THE LORD ORDINARY’S JUDGMENT
“Did you advertise your lecture in the _Lancet_? I expect you will
have a lot of blackguardly doctors there in consequence. Don’t have
any libel cases, and don’t be hard on the students. They’re very bad,
but they’re not so bad as the Professors.[102] I know you are very
busy writing and so on, and that there would be plenty of copying for
me to do if only I were at hand. Don’t you want me to bully and be
bullied by?
How I wish I could be in the gallery to make faces at you and throw
peas!”
Footnote 102:
As a matter of fact a number of students came—unasked—to serve as
stewards.
An admirable and characteristic letter, this, from Miss Pechey. Was a
bracing message of warning and sympathy to a senior and chum ever more
tactfully and lightly delivered?
On April 25th, after some days in the country, S. J.-B. went to London
and was met by Miss Du Pre and Miss M‘Laren, who “heard and finally
polished up the lecture,” which was delivered the following day at St.
George’s Hall in the presence of a large and curiously assorted
audience. The Earl of Shaftesbury, who occupied the chair, was supported
by Professor Lewis Campbell, Rev. Dr. Martineau, Mrs. Garrett Anderson,
Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, the Dowager Countess of Buchan, and other well-
known folk, and among the general public were a number of girlhood’s
friends, including Miss Ada Benson, Miss Miranda Hill, and many “modern
women,”—with a sprinkling of Norfolk cousins. In the course of his
address the Chairman made a shrewd remark, of which time has proved the
truth:
“The argument that women were not wanted in the medical profession
struck him as very singular. He was old enough to remember when
railways and electric telegraphs were not wanted for the simple reason
that they were not known. When they became known and tried, we could
not do without them, and in all probability it would be the same with
reference to ladies in the medical profession.”
In many ways the lecture was a success, and it was largely quoted and
referred to in the press; but, for the ordinary hearer, it was
overloaded with statistics, and—with a view to that ever-possible action
for libel—the lecturer kept herself too well in hand. It is amusing to
find _The Christian World_ hinting a regret that she “had not really
worked herself up into a passion” in narrating the injustice and
vexations to which she had been exposed.
On the other hand, Mrs. Priscilla Bright M‘Laren, an unbiassed expert,
expressed the wish that the lecture should be delivered throughout the
length and breadth of the land. The publication of a pamphlet, she said,
would not have the same effect, because most people never have their
sympathies thoroughly roused unless they come face to face with the
person who has been persecuted. “If you could be seen and _heard_” she
wrote, “you would produce a wonderful effect in favour of the cause you
have at heart.”
S. J.-B. had serious thoughts of carrying out this suggestion, but—in
the interests of her own health—one is glad to record that wiser
counsels prevailed.
“Thank you _very, very_ much, darling, for your telegram,” writes Mrs.
Jex-Blake, the day after the lecture. “I thought if you knew how
anxious I had been the last few hours, you would send one, but I did
not at all expect it.”
“I have not known where to direct to keep adding my rejoicing at the
many accounts of the success of your lecture. Well, I am very very
glad for you and with you, and I pray things may somehow take a fresh
start. How very nice of some medical students to come and officiate. I
wish Professor Masson could have been there.”
“I am very glad to think of you as once more snug at home and I hope
with less work in view and some anxieties abated.... I am very glad
indeed you have given up going about lecturing.... Tom, too, thinks
you very wise to give it up: he was struck with your looking so worn,
and very vexed to see you so.”
It is interesting to note that S. J.-B. had taken an invalid friend home
with her to recruit! At the same time she is writing to a protégée:
“I have seen Dr. Blackwell, and think she is rather disposed to give
you the work.... I think you should go in your bonnet, and look sage,
and not seem too eager for the work, and put a good price on
yourself,—say £2 a week, or, oh, you would accept £40 for the 6
months, etc. And be very confident you can do it all, if she asks you
to call on her.”
This is really the most worldly letter that S. J.-B. ever wrote!
* * * * *
In all these later happenings, one misses the name of Mrs. Butler, who
had stood by S. J.-B. so enthusiastically in the day of small things. As
a matter of fact, Mrs. Butler was now fully embarked on her own heroic
campaign, and both Mrs. Garrett Anderson and S. J.-B. had failed to give
her their support. Thinking differently from each other on many points,
characterised indeed by a fundamentally different way of looking at
life, the two medical women alike realized the complications of modern
civilization too profoundly to add the stupendous question that occupied
Mrs. Butler to a programme that was already involved and difficult
enough. Mrs. Butler felt their attitude keenly, and it was evidently
with mingled feelings that she received a letter from Miss Pechey about
this time, asking the privilege of adding her name and that of Canon
Butler to the ever-growing Committee.
“My dear Miss Pechey,” she writes, “You are welcome to use my own and
my husband’s names if you think they will do your cause _any good_. We
cannot conceive that they would, and, on that ground alone, we should
be as glad that you should not use them. It had better be left to Miss
Jex-Blake’s judgment.
“All the world knows that we are on opposite sides on one of the most
vital questions of the day, and that the Medical ladies have no
sympathy with the efforts being made to get rid of the scandal of a
great State system of legalised Prostitution, and therefore it appears
to Mr. Butler and me an inconsistency that our names should appear in
any such adverse connexion, deeply as we desire the prosperity and
success of the medical woman movement....”
“Dear Mrs. Butler,” writes S. J.-B. in reply,—“As Miss Pechey tells me
that you leave me to decide whether or no to place on our Committee
your name and Mr. Butler’s, I write to say that I shall most gladly
avail myself of your permission so to use your names.
I am glad to say that our Committee is made up of over a thousand
friends who not only differ widely on the point to which you refer,
but among whom differences no doubt exist on almost every other
question, social, political and religious.
As we cannot hope that even the most conscientious among us will
always agree on matters of judgment, I am sure that the only wise rule
is to keep each question distinct by itself, and to welcome for it the
support of all who care for its success, whether or no they agree on
other points.
With kind regards to Mr. Butler, believe me,
Yours truly,
S. JEX-BLAKE.”
The breach was never quite healed. When people care more for great
causes than for personal pleasure and satisfaction, the loss of a friend
must sometimes be taken as part of the day’s work. _Sunt lachrymae
rerum._
Meanwhile the work of propaganda was going on steadily, and, as S. J.-B.
had given up the idea of lecturing in the great towns, she proceeded, as
the next best thing, to publish her lecture, in conjunction with her
historical researches on the subject of Medical Women, in the form of a
small volume.
Just as she was seeing this through the press, news came of the illness
of her Mother, who was visiting the cousins at Bylaugh Park.
“June 17.
DARLING MOTHER,
I am _very_ sorry to hear that you have had such an attack
again. I should be really unhappy if I did not believe and trust in
you that you would telegraph for me if you at all wished for me, or if
you felt really seriously ill. Am I right in so trusting you?
I am sure they will take all the care they can of you, and I hope you
will be good and wise enough to eat all you can, broth at first, and
then as much meat and vegetables as possible—and lots of
strawberries!—are they ripe yet at Bylaugh?
You know that I am doing Dispensary work now, and have several
patients of all kinds to look after, but I envy the doctor that has my
old lady instead of me.
If you decide against going to Wales, suppose you come up here
straight from Norfolk, and we have a quiet month quite alone
together?—somewhere in the Highlands—if I have to give up Brighton.
Of course I shall send you your _own_ copy of my new book myself, but
Miss Pechey will send any quantity more that you may order for giving
away, etc.
How good of dear old Auntie to write!
Yours lovingly,
SOPH.”
The illness, however, rapidly assumed a dangerous character, and S. J.-
B. was telegraphed for next day.
“Luckily was up,” she says [she had been ill herself], “and received
the telegram by 9.50 a.m. Got things packed and off by 10.25 train.
Thunder and lightning whole way up. Reached Peterbro about 6.30,—Lynn
9.15. Got a carriage and drove to Swaffham ...—thence to Bylaugh,
arriving at 2.45 a.m. Crept up to Mother’s room,—she, ‘My darling!’—
She had been nervous and restless, but slept, holding my hand.
Oh, the horror of seeing her all shrunk together in bed, hardly
articulate,—I thought dying.
And had been very nearly....”
As usual when life was doing its worst, there follow a few blank pages
in the diary,—pages that were to be filled in some day! “I am so glad,”
wrote Miss Jane Cubitt from Fritton,—Miss Cubitt was the “sensible
cousin” of the childhood, who could do equations—“I am so glad that you
have arrived at Bylaugh. I feel now that all that can be done will be
done.” And fortunately on this occasion recovery came more rapidly than
the doctors had thought possible.
S. J.-B. returned to Edinburgh on the 8th July, not a moment too soon.
She was called out to a case the evening of her arrival—having travelled
north by day—and she proceeded forthwith to finish seeing her book
through the press. Law business, too, was urgently claiming her return.
On Wednesday, the 17th July, the historic lawsuit came on before Lord
Gifford.
It must be understood that this lawsuit, though of almost infinite
importance to the women, was in no way a dramatic affair like the last.
In the nature of the case it afforded no sensations to provincial
papers. An Action of Declarator is “for a decree defining and declaring
the right of the pursuer,”[103] and the evidence in Court was given by
Counsel only.
Footnote 103:
See S. J.-B.’s letter to Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, pp. 356-7.
The women repeated in effect the requests they had so often made to the
University, viz. that the Professors should either receive them as
members of their classes, or else appoint (or recognize) other lecturers
who would. The defence consisted substantially of two pleas: 1. that all
parties are not called (see below); and 2. that the Senatus has not the
power to do what it is asked to do; in other words, (_a_) that the
University existed for men only, and, (_b_) that the University
authorities in making this experiment, had never intended to admit women
to _graduation_. If they did so intend, the intention was _ultra vires_;
and indeed they probably went beyond their powers when in 1869 they
framed regulations admitting women to share their privileges at all.
The hearing of the case lasted two days, and it was fully reported in
the Scottish daily papers of July 18th and 19th. Much of it, of course,
consisted of sheer technical detail that has long since lost interest,
but Lord Gifford’s judgment—delivered eight or nine days after the
hearing of Counsel—was characterized by a grip of the whole situation
and enlivened by a warmth of human interest that make it a landmark in
the history, not only of medical women, but of the whole Feminist
movement. If he allowed his sympathy with the pursuers to appear rather
too clearly, this was surely a fault that, in view of all the
circumstances, may well be reckoned to him for righteousness. The gist
of the judgment is contained in the following sentences:
“The Lord Ordinary finds that, according to the existing constitution
and regulations of the said University of Edinburgh, the pursuers are
entitled to be admitted to the study of medicine in the said
University, and that they are entitled to all the rights and
privileges of lawful students in the said University, subject only to
the conditions specified and contained in the said regulations of 12th
November 1869: Finds that the pursuers, on completing the prescribed
studies, and on compliance with all the existing regulations of the
University preliminary to degrees, are entitled to proceed to
examination for degrees in manner prescribed by the regulations of the
University of Edinburgh.”
In the “Note,” the Lord Ordinary discusses the case in detail:
“It is not easy to over-estimate the importance of the questions
involved in the present action. The decision may affect, in various
ways, not only the interests of the pursuers, and of all who are
similarly situated, but also the future welfare of the University, and
indirectly the well-being of the community at large who are interested
in securing the services of thoroughly educated and accomplished
medical practitioners.
The Lord Ordinary has endeavoured to approach the consideration of the
questions dispassionately, and free from all prejudices or
prepossessions. He has also endeavoured to keep in view that his
functions are merely judicial and not legislative, and that his duty
is simply to declare and apply the law as it at present stands, and in
no way to endeavour to amend it, however strong his convictions of
what the law ought to be....
The importance of the question to the present pursuers, and to all
ladies who, like them, may contemplate the practice of medicine as a
profession, lies in this, that, by the provisions of the Medical Act
of 1858 no one is entitled to be registered as a medical practitioner
without possessing a medical degree from one or other of the
universities of the United Kingdom, or a licence equivalent thereto
from certain established medical bodies mentioned in the Act. A
foreign or colonial degree is not available, and does not entitle to
registration unless the holder thereof has been in practice in Great
Britain previous to October 1858. Unless the pursuers, therefore,
succeed in obtaining degrees, they will be practically excluded from
the profession of medicine, for they are not in a position to demand
licences from any of the authorised medical bodies, and it can
scarcely be expected that they will prosecute their medical studies
merely in order to be hereafter classed with empirics, herbalists or
medical botanists, or with those who, in common language, are
denominated quacks. Without legal registration under the Medical Act
of 1858, the pursuers would be denied all right to recover fees; they
would be incapable of holding any medical appointment; and they would
be subject to very serious penalties if they so much as attempted to
assume the name or title of medical practitioners.
It is a fact, whatever may be its effect in law, that no University in
Great Britain has ever yet granted a degree to a lady. The Medical
Register of Great Britain only contains the name of two female
practitioners—Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell and Dr. Garrett Anderson. Dr.
Blackwell obtained her degree in America, and, being in practice in
Great Britain before 1858, she obtained registration in virtue of the
exception in the Act. Dr. Garrett Anderson obtained a licence from the
Apothecaries’ Hall, London, and is registered as such; but, since her
admission, regulations have been made which prevent any other lady
from hereafter obtaining a licence from the Apothecaries’ Hall.
Accordingly the course pursued by Dr. Blackwell and Dr. Anderson is
not open to any of the pursuers, and their only hope of being allowed
to practise medicine in Great Britain rests upon their being able to
obtain a degree from one or other of the Universities.
_Practically, therefore, the questions are now raised for the first
time, Can a lady obtain a medical degree? and, Is any lady to be
allowed to practise in Great Britain?_”
The Lord Ordinary then discussed the case for the defenders, point by
point: The first plea in law was the technical plea that “all parties
are not called,” or, in other words, that the action should have been
brought, not against the Senatus and Chancellor, but against the
University as a whole.
This question, said the Lord Ordinary, should have been raised before
the record was closed, and settled _in limine_. As a matter of fact,
however, it was of little moment, as the Senatus and Chancellor were the
only parties complained of,—it being assumed that the University as a
whole was ready and willing to do its duty as soon as such duty was
clearly defined. The Chancellor, indeed, had expressed this willingness
so far as he individually was concerned, and, strictly speaking, he need
not have been called as a party.
From the principle on which this preliminary plea was repelled, it
followed that there was in the present action no attempt to impugn in
the slightest degree the existing constitution of the University. Its
existing regulations and ordinances must be taken as right, and the
Senatus must simply be called upon to give effect to these as they
stood.
The Lord Ordinary proceeded to make one or two observations of a general
nature. He was clearly of opinion that, by the law of Scotland, there
was no inherent illegality in women prosecuting the science of medicine,
using the word in its largest sense, or in their engaging in the
practice of medicine as a profession.... Indeed some branches of the
profession were peculiarly appropriate to women and peculiarly
inappropriate to men. For instance, in obstetric practice and in
numerous diseases of women, a male practitioner was singularly out of
place, and nothing but the deadening effect of habit would ever
reconcile the community to that anomaly both in name and in reality, “a
man-midwife.”
Keeping these preliminary observations in view, the Lord Ordinary
proceeded to consider the constitution and regulations of the University
of Edinburgh so far as they related to women:
I. It had been broadly maintained by the Counsel for the Senatus, in a
very powerful and able speech, that the University of Edinburgh was
founded and existed for males alone.
If this proposition were well founded, there was, of course, an end of
the whole case. The Lord Ordinary, however, had felt himself quite
unable to affirm this proposition, but had come ultimately, without any
hesitation at all, to the conclusion that there was no foundation for
this first and general contention of the defenders.
_a._ The charter gave no countenance to this supposition. The masculine
noun or pronoun was used merely in conformity with ordinary brevity and
simplicity of expression.
_b._ The fact that the Universities of Scotland were founded to a great
extent upon the model of Bologna, etc., seemed to show that—as women
were admitted to the Italian Universities—there could have been no
original intention to exclude them from those founded in Scotland.
_c._ It was true that there was no recorded instance of a woman having
taken her degree in Scotland, and this was an argument of some weight,
perhaps considerable weight. If, however, the women had the right
originally, that right would not be lost by the mere fact of non-usage.
The right in their case was _res merae facultatis_, like a man’s right
to build upon his own ground,—a right that is not lost though no
building be erected for hundreds or thousands of years. To extinguish
such a right there must be a contrary usage—a possession inconsistent
with the exercise of the right—and that did not exist in the present
case.
_d._ If there was no express exclusion of women and nothing necessarily
leading to their exclusion, it seemed fair to fall back upon the
inherent legality and appropriateness of the study and practice of
medicine by women, and to infer that a medical school founded in the
University could not have as one of its conditions the exclusion of the
female sex.
_e._ Passing from such general considerations, the Lord Ordinary
considered it quite conclusive of the whole question that, by
regulations lawfully enacted by competent and sufficient authority,
provision had actually been made for the admission of women to the study
of medicine in the University of Edinburgh, and that actually detailed
regulations had been made regulating their studies and examinations.
II. The Lord Ordinary was of opinion that the “regulations for the
education of women in Medicine in the University” of Edinburgh, enacted
by the University Court of 10th November, 1869, and approved of by the
Chancellor on 12th November, 1869, were valid and binding in every
respect, and formed an integral part of the constitution and regulations
of the University as it at present existed. At the debate it was felt on
both sides that these regulations formed almost the turning-point in the
case, and the counsel for the Senatus, sorely pressed by them, had
boldly challenged their legality, maintained that they were _ultra
vires_ of the University Court to enact, and had asked the Lord Ordinary
to treat them as a nullity. Here again the Lord Ordinary thought the
position taken by the Senatus was absolutely untenable.
The regulations in question were solemnly, after much discussion, after
long consideration, and after due communication with the whole governing
bodies of the University, enacted by the University Court, a body which
had very large and almost legislative powers. The regulations were
enacted with all the required statutory requisites. “Due communication”
was had with the Senatus. The matter was submitted to and was duly
considered by the University Council, and the regulations received the
final sanction and approval of the Chancellor. The Senatus, the
University Court and the University Council had all the benefit of the
very highest legal skill and experience. Most eminent lawyers were
members of all these bodies; and the Chancellor who put the seal of his
approbation and sanction to the regulations held with universal
acceptance the very highest judicial office in Scotland.... So satisfied
had the Senatus been of the validity of the regulations, that they had
actually applied to the enacting power—that is, to the University Court—
to rescind them. The University Court had refused to rescind the
regulations and they still stood part of the law of the University.
III. The Lord Ordinary was of opinion that the pursuers were entitled in
substance to the declaratory decree which they demanded in the present
action....
The right to medical graduation was really at the foundation of the
whole of the present dispute. If the ladies had been content to study as
mere amateurs—as mere dilettanti—it rather appeared that no question
would ever have been raised. But their demand for degrees, and the
announcement of their intention to practise as physicians, had aroused a
jealousy which the Lord Ordinary was very unwillingly obliged to
characterize as unworthy, and hence this strife.
The Lord Ordinary was of opinion, without any doubt at all that the
proposal to withhold from successful or fully accomplished female
students the regular degrees, and to give them instead mere certificates
of proficiency was incompetent as well as unjust. The proposal was not
unnaturally stigmatized by the pursuers as “a mere mockery.”
IV. All this, of course, had reference to the declaratory conclusions.
Beyond that the Lord Ordinary could give no help. The first petitory
conclusion asked that the Professors be directed to admit women to their
ordinary classes; but this, as Lord Gifford pointed out, was more than
the Senatus had power to do, and the University Court could only do it
by altering regulations which the present judgment had assumed to be
right. The University Court, however, had undoubted power to recognize
extra-academical teachers; and—as teachers of unquestionable standing
and ability were ready to give the pursuers instruction in separate
classes—as, moreover, the University had only been held back by a doubt
as to its own powers—the Lord Ordinary hoped that this solution would
terminate the unfortunate controversy which had raged so long.
* * * * *
S. J.-B. records the result very briefly in her diary:
“Friday, July 26th. Lord Gifford’s judgment. Affirms declaratory
conclusions, i.e. full rights,—denies petitory conclusions, i.e. says
action so framed that he could not make order on Senatus.
Gloria tibi, Domine!
Substantially the whole cause won for all women, I believe.
His note too good to be easily set aside. _May_ be fresh delay—hardly
defeat.”
In any case it was a great and inspiring judgment,—almost enough to
atone to S. J.-B. at the moment for all she had come through; for it
must not be forgotten that the epoch-making enactments of November 1869,
on which almost everything turned, had been won by her own bow and
spear, practically before any other woman student had appeared upon the
scene.[104] Well might she cry, “Gloria tibi, Domine!”
Footnote 104:
See p. 260.
And within a few days a great pæan of rejoicing rang out over the land,—
rejoicing that was to spread over the whole civilized world. Once more
the postman was a delightful visitant. Indeed, as one reads the letters,
one is fain to retract the dictum that this lawsuit was in any way
devoid of dramatic interest.
The telegraph boy came first, with a characteristic message from Mrs.
Kingsley:
“A thousand congratulations. How is R.C.”
“Eileanach,
Inverness.
July 31/72.
DEAR MISS BLAKE,
A paragraph in the _Daily Telegraph_ of the 30th made me
surprise sitters-by, by exclaiming ‘Thank God,’...
It is almost too good news to be true, although those not versed in
legal quibbles felt that your claim was both legal and equitable, and
_must_, in due time, be conceded. Yet, I would thankfully learn that
the case is ended, and that there is to be no appeal to keep it open
longer.
I mean to be in Edinr. (Cockburn Hotel) on the 8th August, and will
that day try to see and congratulate you on the blessed determination
you have shown, all along, not to be put down by mere brute, unmanly
force, but to compel justice to be done.
I am grieved that this should have cost you and your friends such
shameful trouble and expense, but know, that this loss to you, will be
the cause of myriads of dear women thanking God for having won a
victory that will do more for their welfare and happiness, temporal
and spiritual, than is now perceived but by a very few....
May God be with you and your friends, and speedily fill the land with
true women like you, so that no woman may need to keep secret for an
instant a single pain, because she can only tell it to men.
Very sincerely yours,
J. MACKENZIE, M.D.,
Provost.”
“Wednesday, July 31.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Will you allow me to add my hearty congratulations to those with
which I doubt not you are now being overwhelmed, on the success of
your brave and patient conflict with prejudice and injustice? I think
the question is now practically settled.
Thanks for your kind letter. I am very glad you liked St. Andrews.
Believe me with much respect,
Yours very sincerely,
A. K. H. BOYD.”
The letter that follows is from one who was to become an invaluable
champion.
“16 Wimpole Street.
July 27.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Allow me to congratulate you most heartily on the decision of
Lord Gifford, which establishes the rights of the lady students at
Edinburgh.
I will do what I can to get your interesting little book noticed in
the _Lancet_.
I do hope that the Conservative party in the profession will now have
the sense to give way with a good grace.
Believe me, dear Miss Jex-Blake,
Yours very truly,
FRANCIS ED. ANSTIE.”
The next is in the shaky handwriting of an invalid:
“MY DARLING,
I was so delighted to have your letter with the grand news. I
had not dared expect anything so good. From my heart I thank God and
rejoice. I feel so comfortably well, no aches or pains whatever. May
God bless and prosper my darling.
YOUR LOVING MOTHER.
Shall I give a copy to Nurse of _the_ book when we part?”
“Riffelberg.
July 30th. 1872.
MY DEAR SOPHY,
I am delighted to see in _Times_ of 27th, just arrived, that
Lord Gifford has given a judgment entirely in favour of yourself and
the other lady students. I congratulate you heartily and only hope it
is final.
I am here 8,400 ft. above the sea, having found it impossible to get
fresh in England, ...
I hope your legal perils are over; and, though one has regretted that
so much legal work prevented your own medical start, it has been well
worth all you have gone through, or yet may go through, to open the
Profession thoroughly to women.
As soon as you have completed your training, you have in my opinion
nothing but success before you: and, within 12 months of settling in
London as a properly qualified Physician, you will find it easy to
make £2000 a year, and impossible to avoid doing a very large amount
of good in making it....
Your affectionate brother,
T. W. J.-B.”
It was on the occasion of this visit to Switzerland that Mr. Jex-Blake
made the acquaintance of Miss Agnes M‘Laren—on the top of the Eggishorn!
It chanced one day that he ran down from the summit to assist a fragile
little lady up the last steep climb, and, in the course of subsequent
conversation, lent her a guide-book, in which, to her great surprise,
she found the familiar name of Jex-Blake.
So the Eggishorn heard all about it.
Yes, friends were kind, and more than kind; but, as before, the “man in
the street” rejoices one’s heart:
“Glasgow. 30th July, 1872.
DEAR LADY,
I beg respectfully to convey my sincere thanks to you for the
gallant stand which you have made against those parties whom I may
term Medical Monopolists, and to express my delight at the success
which have attended your efforts.
Your address and ability in thwarting the selfish purposes of said
parties have endeared you to every liberty loving individual in the
civilised world, and I sincerely hope you will long be spared to
benefit suffering humanity by your experience and knowledge—knowledge
which you have pursued under such tremendous difficulties, but the
possession of which cannot fail eventually to raise you to the very
pinacle of your profession.
I am,
Yours very respectfully, ...”
The following lines, written and sent to S. J.-B. a few months later by
a well-known Edinburgh citizen, may be taken as a sample of much clever
and spirited doggerel on both sides of the question:
“I do rejoice, Miss Jex,
The gods have heard your Prex,
To vindicate your Sex,
By passing a new Lex,
Though that does sadly vex
Professor C., senex,
Who plays the part of Rex,
But may become an Ex,
Because he won’t annex
The females to his Grex.”