Section 19 of the Act of 1858. If They Stand on the Authority of the

Court, or of any other power in the University itself, we should think that they may be altered by the University Court under section 12 of the Act, ‘after due communication with the Senatus Academicus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor,’ but with the proviso that the proposed alteration ‘shall be submitted to the University Council for their consideration.’ In one or other of these ways it appears to us that any provision which may be deemed necessary, or proper and reasonable, for enabling women to complete their medical studies, with a view to graduation, maybe made.”

“Query 5.--Whether the Senatus, University Court, University Council and Chancellor, had collectively the power of granting to women the permission to matriculate as students as they did in 1869, and whether the regulations issued officially (November 12, 1869) are valid as regards such matriculation?

“Opinion.--We are of opinion that the University Court, in virtue of the powers conferred upon it by the 12th section (2) of the Act 1858, have power, after communication with the Senatus, and with the sanction of the Chancellor, and after the University Council have considered the subject, to grant permission to women (as they did in 1869) to matriculate as students, and the resolutions of the Court in that year are valid.

“Query 6.--Whether the medical Professors are exonerated from obligation to teach, in some way or other, all matriculated students, by the fact, that, in clause 3 of the regulations quoted above, it is merely stated that they ‘shall be permitted to have separate classes for women?’

“Opinion.--The University Court having statutory powers to ‘effect’ improvements in the ‘internal arrangements of the University,’ and it being within their power, under this enactment, to allow women to be educated at the University, we are of opinion that this resolution must be carried out in good faith and obeyed by the Professors. The third resolution of the University Court of November 1869, which ‘permits’ the Professors to have separate classes for women, in no way derogates from the resolution of the Court that women ‘shall be admitted to the study of medicine.’

“Query 7.--In case such women as are matriculated students of medicine in the University are refused instruction by the individual medical Professors, what is their legal mode of redress, and against whom should it be directed?

“Opinion.--We are of opinion that the University Court can compel, by action, the medical Professors to obey the resolutions of November, 1869, by holding separate classes for the education of women. With respect to the title of the women, we think that those of them who have matriculated and passed the preliminary examinations have a title, and may enforce their rights by action. The proper form of action is, we think, a declarator against the Professors refusing to obey the resolution of the University Court, with petitory conclusions to the effect that they should be ordained to hold separate classes for the instruction of the pursuers, they receiving their due remuneration.

“Query 8.--Whether, in the first constitution or charter of the University, or in any of the subsequent statutes, there is anything which limits the benefits of the University to male students.

“Opinion.--The Charter of Erection and Confirmation of the ‘College of Edinburgh’ by King James VI., dated 14th April, 1582, granted certain lands and revenues to the Magistrates and Town Council of Edinburgh, with a license to employ those revenues, and such others as well-disposed persons might bestow on them, in the erecting of suitable buildings for the use of professors and ‘scholars’ of grammar, humanity, and languages, philosophy, theology, medicine, and laws, and other liberal sciences. The King, by this charter (as interpreted by decision of the Courts), delegated to, or conferred upon, the magistrates and Town Council the character of patron and founder of this new seminary of education. The powers of superintendence and control thus conferred upon the Magistrates and Council remained with them till the Act of 1858 was passed, by which the more important powers were transferred to the University Court. The Magistrates and Council never conferred upon the College any independent constitution, so as to enable the members of it to exercise any power of internal government. As founders, patrons, and delegates intrusted by the royal grant, the Magistrates and Council remained in the full right of management, regulation, and tutelage of their own institution.

“An Act of Parliament was passed in 1621 (c. 79), which may be considered as the charter of erection of the University. It narrates the charter of 1582, and the licence thereby given to found a College and choose Professors, and sets forth the King’s zeal for the growth of learning, and his purpose to grant the College all immunities enjoyed by other colleges. The statute then confirms the erection of the College, and ratifies all the mortifications made to the town by the King or others towards its support. It bestows on the College the name of ‘King James’ College,’ and grants to the Magistrates ‘in favour of the said burgh of Edinburgh, patrons of the said College, and of the College, and of rectors, regents, bursars, and students within the same, all liberties, freedoms, immunities, and privileges pertaining to a free College, and that in as ample a form and large manner as any College has or bruickis within His Majesty’s realm.’

“The statute concludes with ordaining a new charter to issue, if need be, for erecting the College, with all such privileges and immunities. No such charter was ever issued; but the statute itself may be held equivalent to a charter. It was a charter in favour of the Magistrates and Council as founders and patrons, and in no way prejudiced, but on the contrary confirmed their power of superintendence, control, and regulation of all matters concerning the internal government of the University.

“We are of opinion that, in virtue of the powers they thus possessed, the Magistrates and Town Council could at any time, during their 266 years of University rule, have done what the University Court did in 1869--grant permission to women to be educated at the University.

“On examining the records, we find that the superintendence of the patrons was active and constant. They made, at various times during the two centuries and a half while their jurisdiction lasted, sets of laws and regulations for the College, which embrace all things connected with the duties and rights of professors and students, the series and order of studies, the days and hours of lecture, the books to be read, the conduct of students in and out of College hours, the modes of trial and graduation, the attendance of the professors at their classes, attendance at church, dress to be worn by students, fees to be paid, &c., &c. “All these regulations proceed on the footing that only male students attended the University; many of them were inapplicable to females, and we cannot find any trace of its being contemplated by the patrons that females might be students. And we do not find any evidence of a female having attended the University.

“Therefore, while we are of opinion that the Magistrates and Council had the power to pass a regulation authorising the attendance of women at the University, and to compel the professors to teach them, yet as they never passed any such regulation, no women could have insisted upon admission to University education as a legal right prior to 1869.

“The University Court, by sec. 12 (2), are now vested with all the powers of internal management and regulation formerly possessed by the Magistrates and Council; they have done what the latter never did, although they lawfully might. They have, by their resolution of November 1869, given to women the right to demand, equally with male students, admission to the University.”

NOTE R, p. 111,

“The extraordinary history of the vicissitudes endured by the lady students seems at last to have reached its most extraordinary phase. It appears, as stated in our columns of yesterday, that on Saturday last the Medical Faculty of the University of Edinburgh--a body which, collectively, forms one of the law-makers of the College--passed a vote by a majority whereby they instructed their Dean deliberately to break a law of the University, or rather expressly ‘interdicted’ him from complying with it. What makes the matter the more remarkable is that this special law was in the first instance inaugurated by themselves, and subsequently approved by the Senatus and other authorities, and incorporated in the official regulations published in the ‘Calendar.’ ... It would seem clear enough that a decision which had been deliberately confirmed by each university authority successively, and which had thus become law, could not be disturbed by any one except after an equally formal process of revocation. It is, however, well known that, though all the bodies enumerated passed the above regulations by a majority, there was in most cases a dissatisfied minority, who wished that all privileges should be withheld from the lady students. It would have surprised no one to hear that a formal attempt had been made to obtain the withdrawal of the privileges conferred; but the public were probably sufficiently astonished to learn yesterday that, though no such open and honourable attempt had been made, a secret coup d’état was planned, by which it was apparently hoped, at the very last moment, when no appeal to the Senatus, or other authorities was possible, to crush the hopes of the medical ladies, at least for the present year. At the Faculty meeting to which we have referred, a vote was actually passed to ‘interdict’ the Dean, whose friendliness to the ladies was well known, from giving to any women who were about to join the medical class the papers necessary to enable them to pass the preliminary examination in Arts, which is indispensable before registration--this examination having been not only previously allowed, but actually passed by numerous ladies on no less than four occasions! At this same notable meeting, a vote was also passed that the Medical Faculty should disregard alike their own previous resolutions, the official regulations of the ‘Calendar,’ and the tickets of admission already paid for and obtained by those other ladies who are now ready to proceed to their first professional examination; and, accordingly, a letter was sent to each of these three ladies, informing them that their tickets had been granted ‘in error,’ and that they could not be examined ‘without the sanction of the Senatus Academicus,’ as if that sanction had not been already given in the most emphatic manner!

“The story is not a pleasant one. That a minority, obliged to acquiesce in an act of liberality on the part of the majority, should, when unable to prevail by fair means, endeavour to compass their end by a side-wind and in an underhand manner, is sufficiently discreditable; but that, rather than relinquish their own dogged resolution to obstruct the ladies, these Professors should deliberately abstain from all previous warning of the means they intended to employ--should allow many months of severe study to be passed with a definite aim and hope, and should then silently dig a pitfall at the very threshold of the door through which the ladies must pass, and hope, by an arbitrary exercise of authority against a few wholly unprepared women, completely to destroy their prospects, for the present year at least--is something almost too monstrous to be believed, did the circumstances admit of any doubt in the matter. Whether these medical gentlemen really supposed that, by their unsupported fiat, they could set aside all the existing regulations of the University, or whether they trusted to the ladies’ want of knowledge in legal matters not to challenge their authority, it is of course impossible to say, but one would rather believe in the ignorance of law implied by the former alternative, than in the lamentable want of honourable feeling that would be conveyed in the latter. Be this as it may, it is not easy to exaggerate the damaging effect that a story of this kind is likely to have on the minds of the public. That such a line of conduct could be planned and carried out by a body of men claiming the name of gentlemen, and belonging to a profession that calls itself ‘liberal’ and ‘learned,’ is perhaps as striking a proof as could be given of the fatally blinding influence of professional prejudice and unreasoning trades-unionism.” Scotsman, Oct. 20, 1872.

“We confess that the conduct of the medical faculty amazes us. Can they suppose that such obstructions are calculated to stop the movement? Why should they not show a little practical sense, and choose their fighting-ground with reasonable judgment? A single Professor, whose classes must be attended according to present regulations, might have hoped successfully to resist the demand that he should teach mixed classes. There are many people who do not look with particular complacency upon the efforts of a few ladies to obtain a place in the medical profession; but paltry persecutions like these, and little dodges sprung upon them suddenly, will assuredly turn the popular tide in their favour. The medical profession seem to think that they have only got to get behind these too devoted students, and shout ‘bo!’ loud enough to frighten them out of their five wits. They might surely have known Miss Jex-Blake better by this time. Are the Edinburgh Medical Faculty really afraid of the competition of the ladies? Do they look upon them as ‘knobsticks,’ against whom the doors must be closed in spite of law, reason, and liberty? They are welcome to their fears--narrow as they are--and to their opinions on the question of lady doctors; but we trust that the University of Edinburgh will see that its regulations are maintained. Having given permission to females to study medicine under conditions which are strict enough, and even somewhat hard, the University must prevent any combination of Professors from taking the matter into their own hands, and debarring the ladies from the privileges for which they have so gallantly fought. In the meantime, we congratulate the five ladies on the prompt spirit in which they have repelled the insidious attempt of a majority of the medical faculty--we believe only a very small majority--to cut their studies short. We need not urge them to persevere, for they seem to have that ‘faculty’ in predominance, but we think we can assure them that every victory that they gain, and every defeat that they suffer, adds to the number of their sympathisers, and breaks down no inconsiderable portion of the mountain of prejudice that they had to face when they commenced their career as students. If the Medical Professors want to defeat them, they must get better advisers, and not court humiliation. Their present counsellor is like Adversity, ugly and venomous in appearance only. Without the ‘precious jewel,’ the treasure of ill-judged and unreasonable persecutions, which he carries in his head, the little forlorn hope of courageous ladies, whose ranks are thinned from time to time by marriage and other maladies, would hardly be so likely to plant their triumphant flag on the top of the Castle rock at last.”

Glasgow Herald, October 20, 1871.

NOTE S, p. 119.

The following verses are no bad indication of the popular feeling respecting the incidents narrated above, and this is rendered the more characteristic by the national form in which it finds expression:--

THE BARRIN’ O’ OOR DOOR.

(A New Version o’ an Auld Sang,)

Dedicated without special permission to Sir Robert Christison, Bart., and intended to be sung at the next convivial meeting of the “Infirmary Ring.”

BY GAMALIEL GOWKGRANDIOSE, M.D.

It fell aboot the New-Year time, And a gay time it was then, oh! That the lady students in oor auld toon Had a fecht wi’ us medical men oh! Chorus--Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door weel, weel, weel, The barrin’ o’ oor door weel.

When first they cam’ tae learn oor craft We laughed at them in oor sleeve oh! That women could e’er gang on wi’ sic wark, What medical man could believe oh! Chorus--For the barrin’, &c.

So we pouched a’ the fees they gied tae us For lecture or for Exam. oh! We fleeced them a’ as clean and as bare As was ever a sheep or a lamb oh! Chorus--A’ for the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

But when we found they meant to use The knowledge for which they had paid oh! And on the trade o’ us medical men Micht mak’ a furious raid oh! Chorus--We began the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Hech, sirs, tae drive thae women awa’ Was a job baith sair and teuch, sirs; It gied Sir Robert and Andrew Wood Vexation and bother eneuch, sirs. Chorus--Did the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Oor students got up a bonny bit mob To gie the ladies a fright, sirs; Wi’ physical force, Young Physic did wark, Tae get us oot o’ oor plight, sirs. Chorus--And help the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

We frightened the douce Infirmary folks W’ stories o’ classes mixed, sirs; They werena just true--but what o’ that? We a’ hae oor ain trade tricks, sirs. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Scandals we spread owre a’ the toon Against the ladies’ guid fame, sirs; We drove them frae the Infirmary gate, Though some citizen fools cried “Shame,” sirs. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

But they lived a’ scurrilous scandals doon Wi’ true feminine perversity-- They roused the folk owre a’ oor town ’Gainst oor clique in the University. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

A year gaed by, and then they tried Again tae force their way, sirs, Into the wards we’ve sworn maun be oors Until oor dying day, sirs. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Sir Robert bullied and cracked his big whip, And Turner put on the screw, sirs; Yet we a’ got beaten that New-Year’s Day, For the ladies’ friends stood true, sirs. Chorus--Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Sir Robert looked blue when he heard o’ the vote, And Turner he tore his hair, sirs; He forgot there wasna muckle to tear, Sae deep was his despair, sirs, Chorus--Aboot the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

And Andrew Wood fell into the airms O’ twa o’ his “five fair sons,” sirs; “Puir bairns,” quo’ he, “we’ll a’ starve noo, For oor craft will be over-run, sirs.” Chorus--Oh! the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

And Nicholson whimpered wi’ clerical whine, And Muirhead shook his fist, sirs, As he thocht o’ how the Scotsman wad chaff O’ the class he had that day missed, sirs. Chorus--And the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Lister wept owre his petulant speech, When he swore he’d resign his chair, sirs, If women entered the hospital wards-- Eh! noo he repented him sair, sirs. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

But when we cam to oor senses a’, We planned a bonny bit plan, sirs, Tae quash the votes o’ thae merchant firms That supported the ladies’ men, sir. Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

The firms may leave us--we carena a straw-- The Infirmary may sink, sirs, If we may but keep females aff oor preserve, We carena what folk think, sirs. Chorus--O’ the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

The Infirmary meeting against us gaed, But the Court o’ Session befriends us; Oot o’ the hospital managing board Neither women nor traders shall send us! Chorus--For the barrin’ o’ oor door, &c.

Confusion, then, let each man drink To the ladies and their supporters, sirs; For Monopoly’s rights let us a’ fecht or fa’, Or be brayed up small in oor mortars, sirs! Chorus--Ho! for the barrin’ o’ oor door weel! weel! weel! The barrin’ o’ oor door weel!

Scotsman, Feb. 13, 1872.

NOTE T, p. 125.

This correspondence is so remarkable that I subjoin it entire.

(1) To the University Court.

“15 Buccleuch Place, November 21, 1871.

“GENTLEMEN,--It is now two years since you passed a series of resolutions, dated 12th November 1869, to the effect that ‘women shall be admitted to the study of medicine in the University.’

“In the time that has since elapsed, I and those ladies who matriculated with me at that date, have completed one-half of the studies necessary for graduation in the University of Edinburgh. Nearly five months ago, I ventured to point out to the Senatus Academicus that, unless further arrangements were made, it would be impossible for us to complete the studies which we have begun with your express sanction. After pointing out the existing difficulties, I ventured further to make two suggestions, either of which, if adopted, might enable us to complete our education in the University. In reply, however, I was informed that the Senatus, ‘having taken the opinion of counsel with reference to the proposals contained in the memorial of date 26th June 1871, find themselves unable to comply with either of those proposals.’

“I understand, however, that since the date referred to, another legal opinion has been obtained from the Lord Advocate and Sheriff Fraser, and has been laid before the Senatus, and by them forwarded to your honourable Court. As, however, the Senatus still appear unwilling to initiate any measure by which we may be relieved from our present difficulties, I feel constrained now to appeal to you, in my own name and that of my fellow-students, to take such action as shall enable us to complete our studies.

“I beg to represent to you that we have all paid matriculation fees for the present year, and are by our tickets declared to be ‘Cives Academiæ Edinensis,’ and that yet we, who commenced our studies in 1869, are unable during the present session to obtain any further classes whatever towards completing our required course of study.

“We understand from those friends who have taken legal opinion on the subject--and doubtless such opinion will be laid before you simultaneously with this letter--that we are entitled to demand from the University the means of completing our studies, and that, failing any other alternative measures, we can claim the instruction of the Medical Professors to the extent needed to complete our curriculum.

“We beg, therefore, most respectfully to request that, unless any other mode of supplying our needs seems preferable to you, you will vouchsafe to ordain that the Professors, whose courses we are bound by the University regulations to attend, shall give us the requisite instruction.--I beg to subscribe myself, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,

“SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.”

(2.) Minute of University Court of January 8, 1872.

“The University Court have had under consideration the letters of Miss Jex-Blake and Miss Louisa Stevenson, of 21st November, 1871, and other relative documents laid before them on behalf of the women who have been admitted by the regulations of the Court of November 10th, 1869, to study medicine in the University.

“In these papers it is stated that certain Professors of the Faculty of Medicine have declined to give separate classes of instruction to women; and the Court are asked either (1) to extend, in the case of female medical students, the privilege granted by ordinance by the Universities’ Commissioners, to lecturers, not being Professors in a university, of qualifying for graduation by their lectures, which privilege is now restricted to four of the prescribed subjects of study; or (2) To authorise the appointment of special lecturers to give, in the University, qualifying courses of instruction in place of those Professors who decline to do so; or (3.) To ordain that the Professors referred to shall themselves give the necessary courses of instruction to women.

“The second course suggested it is not in the power of the Court, or other University authorities, singly or jointly to adopt.

“The third course is equally beyond the power of the Court. The Act of 1858 vests in the Court plenary powers to deal with any Professor who shall fail to discharge his duties, but no Professor can be compelled to give courses of instruction other than those which, by the use and wont of the University, it has been the duty of the holders of his chair to deliver.

“The first of the proposed measures would imply an alteration in one of the ordinances for graduation in medicine (No. 8, clause vi., 4). Such alteration could be made by the University Court only with the consent, expressed in writing, of the Chancellor, and with the approval of Her Majesty in Council.

“But to alter, in favour of female students, rules laid down for the regulation of graduation in medicine would imply an assumption on the part of the Court, that the University of Edinburgh has the power of granting degrees to women. It seems to the Court impossible to them to assume the existence of a power that is questioned in many quarters, and which is both affirmed and denied by eminent counsel. So long as these doubts remain, it would, in the opinion of the Court, be premature to consider the expediency of taking steps to obtain, in favour of female students, an alteration of an ordinance which may be held not to apply to women.

“Though the Court are unable to comply with any of the specific requests referred to, they are at the same time desirous to remove, so far as possible, any present obstacle in the way of a complete medical education being given to women,--provided always that medical instruction to women be imparted in strictly separate classes.

“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. The University of London, which has a special charter for the examination of women, does not confer degrees upon women, but only grants them ‘certificates of proficiency.’ 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