The Project Gutenberg eBook of Dorothea Beale of Cheltenham, by Elizabeth Raikes

Miss Beale heard of a vacancy on the staff of the Ladies’ College in January 1858, when a Queen’s College friend, Miss Mulcaster, wrote her a letter interesting for the glimpses it gives both of Casterton and Cheltenham.

‘I am anxious,’ the letter ran, ‘that you should as soon as possible receive this letter, which is the very earliest reply in my power to make to yours.... I cannot feel very sorry on your own account for your leaving Casterton, although I do so at the manner of it.... I am very glad that you feel the discipline and teaching have been useful to you. I do not know that anything better could be desired for you than a return to Queen’s, but I have something, or rather a shadow of something I wish you to know in case you are disappointed there. I believe a place in the Ladies’ College at Cheltenham is vacant, and if so it might suit you. Miss Procter the Superintendent and many of the Committee are considered High Church. Miss Brewer, I am sure, would be very much pleased to hear from you, and I think would be disposed to facilitate your appointment, if there is still a vacancy. She, being one of the teachers, could answer any inquiries better than I. There is no home provided for the teachers by the Committee, but they have hitherto made private arrangements to live together.

‘Cheltenham, to my mind, presents unusual advantages as a place of residence; combining those of town and country, and last but not least those to be derived from Canon Boyd’s ministry and dear Mr. Bromby’s. I could give you some introductions, but it is too soon to talk of those things yet....’

Miss Beale must have answered this, and probably wrote at the same time to Miss Brewer, whom she had known at Queen’s; but there are no further letters existing on the subject. But she herself told in later life that she declined to apply for the post as she had resolved to seek a Headship. There is no mention of Cheltenham in the diary until May, but it appears that other schools were either applied for or considered. On February 17 we have ‘For school at Holloway.’ On February 18, ‘A letter from a Greenwich school.’ This was perhaps visited on the 22nd, when the diary mentions a journey to Greenwich; but it is not named again. On March 2 we find ‘Mamma wrote to Mrs. Birch about school at Reigate.’ On March 24, ‘Talked to Mr. Hyde about College at Camberwell.’ This possibly appears again in the record of April 17: ‘Mary decides against Camberwell scheme.’

A letter mentioned in Miss Beale’s diary as received from Cheltenham on May 18 was doubtless in answer to her application, after the advertisement had appeared, to inform her that she was accepted as a candidate for the vacant Headship. The record of the next few weeks, brief as it is, bears marks of the zeal and activity with which everything possible was done to procure testimonials and the recommendations of friends; while, at the same time, the work went on at Barnes, and the sheets of the Textbook were passing through the press. The writer was obviously full of anxiety and hope, having perceived in Cheltenham a promising sphere of work; but she did not relax the daily spiritual combat to which we owe the existence of the diary.

On receipt of a favourable answer she went at once to see Mr. Plumptre, and wrote to Dr. Trench. After the Casterton experience it was necessary to have further recommendations than those which she had taken there from Queen’s College. Among the friends to whom she wrote was Mrs. Lancaster, who replied by return:—

‘Englemere, Whit. Tues., 1858.

‘I am very sorry that you did not tell me about Cheltenham before: I am one of the Proprietors! or Committee or something! and my brother is Vice-Principal—indeed he almost established it. I have now written to him telling him my thoughts as to the maturity of your mind and judgment, and I hope it may be successful. If you are not quite determined against Penitentiary work there is a very nice thing for a Lady Superintendent ... about which the Hon. and Rev. C. Harris ... would give you full particulars.... It is worked by a Committee, but the Lady Superintendent would be allowed to do as she liked....’

In the course of the next fortnight many more letters were received. Among them one from Miss Elwall of the Barnes School. She wrote:—

‘ ... You have succeeded in making subjects usually styled dry, positively attractive, whilst your plan has been successful in forming not merely superficial scholars even whilst producing results in a remarkably short period.

‘Your gentleness of manner, patience, and lady-like deportment are all that could be desired, and should you leave me I shall feel the greatest regret at the termination of an engagement which has been equally agreeable to myself and to my pupils.—I am, dear Miss Beale, with much esteem, yours most sincerely,

M. J. Elwall.’

One from Mrs. Curling, the wife of Dr. Curling, an eminent physician and her father’s friend, runs:—

‘39 Grosvenor Street, June 12, 1858.

‘ ... I shall be truly happy if any recommendation of mine can promote your success. I have had the pleasure of knowing you many years, and in your journeys with me abroad I have had frequent opportunities of witnessing your tact and common sense, as well as good temper, and believe you to possess in addition the power of management essential for such an appointment. I am sure that the College would be fortunate in obtaining your assistance.’

Some friends wrote direct to the Cheltenham Council. The testimony borne to Miss Beale’s high character is genuine and strong, if quaintly expressed according to present-day notions in some of these. Mr. Shepheard wrote:—

‘Silverdale, June 1858.

‘I have the greatest pleasure in expressing my high opinion of Miss Beale’s character and attainments generally. Though she holds opinions on the subject of sacramental grace entirely opposed to my own, it is no more than her due that I should say that her high sense of duty, and inflexible integrity of principle, and conscientious following of the path of duty without regard to consequences, have won my highest respect and esteem.

‘The circumstances under which she left the Clergy Daughters’ School in this place, were such, that I cannot speak of them in detail, out of unwillingness to reflect on the conduct of the authorities there, but I consider her dismissal by them to have been highly honourable to herself.

‘As a Teacher, I have reason to believe that she is very highly accomplished and has been very successful—though I say this from general impressions only.

H. Shepheard, M.A.

Incumbent of Casterton, late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and late Head Master of Cheam School, Surrey.’

‘Trinity Terrace, Cheltenham.

‘A friend has asked me whether I can do anything to advance the interests of Miss Beale....

‘Miss Beale is not personally known to me, but from all I have heard she is a very conscientious and hard-working person, as well as one whose attainments are very high in most and I believe all of the departments necessary for the successful discharge of so important an office. Whether her talents for government correspond with her educational skill, and her very high religious and moral character, I know not; but I have been anxious to fulfil her wish in drawing your attention to her application, which she feared might be overlooked as one among many.

The most interesting of this series of letters is one from Miss Alston to Mrs. Lancaster. This, through Mr. Bellairs, undoubtedly helped to influence the Council, whose members were wise enough to seek for character as much as attainment in the new Head. Others had dwelt on Miss Beale’s talent and power and single-hearted devotion to her calling; Miss Alston could also speak of her life and value at home.

‘Donnington Rectory, June 12, 1858.

‘ ... I heard from Miss Beale this morning that the Cheltenham College had written for her testimonials. I hope she may obtain the appointment she desires, it seems one for which she is so well qualified. Of her power of teaching others, and making them delight in their studies, there is no doubt. But you do not know her as I do, in her home and daily life; there all look up to her and seek her counsel. Our friendship commenced when we were eighteen; since that time I have not only profited, I trust, by the instruction she has given me in the pursuit of various studies, but I have always consulted her on all my plans, where the welfare of others has been concerned, and have found her counsel full of common sense and kind consideration for the feelings of those we desired to help or instruct. She is good-tempered and has plenty of tact, but shows instantly her dislike to anything untrue in word or act. Forgive this long letter, but I thought you might have some influence, and I am much interested for my friend, and at the same time feel that I should rather place any one I loved under her than with any one else I have met. With kind regards,—Believe me yours very sincerely,

Eliza Ann Alston.’

On June 14 came a letter summoning Miss Beale to Cheltenham. Her diary does not tell us where she stayed, or give any particulars of the interviews she had with the Council as a body, or with individuals. It records her election on the 16th, and the fact that Mr. Bellairs came to breakfast on the 17th. On the same day she saw Mr. Hartland and Dr. Comyn. By the single word ‘dress,’ which concludes her meagre entries of what were such momentous events for her, hangs a little tale of personal need supplied by the kind thought of a sister who willingly lent a blue silk gown for the would-be Lady Principal to wear at her first interview with her Council. Absorption in the Textbook and kindred subjects had precluded care of the writer’s wardrobe, and when this important moment came, it was felt that neither the simple black nor the mouse-coloured grey was equal to the occasion. The conscientious care of the borrowed plumes is still remembered.

On June 18 she returned from Cheltenham, full of hope, to write innumerable letters—stamps, under their ancient name of ‘heads,’ became almost a daily entrance in the diary, which sometimes served as account-book;—to finish the lessons at Barnes, for the school year had not yet ended; and to correct the proofs of the Textbook, with the satisfaction of feeling that she had in it something that would help in the formation of her teachers-to-be. She received many congratulations. Some letters were kept; Mr. Shepheard’s is given, as it bears upon a subject which was about to cause fresh trouble.

‘Silverdale, June 24, 1858.

‘ ... I must tell you how pleased I am on your account personally, at your success—and the triumph of justice in your case over unfairness and tyranny. My pleasure would be indeed great, if I had any hope that you might be led to reconsider those opinions on sacramental grace which have formed the only subject of division in opinion between us. The longer I live the more I am convinced of their danger as containing in fact the germ of all popery; and subverting the very nature and essence of vital godliness, by substituting the form for the reality, the outward act for the inward spiritual power and operation.

‘I wish you would read Mr. Litton’s book, The Church of Christ, on that subject; it is unanswerable.

‘What is exactly the name and nature of your College?—Very sincerely yours with all kindest regards,

H. Shepheard.’

There were also through these weeks a good many interchanged visits on matters both of business and pleasure. The name of Miss Vincent occurs twice among others mentioned in the diary. This is the lady who in August of 1858 became Lady Superintendent at Casterton, and remained there till 1888, when she died there in harness at the age of seventy-five.

Dorothea Beale was not, however, destined to take possession of her kingdom without a conflict. The old religious dispute was handed on from Casterton, for Mr. Shepheard, with one other whose name does not appear, felt he could not but mention the points he held to be ‘dangerous’ in her religious beliefs. And there was certainly still another letter to discourage the Council, from M. Mariette to Mr. Penrice Bell, questioning Miss Beale’s suitability for the post of Head Mistress on the ground that she was not sympathetic in manner. This appears to have been disregarded, but the partisans of Dean Close felt bound to consider the accusation of High Church opinions. Miss Beale first learned of the opposition which had arisen to her appointment on July 12, in the following letter from Mr. Bell:—

‘July 10, 1858.

‘Dear Miss Beale,—Letters have been put into my hand to-day which cause me much anxiety, and before consulting the Council upon the subject, I think it best to communicate with you, begging an immediate reply in the same spirit of unreserve and candour and frankness as that in which I now write.

‘When here I took pains to impress upon your mind the fact that the Council could not in justice to those whom they represent accept a Lady Principal who holds High Church views or sympathises with them; and that they had rejected most satisfactory testimonials from one of the candidates solely on the ground of her professing doctrinal views of that character. I was thus explicit with you in order to prevent any misunderstanding upon this most important question, but nothing fell from your lips to lead me to suppose you were open to an objection of that nature. I forbore from motives of delicacy (and probably the other members of the Council did the same), to press this subject upon you in the shape of direct enquiry, feeling sure you would not conceal your real views if they were indeed such as I plainly stated to be opposed to those entertained by the founders of the institution. The letters are marked “Private,” so I am not at liberty to name the writers, but I will quote the material portions; and I may remark that both gentlemen speak in the highest terms of your qualifications in general.

‘“She, Miss Beale, is very High Church to say the least, and holds ultra views of Baptismal Regeneration.” ... “She has also a serious and deep religious feeling, and a self-denying character. But she is decidedly High Church. Her opinions on the vital and critical question of sacramental grace are altogether those of the High Church or Tractarian School—assuming the opus operatum of the Sacraments to convey, of necessity and in all cases, the inward grace of which that Sacrament is the sign.”

‘“It is right to add that Miss Beale avows her belief in the Bible as the rule of faith.”

‘Now you have undoubtedly full right to entertain such opinions as in your conscience you believe to be true, but at the same time you are (and were) bound in honour of good faith, on such occasion as the offering of yourself for the important position to which you have been recently appointed, to avow your opinions openly and distinctly; especially when made acquainted with the views of those responsible for your selection.

‘If it be the fact that you do hold opinions such as are attributed to you, it is clear that you will not only inflict serious injury on the Institution, but also on yourself, by assuming the office—for if you hold us to the appointment the Council would and must, I imagine, at once give you the three months’ notice (or salary equivalent), and cancel it at the earliest period, publishing their reasons for so extraordinary a step. If, however, you are misrepresented, I shall heartily rejoice on every account, but I beg of you, by return of post, to favour me with a definite reply to the two questions I feel it now my duty to put to you:—

‘1st. Do you or do you not hold the doctrine of the opus operatum in the Sacrament of Baptism?

‘2nd. Do you or not sympathise with and are attached to the principles of the High Church party?—Believe me to remain, yours very truly,

J. Penrice Bell, Hon. Sec.

‘PS.—I think it better not to print the Prospectus until the present difficulty is settled in some way.’

This letter, which must have come as a bolt from the blue, was a blow, but not of a crushing nature to one whose energies were ever braced by conflict. Miss Beale wrote at once to Mr. Bellairs to tell him what had happened, and to Mr. Bell in answer to his attack. Both letters are given, as they clearly state her religious position. To Mr. Bellairs she wrote:—

‘31 Finsbury Square, July 12.

‘ ... Although our acquaintance has been very short, owing to the kindness with which you received me, I cannot help considering you in some measure as a friend, and feeling that you will understand me: perhaps, also, your office both as Clergyman and Vice-President of the Cheltenham Ladies’ College gives me some right to trouble you upon this occasion.

‘I received this morning a note from Mr. Bell, accusing me of want of candour in not speaking of my religious views, although they were in no way alluded to by the Council, and telling me he has been informed that my opinions are those of the Tractarian School. Now, as I have never seen more than a few pages of the “Tracts,” I cannot positively contradict such a statement. I have explained somewhat at large to him what are my opinions; I will not repeat them to you, as you will no doubt see the letter. That my views differ considerably from those of the ultra-evangelical party, of which Mr. Carus Wilson is one of the leaders, and the Record the accredited organ, I freely acknowledge; but I think them those of a moderate member of the English Church, and on seeing your name as Vice-President, I concluded the Ladies’ College was not identified with any exclusive party. I have endeavoured to be perfectly candid, for I could not undertake so great a work without the hope of God’s blessing. Should my own letter not be considered decisive evidence against me, perhaps you would think it worth while to write to Mrs. Lancaster or Mrs. Greene (with whom I think you said you were acquainted). With both of them I have spoken freely on religious subjects, and they would tell you whether they believed my opinions to be extreme. As nothing is farther from my wishes than to deceive the Council, I forward to you by this post two books, which I have published without my name—not because I was ashamed of expressing what I thought right, but because one naturally shrinks from exposing without necessity one’s inner religious life. I feel this more especially with regard to the smaller book, which I must therefore ask you not to mention to others. I send them to you, because they may assist you in coming to a right conclusion, whether for or against my retaining the post to which I have been appointed, and I think the Council will be in a great measure guided by your decision.’

‘31 Finsbury Square, July 12, 1858.

‘On looking at the Prospectus of the Casterton School, I saw on the Committee the names of those who professed ultra-evangelical views; I therefore felt it my duty distinctly to explain, before accepting the appointment, wherein my opinions differed from those which I knew them to hold. It was after I had made that statement that I was appointed. On looking at the papers of the Cheltenham College, I found the name of Mr. Close in conjunction with that of Mr. Bellairs and others. From this and what I had heard privately I was led to conclude that you were not identified with any particular party in the Church; that your views were not more exclusive than those of the Educational Committee of Queen’s College, who had expressed themselves satisfied with my teaching. I also placed in your hands a testimonial from the Professor of Theology there; my opinion was still further strengthened by your accepting the recommendation of the Dean of Westminster and including the Liturgy of the Church of England amongst the subjects taught.

‘Believing myself to hold moderate, certainly not ultra, views I did not feel myself open to the charge brought against me after my appointment. I think you will remember the subject of religion was in no way alluded to before.

‘Having thus, I hope, justified myself from any accusation of want of candour, I proceed to answer your questions as briefly as I can.

‘If you understand by the opus operatum “efficacy” of Baptism,—that all who are baptized are therefore saved (a doctrine which Mr. Shepheard assured me was held by some), I explicitly state that I do not hold that doctrine. I believe Baptism to be “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us” (Catechism); to be the appointed means for admitting members into the Church of Christ, according to St. Paul’s teaching that “Christ gave Himself for the Church that He might save it and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word” (Eph. v. 26); that “according to His mercy we are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. iii. 5); that we are therein made “members of Christ” and adopted “children of God”; but when I use the word “regeneration” I do not understand that spoken of by St. John when he says, “he that is born of God cannot sin,” but that gift of life without which we are unable even to think any good thing; a gift which the Bishop solemnly declares to have been already received by those who come to be confirmed (Confirmation Service), but which requires daily renewal, a gift which we may lose by grieving God’s Holy Spirit by neglecting the means of grace, by hiding our Lord’s treasure. And this teaching I hold because I find it in the Bible, which I acknowledge with the sixth article to be our only rule of faith—because it seems to me the basis of St. Paul’s teaching (1 Cor. iii.; 2 Cor. vi. 10)—and it makes our responsibilities higher and deeper if we acknowledge with the Apostle in the language which he used to the whole of the Corinthian Church, that we are “the temples of the Holy Ghost.” I feel that any partial views which tell us of God’s grace being given to some and not to others are contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. Your second question again cannot be categorically answered, since it has never been defined what are the opinions of the High Church party; I would say that I differ from some who assume that title....[37] I think no one could entertain a greater dread than I of those Romish opinions entertained by some “who went out from us, but were not of us”; indeed during the last six months I have been engaged in preparing an English History for the use of schools, because Ince’s Outlines (a book used in your College) inculcates Romish doctrines.

‘In conclusion, I must apologize for the unmethodical way in which I have expressed myself, as I am writing in great haste to catch the next post, and I have thought it right to reply to you without consulting any person or book, except the Bible and Prayer Book. I have endeavoured to be perfectly candid;—should the Council decide that my views are so unsound that I am unfit to occupy the position to which I have been appointed, I shall trust that they will allow me to make as public a statement of my opinions as they are obliged to make of my dismissal, for I shall feel that after this no person of moderate views will trust me, and my own conscience would not allow me to work with the extreme party in either high or low church.’

The diary of these two days gives a hint of the anxiety Miss Beale underwent when the attack was made upon her, and before she could receive answers to her own letters:—

‘July 12.—Mr. B(ell)’s letter about H(igh) Church from Cheltenham, and my answer. Some vanity. (Prayer) for resignation.

‘July 13.—Sent proofs to Cheltenham. Dined at the Curlings. Dr. Clarke very agreeable. Felt angry with Mr. Shepheard.’

Mr. Bell’s reply to Miss Beale’s letter suggests that the difficulty before the Council was less directly one of religious principle than that of working a school where certain precise opinions were not professed.

‘July 13, 1858.

‘My dear Miss Beale,—I have to-day laid your reply before Mr. Hartland and Dr. Comyn, the only two of my colleagues now here, and we have no fault to find with its tenor, which is explicit enough. Whether or not the fact of your holding the opinions thus avowed will lead to difficulties hereafter, we cannot say. If you feel conscientiously bound in and out of class to make known and inculcate your distinctive views of doctrine according to your interpretation of scripture and of our Liturgy and Articles, then it is easy to foresee the result. If, however (as I hope), you regard it of primary importance in the instruction of the children to inculcate love to God and His Son, and charity (in its manifold phases and with its relative duties), towards our fellows—treating as of far minor importance the doctrinal points about which good men differ so widely,—then I should not anticipate any active opposition from those to whom your peculiar opinions may be known.

‘The gentleman (a resident clergyman of some influence) to whom the two quoted letters were addressed, is now absent for a few days; and it remains to be seen whether his scruples and objections are, if not removed, at least rendered quiescent by your reply. If he should withdraw his children, and make known the grounds of doing so, the effect would undoubtedly be prejudicial to the College, and the experiment of conducting it under your auspices might be futile. Much may depend on what answer you can conscientiously make to this question:—

Holding the opinions you have expressed, should you consider it a duty and feel it incumbent on you to inculcate them in your Divinity instruction to the pupils?

If you could favour me by a few lines by return of post (as I leave before post hour on Friday morning) on this point, which I can annex to your letter of to-day, I could see my colleagues on the subject once more, and arrange what shall be done in my absence.—Yours truly,

J. Penrice Bell, Hon. Sec.’

Among Miss Beale’s papers exists an undated and much erased note, which appears to be her answer to the above. It begins with the remark: ‘I am glad to find the Council has not decided that I am so great a heretic as from your first letter I feared they would’; and it closes with the statement: ‘I quite feel it to be a Christian duty, if it be possible to live peaceably with all men, not giving heed to those things which minister questions rather than godly edifying, but I am sure you will feel I should be unworthy of your confidence could I through any fear of consequences resort to the least untruthfulness.’ Meanwhile Mr. Bellairs also wrote:—

‘ ... Mr. Bell’s letter was, I imagine, of a private character, as I had heard nothing of the subject of it before the arrival of your note of to-day.

‘So far as I am concerned, my impression is that we of the Council have nothing to do now with your private Theological opinions, whatever they are, unless they are so extreme as would damage the College (and within tolerably wide limits, I individually am very indifferent on the matter). I trust you have good sense and propriety sufficient to induce you to avoid all teaching which would in any degree disturb the character which the College ought, in my opinion, to maintain: viz. a place of learning in which all members of the Church of England may receive religious instruction in an honest and straightforward way, according to the teaching of the Bible and the formularies of the Church, without extreme interpretation one way or the other. I shall probably hear more of this matter when I see Mr. Bell.’

The storm was over. Though individuals of quite opposing views would, later on, occasionally cavil at points in Miss Beale’s method of teaching Scripture, she never really experienced further trouble on this ground. There are many, like the unknown lady to whose ‘High Church’ opinions the Council took objection, who would have felt they could not work in the spirit of compromise implied in the letters of Mr. Bell and Mr. Bellairs. There are some who might have agreed to do so, and in terror of offending, would have shirked the difficult task of religious instruction to the point of making it a lifeless thing. Miss Beale undertook it with her eyes open, and in spite, or possibly because of the hindrances in the way, her Scripture lessons became the very pivot of her teaching.

The diary again is very characteristic at this point. The anxiety of mind caused by her trouble was not permitted to excuse ill-temper. ‘July 4. Letter from Cheltenham. Neglect of prayer. Several times rude.’ This was the day which practically settled the fate of the Ladies’ College, and was the greatest visible landmark in Miss Beale’s life. In the ensuing fortnight, the last she spent at home, though there is an entry for every day, the name of Cheltenham does not occur. Two visits from Miss Brewer, who had been re-appointed to the Cheltenham staff with the title of Vice-Principal, ‘shopping,’ and ‘turning out,’ suggest preparations. There is no entry of the day on which she went, but from deduction it was August 4, and in the company of her mother.

CHAPTER VI
EARLY HISTORY OF THE LADIES’ COLLEGE

Cambray House, which was Miss Beale’s home for fifteen years, is one of the finest buildings erected in the period when Cheltenham was being laid out with a view to royal visits. The Duke of Wellington himself stayed there in 1823.

The garden, mentioned in the early College reports as the ‘pleasure grounds,’ was a special delight to Miss Beale. In 1858 it was still untouched, and had many beautiful trees; one, a standard apricot tree, was—happy omen! covered with golden fruit in that first autumn of her life at Cheltenham. The house itself was beginning to change its character of family residence to that of a building adapted for school purposes, and before very long even the rooms given up for the use of the Principal and the Vice-Principal were encroached upon. Nor were those rooms furnished in character with the stately outside of the house. ‘The second-hand furniture procured would not have delighted people of æsthetic taste. Curtains were dispensed with as far as possible, and it was questioned whether a carving-knife was required by the Principal in her furnished apartments.’[38] To such domestic details Miss Beale was indifferent, but it must have been less easy to practise an economy which limited the extension of her work. ‘The teaching staff was reduced as low as possible, and the Principal and Vice-Principal gave up their half-holiday to chaperone those who took lessons from masters. The Principal taught all the English subjects to Classes I. and II., besides giving weekly lessons in Holy Scripture throughout the College.’

So long as the chief task of the Lady Principal was to prevent the College losing further ground, so long as her time and thought outside school hours were absorbed by anxiety over every pupil who came and went, still more over those who failed to come, there could be no rapid process of development. But it would have been impossible for Miss Beale to take up an existing educational work without at once making her individual mark upon it, and from the first the school felt the grasp of her able hand. At Casterton she had longed at once to change, to reform. At Cheltenham remodelling rather than revolution was her aim—fulfilment and wise development.

To understand the way in which she gave fresh life, and gradually refashioned the methods she found, it is necessary to go back to the prehistoric days before her arrival in 1858. There is little record of the educational system and teaching of that period, but it is certain that both were liberal and thorough, free from narrowness and petty tyranny, in advance of those existing in the ordinary boarding-school of the day. The curriculum, it is noteworthy, was arranged with a view to developing the mind and character. Latin was taught at first ‘very thoroughly,’ and the change by which after the first year it was replaced by German, which the Lady Principal could teach, was a question of economy, not of conciliation of parents who might think dead languages useless subjects of study. In making the substitution it was hoped, so runs the report of 1856, that instruction in German ‘might be made equally instrumental with that in the Latin language for conveying an accurate, exact, and logical knowledge of the principles of general Grammar. In this impression (your Council) find ... that they have not been mistaken.’

This attitude with regard to German was no new idea to Miss Beale, and she pursued the aims of the founders when she made the language a necessary subject of study for all pupils above the lower classes. Latin she discouraged, except in the case of those who were near the top of the College, maintaining that girls of seventeen and eighteen could learn in a few months as much Latin as would absorb the greater part of a boy’s whole time at school.

On the question of music the founders had shown themselves out of sympathy with the fashionable practice of a day when every ‘young lady’ was expected to perform on the piano, every governess to teach it. They conceded so far as to include music in the regular curriculum, but the expense of providing the requisite number of teachers and pianos for so many pupils was heavy. To meet this a system of class instruction was devised, by which the teacher gave a lesson to four pupils at once, the same piece being performed simultaneously on the treble and bass of two pianos. Whether such an arrangement was conducive to the production of good music or the formation of taste may be doubted. It suggests, indeed, a certain irony in those who hit upon a scheme that might just satisfy a foolish popular demand, assured that any who really cared for music would not grudge payment to the good teachers provided for the extra classes. The music difficulty occupies some space in the early reports which, in somewhat stilted and solemn fashion, set forth new ideals for the education of the ‘fairer sex.’ The following is quoted from the report of February 1856:—

‘Your Council cannot refrain from stating their belief that as long as the singular and extraordinary notion continues to prevail in the minds of those forming the upper classes of English Society, that dexterity of fingering on a single instrument is the most important part of female education, against, it might have been thought, not only the suggestions of common sense, but the practical lessons of later life, so long will the time required to be given for attaining even a low amount of proficiency in this sleight of hand, most seriously interfere with progress in all education and mental cultivation worthy of the name.

‘How far the acknowledged deficiency of many of the fairer sex in logical qualities and reasoning powers is due to this strange delusion, it is not for your Council to discuss; but they are not without hopes that the time may not be far distant when they will be supported in an arrangement which will place instrumental music altogether among the extra subjects, and leave them and the teachers free to elevate and improve, morally and intellectually, the condition of the female mind, unembarrassed by so unessential an accomplishment.’

‘Your Council have nothing to add to or retract from what was said upon this subject in that Report: but, while they believe that the instruction in this so-called accomplishment is as efficient within these walls as it is capable, under all circumstances, of being made, they must repeat their regret that so vast a portion of valuable time should be sacrificed, in the earlier years of almost every Englishwoman who hopes to become a wife and mother, to that which is confessedly of no value in an intellectual point of view; and can, by no possibility, be of service to her in either of these two most important, and generally much coveted capacities.’

The College had opened with a goodly array of teachers of ‘accomplishments,’ as it was hoped thus to attract bye-students. These were gradually dismissed, and it cannot have added to the reputation of the school that some of the best-known masters, such as M. Théodore Colson, were considered too expensive. When the new Principal came there were only two teachers of music, one of whom was Mrs. Lloyd, mother of the great singer. Of this lady’s skill and loyalty Miss Beale always spoke with affectionate remembrance. The Lady Principal gained her support in a reform instituted very early in her reign, when separate piano lessons were again introduced, and the class system, disliked by Miss Beale on other than musical grounds, was swept away. She could not permit an arrangement which withdrew four pupils at once from the ordinary work of the school; through which important lessons were lost, and ‘collisions between class and music teachers made frequent.’ That the Council allowed such a change to be made is a testimony to their confidence in the new Principal. The immediate result was disastrous to the funds, and continued to be so until Mr. Brancker introduced his new financial scheme in 1860.

The founders of the College were not men to be content with knowledge obtained from epitomes; Miss Procter, also, was earnest and devoted in her work, and took trouble to teach by means of lectures; but only dictated notes were given, and these were not corrected. Her lessons were evidently interesting:—

‘We worked hard, and the teaching was very thorough. I have no doubt many of the pupils beside myself would willingly own the great debt of gratitude they owe to Miss Procter; not so much, perhaps, for what she taught, as for the way in which she educated us by developing and enlarging our minds. She possessed a good library, and we were often sent for books of reference, and shown the bearings of the subject we were studying. Physical geography was taught by Miss Brewer, who always carefully prepared her lessons. M. Tiesset made our French lessons delightful, even the grammar was a pleasure, and he seemed to enjoy teaching us as much as we did being taught by him.’

So wrote Mrs. Coulson (née Hartland) for Miss Beale’s History of the Ladies’ College, and another old pupil added:—

‘We had interesting lectures on Ancient History in general, and Greek History and Literature, from Miss Procter.... M. Tiesset and his sister taught French very well indeed, and I especially remember a chart of irregular verbs, M. Tiesset’s own arrangement, which, I believe, was a valuable help.’

Greek history was a favourite subject with Miss Procter, who neglected for it the teaching of any other. Miss Beale, fresh from her Textbook, at once began English and general history with her young first class. Regardless of the additional labour it brought her, she also taught the children to take notes, which she corrected for them. She gave weekly examinations on the subjects studied, thus affording opportunity for English composition.

No science nor mathematics were taught in the early days. Miss Beale would have liked to introduce Euclid at once, but says, ‘Had I done so, I might have been the death of the College, so I had to wait for the tide. I began my innovations with the introduction of scientific teaching, and under the name of physical geography I was able to teach a good deal. This subject was unobjectionable, as few boys learned geography.’

In one particular Miss Beale found the authorities of her new school striving to be abreast with the times. It was a rule of the constitution that the pupils should be examined annually, and each year a graduate of Oxford or Cambridge had undertaken the task. The first examiner (in 1853) was Mr. Nicolay, then Dean of Queen’s College, Harley Street. In the succeeding years a College master or some other local scholar conducted the examination and sent in a report to the Council.

The few specimens left of those early examination questions, even without the answers, mark a tide-line now interesting to trace.

At first the review of all knowledge was comprehended in twelve very simple questions, the most difficult mathematical calculation set before the first class being, ‘The Price of 3 ozs. of tea at 4s. 4d. per lb.’ The paper concluded thus:—

‘11. Write out that part of your duty towards your neighbour which explains the fifth commandment, and prove each assertion from Scripture.

‘12. Write out the following sentence in large text, and small hand, as specimens of your handwriting:

‘Integrity of understanding, and nicety of discernment, were not allotted.

‘(Attach to this paper specimens of your needlework and of your drawing).’

To the true teacher the interest of her work lies, beyond and above all subjects and methods, in the child. No tale, alas! nor letter remains to show what Miss Beale thought of her children when she first came among them. In one respect there must have been disappointment. Miss Procter had opened a rival school, which had drawn off the elder pupils; consequently the first class consisted of girls of thirteen and fourteen. But fortunately there are some of those same children who can recall the first impression made upon themselves by the new Principal, as she appeared on August 19, 1858. Mrs. Mace, a daughter of the late Bishop Bromby, was among these. She writes:—

CHAPTER VI EARLY HISTORY OF THE LADIES’ COLLEGE

CHAPTER VI
EARLY HISTORY OF THE LADIES’ COLLEGE