wood takes Motion in General Council.
Thursday, 19th. Leader written yesterday, in proof today. I, oh, so
tired! Settled about motions in Senatus. Med. Fac. want Lord
Advocate’s opinion,—seem shaking in their shoes.
Ah, we _will_ win,—but the price!”
Poor little Despotic Emperor! Where was her Sackermena?
“It may be that the gulphs will bear us down,
It may be we shall reach the happy isles....”
“How these worries must increase the difficulties of study in the case
of each one of you;” wrote a faithful friend, the Dowager Countess of
Buchan, next day. “But then the certainty of success _somehow_, as the
dear Newman used to say, when he meant that there were benedictions in
the air; and that you will surely have worked out the greatest
possible benefit for womankind for all generations, even if
hostilities are prolonged, must be a support now and an abundant
recompense, I hope, for all your toils when they are happily
concluded.”
About the same time another “honourable woman” was writing:
“SIR,
I venture to trouble you with a post office Order for £2,—
payable from me to yourself,—as my small contribution to the Fund
needed by the General Committee for securing a Complete Medical
Education for Women in Edinburgh.
The question is so important, and the Lady-students have manifested so
fine a spirit and temper under the harassing trials, that a large
proportion of their countrymen will, I trust, feel the obligation of
sustaining them during their conflict with jealousies and prejudices
which will scarcely be credited by a future generation.
Permit me to offer you my thanks for the service you render to a good
cause by managing the financial concerns of the movement, and believe
me, Sir, with much respect.
Yours,
HARRIET MARTINEAU.
W. L. Reid, Esq.”
At the Senatus meeting on Oct. 21st., the question of admitting women to
the First Professional Examination was discussed, and the Medical
Faculty was instructed to examine them. It is interesting to know that
all the candidates passed.
But S. J.-B. was not one of them. All her strength was being spent in
carving out the way.
It was matter for congratulation, of course, that the schemes of the
enemy had been foiled; but the friends of the women in the University
were now more anxious than ever to raise the whole question on to a
level above these harassing obstacles. At a meeting of the University
Council Dr. Alexander Wood moved that “the University is bound in honour
and justice to render it possible for these women who have already
commenced their studies, to complete them.”
“This,” said the _Lancet_, “is precisely the ground we have always taken
up about the matter; and we hope the General Council of the University
will, by the adoption of Dr. Alexander Wood’s motion, put an end to the
controversy which has redounded so little to the credit of that school.”
Dr. Wood made a brave and telling little speech, and was ably seconded
by Mr. Alexander Nicolson. In moving the amendment, Professor Turner,
with great shrewdness, quoted S. J.-B.’s letter to the Dean of the
Medical Faculty of two years before (see p. 235), a letter which, at a
superficial glance, looked like the weakest point in her case—the letter
in which she had signified her willingness “to withdraw my application
altogether if, after due and sufficient trial, it should be found
impracticable to grant me a continuance of the favour which I now
request”; and of course no one present knew enough of the facts to
reply. It was only after Dr. Wood’s motion had been lost by 107 votes to
97, that S. J.-B. had an opportunity of pointing out—in the hospitable
columns of the _Scotsman_—that the letter quoted had reference only to
the tentative proposal that she, alone and without matriculation, should
attend Professor Balfour’s and Professor Allman’s summer courses. This
proposal the University had refused, “deferring the whole question till
a permanent plan could be arranged and formally sanctioned by all the
necessary authorities,—which was finally accomplished after eight months
of consideration and delay.”
This is one instance—out of hundreds—of S. J.-B.’s extraordinary ability
to refute statements that _looked true_, that _might have been true_,
that _were nearly true_,—by a precise quotation of facts. It was an
ability that made for her more enemies than friends as life went on. Let
it be noted, too, that, but for the generosity of the press, she never
could have corrected such statements at all.
“To sum up the whole matter in one word,” she wrote, “I will venture
to say, that, instead of the daily trials of the past two years and
the apparent deadlock at which we have now arrived, we should have
found nothing but smooth paths for our feet, and no difficulties from
either students or professors, had Dr. Christison but kept to the
promise he voluntarily made to me at the close of my single interview—
of two minutes—with him 2 years ago—‘I shall vote against you, but I
shall take no measures to oppose you.’”
Once more the _Lancet_ made dignified protest:
“The Edinburgh school has come badly out of its imbroglio with the
lady students. The motion of Dr. Alexander Wood, to which we made
reference last week, was negatived by a majority of ten. As we then
pointed out, the issue before the General Council was neither more nor
less than this,—to keep faith with the female students whom the
University had allowed to proceed two years in their medical
curriculum. The Council was not asked to commit itself in the
slightest degree to any opinion, favourable or unfavourable, to the
admission of ladies to a medical career. It had only to concede, in
common courtesy, not to say common fairness, the right to which the
best legal advice had clearly shown the female students to be
entitled,—the right to carry on the studies they had been allowed to
prosecute half way towards graduation. Will it be believed? An
amendment postponing the settlement of the difficulty till it had been
duly considered by the authorities of the University, was put and
carried; as if there was any more room for ‘consideration’ in the
matter! Thus Edinburgh stands convicted of having acted unfairly
towards seven ladies, whom she first accepted as pupils, and then
stopped half-way in their career.”[91]
Footnote 91:
_Lancet_, November 4, 1871.
Move and countermove follow with bewildering rapidity at this time.
Within a fortnight Professor Muirhead is urging the Senatus to rescind
the regulations for the admission of women to the University, reserving
the rights of those already entered; and this is passed by a majority of
one,—14 to 13.
Eighteen Professors, however, rose up in wrath to protest against this
decision, and—as only fifteen, out of a total of thirty-five, could be
got to support it,—the regulations of Nov. 1869, were confirmed by the
University Court, and everything was left _in statu quo_![92]
Footnote 92:
“The Court find it inexpedient at present to rescind the said
resolutions and regulations, and therefore decline to give effect to
the decision of the Senatus. The Court must not be understood as
indicating by this deliverance any opinion as to the claims of women
to proceed to graduation, or as to the power of the University to
confer on women degrees in the Faculty of Medicine.” Commd. by
direction of the University Court. J. Christison, W.S., Sec.
* * * * *
Meanwhile—in addition to classes for the seniors—arrangements had to be
made for the three new students who had entered. It was probably in
connection with these that S. J.-B. received the following letter:
“17 Drummond Place,
December 23rd. /71.
DEAR MADAM,
As you will probably be aware before you receive this, I have
been utterly unsuccessful in my attempts to bring my Colleague to my
own way of looking at the matter in question.
I may mention to you that my own impression, derived from various
conversations with several of the most prominent of your opponents, is
that they would have but little objection to give you, or at least to
make arrangements for giving you, the instruction you seek—_provided_
it were sought as a favor and not claimed as a right—in other words I
think many of them are anxious to avoid making what might be called a
precedent. This I give you confidentially and merely as an impression,
but I have little doubt of its being at least nearly a correct one.
Believe me, dear Madam,
Yours truly,
P. G. TAIT.”
This was the letter of a wise man, and it might, perhaps, have been
better for the cause in the immediate future if S. J.-B. had acted on
the advice it contained. Her reply is not forthcoming, but we know quite
well that she was not prepared to run the risk involved in acting on the
advice. Two women had already secured registration “by a postern gate,”
and that was not her aim. She longed—no one more—to write M.D. after her
name; but she would, as a matter of course, have foregone that right
forever, if, by so doing, she could have opened the gate for all.