gardens in cantonments. The War Office forwarded his letter to Miss Nightingale. "It is quite worth while," she wrote in reply (Aug. 11, 1864), "all that has been suffered,--to have this letter from Sir Hugh Rose. And I forgive everybody everything." "I sing for joy every day,"
she had written previously (June 6), "at Sir John Lawrence"s Government." She made public thanksgiving. To the Social Science Congress at Edinburgh in October 1863, she had contributed a paper, ent.i.tled, "How People may Live and not Die in India," in which she gave, in concise and popular form, a _resume_ of the Royal Commission"s Report. The reading of her paper had been followed by "Three Cheers for Florence Nightingale." She now (Aug. 1864) republished the Paper, with a Preface, in which, as it were, she gave "Three Cheers for Sir John Lawrence." She described how the Commissions of Health had been appointed in India, and how they had now been put in possession of all the more recent results of sanitary works and measures which had been of use at home. Then she turned to the military authorities, and described how "several of the worst personal causes of ill-health to which the soldier was in former times exposed have been, or are being, removed."
"The men," she wrote, "have begun to find out that it is better to work than to sleep and drink, even during the heat of the day. One regiment marching into a Station, where cholera had been raging for two years, were chaffed by the regiments marching out, and told they would never come out of it alive. The men of the entering battalion answered, they would see; we _won"t_ have cholera, they think. And they made gardens with such good effect that they had the pleasure, not only of eating their own vegetables, but of being paid for them too by the Commissariat. And this in a soil which no regiment had been able to cultivate before. And not a man had cholera. These good soldiers fought against disease, too, by workshops and gymnasia."[37] She gave account of trades, savings" banks, games, libraries; noting what had been done and what yet remained to be done. "In the meantime the regulation two drams have been reduced to one. A Legislative Act imposes a heavy fine or imprisonment on the illicit sale of spirits near cantonments. Where there _are_ recreation rooms, refreshments (prices all marked) are spread on a nice clean table." All these things, which in 1864 were new or exceptional, became in later years well-established and the rule. The main causes of disease among the Army in India were, however, as Miss Nightingale went on to say, want of drainage, want of proper water-supply, want of proper barracks and hospitals. But in these respects she had set the reformers to a work which has continued from that day to this.
[37] This incident was told in Sir Hugh Rose"s letter.
There was, indeed, some criticism at the start, but this touched only the past, and did not seriously affect the future. Indian officials felt aggrieved, as I have already said, at the strictures contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, and this movement came to a head in two doc.u.ments--one, a counter-Report by Dr. Leith, the Chairman of the Bombay Sanitary Commission (Oct. 1864); the other, a dispatch (Dec. 8) from the Government of India (Sir John Lawrence on an important point dissenting). Lord Stanley thought that Dr. Leith ought to be answered at once, and wrote to Miss Nightingale (Oct. 25) for her advice on the subject. She suggested that the answer should be sent in the form of a Report on Dr. Leith"s letter by the Barrack and Hospital Improvement Commission--an ingenious plan, as it gave opportunity to that expert body for giving further advice to one of the Presidency Commissions.
Miss Nightingale and Dr. Sutherland drafted the Report, which was adopted by the Commission on January 6, 1865. "I have pleasure," wrote Lord Stanley to her (Dec. 26), "in sending back the draft reply to Dr.
Leith with only one or two verbal amendments suggested. It seems to me well done, moderate in tone, and conclusive in argument." A reply to the Indian Government"s Dispatch, signed by Lord Stanley, Dr. Farr, and Dr.
Sutherland, was sent on May 20. Miss Nightingale in her eagerness was much annoyed by these criticisms,[38] and Lord Stanley often told her that she made too much of what were only temporary ebullitions. "Don"t be discouraged, dear Miss Nightingale," he wrote (Jan. 22) when the Government of India"s dispatch arrived; "the practical work may go on while the controversy is proceeding. My idea of the matter is that the Indian authorities only want time to set things a little in order--that they are willing to mend, but not inclined to give us the credit of having first put them in the right way. That is human nature." Lord Stanley was a true prophet. The Indian authorities did mend; and so successfully has the work been carried out by a long line of Commanders, Administrators, and Engineers that the death-rate from preventable disease among the British Army in India has fallen far below the figure which the Royal Commission named as a counsel of perfection.[39]
[38] If any reader should desire to follow up the criticisms and the replies, he will find the Reply to Dr. Leith in Parliamentary Papers, 1865, No. 329; and the Government of India"s dispatch with the Reply, in Nos. 108 and 324. Dr. Leith"s Report does not appear to have been reprinted as a Parliamentary Paper. A copy of it, printed at Bombay, 1864, is among Miss Nightingale"s papers.
[39] The Commission looked forward to a rate of not more than 10 per 1000. The rate in 1911 was, as already stated, 5.04.
V
In this work of "salvation" Miss Nightingale was for many years to play a part as consultant, and sometimes as inspirer. In November 1864 the Governor-General in Council intimated his readiness to consider a scheme for the employment of nurses in Military Hospitals, and thereupon the Bengal Sanitary Commission requested Miss Nightingale to aid them by her advice. She wrote in collaboration with Sir John McNeill a comprehensive series of Suggestions in the following February.[40] Throughout the year (1865) Miss Nightingale was engaged from time to time in Indian sanitary business; and her house served as headquarters for the sanitary reformers. Mr. Ellis, the President of the Madras Commission, came home in the middle of the year in order to study sanitary reforms in this country. Miss Nightingale invited him to use her rooms; sent Dr.
Sutherland to accompany him on visits of inspection to hospitals and barracks; arranged meetings between him and Lord Stanley; conferred with him on changes which Sir John Lawrence was proposing to make in the const.i.tution of the Presidency Commissions. The Governor-General himself communicated with her freely on the same subject. The Secretary of the Bengal Commission applied to her for information on trustworthy tests for the discovery of organic matter in water. Being unable to obtain what was wanted from Dr. Parkes, she applied to Dr. Angus Smith (inventor of an air-test also), who wrote a pamphlet for her on the subject. It was printed at her expense. She had it approved by the War Office Sanitary Committee, and a large number of copies was distributed throughout India. She had impressed upon the Governor-General the importance of stirring up the Indian munic.i.p.alities. The Indian Towns Munic.i.p.al Improvement Bill (1865) was submitted for her criticism, and she wrote a "Note on the relations which should exist between the powers of raising and spending taxes proposed to be granted to local authorities, and the proper execution of sanitary works and measures in India." Her friend, Sir Charles Trevelyan, retired from the post of Financial Minister in India in 1865, and she made the acquaintance of his successor, Mr. W. N. Ma.s.sey. She was very jubilant when she "got a vote of seven millions for my Indian barracks." She was depressed when the Governor-General wrote to her from time to time saying that the great obstacle in the way of speedier reform was want of money; but she made excuses for her hero. "Sir John Lawrence," she wrote to Madame Mohl (March 20, 1865), "is just as much hampered with the Horse Guards out there as I am here. He is always writing to me to apologize for the little progress he makes. By the very last mail he says I shall think him "timid and perhaps even time-serving." I could not help laughing.
Certainly Sir J. Lawrence is the only man who ever called Sir J.
Lawrence a time-server,--except in the highest possible sense, of serving his country at her greatest time of need in the highest possible way." She was constantly corresponding with Lord Stanley, urging him to win points for her from the Indian Secretary. "I have just seen Sir Charles Wood," wrote Lord Stanley (Feb. 10). "He agrees as to the expediency of sending home a yearly report of the sanitary stations in each Presidency." "Pray never speak of being troublesome," he wrote again (May 15): "it is a real pleasure to me to help you a little in the great work: I know no other way in which my time can be made equally useful." He frequently saw Sir Charles Wood on matters which she urged, and he won what was almost her highest praise. "Lord Stanley," she said, "is a splendid worker." His cool common sense was perhaps a wholesome antidote sometimes to her almost feverish eagerness. "Publicity," he said (Aug. 17), "will in the long-run do what we want. People won"t stand being poisoned when they know it." The annual Reports from the Presidencies, obtained by Miss Nightingale some years later (p. 155), were submitted for her "Observations"; and in many other ways, as we shall hear, it was remarkable how close a touch upon the course of sanitary reform in India was maintained by this lady from a bedroom in Mayfair. But essentially Miss Nightingale"s work was that of inspirer and pioneer. These chapters will have shown, I think, that a compliment paid to her by the Chairman of the Indian Sanitary Commission was no less true than graceful:--
(_Lord Stanley to Miss Nightingale._) ST. JAMES"S SQUARE, _July_ 25 [1864]. I don"t wonder that the delays of the "savage tribe" should try your patience; and I admire the more the care and success with which you keep outward show of annoyance to yourself. I had rather be criticised by any one rather than you! I am only pa.s.sing through town to-day, there being nothing left to do; but shall be again in this place on Thursday, and ready to wait upon you if any matters want settling. If not, I can only wish you health--success is sure to come--and beg that you will remember the value of your own public service, and not by overwork endanger its continuance. Pray excuse a caution which I am sure I am not the first to give. Every day convinces me more of two things: first, the vast influence on the public mind of the Sanitary Commissions of the last few years--I mean in the way of speeding ideas which otherwise would have been confined to a few persons; and next, that all this has been due to you, and to you almost alone.
[40] Bibliography A, No. 44. For the subsequent fate of this scheme, see below, p. 157.
In one of many moments of vexation at the delays of the "savages" in their red-tape, Miss Nightingale wrote thus to Captain Galton (June 23, 1864): "The Horse Guards say that they were quite aware of Sir John Lawrence"s application and of the delay, but that "it is Sir J.
Lawrence"s one and only object of interest, while it is _one out of a thousand_ of the War Office"s." They ought to have the V.C. for their cool intrepidity in the face of truth. I have told Sir J. Lawrence of the opinion of these dining-out _freliquets_ as to his hard work. And I think I shall publish it after my death." But "unlicked cubs," as she said at Scutari, "grow up into good old bears"[41]; and it is not in order to pay off a score against the "puppies" that I quote this letter.
Behind the remark which excited Miss Nightingale"s righteous anger there was an element of unconscious truth, and it is one which sums up this and the preceding chapter. It was, indeed, an ignorant untruth to say that Sir John Lawrence had no other work or interest than the promotion of sanitary improvements for the Army in India; and it would be untrue also, as later chapters will show, to say the same thing of Miss Nightingale. Yet it made all the difference for the promotion of that work in India that there was at the head of affairs a man whose heart and soul were in it. And at home, it made all the difference that there was one resolute will, combined with a clear head, determined to give impetus and direction to the work. It was probably quite true to say that to many, perhaps to most, of the men at the War Office and the Horse Guards this question of Army sanitation in India appeared as only "one out of a thousand" questions. To Miss Nightingale it was, in a very literal and instant sense, a matter of life and death; and it was her pa.s.sionate conviction that supplied the initiating and driving force which compelled reform. If the Governor-General of the time had been hostile or apathetic, even her persistence might yet have been foiled.
But, as things were, the co-operation between Sir John Lawrence and Florence Nightingale was as beneficent in its results upon the welfare of the British Army in India, as the co-operation between her and Sidney Herbert had been in the case of the Army at home.
[41] See Vol. I. p. 184.
CHAPTER IV
ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE WAR OFFICE
(1862-1866)
We are trying to reduce chaos into shape. It is three years to-day since I first felt what an awful wreck I had got myself into. I interfering with Government affairs; and the captain of my ship, without whom I should never have done it, dying and leaving me, a woman, in charge. What nonsense people do talk, to be sure, about people finding themselves in suitable positions and looking out for congenial work! I am sure if any body in all the world is most unsuited for writing and official work, it is I. And yet I have done nothing else for seven years but write Regulations.--FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE (_Letter to Julius Mohl_, Jan 1. 1864).
Though Miss Nightingale"s main work during these years was connected with the Army in India, she was also continuously engaged in work for the War Office in relation to the army at home. Indeed in some respects the work was as constant, and it was quite as varied, if not as far-reaching in range, as in the days when Sidney Herbert was Secretary of State. She was a kind of Advisory Council to the War Office on all subjects within her sphere, and on some outside it; but the references to her were far more frequent than is commonly the case with those somewhat shadowy bodies; and besides she was a privileged person, with the right of initiating suggestions. The picture of her relations to the War Office as it is disclosed in her papers is remarkable. There are scores of letters from the Ministers. There are hundreds from one of the (non-political) Under-Secretaries. Her own letters in reply are equally numerous. There is a large collection of Drafts, Minutes, Warrants, Regulations. Her private letters tell of frequent interviews with one of the Ministers. Was there ever another case in which nearly every vexed question in War Office administration (other than of a purely military kind) was referred almost as a matter of course to a private lady, and that lady an invalid in her bed? It is not likely that the situation will ever exist again; and it becomes of interest to trace "the Nightingale power" in this matter to its sources.
The primary explanation is simple. In a large cla.s.s of questions which were occupying the attention of the War Office at this time Miss Nightingale was regarded as the first expert of the day. One sees this in the fact that she was consulted in connection with work, within her sphere, for other departments than the War Office. Thus in 1865 Mr. R.
S. Wright (afterwards the judge) was appointed by the Colonial Office to prepare a Report on the condition of Colonial Prisons. He went to Miss Nightingale, asking (April 27) "to be allowed to submit to you for your criticism the conclusions at which I may arrive. Supposing them to be approved by you, it will be a great advantage if I may state that you approve them."[42] Then, in the second place,--to repeat a phrase which I have already applied to her, she was the official legatee of Sidney Herbert. Everyone who was behind the scenes knew that his work had also been her work, and Sidney Herbert"s repute as a reformer stood very high. The official Army world at this time was divided into two camps--those who desired to complete Herbert"s work, and those who tried to undo it. Miss Nightingale, as the repository of the Herbert tradition, was the indispensable ally of the former party against the latter. Her friend, Lady Herbert, put the case from her point of view, when she wrote (March 7, 1862), in reply to a letter telling of much weakness and weariness, "If you never wish to live for your own sake, yet bear to live, dearest, for a time to carry out his work, and to keep his memory fresh in the hearts of men." Some questions of reform arose to which Sir Benjamin Hawes had raised copious objections. "Would Miss Nightingale oblige the Political Under-Secretary by suggesting an answer to Hawes"s points?" Sometimes she was the only person who possessed the necessary doc.u.ments. "Have you got a copy of the Report of the Committee on the Organization of a Medical School? The War Office actually have _no_ copy, and the Army Medical Department only a proof not signed and supposed to have been altered?"
[42] Miss Nightingale must have enjoyed the correspondence that ensued; for not only was Mr. Wright sound on sanitary matters ("it is no part of a prisoner"s sentence that he should be black-holed"), but he wrote to her in a racy style. "I send you (Oct. 23) a specimen of the materials sent home by colonial prison authorities with the endors.e.m.e.nt of a colonial Governor:--_Question_: What is the mode of treating lunatic or maniacal prisoners? _Answer_: Maniacles is not nor ever has been in use in this prison."
But besides all this there were personal factors in the case. Miss Nightingale had no longer, it is true, an intimate friend at the head of the War Office, and with Lord Herbert"s successor, Sir George Lewis, she was not otherwise than by correspondence acquainted. Early in 1862 he had made overtures through Sir Harry Verney, desiring to be given the honour of making Miss Nightingale"s personal acquaintance. She was, however, too ill to receive him, and knowing perhaps her proficiency in the cla.s.sics he sent her some of his _jeux d"esprit_. The offering had anything but a propitiatory effect. Many of her letters express indignation that the Secretary for War should be writing trifles in Latin instead of reforming the War Office. She was equally indignant when he presently published learned works on Ancient Astronomy and Egyptology. Mr. Jowett was somewhat of the same mind: "I agree with you about Sir G. Lewis and his book. I felt the same disgust at Gladstone for writing nonsense about Homer while the East India Bill was pa.s.sing through the House." It does not seem to follow, however, that Mr. Gladstone would have been the more interested in the East India Bill if he had not been engaged in finding the Trinity on Mount Olympus, or that Sir George Lewis would have been any more in the mood to reorganize the War Office if he had not been applying the Egyptological method to modern history, or turning "Hey diddle diddle" into Latin verse. There is a keener point in another of Miss Nightingale"s reflections on the Minister (Feb. 19, 1863): "If Sir George Lewis, instead of writing a "Dialogue on the Best Forms of Government" would write (or rather silently act) a _Monologue_ on the Dual Form being the Worst form of Government, the War Office would be much the gainer." But during his term of office the Under-Secretary was Lord de Grey; and with him she was on very friendly terms, and he, as is obvious from the correspondence, had the highest opinion of her knowledge, her ability, and her influence. The part she played in Lord de Grey"s appointment as Secretary of State, after the death of Sir G. Lewis, has already been described. Then in Captain Galton she had throughout these years a standing ally within the War Office, and her daily attendant, Dr.
Sutherland, was a member of the Army Sanitary Committee. And in the last resort, if a difficulty worthy of such adjustment arose, she had the ear of the Prime Minister.
II
Such occasion did arise when, on May 15, 1862, death removed from the War Office Miss Nightingale"s old opponent Sir Benjamin Hawes, the Permanent Under-Secretary. She had tried to reorganize him into insignificance in 1861, but "Ben had beaten Sidney Herbert."[43] Now was a chance of carrying out the plan which Mr. Herbert and she had often discussed--of breaking the bureaucracy, and of dividing up the office.
Hitherto the Departments had reported through the Permanent Under-Secretary; the reform scheme was that they should report direct to the Secretary of State. Sir E. Lugard, Military Under-Secretary, was already in part-possession. Let Captain Galton resign his commission, and take the other half, as a civilian (and, what was equally in her mind, a convinced and professional sanitarian). She carried the case to the Prime Minister, and convinced him. Lord Palmerston told her afterwards that when the appointment was first mentioned to the Horse Guards they said it was "simply impossible." But the Prime Minister advised Sir George Lewis to make the appointment nevertheless:--
(_Miss Nightingale to her Father._) 9 CHESTERFIELD STREET, _Poor Queen"s Birthday_, 1862. I must tell you the first joy I have had since poor Sidney Herbert"s death. Lord Palmerston has forced Sir G. Lewis to carry out Mr. Herbert"s and my plan for the reorganization of the War Office _in some measure_. Hawes"s place is not to be filled up. Galton is to do his work as a.s.sistant Under-Secretary. This brings with it some other reforms. Lord de Grey says that he can reorganize the War Office with Captain Galton, because Sir G. Lewis will know nothing about it and never inquires. Sir G. Lewis wrote it (innocently) to the Queen yesterday, and Captain Galton was appointed to-day, resigning the Army of course. No, Sir Charles Trevelyan would not have done at all [in Hawes"s place]. It would have been perpetuating the principle (which I have been fighting against in all my official life, _i.e._, for eight years) of having a dictator, an autocrat, irresponsible to Parliament, quite una.s.sailable from any quarter, immovable in the middle of a (so-called) const.i.tutional government, and under a Secretary of State who is responsible to Parliament.
And, inasmuch as Trevelyan is a better and abler man than Hawes, it would have been _worse_ for any reform of principle. I don"t mean to say that I am the first person who has laid down this. But I do believe I am the first person who has felt it so bitterly, keenly, constantly as to give up life, health, joy, congenial occupation for a thankless work like this.... It has come too late to give happiness to Galton, as it has come too late for me. He seems more depressed than pleased. And I do believe, if he feels any pleasure, it is that now he can carry out Sidney Herbert"s plans in some measure. And it may seem to you some compensation for the enormous expense I cause you that, if I had not been here, it would not have been done. Would that Sidney Herbert could have lived to do it himself! Would that poor Clough could have lived to see it! He wished for it so much--for my sake....
[43] See Vol. I. p. 405.
The high hopes which Miss Nightingale entertained from this slight reorganization were doomed to disappointment. Neither as Under-Secretary, nor after April 1863, when he became Secretary of State, did Lord de Grey manage, and I do not know that he seriously attempted, to reform the War Office root and branch.[44] He and Captain Galton had, according to Miss Nightingale, "miscalculated their power."
She preached the necessity of reform to them unceasingly--in season and, as they may sometimes have thought, out of season too, for she was a very persistent person; and, with Dr. Sutherland"s a.s.sistance, she provided them with detailed schemes. Her principles were as admirable, as was her criticism scathing when any breach of them came under her notice. There must in all things, she said, be a clear definition of responsibility, with a logical differentiation of functions; and the business of the War Office was to prepare for war--not to jog along with an organization which might hold together in peace, but would break down in the field. Some papers were submitted to her criticism (June 1862).
"What strikes me in them," she wrote, "is the black ignorance, the total want of imagination, as to a state of _war_ in which the _War_ Office seems to be. Really if it was a Joint Stock Company for the manufacture of skins, it could not, as far as appears, be less accustomed to contemplate or to imagine or to remember a state of war." I am afraid that most of us have lived through times when the same criticism could have been made. Let us hope that it is all a matter of ancient history now. Papers were sent to her dealing with the questions of Purveying and Commissariat. The Commissariat had hitherto been the bankers of the army, and some of the permanent officials saw no reason for a change.
From her experience in the Crimea she gave them the reason. The confusion of functions worked badly in the field.[45] As it was bound to do, for it was absurd. "Is a man who buys bullocks the best man to be a banker? Would it not be better to have a separate Treasurer for the Army to receive all moneys and issue them to all departments? In private life n.o.body makes his steward or butler his banker. It would not be economical. Finance is as much a specialty as marketing, and as much so, to say the least of it, in the Army as in private life."
[44] There is a succinct account of organizations and reorganizations between 1854 and 1868 in a _Memorandum on the Organization of the War Office_ by Captain Galton, dated November 1868.
[45] See Vol. I. p. 231.
III
Complete reform of the War Office was, then, to remain a task for the future; but Miss Nightingale thought that Lord de Grey and Captain Galton did the administrative work well. Much of it was done with her a.s.sistance. From Miss Nightingale"s point of view, the most important thing done under the Lewis-De Grey regime was the placing on a permanent footing of the Barrack and Hospital Improvement Commission. It was important, first, as keeping sound sanitary principles to the forefront in the execution of new works at home. It also, as already explained, provided machinery for promoting sanitary improvements in India. The point, next to its permanence, on which she most insisted was that the Commission should not be under the Army Medical Department, but should be directly responsible to the Secretary of State. "Lord de Grey said,"
wrote Captain Galton (June 25, 1862), "that he had adopted exactly your Minute about the Instructions to the Commission." With its Secretary, Mr. J. J. Frederick, Miss Nightingale was on very friendly terms, and Dr. Sutherland was its most active member. Most of the plans for new barracks or hospitals were submitted to her, and her inspection and criticism of them were searching. Then in 1862 the Government was about to build a new Military General Hospital at Malta. With Dr. Sutherland"s aid, she went into every detail, and her Report on the plans occupies twenty-four pages of ma.n.u.script. In 1865 Sir Hope Grant succeeded Sir Richard Airey as Quarter-master General, and in that capacity as chairman of the Barrack Commission, the name of which was now changed to the Army Sanitary Committee. He went to see Miss Nightingale, "proud to think that she remembered him"; and the conversation must have been satisfactory; for "our new President is a Trump," reported Dr.
Sutherland to her.
In examining plans, she always had a thought for the horses. When the plans for some cavalry barracks were sent for her criticism she put in a plea (June 4, 1863) for windows in the loose-boxes out of which the horses could see. "I do not speak from hearsay," she wrote to Captain Galton, "but from actual personal acquaintance with horses of an intimate kind. And I a.s.sure you they tell me it is of the utmost importance to their health and spirits when in the loose-box to have a window to look out at. A small bull"s-eye will do. I have told Dr.
Sutherland but he has no feeling." To which Dr. Sutherland added: "We have provided such a window and every horse can see out if he chooses to stand on his hind legs with his fore-feet against the wall. It is the least exertion he can put himself to, and if your doctrine is right, he will no doubt do it." Miss Nightingale had learnt to love the army horse in the Crimea. Many years later, some very bad barracks were closed in Ireland, and men and horses were moved to the Curragh. It was the horses, she wrote, who had done it. "If we are not moved, they said, we shall mutiny. _Military_ horses are quite capable of organizing movements. Did you ever hear of Jack? Jack was a riderless horse (his master having been killed) at the Charge of Balaclava. And he was seen collecting about 30 riderless horses, and at the head of his troop leading them back to, I suppose, Cavalry Headquarters. I have failed to discover whether Jack allowed horseless men to mount some of his horses.
These men certainly returned on horseback--but when they found that a comrade, or an officer, was missing, they rode back, one and another, mounted the wounded man, and fought their way out of the Russian melee, but many died in the attempt--a glorious death. And when I see in the hansom-cabs horses who by their beautiful legs must have been hunters or even racers, galloping up Park Lane as long as they can stand, I say too "a glorious death"; and horses should teach _us_, not we them, duty--do you think."[46]
[46] Letter of April 12, 1896, to Mrs. Henry Bonham Carter.
All regulations for military hospitals and for their nursing staff were similarly submitted to Miss Nightingale. She had a poor opinion of the capacity of the male mind to frame rules for female nurses. "By the united skill," she wrote (Feb. 16, 1863), of "Mess^{rs.} ---- and ----, the following Regulations for Female Hospitals were put together:--(1) Kennel your nurses and chain them up till wanted; (2) When the number of Patients does not exceed----, chain up the Nurses without food; (3) Let the number of Nurses vary every day as the number of Patients varies. I send you an _amended_ copy which, if you approve, might be put into type." She was constantly appealed to in connection with disputes caused at Netley by the difficult temper of Mrs. Shaw Stewart, the Superintendent of the Female Nursing Staff. She and Miss Nightingale were no longer close friends, but Miss Nightingale"s sense of justice was strong, and she continuously supported Mrs. Stewart"s authority.
IV
Another large batch of the semi-official correspondence is concerned with Miss Nightingale"s favourite child, the Army Medical School, and with the position of the Army doctors generally. The troubles of the professors were still many; the relation of the School to the Secretary of State on the one hand, and to the Army Medical Department on the other, was much vexed; and, when the School was moved to Netley (1863), a fresh set of difficulties cropped up. Miss Nightingale was constantly appealed to, sometimes by the staff, sometimes by the War Office, to smooth over difficulties, to suggest ways out, to settle disputed questions. She was recognized by the War Office as a kind of super-professor. One of the staff sought official sanction for a book on the work of the School: "Lord de Grey wants to know whether he is capable; also whether his proposed syllabus is good. Also to have any critical suggestions upon it which Miss Nightingale could kindly communicate." Her verdict was favourable. I have been told that some Army doctors of to-day, knowing little about Miss Nightingale except that she found fault with medical arrangements in the Crimea, suppose her not to have been their friend. Nothing could be further from the truth. What she blamed was not the doctors (for most of whom she had the greatest admiration), but the system. From first to last, she was the most efficient friend that the Army Medical Service ever had. In 1862-63 there is a long series of letters from her to the War Office, in which she persistently pleaded for improvement in their status and emoluments.
It was in connection with this matter that she wrote to Captain Galton (Dec. 24, 1863): "_In re_ Medical Warrant, I am meek and humble, but "I cut up rough." I am the animal of whom Buffon spoke, _Cet animal feroce mord tous ceux qui veulent le tuer_. You must do something for these doctors; or they will do for you, simply by not coming to you." A series of letters to Sir James Clark in the following year shows with what pertinacity she fought the battle of the Army doctors, and how indignant she was at any slights cast upon them:--
_April_ 6 [1864]. I have written threatening letters both to Lord de Grey and to Captain Galton about the [Medical Officers"]