know so well, and which tell us better than any others have ever
done, _what_ that Rest shall be, and how it shall satisfy all our
wants at last, as “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard.”
Let us turn to the Revelation of St. John, and hear the description
he gives of those who have entered into Rest: “They shall hunger no
more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them,
nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall
feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and
God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” “Behold the
tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they
shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them, and be
their God.... And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor
crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things
are passed away.” “And there shall be no night there; and they need
no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them
light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.” “Blessed are they
that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of
life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. vii.
16, 17; xxi. 3, 4; xxii. 5, 14).
APPENDIX C
CONCLUSIONS FROM “A VISIT TO AMERICAN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES”
“The two features of American education which strike an Englishman
as characteristic, are, the union of all classes in the same schools
and of both sexes in the same colleges; the first being nearly
universal throughout the Northern States; the second still
exceptional, and as regards public opinion, still on probation.
I. That no disadvantages attend the system of mingling all classes
in school can hardly, I suppose, be maintained, though it may be
thought that the advantages greatly preponderate.... So far as
distinctions and consequent separations of rank depend on merely
external circumstances, such as wealth and position, I do not
believe that we gain much by observing them; but when they rest on
real differences of culture and refinement, the case becomes
different, and it does not seem good policy to risk certain loss to
one class, without being sure of securing a more than proportionate
gain to another. In short it seems to me that, if we can mingle
different classes of children in such proportions and under such
conditions as to ensure that the higher standard shall prevail over
the lower, and the tone of all be raised to that of the foremost
few, the measure must be an altogether good one: and I am sure that
to some extent and under some restrictions this may be done: but if
once the inferior standard of refinement is allowed to predominate,
the lower dragging down the higher rather than being raised by it, I
fear that no results gained can pay for the loss accruing.
II. With regard to the joint education of the sexes, it seems to be
pretty clearly established that, in America at least, this system
can prosper for years without any markedly evil effects as to the
morals and manners of the fellow-students, and the evidence of most
professors and teachers goes strongly to show that, on the contrary,
the mutual influence exerted is usually very beneficial.
It seems also to be proved that at least a considerable number of
women can undertake and successfully complete the same course of
study that is usual for men, and that without more apparent
detriment to their health than students of the other sex.
The general issue divides itself into three practical questions:
(_a_) whether men and women shall pursue the same course of study;
(_b_) whether they shall continue it to the same point; and (_c_)
whether their studies, if identical, shall be pursued together....
(_a_) If there is no fundamental education answering to the needs of
common humanity, and, therefore, equally necessary both for men and
women,—it follows that the difference of sex is more radical and
more essential than is the common humanity that underlies it....
Women have, I think, from the earliest times, suffered from the fact
of men’s pretensions to ‘evolve out of their moral consciousness the
idea of’ a woman,—which idea has not by any means always happened to
correspond with the facts that might, perhaps, afford a surer
guide.... It might perhaps be shown that those who, starting with
their ‘evolved idea’ of a woman, deny that the same education may
safely be given to each sex because of the vast essential
differences of nature, are in point of fact more incredulous of the
reality of that difference than those who hold the opposite
views.... The naturalist will not fear to lay meat and hay before
horses and lions, cows and tigers, for neither will the lion be
seduced by the offer of hay, nor will the horse and cow lose their
distinctive characteristics because they both partake of it.....
I do not by any means intend to say that I desire to see the
education of all women made identical with that at present given to
men. It must first be proved that that education is, in truth, the
best and most desirable for the human being, before we can wish to
make it universal. But I do say that what is ultimately decided by
the wisdom of ages to be the best possible form of culture for one
human nature, must be so for another, for our common humanity lies
deeper in all, and is more essential in each, than any differences.
I do not believe that women are to be ‘educated to be wives and
mothers’ in any sense in which it is not equally imperative to
educate boys to be husbands and fathers. I believe that each human
being, developed to his or her best and utmost, will most perfectly
fulfil the duties that God may appoint in each case, and if teachers
and parents have ever before their eyes the aim of making good,
true, and sensible women, I do not fear but they will also train the
best wives and mothers....
(_b_) I confess that I have been surprised in America to find how
much study young women do seem able to accomplish without material
injury, but I do not know how much allowance to make for possible
differences of national constitution.... My own belief, founded
mainly on observation of English girls, is, that in quickness of
intellect they in no way fall behind their brothers, and that during
one or two hours’ study of any subject they would be quite able to
keep up with them, but that after a certain time their physical
powers flag,—sooner perhaps than those of boys,—and that a long
continued strain is apt to be injurious to them. I state this
opinion with great diffidence, however, for many of my fellow-
teachers and friends assert the contrary....
Above all, be the limits of study what they may, let whatever is
done be done _thoroughly_, so that the only too well deserved
reproach of superficiality and incompleteness may at length be
removed from our system of female education. Work half done is not
merely unsatisfactory, it is absolutely injurious to the moral and
mental health of the worker; and I believe it is better to omit any
and every study altogether, than to allow a pupil to skim over it so
as to gather together a string of words thereto relating, with no
solid meaning or knowledge lying beneath.
(_c_) The third question,—whether men and women shall pursue their
studies together,—I do not much care to discuss, for I am by no
means sure of having sufficient data whereon to rest any opinion,
and moreover it seems to me not vital to the general issue. So long
as men and women can each obtain an absolutely good education, it
does not appear very material whether they get it in company or
not,—not material, that is, as regards the education, whatever may
be the case as to the social results.
But one thing does seem to me important, viz. that not merely a
similar but an identical standard should exist for all, whether it
be the many or the few who avail themselves of it. This fixed
standard does exist for men, being represented by the examinations
and degrees of the Universities, and that the same facilities should
be thrown open to women does seem to me vitally important. I have
already said that I should not care to see all women aim at so high
a mark; nor do I believe that, for many years, a large number would
present themselves for examination. But that those who do, by
earnest study, attain to the prescribed standard, should be excluded
from recognition of the fact, seems to be manifestly unjust and
wrong. Universities hold, I suppose, in some sense a national trust,
and that trust involves all possible aid to the cause of education
throughout the land.”
APPENDIX D
THE EDINBURGH EXTRA-MURAL SCHOOL
The Edinburgh Extra-Mural classes are medical classes conducted by
fully qualified and authorized lecturers other than the University
professors. They prepare students primarily for the examinations of
the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, but their
certificates are, as a matter of fact, accepted by many examining
bodies. The history of the association of these classes with the
University is—briefly—as follows:
In 1840 Professor Syme begged the Town Council of Edinburgh, who
were then the recognized patrons of the University, to order the
recognition of extra-mural classes, an argument for the innovation
being “that one of the professors was so comparatively inefficient
that many students, after paying his fee and obtaining his
certificate of attendance, went to learn his subject elsewhere.” In
1842 the Town Council ordained that _four_ Extra-Mural classes
should be allowed to count for graduation,—the classes to be chosen
by each student at his discretion. The Medical Faculty of the
University refused to consent to this except on the condition that
any student taking such classes should have a year added to his
curriculum. The Town Council refused this condition, and the
Senatus, supporting the Medical Faculty, referred the matter to the
Court of Law. In 1850 judgment was given against the Senatus; they
appealed to the Inner House, but the judgment was confirmed in 1852.
An appeal was taken to the House of Lords, but again in 1854 the
Town Council gained the day. In 1855 the regulations came into
operation and have ever since remained in force.
APPENDIX E
LETTER TO THE _TIMES_ IN REPLY TO MRS. GARRETT ANDERSON
“TO THE EDITOR OF THE _Times_.
SIR,—I have only just seen the letter from Dr. Garrett Anderson
which you published on the 5th inst., and I venture to beg that you
will allow me to point out my reasons for thinking she has selected
the very worst of all the alternatives suggested, when she advises
Englishwomen to go abroad for medical education.
In the first place, I think that Dr. Anderson assumes greatly too
much in supposing that all the Scotch Universities are permanently
closed to women by the recent decision, especially when notice has
already been given in Parliament that a Scotch member will, at the
beginning of next Session, bring in a Bill to enable those
Universities both to teach and examine female students. Even if no
such Bill were announced, it would, I suppose, be open to every
Scotch University at this moment to obtain the necessary powers
merely by application for the sanction of the Queen in Council, as
it was repeatedly stated, both by the defenders in the late suit and
by those Judges who gave decisions in their favour, that it was
merely the absence of Royal authority for recent changes which
rendered those changes illegal. I think there is very good ground to
hope that this course may be taken by one or more of the other
Universities, even if Edinburgh is content to rest quietly under the
imputations on her good faith which can hardly be effaced in any
other way.
Even if the Scotch Universities are left out of the question, those
of Cambridge and London may well be expected to move in a matter
like the present; or it would hardly seem unreasonable to hope that
some of the surplus revenues in Ireland might be applied in one way
or other to the solution of the present difficulty.
I think, moreover, that Mrs. Anderson concedes very much more than
has yet been proved when she states that the examining bodies, such
as the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, ‘have the power to
refuse to admit women to their examinations and qualifications.’
That they have the will to do so may, I fear, only be too probable,
but it is at least a very open question whether such power does lie
in their hands. I have been assured on very good authority that this
is not the case, and at any rate I believe no decision to that
effect has ever been given by a Court of Law. Certainly the _primâ
facie_ assumption would be the other way. The Medical Act of 1858 in
no way excludes women from the profession, and two women are
actually registered under its provisions. It is, therefore, hardly
credible, that when all candidates are by the Act required to submit
to certain examinations, the Examining Boards should at their option
be able to turn away all applicants who are not of the male sex, no
mention of any such power being contained in the Act itself; nor, I
think, need we assume even a desire to exclude women on the part of
all the Examining Boards until application has been made to each
individually; and this has never, so far as I am aware, been done at
present.
I trust, therefore, that I have shown that Mrs. Anderson’s advice
that all Englishwomen desiring to study medicine should at once
expatriate themselves is premature in the extreme; I hope further to
show that it is moreover radically erroneous in principle. Even if
it should ultimately be proved (as is at present by no means the
case) that women cannot obtain official examination in this country,
and therefore cannot enter their names on the Register, it would
still, I think, be very far from certain that their best plan was to
seek such examination abroad, seeing that after having spent years
of labour and much money they would, as regards legal recognition,
be exactly as far as ever from gaining their end. Mrs. Anderson says
that they would at least obtain ‘what is denied them in their own
country, a first-class medical education.’ If it were true that such
an education could not be got without going abroad, there would, no
doubt, be much force in this argument, but I submit that this is not
the case. Without stopping to consider the alternatives brought
forward by your correspondent herself—the establishment of a new
school for women or the purchase of one of the existing hospital
schools—either of which seems to me infinitely preferable, Mrs.
Anderson quite overlooks the fact that at this moment medical
classes of first-rate quality can be obtained in Edinburgh in the
Extra-Mural school (many of whose lecturers stand much higher than
the University professors in public estimation),[166] and that with
very little trouble a complete curriculum of medical study could be
there arranged, without altering any of the existing conditions of
affairs. The doors of the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary have also been
thrown open to women, though under some restrictions, and excellent
clinical instruction is given to them there by two of the best and
most popular teachers in the city. Can any one doubt that when so
much has been secured, and when every year promises increased
facilities, it is infinitely better that Englishwomen should study
medicine under the direction of their own countrymen, in their own
language, and amid the social and hygienic conditions which will
occur in their own future practice, rather than in a foreign land,
from lecturers who teach in a strange language and in hospitals
where all the arrangements and theories vary from those of this
country, and where even the types of disease may be so far modified
as greatly to lessen the value of the instruction for those who
intend to practise medicine in Great Britain?
Footnote 166:
S. J.-B. was thinking mainly of Dr. Heron Watson and Dr. G. W.
Balfour.
In point of fact, the question of medical education in this country
may be already considered solved, even if we grant the necessity of
attending lectures on every subject in the medical curriculum. It
is, however, worth remark that many of the very first men in the
profession are becoming more and more strongly in favour of free
trade in study—_i.e._, of allowing every student to obtain his
knowledge as he pleases, whether from books or from lectures,
requiring only final evidence of satisfactory results. It may be
that on investigation the present system will be found to rest
rather on the ‘vested interests’ of teachers than on the needs of
students, and, if so, the question of medical education for women
will be still further simplified. At present, however, it is not
needful to argue that question. I have shown that provision for the
education of women after the present fashion is to a great extent
already made, and that, for purposes of instruction at least, it is
quite unnecessary for them to expatriate themselves.
With regard to examination, the case seems to me equally clear. No
foreign diploma or degree is at present acknowledged as qualifying
for registration in this country, and though it may be well for
those who covet such ornamental honours to go through the
examinations requisite to obtain them, I cannot see any ground on
which it would be worth the while of most Englishwomen to live for
years abroad to arrive at a result so eminently unpractical. We live
under English law, and to English law we must conform, so far as
lies in our power; if we are arbitrarily precluded from such
compliance it is to the English Government that we must look for a
remedy. I can imagine few things that would please our opponents
better than to see one Englishwoman after another driven out of her
own country to obtain medical education abroad, both because they
know that, on her return after years of labour, she can claim no
legal recognition whatever, and because they are equally certain
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. I do not say that a woman may not be justified in going
abroad for education if her circumstances make it imperative that
she should as soon as possible enter upon medical practice; but I do
say, and I most firmly believe, that every woman who consents to be
thus exiled does more harm than can easily be calculated to the
general cause of medical women in this country, and postpones
indefinitely, so far as in her lies, the final and satisfactory
solution of the whole question.
It is not an easy thing to remember at all times that
‘They also serve who only stand and wait’;
but I do believe profoundly that at this moment the very best
service we can do to the cause in which we are all interested is to
make use of every opportunity open to us in this country to qualify
ourselves as thoroughly as possible for the profession we have
chosen, and then (refusing resolutely to be driven into byways or
unauthorized measures) to demand, quietly but firmly, that provision
for our ultimate recognition as medical practitioners which we have
a right to expect at the hands of the Legislature. Mrs. Anderson
seems to think it hopeless that the present Parliament should
‘promote the interests of an unrepresented class,’ but it must be
remembered that one of the very strongest arguments against granting
the franchise to women has always been that their substantial
interests are and will be provided for by the existing Government,
and a case like the present will certainly afford a crucial test of
the truth of these assertions. If they be true, we cannot doubt that
Parliament will in its next Session make full provision for a case
of such almost unexampled hardship; and if, on the other hand, this
be not done, the argument above referred to can hardly be again
brought forward when the suffrage for women shall again be claimed.
Let me, therefore, conclude, as I began, by protesting as strongly
as lies in my power against this idea of sending abroad every
Englishwoman who wishes to study medicine; let me entreat all such
women to join the class already formed in Edinburgh, the great
majority of whose members are thoroughly of one mind with me in this
matter, and who, having counted the cost, are, like myself,
thoroughly resolved to ‘fight it out on this line,’ and neither to
be driven out of our own country for education nor to be induced to
cease to make every effort in our power to obtain from the
Legislature that measure of justice which we imperatively need, and
which is, in point of fact, substantially implied in the provisions
of the Medical Act of 1858.
I am, Sir, yours obediently,
SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.
15, Buccleuch-place, Edinburgh. Aug. 8.”
APPENDIX F
LETTER FROM THE PRINCIPAL OF EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY, AND S. J.-B.’S
REPLY
LADY STUDENTS AT EDINBURGH
TO THE EDITOR OF THE _Times_.
SIR,—In your article on the medical education of women, under date
the 23rd inst., you give utterance to reproaches against the
University of Edinburgh, which appear to me to be undeserved, and
which I feel sure you would not have admitted had the full
circumstances of the case been before you. May I be allowed as
briefly as possible to indicate what seems to me to be a correct
view of those circumstances? You say:
“It was next thought that an opening for female medical students
might be found or made at the University of Edinburgh, and a few
were for a time actually received there. The Professors, however,
were greatly divided upon the question, and those who were opposed
to the necessary concessions threw every possible difficulty in the
way of those who wished to make them. After much quarrelling and
litigation, and after transactions which reflected very little
credit on the University, a legal decision adverse to the ladies was
finally given by a bare majority of Scottish Judges, and will remain
binding unless carried by appeal to the House of Lords. Under these
circumstances the ladies were placed in a position of great hardship
and difficulty.”
I acknowledge and regret the hardship and difficulty of the position
in which the ladies referred to have been placed; but this is owing
to the state of the law of the land as interpreted by the Court of
Session, and not to any discreditable transactions on the part of
the University. I admit the manifestation, during the history of
this question, of a partisan feeling both for and against the
medical ladies, to some extent within the University itself, but far
more in the outside public of Edinburgh; but I confidently assert
that the main body of the Professors were not partisans on either
side, and that the general feeling was a desire to give facilities
for medical study to women, so far as this could be done
consistently with the maintenance of academical good order. Again,
it must be remembered that the Professors do not constitute or
govern the University. The governing body is the University Court,
consisting of eight members (of whom only one is a Professor),
headed at present by Sir William Stirling Maxwell, as rector. I
utterly deny the appearance of any unworthy feeling in the way in
which this Court dealt with the questions relating to female medical
education which came before it.
The University was solicited in 1869 to admit ladies, as an
experiment, to the lectures of Medical Professors. There was a
certain amount of opposition to this request, but the feeling of the
majority in each of the constitutive bodies of the University was in
favour of conceding under necessary restrictions what was asked. In
one of the debates on the subject it was indeed suggested that such
a concession should not be made without clearly ascertaining
beforehand whether we had the power of ultimately conferring degrees
upon women, should it be found on experiment that they succeeded in
completing their medical curriculum and in passing the examinations.
But such a delay was deprecated by the supporters of the
application; it was urged that such an inquiry would be premature,
as what was asked for the present was only that trial might be made
of ladies in the capacity of medical students. I need hardly point
out that these representations were dictated by the policy of
“getting in the thin end of the wedge.” And far better for all
parties, more prudent, and more consistent with the dignity of the
University, would it have been, had we resisted this policy, and
refused to take any step before endeavouring to ascertain our powers
in respect of the graduation of women. But the University Court
yielded to an impulse of liberality, and proceeded at once to frame
regulations forbidding mixed classes, but permitting any professor
of medicine to hold separate classes for the medical instruction of
women. The applicants appeared satisfied with what was done for
them; and I must say that it would then have been in their power to
ascertain beforehand how many of the Professors were prepared to
institute classes for them. The ladies must not now throw on the
University all the blame of their disappointment, for they were not
without sufficient warning that only a limited number of such
classes, far short of a full curriculum, would be provided for them.
The regulations said not a word of graduation or of a full course of
study; they were merely permissive, and, as had been requested,
tentative. But the ladies preferred to enter at once upon such
lectures as they could get, trusting, apparently, to the chapter of
accidents. To several of the Medical Professors it would have been
impossible to open full course lectures for ladies, in addition to
their ordinary duties. Some had already on hand the teaching of more
than 300 students, not only by lectures, but also by daily
demonstrations for many hours in the laboratory or dissecting-room.
Others had extensive and important medical practice to attend to,
being sought out by patients from all parts of the country.
Altogether three of the Medical Professors opened classes for
ladies, and of these one has had his health seriously broken down by
the labour, and the two others have both declared that the burden of
such extra duty was more than they could continue to bear.
Under these circumstances, the medical ladies applied that
substitutes might be appointed to lecture to them in the place of
such Professors as might be unable, or unwilling, to give them
instruction. Now, for the first time, the University determined to
seek legal advice. An impartial statement of the case was drawn up
and submitted to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, with the
question whether such measures as the ladies now asked were within
the competency of the University? The opinion of the Solicitor-
General was very strongly given, and went even beyond the exact
point inquired on; it was to the effect that any step tending
towards the graduation of women would be beyond the powers of the
University. This opinion paralyzed the action of the University. The
University Court informed the ladies, on further application from
them, that it was debarred by this opinion from promoting their
graduation until the legality of such graduation could be
established, but it offered to make, in the meantime, arrangements
for their full medical instruction, and it was suggested to the
friends of the ladies that an amicable suit should be instituted
with a view of ascertaining the law. These offers were rejected, and
a suit was brought by the ladies against the Chancellor and
Professors of the University, which has terminated, thus far, in a
judgment that it is not within the powers of the University to
confer a degree upon a woman.
This, Sir, is in brief the history of an unhappy affair, in which
the University certainly made the mistake of consenting to an
experimental arrangement which was strongly urged upon them, and for
this it has been most severely punished. But I doubt if there is
anything in what has occurred which can be called a “transaction
reflecting little credit on the University,” with one exception—
namely, that on one occasion some of the students misbehaved
themselves and insulted the medical ladies. But I must say that this
lamentable occurrence was occasioned by those ladies having
transgressed the regulations of the University Court, and having
joined a mixed class in anatomy under an extra academical lecturer.
This outraged the feeling or prejudices of the students.
In conclusion, Sir, I sincerely sympathize in the earnest appeal
made by Miss Jex-Blake, in the very able letter which forms the
subject of your article, to the Legislature to take up the
consideration of the medical education of women. It is a subject
well worthy the attention of the Legislature, and one which can only
be properly dealt with, as a general social subject, by the
Legislature. Whether or not an University is a suitable institution
for the medical instruction and examination of women is a wide
question on which I will not venture to enter. But, however this be
decided, all other Universities of the United Kingdom must share in
the decision of the University of Edinburgh, and this University
will loyally bear her part in carrying out whatever Parliament may
ordain as expedient. In the meantime, under considerable obloquy,
she can at all events claim to have contributed something in the way
of experience to the elucidation of the question.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
A. GRANT, _Principal_.
_August 27._
TO THE EDITOR OF THE _Times_.
SIR,—As Sir Alexander Grant, as representative of the University of
Edinburgh, has thought fit to lay before your readers a statement
respecting that University and its lady students which is, to use
the mildest term, imperfect in the extreme, I trust to your justice
to allow me to supplement his narrative with such additional facts
as he has not thought it desirable to make public.
Sir Alexander states that in 1869 the University was “solicited to
admit ladies as an experiment to the lectures of the medical
professors,” and further on speaks of the regulations as being, “as
was requested, tentative.” He implies that all that followed was in
compliance with this request, the claim to graduation being
altogether an afterthought on the part of the ladies. Now, the real
fact is that in March, 1869, I personally did request admission to
medical lectures on these terms, but though the application was
granted by the Senatus it was refused by the University Court on the
express ground of the inexpediency of making any such “temporary
arrangement in the interest of one lady.” About three months later
four other ladies joined me in making a new and altogether different
application—viz., that the University “would sanction the
matriculation of women as medical students, and their admission to
the usual examinations, on the understanding that separate classes
be formed for their instruction.” At the same time (June 21, 1869) I
addressed a formal letter to the Lord Rector of the University
urging the same proposal, and asking that, if separate classes could
be formed, women should be “allowed to matriculate in the usual way,
and to undergo the ordinary examinations, with a view to obtain
medical degrees in due course.”
Our new proposal was successively submitted to all the different
authorities of the University, and received the assent of all—viz.,
of the Medical Faculty, the _Senatus Academicus_, the University
Court, the University Council, and the Chancellor—and, after five
months of consultation and consideration, regulations were, in
November, 1869, framed and issued “for the education of women in
medicine in the University,” these regulations being henceforth
incorporated in the official University Calendar. The first of these
regulations states that “women shall be admitted to the study of
medicine in the University”; in the fourth regulation exceptional
provision is made for “women not intending to study medicine
professionally”; and the sixth regulation ordains that “all women
attending such classes shall be subject to all the regulations now
or at any time in force in the University as to the matriculation of
students, their attendance on classes, examination, or otherwise.”
As the decision by which a bare majority of the Scotch Judges
absolved the University of Edinburgh from all responsibility towards
its matriculated lady students rests on the assumption that the
University Court exceeded its legal powers in passing the above
regulations, it may be worth while to state that the University
Court comprised at that time the then Lord Advocate of Scotland (who
is now Lord Justice Clerk), and also the previous Lord Advocate, Mr.
Gordon, and that the regulations in question were confirmed by the
Chancellor, who happens to be, as Lord Justice General of Scotland,
the highest legal authority in the country. It is certainly a
tolerably striking instance of the “glorious uncertainty of the
law,” that the two highest Judges in the land should concur in an
action which is subsequently declared by a majority of their
brethren to be illegal.
Sir Alexander further goes on to suggest that we might have
ascertained beforehand how many of the Professors would be willing
to hold separate classes for our benefit. The answer to this is
twofold. In the first place, no less than four of the medical
Professors have been changed since my first application was made,
and in every case the change has, as regards our interests, been
for the worse. One of those Professors whose loss we have most to
deplore is Sir James Simpson, whose generous liberality made him
always ready to espouse the weaker cause, and whose strong sense
of justice would have made him always our strenuous supporter in
the councils of the University. Had he been spared, it is, indeed,
more than possible that the whole history of the past four years
would have been different. On these losses it was impossible for
us to calculate; nor could we (before we learnt the full
bitterness of professional rancour) have foreseen that those
Professors who were themselves unable or unwilling to teach us
would absolutely refuse their assent to every one of the
alternative measures by which others might have been enabled to
give us the necessary instructions. It is hardly necessary to
allude to your correspondent’s rather apocryphal statement that
the stupendous labour of giving two lectures a day (which is
habitually undergone by Professors in the Arts Faculty) has ruined
the health of one medical Professor and seriously endangered that
of two more. Suffice it to say that these facts are, to say the
least of it, quite new to me, and that, did space permit, I think
a very different version of the circumstances might be given.
As Sir Alexander has thought fit to refer to the students’ riot in
November, 1871 (though to my mind it is very far from the most
discreditable episode in this history), I think it right distinctly
to deny the interpretation he puts upon the event. It is true that
the riot did occur while we were attending an extra-mural class of
anatomy (we having utterly failed to obtain a private class, though
we had offered a fee of a hundred and fifty guineas for one), but
the rioters were, with few exceptions, not our fellow-students at
all, but a mob of University students who had been summoned together
by a missive circulated in the University class-rooms. The real
truth was that the riot was deliberately got up simply and solely in
the hope of frightening certain friendly infirmary managers from
admitting us to their wards, and perhaps also of frightening us by
showers of foul words and of street mud from pursuing our studies
any further. Fortunately, the chivalrous device was not permanently
successful in either direction.
I pass on, however, to notice the statements made respecting the
recent lawsuit and the events immediately preceding it. Sir
Alexander says that when the University “for the first time sought
legal advice” the authorities obtained an opinion adverse to the
ladies’ claims from the Solicitor-General. As that opinion has never
been published, there is no opportunity for its discussion; but Sir
Alexander appears entirely to forget the fact that an opinion to the
exactly contrary effect was delivered by the Lord Advocate of
Scotland, who takes official precedence of the Solicitor-General,
and that that opinion was not only submitted to the University
Court, but published more than once in the newspapers and elsewhere.
In that opinion the Lord Advocate stated distinctly that he believed
the University to be not only able, but distinctly bound, to
complete the education of those ladies whom it had invited to
matriculate, and that all necessary arrangements for that purpose
could legally be made. It will thus be seen that the above opinions
at any rate neutralized each other, and that, had the University
willed it otherwise, it certainly need not have been “paralyzed” by
one of them.
It is further stated that the University Court informed the ladies
that, by the opinion above referred to, “it was debarred from
promoting their graduation until the legality of such graduation
could be established, but it offered to make, in the meantime,
arrangements for their full medical instruction”; and, further, that
such offer was rejected by the ladies. Both these statements, Sir, I
distinctly deny. I have at this moment the whole correspondence
before me, and I fail utterly to find in it any such offer as that
alleged. The only thing that in any degree gives colour to Sir
Alexander’s assertion is a passage occurring in a Minute of the
University Court of January 8, 1872, which is as follows:
“The Court are of opinion that the question under reference has been
complicated by the introduction of the subject of graduation, which
is not essential to the completion of a medical or other
education.... If the applicants in the present case would be content
to seek the examination of women by the University for certificates
of proficiency in medicine, instead of University degrees, the Court
believe that arrangements for accomplishing this object would fall
within the scope of the powers given to them by section 12 of the
Universities (Scotland) Act. The Court would be willing to consider
any such arrangements which might be submitted to them.”
On receiving a copy of this Minute I pointed out that certificates
of proficiency, not being recognized by the Medical Act of 1858,
would be quite useless to us; but added that, “As the main
difficulty before your honourable Court seems to be that regarding
graduation, with which we are not immediately concerned at this
moment, we are quite willing to rest our claims to ultimate
graduation on the facts as they stand up to the present date, and in
case your honourable Court will now make arrangements whereby we can
continue our education, we will undertake not to draw any arguments
in favour of our right to graduation from such future arrangements,
so that they may at least be made without prejudice to the present
legal position of the University.”
In answer to this letter I was informed that “If the names of extra-
academical teachers of the required medical subjects be submitted by
yourself or by the Senatus, the Court will be prepared to consider
the respective fitness of the persons so named to be authorized to
hold medical classes for women who have in this or former sessions
been matriculated students of the University, and also the
conditions and regulations under which such classes should be held.”
I, of course, replied that we would willingly prepare and submit
such a list (though your readers will notice that this simply
amounted to all the arrangements being thrown upon us students, and
not in any degree made by the Court), but requested first to be
assured that, “though you at present give us no pledge respecting
our ultimate graduation, it is your intention to consider the
proposed extra-mural courses as ‘qualifying’ for graduation, if it
is subsequently determined that the University has the power of
granting degrees to women.” In reply I was informed that the Court
would do nothing of the kind; that we might, if we pleased, take all
the trouble and expense of finding teachers, and might “submit”
their names to the Court, but that in no case would the Court take
any measures for making their teaching of any practical use to us
from a University point of view. Your readers will therefore judge
of what value was the boon that we are alleged to have rejected—I
had almost said the trap that we were fortunate enough to have
escaped!
I am sorry to have paused so long over this point, but the assertion
of your correspondent was so amazing that it seemed essential that
the real facts should be laid before the public. I should be only
too glad if your space would allow you to publish the whole
correspondence, of which I forward a copy for your own perusal.
Should any of your readers desire, however, to ascertain more of the
facts, they will find the correspondence fully given in the notes to
a little book called _Medical Women_, published last year by
Oliphant & Co., of Edinburgh, to which also I may refer for a
detailed account of the whole struggle of the first three years at
Edinburgh.
I notice that Sir Alexander Grant thinks it well to omit the fact
that, when we were at last driven to assert our rights in a court of
law (and I may remark that no proposal for an “amicable suit” was
ever made to me or to any of my fellow-students by the University
authorities, and therefore none was ever “rejected” by us), an
unhesitating decision in our favour was given by the Lord Ordinary,
before whom the case was tried, his Lordship also finding the
Senatus liable for three-fourths of our expenses. The University
refused, however, to accept this verdict, and appealed the case to
the Inner House, where they at length succeeded in obtaining a
judgment in their favour from a bare majority of the Lords of
Session, the whole costs being in this case thrown upon us. Perhaps
you will kindly allow me, however, to quote the following passage
from the judgment of the Lord Justice Clerk, who adhered to the
decision of the Lord Ordinary, and who had himself been Rector of
the University when we were admitted as students.[167] ... I may
mention that an abstract of the whole recent lawsuit has been
published as a sixpenny pamphlet, and may be obtained from Mr.
Elliott, 67 Princes Street, Edinburgh.
Apologizing for so large a trespass on your space,
I remain, yours obediently,
SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.
Footnote 167:
The passage has already been quoted, pp. 396-7.
APPENDIX G
PERMANENT MEMORIALS OF SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE
In St. Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh,—a brass tablet placed by the
Very Rev. T. W. Jex-Blake:
“Sacred to the Memory of Sophia Jex-Blake, M.D., by whose
energy, courage, self-sacrifice and perseverance the Science
of Medicine and the Art of Healing were opened to Women in
Scotland.”
In the Edinburgh Hospital for Women and Children, placed by the
Committee and friends,—a medallion of cast bronze mounted on a slab
of verde-antique marble: on the medallion, surrounded by a wreath of
laurel, the family crest and motto:
Bene praeparatum pectus.
And below this the inscription:
“In affectionate remembrance of Sophia Jex-Blake, Founder of
this Hospital, to whose large courage, insight and constancy
the admission of Women to the Profession of Medicine in this
Country is mainly due.”
On the family monument at Ovingdean, near Brighton:
SOPHIA LOUISA,
YOUNGEST CHILD OF THOMAS JEX-BLAKE,
AND MARIA EMILY, HIS WIFE.
DOCTOR OF MEDICINE,
FOUNDER IN 1874 OF THE LONDON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FOR WOMEN,
AND IN 1888 OF A SIMILAR SCHOOL IN EDINBURGH,
WHERE SHE ALSO FOUNDED A HOSPITAL FOR
WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN 1886.
“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.”
In Rotherfield Churchyard, where her body was laid,—a grey granite
cross, bearing the words:
SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE, M.D.
BORN 21ST JANUARY, 1840.
DIED 7TH JANUARY 1912.
“Then are they glad because they are at rest, and so He
bringeth them unto the haven where they would be.”
INDEX
Aberdare, Lord, 404, 427, 433, 443 (footnote), 466, 507.
Aberdeen University, 226, 413.
Act, Russell Gurney Enabling. _See_ Table of Contents.
Action of Declarator, Part II. Chap. XIII.
_Advocate_, The Boston, 191.
_Aids to Faith_, 108, 109.
Aitken, Dr., 500.
“A. K. H. B.” _See_ Rev. A. K. H. Boyd.
“Alice,” 88, 105, 106, 107, 168, 185, 204, 205, 207, 230, 258, 421,
461.
Allman, Professor, 257, 258, 276, 337.
Amberley, Viscountess, 279.
America, Life in. _See_ Table of Contents.
Anderson, M.D., Mrs. Garrett (Miss Elizabeth Garrett), 117, 118,
119, 120, 155, 187, 200, 205, 232, 233, 279, 362, 364, 368, 369,
400, 401, 420, 423, 424, 425, 426, 433, 441, 444 (letter from),
447, 449, 466, 467, 473 (letter from), 524.
Anderson, Miss Mary D. _See_ Mrs. Marshall, M.D.
Andrews, Miss Amelia, 56, 57.
Anstie, Dr. F. E., 402, 421, 425, 427;
letters from: 374, 419, 420.
Anthony, Miss, 477.
Anstruther, Sir Robert, 360, 403.
Lady, 360.
Atlantic House, 193, 194.
Antioch (at Yellow Springs in Ohio), 168.
Apothecaries’ Hall of Ireland, 395.
Society of London, 395.
Ardmillan, Lord, 392.
Arthur of Barshaw, Mrs., 514.
_Athenaeum_, The, 188.
Atkins, Dr. Louisa, 431, 439, 447.
Ayrton, M.D., Mrs. Chaplin, 263, 289, 336, 341, 377.
_A Visit to some American Schools and Colleges_, Part I. Chap.
XIII., 188, 228, 479.
B., Miss, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 36.
Bain, Miss Isabel (Mrs. James Brander), 159, 160, 172, 478, 506.
Balfour, Dr. G. W., 289, 349, 425, 427, 459, 498, 504, 508, 525.
Professor J. H., 118, 228-9, 235, 237, 240, 241, 248, 258, 272,
276, 333, 334, 336, 337, 358.
Ballantyne, Mrs. _See_ Lady Jenkinson.
Miss K., 480.
Barker, Dr. Annie, 279.
Barlow, Sir Thomas, 460, 483.
Baynes, Professor, 394.
Beaconsfield, Lord. _See_ Disraeli.
Beattie, Mrs., 516.
Bedford College, 107.
Begbie, James, 107, 117, 118, 229, 233, 239, 240.
Beilby, Lady, 525.
Miss Winifred (Mrs. Frederick Soddy), 525.
Bell, Dr., 311.
Bellevue Hospital, 199.
Bennet, Dr. Henry, 280-1 (letter from).
Bennett, Professor Hughes, 236, 237, 241, 258, 273, 279, 289, 361,
425.
Benson, Miss Ada, 62, 63, 84, 362.
Henry, 62.
Bernerhof, 436.
Berne University, 436.
Bettws-y-Coed, 45, 60, 86-7, 120, 127, 198, 485.
Biblical Criticism, S. J.-B.’s views on, 142-4.
Billing, Dr. A. (father of the profession), 444, 445.
Birmingham University, 392.
Birrell, Professor, 394.
Black, Miss Janet, 498.
Blackie, Professor J. S., 239, 241, 301, 302, 303.
Mrs., 239, 510;
letters from: 302-3, 346.
Blackwell, Dr. Elizabeth, 199, 200, 204, 205, 207, 264 (letter
from), 267, 356-7 (letter from S. J.-B.), 362, 364, 367, 368,
369, 425, 493.
Dr. Emily, 199, 204, 205, 206, 233.
_Blackwood’s Magazine_, 435.
Blake-Humfrey, family, 59, 60.
Mr. Robert, 59.
Blyth, Miss Phoebe, 107, 239, 390, 510.
Bologna University, 221, 239, 240, 241, 358, 370.
Bonney, Dr., 220, 221.
Bordighera, 521-3.
Bosnia, Miss Irby’s work in, 402.
Boston _Daily Advertiser_, 190.
Boucherett, Miss, 91.
Bovell, Dr. Emily (Mrs. Sturge), 279, 377.
Boyd, Rev. A. K. H., 374.
Brander, Mrs., 479.
Mrs. James. _See_ Miss Isabel Bain.
British Medical Association, 524, 528.
_British Medical Journal_, 233, 259, 270, 271.
British Museum, 239, 240, 358.
Brompton Hospital, 438, 439, 456.
Brontë, Charlotte, 133, 139, 237.
Brown, Professor Crum, 268, 269, 270, 273, 335, 382, 418.
Mrs. Helen, 510.
Rev. Olympia, 178.
Brown-Séquard, Professor, 191.
Buchan, Dowager Countess of, 335, 362.
Burke and Hare, 497.
Burn Murdoch, Mr. John, 118, 229.
Burn Murdoch, Mrs., 106, 110, 112, 118-9, 133, 151, 229, 240, 262.
Burton, Miss Mary, 510.
Buss, Miss, 480.
Bussaco, The Sacred Forest of, 531.
Bute, The Marquis of, 500.
Marchioness of, 524.
Butler, Rev. Canon, 364, 365.
Mrs. Josephine, 218, 219, 221, 223, 256, 266;
letters from: 226, 253-4, 364-5.
Cabot, Dr., 224, 247.
Caird, Professor Edward, 413.
Rev. John, Principal, 413.
Calderwood, Rev. Professor, 239, 273, 302, 310, 320, 346, 361, 509.
Mrs., 510.
Call, Dr. Emma, 199, 379.
Cambridge University, 219, 220, 221, 224-5, 226, 342-3.
Cameron, M.P., Dr., 410, 411, 412-3 (letter from), 467.
Campbell, Professor Lewis, 354, 355, 362, 394, 427.
Mrs., 354, 355.
Lady Victoria, 524.
Cancer Hospital, The, 456.
Candlish, Rev. Dr., 109.
Cardwell, Lord, 445.
_Care of Infants, The_, 491.
Carlingford, Lord, 492.
Carlyle, Thomas, 161.
Cathcart, F.R.C.S., Mr. C. W., 460 (footnote), 536.
Chambers, Dr. King, 255, 256 (letter from), 395, 421, 430, 431,
442, 460, 464, 472, 493.
William, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, 244.
Chaplain, S. J.-B. as, 173, 174, 175, 176-7.
Chaplin, Miss. _See_ Mrs. Chaplin Ayrton, M.D.
Charteris, Rev. Professor, 273, 300, 321, 361, 493.
Children’s Hospital, 456.
_Christian World_, The, 363.
Christison, Professor, Sir Robert, 229, 235, 236, 237, 240, 241,
242, 245, 249, 258, 273, 286, 299, 311, 315, 318, 331, 335, 337,
345, 418, 449, 508.
——’s Assistant, 299, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315.
_Church Review_, The, 298 (and footnote).
_Cives Academiae Edinensis_, 264.
Clark, Dr. Ann, 436, 437, 438, 536 (footnote).
Clouston, Dr. (Sir Thomas), 460, 486, 526.
Cobbe, Miss Frances Power, 152 (letter from), 158, 171, 178, 243,
266, 320.
Colenso, Bishop, 141, 142, 145, 146.
Colston, Treasurer, 320.
Commune, The, 326.
_Contemporary Review_, The, 442.
Cordery, Miss Bertha. _See_ Mrs. S. R. Gardiner.
Miss Emma, 66, 153, 155, 528.
Miss Henrietta. _See_ Mrs. T. W. Jex-Blake.
James, 66, 473, 528.
Family, 66, 83, 252, 389, 421.
_Courant_, The Edinburgh, 291.
Evening, 312, 315.
Cowan, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, 389.
Cowell, Dr., 419.
Cowper Temple, M.P., W. (Lord Mount Temple), 409 (letter and
telegram from), 410-411 (letter from), 412, 414, 429, 430, 433,
434, 467.
Coxe, M.D., Sir James, 300.
Craig, Miss Agnes, 510.
Craik, Mrs., 55.
Craufurd, Professor, 241, 258, 273, 360.
Critchett, F.R.C.S., George, 431, 432.
Crocker, Miss, 163.
Cropper, James, 504.
Crudelius, Mrs., 106.
Cubitt, Miss Henrietta (Mrs. Orr), 106.
Miss Jane, 37, 38, 366.
Maria Emily. _See_ Mrs. Jex-Blake.
Mrs. P., 151.
Thomas of Honing Hall, 2.
family, 59.
Dahms, Dr. Anna, 335, 377.
_Daily News_, The, 421-2, 443.
_Daily Review_, The Edinburgh, 119, 236, 263, 293, 294.
Davies, Miss Emily, 118, 219.
Deas, Lord, 392.
De Dreux, Miss, 107, 108, 124.
Degrees, American, 189, 190, 322.
Derby, Hasket, 192.
Dimock, Dr. Susan, 190 (and footnote), 191.
Disraeli, Benjamin, 407, 408, 409, 412.
Dispenser, S. J.-B. as, 173.
Dispensary, S. J.-B.’s, 459, 460, 461, 462, 468, 486, 487, 495,
494.
Driving Tours, Part III. Chap. VI.
Dublin University, 226.
Duggan, Rev. Father, 529-30.
Dunham, Great, 59, 63.
Du Pre, Miss Ursula, 221-3, 229, 230 (and footnote), 242, 247, 252,
262, 279, 287, 295 (letter), 328, 329, 351, 362, 386-7 (letter),
433, 437, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 472, 476-8 (letters to), 481,
482, 486, 489, 490, 495, 497, 507, 509 (letter to), 516, 528.
Durham University, 392-4.
Edinburgh Extra-Mural School, 276-9, 285, 286, 330, 331, 491, 492,
496. Appendix D.
Edinburgh, First visit to, Part I. Chap. IX.
Edinburgh Hospital for Women and Children, 476 (footnote), 487.
Edinburgh Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, 309, 330, 395,
491, 492.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. _See_ Table of Contents.
Edinburgh School of Medicine for Women, 496-502, 504, 507, 508.
Edinburgh University. _See_ Table of Contents.
Edington, Mrs., 510.
Miss, 510.
Eggishorn, The, 375.
Ellaby, Dr. Charlotte, 474.
Eliott-Lockhart, Miss C. H., 508, 528.
Emerson, Edith, 166.
Edward, 166.
Ellen, 166.
R. W., 161, 161-2 (letter from), 166-7.
Mrs., 166-7.
Employment of Women, Society for the, 81.
Enabling Bill (Cowper Temple, _i.e._ Bill “to remove doubts”), 403,
404, 410; (Russell Gurney), 434.
_Englishwoman’s Year Book_, 494.
“Englishwomen’s Educational Union,” 125, 127.
_Essays and Reviews_, 109.
Evans, Mrs. De Lacy. _See_ Mrs. Russel.
Miss M. J. (Mrs. Heath), 60, 70, 73, 82, 151.
family, 59, 61.
Fawcett, Rt. Hon. Henry, 479.
Findlay, J. R., 233, 262, 320.
Fitch, J., 464.
Foreign Degrees Bill, 429, 433.
Forsyth, —, Q.C., M.P., 433.
Forster, Rt. Hon. W. E., 404.
Fortingal, 516.
Foster, Mrs. A. B., 510.
_Fortnightly Review_, The, 293, 429.
Fraser, Professor Alexander, 234, 240.
Fraser, Sherriff Patrick, 33, 332, 334, 335, 358.
Galloway, LL.D., Miss Janet, 501.
Gamgee, Dr. Arthur, 278.
Gardiner, Professor S. R., 531.
Mrs., 66, 431, 490, 503, 528, 531.
Garrett, Miss Elizabeth. _See_ Mrs. Garrett Anderson.
Gaskell, Mrs., 154.
Geddes, Mrs., 510.
George Eliot, 455.
Gifford, Lord Ordinary, Chap. XIV. _passim_, 377, 379, 381, 391,
392, 403.
Gilbert, Thomas, 310, 332, 333.
Gladstone, Rt. Hon. W. E., 405, 409, 465.
_Glasgow Herald_, The, 315.
_Glasgow Mail_, 412.
Glasgow University, 221, 226, 246, 413.
Glencorse, Lord. _See_ Inglis.
Gordon (Lord Advocate), 249, 287, 412.
Goschen, G. J. (First Viscount), 252.
Göttingen, 124-6, 132.
Gover, Mrs., 27.
Grand Ducal Institute, 126-8, Chap. XI. _passim_.
Grant, Sir Alexander, 235, 241, 244, 247, 249, 250, 252, 258, 279,
335, 401, Appendix F.
Lady, 235, 236.
Granville, Earl, 444.
Greig, David, 320.
Grévy, President, 325.
Grote, George, 47.
_Guardian_, The, 158, 274.
Gull, Sir William, 444.
Gunton, Rev. Thomas, 323.
Mrs., 323, 513.
Gurney, Mr. Russell, 405, 406, 407 (letter from), 409, 410, 411,
429, 434.
Guthrie, Rev. Dr., 109, 344, 346.
Handyside, Dr. P. D., 278, 279, 285, 287-9 (letter from), 291, 292,
298.
Harris, Miss Mary, 90, 101.
Hayden, Dr., 439.
Harvard University, 168, 171, 191, 192, 195, 196, 199, 204, 206,
239.
Heath, Mrs. _See_ Miss M. J. Evans.
Heaton, Miss Martha (Mrs. Hilhouse), 84.
Henderson, Professor, 235, 237.
Heywood, Mr., 444.
Hidber, Professor, 438.
Hill, Miss Miranda, 90, 101, 105, 125, 344, 362.
Miss Octavia, 84-94, 96, 98, 99, 101, 108, 110, 112, 116, 125,
133, 181, 199, 238, 258, 266, 468, 538.
Hill, Mrs., 87, 89, 92.
Hill, Mrs. A. R., 510.
Dr., President of Harvard, 168, 171, 190-1.
Hill Burton, Mrs., 320.
Hillsdale College, 168, 171.
Hoare, Miss Elizabeth, 161.
Hodgson, Professor William B., 361, 399 (letter from), 400, 401,
402.
Mrs., 510.
Hoggan, Dr., 292, 346.
Holmes, Dr. Oliver Wendell, 191.
Honing Hall, 2, 60, 151.
Hope, Dr., 269.
Hope Scholarship, 269, 295, 317, 418.
Hope of Drylaw, Mrs., 320.
Hopgood, James, 442, 443.
Mrs., 442.
Houghton, Lord, 402.
Hughes, Miss. _See_ “Alice.”
Hughes, Thomas, 405.
Humphry, M.D., Sir George, 220.
Huxley, T. H., 383, 384, 416, 418.
Hubbard, Miss Louisa, 402, 494.
Hutton, R. H., 444.
Inglis, Chancellor, Lord Glencorse, Lord Justice General of
Scotland, 240, 260, 269, 332, 396.
Innes, Professor Cosmo, 239, 240, 361.
Irby, Miss Pauline, 402, 421, 422, 432, 433, 461-2, 465, 495, 498.
“Irish Brigade,” 292, 293, 294.
Irish University, 435.
Irving, Sir Henry, 458.
Jack, Professor, 315.
Jagannadham, Dr. Annie, 504.
James, Professor William, 531.
_Jane Eyre_, 108, 111, 113.
Jenkin, Professor Fleeming, 239, 241, 271 (letter from), 359, 360,
361.
Jenkinson, Lady (Mrs. Ballantyne), 151, 159, 180, 229, 247, 258,
481, 487, 528.
Jenner, Sir William, 445.
Jenny Geddes, 297 (footnote).
Jerviswoode, Lord, 348, 392.
Jessel, Rt. Hon. Sir G., 444.
Jex-Blake, Thomas, 1-17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 37, 41, 45, 48, 50,
52, 59, 63, 66, 67, 74, 88, 91, 108, 122, 140, 146, 148, 150,
158, 159, 160, 177, 194, 202, 203, 205, 207, 208, 213, 283, 389,
464.
Letters from: 15, 26, 30, 35-6, 39-41, 67-8, 70-1, 72, 79, 88-9,
112, 185-6, 252-3, 385-6.
Letters to: 19, 20, 22-3, 36-7, 68-70, 71-2.
Jex-Blake, Mrs., 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 29,
31, 32, 37, 39, 42, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 58, 59, 65, 66, 70, 74,
81, 82, 85, 88, 91, 93, 96, 108, 110, 111, 113, 120, 124, 135,
137, 139, 140, 147, 148, 158, 168, 180, 182, 185, 187, 201, 208,
213, 214, 217, 219, 224, 226, 237, 238, 239, 255, 265, 267, 279,
306, 310, 323, 365, 366, 389, 391, 407, 421, 423, 439, 445, 456,
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 518.
Letters from: 4-5, 13-4, 15, 16, 25, 30, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 73,
89, 111, 112, 113, 121, 134, 137, 138, 139-40, 145-6, 159-60,
185, 279, 309, 310, 342, 363, 375, 384-5, 391, 438, 440, 471.
Letters to: 5, 6, 19, 24, 47, 48, 81, 86-7, 97-8, 114-5, 121,
121-4, 129-30, 131, 141-5, 163, 164-6, 172-5, 176-7, 184, 193-
4, 194-5, 197-8, 200-1, 203, 204-7, 365-6, 380, 459-60, 471.
Jex-Blake, Very Rev. T. W., 1, 4, 14, 16, 28, 45, 66, 69, 71, 185,
202, 208, 219, 229, 240, 316, 320, 405, 417, 438, 457, 513.
Letters from: 169-70, 266-7, 303-4, 307-8, 353-4, 375, 384.
Letters to: 4, 170-1.
Jex-Blake, Mrs. T. W. (Miss H. Cordery), 49, 66, 171, 185, 353,
354, 384, 438.
Jex-Blake family, 171, 185.
Jex-Blake, Miss C. A., 1, 3, 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 28, 29, 38, 39, 43,
56, 60, 85, 87, 106, 119, 158, 177, 194, 198, 207, 214, 438,
528.
Letters from: 43-4.
Letters to: 176, 484-5.
Jex-Blake, Elinor (Mrs. Miles), 44, 58, 60, 61, 73, 75, 82-83, 110,
113, 156, 459.
Ferrier, 58, 59, 73.
Miss Kate (Mrs. Forde), 44.
Miss Sarah (Mrs. Brown), 42, 59, 60, 61, 73, 82, 385.
William, of Swanton Abbots, 2.
Jowett, Professor Benjamin, 235.
‘Juryman, A,’ 316-7 (letter from).
Keiller, Dr., 279, 330.
Keily, Miss S. E., 523.
Kelland, Professor, 239, 258.
Kimberley, Lord, 444.
King’s and Queen’s College of Physicians, Ireland, 435, 436, 438.
Kingsley, Charles, 63.
Henry, 294.
Mrs. Henry, 292, 294, 321, 373, 461.
Kinnear, Lord, 508.
Kirkland, Miss E. S., 510.
Knowles, James, 502.
Knox, Dr. Robert, 497.
Kunz, Madame, 510.
_Lancet_, The, 280, 282, 283, 319, 336, 337, 362, 383.
Laurence, Samuel, 76, 187, 205.
Law (Lord Provost of Edinburgh), 296, 299, 304, 305, 322.
“Lawyer, A” (letter from), 317.
Laycock, Professor, 236, 237, 241, 248, 259, 273, 286, 313.
Lectureship on Midwifery (S. J.-B.’s), 504.
Lee, Dr., 460.
Leith Hospital, 479.
Lister, Professor (Lord), 273, 389.
Liston, Professor, 258, 335.
Littlejohn, Dr. (Sir Henry), 286, 296, 336, 337, 362, 383.
Liveing, Professor, 220.
_Liverpool Mercury_, The, 380.
London Hospital, 441.
—— School of Medicine for Women, 421-2, 429, 433, 443, 445, 449,
464, 502.
—— University, The, 117, 219, 441, 444, 445, 448, 456, 479.
Lorimer, Professor, 239, 240, 241, 258, 361.
Letters from: 249-50, 331-2.
Lorimer, Mrs., 239, 250, 251, 332.
Loring, —, 195.
Lothian, Marquis of, 507.
Lowe, M.P., Rt. Hon. Robert (Viscount Sherbrooke), 507.
Lubbock, Sir John, 404, 444.
Macadam, Dr. Stevenson, 495.
Macara, Mrs., 516.
Macdonald, Dr. Angus, 459.
McDougall, Dr. Mary, 537.
Macgregor, Dr. Jessie, 525.
Mackenzie, Dr. J., letters from: 321, 373-4.
Maclagan, Professor Sir Douglas, 237.
M‘Laren, Dr. Agnes, 320, 321, 323, 324 (letter from), 325, 341,
362, 375, 385, 386 (letter from), 387, 390, 392, 394, 410, 413,
426, 471, 528.
Duncan, M.P., 296, 304, 346, 414, 416.
Mrs. Priscilla Bright, 363, 510.
Macmillan and Co., 168, 187, 188, 253, 491.
Macmillan, Mr. Alexander (letter from), 218.
M‘Pherson, Professor, 239, 258.
Mair, Miss S. E. S., 510.
Manchester, Projected Ladies’ College, 152-6, 200.
Mann, Mrs. Horace, 166.
Mannheim, Part I. Chap. XI., 324, 499.
Marshall, M.D., Mrs. Mary, 289, 319, 340, 351.
Martineau, Harriet, 320, 335 (letter from).
James, 216, 362.
Massachusetts General Hospital, 191, 192, 196.
Eye and Ear Infirmary, 191, 192.
Massingberd Mundy, Miss, 292, 335, 377, 378-9 (letter from).
Masson, Professor David, 106, 221, 226, 228, 231, 234, 239, 241,
243, 245, 250, 258, 264, 270, 272, 273, 274, 305, 309, 345, 346,
360, 361, 363, 388, 407, 411, 425, 428, 437, 449, 499, 524.
Letters from: 228-9, 247-9, 273, 408, 409, 411-12.
Masson, Mrs., 263 (letter from), 428.
Masson family, 306.
Matriculation (First) of women in Edinburgh University, 264.
Maurice, Frederick Denison, 63, 66, 70, 110, 203.
_Medical Women_, 223, 224, 265, 380, 402, 421, 479, 491, 492, 493.
Medicine as a career, 182, 183, 184, 187.
Menzies, Mr. and Mrs., 516.
Ministry, thoughts of, 177, 182.
Middlesex Hospital, 456.
Mitchell, Miss Maria, 163.
Millar, Mrs., 510.
Millar, Mrs. Grant, 510.
White, 310, 325, 334, 357, 382, 392, 410.
Milne Murray, Dr., 504.
Monck Mason, Miss Dora. _See_ Mrs. Burn Murdoch.
Moore, Dr., 52.
Moorfields Hospital, 456.
Moorhead, Dr. Alice (Mrs. Langwill), 508.
Moncrieff, Lord Advocate (Lord Justice Clerk), 244, 250, 252, 332,
396, 413.
Moray, The Countess of, 524.
Morse, Rev. T. C. D., letter from, 132, 153, 156, 158.
Mount Temple, Lord. _See_ Cowper Temple.
Muirhead, Professor, 239, 240, 241, 248, 338.
Munro Ferguson, Lady Helen, 524.
Mure, Lord, 313, 314, 392, 396.
Music, 138.
Myers, Frederick, 474.
“National Association,” 335, 345, 491, 509.
New England Hospital for Women and Children, 162, 165, 172, 188,
189, 197, 206, 285.
New York Infirmary, 204.
Newman, Professor, 223 (letter from), 223.
Niagara, 167, 168.
Nichol, Mrs., 300, 303 (letter from), 320, 354, 464, 510.
Nicholson, Dr. Alleyne, 276-7 (letter from).
Nicolson, Alexander, 249, 273, 336 (letter from), 357-8.
_Nineteenth Century, The_, 402, 442, 449, 502.
Norton, Arthur, 256, 420, 421, 426, 428, 447, 457.
Oakeley, Professor Sir Herbert, 240.
Oberlin College, 168, 171.
O’Halloran, The, 293, 294.
Ormidale, Lord, 392.
Orr, General (Captain), 106.
Orr, Mrs. (Miss Henrietta Cubitt), 106.
Orr, Miss Margaret, 106, 110, 229, 230.
Orr Ewing, —, M.P., 410, 411.
Osler, Smith, 444, 479-80.
Padua University, 241.
Paget, Sir James, 431, 444.
Palaus, Fräulein von (Baroness), 127, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 144,
147, 148.
_Pall Mall, The_, 195, 300.
Palmer, Sir Roundell (Lord Selborne), 241.
Paris University, 228, 229, 235, 239, 279, 353, 354, 377, 400.
Paton, Miss M. G., 510.
Peabody, Miss, 161, 166.
Pechey, Dr. Edith (Mrs. Pechey Phipson), 254, 256, 257, 262, 267,
269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 289, 293, 303, 307, 311, 325, 336,
341, 364, 365, 366, 377, 378, 382, 384, 418, 424, 425, 431, 432,
434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 444, 449, 459, 464, 465, 478, 486,
492, 493, 505, 514, 518, 519, 528.
Letters from: 317-9, 359-60, 362, 383.
Pechey, Rev. William, 275, 279, 493.
Peel Ritchie, Dr., 460, 525.
Phin, Rev. Dr., 249, 260.
Phipson, H. M., 505, 528.
Playfair, Professor (Sir Lyon), 237, 240, 241, 250, 251, 411, 412,
413, 414, 416, 428.
Letters from: 241-2.
Plumptre, E. H. (Dean of Wells), 63, 64, 69, 113, 150, 152, 155.
Portal, Miss Lucy (letter from), 26-7.
Provosts (Lord) of Edinburgh:
Chambers, 244.
Law, 296, 299, 304, 305.
Cowan, 389.
Professional Examination, 330.
Puerperal Fever, S. J.-B.’s thesis on, 437.
Pulsford, Rev. Dr., 109, 110, 112, 145.
_Punch_, 44, 275, 356, 414, 487.
Putnam-Jacobi, Dr. M., 224, 424.
Quain, Dr., 445.
Queen Margaret College, 501.
Queen Mary, H.M., 487.
Queen Victoria, H.M., 138, 259, 286.
Rainy, Rev. Principal, 109.
Raleigh, Rev. Dr., 160.
Ramsay, Admiral, Sir William, 320.
Raymond, Dr., 166.
Reade, Charles, 291, 435, 498.
Recorder of London. _See_ Gurney, Russell.
Reid, W. L., 336.
Rendel, Lady, 402.
Richmond and Gordon, Duke of, 433.
Richter, Dr. Otto, 376.
Riot at Surgeons’ Hall, Part II. Chap. VIII.
Ripon, Marquis of, 389, 466, 479.
Ristori, 458.
Robson, W., 334, 347.
_Robertson’s Sermons_, 139, 142, 230, 382.
Rogers, Professor, 164, 195.
Mrs., 162, 178.
Rose, Mrs. Hugh, 510.
Royal Free Hospital, 442, 444, 456.
Royal Infirmary, 286, 287, 288, 296, 298, 299, 300, 308, 340, Chap.
XII. _passim_.
Rukhmabai, Dr., letter from, 493, 504.
Rumbling Bridge Hotel, 516.
Russel, Alexander, 233, 294, 305, 332, 340, 349, 380.
Mrs. (Mrs. de Lacy Evans), 236, 243, 263, 289, 292, 307, 332,
340, 341, 349, 492.
Russell, Lord Arthur, 444.
Sackermena, 6-10, 18, 50, 120, 335, 447.
_Sadie’s Poems_, 230, 242, 488.
St. Andrews University, 119, 221, 225, 226, 354, 392, 394, 395,
413, 417, 492, 507, 508, 509.
St. Giles’ Cathedral, 296, 297.
St. Louis College, 168, 171.
St. Mary’s Hospital, 255, 256.
Salamanca University, 241.
Salzmann, Dr., 215, 256, 395.
Sanders, Professor, 273.
Sanderson, Dr., 292, 313.
Sandon, Viscount, 429, 433, 434.
Saville, Dr. Lillie, (letter from) 390, 488, 528.
Scharlieb, Mrs., 478, 524.
Schoolfellow’s criticisms of S. J.-B., 33-4.
School Board (Edinburgh), 389.
Schultz, Fräulein, 437.
_Scotsman_, The, 119, 233, 234, 249, 253, 262, 275, 298, 305, 306,
310, 312, 313, 316, 322, 337, 342, 348, 401, 412, 450, 465.
Scott, Dr. Sam., 148.
Scott Moncrieff, Sir Colin, 500.
Selborne, Lord (Sir Roundell Palmer), 241, 404, 434.
Lady, 405.
Serajevo, 432, 435.
Sewall, Dr. Lucy, 161, 162, 163, 165, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 181,
182, 183, 187, 193, 197, 198, 201, 202, 205, 206, 215, 229, 230,
237, 238, 302, 327, 328, 329, 377, 378, 379, 448, 459, 462, 468,
476, 506.
Letters from: 162, 175, 186, 215, 405.
Letters to: 16 (footnote), 199, 213, 214-5, 216, 219, 221, 224,
232-3, 246, 255, 259, 267, 327, 377-8, 379, 464, 487.
Sewall, Hon. Samuel, 162, 177, 205, 259, 506.
_Sewall, The Prophecy of Samuel_ (_1697_), 162, 506-7.
Shaftesbury, Earl of, 363, 427, 434.
Shairp, Professor, 226.
Shandwick Place University Classes for Women, 106.
Sherbrooke, Viscount. _See_ Lowe, Rt. Hon. Robert.
Shewen, Dr. Alfred, 404.
Shove, Dr. Edith, 435, 444, 479.
Sibbald, Dr. (Sir John), 525.
Sidgwick, Professor Henry, 226, 245, 342, 343.
Letters from: 219, 221, 245, 225-6.
Simon, J., 389, 429, 430.
Simpson, Sir James, 221, 233 (footnote), 234, 237.
Skelton, Mrs., 510.
Slaves and Slavery, 168, 171, 182 (footnote).
Sleighing, 197.
Smith, Professor Piazzi, 240.
Southwood, Dr., 96.
Dr. William, 444.
Social Science Congress, 402.
Society of Apothecaries, 232, 255.
Society for Employment of Women, 81.
Soddy, Mrs. Frederick. _See_ Beilby, Miss Winifred.
Somerville, Mr. Robert, 498.
Spence, Professor, 236, 237, 258, 498.
_Spectator_, The, 270, 274, 295, 399, 401, 504.
Stansfeld, Rt. Hon. Sir James, 274, 309, 381, 388, 389, 402, 404,
406, 410, 414, 429, 432, 433, 444, 445, 446, 449, 491, 502.
Letters from, 407-8, 409, 441-2, 443, 507.
Stansfeld, Mrs. Caroline, 441.
_Stationer_, The, 188.
Stevenson, Miss Flora, 320, 325.
Miss Louisa, 325, 390, 510.
R. L., 340 (letter from).
Professor, 240, 258.
Stirling Maxwell, Sir William, 360, 411.
Storar, Dr., 445.
Struthers, Dr., 497.
Professor, 273.
Stuart, M.P., James, 225, 226, 343.
Letter from, 342-3.
Suffrage, Woman, 309, 323, 327, 465, 485.
Syme, Professor, 258, 274, 295, 399, 401, 504.
Symes Thompson, Dr., 438.
Tait, Professor, 239, 240, 241, 258, 270, 273, 279, 335, 360, 416.
Letter from, 338-9.
Tait, Lawson, 432.
Taylor, Mrs., 59.
Mrs. Peter, 161.
Taylour, Miss, 323.
Teaching, Comparison of English and American, 169, 170.
Teed, Mrs., 13, 17, 18, 35, 46, 48, 53, 55, 69, 71, 133.
Miss, 13, 16, 46, 175.
Temple, Miss, 185.
Tennyson, Alfred, 63, 345.
Terry, Miss Ellen, 458.
Thackeray, S. J.-B.’s likeness to, 76.
Thomson, Professor A. J., 500.
Walter, 380.
Sir Wyville, 416, 418.
Thorne, Mrs. Isabel, 256, 260, 268, 289, 292, 307, 311, 322, 325,
336. 389, 395, 396, 402, 418, 420, 425, 431, 434, 435, 436, 447,
448, 449, 462, 467, 505.
Letter from, 253.
Thornton, Mrs., 77.
_Times_, The, 108, 270, 273, 286, 375, 400, 401, 417, 421, 472,
495.
Trayner, Lord, 308, 494, 495.
Mrs. (Lady), 494, 495.
Trench, R. C. (Archbishop), 63, 64, 216.
Tulloch, Principal, 119, 355, 413, 427.
Turner, Professor (Sir William), 235, 237, 241, 247, 248, 258, 273,
293, 336, 389.
Tutorship (mathematical), 67-73.
Tweedie, Mrs. Alec., 63 (footnote).
Tyng, Dr., 166.
Tytler, Professor, 239.
Unitarianism, 109, 153, 154, 179, 180 (footnote).
University. _See_ Aberdeen, Bologna, Cambridge, etc.
Universities Commission, 508.
Universities (Scotland) Bill, 507.
Unwin, Miss Hermione, 480-1.
Unwin, Mrs. S. P., 84, 124, 202, 328, 329, 351.
Letters to, 100, 130-1, 149-50, 156-8, 167-8, 184.
Letters from, 186.
Unwin, S. P., 158, 481.
Letter from, 186.
_Villette_, 126 (and footnote).
Waldegrave, Dowager Countess, 373.
Walker, Miss, 279.
Miss Lucy. _See_ Mrs. Unwin.
Dr. Jane, 524.
Watson, Dr. (Sir Patrick Heron), 278, 284, 286, 340, 349, 425, 459,
466, 467, 472, 493, 509.
Letters from, 287-9, 332.
Wedderburn, Sir David, 360, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407.
Welstood, Mrs., 510.
Weisse, Herr Heinrich, 107.
Westminster Hospital, 419.
Wigham, Miss Eliza, 510.
Wilberforce, William, 182.
Williams, Mrs., 63.
Mrs. Agnes. _See_ Miss Woodhouse.
Wilson, Professor John, 239, 240, 258, 272, 273, 292, 293, 310,
332-3, 335, 359.
Wilson, Mr. Robert, 292, 293 (and footnote).
Letter from, 293-4.
Windydene, 390, Part iii. Chap. vii.
Wolstenholme, Miss. _See_ Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy.
_Woman Hater, The_, 291, 435, 498.
Women’s Medical College, New York, 204, 206.
Women, Society for Employment of, 81.
_Women’s Work and Women’s Culture_, 221, 223, 224, 243, 253, 266.
Wood, Dr. Alexander, 287, 335, 336, 337.
Woodhouse, Miss Agnes (Mrs. Williams), 64, 65, 70, 74, 78, 83, 107.
_Words for the Way_, 158.
“Working men, A few,” 321.
Wyld, A. G., 510.
Wyld, Mrs. Margaret, 510.
Letter from, 308.
Wyld, R. S., 320.
Yarrow, 516.
Young, Lord Advocate, 310, 312, 313, 313, 331, 335, 356, 413.
Zurich University, 190, 235, 239, 278, 279, 353, 354.
GLASGOW: PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS BY ROBERT MACLEHOSE AND CO.
LTD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACMILLAN’S NEW BOOKS
=Recollections.= By VISCOUNT MORLEY, O.M. 2 vols. 8vo. 25s. net.
=Pitt.= By LORD ROSEBERY. A Library Edition. With Photogravure
Portraits. 8vo.
=Occasional Addresses=: 1893 to 1916. By the Rt. Hon. H. H. ASQUITH,
M.P. 8vo. 6s. net.
=Sir William Ramsay, K.C.B., F.R.S.=: Memorials of his Life and
Work. By Sir WM. A. TILDEN, F.R.S. With Portraits. 8vo.
=A Sporting and Dramatic Career.= By ALFRED E. T. WATSON (“Rapier”),
Editor of _The Badminton Magazine_. 8vo. 12s. net.
=Life of Lord Lister.= By SIR RICKMAN J. GODLEE, Bart., K.C.V.O.,
F.R.C.S. With Portraits and other Illustrations. 8vo. 18s. net.
=Moments of Vision and Miscellaneous Verses.= By THOMAS HARDY. Crown
8vo. 6s. net.
=My Reminiscences.= By SIR RABINDRANATH TAGORE. Illustrated.
Extra Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
=Nationalism.= By SIR RABINDRANATH TAGORE. Extra Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
net.
CONTENTS.—Nationalism in the West. Nationalism in Japan.
Nationalism in India.
=Folk-Lore in the Old Testament.= By SIR J. G. FRAZER, D.C.L.,
author of “The Golden Bough,” “Totemism and Exogamy,” etc. 3
vols. 8vo.
=Priest of the Ideal.= By STEPHEN GRAHAM, author of “With the
Russian Pilgrims to Jerusalem,” etc. 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
=About Winchester College.= By A. K. COOK. To which is Prefixed _De
Collegio Wintoniensi_ by ROBERT MATHEW. With Illustrations. 8vo.
18s. net.
=Re-Incarnations.= A New Volume of Poems. By JAMES STEPHENS, author
of “The Crock of Gold,” “Songs from the Clay,” etc. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d. net.
=Per Amica Silentia Lunae.= By WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS. Crown 8vo. 4s.
6d. net.
=A History of the French Novel.= By GEORGE SAINTSBURY, M.A. and Hon.
D.Litt.Oxon, late Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature
in the University of Edinburgh. Vol. I. from the beginning to
1800. 8vo. 18s. net.
=Political Portraits.= By CHARLES WHIBLEY. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. net.
=The English Poets.= Selections with Critical Introductions by
various writers. Edited by THOMAS HUMPHRY WARD, M.A., Vol. V.
LATER 19TH CENTURY. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
=Six Women and the Invasion.= By GABRIELLE and MARGUERITE YERTA.
With Preface by Mrs. HUMPHRY WARD. Crown 8vo. 6s. net.
=British Campaigns in Flanders.= By the Hon. J. W. FORTESCUE, author
of “The History of the British Army,” etc. With Maps. Extra
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. net.
This volume consists of chapters selected from Mr. Fortescue’s
“History of the British Army.”
=The Case for Compulsory Military Service.= By G. G. COULTON, author
of “The Main Illusions of Pacificism.” Extra Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
net.
LONDON: MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s Note
The author most commonly abbreviates her subject’s name as ‘S.
J.-B.’, but frequently neglects to punctuate it consistently.
These lapses have been corrected, with no further notice here.
Likewise, lapses in punctuation of the Index have been silently
rectified.
Other errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been
corrected, and are noted here.
The many nested quotations result in some inconsistencies in
punctuation, resulting in missing or seemingly superfluous
quotation marks. Corrections were made if the voice or context
seems to warrant them, and otherwise are simply noted below. The
quoted passages typically begin and end with double quotation
marks, but interior paragraphs do not follow the convention of
opening each with a quotation.
On p. 255, a misprint seems to have disrupted the word ‘about’
as ‘a bo’. The correction makes sense, but is speculative.
In the Index, in the first column of p. 583, the entry for Mr.
Robert Somerville is missing a page reference. The sole
reference to Mr. Somerville occurred on p. 498, and that has
been added to the text.
The entry for ‘Miss Wolstenholme’ refers the reader to ‘Mrs.
Wolstenholme Elmy’; however, the Index contains no such entry.
Elizabeth Wolstenholme-Elmy was an English suffragist and
writer, who is referred to twice in the text on pp. 284 and 381.
The entry for ‘A Visit to Some American Schools and Colleges’
mistakenly refers the reader to Part I. Chapter XXIII. This has
been corrected to Chapter XIII.
The references are to the page and line in the original. Those
with three numbers refer to the line within the designated note
on that page. A prefix of ‘i’ indicates that this is an index
page, and that the second number refers to the column on that
page.
21.7 “Now for a word about the ‘bowing,’[”] he says Added.
21.8 [‘/“]It is of _no_ importance in itself, Replaced.
24.26 and may be long i[s/n] showing fruit Replaced.
57.10 ‘Yes, ma’am ma’am[.]’ Added.
58.28 did not much admire me, I guess, that Added.
night.[”]
60.17 unless you want to see it.[’] Added.
63.7 ‘Which faith except..., etc.’[”] Added.
63.21 [“]M. brought me an invite Added.
74.32 Feb. 11, 1865![”] Added.
97.21 makest me to dwell in safety.[’]” Added.
101.39 and have felt most solemnly[,/.] Replaced.
107.3 I was so annoyed[./,]—it seemed so silly Replaced.
111.40 May 9th. [“]We do well to struggle Added.
115.3 for which I am looking so earnestly....[’] Removed.
119.20 Yours affectly, S. L. J.-B.[”] Added.
119.32 It’s so weak, it can’t do harm that way.[’] Added.
131.33.2 she writes in her diary[!/:] Replaced.
135.16 and here, perhaps, the answer.[’]” Added.
138.4 the girls’ progress,[”] ought to comfort me Removed.
there,
145.33 by the doubt and co[m/n]tempt Replaced.
154.35.6 I keep such company.[’/”] Replaced.
157.18 when I am next in the North.[”] Added.
164.26 we got on grandly....[”] Added.
167.6 all connection of time and place.[”] Added.
167.18 not a bad church, will it be?[”] Added.
167.38 so wonderfully, bewitchingly, grandly _sic_
[beautifully] as this.
174.35 [“]Dec. 15th. I have just begun Added.
180.17 if not of the conquerors.[”] Added.
180.32 Well done America and L. E. S.!—bless her.[”] Added.
181.40 to run close to practical atheism....[”] Added.
191.41 C. E. BROWN-S[E/É]QUARD. Replaced.
192.10 [“]Dr. A. ‘not afraid of responsibility Added.
203.43 with the old Mother.[”] Added.
205.16 Wasn’t I right?...[”] Added.
205.39 you can read and forward respect[t]ively Removed.
234.41 if poss[s]ible before Simpson goes. Removed.
243.15 of what things we have need.’[”] Removed.
246.37 [“]I am so glad that you are prospering so Removed.
well
255.25 and told him I was studyi[m/n]g Medicine Replaced.
255.39 spend some money [a bo/about] it Speculation.
256.6 and to University Court July 5th.[”] Added.
257.39 let me not prejudge what is best.[’] Added.
258.17 [“/‘]Unlucky to say so!’ Replaced.
260.30 the resolution of the Un[vei/ive]rsity Court Transposed.
260.32 by the Chancellor on November 12th[,/.] Replaced.
289.35 PA[RT/TR]ICK HERON WATSON. Transposed.
293.20 he’ll be hitting a policeman![’] Added.
321.27 the noble strug[g]le she is making Added.
333.41 thrown back in their profess[s]ional studies Removed.
335.8 time to call a mee[e]ting. Removed.
341.27 your conscience will prevent your Added.
sleeping!’[”]
374.25 Thanks for your kind letter[.] Added.
376.9 of your prof[f]ession Removed.
379.19 [“]It is just a year since we parted Added.
383.30 although I [I ]expect he thought Removed.
448.14 [“]So much better than I.” Removed.
449.7 the personal charm, intelligen[e/c]e and Replaced.
humour
464.2 [‘/“]Why do you recommend Vermouth?” Replaced.
469.16 to those who suffer _young_[’] Added.
509.29 to admit women forthwith to graduation in Added.
medicine[.]
511.29 [“]Dr. —— and Dr. —— [the consultants] have Added.
been here
514.6 a removal to larger premises[,/.] Replaced.
546.15 specially to the “people of God[.”/”?] Replaced.
i566.1.51 Brown-S[e/é]quard, Professor, 191. Replaced.
i568.2.28 (Mrs. Hil[l]house) was giving him Removed.