Helen Marshall Rough

Biography

Helen Marshall Rough is a bit of an enigma, though what we do know of her is interesting. I first began to research her as a result of a request from Sue John, Director of Operations, Resources and Enterprise at Glasgow Women’s Library. On a walk through Glasgow Necropolis, Sue spotted Helen Rough’s gravestone stating that she was the founder of the Glasgow and West of Scotland Co-operation of Trained Nurses. She was intrigued and wanted to know more.

What I uncovered tells us much about the organisation and the times in which she lived, and it reveals a great deal about the drive and the success of Helen Rough, but we never get to hear her voice or her opinions. Some of this can be deduced however, from the company she kept and also from the change in her economic circumstances.

A trawl of the census reveals that Helen was born in 1840 to Margaret Rough and Archibald Rough, a cabinetmaker. She was the youngest child of the family, with three sisters and three brothers. She grew up at 17/18 Leith Walk in Edinburgh, the site of her father’s cabinet making and upholstery business. At the age of twenty, Helen was still living with her parents.

Ten years later, Helen was resident at 6 Kew Terrace, in Dowanhill, Glasgow with James Bell, her widowed brother-in-law, a head teacher. As befitted James’s standing, they employed a cook/servant and a housemaid. Since Helen was not having to do these tasks, her role would have been to manage the staff and the household, ensuring that everything ran smoothly.

By 1881, Helen was living in Gloucestershire, at the home of Richard Glover, a married Baptist Minister with an 11year old son and a nine year old daughter. There is no mention of his wife’s whereabouts on the night of the census. Perhaps she was hospitalised or away and Helen was helping care for the children. I assumed that Helen Rough was probably a housekeeper or nanny, but she is described in the census documents as ‘deriving income from (indecipherable) property’. She has become a woman with private means. It is likely that she inherited property or money.

On 25 December 1893, Helen Rough placed an ad in the Glasgow Herald. It stated that Glasgow and West of Scotland Cooperation of Trained Nurses (hereafter referred to as G&WSCTN or the Co-operation) was now open for enrolment. The stated aim was to ensure that nurses obtained full remuneration for their services. Copies of the rules and further information were to be had from 18 Sardinia Street, Hillhead, which was Helen’s home address. Sardinia Terrace became Cecil Street where the G&WSCTN home would later be based at various addresses and numbers.

As will be highlighted later, the fuller aim of the organisation was to ensure nurses were kept in regular work and that they received adequate salaries, but it was also mooted that there should be a central professional register of nursing staff and accommodation was to be provided in a central Glasgow home’ so they had somewhere to return to when working. As will be seen later, the creation of a central register of nurses was something that was very controversial and most medical men were very much against it.

By 1901, Rough was resident at 16/18 Cecil Street, Glasgow.  She is now described as the Lady Superintendent of G&WSCTN. Also present at the address are Margaret P Smith, and Assistant Lady Superintendent, Ellen Gough ,and Annie Woodburn and Elizabeth Bennett, who are trained Sick Nurses. Isabella Smith and Catherine Keenan are resident Domestic Servants.

The 1911 census finds Helen living at 16/18 Cecil Street. She is described as Superintendent of the G&WSCT. At that time she would have been 72 years old.

The Census does not give us any more information till we find her death certificate stating that she died on 05 April 1932 at Eagleton, Bridge of Allan. She was 92 yrs old and had never married. The cause of death was said to be pneumonia and senility. She was described as a retired Nursing Superintendent.

The Glasgow and West of Scotland Cooperation of Trained Nurses.

The first reports of the work done by the G&WSCTN began to appear in the press in 1894.

In January of that year, a letter to the editor of the Glasgow Herald, was less than enthusiastic. Penned by Dr John Lindsay Steven, an eminent pathologist at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, he offered only ‘qualified approval’ as he felt that the formation of a central nursing register would be a mistake. He argued that such a register should ideally be in the same form as the Medical Register, but that would be beyond the abilities of the Co-operation. He suggested that instead, something similar to the Domestic Servant’s Register might be created, but he ‘presumed nurses would not want that’.

His opposition to the registration of nurses was based in the belief that ‘any attempt to professionalise nursing would be injurious to the highest interests of the nurse. A registration or nursing diploma is no guarantee of fitness to practice. (The same might well be said for the possession of a medical degree, but he seems to have conveniently overlooked that.)

This perfectly illustrates the ‘Angel’ syndrome that persists even today and has been further underlined by the Covid-19 pandemic. Pay nurses badly, undermine their training and skills, yet at the same time deify them by calling them ‘angels’.

The Dundee Evening Telegraph of October 1894 reported on the response to a speech given by Professor Coates who took the positive views that the G&WSCTN existed ‘solely to help nurses to better themselves’.

The response to this speech was made by Mrs Elder. This was almost certainly Isabella Elder, the well-known wealthy widow of John Elder the Govan shipyard owner, who died in 1869. Isabella Elder immersed herself in philanthropic causes. Among other ventures, she underwrote the costs when Queen Margaret College opened a medical school for women in 1890 and she also endowed the Elder Cottage Hospital in Govan. The work of the G&WSCTN would have certainly fitted with her interests.

It was stated that Mrs Elder had investigated the affairs of the Co-operation thoroughly and she thought that Miss Rough was entitled to great credit for the pains she had taken in carrying on the work, and she predicted that it would not be long before the Cooperation was self-supporting.

That this was Isabella Elder, seems to be borne out by a report in the Glasgow Herald of October 1894 which stated that Mrs Elder was the Honorary President of the organisation, and that the ladies and gentlemen and medical men were eager to meet her. Professor Coats expressed ‘the pleasure of all in her presence’.

Somewhat outnumbered among the many male medical luminaries present, were Dr Alice McLaren and Dr Elizabeth Pace. McLaren and Pace were graduates of the London School of Medicine for Women who then worked at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Together, their passion for women’s health and women’s rights led them to become founders of the Glasgow Women’s Hospital (About which I intend to publish a separate blog.) and also the Glasgow and West of Scotland Association for Women’s Suffrage. Since Elder was also deeply concerned for women’s rights, health and suffrage, it suggests that Helen Marshall Rough was of a similar mind. We cannot definitively say she was pro-suffrage, but the presence of these three powerful women at the meeting along with the stated aims of her organisation, seem to suggest that she may have been. Strangely though, we never hear her voice or opinions at any of these gatherings.

Professor Murdoch Cameron, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Professor Henry Clark, along with Mrs Elder, spoke in support of the co-operative principle as applied to nurses.

By 1900 there were 132 nurses on the roll. They dealt with over 1100 cases and earned £7,186. Their average earnings were £65-£75.

Officials were effusive about progress, and it was stated that “We ought to cherish a very warm respect for Christian nurses….who give themselves to a self-sacrificing work of devotion, unselfishness and love.” The Countess of Eglinton (Janet Lucretia Montgomerie who was a British Red Cross administrator) saw the value in having a home such as that the Association provided, declaring it ‘a great boon to nurses’. She was also of the opinion that as many lives were saved by good nursing, as by skilful medical treatment, stating that the value of good nursing was now recognised by all classes and that, whereas in the past, a mother would have done it, the value of a professional nurse was now recognised.

While this is a rather rosy picture from a woman of substance, I doubt that many working class Glaswegians in ‘single-ends’ had the funds to employ a private nurse to care for them.

By 1907, the entrance qualifications for nurses had been clarified. They had to be at least 25 years old before beginning training, despite the fact that it was possible to study and practice Law or Medicine much earlier than this. Professor Hector Cameron voiced his approval of this state of affairs, since nurses required maturity and ‘It is the closest profession allied to domestic work’.

Even although the Co-operation aspired to better treatment for nurses, many still shared similar conditions to domestic servants. If they got ill there was no sick pay, and if they were currently not working on a case, they had to find somewhere else to live. Although Professor Cameron clearly thought that he was affirming nurses, in one fell swoop he devalues the worth of both nursing staff and domestic servants.

The registration question raised its head once more in 1909. The Queen, the Lady’s Newspaper reported on a meeting of the Co-operation, chaired by Lady Stirling Maxwell. Reference was made to the London conference on the Nurses Registration Bill. While the meeting was in favour of a common Bill for the whole of the UK, they also wanted a Scottish Board to manage Scottish affairs. They did not believe that a Scottish institution could be managed from London. Some might say once more “So what is new”?

As the organisation grew, the Sunderland Echo and Shipping Gazette introduced a note of caution. They highlighted that, despite the boast that a nurse could earn £66 per year, they had to pay living expenses for their accommodation and sometimes they could go for weeks without getting work. During that time, they had to find and pay for board and lodging.

Come 1914, there were 188 nurses on the roll who had earned £14,525. Sixty-two nurses volunteered for war service but other than that, there is no other mention made of the war in the Minutes of the Annual General meeting. Perhaps symptomatic of the ‘It will all be over by Christmas view’ being perpetuated at this time?

The following years saw little of interest reported on the Co-operation and the next significant report is that of the 30^th anniversary AGM when it appears that those present discussed their historical roots

… the Co-operation owed its inception to a Miss Helen Rough in 1892 and was formed with the object of supplying trained nurses, and at the same time, of securing regular employment, adequate remuneration and the advantages of a central home to nurses on the staff. At the end of each case the lady collected the fee and paid to the Lady Superintendent a percentage thereof, which was placed to the credit of a common fund, out of which yearly working expenses were defrayed.

Concerns began to change in 1935. As a private fee-paying nursing service there were questions about their future role. The Scotsman reported that it was hoped that the introduction of the Commission on Public Health Services would not lead to a contraction in work since it would make medical services available to a great many people.

The outbreak of the war in 1939 saw 10 nurses mobilised for war service, leaving 179 on the roll. The Sick Fund for nurses was in deficit, which was concerning since these nurses were excluded from the NHS Insurance Acts. From this point the statistics reveal a decline in both work and finance. The imminent introduction of the NHS affected members in different ways and they took up different perspectives.

The view that the new NHS would diminish the private nursing service was disputed by Dr Stuart Laidlaw, Glasgow’s Medical Officer of Health. He believed that though everyone would have access to a District Nurse under the new Scottish Act, this would not conflict with private nursing services. He stated that while people were free to spend their own money, they would prefer their loved ones to be cared for by private nurses at home, rather than in a state hospital, even if it was well run. He deplored the tendency to make everyone equal, seeing this as pulling down people at the top rather than elevating people at the bottom. He also was of the view that there would not be enough private beds in the NHS. His overall conclusion was that the work of the Co-operation would increase rather than decrease.

One might say, with friends like this, the new NHS certainly did not need enemies.

Dr TD Kennedy was more realistic, pointing out that due to a lack of trained nurses during the war the G&WSCTN had had to refuse 3 out of 4 cases and they were still having to refuse 2 out of 5. While in 1929 there were 200 nurses in the Co-operation, now there were only 72 and income had dropped to below £17,000.

The 1950 AGM had more than a hint of desperation In a lecture titled ‘The Importance of Domestic Nursing’ given by Dr Hector MacLennan, Consultant Gynaecologist at the Victoria Infirmary, he stated that no nurse was completely trained unless she has experience in private domestic nursing. It was to the patients ultimate good that they should be treated at home. His view was that in hospitals and institutions, the nurse had rarely to make responsible decisions, but when nursing in a private house, she had to take that responsibility. This is breathtakingly patronising, and I suspect has never been true. In fact, when reading about some of the other women in this blog, it is far from true. The idea of Rebecca Strong never having taken responsible decisions whilst engaged in hospital nursing is laughable.

The meeting was chaired by the Duchess of Montrose who complained that …’the days when girls want to serve those who are sick or in sorrow have gone. Until Britain returns to this unselfish way of life, it will not get back on its feet’.

No account is taken of the fact that the organisation has failed to keep up with the times, or the effect of a World War on morale. Poor salaries, lack of funding and lack of work are all dismissed in favour of moral failure on the part of the staff. Given today’s climate, this all sounds incredibly familiar.

In summary, there is little information about Helen to be found, but a great deal about the organisation. She is rarely mentioned in any report and seems not to have played any major part in the administration or at any of the meetings. This leaves us with questions.

We know nothing about her as a person. We never hear her voice. What was she like?

How did a cabinet maker’s daughter from Leith end up living on private means?

The honorary president was Mrs Elder.  Was this Isabella Elder? It seems almost certain that this was so.

How was she able to induce so many of those perceived as ‘the great and the good’ to be part of the organisation – and did they eventually do a power grab from her?

So far I have not come up with any evidence of Helen Rough being a trained nurse.

I wonder whether the organisation she set up turned into something other than what she intended. Her original aims seem very laudable. How come it ended up as an exclusive private nursing service?

It appears that the organisation was finally done for by the inception of the NHS, but I have not yet been able to ascertain when it folded.  It was still going in 1950, albeit in a much-reduced state.

Whilst, as is to be expected, in the early days there was a preponderance of medical men on the committee, this state of affairs seems to have continued right up to the 1950’s. Why? Was this deliberate or an unthinking acceptance of the status quo? In marked contrast to Redlands Hospital for Women in Glasgow, which will feature in a later blog, no woman’s voice is ever heard unless she is a ‘Lady’ or a ‘Countess’.

There is very little indication that this was a feminist organisation although its original aim was to improve the working conditions of women.

The attitudes of many of the medical men involved in the organisation absolutely portray the power of the patriarchy and the class system. Was it easier just to cave in, in the interests of keeping the organisation going?