Chapter XLV…

Chapter XLV

_Progress of Medical Science in Scotland in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._

THE aim of this chapter is like the last one, not an attempt to present a history of the great and important science of medicine in all its branches, but to indicate what Scotland has contributed to the progress of this science, and also to give some account of the rise, the progress, and the organisation of the several institutions in which this science was taught in our country――in other words, the medical schools of Scotland. It will therefore, in the first place, indicate the bases of medical science; in the second, touch briefly on the prevailing theory in the early part of the eighteenth century; and in the third, proceed to narrate the advance of medical science in Scotland, and the establishment of our several medical schools.

The prime phenomenon presented to medical science is life. The first requisite of this science, therefore, is to enounce what life consists of, and more particularly what constitutes human life.――(1) As to the constituent elements of the human organism; (2) with reference to its structure; and (3) its functions. In other words, the science of medicine must be founded on biology; and it rests immediately on that part of biology termed human anatomy, physiology, and pathology――based on physiological analysis; and its subsidiary sciences are chemistry, botany, and some parts of physical science. The development of biology is gradually leading to a more scientific basis in the science of medicine, and the necessary conditions of health are becoming better understood.

Without entering into many details I shall endeavour to present the chief features of the prevailing theory in medicine immediately preceding the time when the Scottish schools began to arise; such a sketch is interesting in itself, and it will enable us to understand what Scotland has done in this great department of science.

Galen, born A.D. 131, was the oracle in medical science for upwards of 1400 years; but, in 1492, Paracelsus was born. The son of a physician, he determined to follow the profession of his father. He travelled about in quest of remedies amongst the chemical practitioners of those times, and from them he learned the use of mercury and antimony, and of opium. By the application of these remedies he cured many diseases which had baffled the remedies of the Galenists; and, being a bold man, he made the most of this, and attained such a reputation that he was appointed a professor in the University of Basle. In this position he was forced to employ some method, and seizing on such theories as then existed among chemists, he formed a system of physic, supported by much new and meaningless jargon of his own. His lectures were chiefly employed in recommending his own chemical remedies, and in bold attacks upon the established schools of physic. He ordered the books of Galen and Avicenna to be brought into his school and publicly burned as useless lumber. Thus he formed a sect, and by the middle of the seventeenth century physicians were divided into the two sects of Chemists and Galenists.¹

¹ Dr. William Cullen’s Works, Volume I., pages 392‒393. 1827.

Galenism now fell rapidly in Germany, France, and England. The philosophy of Descartes had adopted many of the doctrines of the Chemists, readily united with their system, and established its credit; and the publication of Harvey’s doctrine of the circulation of the blood completed the ruin of the Galenic fabric. Bellini applied the principles of mathematics to the physiology and pathology of medicine; and his system was so specious and promising, and so consonant with the reigning philosophy, that it immediately prevailed in Italy. It was brought to this side of the Alps by Dr. Pitcairn,¹ and soon became the prevailing system in Holland, England, France, and Germany; and it is recorded that the followers of this system were always the friends of observation and experiment, and that they detected and exploded many false hypothesis.

¹ Mackintosh’s History of Civilisation in Scotland, Volume III., page 329.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the medical school of Leyden had a high reputation, which was extended by the celebrated physician Herman Boerhaave,¹ who was appointed to the Chair of Medicine in this University in 1701. He digested and taught a medical theory which held an almost undisputed sway for upwards of half a century. When he entered the school of Leyden, he found it divided between the chemical system of Sylvius de le Boe, and the mechanical system of Bellini and Pitcairn; and he had the discernment to select the most useful parts from both systems. From ♦Bellini he adopted the doctrines of obstruction, and of lentor; from the Chemists he took the doctrine of acid and alkali, but corrected and limited; he also admitted the doctrine of plethora, the only remains of the Galenic theory which the discovery of the circulation of the blood seemed to support. Thus he combined the doctrines of the mechanical or mathematical school and the Chemists; and, as he possessed good analytic and elaborative faculties, he produced a system superior to any that had before appeared. He endeavoured to simplify the study of medicine, and rejected many useless hypotheses. He lectured on the theory of medicine, botany, and chemistry, with surprising clearness, and till then unmatched precision; and students flocked to him from all quarters.²

¹ Born in 1668; died 1738.

♦ “Belini” replaced with “Bellini”

² Hamilton’s History of Medicine, Volume II., pages 199‒203: Dr. Cullen’s Works, Volume I., page 411.

Boerhaave’s Aphorism or Practice of Physic appeared in 1709, and his Institutions or Theory of Physic shortly after. These two treatises contain his system; they passed through many editions, and were translated into almost every European language, and into Arabic; while they are remarkable for elegance, clearness, and brevity of style. But the influence of Descartes’ philosophy appears in his physiology, and in other parts of his system; and it is a curious fact which has not been noticed before, that through the teaching of Boerhaave’s system in Scotland, parts of the philosophy of Descartes reappear in more than one form in the medical literature of our own country. He adopted Descartes’ idea of mind and body, and other notions of this philosopher. Boerhaave in his physiology considered man as composed of two distinct substances――mind and body; the essential nature of mind is to be conscious, to think, and to will; but the essential nature of the body is to be extended and impenetrable. He says “the idea or definition of body has nothing in common with that of mind; nor has the idea of mind, on the other hand, anything in common with that of body.” He considered the study of mind to be an important part of physiology; and so he gives an exposition of the mental faculties under the heads of the internal and external senses. He states that “our bodies receive nothing else from sensible objects, to produce sensation, than a change in the surface of the nerves excited by the contact of the object. I do not say that this is to feel, but I say that we feel when this takes place. Sensation, therefore, is nothing either in the object or in the nerve affected, but a certain idea which God has assigned to this particular corporeal change. This is acknowledged by Newton in the last edition of his Optics.” Following Descartes, he assumed that the change produced upon the extremity of a sentient nerve must be propagated along the nerve to the brain before sensation can be produced; until his time, two mechanical explanations of this phenomenon had been given, one of which considered the nerves as solid vibratory cords, the other as hollow undulatory canals. Boerhaave adopted the latter view, and assumed that the change in the sensorium was nothing more than a repulsion of the nervous fluid against their origin in the brain. He conceived that the cerebrum controls the voluntary motions, and the cerebellum, the involuntary; but, as in other parts of the body, both these classes of motions are performed together, he assumed that the nerves of these parts must be composed of fibres, derived partly from the cerebrum and partly from the cerebellum, and retaining throughout their course a peculiar function according to the part whence they issue. He was also inclined to believe that each of the external senses had its own distinct seat in the brain.

He conceived the human body to be a combination of all sorts of mechanical contrivances or machines arranged by God into one system, so as to enable it to maintain its existence for a series of years, repairing the waste it undergoes from its own motions, and producing systems similar to itself. Thus, he attempted to explain the phenomena of the human body by the principles of mechanical philosophy, but accompanied with some limitations. He says: “I am persuaded that, even in simple bodies, general laws are insufficient to explain all the individual phenomena, much less do I suppose them capable of accounting for those in the human body, the most complex of all. But if some portions of the human body correspond in their structure with mechanical instruments, they must be governed by the same laws. For all the power of these parts is in the motion which they produce; and motion, by whatever body it is performed, takes place according to the universal laws of mechanics. There are some who think that those actions should not be explained by mechanical laws, the mechanical causes of which are unknown to us. But this is said without an accurate examination of the matter, for we do not speak of the causes but of the effects as being governed by mechanical laws. There are many and considerable motions performed in nature, of the causes of which we are ignorant; but the motions themselves are governed by supreme and universally diffused laws. The magnet, the cause of whose action is wholly unknown to us, performs its motions agreeable to a certain and ascertained law, which, when once known, can be applied, without danger of mistake, to future experiments. The human body in like manner exhibits motions, the causes of which are unknown to us; but their effects are the elevation of weights by cords affixed to them, the propulsion of fluids through determinate vessels, and other effects like those produced by mechanical causes, and they are not governed by any other laws. So it appears that both parties have erred, the mechanicians, in attempting to define all things from their art, without being sufficiently acquainted with the structure of the parts, the powers of which they expressed by numbers; and those who hated the very name of mechanics have declared that our body is independent of those very laws by which all bodies whatsoever are governed. The misfortune is that such physiological subjects are usually handled either by mathematicians unskilled in anatomy, or by anatomists who are not versed in mathematics.”¹

¹ Institutions.

He attempted to explain the contraction of the muscular fibre upon mathematical principles, and displayed ingenuity and skill, but he failed to explain this interesting phenomenon. He had, however, a pretty distinct idea of the use and the abuse of chemistry in medical science. The following contains in his own words a kind of summary of his physiological system:――“We are obliged to confess that there are many truths, and those too of the greatest importance, in the whole of medical physiology, a knowledge of which can be acquired only by the assistance of chemistry. But the greatest glory of this valuable art is, that it alone is able to expose and correct those errors, which some whimsical dabblers in chemistry had introduced into medicine, as Boyle, Bohn, Hoffmann, Homberg, and others, have shown by beautiful examples. Those vain trifling chemists were certainly in the wrong, who have pretended by their art alone to explain physiology in all its parts; nor, however, are those less mistaken who imagine they can do this without chemistry. Let anatomy faithfully describe the parts and structure of the body; let the mechanician apply his particular science to the solids; let hydrostatics explain the laws of fluids in general, and hydraulics their actions, as they move through given canals; and, lastly, let the chemist add to all these, whatever his art, when fairly and carefully applied, has been able to discover; and then, if I am not mistaken, we shall have a complete account of medical physiology.” This is not a very perfect conception of the human organism.

But his pathology was more defective than his physiology, and took less account of the essential functions of the human body; there was no clear conception of the real normal human organism formed, far less explained, either upon mathematical or any other principles.

Such, then, was the state of medical science in the first half of the eighteenth century; and such was the system which was introduced into Scotland, and taught in the early stages of the history of our medical schools, as the following statement from the highest authority shows:――

“When I first applied myself to the study of medicine, I learned only the system of Boerhaave; and even when I came to take a professor’s chair in this University, I found that system here in its entire and full force; and as I believe it still subsists in credit elsewhere, and that no other system of reputation has been yet offered to the world, I think it necessary for me to point out particularly the imperfections and the deficiencies of the Boerhaavian system, in order to show the propriety and necessity of attempting a new one. To execute this, however, so full as I might, would lead me into a detail that can hardly be admitted of here, and I hope is not necessary, as I think that every intelligent person, who has acquired any tolerable knowledge of the present state of our science, must in many instances perceive its imperfections. I shall therefore touch only upon the great lines of this system; and from the remarks I am to offer, I trust that both the mistakes and the deficiencies which run through the whole of his works will appear.”¹ I will now proceed to the chief subject of the chapter.

¹ Dr. William Cullen’s _Introductory Lectures on the Practice of Physics_, Volume I., page 412.

As stated in a preceding volume, the first charter to the surgeons was granted by the Town Council of Edinburgh in 1506; the science of medicine, however, had made little progress in Scotland two centuries later. But towards the end of the seventeenth century a movement began and various efforts were made to found a medical school in Edinburgh, which ultimately succeeded. The influences and the efforts which led up to the founding of the Edinburgh school originated from the outside, not from within the University itself, in the early stage of its history. As stated in the last volume, the College of Physicians in Edinburgh was incorporated in 1681;¹ and the old College of Surgeons got a royal charter in 1694, and at the same time a grant from the Town Council of unclaimed dead bodies. The anatomical theatre was opened in 1697. Thus the incorporated physicians and surgeons began to form a medical school outside the University; and afterwards some of the members of these bodies were taken into the University as professors. In this way the great medical school of Edinburgh arose, and it has continued to be surrounded by extra-mural teachers, some of whom were highly distinguished members of the profession.

¹ Mackintosh’s History of Civilisation in Scotland, Volume III., page 369.

In 1705, Robert Elliot, a member of the College of Surgeons, was elected by his fellow-members as the special teacher of anatomy; and the Town Council recognised his appointment under the title of Professor of Anatomy in the University, and for his encouragement granted him a salary of £15: thus Elliot became the first Professor of Anatomy in the University of Edinburgh. The teaching of chemistry was recognised by the University in 1713, when James Craufurd, a pupil of Boerhaave, was appointed Professor of Medicine and Chemistry. He was succeeded in 1726, by Andrew Plummer, a graduate of Leyden and a pupil of Boerhaave. He lectured ably upon chemical pharmacy for twenty-nine years. He was the author of the preparation known under the name of Plummer’s Pill; and it was recorded that he was a man of varied knowledge and accomplishments. The study of botany was recognised by the University authorities in 1676; and Dr. Charles Preston, the second professor of this useful branch of knowledge, was appointed in 1706. The following year he issued an advertisement in the Edinburgh Courant to this effect: “Dr. Preston teaches his lessons of botany in the Physic Garden at Edinburgh, the months of May, June, July, and August, 1707. Therefore, all gentlemen and others, who are desirous to learn the said science of botany, may repair to the said garden, where attendance will be given.” Botany as a subject for lectures in a class-room scarcely then existed.

John Munro, a military surgeon, who had served in King William’s army, retired and settled in Edinburgh early in the century, and was president of the College of Surgeons in 1712. He had an only son, Alexander Munro, who was carefully educated by his father. In 1717, young Munro, at the age of twenty, was sent to study anatomy under Cheselden, in London; subsequently he proceeded to Paris, where he studied anatomy under M. Bouquet, and attended classes in the hospitals; whence to Leyden, and placed himself under Boerhaave, who gave a favourable report of his pupil’s progress. He returned to Scotland in 1719, and was admitted a member of the College of Surgeons.

In January, 1720, Alexander Munro was appointed professor of anatomy in the University of Edinburgh, and soon after commenced lecturing in the surgeons’ theatre. In 1726, Doctors Andrew Sinclair and John Rutherford were appointed professors of the theory and practice of medicine; and thus the faculty then consisted of a chair of anatomy, three professors of medicine, a professor of chemistry, and a professor of botany. These professors were appointed for life, and this was the first regular establishment of the medical faculty in the University of Edinburgh.

Munro started his course of lectures with a class of fifty-seven students, and the class gradually increased in numbers. For the first ten years the average number was sixty-seven, for the second one hundred and nine, and for the third one hundred and forty-seven: students joined his class from all parts of Scotland, England and Ireland. His course of instruction was a comprehensive one, and embraced surgery as well as anatomy; and he illustrated his teaching by dissections of the human body, and of animals, birds, and fishes, for comparison. After explaining the anatomy of each part, he treated of its diseases, especially the organs which required operations, and concluded his course with a few lectures on physiology. He delivered this course continuously for thirty-eight years, and spoke without notes except for the names and dates.

In 1726, he published his work on The Human Bones, which passed through eight editions in his lifetime, and was translated into most of the European languages; and it contributed much to raise the reputation of the Edinburgh medical school. The whole of his writings have been collected and published in one large volume. It was also mainly by the exertions of ♦Monro and Provost Drummond that the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh was erected, endowed, and incorporated, the foundation stone of which was laid in 1738. When it was opened Monro attended it and delivered lectures on surgery;¹ the clinical lectures were begun in 1746.

♦ Author switched spelling from “Munro” to “Monro”. Transcriber left as printed.

¹ Monro was the originator of the Medical Society, formed in 1732, for the publication of papers on medical subjects, and he was appointed its secretary, and the editor of the six volumes of medical essays and observations which it published. In 1739, on the suggestion of Maclaurin, the mathematician, its scope was extended to subjects of philosophy and literature; but its meetings were interrupted for some years by the Rebellion. In 1752, they were renewed, and, under the name of The Philosophical Society of Edinburgh, the first volume of its Transactions was published in 1754, the second in 1756, and the third in 1771; but in 1782, a scheme was proposed for the establishment of a society on a wider plan for the culture of every branch of science and taste; and the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which included all the members of the Philosophical Society, and many other eminent men, was formed and incorporated by royal charter in 1783.

In 1758, Dr. Monro resigned the chair of anatomy to his son, and devoted himself for the remaining nine years of his life to practice, and to lecturing in the Infirmary as one of the clinical professors. He died in 1767, in the seventieth year of his age. His merits have been summed up, by a well qualified Professor thus:――

“He had family and friends influential and plenty, but the work he had to do was of a kind at which friends could only stand and look on. He had to do a new thing in Edinburgh: to teach anatomy, and to provide for the study of it, in a town of then only thirty thousand inhabitants, and in a half-civilised and politically disturbed country; he had to gather in students, to persuade others to join him in teaching, and to get an infirmary built. All this he did, and at the same time established his fame not only as a teacher but as a man of science, and gave a name to the Edinburgh school which benefited still more the generation which followed him. This really great and good man, therefore, well earned the title often given him, of father of the Edinburgh medical school.”¹

¹ Professor Struthers, _Historical Sketch of the Edinburgh Anatomical School_, page 25 (1867); compare Hamilton’s History of Medicine, Volume II., pages 296‒299.

A chair of midwifery was regularly established in the University in 1739――Mr. Robert Smith being appointed by the town council “professor of midwifery in this city’s College, with the same privileges and immunities which the other professors in the said College do enjoy, or that are known to appertain to a professor of midwifery in any other well-regulated city or place.” It is well known that the institution of this chair, like most of the other chairs connected with medicine in Edinburgh, originated with the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. The Town Council had before, in 1726, on the recommendations of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, appointed Mr. Joseph Gibson “professor of midwifery in this city, with power to him to profess and teach the said art, in as large extent as it is taught in any city or place where this profession is already instituted.” But Gibson had no chair in the University, he was merely appointed to teach in the city.¹ A separate chair of materia medica was instituted in 1768; and a chair of natural history was established by the Crown in 1767.

¹ Burgh Records of Edinburgh; Professor A. R. Simpson’s _Introductory Lecture on the History of the Chair of Midwifery, etc._, pages 9‒10.

Dr. Cullen and Dr. Black contributed greatly to raise and to maintain the reputation of the Edinburgh medical school, of the teaching and discoveries of the latter, I have already spoken in the last chapter. Dr. Cullen was born at Hamilton on the 15th of April, 1710; his father was a writer, and acted as factor to the Duke of Hamilton. He received the rudiments of education at the Grammar School of Hamilton, and afterward studied at the University of Glasgow. He was apprenticed with Mr. John Paisley, a practising doctor in Glasgow: to serve an apprenticeship was then almost the only way in which a knowledge of medicine could be obtained in Scotland. His master, though engaged in a large practice, had collected an extensive and valuable medical library; and Cullen fully availed himself of the advantages which it presented. When his medical studies were completed at Glasgow, in the end of 1729, he went to London, with the object of obtaining some situation in which he might have opportunities of acquiring a practical knowledge of his profession. He obtained an appointment as surgeon to a merchant ship engaged in trading to the West Indies; and during her voyage she remained for six months at Porto Bello, and this and other circumstances connected with the voyage gave him an opportunity of seeing many new scenes and peculiarities of life and manners. After returning from the West Indies, he remained for some time in London, and attended the shop of an apothecary in Henrietta Street. At this time he seems to have specially directed his attention to materia medica.

He returned to Scotland about the end of the year 1731, and was invited by Captain Cleland to live in his family and attend to the health of his son, in the parish of Shotts, near Hamilton. This was a very good locality for Dr. Cullen to commence the practice of his profession. After practising here for about two years, he resolved to devote his attention entirely to medical studies for some time, preparatively to starting as a practitioner in Hamilton. With this view he went to the village of Rothbury, in Northumberland, where he lived with a dissenting clergyman, and chiefly occupied himself in the study of philosophy and general literature, which would partly account for the wide and accurate knowledge of the history of philosophic thought which appears in his writings.

In 1734, he entered the University of Edinburgh and attended the medical classes for two years. On finishing his courses at Edinburgh, in the spring of 1736, he commenced business as a surgeon in Hamilton; and in a short time he obtained a good practice. Soon after his settlement in Hamilton, Dr. Cullen became the friend and the medical preceptor of the well-known Dr. William Hunter, whose genius and love of study were so congenial with his own; and their friendship continued till the death of Dr. Hunter in 1783. Dr. Hunter retained to the end of his life a warm feeling of gratitude for Cullen, and never omitted an opportunity of acknowledging how much he owed to him. Dr. Cullen removed from Hamilton to Glasgow in 1744, where he had a wider sphere for the exercise of his genius and his great talents. He thought that a medical school could be established in Glasgow, and his foresight was well founded.

He applied to the authorities of the University for leave to deliver lectures on the theory and practice of medicine, chemistry, and botany, so bold and comprehensive was the grasp of principles which he had attained. The authorities acceded to his request, and his first courses of lectures were delivered in the University of Glasgow in 1746; and they mark an era in the history of medicine in Scotland. In the first place, he laid aside the use of Latin in the composition and delivery of his lectures, which appeared to many a rash and unpardonable innovation; in the second, he had the courage and discrimination to reject the use of the ♦Institutions and Aphorisms of Boerhaave as text-books, which were then generally used in the medical schools of Europe; in the third, he struck out new lines himself; and in the fourth, he was the first in Britain who assigned to chemistry its proper position as a science of great importance, and susceptible of wide application. In his introductory lectures on this memorable occasion he referred to the advantages which a teacher has when he explains his own ideas and writings, instead of commenting upon those of others, and then adds:――“I ought to give a text-book myself, but shall not attempt it, till after a little more experience in teaching. In the meantime, I shall endeavour to supply its place by an easy, clear order and method, so that the want of it may be less felt;” and in allusion to his attempting to lecture from notes, he remarked: ――“Written lectures might be more correct in the diction and fluent in the style; but they would take up too much time, that may be rendered otherwise useful. I shall be as correct as possible, but perhaps a familiar style will prove more agreeable than a formal one, and the delivery more fitted to command attention.”¹

♦ “Iustitutions” replaced with “Institutions”

¹ Dr. John Thomson’s Life of Cullen, Volume I., pages 4‒28.

In 1747, in accordance with the plan which he had formed of establishing a regular medical school in the University of Glasgow, Cullen was appointed Professor of Chemistry. At the commencement of his second course of chemistry, he printed and distributed among his students, “The Plan of a Course of Chemical Lectures and Experiments, directed chiefly to the improvement of arts and manufactures, to be given in the Laboratory of the College, during the session 1748.” At this time he specially directed his attention to investigate the application of chemistry to the useful arts. He suggested various improvements in the art of bleaching, and proposed an improved method for the manufacture or purification of common salt. Some of the difficulties which he had to encounter in his efforts to present a comprehensive account of chemical phenomena were thus stated by himself:――

“Chemistry is an art that has furnished the world with a great number of useful facts, and has thereby contributed to the improvement of many arts; but these facts lie scattered in many different books, involved in obscure terms, mixed with many falsehoods, and joined to a great deal of false philosophy; so that it is no great wonder that chemistry has not been so much studied as might have been expected with regard to so useful a branch of knowledge, and that many professors are themselves but very superficially acquainted with it. But it was particularly to be expected, that, since it has been taught in Universities, the difficulties in this study should have been in some measure removed, that the art should have been put into form, and a system of it attempted――the scattered facts collected and arranged in a proper order. But this has not yet been done; chemistry has not yet been taught but upon a very narrow plan. The teachers of it have still confined themselves to the purposes of pharmacy and medicine, and that comprehends a small branch of chemistry; and even that, by being a single branch, could not by itself be tolerably explained. I do not choose the invidious task of derogating from established reputations; but were it necessary, I could easily show that the most celebrated attempts towards a system or course of chemistry are extremely incomplete, as examining but a few of the objects of chemistry; that of those examined a very scanty and imperfect account of their relations to other bodies is given, and that, even what is given, is in a method inconvenient and faulty. Now this is the case with the generality of the books on chemistry; but I must take notice, however, that Dr. Stahl is one who has endeavoured to avoid these faults; he has taught chemistry with a more general view, and attempted to collect the chemical facts, and to arrange them in better order.... From what I have said, you will judge of the state of chemical learning, and what a difficult task I undertook when I engaged to teach chemistry, and it is very necessary to tell you, that I did not engage in it from any confidence of my abilities, but because it was thought proper to be undertaken, and nobody else was found to do it; and if I can be so lucky as to engage you to apply to the study, I dare say that the more you become acquainted with it, the less will my performance need an apology with you.”

In the end of the year 1753, he sent to the Philosophical Society of Edinburgh a paper entitled, “Some Reflections on the Study of Chemistry, and an essay towards ascertaining the different species of Salts.” This paper contains more wide and precise information touching the general properties and relations of the different species of salts than is to be found in any chemical work of the period; and especially the distinctive characters and compounds of soda, a substance then not generally admitted in this country to differ specifically from potash.¹

¹ Thomson’s Life of Dr.Cullen, Volume I., pages 57, 58.

Cullen’s reputation was rising rapidly, and in 1751 he was formally appointed to the Chair of the Practice of Medicine in the University of Glasgow, but also continued to lecture on chemistry as well as medicine for the next five years. It was a bright period in the history of this University. Adam Smith was then delivering within its walls a part of the rich store of information which afterwards appeared in the Wealth of Nations, while Cullen was laying a better foundation for medicine and the progress of medical science.

But he was appointed Professor of Chemistry in the University of Edinburgh, and entered upon the duties of the chair in the beginning of the year 1756. He then extended and carefully improved his lectures on chemistry, and prepared as an introduction to his course seven lectures giving a history of chemical science, which are fine specimens of that branch of scientific exposition. He occupied the chair of chemistry in Edinburgh ten years, but his class was not a very large one. During his first course of lectures the number of students was only seventeen; in the second it rose to fifty-nine; and it gradually increased, the highest number reached in one session being one hundred and forty-five. He also commenced to deliver clinical lectures in the Royal Infirmary in 1757, instead of Professor Rutherford, whose health was failing.

In 1766 he was appointed to the chair of institutes of medicine; his predecessor in the chair was an able man.¹ But Cullen taught the institutes of medicine with marked success. He divided the main subject into three divisions――physiology, pathology, and therapeutics ――embracing the consideration of health, disease, and remedy. After delivering his historical introduction, he commenced thus:――

¹ Robert Whytt was one of the luminaries of the rising medical school; and was professor of the institutes of medicine from 1747, till his death in 1766, in the fifty-second year of his age. He is the author of a treatise _On the Vital and other Involuntary motions in Animals_, which attracted the attention of many physiologists; and of a work _On Nervous, Hysteric Diseases, and on the Sympathy of the Nerves_, a treatise in advance of the age, which contributed to the progress of medical science in the latter part of the eighteenth century.

“Medicine is the art of preventing and curing diseases. The common language is that ‘Medicine is the art of preserving health and of curing diseases;’ but I have said, the art of preventing diseases; for although I do not deny that the preserving of health is the object of the physician’s care, yet I maintain that there is truly no other means of preserving health but what consists in preventing diseases. Every other idea is false, and has led to superfluous, very often dangerous, practice. I say, that health being properly understood, we cannot add to it, nor increase its powers. There is never room for our art, but when there is some defect in the constitution――some bias and tendency towards disease; and it is only by preventing this tendency, by correcting these defects, that is, by preventing disease, that we can preserve health.

“What we call the practice is the art applied to particular diseases and persons. But before considering the application of this art to particular diseases, certain general doctrines are necessary to be premised, which are called the Institutes of Medicine.” He describes physiology thus:――

“The doctrine which explains the conditions of the body and of the mind necessary to life and health, is called Physiology, or the Doctrine of the Animal Economy――I mean that physiology considers the matter of which the body is formed in its mixed, in its aggregation, and, especially, in its organisation or mechanism. With regard to the conditions of the body, physiology considers everything that natural philosophy, chemistry, or anatomy teaches with regard to it. But you are to observe that philosophy, chemistry, and anatomy consider the state of the body, and its several parts, abstracted from its several effects. The business of physiology is only to explain the conditions which these several sciences point out as applicable to the exercise of the functions of the body.

“I have added here a particular to my physiology that is not common――and ‘of the mind.’ ... However the condition of the mind may ultimately arise, we often do see conditions of mind arise, that we cannot trace to a corporeal cause; while at the same time they may produce very considerable effects upon the bodily state; so that it was necessary to say physiology referred to the conditions of the mind, as well as to those of the body. So far from being able to neglect the mind, the most considerable functions are connected with particular operations ... and, indeed, I find that the conditions of the human mind must engage our intention more than they have done hitherto.”¹ Accordingly he treats at considerable length on sensation and the functions of the brain.

¹ Cullen’s Works, Volume I., pages 3‒6; 1827.

On the death of John Gregory in 1773, Cullen became professor of the practice of physic, and held this chair for seventeen years with great advantage to the medical school, the University, the nation, and the world. He resigned his chair in the end of the year 1789, and he died on 5th February, 1790. He had been a professor in the medical faculty of the University of Edinburgh for a period of thirty-four years, and a lecturer and professor in the University of Glasgow for nine years, so that he had been a hard-working professor for a period of forty-three years. As a teacher he was remarkably successful, he had all the qualifications of a great expositor――vast and accurate knowledge, analytic powers of the first order, a mastery of method and systematic development, and a copious command of appropriate language; an intellect of a philosophic and original cast which threw new light on many points; in short, a genius who never failed to make every subject which he handled clear and interesting. He was highly respected and beloved by all earnest students of medicine, and many of his pupils rose to eminence.¹ He took a keen interest in everything connected with or bearing on medical science, and his sagacity, judgment, and practical experience were invaluable to the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and to the nation.

¹ I shall give an indication of his method from his Nosology: ――“The several diseases to be treated of are determined by the nosology. What I call a genus is everywhere to afford to me a particular subject of discourse; and under each of these heads I shall treat the following subject.

“First, I am to give what may be called the History of the disease――of the genus, that is, and an account of all the special phenomena which constantly attends the appearance of such a disease, as they are severally combined together, or occur in succession. Secondly, the investigation of the proximate cause, on the knowledge of which the cure of the disease is chiefly and almost unavoidably founded.... Thirdly, from the phenomena of the disease, and with a view to the conclusion respecting the proximate cause. I am next to enter into a critical disquisition with regard to the proper character and limits of every genus, and its division into species and varieties.... Fourthly, we shall proceed to the consideration of the remote causes, upon which the prevention of diseases chiefly depends.... Fifthly, we shall proceed to the prognostic.... The sixth and last article is that for which all the others are intended, viz., the method of cure.... You have thus, gentlemen, my plan for treating the several heads――the several genera of diseases which are to enter into my course.... I wish to make you critics in nosology; but this I shall perhaps find a difficult task. Perfect division and definition is the summit of human knowledge in every part of science, and requires not only the clearest but the most comprehensive views, such as, with respect to diseases, we can arrive at only by often-repeated exercises and much study.”――Works, Volume I., pages 440‒445.

His chief works are:――(1) Institutions of Medicine, 1777; (2) First Lines of the practice of Physic; (3) Synopsis Nosologiæ Methodicæ, 1785; (4) Treatise of the Materia Medica; (5) Various lectures and papers. Both his teaching and his writings have had great influence in advancing medical science, in almost every branch, and especially the nervous system of the human organism. This was owing not simply to the number of new facts which he discovered or the generalisations which he formed, but chiefly to the original characteristics, and the method of his teaching, which was admirably calculated to interest and arrest the attention and stimulate the powers of those who came under its influence. His own mind was comprehensive, the extent of his acquired information even outside of his special profession was vast and varied, and his knowledge of recorded philosophic thought was remarkable.

Dr. John Gregory succeeded his father as professor of medicine in King’s College, Aberdeen, in 1755; and, in 1766, he was appointed professor of the practice of physic in the University of Edinburgh. In his introductory lectures he treated on “The Duties and Qualifications of a Physician,” and these were afterwards published. In 1770, he published his Elements of the Practice of Physic, for the use of his class. He died in 1773, in the forty-ninth year of his age; and was succeeded in the chair by Dr. Cullen. He was the author of the well-known work, A Comparative View of the Faculties of Man with those of the Animal World. His son, James Gregory, also became a professor.

James Gregory was born at Aberdeen in 1753, and went to Edinburgh with his father; he was the great grandson of James Gregory the celebrated Professor of Mathematics, and himself the sixteenth Professor that had sprung from the loins of David Gregory of Kinairdy.¹ He was appointed Professor of Institutes of Medicine in 1776; and in 1788, he published a text-book for the use of his class, entitled Conspectus Medicinæ Theoreticæ, which was much admired for its elegant Latinity; it was adopted as a text-book in several of the German Universities. On the retirement of Dr. Cullen, Gregory was transferred to the Chair of the Practice of Physic, which he held till his death in 1821. Thus he had taught in the University for the long period of forty-five years. He took an active part in questions touching Infirmary management, and engaged in hot disputes with his brethren on these matters.

¹ It appears to me that an account of the careers of the distinguished members of this family of Gregories would form a very interesting subject for a volume or two among the tomes to be printed by the New Spalding Club.

Dr. Andrew Duncan, a son of a merchant, was born at St. Andrews on the 17th October, 1744. He entered the University of St. Andrews, and graduated Master of Arts in 1762. He then proceeded to the University of Edinburgh and pursued his medical studies, and completed his course in 1769. In the absence of Dr. Drummond, during the sessions of 1774‒5 and 1775‒6, Duncan delivered lectures on the theory of medicine in the University of Edinburgh, while he undertook the editorship of a periodical work entitled Medical and Philosophical Commentaries. This publication contained an account of the best new books on medicine, and the cognate branches of science; medical cases and observations; and the most recent medical intelligence. It was published quarterly, forming one volume annually, and continued till 1795 under his editorship, when it had extended to twenty volumes. Subsequently he continued it under the title of Annals of Medicine to 1804, when he ceased to act as editor. In 1805 its title was changed to the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal, and under the editorship of Dr. Duncan’s son, it became one of the leading medical Journals in Europe.

On the transference of Dr. Gregory to the chair vacated by Dr. Cullen, Dr. Duncan was appointed to the chair of the Institutes of Medicine in 1790. He was an able and successful professor, and much esteemed. The style of his lectures was clear and direct, and excellent specimens of instructive exposition. He showed great interest in his pupils, often inviting them to his house, and cultivating a kindly intercourse with them. His sympathies were wide and warm. Having often seen the sad condition and suffering of insane persons, he originated a plan for the erection and endowment of a Lunatic Asylum, which he brought before the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in 1792. After many difficulties had been surmounted, a petition was presented to the King, who granted a royal charter in April 1807, under which a Lunatic Asylum was built and opened at Morningside. In September 1808 the Town Council of Edinburgh presented Dr. Duncan with the freedom of the City, as a public recognition of his services to the community by the establishment of the Lunatic Asylum, and also a public Dispensary. After a long and useful life, he expired on the 5th of July, 1828, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. He was the author of a considerable number of works, including Elements of Therapeutics, Medical Commentaries, Medical Cases and Observations, Heads of lectures on the Theory and Practice of Physic, Essay on Consumption, and other treatises. He bequeathed to the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, one hundred volumes of practical observations in his own hand-writing, which he had used as notes for his clinical lectures.

His son, Andrew Duncan, was born at Edinburgh on the 10th of August, 1773. While a boy, he had pored over medical books; and at the age of fourteen he entered on an apprenticeship of five years with Messrs. A. & G. Wood, Surgeons. Afterwards he went through the courses of Arts and Medicine, at the University of Edinburgh, and graduated M.A. in 1793, and M.D. in 1794. Subsequently he studied a winter in London; and made two sojourns to the Continent, staying in each of the notable medical schools of Germany and Italy long enough to study under the professors, visit the hospitals, and acquire some knowledge of the languages and literatures of these countries. On returning to Edinburgh, he joined the College of Physicians; and issued his great work on materia medica, entitled the Edinburgh Dispensatory, which for many years was a standard authority in the medical schools of Europe. He was appointed professor of Medical Jurisprudence in 1807; as stated in a preceding page, he was editor of the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal. His lectures in the chair, and the papers which he produced in his Journal on this subject excited much interest both among his students and the medical profession. He taught in this chair for thirteen years; and in 1819 he was appointed professor of the institutes of medicine, which he held for two years. In 1821 he was transferred to the chair of materia medica, of which he was an able and careful teacher till 1832. As a professor in three chairs, he was remarkably successful and industrious; and made continual additions to his courses of lectures. He was also a very active and efficient member of the Senatus; and rendered invaluable service as a member of “the College Commission” for rebuilding the University. Besides the important work mentioned above, he contributed many articles on medical subjects to his own Journal, to the Encyclopædia Britannica, and the Edinburgh Review. His experiments on Peruvian bark, and on other substances contributed to advance pharmaceutical science. After a career of incessant and useful work, he died in 1832, at the age of fifty-nine.

As stated in a preceding page, Dr. Monro, the first Professor of Anatomy, was succeeded by his son, Alexander Monro. He was born in 1733, and educated in Edinburgh. After taking his degree in the University, he proceeded to London, Leyden, Paris, and Berlin, and in these cities he spent two years and a half in extending and completing his medical studies.

He returned to Edinburgh in 1758, and shortly after entered on his duties as Professor of Anatomy. He began his course of instruction in the University with vigour and boldness, and it was at once seen that he was master of his subject and of the art of expounding knowledge. His style was easy, clear, argumentative, and impressive; and from the first his career through half a century was a marked success.

The number of students attending his courses of lectures continued to increase; yet he found time to carry on a large practice, being one of the leading physicians of his day, and he was often consulted in important surgical cases. He also found time to produce works of original research in anatomical science; and thus raised his fame at home and abroad, and contributed to extend the reputation of the Edinburgh medical school.

Omitting several of his papers and minor publications, Monro’s chief works are:――(1) Observations on the Structure and Functions of the Nervous System, which appeared in 1783; (2) The Structure and Physiology of Fishes explained and compared with those of Man and other Animals, 1785; (3) Experiments on the Nervous System, relative to the Nature and Effects of Animal Electricity, 1793; (4) Observations on the Muscles, and particularly on the Effects of their Oblique fibres, 1794; (5) The Brain, the Eye, and the Ear, 1794.¹ These works gave him a reputation as an able anatomist. But it may be remarked that he had no difficulties to overcome, that he had only to step into a ready-made position and every advantage to start with, and that in such circumstances success was comparatively easy; nevertheless, he held his place with distinction and merit, alongside a body of able and brilliant colleagues and contemporaries, which is the greatest praise that can be given him. He died in 1817, at the advanced age of eighty-four years.

¹ Professor Struthers in his _Historical Sketch of the Edinburgh Anatomical School_, states that manuscript volumes of notes of Monro’s lectures on anatomy, physiology, and surgery are preserved in many private and public libraries. ――Page 32.

His son Alexander was appointed Joint-Professor and successor to his father in the Chair of Anatomy, and from 1808 to 1846 he discharged the duties of the Chair. Thus the three Monros in succession held the Chair of Anatomy in the University of Edinburgh for a period of one hundred and twenty-six years: the first Monro occupied it from 1720 till 1758, the second from 1758 to 1808, and the third from 1808 till 1846, when he retired.

The third Monro was an accomplished man, fond of paintings, and spoke Latin fluently. But it was recorded that his talents as a teacher of anatomy were not equal to that of his father or his grandfather. The circumstances, however, were changed: there was then a greater number of men well qualified to teach anatomy and surgery, and the spirit of the time had become more critical and exacting than it was a hundred years before. Remembering this, there seems to be some ground, not for reversing the accepted verdict, but of somewhat modifying the opinion of the merits of the third Monro.

His writings are numerous and manifest great industry, if not original powers. The following are his most important works:――(1) Dissertation on the varied direction of the Fibres of the Muscles, 1812; (2) Elements of the Anatomy of the Human Body, in two volumes, 1825; (3) The Anatomy of the Brain, with some Observations on its Functions, 1831; (4) Observations on the Different Kinds of Small Pox, 1818. He died in 1859, at the great age of eighty-five years.

On the retirement of Monro, in 1846, Mr. John Goodsir was appointed professor of anatomy. He had gained some experience as an extra-mural lecturer, and was a remarkably successful teacher; he rendered his special subject more interesting by extending the scope of illustration to allied branches of science. He died in 1867, and was succeeded by William Turner.

During the greater part of the period under review, there was much extra-mural teaching in Edinburgh, and sometimes very able men engaged in it; I can only, however, notice a few of them. The elder Dr. Duncan, noticed in a preceding page, was among the first extra-mural lecturers on medicine in Edinburgh. He commenced lecturing extra-murally on medicine in 1775, and continued it for fifteen years, and attracted a considerable number of students to his class. John Bell, a distinguished anatomist and surgeon, was born in May, 1763. After finishing his medical education in Edinburgh, he travelled for some time in Russia and the north of Europe, but returned to Edinburgh in 1786, and was entered as a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1787, he commenced lecturing on surgery and midwifery, and his lectures were numerously attended. But it seems that some jealousy existed among a few of the professors of the University towards the lecturers of the Surgeons’ Hall; accordingly Bell was vehemently assailed by pamphlets and squibs spread over the city. The assailants, as often happens, had greatly under-estimated the powers of their enemy; for in his replies to their attacks he wielded his weapons with such force and effect that his blows staggered some of them and surprised them all, insomuch that on the main issue he won the day. Bell continued to teach anatomy and surgery till the last year of the eighteenth century, when he was deprived of his connection with the Surgical Hospital; he then retired and devoted himself to practice, and to the composition of his works. As a practitioner he attained the position of the leading operating and consulting surgeon of his time in Edinburgh; and his reputation drew patients from all parts of Britain and the Continent. He was also a cultured man, well versed in ancient and modern literature, a good musician, and skilful artist, while as a teacher, he was a ready and polished speaker, and master of a bold and vivid style. He died at Rome in 1820, in the fifty-seventh year of his age.¹

¹ Professor Struthers’ _Historical Sketch of the Edinburgh Anatomical School_, pages 39‒42. “He was the reformer of Surgery in Edinburgh. He was not only a bold and dexterous operator, but combined all the qualities, natural and acquired, of a great surgeon to an extraordinary degree; he was original and fearless, and a thorough anatomist; he had intellect, nerve, and also language――was master alike of head, hand, and tongue or pen; and he was laborious as well as brilliant.”――Ibid., page 43.

His chief works are:――1. The Anatomy of the Human Body, published in 1793‒97, in three volumes, which contained the most complete view of the progress and discoveries in anatomy up to the date of its publication. 2. Engravings of the Bones, Muscles, and Joints, illustrating the first volume of his Anatomy of the Human Body; they were drawn and engraved by himself, and appeared in 1794. 3. On the Nature and Cure of Wounds, 4. Principles of Surgery, 1801‒8, in three volumes.

He taught his younger brother Charles Bell¹ anatomy and surgery; and when John retired he continued to instruct his class for several years. But Charles Bell went to London in 1804, to seek his fortune in a wider sphere, and for years he had to struggle with many difficulties. He began to teach in London with three of a class, and it was long ere it reached the number of forty. In 1811, he became one of the lecturers in the Hunterian School of Anatomy in Windmill Street, and in 1814 he was appointed surgeon to the Middlesex Hospital. At length he attained a high reputation in London both as a teacher and man of science. In 1836, the Chair of Surgery in the University was offered to him, and he accepted it and returned home.

¹ Born in 1774; died in 1842.

A Chair of Clinical Surgery was instituted in the University of Edinburgh, 1803; at the same time the College of Surgeons established a Chair of Surgery. But the Chair of Surgery in the University was reconstituted in 1831, and the same year a Chair of Pathology was established. Thus Sir Charles Bell was the second Professor of Surgery in the University, after a separate Chair was assigned to it, although a Chair for Military Surgery was established in 1803, it was abolished in 1823. During the reign of the Munros they claimed the exclusive right of being Professors of Surgery as well as Anatomy within the walls of the University, and this delayed the establishment of a Chair of Surgery.

Sir Charles Bell discharged the functions of the Chair of Surgery with marked ability and success for five years; and also worked at his writings and researches. He died on the 27th of April, 1842. He was among the greatest men that have ever taught in this University, and the only regret is, that it was so long of securing his service. His researches and discoveries touching the nerves and the nervous system are well known, and were recognised throughout Europe long since. He was not only great in the science of the human organism in all its branches, but also a cultured and accomplished gentleman, skilled in the highest and most delicate operations of mind and hand.

Sir Charles’ works are:――(1) System of Dissections, in three volumes, 1798‒1803; (2) Engravings of the Arteries, 1801; (3) Engraving of the Nerves, 1801; (4) Engravings of the Brain, 1802; (5) The Anatomy of Expression in Painting, 1806; (6) System of Operative Surgery, in two volumes, 1807‒9; (7) On Diseases of the Urethra, 1810; (8) Engravings of Specimens of Morbid Parts, 1813; (9) Gunshot Wounds, 1814; (10) Surgical Operations, in two volumes, 1816‒18; (11) On the Forces which circulate in the Blood, 1819; (12) On the Nervous System, 1821; (13) Illustrations of the Great Operations in Surgery, 1821; (14) Treatise on the Diseases of some of the Internal Organs, 1822; (15) Observations on Injuries of the Spine, and of the Thigh Bone, 1824; (16) New edition of John and Charles Bell’s Anatomy and Physiology, 1829; (17) Bridgewater Treatise, On the Hand, 1833; (18) Institutes of Surgery, arranged in the order of lectures delivered in the University of Edinburgh, in two volumes, 1838; (19) Practical Essays, in two volumes, 1841; (20) Letters to the Members of Parliament for the city of Edinburgh, on two Bills before Parliament, for improving the medical profession.

Regarding other extra mural lecturers, Dr. John Barclay lectured on anatomy in Edinburgh from 1797 to 1825, and by his attention and marked ability attracted a considerable number of medical students. From 1804 onward he had a class of about three hundred. He also published several treatises on anatomical and physiological subjects. Barclay was a wit as well as a man of science, of which the following is a characteristic specimen:――“Gentlemen, while carrying on your work in the dissecting room, beware of making anatomical discoveries, and above all beware of rushing with them into print. Our precursors have left us little to discover. You may perhaps meet with a trifling supernumerary muscle or tendon, a slight deviation or extra branchlet of an artery, or perhaps a minute stray twig of a nerve, that will be all. But beware; publish the fact, and ten chances to one you will have it shown that you have been forestalled long ago. Anatomy may be likened to a harvest field. First come the reapers, who, entering upon untrodden ground, cut down great stores of corn from all sides of them. These are the early anatomists of modern Europe, such as Vesalius, Fallopius, Malpighi, and Harvey. Then come the gleaners, who gather up ears enough from the bare ridges to make a few loaves of bread. Such were the anatomists of last century, Valsalva, Contunnius, Haller, Winslow, Vieg d’Azyr, Camper, Hunter, and the two Monros. Last of all come the geese, who still continue to pick up a few grains scattered here and there among stubble, and waddle home in the evening, poor things, cackling with joy because of their success. Gentlemen, we are the geese.”¹

¹ Sir R. Christian’s Recollections.

Dr. Gordon lectured on anatomy in Edinburgh from 1809 to 1819, and he was the author of several treatises. In the second quarter of the present century, Dr. Knox, the morphological anatomist, attained great celebrity as a lecturer on anatomy. To his dissecting room the victims of Burke and Hare were brought as subjects, but without any connivance of foul play on his part. For some time his class reached five hundred students. So much touching extra mural lectures.

Dr. John Thomson, a son of a silk weaver of Paisley, was born in 1765. His father wished him to enter into business with himself, but his mental faculties and aspirations rose above such employment. He privately acquired some knowledge of Latin, and his father allowed him to become an apprentice to a local medical practitioner. In 1787 he attended the medical classes at Glasgow, and afterwards he studied under Munro and Blackwood at the University of Edinburgh. He was appointed assistant-apothecary to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in 1790. In 1798 his edition of Fourcroy’s Elements of Chemistry and Natural History appeared. Lord Lauderdale came to Edinburgh in 1799 to study chemistry, and Thomson assisted him, and a warm friendship arose between them. He continued to practise surgery attentively, and was admitted a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons. In 1800 he issued a pamphlet entitled “Outlines of a Plan for the Regulation of the Surgical Department of the Royal Infirmary.” He was then appointed one of the Surgeons of the Infirmary, and commenced to deliver clinical lectures, and also courses of systematic surgery in a private theatre. In 1804 he was appointed Professor of Surgery to the Royal College of Surgeons; while in 1806 he was encouraged by Lord Lauderdale to apply for a Commission to be Professor of Military Surgery in the University of Edinburgh. The Great European war had created an unusual interest in this subject. Lord Spencer, the Home Secretary, after an interview with Thomson, created the Chair, and appointed him as the first Professor. As mentioned in a preceding page, the Monros claimed a monopoly of teaching surgery in the University, and consequently it was treated as a mere appendage to anatomy, and not systematically taught. Thus Thomson introduced a very important innovation in the Edinburgh School. He admitted students without fee to his lectures, and in one session about two hundred persons embraced this privilege. In 1813 his Lectures on Inflammation appeared, which exhibited the pathological and practical doctrines of medical surgery. This work was widely circulated, and translated into German, Italian, and French. At the close of the war in 1814, he made a tour among the hospitals and medical schools of the Continent; while the following year, immediately after the battle of Waterloo, he was commissioned to inspect the condition of the wounded soldiers in Belgium. He performed this duty with the utmost care, and rendered much assistance to the Army-Surgeons at Brussels. During the following winter his lectures in Edinburgh were well attended, as the class numbered two hundred and eighty, of whom eighteen medical officers of the army and sixty-two of the navy were admitted gratis. It was recorded that his lectures were animated and eloquent, and excited much discussion touching the different modes of surgical treatment. His lectures were not limited to surgery, but also embraced medical pathology. Before 1820 he began to collect coloured pathological delineations, and engaged Mr. Carswell, who visited a number of hospitals and museums at home and abroad, to make water-colour drawings of morbid structures. This resulted in a valuable collection of pathological diagrams, which is still in the possession of the University, and was the first of its kind ever made.

On the death of Dr. James Gregory in 1821, Dr. Thomson became a candidate for the Chair of the Practice of Physic; but he was unsuccessful, the Chair was given to Dr. James Hope. After this he resigned the Professorship of Military Surgery and commenced to deliver extra-mural courses of lectures on the practice of physic and pathology. He was invited to give evidence before the Universities Commission of 1826, and embraced the opportunity of strongly urging the necessity for a separate Chair of Surgery and one of Pathology in the University. He addressed a memorial to Lord Melbourne in 1831, pointing out the great advantages of the establishment of a Chair of General Pathology. Such a Chair was founded by the Government, and Thomson was appointed by the Crown as the first Professor of General Pathology. At the same time a Chair of Surgery was established in the University. Although Dr. Thomson was advanced in years, yet he commenced the work of his new Chair with remarkable vigour, and his teaching for several years was very efficient. But in 1835 his strength began to fail, and his lectures were delivered by an assistant till 1841, when he resigned the Chair. In his time, he had executed much useful and important work. He issued his edition of Cullen’s works in 1827; the first volume of his Life of Cullen appeared in 1832, and the second completed by his son in 1859. Dr. Thomson died in 1846, at the advanced age of eighty-one.¹

¹ Memoir of Dr. Thomson, prefixed to second edition of _Life of Cullen_.

On the resignation of Professor Thomson, Dr. William Henderson was appointed to the chair of general pathology. In 1835‒37 he had published a series of papers on the “Diseases of the Heart and the Larger Blood-Vessels.” He was an expert stethoscopist, and used the microscope in pathological histology. Henderson, however, became heterodox, and embraced the homœopathic conception of medicine; and in 1845 published his Enquiry into the Homœopathic Practice of Medicine. He then commenced business as a homœopathic practitioner, and proposed to follow this theory in his clinical ward in the Infirmary. This caused a great stir among the Medical Faculty in the University and the College of Physicians. Henderson resigned his post as a clinical teacher of medicine; but continued his lectures in the chair of pathology. He obtained a large private practice, though several of his colleagues treated him bitterly. Owing to failing health, he resigned his chair in 1869; and died in 1872.

Dr. William R. Sanders was appointed to the chair of pathology in 1869. He had a high reputation as a physician, and a large consulting practice. He contributed a number of important papers to the Edinburgh Medical Journal; and had delivered lectures on the institutes of medicine in the extra-mural school. As professor of pathology, he introduced practical teaching, and trained the students to observe for themselves. The practical classes were instructed by Sanders’ assistant, Dr. Hamilton, and the teaching of pathology in Edinburgh was raised to a higher stage. Professor Sanders died in 1881, at the age of fifty-three.

Shortly after Dr. Thomson resigned the chair of military surgery, Dr. George Ballingall was appointed professor of the subject. He was born in 1780, a son of the minister of the parish of Forglen in Banffshire. At an early age he went through the arts course at the University of St. Andrews; and subsequently studied medicine at Edinburgh, graduating as M.D. in 1803. In 1806 he entered the army as an assistant-surgeon, and saw service in India and other countries. He was at the capture of Java in 1811; and in 1815 he was with the army of occupation at Paris. He retired on half-pay in 1818, and commenced practice in Edinburgh. In 1823 he was appointed to the vacant chair of military surgery. After the accession of William IV., he received the honour of knighthood, and became Sir George Ballingall; he was surgeon to the Queen in Scotland, and had other honorary titles. He was an able professor, well informed, an excellent expositor, and a favourite with the students. He was the author of the following works:――A Treatise on Fever, Dysentery, and Liver Complaints; Introductory Lectures to a Course of Medical Surgery; and A Treatise on Military Surgery. He died in 1856. The chair of military surgery was then removed from Edinburgh.

Dr. William P. Alison was a son of the Rev. A. Alison, the author of the Essay on Taste, mentioned in a preceding chapter. He was educated in the University of Edinburgh, and was a great admirer of the writings of Dugald Stewart. He was appointed professor of the institutes of medicine in 1821; and he discharged the functions of this chair till 1842. In 1831, he published his Outlines of Physiology, and in 1833, Outlines of Physiology and Pathology. He was a successful teacher. In 1842, he was appointed to the chair of the practice of physics, and shortly after he published his Outlines of Pathology and Practice of Medicine. He took a keen interest in the condition of the poor in Scotland; and in 1840, he published his Observations on the Management of the Poor. He advocated the introduction of a systematic poor-law act for the relief of the destitute. He was a kind, generous, and sympathetic gentleman, and devoted much of his means to charitable objects. His health failed and he resigned his chair in 1855, and died in 1859.

James Syme¹ was educated in the High School and the University of Edinburgh, and became assistant and demonstrator to Barclay, the extra-mural lecturer on anatomy. Afterwards he specially directed his attention to surgery, and studied for a year in Paris, practising surgical operations under Lisfranc. He returned to Edinburgh, and opened an extra-mural class in surgery, and his abilities and ♦perseverance soon commanded success. In 1833, he became professor of clinical surgery in the University, and introduced a better method of instructing the students in the principles of treatment. He was a successful teacher, and attained a reputation as an operator. His chief work is his Principles of Surgery, which appeared in 1833; while he wrote upwards of two hundred papers on various points connected with his subject. He died in 1870, having held the chair for thirty-six years. His successor, Joseph Lister, introduced the antiseptic system.

¹ Born in 1799; died in 1870.

♦ “perseverence” replaced with “perseverance”

Dr. Alexander Hamilton was professor of midwifery from 1780 to 1800. He was the author of several treatises on Midwifery and the Management of Female Complaints, which were translated into German. He was succeeded in the chair by his son, Dr. James Hamilton, who was a man of great energy, and an excellent professor. He had great experience and a vast store of information, thus his means for teaching were ample, and his class was well attended by students. In 1839 his work entitled Practical Observations appeared, which was recognised as an important book. He died in November 1839.

James Y. Simpson, the distinguished introducer of chloroform, was born at Bathgate, the youngest son of a small tradesman. It was resolved to give him a better education than the rest of the family. He entered the University of Edinburgh at the age of fourteen, and obtained a small bursary, attended the greater part of the arts course and the medical classes, passed the examination of the College of Surgeons in his nineteenth year, in 1830, and received his degree in medicine in 1832. Dr. Thomson, the professor of pathology, then appointed Simpson as his assistant; and on Thomson’s advice he afterwards directed special attention to midwifery. In 1838, he became a lecturer on midwifery in the extra-mural school; and in 1840, was elected professor of midwifery in the University of Edinburgh.

Simpson was in every respect a successful and enthusiastic professor, and many of those who attended his class have risen to distinction. He first tried the effect of chloroform by inhalation in 1847. Shortly afterwards operations were performed under chloroform in the Infirmary of Edinburgh; and it soon came into general use. But Dr. Duncan, in a short treatise entitled On the Mortality of Childbed, 1870, argues against its use in childbed, except in extreme or particular cases; and he struggles hard to make out a case against Simpson’s view of its application in this connection, but notwithstanding a parade of statistics his arguments are not conclusive.

He obtained a large private practice, and throughout his career he was incessantly occupied. Still he sometimes worked to good purpose outside of his profession. Archæology was a favourite subject of his, and his essays and papers in this department of research are admirable specimens of workmanship and style. He was knighted in 1866, and received honorary titles from Academies and Societies from the four quarters of the globe. After a short illness, he died in 1870, having occupied the chair of midwifery for a period of thirty years. He shed new lustre on the University of Edinburgh, and conferred a blessing upon the human race.

Robert Christison was appointed Professor of Medical Jurisprudence in 1821, and he has himself recorded that he was so ashamed of his first course of lectures that he destroyed them. He held this Chair twelve years, and, in 1832, was elected to the Chair of Materia Medica. Christison became an able and successful teacher, and altogether he was a Professor in the University for fifty-five years. He died in 1882. In 1829, his valuable Treatise on Poisons appeared; his Dispensatory was published in 1842, and he prepared the last edition of the Edinburgh Pharmacopœia. He is also the author of many papers on medical subjects.

There were other professors of the medical school of Edinburgh, whom I should have been happy to notice, but space is limited, and I can only add that the great reputation which this school has so long enjoyed is likely not only to continue to be maintained, but also to rise still higher as time rolls on. The number of students in the faculty has been rising from year to year, and in the session of 1885‒86 the number of matriculated students in the faculty of medicine was 1635.

In the preceding volumes some account was given of the University of Glasgow. It has passed through many vicissitudes. At the Reformation it was nearly extinguished, and after the Restoration it suffered so much for want of funds that three out of its eight Chairs had to be given up, and no relief came till after the Revolution of 1688.

At the opening of the second quarter of the eighteenth century the medical faculty of this University consisted of the following Chairs:――(1) Anatomy, founded in 1718, with which Botany was at first associated; (2) Practice of Medicine, revived in 1712. But even with its two Chairs several of the most distinguished physicians and surgeons of the eighteenth century received the elements of their medical instruction in this University, and they have left memorable evidence of their gratitude for the early instruction which they had there received. After maturing his medical knowledge and gaining experience, Cullen returned to Glasgow in 1744, and by the exercise of his great talents and the force of genius led to the establishment of the Chair of Chemistry, and to the creation of lectureships in several other branches of medical science; while by his noble efforts, well seconded by his colleagues, in a comparatively short time he raised the standard and established the reputation of the medical school of Glasgow. Dr. William Hunter, after a distinguished and honourable career in London, bequeathed his museum, books, and manuscripts to his Alma Mater. In a word, from the middle of the eighteenth century the medical school of Glasgow has continued to advance.

In the present century, the following chairs in this faculty have been instituted:――(1) Natural History, in 1807; (2) Surgery, in 1815; (3) Midwifery, in 1815; (4) Botany, in 1818; (5) Materia Medica, in 1831; (6) Physiology, in 1839; (7) Forensic Medicine, in 1839; (8) Clinical Surgery, in 1874; (9) Clinical Medicine, in 1874. Thus the faculty of medicine in the University of Glasgow now consists of twelve Chairs and a Lectureship on Diseases of the Eye.

But in this great city, medical science is also successfully taught by a body of extra-mural lecturers. Those in Glasgow whose lectures have been recognised by the University Court of the University of Glasgow, for the purpose of graduating in medicine, are twenty-six in number; and these twenty-six gentlemen lecture on all branches of medical science, and many of them are highly distinguished teachers.

Before the middle of the present century measures were taken for the removal of the University to more extended buildings, and for this purpose the lands of Gilmorehill were secured――a fine elevated space of ground in the western part of the city. The new buildings were designed by the late Sir G. Gilbert Scott; and on the 8th of October, 1868, the foundation stone of these buildings on the Gilmorehill was laid by the Prince of Wales amidst manifestations of joy and rejoicing. They were opened for the classes in 1870.¹ These buildings have an imposing appearance to the eye; but the interior accommodation, and also the workmanship, are far superior to what one would imagine by simply looking at the outside of the buildings. The principal and a number of the professors have residences within the buildings; while each faculty has a special or main division of the buildings for itself, with splendid class-rooms and every other requisite of accommodation for effective teaching. The large room for holding examinations, the Senatus meeting-room, and the chapel are all that could be desired. The space of the buildings in which the large and valuable library is located has been calculated to be sufficient to hold the annually increasing number of volumes for many generations to come. The large, interesting, and valuable Hunterian Museum occupies the north side of the eastern quadrangle, and consists of two halls, the upper one being galleried; and it has been intimated that “visitors desirous of consulting in the Museum should, if possible, arrange to come between 2 and 4 P.M. Numismatists desirous of consulting the cabinet of medals should communicate with the keeper a few days before the date of their proposed visit.”

¹ The tower, however, for want of funds was not finished at first; but it was completed in 1888 by the Marquess of Bute, K.T., and is one of the highest towers in the kingdom.

The foundation-stone of the Glasgow Royal Infirmary was laid on the 18th of May, 1792,¹ and it was opened for the reception of patients in 1794. Clinical lectures are given in it by the surgeons and physicians. Shortly after the opening of the New University buildings, the Western Infirmary was erected, a large building measuring 500 feet by 240. It is situated in a fine, airy and open locality, and it has been authoritatively declared to be one of the best establishments of the kind in Britain. It contains 400 beds for medical and surgical patients, including wards for skin diseases, and one for diseases peculiar to females; it has also a full staff of physicians and surgeons. Several courses of clinical instruction are given. There are also in Glasgow an Eye Infirmary; Dispensaries for Diseases of the Skin and Ear; and in the Royal Lunatic Asylum, at Gartnavel, clinical instruction on insanity is given.

¹ On occasion of laying the foundation, a religious service was held in St. Andrews Church, at the close of which a hymn written for the occasion was sung, and concluded thus:――

“Then let us join with heart and hand, To raise this glory of our land, Which shall to latest times declare, To ease the wretched was our care.”

In short, Glasgow possesses all the requisites of a great medical school in an ample degree. In the session of 1884‒85, the number of matriculated students in the faculty of medicine was 679; and with its many and invaluable advantages, this school should have a great and beneficent career before it.

The medical school of Aberdeen is a recent development. At the opening of the present century there was one professor of medicine in King’s College, and in Marischal College there was one professor of medicine and a professor of chemistry. A chair of anatomy was instituted in 1839, and a chair of surgery the same year; and a chair of medical jurisprudence was established in 1857. In short, the late Dr. Pirrie, the first professor of surgery, the late Dr. Macrobin, Dr. Dyce, and Dr. Francis Ogston, were the founders of the Aberdeen medical school, as they first gave it a reputation in the second quarter of this century.

But it may be said that it was not till after the union of King’s College and Marischal College, which was completed in 1860, that there was a well constituted and organised medical school in Aberdeen. After the union of the Colleges, the buildings of Marischal College were assigned to the classes of the medical faculty and the faculty of law; and though the accommodation for the medical classes was then more than sufficient, owing to the greatly increased number of students attending these classes in recent years, it has now become quite inadequate, and several of the professors experience difficulty in conducting their classes within the existing apartments.

Since this was written, a movement for the extension of Marischal College buildings has assumed a practical form. A plan of new buildings has been sanctioned, consisting of new class-rooms――embraced in the north and south wings of the extension scheme, a grand new graduation hall, heightening of the central tower, and other extensions. A large part of these has been erected.

The hall and the tower are characteristic parts of the new buildings. The most attractive feature of the hall is the fine memorial window in its east end, which is 32 feet in height and 28 feet in breadth. It is designed to illustrate the history of the College by a series of finely coloured heraldic and portrait representations. There are four tiers of panels in it, which are beautifully embellished with the armorial bearings of George Keith, fifth Earl of Marischal, the founder of the College; the armorial bearings of eleven Chancellors of the College; those of thirty benefactors of the College; and the portraits of a number of the distinguished alumni of the College and University. There are other ten windows in the hall――five on each side, which are decorated with various coloured emblems in a fine symmetrical style. The hall is a magnificent structure.

The tower is 248 feet in height. It is in clustered style, well formed, proportionate, and attractive to the eye. The tower and the hall were gifts to the University from the late Dr. Charles Mitchell, Newcastle-on-Tyne, who in all gave £32,000 to the University extension scheme.

At the date of the union of the Colleges four new chairs were established, namely, the chair of institutes of medicine or physiology, the chair of materia medica, the chair of midwifery, and the chair of botany; while the chair of natural history was also renewed. A chair of pathology was founded by Sir Erasmus Wilson in 1882. Altogether there are eleven chairs in the medical faculty of Aberdeen.

Courses of lectures and practical instruction are regularly given by the medical staff of the Royal Infirmary, and other institutions, on the following branches: clinical medicine, clinical surgery, pathological demonstrations, diseases of the skin, diseases of the ear and larynx, dental surgery, the eye and practical ophthalmology, sanitary science, and, finally, insanity.

The body of professors in the medical faculty of the University are able instructors; while the staff of the Royal Infirmary are well qualified and careful teachers of the special branches which they profess. The result is, that within the last thirty-five years the standard and reputation of the Aberdeen medical school has risen rapidly; and it has sent out a large number of admirably qualified graduates, many of whom have taken a front rank among the eminent physicians and surgeons of the time.

Dr. Pirrie was a native of the parish of Gartly, in Aberdeenshire, and was appointed professor of surgery in 1839. He was a successful teacher, a clear and careful expositor of the principles of surgery, and for many years one of the surgeons of the Royal Infirmary. He had the reputation of being an able operator. He is the author of an elaborate work entitled The Principles and Practice of Surgery, the third edition of which appeared in 1873, thoroughly revised and enlarged. The work extends to forty-six chapters, and the whole subject is ably treated in a plain, simple, and clear style. As a very short specimen, the following is from his chapter headed “Injuries of the Brain”――the special point being concussion of the brain:――

“Causes.――The injury which is termed by British authors concussion of the brain, by French commotion, and in common parlance stunning, is produced by one or other of the three following causes: a blow, or a fall on the cranium itself, or a fall from a considerable height on some other part of the body, as the buttocks, or the feet, by which a sudden shock is communicated to the brain, through the medium of the vertebral column. I lately had under my care a mason, in whose case there were strongly marked symptoms of concussion, caused by his falling from the second floor of a house on his buttocks; and I am at present attending to a female, who, in consequence of the horse becoming restive, jumped from the top of a cart loaded with hay, and alighted on her feet, sustained fracture of one leg and concussion of the brain. The spine in these circumstances is suddenly brought into a state of rest, and the head being still in projectile motion is forcibly struck against the summit of the vertebral column, the sudden jerk thus communicated to the brain occasions concussion.”

The late Dr. Keith was one of the most eminent practical surgeons and lithotomists of his time. He acted for many years as one of the surgeons of the Royal Infirmary. Dr. Kerr and Dr. Fiddes were also able surgeons.

Dr. Alexander J. Lizars was professor of anatomy from 1841 till his death in 1863. He is the author of a text-book entitled Elements of Anatomy, which evinces considerable powers of classification and exposition. The late Dr. Francis Ogston, the first professor of medical jurisprudence in this University, who delivered lectures for a quarter of a century, and retired from the chair in 1883, was a gentleman of vast experience and considerable culture. He published his lectures on medical jurisprudence in 1878, in two volumes; and they contain an able and remarkably clear exposition of the subject. The work has been recognised at home and abroad as a high authority.

In the preceding part of this chapter attention has been directed to those specially engaged in teaching medicine in Scotland, and although my space is almost exhausted, still some notice should be given of a few other Scotsmen who have attained distinction in this profession. Dr. James Douglas¹ was one of the earliest and most distinguished teachers of anatomy in Britain. After completing his studies, he settled in London as a teacher, and attained great success. In 1707, he published his Specimen of Comparative Anatomy, and it gave the most correct account of the muscles which had up to that time appeared. In 1715, his Specimen of Anatomical Bibliography was published, in which he gives an account of the various works on anatomy, with sketches of their authors; and in 1726, he published a treatise on lithotomy, under the title of A History of the Lateral Operation for the Stone. A second edition appeared in 1733, with an appendix presenting a comparative view of the methods of operating by different lithotomists, and especially that recommended by Cheselden.² Douglas also contributed a number of papers to the Royal Society, on the anatomy of some of the generative organs, and reports of various cases in surgery.

¹ Born in 1674; died in 1742.

² His brother, John Douglas, was surgeon to the Westminster Infirmary, and the author of several works. In 1736, he published _A Short Account of the state of Midwifery in London_, in which he severely criticised the works of Chamberlen and Chapman; and in another publication he derided the obstetric forceps invented by Smellie.

Dr. William Hunter was born on the 23rd of May, 1718, at Kilbride, in Lanarkshire. He was educated at the University of Glasgow, which he entered at the age of fourteen, and passed five years studying there. Afterwards he received assistance in the prosecution of his medical studies from Dr. Cullen at Hamilton, and in 1740, he attended the medical lectures in the University of Edinburgh. In the summer of 1741, he proceeded to London, and almost immediately began his great career as an assistant to Dr. Douglas; but Douglas died in 1742. Hunter continued his course, and attained distinction as a lecturer and a practising physician, gained wealth and honour, and collected his remarkable museum, which he finally bequeathed to the University of Glasgow.

Dr. William Hunter’s writings consist of a series of papers on several of the internal organs of the human body; a few of his introductory lectures on anatomy which he left fully written out; but his principal work is The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus, which appeared in 1775, and a more complete edition was issued by Dr. Baillie in 1794. As a teacher of anatomy he was deservedly celebrated. “He was a good orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught, he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology.... He had the talent of infusing much of his ardour into his pupils, and if anatomical knowledge is more diffused in this country than formerly, we are indebted for this, in a great measure, to his exertions.”¹ He died on the 30th March, 1783, in London.

¹ _Account of the Life and Writings of William Hunter, M.D., F.A.S., and S.A._, 1783.

William Cruickshanks, the son of an officer in the excise, was born at Edinburgh in 1745. He received the rudiments of his education at the schools of Edinburgh: and went through a complete course of medical study at the University of Glasgow. After devoting his attention for eight years to medical science, he proceeded to London and obtained the office of librarian to Dr. William Hunter. Shortly after Dr. Hunter appointed him as his assistant; and ultimately admitted him as a partner in superintending his establishment in Windmill Street. On the death of Dr. Hunter, the students of the school presented an address to Cruickshanks and Dr. Baillie, requesting that they might assume the superintendence of the school, which they did. ♦Cruickshanks’s work on The Anatomy of the absorbent vessels of the Human Body appeared in 1786, and it has been translated into several languages. He was also the author of a few other papers on points connected with his profession. He was an able anatomist, a skilful surgeon, and an exceedingly generous and benevolent man. He died in 1800.

♦ “Cruickshank’s” replaced with “Cruickshanks’s”

John Hunter, a younger brother of the above, was born at Long Calderwood, in the parish of Kilbride, Lanarkshire, on the 13th of February, 1728. In 1748, he joined his brother in London, and commenced to work in the dissecting-room, under the instruction of his brother’s assistant. In the summer of 1749, Dr. William Hunter obtained permission for his brother to attend at the Chelsea Hospital, under Cheselden, who was thus John Hunter’s first teacher in surgery. In 1751, he entered as a surgeon’s pupil at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, under Pott; in 1754, he entered St. George’s Hospital as a surgeon’s pupil; and two years later he served in the office of house-surgeon to this hospital. At this time he entered as a partner with his brother in the anatomical school, and a portion of the lectures was allotted to him; he had also to take his brother’s place when he was absent. From the year 1759 to 1763 he served as a staff-surgeon in the army.

He then settled down in London, prosecuted his researches in anatomy and physiology, and delivered lectures on anatomy and surgery. In 1776, Hunter was appointed surgeon-extraordinary to the King. After a life of incessant research, toil in lecturing, in private practice, and in collecting his museum, he died suddenly on the 16th of October, 1793. His life has been written by Ottley, from whom I shall give a few brief quotations:――“Boldness and independence in the pursuit of truth, one of the striking characteristics of Hunter’s mind, was well exhibited in his lectures. He attached no value to opinions, except they could be shown to be firmly based on fact. Fallacious reasoning he quickly saw through, and instantly demolished; while he was not more indulgent towards his own theories when he discovered them to be erroneous....

“In forming an estimate of Hunter’s professional character, and the influence which his labours have had on the improvement of surgery, we are not, as with ordinary minds, simply to enumerate the various practical amendments of which he was the immediate author. His claims are of a far higher nature; and inasmuch as he was the first who taught us to bring the lights of physiology to bear upon the practice of our art, and by his writings, his teaching, and his example stimulated the minds of numerous able followers to pursue the tract he had pointed out, he justly merits to be considered as the author of a new era in the history of our profession.

“In the character of a naturalist it is impossible for us to form a full estimate of Hunter’s labours, either from his published works or from his incomparable museum as it at present stands. In the course of the numberless dissections which he prosecuted during thirty years of unwearied diligence he necessarily made a great variety of isolated observations, which, though not immediately applicable to the objects he had in view, would doubtless have constituted important contributions to the general stock of knowledge in comparative anatomy. Such observations he always recorded carefully in appropriate volumes; but by Sir Everard Home’s extraordinary destruction of his manuscripts, science has been deprived of these fruits of his industry, of which scarcely the smallest portion now remains in existence. But even in such cases where the records of his researches have been preserved, either in the form of preparations or by means of drawings forming part of his museum, the want of descriptive catalogues has often caused them to be overlooked, whilst more modern naturalists have been reaping the honour of discoveries which were due in the first place to Hunter.

“Nevertheless, though we cannot estimate the full extent of his labours, enough remains to entitle him to a place in the highest rank as a natural philosopher.”¹

¹ Hunter’s Works, Volume I., pages 48, 135‒136.

A good edition of Hunter’s works, in four volumes, edited with notes by Mr. James F. Palmer, and illustrated by a volume of plates, in quarto, was published in 1835‒37. John Hunter was probably the greatest physiologist that Britain has produced, taking into account the extensive series of preparations contained in his museum and his writings. In reference to comparative anatomy Richard Owen said in 1837: “It appears to me that he marks a new epoch in its history, and that the historian of the natural sciences has just and sufficient grounds for regarding Hunter as the first of the moderns who treated of the organs of the animal body under their most general relations, and who pointed out the anatomical conditions which were characteristic of great groups or classes of animals; as one, in short, throughout whose works we meet with general propositions in comparative anatomy, the like of which exists not in the writing of any of his contemporaries or predecessors, save in those of Aristotle.”¹

¹ Preface to Hunter’s Treatise on the Animal Economy, Hunter’s Works, Volume IV., page 11.

In conclusion, the rise and progress of medical science in Scotland has been narrated in sufficient detail to indicate what she has contributed to this branch of knowledge; while the gradual development of the three centres or schools of medicine has been shown. The great work for medical science in the future will be sanitary progress and hospital organisation; in short, the exercise of medical knowledge and skill to prevent disease of every description.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter XLVI

_Progress of Education in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._

AN account of the rise and progress of primary education in Scotland, and of the act of the Scottish parliament of 1696, which enforced the parish school system, was given in the preceding volumes; and that system continued with little variation through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries till the introduction of the new Education Act in 1873, which placed the management and organisation of primary schools upon a different footing. There is little of national importance concerning the parish schools to record in the eighteenth century. But it should be specially observed, that even in the seventeenth century the general intelligence of the Scotch people was in advance of the surrounding conditions of their material civilisation; in other words, their moral and intellectual faculties were further developed and organised than their practical knowledge of the mechanical and industrial arts of life. This interesting social phenomenon became distinctly manifest before the end of the seventeenth century, as was shown in the last volume; and, by the middle of the eighteenth century, when the internal peace and order of the country became more assured, then the results of the previous moral and intellectual training of the nation appeared in every direction. Thus it was that Scotland started on a career of progress which has not only changed the face of the country, but also contributed to advance the industry of the civilised world, as has been indicated in this volume.

In the Highlands of Scotland, the old parish school system was ineffective, owing to various circumstances: (1). Some of the parishes were so large and the inhabitants so thinly spread over them that regular attendance at the school was impracticable; (2). No means were provided for teaching the Celtic boys and girls through their own language. Thus, when they entered the school, though they did not know a word of the English language, yet teachers of the schools usually spoke nothing but English, and taught from books entirely in English; so Highland boys had to learn a foreign language without the least assistance from their mother tongue. Efficient teaching by this method was out of the question.

In the burghs and towns much interest continued to be taken in the education of the young. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, in Glasgow, the children were usually sent to the English school at five or six years of age; at seven or eight they were sent to learn Latin in the Grammar School; and at eleven or twelve they were enrolled at the College.¹ In the schools of other towns the age at which children entered was about the same as above.

¹ Macgregor’s History of Glasgow, page 361.

The Government began to give annual grants in aid of education in 1834; the first grant amounted to £20,000, which continued till 1839, when the committee of the Privy Council on Education was instituted. Afterwards the annual grants were gradually increased; and from 1839 to the close of the year 1865, the total sum given to the primary schools of Scotland was £1,055,765, which was divided among the schools connected with the Established Church, with the Free Church, the Episcopal Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These grants were made conditional on a certain amount of local subscriptions being raised, and the operation of this was extremely unsatisfactory; for the localities most in need of assistance seldom got it――the crowded districts in large towns, and the thinly-peopled rural districts unable to raise the required quota of local funds, got none of the grant. The result was that those least in want of Government money got most of it, while those most in need of it rarely got any.

Shortly after Government grants began, Government Inspectors of Schools were introduced into Scotland. At first there were only a few, but they multiplied rapidly. In 1864 there were ten Government Inspectors of Schools; six for the schools connected with the Established Church, three for the Free Church schools, and one for the schools of the Episcopal Church. In 1867 they had increased to thirteen; but, since the introduction of the new Education Act in 1873, the institution of Government Inspectors has rapidly developed. In 1879, there were upwards of forty Inspectors of Schools in Scotland, while at present there are over one hundred on this side of the Tweed.

The Free Church, for many years after the Disruption, gave a marked impetus to the development of education in Scotland. From 1843 onwards for a quarter of a century, a large number of Free Church schools were erected throughout the country. In 1862, she had three hundred and seventy-seven certificated male teachers, one hundred and eleven certificated female teachers, five hundred and ninety-four male pupil teachers, and two hundred female; while at this date the number of teachers in the schools connected with the Established Church was six hundred and thirty-two certificated male teachers, two hundred and fifty certificated female teachers, eight hundred and ninety male pupil teachers, and three hundred and eighty-five female. In 1865, the number of male certificated teachers actually employed in teaching in the Free Church schools was four hundred and forty-two, and twenty-three assistant teachers, one hundred and forty-five certificated female teachers, three hundred and eighty-one male pupil teachers, and one hundred and seventy-two female. At the same time in the Church of Scotland schools there were eight hundred and forty male certificated teachers actually employed in teaching, three hundred and fifty-one certificated female teachers, seven hundred and twenty-seven male pupil teachers, and three hundred and fifty female. Moreover, the Free Church has erected normal schools and colleges of her own; and thus she has contributed to advance education in Scotland.

Since the introduction of the Education Act in 1873, many excellent new schools have been built throughout the country. The enforcement of the compulsory clause of the Act has been rendered more practicable since the abolition of fees in the primary schools. In recent years, also, there has been some improvement in the method of teaching. In the year 1893‒94, the money expended on education in Scotland amounted to one million and a half pounds, of which about one half came from the Imperial Exchequer, and the other from local rates.

Sabbath schools began to be formed in Scotland about the beginning of the present century, and within recent years they have been greatly developed. Each body of Christians has their own system or organisation of these schools, while there are a number of Sabbath schools in which all denominations are welcomed, and freely taught without distinction.

Reformatory schools began to be certified by Government in Scotland about the middle of the present century; and industrial and ragged schools began to be certified about the same period. Both classes of these have been established in the large towns of Scotland for a considerable number of years; as to whether they have answered the ends originally contemplated, is a much disputed point, on which I must refrain from entering.

In the last volume I explained the course of education taught in the grammar or burgh schools; and it continued with little variation through the greater part of the eighteenth century. The teaching of geography was introduced into those schools in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and the elements of mathematical science began to be generally taught about the middle of that century. In 1761, astronomy and several other branches of physical science were taught in the Grammar School of Ayr, and in Perth Academy.¹ There was also a drawing-master in Perth Academy in 1777, and French was likewise taught in Perth in 1769, Haddington in 1721, Stirling in 1755, Ayr in 1761, and in other towns. But English was not thoroughly taught as a special branch in the grammar schools till well through the present century.

¹ Burgh Records.

A very marked improvement has been effected in the teaching in grammar and secondary schools within a recent period. The course of instruction in these schools usually embraces the following branches: ――(1) Classics――Latin and Greek; (2) Arithmetic and Mathematics; (3) Science; (4) English, French, and German; (5) Vocal and Instrumental Music; (6) Writing and Drawing; (7) Elocution; while in some schools Phonography, Freehand and Technical Drawing, and Handicrafts are also taught. Many of the gentlemen at the head of these schools in Scotland are able and highly qualified instructors and organisers, and are well seconded by staffs of competent teachers.

There are also a number of schools and institutions specially employed in technical and art teaching. Knowledge and skill in these branches is becoming more necessary as civilisation advances; in order to hold our own we must make the utmost effort.

After the notices and references to the teaching and writings of many of the professors given in the preceding pages, it would be superfluous to enter into long details of the Universities themselves; and I shall only touch briefly on a few points.

A Royal Commission was issued for a visitation of the Universities and Colleges of Scotland in August, 1826, to which I referred in a preceding volume;¹ this commission continued its sittings and investigations till the 28th of October, 1830, when their report was finally revised and copies ordered to be printed. In the course of their inquiries they collected a vast mass of evidence which fills three very large volumes; and anyone who desires to have ample information about the Scotch Universities, from their foundation to 1830, should consult these volumes. In 1837, a bill was brought into parliament which proposed to appoint a board of visitors for each of the Universities of Scotland. These boards were to act as executive commissions to carry out, with modifications, the recommendations of the royal commission; they were to frame statutes and regulations, which, after receiving the sanction of the Privy Council, would then become law. But the proposal was vehemently opposed in Scotland, and the Government abandoned it.

¹ Mackintosh’s History of Civilisation in Scotland, Volume II., page 409.

In 1843, the Disruption of the Church came, and this event had a remarkable influence on the Scotch Universities. The Church of Scotland could no longer present a united front in her control of the Universities, and from that hour her hold upon them began to slacken. A movement for University reform was inaugurated; and, in 1853, a bill was passed in parliament which enabled Free Churchmen legally to hold chairs in the Scotch Universities. On the 22nd April, 1858, the Lord Advocate of Scotland brought before parliament a bill entitled, “An Act to make provision for the better government and discipline of the Universities, and improving and regulating the course of study therein, etc.”; this Act was passed on the 2nd of August. Its main provisions were the following:――

(1) The erection of a select body called the University Court, as one of the ruling bodies, for each University; (2) a parliamentary grant of £10,000 per annum, to increase the professors’ salaries and establish some new chairs; (3) to provide for assistant professors; (4) clauses providing for the amalgamation of the two Colleges of Aberdeen; (5) the creation of University councils. The first thirteen sections of the Act laid down the future constitution of the Universities of Scotland; and the fourteenth named and appointed an Executive Committee to carry the intention of the Act into effect, and to form ordinances for the regulation of the revenues, studies, degree systems, election of officers, and all other important points in the organisation of the four Universities. Their decisions were subject to the review of parliament and appeal to the Privy Council.

The commissioners held their first meeting on the 27th of August, 1858, and elected the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, Inglis, chairman of the commission. The commission continued in office for four years and some months; they held one hundred and twenty-six meetings, and framed ninety-two ordinances, very few of which were disallowed. It was under this Act and ordinances that the Scotch Universities were ruled; or, in other words, the Universities are mainly controlled by the University Court, the Senatus and General Council, under the ordinances then framed. The following is a part of the general report of the commission in reference to future alterations of ordinances:――“While providing means for altering the commissioners’ ordinances, where such alterations may be desirable, the Universities Act has been careful to interpose securities against rash change, by requiring the consent of the Chancellor and the Queen in Council. In this latter requirement the commissioners understand it to have been the intention of the legislature that the steps for effecting the alteration of an ordinance hereafter should be precisely similar to those which were necessary to its original sanction. It is obviously, they think, of importance that when any such alteration is proposed, the same publicity should be given, and equal opportunities for making objections to the proposed change afforded, as were required in passing the ordinance. In addition, however, to publishing any proposed change in the Edinburgh Gazette, and laying it before both Houses of Parliament, which would thus be necessary, the commissioners recommend that, before the decision of the Queen in Council is given, intimation should in every case be made to each of the Universities, so as to afford to any University which may consider itself interested in the change, an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon. It is by no means impossible, they think, that a proposed change, although nominally affecting one of the Universities only, may in reality be one in which all have an interest. Thus it has been an important object of the Universities Act, to which the commissioners were specially directed to have regard, that as far as possible the conditions under which degrees should be conferred should be uniform in all the Universities of Scotland. To the attainment of that object the commissioners used their best endeavours, and they think it would be unfortunate if, now that a power of initiating alterations of the ordinances is vested in each University court, that power should be so exercised as to introduce a divergence from the uniformity which, in a great measure, the commissioners have succeeded in establishing.”

Since this date a Royal Commission on the Scotch Universities took evidence, and framed a report, which contained various recommendations.

In 1889, Parliament passed “An Act for the better Administration and Endowment of the Universities of Scotland.” This act increased the number of the members of each of the courts of the Universities, and constituted them on a more popular basis. The powers of the court were also greatly extended, as the chief governing body in each University. The court was empowered to manage the whole property and administer the revenue of the University, to appoint professors to all the chairs in the patronage of the University, also lecturers and examiners; to review decisions of the Senatus Academicus; and to deal with all representations and reports from the Senatus and General Council.

This Act like the one of 1858, appointed an Executive Commission to carry out the intention of the Legislature. The commissioners have held many meetings, framed a considerable number of new ordinances, and are still proceeding with their work. An improvement in the administration of the Universities, better organisation, and the admission of important modern subjects in the courses of study, will widen the scope and tend to raise the standard and value of University education.

In connection with research, science, philosophy, art, and culture, libraries are ♦indispensable. Edinburgh has at least five valuable libraries――The Advocates’ Library, the University Library, the Writers to the Signet Library, the Library of the Royal Society, and a large free library. The Advocates’ Library is the largest in Scotland, and is one of the five libraries which receives a gratis copy of every book published in the United Kingdom. The Signet Library is also a large and valuable one, especially in the historical and record department. The University Library contains about 155,000 volumes and 1000 manuscripts, many of which are valuable and curious.

♦ “indispensible” replaced with “indispensable”

The Library of the University of Glasgow contains upwards of 172,000 volumes, and a number of manuscripts. About ten years ago the University acquired the library of the late Sir William Hamilton, which amounted to 8,000 volumes, including many treatises on logic and metaphysics. This library is especially rich in works on mining, engineering, music, and medicine.

The Stirling’s Library in Glasgow, established in 1790, contains upwards of 40,000 volumes; it has also a lending department and a reference department. It contains many valuable works, and a large number of patents. Another reference library in the same building, called the Library of Baillie’s Institution, was established in 1887 “in a hall reconstructed and fitted up for the purpose.” Through the kindness of Mr. Mason, the late librarian, I had the pleasure of seeing and inspecting this reference library, and I saw at once, in looking round the shelves, that the works had been selected with remarkable discrimination and judgment.

The Mitchell Library in Glasgow was opened in 1877. It is a reference, consulting, and reading library, not a lending one. It contains upwards of 72,000 volumes, representing all branches of literature and science. In the historical department it is very complete and valuable, especially in British history; science and art is also well represented. Its rare collection of Scottish poetry and editions of Burns, were already mentioned.

The Library of the University of Aberdeen contains about 94,000 volumes and a considerable number of manuscripts. There are besides, six special or class libraries for the use of students. The Society of Advocates in Aberdeen have a pretty large library, containing many valuable works.

Many towns in Scotland have adopted the Free Libraries Act, among which may be mentioned Dundee, 1869; Paisley, 1871; Galashiels, 1874; Hawick, 1878; Thurso, 1875; Forfar, 1870; Inverness, 1877; ♦Dumbarton, 1881; Dunfermline, 1882; and Aberdeen, 1884. The organisation and management of those libraries have already attained a remarkable degree of completeness, and much intelligence and skill have been brought to bear in forming the reference departments. There can be no doubt that they will prove a source of enjoyment and benefit to the people, by placing within the reach of every citizen the means of becoming acquainted with the thoughts and sentiments of the great minds of the past and present.

♦ “Dunbarton” replaced with “Dumbarton”

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter XLVII

_Progress of Agriculture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries._

IN the early part of the eighteenth century agriculture was in a wretchedly backward state. The whole area under cultivation was comparatively small; even in the Lothians and the southern counties of the kingdom, only patches of what was called “infield” were under tillage. Oats and barley were the chief crops; wheat as yet was little raised; clover and rye-grass, potatoes and turnips, were hardly then introduced. The use of manure was little understood; loads were mostly all carried on horseback, and there was no cattle-feeding as now understood. The whole of the agricultural and farming implements were of the most primitive and rude description. The ploughs were made of wood, and long after this period timber-ploughs were used in some parts of Scotland; in fact, I have seen them working. The plough-wright made the body of the implement; it was then sent to the smith, who fitted it with two or three pieces of iron. The farm-steadings were in general little better than a collection of huts.

James Meikle, a country wright of Wester Keith, having learned the art of winnowing corn with a machine, and of making barley with the use of a mill, in Holland, brought to Scotland a pair of fanners, and the iron work of a barley-mill. About the year 1720, the barley-mill and the winnowing machine were set up at Saltoun. But the people were slow in adopting these machines in farming work. Andrew Meikle, a son of James Meikle, was an ingenious mechanic; and he settled at Houston Mill, in East Lothian, where he carried on the several occupations of a small farmer, a miller, and a mill-wright. He directed his attention to the improvement of agricultural machinery, especially to that connected with the thrashing, winnowing, dressing, and grinding of grain. He often travelled through the counties of Edinburgh and Berwick to repair and fit up mills. But his most important achievement was the invention of the thrashing-machine. Many attempts had been made before his time to invent a machine for thrashing corn, but without effect. After many years of thinking and planning, Meikle at last succeeded in perfecting his thrashing-machine, to which he joined solid fluted feeding-rollers, and afterwards a machine for shaking the straw, fanners for winnowing the corn, and other improvements.

He erected his first thrashing machine on the new principle in 1787, for Mr. Stein of Kilbeggie, in the county of Clackmannan; but the novelty of the experiment, and the doubts of the efficacy of the machine, induced Mr. Stein to impose the condition that if it did not answer the intended purpose, Meikle was not to receive any payment for it. This thrashing-machine, which was driven by waterpower, proved highly satisfactory, and long continued in good working order. The second machine, which he erected the same year, was for Mr. Rennie, at Phantassie; and he had so perfected it that it could be driven by water, wind, or horses, and this one was worked by the latter power. In 1788, Meikle took out a patent for his invention; but it is sad to record that he did not reap those pecuniary advantages from his invention which a more bold and self-assertive man would have done. “Pirates fell upon him from all sides and deprived him of the fruits of his ingenuity, even denying him any originality whatever. Mr. Smeaton (the famous engineer) knew Meikle intimately, and frequently met him in consultation respecting the arrangements of the Dalry Mills, near Edinburgh, and other works; and he was accustomed to say of him, that if he had possessed but one-half the address of other people, he would have rivalled all his contemporaries, and stood forth as one of the first mechanical engineers in the kingdom.”¹

¹ Smiles’ Lives of the Engineers, Volume II., pages 105‒114.

The thrashing-machine was one of the greatest benefits ever conferred upon the husbandman: it effected a vast saving of corn and of labour. “It is calculated to have effected a saving, as compared with the flail, of one hundredth part of the whole corn thrashed, or equal to a value of not less than two millions sterling, in Great Britain alone.” Within twenty years after the date of Meikle’s patent, upwards of three hundred thrashing-mills were erected in East Lothian alone, at an estimated cost of about forty thousand pounds; and soon after, it was generally adopted in England and throughout the civilised world.

Meikle also introduced improvements in working the sails of windmills, and important improvements in water-wheels, which on one occasion proved effectual in carrying out a remarkable undertaking in Perthshire. This was the washing away into the river Forth of about two thousand acres of peat moss, and thus laying bare an equal surface of arable land. The moss of Kincardine was a level swamp of about four miles long and two broad; the moss was seven feet in depth upon a bottom of clay, and lay between the rivers Forth and Teith. In 1766, Lord Kames came into possession of the Blair-Drummond estate, to which this moss belonged, and he resolved if possible to improve it. His plan was to wash away the entire moss into the Forth, and to effect this the water of the Teith was used; accordingly, the stream was turned in upon the moss and men employed to cut the stuff for the current to carry away. But the process was rather slow, and when his lordship died in 1783, a thousand acres still remained, which his son, Mr. Home Drummond, determined to remove by a more rapid process. He consulted several engineers, and Mr. Whitworth recommended a plan; but George Meikle, a millwright at Alloa, the son of Andrew, proposed another, the invention of his father; and Whitworth at once acknowledged its superiority to his own, and urged Mr. Drummond to adopt it. “The invention consisted of a newly-contrived wheel, twenty-eight feet in diameter and ten feet broad, for raising water in a simple, economical, and powerful manner, at the rate of from forty to sixty hogsheads a minute; and it was necessary so to raise it about seventeen feet, in order to reach the higher parts of the land. The machinery on being erected was set to work, and with such good results that in the course of a very few years the four miles of barren moss were completely washed away, and the district was shortly after covered with thriving farmsteads, as it remains to this day.”¹

¹ Tytler’s Life of Lord Kames, Volume II., pages 27‒30; Smiles’ Lives of the Engineers, Volume II., pages 115‒116. Andrew Meikle was the first master who trained John Rennie, the well-known Scotch engineer.

Other requisite agricultural implements were gradually improved and adopted. In the department of ploughs and other implements used in land tillage, the Sellars of Huntly, in Aberdeenshire, were among the first in Scotland who made and introduced an effective and superior class of such implements, which have contributed much to the improvement of the tillage of the soil in the present century. The ploughs of this firm (the drill-plough) effected a saving of labour, and their single-furrow ploughs when worked by capable men produced a quality of work as yet unsurpassed in any quarter of the globe.

In the present century all kinds of agricultural implements have been brought to great perfection; and within my own recollection a revolution has been effected in agricultural machines. The water and horse-power thrashing-mills were a great improvement, and in the early part of this century a vast number of them were erected throughout the north and west of Scotland. Now there are not only stationary thrashing-mills driven by steam, but also locomotive steam thrashing-machines which can travel from end to end of the country, and operate wherever they are required. While, instead of sowing grain and other seeds with the hand, there are now various kinds of sowing-machines; and instead of cutting with the hand-hook or scythe as of old, there are cutting-machines and reaping-machines in endless variety. Instead of the wooden plough, with its point of iron, which only scratched the soil, although it was drawn by twelve oxen, there are many kinds of iron ploughs drawn by horses, and also steam ploughs. Such contrasts show the advance which has been attained.

The enclosing of waste lands for pasture was begun in the district of Galloway about 1720, by the cattle-dealers, who bought and pastured live stock which they drove to the English markets. In course of time their example was followed by some of the landholders in different parts of the country. The Earl of Haddington, Cockburn of Ormiston in East Lothian, the Earls of Stair and Eglinton in Ayrshire, and others became improvers of husbandry upon their estates. In 1733, they formed the plan of a Society for the Encouragement of Agriculture, and in a short time three hundred of the principal landowners in Scotland joined it. This society continued in vigour for twenty years, and contributed to diffuse a spirit of improvement over a considerable part of the country.¹ It is reported that Cockburn was among the first landlords in Scotland who granted nineteen years’ leases to their tenants.

¹ “Infinite good was done by this society to their country, particularly by receiving memorials, and answering queries, concerning husbandry and manufactures; by their proposals relative to the public funds, drawn up by a committee of their number; by their application to the royal burghs for their concurrence; by their joint application to parliament; by the acts in consequence of that application, and by the king’s patent following thereon, naming trustees for the fisheries and manufactures, almost all chosen out of this society. Before this society commenced, we seemed to have been several centuries behind our neighbours in England; now, I hope we are within less than one of what they are, either with regard to husbandry or manufactures.” Maxwell’s Practical Husbandry; Edinburgh, 1757. The appointment of the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Fisheries, Arts and Manufactures, spoken of in the quotation, arose from the Treaty of Union. In the 15th article it was stipulated that a sum of money, termed the equivalent, should be paid by England, and applied to public purposes in Scotland; thus the duties of the Board were to administer this fund.

At this time, however, a large part of the land in the best parts of the country was occupied by a number of small holders who shared the ground among them by alternate ridges; this custom of run-ridge possession was inconsistent with good farming, and retarded improvement. As clearer and wiser ideas of agriculture were gradually formed, this system decayed and died out, excepting in some remote parts of the Highlands, where it was practised till recently.

After the battle of Culloden, the forfeited estates were placed under the management of a Board of Commissioners, of whom Lord Kames was one; and his duty as a member of this Board gave him an opportunity of considering plans for the improvement of those large domains, of which they had the charge for the public benefit. The first step was to obtain a correct report of the actual position of those estates, the soils of the different farms, the modes of culture in use, the crops usually raised, the manures used, the prices of labour and provisions, and, in general, every kind of information which might tend to suggest the best modes of improving the lands. Mr. Andrew Wight of Ormiston, an active and intelligent man, was proposed by Lord Kames, and appointed by the Board to proceed under a set of instructions and make a survey. His reports were issued in 1773 and 1774, and they were deemed so satisfactory that the Commissioners adopted from them a number of wise regulations for the management of those estates, and carried out the most effective improvements of the lands.¹ With the view of extending those advantages to the whole country, they engaged Wight to continue his surveys and to draw up similar reports of the actual state of agriculture in every quarter of Scotland. The result was, the collection of a vast body of useful information, which was printed in six volumes, from 1778 to 1784, and contributed much to raise the spirit of improvement, which from this date has been continually progressive――insomuch that before the end of the century the state of agriculture in the Lowlands was completely changed, and the face of the country had assumed a new aspect.

¹ This Board was of course superseded when the forfeited estates were restored in 1784.

But in the Highlands and Islands the changes which were effected with regard to the relation of the people to the land, in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this one, were of a questionable and less beneficial character; but I have elsewhere discussed this part of the subject, and deem it unnecessary to enlarge on it here.¹

¹ Celtic Magazine for January, 1887.

The Society for the Encouragement of Agriculture in Scotland, formed in 1733, referred to in a preceding page, was the first Society of the kind in Britain. The Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland was instituted in 1784, and established by Royal Charter in 1887. It has thus had a continuous life of one hundred and twelve years; and has directed attention to the important matters of breeding cattle and horses, and stimulated the improvement of agriculture in many ways.¹ In the present century, agricultural societies and associations have been formed in every county and district in Scotland, and have attained a high stage of development. Their chief object is the improvement of live stock of every description, and also the improvement of all kinds of cereals which may be advantageously cultivated on farms, and all kinds of vegetables useful and profitable for animal and human food. That these societies have done incalculable good, and contributed greatly to the progress of civilisation in Scotland, cannot be questioned; because they have been instrumental in improving the quality and increasing the quantity of the prime necessaries of existence.

¹ The history of this society has been admirably written by Dr. Ramsay, the editor of the Banffshire Journal, in a work which was published in 1879.

In the present century one of the most remarkable changes in agriculture has been the extension of the cultivation of turnips. Prior to this century they were but little cultivated in Scotland: but when the modern method of feeding cattle for sale in the great centres of population began to be developed, it became necessary to put a larger portion of the cultivated land of the country annually under this crop. In the north-eastern counties of Scotland the most common modes of rotation of crops on farms are these:――(1) The farm is divided into five shifts or divisions, one of which is under turnips, excepting a small proportion of it usually under potatoes; (2) two out of the five divisions are under grain crops; and (3) the remaining two are under grass. Under this mode of farming there is always nearly one-fifth of the entire extent of the farm under turnips. Again: (1) The farm is divided into seven shifts, one of which is under turnips, excepting the small fraction under potatoes; (2) three out of the seven equal divisions of the farm are under grain crops; and (3) the remaining three are under grass. Under this mode of rotation a seventh part of the farm is always under turnips. I have seen farms worked under six shifts, but this mode is not common in Scotland. The common grain crops are oats, barley and wheat.

Breeding, rearing, and feeding cattle have attained a high degree of development within the present century in Scotland. As a consequence of this the rent of cultivated land has also risen greatly; and I may repeat what I stated elsewhere not ten years ago:――“The sharpest period of competition in farm-letting was during the second and third quarters of the present century. From about 1830 to 1876 the rent of agricultural land in Scotland rose at least from 30 to 40 per cent., and there were several causes which enabled farmers for a time to pay this rise of rents:――(1) There was a marked change and improvement in the modes of culture; (2) there was a notable change in the system of feeding cattle, and an immense increase in the number of cattle thus fed; (3) greater attention and care were paid to the important matter of breeding; (4) there was an almost continuous rise in the price of fat cattle during this period. Thus it was, and especially owing to the latter cause, that farmers were able to pay such high rents.

“This period was also one of great commercial activity and prosperity, unapproached before in the annals of Scotland. But this brought outsiders into the number of those competing for farms; as many men who had made fortunes in trade and commerce desired to have farms, and offered high rents――often more than they were worth. This for a time tended to raise rents still higher. But eighteen years ago it became manifest that the rents of land in Scotland were too high, for the price of fat cattle had fallen about 15 shillings per hundredweight, which represents a sum of from £6 to £7 per head on ordinary fat cattle. This fall in the price of fat cattle is mainly owing to two causes:――(1) To the long-continued depression of trade throughout the civilised world; (2) to the importation of preserved meat and live stock, chiefly from America. Thus it has happened that at the present time many of the farmers in Scotland cannot continue to pay the rents which they may have contracted to do before the fall in the price of fat cattle.”

Thus far I have indicated the improvement and progress of agriculture in Scotland, and pointed out its prime and fundamental importance in relation to the advancement of civilisation. I have also indicated the real state of the question of land rents as it at present stands in Scotland.

In conclusion, it may be remarked that in the early part of the eighteenth century the common wage of day labourers was fivepence a day in winter and sixpence in summer. And within my own recollection, the most capable farm-servant acting as foreman only received six pounds of wages for the half year, and second and third class men five and four pounds, youths from two to three pounds, and boys from one pound to two pounds according to their strength and appearance. In regard to the quality of food there was not much difference between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so far as farm-servants were concerned.

In the present century horticulture began to receive more attention, and within the last sixty years it has attained a considerable development. Horticultural societies began to be formed in the first quarter of the century, and such societies now exist all over the country, and form a source of enjoyment to a large number of people.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us