it was, of course, almost impossible that the Regulations could be rescinded, and so they were once more confirmed by the University Court on January 3, 1872. The next event of importance was the annual re-election of Infirmary managers, six of whom were to be chosen at the contributors’ meeting at the beginning of January 1872. As on a former occasion, the election evidently turned wholly on our admission to, or exclusion from, the Infirmary wards. The medical party moved the re-election of the former managers, and they were sure of the support of everybody who did not consider our admission a vital question. Our friends, on the contrary, brought forward a list of gentlemen, all of whom were known to be friendly to our cause. After a very warm debate the list of our friends proved to be successful, being supported by 177 votes, while 168 were recorded on the other side. Professor Masson then moved that a Statute be enacted by the Court of Contributors, giving the same educational advantages in the Infirmary to female as well as to male students. The hostile party, finding themselves in a minority, endeavoured to prevent this being put to the vote on technical grounds which were subsequently found to be of no legal importance. Failing in this, they then adopted the remarkably dignified course of decamping in a body, accompanied, I must confess, by some ironical cheers from those left behind. In the lull that succeeded Professor Masson brought forward his motion, which was seconded by the Rev. Dr Guthrie, and passed without a dissentient voice. This Statute is, therefore, now actually law in the Infirmary, and considering that managers friendly to us had also been elected, it might have been thought that our difficulties there were at end. But now comes the most extraordinary part of the whole story. On a scrutiny of the votes it was found that with the majority had voted twenty-eight firms, thirty-one ladies, and seven doctors. On the other side were fourteen firms, two ladies, thirty-seven doctors, and three druggists. These figures may seem, indeed, to have a tolerable moral significance, but it is not with that that I am at this moment concerned. It occurred to the defeated party that here might be found a straw for them, drowning, to catch at,--that possibly a legal objection might be sustained against the votes of firms which were so largely in our favour, and that, if so, the victory might yet be secured![105] The result was, that, when the Contributors assembled at the adjourned meeting,[106] for the purpose of hearing the result of the scrutiny and the final declaration of the election, the Lord Provost found himself served with an Interdict forbidding him to declare the new managers duly elected, on the ground that the votes of firms were incompetent, and that by means of these the majority had been obtained!