SUPPLY—REPORT. (Hansard, 17 December 1888)

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
asked the Lord Advocate the reason why a new Procurator Fiscal had been appointed to Caithness at a lower salary than his predecessor; and would he be permitted private practice? He understood it was the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Procurators Fiscal should not have private practice.

§ THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON) (Bute)
said, if the hon. Member would give Notice he would supply the information.

§ DR. CLARK
said, he referred to Caithness, not Orkney.

§ DR. CLARK
asked the Lord Advocate, if he would give consideration to the case of the unfortunate policeman, who being sent on duty from Tobermory to Tiree, there caught bronchitis and was dismissed the force, the authorities refusing to pay the doctor's bill. He 611 hoped for the sake of a miserable £5 this man would not be treated so harshly.

§ MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON
said, the hon. Member could hardly expect him to be prepared to go into the case of every policeman whose expenses might be concerned with this Vote. Application should be made to the Local Authorities, who had charge of such matters. If it came before the Secretary for Scotland it would receive due attention; but he was not aware that it had been brought under notice with any degree of precision to make it necessary that he should inform himself of the circumstances.

§ MR. HALDANE (Haddington)
said, he regretted that it should be his duty, at such a late hour to call attention to a matter of a disagreeable and painful nature. That duty he would discharge as briefly as possible. He had to challenge the Vote for the salary of the Professor of the Institutes of Medicine in the University of Edinburgh, and he challenged it on the ground, firstly, that the Professor, under unfortunate circumstances, had, by his conduct, made it impossible that discipline could be adequately maintained amongst the students, and, secondly, that the Court of the University had come under the imputation of having failed to discharge its duty to the public in continuing the Professor in his position under the circumstances he was about to detail. In the autumn of 1886, Professor Rutherford had for assistant Dr. Herbert Ashdown, a gentleman of considerable scientific reputation. It appeared from the evidence subsequently taken, that in the autumn of the year mentioned Dr. Rutherford had fallen into ill-health, and certainly became subject to the most extraordinary delusions, and among those delusions was this, that he took it into his head that a large body of his students were indulging in practices of making obscene and abominable gestures and were guilty of conduct utterly in- 612 compatible with anything like decency, and, eventually, he called Dr. Ashdown into his private room and imputed to him what, if true, might have brought him within the Criminal Law of the land, and certainly would have rendered him unfit to associate with his fellow men. Dr. Ashdown indignantly denied the charge, but, made with great detail, it was repeated to other persons, and thereupon Dr. Ashdown resigned his position as assistant to Dr. Rutherford, and complained to the Senatus, who saw fit to decline an inquiry into it. Dr. Ashdown then applied to the University Court, which, under the present constitution, was largely composed of the Professor's colleagues—though if the Government Bill passed it would, he hoped, be different. The Court, in turn, did not see fit to take action. Dr. Rutherford, however, applied for and obtained leave of absence for six months. It was impossible for Dr. Ashdown, under the circumstances, which became bruited abroad, to remain patient under the foul imputation upon his character, and, consequently, he instructed his solicitor to take proceedings against Dr. Rutherford in order to clear his character. Thereupon Dr. Rutherford made an apology in writing which, if he had adhered to it, would, so far, have cleared Dr. Ashdown personally, for he said he imputed nothing to Dr. Ashdown, and regretted the statement he had made. But towards the end of January, 1887, Dr. Rutherford in his class, in effect, retracted the apology, and Dr. Ashdown found it necessary, under the circumstances, to publish the apology to vindicate himself in Edinburgh and other towns. Dr. Rutherford had thought fit to express to his class his belief that he made a mistake in putting forward the statements in the apology, and to say that if the circumstances were only known, there would be great sympathy with him. Consequently Dr. Ashdown, when Dr. Rutherford returned, felt it necessary to appeal again to the University Court. He wrote a letter in which he said it was a disgrace to the University that such vicious practices and ideas should be promulgated in the University, and allowed to go on unchecked. Thereupon the University Court instituted an inquiry and took evidence. Professor Rutherford was re- 613 presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Elgin, and Dr. Ashdown by the right hon. and learned Member for Clackmannan. The Court was composed of the Solicitor General and another well-known member of the Legal Profession, one layman, two Professors, and the Principal. Evidence was taken, and it appeared that these charges and insinuations had been made not only against Dr. Ashdown but against students in the class as well. These facts were not controverted in the evidence. Professor Rutherford appeared to have an idea there was a conspiracy among his students. One person he had called up and accused in the most circumstantial manner of conduct that could not be spoken of in detail. Professor Rutherford admitted that he had in his mind certain ideas and interpretations of the gestures; but he alleged—and this was the only point on which there was a conflict of testimony—that he had no intention of imputing to the persons charged that they had indulged in those practices. Professor Rutherford called medical evidence, and this showed that in April, 1866, his mind was excited by reading books of a peculiar character. It appeared that in 1886 was not the first occasion on which he had made charges of the kind; he had previously made charges of a similar character against an assistant named Stockman, who threatened to knock him down if he repeated them. Of course it was well to express sympathy for a man labouring under temporary insanity, as Professor Rutherford was, and he should be the last to press harshly against a distinguished man of science labouring under such a misfortune, but clearly it was the duty of the Court to have regard, in the first place, to the interests of the University, and, if necessary, to treat Professor Rutherford as an invalid, and to recognize the fact that it was impossible for him, after all that had transpired, in future to maintain the discipline of his class. He should have been allowed to retire upon a pension, and had that course been followed there would have been no further ground of complaint. But instead of that the Court saw fit to begin its judgment by an attack on Dr. Ashdown for the terms of the letter referred to, and it then proceeded, after declaring Dr. 614 Ashdown blameless, to state the circumstances and found Professor Rutherford had acted as described, and wound up by saying that now the Professor was restored to health sufficiently to resume his duties. In that finding of the Court there had been no sufficient regard to the public interest. It would be interesting to know whether there was a division of opinion in the University Court, and if the Solicitor General and the other legal member of the Court took a view not expressed by the Court finally. He might be wrong in suggesting that, for he only spoke from rumour. The result was that since Professor Rutherford had been reinstated, if certain statements in the newspapers were well founded, there had been an end of discipline. Scotch newspapers had commented freely, and The Scotsman, in a recent article, questioned if any prudent father would care to trust his son to Professor Rutherford's class, owing to the teacher being subject to such extraordinary delusions. He regretted to have to say anything derogatory of the University of which he was a member, but he conceived he had discharged a duty in bringing this matter before the House, and he did so in order to bring pressure to bear, and to call attention to a state of things which was nothing short of a public scandal.

§ DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)
said, he had considerable hesitation in taking up the time of the House, but the subject had a painful personal interest to himself. Professor Ruther ford was an old friend of his, he had known him from the beginning of his professional career, and he had watched the success of that career with the greatest interest. It was with the deepest pain he had heard of the occurrences that had been put before the House. He did not deny them, he would not attempt to; but the line he took was different entirely to that of his hon. Friend. Professor Rutherford's mind was unhinged temporarily by hard labour, and while in this condition he committed the unfortunate acts and said the unfortunate things of which the House had heard. After that Professor Rutherford took a long leave of absence, but he came back perfectly restored in health. He had seen his friend since, 615 and had passed some time with him, and should say his mental abilities were entirely restored. He should regard him as having passed through a severe illness. A relapse was of course possible in this as in any other case, but it was improbable, and should it occur, of course the case would be dealt with. His (Dr. Farquharson's) information was entirely different from that of the hon. Member, and he could quote a better authority than The Scotsman. He had been in communication with the authorities at the University, anxious to obtain the most reliable information, and he was assured that since his return Professor Rutherford had discharged his duties with all his old ability. Having the services of a man of such exceptional distinction, the University did well to retain them. He would be a severe loss to the University, the authorities there being naturally desirous to keep up their teaching to the highest point of efficiency. He recommended that this matter should now be allowed to drop. The University might be safely allowed to manage its own affairs.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)
said, he should add very little to what had been said, and only desired to speak because personal reference had been made to himself. He was a member of the Court which investigated and decided upon this unfortunate case, and he desired to say, in the most distinct and unequivocal manner, that the decision of the Court was unanimous. They came to that decision after the most careful inquiry, conducted, as the hon. Member had said, with the aid of some of the most eminent counsel at the Scottish Bar, with the single desire to do justice to the Professor, to Dr. Ashdown, as a distinguished student and assistant, and, above all, to the University. The facts were as the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Haldane) had sketched, and all he need say about them was that while the Professor's mind was clouded by his unfortunate illness he did, unhappily, use expressions towards Dr. Ashdown that were quite unfounded, and for which there was no excuse whatever, except the very sufficient excuse that he was not at 616 the time master of himself. For this, Professor Rutherford made the most ample apology. Dr. Ashdown, not satisfied with that, insisted on an investigation by the Court, and in this demand the Professor coincided. The Court had not only the assistance of the gentlemen whom the hon. and learned Member had referred to by name, but also that of several distinguished medical men, and upon the whole matter the Court were satisfied that the condition of Professor Rutherford's health, mental and physical, under which he had suffered, had entirely passed away. The evidence on this point was uncontradicted. How, then, the Court could come to any other decision than they did, he could not for the life of him imagine. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think there should have been an enforced retirement of Professor Rutherford. He was one of the ablest teachers of physiology in the Kingdom. There was undoubted evidence that he was restored to health, and he was teaching 430 students with perfect success; how, then, it could have been right or just to bring about his retirement he could not see. He regretted that this matter had been raised. It was not necessary in the interest of Dr. Ashdown, whose character was as completely cleared as any man's character could be, still less was it for the interest of the University, for what possible benefit could there be in a discussion of this kind? and he did not think it was required in the interest of public morality. He felt sure the House would be disposed to leave the matter where it stood after full investigation by the Court, whose statutory duty it was to investigate the case.

§ DR. CLARK
said, one point was not clear or satisfactory, and that was that while Dr. Ashdown had lost his position he had in his professional career by the unfounded charges of a gentleman who had unfortunately gone out of his mind, the decision of the Court practically censured Dr. Ashdown for the course he took. Professor Rutherford had a large class now, but he gathered from a recent visit to Edinburgh that something like anarchy prevailed in that class, the Professor having lost control over his students. It was something like a verdict of "Not guilty, but do not do it again." 617 It was most unfortunate that an innocent individual should suffer—that Dr. Ashdown should be deposed from his former position, and should have his professional future clouded by the action of a man who had clouded his mind by the study of some form of phalackology.

§ MR. HALDANE
said, he did not propose to move a reduction of the Vote, and still less to press it, but he wished to make an emphatic protest in the interest of the Profession to which he belonged.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he would remind the hon. and learned Member that it would not be in Order for him to speak again.