CHAPTER XVII

THE QUESTION IN PARLIAMENT

How far S. J.-B. was depressed in mind and body by the events of that wearing fight, we can fairly guess. But nothing had happened to disturb in the smallest degree her faith,—her philosophy of life. She never doubted that she was fighting the battle of the Lord; but—greatly though she hoped, sure though she felt of final victory for her cause—she was always, in the background of her being, absolutely prepared for the defeat of any one of her plans. In the thick of the combat, she seemed so engrossed that comrades and onlookers were wont to say,—“Defeat will kill her,” but this was a complete misunderstanding of her attitude. The moment defeat came, it was accepted as simply the will of God, though it well might be that God still meant her to try again.

In the occasional great affairs of later life it was positively startling to contrast her apparent inability to recognize another side to the question at issue with her instant acceptance of an adverse decision when it came. But for the vital record we now possess of her youth, most people would have had no clue. She was not ordinarily taken for a religious woman; but it is simply true that the watchword of her life—passively and actively—was _Fiat voluntas tua_.

She was one of those who pray; but she would have thought it wrong to pray for the success of a definite scheme, for the life of a friend, even—in the hour of her greatest need—for the renewal of a broken friendship.

And indeed there was always some comfort at hand, quite apart from the highest philosophy. To the end of her life the words were often on her lips, “You see we had such _excellent friends_”; and though some few adherents were estranged because they thought the battle was being fought too pugnaciously, others became increasingly impressed by the extraordinary constancy shown by the fighters, and, in particular, by the protagonist’s rare and individual type of unworldliness, an unworldliness which, just because it was individual, often made life rather difficult for her supporters.

Here is a letter from one of the Edinburgh professors, who in the early days had begged S. J.-B. not to speak harshly of an Alma Mater of which she would yet be proud, and who, later, had congratulated her on a book which “tells a very sad and disgraceful story, and tells it clearly and temperately and effectively,—all the more effectively because your justifiable indignation is kept well within bounds”:

“Edinburgh, 21 Oct. 1873.

DEAR MADAM,

I send you herein a cheque for five pounds towards the law expenses of the lady medical students in the recent trial.

If I had the misfortune to be a member of the University Court, I should think myself bound in honour to pay my individual proportion of the whole expense incurred by these ladies in consequence of their supposing that this learned Court knew the extent of its own powers. Horace’s words, ‘_Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi_,’ may in this case be rendered, ‘The University Court blundered, and the Ladies are mulcted in the costs.’ If any sense of justice is still extant in this country, the result must be, not only the payment of these costs by public subscription, but a more than ever energetic agitation for the overthrow of male monopoly in the medical profession.

Yours most truly, W. B. HODGSON.

Miss Stevenson.”

Immediately after the legal decision had been given, the _Spectator_ took up the question in an article “Women’s Wrongs at Edinburgh,” of which the following sentences give the gist:

“To canvass the legality of the judgment itself is alike beyond the present writer’s competency and his wish, though it may be permitted to remark that the best known names are found in the minority, and that the reasonings on the other side, while turning on a very narrow principle, are exceedingly discursive and inconsequent.

... The Senate included some staunch friends of the lady students, and about an equal number of resolute opponents, but the indifferent majority who swayed the action of the body appears to have had no aim except to hush up a troublesome affair. Their policy was to do all they could to oblige the applicants, meanwhile trusting to the chapter of accidents to escape the difficulties that might come after.”

This was shrewd and true.

Within a few days a long and exhaustive review of the position and its possibilities, from the pen of Mrs. Garrett Anderson, appeared in the _Times_, in the course of which the writer urged that the time was not ripe for the medical education of women in Great Britain, and that “in no way could women better serve the cause we desire to promote than by going to Paris to study medicine, and returning here as soon as might be to practise it.” “Never,” she said, “was there a case in which the truth of the adage, ‘Solvitur ambulando,’ was more likely to make itself felt.” [In the spirit of Professor Hodgson’s translation of Horace, one may say, in fact, that “the difficulty might be solved by crossing the Channel.”]

Of course S. J.-B. did not agree with her, and she wrote a detailed reply[113] which Jupiter supported with a leading utterance in his own name. He was not enthusiastic about women doctors at all, but in this particular difference of opinion he gave his vote for the “equally deserving, but hitherto less fortunate aspirant to the position of a legally qualified practitioner.”[114]

Footnote 113:

Appendix E.

Footnote 114:

“In this case, as in most others, those who say they want a thing must put their own shoulders to the wheel in order to obtain it, and must be prepared to back the soundness of their opinions. If only twenty women annually could be added to the ranks of the medical profession in this country, the expediency of the addition would be speedily removed from the domain of controversy, and the expression, ‘Solvitur ambulando,’ which Mrs, Anderson calls an adage, would be applicable to the case.”

_Times_, August 23rd, 1873.

S. J.-B. knew more of the hidden springs than anyone, and she did not consider that the time had come to give in. She who had borne the brunt of so many disappointments was still full of hope. She wanted her own country to give her this thing. Above all she felt that “so long as no means of education are provided at home, only a very small number of women will ever seek admission to the profession.”

“This last consideration,” she says, “was to me conclusive.”

“I greatly admire your letter to Mrs. G. Anderson,” wrote Professor Hodgson, “and I am truly glad to see that you are not so despondent as I am. The passive power of resistance on the part of those who hold a position is terribly difficult to overcome. It is not mere _inertia_; that would be bad enough. Ultimate success I do not at all despair of, but individual life is short and the journey is long and arduous.”

Both _Times_ and _Spectator_ spoke severely of the behaviour of the University, and on September 1st an _apologia_ appeared from the pen of the Principal. It was just the letter one might have expected from an able, urbane, scholarly gentleman; he scanned the whole history “as we do our own poetry, laying stress on the right syllables and passing lightly over a halting foot.” It would have been a fine and conclusive defence,—if Jupiter had not allowed a poor overworked medical student to answer it. The two letters represent two conflicting schools of historians, the one sweeping, picturesque, probable: the other definite, statistical, true. The former is certainly the easier to read. The correspondence is so essentially typical of many of the “disputes” S. J.-B. had with others in the course of her life that it is given in full in the appendix.[115]

Footnote 115:

Appendix F.

“I have seen the Venerable Principal’s letter,” wrote a distinguished lawyer from Uig, “for even in these uttermost parts of the earth the _Scotsman_ has reached me, and I need not say what I thought of it. I read also with great satisfaction your thorough demolition of the learned and venerable and inaccurate gentleman, and the _Scotsman’s_ excellent punching of his head.”

S. J.-B. spent part of that summer holiday visiting Norfolk cousins, and she took the opportunity to read a paper on her special subject at the Social Science Congress at Norwich, under the auspices of her friend, Professor Hodgson, who was President of the Education Section.[116] Here she made two friendships of great value,—one with Miss Louisa Hubbard, whose sister, Lady Rendel, had been S. J.-B.’s schoolfellow; the other, even more memorable, with Miss Pauline Irby, who was just entering upon her heroic and self-sacrificing life work in Bosnia. In October S. J.-B. returned to Edinburgh to clinch the arrangements Mrs. Thorne was making for the winter session.

Footnote 116:

Lord Houghton was President of the Congress. In a letter to his wife, dated October 3rd, 1873, he says, “Miss Jex-Blake and Mrs. Grey both spoke capitally.” Lord Houghton’s _Life_, vol. ii. p. 281.

It is one more instance of the extraordinary, dogged perseverance of those women that during that winter session the lectures were delivered to women as before by Edinburgh Extra-Mural lecturers, the subjects being Materia Medica, Pathology and Midwifery. S. J.-B. attended these lectures when she could, and took honours in all of them; but she was already in correspondence with Dr. Anstie and others as to the possibility of opening some school for women in the larger and more impersonal milieu of London. As a matter of fact, the whole centre of interest had changed. The question was now potentially before Parliament,—not indeed as a question of practical politics to be decided by the rank and file, but as a matter for private discussion by a few men of courage and vision.

“It was necessary,” wrote Mr. Stansfeld in reviewing the history three years later,[117] “to appeal to a yet higher tribunal. Such appeal might have been made on the question of law to the House of Lords; but that would have meant further indefinite delay and further heavy expense, and then, if the result were favourable, a probable refusal of the university to act on their ascertained powers. It was necessary to _secure_ the admission of women to medical study and practice, and not merely to ascertain that one out of nineteen examining bodies could admit them if it liked. Miss Jex-Blake and her friends determined to widen their appeal, to base it on the ground of right, and to address it to Parliament and to public opinion.”

Footnote 117:

“Medical Women,” by the Right Hon. James Stansfeld, M.P., _Nineteenth Century_, July, 1877.

As early as August 1872 Sir David Wedderburn (on behalf of Sir Robert Anstruther) had moved that the vote for the Scottish Universities should be reduced by the amount of the salaries of the Edinburgh Medical Professors. He explained that the motion was brought forward in order to lay before the House the course followed by the authorities of the University of Edinburgh, but that, in view of the fact that the Lord Ordinary, had, a few days before, given a judgment in favour of the ladies, he hoped the University would accept the decision as final and as indicating to them their duties in the matter; and he would therefore refrain from pressing the motion to a division.

When the University appealed against the Lord Ordinary’s decision, and got it reversed on appeal, Sir David Wedderburn, on July 29th, 1873, gave notice that he would, early in the following session, bring in a Bill to grant to the Scottish Universities the power they were now supposed not to possess, to educate women in medicine and to grant to them the ordinary medical degrees.

It was highly desirable, of course, to secure Government support for this Bill, and in October we find S. J.-B. in correspondence with the Home Secretary. There is a long letter marked “Private” in which Mr. Lowe (Lord Sherbrooke) expresses his view of the matter, and asks her to let him know what course she proposes to follow. Shortly after, we get the following:

“Secretary of State, Home Department. Oct. 13. 1874.

MY DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

I have done what I can to forward your views. I should think you would be met by the same legal difficulty in Ireland as in Scotland. But though it may not be very agreeable to my constituents I should have no objection if this were the only obstacle to introduce an enabling Bill giving all Universities the power if they please to confer medical degrees or indeed any other degrees on women.

Believe me, Very truly yours, ROBERT LOWE.”

Clearly she was eager to follow up the opening, for ten days later he writes again:

“I am afraid I cannot commit the Government to introducing the Bill without consulting them. I will do so at the Cabinets which will take place next month and tell you the result.”[118]

“The matter has been discussed to-day,” writes Mr. Stansfeld on Dec. 1st, “but nothing is settled; I apprehend difference of opinion....

I should advise personal communication with members of the Government before January Cabinets. A concise but complete and temperate statement in favour of legislation would, I think, be useful.”

Footnote 118:

Mr. Lowe’s advocacy was strengthened by a fine memorial presented to him at this time by 471 graduates of the University of London, praying that the benefits of the University should be extended to women. This memorial was secured through the exertions of Dr. Alfred Shewen.

So, early in January, S. J.-B. went up to London to interview ministers and others.

“Jan. 7th. Wednesday. Mr. Lowe, 4 p.m. Very cordial and courteous. Would certainly bring in a Bill if his colleagues allowed him,—very doubtful if they would,—if not, would help Wedderburn all he could, ‘and I can do a great deal.’

Thought Enabling Bill more hopeful than compelling Medical Boards to examine.”

“Jan. 10th. Saturday. In morning at Museum, looking up Charters of Colleges, etc.

2 p.m. Sir J. Lubbock. Pleasant and friendly,—non-committal rather. Would talk with Wedderburn,—‘generally agreed with him.’

At 4 p.m. Stansfeld. Friendly as ever. Thought Selborne’s opinion most important.”

After a few days spent with Mrs. Jex-Blake at Brighton the tale proceeds:

“Tuesday, 20th. At 1 p.m. saw Lord Aberdare,—quite friendly,—‘should heartily support Bill.’ Was quite willing that Bill should come from his office, by Forster.

2 p.m. Grant Duff, friendly but not encouraging as to his power to help with Cabinet.

Wednesday 21st. Saw Thos. Hughes, 10 a.m. Very friendly. Would speak to Forster, etc....

Thursday 22nd. Breakfasted with the Russell Gurneys. Very friendly. He quite ready to put his name on back of Wedderburn’s Bill. On the whole encouraged to get special Exam. and practise in spite of Act, if no legislation to be got.[119]

11 a.m. Lady Selborne—‘knew nothing about’ our question,—laughed at the idea of my seeing the Chancellor—but listened fairly to what I had to say,—seemed impressed by the facts and by the attention of the other ministers,—promised to report fairly what I had said.

Not specially courteous or gracious, but I think honest.”

“8.30 p.m. express from King’s Cross to Edinburgh.

Friday 23rd. Illuminations, etc., for Duke of Edinburgh’s wedding day.

Saturday, 24th. Dissolution! What next?”

Footnote 119:

“I was very much troubled by your last letter,” wrote Dr. Sewall a month later, “for the idea of your beginning to practise without a diploma seems to me such a mistake. It appears to me that by practising illegally in that way, you will be giving up all you have been fighting for, and will be opening a way that some women who have not studied thoroughly may use; and there will be no way of your showing the public the difference between your qualifications.”

It was only too true. The time of reaction had come after a long period of reforming energy under Mr. Gladstone, and now—failing to find an adequate rallying cry for his party—he dissolved Parliament and appealed to the country. In the confusion of the moment the Home Secretary did not forget the women students.

“MY DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

I am sorry to say that in the present state of things it is quite impossible for me to bring in a Bill on your subject or indeed on any other. I don’t think you will find much difficulty in getting a man.

I congratulate you on your brother’s appointment.[120]

Very truly yours, R. LOWE.”

Footnote 120:

To the Headmastership of Rugby.

This was followed on February 10th by a letter from Mr. Stansfeld:

“DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

The Conservatives will certainly come in and for a long time. I should have thought that Russell Gurney might not improbably now be placed upon the Bench. I don’t suppose that a political appointment would suit him; unless it were that of Speaker and I have not heard his name mentioned for it.

I think you can’t do better than ask him, saying at the same time that you cannot but see that the coming political change may make it out of his power to comply.

It is all very extraordinary and mortifying.

Yours truly, J. STANSFELD.”

The suggested letter was roughly drafted forthwith:

“To Russell Gurney.

Will you forgive me if, at such a busy and engrossing time, I venture to trouble you about our comparatively small affairs, very important as they are to us.

You are, of course, aware that Sir David Wedderburn is no longer in Parliament,[121] and I suppose it is quite certain that the present Government must go out, so that Mr. Lowe cannot at least introduce the Bill as Home Secretary, and thus on both hands our prospects are at an end.

I venture, however, to rely on the kind interest you expressed in our cause, and to ask you whether it would be possible for you to induce the Conservative Government to take it up, or, if not, whether we might hope for your personal help still farther in the matter,—if you do not take office, as I hear you may. I think Mr. Lowe would be willing to help us as a private member, and it occurred to me as possible that you and he might take up the Bill jointly so as to conciliate both sides of the House.

I am personally very ignorant of political matters, and of what could and what could not be done. I shall feel it the greatest possible favour if you will kindly tell me how far you can help us in this matter, and will give me any advice on the subject which may occur to you. It is of extreme importance to us that the Bill should, if passed at all, be passed as soon as possible, as it will at any rate be difficult enough to make arrangements in time for next winter’s session, and we can ill afford to lose another year.

I trust that you will at least excuse me for thus troubling you.

Yours truly obliged, S. J.-B.”

Footnote 121:

Sir David Wedderburn did not offer himself for re-election.

A most gracious answer to this arrived without loss of time:

“Queen’s Hotel, Hastings, 13th. Feb.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

Although politically opposed to Sir D. Wedderburn, yet for your sake and for that of the cause which he so faithfully supported I can sincerely regret the loss of his seat.

I really do not know what course to advise you to pursue. My absence from Parliament during nearly the whole of the two last Sessions makes it more difficult for me than it would have otherwise have been.

I should think that it would scarcely be possible to get the new Government as a Government to take up the measure. Coming in at the time they do they will be sure to take up as few measures as possible. If a Bill is brought in by Mr. Lowe or anyone else I would not only support it but use any little influence I may have with the Ministry to induce them not to oppose it.

The state of my health is such that I cannot undertake to take charge of the Bill. I have come here in order to get a little rest before the Meeting of Parliament and I am under positive orders from my doctor to avoid all extra work.

I fear indeed that during the next Session I am likely to be a somewhat useless member.

I shall always be ready to consult with you, though at present I confess that I do not see my way.

Believe me, Very sincerely yours, RUSSELL GURNEY.”

It was characteristic of the vicissitudes of S. J.-B.’s life at the time that within a few days of receiving this letter she had a telegram from Mrs. Jex-Blake’s physician at Brighton: “Your Mother is very poorly. I should like you to come.”

This was delivered at 8 p.m., and it is needless to say that she started by the night train. A fortnight of anxious nursing followed; but her affairs were not forgotten:

“Local Government Board, Whitehall. Feb. 24. 74.

DEAR MASSON,

I have heard, of course, also from Miss Jex-Blake. I won’t say ‘No’ at any rate at present.

First I will see Lowe and ascertain his mind; and then I should like to see if someone more acceptable to Dizzy cannot be found. I think one must look around one first in the new Parliament, before deciding.

Is not the Bill you propose simply one enabling Universities to grant Degrees to women; or what else do you propose?

Whether it is good or bad I should tell you that the wirepulling and newspaper doctors _hate me_.

Yours ever, J. STANSFELD.”

“Feb. 25th. 74.

DEAR MASSON,

I have seen Lowe about your proposed Bill.

He is ‘heartily’ for it, but thinks that he and I had better support and not originate. Just now, he says, whatever we do will probably be considered wrong, as the tide is against us, and for this reason none of these Bills should be _introduced_ by any of us ex-cabinet ministers. Moreover if any of them are to pass they must be made as little unacceptable as possible to Dizzy & Co., which means that they had better be proposed and seconded by men on either side of the House—one on one side and one on the other—but not by us.

I must say that the more I think of it the more I find this reasoning sound. And I am prepared to _advise_ therefore that you should not ask either Lowe or me.

As to myself there is another special reason, to which I have already referred, why it might be more prudent not to choose me, viz. that ‘the doctors’ hate me; and tho’ I can’t see exactly how that fact might operate, it might at least be admitted that it might operate unfavourably, and that therefore it would be safer to look elsewhere.

I won’t write to Miss Jex-Blake yet, but will wait to hear from you what you think.

Of course I would willingly support and help.

Yours ever, J. STANSFELD.”

“10, Regent Terrace, Edinr. Feb. 26, 1874.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

I have had two letters from Mr. Stansfeld, which I enclose. The second, you will see, is less favourable than the first, though not absolutely conclusive. In reply I have expressed my belief that the second objection—that about his relation to the ‘doctors’—can matter little, inasmuch as we can’t expect anyone who takes up the cause to be a darling of the doctors or to remain one[122]; but on the other objection I have not felt able to say much against the experienced instinct of Mr. Lowe and himself. On the one side there may be a good deal in their feeling that for an ex-minister of the Gladstone Cabinet to move the Bill may move Disraeli to criticism, if not to opposition; on the other it seems essential that the lead should be taken by an eminent and faithful man. You will weigh the whole matter in London and consult.

I daresay it will be best not to publish the Memorial to Disraeli till the receipt of it is acknowledged. I have all the renewed signatures[123] now except the Edinburgh ones; and these, I hope, will be completed today or tomorrow.

Yours very truly, DAVID MASSON.”

Footnote 122:

We must never forget that a minority of doctors had been helpful all along. Years before this a petition to Parliament in favour of the women had been signed by nearly two hundred.

Footnote 123:

The Memorial had been originally addressed to Gladstone.

“Stoke Lodge, Hyde Park Gate, W. Feb. 28. 74.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

I could see you either on Monday or Tuesday afternoon. But where? For the Local Government Board knows me no more.

I shall be working at the Athenaeum on Monday afternoon, and could therefore easily call on you anywhere in town.

I could see you _here_ on the Tuesday and could make any time convenient, but the morning would be most so.

Pray let me know.

I enclose Mr. Lowe’s and Mr. Russell Gurney’s notes. You have heard from Masson, I presume. I wrote after seeing Lowe. But I will postpone telling you of our interview till we meet.

Yours truly, J. STANSFELD.”

A sharp little illness made it difficult for Mr. Stansfeld to pursue the matter for a week or two, but finally we get the following:

“15 Gt. Stanhope Street, W. March 21.

DEAR STANSFELD,

I am quite ready to take up the case of the women students if a good Bill can be framed, and I shall have to see you on Monday at the House.

Ever yours, W. COWPER TEMPLE.”

[Telegram] “March 23rd. Cowper Temple, Great Stanhope Street to Miss Jex-Blake, 15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh.

Can you tell me a lawyer who knows the subject and will frame the Bill or advise about it.”

This was apparently followed by a letter, for, at the earliest possible moment on March 24th, S. J.-B. sent down a note by hand to her solicitor:

“DEAR MR. MILLAR,

An eminent M.P. has undertaken to bring in an Enabling Bill to _enable_ Universities to educate and graduate women on the same terms as men, and I have just got a letter asking me to send up a draft of such Bill. As you are the best authority on such matters I should like to see you at once about it, and should be extremely glad if you could sketch out a draft beforehand, as time is of the greatest moment.

Could I see you if I called between 12.30 and 1 p.m.?

Yrs. truly, S. JEX-BLAKE.”

The Draft Bill seems to have been posted that afternoon, and the following day another telegram arrived:

“March 25th. Rt. Hon. Stansfeld, London, to Miss Jex-Blake, 15 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh.

I have seen Mr. Cowper Temple and we advise you to come and see him.”

So of course S. J.-B. travelled up to London next day.

[Diary] “March 26th. Summoned up to London about Cowper Temple’s Bill. He very kind, plenty of good will.... Stansfeld admirable. Gurney do., only from health inactive. Lowe, Gallio-like.”

A day or two later S. J.-B. dined with the Cowper Temples and details were threshed out.

“I am so glad,” writes Miss M‘Laren, “that you have succeeded so well, and find Mr. Cowper Temple such a nice man and energetic besides,—and trust all may go well. I am not afraid of opposition at all, but what I do fear is that at this late season it may not get through.”

“Broadlands. April 15.

To Miss Jex-Blake:

... Mr. Ewing consented when I explained the Bill to him, and his name with that of Mr. Gurney and Dr. Cameron are on the back of the Bill. I am not very sanguine of success if a serious opposition should be manifested, but I have hopes that the moderation of the measure may have the effect of not calling forth the latent antagonism that exists against the cause.

But whether the Bill passes or not, it must advance the cause, for at least we shall have a good debate on the subject.

I talked to Sir W. Maxwell when I first thought of undertaking a Bill and I found that he took the view that in his representative position as Rector of Edinburgh University he ought not to take a part in a question in which there is so much difference of opinion and warmth of feeling. I have fixed Friday 24th for the second reading, but am not at all sure that it can come on that evening as there will be many questions before it.

I return to London tomorrow.

Yours—[illegibly], W. C. TEMPLE.

The names on the back of the Bill are

Mr. Cowper Temple, Mr. Russell Gurney, Mr. Orr Ewing, Dr. Cameron.”

There was much discussion as to the desirability of keeping quiet about the Bill, and allowing it to slip through, if possible, without arousing all the energies of the opposition.

“10 Regent Terrace, Edinburgh. April 1, 1874.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

Best thanks for your letter. From what it says and from what I had heard before to the same effect from Miss M‘Laren, I have not the least doubt of the practical wisdom of the limitation of the Bill to the Scottish Universities. The difficulty of taking such differently- constituted Universities along in the Bill has struck me so far; but I had not thought of the special difficulty that might arise from jealousy of the divided powers of the University of London. But, while _our_ Bill goes on alone, there is no reason why the other universities should not be _moving_, each for itself, and all such movement would help ours.

I am not so sure of the policy of _silence_ about our Bill. Miss M‘Laren will have told you that Dr. Lyon Playfair has alarmed our people here by informing them of it, and asking their opinion. There is a Committee on watch with power to call a Senatus meeting when the Bill is perfectly known. Possibly, when they see it, they may feel inclined to do nothing, seeing that it only legitimises the power the University thought it possessed when it passed the regulations; but no one can tell. All that Dr. L. P. wanted was advice for himself; and nothing, even of that kind, can be done collectively, except by Senatus—as the Committee is for observation only. Still the matter is public; and _individuals_ may be at work. Also the fact and drift of the Bill have been mentioned in the newspapers, e.g. by the London correspondent of the Glasgow _Mail_. If, in these circumstances, you are of opinion that the memorial to Mr. Disraeli may be published, please return my copy with the signatures; and I will send it to our _three_ papers here—where perhaps it ought to appear first. But you will, of course, act with the advice of Mr. Cowper Temple and others; and I won’t publish till you give the word. Anyhow it might be best to return the memorial to me. A telegraph from you would then tell me to publish any day—if not immediately.

Yours very truly, DAVID MASSON.”

“April 15, 1874.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

After reading today the _Scotsman’s_ report of the introduction of the Bill, and observing how quietly and cautiously it seems to be framed (‘to remove doubts as to the powers’ etc.)[124] I have thought it better not at once to publish the memorial. If there is any possibility that the Bill will be let through without opposition, our memorial, as more strongly expressed, might interfere with this. At all events I have thought it most prudent not to be in a hurry, but to wait a day or two till we see how Mr. C. T.’s Bill is received among the probable enemies. Very likely they will move against it somehow,— secretly if not publicly; and, if we find this, then our memorial ought to come out as a contribution to the argument. You will perhaps hear how Dr. Lyon Playfair and Mr. Gordon act in London: I will observe here. Perhaps I am prudent in excess; but, once the memorial is out, it is past recall.

Yours very truly, DAVID MASSON.”

Footnote 124:

“A Bill to Remove Doubts as to the Powers of the Universities of Scotland to admit Women as Students, and to grant Degrees to Women.”

“83 Belgrave Road, S.W. 16th April, 1874.

DEAR MISS JEX-BLAKE,

The bill has been introduced by Mr. Cowper Temple, and my name is one of those on its back. If it could be smuggled through it would of course save a great deal of time and trouble, but I am afraid it is of no use to think of that. The moment it is published the bill will be telegraphed to all the Scotch papers, and every professor in every university, and almost every medical man throughout Scotland, will perceive its drift. Moreover you must remember that the Lord Advocate is member for Glasgow and Aberdeen University, and will have to keep his constituents well posted up in everything affecting their interests. If I see anything concerning the measure in the Scotch papers, I shall forward it to you, and meanwhile remain

Yours very sincerely, CHARLES CAMERON.

Miss Jex-Blake.”

So the glove was thrown down, and, as Dr. Cameron had predicted, the news of it was instantly flashed from Dan to Beersheba. In a very short time 65 petitions in favour of the Bill were presented to Parliament, three of these being from the Town Councils of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Linlithgow. There was also one from the City of Edinburgh, and one from 16,000 women. The most important, perhaps, was from twenty-six Professors of Scottish Universities, including eight (out of fourteen) Professors of the University of St. Andrews,—among them the Rev. Principal Tulloch,—and thirteen Professors of the University of Edinburgh. If Glasgow was poorly represented in number, the women had all the more reason to be proud of the weight of the two names,—John and Edward Caird. There was also a petition from those Edinburgh lecturers who had actually taught the women.

Against the Bill there were four petitions:

1. From the University Court of Edinburgh.

2. From the Senatus of Edinburgh University.

3. From the Medical Faculty of the Senatus (probably identical with 2).

4. From the University of Glasgow.

The second reading of the Bill was fixed for April 24th, but at the urgent request of Dr. Lyon Playfair, member for the University of Edinburgh, it was postponed to a later date (“in order that his University might have time to consider the subject”!) when the pressure of business made it impossible to secure any day: or, as Miss M‘Laren had predicted, it failed to “get through.” And so the whole question was practically shelved for another year.

There was an interesting debate on the motion, however, on June 12th, 1874, when able speeches were made by Mr. Cowper Temple, Mr. Stansfeld and others,—the two members for Edinburgh (Town and Gown) providing an almost dramatic contrast.

Mr. M‘Laren (Town), hard-headed, shrewd man of business, bluntly declared that “if it were a question to be decided by the intelligent inhabitants of Edinburgh, nine-tenths would vote in its favour.... If two or three of the professors would only take a voyage round the world, the whole question would be satisfactorily settled before they returned. (Laughter.) Where the male students paid three or four guineas for each class, the ladies paid eight or ten guineas, so that money was no obstacle. There was no difficulty, in fact, except want of will, and that arose from medical prejudice,—at least that was the opinion of the great majority of the people in Edinburgh.”

Dr. Lyon Playfair (Gown), scholar, courtier, man-of-the-world, had a harder task. Even _Punch_ was moved to sympathy with him “as one in a perplexity between his constituents and his convictions.”

* * * * *

In any case the whole question had entered on a new phase, there was fresh enthusiasm for the cause, and, on the other hand, those who had looked upon the idea of women doctors as an amusing absurdity, were roused to perturbation and alarm.