END OF THE BATTLE IN EDINBURGH
The year 1873 is not one of the most dramatic in the history, but no
other has a more impressive record of work done, of resolute
determination to try every door, and to _keep on trying_.
It was becoming increasingly clear that—whatever the immediate issue of
the lawsuit might be—a wider appeal must be made. Even S. J.-B. began to
see that “no decision in our favour can give us the good will of the
Medical Faculty”; and Mr. Stansfeld’s warm and appreciative interest in
the question seemed to open a new door of hope. From this time forward
the recurrence of his fine clear handwriting in the correspondence
(brief though his letters are) is a constant reminder of how “Providence
rescues and saves His elect inheritance” as “the dear Newman” would have
said, though in another connection.
Mr. Stansfeld knew Professor Masson well, and probably began his
acquaintance with S. J.-B. in no ignorance of her _défauts_,—the
_défauts_ that made so many timorous; but, like Masson, he was a strong
man; like Masson he thought Carlyle was right in holding that “on the
whole we make too much of faults”; and to the end of the long history he
rejoiced wholeheartedly in the magnificent acumen and strength of Sophia
Jex-Blake.
S. J.-B. had made his acquaintance at the time of her lecture, and now,
after some little correspondence, she saw him again, and received his
introduction to some of his colleagues.
We quote from diary:
“Dec. 10th [1872] To London. At Cordery’s till 13th.
11th Wednesday. Saw Stansfeld at Whitehall. Then Simon, who, though
not very sanguine as to value of women doctors, is quite clear they
must have a chance. Suggests that the Colleges _could_ not refuse to
examine us. Lord Ripon also kindly,—quite inclined to make Medical Act
as dependent as possible on Registration. Lowe marvellously civil.
Very glad to see me, was quite clear it was a case for legislation. If
we lost the lawsuit, he would consult with Stansfeld, and do all he
could.
Tuesday, 17th. (Dear old man’s birthday,—would have been 82!) To
Yaxham. Mother fairly well.
For next 10 days stayed much in bed, read _Gil Blas_, etc., in utter
dearth of books. Worried by letters and telegrams from Edinburgh.
Thursday 26th. Started back for Edinburgh. Carriage to myself whole
way. Arrived
Friday 6 a.m. Slept an hour or two. Then 4 hours’ cab and canvassing;
and so on for next week.”
“Monday, Jan. 6th. 1873. Infirmary meeting. We apparently beaten by
279 to 271—pending scrutiny. Turner and Lister waved hats and
hurrahed!”
“Feb. 10th. The piety of the Infirmary Managers actually obliged them
to turn us out of Sunday visit, at least ‘for the present.’ Cowan[111]
delightfully indignant for once at ‘breach of faith’.
Feb. 16th. He went to Infirmary during Sunday visit; and went away,
telling Mrs. Thorne oracularly that ‘he had seen quite enough for his
purpose’.
Feb. 17th. Monday. He made a tremendous row at Managers’ Meeting. Said
that the previous day he had visited the wards and ‘had never seen a
more truly Christian, more truly Sabbatic sight, than the ladies at
the sick-beds.’ By 10 to 6 votes in again.”
Footnote 111:
Lord Provost.
Such were the ups and downs of daily life.
* * * * *
The question was raised at this time of having one or more women on the
School Board, and S. J.-B. took up the matter enthusiastically. It was
useless to remind her that she had more than enough on her hands
already. Here was a matter in which she really could serve. And a great
occasion it proved. Even those who were children at the time have not
forgotten the wild excitement in Edinburgh over that election, and the
lift given to the whole woman movement when the two lady candidates—Miss
Phoebe Blyth and Miss Flora Stevenson—appeared on the list second only
to the Roman Catholic priest, who had, of course, all the suffrages of
the faithful.
“You and Miss Blake must have half killed yourselves in getting a
Committee with such names as you have,” Miss Blyth had written.
“If you and Miss M‘Laren had not gone in so strongly for my interests,”
wrote Miss Stevenson, “I should have found myself _very_ much lower.”
So perhaps it was worth while, for the place taken by the women on the
list was a weapon of good fighting force for the future.
It was a helpful distraction too for S. J.-B. herself, and at that
moment the constant pressure of unsatisfactory difficulties and worries—
some few of these latter, of course, created by herself—was very
wearisome. Always something trying to do, and never anything to show for
it,—that was the record of her life at the time. Here is a heart cry
such as one seldom gets from her now:
“Sunday, May 18th.—Oh, dear!—for some brightness and freshness and
pleasure to break the long grey wait and work!—Nothing’s wrong,—I’m
fairly well, and by no means unhappy. I’ve the real essentials of
happiness,—love and work,—but the fruition of both seems so far away!
And I want 3 or 4 days of bright sunshine,—rides and drives, ices and
champagne!—easy luxurious life for a few days’ change.
Ah, well! Some day I hope to have just such a bright easy home or nest
somewhere—and to find brain and body workers to take to it for the 3
or 4 days’ rest and change! How one needs to _experience_ needs in
order to understand them!”
There are some perhaps who will read this entry with no little feeling
when they remember how, long years after, she realized this ideal in the
home of her retirement, Windydene.[112]
Footnote 112:
“... And now a flood of memories of sweet Windydene brings tears to my
eyes. No fear there of rowdy ricsha coolies in a narrow alley
quarrelling over the right of way—nor rattle of carriages with their
annoying official bell ‘Clear the way’ up to 2 a.m.—but just silent
peace. My heaven will certainly have to be silence for a space. But
Windydene contains ... and the Doctor, and I remember talks over the
drawing-room fire, and those incomparable evenings in the Doctor’s
Study, and as these thoughts make one both weepy and sentimental, I
had better stop.” _Extract from a letter from Dr. Lillie Saville,
Tientsin, Jan. 7th, 1911._
But the saving sense of humour was never less than dormant. She seldom
has time to quote jokes in the diary now, but here is the very next
entry:
“May 23rd. From Life of Barham. Dr. Thos. Hume charged 7s. 6d. instead
of 5s. for death notice, because of ‘universally beloved and deeply
regretted.’ To surly clerk,—'Congratulate yourself, Sir, that this is
an expense to which your Executors will never be put!’”
The mood was not quite evanescent, however, for the anxious Mother reads
it between the lines:
“13 Sussex Square,
28 May.
DARLING,
I fear you were very weary when you wrote; Mother’s heart is
constantly with her little one, and yearning for some little word of
her health or her interests. Though I don’t want to be selfish and
have her write _often_,—when she does write she must mention herself
and how she is getting on.
H. [a former maid] is paying me a little visit. She looks very poorly
and she jumped at my offer to come here for a week.... She asked about
you, and I lent her your book. She wishes enough there were a lady
doctor for her to consult.
Ever your loving Mummy,
M. E. J.-B.”
One is glad to know that the women students were having a course of
lectures on Medical Jurisprudence from Dr. (afterwards Sir Henry)
Littlejohn that term,—with all the delightful excursions, topographical
and mental, which that course involved. No one who has had the privilege
of the same experience can regard the history of that summer as a trial
without compensation.
* * * * *
Meanwhile the lawsuit was dragging its weary course. One cannot be
surprised that the University should have appealed against Lord
Gifford’s decision. If appeal be made to law at all, one must get the
last word of the law,—especially if, in the last resort, public funds
are available to pay for it. There were still lurking possibilities in
that little word “vir,” and it might yet be shown that the University
had done an illegal thing when it admitted the women in the first
instance. If that proved to be so—and it was the _crux_ of the whole
case—the University (so it was argued) must be held excused from all
responsibility towards the women students themselves.
* * * * *
But, if one refrains from blaming the University, one cannot
sufficiently admire the behaviour of the women students as a whole
during those trying days of uncertainty. While the younger members of
the little band were pursuing their education where and how they could,
the seniors were striving on every hand to find some open door or to
unlock one that was closed. Birmingham was at least discussed, with its
possibilities; St. Andrews, Durham, and the various centres in Ireland
were visited and worked diplomatically, and for a time not without
apparent prospect of success. It is pathetic to go through the endless
reams of correspondence—vital once with hopes and fears—that was
destined to end, for the moment at least, in nothing.
In June S. J.-B. and Miss M‘Laren went on a mission to Newcastle, and
they had scarcely left Edinburgh before Miss Pechey, who had just
returned, sent the following report:
“15 Buccleuch Place,
Edinburgh.
June 17th. 1873.
DARLING SOPH,
I was going to write to you yesterday, but was overcome with
sleep, the result, I suppose, of getting up at 5 o’clock. Last night
Millar sent a copy of the Consulted Lords’ Opinion with a note to say
that the case would be put on this week, and that the proceedings
would occupy only a few minutes—merely formal. He is to let me know
when it comes on. Ormidale, Mure, Mackenzie and Shand are dead against
us, contending that the Court had no power to make the regulations.
Deas, Ardmillan, Jerviswoode and Gifford only in favour of the
regulations holding good and our right to graduation,—but _not_ a word
as to the regulations being enforced, and we are still left at the
mercy of the individual professors.
‘That being the case, this coloured individual will take to the
woods.’ We must look either to Newcastle or St. Andrews. My only care
now about the decision of the other judges is with regard to the
expenses....
I hope the Newcastle people are behaving well.”
Individually they were behaving well of course, and individually the
applicants saw them. Two of S. J.-B.’s drafted petitions have been
preserved:
“Station Hotel,
Newcastle. June 19th. 1873.
GENTLEMEN,
Relying on the liberality with which the College of Science of
the University of Durham has been thrown open to women, I venture to
request that you will pursue a similar liberal policy with reference
to your College of Medicine, and will admit to it those women who are
desirous to enter the medical profession, and for whose education
absolutely no provision exists at this moment in Great Britain.
If it is thought desirable that separate classes should be established
in any of the subjects of medical education, I am prepared to
guarantee for such classes the payment of whatever minimum fee may be
fixed by you, and I am further in a position to state that, if your
College is thrown open, at least fifteen women will at once enrol
themselves as students.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Yours obedly,
SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.”
“June 23rd. 1873.
DEAR SIR,
As I understand that some of the Medical Professors feel a
difficulty in arranging for the education of women, while others are
quite ready to do so, I venture to suggest whether it would not be
possible to admit ladies tentatively for a single term to the classes
of such teachers as are prepared to receive them, pending a final
decision of the whole question.
I think I mentioned to you that those among us who have studied
longest, have attended all the classes required for the Durham
licence, except those of Midwifery, Materia Medica and Therapeutics,
and that if these classes could be given in the winter session they
might present themselves for the April examination. After the
experience of such a tentative session, it might with greater
certainty be decided whether or not permanent arrangements could be
made.
Indeed, even if it should be thought impossible to make any such
partial arrangement for instruction, it might be a matter for
consideration whether the Medical Council (in conjunction with the
Durham authorities) might not agree to _examine_ women with a view to
the licence, if they presented certificates of having attended all the
necessary classes, and if they paid the fees for one session at
Newcastle, even without attending classes there, in case such
attendance should be found impracticable.
Commending the whole question to the most favourable consideration of
yourself and your colleagues, I remain,
Yours obedly,
SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.”
At least she and Miss M‘Laren were not kept waiting long in suspense. On
the very same day the answer was despatched:
“University of Durham College of Medicine,
Newcastle on Tyne.
June 23rd. 1873.
DEAR MISS BLAKE,
I am requested to forward you a copy of a resolution passed
unanimously at an extraordinary meeting of members held today.
‘That the members of this College, at an extraordinary meeting, having
considered the question of opening the Classes of the College for the
education of women, decide that they cannot consent to the application
made, either as to education or as to Examination for Licences and
Degrees.’
I am,
Yours very truly,
W. C. M. ARNISON, M.D.,
_Secretary_.”
St. Andrews seemed more hopeful. Professor Campbell, as we know, was
more than favourable; so was Professor Baynes; there is a thoroughly
encouraging letter from Principal Tulloch at this time as to the
prospects; and Professor Birrell wrote “in a friendly spirit to the
cause which has been ennobled by the rare spirit with which you and your
friends have fought a hard fight in its defence.”
One wonders whether he had the faintest idea _how_ hard the fight had
been.
In any case opposition proved too strong, and nothing was done at St.
Andrews.
One must remember that the full equipment of the medical side of the
University was a big financial undertaking; and, although the women were
prepared to bear their share, they were naturally unwilling to do this
without some pledge that they would not be left stranded in the first
emergency. Moreover, they were anxious not to lose time, and above all
things St. Andrews was unwilling to be hurried.
Dr. King Chambers urged the women to get their classes somehow—anyhow,
and then to “practise boldly as unregistered practitioners who are ready
to submit to examination when called upon.”
A heroic piece of advice all round. One hopes the unregistered
practitioners would be allowed breathing space “when called upon” to
refresh their recollection—for instance—of the preparations of opium!
Meanwhile Mrs. Thorne was working hard to arrange classes in Edinburgh,
and—failing the University degree—to secure for women the Licence of the
Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons—a privilege which was actually
granted some dozen years later. She and others were also enquiring about
the possibilities of the Apothecaries’ Society of London and the
Apothecaries’ Hall of Ireland, and, with a view to this, S. J.-B. went
the length of securing a legal apprenticeship to her old friend and
teacher, Mr. Salzmann of Brighton, who was most anxious to help her if
he could. In fact no stone was left unturned.
The women students were really so restrained, so admirable, through all
this, that it is a positive relief to come upon the following outburst
some months later from Miss Pechey:
“Langham, Colchester,
October 12th. 1873.
MY DARLING SOPH,
Since I saw you I have indeed suffered many things of many
physicians, and my temper is no better but rather worse. It is,
however, gradually working down to its normal again. If I could only
have spoken my mind when they talked their conceited bosh about their
infinite superiority, and said,—‘Do you know what a poor fool you are
making of yourself?’—it wouldn’t have been so hard; but to sit still,
smiling benignantly, when men, commonplace enough, goodness knows, in
everything but their uncommon stupidity, boasted of their mental
capacity!—it was no wonder that, having to bottle it all up, while I
mused the fire burned. They are so like the fools that David had to
contend with that I can’t help quoting him.”
After reporting progress, she goes on: “Still I would not have Mrs.
Thorne stop in her arrangements for classes in Edinburgh, as I think
we have no chance, the influence of the medical men being so much
against us.
Yes, I am curious. I wonder what it is. Perhaps another hopdog? The
other died this morning,—poor thing, it had had to go too long without
food, and even fresh hops did not revive it.
Please give my love to Scrap....
I will telegraph to you when I hear from S.
Yours lovingly,
EDITH.”
Meanwhile the great decision of the Edinburgh Lords had been formally
given. The Lord Justice-General, being Chancellor of the University,
gave no judgment, but the Lord Justice-Clerk and four others, including
all the remaining judges of the First Division were in favour of the
women students. The seven remaining judges, including Lord Mure and Lord
Shand, were against the women students; so the case was lost by the
usual “narrow majority.”
The adverse judgment was based mainly on the opinion that the University
Court had, in 1869, done an illegal thing in admitting women to the
University at all, and on this ground the authorities were held excused
from all responsibility towards the women themselves.
As we look back on the episode after all these years, the point that
stands out is the brave and luminous judgment of the Lord Justice-Clerk,
of which the following is, from our point of view, the most interesting
passage:
“To deny the women students the degree which was essential to their
entering the profession, and with a view to which they had studied, on
the pretext—for it was no better—that no such end was ever
contemplated, was entirely unjust and unwarranted; and that all the
more that all the evils said to be connected with the admission of
females to the University attached only to the study which was
permitted, while the honour could injure no one, and was only valuable
as the passport to the medical profession, with which, as a body, the
defenders had no concern. That this question of graduation, from
whatever cause, was in reality the sole matter in dispute, was
sufficiently evident from the pleading of the defenders themselves. No
doubt they devoted a large portion of their argument to prove that
women never had been, and never ought to be, admitted to University
study; but in the sequel they disclosed with sufficient frankness that
if the pursuers would have contented themselves with mere certificates
of proficiency, and would have abandoned their claim for graduation,
they might possibly have fared better. This alternative implied
university study, and, therefore, as graduation was the cardinal point
in the case, his opinion was that, on completing the curriculum as
matriculated students, the pursuers were entitled by the existing
rules of the University to be admitted to graduation, and, indeed, he
had found little of argument addressed to prove the contrary. This, in
his opinion, was sufficient for the decision of this case. It was,
however, maintained by the defenders that the University Court had no
power to pass these regulations; they said that by the constitution of
the University no woman could be admitted either for study or for
graduation, and that the regulations and all that has followed upon
them were therefore a mere nullity, and could receive no effect. He
thought this answer entirely irrelevant. Questions might no doubt
arise between the superior and subordinate powers in the University as
to the legality of the former’s orders, and these might legitimately
be called in question. But, when a student had entered the University,
and had duly conformed to the rules on the faith of which he entered,
it would be no defence on the part of the Senatus to his claim to
graduate that the rules under which he had been admitted were liable
to legal objection. The duty of the Senatus was to obey the _de facto_
law of the University, and any other principle would be not only
subversive of academical discipline, but would lead to the greatest
injustice, as he thought was the case here. The matriculation of the
student created an implied contract between him and the University
authorities that, if he complied with the existing rules, they would
confer the benefits in the hope of which he resorted to the
University. They could not, after the student had performed his part
of the engagement, refuse to fulfil theirs, on the ground that the
contract was made under rules which it was beyond the power of their
academical superiors to make. They could not compel the student, as a
condition of his graduation, to take upon himself the defence of the
laws of the University; his sole duty was to obey them, and if their
lawfulness was disputed, that must be done in a question with those
who made them, not with the student who trusted to them.”
The women students were ordered to pay the expenses of the appeal: and
thus ended the hard fought “Battle in Edinburgh.”