question of voting.’ The ladies are encouraged to exert their utmost power for work; when the rewards are to come, and it is found that one of them has earned one of the highest honours attainable by the class, she is calmly informed that that honour has been given to somebody else! A neater instance of generosity with other people’s property it has never been our lot to witness, and we don’t care how long it is before we repeat the experience. “The only excuse that we can with the utmost stretch of charity imagine in this case would be that Dr Crum Brown thought some difficulty might arise respecting Miss Pechey’s use of the scholarship (which gives free admittance to the laboratory), under the restrictions now imposed on women by the University Court--for we will not suppose for a moment that the Professor could himself wish to impede the further progress of a student of such merit. But if such difficulty occurred it might be an excellent reason for relaxing those restrictions, when they are seen to deprive a student of the full reward of her past work, and at the same time to prevent her prosecuting further the study in which she has so distinguished herself; but we are quite at a loss to see how any legitimate argument can be drawn thence to justify Dr Brown in laying violent hands on a scholarship which has been fairly earned by one person for the purpose of presenting it to another. It is possible that A’s circumstances may prevent his deriving full benefit from some of his possessions, but the law would hardly consider this fact a valid reason for B’s ‘annexing’ the said possession for the benefit of C. If Dr Brown chooses to admit a fifth student to the laboratory he can of course do so, but unless we are greatly mistaken he will probably be informed by the Law Faculty (whom he might previously have consulted with advantage) that neither he nor any other person can alter the fact that Miss Pechey and no one else _is_ third Hope Scholar.” _Daily Review_, April 1, 1870.