_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.