Introduction
The “Remarkable
Ogstons of Aberdeen” refers to a family which traces back to Alexander Ogston
who was born in 1766 in Tarves, Aberdeenshire.
About 1785 he moved to the county town and started a business trading in
lint and flax thread. In 1802 his
business diversified into the wholesale manufacture of candles. It became very successful and the story of
this manufacturing branch of the Ogstons has been told elsewhere on this
blogsite, see “The Remarkable Ogstons of Aberdeen:
Flax, Candles and Soap”. Alexander
Ogston (1766) had three sons, Alexander (1799), George (1801) and Francis
(1803). Alexander eventually succeeded
to the management of the candle manufactory and continued the success of his
father. George emigrated to Australia
but proved to be either incompetent or unlucky, because he made nothing of his
life. The third son, Frances, was very
bright and attended Marischal College, Aberdeen, where he graduated with the
degree of MA and then moved to the famous Edinburgh Medical School, graduating
with a Diploma in Medicine in 1824. His
subsequent career was consistently studded with success. He filled the post of Police Surgeon in
Aberdeen, Medical Officer of Health and Professor of Medical Jurisprudence at
Marischal College. Francis Ogston’s life
has been dealt with elsewhere on this blogsite – see “The Remarkable Ogstons
of Aberdeen. Francis Ogston (1803 -
1887), Professor of Medical Logic and Medical Jurisprudence at Aberdeen
University”. Francis Ogston (1803)
had two sons, Alexander (1844) and Francis (usually known as “Frank”), both of
whom became doctors too. Alexander
graduated in medicine from Aberdeen University Medical School in 1865 and
subsequently had a career of diversity and dazzling success. This is his story.
The early
life and education of Alexander Ogston (1844)
Alexander
Ogston (1844), the eldest son of Francis Ogston and Amelia Cadenhead, was born
at Ogston’s Court, 84 Broad Street, Aberdeen on 19 April. This Ogston family house had windows which
overlooked the quadrangle of Marischal College, where the young Alexander first
learned to walk. The connection with
Marischal College and the University of Aberdeen would be maintained for the
rest of his life. Between 1850 and late
1852, Alexander attended Rev Archibald Storie’s school in Dee Street. He was the chaplain to the Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. The next educational
establishment entrusted with the education of Francis Ogston’s older son was Mr
Alexander’s English School in Little Belmont Street, where Alexander was
adjudged to show “superiority” in reading, gained a merit certificate in
English and a prize for mathematics.
Alexander then moved on to Aberdeen Grammar School where he attended
until late 1858, being awarded merit certificates along the way in both Latin
and Greek. His final educational port of
call before entering university was the Old Aberdeen Gymnasium under headmaster
Rev Alexander Anderson, where he was again a prize-winner in Latin, English and
geometry. While at this establishment,
Alexander Ogston (1844) entered the Marischal College Bursary Competition in
November 1859 and came 27th in the order of merit out of 109
entrants, gaining an award of £6.
Late1859 saw
Alexander Ogston (1844) become a matriculated student at Marischal College to
pursue a course of studies which would have, after the fusion, qualified him to
graduate with an MA degree from the University of Aberdeen. In the winter session of 1859 - 1860, he
studied Greek and Latin under Dr Brown and Dr Maclure respectively. In the remainder of his first year, he is
known to have studied Botany under Dr Beveridge, by whom he was adjudged to
have the best collection of plants and was awarded an honorary certificate. Alexander’s second year of study, 1860 –
1861, involved the study of Greek under Prof Geddes, Latin under Prof Maclure
and Mathematics under Prof Fuller, Botany under Professor Dickie, Chemistry
under Dr Brazier and Comparative Anatomy under Professor Lizars. No record has been found of him graduating at
the end of the session, either in local newspaper reports or in the Roll of
Graduates of the University of Aberdeen, and it appears that he simply
continued during the next session, 1861 – 1862, with studies in the Faculty of
Medicine.
The session
1861 – 1862 saw Alexander Ogston attending classes in Anatomy and Physiology
with Prof Lizars, Chemistry with Prof Fyfe and Dr Brazier, Materia Medica with
Prof Harvey (receiving an honorary certificate) and Surgery with Prof
Pirrie. Alexander spent four months learning
Practical Dispensing with Mr David Reid, the Druggist, and he also attended
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. At the end of
the session, he passed part of his medical graduation examinations. During the following session, 1862 – 1863, he
was taught Medical Jurisprudence by his father, Prof Francis Ogston, Histology by
Prof Ogilvie, Microscopy by Rev John Thomson, Clinical Surgery by Dr Keith and
Clinical Medicine by Dr Kilgour. Alexander also undertook 6 months’ Dispensary
work with Dr Rattray. Prof Fyfe of the
Department of Chemistry died during 1861 and in April 1862, the University
Court voted on his replacement. Dr Brazier,
already a member of academic staff in Chemistry was appointed and Francis
Ogston, Senatus Assessor on the University Court, voted for him.
Marischal College after 1840 reconstruction
Alexander
Ogston’s medical education continues in Continental Europe
Like his father
before him, Alexander Ogston made a continental tour of medical establishments
as part of his education. This tour
appeared to start in Austria, “I saw Vienna in the winter of 1863”. He lived in Vienna as a student in a small
lodging in the suburb called Alser Vorstadt, which contained the Allgemeines
Krankenhaus hospital. In the university
he was given the title of “Inscribed Extraordinary Student “. Alexander enrolled for courses of Anatomy
under Prof Hyrtyl, Physiology under Prof Brucke, Pathology under Prof Rokitansky,
Clinical Medicine under Prof Oppolzer and Surgery under Prof Dumreicher. His educational experiences there were rather
mixed, since he gained nothing new in some cases, being unable to understand
one lecturer and finding some lecture rooms badly overcrowded. This caused him to change his strategy and,
instead, he enrolled mostly for private classes on new subjects, or ones which
were badly taught in Britain. Amongst
the thousands of students in Vienna, there were only seven from the UK. One important set of classes that Alexander
attended was that by Prof Jaeger on the use of a rudimentary ophthalmoscope,
which training Alexander quickly put to use on his return to Scotland. He also received instruction from Prof Turck
on the laryngoscope, Prof Sigmund on syphilis and Prof Hebra on skin diseases,
including smallpox. Alexander Ogston had
been inoculated with cowpox as a child but found a few smallpox-like vesicles
on his own skin, possibly contracted from an infected patient, about which he
consulted Prof Hebra. His conclusion was
that Ogston had a mild attack of smallpox.
Later (year unknown), Alexander Ogston deliberately infected himself
with smallpox with no significant effect.
Away from medical classes, Alexander Ogston lived a very sociable life,
mixing with students of many nationalities.
Though they drank both beer and wine, accompanied by much singing, Alexander
claimed that they did not get as drunk as his medical contemporaries in
Scotland. Indeed, he subsequently claimed
that he was never drunk in his life. Alexander
was admitted to a society for German-speaking students, ostensibly to improve
his knowledge of the language. Socially,
the members were a mixed bunch, none was rich, and many were poor. They had a convention of making small loans
to each other, but these loans were effectively gifts, because they were never
repaid. Alexander was himself wealthy
enough to join in this convention and he made loans to other students. He also took instruction in fencing, that
very continental activity. All of
Alexander’s foreign friends consumed tobacco, and he picked up the habit of
smoking cigarettes in Vienna, which he subsequently transferred to
Aberdeen. “I think I was the first who
smoked cigarettes in that city – much to the scandalizing of the old-fashioned
ladies and eternal perdition for smoking a cigarette in Union Street in
day-time”. When Alexander left Vienna
his student friends sent him a letter over 10ft long, containing greetings and
farewells, indicating that he had been a popular visitor. One of his friends, whom he met in Vienna,
was William (later Sir William) Stokes (1838 – 1900), the son of the famous
doctor, Prof William Stokes of Dublin.
Ogston and Stokes toured the city together, where they attended concerts
conducted by Johann Strauss II (1825 – 1899), the prominent composer of waltzes. Alexander also enjoyed the opera, especially Richard
Wagner (1813 – 1883), who was becoming popular in the 1860s. Alexander Ogston commented that during his peregrinations
about the Austrian capital, “Several times I saw Kaiser Franz Josef (Kaiser
Franz Joseph I of Austria) driving in the city and, on one occasion, the
Kaiserin Elizabeth, a most lovely woman with whom, like everyone else, I fell
deeply in love”.
William Stokes (1838 - 1900)
Kaiser Franz Joseph I of Austria
Kaiserin Elizabeth of Austria
Francis Ogston
had supplemented his medical education with a visit to Continental Europe in
late 1824. Though the details have not
been uncovered, he studied at several leading medical establishments before
returning to Scotland. In session 1863 –
1864, his son, Alexander followed a similar, but apparently more extensive,
sojourn across the North Sea, travelling on from Vienna to Prague, where he
appears to have met up with his father.
It is unclear what specific activities they undertook together but
Alexander commented, “No classes but attended Seifert, Maschka and Hasner at
University and Hospital”. Ostensibly,
Alexander had gone to Prague to improve his knowledge of the German
language. He also attempted to learn the
Bohemian language but gave up on account of its complex verbs. Alexander Ogston developed contrasting
opinions about the three main ethnic groups in Prague. “A strange population filled the crowded
town. Half the inhabitants were Czechs
(Bohemians), a quarter were Germans, and the rest were Jews”. He found that the Bohemians hated the
Germans. “The Jews mixed with both and
permeated the ranks of both …”. “My
acquaintances were mostly among the Germans and Jews, many of whom were intermarried,
some for generations so that it was not always an easy thing to judge whether
they were of pure blood. I came to love
the Jews; their intellectuality was so outstanding and the eminent rank they
held in the medical profession, in the University circles and in the society
which I frequented compelled respect and esteem”. “I attended the Medical Society of the
city. It was housed in no fine building
– although there I met with the famous Professor Czermac, the inventor of the
laryngoscope; Professor Prsibram; Professor Kahler, Professor Maschka of
Medical Jurisprudence and Professor Ritter von Ritterstein who edited a
magazine devoted to the diseases of childhood; and others equally eminent – its
meeting place was just a small box, one of many in a public house, where there
was barely room for the nine or ten members to find accommodation”. “Everyone was kind to the young Scot but with
the Bohemians I always felt the constraint of an alien race whom I could not
see through. This was less so with the
Germans but on the other hand with the Jews I felt at once quite at home. I was constantly at the houses of the
Maschkas and their friends and many years afterwards when those of the Maschkas
who survived were suffering from poverty, especially after the Great War when
starvation was rife in Vienna, whither they had gone, I was able to do
something to alleviate their distress”.
The sojourn in
Prague lasted for two months before Alexander Ogston, again in the company of
William Stokes, travelled on by train to Berlin, where the pair took lodgings together
near the Charité Hospital. By this time,
it was the start of the 1864 summer session at the University of Berlin, where
Ogston and Stokes were probably the only British students in attendance. This institution was famous for a number of
leading doctors and scientists on its staff.
The two young British doctors attended the following lecture
courses. Ophthalmology – Prof Albert von
Graefe, Pathology – Prof Rudolf Virchow, Demonstrations – Prof Kuhne and the Clinics
of Prof Langenbeck, the prominent surgeon.
Von Graefe was one of the leading proponents of the ophthalmoscope,
which had been invented by Hermann von Helmholz in 1850. At the 1858 Heidelberg Ophthalmological
Congress, von Graefe presented Helmholtz with a cup which was inscribed with
the words, "To the creator of a new science, to the benefactor of mankind,
in thankful remembrance of the invention of the ophthalmoscope". Virchow,
though a disappointing lecturer, was something of a polymath and became
particularly famous for propounding the cell theory, one of the most
fundamental generalisations in Biology.
This theory states that cells are the basic units of life, that cells
only arise from the division of pre-existing cells and that life is transmitted
from one generation to the next by cells.
After the
completion of their studies, the two young medics travelled together in Bohemia,
Saxony, Switzerland and Prussia, visiting Thuringia and the Hartz mountains,
and Dresden with its art galleries. The two also visited various historical
sites and, with the encouragement of a corrupt guardian of objects which were
associated with Martin Luther at one of them, Alexander took samples and, when back
in the UK, he preserved and labelled these items and displayed them in a glass
case. In Cologne they visited the
church of St Ursula and were told a traditional, if fantastical, story of a
visit to Rome by St Ursula, accompanied by 11,000 virgins. On her return she and her followers were
murdered by the Huns and the skulls and other bones of these martyrs were
subsequently stored in the church.
Alexander examined these remains with his medical eye and found that at
least some of the bones were derived from bullocks!
Alexander
Ogston found a marked contrast in people’s behaviour between Austria and
Germany, though both were German-speaking.
Austria was a nation of gentlemen, while Germany was a nation of boors
and bullies. People barged him off the
pavements and men had an unpleasantly superior attitude to women. They also disliked foreigners. “Englischer Schwein”, accompanied by a scowl
being common amongst railway officials at all levels. This was the time of the Second
Schleswig-Holstein War, which lasted from February 1864 to the end of October
of the same year, when Denmark, much the smaller state, was attacked by Prussia
and Austria. Alexander found the
Prussians to be very boastful of their military prowess. “We had ample opportunity of watching the
development of the modern German bully, though we had little thought then of
the menace that the brute would become in Europe in the next fifty years”. Alexander also found German triumphalism in
defeating Denmark very distasteful.
“When the King came out to the balcony of the Royal Palace and addressed
his people amid the most frantic manifestations of joy and loyalty, Stokes and
I laughed at the performances”.
Despite his
dislike of the popular attitudes and manners of the generality of the German
population, Alexander Ogston, by this time fluent in German, would return to
the country many times, would attend German medical congresses, would become a
familiar of leading German doctors and would publish important scientific
findings in German periodicals. “Owing to my friendship with these men (the
professors in Berlin) I soon came to know others such as Esmarch of Kiel,
whose name became great in connection with bloodless surgery and in after years
I met them at Langenbeck’s house and elsewhere”. Alexander was the direct recipient of a
particular instance of German unpleasantness.
He gave a lecture to the Congress of German Surgeons and Volkmann,
although not personally present, attacked the visiting Scot the next day,
describing his methods as “surgical rope-dancing”. However, Volkman was known to be a morphine
addict and Ogston did not reply, believing that the German was acting under the
influence of this addictive, mood-altering opiate.
Ogston and
Stokes, the young medical wanderers finally ended up in Paris for further study
before Alexander Ogston returned to his native land and the completion of his
undergraduate medical courses. He
graduated both MB and CM during the spring and summer of 1865, “with Highest
Academical Honours”, one of eight graduands to do so. About a year later he was also awarded the
postgraduate qualification of MD, again “with Highest Honours”, the capping
ceremony taking place in the public hall at Marischal College in April
1866. For Alexander Ogston, son of a
prominent medical father, scion of a wealthy Aberdeen family of manufacturers,
familiar of leading German doctors and a fluent German speaker, the scene was
set for him to pursue a prominent medical career. He did not fluff his chance but, at this
auspicious beginning of his professional life, he could not have guessed how
successful he would become.
Alexander
Ogston and boats
Although little
is known about Alexander Ogston’s sporting activities as an undergraduate, it
is likely that he was a keen oarsman, but this is only known from two
advertisements placed in the Aberdeen Journal in 1865, offering for sale a
four-oared racing gig, “Bon-Accord” and a five-oared boat, “Black Bess”, “with
new oars and fittings complete”. This
was the year that Alexander graduated from the Aberdeen Medical School and
began remunerated work. Perhaps he felt
that he could no longer spare the time necessary to pursue this challenging
activity? A few years later, after he
had acquired the Glendavan estate, which encompassed part of Loch Davan, in
1888, he is known to have kept a rowing boat there, probably to allow him to
fish for pike and perch, but he also used to row his young children around this
expanse of water on quiet evenings.
Alexander
Ogston and Ophthalmology
During his
continental foray into the universities and hospitals of Europe, Alexander
Ogston had received training in the use of the ophthalmoscope from von Graefe
and others, and he soon put this skill to good use by opening an eye dispensary
in Castle Street, Aberdeen in 1866 which it is presumed catered for the needs
of the poor people of Aberdeen. The
dispensary did not survive for long, being closed in 1868, perhaps due to
Alexander being appointed in that year as Ophthalmic Surgeon to Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. The appointment came about
after the resignation of Dr Wolfe from the position of Physician to the
Ophthalmic Institution in September 1868.
There were two applicants for the post, Dr Alexander Ogston and Dr
Alexander Dyce Davidson. The directors
of the Institution then, perhaps unwisely, asked Dr Wolfe for his opinion of
the two contenders but Ogston, when he heard of this development, was clearly
miffed. Subsequently, the directors met
to consider how to proceed, when they received a letter from Alexander Ogston
rejecting the notion that Dr Wolfe should have been asked, in effect, to
arbitrate between the two candidates.
This did not advance the directors’ opinion of Alexander, who was
rejected for the role by a vote of 10 : 3 in favour of Dr Davidson. But that was not the end of the matter since
the actual employer of the postholder would be Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. On 28 September 1868, there was a Special
General Court of the Managers of ARI to consider the appointment to the post of
Ophthalmic Surgeon. The Lord Provost,
Alexander Nicol, chaired the meeting, which was attended by many managers, and
he got straight to the point. Without
asking for formal nominations of the candidates, he posed the question, “There
are only two candidates, do you want to proceed at once to an election”? There was general and enthusiastic acclaim for
this proposal. It appeared that the
managers were already familiar with the credentials of the two competing
doctors and had made up their minds. The
vote went in favour of Alexander Ogston by 70 : 52. Davidson must have felt a
bit hard done by, after he had already received the approval of the directors
of the Ophthalmic Institution. Alexander
Ogston’s undoubted medical abilities, which had already come to the fore,
clearly outweighed the blunt way in which he had demonstrated his disapproval
of the Institute’s managers. Most
interesting to contemporary eyes was the advertisement placed by Alexander
Ogston in the Aberdeen Journal following his appointment as Ophthalmic Surgeon
at ARI. “Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
Election. Dr Alex Ogston takes this
opportunity of returning his thanks to the Managers for their support at the
election today and hopes to merit the confidence reposed in him. Aberdeen 28 September 1868”.
The new
ophthalmic surgeon wasted no time in organising his charge. The Aberdeen Journal reported that at the
next quarterly meeting of the ARI managers, “Surgical instruments to the value
of £10 10s have been added to the stock of the Ophthalmic Department of the
Hospital and a favourable arrangement entered into with Dr Ogston with the view
of making that department efficient and complete”. Interestingly, one of Alexander Ogston’s
duties in addition to acting as Ophthalmic Surgeon, was to act as anaesthetist,
this technique being newly introduced into surgical practice. After starting his newest position, Alexander
also delivered three courses on the use of the ophthalmoscope over the winter
of 1868 – 1869. In April 1869, Alexander
Ogston asked the University Court to fix the fee for his Ophthalmology course
at 1gn. At the end of his courses on the
use of the ophthalmoscope in April 1869, his medical students who had attended these
classes presented him with a testimonial, suggesting that his lectures had been
well received. About this time,
Alexander was appointed Lecturer in Practical Ophthalmology in the University
of Aberdeen. During the summer term of
the 1870 – 1871 University session, Alexander Ogston again mounted a
three-month course in Practical Ophthalmology, but this would be his last such
teaching assignment as he was appointed Junior Surgeon at ARI in August 1870
and resigned his appointment as Ophthalmic Surgeon the following month,
followed by him giving up his university lectureship in Practical Ophthalmology
in the following November. In future,
though he would operate on patients with damaged eyes, his surgical horizons
would be much more extensive than the organ of sight.
Alexander Ogston
Alexander
Ogston marries Mary Jane Hargrave
Alex Ogston
married Mary Jane Hargrave on 25 September 1867 at Stoke Newington,
Middlesex. She was the fourth child and
younger daughter of James Hargrave, who had a substantial career with the
Hudson Bay Company in Canada, rising to become the Chief Factor in 1844. Mary Jane’s father had been born in Hawick,
but Mary Jane emerged into the light at Sault Ste Marie, in Ontario. During 1858 – 1859, her father took a year’s
leave of absence in Scotland before remarrying and returning to Canada. It seems likely that Mary Jane then remained
in Scotland. Presently, it is unclear
how she met Alexander Ogston. On
marrying, Dr Alexander Ogston moved out of his father’s house at 156 Union
Street, Aberdeen to his own property at 193 Union Street, until 1871, when he
moved again to 252 Union Street. This
remained his Aberdeen town house for the rest of his life.
Mary Jane Hargrave
The first child
of Alex and Mary Jane Ogston, Mary Letitia, was born 8 months after the
marriage, followed by Francis Hargrave in 1869, Flora McTavish in 1872 and Walter
Henry on 29 November 1873. After this
fourth birth, Mary Jane suffered from what was then called puerperal mania, now
referred to as postpartum psychosis. It
is a severe mental illness which usually starts within a few days of birth but
is now thought not to be a single condition but a complex of many different
maladies with overlapping and varying symptoms.
In those days this illness could be fatal, and this was the case for
Alex Ogston’s wife. She died on 28
December at 252 Union Street, barely a month after the birth of her fourth
child. The cause of death was certified
by “F Ogston, MD”, probably Francis Ogston senior, though the informant,
present at the passing and who registered the death, was Frank Ogston
junior. This was a crushing blow for
Alexander Ogston and left him to look after four young children aged from 5½
years to one month. Three and a half
years would pass before Alex Ogston married again.
Alexander
Ogston and Homeopathy
Homeopathy is a
system of alternative medicine which was created by the German physician Samuel
Hahnemann in 1796. Its principal beliefs
are that a substance that causes certain symptoms in healthy people can also be
used to cure the same symptoms in sick people.
These, so-called, remedies are prepared by making extreme dilutions of
the material before administration. It
is entirely unscientific, being unsupported by experimental results and
considered to be fake by the scientific medical community.
In December
1868, a meeting of the Court of the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary was held with a
“very large attendance of managers”. The
reason for such a populous meeting was that a controversy had arisen as whether
it was appropriate to allow homeopathic treatments to be administered to
patients in ARI. Dr Reith, one of the
physicians at the infirmary, was proposing to use homeopathic remedies in his
hospital practice but all the other physicians and surgeons were opposed to the
proposal. Lord Provost Alexander Nicol
was president of the court and it fell to him to conduct the meeting.
William
Dingwall Forsyth, MP for Aberdeenshire East wrote a letter proposing a
compromise. It would have involved Dr
Reith being reappointed as a physician but only prescribing homeopathic
treatments in separate wards to those patients requesting them. He wanted to see “harmonious cooperation
between medical officials at the infirmary”.
But such a solution was quite unworkable. Dingwall Forsyth had not appreciated the
utterly fundamental gulf between evidence-based medicine and the alternative
which depended only on believing that homeopathy was valid. The Lord Provost had referred the dispute to
the judgement of two doctors of great status in the area, Drs Kilgour and Dyce. Their conclusion was that any encroachment of
homeopathic practices on the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary would lead to “very
serious consequences for the institution”, though they had no objection to any
doctor providing such treatment to his private patients. The Lord Provost said that he personally
accepted this judgement because of the status of the two authors of the study
but that point of view was also held by other doctors in the city and the
country round about, which reinforced his position.
The Lord
Provost then put forward a motion for consideration. “The managers having had under consideration
the correspondence between Drs Harvey, Smith and Reith and also the report of
the two Consulting Physicians thereon consider it to be for the best interests
of the institution to be guided by that report and not to permit the use of
Homeopathic medicines in the Infirmary, further having regard to the
correspondence and various publications which have been furnished by these
medical gentlemen to the managers as well as to the almost unanimous expressed
opinion of the medical men of the city and district which is entirely adverse
to the practice of Homeopathy they do not consider it advisable to give
countenance to it within the Institution”.
The motion was met with applause.
The president
then revealed that he had received a letter from all the doctors at the
infirmary, except Dr Reith, but had not circulated it because he did not want
it to appear as a threat. There was then
a clamour from the meeting for the letter to be read out and the president
complied. “Aberdeen 12th December
1868. To the President and Managers of
the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Gentlemen,
Whereas Homoeopathy has not received the sanction of the medical profession and
whereas it is in our opinion both unsound and irrational we the undersigned beg
with all respect to acquaint you with our conviction that it would not be
honest in us to remain connected with an institution in which that system is
recognised. We have no right nor have we
any desire to dictate to you in regard to the choice of any of your medical
officers. If it be your pleasure on
Monday next to re-elect Dr Reith well and good; but in that case, we consider
that you will thereby virtually give your sanction to the introduction of
Homoeopathy into your Institution.
Therefore, in that event and in the event also of our own re-election,
there would be but one course open to us, namely that of resignation. Thanking you for the consideration you have
always shown us and for the confidence you have hitherto placed in us, we have
the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your most obedient Servants. Rd Dyce, Al Kilgour, Wm Keith, William Pirie,
David Kerr, Alex Harvey, JWF Smith, Alex Ogston”.
The motion was
then put to the meeting and Dr Reith’s few supporters then showed themselves,
but they concentrated their fire on the physicians and surgeons who had written
the letter threatening resignation.
Principal Campbell from the University rejected this view and said it
had been right for the letter-writers to make their view clear before the
meeting. Dr Pirie also thought the
medical men had acted honourably in making their views known before the vote
and thus preventing a decision “to plunge into a course of action which would
have thrown the whole Infirmary into confusion”. He also described Homoeopathy as “absurd,
false and delusive”. “We, as the
representatives of the public, are responsible.
The poor have been spoken of. We
are the trustees for the poor in that matter”.
Major Innes of Learney regretted that the debate had taken place with such
“heat, partisanship and intemperance”. He
proposed his own motion removing the banning of homeopathic medicines from the
institution. He found no seconder and
the president declined to modify his motion.
This was then passed by a large majority; the opponents being allowed to
record their dissent in the minutes.
At that time,
Alex Ogston was the Ophthalmic Surgeon at ARI, the most junior staff position,
hence his placing last in the list of signatories. Perhaps he had little option but to agree with
his elders and betters, but it is certain that, even at this early stage in his
career, his commitment to scientific medicine was unshakable and he would have
had no qualms in refusing to be associated with what he viewed as quack
practices.
Alexander Ogston
becomes Joint Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen
During March
1868, the Public Health Committee of the Town Council requested Francis Ogston
to name a substitute to act for him, when necessary, through absence or
otherwise and he named his son, Alexander Ogston (1844). However, he could not be appointed as
substitute for his father as the Public Health Act did not allow such an
arrangement. Instead, he was appointed
Joint Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen, the existing salary of £43 10s
being shared by the joint postholders.
Although nominally equal in rank to his father, in practice Alexander
was very much an apprentice in the role.
He continued in post until 1873 when he resigned due, as will be seen,
to a major disagreement with the city authorities.
Alexander
Ogston and the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
Alexander
Ogston (1844) first became acquainted with Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, then
located on the Woolmanhill site near the centre of town, in 1862 during his
medical training. At that time, the
conduct of surgical operations and the organisation of the wards to which the
patients were sent after surgery was primitive and, to modern eyes, truly
horrific. Antiseptic surgery was yet to
be invented and chloroform-induced anaesthesia was a new technique, still to
receive a nod of approval from many leading surgeons. Alex Ogston noted that in Aberdeen, although
tentatively favoured by the younger surgeons, chloroform was usually not
employed, due to the views of William Keith, the First Surgeon at ARI, known as
“Old Danger”, to the medical students.
Keith had somehow developed the opinion from his own experience that his
operations were more successful when anaesthesia was not used. However, by the time that Alexander Ogston
graduated in 1865, chloroform anaesthesia was generally accepted as a major aid
to surgery. If anything, the conduct of
the wards was even more frightening than the conduct of operations. Each ward was overseen by a fat old woman who
prepared poultices. She invariably kept
a pet tomcat, which bore the name of the doctor that she served, for example
“Alexander Kilgour”, the Senior Physician at ARI. As tomcats do, these animals patrolled their territories,
including the operating theatre, scent-marking prominent objects with a spray
of smelly urine. Added to the
characteristic stink of tomcats was the equally recognisable stench of
suppuration in surgical wounds which, in those days, usually became infected
after an operation. There was no
understanding of the importance of cleanliness, there was no provision for
hand-washing and surgical instruments and other accoutrements were simply
placed on an open shelf when not in use.
Operations were performed by surgeons dressed in their street clothes,
overlaid with one of a collection of communal long black coats. These garments were never washed and became
encrusted with blood, tissue and the contents of body cavities. This was the environment that Alexander
Ogston entered when, in 1870, he was appointed to the post of Junior Surgeon at
ARI.
The surgical
hierarchy in 1870 consisted of four positions, First, Second, Third and Junior
surgeons. Generally, when one surgeon
died, retired, or otherwise demitted office, the person or persons below him in
the pecking order moved up a rung on the surgical ladder and, finally, there
was a competition for the most inferior role.
In that year William Keith, First Surgeon, resigned and those below him
shuffled up with aspiring surgeons then putting their names forward for the
vacant position of Junior Surgeon. The
candidates included Dr Alexander Ogston, Dr Alexander Dyce Davidson, Dr Best,
Dr Ogilvie Will and Dr Roger. At a Royal
Infirmary Special General Court held at the beginning of August 1870, a vote
was held on the list of candidates, with the following result. Ogston 63, Davidson 30, Best 23, Will
16. Although Alexander Ogston had
garnered 33 votes more than Davidson, the claim was made by one or more
managers that the result was not clear-cut, suggesting that there was some
lingering hostility to this brash young surgeon. Dr Will was then dropped from the list, the
poll re-run and the following count declared, Ogston 71, Davidson 34, Best 28. This time the result was allowed to stand,
and Dr Ogston was duly elected though, in truth, the outcome was little
different from that previously obtained.
Alexander Dyce Davidson had again been vanquished by Alexander Ogston in
an employment competition, but Davidson received a consolation prize shortly
afterwards when he was appointed to the vacant post of Ophthalmic Surgeon. He had been the only candidate. Alexander Ogston again took space in the
Aberdeen Journal to thank those responsible for his appointment. “Royal Infirmary Surgeoncy. Dr Alex Ogston begs to convey to the
Infirmary Managers his thanks for the honour conferred on him on Friday last”. The position of Junior Surgeon was not
remunerated and involved very little work, other than acting as anaesthetist
when required. In order to keep himself
busy, Alexander applied for, and was additionally appointed to, the position of
Aurist at the infirmary in 1870.
Alexander
Ogston is appointed as Assistant Professor of Medical Jurisprudence
This university
appointment in 1870 was in the gift of his father, but there was no hint that
anyone found this situation to be unacceptable and potentially a case of
nepotism, perhaps because Alex Ogston was such an outstanding young doctor and
had experience of police work as assistant to his father. This post was renewed annually until 1873,
when Alexander Ogston resigned the position.
Alexander
Ogston and German behaviour and attitudes
Alexander
Ogston attributed the deterioration in German behaviour and social attitudes to
their drubbing of the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 – 1872. “After the Franco-Prussian War, the simple
modes of life came to be altered and luxury and ostentation were increasingly
evident in their dwellings …”. And in
other aspects of German life, “Arrogance and boastfulness crept in and took the
place of the former quiet conduct while the demeanour of the officers of the
army in public places became bullying and self-assertive to an offensive degree
and was plainly cultivated as a mark of the military official. … The gentle
quiet studious type of German medical man died out by degrees and the type of
the warrior was substituted, nearly all the leading surgeons being attached in
some fashion … to the army. One by one I
missed the plain homely persons I had known so well …”. Langebeck developed cataract and had to
retire from surgery and take up general practice. He lost his fortune apparently due to some
bad behaviour by a relative and died essentially in poverty. Alex Ogston had found this man to be
inspirational, not only for his country but also for Ogston personally. Some of the new breed of German surgeon, Alexander
Ogston both knew and liked but others, already famous, he hardly spoke to. He also found an undercurrent of anti-English
feeling. He knew three German surgeons
very well. Frederick Trendelenburg,
Professor of Surgery at Leipzig University, visited Alex Ogston in Aberdeen in
1906, staying with him at 252 Union Street and was honoured with the award of an
honorary LL D from Aberdeen University.
Mikulicz “was a good fellow” whom Ogson met again in Glasgow when both
were guests of Professor Macewen. Carl
Lauenstein was the third and Alex Ogston sometimes stayed at his house in
Hamburg. He and his family were
repeatedly the guests of the Ogstons in Aberdeen and at Glendavan. He even travelled through Scotland with the
Ogstons at Alexander’s expense. Ogston
was not pleased when, on the outbreak of war in 1914, the German wrote a book,
or pamphlet, abusing the British and their ways. Alexander Ogston’s admiration of, and respect
for, German science and medicine clearly overcame, for some time, his distaste
for the social attitudes frequently on display in the country. But Germany’s appeal for Alexander Ogston started
to wane. “In course of years however,
the attractions of German science became less for me and the changed character
of the people so repellent to me that I withdrew from the membership of the
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie”. Alexander
Ogston then turned his attention more to North America, though apparently he
never travelled there.
The
influence of Joseph Lister on Alexander Ogston
Joseph Lister
was born into a prominent Quaker family at Upton, Essex, in 1827. At the age of 17 he entered University
College, London to study medicine and was present at the first operation
performed under ether anaesthesia almost three years later but was shocked to
find that mortality following apparently successful operations was depressingly
high and concluded that surgery should only be performed if absolutely
necessary. He also developed an
antipathy to osteopaths whom he regarded as charlatans. Lister graduated with the degree of MB from
the University of London and also gained a Fellowship of the Royal College of
Surgeons. Joseph Lister then moved to
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary to work under Professor Syme, a man of great status
and trenchant opinions. The two became
friends and Joseph Lister married Syme’s daughter, Agnes.
Lord Lister
In 1860, Lister
was appointed Regius Professor of Surgery at Glasgow University, though for a
year he was without a complementary hospital appointment. The 1850s and 1860s were a time of great
ferment in the field of microbiology with the progressive demonstration that
some diseases were caused by microbial infections. But the significance of microbes was not
fully understood, especially by the surgical establishment which generally
regarded them as microscopical curiosities of little significance. Hospital diseases such as erysipelas,
pyaemia, septicaemia and hospital gangrene were often dismissed as unavoidable
evils, or even as a necessary part of the healing process. The miasma theory, which held that foul air
was the cause of disease transmission, still held sway and seemed to explain
the observation of passage of disease from one inmate to another in crowded
wards containing patients with suppurating wounds.
Louis Pasteur
Between 1860
and 1864, Louis Pasteur demonstrated that fermentation in nutrient broth was caused
by microorganisms carried in the air and was not due to spontaneous
generation. Lister himself believed in
the miasma theory until 1865 when he became acquainted with Pasteur’s work. However, he still had no idea of the
universality or diversity of microorganisms in the environment. Between 1858 and 1863, Lister conducted a
series of experiments on inflammation and blood clotting, the results of which
were published. Inflammation preceded
suppuration in surgical wounds and Lister was trying to understand the
processes by which suppuration was generated.
Joseph Lister concluded that microorganisms carried in the air were
probably responsible, in some way, for suppuration and that cleaning the air in
contact with a wound of microorganisms by chemical means was the way
forward. Occasionally, compound open
fractures presented for his attention and in 1865 he first used carbolic acid
in an attempt to suppress the disease processes which were inevitable in such cases. From this time, Lister was totally focussed
on preventing suppuration rather than improving surgical technique. It was May 1866 before he had another
suitable compound fracture case to try out his new technique. This was a seven-year-old Glasgow lad who had
sustained a leg break after a cartwheel rolled over him. Lister applied a piece of lint dipped in
carbolic acid solution to the wound and four days later when he replaced the
pad found that no inflammation had developed.
Six weeks later the broken leg bones had fused back together and there
was no pus in evidence.
Joseph Lister
published his results in a paper which appeared in a series of parts in the
journal, “The Lancet” between March and July 1867 under the general title of “On
a new method of treating compound fracture, abcess, etc with observations on
the conditions of suppuration”. While
his results were well-received in Germany, they failed to win over the
conservative surgical establishment in Britain, especially in London, where, by
and large, the claims were treated with incredulity. Rickman Godlee, Lister’s biographer argued
that a different style of training in Germany was responsible for this
divergence of opinion. Lister’s results
were derived from scientific experiments which German doctors understood
because they mostly took science degrees, whereas in Britain, surgeons were
taught practically, standing in the shadow of their opinionated masters. However, rivalry and jealousy were not
uncommon in the medical profession and may have played a part in the rejection
of Lister’s claims. Even two years
later, at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting held
in Leeds, Joseph Lister’s techniques were mocked by the surgical
establishment. Also in Leeds, at a
meeting of the BMA in the same year, Mr Nunneley, the prominent Leeds-based
surgeon disparaged Lister’s methods, though he had not tried them
personally. However, other attendees had
trialled Listerism and found that it worked, and they spoke up in his support.
Lister
described his initial version of the antiseptic surgical technique as
follows. “Clean the broken limb, squeeze
out all blood clots, swab the inside of the wound with calico soaked in
undiluted carbolic acid, cover the wound with a piece of lint also soaked in
carbolic acid, cover that with a metal sheet to prevent evaporation. Leave for several days and renew carbolic
acid from time to time”. In the period
1865 – 1868, Lister also experimented with a carbolic spray for cleaning the
air, the wound and the skin around the wound.
Carbolic acid is not very soluble in water, about 8% being a saturated
solution, and such a solution was generally used in the sprays which were
further developed after Lister’s return to Edinburgh in 1869. Lister also emphasised the importance of
cleanliness of hands, clothes and instruments.
Many other
doctors visited Lister in Glasgow to see for themselves the results of the
antiseptic surgical technique. Also,
Lister’s own junior surgeons eventually moved away to significant positions
elsewhere and became ambassadors for his methodology. But Lister’s ideas were rejected by all but
one of his senior colleagues at Glasgow.
In August 1869, Joseph Lister was appointed to the Chair of Clinical
Surgery at Edinburgh University in succession to his father-in-law, Professor
Syme. Sadly, in Edinburgh too, Lister’s
pronouncements on antiseptic surgery were rejected by all his senior
colleagues. It was about this time of
transition, though the actual date has not been uncovered, that Alexander
Ogston decided to make contact with Joseph Lister. Ogston later wrote, “Unforgettable was the
incredulity with which we heard the first announcement that Lister had
discovered a means of avoiding suppuration and blood poisoning in operation
wounds”. Ogston then took a very bold
step for a decidedly junior ophthalmic surgeon from Aberdeen, who had not even
reached the lowest rung of the surgical hierarchy at Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. He called, without
introduction, on Lister at his home in Edinburgh, where he was received cordially. Alex Ogston then went on to Glasgow,
presumably at the suggestion of Joseph Lister, and was shown around Lister’s
wards there (24 and 25), possibly by Dr Archie Malloch, a 25-year-old Canadian
doctor with Scottish ancestry who had been training with Professor Lister in
Glasgow and who took charge of his wards in the absence of the boss. Ogston was convinced of the veracity of
Lister’s claims within five minutes of walking the Glasgow wards. Malloch later married Alex Ogston’s younger
sister, Helen Milne Ogston (1849). Is it
possible that the couple met in Aberdeen when Malloch was making a reciprocal
visit to Ogston’s home? They were joined
in 1872 at Brockville, Ontario but tragedy struck only a year into the marriage
when Helen Milne contracted diphtheria, which attack proved to be
terminal.
In 1869, Lister
was initially convinced, based upon the work of Pasteur and others, that the
air was the route by which microorganisms gained access to wounds, which caused
him to concentrate on the further development of the carbolic acid spray. The bulb spray already existed but further
versions were invented, firstly a foot-controlled bellows spray, then a spray
mounted on a tripod with a hand lever to pump out the fluid droplets and
finally a steam-actuated spray. Later,
in 1891, Alexander Ogston published a paper in “The Lancet” describing an "irrigator regulator" invented by Mr TW Ogilvie, one of the most outstanding medical students of his year, which was used for spraying wounds with antiseptic preparations during surgical operations. The instrument was made by Mr John Stevenson, Schoolhill, Aberdeen. Thomas White Ogilvie graduated MB CM in
1892. He hailed from Keith in Banffshire
and lived an amazingly varied but brief life, dying in 1908.
Ogston returned
to Aberdeen in late 1869 convinced that Lister’s methodology would greatly
reduce the incidence of post-operative wound disease, but it was only in 1870
that he was elected to the post of Fourth or Junior Surgeon, unpaid, not in
charge of any operations and lacking influence with the big beasts ahead of him
in the surgical hierarchy. Even in 1874
when he became Third Surgeon and could undertake his own operative procedures
and guide his own trainees, his influence was limited, though he now had Dr
Ogilvie Will, with whom he saw eye to eye on Listerism, below him in the
hierarchy. In 1876 he became Second
Surgeon and in 1880 he ascended to the top job of First Surgeon, all the time
pressing forward with the application of Listerism in Aberdeen. But it was only in this year, with the
retirement of Prof William Pirrie, that Ogston was completely free to
promulgate Lister’s methodology. Pirrie
believed that acupressure could be used not only to stem bleeding from cut
blood vessels but also to control suppuration of wounds, though Ogston and
others at ARI knew that Pirrie’s results on the impact of acupressure on
suppuration were false and due to his nurses assiduously wiping all traces of
pus from operation wounds before Pirrie made his ward rounds. The detailed
progress of Ogston’s pioneering introduction of Lister’s techniques into
surgical practice in Aberdeen after 1869 has not yet been fully uncovered but
one excellent insight was produced by Dr John Scott Riddell, who graduated from
Aberdeen Medical School in 1886 and later became senior surgeon at Aberdeen
Royal Infirmary. In 1886 Riddell was
acting as chief dresser in Professor Ogston’s wards at ARI and was closely
associated with Ogston’s work for seven years subsequently, both in the
infirmary and in the university. He
described Ogston’s struggles with Lister’s detractors in the following
terms. “(Ogston was) A convinced
believer in the germ theory (the belief that many diseases are caused by
infections by specific microorganisms) and in the practice of Lister, he
helped to build up and improve its methods and was able to demonstrate to a
generation of students and the profession generally its safety and its infinite
possibilities. But there is always a
Mordechai in the gate. The opposition
and persecution which Lister met with in Glasgow, Edinburgh and London was not
wanting here (Aberdeen) and protagonists of the Listerian dogma in
Aberdeen had to fight for their opinions.
Indeed, some of the unconverted had been heard to say that if they could
get a sufficient number of germs to make soft pads, they would dress their
surgical wounds with them! Dr Riddell
went on to describe the operation of the steam spray. “This “Puffing Billy” was an infernal machine
which occasionally blew up and which I am afraid caused many finger burns and
much profanity. … I recall the wards of bygone years and conjure up the sounds
of steam sprays, hissing and spluttering a tainted atmosphere, redolent of
carbolic acid and iodoform (an early anaesthetic), varied with
occasional whiffs of the concentrated effluvia of soft soap and perspiring
humanity”.
During the
period when Alex Ogston was using the carbolic acid spray liberally,
enthusiastically and effectively, a famous four-verse ditty about Ogston’s
passion for the carbolic spray was composed (by “JM Bulloch and T Holt”,
according to Dr WC Souter) and appeared in the medical class of 1886 – 1890
graduation souvenir brochure. The
structure of the poem is quite complex.
Verses one and three have a routine rhyming structure of ABABABAB but
verses two and four are quite different and unusual, with an AABBBA rhythm,
suggesting the author was someone with a poetic bent. The poem captures not only the atmosphere in
Ogston’s operating theatre - “… shower it morning night and day …” - but also
aspects of his personality – “And few were his words, and his manner was always
deliberately slow”. When was this rhyme
composed? The reference to Ogston’s
involvement in the Egypt Campaign suggests its genesis occurred after 1885 but
“… we learned that the thing of the future …” suggests a much earlier date than
1885, since by that year the veracity of Lister’s techniques had been generally
accepted. Even in 1877, Godlee could
write that London was the only place in the world where the antiseptic doctrine
had not been conceded. On the other
hand, the reference to fixing a “shaky knock-knee” could put the date of origin
as early as 1876 (date of publication of Ogston’s seminal paper on that
condition). When Lister realised that
the air was not the main source of infection after an operation but the
patient’s own skin, contamination of the wound by foreign bodies, or the
surgeon’s instruments, or his own dirty hands, clothes or dressings, he
abandoned the spray. That was in 1887,
though Ogston was known to be still using the spray in 1892, which forms a
definite long-stop date for the composition of the verses, since they were
published in that year. Perhaps, like
other popular poems which are oft repeated, it evolved over time? Who were JM Bulloch and T Holt? Thomas Holt from Burnley, Lancashire
graduated MB CM from Aberdeen University in 1890 and subsequently became Burnley’s
medical officer of health. John Malcolm
Bulloch graduated MA from Aberdeen in 1888.
He then became a journalist for the Aberdeen Free Press and gained an
early reputation for genealogical research and for vers de société
(social or familiar poetry). It seems
almost certain that these two men were the authors of “A.O.” However, there was another medical graduate
who was equipped to play a part.
William Bulloch
(1868) graduated MB CM from Aberdeen University in the class of 1890. Other than sharing a surname with John
Malcolm Bulloch, there is no direct evidence that he was involved in the
writing of the “A.O.” poem. But, as will
be seen, he would have been qualified to do so.
William Bulloch became a bacteriologist and would later confess his admiration
for Alexander Ogston, who was one of his teachers. After several significant
postings, Bulloch was appointed Professor of Bacteriology at London University
in 1917. He was also the author of a
seminal work, The History of Bacteriology, published in 1938, which dealt with
the significance of Ogston’s work for the development of Bacteriology. Bulloch also wrote an appreciation of
Alexander Ogston’s life, which was published in the Aberdeen University Review
in 1929. Apart from Ogston’s ground-breaking
work on bacterial suppuration, Bulloch considered Alexander Ogston to have been
“the greatest practical doctor that Aberdeen had produced”.
“A.O.”
Then we came to the land of the dummy,
To learn how to handle the knife;
The thing to begin with was rummy,
But rummy sensations were rife,
The plan of inserting a suture
Was taught in a practical way,
And we learned that the thing of the
future
Was using unlimited spray
,
The spray, the spray, the antiseptic
spray
A.O. would shower it morning, night and day
For every sort of scratch
Where others would attach
A sticking plaster patch
He gave the spray
To perform an abdominal section,
To strengthen a shaky knock-knee
Were things he could do to perfection –
To this you must surely agree,
And few were his words, and his manner
Was always deliberately slow;
As long as we flutter life’s banner
We’ll always remember A.O.
A.O., A.O., the dignified A.O.,
The solemn Prof. who garbled no bon mot.
This great and gallant man
Explored the hot Sudan;
Got medals spick and span –
You know, you know.
After
the initial contact between Ogston and Lister in Edinburgh, a mutual respect
grew between the two men and they became good friends. In 1883, Ogston wrote in a letter to Lister,
“You have changed surgery, especially operative surgery from being a hazardous
lottery into a safe and soundly-based science.
You are the leader of the modern generation of scientific surgeons and
every good man in our profession – especially in Scotland – looks up to you
with such respect and attachment as few men receive”. Lister reciprocated these sentiments in his
presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science
when it met in Liverpool in 1896. Joseph
Lister’s nephew, Arthur Hugh Lister became a medical student at Aberdeen,
graduating MB CM in 1895 and subsequently serving as one of Ogston’s
dressers. Dr John Scott Riddell,
one-time senior surgeon at ARI has suggested that Arthur Hugh Lister came to
Aberdeen at the suggestion of his uncle because of Alexander Ogston’s presence
there. Arthur Hugh Lister died at sea in
1916, during WW1.
Alexander
Ogston and military surgery
The
Franco-Prussian war lasted from July 1870 to May 1871. The belligerents were France, led by Napoleon
III, and the North German Confederation led by Prussia, whose chancellor and
prime minister was Count Otto von Bismarck.
War was declared by Napoleon III.
He had been led to believe France would easily win such a conflict, but
this belief proved to be wildly inaccurate.
The Prussian army mobilised more quickly and rapidly defeated the French
leading to the siege and occupation of Paris, French capitulation and the
deposition of Napoleon III. Casualties
on both sides were large, but especially amongst the French troops. There were many wounded requiring treatment
in the two armies, and it was this war which led Alexander Ogston to become
interested in military surgery. With so
many injured soldiers in hospital it was an inevitable consequence that
hospital-acquired infections would become a significant problem and it was
certain that Lister’s techniques would be severely tested. Professor Richard von Volkmann, a leading
German surgeon (and earlier critic of Ogston), was so successful in applying
Lister’s methods that other doctors quickly attended his wards to see the
success of this new approach to the reduction of wound suppuration and its
associated mortality. Ogston published a
paper in the British Medical Journal in 1870 with the title “A method of
antiseptic treatment applicable to wounded soldiers in the present war”. It described a simple method of dressing
gunshot wounds using carbolic lotion and carbolized oil (carbolic acid
dissolved in olive oil). Although the UK
was not a combatant in the war, humanitarian considerations led British
volunteers to become involved in aiding the wounded on both sides, for example
by manning ambulance parties to recover injured soldiers from the
battlefield. This was a development that
Alexander Ogston later encouraged in Aberdeen with his support of local
ambulance volunteers. It also led to
Alex Ogston introducing military surgery into his lectures to students in the
medical school, since a significant proportion of the medical graduates would
end up working in the army. But Ogston
also realised that in order to teach the subject effectively he needed to have
first-hand experience. He wrote in his
book, “Reminiscences of Three Campaigns”, “… it was incumbent upon me as a
teacher of surgery and professor in the University, to give instruction to
students in the subject of military surgery, and I was not long in finding out
that to impart a knowledge of it as applied to war it was indispensable for me
to witness its operations in the field.
Hence, when the opportunity arrived, I was drawn by degrees into the
experiences I am about to relate”. His
opportunity would arise during actions in the Sudan during the Egyptian
Expedition of 1884 - 1885 to relieve General Gordon, who had been besieged by
the Mahdi’s forces in Khartoum.
The Aberdeen
smallpox epidemic of 1871 - 1872
Several waves
of smallpox affected Aberdeen during the 1870s.
In December 1871, the first of these crises was upon the city. Because the disease was so infectious and
with significant associated mortality, the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary could not
treat the victims, forcing the Town Council, under the Public Health (Scotland)
Act 1867, to open a temporary facility at Mounthooly, which had formerly
accommodated the Bon-Accord Chemical Light Company, and which was exclusively
for the isolation and treatment of smallpox cases. Alexander Ogston, then Joint Medical Officer
of Health for Aberdeen, was put in charge of this hospital at the beginning of
January 1872. The epidemic was quickly
brought under control and by the middle of July 1872, only two patients were
being accommodated and no new patient had been admitted during the previous
three weeks. There had been 230 cases
with 37 deaths, a good ratio in relation to what had been achieved in other
towns. Alex Ogston, along with his
medical resident, Dr James Inglis, had clearly performed their roles skilfully
and conscientiously. Arrangements were
made to close the facility and Alex Ogston then submitted his bill for
providing treatment to 220 patients - £472, calculated at 2gns per patient. When this account landed at the Town House it
caused deep disquiet due to its size, though one councillor, Baillie Ross, “thought
the bill reasonable given that Dr Ogston’s private practice has been injured,
the sacrifice of home and family comforts”.
The first reaction of the Town Council was to claim they had no
liability to meet his bill at all, since his letter of appointment stipulated
that he would only get his normal salary.
However, when the emergency was over, they would consider if they should
pay him something extra. Ogston shot
back that the two were not related. The
bill for services at the Smallpox hospital related only to his appointment in
January in charge of smallpox. He
immediately asked to be relieved of his responsibilities at the smallpox
hospital and as Joint Medical Officer of Health, told them that he would not
forgo his claim and reserved his position.
In fact, both Alex and his father resigned almost simultaneously by
letter, Francis on 23 August and his son a day later. Alex Ogston clearly possessed a very
different personality from his compliant, financially indifferent and
accommodating father, with whom the Town Council was used to dealing. By some means an agreement was reached that
Alex Ogston’s bill for services at the smallpox hospital would be submitted to
the arbitration of Dr Alexander Kilgour, a highly respected Aberdeen doctor,
who had been Senior Physician at ARI, had an extensive general practice in the
city and had been involved in examining the living conditions of the poor in
relation to disease. Dr Kilgour
attempted a compromise, though the basis of his decision was unclear. Alexander Ogston would be awarded £230, less
than 50% of his claim. Dr Kilgour,
perhaps trying to be even-handed, criticised the Council for not specifying
Alex Ogston’s duties and Ogston for not obtaining a binding statement as to his
level of remuneration. When the Town Council considered the letters of
resignation, the Lord Provost, William Leslie made a pointed distinction
between the two Ogstons. “I have no
hesitation whatever in recommending acceptance of Dr Alexander Ogston’s
resignation, but I think we should hesitate before we accept Dr Francis
Ogston’s. Dr F Ogston has always shown
himself, under ticklish circumstances, to be conciliatory and very willing to
do all that devolves upon him. (Applause)”.
Indeed, Francis Ogston had offered to continue in post until a
replacement was found. The local
authority then laid down their plan for the future. The replacement medical officer was to be a
single post, not split and to be offered to Dr Francis Ogston at a remuneration
of 100gns per year. It was also
suggested that, if there were to be another epidemic, the medical officer
should be paid at the rate of 1gn per day.
Francis Ogston accepted the offer, in his characteristic style, without
demur.
Alexander
Ogston’s status grows
In November
1872, Alexander Ogston was elected a Fellow of the Medical Society of London
and a year later he was nominated as an examiner in Medicine at Aberdeen
University. Also, in the same year he
was appointed to a small committee of the University to examine the medical
curriculum. Two years after, Alex Ogston
was asked to join the Committee on the Act and Ordinances and on the Arts
Curriculum set up by the General Council of Aberdeen University to report on
subjects to be brought before the then imminent Royal Commission. The year 1874
saw Alex Ogston promoted to the position of Third Surgeon at Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary, a full surgical post which involved him actually performing
operations and being paid for so doing.
He was now 30 and his colleague, Dr JC Ogilvie Will stepped up in his
place as Junior Surgeon. Alex Ogston
then started to teach Clinical Surgery courses to medical students along with
the other two paid surgeons, Drs Pirrie and Kerr. Alexander Ogston’s rise up the surgical
hierarchy at ARI soon ascended another rung.
He was promoted to Second Surgeon in 1876, when Dr Kerr resigned, this
advancement being met with applause in the special court of hospital
managers. Dr Ogilvie Will then rose, in
lockstep, to Third Surgeon.
Interestingly, Sheriff John Dove Wilson, a leading barrister, judge and
legal author, who was one of the managers, proposed that a senior surgeonship
at the hospital should always be held by the Professor of Surgery in the
University, perhaps anticipating that ARI’s new second surgeon had further to
go and realising that it would be anomalous if there were to be such a
disconnect between the hospital and the medical school.
In the
operating theatre, Alex Ogston’s creativity was at work inventing new surgical
procedures. In 1877 he published a paper
on the surgical treatment of knock-knee, his operation being used widely until
it was in turn superseded by a technique invented by Dr Macewen of
Glasgow. Dr Ogston also lectured, in
German, on his new technique in Berlin under the title, “Zur operative
Behandlung von Genu-Valgum”. (For the
surgical treatment of knock-knees).
Alexander
Ogston’s proposed reform of medical societies in the North-East of Scotland
In 1885,
towards the end of his year as president of the local branch of the BMA,
Alexander Ogston delivered an address to the association at its annual
meeting. The text of this substantial
presentation has survived and illustrates many features of its author’s
personality. He had a substantial grasp
of history, especially of the medical profession and its doings in, or for, the
North-East of Scotland, he was an excellent writer and raconteur, with a
flowing style and a wide vocabulary, he was fluent in German, he revealed a
reforming zeal for whatever subject, or organisation, with which he became
associated, a belief in medicine being underpinned by science and he displayed
a high level of integrity, with a desire to enhance the general good. But his address also illuminated the reasons
for initiating the local branch of the BMA some 13 years previously, in 1872. Some extracts from Ogston’s speech will
illustrate these points.
“After
acknowledging the honour which had been done to him and stating that it would
be his aim to serve the Society so it should be rendered more useful during his
term of office and in such a way that no one would justly desire he had not
been elected”.
“As the tides
and waves of worlds come and go and the destinies of races and nations ebb and
flow in seeming consonance with the universal laws of change, so do phases of
change pass over bodies of men, leaving their marks to be read as lessons by
those who succeed, if they have the will and penetration to understand
them”. This is almost poetic and the
internal rhymes (“come and go”, “ebb and flow”; “bodies of men”, “understand
them”) surely deliberate.
“The Annals of
Aberdeen show that it has contained, not one, but many pioneers of knowledge
who have won among the teachers of Britain and the Continent a high and noble
name; that its sons of medicine have been physicians to potentates and kings;
and even in our own hour we could point to those who are doing the like, and
whom after generations will delight to honour.
The shelves of our libraries and the portraits in our halls tell us also
of many who, remaining in the midst of us, have by their labours and genius
gained for themselves a lustre that has not yet faded”.
“But I would
not willingly be taken for a laudator of only the times that are past and
played out – my purpose is far otherwise.
I would rather seize the opportunity which I have in addressing you to
point out that we who belong to the profession here, who are now in this room,
are acting unworthily to ourselves, are neglecting an opportunity of
benefitting and ennobling our profession, and are so using the short time at
our disposal that our successors of the next fifty perhaps even twenty
years or maybe less, will, unless we are
wise, pass their verdict on our living and acting as having been
unworthy”.
This last
statement was a preface to a complaint about torpor, lack of vision and promotion
of self-interest in the medical profession in Aberdeen over the previous couple
of decades, including within the Aberdeen Medico-Chirurgical Society, which
Alex Ogston had perceived and countered.
“It has always
been the reproach of our profession that it has been disunited and torn by
strife, and to some extent the reproach is true and especially it has been true
of the profession in Aberdeen during the twenty years that are gone (ie 1865
– 1885). Twenty years ago, the
profession here consisted almost entirely of middle-aged or elderly men. I can hardly remember one who was under
fifty, and a singular mixture of most dissimilar elements they were. Some of them were men of all nobility,
nobility in its various styles – some were outspoken, fearless men, as true as
the light of the sun and as penetrating, who, regardless of intrigues and
jealousies around them, walked their own unassisted way as the acknowledged
leaders of the profession – others were of less force and more gentleness, who
strove to do what was right and just, but seeking to evade the turmoil of life,
passed through it little noticed in the privacy of their lives – and in
contrast with them is the meteor-like course of others, great yet little, noble
and generous at times, narrow and unjust at others, who, with powers that
should have raised them high and helped their brethren higher, yet fell short
of the goal they should have won, and failed too frequently and too lamentably
where they ought to have been pioneers to their colleagues and brethren. Besides these there were the usual grades of
mixed good and bad, the much bad with a little good, and the wholly bad when
weighed in the balance, not perhaps with other men, but with what they ought to
have been. As time passed on our best
lights went out, and the profession in Aberdeen fell to what I must call a very
low ebb. Its reputed leaders were men
without diameter, or without proper proportion in their diameters. Small or narrow, all were actuated by no
great thoughts for the welfare of the profession; and, starving under their
cold shade, science ceased to hold up its head in our midst. Our one local Medico-Chirurgical Society, the
pantheon of physic in Aberdeen, dwindled down to the verge of extinction, the
two or three who attended its meetings finding no justification for their doing
so in the thin and even injurious pabulum there provided for their intellects,
and everywhere mutual distrust and malevolence were rife among those who should
have been co-workers and friends”.
The oldest
medical society for doctors in the North-East of Scotland in the 1870s was the
Aberdeen Medico-Chirurgical Society, founded in 1789 by Aberdeen medical
students unhappy with the quality of medical teaching at both King’s and
Marischal colleges, as the Aberdeen Medical Society. One of the student founders of the Aberdeen
Medical Society was James McGrigor, who would later achieve considerable
prominence in military medicine. In
1811, the Aberdeen Medical Society evolved into a postgraduate organisation. This medical club acquired a home in the form
of the grand Medical Hall, designed by architect Archibald Simpson in a
classical style, in King Street, which was opened in 1820. By 1844, the society had changed its name to
the Aberdeen Medico-Chirurgical Society, an appellation which survives to this
day. The “Med-Chi” was followed in 1865
by the North of Scotland Medical Association, a conglomeration of all the
medical societies in the North-East of Scotland, including the “Med-Chi”. The purpose of this new grouping was “to
promote friendly intercourse among the members, the discussion of questions of
general or scientific interest to the profession and giving expression to the
opinion of the profession in this part of the country on public questions”. Individual membership was also possible.
Medical Hall, King Street, Aberdeen
The
Ogstons gravitated to the North of Scotland Medical Association, following
their disillusionment with the Med-Chi but also found that organisation
underwhelming. The amenable Francis
Ogston (1803) served during 1871 as president of that association. His
son. Alex was less accommodating as explained in his 1885 talk, “It was a
heart-breaking time for Aberdeen science.
Our North of Scotland Association, designed and fitted though it was to
unite the profession of the district in name and in reality, fell upon evil
times when it was originated, and has, during the whole course of its
existence, from one unfortunate cause or another, never done anything that
could be considered a good reason for continuing to be”. Alex Ogston then turned his attention to a
solution for this lack of purposeful interaction in the medical community.
“Amidst the
existing chaos of those days a few of the younger men were impelled together to
an effort to remedy the existing evils.
They resolved to set their face up against the dishonourable
professional courses then so general, and against those who were known to
practice them, and to endeavour to stimulate the decaying scientific aspect of
Aberdeen medicine into a renewed vigour more in keeping with what it had once
been, and ought to be”.
There was
another club for doctors, the Aberdeen Medical Club which operated between at
least 1868, but probably earlier, and 1875.
At its meetings members would make presentations on interesting cases or
conditions that they had come across but disharmony intervened and, due to
differences in "vital and fundamental doctrine" between members, the
club was disbanded in 1868. A small
group of doctors, including Smith, Ogston, Fraser and Davidson, continued to
meet but the gathering proved to be inviable and the club finally ceased in
1875.
Dissatisfaction
with the Med-Chi came to a head for the Ogstons in 1872. Even before this year, at the 1869 AGM of
that organisation, neither Ogston was involved in the management of the society
for the following year. An ordinary
meeting of the Med-Chi was held in February 1872, immediately followed by a
special meeting “to consider and determine on the proposed alterations in the
situation and arrangements of the Society”.
No report of that special meeting has been uncovered, but it seems
likely that this was the occasion when Alex Ogston and his associates, the
angry young men of the Aberdeen medical community, sought change in the Med-Chi
but failed in that quest. One bone of
contention was the exclusion of country doctors from the Med-Chi. Alex Ogston was 28 at the time and his
solution to the problem of the thin gruel of medical discourse was to establish
a local branch of the British Medical Association as a vehicle for the meeting
and professional mixing of North-East doctors.
The British
Medical Association traces its origin to an organisation of medical
practitioners formed in Worcester in 1832 during the cholera epidemic of that
year, with the aim of doctors pooling knowledge about that dreadful
malady. It became a national
organisation in 1858, when it adopted its present name. Over the years it has had a variety of roles
advising governments, national and local, on medical matters but increasingly
it took on the role of protecting the interests of its members and after WW2
became a registered trades union. The
British Medical Journal was founded and is owned by the BMA. In Scotland the first regional branch of the
BMA in that country, the Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine Association, was formed
in April 1872 on the initiative of Alexander Ogston, who was the leading
advocate for this innovation, the circumstances of which have been explained
above. The Aberdeen Journal praised his
courage. “We should fail in an act of
justice if we did not say how much is due to the efforts of Dr Alexander Ogston
of Aberdeen who has spared no pains to contribute to the success of the Branch
and who will act as its Honorary Secretary …”.
Later, he was elected president of the local branch of the BMA at its
1884 AGM for the following year and it was during that year that he made his
illuminating address to the membership which covered his reasons for
stimulating the formation of the branch.
Alex Ogston’s
assessment was that between the local branch of the BMA being formed in 1872
and the year of his speech, 1885, progress had been made. “Their efforts in the first direction have
slowly born fruit, so that it may be fairly stated that at the present day,
Aberdeen stands behind no district in the loyalty of its medical men towards
one another and towards themselves. In
the second direction, that of rekindling the torch of science their endeavours
have also not been entirely in vain.
Partly owing to their own labours and partly to the attraction to the
chairs of the University of talented men, Aberdeen can at present show a large
number of highly distinguished physicians, some of whose names are known among
their compeers to the very ends of the civilised earth. But much remains to be done ere we can feel
that our verdict, and that of posterity upon us, would be what we all would
have it to be. There is among us no
proper concentration of the scientific centres, so that the benefits of
cooperation may be duly utilised, and the fostering care science always
requires be rightly and effectively bestowed”.
What did Alex Ogston have in mind to promulgate such change?
First, he
appealed to the sense of honour and duty of his audience, especially its
younger members, and the need to put the greater good ahead of any personal
considerations. “But I would ask those,
from whom so much will be expected, to consider well the lesson they have to
learn today from the past and present, to decide wisely but resolutely upon what
they have to do, and, having done so, let no considerations save those of duty
and the honour of the profession prevent them sweeping away every obstacle that
may oppose itself to the carrying out of every needful reform or revolution. I may be pardoned for being more
precise. At the epoch when science had
sunk among us to its lowest ebb, an endeavour was made, by one who has borne
the highest honours of this branch, to institute such a change in our medical
societies – especially in that Valhalla of our bygone great men, the
Medico-Chirurgical Society – as would constitute it that needed centre of
professional and scientific life which it was felt was required as the
commencement of such a change. A
proposal to reform the Society and adapt it to the requirements of the day was
carefully elaborated, hedged around with all the safeguards that prudence could
suggest, proved by calculations carefully made at every point to be
practicable, safe, and advisable, and brought forward, only to be shipwrecked after
a desperate struggle, by the then leaders of the profession with whom they were
then so powerful”. This was a reference
to the attempt to reform the Med-Chi in 1872 in which Alex Ogston appears to
have played a leading part. “The
hopelessness of prolonging the struggle in the circumstances of the hour led to
secession from the Society and to the establishment of our present branch of
the British Medical Association. This
step, though its necessity was to be regretted, proved a drastic remedy to the
disease it was meant to cure. It has
steadily increased the usefulness, the harmony, and the status of the
profession since the hour of its inauguration; it has gathered around it a band
of workers who have raised science from the dying state in which it lay and who
hope to raise it yet higher, and it has brought together the workers over a
large district, rendered them acquaintances and friends – produced from their
labours a mass of valuable scientific work that has raised our town and
district not a little in its own esteem and in the esteem of the scientific
world elsewhere. Such an amount of
valuable work has never before been effected by any like association here”.
Alex Ogston was
also able to claim that the secession of himself and his acolytes from the
Med-Chi had, in itself, produced beneficial reform in that society. “… since emulation is the soul of progress,
the Medico-Chirurgical Society has slowly felt the force, and has itself
resumed, I believe, an energy and activity that it never exhibited in my
day. I am truly glad to say this. … I
recognise – I believe I may say we all recognise – that to a reformed
Medico-Chirurgical Society we must eventually look as the place where the
memories of our scientific heroes of the past should live, where our own may
perhaps live when our day is done and our fight well fought, where all that is
of interest regarding the history of medicine here ought to be gathered
together, and where not only medical but all other scientific societies ought
to find a common point to which they would gravitate towards mutual contact.
But Ogston did
not rest with this high-minded aspiration for unity. He also proposed a practical mechanism by
which it might be brought about, but he warned that the “levers of inaction”
against the necessary moves would be mobilised.
However, he had faith that the pressure for change would eventually
prevail. “Come these changes must, and
come they will, whether soon or now I care not, and know not, but the time has
passed when the inaction and apathy that once hindered the profession here can
long keep it disunited, and it will be a welcome thought to me if any words of
mine from this chair, which I feel so proud to fill, should hasten the fullness
of the time when the younger and abler men of our profession will rise and
sweep irresistibly before them all who may bar their progress by declaring
themselves hostile to the union of the town and country profession into a
strong , active and honourable combination”.
Ogston’s plan
for reform proposed selling the Medical Hall on King Street, valued at about
£2,200, buying and fitting out a house as a new headquarters, investing the
balance and using the interest on that sum, plus annual subscriptions to meet
running costs. The house would contain a
library, reading room with newspapers and periodicals, a museum, a smoking room
(!) and bedroom accommodation for country members. The constitution would ensure a regular
turnover of officeholders and the Widow’s fund, which Ogston described as a
“financial excrescence” should be “lopped off”.
The North of Scotland Medical Society should cease to exist, and the
local branch of the BMA should hold its meetings as part of the program of the
Med-Chi Society. The BMA members should
pay their subscriptions to the reformed Med-Chi and, since the BMA organisation
had, at that time, 106 members, he thought the advantage of his proposal to the
Med-Chi would be obvious. Some members
of the Med-Chi must have thought that Alex Ogston, who had seceded from the
Society and set up a rival, showed a considerable extent of brass neck in
telling the predecessor organisation how to evolve. Ogston’s plan was not instituted in the
big-bang fashion that he proposed but the Med-Chi did, over the years, move on
a very similar path to the one Alex Ogston proposed and today it fulfils most
of the functions that he foresaw for it.
Alexander
Ogston and the Medical Students’ Society
Although the
Aberdeen Medico-Chirological Society had originally been formed by
undergraduates, it had become a postgraduate society by 1811. Subsequently, a Medical Students’ Society was
created and in 1877, Dr Alexander Ogston, then the rapidly-rising Second
Surgeon at ARI, was proposed for the honorary post of president of the
society. At the committee meeting where
the proposal was made, it was “received and carried amidst loud and prolonged
acclamation”. The Aberdeen Journal
remarked, “Dr Ogston has we understand well won his popularity among the
students by his unwearied exertions in behalf of the advancement of surgery in
the Aberdeen Medical School”. Later the
same year, the Honorary President addressed the students, and he took the
opportunity to criticise the medical curriculum. In the manner of a minister addressing his
congregation from the pulpit, he took as his text the proposition, “The
Aberdeen medical student is an ill-used man, misled, over-worked, badly advised
and, to crown all, unaware that he is so”.
He then paraded his beefs concerning undergraduate teaching; inadequate
coverage of insanity, diseases of the ears and eyes and many practical aspects
of medicine but too much time spent with the preliminary subjects such as
Botany, Chemistry and Anatomy. He
prophesied that these defects could not long remain unaddressed. The students were so impressed with Alex
Ogston’s address that they asked permission for it to be published, to which he
readily acceded. He probably welcomed
this outcome as a means of gaining further publicity for his views. At the end of the meeting, Alex Ogston
received three cheers from his student admirers.
Alexander
Ogston marries Isabella Margaret Matthews
The marriage
between Alexander Ogston and Isabella Matthews took place on 1 August 1877 at
Queen’s Cross church in the West End of Aberdeen. This was Isabella’s first marriage at the age
of 29. The couple was married by the
Reverend Henry Cowan, minister of nearby Rubislaw church and husband of Jane,
Alexander Ogston’s older sister. Frank
Ogston, Alexander’s younger brother, was one of the witnesses. Isabella Matthews’ father, James Matthews,
was a prominent architect in the North-East of Scotland with many landmark
granite buildings to his credit, including Aberdeen Grammar School (1861) and
Ardoe House (1877). This latter commission was for Alexander M Ogston, the soap
manufacturer cousin of Professor Alexander Ogston. In 1877, James Matthews entered into a
partnership with Mr Marshall McKenzie.
One of their most noteworthy joint designs was the Aberdeen Art Gallery
(1883). James Matthews became a town
councillor in 1863 and later, from 1883 to 1886, he served as Lord Provost of
Aberdeen. Alexander Ogston’s second
marriage was a productive one, eight children being born between 1878 and 1889,
four of each gender.
Alexander
Ogston and Spiritualism
Spiritualism is
not capable of a single unambiguous definition, since it is a term which has
been applied to a series of different beliefs.
However, the specific phenomenon to which some people gave, and give,
credence can be simply described as mind-reading, the alleged phenomenon where
a message can be passed from one person to another by a non-physical route.
Washington
Irving Bishop (1855 – 1889) was an American who became associated with stage
acts which could be grouped under the general term of mind reading. By the early 1870s Bishop was the manager of
a stage spiritualist called Anna Eva Fay but in 1876 he exposed her act as a
sham and then went on to mount his own anti-spiritualist stage shows, openly
advertised as de-bunking the claims of the stage spiritualists and exposing
them as tricksters.
He travelled
with his show internationally and in September 1879, Bishop fetched up in
Aberdeen, where he mounted two anti-spiritualist exhibitions at the Music
Hall. He recruited the then Lord
Provost, George Jamieson to preside for each evening performance and also
assembled a panel of prominent citizens to scrutinise the proceedings. The members of that panel were: Alexander
Walker, Dean of Guild, Rev Henry Cowan, Rev James McClymont, Rev HW Wright, AD
Milne, Secretary Aberdeen Philosophical Society, Professor Smith-Shand, John
Webster LLD, Keith Jopp, Alexander Ogston MD and his brother Frank Ogston MD.
Washington Irving Bishop
The
performances by Mr Bishop attracted large paying audiences. He reproduced tricks performed by other stage
spiritualists and then explained how they were achieved. The Aberdeen Journal was impressed by the
performance and also by the public good being done. “It is gratifying to find a gentleman of such
education and social position as Mr Irving Bishop undertaking to expose the
trickeries and delusions which soi-disant spiritualists have tried to foist
upon the credulous. America to whom we
are indebted for the very questionable benefit of spiritualist teachers has now
the credit of sending to us a most effective anti-spiritualist crusader who in
addition to affording us an evening of interesting amusement is really doing
good service in clearing away a mischievous fraud”.
No record has
been discovered of the reactions of either Alexander or Frank Ogston to the
exposure that they had experienced, but it is likely only to have convinced
them that only the physical world is real, and that the scientific method is
the only valid way to investigate and understand that world.
Alexander
Ogston’s bacteriological research
In 1878, Robert
Koch in Germany published his seminal work on “Unter-sauchangen Ulder die
Aetiologie der Wundinfektionskrank-heiten” (The aetiology of the traumatic
infective disease), in which he showed that the injection of putrefying
substances such as blood and meat infusion into mice or rabbits could cause several
different infective diseases, such as septicaemia, abscesses and
erysipelas. In the document’s preface Koch
wrote, “The objective of the enquiry was to determine whether the infective
diseases of wounds are of parasitic origin or not. Owing to extraneous circumstances, I found it
necessary to confine myself solely to experiments on the action of putrid
materials on animals … In order to
obtain a complete answer to the question it would have been necessary to carry
out a further series of experiments on animals with materials obtained from
persons suffering from, or who had died of, traumatic infective diseases and
what indeed seems to me to be the most important, to look for microorganisms in
the human body”.
Ogston, a
fluent German speaker and familiar of the scientific scene in Germany, must have
been aware of Koch’s work. Also, as a
result of his interactions with Joseph Lister, Alexander Ogston had become
intrigued by the precise relationship between microorganisms and wound
infection. “Often, I meditated on the
subject (acute suppuration) and became the more convinced that there was
a single cause, and that the cause was some special germ. But it was some time before it was possible
for me to verify this conviction. At
length I came upon a case of disease which promised to solve the problem”. That case was a young Aberdonian who had a
serious abscess. “I had to attend a Mr
James Davidson who is still (1920) alive, a young man suffering from an extensive
suppurating phlegmon (inflammation of soft tissues) of the leg almost erysipelatoid
in its character though not erysipelas.
Procuring a clean vial, I evacuated into it the matter from the phlegmon
through the unbroken skin, proceeded home with it and placed a little pus under
an ordinary student’s microscope with a quarter inch objective. My delight may be conceived when there were
revealed to me beautiful tangles, tufts and chains of round organisms in great
numbers which stood out clear and distinct among the pus cells and debris all stained
with the aniline violet solution I had employed to render them more
distinct. The pus on the microscope
slide which appeared to indicate the solution of a great puzzle filled me with
great hope. I long preserved it but
lately it has been lost or at least mislaid”. This observation of microorganisms
in a case of human disease partly filled the gap identified by Koch and
preceded a remarkable series of laboratory tests by Alex Ogston on the
experimental induction of wound diseases in laboratory animals using
microorganisms isolated from abscesses in patients. He later wrote many informative notes on this
work, but there is an extreme paucity of actual dates for each stage in his
experimental progression, though some approximation is possible from other
sources and from incidental clues that Ogston gave.
Alexander
Ogston had a building added to the back of his house, 252 Union Street, in
which he could conduct his experimental work.
This can be dated fairly precisely from the application for planning
permission to Aberdeen Town Council in April 1879. “New Buildings. Additions to the back of 252 Union Street for
Dr Alex Ogston per Mr J Duncan Matthews, 15 Albyn Terrace”. J Duncan Matthews was the only brother of
Isabella, Alex Ogston’s second wife. The
father of Duncan and Isabella Matthews was the prominent Aberdeen architect,
James Matthews. Duncan was born in 1851
and initially trained as an architect but in 1869 he contracted typhoid fever
and subsequently suffered ill-health. As
a result, he gave up architecture and entered Aberdeen University to study
zoology, though the date for this change has not been uncovered but is likely
not to have been earlier than 1879. He
became a close friend of James Cossar Ewart, the Regius Professor of Natural
History between 1878 and 1882. Presumably,
this architectural assignment at 252 Union Street was too trivial for James
Matthews senior to take on, so it was passed to his son, JD. From the fact that planning permission was
required for this building, it seems probable that it was built of masonry and
was an extension of the house. What
appears unlikely is that it was a “shed” as it has been claimed elsewhere.
Another
significant date comes from the minutes of the Scientific Grants Committee of
the BMA. In August 1879, “It was
resolved that it be recommended that the following grant be made: Dr Ogston:
For research into the relation between bacteria and surgical disease. £50”.
The apparatus bought by Alex Ogston included a Zeiss microscope with
Abbé condenser and oil immersion lens, a camera and a zinc incubator. This is a clear indication that the initial
observations on pus taken from the leg of James Davidson, which was examined
under “an ordinary student’s microscope with a quarter inch objective” preceded
the arrival of the state-of-the-art Zeiss microscope and probably also the
application for the grant from the BMA, since Onston would have needed
preliminary results to justify his application, but since the observations were
made after he “proceeded home”, his laboratory, or at least a room in his
house, may have been in use, perhaps late in 1879. However, a student microscope would only
produce vague images of bacteria and more detailed observations would require
the sophisticated Zeiss microscope with the oil immersion objective lens and
staining with aniline-derived dyes, which originated in the burgeoning German
chemical industry. It seems likely that
Ogston derived his request for experimental equipment from the BMA largely by
copying Koch’s published techniques. A
year after his initial grant from the BMA, Alex Ogston received a second
subvention from that source, this time of £10 “for the continuation of Dr
Ogston’s research”.
Another
important component of Alexander Ogston’s experimental work was the use of
investigations in live animals. In the
1870s, there was considerable public opposition to the conduct of experimental
procedures causing pain in experimental animals, as there is still today. A Royal Commission was instituted, resulting
in the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876.
This Act regulated the conduct of experimental procedures on vertebrate
animals which were likely to cause pain and required experimenters to obtain a
licence before doing so. The animals
were to be anaesthetised and, when the experiment was over, killed. Thus, Ogston had to become licensed before he
could carry out experimental work on the production of abscesses. As an aside, Queen Victoria suffered from an abscess
on her arm in 1871. Joseph Lister had
been appointed Surgeon in Ordinary in Scotland to the Queen in 1870 and he was
invited to join Sir William Jenner and Dr Marshall in treating this painful
swelling, while the Queen was at Balmoral.
The decision was taken to drain the infected locus, which aim was then
successfully achieved. Subsequently, in
1875, Sir Henry Ponsonby, the Queen’s Private Secretary, wrote to Lister on her
behalf asking him to make a public statement opposing vivisection, of which
she, too, disapproved. Lister, with
great courage, in a long and carefully argued letter, declined to accede to the
monarch’s wishes.
By early 1880,
when he made public his first results, Alex Ogston’s experimental programme, in
his home laboratory and using his new equipment, was well underway. It is germane to recall that at this time, he
was only 36, second surgeon (but would be appointed first surgeon during that
year) at ARI and was yet to be appointed to a chair in the University of
Aberdeen. He was a practising surgeon,
not an experimental microbiologist, by training, yet he had jumped from nowhere
to the leading edge of bacteriological research in the world over a period of a
year or so. The experimental programme
continued until 1883 when pressure from his clinical, surgical and teaching
commitments forced him to give up laboratory work. “But the limited time and opportunities I
possessed in the midst of a big surgical practice proved to be impediments
which were insuperable for me, and I had to leave to others more fortunately
situated the pursuit of further enquiries.”
After the initial
observation of microorganisms in the pus from James Davidson’s abscess, in
Ogston’s own words, “A vast number of observations were made in my little
laboratory over a period of many months, even years …”. What were the significant results that he produced? One fundamental observation was that the
bacteria came in a variety of shapes.
Micrococci were round or slightly oval-shaped and presented either in
chains (which Theodor Billroth, the German/Austrian surgeon, had called streptococcus
(strepto – chain, coccus – grain, seed or berry in Greek), or clusters, like
the roe of a female fish. To this latter
group of organisms, Ogston gave the name staphylococcus (from staphylos,
the Greek word for a bunch of grapes) on the suggestion of Professor WD Geddes,
the professor of Greek at Aberdeen University.
Alexander Ogston was thus the originator of this name for an important
bacterial genus, which nomenclature has long been generally accepted. Other bacterial types had spirilla (spiral)
or fusiform (spindle-like) shapes.
Ogston was able to show that the two different micrococcus colony types
were due to the plane of fission of the cells when they reproduced,
streptococci always dividing in the same plane, in contrast to staphylococci,
which divided in varying planes. Alex
Ogston described his preparations of abscesses as follows. “In objects so prepared the micrococci are
unmistakable. They are very deeply
stained in comparison with the surrounding objects”. Alexander Ogston sought the opinion of James
Cossar Ewart of the Department of Natural History at Aberdeen, who confirmed
that Ogston was indeed seeing micrococci and not some artefact. Perhaps the link to Cossar Ewart came through
the architect of Ogston’s home laboratory, J Duncan Matthews, who was studying
with Cossar Ewart?
Theodor Billroth
Alex Ogston set
about an extensive sampling of the contents of abscesses, many collected by
himself, some collected by his brother Frank, others collected by various
general practitioners around the North-East of Scotland, such as Alexander
Keith, the Aboyne doctor. Collaborators
were given written instructions on the method of collection. All abscesses were being sampled for the
first time and through unbroken skin using the principles established by
Lister, so as to ensure no contamination.
The 82 samples were divided into three groups based on their
activity. Thirteen were deemed to be
“cold” in that they had been present for months without growing, four were
classed as somewhat chronic, a sort of intermediate category and the remaining
65 were classed as acute, that is actively growing. Smears made from the samples were stained and
examined at high magnification, when “cold” abscesses were found to lack
micrococci. All other samples proved to
contain bacteria, sometimes in chains, sometimes in clusters. Alex Ogston also estimated the concentration
of cells in the pus samples using the haemocytometer and found values which
varied from 900 to 45,000,000 cocci per cubic millimetre of pus. These findings proved that the initial
observation of micrococci in the abscess from James Davidson’s leg was not a
coincidence but a regular feature of actively growing abscesses. Of 64 abscesses where observations were made,
17 contained streptococcus alone, 31 contained only staphylococcus
and the remainder (16) had micrococci in both chains and groups. However, in this last category he observed
that the two types were not uniformly distributed through such samples.
Alexander also
examined discharges from disease conditions other than abscesses, including
sycosis (inflammation of hair follicles on the male face), the sexually
transmitted diseases, gonorrhoea and soft chancre, sputa from patients with
phthisis (pulmonary tuberculosis), the discharges from both ulcers and wounds,
and common acne. All these sources,
except acne, proved to contain micrococci.
Ogston also confirmed that micrococci could not be found in normal human
tissue.
Pus samples
from human abscesses were injected “under spray” beneath the back skin of guinea
pigs, wild and white mice anaesthetised with chloroform. Pus from inactive abscesses, which contained
no micrococci, failed to produce any reaction at the injection site, while
injections of pus containing micrococci generated abscesses at the location of
the insertion, “well marked disease was set up”. This set of observations proved that it was
the bacterial component of the injection which was responsible for disease
generation, thus furnishing the proof that Koch had been unable to provide,
that bacteria from human abscesses induced the same disease in experimental
animals. This conclusion was reinforced
by the observation that pus samples first treated with carbolic acid or heat
failed to generate abscesses in experimental animals. Further, if chains were injected, only chains
were produced in the resulting abscesses and vice versa for clusters. A further
significant generalisation was reached by Alexander Ogston, that the severity
of disease in experimental animals was dose related, the greater the number of
micrococci inserted, the greater the inflammatory response. However, even when extreme dilutions of the
micrococci were used for injection, they still produced disease at the entry
site.
When Alexander
Ogston first started to make his results public, he was met with scepticism and
even downright condemnation in some quarters within Britain, just as Joseph
Lister had before him. It was yet
another case of “A prophet has no honour in his own country”. (Biblical origin
- John 4 43-44). In 1880, Ogston
arranged to present his results to Joseph Lister, whose views he respected, at
a meeting which took place in the house of Dr James Matthews Duncan in
London. Joseph Lister had moved to the
capital in 1877 to occupy the Chair of Systematic Surgery at King’s
College. Matthews Duncan was another
graduate of the Aberdeen Medical School who became a prominent obstetrician,
first in Edinburgh and subsequently in London, where he moved after failing to
be appointed in place of Professor JY Simpson in the Scottish capital. Lister “expressed himself satisfied” with the
veracity of Ogston’s claims but Lister’s assistant, William Watson Cheyne,
another loon from the North-East of Scotland who had studied medicine at Edinburgh
University was sceptical. Watson Cheyne,
who was a follower of Listerism, expressed the opinion that Ogston’s staphylococci
were harmless bystanders in the disease process. This posed Alexander Ogston with a problem
which he set out to resolve by experimentation.
James Matthews Duncan
Another Ogston
innovation was to develop a technique for culturing staphylococci outside
the body, using fresh hens’ eggs as a nutrient medium, kept at blood
temperature. This was presumably the
reason for him requesting a zinc incubator from the BMA in 1879. This use of hens’ eggs was also employed in
the same year by Dr Patrick Manson (1844), another son of Aberdeenshire,
doctor, contemporary and friend of Alexander Ogston, who would be responsible
for important work in tropical medicine, particularly the role of mosquitos in
transmitting malaria. It has been
speculated that Manson learned of the egg culture technique from Ogston and not
vice-versa. A small sample of pus
bearing micrococci, when introduced into the egg, quickly reproduced to
generate many more identical micrococci.
By transplantation of a small sample from one egg into a second egg,
Ogston was able to isolate pure cultures of micrococci. Were there strains of micrococci which did
not produce suppuration? This population
of independent, passaged isolates gave him a means to test the question. He found that sub-cutaneously injected
micrococci always produced local lesions, while injection of egg albumin alone
was without consequence. Ogston had
proved the conjecture of Koch that micrococci isolated from human abscesses
produced similar diseases in experimental animals, from which the same
microorganisms could again be recovered and treatments which inactivated the
micrococci, such as carbonic acid or heat, also removed the ability of the
injected material to cause disease.
In 1884, after
Alexander Ogston’s research findings had been revealed, Robert Koch published
his postulates, a set of conditions which must be met to establish a causal
relationship between a microorganism and a specific human disease. They were as follows. 1. The
microorganism must always be found in individuals suffering from the disease at
issue. 2. The microorganism must be isolatable from a
diseased individual and capable of being grown in pure culture. 3.
This isolated microorganism must cause the same disease when inserted
into a healthy individual. 4. The microorganism must then be re-isolatable
from the infected individual and shown to be identical to the original
isolate. However, Alexander Ogston had
already proved these stages for staphylococcus-induced abscesses in
humans. Koch’s postulates were very
important in the early years of microbiology as a set of principles to guide
those seeking to establish that a microorganism was disease causing. They still work, approximately, for bacteria
(except for strains of disease-causing organisms which do not produce
ill-health) but they do not work for viruses and are no longer revered in the way
they once were.
Robert Herman Koch
Ogston was also
able to explain why micrococci were essentially harmless when present on
healthy skin but were so harmful when present in deep wounds. They grow best in anaerobic conditions, such
as the damaged and dead tissues of a deep wound, but not so well on the skin
with a normal blood supply and exposed to the air. A further conclusion that Ogston reached was
that the various conditions appearing after micrococcal infection may not
necessarily be independent of each other.
In some cases, they may be part of a series which starts with a local
infection producing inflammation, perhaps progressing to an abscess and finally
being generalised by spread through the blood stream to generate systemic
conditions such as blood poisoning.
One of the most
damaging, but unreasoned, criticisms of Alex Ogston’s work came from Ernest
Hart (1835 -1898) the editor of the British Medical Journal, ironically owned by the
British Medical Association which had twice funded Ogston’s research work. After publishing a paper (“Report upon
micro-organisms in surgical diseases”), from Ogston in March 1881, Hart, in a
withering editorial posed the rhetorical question “Can any good thing come out
of Aberdeen”? Further papers submitted
by Ogston were refused by the BMJ and so had to be sent elsewhere for
publication, such as the Journal of Anatomy and Physiology. Alex Ogston maintained his dignity, though
underneath he was clearly stung by this cheap shot. “But these rebuffs did not really give me
much concern. The men who mattered
knew. The others were of little
consequence”. Ernest Hart, who trained
as a surgeon, had previously been editor of The Lancet, was very successful in
increasing the membership of the BMA and in expanding the circulation of its
journal, but his campaigning style of editorial could be vicious and sometimes
misdirected. He did, however, do
sterling service in debunking the arguments of anti-vaccinators opposed to
protection against smallpox. Alexander
Ogston was not Hart’s only illegitimate target.
Twenty years later, in 1901, Alexander Ogston still felt some animosity
towards Hart. Ogston was the principal
guest at the Convener Court dinner held annually by the Incorporated Trades of
Aberdeen. This ancient craft guild still
exists but has a largely ceremonial function, recognising Aberdeen citizens who
have made notable achievements in public life, and it was in such a capacity
that Ogston appeared to speak in answer to the toast to “The Medical
Profession”. He gave a witty speech, in
which he praised the historical support that the university had received from
Aberdeen’s merchants, towards the end of which he referred to Hart’s
put-down. In those innocent times when
ethnic origins could be referenced without causing instant offence, Alexander
Ogston said the following. "Once upon a time he had heard with horror that an Englishman had asked a sneering question - "Can any good thing come out of Aberdeen?" (Laughter). He called him an Englishman. In one sense he was so, but he was of the same race as the one who first asked the question. He was an Israelite, indeed, but he believed , was not one without guile. (Laughter.) That man was now at the end of his ignorance. (Renewed laughter.) If he were to meet with others equally prejudiced or equally uninformed of how they would deal with all students requiring energy, business capacity or learning, they had only to give them the answer that was given to Nathaniel - "Come and see." (Loud applause.)." (Hart was born in England but had Jewish heritage). (“And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.” (John 1:45–46.))
It proved to be
a difficult task convincing local doctors, too, of the validity of his
impeccably conducted experiments, which Ogston later admitted. “The final step of convincing the medical
profession of the validity of this discovery proved to be a rather thorny
one”. His best students immediately
accepted the findings, but a demonstration before the Aberdeen, Banff and
Kincardine Branch of the BMA in April 1880 was received with incredulity,
principally by Dr Angus Fraser (Senior Physician at ARI and irreverently known
as “Anguish Eraser”) and Dr Robert Beveridge (Pathologist at ARI and no fan of
Dr Ogston). They could not believe that
there was any connection between the presence of microorganisms and
inflammatory disease. Because of the
discouragement he had met in Britain, Alexander Ogston decided to make a
presentation of his work in Berlin before the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur
Chirurgie, of which he was made a member, in April 1880. The title of his presentation was “Die
Beziehung der Bacterien zur Abcxessbildung” (The relation of bacteria to abscess formation). This led to leading German doctors, Virchow,
Mikulicz, and Czerny accepting his findings.
Also, Dr Rosenberg of Gottingen, repeated Ogston’s experiments, with a
confirmatory outcome. Ogston later
wrote, “… my work was accepted in Germany as valid and proved”.
Due to the
brief period of time during which Alexander Ogston conducted his
bacteriological experiments (1879 – 1883), the fact that his subsequent high
public profile was gained largely through his involvement with military surgery
and the long delay before the veracity of Ogston’s work on micrococcus was
established and eventually accepted by the most senior surgeons in Britain,
Ogston’s authorship of this brilliant extension of Koch’s work was largely
forgotten. It was left to those who
really understood the historical development of bacteriology, such as Professor
William Bulloch to set the historical record straight. In his book “The History of Bacteriology”,
published in 1938, Bulloch wrote, “Ogston was the only worker in England (he
should have said “in Great Britain” but perhaps he meant “in the English
language”) who now finds a permanent place in the history of pathogenic
bacteriology in its classical period.
His observations and views have all passed so much into common knowledge
that only on his death in 1929, half a century after his work was published,
serves to remind us of the man who correctly interpreted the exact aetiology of
acute suppurative processes in man”.
Alexander
Ogston is appointed to the Regius Chair of Surgery at Aberdeen University
William Pirrie
(1807) was a son of the soil, born on a farm near Huntly, Aberdeenshire. He studied medicine at Marischal College and
in 1839 he became the first holder of the Regius Chair of Surgery at the
college. After the fusion of 1860,
Pirrie was appointed to the identical position in the new University of
Aberdeen. The same year he became the
Senior Surgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
He retired in June 1882 and died a few months later at his home, 253
Union Street, a near-neighbour of Alexander Ogston, who was appointed
Regius Professor in his place. However,
Pirrie was one of the reactionaries that Alex Ogston battled over the need for
reform at the Med-Chi and over the validity of Lister’s methods of antiseptic
surgery. Perhaps, not surprisingly,
Pirrie entrusted his personal medical care, not to his neighbour but to Robert
Beveridge, Pathologist at ARI and fellow reactionary, who was secretary to the
Med-Chi in 1872 when Ogston attempted his reformation of that society. Beveridge was also one of Alex Ogston’s
detractors concerning the relationship between bacteria and suppuration. There had been a substantial groundswell of
opinion in medical circles that the Regius Chair of Surgery should go to Alex
Ogston, with even the medical students raising a petition in his support. Because the Regius Chair was formally in the
gift of the monarch, Ogston was informed of his elevation by letter from Lord
Rosebery, then the Lord Advocate, the senior Scottish law officer, in October
1882. Professor Ogston held this post
until his resignation in 1909.
Lord Rosebery
The Aberdeen
United Trades Council held an exhibition of Industry and Art between Christmas
day 1882 and 1st January 1883.
One of the Exhibitors was Mr James Kinnear, of King Street, Aberdeen,
who manufactured limb prostheses for use by those who had suffered
amputation. Alexander Ogston visited the
exhibition and was sufficiently impressed to buy several of Kinnear’s models
for use in his university teaching. In
April 1883, the University Court gave Ogston permission to mount a new course
in Operative Surgery, fee 2gns, during the summer session, in addition to his
course in Surgery held in the winter session.
The course in Operative Surgery opened in late October. It was the tradition for professors to take
the first lecture of each course and to make an introductory address, which allowed
the lecturer to indulge his rhetorical whims but Professor Ogston, never one to
follow the herd, declined. “He said he
had become impressed with an unfavourable opinion of them for all he had heard
and read he could not recall a single sentiment or observation that was worth
the uttering. They loomed in the horizon
that lay behind him to use a phrase of the late Lord Beaconsfield’s like a
goodly array of extinct volcanoes. The man who would write the first good introductory address
had yet to burst upon the public. A
series of providential circumstances prevented his birth into the University
world being attended with the usual first ovation and feeling as he did that nature
had made him utterly incompetent to do any credit to her or himself in that
particular line, he desired with their permission to plunge at once into that
which lay before them without the intervention of any prefatory fireworks”. Alexander Ogston took the same line the
following year, too.
However, in
1890, his friend and fellow disciple of Listerism, Dr John Ogilvie Will,
resigned as senior surgeon at ARI to concentrate on his private practice. Alex Ogston took time out at the start of his
first lecture in the summer session to present a precis Ogilvie Will’s contributions
to surgery, particularly antiseptic and urethral surgery. "Dr Will was one of the first in Aberdeen to examine into and recognise the advantages of the antiseptic treatment of wounds, which had revolutionised surgery and was now acknowledged in its principles by all. As an investigator and and teacher of urethral surgery, Professor Ogston believed Dr Will stood second to none in Britain, and most students now in the University, as well as many generations of them scattered over the world, owe to him the most thorough and intimate knowledge of all the most modern suggestions and results of experience in that department. "... if a method could be contrived whereby they could retain his teaching of urethral surgery in the University and Medical School it would be of the greatest possible benefit to the students". In fact, Ogilvie
Will remained in association with ARI as a consulting surgeon.
A similar
diversion was also allowed by Ogston if a senior colleague had died. In the autumn of 1891, "A large class of students met in the Natural History classroom to hear Professor Ogston's introductory lecture in surgery. The Professor, before commencing the subject referred with regret to the loss the faculty had sustained by the deaths of Prof Smith-Shand and Drs Moir and Hall". Prof
Smith-Shand was Professor of Medicine and was another medical neighbour of Alex
Ogston, living at 256 Union Street.
Then, without a word of greeting to the students he launched into his
first lecture, the topic of which was surprising as it “treated of life - protozoal and developed - in its growth, maturity, decline and decay". What a far-sighted person to put a lecture series on surgery in such a
broad philosophical context!
Alexander
Ogston and the Egyptian Campaign 1884 - 1885
After 1819,
when Sudan was invaded by Egypt, that country was governed by an Egyptian
administration. However, the Egyptian
Government became heavily indebted, partly as a result of financing the
construction of the Suez Canal, and the British stepped in to relieve those
debts in return for control of the waterway.
A heavy system of taxation had been imposed on the Sudan by the
Egyptians which caused deep resentment and led during the 1870s to a
nationalist uprising led by Muhammad Ahmad, the self-styled “Mahdi” (the
guided one). Various Egyptian
attempts were made to defeat and capture the Mahdi, but they were unsuccessful,
led to the annihilation of the Egyptian expeditions and the seizure of their
weapons and ammunition.
By 1882 the
corrupt and incompetent Egyptian Government was largely under the direction and
control of the British and a further attempt was made to defeat the Mahdi with
a much larger Egyptian force led by a retired British officer, William Hicks, which
was sent south in 1883. This too was
heavily defeated by a numerically superior Mahdist force, with mass slaughter
ensuing. There was then a change of
strategy to one of Egyptian withdrawal from Sudan, which would become
self-governing, but to achieve this the Egyptian forces present in the Sudan
needed to be withdrawn in an orderly way.
General Charles Gordon, who hailed from a dynasty of soldiers, was given
this task. Gordon arrived in Khartoum,
the Sudanese capital on 18 February 1884 and immediately realised that
withdrawal would be complex due to the scattered nature of the Egyptian
occupation. Gordon remained in Khartoum
longer than was strategically wise, his forces were surrounded, the city put
under siege and eventually overrun on 26 January 1885. Gordon himself was hacked to death and his
body mutilated. Widespread killing of
the city’s defenders and civilians then followed.
General Charles George Gordon
The British
Government had been reluctant to become directly involved in the war, looking
upon it as an Egyptian responsibility, but came under pressure from British
public opinion when Khartoum was put under siege on 13 March 1884. Gladstone, the British prime minister, agreed
to a relief force under Sir Garnet Wolseley being sent to break the siege of
Khartoum and to rescue General Gordon.
Wolseley decided the best way to reach Khartoum would be to travel up
the Nile to the Sudanese capital. His
force departed Cairo on 26 October 1884, but progress was slow, inducing
Wolseley to split his men into two groups, with one section taking a direct
route overland to Khartoum, while the remaining men continued upstream. Wolseley’s relief force failed to arrive in
time to save Gordon. This Nile campaign
was still in operation when Alexander Ogston arrived in Cairo, but he said that
this expedition was inaccessible to him.
Alexander
Ogston was already deeply interested in military surgery by the 1880s but knew
that if his teaching was to be of maximum use to his students, he needed to
gain experience of field conditions during a war. In early 1885, he viewed the campaign in the
Sudan as an ideal opportunity to acquire that front-line experience. The Aberdeen Journal reported on his
activities. “A medical volunteer corps
is being organised in Aberdeen for service in the capacity of “dressers” in
connection with the Sudan Campaign. Dr
Ogston Professor of Surgery and senior surgeon of the Infirmary took occasion
yesterday to moot the subject to his “dressers”, stating that for some time it
had been in his mind to spend the vacation in Egypt and while there to offer
his services to the Medical Department of the Government. The campaign now in progress in that country
afforded to young men excellent opportunities of gaining experience in their
profession while at the same time rendering important aid to the wounded. There were two ways in which they might
tender their services either by applying to the War Office or the St John’s
Ambulance Society. Only those however
whose desire was experience should volunteer as the remuneration, if any, would
be of the barest kind. It is understood
that between twenty and thirty of those present intimated their readiness to
volunteer and many others we understand who only heard of the subject through
the pages of the Evening Express are desirous to join the expedition. It is understood that the corps will start
about the end of March and that the class examinations will be held on a date
earlier than usual to suit the arrangement”.
Ogston offered
the services of himself and his team of dressers to the Medical Department of
the War Office. That organisation
quickly replied, about 16 February 1885, declining the offer and saying that “no
civil surgeons are to be employed in connection with the Department”. But Alexander Ogston did not take this rebuff
as the final word on his participation in the campaign in the Sudan. As will be discovered repeatedly in this
account of Alex Ogston’s life, he was so well connected that he could pull in
favours from many different organisations both at home and overseas.
In anticipation
that his services would somehow be required and accepted in the Sudan, Alex
Ogston made preparations to leave Aberdeen.
However, he only retrospectively applied formally for permission from
his two employers, the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and the University of Aberdeen
for leave of absence! In a letter to the
Committee of Management of the hospital, dated 23 February, the day before his
departure, he wrote “I trust it will be your pleasure to approve of my having
absented myself from the Infirmary for a time in order to familiarise myself
with some of the phases of surgery that are not met with at home but which
there is at the present moment a favourable opportunity of witnessing in
Egypt. I must offer my apologies for not
having first requested and obtained your permission, but I should have missed
the opportunity had I waited for this”. In early March, after Alex Ogston had already
left for Egypt, the Senatus of the university approved Alexander Ogston’s
absence in the Sudan and appointed Dr Mackenzie Davidson in his place to
discharge the duties of the Surgery class during the present session. Prof Hay was appointed Convener of the
Committee on University Extension in place of Prof Ogston. Later, substitutes were named for Alexander
Ogston’ examination responsibilities, Dr Ogilvie Will for Clinical Surgery (he
declined the task) and Dr Garden for Systematic Surgery. Ogston anticipated a return to university
and hospital duties at Aberdeen in the autumn of 1885.
Alexander
Ogston then travelled to London, reaching the capital on 25 February 1885. He immediately proceeded to the War Office,
where he was cordially received and obtained the necessary documented
permissions, with the help of “my friend Inspector-General Robert Lawson (an
Aberdonian who received an honorary LL D from Aberdeen University in 1884)
of the army medical service, who introduced me to the Director-General”. Ogston lost no time in departing. He left London on 27 February, travelling
overland across Europe to Brindisi on the Adriatic coast of southern Italy. From there he took a ship to Alexandria, the
nearest port to Cairo. But his
expedition was thus being undertaken by the Aberdeen surgeon alone, without the
participation of the other volunteers he had organised in the city.
A force, under
the command of General Sir Gerald Graham, VC, was sent, in March 1885, down the
Red Sea to the port of Suakin in the Sudan.
It arrived at its destination on the 12th of the month, with
orders to defeat strong Mahdist forces, led by Osman Digna, in the region and
thus to protect the construction of the Suakin – Berber railway, which was
intended to transport military equipment and troops rapidly from the Red Sea to
Berber on the Nile, 200 miles north of Khartoum. It was planned to use Berber as a base for
operations against the occupiers of the Sudanese capital. The contract for construction of the railway
was secured by Lucas & Aird of London and 150 of their navvies, with
materials for railway construction, left Tilbury docks bound for Suakin in the
Osprey in late February.
In the Egyptian
capitol, Alex Ogston found that a former classmate, Dr James Grant, who
graduated MB CM from Aberdeen in 1864, was working there on the control of
cholera outbreaks and had been given the honorary title “Grant Bey” by the
Khedive for his role as physician at that ruler’s court. Grant Bey helped Ogston to obtain the
necessities for his pending journey down the Red Sea. Alexander Ogston also obtained the services
of a devoted Dongolese (native of Dongola in northern Sudan) servant,
Mohammed Achmet, who could “cook, wash, groom a horse, and do whatever else was
likely to be required of him …”. Another
Aberdeen-trained doctor, Surgeon-Major James Forbes Beattie (MB CM 1863), who
was the senior doctor in the military hospital in Cairo did Ogston another
valuable service by introducing him to the principal medical officer of Cairo,
through whom Ogston acquired a recommendation to the head of the Commissariat
Department to be given a passage from Suez at the top of the Red Sea the 900
miles south to Suakin, a natural harbour in northern Sudan and the nearest sea
port to Khartoum, in support of General Graham’s expeditionary force of about
12,000 men. The force was to be equipped
with “… all the most up-to-date appliances for the sick and wounded, including
field hospitals, bearer companies, and materials for dealing with the
difficulties that might be met with under any conceivable eventualities in that
part of Africa”. Although Alex Ogston
would have to finance himself, “… but even so it was an occasion not to be lost”.
Before leaving
Cairo, Alexander Ogston also toured the military hospital there, which was
treating sick troops from the Egypt campaign, the first experience he had had
of such a facility. Later he wrote, “I
saw no wounded there, however, the cases being all of typhoid fever, liver,
abscess and abdominal complaints, with some slighter ailments”. This was a lesson that Alex Ogston would
learn repeatedly over the coming years, that many casualties of war are not ill
due to the fighting but to other causes, such as accidents and, especially,
infections. Another unexpected
characteristic, which Ogston regretted, was the absence of female nurses, whom
he looked upon as much superior to male orderlies at caring for patients. He would later find that the Ganges hospital
ship, on which he served at Suakin, had on its crew four experienced female
nurses from the Netley Military Hospital, near Southampton.
The “Ganges”
was a newly built P&O steamer, intended for the run between Britain and
India, which was chartered by the Government in February 1885 and converted
into a hospital ship, which would carry the symbol of the reversed Swiss flag,
ie a red cross on a white background, to denote its status as a neutral vessel
treating injured combatants. All the
cabin accommodation was stripped out to create a series of airy wards. Ganges was painted white to help reflect the
tropical sun and the vessel was equipped with several rowed boats and a barge
for conveying the wounded, all provided with canvass shades. The beds had punkas, to cool the patients and
mosquito nets, and the vessel also had an ice machine to help keep the
atmosphere at an acceptable temperature.
The Ganges was visited by the Prince and Princess of Wales, with
Princess Louise of Wales, at the Royal Albert Docks in London on 25 February,
the day before she departed for the Red Sea.
This ship, carrying 30 soldiers, arrived at Port Said on the
Mediterranean coast of Egypt on 9 March and soon passed through the Suez
Canal. Alex Ogston joined the vessel
about this time in Suez at the southern entrance to the canal and, after a
pleasant cruise down the Red Sea, reached Suakin on 15 March, where Ogston
found that construction of the railway to Berber had already begun. The entry to the harbour at Suakin required
careful navigation through coral reefs and a long passage along the Y-shaped
inlet, taking them past the town’s cemetery, with its scatter of crosses, where
the British dead were buried, a sobering experience for those on board. Immediately on arrival a steam launch brought
out the first casualty to be treated on board the hospital ship, a guardsman
with an assegai (native spear) through his arm and chest, laid low by a camp
intruder at night while he slept in a tent.
Not all locals living in Suakin were hostile to the British and Alex
Ogston found them to be engaging people.
“The natives were fine-looking people, whom one respected at first
sight; they were “friendlies” of course and showed us their spears and shields
with a proud defiant air as they chaffed the Britons. The townspeople appeared
happy and contented, men, women, and the beautiful chocolate-coloured babies
who ran about with nothing on. In the sea between Suakin and its suburb El-Khaf
were merry companies of men and women bathing, laughing, and enjoying the
sunshine”.
Hoisting a patient onto the Ganges at Suakin
The British
National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War had been formed in 1870
and gave help to the wounded on both sides in the Franco-Prussian War. In 1905 it would be renamed the British Red
Cross. The British National Society sent
out a number of medical men (including Drs Squire, Piggot, Lake and Newby) to
serve on the Suakin expedition and Alex Ogston worked alongside them, initially
it appears, for a short period, on board the Ganges hospital ship between about
15 and 20 March and then intermittently on board, after time spent in the
field, dealing with casualties of the fighting.
A first foray into the hinterland between Suakin and Berber by a body of
soldiers took place on 20 March. General
Graham, in command of about 8,500 men set out to capture Dihilbat Hill and
establish a zeriba (a fortified enclosure, usually protected by a barrier of
thorn bushes) there. Alex Ogston chose
to go with them, accompanied by his servant Mohamed and attached to the First
Bearer Company, led by Dr Barnett. They
made progress across the sandy plane and soon found themselves in an engagement
with the enemy about 10 miles west of Suakin.
A young surgeon was riding a horse near to Ogston when he was shot in
the left side of his chest and mortally wounded. He died the following day. Alex Ogston was quickly busy tending the
injuries of the dozen or so men caught by enemy fire. One of the Arab leaders was shot in the soft
tissues of both thighs, disarmed and captured.
He was sent back to hospital in Suakin, where he eventually recovered
and was liberated. The engagements of
that day are generally referred to as the Battle of Hasheen. About 1,000 Arab fighters were killed while
the British lost 48 killed or wounded.
The battle was Alex Ogston’s first real exposure to the complexities of
treating warfare wounds in the field. Treatment
consisted mostly of applying dry antiseptic dressings and giving morphia
hypodermically, so that the wounded could be transported. The British force returned to Suakin the same
day. In addition to the facilities on
the Ganges, a field hospital was established ashore and some of the nurses from
the Ganges sent there to help, much to Ogston’s approval, because they had a
great civilising effect on the men in the camps. Before their arrival there were “unseemly
things” visible about the camps, but the presence of the women changed all that.
Two days after
the Battle of Hasheen, another local fight took place between the British force
and the local Arab militia at Tofrek, which was even nearer to Suakin. General Graham sent out a force of 3,000 men
under the command of Major-General Sir John McNeill to establish two zeribas to
act as staging posts for an attack on Osman Digna’s headquarters at Tamai about
12 miles from Suakin. The first zeriba
at Tofrek (which became known as McNeill’s Zeriba) was still under construction
when an Arab force was spotted nearby, which then attacked. The battle lasted about half an hour only and
resulted in about 1,000 dead Arabs, 100 dead in the defending group, plus about
150 injured. On 2 April 1885, a mixed
group of British and Indian soldiers broke camp to march to Tamai and Professor
Ogston travelled with them accompanied by his servant Mohammed. He was also joined by Drs Squire, Lake,
Piggot and Newby. On the way, the
accompanying engineers put up a captive balloon to spot ambushes ahead and
Ogston made a drawing of this activity.
When the forces arrived at Tamai, they found it undefended, but the
withdrawn Arab fighters had formed a defensive position beyond the
settlement. The fighting did not last
long and resulted in some casualties.
Alex Ogston set to work helping the injured near to his location and
then joined the march back to Suakin. He
remained at Suakin for the residue of his time in the Sudan, observing the
operations of the National Aid Society.
He treated Kennett-Barrington the local representative of the National
Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War, for sunstroke and was then
charged by him “with the organisation of the supply of comforts to the sick and
wounded at the base, and in the minor expeditions going on beyond the lines”.
Area of Sudan near Suakin
Mr
Kennett-Barrington, wrote a letter between the time of the Battle of Hasheen
and the march on Tamai, which was sent back to England. It gave some account of Professor Ogston’s
work for the Society. “We have been very
busy here – all our medical staff actively at work. Professor Ogston attached to bearer
corps. Piggot and Lake attached to base
field hospital in attendance on wounded.
Squire also attached at same hospital to administer chloroform and do
other work. Prof Ogston was in Zareba at
the fight at Hasheen and has been assisting in various surgical operations
since. He is already very popular here
and has free access to all the hospitals.
He will accompany the expedition to Tamai.” While still in Africa, possibly when
Alexander Ogston made his likely way from Suez, via Cairo, to Alexandria at the
end of April 1885, Alex Ogston’s efforts in providing medical services at
Suakin were recognised by the award of the Egyptian campaign medal and the Khedive's
bronze star.
Sometime after
the return from Tamai, Alexander Ogston became ill, cause undiscovered, and was
invalided home to Great Britain before the end of the Suakin campaign, though
by the time he departed on the P&O steamer Deccan, which was under contract
as a troop carrier at the time, he was well enough to supervise the care of
some of the injured troops who were also being sent to England by the same
vessel. “I was put in charge of some of
those who were being sent to England on the P. and O. steamer Deccan, and so
was able to follow the patients to Suez, attending them on the way, and
afterwards to Netley Hospital, where the cures were to be completed. I do not
think there was a single case of a serious wound which I did not follow from
the field to Netley”. The Deccan
departed from Suakin about 17 April 1885 and arrived at Suez about two days
later. There some of her passengers,
including 39 injured officers and men, were transferred to HMS Crocodile, a
6,211ton displacement troop ship, which was on a passage from Bombay, for the
journey to England. The Crocodile
departed from Suez on 23 April but was then delayed by a stranding in the canal
and arrived at Malta on 30 April and Portsmouth on 8 May. However, it seems likely that Professor
Ogston travelled home from Suez by a different route. One of Alex Ogston’s drawings constructed on
his journey home was of “Crete” and was created on 24 April. On this day, HMS Crocodile was stuck in the
Suez Canal. A close pass of Crete, which
would be necessary to make a drawing, would be a route taken by a steamer
travelling from Alexandria to Brindisi, a reversal of the journey made by Professor
Ogston on his way out to Egypt. His undated drawings of a man and a woman in
Alexandria fall in a sequence which supports this hypothesis. When he got back to England, Alexander Ogston
is known to have diverted to the Royal Victoria Hospital at Netley on
Southampton Water, where the injured troops that he had accompanied on the
Deccan were being taken for further treatment.
However, Ogston could not have seen the injured men he was responsible
for on the Deccan because they only reached Portsmouth with HMS Crocodile on 8
May and by that date Professor Ogston had arrived back home in Aberdeen.
HMS Crocodile
West Wing, Netley Hospital
After the visit
to Netley, Alex Ogston travelled north via Manchester, where the club of
Aberdeen graduates in that city held a dinner on 6 May to which he had been
invited and at which he spoke. The purpose
of the meeting had been two-fold. To
help with the developing plans at their alma mater for an extension of
accommodation, with which Alex Ogston had been closely involved before his
departure for Egypt, and to welcome the leading surgeon back to the country
from the Sudan. Professor Ogston made a
statement to the meeting on the expansion proposals which led to a resolution
pledging the support of the Aberdeen graduates present to assist in the
development and to the setting up an executive committee to expedite that
purpose. Alex Ogston spoke again after
supper on his Sudan experiences and his reasoning for making this risky
trip. It was for the pursuit of
knowledge. “The truth was that for the
last twelve- or fifteen-years military surgery had been growing into such a
gigantic and important branch of the profession – had in itself been developing
into so large a field of surgery – that a vastly increased attention to it in
teaching was absolutely demanded”. He
went out to the Sudan bearing the prejudice that the army surgeons would be
inferior to their brothers in civilian practice, due to lack of opportunity to
acquire relevant experience, but he found this view to be wide of the
mark. “He met men whom he considered to
be as well-informed surgeons as any he had ever met among civil surgeons. Anti-septic treatment was carefully carried
out, and the results were simply splendid.
There was only one case where he saw a man die of a preventable wound
complication, and that was not the fault of the medical arrangements, but of
the circumstances under which the man was wounded, and the length of time that
necessarily elapsed before he could be attended to”. He also found that there was great enthusiasm
to improve their operations and he was given unrestricted access to medical
facilities wherever he went.
Alex Ogston’s
description of medical treatment in the field pays a remarkable tribute to the
skill and bravery of individual army medical staff in operating so far forward
during combat. “No sooner was a man
wounded in the field than he was treated, and, except during an active rapid
movement made under pressure of circumstances a man was within 30 or 35 seconds
in the hands of the surgeons and being treated anti-septically. Two or three surgeons of the most admirable,
sensible and well-skilled type attended him.
The clothing was at once taken off, no unnecessary interference took
place with the wound and the wound itself was treated without any of the probing
with the fingers which used to be thought necessary, but with anti-septic
dressing thoroughly adapted to the case.
Arrangements were made for the man to be sent back to the place where
the serious part of the examination was to take place, namely – the field or
base hospital. They had an infinite
number of means of transport, so that the difficulties of carrying a man over
ground of almost any nature could be overcome. … During the conveyance back to
the rear the wounded were provided with everything needful, attention to them
being the first object of a large number of thoughtful, skilful and good men
who accompanied them”.
The British
Prime Minister, WE Gladstone, a Liberal, then in his second period as premier,
abruptly changed policy towards the Sudan in May 1885. The Suakin to Berber railway was abandoned
after only 20 miles had been completed at enormous cost, and the campaign
against the Mahdi was also terminated on 12 May. This led to General Graham’s force being
evacuated from Suakin five days later.
The Ganges hospital ship remained offshore at Suakin throughout most of
month, though an alarming number of fever cases were present, and the heat was
intense. She finally left the Sudan for
Portsmouth on 26 May. Today Suakin port
is known as “Osman Digna Port”, commemorating the Mahdist leader in that
vicinity.
A
characteristic of Alex Ogston’s personal make-up came to the fore again on this
exposure to new circumstances and new information. He started to think about how medical
services to wounded soldiers in the field could be reformed and improved both
with regard to the military and concerning the operations of the National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War.
Alexander Ogston had no criticism of the
medical and surgical equipment available, but he found that organisational
matters were often chaotic, arrangements for transporting injured personnel
were “a jumble”, and the rank-and-file orderlies “were not the most able
soldiers”. “When there at Suakin, I,
rightly or wrongly, formed some strong opinions about the future of the army
medical department and the National Aid Society, which the experience of
subsequent years has not greatly altered. I there came to the conclusion that
the medical departments of our fighting forces, military and naval, could never
quite occupy the proper position or do their proper work so long as they were
subordinate to the War Office and Admiralty ; that they should be under a
Minister responsible to Parliament, the nation, and the profession, who should
be aided by a council composed of officers of the services, and an equal number
of civilian experts of the highest standing, possessing rank, pay, and
authority equal to the service officers, their colleagues, so as to ensure
their status and give weight to their opinions. I also concluded that it was
quite necessary that the officers of the medical services should have military
rank like the other branches (a thing which has since been conceded); and that
as a matter of course the medical services ought to be kept complete and perfect
in every point, with their own transport and appliances, and all this in peace
as well as in war. As regarded the National Aid Society, it seemed to me, if
its work were to be fully carried out, that it also ought to come under the
same parliamentary chief as, and through him operate hand in hand with, the
medical services, thus diminishing jealousies and ensuring proper supervision,
proper responsibility, and proper continuity of policy. My views were possibly
Utopian, at any rate they were such as could not well be urged until the times
were ripening for them, but I had little doubt but that they must eventually
prevail, and one of the results of the experience I gained at Suakin was a
resolution which I formed that, if it should ever lie in my power, I should
strive to advocate such improvements of the services as might lie in the
directions I have just indicated, without regard to the odium which is the sure
potion of every one who ventures to suggest reforms in the War Office”. After his return to Great Britain at the end
of April 1885, when he spoke to Aberdeen graduates in Manchester, he expanded
on his criticisms of army organisation and that was concerning the storage and
transport of all the components of a medical service in the field. “A hospital with its tents sent out from one
quarter, and its beds from another, and its pillowcases and blankets from a
third, and its utensils from a fourth, its drugs from a fifth, its servants from
a sixth and its medical men from many other places, could not all at once fit
together; and that was unfortunately at present the difficulty with which the
Medical Department had to contend. It
was not completely within itself, and its carts, its beds, and the like, were
all brought together for the first time on the field, each perhaps going out in
a different ship. … It was quite evident that to do justice to the Department
and to those whom they would have to treat, the hospitals and the bearer
companies should work together at home”.
In addition to
Alexander Ogston’s surgical skills which were on display during his presence
with Sir Gerald Graham’s force, Ogston also found time to exercise his literary
and artistic skills. His description of
the landscape at Suakin as his first evening in camp, about 22 March 1885 (see
above), made the transition to night, evokes the wonder and awe he felt before
this natural beauty. Alex Ogston’s
artistic efforts from the Suakin expedition have mercifully survived and are in
the care of the University of Aberdeen.
Not all his drawings are dated, but some relate to specific events which
took place in a known time frame.
Aberdeen University Special Collections describes the sequence as
follows. “Corfu from P & O Steamer
between Brindisi and Alexandria; Sketch of sailor. Entrance to Alexandria and
first view of Africa; Red Sea Coast of lower Egypt. Vocabulary of
Egyptian-Arabic. Coast of Arabia from the Red Sea. Suez Canal. "View from
the door of my tent in camp at Souakin", 22 March 1885. Arrival at [Dihilbat?],
Hasheen and [Deberet?] from the English camp (22 March 1885); Arrival of
Australian troops at Souakin (29 March 1885). Plain of Souakin. McNeill? -
sketch of figure on horse from distance next to observation post.
"Inflation of balloon...during advance on Tamai". "Village of
Tamai and action going on, Good Friday 1885". Gorge at Tamai (Khor), Good
Friday 1885. Arab boat, Souakin Harbour, 16 April 1885. Mirage at Souakin 1
a.m. (16 April 1885). The reality 7 a.m. The "Deccan's" Tailor. A
Mahdi's Man. Inscription on the Mahdi’s Flag with translation. Ham-stringing
knife carried by female warrior. Dagger from an Arab warrior. Arab head-rest.
Mount Sinai, from the Red Sea - 19 April 1885. Wady Moussa (Wells of Moses)
seen from the Red Sea, 19 April 1885. Egyptian Man (Alexandria). Egyptian Woman
(Alexandria). Crete (24 April 1885)”.
Alexander
Ogston arrived back in Aberdeen on 8 May 1885, in the company of his wife,
Isabella, who had travelled down to England to meet him. At the Aberdeen Joint Station, the couple was
greeted by a large body of medical students.
They found their Professor of Surgery browned and in good health. He was carrying, in addition to his luggage,
an assegai, a native spear made of wood with an iron tip, which he handed
round. Three days after his return he addressed a large attendance of students
at Marischal College, where he received an enthusiastic reception. Speaking without notes, he gave an extensive
account of his main experiences in the Sudan, thanking the students for their
“kind friendliness” though he personally shunned demonstrations of this nature
and complained about the pile of correspondence which awaited his
attention. For him, celebrity was a
cross he necessarily, but reluctantly, had to bear. Warming to his theme, he first gave a history
of the changes which had occurred in the treatment of the casualties of battle,
starting from simply leaving the injured unattended, to carrying the wounded
with the fighting army, to the modern arrangement of having a corps whose
dedicated role was to treat the afflicted and remove them from the field, but
not to be participants in fighting themselves.
Here he had a direct message for his audience concerning the role that
medical students could play in war as volunteer bearers, saying that he
mentioned this point to the students once before. This related to the action he had taken in
encouraging medical students to volunteer as dressers in the Sudan some months
earlier.
Professor
Ogston then related two stories of personal bravery, one from each side of the
struggle, which had clearly had a deep personal effect on him. The first occurred during the action at
McNeill’s Zariba. A body of Arabs
charged up to the square formation of soldiers armed only with spears and
swords but were cut down by the rifles as they advanced. However, about 100 of them bearing flags penetrated
the defensive square. Of that 100
determined brave Arabs, not one left the square and among them were three women
armed and fighting like the others. There
were even little children of 12 years of age engaged in the fight. One child was carrying a little hook-shaped
knife to hamstring horses or to slash at soldiers. This lad, in his own courageous way, was
dancing around an officer who was being attacked by an Arab with a spear and he
was making digs at the officer with his knife on purpose to lacerate his flesh
and hamstring him. He continued doing so
until the poor officer who had no other way of ridding himself of the little
fiend and yet had it not in his heart to strike a child, hit him with his foot
in the pit of the stomach and knocked him over, whereupon he was immediately
bayonetted by a less soft-hearted private.
This participation of the women and children in the contest showed the
spirit that actuated those brave Sudanese tribes. The second story concerned a doctor named
Osborne, who found himself outside the line of defence amongst those who might
be called the stragglers. Leaving his
horse and handing his sword belt and revolver to his servant, he proceeded
towards the zareba to get a light for his pipe, or some purpose of that
sort. He had not proceeded half-way when
he heard a whooping and shrieking behind him and the tumult, confusion and
stampede of the horses and camels.
Turning his head, he saw that the Arabs were within a few tens of yards
and before he had time to reach the zareba, a place of comparative safety, one
of the leading Arabs was upon him. He
was absolutely defenceless, but he took up a hatchet which had been dropped by one
of the engineers and, turning round, he met his opponent who made a lunge at
him with his spear. This thrust the
doctor parried with his hatchet and then he struck the Arab a fortunate blow on
the top of the head so that he fell heavily and was stunned, whereupon the
doctor very rapidly and promptly jumped upon him and smote him repeatedly over
the head until he was unable to stir.
Throwing down the hatchet the doctor then made the best of his perilous
way into the square to avoid the other Arabs who were now coming up. He fortunately escaped with his life but with
the loss of nearly every article he possessed unless his clothing.
Almost ten
years after the start of his journey to the Sudan, in 1894, Alexander Ogston
was prevailed upon to contribute to “The Book of Lochnagar”, a commemorative
volume edited by Robert Profeit, the talented eldest son of the Balmoral
factor, Dr Alexander Profeit and sold to raise funds for the replacement of
Crathie Church. Alex Ogston’s offering
was a nominally fictitious story titled "The Capture of Tosheen", which, though its central characters are clearly fictitious, is heavily
autobiographical in its descriptions of landscape, advancing soldiers,
skirmishes with the enemy, the capture and sacking of the village of “Tosheen”
and the devious enemy officer shot through both thighs with a revolver but
subsequently treated with consideration and finally released. It is surely derived principally from the
author’s own experiences of the Battle of Hasheen. Alex Ogston, in the words of the Aberdeen
Evening Express, "relates the incident with rare literary skill, dash and humour and the article is illustrated with a sketch of a Mahdist banner and several Soudanese weapons".
Alexander
Ogston’s involvement in the British Medical Association
After first
filling that role in 1885, Alexander Ogston led the Aberdeen, Banff and
Kincardine branch of the BMA again in 1900 and from 1915 to 1919. He thus remained a prominent member of this
local association for many years and not merely filling a titular role. In 1899, a group of local doctors, including
Alex Ogston, were authorised to approach Aberdeen Town Council with advice on
the prevention of tuberculosis. They
gave their opinion that safeguarding the milk supply and inspecting all meat exposed for sale were the most important actions for the Council to take. In July 1885, the local branch of the BMA
held a meeting at 198 Union Street, which was preceded by a visit to the
infirmary at Woolmanhill to see a number of demonstrations, one of which was
presented by Alexander Ogston on the anatomy and operative cure of flat foot.
Francis Ogston,
Alexander’s father, had resigned from the roles of Police Surgeon and Aberdeen
Health Officer in 1880. In 1888, the
post of health officer again became vacant, and the local branch of the BMA
discussed memorialising its views on the filling of this post to Aberdeen Town
Council but there was some disagreement within the group as to its exact
position on the subject. Some felt that
this was not a matter on which they should intervene with the Town
Council. Others, including Alex Ogston,
felt that they should communicate with the council and press the case that the
appointee should be medically qualified and should abstain from private
practice. However, this was a problem
for other BMA members that they should expect a qualified doctor to accept £300
as his only annual income. Eventually,
an amended motion, proposed by Alex Ogston, was carried. “To memorialise the Town Council of Aberdeen
that the appointment of medical officer of health at present vacant be filled
up by a qualified medical practitioner who shall be excluded from private
practice and who shall devote himself to sanitary and medico-legal work”.
In several
years, including 1888, 1889, 1894, 1895 and 1898, Alexander Ogston was chairman
of the local BMA’s Parliamentary Bills Committee, which had oversight of
pending legislation, looking for measures which might impact the conduct of the
profession. During WW1 when Ogston was
chafing at home in Aberdeen through the stasis imposed upon him in 1916 (see
later), he used his position as president of the local BMA branch to appeal to
other inactive doctors to contact him with a view to becoming employed in war
work.
Alexander
Ogston also played a prominent role in the BMA nationally. In 1873 he was elected secretary of the
section devoted to surgery at the annual meeting of the BMA held in London. The 1887 annual meeting of the BMA was held
in Dublin and Alex Ogston was vice-president of the surgical section of the
program. He spoke on some lessons from
the Egyptian War. Glasgow was the venue
for the following year’s get-together, when Professor Ogston tackled another
orthopaedics topic, the surgical aspects of rickets. Alexander Ogston was president of the
surgical section of the BMA when it met in Carlisle in 1896. The year 1899 saw the BMA venture to the home
of the British Navy, Portsmouth for its yearly get-together, when Alex Ogston
was again the vice president of the surgical section. On this occasion he made a trenchant speech
criticising the organisation of British military medical services, which caused
a major furore (see below). When the BMA
visited Aberdeen in 1914, it was inevitable that the most prominent local
doctor, Alexander Ogston should be invited to be president of the meeting. He also chaired a local committee charged
with making the arrangements for 1,500 anticipated visitors, which was a major
problem since the local hotels could only accommodate about 500 guests and
private homes had to be employed. There
was also a Ladies’ Committee, which met at the Ogstons’ town house, 252 Union
Street, to arrange a program for accompanying wives. By 1915, Professor Alex Ogston felt that he
was out of touch with modern developments in surgery and associated basic
sciences (he was 71 at the time) and gave an address titled “On the making of a
Scottish Medical School”, ie Aberdeen, which has arguably the oldest Medical
Faculty in Britain and Ireland. However,
his address concentrated heavily upon the early history of Aberdeen and of
King’s College the older of its two universities, rather than the more recent
history of the Medical School which essentially grew out of Marischal College. It is to be doubted if all the BMA members
present were still awake at the end of his presentation. Abstruse as it was, it cannot have been
riveting for members from furth of Scotland.
What it did illustrate was Ogston’s own broad interests in history.
Mrs Anna
Longshore-Potts
In 1885, an American lady medical
doctor, appeared on the public scene in Aberdeen and roused strong emotions,
both positive and negative, amongst the citizenry because of the subject matter
of her public lectures and the direct way she promoted access to information on
diseases of women and children, courtship, marriage and lovemaking, subjects
not thought suitable for public discussion, or even any discussion, by many in
the Victorian, Presbyterian populace.
She also by-passed the local medical hierarchy, which probably made them
feel uncomfortable, though they remained silent.
Anna Longshore-Potts
Anna Longshore had been born into a
Quaker family in Pennsylvania in 1829 and with seven other women she graduated,
aged 22, from the Women’s Medical College of Pennsylvania, the first such
medical school in America, in 1852. Her
passage into the medical profession was not a smooth ride, the male American
medical establishment, including male students making their disapproval clear
at every opportunity. However, Mrs
Longshore-Potts, as she became known after her marriage to Lambert Potts, soon
established her own successful practice.
She became a convert to the cause of preventive medicine and to
promulgating useful medical knowledge to her patients through lectures, private
at first, but later offered publicly.
Her talks were instantly successful and subsequently taken to a national
and, eventually, an international audience, accompanied by a substantial
supporting entourage. For example, in
1883 she lectured to 4,500 attendees in Sidney, Australia.
By early 1885, Anna Longshore-Potts had
arrived for a tour of Great Britain, starting in London, where again she
achieved great popularity. She remained
in Britain for the next three years. By
late October 1886, she had reached Aberdeen, accompanied by Dr J Charles
Harrison, who specialised in “diseases of men”.
The following extract is from an advertisement which appeared in the
Aberdeen Journal on the 29th of the month.
“Music Hall, Aberdeen. Monday Evening November 1 at 8 o’clock. Mrs AM Longshore-Potts will commence a series
of lectures on Health and Disease. There
will be five evening lectures (to both sexes) and five afternoon lectures (to
ladies only). First lecture to ladies,
Tuesday 2nd inst. at 3 o’clock.
Admission first evening and afternoon FREE. All lectures illustrated by a magnificent
collection of anatomical specimens and life-sized paintings. The object of the lecturer is to teach people
how to live and all the time maintain good health”. Newspaper advertisements continued on
Saturday and throughout the following week.
The Aberdeen Journal’s representative attended the free Monday session
and was highly complimentary about the American visitor, her easy
conversational manner and her undoubted knowledge of human physiology. She had been introduced by her male
colleague, Dr JC Harrison. The financial
arrangements were gradually revealed.
Although the lectures would be free, there would be a collection taken,
which proved to be a silver collection.
Further, both Dr Potts (women and children) and Dr Harrison (men only)
were available for private consultation, the consultation being free, but
presumable any treatment being on a paid basis.
Also, those wishing to avail themselves of a consultation could pay 1gn
to avoid having to queue. The last two lectures in the series, one being to
ladies only with no title announced and the other to both sexes on “Courtship”
were charged at 1/6 per person. Further,
two personal press announcements have been uncovered which look suspiciously
like, in modern parlance, “teasers”, placed to stimulate attendance at the
upcoming lectures. It has to be admitted
that this all amounted to a clever marketing strategy and must have seemed
utterly foreign, even repugnant, to the Aberdeen medicals, as an approach to
generating an income from medical knowledge.
However, not all members of the Aberdeen
intellectual fraternity were prepared to stay silent. On Thursday evening, there was a scene in the
Music Hall which the Evening Express described as “most discreditable to the
fledging philosophers who attend our University”. The students, including medical students, had
caused a considerable disturbance both inside the hall and outside in the
street. In the hall the students raised
the ire of the genuine audience, and punches were thrown, walking sticks
wielded and at least one wooden bench hurled, before the student visitors
retreated to the street. There they
started beating on the doors of the hall but were eventually cleared by the
police. One group departed for Alexander
Ogston’s house at 252 Union Street where they mounted another protest, though
the exact reason for such a show of displeasure was not indicated. Perhaps they thought that, as a prominent member
of the Aberdeen medical establishment, he should support their demonstration
against the American interlopers with their insensitive public lectures? If so, he did no such thing.
The Evening Express was not a supporter
of the American visitors, suggesting that the “men only” and “women only”
lecture restrictions constituted a ruse to bump up sales, though it had to
admit that Dr Harrison’s lecture “was free from anything improperly suggestive
to the evil mind”. This organ of the
press also suggested that the motive of the students was hostility to
encroachment on their preserve but that hardly looks likely, since they had not
reached the stage of making serious money from medicine.
By Monday 8 November, the Aberdeen
Journal’s editor had received a substantial number of letters concerning Drs
Potts and Harrison. Some were from
indignant correspondents, one of whom questioned the validity of the Americans’
medical qualifications, another urged that such subjects should not be allowed
to be discussed in public and further correspondents exhibited shock at the
explicit nature of some of the diagrams exhibited, even suggesting that they
were obscene. George E Harrison,
possibly a relation, replied on behalf of Dr Charles Harrison, pointing out
that Aberdeen was the only city in the world over 100,000 population where such
a student demonstration had been mounted and relating that in Edinburgh,
medical students had attended Harrison’s lecture with the intention of causing
a disturbance if they judged that the lecturer was a “quack”, but that they
stayed silent. It seems likely that the
Aberdeen students had simply found the subject matter so embarrassing that they
felt impelled to silence the lecturer.
Mrs Longshore-Potts and her supporting
cast departed from Aberdeen for Dundee to continue their campaign to bring
medical knowledge to the masses and make a few bawbees at the same time. The anger of the students calmed down, now
that their antagonists had departed and the medical profession continued to
serve the community and make a living as they had before the arrival of the
transatlantic visitors with their American commercial ways.
Alexander
Ogston and Mesmerism
Franz Mesmer was a German physician who
held to a now discredited hypothesis of animal magnetism, the supposed flowing
of energy between animate and inanimate objects. James Braid, a Scottish doctor introduced the
term hypnosis to describe a state (mesmeric trance) induced in a subject by
certain procedures by an operator. In
1892, the BMA endorsed the therapeutic use of hypnosis, while rejecting the
hypothesis of animal magnetism. However,
the procedure was largely ignored by medical schools though it became popular
as a music hall spectacle.
In December 1886, Mr Burns and Dr
Cavendish were putting on a nightly “mesmeric entertainment” at McFarland’s
Varieties, Her Majesty's Theatre in Market Street, Aberdeen, which proved to be highly
popular. On the 8th of the
month, Cavendish laid on a special demonstration of his techniques in the
Blackfriars Street Hall for the benefit of professors from Marischal College,
which housed the Aberdeen Medical School.
Alexander Ogston was one of the attendees, along with other members of
the professoriate, acting as a judging panel, and a gang of medical
students. At the close of the
demonstration, Professor Hamilton proposed a vote of thanks to Dr Cavendish.
A letter writer to the Aberdeen Journal,
who had attended the show, professed himself as being unsure of the validity of
the phenomenon and asking why the medical professors of the town had been
silent on the matter. The answer was
probably that the Aberdeen medical hierarchy accepted that hypnotism was a real
phenomenon but they had no idea how to employ it beneficially for their
patients.
Alexander
Ogston and the Aberdeen Ambulance Association
In early 1885,
when Alexander Ogston was contemplating travelling to Egypt to offer his
services to the military authorities in connection with the Sudan campaign, he
broached the subject of forming a corps of medical volunteers with his students
in Aberdeen. Alex Ogston was actively
considering taking such a group with him to act as dressers and there was
considerable enthusiasm from the potential volunteers to take part in such a
venture. That plan could not be
delivered when Ogston’s offer of help was rejected by the military authorities
and the Professor of Surgery had to proceed alone. However, on his return to the North-East he
took action to tap into that fund of enthusiasm for voluntary medical
work.
There was a
general mood in the nation for the creation of societies to accommodate the
services of medical volunteers. The
British National Society for Aid to the Sick and Wounded in War had its origins
in 1870 at the start of the Franco-Prussian War. In 1905 it was renamed the British Red Cross
and in 1907 it was granted a royal charter by King Edward VII. It catered to the needs for medical
volunteers in time of war. Among the
civilian population there was a similar need for auxiliary medical help from
societies of volunteers. In England, the
St John Ambulance Association was formed in 1877 with the aim of providing
first aid and care to the sick and injured.
In Scotland a similar organisation, the St Andrew’s Ambulance
Association, was formed in Glasgow in 1882, though there the driver of this
movement was the high level of industrial accidents in this expanding industrial
city. Alexander Ogston described the
mood in his native area. “The
north-eastern district of Scotland experienced to the full the fascination of
the great philanthropic movement”. This
led to the Aberdeen Ambulance Association (AAA) being formed in 1887. Ogston later described the aim of the AAA as
being “for the succour of the injured in civil life”. The meeting which launched this new volunteer
corps was advertised in the Aberdeen Journal.
“Aberdeen Ambulance Association.
A meeting open to subscribers to the association and to the general
public will be held in the Round Room, Music Hall Buildings Aberdeen on
Thursday 30th June at 4pm to promote the formation of a Volunteer
Ambulance Company in connection with the Aberdeen Medical School and
Instruction in the management of Accidents and Injuries among the
community. All interested in these
objectives are invited to attend. Alex
Ogston CM, Hon Sec Aberd. Ambulance Association”. Inevitably, Alex Ogston was the
instigator. The wording of the
announcement suggests that the Association was already in existence and had
some subscribers but that its activities had not really got underway. In addition to the AAA, another corps of
medical volunteers also sprang out of the local medical school, the Volunteer
Bearer Companies, driven by the enthusiasm of Dr Alexander MacGregor. The two
worked together and MacGregor also took charge of the management of the
ambulance volunteers.
The AAA soon
started running first aid courses, involving both theory and practice, for
groups enthusiastic to learn, the earliest such course detected in this study
occurring in September 1888 for 209 railway servants. It was held at Marischal College and “Prof
Ogston made freely available specimens from the surgical museum”. The first AGM of the AAA was held in July
1888 when Alexander Ogston gave an account of the first year’s activities. At first, they had struggled but “this year
everything was brilliantly coloured, and the clouds had rolled by”. They would maintain high standards and the
badge, denoting a meritorious pass in the examinations, “would only be
conferred upon competent men”. He felt
that the Association had already been of great benefit to the town, and he was
impressed by the way that the volunteers had all cooperated, since voluntary
work took away “all mercenary feeling”.
The Association was also proposing to run courses for women to teach
them how to deal with domestic accidents.
“There was a great deal to be done in that way for as the medical men
knew when an accident occurred very frequently instead of keeping their heads, they
lost them”. Dr Macgregor paid a warm
tribute to both Alexander Ogston and his father-in-law, Provost James Matthews,
who had shunned the lime-light but had “rendered the greatest service”.
In mid-October
1890, the AAA held a meeting of its council with ex-Provost Henderson in the
chair. It was conducted in the office of
William Smith an Aberdeen advocate, honorary secretary and treasurer, and one
of the Association’s strongest supporters.
Also present were ex-Provost Matthews, Professor Alexander Ogston, Dr
Alexander Macgregor, Dr John S Riddell, surgeon and former student of Alexander
Ogston and Mr Alfred A de Lessert , a prominent local dentist. This influential local committee gave a good
indication of the strength of the AAA at that time. The then present Lord Provost, David Stewart,
a successful comb manufacturer, was appointed president for the coming year,
along with vice-presidents Dr Alex Ogston and Dr Alex Macgregor. A grant of £25 was awarded to the Bearer
Company Volunteer Medical Staff Corps for running first aid courses for the
police force, fishermen, railway servants and others, clearly groups which
daily came into frequent contact with accident victims. In 1893, Alex Ogston was present when medals
and certificates were presented to ladies who had passed a public nursing class
laid on by the Association. Dr John
Scott Riddell was becoming increasingly important at a teacher on AAA courses
and in 1894 he enrolled a course for the remarkable number in excess of 300, of
whom 143 presented themselves for examination and 133 gained certificates. At the ceremony held at the end of the course
in January 1895 at which Alexander Ogston presided, he gave praise to Dr
Macgregor, the head of the corps, “who had filled the post in a way few men
could have filled it”. Thanks were also
proffered to Dr Riddell who had conducted most of the instruction, and his
services had been given gratuitously. In
turn, Dr Macgregor paid a compliment to Alexander Ogston. “With characteristic modesty, Professor Ogston
had held himself in the background and put others to the front, but the
Ambulance Association of Aberdeen owed its origin and success to him and
practically to him alone”, a sentiment which was followed by warm
applause. Alexander Ogston’s role in the
origin of the “Medical Ambulance Corps of the Aberdeen University” was also
supported by Dr Alexander Profeit, the Queen’s Commissioner at Balmoral until
1897. In a letter to Queen Victoria,
dated 5 May 1895, in which he sought the Queen’s permission for the Corps to be
given a field at Birkhall for their annual camp, Profeit added, “I may mention
that Professor Ogston first started the Corps many years ago”. (RA VIC/ADDQ/6/38).
Dr John Scott Riddell
By 1898, a
decision had been taken to merge the AAA with the St Andrew’s Ambulance
Association. This decision was
formalised at a meeting chaired by Professor Ogston, to whom it made sense that
there should be a single ambulance association covering the whole country. To replace the AAA, a local branch of the St
Andrew’s Association was formed in the Silver City, which was a continuation of
the old AAA and carried on functioning in much the same way that its
predecessor had done. Reviewing the success
of the AAA, Alex Ogston noted that it had organised “between 50 and 60 separate
ambulance classes from Inverness to Kincardine with 1600 certificates and 300
medals being issued”. It made a good fit
with the St Andrew’s Association, which was prominent in the south of
Scotland. The following year, 1899,
Professor Alexander Ogston was elected vice-president of the national Ambulance
Association and was re-elected each year until 1925.
To mark the
inauguration of the new Aberdeen Branch of the St Andrew’s Ambulance
Association in the city, Alex Ogston was asked to give an address on ambulance
work before a gathering in the YMCA Institute, brought together to form a new
ambulance class, in February 1906.
Ogston’s presentation had many of the hallmarks of his style,
established on previous occasions. It
was witty, engaging and easily understood by the layman. Above all, it was highly motivational. But it was full of speculative statements
unsupported by numerical facts. In
Ogston’s defence, it was conceived for popular consumption and not for
professional discourse. The fundamental
thesis presented by the speaker to justify the need for ambulance classes was
that life used to be simple and relatively accident-free, both for the working
man and for his wife and children but risk had greatly increased due to work,
leisure and mechanisation. Had he paid a
little attention to the study of ancient skeletons he would have found much
evidence of injury and disease from the past.
In making his case, he revealed two of his own risky activities as a boy
- playing cricket and getting involved in fist fights “underneath the Union
Bridge in the old Denburn Garden”. One
of the outcomes of such events was that some boys ended up with “their noses a
little off the straight”! Of course, his
audience lapped up such anecdotes, which both amused them and kept their
attention. Professor Ogston also
remarked on the pride he felt when he saw a railway official or a police
constable sporting the badge of distinction from one of their ambulance courses
and the common observation in the hospital of the benefits of first aid to
accident victims. Lockjaw (tetanus), a
frequent agricultural occurrence, which used to be thought of as bad luck, but
which was now known to be due to a bacterium present in soil was also discussed. Agricultural injuries were now thoroughly
washed clean of all soil to reduce the risk of infection. Another anecdote, which generated applause
from his audience concerned bodily cleanliness.
“It was one of the most wonderful things that the marvellous little
Japanese should have taught us that the use of antiseptics could be practised
with great advantage. When the Japanese
entered battle, whenever it was possible, they all bathed – that was they
removed from the surface of the body all seed of disease and blood-poisoning
that tended to gather there, and put on clean clothing, with the result that
the mortality from wounds had been enormously less amongst the Japanese than it
ever had been in the most civilised Western army”. Both Alexander Ogston and John Riddell had
prepared basic first aid kits (though this term was not used) to equip
individuals in the event of accident.
Soldiers were issued with them but were sometimes found to have replaced
the medical contents with tobacco! Alex
Ogston certainly advocated that citizens should carry such a packet in the
corner of a coat. Finally, he concluded
that “for the sake of themselves, their neighbours, the community, and the
empire, they ought to cultivate ambulance information as much as possible, and
go more and more deeply into the questions, some of which he had touched upon
that night”. He had certainly motivated
some of his audience, since between 40 and 50 signed up for the new class.
And so the
Aberdeen branch of the St Andrew’s Ambulance Association continued with its
good work, with particularly strong support from Dr John Scott Riddell who, in
1906, on being given the class fees of the students on his course, immediately
turned over the money to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Dr Alexander Ogston of Rosemount, no close relation
of Alexander Ogston of 252 Union Street, also became a strong supporter,
regularly acting as an examiner in course examinations. Support from the Great North of Scotland
Railway Company was also consistent and in 1912 the firm hosted a team
ambulance tournament at the Kittybrewster Locomotive Works, when four teams
(Joint Station 1 and 2, Kittybrewster and Inverurie) competed for recognition
as the best performers. In the year up
to the start of WW1, 952 pupils on ambulance courses gained certificates and
972 cases requiring first aid were treated.
Alex Ogston must have been proud of this organisation born of his
personal commitment and enthusiasm.
Alexander
Ogston and research on bullet wounds
After the
events in the Sudan in 1884 – 1885, it was some time before Alexander Ogston
couId further his interest in military surgery but from 1898 there were several
developments which led, inexorably, in 1899 to him departing for South Africa
and the Second Boer War.
The first of
these developments was the initiation of a research program on the types of
wounds produced by different types of bullet.
To understand the context in which Alexander Ogston began this research
programme, it is necessary to go back to 1863 and the foundation of the
International Committee of the Red Cross.
The Swiss businessman, Henry Dunant inadvertently witnessed the
aftermath of the Battle of Solferino which took place in Northern Italy in
1859. About 40,000 dead and wounded
soldiers were left on the battlefield because there were no facilities to
recover or treat them, which Dunant found utterly shocking, and he then did all
he could to help alleviate the suffering that had been caused. Over the next few years, he began advocating
the formation of relief organisations in individual nations which could take on
the role of care of the wounded in time of war and also formed a committee of
activists, like himself, to bring about this revolutionary change in the
conduct of war. In 1863 Dunant’s
committee was renamed the “International Committee for the Relief of the
Wounded which then organised an international conference in Geneva to give
formal effect to Dunant’s ideas, where the UK was one of the official
attendees. The name of the organisation
further changed to the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1876. Resolutions from the conference proposed the
formation of national relief societies, neutral status and protection for wounded
soldiers and the utilisation of volunteers to provide relief on the
battlefield. Further conferences were
proposed to create a formal framework and the Swiss flag, with the colours
reversed, would be used as the symbol of this new set of organisations. A year later an international conference was
convened by the Swiss Government that led to the establishment of the First
Geneva Convention, which guaranteed the neutrality and protection of wounded
soldiers, field medical workers and specific humanitarian organisations. The UK signed the convention in 1865. A further move to establish rules for the
conduct of war took place in 1868 with the St Petersburg Declaration. The Russians had created exploding musket balls
which were anticipated to cause devastating injuries. Fearing an arms race for this type of
munition, the Russians organised a conference to negotiate a ban on such
ammunition and an embargo resulted for projectiles up to a weight of 400
grams.
Continental
countries then turned their attention to a different kind of ammunition, the
rifle bullet. In the late 19th
century, such powers used bullets with a lead core and a full jacket of steel
or nickel which were designed to be used in rifles with spiral grooved barrels
and would “take the grooves”, rotating as they were discharged, and thus were
stabilised in flight. Such bullets often
did not deform on impact and could pass completely through a small,
soft-skinned target, sometimes causing little damage on their passage. However, for hard-skinned big game hunting, a
hard jacket can be useful in penetrating further and thus causing deeper
damage, for example, in an elephant. If,
on the other hand, the front end of the bullet lacks a hard jacket, or the tip
of the bullet is hollow, it tends to deform on impact causing greater injury in
the first part of its passage but losing penetrating power. Such a bullet is of little use against
hard-skinned big game. Bullets could
also be given more penetrating ability by increasing the charge of gun powder,
thus increasing the muzzle velocity and the kinetic energy carried by the
projectile. Greater penetration, greater
damage and an ability to kill at a greater distance were the result. In the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 – 1871,
the French used new rifles and bullets with soft lead noses which produced
devastating wounds, especially at short distances but by 1898 when Alex Ogston
published a paper in the BMJ on the evolution of bullet design and a critique
of a paper by the German, von Bruns on the injuries produced by different rifle
bullets, all European nations were using fully mantled bullets with lead cores.
Britain’s long
involvement in India had given it practical experience, especially on the
North-West Frontier of the use of different kinds of rifle bullet. Troops found that hard jacketed bullets could
be ineffective at stopping an onrushing opponent because of its lack of
distortion on passage through the body.
Soldiers then informally started to file away the hard tip of their bullets
so that they became distorted on impact, caused more immediate damage and were
thus more likely to disable a charging attacker. As a result, the Dum-Dum arsenal near
Calcutta started to manufacture bullets with the lead core exposed at the front
end about 1886. All such soft-nosed
bullets, of any origin, then tended, misleadingly, to be grouped under the name
dum-dum.
When von Bruns
conducted his experiments on the wound characteristics of different types of
bullets, he did not obtain genuine dum-dum bullets but modified Mauser bullets,
even though they differed in shape and other characteristics from true
dum-dums. Von Bruns had found, by firing
different bullet types into cadavers at ranges up to 200 metres, that his
“dum-dum” bullets produced more severe wounds that all the other bullet types
that he tested. This was one of Alex
Ogston’s main criticisms of von Bruns’ work, that it was nor valid to
extrapolate from modified Mauser bullets to British Army bullets produced at
Dum-Dum. Ogston’s second criticism was
that retention of a full mantle did not prevent a bullet from disintegrating on
impact at short ranges. He related a
gruesome experience of his own to illustrate this point. “The writer saw in the sixties a
coastguardsman who shot himself with an Enfield carbine by placing the muzzle
against the left angle of his lower jaw.
On striking this hard bone with full muzzle velocity the bullet burst
into hundreds of fragments which, mixed with pieces of bone, blew brain and
skull to the ceiling above in a mingled spray of flesh, bone and lead”. The only way to stop a full-jacketed bullet
from disintegrating at short range was to reduce the muzzle velocity. Ogston’s third criticism of von Bruns was
that he had erroneously referred to dum-dum bullets as “explosive” (truly
explosive bullets were forbidden by the St Petersburg Declaration), whereas he
should have referred to the bullet as “disintegrating”. The fourth criticism was that von Bruns’ did
not use controls in any of his experiments.
This was not
scientific nit-picking by Ogston. The
results of von Bruns’ experiments had generated a good deal of resentment in
Britain, partly as a result of a subtle mistranslation of the German text,
which Ogston, being fluent in the language, sought to correct. ““On one occasion von Bruns of Tubingen read
with general approval a communication which attacked the English deployment of
the soft-nosed or dum-dum bullets in our expeditions against the wild tribes of
our Afghan frontiers and showed on cadavers the destructive effects of these
bullets. His paper was styled “Ueber
inhumane Kriegsgeschosse”. The title
aroused resentment in England as it was assumed to mean “inhuman” projectiles
and I wrote to the medical papers that “inhumane” did not mean “inhuman” but
“inhumane”, the German word for inhuman being “unmenschlich””. There was alarm in Britain because
international political pressure sought to commit Britain to abandon the use of
soft-nosed bullets and thus reduce the ability of a soldier to stop a charging
attacker. The German newspapers had
actually called for the St Petersburg Convention to be modified to include a
ban on the use of soft-nosed bullets.
Ogston pointed out the inconsistency between this attempt to homogenise
the light weaponry of the foot soldier between nations, which might in future
find themselves at war with each other, and the acceptance that there would be
competition between nations in the design and deployment of heavy
weaponry. In any case there was no
prohibition in the use of greater calibre barrels, or increased propulsive
charge, both of which would increase the damage caused by a bullet. Alex Ogston also contrasted the circumstances
likely to be met with by German troops in a war against another European
country with the situations typically encountered by British soldiers in the
more primitive parts of the empire. “Does
it follow that change of circumstances does not in regard to bullets alter the
case? That what is unreasonable in
contending with a civilized foe who gives quarter and cares for the lives of
wounded sick and disabled men, is also unreasonable when dealing with those who,
if successful, wage a war of annihilation, and dispatch armed and unarmed
wounded sick men, women and children alike, whether on the battlefield or in
cold blood and whether they be overpowered in war or captured by stratagem or
treachery”?
The War Office
helped Ogston to conduct his own experiments on wound characteristics produced
in cadavers by different bullet types.
He compared the Mark IV bullet produced by the Woolwich Arsenal, which
had a full jacket, with the Dum-Dum bullet.
Shots through the thigh of a cadaver produced only flesh wounds, the
tracks of which were cast by pouring in molten paraffin wax. The Mk IV bullet produced the larger entry
wound and the Dum-Dum produced the larger exit wound. He tried to repeat this test using the German
Mauser bullet but could not generate casts due to the “gaping crater-like
rents” generated by this munition type.
In a second series of tests, Ogston shot the three bullet types through
the arms of cadavers to examine the results of bullets striking bone. The Mauser bullet had the greatest
destructive effect. The results showed
quite clearly that von Bruns’ conclusions were “greatly exaggerated” since
fully mantled bullets “were quite capable of producing the same devastating
results”. Alex Ogston concluded by
saying, “I have contended that the whole question of modern bullet wounds is
far more complex and less perfectly known than the advocates of an
international agreement excluding the bullets used by the English troops in
India and the Soudan would have us believe. … The truth is that the tendency to
breaking up of the bullet or to its producing hydraulic destruction in liquid
or semiliquid structures is inseparable from high velocities and all bullets so
propelled will produce what are called “explosive effects” though some of them
are more ready to do so than others”.
The use of
soft-nosed bullets was subsequently banned by one component of the treaties
(known as the Geneva Convention) produced by the Hague Peace Conference in
1899. The UK declined to sign up to this
ban at the time though it subsequently did so in 1907. Commenting on this conference, Alexander
Ogston concluded, “But it is needless to dilate further on the matter. Reasonable people who know the subject must
admit that our delegates acted wisely – indeed had no other alternative than –
to refuse to agree with the majority on this Dum-Dum question; and those who
are unreasonable will not be convinced by anything further that can be said”.
Alexander
Ogston and the Glendavan estate
In 1888, Alexander Ogston bought the
Glendavan estate near the village of Logie Coldstone, about 35 miles due west
of Aberdeen and located between the Dee and Don valleys. It was purchased from the Earl of Aberdeen
and had been part of his large Cromar estate.
A year after Alexander Ogston’s purchase, Charles Wilson, MP, the Hull
shipping magnate, bought another portion of the Cromar estate adjacent to the
southern end of Glendavan and amounting to about 1700 acres. By 1904, the land to the south of Ogston’s
property had passed into the ownership of Mr Barclay-Harvey, owner of the
Dinnet estate. When offered for sale in
1929 after Sir Alexander’s death, Glendavan was described in the following
terms by his agents, C and PH Chalmers.
“It consists of a mansion house, a number of farms, houses and
moorland. It extends to about 892 acres.
… The mansion house is pleasantly situated overlooking Loch Davan, part of
which belongs to the estate”. Of the
land area of the estate, 600 acres was “moor and low ground shooting”. It also enjoyed coarse fishing rights on Loch
Davan, which had a boathouse, with a rowboat.
As Aberdeenshire country estates go, Glendavan was small. Its “mansion house”, too was modest, with
three reception rooms and one bedroom on the ground floor and six bedrooms on
the upper floor. Cousin James Ogston,
one of the soap manufacturing Ogstons, had bought the grand Norwood House at
Pitfodels on the outskirts of Aberdeen.
In1892, Norwood House’s annual valuation was £145, whereas Glendavan
House was allotted a valuation of £50.
Glendavan map
The Glendavan mansion house was built
for Alexander Ogston after he acquired the estate in 1888 and was located with
a southerly outlook over Loch Davan. It
was designed by Marshall MacKenzie, the architectural partner of his
father-in-law, James Matthews. Mackenzie
was responsible for many significant buildings throughout North-East Scotland,
but especially in and around Aberdeen, including Ardoe House for Mr AM Ogston,
Aberdeen Music Hall, Aberdeen Art Gallery and the 1906 extension to Marischal
College. Watt and Clark, the Aberdeen
builders, who had been responsible for the carpentry work on the Marischal
College extension contract were also employed for the same services at
Glendavan House. The nearness of
Glendavan to Balmoral and the frequency of Alexander Ogston’s visits to the
royal estate brought him into contact with John Michie, at that time the
Queen’s head forester on Deeside. Michie
developed a strong liking for the Aberdeen surgeon and in 1890 advised him on
some landscaping work at Glendavan.
Michie wrote in his diary, “Came from Aberdeen to Dinnet with Professor
Ogston and went over some ground with him to be planted with Scots fir =
about 25 acres also a belt along east side of Loch Davan with spruce, willows
& alder at 12 ft. apart to be filled up by Scots pine & Pinus
montana to about 35 ft”.
Although the estate was bought in the
aftermath of the death of Francis Ogston senior, from whom Alexander had
inherited money, he could not buy the estate outright but had to arrange a
mortgage. Later, a family member
reported that the estate was not self-financing, the rental income not covering
its costs. It contained about 11
rentable properties, a mix of small farms, houses and a mill, with a total
rental income of about £200 per annum
Alexander Ogston’s prime motive in
purchasing Glendavan seems to have been recreational. He always took the month of August away from
work, spending much of the time on his country estate. From there he often organised cycling tours
in other parts of Scotland, typically in the Loch Lomond and Galloway
areas. However, his second wife,
Isabella Margaret, did not enjoy robust health and could only cycle about 12
miles per day. To accommodate her,
Alexander took an accompanying wagonette to which his wife’s cycle could be
attached, when she had completed her daily stint. In addition to countryside cycle rides and
excursions, Glendavan allowed Alexander Ogston to indulge his two favourite
sports of fishing and shooting, especially the latter. He also got many opportunities to shoot
roedeer at Balmoral in the company of Alexander Profeit and John Michie. Indeed, he was such an important part of the
Balmoral shooting scene that roe hunts would be postponed if Ogston was unable
to attend. Alex Ogston also received
invitations to shoot grouse at James Ogston’s estate at Kildrummy on Donside.
Glendavan also induced Alexander Ogston
to take up an interest in the ancient remains of the Cromar area, as his own
land contained a number of archaeological sites. Each summer he devoted time to this novel
pursuit. But, typical of Ogston, this
new outlet for his investigative instincts was conducted systematically and
with care, the results accurately recorded and prepared for later
publication. In 1903, Alexander Ogston
drew the attention of Dr Robert Munro, vice-president of the Society of
Antiquaries of Scotland, to a series of circular enclosures and an underground
house on a neck of land between Loch Davan and its neighbour to the south, Loch
Kinnord, on land belonging to Mr Barclay-Harvey, who gave permission for an
excavation to take place. Alexander took
part in the dig. In 1912, Alexander
Ogston presented a paper with the title “St Machar’s Cross” before the Scottish
Ecclesiological Society in St Mary’s Chapel, Aberdeen. It concerned a stone bearing a Greek cross
which he had come across in a pine wood at Balnagowan, Aboyne and named after
St Machar by the compilers of the Ordnance Survey map, though apparently
without any reliable authority. It lay
on table land at an altitude of about 700ft which abounded with cairns (over
900), the longest of which was over 320ft long.
The paper generated some interesting discussion, including from
Professor Henry Cowan, Alex Ogston’s brother-in-law. Although Alexander Ogston’s archaeological
work was essentially ready for publication by 1911, it was only after his death
in 1929 that the process was initiated and Ogston’s “Prehistoric Antiquities in
the Howe of Cromar” was published by the Third Spalding Club in 1931, though
the book only contained a fraction of his total results.
In the last few years of his life, as
his mobility declined and perhaps his mental capacity too, since he became
rather quiet, he stopped going to Glendavan.
Alexander
Ogston resigns, for the first time, from the senior surgeoncy at Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary
David
Littlejohn, who was born in 1841 in Aberdeen, became an advocate (solicitor) in
the city and was also the sheriff clerk at Aberdeen Sheriff Court. In this latter role, Littlejohn was
responsible for all administrative matters relating to the procedures of the
court, which mostly dealt with criminal cases not sufficiently serious to
warrant being heard before the High Court in Edinburgh. Littlejohn was a law bureaucrat, used to
applying fixed rules of process, which perhaps did not equip him well for the
trial he was personally about to undergo.
David Littlejohn was also, in April 1892, the chairman of the Aberdeen
Royal Infirmary Board of Directors, the employers of Alexander Ogston. Suddenly, a disagreement which had probably
been running covertly for some time between the First Surgeon and the Board of
Directors, burst dramatically into public view: Alex Ogston submitted a letter
of resignation from his surgeoncy at ARI.
“Dear
Sir,
It
is with great reluctance that I have resolved on severing my connection with
the Infirmary staff on which I have served for twenty-four years.
My
University duties and private work, especially at certain seasons, occupy a
larger proportion of my time than formerly, while the work in my department of
the Infirmary has increased to a degree that renders it beyond my power to do
it justice.
I
therefore beg to place in your hands my resignation of the surgeoncy which I
hold.
I
am dear sir your obedient servant
Dr
Alex Ogston,
252 Union
Street”.
This letter,
which was dated 12 April, was also leaked to the local press, causing David
Littlejohn, in his reply of the following day, to deny that he had been
responsible for the release. Likely, the
source of the leak was Ogston himself, perhaps suggesting that he did not really
want to leave his post but that he was drawing attention to a contentious issue
and that public disclosure might aid in its resolution in his favour. If this is an accurate interpretation of
Ogston’s motivation, subsequent events would prove him to have exercised an
effective tactic. David Littlejohn’s
reply to Alexander Ogston follows.
“Dear
Sir,
I
received on my return home yesterday afternoon between five and six o’clock
your letter of yesterday’s date.
The
announcement of your resolution to retire came upon me as an absolute
surprise. The regret I feel will, I am
sure, be shared by my co-directors at the Infirmary, by the Medical School and
by the public.
It
is not for me to anticipate the course which the directors of the
Infirmary may take when your letter is
laid before them; but personally I may be allowed to express the hope that your
decision is not final and that the
result of a week or two’s rest after the hard work of the session will bring about in your mind a more sanguine
view as to your capability for continuing your useful and valuable work at the
Infirmary.
I
am faithfully yours,
David
Littlejohn.
I am told that
an authoritative paragraph appeared in an evening paper yesterday and I see the
same this morning. I am not directly or
indirectly responsible for these. DL”.
When Alexander
Ogston read this letter, he must have felt that Littlejohn was patronising him,
damning his work with faint praise and deliberately representing a grievance
that Ogston nursed as merely a manifestation of tiredness. It was two weeks before the board of
directors met, when Ogston’s letter was considered, but that surely represented
a misjudgement on Littlejohn’s part of the seriousness of the situation. Professor Ogston was, in 1892, a brightly
shining star in the medical firmament and his loss from ARI would be sure to be
to the detriment of the Infirmary. If
David Littlejohn did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation, the same
was not true of local doctors and medical students. Or, had the chairman of the ARI Board of
Directors decided he was not going to bend to the wishes of an employee, no
matter how high his status?
The senior
doctors at ARI, probably led by Dr Ogilvie Will moved with great speed to
mobilise support for Alex Ogston. Four
days after he had submitted his letter of resignation, the following public
notice appeared in the advertising columns of the Aberdeen Journal. “The Resignation of Dr Ogston. A meeting of medical men will be held at 379
Union Street (the home of Dr Ogilvie Will) on Monday next, April 18th
at 3.15pm for the purpose of considering what steps should be taken to induce
Professor Ogston to re-consider his determination to resign the office of
Surgeon to the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. It is hoped that all Medical Men will attend”. Ogilvie Will presided at the meeting, which
was attended by both city and country doctors.
Two (and possibly three) resolutions were proposed and passed
unanimously. Firstly, "That this
meeting regards Dr Ogston's withdrawal from the staff of the Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary as a serious and almost irreplaceable loss to the institution, to the
University and to the general community; and that it pledges itself to use
every effort to induce Dr Ogston to continue in the office which he has for so
long conspicuously adorned." The
second resolution, which was suggested by Dr Alexander Profeit, the Queen’s
commissioner on the Balmoral estate who had been trained at the Aberdeen
Medical School, read, “That a deputation from this meeting be appointed to wait
upon the directors of the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary for the purpose of urging on
them the extreme advisability of their using every means in their power to
retain Dr Ogston’s invaluable services for the institution”. The delegates nominated at the meeting were -
Dr Ogilvie Will, Dr Jackson, Dr Profeit and Dr Macgregor. The involvement of Alexander Profeit was
significant as it implied that the affair would likely reach the ears of the
monarch, either directly or via her physician-in-ordinary, Sir James Reid, yet
another graduate of the Aberdeen Medical School.
Monday 18 April
1892 saw a further gathering opposed to Alexander Ogston’s resignation, this
time by Aberdeen University students.
This mass meeting took place in the Natural History classroom at
Marischal College. The gathering was
described as “enthusiastic” and it was agreed to send a delegation to meet with
Dr Ogston at his house on the following Saturday and to ask him to reconsider
his position. The student delegates were
cordially received by Alex Ogston and part of the conversation which took place
was leaked, to the consternation of some students, to that day’s Evening
Express. Ogston was quite open, even
indiscrete, about the terms he required to withdraw his resignation. “Dr Ogston intimated that if the directors
were prepared to remove certain obstacles to his work in the Infirmary, he
would be quite willing to resume his position but, as matters stood, he could
not see his way to comply with their request”.
This was the first public disclosure of the issues at dispute between
the senior surgeon and his employer, but what was the nature of the
“obstacles”? There was a further mass
meeting of students on Monday 25 April when the delegation reported back, which
then led to the following resolution being adopted. “That this meeting, having heard the report
of the deputation appointed to present to Dr Ogston the resolution - a copy of which was sent to the directors
of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary - feels that Dr Ogston’s reluctance to resume
office might be overcome by the directors facilitating his work there and would
therefore in the interests of the students of Aberdeen University urge on the
directors the necessity for their doing everything in their power to bring
about this happy issue.”
The directors
of the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary – Mr David Littlejohn, Dr Mitford Mitchell
(Minister of St Nicholas Kirk and chaplain to the Queen in Scotland), Mr
William Alexander (author of “Johnny Gibb of Gushet Neuk” and Editor of the
Aberdeen Free Press), Matthew Hay (Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeen and
Professor of Medical Logic and Medical Jurisprudence), Mr James Kinghorn
(Draper), Mr Theodore Crombie (owner of Grandholm Mill, where the famous
“Crombie” overcoat was manufactured.) and Mr Alexander Aitken (of J Garvie and
Sons, builders, joiners and painters) - met on 27 April, surely aware by this
date that they had to contend with a major headache. They were presented with Professor Ogston’s
resignation letter, with David Littlejohn’s reply and with other related
communications from the Medical Faculty, the meeting of medical men and the
medical students. The delegation of
medical men was then admitted, and Littlejohn shared the correspondence between
himself and Professor Ogston with them before claiming that the board had “no
knowledge whatever” of the reason behind Ogston’s move, though hinting that he
suspected ill-health might be involved.
This statement sounded disingenuous, since Ogston had directly referred
to his increased workload at the infirmary and the need for the directors to
“remove certain obstacles” if he was to return.
The leader of the delegation, Dr Ogilvie Will then made a presentation
to the board. “He thought that medical
men could make a better judgement of Dr Ogston’s status than members of other
professions”, a rather pointed reference to the lack of medical expertise on
the board of directors, only Matthew Hay being a member of the healing
profession. Ogilvie Will gave his
personal opinion. “Dr Ogston’s position
in the Infirmary as a practical surgeon, as a scientific man and as a clinical teacher
could not be very well overestimated. Dr
Ogston was not a man of mere local celebrity but a man of world-wide fame. He was sure that the status of ARI was much
higher with the association with Dr Ogston than without it”. Another delegate,
Dr Jackson urged the board to “stretch a point and endeavour to retain the
services of Dr Ogston”, Dr Profeit spoke in general terms of the desirability
of retaining Ogston’s services and Dr Macgregor said that the profession would
not have the same confidence in the institution if Dr Ogston left. In turn, Mr Littlejohn agreed with everything
that the delegates had said, but they had been bending the rules to help Dr
Ogston in the past but were bound to work within those rules. No regulation of the institution could be
altered without going through a very long process. But when they did send up regulations to the
managers, they would be framed in a way so as generously to recognise the great
gratuitous service of such men as Dr Ogston.
He could say no more than that when the regulations came to be
considered they as directors were anxious to take the most generous view of
their position. All this verbal
skirmishing suggested that everyone in the room knew the nature of Alexander
Ogston’s gripe, but no one was prepared to speak its name. The holding position of the board was
expressed in a resolution passed at the meeting. “The directors of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
fully recognising the eminent skill and high reputation of Professor Alexander
Ogston and the great value of his services to the Hospital, have received with
deep regret his resignation as senior surgeon.
The directors sympathise most heartily in the efforts being made to
induce Dr Ogston to reconsider his decision to retire from Infirmary duty and
they will be much gratified to find that these efforts prove successful”. The directors requested the chairman to offer
Ogston 6 months’ leave of absence and to allow his resignation to lie on the
table. They hoped he would withdraw his
resignation before the end of six months.
This was another miscalculation by David Littlejohn and his fellow board
members. Littlejohn seemed to be
sticking to his hypothesis that all Ogston needed was a rest and he would
probably throw in the towel. In truth,
Ogston clearly needed help to sustain the surgical load he was carrying, which
was probably being generated by his status in the profession, and the board was
resisting because it would be unfair to other clinicians, even though some of
those clinicians were urging such a change.
It was claimed that to give him more would require a change of the rules
and that would be difficult to achieve.
But was this justification for inaction true? Usually, where there is a will, there is a
way. David Littlejohn and his colleagues
had now, in addition to earlier miscalculations, badly underestimated the
determined nature of Alexander Ogston’s personality, if they thought he would
simply withdraw to lick his wounds before capitulating.
Although the
text of Alexander Ogston’s reply to David Littlejohn has not been uncovered,
the gist of its content did appear in the local papers. The Aberdeen Evening Express published the
following. “Dr Ogston it is said has
acknowledged receipt of Mr Littlejohn’s letter on behalf of the directors of
the Infirmary but the Professor, while thanking the Board for their kind offer
of 6 months’ holiday points out I believe that he happily does not feel the
need of much rest (a polite repost to David Littlejohn). In effect his reply is that he cannot
withdraw his resignation until the management consent to give him such
facilities for his work as, in his judgement, are absolutely requisite. The profession at large and his friends among
the general public intend, if necessary, to bring further pressure to bear on
the managers to accede to the Professor’s requests”. At that point, the dispute seems to have been
put on the back burner for the six-month period. Alex Ogston’s resignation stood, and his
status at ARI changed from First Surgeon to Visiting Surgeon. He was showing no sign of backing down.
On 31 August
1892, Sir George Husband Baird Macleod, Professor of Surgery at Glasgow
University, where he had succeeded Joseph Lister, died. At that time, he was also Surgeon-in-Ordinary
to Queen Victoria in Scotland and the Queen had just arrived at Balmoral Castle
three days earlier for her regular late summer holiday on her Scottish
estate. A replacement for Sir George was
needed in a hurry, in case the Queen required medical help while resident on
Deeside. The Royal Court must have
sought opinions on this important appointment.
Sir William Jenner, the Queen’s Physician in England, is known to have
recommended Alexander Ogston, though the two were not personally
acquainted. Almost certainly, Sir James
Reid, Physician-in-Ordinary to the Queen and a trusted advisor to the monarch
would have been consulted too, and perhaps Dr Alexander Profeit, her Balmoral
Commissioner, who provided medical services to the Balmoral staff at that
time. Alexander Ogston was chosen, and
the offer of this prestigious position came in a letter from Sir James Reid on
13 September 1892. Ogston must have
quickly accepted, because the appointment was gazetted on 16 September and the
new royal appointee received his royal warrant three days later. Writing some years after the event about his
appointment, Alexander Ogston was thoroughly self-deprecating, though his
stance looked over-egged and more like false modesty. “I was but an obscure provincial surgeon
whose dreams never rose above being a moderate success as such …”. “It was true that besides having written a
good deal of trash of which I am nowadays rather ashamed, I had published some
professional work that had been well received but it was not of the highest
quality. Its success was more the result
of happy chance than of great ability and there was nothing else to mark me out
for this great honour”. Was Alexander
Ogston’s membership of the Aberdeen medical chumocracy, along with James Reid
and Alexander Profeit, a significant factor in his appointment? It is possible.
In September
1892, David Littlejohn must have realised that his plan to resolve Alex
Ogston’s resignation was not working.
The six-month period of absence by Dr Ogston was coming to an end and he
had not made any approach to the management of ARI. To make matters worse, much worse, Ogston now
had a royal appointment adding a new dimension to his status. There was another Royal problem looming
too. Princess Louise, Marchioness of
Lorne, the Queen’s sixth child, who had been born in 1848, was due to open the
new infirmary extension at Woolmanhill on 4 October. There must have been enormous pressure on the
chairman of the board of directors to resolve the dispute with the Queen’s
surgeon-in-ordinary in Scotland ahead of the pomp and ceremony of a royal
visit. It is not known if any external
pressure was applied to David Littlejohn to find an accommodation with
Alexander Ogston but such an outcome was announced at the meeting of ARI
directors held on 28 September. The
Aberdeen Evening Express had the story.
“Professor Ogston’s resignation withdrawn. The Board of Infirmary Directors met this
afternoon at the hospital – Mr David Livingstone (this was a typographical
error for “Littlejohn”) presiding.
In the course of the business the chairman said the directors would
remember that in April last the Board received a letter from Professor Ogston
intimating that in consequence of his University duties and private engagements
occupying a larger portion of his time than formerly, while the work of the
Infirmary had greatly increased, he was reluctantly compelled to sever his connection
with the hospital. This communication
was received by the Board with the deepest regret and called forth from the
public - private and professional – strong expressions of a hope that the
retirement of Dr Ogston from the Infirmary might by some means be averted. This gratifying result the Chairman said he
was glad to announce had now been brought about. With Professor Hay he (Mr Littlejohn) had
been appointed to have a conference with Dr Ogston and, without going into
details, the directors and everyone concerned in the welfare of the patients
requiring the benefits of the Infirmary as well as all interested in our
medical school would be pleased to learn that Dr Ogston now saw his way to
continuing his valuable services at the hospital. The board received this intimation with warm
approval”. A secret deal had been done
behind closed doors which allowed Littlejohn to control the public message and
to emerge from the affair with a modicum of dignity. It was only later that it transpired that Littlejohn
had capitulated.
The fourth of
October 1892 saw Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne travel to Aberdeen
accompanied by Princess Henry of Battenberg, the monarch’s youngest daughter,
to open the surgical and pathological pavilions at Woolmanhill, the first
buildings to be completed as a consequence of the Jubilee Extension Scheme
initiated six years previously to commemorate 50 years of Queen Victoria’s
reign in 1887 and funded by public donations.
This would have been a proud day for David Littlejohn as he and the Lord
Provost took centre stage in the ceremonial programme. Littlejohn gave a speech in which he outlined
the history of the Woolmanhill site on which the foundation stone of the
original building was laid in 1739 and that the present extension was the 6th
reconstruction or enlargement of accommodation, which increased bed capacity
from 175 to about 240. Part of the
opening ceremony involved the presentation of senior medical staff to the
princesses followed by a tour of the wards.
The staff who received this special recognition were Drs Angus Fraser
and Blaikie Smith, Professor Findlay, Dr Ogilvie Will, Professor Ogston, Dr
Garden, Dr McKenzie Davidson, Dr McKenzie Booth, Professor Hamilton and the pioneering
nurse and medical administrator, Miss Rachel Lumsden. When Alexander Ogston, who was proudly
wearing his two medals from the Sudan campaign, received the Royal introduction
he was cheered by the assembled guests, which must have caused David Littlejohn
to reflect upon the events of the previous six months. This focus upon Professor Ogston and the
general regard for this distinguished Aberdonian was repeated at the private
lunch for the Royal guests when Baillie Lyon spoke to the proposition “Continued
success to the Royal Infirmary”. The
Aberdeen Journal report noted that “He particularly dwelt on the gratification
which had been afforded the citizens in general by the withdrawal of Dr
Ogston’s resignation. If proof were
needed of this gratification, it was to be found in the hearty manner in which
Dr Ogston was cheered by the assembly when presented to the Princess at the
Infirmary that afternoon”. David
Littlejohn had learned in a direct way that Alex Ogston needed to be treated
with great respect if his services were to be retained at ARI.
For his part,
Alex Ogston did not appear to harbour any grudges at the patronising way he had
initially been treated. At the opening
of the new medical session, he made some introductory remarks to his class
which were reported in the Evening Express.
“He referred to his appointment as Surgeon-in-Ordinary to Her Majesty
and said that the honour conferred upon him reflected honour at the same time
on the importance of the Aberdeen Medical School. He also spoke of the kindness shown him by
the directors of the Infirmary (author’s emphasis) and he was glad to say
that he would have more opportunity of meeting with the students at the
Infirmary than formerly”. A week after
the opening of the Woolmanhill extension, the board of directors of the Aberdeen
Royal Infirmary announced that “Dr J Scott Riddell, meantime assistant surgeon,
should be specially attached in that capacity to Prof Ogston and that the
appointment of an additional assistant surgeon should be made at the next
meeting of the Board”. Alex Ogston could
afford to be magnanimous. He had
achieved his objective, despite the allegedly immutable rules of the
institution!
Alexander
Ogston and the Royal Family The
Ogston family had for a long time been royalist in its outlook. When the Prince of Wales (later King Edward
VII) was married in 1863, a celebratory banquet, followed by a grand ball and
supper were held in the Music Hall buildings, Aberdeen to honour the happy event. The festivities were attended by the great
and the good of the Granite City, including Professor Francis Ogston and Mr
Alexander Milne Ogston, the soap and candle manufacturer. There was also a more popular and public
demonstration of loyalty on the streets of Aberdeen where many houses were
suitably decorated in honour of the royal nuptials. It was reported that “Mrs Ogston’s house in
Broad Street had its windows coloured red, white and blue”. At the time, the parents of Francis and
Alexander Milne Ogston (Alexander and Elliott Ogston) were still using 84,
Broad Street and 2, Gallowgate as a town house.
Queen Victoria’s consort, Prince Albert, had died tragically early, in
late 1861, and the national outpouring of grief led to a variety of memorials
being raised to the monarch’s late husband, including in Aberdeen, where a
statue was erected by public subscription.
Professor Francis Ogston was both a subscriber and an official attendee
at the unveiling almost two years after the prince’s demise. Similarly, when a statue was raised to Queen
Victoria in 1867 after 30 years on the throne, Francis Ogston was again a
contributor.
In the book
“Alexander Ogston, KCVO” published after his death, amongst a plethora of
biographical musings mostly by family members and former colleagues, there is a
suggestion that Professor Francis Ogston had been consulted by Queen Victoria
concerning illnesses to servants and members of the Royal Family, but Ogston
senior did not want this work to be publicised.
No independent verification, including in the Royal Archives, has been
uncovered, so it is difficult to assess the claim. However, in early September 1872, Queen
Victoria left Balmoral to travel, by train to Dunrobin Castle, the family seat
of the Earls of Sutherland. “Professor
Ogston” was part of the welcoming party when the Queen passed through
Aberdeen. This person could only have
been Francis Ogston. Being asked to join
a royal welcoming assembly at Aberdeen station was reserved for prominent
people in civic life, in the railway company, or in the service of the
monarch. Giving medical advice to the
Royal Family might have been the reason for the presence of Ogston senior.
It is unclear
exactly when Aberdeen’s rising star in the surgical firmament, Alexander
Ogston, came to the notice of senior members of the Royal Family. Perhaps it was not a single event but an
accumulation of mostly minor incidents.
In 1880, he had been appointed First, or Senior, Surgeon at Aberdeen
Royal Infirmary and two years later, he ascended to the Regius Chair of Surgery
in the university, which would have required a reference of his candidacy to
the Queen. In the year 1884, James
Matthews, Alex Ogston’s father-in-law, was Lord Provost of Aberdeen and during
the year, the Prince and Princess of Wales attended a ceremony in the city at
which new colours were presented to the 3rd Battalion of the Gordon
Highlanders. At the conclusion of the
ceremony, one of Lord Provost Matthews’ granddaughters presented a bouquet of
flowers to the prince, while master Alfred James Ogston, aged five, eldest son
of Prof Ogston and second wife Isabella Margaret Matthews, and grandson of the
Lord Provost, handed bouquets to each of the Princesses Louise, Victoria and
Maud. In 1885 Alexander Ogston saw
service in the Sudan which was widely reported in the local Aberdeen
papers. Queen Victoria is known to have
read the Aberdeen Journal. The personal
friendships between Alexander Ogston, Dr James Reid and Dr Alexander Profeit
may also have been important. However,
Alex Ogston’s purchase of the Glendavan estate, near Dinnet in 1888, by which
he became a neighbour of the monarch, could well have been the most significant
event. Glendavan lies about 12 miles
from Balmoral and landed neighbours were often invited to social events at the
Royal Deeside castle. After the
acquisition of Glendavan, where he used to take family holidays in the summer,
he visited Balmoral more often in a private capacity as a friend of Dr
Profeit. Alex Ogston’s son, Walter (b
1873), wrote that after the purchase of Glendavan, “He took me with him
occasionally to Balmoral when he had been invited to fish for salmon or to
shoot hinds by his old friend Dr Profeit, Queen Victoria’s Commissioner, when
the Royal family was not in residence at the castle”.
Sir James Matthews
Dr Alexander Profeit
Sir James Reid
Also in 1888,
Alex Ogston was called upon to conduct the Marquis of Lorne, husband of
Princess Louise, around Marischal College on the occasion of the Marquis’ visit
to Aberdeen to open the Industrial and Art exhibition at Schoolhill. It is possible that by this year Alex Ogston
was already under consideration for some official role with the Royal
Family. In a memorandum (RA
VIC/ADDJ/275) from Sir Henry Ponsonby (Keeper of the Privy Purse and the
monarch’s private secretary) to Queen Victoria concerning the proposed
membership of a Committee for the Scottish branch of the St. Katherine’s
Council, he suggested that Professor Ogston’s name should be removed on the
advice of Dr James Reid, because Reid considered that Ogston was already very
busy with his professional tasks. Was
James Reid trying to keep Ogston’s diary sufficiently clear to take on some
other role? Even before he was appointed
as the Queen’s surgeon in Scotland, Ogston was treating staff on the Balmoral
estate. In 1891, it was reported that he
was treating a Mrs Napier for some unspecified condition and that the Queen had
enquired about this lady’s condition (Mrs Napier was slowly improving),
suggesting the lady was either an employee or a guest at Balmoral.
As has been
outlined above, 1892 was a momentous year for Alexander Ogston and his royal
connections, when he was appointed Surgeon in Ordinary to Queen Victoria in
Scotland. Alex Ogston was not a man who
manoeuvred to gain personal prestige and he did not attempt to call in favours
by having others seek advancement on his behalf. However, he discovered that Prof Gairdner the
Senior Physician to the Crown in Scotland had lobbied for Hector C Cameron of
Glasgow, a friend of Ogston, to get the position. “So far as I ever knew no one had been using
influence on my behalf, though I do not doubt that I may have had a word said
in my favour by
Dr James Reid, the Queen’s private physician and Dr Profeit her Commissioner at
Balmoral. Possibly after all the fact that
I resided near Balmoral may have had some influence on my being appointed”. After the event of his royal appointment, Alex
Ogston learned that Sir William Jenner (Queen’s Physician in England) had supported
his candidature, though the two were not personally acquainted. Ogston wrote to Jenner thanking him but
received no reply and realized that he had made a mistake. Jenner was a man who only acted out of a
sense of duty, and he held that solicitation of an appointment was, in itself,
grounds for rejection. When first
offered the position, Alexander Ogston was undecided whether to accept but,
under his wife’s influence, he made up his mind. “Then as now, my inclinations and disposition
did not lead me to desire to come in contact with the great though in common
with all who knew the character of Her Majesty I could not but desire to be of
service to, and to be esteemed by, so good a woman; and these were inducements
to accept the situation greater than any ambition to be attached to the
Sovereign of the greatest Kingdom and Empire of the World. On these grounds I had almost decided not to
decline the honour when my wife’s evident wish that I should accept it finally
confirmed my decision to undertake its duties”.
Also in 1892,
Alexander Ogston was presented, accompanied by loud cheers, to the Princesses
Louise and Beatrice at the opening of the extended Aberdeen Royal Infirmary at
Woolmanhill. The royal princesses would
surely have noted this public acclamation of Ogston’s status in the eyes of his
senior colleagues, would have remembered this tall, dignified, handsome surgeon
and would have recounted this incident when they returned to Balmoral at the
end of their day in the spotlight in Aberdeen.
Certainly, Princess Louise remembered him. On a later occasion when Alex Ogston was
trying to lurk inconspicuously at the back of a crowded welcoming party at
Aberdeen station for a group in which Princess Louise was included, she spotted
Ogston and deliberately sought him out to shake hands and to open a
conversation, much to the surprise of others who were present.
Alexander
Ogston’s royal appointment was gazetted on 16 September 1892, and he received
his royal warrant three days later. The
appointment required his attendance at Balmoral to be introduced to the monarch
and this meeting was quickly arranged for 20 September. He travelled by train to Ballater and then
took the coach to the Crathie post office, opposite the Balmoral estate
entrance, where he was met by Alexander Profeit with whom he walked to present
himself at the Castle, which he had never before visited. He was received by Sir Arthur Bigge, the
Queen’s Private Secretary, who noted in a memorandum written that day,
“Profeit’s pal Ogston, our new Surgeon in Ordinary, is here to be presented”
(RA VIC/ADDA34/71).
Sir Arthur Bigge
Bigge and
Ogston had never met before and inevitably there was something of a mutual
sizing up between the two prominent men.
“I was accustomed from my profession to read men and Bigge’s face was a
book in which no one could have failed to read eloquent things. To some degree there was the same lesson to
be read on Reid’s face and afterwards I found it on all the Officials of the
Court. But most of all on Bigge’s. I don’t know whether I can rightly convey
it. It was the face of a man shaped for
years though still young by having to write one hundred letters a day amidst
disturbances occurring at any moment, to have dozens of interviews, to form
dozens of rapid decisions, to deal with unforeseen emergencies, to remember
everything and forget nothing, to foresee all manner of unforeseen
possibilities, to have his intellect forever on the spot and never by any
chance to fail in courtesy with others, and to have unerring tact for any
emergency; never in a word to make any mistake. … I fancy he was sizing me up,
as I was him. I have ever since then
found him very kind and friendly to me as in fact all the other Court Officials
have been”.
The prospect of
meeting the Queen and having to converse with her threw the great surgeon into
something of a panic. He had naively
thought that the meeting would be nominal, but then found that he was expected
to hold a conversation with the monarch.
Not only had he failed to change his work clothes (he was wearing a
coloured shirt and was shod in an old pair of shoes), but he had also given no
consideration to how he should describe himself in the visitors’ books of both
the Queen and Princess Beatrice, which he was first required to sign. “In each of the books Profeit directed me to
sign my name and with some little pride I wrote into each “Professor Alex.
Ogston, Surgeon to H.M. the Queen”, the first time I had used the new
title. I now think this was rather
pompous and not in very good taste to flourish the new designation but without
more time than I was allowed for consideration it was difficult to decide what
better to do. On every subsequent
occasion when visiting the Castle, I simply signed “Professor Ogston,
University of Aberdeen”.
Alexander
Ogston later described his feelings prior to meeting with Queen Victoria. “I confess I was thrown into a dreadful state
of nervousness such as I never afterwards experienced in the presence of any
other Sovereign. I had before then and
often since been in situations demanding what is called “Nerve”. I have lectured before hundreds of the most
famous men in the world; I have done for the first time great and dangerous
operations; I have seen men shot down at my side; I have enjoyed my luncheon
and pipe when bullets were rattling all round; have sat on horseback sketching
battles while shots were kicking up the
dust about me; have lain in camp in the dark while shots were fired into it and
rang loud as they struck; have been in what was almost a rout in battle; have
seen men blown into a bag of bones and dozens of dead and wounded carried by;
have stood in front of a big gun battery in action and seen the shell of the
enemy burst on it in the spot where I had been standing the moment before and
my comrades run to see if any fragments of me remained; and cannot remember
that these things discomposed me at all.
But to know that in a few minutes I was to stand before the Empress of
Britain and India, the ruler of our great colonies and of more quarters of the
world than I could remember, the descendant of our Saxon Kings from before the
Conquest, made my heart sink within me”.
Alexander Profeit did not help Ogston’s state of mind by telling him of
Sir James Reid’s reaction on being taken to meet the Queen for the first
time. “…he was so nervous that he had to
turn back half fainting in the corridor”.
Bigge informed
the Queen of Ogston’s arrival, and she sent back the message that she would see
her new surgeon after lunch. This
unanticipated delay at least gave Ogston extra time to compose himself while
conversing with members of the royal household in the dining room. He decided that his best strategy would be to
say as little as possible, so as to at least appear collected. At last, he was given the message, “The Queen
is ready to see you”, and he was ushered down a corridor to the Queen’s room,
meeting with Princesses Louise and Beatrice on the way, perhaps not by
chance. Alex Ogston was greatly
attracted to Princess Louise, as were others, both by her looks and her
manner. He followed Bigge into HM’s presence
and she was helped to her feet, bowed to him and he reciprocated, noticing to
his alarm that he had a hole in the upper leather of his left shoe. “I have often heard of you Dr Ogston”. “You have attended some of my servants”. Ogston did not detail his responses, perhaps
because he was unsure of what he said.
“Is Aberdeen in a good state of healthiness just now”? Mumbled response. “Are you prepared for the cholera”? All Ogston could do by way of response was to
bow. A further exchange of bows was
followed by Ogston backing to the door with Bigge, who left Ogston in the corridor. Eventually he returned to the Billiard Room
where Alexander Profeit was waiting for him and he was asked to sign the
Queen’s birthday book, again using his new title. He would find on future occasions too that
Queen Victoria was inevitably well briefed.
Following his
appointment as the Queen’s Surgeon in Ordinary in Scotland, Alexander Ogston
was routinely asked, indeed expected, to join greeting parties at Aberdeen’s
railway stations when members of the royal family were travelling through the
city. Possibly the earliest example of
such an attendance occurred when Princesses Louise and Beatrice arrived in the
city in mid-October to open the Scottish Home Industries Exhibition in the Music Hall. Alexander Ogston was
on duty again a month later to green the Queen at Ferryhill station on her way
south after her extended late summer sojourn on Upper Deeside. Ogston was also frequently added to the guest
list for social and cultural events occurring at Balmoral castle, for example
the supper and ball held at Balmoral in celebration of the marriage of the Duke
of York to Princess May. Most of the
Profeit clan were present, as were John Michie, (head forester and another
Ogston acquaintance at Balmoral) and his wife, and Alex Ogston with his spouse,
Isabella. On one such duty occasion in
September 1900, a lady collapsed at the Ferryhill Junction station suffering
from a heart condition. Alex Ogston
immediately attended the collapsed lady but could not return her to
consciousness. She died at ARI a few
days later.
After his
appointment, Alex Ogston was frequently at Balmoral attending to the sick and
injured amongst staff, family and guests, and so conversed with the monarch
from time to time, which allowed him to develop more confidence in speaking with
her. Alex Ogston gave a fascinating
account of a meeting with Queen Victoria in September 1896, when she was 78
years of age. The conduct of the
interview was similar to that Alex Ogston had experienced four years previously. “I made a bow and advanced and she then
seated herself and remained so during our interview while I stood two feet in
front of her. There followed a long
conversation about the health of Dr Profeit, the Queen’s Commissioner then”. Profeit’s mental condition and capacity to
perform his job were deteriorating rapidly at the time. He was being attended by Professor Ogston. The conversation then moved to such topics as
the weather and ended with a very interesting exchange. “You have had trouble in Aberdeen with
Professor Johnson”, said the Queen.
“Great trouble Your Majesty; it has been a serious matter for us”. Ogston then gave an account of some aspects
of Professor Johnson’s bizarre behaviour. “But he must be crazed Dr
Ogston”. “I said that he was and that he
was wanting in the good sense necessary to one in his high position and she
assented emphatically”. “Her whole
conversation and bearing were absolutely natural with no touch of pride or
hauteur, perfectly human, womanly and sweet.
I felt that she was a most intelligent person with a marvellous memory
and a genius for detail. She had, in
spite of her advanced years, a surprisingly intimate knowledge of all that was
going on about her and a deep interest in all her dependents. Only in regard to the Profeit boys who were
seven in number did she make an inaccuracy by mistaking Leopold as having
suffered from “his leg” (really his hip) instead of George who was ailing with
it. And even this she corrected herself
in a moment, almost before I could do so”.
The
eccentric Professor David Johnston
Professor David
Johnston (not Johnson, as Ogston relates) was the Professor of Biblical
Criticism at Aberdeen University between 1893 and his death in 1899. He could have been the academic upon whom the
apocryphal “mad professor” was based.
Johnston was coincidentally a brilliant scholar, a wild eccentric and a
hopelessly incompetent teacher and disciplinarian. He had been born in Sunderland to Scottish
parents in 1836, graduated MA from St Andrews University and attended lecture
courses at all four ancient Scottish universities before entering the ministry
at Unst, Shetland in 1865. Johnston had
a life-long zeal for scholarship and his thinly populated Shetland charge
allowed him plenty of time for the exercise of the intellect. However, he was accused of deserting his
parish, tried before an ecclesiastical court and found guilty but, being very
knowledgeable, he successfully defended himself before the Synod. Johnston immediately left Shetland and was
appointed to the parish of Hurray and Birsay in Orkney where he remained hefted
to this new charge for the remarkable period of 28 years. Here David Johnston continued with his
preferred style of life, devoting as much time as possible to divine
scholarship, often furth of Orkney.
Along the way he collected the degrees of BA from Oxford University, BD
and DD from Glasgow University and secured the Kennicott Hebrew Scholarship at
Oxford. In addition to his status as an
outstanding Hebrew scholar, he also became an acknowledged expert in Church law
and procedure.
On the
recommendation of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Dr Johnston was
appointed to the chair of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Aberdeen
University in 1893 at the rather advanced age of 57. The move into academia proved to be a
disaster both for Johnston and for the university. He did not acquire the necessary skills to
teach orally before a class of sometimes boisterous and even unruly
undergraduates. The students started to
treat the new professor as an object of merriment, even derision, and started
to play practical jokes on him. But the
levity turned to annoyance, and complaints were made to the university
authorities that he was disorganised and eccentric and that he held
unconventional views on his topics. This
forced the hand of the University Court, which established a committee to
examine the situation in the Biblical Criticism class. In the summer of 1896, the committee of
inquiry concluded that Professor Johnson was guilty of unmethodical treatment
of his subject, which gave it a justification for not evaluating the other two
charges against him, that he was inadequate and that he had lost the respect of
the students through his treatment of the class. It recommended that the professor of Biblical
Criticism should be retired but compensated for his loss of position, a
proposal accepted by the Court which, after a degree of prevarication, offering
him £250 per annum to be sourced from the future emoluments of the chair. This solution needed the approval of the
Privy Council, which was probably the route by which the matter came to the
notice of Queen Victoria.
Johnston did
not meekly accept his dismissal. He
defended himself both skilfully and vigorously, and counter-charged some of the
students with conspiracy, ungodliness and want of principles. The Court did not accept these claims against
the students but did accept that they had been guilty of disorderly
conduct. The case and the University’s
proposed solution then passed to the Privy Council. In the meantime, the institution had to
appoint an interim professor of Biblical Criticism to take on that department’s
teaching load. Johnston continued to
employ his considerable intellect and detailed knowledge of church law and
procedure in his own defence, issuing long, closely argued tracts in support of
his conduct and also mobilising his own supporters. The decision of the Privy Council came in May
1897 and concurred with the removal of Johnston from office but refused the
University permission to meet the costs of Johnston’s forced retirement from
the income of the chair. This put the
University in a bind because it had no alternative source of finance for this
purpose.
Johnston
continued to live in his university accommodation in Old Aberdeen and to turn
up to teach his class, though no students attended. The impasse was finally broken by Johnston’s
early death in the summer of 1899.
Balmoral
servants operated on by Alexander Ogston
One of the more
prominent members of the servant staff at Balmoral who required surgical
intervention by Alexander Ogston was William Paterson, the Balmoral head
gardener. He had been born at Marnoch in
Banffshire, the son of a farmer, in 1823.
He served an apprenticeship as a nurseryman and worked as a gardener,
ending up with the Duke of Leeds who was renting Mar Lodge near Braemar at the
time. On the recommendation of Mrs
Farquharson of Invercauld he was appointed, in 1847, head gardener to Sir
Robert Gordon, the then lessee of the Balmoral estate. Only three days after taking up this post,
Sir Robert died suddenly after getting a fishbone stuck in his throat. The balance of the Balmoral lease was then
taken up by Queen Victoria and her consort, Prince Albert and the estate was
eventually bought by them. As with other
senior servants then in post with Sir Robert, William Paterson was retained by
the monarch as head gardener in August 1848 and subsequently served her for a
total of 44 years, retiring in 1892 as a result of his declining health. William Paterson suffered from an enlarged
prostate, possibly prostate cancer, and in 1891 Alexander Ogston performed an
operation on the royal gardener to relieve his symptoms, which probably
extended his life. However, he then
developed pyelitis, a painful, chronic bacterial infection of the urinary tract
and it was this debilitating condition, which nowadays would be alleviated with
antibiotics, which forced his retirement.
As with all servants giving long and devoted service to the royal
family, Paterson was treated generously in retirement, being granted a pension
and free occupancy of the Dairy Cottage at Balmoral. During his final illness he was attended
daily by Dr James Reid and the Queen frequently asked for reports on his
condition. He died in October 1896 and was buried at Crathie.
Johanna
Campbell was born at Khantore, Crathie in 1852, the daughter of a
labourer. She was initially employed as
a housemaid and was eventually appointed to the Queen’s service as housekeeper
at Glasalltshiel, the Queen’s retreat on the shores of Loch Muick. There she developed a reputation for being
welcoming to both visitors and passers-by.
Her brother, Sandy, was also in royal employment as a keeper and was
well-known for his trout fishing acumen.
In December 1898, Johanna Campbell became ill and was referred to
Professor Alex Ogston in Aberdeen. After
examining Miss Campbell, he wrote to James Forbes, the new commissioner on the
Balmoral estate and successor to Alexander Profeit (RA VIC/ADDQ/7/65) to inform
him of his opinion. “My Dear Sir, I was
favoured with your letter about Miss Campbell and saw her when she called
today. She has cancer of the left breast
which requires to be removed forthwith.
And I have arranged that she will come into the Infirmary on Thursday at
12.30, when I shall be pleased to do all in my power to cure her". Sadly, the referral was too late, as was
often the case in those days, and Johanna Campbell died in January 1900, the
cause of death being given as “… carcinoma of the breasts and secondary
thoracic and abdominal deposits of 4 months’ standing …”, as certified by
Alexander Hendry, at the time a general practitioner in Ballater. In her final days, Johanna Campbell was cared
for in the Balmoral estate sanatorium.
She too was buried in the Crathie churchyard.
Private
individuals treated by Alexander Ogston
From 1880, when
he was appointed First Surgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Alexander Ogston’s
private surgical cases were occasionally reported in the local press, though
his public patients treated by surgery were rarely exposed to public curiosity
in this way. An examination of these
reported cases is instructive, but the selection cannot be considered as a
random, or near-random, sample of all his private cases, since other factors,
such as newsworthiness, probably came into the choosing process. With this reservation in mind, the following
points can be made. Although Ogston was
a surgeon best known for his work in bone surgery and amputation, he would
apparently tackle operations on any part of the human anatomy. The Professor would also consult on
non-surgical cases. Alex Ogston was
often called to the patient’s location and, in urgent cases he even travelled
by special train, which can only have been possible for very wealthy
clients. In many cases the patient was
in desperate circumstances, often with the medical condition being complicated
by old age, and death was a frequent outcome, sometimes from infection, such as
gangrene, or septicaemia. Cancer cases
were invariably late referrals and mortality almost inevitable, despite his
intervention This was truly the age of
heroic surgery.
Alexander
Ogston and the extension of Marischal College
The history of
the University of Aberdeen, formally dating from the fusion of 1860, truly
started with the foundation of Kings College in 1495 by Bishop William
Elphinstone. Two years later, King James
IV endowed the first English-speaking Chair of Medicine at Kings when the
position of Mediciner was established.
Subsequently, medical teaching there was intermittent. The second component of the merged
university, Marischal College, originated in 1593 in the New Town and was
accommodated in the buildings of the monastery of the Greyfriars, which had
been constructed almost a century previously, though they proved to be
unsuitable for their novel purpose.
Newly built accommodation gradually replaced the old during the 17th
and 18th centuries using donations of building materials and some
money. In the early 19th
century, the college and the town turned to raising sufficient monies to
construct a new academic building with an appropriate lay-out and of a
sufficient size. In 1826, the Government
set aside £30,000 for the benefit of the Scottish Universities and eight years
later £15,000 from this sum was granted to Marischal College for its
reconstruction. Kings College got
nothing. Marischal subsequently got a
further contribution from the Government, being the interest accrued on the
whole of the £30,000 set aside for Scottish universities. Further money was derived from the Town
Council and from public donations. The new
building was designed by Archibald Simpson (1790 – 1847), progenitor of the
plans for many prominent buildings in Aberdeen.
Builder Alexander Rainnie was contracted to erect the new structure,
which was achieved between 1835 and 1840.
The foundation stone of the new Marischal College was laid on 18 October
1837 by the College Chancellor, the Duke of Richmond. In 1839, Queen Victoria instituted two new
chairs at the College, the Regius Chairs of Anatomy and of Surgery. By 1839, when university courses were being
advertised for the coming session, Dr Francis Ogston’s course in Medical
Jurisprudence was publicised, along with other medical courses, all were to be
accommodated in the new buildings. The recently
constructed college buildings were in the form of an open quadrangle with
north, south and east wings and an entrance to the quadrangle being gained from
Broad Street via a pend. It was this
scene – a busy academic space criss-crossed by students and gowned academics –
which lodged in the earliest memories of the young Alexander Ogston, who was
born in 1844 at 84 Broad Street, a dwelling overlooking the Marischal
quadrangle.
As has been
dealt with above, the fusion of 1860 was not welcomed by the staff at Marischal
College, including Francis Ogston, or by many residents of the New Town. However, one consequence was the centring of
medical teaching firmly at Marischal College, along with significant science
subjects, such as Botany and Natural History.
But by the mid-1880s, the University was becoming very concerned again
about the adequacy of its accommodation for the student numbers it had to
support. All faculties, with the
possible exception of Divinity, had expanded their student numbers but the
growth of Medicine had been spectacular.
At the time of the fusion, there had been 150 medical students but by
1885 this number had grown to 350. In
October 1884, on a motion from Professor Alexander Ogston, who had been
appointed to the Regius Chair of Surgery two years previously, the Senatus established
a committee, with Ogston as convenor, to produce a plan for alleviating the
growing space shortage. The proposal
produced by this committee was for a major expansion at Marischal College
involving the closing off of the quadrangle with a new frontage on Broad
Street, at an estimated cost of £80,000.
A more modest expansion, costing about £20,000 was proposed for Kings
College. It is not known for certain that
Ogston was the author of the proposed Marischal College lay-out but, as
convener of the committee, he would at least have had to give the idea his
approval.
A deputation
from the Senatus, led by Alex Ogston, then met with the University Court. The Professor of Surgery then explained that
they had drawn up a specific plan for the extension of Marischal College
because, otherwise, they would not know the likely cost. The plan had not been endorsed by
Senatus. If implemented, there would
need to be the purchase and demolition of a number of houses but, these were
available for a price of 15x or 16x annual rent. However, the committee was not wedded to that
specific plan and would consider alternatives, though none was
forthcoming. An examination hall was the
main suggested extension at Kings College, plus some classrooms and
museums. The Court indicated its general
approval for the Marischal scheme and appointed a committee to cooperate with
the Senatus committee on developing the proposals. The Court also expressed the general view
that they should not just be building to alleviate the present shortage of
accommodation but to deal with the needs of the future. The Government had recently given money to
both Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities to expand their accommodation, but
nothing had been given to Aberdeen for the past 20 years.
Alexander
Ogston was absent from the University between late February 1885 and early May
of the same year, serving as a surgeon in the Sudan and Professor Matthew Hay
substituted for him on the Senatus committee in his absence, though Hay only
seems to have played a holding role.
Ogston resumed as convener on his return to Aberdeen and was almost
immediately pitched into a deputation which went to meet Lord Rosebery, then in
charge of Scottish affairs in WE Gladstone’s second Liberal
administration. The purpose of the
meeting with Lord Rosebery was to brief him on the University’s expansion plans
and to seek his advice and influence in approaching the Government for a major
contribution to the costs. The
deputation consisted of Dr Bain, Lord Rector of the University, Principal
Pirie, Professors Ogston, Donaldson, Geddes and Struthers. It was accompanied by local men of influence,
the Earl of Aberdeen, James A Campbell MP, Dr Farquharson MP, Sheriff Dove
Wilson and Dr McIntyre. Alex Ogston
opened the presentation but others, including Professor Struthers, chipped in
with contributions. Aberdeen was very
poor in respect of endowments, and they had no building endowments. Their Income mostly consisted of graduation
and matriculation fees, which required them to look to the Government for
financial help. The presentation focused
mostly on the needs of the Medical Faculty, that being where their greatest
space deficit lay, but they would also need funding to equip any expanded
space. Glasgow and Edinburgh were much
wealthier universities, and it was estimated that Aberdeen might be able to
raise £20,000 of the £100,000 needed locally.
Rosebery’s response was cautious.
They would need to convince the Treasury of the justice of their case
for almost doubling the size of the University, but this was not a good time to
ask for money. In any case he had little
influence and could not interfere in Treasury matters. Principal Pirie pointed out that they were
looking for advice on how to approach the Treasury but did not intend to do so
immediately.
The draft
scheme for the extension of Marischal College was approved by both Senatus and
the Town Council in 1886 and then put before Mr Balfour the Secretary of State
for Scotland. He in turn agreed to
represent Aberdeen’s case to the First Lord of the Treasury, but personnel
changes led to this proposal being set aside to be replaced by a further
application to the new First Lord in 1887.
However, he was not minded to support the grant that the University
sought on the grounds that not much money was being raised in the
North-East. The University then changed
tack, dividing the project into three phases, South Wing, North Wing and West
Wing, fronting Broad Street. Professor
John Struthers claimed that this was his idea and that Alex Ogston’s scheme to
attempt to implement the whole extension plan in one go was “castles in the
air”. A grant of about £6,000 was
forthcoming from the Government, sufficient, with a £3,000 supplement from the
University, for the extension of Marischal College’s south wing towards Broad
Street, which was completed in 1891. The
main beneficiaries were the departments of Physiology, Materia Medica, Medical Jurisprudence and Public Health, Natural History and Midwifery. The
remaining departments of Botany, Chemistry, Pathology, Surgery and Practice of Physic were still being taught in overcrowded conditions. Also, the Faculty of Law, the other main occupier of Marischal College, was
yet inadequately housed. It was likely that they would be accommodated in the future extension of the north wing. This situation did not please Alex Ogston,
since his Department of Surgery would still have to be taught in very poor
conditions. He attended a meeting of the
University Court to appeal against a decision taken by the Senatus Academicus
in March1889 regarding the extension of the Marischal College buildings. When he had brought his proposal forward for
additional accommodation of Surgery in the proposed north wing it had been in
ignorance of a restriction on the spending of the Government grant, which was
restricted to the south wing. The
Aberdeen Evening Gazette summarised his position. “The pith of his (Ogston’s) appeal lay on
this - that the surgery department was one of the most important in connection with the Medical School and it was also the one most in need of increased accommodation. He did not believe there was a single point in the University in which class-room accommodation was so entirely defective. They had now to teach surgery in a very deffterent was what it was taught a few tears ago. It was understood up until the last meeting of the Senatus that the money could be applied over the building but when the plans were brought up it was found that the money could only be applied to the south wing. He did not think that that was in the interests of the University. He thought that there were very serious objections to carrying out the proposed extensions without taking up matters more urgent. The whole of the new buildings were for non-compulsory classes. That seemed to him to be a matter that should not be permitted. He had again looked over the plans and was quite satisfied that the wants of the surgery department could be accommodated without seriously affecting any of the professors who were at present proposed to be accommodated". Struthers supported the decision which had
been taken by Senatus and argued that surgery teaching was well provided for
“in that great laboratory for practical surgery” – Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. But the Court accepted
Ogston’s position and referred the matter back to Senatus with an instruction
to take account of the Professor of Surgery’s objection. It is not clear if Ogston and Struthers had
got on well together before this incident but there was certainly a froideur in
their relationship afterwards.
Professor John Struthers
Detailed
planning then went ahead for the full extension of the College out to Broad
Street. Marshall McKenzie, the prominent
Aberdeen architect, was engaged by the Court in 1890 to prepare the detailed
design and in May of 1891 he met with the joint Court-Senatus committee, chaired
by the Rector, the Marquis of Huntly and with Alexander Ogston one of those
present, to examine two alternative outline proposals, in each of which the
College church, Greyfriars, was preserved.
The total cost of the new works was anticipated to be about
£80,000. In September, the Town Council,
in a radical move, suggested that the existing buildings of Marischal College
should be demolished and replaced by a completely new building. However, the University rejected this idea,
not for sentimental reasons, but because they could not live with the loss of
so much accommodation for a significant period of time, as their teaching space
needs were pressing. Professors Ogston,
Hamilton and Japp were particularly hostile to the Council’s idea, which was
not surprising given that their departments would have been badly
impacted. The following month, the
Court/Senatus committee again met with Marshall McKenzie, when he produced
detailed drawings of his proposed college extension. Alexander Ogston was again one of those
present. The north wing was designed to terminate in the Chemistry Laboratory and
would be called the "Chalmers Laboratory" in recognition of a recent bequest by Mr JG Chalmers. The new building along Broad Street would be in white Kemnay granite and would contain an entrance to the completed quadrangle through the exact centre of the new wing. When this this new extension was delivered, Marischal College would have
approximately doubled its pre-existing size. The top of the main tower was initially proposed to terminate in a pinnacle supported on eight flying buttresses in the style of St Giles' Cathedral, Edinburgh and the King's College tower. However, this proposal was eventually dropped for four pinnacles at the
corners of the tower. The following departments were proposed to be accommodated in the Marischal extension. Chemistry, Pathology, the Bacterial Laboratory, the Museum, Botany and Medicine. The older part of the bu8ilding would house Anatory, Natural History, Physiology, Materia Medica, Midwifery, Medical Jurisprudence, Law, Modern Languages, a Library, the Natural History Museum and the Archaeological Museum. About £60,000 was tyhe estimated cost of the scheme.
Marshal
McKenzie’s frontage of the new building would be much more ornate than the existing College because of the
invention and use of hydraulic cutting tools in the intervening period, which
allowed finer carving of this very hard stone This new technology was
demonstrated in Aberdeen in 1895. "An exhibition was given yesterday afternoon in the aerated water works of Mr William Thomson, Lemon Street of pneumatic appliances for cutting granite which have newly been taken across from the United States where the patent for them has been in operation for about 12 years. Many influential members of the granite trade in the city were present". The new technique was reckoned to be 6x - 8x as quick as one man with hand tools.
A University
Extension Fund was set up to attract contributions for the completion of the
new buildings. Professor Alexander
Ogston gave £100, as did Professors Hamilton and Finlay. The soap manufacturer, Alexander Milne Ogston
of Ardoe House, Professor Alexander Ogston’s cousin, donated £200 and James
Matthews of Springhill, Alexander Ogstoin’s father-in-law contributed £50. At the end of 1891, the fund stood at over
£17,000. Later, Alexander Ogston strong-armed the local branch of the BMA into
giving 20gns to the fund. A few months
later the joint Court/Senatus committee announced that the Government had
agreed to provide £40,000. The extended
tower in the centre of the east wing and the graduation hall behind were
financed with a donation from Dr Mitchell of Newcastle and today are known as
the Mitchell Tower and the Mitchell Hall respectively. The Lord Rector of the University, the 11th
Marquis of Huntly, was an energetic and engaging advocate on behalf of the
University in raising finance. For
example, both he and Alexander Ogston attended the London - Aberdeen University Club half-yearly dinner in November 1895 when Huntly appealed to the members to help in raising finance
for the Marischal extension.
One of the
casualties of the Marischal building program was Ogston’s Court, 84 Broad
Street, where Alexander Ogston had been born but, before its demolition, it had
a limited role as temporary administrative offices. The extension of the north wing into the
space once occupied by Ogston’s Court became the new home of the Chemistry
Department, then headed by Professor Japp.
By September 1894, the contractor, Edgar Gauld, had the building work
well underway, and it was anticipated that by the end of summer 1895
accommodation for Surgery and Chemistry would be handed over, not a moment too
soon in the case of Chemistry. The
Aberdeen Journal related the story. "The urgency for pushing on this part of the work will be apparent when it is mentioned that during the lsst two sessions numbers of students became indisposed in consequence of the room being ill-adapted for carrying off the fumes from the chemicals. It is also stated that Professor Japp's health was affected from the same cause".
Another
casualty of the remodelling of Marischal College was the old Greyfriars
Church. Although Marshall McKenzie had
wanted to keep the old building, he was obliged to have it demolished and a new
Greyfriears Church incorporated as the terminal part of the western end of the
south wing.
At this time,
the open quadrangle at Marischal College was home to a large, red granite
obelisk, which had been erected there in 1860 as a memorial to the life and
achievements of Sir James McGrigor (the same James McGrigor who had been a
founder member of the Aberdeen Medical Society in 1789). He went on to have a distinguished career as
a military surgeon, serving as Chief of the Medical Staff in Wellesley’s (later
the 1st Duke of Wellington) army during the Peninsula Wars and in
1815 becoming Director-General of the Army Medical Department. He remained in that post for 36 years. McGrigor was the founder of the Army Medical
Service and he served as Lord Rector of Marischal College in 1826, 1827 and
1841. The granite obelisk to his memory
remained in the Marischal College quadrangle until1905 when it was moved to
Duthie Park, Aberdeen, where it stands to this day.
McGrigor Obelisk, Duthie Park
The
Court/Senatus Committee had been very successful in analysing the needs of the
University, evaluating the constraints of the site, commissioning the architect
and working with him as the proposals evolved, and in helping to raise the
necessary finance. Marshall McKenzie,
the chosen architect was the former business partner of James Matthews, the
father-in-law of Alexander Ogston’s second wife, though it is unclear if this
family connection was influential in any way in sending the project in
McKenzie’s direction. The work of the
joint Court/Senatus Committee was now almost complete. Alexander Ogston had played a leading part
throughout this challenging project. The
extended Marischal College was finally opened officially by HM King Edward VII
and Queen Alexandra in a grand ceremony held in late September 1906, during the
monarch’s annual visit to Balmoral. It
was thus fitting that Professor Alexander Ogston should be one of the senior
professors who was presented to the King.
Mr CW Mitchell of Newcastle, whose father had been a major donor to the
extension project, was honoured with the Freedom of the city in 1901. Marshall McKenzie was rewarded for his role
with an honorary degree in 1906.
Alexander Ogston
and the Lord Lieutenancy
The United
Kingdom is divided into Lieutenancy areas, usually coinciding with county and
city boundaries. For each such area, the monarch appoints a Lord Lieutenant,
his or her personal representative. In
turn, the Lord Lieutenant appoints several Deputy Lieutenants to help with the
duties of the office. Originally the
Lord Lieutenant had a military function in organising the militia for the area
but, by the time of Alexander Ogston’s service, the role was largely ceremonial
and the appointment as a Deputy Lieutenant had become a reward for public good
works. Both the City of Aberdeen and the
County of Aberdeenshire had its own Lord Lieutenant, in the case of the city,
the role was a formal undertaking of the Lord Provost. In the 1890s the position of Lord Lieutenant
for Aberdeenshire was fulfilled by John Campbell, the Earl of Aberdeen. During 1896, he appointed Alexander Ogston to
the role of Deputy Lieutenant. It was a
mark of the status that Ogston had achieved by that time. In 1899, the Deputy Lieutenants of
Aberdeenshire met to organise a ball for the Gordon Highlanders, which was held
in the Music Hall at the end of September. Professor Alexander Ogston of Glendavan with Mrs and Miss Ogston, and Alexander M Ogston of Ardoe with Mrs Ogston and Miss Ogston were all present. Much later, in 1913, Alexander Ogston was
offered, and accepted, nomination by Lord Provost Maitland as a Deputy
Lieutenant for the City of Aberdeen. However,
since he had not served for a sufficient time in the Territorial Force, the War
Office blocked his appointment. Rules,
of course, are rules.
Dr
James McKenzie Davidson, Professor Alexander Ogston and the introduction of Roentgen-ray
photography to Aberdeen
Wilhelm
Roentgen was the first person to produce and detect (by photography) x-rays,
electromagnetic radiation of shorter wavelength (and therefore more energetic)
than ultra-violet light. This
achievement took place on 8 November 1895.
Roentgen later used the designation “x” for the unknown to label this
new form of radiation, because its physical nature was a mystery at the
time. He immediately realised the
potential of his discovery for application in medicine. One of his earliest radiographs was of his
wife Anna Bertha’s hand. When she saw
it, with the bones and her rings showing in dark shadowed detail, she exclaimed
“I have seen my death”. Roentgen’s work
was first published on 28 December 1895, though his results had been publicly
announced earlier. Roentgen was awarded
the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1901.
Wilhelm Roentgen
Radiograph of the hand of Wilhelm Roenten's wife
Roentgen’s
findings caused an immediate stir in the medical world because of the obvious
applications that the new technique promised, and other medical and non-medical
scientists quickly began experimenting with Roentgen rays. Reports of successful imaging of parts of the
human body came both thick and fast. Dr
John Hall-Edwards of Birmingham, a keen photographer, was credited with making
the first Roentgen-ray photograph in a clinical setting, when he demonstrated
the presence of a sterile hypodermic needle under the skin of a colleague on 11
January 1896, barely two weeks after Roengen’s publication. But similar moves were afoot elsewhere in
Great Britain, especially in Scotland. The earliest example that the present author
has been able to discover from north of the border was that of Dr Dawson
Turner, lecturer in physics at the Surgeons’ Hall in Edinburgh, who had by 29
January 1896 produced radiographs of a lady’s hand and foot. In Glasgow, Lord Kelvin had built a Roentgen
ray machine but was ill and unable to be present at the first demonstration of
its use. This task was delegated to Dr
John Macintyre who showed the machine in operation at Glasgow Royal Infirmary
on 5 February 1896. Further north, in
Aberdeen, the discovery of Roentgen had also caused a flurry of activity.
James McKenzie
Davidson had been born in Argentina to Scottish parents but returned to Great
Britain to study medicine, graduating MB CM from the Aberdeen Medical School in
1882. He soon came under the influence
of Alexander Ogston when he served as his assistant and, in 1886, Davidson was
appointed Ophthalmic Surgeon at ARI.
McKenzie Davidson had always been an adept physicist and instrument
designer. On learning of Roentgen’s
discovery of the penetrating rays while travelling on the Continent, Davidson
visited him at his home in Germany and on returning to Great Britain he managed
to construct an apparatus for generating the newly discovered radiation. McKenzie Davidson’s first public
demonstration of x-rays was made to the Aberdeen Philosophical Society on 11
February 1896 in the Surgery classroom at Marischal College. Being a public demonstration during an
advertised lecture, McKenzie Davidson must have succeeded in taking radiographs
sometime before this date and he showed the audience a number of photographic
negatives that he had already produced.
The title of his talk was “Light and Colour, which suggests the work on
Roentgen rays was a late addition to his text and there was no mention of
Roentgen rays when the talk was previewed in the Aberdeen Journal on 8
February. The detection device was an
ordinary photographic plate covered by a sheet of vulcanite to prevent fogging
by visible light. On top of the
light-proof sheet was a small aluminium box containing some rubies and pearls,
a gold wedding ring and an iron key, which were to be photographed using
McKenzie Davidson’s apparatus. The gems
had been lent by Alexander Ogston in whose classroom the meeting was taking
place. An exposure time of five minutes
was sufficient to produce an image.
McKenzie Davidson was being assisted by the prominent Aberdonian photographer,
George Washington Wilson, who developed the exposed plates. At the close, Alexander Ogston proposed a
vote of thanks to Dr McKenzie Davidson and asked the lecturer to comment on the
nature of the new rays, but McKenzie Davidson declined, though he did say that
he did not see how they could be short light waves (which they later proved to
be). Dr McKenzie Davidson continued his
investigations into Roentgen rays in Aberdeen but, in 1897, he left Aberdeen on
his appointment as consulting surgeon at Charing Cross Hospital, London.
Dr James McKenzie Davidson
George Washington Wilson
John
Hall-Edwards has been credited with the first use of a radiograph to inform a
surgical procedure, which took place on 14 February 1896. However, it was announced in the Aberdeen
Journal on 15 February 1896 that “Dr McKenzie Davidson has been the means of
conferring on Aberdeen no small distinction in connection with a clever
operation in surgery, which was performed yesterday (ie, 14 February 1896,
the same precedence date as claimed for John Hall-Edwards) as a result of a
photograph which he took of the foot of a child which a portion of a needle had
penetrated. The child, a girl of nine
years of age, who was a patient of Dr Gibb, was taken to the residence of Dr
Davidson (343 Union Street) for the purpose of having the foot
photographed, and an operation subsequently performed. Dr Alex Ogston (possibly Dr Alexander
Ogston the Rosemount GP, rather than the famous surgeon) was present as
chloroformist, and Dr Gibb performed the operation. In taking the photograph of the foot, Dr
McKenzie Davidson placed a copper wire round the limb at a certain small distance
from the puncture wound where the needle was supposed to have entered. After an exposure of forty minutes an
excellent shadowgraph was obtained and to the experienced eye of the doctor,
who had made numerous previous experiments, the exact position and inclination
of the needle were revealed. A
measurement was taken from the black line made on the photograph by the copper
wire to the portion of the needle nearest the surface of the foot, and Dr
Davidson was able to point out the exact spot where the incision should be
made. Dr Gibb in a moment found the
object, and in less than five minutes the whole operation was over, having been
accomplished in the most successful manner”.
Interestingly, the Aberdeen Journal was aware of the operation which had
been performed in Birmingham, also on 14 February, which was a remarkably
similar case of a needle completely embedded in a patient’s flesh, in this
second case of a hand. Although the
Hall-Edwards operation took place in the morning and may just have a temporal
precedence over McKenzie Davidson’s case in Aberdeen, it would be churlish to
deny McKenzie Davidson a near-equal place to Hall-Edwards in the radiologists’
hall of fame.
The
presentation and demonstration of Roentgen-ray photography before the Aberdeen
Philosophical Society in February 1896 by Dr McKenzie Davidson had proved so
stimulating that, by popular demand, it was repeated on 3 March 1896 at the
same venue. Professor Alex Ogston was
called to the chair before a large audience.
This time the aluminium box contained a deer's tooth, a moonstone, a Ceylon garnet and a half-sovereign, all provided by Professor
Ogston. The same objects were also
photographed simply wrapped in paper, which halved the required exposure time
of four minutes. (Had McKenzie
Davidson’s apparatus been upgraded by that date)? George Washington Wilson again developed the
photographic plates which had been exposed at the beginning of the
lecture. McKenzie Davidson also showed
radiographs of embedded needles and even of a bullet lodged in the badly
swollen hand of a boy from Keith, which had prevented the location of the
missile by probing. Similarly, Professor
Ogston treated James Ellis, a crofter from Kildrummy who received a gunshot
wound in the left leg about five months previously. At the time, Ogston had managed to locate and
remove 28 pellets from the limb but a radiograph by Dr McKenzie Davidson
revealed another 16, which the surgeon would further attempt to extract.
Radiograph of hand with two embedded pellets
In 1898, after
he had moved to London, James McKenzie Davidson published, in booklet form, a
description of his apparatus for generating Roentgen rays, so that others could
build their own equipment. Alexander
Ogston did not hang about. McKenzie
Davidson said, “I am informed that the first independent application of this
method has been carried out by Professor Ogston of Aberdeen and his assistant
Dr Irvine Fortescue (a son of the ancient family whose estate, Kingcausie
lies on Lower Deeside). From my
written description an apparatus was constructed which enabled them to locate a needle precisely in a woman's foot and even to estimate its length correctly to a millemeter. It is of interest to note that the patient had had previously a skiagraph (then current term for a
radiograph) taken showing the presence of the needle and had undergone two unsuccessful operations for its extraction. This case pretty clearly establishes the advantage of exact location preceding operative interference". Alexander
Ogston also demonstrated his locally-made Roentgen ray apparatus before a
meeting of the Aberdeen, Banff and Kincardine branch of the BMA in 1898.
Walter Henry
Ogston was the first son and fourth child of Alexander Ogston’s first marriage
to Mary Jane Hargrave. Walter was born
in 1873 and in 1909 he married Josephine Elizabeth Carter. Writing much later Mrs WH Ogston recalled
being invited into Alexander Ogston’s consulting room one day prior to her
marriage and asked if she would like to see that her future husband’s heart was
in the right place. Alexander Ogston had
an X-ray apparatus there projecting an image of a beating heart onto a fluorescent
screen. She also recalled her fist sight
of this miraculous new investigative technique, though she did not recall the
date. Dr William Henderson had brought
along in a cab to 252 Union Street a gunshot wound case and a
fracture-dislocation. “We all saw with
wonder the revelations of the X-rays. I
shall never forget that moment – it was a Sunday morning - the church bells
were summoning the people to service. I
can still hear those bells”.
Sir James
McKenzie Davidson (he was knighted in 1912) died in 1919 at the age of 63. Most of his working life, after he left
Aberdeen in 1897, was devoted to the development and advancement of the science
of radiology and today, he is justly known as the “Father of British
radiology”. In 1920, shortly after
Davidson’s death, a letter appeared in many newspapers appealing for support
for The Mackenzie Davidson Memorial Fund.
The principal purpose of the fund was to establish a diploma in
radiology and electrology (redundant term for the science of the
applications of electricity) at some university in London, to match a
similar course mounted by Cambridge University, and to fund a Mackenzie
Davidson Chair of Radiology. A further
hope was that, if sufficient funds could be raised, they would stretch to
creating an institute of radiology which would have a remit much wider than the
medical uses of x-rays. The appeal
letter was signed by a distinguished group of 30 sponsors from many walks of
life, politicians, such as Stanley Baldwin and Andrew Bonar Law, Nobel Prize
winning physicists, JJ Thomson and Ernest Rutherford, architect Gilbert Scott
and numerous eminent radiologists, physicians and surgeons, including Alexander
Ogston. McKenzie Davidson was held in
high regard throughout the land.
Alexander
Ogston and the deputation to Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of State for War
Lord Lansdowne,
the 5th Marquess of Lansdown, had been Viceroy of India between 1888
and 1894. On his return to the UK in
1895 he was appointed Secretary of State for War in Lord Salisbury’s
Conservative administration. He was
later blamed for the lack of preparedness of the British army for the Second
Boer War. At this time there was a good
deal of dissatisfaction among the medical officers of the Army Medical
Service. They had obscure titles which
did not fit into the command structure of the army. The dissatisfaction was such that it was
proving increasingly difficult to attract sufficient candidates to enter the
annual entry competition for filling vacancies in the AMS. These grumbles from the medical officers in
the army led to their representative body, the British Medical Association
sending a substantial delegation to meet with Lord Lansdowne, though the BMA
was largely concerned with the conditions of service of its military
members. The leader of this group was Dr
Robert Farquharson, Chairman of the BMA Parliamentary Bills Committee and MP
for West Aberdeenshire. Alexander Ogston
was a member of the delegation representing the interests of the Aberdeen
University Medical School. Lansdowne, a
consummate politician, listened carefully to the points made by the delegation
and agreed with them on some of the issues raised. They urged him to make concessions to the
profession in the direction of ditching the present cumbersome titles in use
and replacing them with military ranks, and also urging the formation of an Army
Medical Corps. While Lansdown saw no
problem to forming a medical corps and agreeing that present titles were
cumbersome, saw no quick solution to the question of rank. However, applying soft soap in best political
tradition, he gave them hope that he would soon be in a position to announce
some changes, without giving any firm commitment to do so. Within a year, on 25 June 1898, the Royal
Army Medical Corps had been formed and army ranks added to the form of the
medical job titles of serving medical officers though these moves were almost
without impact on the recruitment problem they were designed to address.
Lord Lansdown
Alexander
Ogston and Russian, German and French military medical services
Alexander
Ogston arrived back in Scotland in May 1885 with many negative views on the
organisation of medical services to the British forces. In the following 14 years he deliberately set
out to compare the military medical services at home with those of the major
continental powers, Germany, Russia and France.
This involved frequent travel to the Continent and to British military
establishments, including several classes of warships. He was often aided in this quest for
knowledge by enlisting letters of introduction from Queen Victoria. Ogston found things to admire in the medical
services of all the major European powers, which made him all the more
determined to expose British deficiencies and bring about reform at home.
Germany was
already a well-known country to Alexander Ogston, He had visited there many
times, starting with his student days and he was fluent in the German
language. “In the interval (1885 –
1899) I had repeatedly visited Germany and became acquainted with many of
its leading army medical officers, and so acquired a tolerably accurate
knowledge of the conditions of their service”.
As has already been pointed out, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 – 1871
was the event which first stirred Ogston’s interest in the delivery of medical
services in time of war. The conflict
between the Prussians and the French proved to be a major test of the
principles of anti-septic surgery developed by Lister and the Germans made full
use of his findings. The German surgeon, von Esmarch had introduced a field
dressing during the war which was carried by every soldier. It contained two balls of sterile material,
one for insertion in the entrance wound and one for the exit wound. The package also contained a triangular
bandage. Later, “the Russians improved
on this arrangement by clothing the operatives in sterile suits, cleaning their
exposed arms and hands antiseptically and using sterile forks to handle the
dressing material”.
Ogston also
admired the way that the Germans involved civilian surgeons in military
structures, rewarded them with both pay and status and effectively obliged them
to join the war effort in times of conflict.
“Thus, the University professors hold high military rank, corresponding
with their eminent civil position and scientific attainments, and are required
to give annual courses of instruction to the medical officers serving in the
army and navy. Such well-known surgeons
as Bergmann, Bruns, Trendelenburg and Mikulicz have to teach these classes
during the Easter holidays, so as not to interfere with the winter and summer
sessions of the Universities. Each
professor has his fixed military rank assigned to him in case of war; most of
them rank as lieutenant-generals, some as generals and even higher, and in the
event of war they act as consulting surgeons to the medical officers of the
army or base hospitals. They receive the
same pay as the military surgeons, as do also the other surgeons who are liable
to be called out in time of war; some of the latter have places assigned to
them in the Sanitary Corps, etc, so that their skill and experience are
utilised in every department of the service … All surgical instruments and
appliances in the German army are supplied by the State, and in the navy, this
is likewise the case; every hospital in which the medical officers serve has
its complete armamentum provided for it, so that no unwise economy hampers the
most thorough and modern practice of the healing art; and the same thing is
true in regard to the naval medical service”.
In December
1898, Aberdeen’s wandering Professor of Surgery visited the Imperial Military
Academy of Medicine in St Petersburg, on the occasion of this institution’s
centenary. Ogston described the Academy
as “…one of the greatest medical institutions in the world”. Czar Nicholas II also took part in the
celebrations in St Petersburg and Alex Ogston was presented to him, and had
conferred the Order of the Empire, in recognition of his professional eminence. Queen Victoria was involved in arranging
Ogston’s visit to Russia and, probably during the same visit, he also studied
Russian military medical arrangements.
Ogston later wrote, “With her (Queen Victoria’s) sanction and an
introduction to our ambassador in St Petersburg, I also went to Russia,
obtained from Count Mouravieff permission to see whatever I wanted to inspect,
and made the acquaintance of General Kouropatkin and Dr Emmert, the very
enlightened and progressive Director-General of the Russian army medical
department. The Russian military hospitals
were shown to me, and the army medical manufactory, where the instruments,
dressings, and appliances for the army were prepared, and were being arranged
in the most admirable and practical manner for their destined employment”. Alexander Ogston was impressed by the
information he gleaned on Russian military medical services. “Russia possesses six large and three hundred
small hospitals connected with the army, besides smaller lazarettos (quarantine
stations); and in some of these the equipment is far in advance of anything
the services possess in this country.
Thus, the military hospital of St Petersburg, wherein are treated all
medical, surgical, gynaecological, ophthalmic and other diseases, consists of
five separate clinics or infirmaries, each of which is complete in itself and
possesses departments for every class of disease, and even wards for paying
patients. The wards are excellent and
replete with appliances of every kind; there are bandage rooms, purifying
rooms, operation theatres, bacteriological departments, rooms for physical
research, laboratories for teachers, and for students, all excellent and
complete. Each clinic possesses 850 beds
… And about 45,000 patients are treated per annum … Russia has 3,000 surgeons
in her army, and any of these may, if he show ability and powers of work, apply
for and be ordered to return to study in the hospitals for a period of two
years. The Russian naval hospitals are
arranged like the army hospitals”.
It is
interesting that though Alexander Ogston had visited Russia in 1898, long
before the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the monarchy of the Czars was
replaced by the Communist state, on his death in 1929, a telegram of condolence
was received from the Military Medical Academy of Leningrad (the new name for
St Petersburg) by Alex Ogston’s family.
“The military Medical Academy of Leningrad deplores the loss of the
brilliant scientist Sir Alexander Ogston remembering his great services to
science and suffering mankind.” Signed The President of the Academy Vojatchek;
The Commissary of the Academy Lamkyn”.
Alexander
Ogston credited the French with having initiated military surgery late in the
18th century. The Aberdeen
professor also said that he “studied” French military medical organisation,
though he did not make clear if he visited French military establishments. He was particularly impressed by the French
arrangements for postgraduate medical education of French military
surgeons. “In the French army,
post-graduate courses, expressly for medical officers, are conducted by
professors at the different Universities throughout the republic, and the cost
is borne by the army medical department, while a certain number of the medical
officers of the active and reserve army are every year ordered to attend them,
extra pay being drawn by those who do so”.
When Ogston
subsequently criticised the organisation and conduct of British military
medical arrangements, he did so from a position of knowledge and in possession
of clear ideas, often culled from his studies of other nations, for meaningful
reform. Inevitable he met with criticism
and stiff opposition to change, but Alexander Ogston too was made of stern
stuff and was not cowed by negative views of his beliefs expressed in high
places.
Alexander
Ogston resigns, for the final time, from the senior surgeoncy at Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary
On 1 September
1898, Alexander Ogston sat down at his home, 252 Union Street, to compose a
letter of resignation from the Senior Surgency at ARI. He had been there before, in April 1892, when
he had submitted his resignation as a lever to extract extra support for his
hospital role. On this second occasion,
too, his workload was the given reason for his action, but this time there was
no cryptic motive: he felt it was time to step back from hospital work and
allow a younger man to take the reins.
Alex Ogston was now 54 years old and had been a member of surgical staff
at ARI for 30 years, 18 of them as Senior Surgeon.
“Colonel J
Allardyce, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. Dear Sir. May I solicit your good offices in laying my
resignation from the surgeoncy to the infirmary before the Board of Directors,
and recommending them to accept it? My
sole reason for asking them to permit me to retire is that I feel the work is
too much for me to carry on along with my university and other professional
engagements. Everything the directors
could do has been done to facilitate my continuing to act as their surgeon, and
especially since, in 1892 I withdrew my intention of retiring from the
hospital, everything I could wish and ask for has been placed at my disposal to
render my work lighter and enable me to carry out surgery in the institution in
its highest and best forms. During these
additional six years, I have made use to the full of all the assistance the
directors have put at my disposition: but there is much falling to a surgeon of
the infirmary which can never rightly be delegated to another, and for some
time I have been conscious that I have not the strength to face, with
efficiency, the gradually increasing quantity and onerousness, of what
necessarily falls to do. It will therefore
be a kindness to me, for which I shall be most thankful, if the Board of
Directors will permit me to relinquish my present duties before the
commencement of the university winter session in October next. I wish it were in my power to put into words
the deep sense I have of the kindness and enlightened aid I have received from
the directors, and not the least during your chairmanship. I am truly grateful for their enlightened
support, and for the privilege of having been allowed to aid in the immeasurably
great work which the directors have done to help those who are sick, suffering,
or injured among the poor. I am, dear
sir, yours faithfully, Alex. Ogston”.
Colonel
Allardyce tried to persuade Alex Ogston to reconsider but soon reached the
conclusion that his mind was made up and that the Board of Directors had no
alternative but to accede to his request.
The Board framed a minute expressing their appreciation for Professor
Ogston’s work and to ask him to retain his connection with the infirmary by assuming
the status of consulting surgeon. Alex
Ogston readily agreed to this request.
Of course, Ogston had only partially retired from practice. He remained the occupant of the Regius Chair
of Surgery in the University, he continued to see private patients and his
service to the royal family was unchanged.
Alex Ogston was also free to devote more of his time to his interests in
military surgery.
The
Portsmouth address to the British Medical Association
The British
Medical Association was, and is, the representative organisation for medical
doctors of all stripes throughout the United Kingdom. In the late 19th century, it held
an annual meeting which moved between different locations, with an extensive
programme of lectures broken down into sections to suit different medical
interests. In August 1899, the 67th
BMA annual meeting was due to be held in Portsmouth and Alexander Ogston was
elected the Vice-President of the surgical section of the meeting and in that
role was expected to make a substantial address to the meeting. This year was the culmination of a long
series of investigations by Alex Ogston into the provision and organisation of
medical services in the armed forces of the major continental European
countries, France and Germany and also Russia.
Ogston also set out, armed with introductions from Queen Victoria to
examine the major British military hospitals and the medical arrangements on
several classes of British warships.
Some of these British visits occurred in May 1899 when his destinations
were "Portsmouth Docks and Warships and Netley Hospital on this (4 May) and the following two days to examine their medical equipment". He may also have visited the Royal Hospital,
Haslar, located in Gosport on the western side of Portsmouth harbour, the
principal Royal Navy medical facility.
At the close of
these investigations, Ogston concluded- “With such sources of information I
could not fail to see that our country was seriously falling behind the other
European Powers in its medical and surgical provision for war; and when the
duty fell to me of delivering the Address on Surgery at the Annual Meeting of
the British Medical Association, held in Portsmouth in 1899, it seemed fitting
to devote it to a discussion of that subject”.
To tackle such a topic at the home of the Royal Navy, with the Royal
Hospital Haslar nearby and the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, just a few
miles away on Southampton Water, and to deliver it in Ogston’s fearless style,
was akin to poking lions with a stick through the bars of their cage. Indeed, Ogston said in the introduction to
his address, “I venture to believe that in the city of Portsmouth it will not
be out of place, perhaps even specially appropriate, to advert to the condition
of our army and navy medical services”.
Alex Ogston understood the significance of the geographical location of
the BMA meeting.
Realising that
his address would receive close scrutiny, Alex Ogston put a lot of effort into
its preparation, even enlisting the help of his son-in-law, English professor
Herbert Grierson, to review the draft of the text. He intended his message to be patently understood
and not obscured by being couched in diplomatic niceties. “I felt that I was justified in making use of
the occasion to speak plainly”. According to Grierson, the title of Alex
Ogston’s address was “The Position of Medical and Surgical Service in the Army
and Navy”, though no such title appears to have been published in the press
reports of Ogston’s address. Ogston’s
presentation was delivered at the general session on the afternoon of Thursday
3 August 1899, in the Upper Albert Hall, Portsmouth.
Sir Herbert Grierson
Ogston opened
with a reference to the spectacular advances that had been made in surgery
during the previous 30 years. “For the
first time in all the centuries that have flown, our profession has changed
from a craft into a science, a result that though many have contributed to it,
we owe mainly to Lister”. He then went
on to lay the basis on which the country in his view was obliged to act. “Our own country which can boast of having
produced the great reformer, who is yet amongst us, witnessing the fruition of
his work, is under a greater obligation than any other to profit by his
discoveries and it may be well leaving the unalterable past that has gone from
us to make use of the present occasion to consider if we are sufficiently
discharging our whole duty in this respect towards the immediate future in
which it is still ours to think and act”.
But Alex Ogston perceived obstacles to progress. “… in some quarters the changes and modifications
necessitated by the progress of science are even yet meeting with obstacles
that ought not to exist and that some of our medical and surgical brethren are
still hampered by systems which must be swept away if we are to ensure that
none of our fellow countrymen shall be denied those benefits which are now
within the reach of the humblest and poorest”.
At this point
the senior military officers present probably shifted uneasily in their seats,
realising that some trenchant criticisms were, like bullets, about to come
their way. The civilian medical men
present probably sat up and listened with interest, like spectators at the
battle about to unfold before them.
Ogston was convinced that war was not far in the future and that now was
the time to act. “The present time is
suitable beyond any in the past half-century for drawing attention to the
reforms that may be necessary to ensure that when the supreme moment arrives
the medical departments of these services (ie army and navy) will be
found adequately prepared to undertake the duties they will be called upon to
discharge”. A European, or even World
war, involving both army and navy, could break out at any time. With the nearest he came to lathering Ogston
soft soap, he praised the then Secretary of State for War, Lord Lansdowne, for
being “enlightened” and for initiating some welcome reforms in the Army Medical
Service, and pointed to the favourable state of public opinion on the armed
forces. Now was, in Ogston’s opinion, the
best time for action.
Then the
criticisms were rolled out, and the first one concerned officers in the Army
Medical Service. Ogston claimed there
was great disillusionment amongst this group.
“Those medical officers who possess a few years’ experience of the
services, however much loyalty seals the lips of most of them and influences
all, show themselves disappointed and discouraged with the professional life
they have to lead and admit they have made a mistake in entering them and would
gladly, were it possible, sacrifice the years they have spent in them and quit
them entirely even for some comparatively unpromising post in civil life”. Alex Ogston recalled the authoritative
opinions he and other civil surgeons had given to Lord Lansdowne the previous
year on this issue. These views could
not be dismissed as they were generally held by many senior members of the
profession. Issues of title, military
rank and pay had dominated that discussion with Lord Lansdowne concerning
military medical officers, but in Portsmouth, Ogston concentrated on another
matter, the absence of appropriate peacetime training within the military
services for times of war. “Attendance
on minor ailments, trifling complaints and the few serious diseases and
injuries occurring amongst bodies of men in the prime of their age and health
selected for strength and soundness and the other routine duties which together
constitute the whole ordinary work of the immense majority of the medical
officers serving in our forces form so
great a contrast to much that would be expected of them in an active campaign
against European troops, that comparison between them is hardly possible”. One consequence of this disillusionment among
serving medical officers was that the best medical graduates could not be
attracted to serve in the armed forces.
A related problem to the lack of appropriate training for serving
medical officers was the inadequacy of army and navy medical facilities. “Moreover, the destitution of the army and
navy of institutions where surgery can be practised is very great. Netley Hospital, limited as it is to the treatment
of soldiers and Haslar to that of sailors, do not offer such varied material as
is required by surgeons and physicians to cultivate the practical branches of
their art”.
The next issue
that Alex Ogston tackled was the lack of integration of the different elements
of the medical services of the forces in times of peace, extending to manning,
training, storage and transport of supplies.
How could all these components be expected to integrate and function
efficiently when they were sourced independently and arrived at the destination
haphazardly? He illustrated this problem
using his own experience from the Soudan campaign of 1884 – 1885. Expense had been thrown at some aspects of
the medical service, such as the provision of well-equipped, but expensive,
hospital ships but the service was hamstrung by the chaos on land at
Suakin. “Yet in the bearer companies,
the men were from Aldershot, the carts and harness from Woolwich, the mules and
muleteers from Spain, dhoolies and dhoolie-bearers from India, and camels and
camel-drivers from Aden. The wagons
arrived in one ship, the harness in another, the mules in a third and all at
different times. When the ambulance
waggons were landed along with several carts, the pieces were mixed up and the
men had to fix them as best they could.
When the mules and harness turned up, it was found that while the wagons
were made for one kind of draught the harness was made for another, and so
on. And the officers, non-commissioned
officers and men knew nothing of one another.
For the medical part of the expedition, generally the stores came
without storekeepers and without proper outward indication of what the packages
contained. Chaos reigned and I am
assured that if there had been an engagement on the day the forces landed,
there would not have been a bandage forthcoming for the wounded. And very much the same state of matters
exists today”. Clearly, in the late 19th
century, logistics was not an army specialism.
Alexander
Ogston also laid out his solution to the lack of integration within the medical
service. “So complex an organisation as
the Royal Army Medical Corps ought to be kept in a high state of efficiency and
be vitalised by continual practice. It
ought to consist of separate units, each complete in itself and familiar with
its equipment and work. Each field
hospital should be completely furnished and frequently practised in its
duties. Every corps should be ready to
act in other departments the moment it takes the field and not have to learn
its duties there when the day of trial comes in a campaign. Whether stationed at home or abroad, the
officers should be provided with all the proper means of keeping themselves
informed regarding the advances that are forever being introduced into their
science”.
To this point
in his address, Alex Ogston had concentrated his fire on the army, but the navy
did not escape the assault. “In the
event of a naval engagement of any magnitude the wounded on board our ships of
war would have to be attended to in a small dark room unprovided with any save
the rudest appliances and a few cots where at most half a dozen men could be
handled; and which is moreover in many vessels as much exposed as any other
part of the ship to the fire of the enemy.
Everything on board ship that can destroy life is in the highest
perfection; everything that can save it is of the rudest description and beyond
the age. In the case of a gunshot wound
through the abdomen the only chance of recovery is laparotomy performed within
twelve hours; but on board none of Her Majesty’s fleet is there any possibility
of performing such an operation; there are neither accommodation, instruments
nor accessories. … On torpedo boat destroyers there are no materials for making
splints, only a box of antiquated remedies like those supplied in the vessels
of the mercantile marine, where the sailing master acts as the doctor. … No
person will impugn the principle that the efficiency of war vessels as fighting
machines has first to be considered. But
the principle may be and is being carried too far; for it is a duty to see that
short of interfering with the perfection of the fighting machine no suffering
is left unrelieved, or life needlessly sacrificed”.
Alexander
Ogston then went on to compare the medical arrangements of the British armed
forces unfavourably with the provision made in other advanced nations,
including Germany, Russia and France, as has been outlined above. Ogston perceived that there was an erroneous
view abroad that any deficiencies could be overcome by engaging civilian help
at the time of need by then throwing money at the problem. Alex Ogston denied that that was a competent
strategy
In closing,
Alexander Ogston appealed for his criticisms not to be misconstrued. “I trust it is not necessary for me to say
that under what I have stated regarding them, there lurks no hostile
undervaluing of the services of those who are in the ranks. The system is at fault, not the men. But I hope my motives will not be misjudged
and that what has been said may contribute in some degree to stir the
profession generally and this powerful association in particular to increase
efforts to open the eyes of the British nation to the real state of matters
regarding which it is at present blind: so that when the Temple of Janus (located
in Rome, its gates were closed in times of peace but opened when war broke out)
once more opens in our midst the services may be found in such a state of
preparation and efficiency as is demanded by the honour and wellbeing of our
country and the interests of humanity”.
A vote of thanks was proposed by General Harvey, late of the Indian
Medical Service, who welcomed Ogston’s criticisms and the motion was seconded
by Dr Clement Lucas, a distinguished surgeon from Guy’s Hospital, who thought
it possible that Ogston’s remarks might engender a Royal Commission. But this was the calm before the storm.
The immediate
response from the press to Alexander Ogston’s address was to sit up and realise
that the Professor of Surgery had said something highly critical of both the
army and navy, which organisations most people took for granted were competent
and modern in their thinking. Terms such
as “extraordinary”, “important”, “a sensation”, “severely criticised”, “Attack
on War Office” and “trenchant” were used in the papers, but only rarely was
there an editorial position taken on the veracity of Ogston’s claims. The Pall Mall Gazette remarked that
“Professor Ogston has done good service …”.
The Leeds Mercury called Ogston’s remarks “a sensation” but qualified
this statement by “If we are to believe the Professor …”. The Fife Free Press and Kirkaldy Guardian was
a little bolder. “If Dr Ogston is anything like correct in his statements, he
did well to speak out and speak out so boldly as he has done. Clearly there is much room for
improvement”. Basically, the press was
sitting on the fence, undecided on which way to jump.
The main
defender of the performance of the medical services of the armed forces was The
Times, a traditional supporter of the Conservative party, then the party of
government under Lord Salisbury. The
Aberdeen Journal, perhaps wanting to do its bit to support the local hero, had
a wry comment on “The Thunderer’s” performance.
“Professor Ogston’s vigorous criticism of the Army and Navy Medical
Departments has set the official dovecotes fluttering, the Times has thought it
needful to come forward with a word of defence.
It describes Professor Ogston’s address as “belated”, but the same may
be said of the “Times’” comment, which only appeared on Saturday”. “The Times” claimed that the recent Lansdowne
reforms had solved the problem, which was clearly untrue.
The day after
Professor Ogston gave his address, Friday 4 August, Parliament was in session
and the Professor’s views were widely known to members. The MP most willing to talk to the press was
Sir Walter Foster, MP for Ilkeston in Derbyshire, a doctor who had been trained
at Trinity College Dublin, who had fulfilled a number of senior roles, was a
noted supporter of scientific medicine and was a Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians. He was interviewed by a
representative of the Daily Telegraph.
Sir Walter said that Ogston’s high reputation meant that his words
should be considered seriously. No one
outside the army was better qualified to give an opinion on its medical
service. Remarking on the recent
creation of the Army Medical Corps, he said that the War Office was alive to
the need to popularise the service but that the issues of status and monetary
reward needed to be attended to. He also
accepted that the present Army Medical Corps was not up to date in numbers or
efficiency. Sir Walter took issue with
Alex Ogston on the claim that army surgeons were not being adequately trained
to deal with wounded men. He found this
“a strong statement” because surgeons had usually shown they were equal to
whatever task was placed upon them. But
he still agreed that they should be better trained in times of peace. He also considered that the British Army
medical services were not up to those of the major continental countries. Clearly, he largely agreed with the
criticisms that Alex Ogston had made, without passing comment on Ogstons
suggestions for solutions.
There was no
immediate official response from either the army or the navy to Professor
Ogston’s critical analysis. It appears
that the two military forces were probably seething but taking time to work out
their lines of response. When those
responses came, the rejoinders of the military dwelled on the person making the
criticisms and his proposed solutions, rather than on the deficiencies
claimed. The newspaper Army and Navy
Gazette, whose target readership was “Journal of the Militia and Volunteer
Forces”, possibly reflected the thinking of the military community both on land
and afloat. It ran two articles on Alex
Ogston’s address. The first, published
on 12 August, mostly confined itself to summarising the content of the
professor’s case, under the following headings, “the unsatisfactory condition
of the services, the standard of military surgery, the want of adequate
training and the under-manning of the medical establishments”. It accepted that Ogston’s status meant that
his views should be taken seriously and also his point that army surgeons
lacked training in the procedures they would be expected to undertake. It ended with the statement, “Professor
Ogston’s address deals fairly with matters of vital interest to our Army and
ought to carry weight”. There was no
specific mention of the navy in this report.
The second
report in the Army and Navy Gazette was quite different in tone, critical of
Ogston personally and defensive of the navy.
It was published on 19 August.
“The medical department of the navy, we learn, has failed to keep pace
with the progress of scientific surgery, whilst its general organisation is
equally obsolete. Following the
professor’s address further, we find that his alarming indictment dwindles down
into a somewhat insignificant complaint against the provision of quarters for
the wounded. This, to be sure, is no
insignificant matter, but the defect of the limited accommodation of warships
scarcely justifies the professor’s startling prelude, from which his audience
must have expected to learn that Army and Navy surgeons were grossly incompetent. There is, no doubt, good sense in the
suggestion that naval surgeons should be afforded more opportunities of study
in the great civil hospitals of the kingdom; but something in this direction is
already being done, whilst the naval hospitals provide a great deal of valuable
experience to a certain proportion of medical officers of all ranks. In the ordinary course of service nearly all
naval surgeons are attached to these hospitals, although it is true pass the
bulk of their service afloat. In these
days of naval expansion, when every branch of the service is deficient in
officers, it is not so easy as Professor Ogston imagines, to detach surgeons
from the routine of duty. The
improvements in accommodation for the wounded so glibly advocated by the
learned professor are quite impracticable, and yet, from the medical
standpoint, we cannot dispute his conclusion that wounded seamen are likely to
suffer horribly owing to the lack of adequate surgeries in ships of war. Professor Ogston showed blissful ignorance of
naval construction when he avowed that our marine architects could find no
difficulty whatever in providing large spaces below the water-line for the
accommodation of the wounded. Every
square inch of a modern ship of war is already required for the storage of
coal, food and munitions, so that the problem of which the land surgeon speaks
so lightly is full of difficulty. As a
lands man he may be excused, though the cobbler should stick to his last and
leave ships to the seamen. The
alternative suggestion of building special hospital ships to accompany our
fleet and attend upon them after an action is not of course new. It was broached in another form at the Peace
Conference and provisionally accepted.
But even here there is a difficulty for it is not clear how ships
protected by the Red Cross can be prevented from obtaining such information as
may influence an admiral’s strategy”.
It seems likely
that the reporter at the Army and Navy Gazette had been briefed by a navy
representative between the publication of the two articles and that the latter
contained clues to the navy’s view of Ogston.
Alexander Ogston must have found it disappointing that so much of the
counter-criticism was ad hominem and dealt with the suggested solutions,
not the problems which generated suggestions for resolution. He had gone out of his way in introducing his
address to make clear that the defects he perceived were not personal (“The
system is at fault, not the men”).
Perhaps a scapegoat was needed by the armed services? If the navy, in particular, was populated by
experts, why did its personnel not suggest their own solutions? But such a positive line would have involved
admitting, at least implicitly, that the present systems were inadequate.
The Second Boer
War broke out on 11 October 1899, and this must have immediately distracted
Alex Ogston from the furore which resulted from his Portsmouth address, as he
searched for a way to travel out to South Africa. He left Aberdeen, with the monarch’s
endorsement of his mission, on 15 December, but not with the blessing or
support of the top brass of the army.
Alexander
Ogston and the Second Boer War (11 October 1899 – 31 May 1902)
The complex
ethnic makeup of the present-day Republic of South Africa is the result of many
hundreds of years of population movements, by black tribes within the African
continent, by white immigration from outside and by racial mixing. Almost inevitably, such situations lead to
inter-group conflict and there have been many such events in the history of the
geographical area now encompassed by the Republic. Dutch colonisation of parts of South Africa
started with the Dutch East India Company establishing a trading post in Cape
Town at the end of the 17th century.
A British military expedition attacked the Dutch colony and brought
about its surrender. The colony was
later returned to the Dutch but then reconquered during the Napoleonic
Wars. This led, in turn, to the exodus
of many Boers (farmers of Dutch origin) in the Great Trek north from the Cape,
leading to conflict with the indigenous ethnic groups whose territory they
passed through and the eventual establishment of a several inland Dutch
settlements. The discovery of diamonds
in 1866 on the banks of the Orange River and of gold in 1886 in the Transvaal
(both predominantly Dutch states) greatly increased the determination of the
British to take control of the whole of South Africa and a policy of uniting
all the separate colonies and settlements under British rule within the British
Empire was pursued. The British annexed
the Boer-populated Transvaal republic in 1877 which provoked a Boer rebellion
in 1880 and the First Boer War. The British
were soundly beaten at the Battle of Majuba Hill in 1881 and the Transvaal
became independent again. That did not
stop British scheming and a major attempt was mounted in 1895 by Cecil Rhodes
to take over the Transvaal using mercenaries.
This attempt failed and the Transvaal then formed an alliance with the
neighbouring Boer Orange Free State.
However, tensions remained high between the Boers and the British,
especially concerning the exclusion of the many British immigrants in the
Transvaal (by then known as the South African Republic) from the popular
franchise by the government of premier, Paul Kruger. British forces were massed on the border
between the British Cape Colony and the Boer South African Republic, and
demands were made for the franchise to be granted to the mostly British
immigrants. Kruger refused and instead
declared war. This was the outbreak of
the Second Boer War in October 1899 between the British on one side and the two
Boer republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State on the other.
South Africa in 1885
Cecil Rhodes
(1853 – 1902) was the son of a vicar and, due to chronic ill-health, he was
sent out to South Africa at the age of 17 in the hope that the climate would
ameliorate his medical status. A year
after his arrival, using funds provided by bankers Rothschild & Co, he systematically
bought out and consolidated diamond mines until he had created a near
monopoly. He founded the diamond company
De Beers in 1888. In 1881 Rhodes entered
parliament in the Cape Colony and was prime minister between 1890 and 1896,
when he had to resign over his organisation of the Jameson Raid, which had
attempted to overthrow the Boer administration in the Transvaal. The territory of Rhodesia was named after
him. Rhodes’ poor health finally saw him
off when he died in 1902.
Cecil Rhodes
Alexander
Ogston viewed the outbreak of war in South Africa in October 1899 as another
chance to further his knowledge of the provision of medical services to the
sick and wounded in time of war and, inevitably, to practise his own surgical
skills in the extreme conditions of (then) modern warfare. However, earlier that year, in August, he had
delivered his address to the BMA conference in Portsmouth on the status of
medical services in the British armed forces and had found them decidedly
wanting, when compared with what was being achieved in other European countries. His son-in-law, Herbert Grierson, Professor
of English at Aberdeen University and husband of Alexander Ogston’s daughter,
Mary Letitia, recalled the military reaction to Ogston’s views. “The address I fear did him no good with the
heads of the Medical Service and but for Queen Victoria he would not have seen
anything of the war in South Africa, which in many ways confirmed what he had
said”. The Royal Army Medical Corps did
not want Ogston out in South Africa where he was sure to find aspects of the medical
service to criticise. They took the
attitude that in the fog of war military commanders just had to pursue
objectives unflinchingly with the resources they had available, no matter what
the deficiencies or defects and without outside interference.
In 1892,
Alexander Ogston had been appointed Surgeon-in-Ordinary to the Queen in
Scotland and subsequently got to know the monarch tolerably well. He provided medical services to the Royal
family and their guests while the Queen was staying at Balmoral, which was for
about four months of each year. Alex Ogston was also a regular invitee to
social events held at the Castle since his own estate of Glendavan was
nearby. Queen Victoria’s eighth child
and fourth son, Prince Leopold, was born in 1853 and endured poor health due to
being a haemophiliac, this X-chromosome linked condition having been inherited
from his mother, who was a carrier of the defective gene. On 6 October 1899, Queen Victoria wrote in
her journal, “Poor dear little Leopold is laid up again with a bad leg, &
suffering great pain, which is very distressing. Professor Ogston, from
Aberdeen, came to see him, & said complete quiet was the only thing”. Prince Leopold had probably suffered a bleed
into a joint. Alex Ogston visited
Balmoral again two days later, probably to see his Royal patient again. "On the 8th of November 1899, when I was as Balmoral Castle, Queen Victoria was so good as to interest herself in my going out to South Africa to the Boer War, and promised introductions to the military authorities there". It is unclear precisely how Ogston broached
the subject with the Queen, and he may not have needed to do more than hint
that he wanted to go but had no introductions.
Queen Victoria 1899
The letter from
Queen Victoria to Alexander Ogston, signed by Sir Arthur Bigge, her Private
Secretary, has survived. It was written
at Windsor Castle and is dated November 24th, 1899. “My Dear Professor Ogston, The Queen is much
pleased and interested in hearing of your intention of visiting South Africa,
for the purpose of studying military surgery in the operations of our troops;
and Her Majesty highly appreciates your self-sacrifice in thus at your own
expense going to the seat of war, with the intention of giving your valuable
services to the wounded. By Her
Majesty's command I am writing to the military authorities to render you all
possible assistance. Please refer at
once to Sir R. Buller (Sir Redvers Buller, overall commander of the British
forces until 23 December 1899, then the commander of the Natal Field
Force) on arrival, from whom I am sure you will get all necessary help. Yours very sincerely, Arthur Bigge”. Ogston was later to reflect on the military
attitudes he encountered when he arrived in South Africa. “The Queen's letters (more than one?)
had the effect of my obtaining assistance in everything I requested from the
military authorities in South Africa, but I even yet feel a sense of
humiliation in saying that such impediments as were placed in my way came from
the head of the army medical department there. While this was so, and while it
threw into relief the behaviour of the military chiefs, I feel bound to add
that nothing could have exceeded the kindness and frank friendliness of the
subordinate officers of the army medical service, with the exception of a very
few who sided with the party which believed itself wrongly assailed in my
Portsmouth address. Still the result was that I did not see so much in some
directions as I had hoped, and had reason to congratulate myself on having gone
out on my own charges and responsibility, without having asked for the
countenance of the then Director General, for I fancy, had I done the latter,
my opportunities might have been even fewer. As the event proved, and as good
fortune would have it, I obtained the most valuable insight into matters which
I might have entirely missed had I been able to carry out my original
intentions”.
The Aberdeen
University magazine “Alma Mater” reported that Professor Ogston “had been
requested to proceed as soon as possible for South Africa in order that his
valuable advice and assistance may be at the disposal of the medical
authorities there”, which brought a sharp rejoinder from Ogston that this
statement was inaccurate and asking for a correction in the next issue. This intervention by Alex Ogston suggests that
the initiative had come from him and was merely supported by the monarch. Before leaving Great Britain, Professor
Ogston resigned his presidency of the “the section of navy, army and ambulance
at the AGM of the BMA”. Alexander Ogston
left Aberdeen Joint Station on the evening of Friday 15 December 1899 to make
the journey overnight to London before travelling on to Southampton. There were no formalities at the station,
only his wife, Isabella and two daughters with their husbands (Professor and Mrs Cowan and Professor and Mrs Grierson) being present to bid him
farewell. At Southampton he boarded the
4,661-ton Union Line steamer “Mexican” which had a regular run between
Southampton and Durban, calling at Madeira, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. The vessel sailed on the afternoon of 16
December. Queen Victoria sent a first consignment
of Cadbury’s chocolate for the troops via the “Mexican”, which perhaps
indicates her own confectionary preference, as well as her concern for the
comforts of her soldiers. “Mexican”
reached Madeira on 20 December and Cape Town on 3 January, where Ogston
disembarked. Two other steamers left
Southampton on the same day as the “Mexican” departed, both carrying many
troops.
ss Mexican
At the start of
the war in October 1899, before British reinforcements began to arrive, Boer
forces attacked the British territory of Natal and put the town of Ladysmith
under a siege, which would last for a total of 118 days. Through a mixture of incompetence and
inexperience, the British suffered many casualties in the fighting around the
town, the Boers proving to be adept at combat in the local conditions. The first attempt at relief resulted in a
British defeat at the Battle of Colenso (15 December 1899) but the siege was
finally broken on 27 February 1900. The
diamond mining town of Kimberley in the Cape Colony also came under siege,
which trapped Cecil Rhodes in the settlement.
The first moves to break the siege by forces led by Lord Methuen were
blocked by the battles of Belmont (23 November 1899), Modder River (28 November
1899) and Magersfontein (11 December 1899).
Relief finally came on 15 February 1900 through the actions of a cavalry
division under Sir John French. Immediately
after the siege was removed, action against the Boers continued at the Battle
of Paardeberg (18 – 27 February 1900), where General Piet Cronje and his Boer
forces surrendered. Another town,
Mafeking, in the north of Cape Colony was also put under siege by the Boers
from the day after the declaration of war.
Robert Baden-Powell (founder of the Boy Scout movement) played a key
role in organising the defence of that town, which was relieved after 217 days
in May 1900. When British reinforcements
started to arrive in South Africa, the priority was to relieve the besieged
settlements before diverting resources to advances on the Boer
territories. Alexander Ogston’s sojourn
in South Africa took place between 3 January 1900 and 11 July 1900. It covered the period between the first
arrival of reinforcements on a large scale, the relief of the besieged towns
and the over-running of the Boer heartlands, but not the subsequent guerrilla
campaign conducted by the Boers.
Alex Ogston did
not hang around after his arrival in Cape Town.
On 5 January 1900, he took a train from that city to Modder River to
meet with Lord Methuen. He was able to
visit the battle sites of Belmont, Modder River and Magersfontein and make
significant observations, some recorded as sketches in a notebook which
survives. The following is a passage
from his book, “Reminiscences of Three Campaigns”. “On the 23rd of November 1899, when the
battle was fought, the British force, about 8700 in number, and consisting
largely of the Guards Regiments, was drawn up in line opposite the fortified
hills, at some distance to the west of and parallel to the railway. Our bearer
companies were with this line, and our field hospitals on the right rear, near
some buildings called Thomas's farm. The cavalry were on the flanks. The attack
was a frontal one, and when it had advanced and reached the railway, the
artillery were established there and came into action. As the line advanced
farther in open order across the plain, where there was no cover, the Boers
opened fire, and the first casualties took place at about twelve hundred yards
from the enemy. Owing to the height of the Boer positions, it seemed to me when
examining the ground that the zone of their fire would have had a breadth of
only about seventy yards, for their missiles must all have been directed at an
angle downwards. Before the hill was reached, our men had to ascend slopes, at
first of five to ten degrees for over a thousand yards through short, prickly
bushes; but at the hill foot the slope increased to twenty degrees, or over,
with scattered rounded stones a foot and a half in size, giving no cover; and
finally, beneath the Boer breastworks, the slope increased to forty degrees and
the stones became almost continuous. On both sides it seemed to have been the
rifle fire and the bayonet which decided the result, for the shrapnel had, as I
calculated by carefully cutting down the sparse bushes over areas of twelve by
twelve feet and minutely examining the hard dry earth, reached a severity of
not more than one bullet in every forty-eight square feet”.
Lord Methuen
But his
wanderings about the site of the battle were observed by the understandably
suspicious British forces. “My study of
the field of battle was not entirely uninterrupted. When commencing them I
observed, away to the south, Colonel Pilcher leading a column of mounted men,
infantry, guns, and wagons, off to the south-east towards the Orange Free State
boundary, and when I was espied measuring and photographing, a mounted officer
was detached from them to inquire what I was doing, but the exhibition of my
pass satisfied him…”. This interdiction
of Ogston was actually carried out by an Aberdonian NCO, Corporal John
Youngson, who was attached to the Canadian Rifle Infantry. The story was carried by the Aberdeen
Peoples’ Journal. "He (Youngson) says he was on outpost duty, and a mile off observed a stranger wandering on the veldt (open,
uncultivated country or grassland in southern Africa). He took a file of men with him to inquire the man's business, and from his pass he saw he was Professor Ogston, Surgeon to Her Majesty in Scotland. "I handed it back to him." says Corporal Youngson, "with the remark - "I ken whaur you come frae - Aberdeen, bonnie Aberdeen. That's whaur I belang. My name is Youngson. We shook hands heartily".
As well as
making investigations of the density of incoming missiles, Alex Ogston also
collected information on the performance of the army medical services. “The work of the Army Medical Corps, under
the direction of Colonel Townsend and Major B, had been admirable. When the
bearer companies brought in the casualties, the field hospitals were moved
forwards to the railway station and a ganger's hut farther to the south, while dressing
stations were established under the shelter of the projecting spurs of the
first hills, which I have likened to the fore and hind feet of the recumbent
rhinoceros. From the accounts I obtained the surgical work was recognised by
all as having been most excellent”. Alex
Ogston returned by train from Belmont to Modder River and on his journey met
with some NCOs and privates who had been wounded in the fighting and were
returning to their units at Modder River and he questioned them on their
experiences. “All agreed in criticising
unfavourably the army hospitals, where they had been denied those small
luxuries which meant so much to them and would have relieved their sufferings
and discomforts during their convalescence. Some had been treated in a hospital
which was provided, they understood, by the Good Hope Society, and there, in
contrast to the others, they had had daily gifts,
such as cigars, fruit, and newspapers. I was told that when they were in camp
in Cape Town there were many who wished to send to the private soldiers such
things as effervescing drinks, Eno's fruit salt, tinned and fresh fruit, and
tinned dainties, which would have been very welcome and which they missed in
these hot days, but that such things were not allowed to reach them. Some of
them who had, during the cold weather, been occupying tents, longed for the
simple indulgence of nightcaps to cover their heads at night, but such things
were either not sent to them, or if sent, not issued”. Ogston’s return train journey was delayed for
almost six hours at De Aar Junction, where several military hospitals were
situated, and he had time to visit them.
He found 160 patients, 35 in bell tents and the rest in wooden huts. His findings were not wholly positive. “The typhoid fever cases only seemed to have
their temperatures kept; the arrangements for treating fractures of the thigh
by extension could have been improved had better beds been provided; and there
were few comforts for the inmates. There were no antitoxin serums. I was shown
a tent crammed with all sorts of gifts for the patients, such as fruits, fresh
and preserved, tobacco, clothing, etc., which were, I was told, being
distributed as seemed judicious. There was no X-ray apparatus, and the
instruments, sterilisers, irrigators, etc., were somewhat ancient in type and
not quite what one would have expected in the Third Stationary Hospital of the
Lines of Communication. There were, moreover, at that time no nursing sisters
at De Aar”. As noted earlier, Alexander
Ogston consistently favoured women over men in nursing roles.
William Forbes
Gatacre, a career soldier with a record of success in India and the Far East,
had been appointed head of the 3rd Division in the Second Boer War,
which was allocated the task of securing the Cape Midlands close to the border
between the Cape Colony and the Orange Free State. However, he soon had a set-back and suffered
damage to his military reputation. Boers
from the Orange Free State made a limited incursion into the Cape Colony along
the Stormberg Valley and General Gatacre decided, perhaps impulsively, to make
a quick counterattack. This led to the
Battle of Stormberg which took place on 9/10 December 1899 and resulted in a
bad defeat for the British, including the surrender of almost 1,000 men.
General Gatacre
On 13 January
1900, Alex Ogston embarked on the ss “Dunottar Castle” of the Union Castle
Line, which had been requisitioned as a troopship, at Cape Town bound for East
London in the Eastern Cape, which was reached early on 16 January, having
called at Port Elizabeth (Algoa Bay) on the way. This latter port was favoured over East
London for the importation of heavy machinery for the mines in the Orange Free
State and the Transvaal, due to difficult landing conditions often obtaining at
its rival further north. Professor
Ogston also noted that the export of wool, mohair and ostrich feathers also
tended to go through Port Elizabeth, while gold and diamonds generally left the
colony via Cape Town. Alexander Ogston
had an appointment to meet with General Gatacre at his headquarters in
Sterkstrom, Cape Midlands, about 130 miles north-west of East London and close
to the border with the Orange Free State.
He was greeted by “Col D E”, principal medical officer. Alexander Ogston found General Gatacre
“living in a state of almost Spartan simplicity” and completely open about his
military plans and status at Sterkstrom, even drawing diagrams in Professor
Ogston’s own notebook. Alex Ogston was
given complete freedom to go where he liked and to take photographs and make
sketches about the camp. “He finally
offered, quite unsolicited, to place at my disposal an armoured train in which
I could proceed to the outlying parts of the country held by the forces under
his command and obtain a closer view of the Boers' entrenchments at Stormberg
kopjes (Boer word for small hills in a generally flat area). I need
hardly say I was grateful for such kindness and willingly accepted the offer of
the armoured train, which he forthwith ordered to be in readiness for the
afternoon”.
ss Dunnottar Castle
Ogston was also
shown the local field hospital “where there were eight or nine cases of typhoid
fever, fifteen or twenty of gastro -intestinal disturbances, a few wounded or
injured, mostly from horse accidents, a couple of eye cases, and some minor
ailments. The hospital consisted of ten double bell tents under the charge of
Major L. There was a fairly good operation tent in which there was a simple and
convenient operation table, the invention of General Gatacre himself”. However, the hospital had no X-ray
apparatus. One had been applied for, but
the request had been refused. Professor
Ogston also discussed the role of female nurses with Colonel D. E., “… he held
advanced opinions as to the employment of nursing sisters in field hospitals,
such as that at Sterkstrom, where typhoid and pneumonia had to be nursed. But
others of the medical officers under him held other opinions, maintaining that
nurses usurp the functions of the trained orderlies of the R.A.M.C., interfere
with their training and so lessen their efficiency; that there were
difficulties about 'conservancy'; that their tents could be seen through at
night, and that with the young officers lounging about them scandals arose;
that some of the army nurses were 'above' performing certain services for the
men patients, and that many of the officers preferred men to render these
special services, and would not have women about them at any price. This rather
astonished me, but I may say that these views were quite exceptional and seemed
to be held by those who had had only limited personal experience of army and
other trained nurses”.
Alex Ogston was
aware of the criticism that had been levelled at Gatacre’s conduct of the
Battle of Stromberg and of the rumours about this officer’s unconventional
views, so he was keen to test the rumours through personal experience. Professor Ogston had been rather blunt with
Gatacre in conversation, saying that he had made a mistake in ordering his
officers to remove all badges of rank, as in battle officers of different units
often got mixed up and needed to know the status of a stranger. But Gatacre had been open and friendly with
him and that had clearly coloured Ogston’s personal view of this senior officer. Writing much later in his book “Reminiscences
of Three Campaigns”, he gave his overall impression of Gatacre. “Finally, I lunched with the General and took
leave of him. It was with sincere regret that I said good-bye, for no one had
showed me more goodness than he and his officers, and no one interested me more
deeply than did General Gatacre. I have devoted a good deal of space to my
relations with him and his staff, collecting my materials partly from memory
and partly from notes made at the time, for I had heard so much gossip and so many
strange tales that I greatly desired to arrive at the truth regarding him. It
was well known at Sterkstrom and elsewhere that he was most unfortunate in the
very beginning of his command with the calamitous attack of the 10th
of December on the Stormberg heights where the Boers were entrenched. Many of
the officers in the Sterkstrom camp described and commented in various ways on
the affair to me, and wild rumours were afloat; but no one concealed his
conviction that, however happily it may have been conceived, it was badly
carried out. It is certain that the General, who possessed immense endurance
and a tireless physique, overrated the capacities of the soldiers under his
orders. The troops who were to carry out the enterprise, after working hard
during the day, were put in the evening into crowded trucks at Putter's Kraal
and despatched by the railway to the Stormberg junction, reaching it about 2
a.m. They had then to march for twelve miles, instead of the ten which were
expected, and arrived at their destination after daylight instead of before it,
in an absolutely exhausted condition, without having had any food, and being
short of water as well. After they had arrived at the Boer positions, they were
themselves taken by surprise, as it was the wrong part of the entrenchments
which they attacked, with the result that large numbers of them were captured
by the Dutch and the rest badly routed”.
Ogston clearly agreed that Gatacre had been guilty of a serious
misjudgement.
Three railway
lines, running roughly parallel to each other, passed from the coast of the
Cape to the Orange Free State, one starting at Cape Town, another began at Port
Elizabeth and the terminus of the third was located at East London. The armies led by Lord Methuen, General Sir John
French and General William Gatacre were located on those lines in the same
sequence. Alex Ogston had visited Lord
Methuen shortly after his arrival in Cape Town, he had interviewed General
Gatacre at Sterkstrom and now he wished to make the rather hazardous journey
across country from Sterkstrom to meet with General French’s army. His plan caused some alarm amongst Gatacre’s
officers. “After breakfasting with
General Gatacre, I returned to the hotel, wrote up my notes, packed my small
baggage, and arranged for its being sent to the station. My intention was
somehow to pass across the disturbed country lying between Gatacre's and
French's columns, along the southern front of the Orange Free State. This was
considered to be rather hazardous, and my friends in Sterkstrom therefore
provided me with a Red Cross brassard (arm band), the wearing of which
was likely to diminish the risk, and I fell in willingly with their suggestion
to do so”. For his risky journey,
Alexander Ogston hired a Cape cart from Queenstown, which lay about 35 miles
south-east of Sterkstrom. This was a two-wheeled, four-seat, horse drawn
vehicle which was suitable for travelling over rough country.
Cape Cart
General Sir John French
Alexander
Ogston set out from Queenstown in his Cape cart on the morning of 19 January
1900 to travel across country in a westerly direction to Tarkastad, which was
half-way on the 60 miles to Craddock.
This area was settled mostly by Dutch people, but during the journey, he
met an English settler who told him that the local Dutch population was not
actively hostile to the British and this view was cemented during the rest of
his journey. “During this cross-country
journey I gained the conviction that the Dutch residents as a whole, with the
exception of the young, ignorant hot-bloods, were too well satisfied with the
government of the country under the British rule to be exceedingly desirous of
any change. Most of them were kind and courteous to me when I stopped at their
houses for meals or other requirements and were quite frank in expressing their
opinions. There seemed to be little doubt that a majority of them, however
reluctantly, would have risen in rebellion had the Boers from the Transvaal and
Orange Free State obtained a victory and invaded the province, though even then
there would have been a large minority undesirous of this; but there was
nothing resembling race hatred between the two nationalities, and those who had
been long in touch with the British had experience of the advantages of their
just and sympathetic rule, and desired no change which might have been for
anything but the better”. However, the
situation was different at Tarkastad, where he hired another cart to take him
on to Cradock. “There were a good many
Boers gathered in the Molteno Hotel; they were evidently unfriendly, some of
them intoxicated, and a few remarks were made about me and my wearing the Red
Cross, which though spoken in the 'Taal' (Limburgish Dutch, spoken around
Limburg which straddles the Dutch, Belgian and German borders, and imported to
South Africa by the Dutch immigrants) I managed to understand from my
knowledge of European Dutch. They did not actively interfere with me, however,
and I should have been comfortable enough had I not, when I retired to bed, had
to hold it like a besieged fort against strong investing cohorts of bugs, who
stormed it and attacked me whenever my candle went out or I fell into a short
nap”. Alex Ogston reached Craddock,
which was located on the railway line coming up from Port Elizabeth, safely.
Having gained
the railway line, it was Alex Ogston’s intention to travel north the 70 miles
to Rensburg where General French’s forces formed a front against the invading
Boers who were located nearby at Colesburg and Naauwport. When Ogston arrived at Rensburg, General
French was absent, so he introduced himself to Lieutenant-Colonel D. who was
the principal medical officer. He was
polite but reserved at first, though he thawed after some conversation with the
famous visiting surgeon and took him to a high point where they could overlook
the Boer positions. Subsequently, he
visited the medical facilities, where he found the staff to be highly
competent. “The medical staff at
Rensburg were doing excellent work. There were two field hospitals and two
bearer companies; one pair was distributed over the extensive front, a section
being at Slingersfontein, ten miles to the east of the camp, and another even
farther away, seven miles beyond that. The work was mostly surgical, only one
case of typhoid being in hospital at the date of my visit. One dreadful case of
amputation at the hip joint, magnificently managed, was on the way to recovery
under the care of Captain P”. But, as
Ogston had found in other locations, medications and equipment were severely
lacking. “It was disappointing to find
that such officers were so badly provided in some respects. They had no serums,
and no operation table beyond the army panniers. The packets of first dressings
were somewhat rude affairs, and had been coarsely made up by a firm in Cape
Town; and the two railway ambulance cars they possessed, though most cleverly
fitted up on trucks by Major A , were, as may be imagined, but poor substitutes
for properly constructed cars, for I travelled down by the train on which they
were running, and the journey in them was a rough experience for invalid or
injured soldiers. An ambulance train for which Colonel D had telegraphed had
been refused to him on account of the expense”.
Having
completed his investigations at Rensburg, Alexander Ogston then travelled on by
van to Naauwport (by then in British hands) and caught the train travelling
from Port Elizabeth to Cape Town, where he arrived about 20 January 1900. He had now visited three of the four armies
operating against the Boers (he had not visited General Buller’s group
operating in Natal) and Ogston had now to decide where he would spend the rest
of his time in South Africa. General
Buller had been displaced to command of the Natal Group following the early
setbacks for the British forces, to be substituted by Lord Roberts (with Lord
Kitchener as his Chief of Staff), who travelled from England to the Cape Colony
on the Dunottar Castle, the vessel that Alex Ogston had taken from Cape Town to
East London. British military fortunes
started to look up immediately upon the accession of Roberts and
Kitchener. Alexander Ogston wanted to be
present where there was likely to be the most action, his own view being that
this would be around the besieged town of Kimberley, given its importance to
the diamond trade. He decided to visit
Lord Roberts, who was present in Cape Town, to ascertain his views. Roberts suggested that Ogston should wait for
two weeks before making a decision and, in the meantime, to visit the medical
and other facilities around Cape Town.
Roberts was clearly planning his campaign for relieving the besieged
towns at this time.
As usual, Alex
Ogston did not squander his opportunities.
He called on General Wilson, the chief principal medical officer, who
was clearly not overjoyed at Ogston’s presence in the Cape Colony, keeping him
waiting for a long time before receiving him, being “frigidly polite” and
questioning Ogston’s army rank or service, since he was sporting a
quasi-uniform bearing his Sudan medals.
At least Wilson did not get in the way of Ogston’s visits in and around
Cape Town. Alex Ogston found the failure
to employ Red Cross resources dispiriting.
“On a visit to the Red Cross Depot in Parliament House, I found plenty
of useful stores accumulated there, but a want of proper organisation for their
distribution; they might almost as well have been left in England for all the
use they were in Africa. … The Good Hope Society was introduced to my notice by
Dr. David Gill, a former class-fellow, then Astronomer Royal at Cape Town. It
was originated to provide luxuries and comforts for the sick and wounded, but I
was informed that the attitude adopted towards it by the Red Cross
Commissioner, Colonel Y, and by the R.A.M.C., had chilled their hopes of being
of much service, and I found them deeply concerned to find their benevolent
intentions being rendered futile. They had collected funds to the amount of
£3000, of which they had already expended half; they had many women anxious to
nurse, though perhaps only a limited number of them were trained and fully
qualified, and of these no use was being made as far as I could learn. … On the
afternoon of the 26th of January, I attended a meeting of the Society, and
heard addresses by members who reported upon the work of the association. What
I there learned convinced me that, except in a few very important directions,
their work was rendered of almost no avail by the unspoken but clearly shown
jealousy and even hostility of the army medical department. It was plainly most
galling to that body of warmly patriotic Britons and Colonists that their
earnest efforts to place their services and wealth at the disposal of our
country should have met with so chilling a reception. All the best of the
British residents were present at the meeting and in sympathy with its objects,
and it was deplorable to realise that their endeavours for the good of the
motherland were being frustrated by those who represented the British
Government”. In marked contrast to the
situation in which the Red Cross found itself in Cape Town, Alexander Ogston
discovered one beacon of hope in the form of the Portland Hospital which had
been privately funded. “… it was under
the surgical charge of Mr. Bowlby of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, though an army
medical officer was nominally over him. It would have been hard, in those days,
to have imagined a more perfectly equipped military hospital, and its personnel
was an ideal one; in fact, though I made many inquiries, I could not discover
that there was a single thing wanting to make it absolutely perfect, except an
electric bone-drill. It served as a sort of annexe to the No. 3 Military
Hospital at Rondebosch, from which it was only separated by an unfenced road”.
Moving around
in the upper echelons of Cape society brought him into contact with “Many
ladies beautiful women who at first appeared to be butterflies come to flutter
in the eyes of the military”, but he found that he had misjudged them and that
they were intent only on doing good. “I
think it was there that I first fully appreciated the immense power which voluntary
aid is capable of rendering to a nation in time of war”. However, by the end of January 1900, Alex
Ogston was chafing because his activities were of marginal significance for the
central aim of his mission. He even
become “heartily sick” of staying in the luxury of the Mount Nelson Hotel. Ogston decided to return to the headquarters
of General Roberts on 2 February and left an application with his secretary “to
be attached to some part of the forces where I could study the methods of
bringing aid to the wounded under the modern conditions of warfare”. He did not offer his services as a surgeon
because there were, in his view, sufficient trained operators available. Alexander Ogston did not have long to wait
before getting what he considered to be an ideal posting, an attachment to the
forces of General Methuen at Modder River.
This delighted Ogston because his own guess was that Methuen’s column
would be the focus of coming military activity in making a push to relieve
Kimberley. The military command was less
enthusiastic. Ogston was warned the
coming activity would be “no kid glove campaign”. Perhaps in an attempt to discourage Professor
Ogston from embarking on his venture he was refused all support, such as a tent
and transport. It would have been
impossible in the six hours available to organise horse, cart, tent and
servant. “But I was not a man of feather
beds, and my decision to go without more than a small portmanteau of clothing
did not cost me an instant’s thought. I
deposited my superfluities with Mackenzie & Co, Waterkant Street, and set
off for the station”. This was on the
evening of 7 February 1900, and he had a journey of about 470 miles to the
Modder River camp.
When Alexander
Ogston had last been at Modder River camp, it had held 12,000 men. Now it held 60,000. On arrival on 9 February 1900, he reported to
Colonel Townsend, to whom he was to be attached, and found him welcoming. It
was also fortunate that he already knew several members of the medical
staff. There were some hospitals close
to Methuen’s headquarters and a small number of experienced nursing sisters,
but the conditions inside the hospitals were appalling. There were flies everywhere, swarming around
the faces and even inside the mouths of unconscious men. Enteric fever (typhoid or paratyphoid fever)
was rife and getting worse, with significant mortality. Ogston, with his literary bent, described
these horrific conditions. “Many men
were dying, and in the evening the bagpipes were wailing the “Flowers of the
Forest” as small sorrowful groups of kilted men went slowly and solemnly across
the veld to the cemetery carrying the uncoffined bodies of some poor Highlander
comrades who had given their lives for England and died far from home amid
rough, though kindly strangers”. Of the
injured who were being evacuated down the railway to Cape Town, he wrote, “The
poor lads knew and had experienced what were the realities of war; a brief
fight or two; brief joys bought at the price of cartloads of dead comrades, and
probably never a visible foe; the malaise; the illness; the dread hospital or
sick tent, crowded, hot, noisy; food which they loathed; restless days of heat
and flies superadded to their sickness, nights of fever-tossing or snatches of
rest broken by the groans, the sufferings, the smells, the death noises and
cries and the passing away of two or three daily of their companions in the
ward, whose last agonies were hidden from them by no friendly screen”. This experience at Modder River, as much as
any other situation he had experienced, must have convinced Alex Ogston that he
had been right to speak out so bluntly about the shortcomings he perceived in
the care of sick and wounded British soldiers.
It was about 30
miles from Modder River to Kimberley and on the morning of 11 February, when
Alex Ogston awoke, he found that the tents which had housed half the soldiers
were empty, the occupants having risen during the night and marched out towards
Kimberley. These were the first moves by
General Roberts in his plan to relieve “diamond city”, using those classical
military weapons, force, speed, deception and surprise. Fighting with the Boers soon started and
continued until 14 February, including the removal of the Boers from
Jacobsdaal, east of Modder River. Two
days later the enemy was cleared out of Magersdorf and Kimberley was entered by
the cavalry force commanded by General John French. The Boers then retreated towards Bloemfontein
just over the border in the Orange Free State and were harried by the British
forces ending in the Battle of Paarderberg which was fought between 18 and 27
February and resulted in a British victory, but at enormous cost.
The remaining
half of the personnel in the Modder River camp were told to evacuate and move
towards Johannesberg but on 18 February that plan was aborted as their carts
were needed by General Roberts. Also,
wounded soldiers started coming in from Jacobsdaal, so the hospital tents had
to be re-erected and Alex Ogston seems to have been involved in treating the
wounded. About 18 February, Ogston was
able to visit and make a survey of the battlefield at Magersfontein, gaining
great respect for the tactics and ingenuity of the Boers when they defeated
Lord Methuen there on 11 December 1899.
Instead of building stone breastwork on the top of the kopjes the Boers
had constructed deep and narrow trenches on the plain at the foot of these
hills. The British had pounded the hills
with artillery, which achieved almost nothing.
However, when they advanced over the plain towards the kopjes, they were
raked with withering rifle fire from the trench systems over a distance of
about 1,000 yards according to Ogston’s estimate.
On 20 February
1900, Alexander Ogston travelled along the repaired railway from Modder River
to Kimberley. He had a letter of
introduction to Cecil Rhodes, who had been holed up in Kimberley during the
siege and visited his residence, but found that Rhodes was eating lunch at the
time. Ogston sent in his card and a
letter, hoping that Rhodes might invite them to join his table, as they had not
eaten since early morning. They waited
half an hour and also hinted that they would appreciate some refreshment, but
nothing happened. As a result of this
treatment, which Ogston clearly felt was offhand and inhospitable, he departed
leaving a message that they could wait no longer. Later Rhodes sent an invitation asking Ogston
to dine with him that evening but the famous surgeon, still smarting, perhaps
from what he perceived as a failure to recognise his status, delivered his own
snub, sending a verbal message that he was unable to accept the
invitation. “So, I lost the only
opportunity I ever had of making the acquaintance of Cecil Rhodes”. Perhaps Alex Ogston later regretted his
self-important impetuosity?
As the campaign
against the Boers moved forward into the Orange Free State and towards the
Transvaal, Modder River ceased to have much military significance but continued
to be the main source of medical support for the advancing army of Roberts. An increasing flow of the sick and wounded
started to arrive at the Modder hospitals, including many Boers. In Jacobsdal there had been a serious
outbreak of typhoid fever which was being treated by volunteers from Germany, a
country sympathetic to the Boer cause, there being no Boer medical staff to
minister to the sick. Also, very ill
Boer fighters with serious wounds to the head or spine were being brought in by
ox wagon, as there was no alternative, more suitable transport available. It was important therefore to move out the
sick and wounded down country as soon as possible to accommodate the incessant
newcomers. To make matters worse,
typhoid broke out in the camp with a mortality rate of 24%. The situation was very stressful and not just
for the patients. Ogston witnessed
several cases of mental breakdown requiring evacuation amongst the
officers. Was Alexander Ogston actually
taking responsibility for patients at this time? That was unclear, because he always preserved
patient confidentiality and never talked about the people he personally
treated, though he certainly was proffering his opinion. But medical resources were so stretched that
it seemed he must have been employed in a medical capacity. In one difficult case his advice was to carry
out Garden’s amputation of the thigh.
Then this scene
from hades got, if that were possible, even worse. The camp was visited one night by a violent
storm with heavy rain. Alex Ogston
described the scene. “One day we had
just returned from dealing with a case of secondary haemorrhage from an
amputation stump, where the common femoral artery had to be tied … The major heard a marquee near at hand go
down, for he was one of those who missed nothing, and called for volunteers to
carry the officers who were under it into shelter. All who were in our marquee followed him out
and found a wet flat mass flapping on the ground where the marquee had
stood. We uncovered and pulled out the
wounded officers who had all been in their beds, some of them almost naked,
heaped everything upon them, waterproof or otherwise, that would cover them,
and bore them on their beds through the deluge into our half-dismantled
marquee. Excepting myself, having had
the foresight to throw on a mackintosh cloak, every one was drenched in the
process. As we were carrying over the
last bed, behold! half of the camp seemed to sink into the ground before our
eyes; tents shrivelled and sank down like tinfoil melting in a fire, and in two
or three seconds, while we stood wonder-stricken, thirty or forty tents were
gone, and in their place were sodden flat masses of writhing patients covered
with tent poles, wet canvas, and nooses of tent ropes. Naked men struggled out, blinded men, wounded
and helpless men, and men with rheumatic fever, wailed and groaned, and an
insane negro who had been tied to a tent pole shouted and shrieked, while down
ever came the torrents of solid water.
From every quarter there seemed to rise from out of the ground pillars
of lightning flame like torches, as if sent to light up the scene, and the thunder
stunned us at rapid intervals as it crashed overhead. Such a thunderstorm I had never seen before,
but I was immediately to see one yet worse”.
Alex Ogston then endured a hailstorm which rained down icy missiles more
than an inch in diameter. He had been
exposed to heavy rain and strong winds in the Highlands of Scotland, but
nothing before like the fury of these South African storms.
The dreadful
conditions in the field hospitals soon became a topic of conversation and
complaint, especially in Cape Town civic society and the responsibility for
this state of affairs was laid firmly at the door of the principal medical
officer, who did not react well to being criticised. Alex Ogston wrote the following about the
army medical authorities. “I myself was
often the recipient of complaints as to the condition of some, particularly of
one, of the hospitals, of the indifference with which the efforts of ladies and
gentlemen to be serviceable in attentions to the sick and wounded were met,
that ladies wishing to give voluntary help were refused admission to the wards,
and even that offers of beds for sick men lying on the ground were refused. …
In truth it seemed to me that there was abundant evidence that the heads of the
Army medical department in Africa were out of sympathy with progressive
ideas. The principal medical officer in
especial was the usual product of the department in those days. A man of ability and a good administrator, he
believed, and expected others to accept, that the army medical service was
perfect; he had no proper appreciation of the value of the civilian consultants
who were sent out by the authorities at home, told them there was nothing for
them to do, and that there were only a few minor cases of ailments in the
hospitals (one of his staff told me personally the same story), and presumed to
direct eminent metropolitan surgeons exactly how they were to deal with
penetrating abdominal wounds , and even the fashion in which they must dress
the wounded men …”. The principal
medical officer also had an overweening disdain for the Red Cross.
The food
available in the military hospitals was poor.
An officer in the Army Service Corps even complained in the
correspondence columns of the newspapers.
“My official position is sufficient authority for the truth of the
statement that deficiency of milk and medical comforts is quite
inexcusable. The supply officers place
no limit on either. The army doctors can
have them without limit; but they refuse for reasons best known to themselves,
to avail themselves of the opportunities offered. The cooking is execrable. Food, as cooked here, is barely eatable by a
sound man. The only excuse the army
authorities can offer is that it is wartime”.
While Alexander
Ogston had unbounded praise for many of the Red Cross’ volunteers and donors,
he was critical of the self-aggrandisement followed by some senior officials of
the organisation. “As regards the
British Red Cross Society, its attitude, as reported by prominent and patriotic
citizens of Cape Town, was not altogether a satisfactory one. Some of their officials seemed to suffer from
the arrogant idea, which elsewhere and often has been one of the weaknesses of
that organisation, that no voluntary assistance to the sick and wounded can be
rendered otherwise than through the Red Cross Society, and this had caused it
to be regarded with some dislike and indifference. Their chief officer had, by some
representations of this sort, manoeuvred the Good Hope Society, whose good
intentions I have already described, into making him its agent, intimating that
in no other way could they render effectual service”.
About 10 March
1900, Ogston continued his march towards Kimberley, where a new hospital was to
be created, the old site at Modder being abandoned. The medical unit to which Ogston was attached
was travelling light, so as to maintain mobility and be able to react quickly
to where they might be needed in the field.
Kimberly proved to be a haven of civilisation compared with the
conditions that he had endured at Modder.
“While we were at Kimberley it was a source of delight to us all, after
the imperfect sanitation of Modder, to have supplies of water which we could
drink without the constant thought that we might be swallowing typhoid death,
that we were able to touch our lips with our bathing and washing water in
safety, and that cleansing our teeth was no longer done at the peril of our
lives, which was ever present to all of us at Modder”. But one aspect of camp life remained the
same: maladministration. It took 2 ½
days for proper latrines to be fitted up, even though most of the 60 patients
being housed were suffering from typhoid or other abdominal infections and
sewage was gathering around the hospital.
“All this was not the fault of the medical officers; they were mostly
indignant and outspoken about such a state of matters, but what could the
overworked and undermanned staff do where no sufficient provision had been made
in advance to meet such conditions? I
often thought that my Portsmouth Address was as milk compared with their
condemnatory remarks. One esteemed and
most devoted officer expressed openly the hope that a history of the medical
aspects of the war in all their naked truth might some day be published, and
someone meet with severe punishment”.
That officer could not have guessed that his companion, Professor
Ogston, would at least partially fulfil his desire.
General
Roberts’ army pressed ahead after relieving Kimberley with Lord Methuen’s force
making progress across the Orange Free State to the north of the Vaal River,
while Sir Archibald Hunter’s group pursued a similar mission to the south of
that watercourse. The unit to which Alex
Ogston was attached travelled on the first stage of their trek in a north
easterly direction to Boshof, about 30 miles from Kimberley, the journey
occupying four days. Ogston found that
this town was full of embittered Boers.
“The women were the most irreconcilable and did not hesitate to show
it”. After a redundant stove had been
requisitioned from one Boer woman, “The lady, after coming to the hospital and
abusing us all round in pointed terms, broke, I believe, her way into Lord
Methuen’s room where he and four of his leading officers were in conference,
shook her fist in the face of each individual, gave them an address of eloquent
abuse and frightened them all”.
Near Boshof,
Ogston was able to examine a battlefield, which had been fought over on 5 April
1900 and, having a particular expertise in bullets, noted the types which had
been employed. “Expanding bullets had
been freely used; here lay one dropped in haste, there a posy of them, ten or
twelve, arranged for convenience in rapid firing; Jeffries’ expanding, and
dum-dum pointed bullets manufactured by Eley Brothers”. When it came to the variety of bullets on
display, Ogston knew what he was talking about as a result of his own research
on bullet wounds.
While at
Boshof, Alex Ogston also witnessed the funeral of Major-General
Villebois-Mareuil, who had been killed on 6 April in the fighting there. He was a French army officer who volunteered
to fight for the Boers in the Second Boer War and was promoted to his exulted
rank because of his leadership capabilities.
Villebois-Mareuil was put in charge of all foreign volunteers, which
included many Germans. After his death,
he was given a funeral with full military honours, by the British, paid for by
Lord Methuen personally. Alex Ogston
recorded a moving account of the scene he witnessed. “It was growing dark as we walked out for a
hundred yards or so behind our hospital camp, and we saw drawn up in two rows
facing one another a thousand soldiers, each with his rifle held vertically
with its muzzle resting on the ground, while his hands were folded over its
butt at the level of his chin. The ranks
stood motionless, on each side of a white path which ended, a furlong away from
us, in the square-walled enclosure where the Boshof dead are laid to rest, and
over its walls towered the pines and poplars and blue gum trees planted beside
their graves. Down the lane formed by
the soldiers walked four British officers bearing a litter, carried at the
level of their thighs, on which was the body of General Villebois de Mareuil
wrapped in a red rug, and at a slow pace they went on until they had entered
the gate and disappeared within the burying ground. M and I walked to its north-eastern corner,
as many others were doing, and looked over the wall … The body was lowered into
the grave and the earth filled in upon his corpse amid absolute silence on the
part of the whole army and spectators, while the pines above them were as if
etched by the blackest funereal ink against the golden yellow patch still
lingering in the sky where the sun had set and against the leaden gloom of the
rest of the horizon where the thunder clouds were again gathering and the
twisted streams of the lightning were playing”.
General Villebois-Marais
Apart from his
medical duties, Alex Ogston also examined the battlefield at Carter’s Ridge and
confirmed his impressions from other scenes of conflict that the Boers were
superb military engineers and constructed trench systems far superior to those
manufactured by the Kimberley defenders.
In one of his few criticisms of Boer cautionary tactics, Ogston also
said, “if they had possessed as much resolution as engineering genius, they
would have had a very good chance had they boldly rushed Kimberley …”.
Alex Ogston
remained at and around the Boshof camp for a considerable time, until 13 May
1900. At first the Boers hoped to retake
the town but, with time, that outcome became increasingly improbable. While he was camped at Boshof, Alexander
Ogston had the honour of dining with Lord Methuen and his senior officers,
though he was somewhat embarrassed to attend in his now tattered clothes. All he could don to disguise his condition
was a white shirt and he hoped he would look clean by candlelight. Ogston thoroughly enjoyed his evening. “Nothing could have been kinder or more free
from condescension than my reception; Methuen talked freely, and everyone round
the table joined in a footing of equality, so that conversationally it was as
pleasant an evening as I ever spent.
Beginning with the subject of tortoise tents, the talk ranged over other
kinds of tent, portable hospitals, Modder River hospital arrangements, the
fever there, typhoid in general, Boshof water supply, germs, the wounds of the
campaign, the individual wounded, the Yeomanry, expanding bullets, shrapnel,
Vickers-Maxim guns, the RAMC, and the various battlefields of his column. Methuen was interested in my work, as were
members of his staff, and they promised me samples of the different expanding
bullets and pom-pom shells. … After enjoying the unwonted treat of a couple of
beautiful Havana cigars, I took my leave”.
Alex Ogston had no small talk but toss him a meaty topic and he would
devour it enthusiastically.
While Alex
Ogston was at Boshof, a rumour started that the enemy was using poisoned
bullets, which he was able to scotch in quick order. “The bullet and front part of the shell of
the cartridge were, for lubricating the grooves of the rifle, dipped in fat,
and after some time the fatty acids acting upon the copper of the shell
produced a green coating of stearate or other salt of copper, which had an
alarming appearance, but would, owing to its anti-septic properties, have
benefitted rather than harmed a wound inflicted by the bullet, even had the
coating not been thrown off by the rapid revolutions (2,500 – 3,600 per second)
of the missile as it passed through the air”.
Medical
conditions at the Boshof hospital were similar to those he had experienced
elsewhere. The medical staff were
excellent and worked both hard and skilfully but the organisation was deficient
and medical supplies and equipment were largely absent. “We would want coverglasses to make blood
films, there were none; microscope slides, they did not exist; a microscope,
Boshof did not possess such a thing; staining reagents, such things were never
heard of. Adhesive plaster ran done; so
did calico bandages; there was gypsum but no muslin bandages for applying it;
the alembroth bandages were of only one size, and that was too narrow to be of
much service; there were no abdominal binders; there was no proper operation
table; there was hardly a parish doctor in Scotland who would not have been
better supplied”. Ogston laid these
deficiencies firmly at the door of the RAMC.
Boshof was then
fortified against attack and left with a small garrison while the bulk of the
soldiers moved out on 13 May1900 to continue the advance on the line from
Bloemfontein, the capital of the Orange Free State to Johannesburg, a major
city of the Transvaal, their immediate destination being Hoopstad, about 100
miles north-east of Kimberley. The force
was split into two columns, one being led by Lord Methuen and the other by
General Paget. The general pattern of
the operation was to march out each morning at 6.00am, rest from 9.00am or
10.00am until 4.00pm, then march again until 7.00pm or 8.00pm, to avoid the
heat of the day. Scouts were sent out in
front and the ambulance units were in the rear.
They were told to expect to be marching for 21 days. Alex Ogston had by this time obtained a small
cart to carry his bag, rugs and a small patrol tent, which was an object of
envy by his companions. The march was
punishing for both animals and men, many oxen simply falling down and dying of
exhaustion. Typhoid fever also broke out
and Ogston’s unit was caring for 25 men sick through this cause. When they were nearing Hoopstad they started
to carry out night treks. Along the way,
Boers were surrendering to the army without a fight and when Hoopstad was
reached about 19 May, a building in which to locate the hospital was quickly
secured.
Initially, the
hospital only had to cope with 17 patients but that quickly grew, mainly due to
typhoid cases and injuries such as sore feet brought on by the forced
march. But at least the hospital was
well-equipped with good beds, clean linen and blankets, though medical and
surgical supplies were in short supply.
Initially the hospital had only one broken thermometer but a complete
and functioning one was somehow obtained, and two women volunteered to help
with the nursing. When the medical unit
moved on, a civilian doctor was left in charge of the facility.
The march of
the column continued on 21 May along the southern bank of the Vaal River, again
resting during the heat of the day. On
24 May, Queen Victoria’s birthday, there was an issue of rum in the evening
while bivouacking by the river for everyone to toast Her Majesty. By this time the Boers had effectively given
up direct armed confrontation with the overwhelming numbers of the invading
British forces. Sometime after leaving
Hoopstad, Alexander Ogston developed an illness and he became progressively
weaker with swollen legs, so that he had difficulty getting his boots on. He could barely walk by the time they reached
Bothaville, which was still about 115 miles from Johannesburg.
At this time,
Ogston made reference to “Our American Field Hospital” which had “not been
behaving well”. This was possibly the
hospital donated by Mr Van Alen which operated with Lord Methuen’s column as it
travelled north-east from Kimberley and which was finally donated to the
military authorities at Paardekraal, Johannesburg, in July 1900. The problem appeared to lie with the donor of
the hospital, who “himself insisted on occupying one of its ambulance wagons
and its tortoise tent, though the sick needed them sorely; it had even
dismissed a patient seriously ill with jaundice, and another suffering from a
bad phlegmonous foot, on the pretext that the places were required; and those
men would have to return to their regiments and tramp on foot for many miles of
sand, in the burning sun”. However, “our
major” rose to the occasion and found a way to cope with every tricky situation
– another shining example of the quality and ingenuity of the army doctors
manning the medical services during the Boer War.
“We left
Bothaville for Kroonstad on Saturday the 26th May”. Kroonstad lay east of Bothaville on the road
from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg and still about 110 miles from the latter
city. By this time Alex Ogston was
seriously ill and travelling on his horse-drawn cart, so confused that he was
hardly able to make any diary entries.
He depended greatly upon his medical colleagues to deal with his horse
and cart. They further supported him by
ensuring he had the best food available to their own detriment. The party arrived at Kroonstad on 29 May 1900
to find the town already heavily populated by sick personnel and with only
tinned food and biscuits to eat. Typhoid
fever was rife everywhere. In
Bloemfontein there were reported to be 4,000 cases of this gut infection,
expiring at the rate of 18 or 20 per day.
There were also several casualties amongst the officers of the RAMC.
Although the
British finally entered Johannesburg on 30 May and Pretoria on 5 June,
Kroonstad was effectively the end of the campaign for 56-year-old Alexander
Ogston. He was now so ill he could not
continue going forward, indeed, he was becoming a liability to his medical
colleagues. “Up to that time I had been
keeping partially fit, by means of Dover’s powder, bismuth, chlorodyne, and an
array of astringents, but in spite of all was growing so weak that I could do
little but lie exhausted on the ground after our marches; my leg would no
longer come out of its boot; and I was perhaps not quite clear in the
head. Therefore, I decided to follow the
good advice of my friends and try to go down to Cape Town …”. However, he was not a particularly compliant
patient as “… I had declined to be pronounced an invalid or to have anything to
do with clinical thermometers”. He left
Kroonstad by train on 30 May, though with little memory of his departure. On the journey he shocked himself when he
caught sight of his visage in a mirror.
“… the vision of a gaunt man, whose long hair, eyebrows, and moustache
hung over a face that seemed to be the size of a child’s, and whose great limbs
showed only bones and coils of wasted muscles, reminiscent of the horses we had
left to their fate on the veld, and the shock first suggested to me that I was
seriously ill”. At Bloemfontein he found
a train due to leave for Cape Town the next day, dragged himself into a
carriage and fell asleep but when he woke up, he realised that he was so ill he
could go no further. The railway
transport officer arranged for him to be taken to a military hospital.
At the hospital
he became delirious and spent several days drifting in and out of consciousness,
the only memories remaining with him being quite bizarre and unworldly. “Mind and body seemed to be dual, and to some
extent separate. I was conscious of the
body as an inert tumbled mass near the door; it belonged to me, but it was not
I. I was conscious that my mental self
used regularly to leave the body, always carrying something soft and black, I
did not know what, in my left hand – that was invariable – and wander away from
it under grey, sunless, moonless, and starless skies, ever onwards to a distant
gleam on the horizon, solitary but not unhappy, and seeing other dark shades
gliding silently by, until something produced a consciousness that the chilly
mass, which I then recalled was my body, was being stirred as it lay by the
door”. But eventually he started to pull
through. “… there was a consultation,
and one elderly doctor shook his head and said, so that I could hear it, “He is
nearly sixty, he won’t recover”. Another
said “He will get better” but Ogston himself knew by this time that he would
soon be on the mend. Alexander Ogston,
like thousands of others in this benighted country, had been suffering from
typhoid fever and was lucky to fall on the viable side of the dividing line
between the dead and the living. It was
the middle of June 1900 before he was fully conscious again.
The experience
that Ogston had had, as a patient, at the Dames Institute Hospital,
Bloemfontain, gave him his most acute insight yet into the shortcomings of the
RAMC. He saw clearly the deficiencies of
the male orderlies of the service. “The
orderlies there were destitute of such training as they should have had to fill
the posts they occupied. They had been
taught stretcher drill, bandaging and perhaps first aid, but they were
unacquainted with and unpractised in the more common and important
manipulations for the management of the sick.
They knew next to nothing about the ordinary instruments in use in the
wards, and the sick suffered in consequence.
They had no proper supply of disinfectants, no thorough means of using
them had they possessed them, no sound and intelligent idea of what ought to
have been done with them, or of the purification of appliances, hands, etc, the
result being that no disinfection was really carried out”. In contrast, Ogston again found that “The
goodness of the RAMC medical men and the sisters was simply unsurpassable”.
Once he was
sufficiently recovered from his brush with mortality, Alex Ogston made a tour
around Bloemfontein, contrasting unfavourably the name, “Well of Flowers” with
the reality of a desolate, muddy town.
He made a particularly moving visit to the local cemetery, recording the
scene and his thoughts in his distinctive prose. “Entering through a dilapidated turnstile and
a tottering gate, where the spade had been recently so busy that one’s first
impression was that of looking on a surface mine where prospectors had been
throwing up mounds and forming pits in the search for gold. Only here the mounds were regular, lay in
squares, row behind row, with walks between the squares and the heart sickened
to see this garden of the dead, planted with the bodies of British heroes. Here was a square of the Guards, there one of
another regiment, here lay a parterre of Roman Catholics, there a bed of
Nonconformists …There were rows upon rows, and squares upon squares of such
mounds, all of them recent, and without a blade of grass or a single leaf to
cover the gaunt stony gravel. Perhaps a
little tombstone or a wooden cross, a stray in the waste, was put up by some
comrade or friend to rescue the remains underneath from oblivion; here and
there a withered flower was laid, or a little British flag of the size of one’s
palm had been stuck into the soil by some one who had nothing else to give, and
whose heart was perhaps too full to be aware of anything incongruous in his
offering of a doll’s flag. It was only
with dim eyes and constricted throat that one could look round this plantation
of brave men in that foreign ‘Acre of God’”.
Two of
Alexander Ogston’s relatives were also involved in the Second Boer War. His nephew, Charles Ogston (1877), the son of
Alexander Milne Ogston (1836) the soap manufacturer, injured his ankle in one
of the late assaults at the Battle of Paaderberg in February 1900. Charles was taken to the military hospital at
Modder River, where he met with his uncle, Alexander Ogston (1844). Alexander shared his tent with Charles, which
led to an amusing but macabre incident. When
Charles Ogston started scraping a hollow for his hip before retiring, Alexander
said “Be careful what you’re doing, I’ve got an arm buried there”! Alexander Ogston’s son, Francis Hargrave
Ogston (1869), from his first marriage, was a trooper in the 1st Battalion,
Imperial Light Horse. He was killed at
Rietkuil, east of Pretoria and Johannesburg, on 17 April 1901, during the
guerrilla phase of the Second Boer War, long after his father had returned to
Great Britain. Francis’ name is
inscribed on the Boer War Memorial at Clifton College, Bristol, where he had been
schooled.
By 4th
July 1900, Alexander Ogston was well enough to travel by train from
Bloemfontein to Norval’s Point, where he took a sleeping car to Cape Town. Sir Alfred Milner was, at the time, High
Commissioner for Southern Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony. Though Ogston was unable to visit him in
person at Government House, he received from Sir Alfred a message of sympathy
for his illness, good wishes for a speedy recovery and, “a thing I highly
valued, his thanks for my having come out and worked to serve the sick and
wounded”. Alexander Ogston departed from
Cape Town on 11 July on the Union Castle steamer, “Briton”, arriving at
Southampton 16 days later, where he immediately left for Aberdeen, reaching the
Granite City at 11.00am on Sunday 29 July 1900.
He was met by his wife, Isabella, at the Joint Station. He had been away from home and job, but not
from his calling, for 227 days.
Before
Alexander Ogston left Cape Town for Great Britain, a major public debate had
started, both locally and back in Great Britain, concerning the provision of
care for the British sick and wounded in the field. In early 1900, Ashmead Burdett-Coutts, MP,
had travelled to South Africa to investigate the treatment of British troops
who were sick or wounded. He had been
critical of the treatment of war casualties during the First Boer War a decade
earlier and in the latest conflict he reported at intervals in the pages of
“The Times”, pointing out the wholly inadequate provision of medical resources
for an army the size of the one mustered in South Africa. Burdett-Coutts’ reports fully supported the
observations that Alex Ogston made.
Burdett-Coutts also found that the personnel of the RAMC had gone above
and beyond the call of duty in many circumstances where they were really overwhelmed
with casualties. On the other hand, he
complained regularly about red tape, lack of organisation and failure to
utilise voluntary resources that were proffered. Locally in South Africa, the Archbishop of
Cape Town was one of the first out of the traps. He remarked that “… it fairly made his blood
boil to think that there was such disgraceful neglect, particularly at Rosebank
Hospital … There has been a growing feeling of dissatisfaction on the parts of both
public and patients with the way in which the military hospitals and
convalescent wards are being managed.
Grave complaints are made, anonymously for the most part, in the press,
but the greatest difficulty is experienced in obtaining definite details, with
proofs, owing to the unwillingness of the men concerned to make charges
openly”. Julian Ralph, a reporter for
the Daily Mail wrote, “I have no hesitation in saying that I considered the
treatment of the sick and wounded – especially after the main advance from
Modder River – primitive, cruel and almost barbaric, as well as needless and
inexcusable”. A further contribution
from Julian Ralph referred to the unbearable bureaucracy encountered. “A
civilian who spends hundreds upon hundreds of pounds in buying common
necessities for the field hospitals told me that he was informed the army
medical men could not purchase a thermometer except at the risk of personal
pecuniary loss. It wanted three months,
he said, for a field hospital to observe the formula for getting supplies which
he used to buy at an hour’s notice”.
Alex Ogston, in his book, “Reminiscences of Three Campaigns”, also
referred to the statements of Surgeon-Captain Brownlee who accompanied the
Highland Brigade during the advance on Bloemfontein. He was “… quoted as stating in plain terms
that he had not enough men or ambulances to cope with the heavy work to be
done. At one time, it is stated, two
ambulances, with accommodation for four patients lying and six sitting, were
all he had to wait on the sick and wounded of a body of 4,000 men”.
William Burdett-Coutts
The debate
continued while Ogston was journeying back to Great Britain and, after reaching
home, he followed its continuing twists and turns, as the military tried to
justify its actions. Alex Ogston
returned to the matter in his book, “Reminiscences of Three Campaigns”. “Every medical officer who was in the Orange
Free State at the time knew that Burdett-Coutts’ statements were nothing more
than the bare unvarnished truth, and the scenes there were such as have never
left the memories of those who witnessed them.
At home his reports created a great sensation, and along with much
support he received a deal of obloquy; but his statements were never denied or
disproved; they were notoriously too true.
Hence the War Office had to be whitewashed. Eminent authorities replied to him that “War
is War”, and seemed to think that solved the question. Others missed the point of the matter by
defending the medical officers, whom Burdett-Coutts had never attacked … Public
opinion was roused, and something had to be done. Mr Balfour defended the War Office in
Parliament. A South African Hospitals
Inquiry Commission was appointed, at which experts talked vaguely about the
necessity of having elasticity in the army medical arrangements and large
reserves at the base. … The director general of the army medical department was
reported to have said; “All I can tell you is that, whatever has happened, the
department has done the right thing”. … And the following burlesque was
solemnly enacted. I quote from the Pall
Mall Gazette of 29th June 1900.
“A further £5 required. – Included in the parliamentary papers today is
a copy of the Army Supplementary Estimate, dated yesterday for the nominal sum
of £5 for the army medical establishment, which the Government have submitted
as a vehicle for today’s discussion on the charges of hospital mismanagement
and insufficiency in South Africa. The
document sets forth that it is an “Estimate of the further amount that will be
required during the year ending March 31, 1901, to meet the expenditure in
excess of that provided for in the original army estimates for the year for
medical establishment and for medicines”.
The original estimate for medical establishment, pay, and so on, was for
£555,000. The “revised estimate” is for
£555,005; additional sum required £5.
And it ended at that! Who can
marvel at my holding more strongly than ever the conviction that, whether it
comes to pass sooner or late, the army medical service will never take its
rightful place in the nation’s defence until it is made independent of the War
Office, and has its own heads directly responsible to Parliament? In whatever shape, or however late, it must
come to that”.
One interesting
postscript to Alexander Ogston’s sojourn in South Africa was a public
exhibition that was mounted in Aberdeen in February 1901 of war relics
collected by the wandering surgeon. It
was held on the upper floor of the large warehouse of Sangster and Henderson
(drapers and house furnishers) at 32 - 38 Union Street. The purpose of the exhibition was to raise
funds for the “Daily Telegraph” and “Scotsman” Shilling Fund which supported
the 5,000 working class war widows and their children, created by the recent
conflict in South Africa. Many
upper-class Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire ladies agreed to become patrons of the
exhibition, including the Countess of Aberdeen and (well down the pecking
order) Mrs Alexander Ogston. The
official opening by Colonel Mathias took place on 9 February with Lord Provost
Fleming presiding. Professor Ogston was
present and gave an informal account of his experiences in South Africa,
illustrated by slides. At the end of his
talk, Lord Aberdeen proposed a vote of thanks and asked those present to
contribute to the Shilling Fund.
The exhibits
were placed in a separate glass case, in the centre of which was a medal sent
to Professor Ogston by Queen Victoria only two months before her death. The Aberdeen Journal had a full description
of this Royal accolade. "On one side is a representation of an angel with laurel branch in her hand bending over the form of a stricken soldier on the battlefield. On a scroll at the top are the words, "To the memory of those who gave their lives for Queen and country". On the obverse side there is a figure of Britannia with drawn sword leading the troops who can be seen in the background while there is also a representation of the British Navy guarding the shores. The sun rising above the hills bears on it the word "pax". The whole design is symbolic and suggestive".
Major-General
Andrew Wauchope was in command of the 3rd (Highland) Brigade in the
abortive advance on Kimberley early in the campaign, seeing action at the
battles of Belmont and Modder River before leading his men at the Battle of
Magersfontein on 11 December 1899, where he was killed early in the attack on
Boer positions by rifle fire. Less than
a month later, Alex Ogston was able to examine the battlefield closely and,
while there, he picked up three pebbles which he had mounted on gold rings on
his return to Britain. One was given to
Queen Victoria, one to Wauchope’s widow and the third was retained by Professor
Ogston and was included in the exhibition.
Another
significant relic of the South African campaign which was exhibited was the
sjambok, a long, stiff horsewhip, which had belonged to Frenchman Major-General
Villebois-Marais who was killed fighting for the Boers near Boshof on 6 April
1900. Curiously, the Aberdeen Journal
attributed the collection site and location of Villebois’ death to the place
where the Battle of Tweefontein (north-east of Pretoria) was fought but that
engagement did not occur until 1901, long after Ogston had departed from South
Africa. In any case he did not penetrate
as far as Pretoria. It seems likely that
Ogston obtained the keepsake at Boshof, which he did visit. Another Boshof relic on display was the
swagger stick of Lieutenant Cecil Boyle of the Imperial Yeomanry, “whose death
was due to the treachery of the Boers exhibiting a white flag and then shooting
when the lieutenant looked up”. Boyle
had been an international rugby player for England.
Alexander
Ogston also brought back a variety of munitions, including a pom-pom shell, an
elephant gun cartridge used by the Boers and green-tipped bullets which were
initially suspected as being poisoned, though Ogston had quickly dismissed that
fanciful notion. It is unclear from
which force the pom-pom shell came since the British pom-pom cannon was used by
both sides in the conflict.
Books and
documents were also well represented in the exhibition. The Aberdeen Journal had a full
description. "In the way of books and documents there are a Dutch book "Prince of the House of David" picked up in the Boer trenches at Magersfontein (which Ogston had visited in January 1900); one of the beautifully illustrated Bibles distributed to the British and Colonial troops in South Africa; one of the Boers' Red Cross certificates and the last number of the "Diamond Fields Advertiser" published at Kimberley on 10th February 1900. This paper was suppressed because of an article which appeared entitled "Why Kimberley Cannot Wait". The sheet announcing the stoppage of the paper is also shown bearing the significant announcement:-"We beg to inform our readers that for reasons which we shall fully explain at some future time it has been decided to suspend publication of the "Diamond Fields Advertiser" until further notice. The printing department of the "DF Advertiser" will also be closed down until further notice". There is also the first number of the "Government Gazette" of the Orange River Colony - bearing the date Friday June 29 1900 - containing the proclamation regarding the burning of farms, etc". The reason for the suspension of the “Diamond
Fields Advertiser”, which was owned by Cecil Rhodes, was that while Kimberley
was under siege, Rhodes ignored the military censor and published information
that was judged useful to the enemy. It
was then closed down by the commander of the Kimberley garrison, Colonel Robert
Kekewich.
Also on display
was a full set of Kruger money, the currency established in the South African
Republic (Transvaal) of which Paul Kruger was president between 1883 and
1902. Coins on display were the sovereign, half-sovereign, half-crown, florin, two-shilling piece, sixpence and penny, all bearing Kruger's portrait. Other historical items were a uniform button
of the Kruger Volunteer Corps, a section of the Vriekleur national ribbon and a
Boer Red Cross brassard. Alexander
Ogston, a keen photographer, brought back a number of scenes, including the
graves of Colonel Downman (commanding officer of Lieutenant FH Ogston, who was
killed at Paardeberg), Captain Wingate (1st Gordon Highlanders,
killed at Magersfontein), Lieutenant Cran Campbell and General
Villebois-Marais. Another grave was that
of Mr Allan Johnson, an Aberdeen medical student who had gone out to South
Africa as a member of Sir James Sievewright’s ambulance party. This group offered to work for the Boers in
the Transvaal but was turned down by Kruger.
As a result, it attached itself to the British forces. Johnson caught enteric fever (probably
typhoid) and died. He was buried at
Bloemfontein.
Alexander
Ogston and the State of the Army
St John
Brodrick was Secretary of State for War (1900 – 1903) during most of the Second
Boer War, when the performance of the British Army received so much criticism
for its performance, including the early defeats to the Boers, the high
casualty rate during the campaign to relieve the towns besieged by the Boers,
the inability to foresee and deal with the subsequent guerrilla campaign, the
use of concentration camps and the performance of the Army Medical Corps. Brodrick’s predecessor, Lord Lansdowne, took
most of the blame for these deficiencies.
Only 27,000 hospital admissions were due to enemy action, but an
overwhelming 450,000 were due to disease, mainly enteric infections. More deaths resulted from gut infections than
from all other causes. There had to be a
reaction to these reprovals, and Brodick responded by pursuing a programme of
reform. Feeding into this process was a
number of inquiries to which Alexander Ogston contributed.
St John Brodrick
The Director
General of the Army Medical Department, Surgeon-General Jamieson went into
defensive mode in response to the criticisms that the service he headed had
performed badly. In July 1900 he gave a
speech at a dinner commemorating the 50th anniversary of the
founding of the Epidemiological Society.
Firstly, he listed the prominent people who had praised the performance
of the service, the civilian surgeons, Sir William MacCormack, Frederick
Treves, the German military medical attaches and the army leaders in South
Africa, Lord Roberts and Sir Redvers Buller.
They had the requisite number of beds and there was ample medical
equipment to the extent that he was implored not to send more. When problems arose it was because of
unforeseen circumstances which could not have been predicted, such as a serious
outbreak of typhoid fever. And they had
to prioritise the feeding and equipping of the fighting men. When an inquiry was held, he was confident it
would be discovered that his service was not wanting. The editor of the Aberdeen Journal was not so
sanguine. “We do not forget, however,
that so late as August last (1899) Professor Ogston, at a meeting of the
British Medical Association, formulated a severe indictment against the methods
and administration of the Army and Navy Medical Departments – an indictment
which has never been answered authoritatively by either branch”.
In June 1901,
the Secretary of State for War announced the membership of an expert committee
to inquire into the reorganisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps. Five members were civilian medical men who
had seen service in South Africa, including Alexander Ogston. No member of the committee was a senior
officer in the service under investigation, but the secretariat was drawn from
that organisation. Of the civilians, Alexander
Ogston had, by far, been the most critical of the RAMC, both before and during
the campaign. There was a variety of
editorial comment on the makeup of the committee. The Aberdeen Journal, in welcoming Ogston’s
inclusion, praised the Government for having the courage to appoint a known
critic of the army’s medical service.
The British Medical Journal complained that the War Office had, for the
last fifty years, been resistant to reform.
Although the views expressed by Alex Ogston at Portsmouth “were
distasteful to some, there is no doubt that he had the interests of the Service
at heart”. One of the most enthusiastic
newspapers was the “Morning Leader”.
Commenting on the address that Ogston had given at the BMA annual
meeting in 1899, the paper noted, “He predicted what would happen in the case
of an important war with remarkable accuracy, and perhaps no critic has ever
been better justified by events”.
In early August
1901, St John Brodrick wrote to the King (RA VIC/MAIN/W/22/45) with the report
of his committee into the reorganisation of the Royal Army Medical Corps and a
summary of its main recommendations. He
also asked the monarch for his help with matters relating to army ranks over
which he had no control, and for the King’s support in ending the practice of
blackballing Army Medical Corps candidates applying for membership of Military
Clubs
The report was
published at the end of September 1901.
Its main recommendations were that the RAMC should be under the
supervision of an Advisory Board, rather than the Director-General of the
service. “The chief duties of the board
will be to report on all matters connected with medicine, etc, deal with
hospitals, submit a scheme for the expansion of the service to meet the needs
of war or serious epidemics and the promotion of officers. There was also a
major development with regard to the merger of the Army and India Nursing
Services. A new organisation should be
created, to be called “Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Nursing Service” to be under
the immediate control of the Queen, who would become president, and a nursing
board. Also, the pay of serving army
medical officers was substantially increased and promotion would no longer be
by seniority but by qualifications.
There was also a proposal to establish a medical staff college in
association with a major London hospital.
Although he
signed the report, signifying that he mostly agreed with its recommendations
Alexander Ogston authored an addendum making some significant criticisms of the
main findings on the general grounds that they did not go far enough. “I consider that the scheme falls short of
what is requisite among other things in the following matters, viz. 1. It does not provide for the formation of a
sanitary corps, consisting of officers specially charged with the duty of
carrying out proper sanitary measures in peace and war, and a staff of men
trained to ensure the requisite measures being carried into effect. 2. It
does not provide such study leave as the advanced state of medical science now
demands, and is likely in the future to demand even more, nor such liberal
privileges in this direction as have been found necessary in the armies of the
other great European Powers. 3. It makes no provision for placing at the
disposal of the many medical officers serving in remote and isolated stations
abroad such information as will enable them to familiarise themselves with the
advances of medical science, and as is called for in the interests of those who
are placed under their care. 4. It fails to provide for medical officers
being trained by attendance upon civilian patients in all the branches of their
profession, so that they may become equally skilful with their civilian
brethren and may avoid the narrowing influences which act so injuriously upon
medical officers who have to deal only with the treatment of soldiers and
military officials”.
St John
Brodrick, though he was regarded as having not been a very successful Secretary
of State for War, had made major advances in the reformation of the Royal Army
Medical Corps.
Another
significant response to the debacle of the Second Boer War was the
establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the army. This was chaired by the Earl of Elgin and
Kincardine and started work in September 1902.
Its remit was as follows. “The
King has been pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the
military preparations for the war in South Africa, and into the supply of men,
ammunition, equipment, and transport by sea and land in connection with the
campaign, and into the military operations up to the occupation of Pretoria,
and to report thereon”. This was a very
wide remit which covered the performance of logistics in relation to the
medical services but did not loom large in the overall picture.
In October
1902, Alexander Ogston was asked to appear before this Royal Commission and to
present evidence “as to the equipment and organisation of the Army Medical
Corps, compared with those of Germany and Russia”. On the day, Lord Esher chaired the meeting in
the absence of Lord Elgin. Later, an
official communique was issued covering, in rather dry and superficial terms,
the evidence that Ogston had provided.
“His evidence related to questions of the sufficiency of the strength
and training of the Royal Army Medical Corps officer and men, as to the medical
and ambulance equipment in the field, to the sanitary arrangements, and to the
organisation of voluntary aid and its relation to the regular medical service. He compared the British system in these
respects with those prevailing in the German and Russia armies. Professor Ogston made several suggestions for
the improvement of the British system”.
When the report
of the Royal Commission was published in total at the end of August 1903, the
devastating reality of Alexander Ogston’s actual evidence was laid out in
horrifying detail. But it sat alongside
many other examples of political and military ignorance, naivety,
unpreparedness and incompetence. The
Aberdeen Journal gave a good account of what Aberdeen’s Professor of Surgery
had said-
“The provision
of officers and men was quite inadequate.
He judged they had provision for about 40,000 of an army only, straining
their provision to the utmost. When the
wounded came back from Modder River to Paardeberg the provision of officers and
men of the RAMC was very deficient, and they had exceeding difficulty to deal
with the sick and wounded in the convoys and at the hospitals. At Modder River on one occasion 800 men were
brought in in one day, and they had to be accommodated in two field hospitals
which only had equipment for 100 men each.
On 24th February there were three medical attendants to look
after 400 sick and wounded. As there
were typhoid and very badly wounded cases, they ought to have had four times
the number of medical attendants to do anything like justice to the
patients. There were by no means enough
hospital orderlies either. He could give
no data regarding the hospital orderlies as they were such a fluctuating
body. They were attending the typhoid
cases, and themselves were feeling ill and dying daily with typhoid fever. The non-commissioned officers and men could
not, he thought, be accused of any lack of zeal and devotion, but he draws a
terrible picture of the results of their ignorance. Many of them came into it untrained from
other regiments, and if they received training there, it was merely a little
training in first aid, and carrying wounded on the field. Many of them – most of them I should say –
were absolutely ignorant of anything like what was required for attending on
the sick. They were utterly unaware of
how to deal with a sick man or of what was an absolute necessity for him and
hence, in spite of their goodwill they failed him from the want of this
training. There were, of course,
exceptions, and some of them were exceedingly good, but they were few. Most of them seemed to have joined, whether
they were regulars or volunteers, with the idea that their duty would be to go
into the field behind an advancing regiment to pick up the wounded, to stop
their bleeding and then to carry them to the tents; and then when they found
that their duties were nothing so brilliant as that but consisted in the
tedious watching night and day over men who were sick, delirious and dying and
when their comrades were taken ill daily and dying around them they often lost
heart. It required in fact a quiet
heroism that very few of them possessed to enable them to carry out their
duties especially in attending on the sick and the fever cases which were very
numerous. Disinfection one might almost
say was absolutely unknown. The men knew
nothing about disinfectants. They did
not even know which were good and which were bad. They had no training in keeping themselves
disinfected. In fact, it seemed to me
that many of them looked upon it as a species of cowardice if they attended to
such things as avoiding infection – a sort of shirking of duty. The hands were not disinfected, the utensils
were not disinfected, and the wards were not disinfected. In one hospital made to contain 53 cases
almost exclusively of typhoid the only source of disinfection for the orderlies
was one enamelled basin containing creoline and water which was placed in the
veranda at the exit from the hospital and this they might or might not use as
they thought proper. This was in a
hospital in Bloemfontein. No blame
attached to the officers for this. He
says that they did all that men could do”.
“German
military hospitals Professor Ogston considered are superior to ours and a
sufficient number of orderlies are carefully trained in times of peace. Our army surgeons are inferior to civilian
surgeons because from the time they enter the army they are cut off from the
constant practice that is necessary.
Professor Ogston pointed out how that in Germany and Russia the medical
service of the army is organised so as to be in touch with civilian medical
institutions and army surgeons are afforded opportunities to keep abreast of
the advances in their profession. This
is not done in the British Army Medical Corps”.
Alexander
Ogston’s status with the Royal Commission members was substantial. In a letter from Lord Esher to King Edward
VII in October 1902 (RA VIC/MAIN/W/38/47), giving the monarch information on
the progress of the Royal Commission, Esher wrote, “Perhaps Your Majesty may
recollect Professor Odstone (Ogston) – of Aberdeen who was sent
privately to Africa by Queen Victoria and who brought home most interesting
details – Lord Esher had the advantage of seeing the Professor at Windsor about
two years ago, and learnt from him many details about the medical services in
the German and Russian Armies, the arrangements in which had been carefully
studied by the Professor, who is the greatest English authority on comparative
military medical science. Lord Esher has
obtained the assent of the Commissioners to call Professor Odstun and Sir
Frederick Treves, and he hopes most valuable results may follow from their evidence. Neither of the Medical Officers called today
have visited Germany nor Russia, nor were they familiar with any of the foreign
systems, nor the most recent scientific improvements in field equipment, as
described at Windsor by Professor Odstone, whose statements showed that the
Russians are in army medical sciences, far ahead of all European nations”.
St John
Brodrick, who had introduced a programme for army reform, lost his job in
Government in 1903 and it was left to others, particularly Sir Richard Haldane
who was Secretary of State for War from 1905 to 1912 to bring about real reform
of army structures, training and organisation.
However, there can be no doubt that Alexander Ogston’s fearless exposure
of army deficiencies played a significant part in alerting politicians to the
need for reform in the army medical services.
One of the most
significant agents of further reform of the RAMC was Sir Alfred Keogh, an army
doctor who had served with distinction in South Africa during the Second Boer
War. On his return to Britain, he was
appointed Deputy Director General of the Army Medical Services (on the
recommendation of St John Brodrick) and then Director-General in 1905, at the
same time being promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-General. In October 1910, Sir Alfred visited Aberdeen
and held a conference with leading medical men and officers of the Volunteer
Force in the North-East of Scotland. The
meeting was chaired by Lord Provost Sir Alexander Lyon, who was also,
ex-officio, Lord Lieutenant of the County and City of Aberdeen. It was held in the Albert Hall, the HQ of the
Aberdeen companies of the RAMC (Volunteers).
There was a large attendance, and the doctors present included Professor
Alexander Ogston, Dr John Scott Riddell and Professor Matthew Hay.
When Sir Alfred
had been appointed to his present role, he quickly realised that the Volunteer
section of the RAMC was entirely insufficient should there be a major
conflict. He then formulated a plan to
rectify the deficiencies and Sir Richard Haldane approved his proposals and
gave him a free hand to implement his plan.
Keogh resolved to seek the advice of civilian doctors, since that group
would be called upon to help if there were to be a major conflict. Any proposal for reform would need to be
flexible and adaptable to meet the needs of busy individual doctors. The continental powers had schemes to
mobilise civilian medical men in time of need, but Britain had none. “Up until now, men in the highest ranks of
the profession – with few exceptions – were compelled to hold aloof from the
Volunteer Army Corps because the conditions of training and service were too
stringent to allow them to give their time for the necessary training. Let such men enrol themselves as volunteers
to be called upon to act on the personnel of general hospitals. Let otherers, as heretofore, take part in the
training and organisation of the field ambulances. Then, as regarded sanitation, he proposed to
invite men trained for public health appointments and medical officers of
health to take their part in the work.
They were not only useful but necessary units in the scheme. Let them enrol themselves to be called upon
to act in time of invasion. Then there
must be nursing establishments, the details of which he would not enter
into. He thus built up the medical
profession of the country into one great corps to act along with the
territorial army if need be”. “Sir
Alfred Keogh then concluded with an eloquent appeal to the profession to assist
him in furthering the scheme and promised that he would do everything in his
power to support the medical service of the territorial forces to make the work
as light as possible for medical men who were to form the chiefs and staffs of
the of the general and stationary hospitals”.
At this point,
the Lord Provost had to leave the meeting and Professor Ogston took the chair
for discussion of the issues which had been raised and finally proposed a vote
of thanks to Sir Alfred. He “assured him
of the sympathy of all the medical men present with the scheme which he had so
thoroughly worked out, and which they would all do their utmost to
further”. Keogh had been smart enough to
ask for the help and advice of the senior doctors and his reward was that he
earned their respect and gained their cooperation. Alex Ogston must have been gratified that at
last the RAMC had a chief who did not try to dictate to the profession and
thoroughly understood the need for reform of army medical services.
The
death of Queen Victoria
The last time
Alexander Ogston met with Queen Victoria was on 8 November 1899 when he visited
Balmoral before his departure for South Africa.
Three days later the monarch left Deeside for Windsor Castle at the end
of her Scottish sojourn. Ogston arrived
back in Aberdeen on 29 July 1900 and was informed that the Queen had expressed
a wish to see him, but her health was failing, and no meeting was arranged
before her departure for the south. She
died on 22 January 1901 at Osborne House.
Later, Sir James Reid told Alexander Ogston that the Queen had intended
to award some honour to him. Two days
after Queen Victoria’s passing, Alex Ogston, clearly moved by the loss that he
felt personally, gave his estimation of the dead monarch’s legacy to his
surgery class. The Aberdeen Journal
reported on his impromptu valedictory address. "In the surgery classroom, Professor Ogston, surgeon-in-ordinary to her late Majesty, in the course of a reference to the great loss sustained by the nation in the death of the Queen, spoke of his inability to do justice to the subject or to say what ought to be said in such circumstances as well as some men could do. Referring to the close connection which Her Majesty had with this part of the country, he said that if she had not been a Queen, they in Aberdeen would have looked upon Her Majesty as one of themselves, she having spent one third of her time each year on Deeside. Speaking of Her Majesty's personal character, Professor Ogston referred to the great amount of good she had done to the country by her example. They could have no idea of what the Queen had been as they had lived during her reign, but those who had lived before her ascension were able to realise and appreciate the good she had done. Referring to her goodness and kindness of heart, Professor Ogston spoke of the great interest Her Majesty had always taken in her tenants and said that she always saw to it that the lowliest crofer on the estate got the best medical attendance. She was constantly inquiring after the welfare of her tenants, and in cases of bereavement or illness she never failed to give comfort. Speaking of the attitude of Her Majesty towards medicine and surgery, he said that she had often been in advance of some of our greatest medical and scientific men. Professor Ogston then went on to refer to the great advances that had been made in the departments of surgery and medicine during the long reign of Her Majesty, and the discoveries that had been made for the alleviation of suffering and the lessening of danger to life, especially mentioning the discovery of chloroform and antiseptics, both by subjects of the Queen, one of these being a Scotchman (Simpson) and the other an Englishman (Lister). So great was the influence of Her Majesty that many living at the present day whom we recognized as great men, would in after time be remembered simply as having lived in the Victorian era. The students, at the request of Professor Ogston, followed an old Continental custom of rising from their seats and standing for a moment in silence . When they had resumed their seats, Professor Ogston intimated that they would not go on with the work that day, and the class then dispersed".
Frederick
Treves (1853 – 1923) and Alexander Ogston
Frederick
Treves was the son of a Dorchester upholsterer who attended the London Hospital
Medical College and became a prominent London-based surgeon, specialising in
abdominal surgery. Treves carried out
the first appendectomy performed in England in 1888. He developed an association with Aberdeen
University which began with his appointment as an examiner in Medicine, a role
he fulfilled between 1882 and 1885. The
start of this period coincided with the elevation of Alex Ogston to the Regius
Chair of Surgery, so it is quite possible that Ogston was involved in the
nomination of Treves as an examiner.
However, it is more likely that Professor Struthers (Professor of
Anatomy 1863 – 1889) was his sponsor, as Treves was a noted specialist in
anatomy and was described by several sources as having been an examiner in
anatomy at both Aberdeen and Cambridge.
Also, Struthers and Ogston did not get along well together and on one
famous occasion Ogston sent a message to Struthers via Mr Booth (Ogston’s
attendant) telling the dictatorial professor of anatomy to “Go to hell”. This period as an external examiner at
Aberdeen coincided with Treves’ rise to prominence as an abdominal
surgeon. In 1884 he was awarded the
Jacksonian Prize of the Royal College of Surgeons for his essay entitled “The
Pathology, Diagnosis and treatment of Obstruction of the Intestines in its
various forms in the Abdominal Cavity”.
Treves is reputed to have become very popular while serving at Aberdeen
University, especially and remarkably with the students. That feeling seems to have been
reciprocated. Treves was reported to
have liked “the thorough and conscientious work turned out by the students of
Professor Struthers”. Ogston and Treves
must have become personally acquainted from this time, as well as being aware
of each other’s surgical and scientific achievements. In 1884 Treves was a summer visitor at the
Fife Arms hotel in Braemar, possibly to attend the Braemar Gathering, which was
held in front of Braemar Castle on 4 September.
Sir Frederick Treves
About 1883, the
Aberdeen University Club in London, an association of prominent Aberdeen
graduates in the capital, began to hold bi-annual dinners, which prominent
members of university staff would attend and would typically then update its
high-status southern alumni on developments at their alma mater. Members of the club took it in turn to chair
these six-monthly jollies. Although not
a graduate of the university at that time, Treves became a frequent attender at
these dinners, in effect being granted an informal honorary Aberdeen University
status. At the November 1886 dinner of
the club, Frederick Treves was present and proposed a toast to “The
Guests”. Eight years later in November
1894, Alexander Ogston, by that year playing a prominent part in the management
of the university, chaired the club dinner.
He spoke at length on the recent changes imposed by the University
Commissioners on the university, relating to both the governance structure and
the curriculum. Ogston was supportive of
some of the changes, such as the extension of the period of study for the
medical degree from four to five years but was particularly critical of the
reduction in time to be devoted in future to the teaching of practical
surgery. Frederick Treves also gave a
speech at the dinner in which he “alluded to the feverish attempts which were
made to obtain something new and sensational in surgery. It was pleasant to turn from these theatrical
practices to the great school of surgery in Scotland. The utterances of the Scotch school (of
which Ogston was a prominent member) were not quite so numerous as they
might be, but they were remarkably wise and solid. Nothing of an emotional or ephemeral
character had ever come from the Scotch school – it had been characterised
throughout by sober wisdom”. Treves then
went on to pay a particular tribute to the bacteriological research of
Alexander Ogston, whom he described as “a pioneer” whose “conclusions had
absolutely stood the test of subsequent investigations”. He also praised “the profound personal
influence of Professor Ogston on his old students”. The following toast was accompanied by the
singing of “For he’s a jolly good fellow”.
Ogston then rose to reply to this paean, from a man whom he must have
held in high regard as a surgeon, with a response which reflected the deep
pride Alex Ogston felt for his hometown and its university. “I am happy to say that all my life has been
spent in connection with the University.
My father was a professor. He
resided for many years in a house, the windows of which overlooked the
quadrangle at Marischal College, which house is now demolished to make way for
the new University buildings. In that
house I was born. My first view of the
world was across the quadrangle of Marischal College, and I am told that I
learned to walk in it. One of my
earliest recollections was seeing the black robes of the professors as they
assembled to inaugurate the new buildings of that day and in my youth the
stormy war cries of Fusionist and Non-Fusionist resounded in my ears as the
well-fought battle was waged to the very end.
Since 1859 as student, graduate, assistant lecturer and professor, the
connection has been an unbroken one and I have been ever sensible that to be
connected with our university and to occupy one of the most important of its
chairs is one of the greatest subjects for pride and satisfaction in my life”.
The growing
status and reputation of Frederick Treves as a surgeon led to him being
appointed Surgeon in Ordinary to George, Duke of York by 1898 and as Surgeon
Extraordinary to Queen Victoria in March 1900.
However, an
event soon loomed on the horizon which would divide these two giants of the
surgical world, the Second Boer War.
Alexander Ogston’s service in South Africa between December 1899 and
July 1900 has been detailed elsewhere.
Although he went with the blessing of Queen Victoria and bearing letters
of introduction to the military from her, it was not an expedition formally
sanctioned by the military and Ogston paid his own way to and from South Africa
and frequently within the territory where the conflict took place. Frederick Treves also served as a surgeon in
the conflict, but his contribution took place under very different circumstances
and sanctions. At the end of October
1899, Treves was appointed a consulting surgeon, along with a number of other
leading medical men, to the British troops being sent to South Africa. Frederick Treves participated with the
approval and active support of the army, and the good wishes of the heir to the
throne, the Prince of Wales asking to see him just before his departure from
London. On the platform at Waterloo on
11 November 1899, Treves had a noisy send-off from both his senior colleagues
and a number of boisterous students, who carried him shoulder-high to his
carriage. The London-based surgeon was
back in the British capitol by mid-April 1900, a rather shorter period of
service than that delivered by Alexander Ogston.
After the
return of the two surgeons in 1900, the separate accounts they gave of their
experiences were like chalk and cheese.
Ogston and other non-army observers of ambulance and medical services in
the field, such as Mr Burdett-Coutts, while praising the efforts of army surgeons,
were highly critical of senior officers in the RAMC, the lack of logistical
organisation, the lack of medical and food supplies, the lack of appropriately
trained nursing support and a generalised failure to utilise volunteer help
which was proffered. In contrast, Treves
and the other civilian surgeons operating under the aegis of the army, gave
benign accounts of field and hospital conditions, in line with the official
army position, that medical services in South Africa had generally been
satisfactory. This difference in point
of view can only partly be explained by varying conditions being experienced at
different battles and in different geographical areas of conflict. (Treves had only served in Natal). Did the “official” surgeons turn a blind eye
to inadequate medical services for sick and injured troops, perhaps out of
consideration for their own interests?
It would be a serious charge to make but it may well have been true,
given the details provided by Burdett-Coutts, Ogston and others.
The treatment
of Ogston and the official group of surgeons after their return to the United
Kingdom from the war again could not easily have shown a greater contrast. Alexander Ogston’s war contributions were
recognised with gratitude locally and in the University of Aberdeen by his own,
but officially and nationally the reaction was muted. He received a gold medal from the rapidly
failing Queen Victoria but no other, formal honour. The divergence of the official group soon
became apparent. Within days of the
return of Treves in April 1900 it was announced that the Reform Club would be
arranging a complimentary dinner for Sir William MacCormac, the leader of the
South Africa surgical team and Frederick Treves, both of whom were members of
this august gentlemen’s club, in late April 1900. Two months later, at a celebratory banquet in
his native Dorchester, Frederick Treves tried to back two horses in the same
race. He was quite firm in his belief
that Burdett-Coutts’ charges were at least exaggerations but at the same time
stated that he did not wish to say that Mr Burdett-Coutts was lying. “The picture, while not being untrue, might
be so coloured as to misrepresent the real condition of affairs”. “War was war, and no one who had not seen
what it was could have any idea of its horrors.
That the AMC should have been charged with brutal neglect had aroused
his indignation, for from what he had experienced of the campaign he was sure
the charges were simply coloured and exaggerated”.
In April 1901,
the group of civilian surgeons who had served in South Africa with the assent
of the army started to receive formal honours for their work. Frederick Treves was one of a group of nine
who became Companions of the Bath and within three weeks Treves was also
invested with the insignia of Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian
Order. He was also appointed as Sergeant
Surgeon to the King. Aberdeen University
also added its accolade to the now-famous surgeon when he was invited to
preside at one of the regular dinners of the university’s London Club in November
1901. Treves referred to his experiences
as an examiner in Aberdeen and expressed a high opinion of the students, but
his speech steered clear of the controversies surrounding medical services in
the Boer War. The most significant
contribution in his speech, which was seized upon by the press, was to deny
that the “wicked rumours” concerning the health of the King bore any
truth. It appears that Alexander Ogston
was not present.
It is to be
wondered if Alex Ogston felt any bitterness at the paucity of official
recognition for his work in South Africa.
Perhaps not, as he was a man who did not seek personal aggrandisement,
or care much for the opinions of others.
It was reported by one of his students that Ogston had criticised the
surgical techniques of Frederick Treves in his surgical classes, probably in or
after 1901, in relation to abdominal bullet wounds. “A London surgeon by the name of Treves used
to operate and open the abdomen: they invariably died; we left them alone: the
majority recovered”. Given Ogston’s
personality, this remark was probably made because he thought Treves’ approach
was simply inferior to his own, rather than that he resented the glory being
heaped on the London surgeon. However,
this view of Ogston’s on the treatment of abdominal bullet wounds was at
variance with views he had himself previously expressed.
On the death of
his mother in January 1901, Albert Edward, the eldest son of Queen Victoria and
Prince Albert, ascended to the throne of the United Kingdom as Edward VII. Two months later, Alexander Ogston was appointed
Surgeon in Scotland (Honorary) to the new monarch, but it was late September of
the same year before King Edward and Queen Alexandra visited the North-East of
Scotland to holiday on the Balmoral estate.
Ogston, with his new royal appointment, was on the station platform at
Aberdeen as part of the reception party to welcome the King and Queen as they
passed through the city on their way to Upper Deeside.
King Edward’s
coronation was initially planned for 26 June 1902 at Westminster Abbey but two
weeks before his significant date with destiny, Edward became fevered,
accompanied by significant lower right quadrant abdominal pain. He had been visiting Aldershot at the time he
was taken ill and was quickly returned to Buckingham Palace. His medical advisers diagnosed acute
appendicitis, an inflammation of the vermiform appendix, usually caused by a
blockage and concomitant infection. The
leading authority on appendicitis and its treatment was, of course, surgeon
Frederick Treves and he was called in to counsel the monarch and his assembled
medical team. The advice was clear, the
King needed an operation urgently, but he resisted the guidance, hoping first
to be able to complete his coronation at Westminster Abbey. Treves had tragically lost his own daughter
to peritonitis caused by a burst appendix and knew to his personal cost the
dangers of delay. He is reported to have spoken bluntly to the monarch and told
him he would attend the Abbey as a corpse if the operation did not take place
immediately. At this the King assented
to the procedure. On 24 June, under
anaesthetic, Treves made a small incision in the wall of the corpulent
monarch’s abdomen and drained the swollen appendix, but left the vestigial
organ in place, as peritonitis did not appear to be present. The King quickly recovered from the procedure
and his rearranged coronation took place on 9 August 1902. Professor Alexander Ogston was an attendee.
Treves’
reputation, already high, now ascended to stratospheric levels and he became
known as the surgeon who had saved the King’s life. He was inundated with requests to perform
appendectomies by wealthy people willing to pay handsomely for his services and
yet more formal recognition came his way.
He became a regular royal guest at Balmoral, visiting the castle each
summer in 1902, 1903 and 1904. In 1903
he was awarded an honorary LL D degree by Aberdeen University and in the same
year he was elected by the students there as the Lord Rector. When he was presented by the Dean of the
Faculty of Law for conferment of this degree, the students wittily opened up
with a loud rendition of “God save the King”!
Not all Treves’ high-status patients enjoyed a happy outcome from his
ministrations. In November 1902, Treves
was attending His Highness Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, who was suffering from
appendicitis, but the surgeon judged that an operation was not necessary. Sadly, the patient suddenly worsened and died
due to “congestion of the kidneys”.
Perhaps Frederick Treves had enjoyed a measure of luck with his decision
not to extirpate King Edward’s appendix?
Alexander
Ogston suffered a bout of appendicitis in 1912 and was successfully operated on
by his successor, Professor John Marnoch.
Now wealthy and
overworked, Frederick Treves retired from public surgery in 1903, while
retaining his royal appointments, in order to travel, write and generally enjoy
the fruits of his labours. He was barely
50.
Alexander
Ogston and the risks posed by the use of celluloid
Celluloid is a
thermoplastic produced by treating nitrocellulose with camphor. It was invented in the mid-19th
century and quickly found many uses because it was tough and easily moulded into
complex shapes. One of the early uses of
celluloid was in the manufacture of combs, in place of the traditional use of
animal horn. However, the material has
one significant drawback in that it is easily ignited.
In 1902,
Alexander Ogston published a paper in The Lancet dealing with burns produced by
the ignition of celluloid and related the story of a lady from Fraserburgh who
was sitting by her fire with a celluloid comb in her hair. The comb ignited with the radiant heat of the
fire and before the flames could be extinguished, she had suffered a third-degree
burn covering an area of four by one and a half inches, which took many months
to heal. The fire had totally destroyed
her hair in the scarred region. This
incident caused Alexander Ogston to seek the help of Professor Japp from the
Chemistry Department at Marischal College to investigate the flammability of
celluloid, with a view to producing guidelines for its use.
Based on these
experiments, Professor Ogston concluded as follows. "1. It is evident that celluloid articles of uncertain composition and dangerously explosive quality are everywhere sold and are in constant use and that the conditions under which they may ignite in varying circumstances cannot be fully inferred from regarding their ignition point made in a physical laboratory. 2. Badly-manufactured celluloid ignites at variable temperatures too low for it to be safely used. 3. It also follows, I consider, that restrictions should be imposed upon the sale of all such articles which do not sustain without ignition, a temperature equal to that sustained by well manufactured celluloid. 4. It is worthy of consideration whether all celluloid articles of personal wear and such others as might give rise to fires ought not to be compelled to have the word "ignitible" conspicuously imprinted upon them. 5. The suggestion to render celluloid incombustible by the addition of some chemical should be practicable it would be the best solution of the difficulty, and such addition ought to be made compulsory by legislative enactment".
The experiments
of Ogston and Japp did not constitute the first systematic investigation into
Celluloid’s flammability, but their findings confirmed the conclusions which
had already been reached. Ogston’s work
came to the attention of Lord Saltoun, a relative of whom had suffered an
accident with burning celluloid. Saltoun
raised the matter in the House of Lords, quoting extensively from Alexander
Ogston’s paper, but while the Government acknowledged that there was an issue
with celluloid catching fire unexpectedly and it was aware of a number of
accidents due to this material, it did not propose to take action to limit or
ban its use. At least Alexander Ogston’s
initiative had helped to bring the problem into the open and to warn the public
of the possible consequences of bringing celluloid too close to a source of
heat.
The
Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scottish Schools
In 1902 a Royal
Commission was established to inquire into the condition of physical education
in state-aided Scottish schools and other educational establishments and
provisions. The terms of reference made
clear that the concern of the Commission was the welfare of the pupil and not
the interests of the state, though the terms ended by specifying that by
furthering the interests of the pupil there would be a contribution “towards
sources of national strength”. There had
been an alarming finding during the Second Boer War that more than 50% of
working-class recruits were unfit to serve. The Earl of Mansfield, a retired
army officer and friend of King Edward VII was the Commission’s chairman. Alexander Ogston was appointed to serve on
the body, the only member with medical training, in March 1902. The Aberdeen Journal, while welcoming the
appointment of Ogston, decried the omission of Lieutenant-Colonel George Cruden
of the 1st Volunteer Brigade, Gordon Highlanders and a prominent
Aberdeen advocate, “who has done more than any other man in Scotland to promote
physical training” and was an expert in the field, a qualification lacking in
all the appointed Commission members.
Cruden was the founder of the private Aberdeen Physical Training
College, which trained many schoolteachers, and he was also lecturer on
physical training in the University of Aberdeen. The Aberdeen Journal had a case, but
Alexander Ogston, as was typical of the man, played a full part in the
investigation, in spite of his initial personal deficiencies.
The Commission
worked intensively, interviewing many witnesses, including Lieutenant-Colonel
Cruden, and making numerous site visits.
It produced its report in 1903 which reflected the diversity of views
expressed by the Commission members.
Perhaps the only subject on which they all agreed was that the level of
physical fitness in Scottish schools was poor and should be improved. But how to achieve that end? Some members thought that physical education
should be compulsory, others not, most favoured sport and physical fitness
exercises over military drill, though several were concerned that the army
found many young recruits lacked in physical strength and coordination. Team sports, such as football, were favoured
over activities like golf and shooting.
There was general concern that poor physical condition was also
associated with deprivation, poor nutrition and poor general health. The Commission also asserted that physical
fitness went hand in hand with training of the mind.
Inevitably,
Alexander Ogston formed his own opinions on the issues surrounding physical
fitness in young people and he laid these out clearly in an address he gave in
January 1904, under the auspices of the Aberdeen Branch of the Association of
Secondary Teachers in Scotland. There was
a large and diverse audience to hear Alexander Ogston’s talk, to which he gave
the title “Medicine and Education”. He
first praised the inspired leadership of the Scottish Education Department,
whom, he said, had been responsible for revolutionising the philosophical
approach to teaching, from cramming machine to the promotion of mental
training. “…the teacher’s duty was to
develop each child to the extent of its mental capacity, and to strive to make
each learner into a useful citizen of the world rather than a storehouse of
facts …”.
The Royal
Commission on Physical Training in Schools in Scotland was concerned that there
was a number of factors which tended to prevent some pupils reaching their full
potential. One trend which raised some
alarm was the deterioration in the physical condition of Scottish youth, “since
mental culture was incompatible with an unsound body”. Latent ill-health and malnutrition
approaching semi-starvation” were found in the poorer classes, especially in
the larger towns. Home environment was
another factor of concern, where intemperance, unhealthy occupations, poor
housing and inadequate clothing were often encountered. “Under these circumstances I ventured to
suggest to the Commissioners that a health census of the children of Scotland
should be taken, to such an extent as to furnish them with a basis, however
limited, of incontrovertible facts …”.
Here was Ogston the scientific surgeon, pursuing the same approach with
physical education. The Treasury had
agreed to fund a limited study and Professor Matthew Hay, with Dr Leslie
Mackenzie, had been responsible for the data collection. Assuming that the data were typical of all
schools, an estimate could be made of the total numbers of school children
suffering from ill-health in Scotland.
The numbers were alarming. Unrecognised cases of disease present in Edinburgh and Aberdeen schools
respectively were - phthisis (tuberculosis) 700, 458; unrecognised heart
disease 1,300, 250; diseases of the throat 15,000, 7,500; ear disease 12,000,
2,250. These cases were all in need of
medical attention. There was an urgent
need for the medical examination of children in school “supplemented at
intervals by a renewed inspection into their fitness for study and exercise”
Alex Ogston then
entered on another issue of concern to him.
“What amount of study is each child by itself, and children as a whole,
capable of undergoing with benefit to its mind and without damage to its
health”? He felt that at present some
individuals and some classes were subject to “over-pressure”. He thought that regular medical examination
of school children would detect “over-pressure” through its effect on their
health.
Professor
Ogston then spent some time dealing with a topic that clearly caused him great
concern and which he termed “sugar gluttony”.
It is recorded elsewhere in this account of Ogston’s life, that he
allowed his own children to have sweets, but only occasionally and under his
control, so it would seem unfair to accuse him of hypocrisy. What Ogston was concerned about was the
unlimited consumption of sugar. Ogston
claimed that sugar consumption was harmful but only had personal experience to
guide him. He recognised that not
everyone would concur with his opinion.
“But I have had many years of medical experience among children who,
though not actually delicate, are not of the strongest constitution, children
requiring care to rear them into healthy men and women; and, although I may
possibly not find many who share my conclusions, I am persuaded that to such
children the present-day gluttony of sugar is a real and spreading evil. It may constantly be observed that a free
indulgence in the mastication of sweet stuff is immediately followed by toothache,
due to the production of a ring of disease round the necks of healthy teeth,
which are corroded as if by an acid, and the habit leads to the aggravation of
existing caries of the teeth as well”.
He likened this craving for sugar to known addictions, such as to
alcohol. “There are some children in
whom the tendency to sugar gluttony has become so strong that their infatuation
for it resembles the craving of the drunkard for his dram”.
The Aberdeen
Journal also made a brief, but sadly, opaque reference to a philosophical part
of Alex Ogston’s presentation. “After
dealing with the evolutional aspect of the subject, and whether or not it was
wise to contravene one of Nature’s great laws, the survival of the fittest, the
professor gave his views as to what a health census should be”. The concept of the survival of the fittest
was derived from the work of Charles Darwin, who published the Origin of
Species in 1859, and was part of the process by which species evolve and
eventually become different species.
However, between 1859 and 1900, there was no widespread understanding of
the mechanism by which characteristics are passed between generations and, in
that interval, it was thought that characteristics acquired during the life of
an individual could be inherited. That
situation changed in 1889 when the German Biologist August Weisman disproved
the notion. The work of Gregor Mendel on
the true nature of inheritance was rediscovered in 1900. So, while Alex Ogston would have had a
knowledge of the survival of the fittest, did he also know in January 1904
about the true basis of inheritance?
Probably “yes”, since Ogston was well informed. It is likely that Alex Ogston discussed the
worry that some people had that the breeding of physically and mentally
deficient individuals was contributing to the decline of human
populations. The deterioration of the
physical condition of Scottish youth that Ogston described was due to poor
environmental conditions and not therefore inherited. What a pity that the Aberdeen Journal did not
give Professor Ogston’s opinion!
The final part
of Alexander Ogston’s presentation dealt with his views on the best system of
physical training for school children.
He was not in favour of army-style drill exercises given by army
instructors to school children and especially not to girls. An alternative was the so-called Swedish
system, which used no apparatus and employed callisthenics (rhythmic exercises
to increase strength, fitness and flexibility).
His own daughter, Flora, had been trained in the Swedish system at Chelsea
College, so he would have had a close familiarity with the concept. While admitting the medical value of this
system, he was concerned about the routine repetition of the same exercises day
after day. He felt that exercise for
school children should have a recreative aspect and should include physical
games. Alexander Ogston’s final words
were a quotation from the Bible. ““Health
and strength is above all gold, and a whole body above infinite treasures”
(Ecclesiasticus 30: 15-16). He received
an enthusiastic round of applause.
The lecture was
followed by a wide-ranging discussion during which Alexander Ogston decried the
abandonment of traditional foods in favour of modern alternatives which
required less preparation. “… people
nowadays take tinned salmon or meat, pastry, and what required no cooking,
instead of the wholesome porridge and broth, which formerly was the
practice”. The meeting closed with Mr
Boyd, HM Chief Inspector of Schools moving a vote of thanks to the speaker
couched in “highly complimentary terms”.
A year later,
Alexander Ogston was involved, with other prominent people, including Sir Henry
Craik, in establishing the National League for Physical Education and
improvement. He joined the Executive
Council of this new body dedicated to improving the physical education of
school children. Without ever intending
to be, Alex Ogston had become recognised as expert in the field.
William
Clark Souter
Souter was born
at Craigie near Perth in 1880, the son of a commercial traveller. He attended Aberdeen University and graduated
MB ChB in 1903 and MD in 1906. He was
one of the most meritorious students of his year and on Alexander Ogston’s
recommendation he was appointed as surgeon on the converted Dundee whaler,
Terra Nova, soon after his graduation.
The Antarctic explorer, Robert Falcon Scott, had set out for Antarctica
in the ship Discovery in 1901 with the aim of reaching the South Pole. Ernest Shackleton was a member of that
expedition. Scot was not successful in
reaching the Pole but established a new record for the furthest point
south. The Discovery was subsequently
trapped in the ice in McMurdo Sound and the British Government sent the Terra
Nova south to relieve Scott’s expedition.
It was 1904 before the Terra Nova returned to Britain. In December 1904, Dr WC Souter gave a
lecture, with limelight projections of his own photographs, entitled, “Aberdeen
to the Arctic and back” in the YMCA Hall, Aberdeen. Tickets were 1/6 each and the proceeds were
donated to charitable objects in the city.
Souter wanted a well-known Aberdonian to preside at his lecture and
approached his old professor. “Well
Sowter you know how much I abhor publicity but nevertheless, for your sake,
I’ll do it”. Alex Ogston disliked such
public occasions but as a favour to of one of his most outstanding students, he
was prepared to overcome his reservations.
William Souter subsequently established a reputation as an outstanding
ophthalmic surgeon.
Alexander
Ogston’s work as a medical referee
The Workman’s
Compensation Act of 1906 introduced a right for working people to be
compensated if an injury was received at work, in addition to any benefit under
the common law due to the negligence of his or her employer. However, proving such a position often
required an input from a medical expert who could assess the validity of competing
claims of a medical nature. Sir Alexander
Ogston was employed as a medical referee under this Act in Aberdeen the year
after the Act’s appearance on the statute books. He continued to serve this role until 1921,
when he had reached the age of 75, though he was unable to act in periods when
he was absent from the North-East during WW1.
A typical case where his knowledge was essential occurred in 1916 when
Alexander Colin Wallace, a seaman, was injured while his ship was unloading,
and his injuries kept him off work for seven months. However, on his return he soon had to give up
work and died about 12 months after the accident. The cause of death was carcinoma of the
stomach. At the compensation hearing, doctors
representing both sides in the case argued over the significance of the
accident, one party claiming it either caused or accelerated the cancer, while the
other asserted that it was irrelevant.
Sir Alexander Ogston was the medical assessor and gave his opinion that
there was no evidence that trauma caused cancer. The Sheriff found that the accident was not
relevant.
The
Messina Earthquake and the Ogston family
Messina was,
and is, a port on the north-east coast of Sicily, separated from the toe of
Italy by a narrow straight about three miles wide. Italy is prone to earthquakes because the
Eurasian and African tectonic plates abut each other under Italy. Serious earthquakes are common in the country
and, at 5.20am while it was still pitch black, on 28 December 1908, a ’quake of
magnitude 7.1 on the moment magnitude scale, centred on the narrow straight off
Messina, struck with devastating force, also producing a tidal wave. Messina was particularly badly affected. About 90% of the city’s buildings were either
destroyed or damaged beyond repair and it is estimated that 75,000 people in
the city and its suburbs lost their lives.
At that time, Alexander Ogston’s son, Alfred James Ogston was the
British Vice-Consul in Medina, a role which was orientated towards the promotion
of trade.
Messina after the 1908 earthquake
Alfred Ogston
was born in 1878, the oldest child of Alexander Ogston’s second marriage. As an adult he struggled for a while to find
his direction in life, first working in a commercial office in Liverpool, then
trying, but failing, to gain entry to the Diplomatic Service. Finally, he was accepted into the Consular
Service and, in 1905, was appointed to Galatz, a town on the river Danube in
Romania, about 80 miles from the river’s entry to the Black Sea. In 1907 Alfred received a new posting, to
Messina on the island of Sicily. Alfred
Ogston had married Ethel Ditchfield, a girl he met while working in
Liverpool. The couple was married in
late December 1905 in Birkenhead and one child, a daughter, was born in
1907. At the time of Alfred’s marriage
to Ethel, the relationship between Alfred and his father became very
strained. The reason for this froideur
is unclear but may have been connected to Alfred’s choice of bride. Henry Hargrave Cowan, nephew of Alexander
Ogston via his sister, Jane, later wrote about this family tension. “Ethel (Alfred Ogston’s wife) was not
invited to 252 (Union Street) and her first acquaintance with Aberdeen
was made via mother’s (Jane, Alexander Ogston’s sister) house at 41
College Bounds (Old Aberdeen)”. … “Mother and I went through to the
wedding at Birkenhead on 28 December 1905.
I don’t remember seeing Uncle Alick there, but I believe he was, though
he did not stay at our hotel in Liverpool but went straight north immediately
afterwards”.
In the Messina
earthquake, the American Consul and his wife were killed, as were the French
Consul and his family, though his spouse survived. Ethel Ogston, the wife of Alfred Ogston, the
British Vice-Consul, died immediately in the falling debris, though Alfred and
daughter Ethel junior, 20 months, survived.
While outwardly the British Consulate looked relatively unscathed,
inside the floors had collapsed. British
and Russian warships in the vicinity of Messina landed bluejackets to help with
the rescue effort. The first clear news
of the fate of the Ogstons came in a brief account which appeared in the
Aberdeen Journal on 31 December, reporting that Mr Ogston and his daughter had
escaped to Palermo but that his wife was missing, presumed dead. The same day, Alexander Ogston received a
telegram from the Foreign Office.
“Consul Palermo reports Ogston family arrived on steamship Ebro. Regret to say Ogston wounded and wife dead –
Foreign Office. Alex Ogston immediately
made plans to travel to Sicily with his daughter, Mrs Flora Carter, but the
railway south from Aberdeen was blocked by a snowstorm, which left him,
frustrated, on the platform. He
eventually got away by train to London and was reported to have reached Palermo
on 5 January 1909.
Several accounts
appeared in the newspapers concerning the fate of the Ogston family in the days
immediately following the earthquake, but all appear to have been a mixture of half-truths
and rumour. The accurate sequence of
events was revealed by Alfred Ogston and his father, when they were interviewed
by an Aberdeen Journal reporter about 9 February 1909.
“In the first place, the report that I, with
Mrs Ogston and my daughter, on escaping from the falling house in which we
lived, ran to the central square of the city, and thereafter, with some 50
others, made a bolt for the open country, and that I and four others only
reached it, all the others having been killed by falling buildings on the way,
was absolute nonsense, as my house was more than half an hour’s walk from the
central square, and some two and a half hour’s walk, through narrow streets,
from open country. To run such a
distance through streets littered with debris was impossible. As a matter of fact, after being awakened by
the first shock, only some 10 to 15 seconds elapsed before the walls and the
heavy flat roof of the house came down about our ears. I caught up my little girl, but I had not got
the length of the bedroom door when the collapse came. The falling masonry killed my wife before she
was able to get out of bed. I was on my
way to the door with the child in my arms when I was knocked down and buried
under the remains of the walls. It was
this time about five o’clock in the morning, and pitch dark. I discovered I had been protected from
falling beams and masonry by having been thrown under a strong table which was
placed against one of the walls. As the
walls fell inwards from the top, and the base resisted the shock, the table
acted as a kind of avalanche shed, throwing off the large masses that came
down. After a time, I began to feel
about cautiously, and discovered a small hole about two feet in diameter in the
debris. Through this hole I managed to force
my way. I was now in the ruins of the
house, 80 feet above the street. In the
inky darkness I could see nothing except a lantern or two away down in the
street. I saw that I could not get help,
and there were still shocks, and as I was afraid of the rest of the wall giving
way, I went back through the hole to the space under the table and the debris
where I had left the little one. The
next thing that I remember is that it was daylight, about two hours later. I again got out at the hole, taking the
little girl with me. I found that the
three front rooms, of which our bedroom was one, had been made into one large
room by the collapse of the partition and the outer walls. I walked across the debris, and from a
balcony I looked down, and saw one of my friends – Mr Sarauw – the proprietor
of the house. I called to ask him if he
could get help. Up to this time I was in
my sleeping dress but looking about I found some of my clothes in a cupboard in
one of the walls. I was soon dressed in
trousers, waistcoat, jacket and boots, and thus attired I waited for help. I was ultimately rescued by an officer and a
soldier, who put a ladder across the court from a window in the corridor
outside the house opposite one of my windows.
It would have been a simple matter for me to cross the ladder alone, but
I had the little girl with me, and I had to devise a safe means of escape for
her. We got a kind of tin bath that had
been used for holding plants, and into this I put the little one. I crossed the ladder having previously pushed
the child over, and both got safely to the other side. By this time, it was about nine o’clock, four
hours after the disaster. We went
downstairs being helped over the masonry by the officer and the soldier, and a
Mr Thomas, an Englishman with whom I had a slight acquaintance, and who had
kindly seen if he could help us in any way.
On reaching the central court of the house I sat and rested a
while. What with the shock, the blow I
had received on the head, and one thing or another, I was in a very dazed and
stupefied condition and could not entertain more than one idea at a time. Gradually returning to the fuller possession
of my faculties, it eventually dawned upon me that the best thing I could do
was to go down to one of the British merchant ships which I knew were in the
harbour. Assisted by a friend, Mr
Herbert Oates, and Mr Sarauw who carried the little one, I went down to the
steamer Ebro, belonging to Thomas Wilson and Sons, Hull. The captain took me on board and showed me
and the child every possible kindness. I
could not exaggerate the amount of kindness shown us by the captain and other
officers and the steward on board that ship.
Of his own accord, the captain of the Ebro sent a squad of men to try
and find the body of my wife. These men
ran a great risk as they had to climb up a height of 80 feet with earthquake
shocks going on all the time. I was too
dazed and stupid to think of asking them to do such a thing. These men did find the body of a woman, but
they did not let me see it until we got to Palermo, and it then turned out to
be the body of the German lady who helped my wife with the child and in the
household. About three hours before we
arrived at Palermo my right foot which I thought had been merely slightly
bruised began to give me terrible pain.
Mr Churchill, MVO, the Consul at Palermo and his wife came down to the
ship and did everything they could for me.
They took the little one and kept it for many days. After I had been a few hours in hospital they
sent an English doctor – Dr Parlato Hopkins who took me to his house, and I lived
with him under his care for nearly a week, until my father and sister, who had
travelled with all speed from Aberdeen, joined me”.
At this point,
Alfred Ogston’s father took up the narrative to the Aberdeen Journal reporter.
“On arriving at
Palermo, I found that my son’s injured foot had mortified, that the tendons and
muscles were destroyed, and that blood poisoning had set in but that the
poisoning had been already limited by the skill of Dr Parlato Hopkins. The little girl was thin and frightened, but
practically uninjured save for a scratch or two. I thought I could safely leave them and
proceeded to Messina to make an effort to get Mrs Ogston’s body and bury
it. I got to Messina on Monday 6th
January, by the first train which had run into it since the destruction of the
city by the earthquake, and found that without assistance it would be
impossible to do anything. There was an
English man-of-war in the harbour, but I went out to the Scorpion in the Straights
and found Commander-Lieutenant Logan more than kind, and he promised to go over
to the British Admiral at Reggio to get a squad of British sailors to help me
in the search for the body. However, at
that time, just as I had written a letter to the Admiral, the British Attaché
at Rome – Colonel Radcliffe – came on board.
The Foreign Office, I may say, had been exceedingly good in providing me
with very pressing letters of recommendation, especially to Mr Churchill at
Palermo, the Consul for Sicily. Had it
not been for those recommendations nothing could have been done, because
Messina was under military law. Only
soldiers were allowed to interfere with the ruins, and they would have been
very unreliable for the work I had on hand.
Colonel Radcliffe said he would arrange next day to let me have the
assistance of a company of Italian Engineers, and he interviewed General Mazza,
who was in command at Messina, with that end in view. They made an attempt to get up through the
interior of the ruins, and declared it impossible, and went away. I then went back to the Scorpion, and on my
way, I heard that there was a telescopic fire escape in the city, if it had not
been destroyed by the earthquake. On
board the Scorpion I saw Colonel Radcliffe, who undertook to get ladders and
get up to the top of the house somehow next day. There were no ladders next morning, but Mr
Sarauw had seen the fire escape and he gave a letter, stating that he knew of
its existence intact. The Greek Consul
Mr Trombetta espied this fire escape, and we went and located it and then
proceeded to General Mazza who gave us an order to commandeer the ladder and
the men accompanying it, wherever we found it.
Armed with the order we went into the town, found the ladder and got it
brought to my son’s house. There were
four firemen from Palermo in charge of the ladder under a non-commissioned
officer Grimaldi. They placed the ladder
against the house, drew it out and found that it was short. They went away saying they would return with
another ladder to add to the top of the fire escape, but it was again too
short. Fortunately, Mr Trombetta who
gave himself a great deal of trouble to help us found Ignazio Caramanna, the
commander of the Palermo Fire Brigade, a very quiet, resolute man who came
along and went up into the house taking two firemen with him. In a short time, Signor Caramanna had
contrived to establish communication with the part of the house where the body
was supposed to lie. He and his firemen
began to clear away huge masses of masonry – masses a yard square heavier than
any man could lift – and beams, throwing them out at the window. They soon cleared out the room where Mrs
Ogston was killed but the body was not there.
My son had given me the notion that the body might have been carried by
the weight of the falling roof into the floor below. They went down and at last they found the
body there. Mrs Ogston had been crushed
by the falling masonry and death must have been instantaneous. We identified her by her size, the colour of
her hair, etc and the rings and the locket that she wore. The firemen brought the body down then
General Mazza sent a beechwood ornamented coffin and it was arranged that the
burial should take place next day”.
Alexander
Ogston then gave an account of the funeral and its aftermath. Flora Carter, Alex Ogston’s daughter stayed
behind in Palermo on the day of the funeral to look after the baby, while her
father joined the proceedings in Messina.
“I was anxious
that the remains should be taken to Palermo and interred there but it was represented
to me that owing to the regulations this could not be done. As the only English clergyman at Messina had
been killed along with his family, Colonel Radcliffe offered to read the
English burial service which kind offer I accepted. We went along to the English cemetery and
found that it had been swept by the tidal wave which followed the earthquake,
all the monuments save the flat ones having been tumbled over and the stones
carried long distances while the retaining walls had been partly thrown down. The funeral took pace the next day. Mrs Ogston was buried from the house where
she had been killed and was carried along the street where a large crowd had
collected. The people respectfully
uncovered their heads as the coffin was carried past, just as the people in
Aberdeen do when a funeral is passing.
At the wharf at the harbour there was a steam launch and a boat manned
by sailors from the American battleship Connecticut. All the vessels in the harbour including the
warships and torpedo boats had their flags at half-mast the whole day and the
Duke of Genoa came down to the wharf and stood with his head bowed until the
coffin was put on board the boat. We
crossed the harbour to the point of land on which the English cemetery is. There, a few friends, some of the officers
and sailors, and Colonel Radcliffe followed the remains to the grave where the
colonel read the full burial service.
Mrs Heynes wife of an English merchant in Messina, the only lady who had
remained in the ruined city, and Mr Trombetta threw flowers into the grave and
towards evening Mrs Ogston was laid to rest”.
Alfred Ogston
and his baby daughter remained for some time at 252 Union Street and during
this time, he obtained permission to raise a memorial plaque to his deceased wife
in the Drum aisle at St Nicholas church, just as had been done to commemorate
his half-brother and his grandfather, both Francis. It was about a year later that Alfred was
able to resume his career in the Consular Service, when he was appointed
Vice-Consul at Spezzia, a major port in Northern Italy. His mother had been involved in looking after
the baby girl and in 1909 she advertised for a “thoroughly experienced nurse 35
– 45 to take sole charge of child 2 ½ years one accustomed to good families
preferred willing to go to Italy now”. A
similar advertisement appeared in 1911.
Eventually Alfred moved to the British Consulate in Washington, DC,
before being appointed Consul in Portland, Oregon. He remarried and had a new family of
three. Alfred Ogston died at Portland in
1920. Alexander Ogston had taken a
photograph of the grave of Alfred’s wife.
Later, the body was exhumed and reburied in Logie churchyard, Dinnet. The aftershocks had moved the position of the
grave by several feet.
This whole episode
in the history of the Ogston family demonstrated, if further proof were needed,
the remarkable qualities that Alexander Ogston possessed. He had an unwavering belief that, whatever
the crisis and whatever the remoteness of the event, he could do something to
help. Alexander was resourceful and
determined, always convinced that, whatever the obstacle, it could be overcome
by intelligence, diplomacy and persistence.
At the time of the Messina earthquake, Alex Ogston had reached the age
of 64! But was Alexander also motivated,
on this occasion, by the apparent disharmony that had existed between the
famous surgeon, his son Alfred and spouse Ethel? Did Alexander feel, in some way, that he owed
it to the couple to do all in his power to atone for the unhappy period that
had existed in this family relationship?
Alexander
Ogston resigns from the Regius Chair of Surgery at Aberdeen University
At the start of
the university session in October 1908, Professor Ogston intimated to his surgery
class that he intended to resign from his chair at the end of the current
session. It is interesting that he
should have decided to pass this news to his students before informing the
University Court, confirming the important role that students had played in his
career. In formally communicating his
decision to the Court, he gave as his reason that it would be in the interests
of the institution that the Department of Surgery should now be in the hands of
a younger man. At the point of his
retiral, Alexander Ogston was in his 65th year. The Aberdeen Journal, noting the impending
departure of the famous Aberdonian, wrote, “Professor Ogston—the intimation of
whose intention to retire will be received with surprise and general regret—is
one of the most successful operative surgeons and brilliant theoretical
exponents of medical science adorning a professorial chair”.
Professor
Matthew Hay, who had succeeded Francis Ogston, the father of AO, in the Chair
of Forensic Medicine, presided at the Court meeting which sanctioned Alexander
Ogston’s retirement. Hay paid his
departing colleague a high compliment.
“I presume that this letter from Professor Ogston sent to the Court expresses
an unalterable decision to retire at the close of this academic year from the
Chair of Surgery and that we can but accept his resignation, and communicate
the fact to the Secretary for Scotland, in whom is vested the patronage of the
Chair. Professor Ogston in his letter
modestly speaks of the need for his giving way to a younger man. But I think I may say on behalf of the whole
University that, had Professor Ogston chosen to continue for a few years longer
in the Chair which he has greatly adorned, there would not have been the slightest
suggestion from anyone that the teaching of surgery in this University would
perceptibly have lost in the vigour and brilliance which have characterised it
during Professor Ogston’s tenure of office.
We cannot, however, complain about his retirement. He has given of his best during 27 years of
the prime of his life, and is entitled, both under our regulations and in
virtue of his strenuous and eminent service, to claim release from University
duty. We are glad to think that,
differing from his distinguished colleague in the Medical Faculty whose
resignation we were also called upon to accept during the past twelve months,
Professor Ogston’s retirement is not shadowed by illness, and that we may hope
long to retain his name as emeritus professor of the University, and that his
great surgical skill is still to be at the service of the community. I am sure that colleagues in the Medical
Faculty will generously allow that by the death of Professor Hamilton and the
resignation of Professor Ogston, the Faculty has lost, perhaps, its two most
widely-known members. Like Professor
Hamilton, Professor Ogston is a man of the first rank as a teacher and enjoys a
cosmopolitan reputation as a surgeon and scientific worker. By common consent, he is regarded as one of
the two or three great Scottish surgeons of his time. Indeed, it would be difficult – apart from
Lord Lister, who has some right to be considered as a Scottish surgeon - to
name any other Scottish surgeon of the past 30 years who has done more for the advancement
of surgery by scientific research. It
adds to the pride with which we regard Professor Ogston that he was educated in
this University. So long as the University
can produce such men, and retain their services as opportunity offers, its
right to a high place in the academies of the world cannot be challenged. I would beg to move that we enter in our
minutes an expression of our appreciation of the value of the eminent services
which Professor Ogston has rendered to the University as a teacher and
investigator of the highest order, and of our regret at his retirement”. Matthew Hay was loudly applauded for this
encomium.
Professor Matthew Hay
While it was
highly desirable that the occupant of the Regius Chair of Surgery should also
be a senior surgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, it was not inevitable that
such a happy outcome could be achieved, since Alexander Ogston had resigned his
hospital surgeoncy a decade earlier and all the senior surgical posts there
were already occupied. That problem
would be overcome if a senior surgeon from ARI were to be appointed as the next
Regius Professor of Surgery, but the Secretary of State for Scotland initially
indicated his opposition to making a local selection. However, wise counsel prevailed and Dr John
Marnoch, already a member of staff at ARI, was appointed as the new and fully
worthy Regius Professor. At the start of
his inaugural lecture in October 1909, John Marnoch paid a fulsome tribute to
his predecessor, including the following.
“Educated in the old school of surgery at a time when the hospital wards
teemed with erysipelas, tetanus and septicaemia, Dr Ogston saw what the great
discovery of Lister meant to suffering humanity, and his early adoption and
development of the antiseptic treatment of wounds has led to his name being
handed down as one of the leaders of what could be described only as a surgical
revolution. But he was not content with
the development of Lister’s methods. His
own researches into the cause of acute suppuration resulted in his discovery of
the staphylococcus pyrogenes aureus, a discovery which had brought an
enduring fame, not only to himself, but also to the university with which he
had so long been connected. Without such
work, what they saw in the operating theatre would not be possible. … To
enumerate all the operations that he introduced or specify those he himself
devised would take too long. Suffice to
say this work extended over the whole field of surgery and was attended by the
most brilliant results”.
Sir John Marnoch
When the news
of Alexander Ogston’s impending retiral from the University had sunk in, it was
generally realised that the occasion needed to be marked in an appropriate
way. Dr Mackenzie Booth acted as
secretary to an informal group which decided that a portrait should be
commissioned from a prominent artist. A
circular was quickly organised with the names of 48 subscribers who had
immediately come forward to offer donations.
The final tally of donors was a remarkable 450. However, curiously and perhaps possessively,
the group took a decision only to accept donations from members of the medical
profession, wherever located, even though Alex Ogston’s achievements extended
beyond the boundaries of medicine. The
chosen form of the memorial was to be a portrait of the great man, and the choice
of artist was bold but also informed.
George Fiddes
Watt had been born in Aberdeen in 1873, the son of a carpenter working in the
shipbuilding industry. At the age of 14,
Fiddes was apprenticed to Messrs Avery, engravers, Aberdeen, where his artistic
skills were quickly recognised and he began to study art in the evenings at the
local college, Gray’s School of Art. In
1894 he moved to Edinburgh where he studied life drawing at the Royal Scottish
Academy and then took a studio in the city.
Although he painted both landscapes and portraits, it was the latter
genre for which he became recognised and in 1910 he was elected an Associate of
the Royal Scottish Academy before moving to a studio in London, where he gained
a string of commissions for the portraits of prominent figures, including
lawyers, such as Lord Haldane and politicians, such as Herbert Asquith.
George Fiddes Watt
It was about
the time of Watt’s rise to prominence in Edinburgh that the decision was taken
to engage the services of this emerging Aberdonian portraitist to paint a
likeness of Professor Ogston. Initially,
the plan was to create a main portrait for presentation to the University and a
copy for the Ogston family. However,
Fiddes Watt chose to produce two portraits with different compositions and different
settings, though each was noted as being a “realistic impression” and
“strikingly characteristic” of the retiring professor. In one, “Mr Ogston appears in the uniform of
a member of the late King Edward’s household, as Surgeon-in-Ordinary, with his
half-dozen medals and decorations, and wearing his scarlet robe as a medical
doctor”. The contrasting picture
portrays the Professor “in frock coat, in characteristic pose as he was
familiarly known to his students when lecturing, and with the kindly expression
which was so familiar to them when he was explaining some difficult surgical
problem or case”. The Ogston family was
given first choice between the two works and chose the colourful, uniformed
variant.
It took about a
year for the two pictures to be completed and be ready for presentation in the
Picture Gallery at Marischal College in mid-October 1910. Both portraits were on display, one at either
end of the gallery, mounted on easels.
Matthew Hay presided at the ceremony, substituting for the absent
Principal, though the actual presentation was performed by Dr Robert
Farquharson, the laird of Finzean, MP for the constituency of West
Aberdeenshire, and an old friend of Alexander Ogston. It fell to Professor Hay to pay further
homage to this giant of the surgical profession. In addition to his surgical advances, his
services near and on the battlefield, his bacteriological research and his
inspiring teaching, Matthew Hay chose to mention two other matters for which he
was not usually remembered. “Although
the extent of his professional work prevented him in the later years of his
professoriate from devoting much time to the administrative work of the
University, he took in the earlier years an active and most helpful part. It is fitting that, met as we are amid
surroundings that remind us of our great extension scheme, we should recall the
fact that the initial step in that scheme was taken by Professor Ogston. In 1884, two years after his admission to the
Senatus, he moved in that body, which then had charge of the buildings and
finances of the University, that an extension of the buildings should be
undertaken. His motion was agreed to,
and a committee was appointed with Professor Ogston as convener. With his usual energy and thoroughness, he at
once began to prepare a scheme. He
retired from the convenorship after a time in order to give his services in the
Sudan War but before he retired, he submitted plans of a scheme which, in its
main features, did not differ much from the scheme that was eventually carried
out”. Matthew Hay also alluded to
Alexander Ogston’s membership of the Royal Commission on Physical
Training. “I had occasion to know the
great value of his services on that Commission, which did so much to initiate
one of the most important advances in public health. I refer to the movement which has culminated
in the medical inspection of schools, and the recognition by the State of its
responsibility for the physical well-being of the school child as well as for
its mental training”.
Retirement portrait of Alexander Ogston
Retirement portrait of Alexander Ogston
Alexander
Ogston then replied to the collective outflowing of warmth and respect which
had characterised this special event marking the formal severance of his
connection with the institution which had from the beginning been a central
part of his life. His speech was long
and had obviously required a good deal of prior thought. Its content was typical of Ogston’s literary
output, knowledgeable, witty, literate, philosophical, self-deprecating,
self-critical, honest and containing only the merest hint of past events which
had been personally wounding. Some
quotations will illustrate these attributes.
“I feel that
you have put upon me a difficult task.
On such an occasion I suppose it is absolutely indispensable that one
should speak a little of one’s self, and that is by no means an easy thing to
do”.
“The thought of
coming to attend this presentation today has been weighing very heavily upon
me. … For the last two nights I have dreamt of this moment. On one of these I found myself addressing you
with the eloquence of Demosthenes, but when I woke, I perceived that my words
were Alice’s recitation in “Wonderland” – somehow or other they didn’t seem to
fit properly”.
“To-day, of
course, in my career marks a halting place.
I feel that I was younger and have become older. I can see two distinct images before me in my
mind. One of them is the picture drawn
so kindly and fleetingly by the three friends who have spoken to you – that of
the men who have been happy enough to do some work in the world and to have it
known and to have it appreciated, and if that were all it would be very
satisfactory. But there is another image
which one cannot but see, and it is painfully before me. I look back from the platform of the present
moment to a poor individual struggling against his difficulties, such as you
yourselves know exist in your own lives, to do what was right and what was
fitting, and to better himself and those about him, and lamentably failing
every now and then, making failures which he would do a great deal to be able
to recall, and doing things he would do a great deal now to have undone. And that is the true image I think that I
must take of myself. Of course, I have been
fortunate enough to be diligent. I think
that is the only claim I can have, and diligence is the one consoling point
that I can look back upon in my career.
For the rest there are, believe me, very many, many regrets that more
and better was not done”.
“I have never
sought for honours. My hands are clean
in that respect. Whatever honours I have
had have been absolutely unsought for. I
have really felt that, after all, they were not worth very much”.
“I must say I
feel anything but great in my own estimation, although I shall have a place
among all those portraits of men who are famous in history, famous in science,
in literature, and divinity, men whose names you read of in the history of the
world. That you should have placed me
there is like placing me among the immortals.
You give me a position in the Pantheon of our University which, however
little I may deserve it, I most deeply appreciate”. (Anyone who has stood in
the Mitchell Hall, with its pictorial display of past academic titans, will
appreciate the emotions expressed that day by Alexander Ogston).
“I was not born
in Professor Japp’s (Professor of Chemistry at the time) laboratory, but
I was born in the house which stood where Professor Japp’s laboratory now
stands”.
“A curious
thing strikes me to mention in connection with some of the best of my
work. Curiously enough, it was very
badly received. What I thought were the
best bits of my work were very coldly received, criticised most severely, and I
was made to feel very humble indeed when they had been subject to the fire of
my colleagues’ criticism. And the same
was true of Britain and the medical press, so I was constrained to go abroad
with them. I went to Germany, and those
things were received there in a totally different way”. (This was a reference to his work on the
micrococcal cause of suppuration and the withering criticism he received from
other senior surgeons and from Ernest Hart, the editor of the BMJ).
“I am a great
reader of Shakespeare, and I have noticed how when he attempts to depict
gratitude, he is evidently acutely sensitive to the imperfections of our
language in uttering the word. If such a
master of the language feels so, I need offer no apology for saying that, in
regard to you, my sole expression is limited to the word “thanks””.
“When I step
downstairs this afternoon, I feel that my University career is ended. The brief years have flown away, and I walk
the path I shall tread no more. Still, I
do not think that there is any reason to lament for that. If one has behind one a life in which every
effort has been good, although the result has not been equal to one’s wishes,
one may meet anything that comes with a smiling face and a brave heart. And that I shall do very much strengthened by
your kindness today”.
Although the
donations towards the cost of commissioning Fiddes Watt had been limited to the
medical profession, sufficient funds had been realised to allow the artist to
complete two separate and distinct portraits.
Even then, some monies remained unspent, and they were used to finance
an Ogston Prize in Surgery. Initially,
the nature of the prize was a gift of surgical instruments made to the first
prize man in the senior section of the surgery class. That prize no longer exists, but there is an
Ogston Surgical Society, which aims to promote surgery as a career to medical
students and junior doctors and provides a reminder of one of the greatest
surgical sons of the Aberdeen University Medical School.
Alexander
Ogston and the status of women
Between 1844,
when Alexander Ogston was born and 1929 when he departed this life, there was a
great change in the status of women in Great Britain in many aspects of
life. Some changes had differential
impacts depending on the social origins of women. The adaptation of the two sexes to different biological
roles is obvious. Men in general have greater strength, running and lifting
ability, and stamina. Women have bodily
adaptations for child-bearing and child-caring, so it should not be surprising
to find in early Victorian times that the woman’s place was often centred on
keeping the home and looking after the children, while men were typically to be
found doing heavy manual labour in the fields and factories. For upper class women, their principal
function was similarly home-centred, but acting through the agency of the
servants under their control. However,
change came progressively during Victorian times, both in terms of job variety
and opportunity for women, and in their legal rights.
Activism for
women’s rights in law, politics, employment and education made its appearance
from the 1850s. Women could control
their own property from the 1870s, divorce became a civil and not a church
matter from 1873, rights to the custody of children improved. Female employment opportunities in certain
jobs blossomed, for example for teachers, nurses and librarians. Universities
started to open their doors to women, even if they were not initially allowed
to graduate. From 1892, the Scottish
Universities started to admit women as matriculated students But some professions remained resolutely shut
to women, for example, medicine and the church.
In 1903 the
Women’s Social and Political Union was established by Emmeline Pankhurst to
campaign for voting rights for women on the same basis as men. The first stage in achieving this aim came in
1918 when women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote, followed by
identical voting rights to men in 1928.
It is interesting to follow the evolving attitudes of Alexander Ogston
to the roles and rights of women, against the background of both national and
local events. After all, Alex Ogston had
two sisters, two wives, and five daughters who survived to adult life, and he
was a senior member of the ultra-conservative medical profession.
What clues are
there to Alexander Ogston’s attitudes towards women? He certainly had a chivalrous approach to the
fair sex. An early indication of this
view of ladies came in 1864 when he was a student, aged 20, in Germany. He took a strong dislike towards some of the
population of Germany, which was a nation of “boors and bullies”, where “…men
had an unpleasantly superior attitude towards women”. In 1884, there was a meeting of the White
Cross Movement in Aberdeen. This
Christian organisation had been established the previous year to promote
“social purity” (no pre- or extra-marital sex). Male recruits had to pledge to show a
“chivalrous respect for womanhood” and to uphold the following principles. “1. To
treat all women with respect and endeavour to protect them from wrong and
degradation. 2. To endeavour to put down all indecent
language and coarse jests. 3. To maintain the law of purity as equally
binding upon men and women. 4. To endeavour to spread these principles among
my companions and to try and help my younger brothers. 5. To
use every possible means to fulfil the command, “Keep Thyself Pure””. Alexander Ogston was present at this
recruiting meeting, which was restricted to male attendance, and he must
actually have joined the movement, as he became a member of its newly-formed
General Council.
But Alex Ogston
certainly did not believe in equality, or equality of opportunity, between the
sexes, possibly because, biologically, he felt that the two sexes had different
capabilities. The earliest evidence of this
belief perhaps came in 1877 when, aged 33, and a new member of the Senatus
Academicus at Aberdeen University, he, along with the principal, declined to
support a motion to petition Parliament to remove any impediment to the
admission of women to Scotch universities, resulting in the motion being
lost. But, to his credit, he
consistently maintained that women were superior to men in some respects,
especially in the practice of nursing.
As early as 1885, when he was 41, he visited a war hospital for the
first time, when he was in Cairo and later remarked as follows. “I felt, though at the time it eluded me,
that there was something defective, and I presently realised that this was the
want of trained women nurses which left the splendid hospital a little short of
perfection”. Even when serving during
the Second Boer War, Ogston found that some army medical service officers still
harboured a traditional hostility to the employment of female nurses in field
conditions. In the appalling conditions at
Modder River, Alexander Ogston had his own beliefs about female nurses amply
confirmed. “Three nursing sisters were
now attending the sick, one of whom, Sister G, had given up a nursing home of
her own in order to give her skill to the army.
It was doubtless owing to these women that the fever hospitals were now
cleaner, and bright with pictures and bits of colour, charts were being more
satisfactorily taken, and things generally done better …”. Alexander Ogston’s experiences in Italy
during WW1 amply confirmed his positive views of women. “The women officials, sisters and nurses (of
the Red Cross) were a well-trained, well-educated, well-behaved body,
nearly all of whom were ladies of station and culture, whose conduct entitled
one to be proud of them and the nation to which they belonged”, though did he
also harbour a hint of snobbery?
Alex Ogston
also seemed to entertain doubts about the ability of women to cope with
stressful situations. In 1888, when
speaking at the Aberdeen Ambulance Association annual meeting about a first aid
course for women to equip them to deal with domestic accidents, he said -
“There was a great deal to be done in that way for as they as medical men knew,
when an accident occurred very frequently, instead of keeping their heads, they
(women) lost them”.
With regard to
the conservatism of his own profession, the best evidence of Alex Ogston
opposing women, whom he accepted made excellent nurses, becoming doctors came
in 1895 when his wife, Isabella was recruited to present the medals and certificates
to a first aid class exclusively for ladies.
The course extended to 13 lectures and had been taught by Dr John Scott
Riddell. It was attended by over 200
ladies and after the presentations Alex Ogston answered on behalf of his wife
(why could she not have spoken for herself?) after she had been accorded a
formal vote of thanks. His words were
only half spoken in jest. “Professor
Ogston acknowledged the compliment paid to his wife and added that the work
which had been concluded that evening was one that belonged to women. Expressions could scarcely be found that
would be too exaggerated in approval of ladies studying such subjects as had
been taught by Dr Riddell. The utility
they would find in their lives from the knowledge they had acquired would, he
was sure, be great and valuable to them.
He thought however that it would be very undesirable that ladies
should go beyond this. Some of them
would like to see a lady operating upon, or amputating, or otherwise mutilating
a man - (laughter) – but to see her taking care of a poor individual who had
survived the attacks of his own sex was a most beautiful thing. (Applause).
If the ladies would confine themselves to operating upon the hearts
of the gentlemen, they might be sure they would find no rivals and would
have the approval of all. (Laughter and
applause)”. (Author’s emphasis). It was
not just women whom Ogston thought should not become doctors. He had dissuaded his own son, Walter from
following his father’s choice of profession, describing it as “the most trying
in the professional world”. Walter’s
comments were relevant. “He had had to
work tremendously hard to secure his own success and he knew what it had cost
him in terms of denial of private pleasures and also in stress and strain on
his powers”, yet Alexander could also say, at a different time, “A good life
that of a surgeon”. Perhaps Alexander
Ogston thought women were not sufficiently robust to tackle the exigencies of a
medical career, but that he, in particular, and some other men were?
There is also
evidence that Alexander Ogston changed his view of women over time. His daughter Constance (1884 – 1971 of whom
more later), writing in “Alexander Ogston KCVO”, gave a good account of this
evolution. “In his younger days, he did
not understand women at all, and in this respect, Time worked great changes in
him. His daughters were very close to
his heart, though he was devoted to all his children, and as they grew up, he
gradually came to realise – though not until after some warfare
(author’s emphasis) – that women had a point of view of their own, often quite
different from his, but not necessarily mistaken because of that”. “He learned to understand that no man can
shape the life of a woman on the lines he thinks best, and that her
intelligence demands independence of thought and action”. Alex Ogston’s son, Walter, said of his
attitude to women, “He was a firm believer in women having their share in
public life, and he was a supporter of women’s franchise”, but that view seems
to relate to Alexander Ogston’s views after the tussles with his politically-
and socially-active daughters, Helen and Constance! Helen hinted at her father’s acceptance of
her activism since he “… always understood that it was my “David’s pebbles
being thrown at the Goliath of social injustice”.
It is both
interesting and informative to examine the jobs undertaken by Alexander
Ogston’s wives and female children.
Alexander’s first wife, Mary Jane died at the tragically early age of
25, having born four children during their short marriage. She is only known to have had one
extra-domestic interest, membership of the Aberdeen Choral Union, which is
unremarkable, given her home responsibilities.
The second Mrs Alexander Ogston, although she bore more children (8),
lived long enough to devote some of her time to interests outside the
home. However, being the wife of a
senior member of the medical profession, these diversions were all voluntary
and charitable and involved mostly children and the sick. Clearly, her husband found such activities to
be compatible with her status in Aberdeen society. In 1893, a branch of the Sunbeam Mission,
which cared for poor and invalid children, opened a branch in Aberdeen. “Mrs Ogston, 252 Union Street” became one of
its local secretaries. She was also
involved in fundraising for a ward for incurable children at the Royal Aberdeen
Children’s Hospital in 1896 and the following year. Isabella Ogston even had the courage to
propose an initiative and to communicate it to the public via the
correspondence column of the Aberdeen Journal.
She was, from time to time also found supervising stalls at charitable
bazaars but her charitable activities were cut short by poor health and died in
1913 at the relatively early age of 66.
Three of
Alexander Ogston’s daughters were endowed with high intelligence and steely
determination to follow their own stars, in a way reminiscent of their father.
They would not be fobbed off simply with good works to keep them amused.
Flora
Mactavish Ogston (1872 – 1929) was
an independent spirit who early developed an interest in physical education and
between 1901 (when she was 29) and 1903 studied at the Chelsea College of
Physical Education. However, before her
departure for Chelsea College she did not seem to have any significant
occupation other than attending society weddings. Shortly after Flora’s diversion into sport
and gymnastics, her father was appointed to the Royal Commission on Physical
Training in Scotland.
Andrew Carnegie
had been born in Dunfermline, Fife in 1835 and emigrated to the United States
with his parents at the age of 12. He
became extremely wealthy through his involvement in the American steel industry
and, from about 1900, embarked upon a major programme of philanthropy, though
he had previously, in 1877, gifted a swimming bath to the town. In 1900, Carnegie provided further monies to
build a new swimming bath, with a gymnasium attached. The Carnegie Dunfermline Trust was
established in 1903 to bring “sweetness and light” into the lives of the people
of his hometown. In 1904, Flora Ogston
was appointed to a position with the new Trust in Dunfermline, providing
gymnastic instruction to females in the Carnegie Gymnastic Club. Her job title was Chief Lady Gymnastic
Instructor (Schools) and her salary was £150 per annum.
Andrew Carnegie
In 1903, the
report of the Royal Commission on Physical Training in Scotland was published
and was well-received. One outcome was a
proposal, with the support of the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust, to establish The
Carnegie Dunfermline College of Hygiene and Physical Training. Its objective was initially to train women as
teachers of Physical Education for Dunfermline, but later that remit extended
to the whole of Scotland. Flora Ogston
was appointed the first principal of the college at a salary of £225, later
raised to £300. The College was
officially opened at the beginning of October 1905 by the Marquis of
Linlithgow. Alexander Ogston was one of the
attendees at the ceremony, along with his daughter, Flora. She was “tall, good-looking, dignified and
with great charm”. She “inspired
respect” and her authority was “tempered with the gift of calm
persuasion”. Miss Ogston’s reign at
Dunfermline College only lasted for a year, after which she left to marry
London-based architect, George Carter.
Sadly, this union was doomed to be short, as George developed
tuberculosis and died in November 1907.
There were no children of the marriage.
After her
husband’s death, Flora Carter returned to London, where she took on a variety
of jobs, perhaps the most important of which was to work for Mrs Beatrice Webb,
wife of Sidney Webb, whom she assisted in the compilation of Mrs Webb’s
minority report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Relief of
Distress, which sat from 1905 to 1909.
This minority report was notable for its popularity because of its
proposals for the creation of a welfare state.
Flora’s association with the Webbs, prominent Fabians (a left-wing
policy research organisation), suggests that she had herself espoused left wing
politics by this time. Mrs Carter is
also known to have fulfilled other roles, though the precise timing of them has
not been uncovered. She was a temporary
inspector in physical training under the English Board of Education, Manager of
the Seven Dials (a village in Camden) group of schools in London, and Secretary
of the Children's Care Committee in Tower Street School, London. In this last-mentioned post, she
superintended both children who had applied for school feeding and those
recommended by the school doctors for medical treatment and had also assisted
scholars who were leaving school to find suitable employment.
Mrs Beatrice Webb
Following the
Messina earthquake of December 1908, in which the wife of her half-brother,
Alfred, was killed in a collapsing building, Flora travelled to Sicily with her
father in his noble attempt to bring his injured son and granddaughter home and
to effect the recovery of daughter-in-law Ethel’s body. While her father laboured in Messina, Flora
remained in Palermo to look after baby Ethel Esme Ogston. On her return to Britain, Flora resumed her
work as secretary to Beatrice Webb, which continued until about July 1913.
Flora Carter’s
stepmother, Isabella Mary Matthews, died in February 1913, after some years of
poor health, leaving her widower, Alexander, alone in 252 Union Street, except
for the servants. Flora then moved
permanently to Aberdeen to act as her father’s companion and, latterly, carer
until his death in 1929, an arrangement which he found congenial. But such a bright and active lady could not
continue with this limited caring role being her only occupation in life. In March 1914, she found a new and
intellectually engaging objective when she was persuaded to stand for election
to the Aberdeen School Board, a position for which she was eminently qualified,
though it appears that not all the existing members of the Board were entirely
comfortable with what they probably saw as an interloper. And a woman to boot. Flora had some very influential nominees and
it seemed a near-certainty that she would succeed in her objective. It was later demonstrated that she had the
highest election expenditure of any candidate, so she must have been determined
to be successful. However, an unfounded
statement was soon being circulated in Aberdeen, claiming that she was a cat’s
paw for a group hostile to certain members of the then present Board. Flora found this tactic shocking and decided
she could not continue with her campaign in the circumstances. She then withdrew her candidacy.
The start of
WW1 at the end of July 1914 intervened to give a new direction to Flora’s
life. When her father agreed to serve in
the Southall Military Hospital during the winter of 1914 – 1915, she travelled
south with him. Subsequently, he agreed
to serve at the British Belgrade Military Hospital in Serbia and again Flora
decided to accompany her prominent parent.
They left Britain at the start of April 1915 and while Alexander Ogston
reached Belgrade, his daughter got no further than Salonika in Greece, where
she became seriously ill with abdominal pains.
Her father judged the situation to be so serious that he decided to
evacuate Flora back to Britain. In June
of the same year, after her recovery, she returned to Serbia with her father in
the capacity of a probationer nurse.
They both returned to Britain at the end of July 1915.
Back in
Aberdeen, Flora Carter threw herself into voluntary war work and proved to be
an excellent administrator for various organisations, such as the Aberdeen War Work
Association and the Aberdeen University Working Party. Alexander Ogston, after a period of enforced
inactivity, was asked to serve near the front line once more, this time in
Italy. He departed in August 1916, but
Flora remained in Aberdeen and, in spite of intermittent ill-health continued
her voluntary work with courage and determination. Flora Carter was awarded the Order of the
British Empire for her war work in 1918.
For both father
and daughter, the 1920s consisted essentially of a progressive withdrawal from
public life, until Alexander died at 252 Union Street on 1 February 1929. Flora departed this life in the same house 13
days later. She had certainly proved to
her father that she, a woman, was capable of holding down important jobs and of
serving with grit and application. He
must have been proud of her achievements, while not necessarily agreeing with
her political views.
Helen
Charlotte Elizabeth Douglas Ogston (1883 – 1973)
was another daughter
of Alexander Ogston with an independent streak and a fierce passion to pursue
her own goals. The experiences of
receiving her secondary education in London, followed by attending Aberdeen
University were probably central to the determination of her path in life.
The fight for
women to have the right to attend university in Scotland was long and
fraught. Remarkably, the first
matriculated female students in Scotland attended Edinburgh University in 1869,
intent on obtaining a qualification in, of all subjects, medicine. They had to endure deep hostility from many
male members of staff and from male medical students. Sadly, for the “Edinburgh Seven”, their
university refused to allow them to graduate, and the Court of Session not only
confirmed the University’s authority to take this course of action but also
judged that the women should not have been allowed to matriculate in the first
place.
The
Universities (Scotland) Act of 1889 first allowed women to be admitted to
Scottish universities (of which there were four at the time, Glasgow, St
Andrews, Aberdeen and Edinburgh).
However, it was 1892 before the first female students gained entry. The pioneer female graduates emerged from
Edinburgh in 1893, because they had taken some courses prior to 1892 which were
judged to qualify towards their degrees.
Aberdeen University was rather behind this trend, the first four female
MA graduates being produced in 1898, with the first ordinary degree students
appearing a year later. Alexander Ogston
was present at the capping ceremony in 1899 when the first honorary degree
awarded to a woman, an honorary LLD, was bestowed on Miss Anna Swanwick.
Helen Ogston
probably became a matriculated student in 1903 and the following year passed
the 1st BSc examinations in Zoology and Botany. She graduated in 1906 with a BSc degree in
Geology. As part of her degree, she had
studied the geological features produced by the last ice age on upper-Deeside,
presumably using her father’s house at Glendavan as a base for her field
work. It was an outstanding study and
led to the publication of a pamphlet in 1907 by the Aberdeen University Press
under the title, "On the vestiges of the Ice Age in the Neighbourhood of
Cambus O’May, Aberdeenshire”. This area
sports some magnificent glacial features, the most famous of which is the Burn
O’Vat gorge, only two miles from Glendavan, which was forged by a melt-water
channel flowing under a glacier.
Helen Ogston
However,
Helen’s experiences in London and at her local university had not just awakened
her intellectual curiosity in the science of geology, it had also radicalised
her social outlook and pointed her in a different direction from that produced
by the influences of home. In 1906, both
Helen and her sister Constance, who was almost a year and a half younger,
became members of the Women’s Social and Political Union. This organisation had been formed in 1903 by
Emmeline Pankhurst and her two daughters and campaigned for women’s
suffrage. Its members demonstrated
against any political party or politician who did not support its aims. They became notorious for their acts of civil
disobedience and other forms of direct action.
This affiliation to the WSPU must have led to some heated exchanges
between father and daughters at 252 Union Street.
The earliest
movement seeking the vote for women, detected during the present study in
Aberdeen and its environs, occurred in 1871, when a public meeting was called
chaired by the Lord Provost and with the Aberdeen Ladies’ Committee present,
though it is presently unclear if this meeting led to any continuing
activity. In 1885, a “largely attended
drawing room meeting” was held in the residence of a Mrs Duthie in Albyn Place
to discuss the extension of the franchise to women ratepayers. A resolution to that effect was passed and a
committee formed to ensure that the candidates at the forthcoming general
election were questioned on the issue.
In the late 19th century, local aristocrat, Ishbel
Hamilton-Gordon, Marchioness of Aberdeen and Temair, was very active in
promoting the interests of women, both locally and nationally. She was the first leader of the Women’s
Liberal Federation (the Gordons were Liberals), which campaigned for votes for
women and was very persistent and influential.
By 1896, there was also a socialism-supporting Aberdeen Women’s Social
League in existence which promoted the interests of working women and also an
Aberdeen branch of the Women’s Liberal Association, both of which supported the
extension of the franchise to females.
The Aberdeen Women’s Suffrage Association was in existence by 1901, by
which time it was holding monthly meetings.
Its immediate aims were the extension of the franchise to qualifying
women on the same basis as applied to men and the election of women to public
boards of all kinds. One of its
campaigns was to get a woman elected to the Aberdeen Schools Board. (Flora, the half-sister of Helen and
Constance Ogston, almost achieved that aim in 1914). At least by 1908 there existed an Aberdeen
branch of the WSPU and by the following year an Aberdeen University Women’s
Suffrage Society, though the dates of formation of these two latter organisations
have not yet been uncovered.
After her
graduation, Helen Ogston abandoned geology and moved to London, initially to
train as a sanitary inspector. The
“Votes for Women” newspaper said of her in June 1908, “She hopes to devote
herself to Sociological work”. Helen
became very active in the WSPU and was a prominent and frequent attendee and
speaker at debates, rallies and meetings, and an active participant in
provocative political demonstrations.
The earliest public appearance by Helen Ogston reported in the press was
at the Chelsea Palace music hall in June 1908 when, as part of a presentation
of the women’s suffrage case, she made one of the daily speeches on the aims of
the movement. The Morning Post reported
on Helen Ogston’s appearance. “Miss
Ogston spoke very briefly to a crowd of people who up to the time of her
appearance had been regaled by an ordinary music hall entertainment. … The
audience treated Miss Ogston with the same courtesy as they showed to every
other lady who appeared on the stage for their benefit, the only distinction
being that her turn interested them more than the others”. Another newspaper, “The Stage” was more
qualified. “Miss Helen Ogston was the
“lecturer” on Monday night. Her somewhat
lengthy oration being listened to with tolerable patience, considering the
lateness of the hour”.
Abuse of, and
violence towards, the demonstrating women was ever in the offing. At the end of October 1908, Sydney Buxton MP
addressed his constituents at Poplar Town Hall when a group of the unemployed
caused a disturbance that developed into a free fight, which was broken up by
the police. The meeting afforded free
entry to men but required women to obtain a ticket. This was a means to preventing members of the
WSPU interrupting the speaker inside the hall.
Helen Ogston, leading the deputation from the WSPU was forced to address
an impromptu gathering outside the venue.
The crowd was rather hostile, but Helen pressed on with her speech
anyway. As Buxton was rushed away from
the meeting, Helen Ogston tried to question him about votes for women but was
kept back by the police. She seems then
to have been given a roving brief by the movement and spent some time in
Manchester helping local organisers. For
three years from October 1908 until the end of 1911, Helen Ogston appeared at
many events supporting the women’s suffrage movement across the length and
breadth of the country. Manchester,
Holloway Gaol (where Mrs Pankhurst had been imprisoned and was being
force-fed), Chelmsford, Maidenhead (where many live rats were released among
the audience by a rat-catcher to disrupt the proceedings, and a prominent local
tradesman dressed up as a women to lead the protests), Hammersmith, Brighton,
Edinburgh, Bristol, Battersea, Burgess Hill, Henley, Portslade, Nottingham,
Thanet, Barnstaple, Ilfracombe, Bournemouth, Belfast, Lewisham, Norwich,
Bexhill, Marlow and Winchelsea were some of the towns and cities to experience
her oratory. Periodically, when she was
at home in Aberdeen, she spoke at events there and in the surrounding district. She received some compliments in the press,
such as being described as a “strikingly handsome lady” and “one of the WSPU’s
strongest speakers, especially in debate”.
Mrs Pankhurst, rather snobbishly, described her as “a woman of a good
family”. In 1910, Helen became the paid
organiser for the New Constitutional Society for Women’s Suffrage.
The incident
for which she will always be remembered occurred on 5 November 1908 at a
meeting in the Royal Albert Hall, London, which was being addressed by David
Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Liberal Government of
Herbert Asquith. The meeting had been
organised by the Women’s Liberal Federation which supported women’s suffrage. However, it was feared that Lloyd George
would avoid dealing with the issue of votes for women in his address. Helen Ogston attended the meeting intent on
holding Lloyd George to account and she provided the first interruption that
Lloyd George suffered that afternoon when she called out “What we want is
deeds, not words”. Helen had taken a
dog-whip with her, which she had concealed in her dress, and when the stewards
descended on the box she was occupying, intent on ejecting her from the venue,
she laid into them with her whip.
Initially she was restrained by being chained to her seat before being
ejected. Many in the audience reacted
angrily to her intrusion with “a storm of hisses”, though one man, Henry
Nevinson, a suffragist, objected to the way female protesters were being
treated. He too was silenced by the
stewards. Of course, there was no one
present to photograph the famous scene, so the “Sphere” made up for that
omission by commissioning a drawing of the occasion, which it published. She thus became known as “the lady with the
dog-whip”.
"The lady with the dog whip"
Helen felt that
the newspapers had misrepresented her motives in taking a dog-whip into the
Lloyd George meeting. She explained her
reasoning in the following letter to the editor of the Aberdeen Journal. “Sir, It has been stated freely in the press
that I used a dog-whip on Saturday last to prevent my eviction from Mr
Lloyd-George’s meeting. This statement
is entirely incorrect. I used a dog-whip
not to prevent eviction but as a protest against violent assault. On one or two previous occasions when I have
been sent to heckle Cabinet Ministers, both I and other women have been
disgracefully mauled by the stewards. I
determined accordingly on Saturday to take steps to prevent a recurrence of
such treatment and to make a protest against it. I therefore took a dog-whip with me. When I made my interruption, I was at once
set upon by the stewards and knocked backwards by a man sitting in the next
box. I informed them that I was prepared
to leave the building, but I refused to submit to their handling. This statement was absolutely disregarded,
and I was dealt with with great violence.
In the course of the melee, I struck with my whip at one of the men who
was behaving brutally. In common with
other members of the Women’s Social and Political Union, I have the strongest
repugnance to violence, but I felt it my duty in this instance to make a
protest against the sort of treatment to which no woman ought to submit. I am etc Helen Ogston”.
Mrs Pankhurst
later offered further justification for Helen Ogston using the dog-whip. On several occasions “excessive violence” had
been used against protesters and in some cases it had been “of a particularly
objectionable kind”, ie, it was sexual in nature. Further, on the night in question a man in
the adjacent box had burned her arm, probably with a cigar, as soon as she
started speaking, and another man had hit her in the chest so violently that
she was thrown to the ground. When the
stewards broke down the door of the box, some thought she was dead. Helen said that the first person she struck
with the whip was not a steward but the assailant who burned her arm, which had
left a wound two inches long and an inch broad.
When she had recovered from being felled, she also struck the man who
had punched her, with her whip.
Soon after the
dog-whip incident Helen travelled back to Aberdeen and while there she
fulfilled a number of engagements, most of which were free of the hooliganism
that she had grown used to in the south.
But one address, in Aberdeen Music Hall on 17 December 1908, under the
auspices of the Aberdeen branch of the WSPU, was notable for disruption caused
by local male students. Entry was by
ticket and the local police were effective in preventing access by the rowdy element,
though someone managed to spread hydrogen sulphide in the hall, which has the
objectionable smell of rotten eggs.
Helen Ogston, perhaps with the help of her father, had managed to
assemble a strong supporting cast of Aberdeen worthies to accompany her on the
Music Hall stage, giving tacit approval to her opinions and actions. James Murray, MP, presided and the platform
party included Edith Morrison (president of the Aberdeen University Women’s
Suffrage Association, Miss Murray, Glenburnie Park, Professor Ogston, Baillies
Wilkie and Hutcheon, Councillors Kendall, Burnett and Young, Rev Alexander
Webster and Mrs Webster, George Duncan, advocate, Mr WG Jamieson and Parish
Councillor Milne. The excluded students
then resumed their protest outside the hall and then continued along Union
Street to number 252, the home of Professor Ogston, though whether they were
protesting against him, or his feisty daughter, was unclear. Alexander Ogston’s presence indicates that he
had at least come to accept that Helen had a right to proclaim her own point of
view and possibly he had also come to support women’s suffrage.
Who could doubt
that Helen Ogston shared many of the characteristics of her famous parent? She was fearless in the face of violence,
determined to maintain and publicise her point of view, oblivious to the
opinions of others who might not share her beliefs and indifferent to the risk
of injury. And she had won the argument
with her traditional father that women have a right to have opinions and to proselytise
the unconverted.
After this
relatively brief period under regular abuse, the threat of violence and intense
scrutiny by the press, like a mayfly, Helen suddenly disappeared from the
public scene. At the 1911 Census she was
living with another unmarried female of similar age, one Olive Mary Lett, a
teacher of Swedish Gymnastics, at 70 Albany Mansions, SW. A year later she married 35-year-old widower
Dr Eugene Townroe, a South African doctor who had served with distinction in
the Second Boer War, in a grand ceremony in Kings College Chapel, Aberdeen
University and thereafter Helen seemed to have no public involvement with
women’s rights or any other issue. By
1918, a partial victory for women’s voting rights had been won and in 1929 they
at last gained equality with men. Eugene
and Helen produced two daughters, but the marriage ended in divorce sometime
between 1926 and 1929, after which Helen remarried to Granville Havelock
Bullimore, an accountant and the managing director of Currys, then radio and
cycle manufacturers and retailers. Helen
died in 1973 at Malvern, Worcestershire, aged 90.
Constance
Amelia Irene Ogston (1884 – 1971),
like her older sister Helen, was a bright spark who equally needed to discover
her own destiny, free from the restraining opinions of her father. In 1901, Constance and her younger sister,
Rosa, were both prize-winners in the Aberdeen University Local Examinations,
though no evidence has been uncovered indicating that she ever attended that
institution or any other Higher Education establishment. However, she probably came under the
influence of her older sister, Helen because in 1906, aged 22, she moved to
London with her and became active in the campaign for women’s rights, joining
the Women’s Social and Political Union.
In December
1908, by which date Constance seemed to have moved back to Aberdeen, she
attended a populous meeting of the Aberdeen branch of the Independent Labour
Party (the Marxist ILP had been formed by Keir Hardy in 1893). However, the speaker, Mr WK Chalmers, was
late in arriving. In his place,
Constance Ogston was asked to speak until Chalmers made an appearance. Her topic was “How the women’s vote will
affect the working classes”. The
Aberdeen Journal applauded this impromptu effort. “Miss Ogston was accorded a very hearty reception,
and in the course of her address she referred to the progress the women’s
suffrage movement had made within recent years.
She explained the objects of the Women’s Social and Political Union, and
pointed out how imperative it was for women who paid taxes to be allowed to
vote. She submitted numerous arguments
in favour of the women receiving votes, and concluded by appealing for a big
audience to turn out at the suffragist demonstration to be held in the Music
Hall on Thursday, at which her sister, Miss Helen D Ogston, was to be the
principal speaker. Miss Ogston was
warmly thanked for her address”.
Between January
and May 1909, Miss Adela Pankhurst appeared repeatedly at public meetings in
Aberdeen and its surrounding district and even further north in Inverness and
its environs, often in the company of Constance Ogston. Meetings have been uncovered which were held
in Forfar, Stonehaven, Inverurie, Banchory, “Inverness and above” and multiple
meetings in Aberdeen itself. No evidence has been uncovered of Miss Pankhurst’s
accommodation arrangements at this time, but it is to be wondered if she was
boarded at 252 Union Street. After this
flurry of activity, Constance Ogston, like her sister, seemed to retire from
the public scene. Between 1909 and the
start of WW1, the local newspapers only reported on one occasion when Constance
Ogstan was involved in public work and that was in 1910 when she helped with
fund-raising activities for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children. She also lectured in Aberdeen
on “The Women of India” in September 1919.
No report has been found of the content of her lecture, which would have
been fascinating to read.
During WW1,
Constance involved herself in voluntary work in support of the war effort, especially
with the War Dressings Depot, though she is known to have left Aberdeen at some
time during the war. At the war’s end,
Constance was 34 and unmarried but at some time during the conflict, or in its
immediate aftermath, she met her future husband, Herbert Guy ffiske. Their engagement was announced in
February,1920 and they married in a low-key ceremony in the village of Logie
Coldstone, near to the Glendavan estate in September of the same year, quite a
contrast to the showy nuptials of her sister Helen.
Herbert Guy
ffiske, who was born in 1888, hailed from a prominent family of engineers and
manufacturers in Norfolk, many of whom were employed by the company of Boulton
& Paul Ltd. They manufactured many
things, including sectional buildings, wire mesh and, later, aircraft. Guy’s father, Henry ffiske, was at one time
the manager of Boulton & Paul Ltd.
Guy joined the 1st East Anglian Brigade, 2nd
Norfolk battery of the Royal Field Artillery as a volunteer and was promoted to
1st Lieutenant in 1910. He
served in France from 1915, being promoted to Captain the same year. In 1916, Guy transferred to the Royal Flying
Corps initially as an observer/air gunner and the following year he gained his
Royal Aircraft Club Aviator’s certificate.
On the formation of the Royal Air Force on 1 April 1916, Guy ffiske
joined the new military service. By this
time, Boulton & Paul was a major manufacturer of aircraft used by the
RAF.
Guy, who had
trained as an engineer, left the military with the rank of Major and became an
employee of Boulton & Paul Ltd. The
Daily Mail put up a prize of £10,000 for the first flight across the Atlantic
and this stirred much interest in aviation circles, almost 20 companies and
organisations proposing to attempt the crossing. One of these entrants was Boulton & Paul
Ltd with a twin-engined bomber that the firm had developed during the war. Guy ffiske was put in charge of the
project. Meteorological considerations
dictated that the attempt would be made by all competitors in a west-to-east
direction. Boulton & Paul planned to
send two aircraft and a team of engineers and pilots to Newfoundland in June
1919. Their aircraft had a range of
3,850 miles travelling at 116mph.
Unfortunately for Guy ffiske and his employer, they were beaten to the
prize by pilots Alcock and Brown flying a Vickers Vimy bomber. The intrepid pair left on 14 June from
Newfoundland, crash-landing in an Irish bog the following day, to claim the
prize.
In 1923, Guy
ffiske had obtained planning permission for a new house adjacent to Denham Golf
Club, which acquired the name “Davan Hollow, no doubt recalling happy days at
Alexander Ogston’s Aberdeenshire estate.
It had the appearance of a retirement home, though Guy was only 35 in
that year. He certainly played golf at
the Denham club. Guy died early in 1930, though Constance survived until
1971. The marriage produced no children.
The
careers of Alexander Ogston’s other children
The two wives
of Alexander Ogston produced 12 children in total, four in his first marriage
(1867 – 1873) to Mary Jane Hargraves and eight from the second with Isabella
Margaret Matthews (1877 – 1913). Several
of these offspring pursued interesting careers, making their marks on the world
in their own diverse ways, but none did so as a member of the medical
profession. Their father obviously
contributed much to the development of his children, both genetically and
through the home environment that he and his wives created, aided by comfortable
economic circumstances. Mostly, it was
his sons who achieved prominence and his daughters gained social status by
making good marriages. But some of the
girls, as has been shown, forged their own distinct paths in the world and, in
doing so, exercised a modifying influence on their father’s beliefs and
behaviours.
Mary Letitia
Ogston (1868 – 1937) married
Herbert John Clifford Grierson, a Shetlander who was educated at the
University of Aberdeen and then at Christ Church, University of Oxford. He was appointed Professor of English
Literature at the University of Aberdeen in 1894 and was subsequently, in 1929,
made Knight Professor of English Literature at the University of
Edinburgh. Herbert Grierson was a prominent
literary scholar, editor and critic.
Francis
Hargrave Ogston (1869 – 1901)
was Alexander Ogston’s eldest son. He
was educated at Robert Gordon’s College and at Clifton College, Bristol. From there he took employment with Messrs
George Thomson & Co, shipowners, Aberdeen and in 1891 he passed his second
mate’s examination. Subsequently he
worked as a seaman in India before travelling to Rhodesia and at the start of
the second Boer War he volunteered for service in South Africa with the
Imperial Light Horse. He died on active
service in April 1901.
Walter Henry Ogston (1873 – 1957).
While still at school he asked his father’s advice on what career he
should follow. Alexander Ogston then discouraged his son from following a
medical career but advised that commerce gave a better chance of success. Alexander Ogston suggested three
alternatives, becoming a lawyer and going into an office in Aberdeen, going
into the paper mill of his father’s friend Mr Tait at Inverurie, or into some
business in one of the large commercial cities. Walter chose the third alternative and
spent most of his working life in commerce, first in Liverpool, then in India
and finally in Liverpool again, after returning to the UK in 1915. During WW1 he worked as a railway transport
officer on Liverpool Docks, for which he was awarded the OBE in 1920. In 1921, Walter took up residence on the farm
of Bellastraid on his father’s Glendavan estate and lived the life of a farmer,
even winning prizes at the annual Logie Coldstone agricultural show. Walter Henry Ogston wrote the Introduction to
“Alexander Ogston KCVO”, the collection of biographical articles about
Alexander Ogston’s life, which was published after his death.
Alfred James Ogston (1878 – 1920).
This first child and first son of Alexander Ogston’s second marriage
initially tried a career in commerce, then attempted to enter the Diplomatic
Service, but failed and finally gained entrance to the Consular Service, where
he experienced the horrors of the Messina earthquake in 1908. That story is recounted fully elsewhere in
this portrayal of Sir Alexander Ogston’s life.
At the time of his death, Alfred Ogston was serving as HM’s Consul in
Portland, Oregon.
(Female) Ogston (1879 – 1879).
Isabella Margaret, Alexander Ogston’s second spouse had a female child
on 19 August 1879. Tragically, the baby
died the following day.
Douglas John Ogston (1881 – 1882).
He too died within his first year, though not before he had been
baptised.
Rosa Fleming Ogston (1886 – 1940) married Aberdeen stockbroker, William
Webster.
Alexander Lockhart Ogston (1887 – 1919) served in the Royal Marines Artillery
during WW1. He also designed and
supervised the building of the Red Cross hospital where his father, Alexander
Ogston served during 1914. Alexander
Lockhart Ogston died of pneumonia in 1919.
Rannald Frederick Logie Ogston (1889 –
1957) was a member of
Messrs Morrison, Ogston and Co, stockbrokers, London.
The
example of Rachel Frances Lumsden (1835 – 1908)
Apart from the
achievements of his own daughters, the work of a woman that Alexander Ogston
came to admire greatly, and which was probably very influential in changing his
opinion of women’s capabilities was that of Rachel Lumsden. She was the daughter of Clements Lumsden, WS,
a prominent Aberdeen advocate. In 1869
she began training as a nurse at Great Ormond Street hospital in London and
later was employed at King’s College hospital, becoming knowledgeable in
hospital administration. She advised on
the construction of the new Aberdeen Children’s hospital which was completed in
1877. Rachel Lumsden was then recruited as the hospital’s superintendent, which
position she insisted on filling on a non-remunerated basis. She was so competent in this role that in
1885 she moved over to a similar appointment at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
which, at the time, was in need of strong administrative direction. Alexander Ogston had been in post as Senior
Surgeon since 1880 and would have witnessed the improvements wrought by Miss
Lumsden at first hand. Directing ARI was
not the limit of Rachel Lumsden’s ambition.
In 1891, she introduced a three-year training course for nurses and her
reputation spread beyond Aberdeen, even to the notice of the monarch. The same year, Queen Victoria appointed her to
membership of the council of the Scottish Board of the Queen Victoria Jubilee
Institute of Nursing.
Rachel Frances Lumsden
Rachel Lumsden
retired in 1897 and in February 1898, she was given an enthusiastic send-off by
her colleagues at ARI, at a reception in the Grand Hotel. This included the presentation of “a splendid
testimonial, signed by 63 members of the medical profession, the first
signature being that of Sir James Reid, in recognition of her humane and
philanthropic labours on behalf of the sick and suffering in Aberdeen”. All the senior doctors were present,
including Alexander Ogston. The nursing
sisters at ARI were also well represented.
Dr Mackenzie Davidson, the famous radiologist, telegraphed his apologies
from his new place of work in London.
“Please express my sincere regret that pressing engagements here prevent
me being present this afternoon, but, although absent, unite heartily with you
in doing honour to one who has done such splendid and noble work”. Professor Finlay who presided, commented upon
the uniqueness of the occasion. “– where
so many members of the medical profession had been found ready to join in
hearty appreciation of a woman’s work in the department of hospital management
and all that that involved”.
Alexander
Ogston, who had initiated the movement to celebrate Miss Lumsden’s
achievements, then delivered a fulsome, but he insisted, not an exaggerated,
encomium. Sections of his speech are
reproduced here. “Miss Lumsden had
devoted 20 years of her life to doing good to humanity and to her fellow
citizens. (Applause). Eight of those years were spent at the Sick
Children’s Hospital and 12 of them at the Royal Infirmary. It required no great effort of memory for
many of them to recall days when the nursing of the sick, with which Miss Lumsden’s
name was so intimately connected, was in a most lamentable form … . It was felt there was room for great
improvement, and it fell upon Miss Lumsden to take up the work at that point
and to change the whole aspect of the nursing in our public charities first,
and eventually, through that example, in the community. How great the change was most of them
knew. (Applause). They had now the best women from the best
classes devoting the best years of their lives to nursing. … The infirmary
required alteration and enlargement, and that fell to be carried out at the
time she was engaged improving the nursing in it. The structural alterations were a great
impediment. … Nevertheless, they were overcome by Miss Lumsden as were many
minor difficulties when occasion required.
An instance of the difficulties was the absence of anything like a
casualty department, and altogether it was marvellous that Miss Lumsden
succeeded in organising the nursing staff as she did. (Applause). … Besides all that Miss Lumsden
took in hand the Convalescent Hospital which was in a most chaotic state at the
time, and reorganised it till it was as perfect in all its departments as the
Infirmary itself. (Applause). But her labours were more than physical. It was no easy thing for a lady to step into
the midst of a number of gentlemen connected with the infirmary who owed their
position to force of character, who desired to have everything conducted in
their own way, and whose interests were apparently very often divergent, but into
the midst of these she went, and although it would be anything but a truthful
compliment to say that she was perfect,
yet with most admirable tact and unselfishness, she grasped the difficulties of
the situation, and dealt with them in a way that few could have done. Miss Lumsden was unwearied in work; she never
had enough of work; nor was it well enough done in her eyes and daily they
beheld her in connection with the staff, with the patients, with the patients’
friends and with every detail devoted her life to the infirmary always
unwearied always clear headed, always unselfish helping everything that
deserved to be helped and repressing everything that was undesirable. (Applause). … Such work as that was not easily
paralleled. There were few instances one
would think where anything such had been done, and it might fairly be compared
with Miss Florence Nightingale’s organisation of the nursing of the sick and
wounded in the terrible Crimean war. … Never before had the medical profession
proposed such recognition … “.
In 1897, at the
time of Rachel Lumsden’s retiral, Alexander Ogston’s daughters Helen and
Constance were 14 and 13 respectively and entering a period where they and
their parents would have been actively considering the possibility of undertaking
Higher Education and beyond that, a career.
Did the reminder of Rachel Lumsden’s significant achievements, brought
to Alexander Ogston’s attention when composing his farewell paean to the
prominent nurse/administrator, weigh on his mind when his daughters started to
express opinions of their own concerning their futures?
Alexander
Ogston declines to stand for Parliament
English
universities had their own MPs and constituted Parliamentary constituencies
from as early as 1603. In the 1850s the
arrangement was extended to London University, which got one MP, in England and
to the Scottish universities, which got two MPs. The new Scottish seats were shared, one
between Aberdeen and Glasgow universities and the other between Edinburgh and
St Andrews. The whole concept of
university representation in Parliament was finally extinguished in 1950.
Political
allegiance does not seem to have been a matter of great moment to Alexander
Ogston, though he appeared to have been a supporter of the Conservative Party,
as was his father. In November 1885, Mr
JA Campbell of Stracathro, the MP for the constituency of Aberdeen and Glasgow universities,
addressed a meeting of electors in the Aberdeen YMCA. Both Professor Alexander Ogston and his
father attended that meeting. Campbell
held the seat until 1906. For the 1906
General Election, the Conservatives adopted Sir Henry Craik as their candidate
and Alex Ogston described this selection as “One of the happiest that could
have been made”. Henry Craik had been
Secretary of the Scottish Education Department between 1885 and 1904. He was successful in his bid to become an MP
and represented Aberdeen and Glasgow universities until 1918. At the General Election held in 1910, the
Liberal Party supporters in the two universities were casting around for a
suitable candidate to oppose the sitting MP and the Glasgow University Liberal
Association lighted upon Sir Alexander Ogston as a potential candidate, perhaps
unaware of Ogston’s previous approval of Sir Henry. “Dr Ogston was asked to state his views
regarding certain political and academic subjects, and did so, but apparently
his views were not sufficiently advanced for members of the Glasgow
Association, the result being that the association has not proceeded further in
the matter”. Professor J Arthur Thomson,
of the Chair of Natural History at Aberdeen then approached Alexander Ogston to
stand for the Liberals. Alex Ogston
declined the invitation in a most gracious letter, which is reproduced below.
Sir Henry Craik
“Dear Professor
Thomson, I have most anxiously considered what was stated at the interview I
yesterday had with you, as well as what is due to you and other friends who
have moved in this matter, and I have, with great reluctance, but finally,
decided that I cannot at this time offer myself as a candidate for the
representation, in Parliament, of the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen. No more honourable position can I imagine
than to represent these educated constituencies in the House of Commons, and no
words of mine could adequately express the pride I should have had in doing so,
had the electors willed to entrust that duty to me. The reasons which have weighed most with me
in resolving at present to abstain from seeking such a distinction are,
briefly, the following. Throughout the
country the present political crisis is arousing an unusual strength of
partisanship, which will compel most voters to select that candidate who will
most determinedly resist the side which that voter opposes, and candidates like
myself, in favour of moderate measures, will have far less prospect of
favourable consideration than has been the case in any general election within
my memory. Had time sufficed for
representing to the constituencies the advantages that moderation offers in
solving the crucial problems before the country, and especially of explaining
the increasing importance to our Universities of having the interests of
science, education, letters, and research regarded as the main object of their
chosen member’s activities, there might have been a prospect of success for one
holding such views. But energy and work
can not possibly accomplish this, to even a moderate degree, in the available
time, and the defeat of the candidate I should have striven to be, would be a
foregone conclusion. The effort would be
wasted, and what is more momentous, the defeat would tell, in any future
contest, for any candidate holding like views.
I feel assured that consideration will give to these reasons a cogency
they may not, at first sight, seem to possess, and that it is in the real
interest of the Universities that I should not stand as an independent
candidate at present. There are, in
addition, domestic issues (probably the poor health of his second wife)
that I need not detail which have much weighed with me in forming my
resolution. I can only say that I feel
gratitude beyond my power to put into words that I should have been thought by
you and others who love our Universities in connection with their
membership. I am, dear Professor
Thomson, Very faithfully yours, Alex Ogston.
26th November, 1910, 252 Union Street, Aberdeen”.
What
conclusions can be reached from Alexander Ogston’s brush with representative
politics? It appears that, although
Ogston had supported the Conservative candidate in the past and had at least a
personal regard for Sir Henry Craik, then the MP representing Glasgow and
Aberdeen universities, Alex Ogston may not have felt that he was personally
fully aligned with then current Conservative policies. He also must have felt some sympathy for
Liberal policies, otherwise why agree to be interviewed by the Glasgow University
Liberals? But it can also be reasonably
concluded that the Liberals’ policies too did not mesh fully with his own
views, which were “not sufficiently advanced”.
Not a man to compromise on his convictions, Alex Ogston found himself
floating somewhere in the middle between the views of the two main
parties. The approach from the Aberdeen
University Liberals, in the form of Professor Thomson, after the discussion
with his Glasgow compatriots had been inconclusive suggests that Thomson may
have wanted to support Ogston for his personal views and qualities, in spite of
the retired surgeon not embracing everything for which the Liberals stood. Ogston’s letter to Thomson suggests that he
(Ogston) perhaps considered, and then rejected, becoming an independent
candidate, with no party affiliation.
So, what policies did Ogston embrace?
Put simply, it appears he wanted to promote the educational role of the
Universities and particularly the importance of research, perhaps not a
surprising position, given the significance that his own bacteriological
investigations had played in stimulating advances in surgery and other
disciplines.
Alexander
Ogston and King George V
King Edward VII
died on 6 May 1910, aged 69, after suffering several heart attacks. His eldest son, then aged 45, ascended to the
throne as George V. Alexander Ogston’s
surgical role with the royal family was maintained when, one month later, he
was gazetted an Honorary Surgeon in Scotland to the new monarch. George V and his queen, Mary, visited
Balmoral for the first time since his accession in August 1910. As usual, Alexander Ogston was a member of
the welcoming party of VIPs assembled at Ferryhill Junction. The coronation of the new king took place in
June 1911 and Alexander Ogston was an attendee.
Appendicitis made an unwelcome reappearance in royal life in 1914 when
George V’s second son, Prince Albert (later King George VI) developed abdominal
pains while serving as a midshipman on HMS Collingwood, a St Vincent class
battleship, in the North Sea. He was
evacuated to Wick and there he was met by Sir James Reid who accompanied him by
sea to Aberdeen, where he landed on 29 August 1914. Alexander Ogston had retired from the Regius
Chair of Surgery at Aberdeen University in 1909 and been replaced by another
outstanding Aberdeen-trained surgeon, John Marnoch. Marnoch was chosen by Sir James Reid to
perform the appendectomy on Prince Albert, though out of courtesy, Alexander
Ogston was asked to be present at the operation. Reid had been concerned that Ogston might be
put out by this preference for his replacement, but he wrote to Sir James to
assure him that this was not the case. “My
dear Reid, It is very good of you to have written to me. I assure you I quite
understand, and moreover approved. I am quite on the shelf now, and it is best
so. Marnoch is the younger and better man, and the one who ought to attend the
Prince. My kind friend, don't give a thought more to the matter: and I am sure
Marnoch knows that he need not. If you and he would like me to be present, out
of courtesy, I shall be pleased to be an onlooker at the operation. Best and
warmest regards and thanks. Alex Ogston”.
After his service
in WW1, Alexander Ogston gradually withdrew from public life. In 1922, Queen Mary visited Aberdeen,
including a call at the university. Sir
Alexander Ogston was one of the party which greeted the monarch’s spouse. In July 1923 Sir Alexander was a guest at
Their Majesties’ reception held at Holyrood House in Edinburgh and this may
have been his last official royal duty.
Alexander
Ogston’s activities during WW1
On 28 June
1914, Archduke Franz-Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo by a Bosnian Serb,
and Austria-Hungary immediately declared war on Serbia. That domino falling set off a chain reaction
which brought most European countries into conflict with each other. Germany invaded Belgium on 4 August and
Britain then declared war on Germany. In
1914, Alexander Ogston was aged 70 and in retirement but felt it his duty to do
what he could in the national cause. He
immediately offered himself to the Army Medical Department, stating that he was
prepared to serve anywhere in any capacity.
All he got was a courteous reply and no offer of a posting. He assumed that his age was the barrier to
his acceptance. His former student,
James Davidson, then president of the BMA was working in Ealing, West London
and Ogston complained to him, “Jeems the greatest war in history has broken out
and I am too old to take a proper share in it”.
Alex Ogston, desperate to play a useful role then offered to serve in
any capacity in Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.
However, by
early November 1914, Alex Ogston received an invitation to take the role of
Operating Surgeon in the Southall Military Hospital. His response was immediate, sending a
telegram “Coming next train”. He served
there during the winter of 1914 – 1915, when his enthusiasm and ability had an
immediate impact on the other staff. The
hospital was subsequently permitted to receive seriously wounded soldiers
directly from France and Flanders.
On 12 March
1915, while at Southall, Alex Ogston was offered the opportunity to serve in
the British Belgrade Auxiliary Hospital, Serbia. The UK was an ally of Serbia in WW1. According to James Davidson, when the offer
was made, Ogston responded “Give me a night to think it over” and the following
morning, “Yes Jeems we’ll go”. Davidson
then warned him of the dangers involved in this assignment which he dismissed
with, “I’d rather die on service than at home in bed”. Later, his son-in-law Herbert Grierson,
reported that he had declared in conversation when asked if he were ever
afraid, “No, I do not think I ever was definitely afraid”. Alex Ogston, together with James Davidson,
Fiona Carter, his widowed daughter travelling as a probationer-nurse, and his
hospital group of 18 left Southall on 18 March and travelled to the Mersey
where they embarked on the 3,300 ton steamer ss Saideih of the Khedivial Postal
Service on 1 April for a direct, two week journey to Salonika in Greece,
landing on 15 April. Also on the Saideih
were another 50 personnel travelling to provide medical help to the Serbian
allies. The journey was deficient in a
number of ways. “… our food, though good
of its kind, ran woefully short, while as stewards we only had a few capable
hands and a parcel of negroes”. On her
return journey to Britain from Alexandria, with a cargo of cottonseed and
onions, the Saideih was sunk by a U-boat in the English Channel off Margate
with the loss of eight lives.
In Salonika,
Ogston’s party set up base in the Olympos hotel to await orders, which arrived
in due course. Alexander Ogston was
instructed to proceed to Belgrade where a building, the Third Belgrade
Gymnasium, had been obtained in which he was to establish a hospital. It had previously been used by the retreating
Austrians as a barracks. Along with Dr
Davidson, Alex Ogston travelled by train to the Serbian capital. Soon after his arrival in Belgrade, he
received a telegram to say that Fiona Carter had become dangerously ill with
abdominal pains back in Salonika. He
left immediately for the Greek second city.
From there he was able to secure a passage to Malta with Fiona on the
7,000-ton ss Mossoul, which fortunately was being maintained by her master in
excellent order. In Malta, Alexander
Ogston met Lord Methuen, the governor, whom he knew from the Second Boer War. The Ogstons obtained a berth on the ss Novara
of the British India Line back to Great Britain. On arrival in Dover, Flora was transferred to
a nursing home and underwent an operation.
The Novara reached Tilbury docks on 27 May 1915.
About 1 June
1915, Alexander Ogston and his daughter Flora, now recovered from her recent
malady, set out to return to Italy. On
this second occasion, they travelled overland, since Italy, which started the
war as a neutral country, had since joined the western allies in opposing Austria-Hungary
and Germany. The plan was to travel by
train to Brindisi on the Adriatic coast of Italy and then by boat to
Greece. However, they found that their
journey through Italy was anything but easy, indeed it turned out to be a
continuing nightmare. Italy was
regarding all foreigners with suspicion and Italian officials treated them with
“rudeness and hostility”, suspecting them of being foreign agents. The carriages of their train were searched,
and they had to travel with the blinds drawn.
To make matters worse, Alexander Ogston was wearing some kind of British
uniform. Eventually, they reached
Brindisi but found that the steamer crossings to Greece had been
suspended. They heard a rumour that they
could catch a boat at Gallipoli, further south along the coast from Brindisi
but when Alexander and daughter Flora reached this town, they found that the
rumour was inaccurate, the steamer Epiros was due to call at Cotrone instead,
so they travelled on to this town, still in hope of gaining a passage to
Greece. Ogston’s anxiety was mounting. He was running out of money, the Epiros had
called and departed from Cotrone when they arrived on 11 June and the Italian
crowds were hostile to the foreigners.
Finally, good fortune favoured the hopeful travellers, and they caught
another steamer, the Mykale, of the Hellenic Steamship Company, which was
making passage from Cotrone to Piraeus, the port serving Athens, via Corfu,
Patras and the Corinth Canal. At Piraeus
they changed boats, taking the Daphne to travel on to Salonika and, from Greece’s
second city, caught a train to Belgrade.
At that point
in his book “Reminiscences of three campaigns” Ogston becomes very coy about
what he found on his return to the hospital in Belgrade, except to say that it
was so much not to his liking that he immediately decided to make his
exit. “I left the hospital in Belgrade
in July, as I was out of sympathy with the manner in which some matters
concerning it were conducted. I did so
with the less regret that there seemed to be no prospect of its fulfilling the
functions for which it had been created.
Its purpose had been to treat the patients belonging to the British
forces in Serbia, but though it had prescribed for about seven hundred Serbian
outpatients, all of them only slightly ailing, it had no British occupying its
wards”. Though Ogston found that many
other hospitals in Serbia were performing well, in some “There were many
shocking scandals, such as cannot be written down, and the officials of some
were of a kind that ought never to have been sent out by any British
Society”. “The scandals were in some
instances bringing the name of Britain into disrepute”. Alexander Ogston returned to Great Britain
but in “Reminiscences of three campaigns”, gives no account of his
journey. In the company of James
Davidson, Mr Markoe the recalled hospital administrator and Miss MacLaren, Alex
Ogston departed Belgrade for Salonika on 28 July 1915. From that Greek city they travelled on the
steamer Sydney to Marseilles and from there back to Britain. Ogston was back in Aberdeen by September 1915
and became actively involved in war work there.
Once home in
Aberdeen, Alexander Ogston picked up the threads of his life from the summer of
1914. He was a member of the War
Emergency Committee which was tasked with identifying 2500 volunteer doctors
for service in the army and navy by mid-January 1916, he resumed his place on
the executive committee of the Aberdeen branch of the Scottish Red Cross
Society, where he received a hearty welcome, and he was active in fund-raising
for the war effort, himself donating £1 to the Aberdeen War Dressings depot. In
February 1916, Alex Ogston wrote to the President of the BMA from 252 Union
Street concerning retired medical men and military service. Some such retirees had contacted him in
frustration at the barriers which were placed in the way of them giving service,
due to an arbitrary age limit imposed by the Army Medical Department. Ogston wrote, “It is a matter of national
importance that those medical men who are over the age limit of the Army
Medical Department should at once combine to offer their services to the nation
provided that their health and circumstances warrant their doing so. It seems certain that the supply from
civilian sources of medical officers for the army is nearly exhausted and if
not at present inadequate will shortly be so. …”. Not all doctors agreed with Alex Ogston’s drive
to recruit doctors to military service.
One countered his case quantitatively.
“What are the facts? There are in
existence about 30,000 practising members of the profession of whom no less
than 10,000 are already under military orders.
The actual number expected and demanded by the authorities is
15,000. Thus 4,000,000 soldiers get half
the available doctors while 40 million civilians get the other half”. However, this counter-argument did not deal
with the ratio of sick people, especially those needing complex surgery to the
total population. Alex Ogston was basing
his case on his own experience, which told him there would be a shortage of
surgeons.
In early
October 1915, Alexander Ogston was invited to address a meeting of the County
of Aberdeen branch of the British Red Cross Society in the Coffee House,
Inverurie. He gave a well-received,
motivational talk, designed to make people feel good about their voluntary role
and contribution to the war effort, and to spur them on to even greater labours
to help those impacted by the war. The
presentation also gave some instructive insights into Sir Alexander’s own
thoughts on the behaviour of nations and especially their attitudes towards the
Red Cross and the Geneva Convention. Its
text has survived, and its content is summarised here.
The present
“strife and storm” had overturned many of the aspirations that they had, in
recent years, come to enjoy. That belief
that the world was becoming a better place and that individuals and nations
could work together to the benefit of common humanity was being
questioned. No event had given greater
hope for the future than the “beautiful” Geneva Convention, which espoused the
precious idea that wounded combatants and those attending them could be removed
from conflict, treated as neutrals and allowed to pass without hindrance. The idea had been accepted by all the major
nations of Europe and some outside. But
in contrast to this altruistic philosophy, he also detected a promotion of
selfishness, especially by some newspapers, as a hindrance to the advance of
good in the world. The war had
profoundly disrupted the hopes of civilised people for the future and the blame
was placed squarely upon “two of the leading nations of Europe” (Germany and
Austria/Hungary, presumably). They
had “rent the Geneva Convention into fragments”. “They no longer regarded neutral men as
neutral, they were prisoners, cruelties could be exercised upon them and that with
zest”. The representatives of the Red
Cross might also lose their protected status.
The Geneva Convention was not the only code which had been broken. That also applied to the Ten
Commandments. “To speak of anything else
such as the general standard of truth and honour as existing among these two
nations after what we knew would be quite a superfluity”. But Ogston did not exempt the allied nations
from criticism where individuals were motivated by greed and gaining
advantage. He also saw reason for hope
in the eradication of pettiness between neighbours and the generosity of the
wealthy towards those in difficult circumstances. He detected a “general elevation” in the
country. He also saw the common soldier
becoming more civilised from the rough brute of a few years ago. (This
generalisation miffed an “Old Soldier” who protested indignantly in the columns
of the Aberdeen Journal). In
closing, Alex Ogston praised the good work of the Red Cross and its
volunteers. “…they could by doing small
things do great things”. The Hon Mrs
Leith-Hay, who chaired the meeting, was sure Sir Alexander had enthused them to
redouble their efforts and “do what they possibly could to help in this
terrible time they were passing through”.
Sir Alexander had been received with warm applause throughout his
presentation.
Alexander Ogston
continued with his war work through the remainder of 1915 and on to August
1916, principally involving the voluntary organisations with which he was
associated, the local branch of the British Red Cross Society, the Aberdeen
branch of the St Andrew’s Ambulance Association and the City of Aberdeen War
Work Association, to whom he made two separate donations of £10, and the
University Volunteer Bearers. A variety
of hospitals dedicated to the care of the war wounded was set up in Aberdeen
and its environs and by 1916 there was a regular flow of wounded servicemen
arriving at the Aberdeen Joint Station.
Within Aberdeen most of the wounded were forwarded to the Oldmill
Hospital (now Woodend General Hospital) and the Central Higher Grade School
Hospital on the corner of Belmont Street/Schoolhill. A Volunteer Stretcher Bearer Corps was
established, using volunteer men who were over age to serve in the fighting
forces, to help with the transport of the wounded on arrival in Aberdeen. Their training took place at the Joint
Station on three separate Sunday sessions in June 1916, with further sessions
taking place in a hall in Correction Wynd, all under the auspices of the Red
Cross and some of the sessions were delivered by Sir Alexander Ogston. On 12 June an ambulance train arrived
carrying wounded colonials, mostly Canadians but with some Australians and New
Zealanders. Alexander Ogston was one of
the platform party receiving the servicemen.
There had been a training session for between 150 and 200 men at the
station the same day, when the volunteers were addressed by Sir Alexander. The Aberdeen Journal covered his speech. “It was something to be proud of that all
were working together so heartily and unselfishly to aid the country. The highest authorities were looking forward
to very critical occurrences. Carefully
prepared statistics showed that 30 millions of men were face-to-face in the
present tremendous crisis. It was
necessary to be ready to deal with 470,000 wounded and sick, at the lowest
computation, on the side of the Allies within the next 12 months. … He wished
them all success”. Many more ambulance
trains arrived over the coming days and weeks and Sir Alexander was often
present to take charge of the bearer parties.
During his
period of (for Ogston) relative idleness in Aberdeen, Alex Ogston had made
repeated attempts to obtain a posting with the British Army Medical Service but
was turned away each time. However, in
August 1916, he received a request from the Red Cross to go to Italy to fill
the position of surgeon at the first British Ambulance Unit based at the Villa
Trento hospital situated between Udine and Gorizia in North-east Italy and
supporting the Second Italian Army. He
immediately accepted, “thankful to know that I was not to sink into comparative
uselessness at such a time”. Perhaps his
last act in Scotland before his departure was to make yet another donation of
cash, £2 to the Aberdeen University Work Party.
Although at the
start of the war, Italy was formally on the side of Austria/Hungary and
Germany, it declared itself neutral.
Both sides tried to win the Italians over and on 23 May 1915, they
jumped into the Allied camp and declared war on Austria/Hungary due to
assurances over gaining territory along the north-east Adriatic coast,
including the recovery of Trieste, with its largely Italian population. As a result of the new state of war, a
400-mile front was created along the mountainous border between Austria/Hungary
and Italy. The Austria/Hungary army soon
pushed forward into Italian territory but then, in November 1916, the Italians
mounted a successful counter-offensive, taking the city of Gorizia just over
the border. They were hoping to push on
and take Trieste. It was this war zone
where Alexander Ogston was being sent to serve.
He stayed for a total of 15 months and, as will be discovered, had some
bleak experiences as weaponry had become even more destructive since his last
service in South Africa. Also, this
theatre of war, much of it wet with green mountains, markedly contrasting with
the arid plains of the southern end of Africa.
Ogston later commented, “It was very different from my former
experiences. It was a war of desperadoes”.
Alex Ogston
left Aberdeen at the end of August 1916 to travel south. He was 72 years old at the time. His intention was to travel to Italy by
train, but he experienced some delay in crossing the English Channel, due to
the threat from German submarines. From
Le Havre he passed through Paris on his way to the Fréjus Rail Tunnel, emerging
in Italy in the direction of Milan and then travelling on to Udine. A road journey of one hour then delivered him
to Villa Trento. The hospital proved to
be quite well equipped with a pharmacy and an X-ray facility. Most of the volunteers were young, educated
Britons, serving with the Red Cross due to medical issues, being adherents of
the Quaker religion, or conscientious objectors and a few were over fighting
age. There were also some well-trained female
nurses. The senior Red Cross official
was Mr GM Trevelyan. Alex Ogston
immediately settled into this new working environment. “I gradually made the acquaintance of the
leading medical and other Italian officers and found them mostly friendly; they
provided me with a pass enabling me to go everywhere within the zone of war, a
privilege I availed myself of to the utmost possible extent, so as to
familiarise myself with everything concerning the medical arrangements, and
incidentally with much else that was of interest”. Much of the front that the Italians were
defending ran through the mountains and travel to the front was very difficult,
though that did not deter Alex Ogston.
“The men who manned the batteries and trenches on the crest of the ridge
lived among the cliffs and precipices, some in burrows hollowed out like
sand-martin’s nests in the soft rock, and some in wooden structures resembling
bird cages affixed to the rocks high up towards the sky, and these shelters
were reached by means of steep winding wooden ladders or stairs. Peeping over the edge of the ridge here
towards Austria, we saw lying below us on the river the little town of Tolmino
which was still held by the Austrians”.
As in South Africa, Ogston was acting as a student of war as well as an
operative surgeon.
It was not long
before Alex Ogston was employing his surgical skills. Two volumes of his case-books from the period
between 13 September and 16 November 1916 have survived and are in the care of
the Wellcome Library. Although the Villa
Trento hospital was reasonably well equipped, the means of ambulance for the
injured troops from the front line to medical help in the rear, was
inadequate. Ogston wrote to William
Smith, the Aberdeen lawyer, who was a staunch supporter of the Red Cross,
asking if local help could be secured in obtaining an appropriately equipped
ambulance for the rough conditions the volunteers were facing north of Villa
Trento. Smith arranged for the letter to
be published in the Aberdeen Journal, with an addendum from himself which
reminded Aberdonians of the service that Alexander Ogston had given when he was
in the city and appealing for donations to be sent to himself at 201 Union
Street.
By the time of
the next meeting of the Aberdeen Branch of the British Red Cross Society, which
just happened to be the AGM, which was held on 6 October 1916, much progress
had been made in satisfying Sir Alexander’s appeal. Donations in cash already amounted to £74,
Mrs Davidson of York House, Cullen had promised £500 for either a Fiat
ambulance to be bought in Italy or alternatively three Ford cars, and Lady
Sempill, who had been very active in fund-raising for the war effort, had
ordered an ambulance for the Russian front but now intended to divert it to Sir
Alexander’s needs. The appeal had caught
the public imagination and a series of updated donation lists appeared in the
local press. It was soon possible to
authorise the necessary expenditure. The
decision was then taken to have the conversion work done in Britain and the
completed ambulance shipped to Italy. In
late November, Alex Ogston wrote to William Smith in Aberdeen to thank him for
the generous and speedy response and tried to give him some idea of the terrain
with which they had to contend. “If I
could take you for a drive in it along some of the break-neck mountain roads it
would try your nerves, but it would give you an idea of the great work you have
done for us and for our wounded”.
The November
offensive which resulted in the Italians taking Gorizia was witnessed by Alex
Ogston and so moving was the scene that it triggered a further burst of
dramatic description from the literate professor “On the night of 5th of November
this engagement was at its height, and to behold it was a thing to be
remembered; after dark it seemed as if many moons were rising over the Carso,
so numerous and strong were the glares of the searchlights; the noise of the
cannon was beyond anything that had gone before, and the flashes lit up the sky
for many degrees above the horizon; the aeroplanes were at work, and the white
lightning sparks of the shells fired at them glittered like fiery bees high up
in the air, while the soaring and wriggling parachute star shells seemed like
living creatures swarming in the air below.
It resembled magnificent fireworks among the rolling of giant drums”.
Taking Gorizia
did not immediately lead to the desired push towards the major goal of Trieste
and the winter months of 1916 – 1917 on the front were spent with occasional
massive bombardments followed by limited advances and consolidation of small
gains. There were sometimes many
casualties in the hospital but at other times only a few. Alex Ogston visited several of the ordinary
base hospitals serving the front but patients from one hospital, No. 106, who
passed through Villa Trento particularly caught his notice because of the type
of treatment soldiers with serious wounds had received. They had been treated with “much skill and
hardihood”, so he decided to pay a visit.
The surgeon was Captain Baggio an assistant professor from Rome and
Ogston called to see him on 27 February 1917.
Baggio’s Technique was to open wounds, clear them out of all foreign
materials and bone fragments and to pare back all damaged and infected tissues
before wiping out the wound with eusol, stuffing the cavity with eusol-soaked
gauze but otherwise leaving the wound open.
The process of cleaning was repeated after three days all processes
being conducted without anaesthesia.
Alex Ogston found Baggio’s methods rather extreme and felt he personally
obtained results which were as good or better than Baggio’s with a more
conservative approach. However, he
accepted that Baggio’s surgery was brilliant.
The end of
winter led to much increased military activity as the Italians tried to make
further advances. Alexander Ogston’s
descriptive powers emerged from hibernation, and he later described the
environment, which he recorded in his diary for May 1917. “It was hardly possible to sleep at nights
for the passage of troops in the dark, the rattling and whistling of despatch
riders on their motor bicycles, the flapping of the caterpillar cars, the
grinding of armoured turrets and gun carriages, the hooting and shrilling of
lorries carrying the heavy artillery shells, the sirens of the automobiles, the
whistling of the railway trains, and the tread of the mule convoys, carts and
the feet of the soldiers, while their raucous voices were mixed all night long
with the whirring of the aeroplanes and the explosions of the bombs they were
dropping. The army was awakening from
its lethargy …”. Advances were also
being made along the front as it snaked through the mountains and this zone of
conflict brought many casualties, mostly with shell and bullet wounds which
soon filled the Villa Trento hospital.
The Italians had been supported in their advance by 2,000 British troops
equipped with 40 howitzers. The Italian
advance, while very successful did not lead to the capture of Trieste, which
did not fall until November of 1918.
Meanwhile the hot weather in the summer of 1917 and the continuing
military activity brough further problems for Alex Ogston and his co-workers in
the hospital. “… we, stripped to shirt
and trousers, continued our work among the wounded, soothing the shell-shattered
forms, arranging ease to the broken limbs, and anxiously watching the joints
which had been perforated by rifle bullets or fragments of shell for evil
symptoms to arise. It was warm and
anxious work in the middle and end of that month, but a joy to be able to do so
great things for those whom the war had mutilated and lacerated”.
The Red Cross
ambulance cars were operating immediately behind the line of engagement in the
mountains but experienced great difficulty in reaching the wounded, as usable
tracks gave out too soon on the steep slopes.
Consequently, the orderlies had to evolve a system of parking the
ambulances in a suitable protective hollow about 500 yards behind the lines and
effecting a transfer of the wounded from stretchers there, before transport to
hospital.
Captain
Braithwaite of the Royal Army Medical Corps wrote about his experiences serving
on the north-east front in Italy. He was
full of praise for the work of the British Red Cross there and was for a time a
patient in “the Italian hospital near Udine” (presumably the Villa Trento
establishment), “… it was the most efficient hospital I have ever been in,
and the kindness showered on one, by doctors and nurses, was
extraordinary. Colonel Sir Alexander
Ogston, the commanding officer, was first and foremost in this matter, and I
owe him a debt of gratitude that it will be very difficult to repay”. Even at the age of 73, Alexander Ogston’s
powers of leadership were undimmed.
Alex Ogston
developed a great admiration for the Italians as fighters and also as decent
human beings. “Few troops in the world
could have done what Italy was doing – they were doing the impossible. They were gaining a name equal to any before
won, and their valour was matched by their chivalrous kindness to the captured
and wounded of the enemy. They were once
more proving to the world that they are a great and brave people, whom one
cannot too highly admire. Above all we
admired the modesty of the Italians. In
the midst of their great achievements, I did not hear a boast, nor a word of
self-appreciation or self-laudation.
Neither officer nor private showed a trace of swagger, though they knew
that the rest of the world was looking on and admiring”.
In September
1917, Alex Ogston had served at Villa Trento for over a year and was in need of
a break. He returned to Scotland for a
six-week furlough but, while there, still found time and commitment to engage
in voluntary work, though he was supposed to be recharging his batteries. The Executive Committee of the County of
Aberdeen War Work Committee met on 5 October and Alex Ogston turned up at that
meeting. He received a warm welcome and
was asked to give an account of his experiences in Italy, which he did, though
his remarks were, sadly, not reported by the press. Alex Ogston had also paid a
courtesy visit to the Southall hospital, where he had served in the early days
of the war, on his way up the country.
He even found time to attend to personal business when, as chairman, he
presided at the AGM of the North of Scotland and Town and County Bank, which
was held in Aberdeen on 2 November. Bank
employees to the number of 344 had left the bank to serve with the armed forces
and of that number, 32 had been killed.
The Chairman’s report was long and detailed. Had Alex Ogston deliberately timed his return
to Aberdeen so that he could fulfil his obligations to the bank?
While he was
away from Italy, the Austrians had mounted a counter-offensive and drove the
Italian army back, recapturing Goritzia on 27 October in the process. Some information on the Austrian advance had
reached Alex Ogston in Aberdeen. “My
leave had almost expired when I heard that the Austrians had made their sudden
victorious sweep through Friuli, recapturing Goritzia, driving the Italian
armies before them, pushing forward through Udine, and were still advancing
westwards in the direction of Venetia.
Business (ie, the bank AGM) prevented my immediate return to
Italy”. He started his journey back to
his hospital assignment immediately after the bank’s AGM closed, intending to
resume work at Villa Trento and to continue there until the end of the war. He travelled by steamer from Southampton to
Le Havre and then by rail to Paris and was waiting in the lounge at the St
James’ hotel when a crowd of baggage-less refugees poured in led by Mr “D” an
Irishman and one of the Red Cross drivers in the Goritzia detachment. From them Ogston learned that the Villa
Trento hospital had been destroyed along with all records, except those that
Ogston had himself preserved. Perhaps
the case books now residing with the Wellcome Library are the records preserved
by Professor Ogston? George Trevelyan
had written to Ogston to give him news of the destruction of the hospital, but
that letter probably crossed with Alex Ogston on his way to Italy. Ogston continued on his journey and at
Castelbelforte, west of Venitia, where the Red Cross had its base, he learned
more details of the Italian collapse and retreat, with drunken soldiers causing
mayhem along the way. Austrian air
superiority had been the deciding factor in this advance.
The decision
was taken by the Red Cross to close down the hospital sections near the front,
a choice which Alex Ogston deplored. He thought at least one mobile hospital
should be maintained to serve any Britons who might need medical services in
the north-east region. Ogston then
offered his services to the Red Cross Commissioner, George Trevelyan, but the
surgeon’s gesture was declined. He had
found some sick patients at Castelbelforte and remained there to care for them
until alternative provision was made.
With no further call on his skills, on 17 November 1917 Sir Alex left
for Great Britain, arriving on the 22nd. His foreign service, but not his war, was now
over.
One of the most
significant local initiatives in the North-East of Scotland during the war had
been the collection and preparation of Sphagnum moss for the manufacture
of wound dressings. Dry Sphagnum
has a remarkable capacity to absorb water, be it in a moorland bog or on a
suppurating wound. This use of the moss
in treating battle wounds had been known in Celtic communities for hundreds of
years. A Sphagnum Moss Committee of the
Aberdeen War Work Association existed in Aberdeen to coordinate the collection
and cleaning activities and after his return to Aberdeen in late 1917,
Alexander Ogston, who was a member of the Executive Committee of the
Association, played his part in promoting the production of Sphagnum dressings
and their use in the hospitals treating the wounded. Ogston attended a meeting of the Executive
Committee on 7 December, where the first, sad duty of the members was to frame
a minute of condolence to the wife of William Smith who had been so active on
behalf of the Association during most of the war. It was also reported that 219 sacks of moss
had been cleaned in November and forwarded to the University War Dressings Work
Party. The next meeting of the Committee
took place in January 1918, when it was reported that during the war, 138,912
articles (gloves, balaclava helmets, etc) had been sent by the Aberdeenshire
Association, more than any other county association. Moss collection and processing was still
proceeding at pace and Alexander Ogston suggested that the Director General Voluntary
Organisations should be asked to send out a circular to the various hospitals
treating the wounded, asking them to make a more extensive trial of these
dressings. By April 1918, Ogston’s
suggestion had been actioned and Sir Alex then did his own bit to promote the
initiative by writing to the editor of the Aberdeen Evening Express. Part of his letter is reproduced below.
“Sir, It has
been intimated by the Office of the Director-General Voluntary Organisations,
that the War Office has issued a circular to all our hospital units urging
them, owing to the shortage of cotton wool and its necessary employment in the
manufacture of explosives, to substitute as far as possible the use of sphagnum
in place of cotton. This has resulted in
a large increase in the demand for moss dressings from the Aberdeen War
Dressings and the Aberdeen University Working Party. Owing to the great supply of moss dressings
which it has been able to furnish, Aberdeen has been selected as one of the
four centres in the kingdom for supplying this material, while others have been
dispensed with. The two Associations I
have named have made themselves responsible for the supply of the dressings to
all the mobile units of the Third Army, and supply in addition very large
quantities to a great many hospital units on all the fronts, as well as to many
other hospitals in this country. Moss
enters into these dressings in large proportions. One of the Associations has since its
initiation provided and sent out 1,531,074 in total, while the other has sent
out 430,570. These facts and figures
indicate the importance of the work which Aberdeen is doing for our
wounded. At the present moment, more
than ever, it must not be allowed to fail the nation”! He went on to appeal for more volunteers to
join the moss preparation work.
A lack of
volunteers to carry out moss cleaning was holding up production of dressings,
so some attention was given to replacing human labour with machines. In June 1918, Sir Alex was sent to Beattock
to see moss cleaning machines in use. He
found the machines to be “very efficient”, though it has not been discovered if
such mechanical help was subsequently employed in Aberdeen.
Possibly the
last public service to the war effort paid by Sir Alexander before the signing
of the Armistice on 11 November 1918, was to preside at the opening ceremony on
the second day of the Aberdeen War Work Fair, held in the Music Hall in
mid-October. He spoke from the chair of
his own war experiences, describing vividly the conditions in which men were
fighting in the bleak conditions obtaining in the Italian Alps. He illustrated the value of clothing items
sent to the troops by relating how they would wrap a khaki muffler around the
head before donning the steel helmet in which they were obliged to sleep. He had personally treated wounded men in the
ruins of a farmhouse using dressings manufactured in Aberdeen. The sale of work from the fair realised £2,070.
The importance
of the role played by Alexander Ogston in the Italian campaign is best
illustrated by reference to the book “Scenes from the Italian War”, written by
George Trevelyan, the senior Red Cross representative there. “The hospital leant much on Scotland, for
besides Dr Brock (another surgeon) we also had the honour to have with
us Sir Alexander Ogston, whose fame and whose quiet, benevolent courtesy to all
persons great and small added to the prestige and popularity of Villa
Trento”.
After the end
of WW1, the British Government stood down the wartime voluntary associations
which had performed so well. Alex Ogston
thought this was a serious mistake and said so at a meeting (the final
meeting?) of the City of Aberdeen War Work Association in May 1919. He pointed to the cost saving that the
Government had made by delegating work to voluntary organisations and he called
into question the apparent Government assumption that a future war was
unlikely. “Probably the Government had
been moved by the hope that there would be no more war and that the League of
Peace which was occupying their attention at present would suffice to prevent
any future contests. He was sorry to say
that many years of studying human nature had led him to the conclusion that
they had not seen the last war. Human
nature was made to fight and fight it would.
If they looked into all the things which were happening all around them,
they would see more or less distinctly the writing on the wall which foretold
the great difficulties they would meet with perhaps the failure of the League
of Nations”. Of course, the League of
Nations did fail and Alex Ogston’s dismal view of the future, that war will
always be with us, has been entirely vindicated.
Alexander
Ogston and the situation of Poland and Silesia post-WW1
In 1921,
Alexander Ogston was 77 years old, had retired from surgery after a demanding
career in both war and peace, had retired from academic life, and retained
enough mental and physical capacity to continue enjoying his beloved country
estate of Glendavan. It seemed that his
involvement in intellectual matters was at an end but, apparently from nowhere,
he re-entered the public arena with two substantial and closely argued
articles, which appeared in the Aberdeen Journal, discussing the future of
Poland and Silesia, both sandwiched between a victorious nation, the USSR, to
the east and the vanquished nation, Germany, to the west in the centre of
Continental Europe.
The fighting in
WW1 ended on 11 November 1918 but it was not until 28 June 1919 that the Treaty
of Versailles ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers, who
had had differing national interests and requirements of Germany. Many conditions were placed upon Germany,
including the obligation to disarm, pay war reparations and recognise the
independence of, and cede territory to, surrounding countries. Poland and Czechoslovakia were to have their
independence recognised.
Silesia, which
lies along both banks of the Oder River, is a complex territory with a shifting
past, geographically overlapping the modern states of Germany, Poland and the
Czech Republic. At the end of WW1, it
was of major importance due to its possession of significant mineral resources
and industrial areas. Geographically, Silesia
was divided into Upper Silesia in the east and Lower Silesia in the west. Parts of Upper Silesia were to be ceded to
Poland while the future of the rest of the territory was to be decided by
plebiscite. But Silesia was complex, not
only in terms of its historically changing borders, but also its ethnicities,
languages, social structure and industrial ownership which made organising a
fair and meaningful plebiscite problematical.
Alexander
Ogston had travelled to Germany frequently since he was an itinerant medical
student in 1864. He became familiar with
the change in character of the German people during the latter decades of the
19th century and the rise of the militant, aggressive, nationalistic
Germany, which he both disliked and mistrusted.
His fears had been amply vindicated by the role of Germany in WW1. Ogston, being also a student of the past, was
familiar with the history of Central Europe and against this background, it is
unsurprising that he should have strong views on the treatment of Germany in
the aftermath of the Great War and would wish to place his concerns before the
public. Even today, retired university
professors frequently spend their time writing articles and letters for
publication in the papers!
Ogston feared
that an embittered Germany would seek to regain and exert power against its
neighbours and that an essential bulwark against a resurgent Germany was a
strong, independent Poland which could act as a counterpoise, but in order to
play such a role, Poland must be made as large and economically strong as
possible and that was why the future alignment of Silesia was so
important. He discussed the history of
this territory and expressed his concerns that Germany was being allowed to fix
the coming plebiscite there to its own advantage, effectively to gain control
of much of the area known as Silesia to the clear disadvantage of Poland and
Polish people living and working there.
Ogston supported the point of view of the French, who were very fearful
of a resurgent Germany, and blamed Britain and America for compromising with
Germany.
Alexander Ogston’s
second article concerned the role of the League of Nations in this
imbroglio. This was a high-minded
concept for an inter-government organisation to take action to maintain peace,
through collective security and disarmament.
It was seen by some as a progenitor of a world government and came into
being in 1920. The League proved to be a
step too far and was largely ineffective.
Benito Mussolini, the Italian leader, dismissed it with the
put-down. “The League is very well when
sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out”.
Britain and
France had signed the Entente Cordiale agreements in 1904 to resolve their
outstanding foreign policy disagreements and to end the traditional enmity
which had existed intermittently between the two nations for centuries and
Ogston saw the disagreement between the two over Silesia and Poland as
threatening that state of affairs. The
agreement to hold a plebiscite in the disputed territory was the compromise
between the disputing parties but its terms would, in effect result in a German
takeover.
Ogston ended
his second article as follows. “France
is the stabilising power in the world just now.
I state this advisedly. Though
she suffers from the devastations entailed by the war, and is in a difficult
financial position, yet she possesses the first army in the world. She is the only country where the
proclamation of the right of nations to dispose of their own destiny has not
provoked separatist movements, and where the sentiment of national unity has
preserved its full force; she is the only land where the Bolshevist doctrines
have hardly any influence; and it is her Generals who conducted the war to a
victorious conclusion. Britain, on the
other hand, poisoned by the Irish question, hampered by the Egyptian question,
as well as by the disturbances in Mesopotamia, Palestine, Persia, and India,
and by an industrial and social agitation which subsides now and then only to
reappear in more dangerous shapes. And
so on throughout the whole world almost.
Can we do without the cordial friendship of France? It is much to be doubted. So, I end as I began, asking: Will the
Entente Cordiale be swept away by another year?
It is possible. It is even not
improbable”.
Alexander
Ogston and charitable giving
Like his father
Francis Ogston, Alexander Ogston was a generous contributor to charitable
causes throughout his adult life, which he could afford to do. Some of the beneficiaries were local, some
national and occasionally, international.
The Ogstons, father and son, joined the Aberdeen Association for
Improving the Condition of the Poor when it was formed in 1870, as a result of
a meeting called by Aberdeen Lord Provost, Alexander Nicol. Queen Victoria was a patron of the association. Early initiatives included providing day-care
facilities for working mothers, the creation of penny banks to encourage the
poor to save, and a scheme to rehabilitate ex-prisoners. It still flourishes as Voluntary Service
Aberdeen.
Samuel Plimsoll
was a social reformer who had a particular interest in the safety of
seamen. In 1873, Alex Ogston joined the
local committee of the Plimsoll and Seamen’s Fund committee. The Great Chicago Fire of 1871 killed 300
people and destroyed about three square miles of the city, leaving 100,000 residents
homeless. There was an international
appeal for help and Alex Ogston MD contributed 1gn to the cause. Occasionally, Alex Ogston supported appeals
on behalf of individuals, or their dependants, such as the widow of Robert
Miller who lost his life attempting to extinguish a fire at the West and East
churches of St Nicholas, in 1874. Alex
Ogston gave 10/-. On another occasion,
in 1885, he wrote a letter to the Aberdeen Evening Express, appealing for
financial support for David White and his family. White had had both legs amputated in a
railway accident in 1885, during the British Association for the Advancement of
Science meeting which was held in Aberdeen.
One of the most
significant local charities, which attracted Alex Ogston’s routine support, was
the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. He
subscribed £5 per year and thus qualified to be chosen as a manager of the
institution, the earliest such contribution to be detected was in 1886, when
Alex Ogston was already the ARI’s Senior Surgeon. This publicly-spirited doctor also made some
unusual one-off donations to causes which had a particular appeal to his own
interests. In 1913, he subscribed 2gns
for the restoration of the mausoleum of the Earls Marischal in Dunnottar
churchyard, Stonehaven. The 5th Earl
Marischal was the founder and first chancellor of Marischal College.
During WW1,
Alex Ogston was particularly sympathetic to charitable initiatives which aided
the war effort. These included the
National Relief Fund, which supported the families of servicemen and those made
unemployed by the Great War, Lord Saltoun’s fund to provide bagpipes to the
three new regiments of the Gordon Highlanders, Lady Semphill’s motor ambulance
fund, Aboyne Castle hospital, the Aberdeen Sphagnum Depot and the County of
Aberdeen War Work Association.
Alexander
Ogston and public appearances
Although public
appearances were anathema to Professor Ogston, he felt obliged to attend some
events. This was especially true of
funerals of colleagues, particularly those for whom he held some admiration,
such as Professor Dyce Davidson in 1886, Professor Samuel Traill in 1887,
Professor Hamilton in 1909 and Sir Patrick Manson in 1922. Other prominent figures who were seen off by
Ogston included William Ferguson, Chairman of the Great North of Scotland
Railway in 1904 and Mr FT Garden of C and PH Chalmers, the law firm that
represented him, in 1918. He could
occasionally be persuaded to attend an important wedding, such as that of Sir
James Reid to Hon Susan Baring in 1899.
Other public events which tempted him out of 252 Union Street included
the complimentary dinner to Dr McKenzie Davidson by his colleagues in 1897 and
a banquet held in 1905 in the Scottish capitol in celebration of the
quatercentenary of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the annual
Aberdeen University ball, though he was not a dancer. In 1901, the millenary of King Alfred’s
death, there was a great celebration held in Winchester and Aberdeen was
invited to send a representative to the main celebration, the unveiling of a
massive bronze statue of Alfred by Sir Hamo Thorneycroft. Alexander Ogston, being now a nationally
recognised figure, was delegated to fulfil this role as a representative of
both the University and of Aberdeen Grammar School.
As Alexander
Ogston’s public persona grew in the perception of Aberdonians, especially due
to his role as senior surgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and his appointment
as Surgeon in Ordinary, first to Queen Victoria, and then to her son, King
Edward VII, he inevitably got drawn into civic life, though such public
appearances, pomp and ceremony were not attractive to him. The granting of the Freedom of Aberdeen to
Lord Rosebery in 1884 and to Lord Mount Stephen in 1901 were two such events
that he attended. Another public
occasion when Ogston consented to be present was the unveiling of the William
Wallace statue, by the Marquis of Lorne, at the north end of Union Terrace in
1888. Alex Ogston was often accompanied
by the second Mrs Ogston, who may well have found such occasions more congenial
than her husband. Alex Ogston’s links
to, and support of, the royal family ensured that he consented to be involved
in occasions and projects involving past and present monarchs and their close
relatives. A public meeting was held in
1910 with a view to raising a statue to the late departed King, Edward
VII. The project was enthusiastically
endorsed, and Alex Ogston became a member of the committee charged with
carrying through the project. Similarly,
in 1912, Queen Mary visited Aberdeen Children’s Hospital and a variety of
managers and doctors was presented to Her Majesty, including Alexander Ogston,
a hospital director at the time.
However, by 1923, when he had reached the age of 79, Alex Ogston was
clearly sending apologies for absence to most invitations that he received to
public events, as he completed his retiral from public life.
Alexander
Ogston and the Church
The first
reference that has been discovered linking Alexander Ogston to a church
congregation dates from 1869. At that
time, he had recently been married to Mary Jane Hargrave, was living at 169
Union Street and was employed as the Ophthalmic Surgeon at Aberdeen Royal
Infirmary. Also in that year, he was
made an elder of the West Kirk of St Nicholas in central Aberdeen, bordering
Union Street near his home. The Mither
Kirk of St Nicholas dates from 1151 and then housed two congregations, known as
the East and West Kirks. The West Kirk
was built in the 1750s and contained the Drum Aisle, where the Irvines of Drum
Castle were traditionally buried.
Alexander Ogston gained permission to raise a memorial plaque there to
his late father and his son Francis, who had been killed in the Second Boer
War. The plaque was placed in Drum’s
Aisle and reads as follows. “To the
memory of Francis Ogston, M.A., M.D., LL.D., Professor of Medical Jurisprudence
and Medical Logic, University of Aberdeen. Bom 28th July. 1803. Died 25th
September 1887. And of his grandson, Francis Hargrave Ogston, trooper in the
Imperial Light Horse. Born 15th August,1869. Killed in action Riet Kiul,
Klerksdorp, Transvaal, 17th April, 1901”.
In 1909 Alfred James Ogston, son of Sir Alexander and Lady Ogston,
gained permission to place a further brass plaque in Drum’s Aisle, in memory of
his wife, who was killed in the Messina earthquake in Sicily in 1908.
Dr James
Mitford Mitchell was the high-profile minister of the West Kirk of St Nicholas
between1878 and 1895. In 1888 he was appointed Chaplain-in-Ordinary in Scotland
to Queen Victoria. On his retiral from
St Nicholas’ in 1895, a committee of 55 members of the congregation was
established to choose a successor, convened by Dr Joseph Ogilvie. Alexander Ogston was one of that substantial
number and on the appointment of a successor to Mitford Mitchell, Alex Ogston
proposed a vote of thanks to Ogilvie.
Ogston could also occasionally be found attending the churches of other
denominations, such as the Free Church College in Aberdeen. Alexander Ogston did not seem to play a
significant role in the life of the St Nicholas Kirk and may have attended more
as a social duty than for any other reason and in his later years he gave up
going to church in Aberdeen, though he maintained the habit while he was
resident at Glendavan. While living on
his country estate, he and his family would walk the three miles to church in
the village of Logie Coldstone, where he liked the incumbent, Dr Davidson. Alexander Ogston’s son, Walter, later
reported that Alexander was unhappy with Dr Mitford Mitchell’s strictures
against science. It should be recalled
that after 1859 and the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”, there was
a vigorous and continuing debate between the evolutionists and the supporters
of the “Garden of Eden” story. Walter
Ogston sought the advice of his father on a career in the ministry about 1885
and his father’s reply may well have given a glimpse of his deepest feelings on
religion. “In these days my dear boy a
clergyman must be either a fool or a hypocrite”. Alex Ogston did not approve of the dire
warnings, commonly displayed in Victorian times, of the fate awaiting sinners
in the afterlife. When he took charge of
an operating theatre at Woolmanhill about 1880, he tore down a notice which
read “Prepare to meet thy God”. In spite
of this apparent ambivalence towards religion, Alex Ogston had a voluminous
knowledge of the scriptures. Son Walter
reported that “For many years Father used to read a portion of the Bible and
some prayers after breakfast on Sunday mornings, often an obscure part of the
book. He also used to test out Uncle
Henry (the Minister) by choosing obscure texts, but Henry was equal to this
challenge”. (The Reverend Henry Cowan
was married to Alex Ogston’s sister, Jane.
Henry Cowan was one time minister of New Greyfriars church, Edinburgh
and Professor of Divinity in the University of Aberdeen).
Honours
and distinctions awarded to Alexander Ogston
Throughout his
professional life, Alex Ogston received marks of recognition for his
contributions to science and medicine.
1872. Elected a
Fellow of the Medical Society of London
1873. Secretary of the Surgical Section of the BMA
at its meeting in London.
1879. Corresponding member of the Societe Royale
des Sciences Medicales et Naturelle de Bruxelles.
1884. Secretary of the International Medical
Congress in Copenhagen.
1887. Vice-President of the Surgical Section of the
BMA at its meeting in Dublin.
1896. Deputy Lieutenant for Aberdeenshire.
1899. Appointed as a Justice of the Peace for
Aberdeenshire.
1900. President of the Aberdeen, Banff and
Kincardine branch of the BMA, and again from 1915 – 1919.
1901. Honorary LL D at 450th anniversary
celebrations of Glasgow University.
1902. Member of the Royal Commission on Physical
Training in Scottish Schools
1904. Examinership in Surgery at the Royal Army
Medical College (for four years).
1905. President, Aberdeen Medico-Chirurgical
Society,
1907. Vice-President, National League for Physical
Education and Improvement.
1908. Vice-President of the Aberdeenshire Branch of
the Red Cross Society.
1910. Honorary LL D Aberdeen University.
1912. Knight Commander of the Victorian Order
(KCVO). Alexander Ogston had on several previous
occasions refused the offer of a knighthood, firstly in the reign of Queen
Victoria, but apparently relented on this occasion, under the influence of his
second wife, Isabella Matthews.
Apparently, she was rather attracted by the opportunity to be referred
to as “Lady Ogston”. The investiture
took place at Buckingham Palace on 30 June 1912. The Aberdeen Journal was apparently unaware
of the true reason for this previous omission when it welcomed Alexander
Ogston’s elevation – “His splendid surgical services to the nation in the
Soudan and South African wars have gone too long unacknowledged”.
1914. President of the BMA when its meeting was
held at Aberdeen.
1920. Order of the British Empire (OBE).
1920. Cross of “Cavaliere dell’ Ordine della Corona
d’Italia”. (Knight of the Order of the
Crown of Italy). Received from Baron
Sonnino on behalf of the King of Italy.
Publications
by Alexander Ogston
Alexander
Ogston’s published works were many. They
fell into three categories, biological and medical, factual but not
biological/medical and fiction. No
attempt has been made to compile a comprehensive list of his works related to
his profession, but 64 have been encountered during the course of this
study. They illustrate the wide range of
his interests. Surgery, of course, but
also toxicology (“Carbolic acid poisoning”), physiology (“Function of
semi-circular canals”), pathology (“On sudden death”), development (“The growth
and maintenance of the articular end of adult bones”), nephrology (“The
operation for stone”), bacteriology (Report upon micro-organisms in surgical
diseases”), anaesthesia (“Drumine as a local anaesthetic”), public health
(“Epidemic of typhoid fever”) and cancer (“Submaxillary cancer”). His surgical interests focussed mostly on the
skeleton (“Excision of the calcaneum”, “Extra-capsular fracture of femur”, “The
operative treatment of genu valgum”, “Improved method of treating club foot”,
surgical treatment of rickets”) but he
would apparently operate on any part of the body (“New operation for
post-adhesion of iris”, “Suture of the ulnar nerve”, “Trephining frontal
sinuses in catarrh”, “Formation of new socket for artificial eye”). His professional publications also included a
few really unusual topics (“On spontaneous combustion”, “Effects of
lightning”). Several of his publications
were written in German and at least one in French.
In addition to
his medical/scientific publications, Alexander Ogston also authored “A
genealogical history of the families of Ogston from their first appearance
circa 1200” and “Supplement to the Genealogical History of the families of
Ogston”. “On the making of a Scottish
Medical School” is a history of the Aberdeen University Medical School. “Reminiscences of Three Campaigns”, aimed at
producing a faithful record of his personal experiences as a surgeon in wartime
in Sudan, South Africa, Serbia and Italy.
“The prehistoric antiquities of the Howe of Cromar” was written by
Alexander Ogston long before his death in 1929 and then offered to the Spalding
Club, an antiquarian text publishing society founded in Aberdeen, by his
trustees. Of the three parts, the club
deemed only one suitable for publication and it appeared under the editorship
of W Douglas Simpson, then Aberdeen University librarian. Alexander Ogston’s only fictional work was “The
Capture of Tosheen” set in Sudan. No
place of this name has been discovered in the area of the country in which the
story is set, but “Tosheen” is an Arabic girl’s name meaning “prosperity”. Ogston was studying Arabic at the time.
The
Death of Alexander Ogston
Alexander
Ogston, prominent member of a wealthy Aberdeen family, formerly Regius Professor
of Surgery in the University of Aberdeen, formerly Senior Surgeon at Aberdeen
Royal Infirmary, died at his Aberdeen townhouse, 252 Union Street, at half-past
midnight on 1 February 1929. He had
lived in that house since1871, and it was there that he had raised two families,
where he had been consulted by his private patients and where he had conducted
his far-sighted and far-reaching research into micrococcal suppuration. His cause of death was certified as
“congestion of lungs 10 days, chronic nephritis, chronic myocarditis”, by Dr
William Souter, one of his former students, though he had also suffered a
slight stroke. Alex Ogston had been
retired from public life for some years and had been in failing health for a
while, partly due to an arthritic hip joint.
At the end he was bed-ridden but relatives remembered him still enjoying
smoking a cigar. Would he have had any
notion that only 60 years later replacement of defective hip joints by
prostheses would become routine work for orthopaedic surgeons? The informant who registered his death was a
daughter from his second marriage, Rosa, who was living with him at the time of
his demise.
Alexander
Ogston was buried privately at his own request.
Not for him the lying-in state within the bounds of Marischal College,
the initial destination of the coffin on his father’s departure. No grand cortege, no flowers, no report of
the funeral in the local press. He was
buried, not in the churchyard of his place of worship, St Nicholas’, perhaps
full by 1929, nor in the Allenvale Cemetery in the fashionable West End of the
Granite City, where many of his contemporaries’ lairs are located, but in the
churchyard of St Clement’s, Footdee, there to join a bevy of his nearest in a
dedicated plot, originally acquired to receive his grandfather, also Alexander
Ogston. Alex Ogston’s companions in
Fittie form a mix of both high and low.
Shipbuilders, shipmasters, seamen, fisherfolk and their families abound,
but not members of the medical and legal professions or academics from the
University. It was his wish to be buried
at St Clements in the same grave as his first wife, Mary Jane.
Sir Alexander Ogston grave
Shortly before
his death, Alexander Ogston resigned his directorship of the North of Scotland
Bank Ltd, a post he had held for over 38 years.
He was replaced by the eldest son of his cousin, Alexander Gordon Ogston
of Ardoe. Like all his immediate
relatives, Alexander Ogston’s sharp mind could be productively employed in
commerce.
In early April
1929, there was a sale of Alexander Ogston’s household furniture and
furnishings at 252 Union Street and a few days later the process was repeated
at Glendavan House and at Langcroft, both Dinnet. Separately from furniture and fittings, Alex
Ogston’s books were sold in Aberdeen by John Milne, Auctioneers. The eclectic mix of volumes offered for
disposal included Yarrell's British Birds, Scott's Last Expedition, Bureau of
American Ethnology, Hallam's History, Edgworth's Works, Nimmo's History of
Stirlingshire, Cunningham's Songs of Scotland, Robbie's Aberdeen, The Book of
Buchan and St John's Sport in Morayshire, also a large number of medical and
surgical text-books. Alexander Ogston
clearly had a deep attachment to the study of history.
The Glendavan
estate was subsequently bought by Mr CM Barclay-Harvey, owner of the adjacent
Dinnet estate and Glendavan continued in the same use as in Sir Alexander’s
proprietorship. The sale price was about
£6,000, an initial upset of £6,800 failing to be realised. Number 252 Union Street gained an altogether
unexpected, even bizarre, new purpose.
The Aberdeen Midget Golf Company had recently opened an 18-hole outdoor
course at Forbesfield, Aberdeen. Midget
golf courses seem to have been designed along similar lines to present day, crazy
golf arenas, found in pleasure parks and at the seaside, using minimal space
and with success depending more on luck than on skill with a golf club in
negotiating unconventional hazards. The
company decided that it needed to open a new, indoor course, to allow
afficionados (presumably there were some) to continue the pursuit of their new
sport during the hours of darkness in the Aberdeen winter. In September 1930, a new course was nearing
completion within 252 Union Street, which had been empty for some time. It was an 18-hole course, with the outward
holes being located on the ground floor and the return nine on the second
floor. Perhaps the least expected aspect
of this project was the identity of the designer, the architect, Tom Scott
Sutherland. He had been born in Torry,
the son of a trawlerman, in 1899. Early
in life, he lost a leg but that did not hold back his ambition. He trained in architecture and at the time of
the midget golf venture he was a principal in a practice with William Taylor. Sutherland proved to be a very successful
businessman, although the Aberdeen Midget Golf Company does not appear to have
been one of his major successes. He
bought the attractively located Garthdee House, which he eventually donated to
the presently named Robert Gordon University and the site is now the home of
both Gray’s School of Art and the School of Architecture, which bears Scott
Sutherland’s name. In 1939, Tom Scott
Sutherland still appeared to own, or at least occupy, 252 Union Street.
Alexander
Ogston’s personal estate was valued at £61,214 (worth about £2,715,000 in 2021
money). The items in his inventory were
very diverse from rents due on properties on the Glendavan estate, to a wide
variety of stocks, shares and bonds. His
trust disposition and settlement (with codicils) identified his second wife,
Isabella Margaret Matthews or Ogston, and his children, Flora McTavish Ogston,
Walter Henry Ogston and Alfred James Ogston as trustees. Codicils specified replacement trustees for
those who had died since the document was written, Rannald Frederick Logie
Ogston and Constance Amelia Irene Ogston joining their siblings charged with
administering the estate. Apart from a
number of legacies to be paid to sons in law, the assets were to be distributed
equally amongst Alexander Ogston’s surviving children, or their families, if
they had predeceased the Ogston parent.
It was interesting that Alexander Ogston chose to treat his daughters
and sons equally, both as trustees and as beneficiaries of his estate.
The
personal characteristics of Alexander Ogston
Many
commentators who had known Ogston, or who had observed his doings, later
recorded his quirks, characteristics and habits, and the assembly of these
diverse observations, mostly authored by his former students and by his
children, allows an approach to a description of his complex personality. Occasionally, Ogston himself permitted a glimpse
into the recesses of his make-up.
His daughter
Constance made a fundamental point about his character and that was that he
essentially led two separate lives one the personal life of home and family,
shooting, fishing and exploring the countryside, and the other the professional
life of science, clinical practice and deep intellectual interrogation of issues
which captured his attention. Also, he
would transform from the chatty vacationer at Glendavan to the “grave and
silent surgeon giving monosyllabic replies” almost instantly on returning to
252 Union Street. He has a power of
intense concentration and although he read much, he said little, being inclined
to keep his thoughts to himself. He had
a wide circle of “friends kept at a distance” but few intimates. He was never familiar with members of either
sex. Not many people knew him well
enough to call him “Sandy”, though a few found the courage to do so after his
demise, perhaps to hint at a closeness of friendship which may not, in reality,
have existed. Alexander Ogston’s younger
children and their spouses referred to him affectionately as “the Dad”, but not
to his face. He eschewed small talk in
social settings, generally being a good listener but not a good talker. A rare exception to this generalisation was
the evening he spent over dinner in the company of Lord Methuen and his senior
officers at Boshof, South Africa, in May 1900, which Ogston thoroughly enjoyed,
but perhaps that was because the company was highly knowledgeable and only
discussed meaty topics. Alex Ogston always declined invitations to
dinner parties saying that such events shortened one’s life and he was ever
aware of the brevity of the human span and the importance of not squandering
time. When at Glendavan he declined to
mix with the “County set”. But, in spite
of this outward shell of self-sufficiency and even insularity, Alex Ogston had
a counter-balancing dependency on the company of a wife and children in a calm
and supportive home environment.
Alexander’s
second wife, Isabella Margaret was not academically inclined and, though they
were devoted to each other, they did not discuss intellectual matters. What Isabella Margaret did excel at was
household management, an important attribute in a large family with an
overworked husband. But her household
skills did not extend to terminating the live turkey purchased for Christmas
lunch in about 1912, the task instead being delegated to her husband. Despite his knowledge of comparative anatomy,
his surgical skills and his ability to dispatch a flying bird swiftly, he
botched this execution in a spectacularly comical way. Initially he tried, unsuccessfully, to wring
the turkey’s neck. The next attempt to
extinguish its life was to choke this avian feast by placing its head on one
side of the cellar door and its neck on the opposite side. Thirdly, he resorted to his skills with the
knife, by attempting to sever its throat, but finally he succeeded in his
objective by decapitation. The bird,
then actuated only by signals from its intact spinal cord, scuttled around the
cellar trailing its almost detached head behind it!
Son, Walter
Henry Ogston, who was born in 1873, recorded his memories of home life with his
father. He remembered about 1877 wearing
a tartan dress and being carried by his nurse.
In the evenings, his father would occupy the dining room alone until the
children were admitted to his presence for 30 minutes, when he would interact
and play with them, for example joining them in roasting chestnuts or going
over their stamp collections. He would
also indulge in noisy activities such as carrying them around the room in a tablecloth
and he would also sing to them, usually relaying nonsense rhymes. Sometimes, they would be allowed sweeties
from a special “Rock Box” kept in his study.
When the children took their leave of their father at the end of their
allotted time there was a formal ceremony when they kissed his closed hand and
said “goodnight”. After nursery dinner
on Sundays, the children would be allowed into the dining room where their
father would teach them paraphrases and this educational thread ran through
other aspects of his interactions with his children. If he was asked a question, he would always
try to answer it, provided that it was sensibly cast. But Alexander was always reading something
and often the children would have to endure his silence, even though they were
in his presence.
While Alexander
Ogston was generous towards his children, he had a Spartan attitude to his own
needs, living frugally, even parsimoniously, for example never using shaving
soap, as opposed to the household variety, until he was 70. He seemed not to notice if his suit was worn
or his knees baggy, even during his first interview with Queen Victoria, when
he realised rather late while conversing with her that he had a hole in the
upper of one shoe. His personal dress
paid no heed to fashion, and he continued to wear a frock coat long after they
ceased to be a la mode, though he abandoned this item when he retired
from the Regius Chair of Surgery.
Instead, he then adopted grey tweeds.
Bizarrely, at home in the evenings he always wore red socks with a red
cummerbund, and he had a few personal indulgences, such as using White Rose
perfume.
Although Alex
Ogston was a connoisseur of wines and kept some good vintages in the cellar at
252 Union Street, he generally drank in moderation and did not over-indulge in
alcoholic beverages. He claimed that,
even as a student, he had never been drunk in his life. Another personal characteristic, even
obsession, was with accurately knowing the time. About 1895, A&J Smith, Jewellers,
Aberdeen, instituted a daily time signal from Greenwich. Ogston then attended the shop almost daily to
adjust his own watch’s accuracy to the second.
A further example of his quasi-obsessive behaviour concerned his enquiry
in Davidson and Kay, the chemists, to be shown sponges. He then spent a quarter of an hour testing
the absorptive capacity of the samples in a bucket of water requested from Mr
Kay.
Alexander
Ogston was strikingly handsome, being tall with a characteristic
moustache. When, about 1911, Alex Ogston
visited Leeds University (he was then 67), the staff, who knew of Ogston by
reputation, could not believe that this fine specimen in front of them was THE
Alexander Ogston, but must be his son, such was his youthful appearance. William Souter, one of Ogston’s most
outstanding students, gave an excellent description of Ogston’s appearance when
lecturing. “Outside the classroom we had
seen the handsome, striking, frock-coated figure of Sandy Ogston, his topper at
an angle – in later years at the “Beatty” tilt (Admiral Beatty wore his uniform
hat at an angle, tilting down over his left eye) – and in the classroom we
were fascinated by his personality. The
firm features the controlling presence the coloured polo or Shakespeare collar
with the ring round the tie the dangling pince-nez moistened as they passed his
lips the better to make them hold on his nose while he consulted the lecture
book with all its strips of addenda, the sweeping of the moustache with the
three lesser fingers of the right hand: the ensemble made an indelible impression
on the minds of all of us”. Alex Ogston
also had an unusual mannerism in his speech, with a sing-song delivery and the
dropping of the “g”s at the end of his words.
He was an
afficionado of the country sports of shooting and fishing. but the quarry
always had to have a chance of escape and he was opposed to slaughter for its
own sake. He would never shoot a sitting
bird and an injured animal had to be despatched immediately. He taught his children to follow a similar
philosophy when they took up guns and fishing rods. Alexander Ogston angled for trout in the Don
at Bridge of Alford and on a beat at Inverurie belonging to his friend, Mr
Tait, the owner of Inverurie Paper Mill, before he acquired Glendavan in 1888,
when he could pursue pike and perch in the loch there. The only ball game in which he participated
was croquet, played enthusiastically at Glendavan, where his style of play was
described as “deliberate and unperturbable”.
Lameness eventually forced him to give up his first sporting love,
shooting, but he managed to continue with croquet.
Culturally,
Alex Ogston enjoyed Gilbert and Sullivan operas, though he was tone deaf. He did not approve of people pursuing an
interest in amateur music-making, though he had tried to learn the flute as a
young man. Alexander was a keen
photographer and used a glass plate camera, developing his own negatives and
printing his own pictures. Lightning
storms were one of the natural phenomena that fascinated him. He also used a stereoscopic camera to take
photographs of curios and artefacts that he acquired on his travels, which gave
an appearance of depth to the images when viewed in a stereoscope. However, he seemed to have no interest in
fine art, unlike his soap manufacturing cousins, James and Alexander Milne
Ogston, who spent lavishly on the works of prominent artists. On the other hand, Alex Ogston liked reading
adventure stories, such as the works of RL Stevenson and Rider Haggard. He was also a fan of Charles Dickens and
William Shakespeare. Ogston himself
enjoyed a fine command of descriptive prose, as is clearly evident in his own
non-scientific works, “The Capture of Tosheen” and “Reminiscences of Three
Campaigns”. The following passage from
the latter work gives a description of the landscape of Suakin, Sudan at dusk.
“I can even now
vividly recall the pure delight, such as life does not often afford, of my
first evening out there behind the farthest corner of the low breastwork of the
camp, where all was sinking into stillness, fanned by the pure gentle air of
the desert on which we looked, watching the purpling sunset sky, ornamented by
the horizontally placed crescent of the new moon floating boat-like about
thirty degrees above the horizon, its convexity directed straight downwards, showing
as a brilliant green against the coloured heavens, with the still-lighter green
disc of its unilluminated side as a faint circle above it, while the stars
emerged and the sky darkened and the camp fires burned red, with black figures
flitting across them, and the horses neighed and the camels groaned, till all
sank to repose. The Great Bear was out
of sight in the north; Orion and Sirius, which fringe our southern Scottish
sky, were right overhead, and in their accustomed place on the southern horizon
was the Southern Cross”.
Dr Harold Edgar
Smith (MA 1901, MB, ChB 1910) told the following tale about Alexander Ogston’s
use of anecdote in teaching. “The date,
gentlemen, is the 12th August and the only son of a County family is
learning to shoot at the butts and a pellet, possibly a ricochet, enters the
boy’s eye. The boy you may be sure is
brought as soon as possible to your consulting room. But gentleman, the boy’s parents by tears and
supplication and every artifice will try to postpone the operation. If you listen to their entreaties, you may
blind their boy”. (Due to sympathetic
ophthalmia, the transference of inflammation from the injured to the uninjured
eye – treatment is the immediate removal of the injured eye). On opening his surgery class in October 1901,
Ogston heartily wished that the session might be a successful and useful one to
them. “Even one session was a big slice
off a human life, and he hoped it might be a slice full of service and happiness
to them”. Professor Ogston was not
usually given to such social niceties.
Perhaps he was mellowing with the years and also becoming aware of his
own limited remaining time?
Another
striking aspect of Ogston’s personality showed up in his classes. Simply by his presence he was able to command
respect and order. No student ever tried
to disrupt his classes. It is tempting
to contrast this quality, present in abundance in Ogston’s mien, with the
hapless Professor Johnston, who became an inevitable victim of student high
jinks. Further, Ogston’s ability to
compel order and attention extended to engendering the sort of student loyalty
that most academics can only dream of, as evidenced by their actions to
persuade him to reconsider his resignation from the Senior Surgeoncy in 1892
and their welcome for the boss on his return to Aberdeen Joint Station from the
Sudan in 1885.
There are many
anecdotes extant concerning Alex Ogston’s meticulous attention to both his
patients and his clinical students. Dr
William Henderson (MB, ChB 1912). “Sunday
morning from 10am to near 11am was a time which Ogston devoted specially to
investigating complicated cases, only they were never “cases” to him. They were human beings for whom he
sympathised”. Lady Gray, Elgin had a
high regard for the thoughtfulness of Ogston’s work. “I believe that in training his students he
bore in mind that many of them would go to country practices and therefore in
his operating work he used as few tools as possible to show what could be done
with simple things if necessary. He had
no elaborate operating table with many gadgets but a plain wooden “kitchen” one
such as would be available in a cottage”.
She also observed the devotion of his support staff. “On the wards he was largely worshipped by
his nursing and dresser staff. He was a
bit aloof and did not suffer fools gladly.
Unobtrusive but assertive.
Confronting a man who thought he should have more active treatment, AO
said “There are two things we can do. We
can operate. It may kill you. Or we can wait. Which will you do?” “I’ll wait, Sir”. “I think you are wise””. Gently putting the man in his place, without
putting him down.
However, he
could easily become annoyed and prone to precipitate action if his personal
dignity was offended, which happened several times in his career, for example
his instant resignation as Joint Medical Officer for Aberdeen when his bill for
treating patients during the smallpox epidemic of 1871 – 1872 was disputed, his
resignation from the Senior Surgeoncy in 1892 over his workload, his hostility
to Dr Wolfe, the retiring post-holder, being asked to arbitrate over his
candidacy for the post of Ophthalmic Surgeon in 1868 and his successful objection
to the unfair (as he saw it) allocation of space in the Marischal College South
Wing extension in 1889.
One expression
of Alexander Ogston’s outstanding intellect was his facility for learning
foreign languages. Both at school and at
Marischal College he had enjoyed a classical education, studying both Latin and
Greek. As a medical student he had
travelled widely in Continental Europe absorbing German in particular along the
way. His son, Walter, elaborated on his
father’s employment of this skill. “When
he was in general practice, he spent much of his time while driving from the
house of one patient to another, he would read foreign newspapers and, in this
way, pick up language expertise. When he
went to Sudan, he took up the study of Arabic.
When in Italy in 1916 – 1917, he studied Italian”.
Another aspect
of Alexander Ogston’s fundamental character was his reforming zeal. He could not resist proposing change in any
organisation where he perceived that things could be better organised for the
general good. His proposals for the
reformation of the medical societies in the North-East of Scotland in and after
1872 was a pointer to future events when he was so prominent in unflinchingly
publicising the deficiencies in the medical services of the British Army and
Navy, and of making significant contributions to the processes of reform
Alexander
Ogston was supremely self-confident and never doubted his own ability to tackle
almost any issue, situation or problem.
Possibly the only quality he ever claimed for himself was the capacity
for hard work, but he did not overcome difficulties by unremitting effort
alone. His skill as a surgeon, his
understanding of the scientific method, his analytical ability, his judgement
of the importance of new advances, such as Lister’s antiseptic surgical
technique, his ability to operate on any part of the human anatomy, or to
advise on any medical condition all contributed to his comprehensive
problem-solving capabilities. That his
self-confidence was not misplaced was obvious from the constant progress made
by his professional career.
Many times,
Alex Ogston demonstrated his physical courage, in warfare during the Sudan
campaign, in South Africa in Second Boer War and with the Italians in
North-East Italy for more than a year during WW1. He seemed immune to the fear that afflicts
most people operating in war zones, several times coming close to a violent
end, though his closest brush with mortality was due to typhoid fever in the
advance towards Kimberley in 1900.
His personal
morality was also unshakeable. He cared
not one whit for the opinions of others “who did not matter” and always sought
to do what he saw as the right thing.
This extended to retiring earlier than he needed to from both the Senior
Surgeoncy and the Regius Chair of Surgery, because he felt that it was time to
give way to younger men. One of his
students remembered the gist of his announcement to his last surgical
class. He said that he had decided to
retire while he was still in possession of his powers of self-criticism, lest
he should drift on to the time when he would fail to appreciate his own
shortcomings. But his pursuit of what
some would have seen as self-interest, for example his attitude to the
Ophthalmic Institute managers in 1868, his brush with the managers of ARI in
1870 when he was applying for the post of Junior Surgeon, and the mutual antagonism
between Ogston and the Aberdeen Town Councillors over his medical bill during
the smallpox epidemic of 1872 meant that he always had some detractors, but he
overcame such hostility with his unremitting brilliance.
Alex Ogston
never talked about his patients, and he never took unjustifiable risks in the
operating theatre. However, he resented
economy in treating his patients as the following story illustrates. The House Committee of ARI was worrying about
the cost of dressings and instructed the Superintendent to ask Ogston to be
more sparing in his use of materials, as he was using more than the other
surgeons. Ogston asked the sister in
charge, “Will you please dress that leg”?
The reply was “Yes, Sir, but what shall I dress it with”? “Oh, any dirty rag you can find about the
ward, Sister”, was Ogston’s ironic reply.
On another occasion he went to great lengths to ensure that a patient’s
future prospects were not harmed by a misinterpretation of a scar on her neck,
which had resulted from him operating to remove a branchial cyst. Because the scar might be wrongly suspected as
resulting from tuberculosis, he instructed his assistant, Dr William Henderson
to provide the woman with a certificate to that effect.
Professor
Ogston was ever modest, though sometimes excessively self-deprecating. He never sought for honours, holding them to
be ultimately worthless, though inevitably honours came his way, such were his
achievements.
The essence
of the man
Many obituaries
appeared recounting the principal achievements of the departed surgeon but
perhaps the most telling comments, the remarks that penetrated to the essence
of the man, came from those who knew him best, his contemporaries and former
students, subsequently risen to positions of high responsibility.
Alexander
Ogston’s son-in-law, Professor Sir Herbert Grierson, Professor of English
Literature at Aberdeen, and then at Edinburgh Universities assessed the great
man as follows. “Sir Alexander was in
many respects a characteristic Aberdonian, cautious, shrewd, realistic and
scientific in his outlook on life but with a strain of idealism and a touch of
boyishness in his nature”.
Surgeon
Vice-Admiral Sir James Porter. MA 1874, MB CM 1877 (Aberdeen), Director General
of the Medical Department of the Navy. “Sir Alexander Ogston was the first
pioneer in dealing with the medical conditions prevailing in the Army and Navy
in modern times. That work he did
without fee or reward”.
Professor
Ashley Mackintosh, Chair of Medicine, Aberdeen University, in opening his class
on 4 February 1929. “Sir Alexander was
at his best in the wards and operating theatre.
He (Mackintosh) would refer only briefly to only two lessons
which he (Ogston) taught them … The first was method in their work. It was a real education to note how carefully
he examined a patient and prepared for an operation. The second was the daily habit of courtesy and
gentleness in dealing with the poorest and most complaining of their sick
brethren. But the man himself was
greater than teacher or scientist.
Physically, nature had favoured him.
Osier in Aberdeen had called him “the Adonis of the profession”. He was indeed a most striking and impressive
personality. It might be truthfully said
that he did not lay himself out to attract his students, and yet, such was the
inherent and indefinable power of the man that no teacher of his time, he would
venture to say, wielded greater or even as great influence. They knew they were in the presence of one of
the really big men, rarely met”.
Alexander
Ogston’s successor, Sir John Marnoch said, “Nature had gifted him with a fine
brain, but she had also endowed him with an imposing frame. The tall commanding figure, the sparing
sentences deliberately uttered and an almost old-world courtesy combined to
make a personality not easily forgotten”.
Marnoch also recorded, “To the present generation of students he was
unknown, except by name and reputation, but in his time, he was the most
outstanding figure in the University. He
early made his reputation, which was world-wide, by his researches into the
cause of suppuration, and, as one would have expected from his scientific bent,
he at once realised what Lister’s great discovery meant to suffering humanity,
and became an ardent pioneer of the antiseptic system of surgery, upon which
our present-day methods are based. Upon
those of us who were privileged to be his students when he was at the zenith of
his fame as a teacher in surgery, he made a great impression”.
Perhaps the
final word on Alexander Ogston should go to Professor William Bulloch, MB M
Chir 1890 (Aberdeen), Professor of Bacteriology, University of London. Speaking of Alexander Ogston’s status as a
bacteriological pioneer, Bulloch said, “Ogston’s work on the bacterial
causation of acute suppuration was the only English one which today finds a
permanent place in the history of bacteriology in its golden age”.
Concluding
statement
It is surely
important not to let history forget this intellectual titan who did so much for
the advancement of antiseptic surgery, surgical innovation, the understanding
of bacterial disease in surgical wounds, the reformation of military medical
organisation, the development of the Aberdeen University estate and who three
times saw active service as an operative surgeon, on the last occasion at the
age of 72.
Sir Alexander Ogston's son, Walter Henry, who died in 1957, wrote, “I had always hoped that someone would come
forward to compose his biography. But
this was not to be”. It is to be hoped
that the descendants of the great man, and others, will find something of value
in the present assessment of Sir Alexander’s life.
Don Fox
20221006
donaldpfox@gmail.com
I am indebted to the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle for granting access to materials in their possession, which are identified by references starting with "RA"
