THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT
How far S. J.-B. was depressed in mind and body by the events of that
wearing fight, we can fairly guess. But nothing had happened to disturb
in the smallest degree her faith,—her philosophy of life. She never
doubted that she was fighting the battle of the Lord; but—greatly though
she hoped, sure though she felt of final victory for her cause—she was
always, in the background of her being, absolutely prepared for the
defeat of any one of her plans. In the thick of the combat, she seemed
so engrossed that comrades and onlookers were wont to say,—“Defeat will
kill her,” but this was a complete misunderstanding of her attitude. The
moment defeat came, it was accepted as simply the will of God, though it
well might be that God still meant her to try again.
In the occasional great affairs of later life it was positively
startling to contrast her apparent inability to recognize another side
to the question at issue with her instant acceptance of an adverse
decision when it came. But for the vital record we now possess of her
youth, most people would have had no clue. She was not ordinarily taken
for a religious woman; but it is simply true that the watchword of her
life—passively and actively—was _Fiat voluntas tua_.
She was one of those who pray; but she would have thought it wrong to
pray for the success of a definite scheme, for the life of a friend,
even—in the hour of her greatest need—for the renewal of a broken
friendship.
And indeed there was always some comfort at hand, quite apart from the
highest philosophy. To the end of her life the words were often on her
lips, “You see we had such _excellent friends_”; and though some few
adherents were estranged because they thought the battle was being
fought too pugnaciously, others became increasingly impressed by the
extraordinary constancy shown by the fighters, and, in particular, by
the protagonist’s rare and individual type of unworldliness, an
unworldliness which, just because it was individual, often made life
rather difficult for her supporters.
Here is a letter from one of the Edinburgh professors, who in the early
days had begged S. J.-B. not to speak harshly of an Alma Mater of which
she would yet be proud, and who, later, had congratulated her on a book
which “tells a very sad and disgraceful story, and tells it clearly and
temperately and effectively,—all the more effectively because your
justifiable indignation is kept well within bounds”:
“Edinburgh, 21 Oct. 1873.
DEAR MADAM,
I send you herein a cheque for five pounds towards the law
expenses of the lady medical students in the recent trial.
If I had the misfortune to be a member of the University Court, I
should think myself bound in honour to pay my individual proportion of
the whole expense incurred by these ladies in consequence of their
supposing that this learned Court knew the extent of its own powers.
Horace’s words, ‘_Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi_,’ may in this
case be rendered, ‘The University Court blundered, and the Ladies are
mulcted in the costs.’ If any sense of justice is still extant in this
country, the result must be, not only the payment of these costs by
public subscription, but a more than ever energetic agitation for the
overthrow of male monopoly in the medical profession.
Yours most truly,
W. B. HODGSON.
Miss Stevenson.”
Immediately after the legal decision had been given, the _Spectator_
took up the question in an article “Women’s Wrongs at Edinburgh,” of
which the following sentences give the gist:
“To canvass the legality of the judgment itself is alike beyond the
present writer’s competency and his wish, though it may be permitted
to remark that the best known names are found in the minority, and
that the reasonings on the other side, while turning on a very narrow
principle, are exceedingly discursive and inconsequent.
... The Senate included some staunch friends of the lady students, and
about an equal number of resolute opponents, but the indifferent
majority who swayed the action of the body appears to have had no aim
except to hush up a troublesome affair. Their policy was to do all
they could to oblige the applicants, meanwhile trusting to the chapter
of accidents to escape the difficulties that might come after.”
This was shrewd and true.
Within a few days a long and exhaustive review of the position and its
possibilities, from the pen of Mrs. Garrett Anderson, appeared in the
_Times_, in the course of which the writer urged that the time was not
ripe for the medical education of women in Great Britain, and that “in
no way could women better serve the cause we desire to promote than by
going to Paris to study medicine, and returning here as soon as might be
to practise it.” “Never,” she said, “was there a case in which the truth
of the adage, ‘Solvitur ambulando,’ was more likely to make itself
felt.” [In the spirit of Professor Hodgson’s translation of Horace, one
may say, in fact, that “the difficulty might be solved by crossing the
Channel.”]
Of course S. J.-B. did not agree with her, and she wrote a detailed
reply[113] which Jupiter supported with a leading utterance in his own
name. He was not enthusiastic about women doctors at all, but in this
particular difference of opinion he gave his vote for the “equally
deserving, but hitherto less fortunate aspirant to the position of a
legally qualified practitioner.”[114]
Footnote 113:
Appendix E.
Footnote 114:
“In this case, as in most others, those who say they want a thing must
put their own shoulders to the wheel in order to obtain it, and must
be prepared to back the soundness of their opinions. If only twenty
women annually could be added to the ranks of the medical profession
in this country, the expediency of the addition would be speedily
removed from the domain of controversy, and the expression, ‘Solvitur
ambulando,’ which Mrs, Anderson calls an adage, would be applicable to
the case.”
_Times_, August 23rd, 1873.
S. J.-B. knew more of the hidden springs than anyone, and she did not
consider that the time had come to give in. She who had borne the brunt
of so many disappointments was still full of hope. She wanted her own
country to give her this thing. Above all she felt that “so long as no
means of education are provided at home, only a very small number of
women will ever seek admission to the profession.”
“This last consideration,” she says, “was to me conclusive.”
“I greatly admire your letter to Mrs. G. Anderson,” wrote Professor
Hodgson, “and I am truly glad to see that you are not so despondent as I
am. The passive power of resistance on the part of those who hold a
position is terribly difficult to overcome. It is not mere _inertia_;
that would be bad enough. Ultimate success I do not at all despair of,
but individual life is short and the journey is long and arduous.”
Both _Times_ and _Spectator_ spoke severely of the behaviour of the
University, and on September 1st an _apologia_ appeared from the pen of
the Principal. It was just the letter one might have expected from an
able, urbane, scholarly gentleman; he scanned the whole history “as we
do our own poetry, laying stress on the right syllables and passing
lightly over a halting foot.” It would have been a fine and conclusive
defence,—if Jupiter had not allowed a poor overworked medical student to
answer it. The two letters represent two conflicting schools of
historians, the one sweeping, picturesque, probable: the other definite,
statistical, true. The former is certainly the easier to read. The
correspondence is so essentially typical of many of the “disputes” S.
J.-B. had with others in the course of her life that it is given in full
in the appendix.[115]
Footnote 115:
Appendix F.
“I have seen the Venerable Principal’s letter,” wrote a distinguished
lawyer from Uig, “for even in these uttermost parts of the earth the
_Scotsman_ has reached me, and I need not say what I thought of it. I
read also with great satisfaction your thorough demolition of the
learned and venerable and inaccurate gentleman, and the _Scotsman’s_
excellent punching of his head.”
S. J.-B. spent part of that summer holiday visiting Norfolk cousins, and
she took the opportunity to read a paper on her special subject at the
Social Science Congress at Norwich, under the auspices of her friend,
Professor Hodgson, who was President of the Education Section.[116] Here
she made two friendships of great value,—one with Miss Louisa Hubbard,
whose sister, Lady Rendel, had been S. J.-B.’s schoolfellow; the other,
even more memorable, with Miss Pauline Irby, who was just entering upon
her heroic and self-sacrificing life work in Bosnia. In October S. J.-B.
returned to Edinburgh to clinch the arrangements Mrs. Thorne was making
for the winter session.
Footnote 116:
Lord Houghton was President of the Congress. In a letter to his wife,
dated October 3rd, 1873, he says, “Miss Jex-Blake and Mrs. Grey both
spoke capitally.” Lord Houghton’s _Life_, vol. ii. p. 281.
It is one more instance of the extraordinary, dogged perseverance of
those women that during that winter session the lectures were delivered
to women as before by Edinburgh Extra-Mural lecturers, the subjects
being Materia Medica, Pathology and Midwifery. S. J.-B. attended these
lectures when she could, and took honours in all of them; but she was
already in correspondence with Dr. Anstie and others as to the
possibility of opening some school for women in the larger and more
impersonal milieu of London. As a matter of fact, the whole centre of
interest had changed. The question was now potentially before
Parliament,—not indeed as a question of practical politics to be decided
by the rank and file, but as a matter for private discussion by a few
men of courage and vision.
“It was necessary,” wrote Mr. Stansfeld in reviewing the history three
years later,[117] “to appeal to a yet higher tribunal. Such appeal might
have been made on the question of law to the House of Lords; but that
would have meant further indefinite delay and further heavy expense, and
then, if the result were favourable, a probable refusal of the
university to act on their ascertained powers. It was necessary to
_secure_ the admission of women to medical study and practice, and not
merely to ascertain that one out of nineteen examining bodies could
admit them if it liked. Miss Jex-Blake and her friends determined to
widen their appeal, to base it on the ground of right, and to address it
to Parliament and to public opinion.”
Footnote 117:
“Medical Women,” by the Right Hon. James Stansfeld, M.P., _Nineteenth
Century_, July, 1877.
As early as August 1872 Sir David Wedderburn (on behalf of Sir Robert
Anstruther) had moved that the vote for the Scottish Universities should
be reduced by the amount of the salaries of the Edinburgh Medical
Professors. He explained that the motion was brought forward in order to
lay before the House the course followed by the authorities of the
University of Edinburgh, but that, in view of the fact that the Lord
Ordinary, had, a few days before, given a judgment in favour of the
ladies, he hoped the University would accept the decision as final and
as indicating to them their duties in the matter; and he would therefore
refrain from pressing the motion to a division.
When the University appealed against the Lord Ordinary’s decision, and
got it reversed on appeal, Sir David Wedderburn, on July 29th, 1873,
gave notice that he would, early in the following session, bring in a
Bill to grant to the Scottish Universities the power they were now
supposed not to possess, to educate women in medicine and to grant to
them the ordinary medical degrees.
It was highly desirable, of course, to secure Government support for
this Bill, and in October we find S. J.-B. in correspondence with the
Home Secretary. There is a long letter marked “Private” in which Mr.
Lowe (Lord Sherbrooke) expresses his view of the matter, and asks her to
let him know what course she proposes to follow. Shortly after, we get
the following:
“Secretary of State,
Home Department.
Oct. 13. 1874.
MY DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I have done what I can to forward your views. I should think you
would be met by the same legal difficulty in Ireland as in Scotland.
But though it may not be very agreeable to my constituents I should
have no objection if this were the only obstacle to introduce an
enabling Bill giving all Universities the power if they please to
confer medical degrees or indeed any other degrees on women.
Believe me,
Very truly yours,
ROBERT LOWE.”
Clearly she was eager to follow up the opening, for ten days later he
writes again:
“I am afraid I cannot commit the Government to introducing the Bill
without consulting them. I will do so at the Cabinets which will take
place next month and tell you the result.”[118]
“The matter has been discussed to-day,” writes Mr. Stansfeld on Dec.
1st, “but nothing is settled; I apprehend difference of opinion....
I should advise personal communication with members of the Government
before January Cabinets. A concise but complete and temperate
statement in favour of legislation would, I think, be useful.”
Footnote 118:
Mr. Lowe’s advocacy was strengthened by a fine memorial presented to
him at this time by 471 graduates of the University of London, praying
that the benefits of the University should be extended to women. This
memorial was secured through the exertions of Dr. Alfred Shewen.
So, early in January, S. J.-B. went up to London to interview ministers
and others.
“Jan. 7th. Wednesday. Mr. Lowe, 4 p.m. Very cordial and courteous.
Would certainly bring in a Bill if his colleagues allowed him,—very
doubtful if they would,—if not, would help Wedderburn all he could,
‘and I can do a great deal.’
Thought Enabling Bill more hopeful than compelling Medical Boards to
examine.”
“Jan. 10th. Saturday. In morning at Museum, looking up Charters of
Colleges, etc.
2 p.m. Sir J. Lubbock. Pleasant and friendly,—non-committal rather.
Would talk with Wedderburn,—‘generally agreed with him.’
At 4 p.m. Stansfeld. Friendly as ever. Thought Selborne’s opinion most
important.”
After a few days spent with Mrs. Jex-Blake at Brighton the tale
proceeds:
“Tuesday, 20th. At 1 p.m. saw Lord Aberdare,—quite friendly,—‘should
heartily support Bill.’ Was quite willing that Bill should come from
his office, by Forster.
2 p.m. Grant Duff, friendly but not encouraging as to his power to
help with Cabinet.
Wednesday 21st. Saw Thos. Hughes, 10 a.m. Very friendly. Would speak
to Forster, etc....
Thursday 22nd. Breakfasted with the Russell Gurneys. Very friendly. He
quite ready to put his name on back of Wedderburn’s Bill. On the whole
encouraged to get special Exam. and practise in spite of Act, if no
legislation to be got.[119]
11 a.m. Lady Selborne—‘knew nothing about’ our question,—laughed at
the idea of my seeing the Chancellor—but listened fairly to what I had
to say,—seemed impressed by the facts and by the attention of the
other ministers,—promised to report fairly what I had said.
Not specially courteous or gracious, but I think honest.”
“8.30 p.m. express from King’s Cross to Edinburgh.
Friday 23rd. Illuminations, etc., for Duke of Edinburgh’s wedding day.
Saturday, 24th. Dissolution! What next?”
Footnote 119:
“I was very much troubled by your last letter,” wrote Dr. Sewall a
month later, “for the idea of your beginning to practise without a
diploma seems to me such a mistake. It appears to me that by
practising illegally in that way, you will be giving up all you have
been fighting for, and will be opening a way that some women who have
not studied thoroughly may use; and there will be no way of your
showing the public the difference between your qualifications.”
It was only too true. The time of reaction had come after a long period
of reforming energy under Mr. Gladstone, and now—failing to find an
adequate rallying cry for his party—he dissolved Parliament and appealed
to the country. In the confusion of the moment the Home Secretary did
not forget the women students.
“MY DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I am sorry to say that in the present state of things it is
quite impossible for me to bring in a Bill on your subject or indeed
on any other. I don’t think you will find much difficulty in getting a
man.
I congratulate you on your brother’s appointment.[120]
Very truly yours,
R. LOWE.”
Footnote 120:
To the Headmastership of Rugby.
This was followed on February 10th by a letter from Mr. Stansfeld:
“DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
The Conservatives will certainly come in and for a long time. I should
have thought that Russell Gurney might not improbably now be placed
upon the Bench. I don’t suppose that a political appointment would
suit him; unless it were that of Speaker and I have not heard his name
mentioned for it.
I think you can’t do better than ask him, saying at the same time that
you cannot but see that the coming political change may make it out of
his power to comply.
It is all very extraordinary and mortifying.
Yours truly,
J. STANSFELD.”
The suggested letter was roughly drafted forthwith:
“To Russell Gurney.
Will you forgive me if, at such a busy and engrossing time, I venture
to trouble you about our comparatively small affairs, very important
as they are to us.
You are, of course, aware that Sir David Wedderburn is no longer in
Parliament,[121] and I suppose it is quite certain that the present
Government must go out, so that Mr. Lowe cannot at least introduce the
Bill as Home Secretary, and thus on both hands our prospects are at an
end.
I venture, however, to rely on the kind interest you expressed in our
cause, and to ask you whether it would be possible for you to induce
the Conservative Government to take it up, or, if not, whether we
might hope for your personal help still farther in the matter,—if you
do not take office, as I hear you may. I think Mr. Lowe would be
willing to help us as a private member, and it occurred to me as
possible that you and he might take up the Bill jointly so as to
conciliate both sides of the House.
I am personally very ignorant of political matters, and of what could
and what could not be done. I shall feel it the greatest possible
favour if you will kindly tell me how far you can help us in this
matter, and will give me any advice on the subject which may occur to
you. It is of extreme importance to us that the Bill should, if passed
at all, be passed as soon as possible, as it will at any rate be
difficult enough to make arrangements in time for next winter’s
session, and we can ill afford to lose another year.
I trust that you will at least excuse me for thus troubling you.
Yours truly obliged,
S. J.-B.”
Footnote 121:
Sir David Wedderburn did not offer himself for re-election.
A most gracious answer to this arrived without loss of time:
“Queen’s Hotel, Hastings,
13th. Feb.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Although politically opposed to Sir D. Wedderburn, yet for your
sake and for that of the cause which he so faithfully supported I can
sincerely regret the loss of his seat.
I really do not know what course to advise you to pursue. My absence
from Parliament during nearly the whole of the two last Sessions makes
it more difficult for me than it would have otherwise have been.
I should think that it would scarcely be possible to get the new
Government as a Government to take up the measure. Coming in at the
time they do they will be sure to take up as few measures as possible.
If a Bill is brought in by Mr. Lowe or anyone else I would not only
support it but use any little influence I may have with the Ministry
to induce them not to oppose it.
The state of my health is such that I cannot undertake to take charge
of the Bill. I have come here in order to get a little rest before the
Meeting of Parliament and I am under positive orders from my doctor to
avoid all extra work.
I fear indeed that during the next Session I am likely to be a
somewhat useless member.
I shall always be ready to consult with you, though at present I
confess that I do not see my way.
Believe me,
Very sincerely yours,
RUSSELL GURNEY.”
It was characteristic of the vicissitudes of S. J.-B.’s life at the time
that within a few days of receiving this letter she had a telegram from
Mrs. Jex-Blake’s physician at Brighton: “Your Mother is very poorly. I
should like you to come.”
This was delivered at 8 p.m., and it is needless to say that she started
by the night train. A fortnight of anxious nursing followed; but her
affairs were not forgotten:
“Local Government Board,
Whitehall. Feb. 24. 74.
DEAR MASSON,
I have heard, of course, also from Miss Jex-Blake. I won’t say
‘No’ at any rate at present.
First I will see Lowe and ascertain his mind; and then I should like
to see if someone more acceptable to Dizzy cannot be found. I think
one must look around one first in the new Parliament, before deciding.
Is not the Bill you propose simply one enabling Universities to grant
Degrees to women; or what else do you propose?
Whether it is good or bad I should tell you that the wirepulling and
newspaper doctors _hate me_.
Yours ever,
J. STANSFELD.”
“Feb. 25th. 74.
DEAR MASSON,
I have seen Lowe about your proposed Bill.
He is ‘heartily’ for it, but thinks that he and I had better support
and not originate. Just now, he says, whatever we do will probably be
considered wrong, as the tide is against us, and for this reason none
of these Bills should be _introduced_ by any of us ex-cabinet
ministers. Moreover if any of them are to pass they must be made as
little unacceptable as possible to Dizzy & Co., which means that they
had better be proposed and seconded by men on either side of the
House—one on one side and one on the other—but not by us.
I must say that the more I think of it the more I find this reasoning
sound. And I am prepared to _advise_ therefore that you should not ask
either Lowe or me.
As to myself there is another special reason, to which I have already
referred, why it might be more prudent not to choose me, viz. that
‘the doctors’ hate me; and tho’ I can’t see exactly how that fact
might operate, it might at least be admitted that it might operate
unfavourably, and that therefore it would be safer to look elsewhere.
I won’t write to Miss Jex-Blake yet, but will wait to hear from you
what you think.
Of course I would willingly support and help.
Yours ever,
J. STANSFELD.”
“10, Regent Terrace, Edinr.
Feb. 26, 1874.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I have had two letters from Mr. Stansfeld, which I enclose. The
second, you will see, is less favourable than the first, though not
absolutely conclusive. In reply I have expressed my belief that the
second objection—that about his relation to the ‘doctors’—can matter
little, inasmuch as we can’t expect anyone who takes up the cause to
be a darling of the doctors or to remain one[122]; but on the other
objection I have not felt able to say much against the experienced
instinct of Mr. Lowe and himself. On the one side there may be a good
deal in their feeling that for an ex-minister of the Gladstone Cabinet
to move the Bill may move Disraeli to criticism, if not to opposition;
on the other it seems essential that the lead should be taken by an
eminent and faithful man. You will weigh the whole matter in London
and consult.
I daresay it will be best not to publish the Memorial to Disraeli till
the receipt of it is acknowledged. I have all the renewed
signatures[123] now except the Edinburgh ones; and these, I hope, will
be completed today or tomorrow.
Yours very truly,
DAVID MASSON.”
Footnote 122:
We must never forget that a minority of doctors had been helpful all
along. Years before this a petition to Parliament in favour of the
women had been signed by nearly two hundred.
Footnote 123:
The Memorial had been originally addressed to Gladstone.
“Stoke Lodge,
Hyde Park Gate, W.
Feb. 28. 74.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
I could see you either on Monday or Tuesday afternoon. But
where? For the Local Government Board knows me no more.
I shall be working at the Athenaeum on Monday afternoon, and could
therefore easily call on you anywhere in town.
I could see you _here_ on the Tuesday and could make any time
convenient, but the morning would be most so.
Pray let me know.
I enclose Mr. Lowe’s and Mr. Russell Gurney’s notes. You have heard
from Masson, I presume. I wrote after seeing Lowe. But I will postpone
telling you of our interview till we meet.
Yours truly,
J. STANSFELD.”
A sharp little illness made it difficult for Mr. Stansfeld to pursue the
matter for a week or two, but finally we get the following:
“15 Gt. Stanhope Street, W.
March 21.
DEAR STANSFELD,
I am quite ready to take up the case of the women students if a
good Bill can be framed, and I shall have to see you on Monday at the
House.
Ever yours,
W. COWPER TEMPLE.”
[Telegram] “March 23rd. Cowper Temple, Great Stanhope Street to Miss
Jex-Blake, 15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh.
Can you tell me a lawyer who knows the subject and will frame the Bill
or advise about it.”
This was apparently followed by a letter, for, at the earliest possible
moment on March 24th, S. J.-B. sent down a note by hand to her
solicitor:
“DEAR MR. MILLAR,
An eminent M.P. has undertaken to bring in an Enabling Bill to
_enable_ Universities to educate and graduate women on the same terms
as men, and I have just got a letter asking me to send up a draft of
such Bill. As you are the best authority on such matters I should like
to see you at once about it, and should be extremely glad if you could
sketch out a draft beforehand, as time is of the greatest moment.
Could I see you if I called between 12.30 and 1 p.m.?
Yrs. truly,
S. JEX-BLAKE.”
The Draft Bill seems to have been posted that afternoon, and the
following day another telegram arrived:
“March 25th. Rt. Hon. Stansfeld, London, to Miss Jex-Blake, 15
Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh.
I have seen Mr. Cowper Temple and we advise you to come and see him.”
So of course S. J.-B. travelled up to London next day.
[Diary] “March 26th. Summoned up to London about Cowper Temple’s Bill.
He very kind, plenty of good will.... Stansfeld admirable. Gurney do.,
only from health inactive. Lowe, Gallio-like.”
A day or two later S. J.-B. dined with the Cowper Temples and details
were threshed out.
“I am so glad,” writes Miss M‘Laren, “that you have succeeded so well,
and find Mr. Cowper Temple such a nice man and energetic besides,—and
trust all may go well. I am not afraid of opposition at all, but what
I do fear is that at this late season it may not get through.”
“Broadlands.
April 15.
To Miss Jex-Blake:
... Mr. Ewing consented when I explained the Bill to him, and
his name with that of Mr. Gurney and Dr. Cameron are on the back of
the Bill. I am not very sanguine of success if a serious opposition
should be manifested, but I have hopes that the moderation of the
measure may have the effect of not calling forth the latent antagonism
that exists against the cause.
But whether the Bill passes or not, it must advance the cause, for at
least we shall have a good debate on the subject.
I talked to Sir W. Maxwell when I first thought of undertaking a Bill
and I found that he took the view that in his representative position
as Rector of Edinburgh University he ought not to take a part in a
question in which there is so much difference of opinion and warmth of
feeling. I have fixed Friday 24th for the second reading, but am not
at all sure that it can come on that evening as there will be many
questions before it.
I return to London tomorrow.
Yours—[illegibly],
W. C. TEMPLE.
The names on the back of the Bill are
Mr. Cowper Temple,
Mr. Russell Gurney,
Mr. Orr Ewing,
Dr. Cameron.”
There was much discussion as to the desirability of keeping quiet about
the Bill, and allowing it to slip through, if possible, without arousing
all the energies of the opposition.
“10 Regent Terrace,
Edinburgh.
April 1, 1874.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
Best thanks for your letter. From what it says and from what I
had heard before to the same effect from Miss M‘Laren, I have not the
least doubt of the practical wisdom of the limitation of the Bill to
the Scottish Universities. The difficulty of taking such differently-
constituted Universities along in the Bill has struck me so far; but I
had not thought of the special difficulty that might arise from
jealousy of the divided powers of the University of London. But, while
_our_ Bill goes on alone, there is no reason why the other
universities should not be _moving_, each for itself, and all such
movement would help ours.
I am not so sure of the policy of _silence_ about our Bill. Miss
M‘Laren will have told you that Dr. Lyon Playfair has alarmed our
people here by informing them of it, and asking their opinion. There
is a Committee on watch with power to call a Senatus meeting when the
Bill is perfectly known. Possibly, when they see it, they may feel
inclined to do nothing, seeing that it only legitimises the power the
University thought it possessed when it passed the regulations; but no
one can tell. All that Dr. L. P. wanted was advice for himself; and
nothing, even of that kind, can be done collectively, except by
Senatus—as the Committee is for observation only. Still the matter is
public; and _individuals_ may be at work. Also the fact and drift of
the Bill have been mentioned in the newspapers, e.g. by the London
correspondent of the Glasgow _Mail_. If, in these circumstances, you
are of opinion that the memorial to Mr. Disraeli may be published,
please return my copy with the signatures; and I will send it to our
_three_ papers here—where perhaps it ought to appear first. But you
will, of course, act with the advice of Mr. Cowper Temple and others;
and I won’t publish till you give the word. Anyhow it might be best to
return the memorial to me. A telegraph from you would then tell me to
publish any day—if not immediately.
Yours very truly,
DAVID MASSON.”
“April 15, 1874.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
After reading today the _Scotsman’s_ report of the introduction
of the Bill, and observing how quietly and cautiously it seems to be
framed (‘to remove doubts as to the powers’ etc.)[124] I have thought
it better not at once to publish the memorial. If there is any
possibility that the Bill will be let through without opposition, our
memorial, as more strongly expressed, might interfere with this. At
all events I have thought it most prudent not to be in a hurry, but to
wait a day or two till we see how Mr. C. T.’s Bill is received among
the probable enemies. Very likely they will move against it somehow,—
secretly if not publicly; and, if we find this, then our memorial
ought to come out as a contribution to the argument. You will perhaps
hear how Dr. Lyon Playfair and Mr. Gordon act in London: I will
observe here. Perhaps I am prudent in excess; but, once the memorial
is out, it is past recall.
Yours very truly,
DAVID MASSON.”
Footnote 124:
“A Bill to Remove Doubts as to the Powers of the Universities of
Scotland to admit Women as Students, and to grant Degrees to Women.”
“83 Belgrave Road, S.W.
16th April, 1874.
DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,
The bill has been introduced by Mr. Cowper Temple, and my name
is one of those on its back. If it could be smuggled through it would
of course save a great deal of time and trouble, but I am afraid it is
of no use to think of that. The moment it is published the bill will
be telegraphed to all the Scotch papers, and every professor in every
university, and almost every medical man throughout Scotland, will
perceive its drift. Moreover you must remember that the Lord Advocate
is member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University, and will have to keep
his constituents well posted up in everything affecting their
interests. If I see anything concerning the measure in the Scotch
papers, I shall forward it to you, and meanwhile remain
Yours very sincerely,
CHARLES CAMERON.
Miss Jex-Blake.”
So the glove was thrown down, and, as Dr. Cameron had predicted, the
news of it was instantly flashed from Dan to Beersheba. In a very short
time 65 petitions in favour of the Bill were presented to Parliament,
three of these being from the Town Councils of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and
Linlithgow. There was also one from the City of Edinburgh, and one from
16,000 women. The most important, perhaps, was from twenty-six
Professors of Scottish Universities, including eight (out of fourteen)
Professors of the University of St. Andrews,—among them the Rev.
Principal Tulloch,—and thirteen Professors of the University of
Edinburgh. If Glasgow was poorly represented in number, the women had
all the more reason to be proud of the weight of the two names,—John and
Edward Caird. There was also a petition from those Edinburgh lecturers
who had actually taught the women.
Against the Bill there were four petitions:
1. From the University Court of Edinburgh.
2. From the Senatus of Edinburgh University.
3. From the Medical Faculty of the Senatus (probably identical with
2).
4. From the University of Glasgow.
The second reading of the Bill was fixed for April 24th, but at the
urgent request of Dr. Lyon Playfair, member for the University of
Edinburgh, it was postponed to a later date (“in order that his
University might have time to consider the subject”!) when the pressure
of business made it impossible to secure any day: or, as Miss M‘Laren
had predicted, it failed to “get through.” And so the whole question was
practically shelved for another year.
There was an interesting debate on the motion, however, on June 12th,
1874, when able speeches were made by Mr. Cowper Temple, Mr. Stansfeld
and others,—the two members for Edinburgh (Town and Gown) providing an
almost dramatic contrast.
Mr. M‘Laren (Town), hard-headed, shrewd man of business, bluntly
declared that “if it were a question to be decided by the intelligent
inhabitants of Edinburgh, nine-tenths would vote in its favour.... If
two or three of the professors would only take a voyage round the world,
the whole question would be satisfactorily settled before they returned.
(Laughter.) Where the male students paid three or four guineas for each
class, the ladies paid eight or ten guineas, so that money was no
obstacle. There was no difficulty, in fact, except want of will, and
that arose from medical prejudice,—at least that was the opinion of the
great majority of the people in Edinburgh.”
Dr. Lyon Playfair (Gown), scholar, courtier, man-of-the-world, had a
harder task. Even _Punch_ was moved to sympathy with him “as one in a
perplexity between his constituents and his convictions.”
* * * * *
In any case the whole question had entered on a new phase, there was
fresh enthusiasm for the cause, and, on the other hand, those who had
looked upon the idea of women doctors as an amusing absurdity, were
roused to perturbation and alarm.