THE HEAD-MISTRESSES’ ASSOCIATION.
“L’Union fait la Force.”
Probably none of her public work gave Miss Buss more unqualified
satisfaction than the Head-mistresses’ Association, of which the first
germ seems to be contained in a passage from one of her Journal-letters
of September, 1874, written from Bonaly Tower, Edinburgh—
“Miss Beale of Cheltenham called on me the day I was in
London.... She and I think we must form an Association of
Head-mistresses, and hold conferences occasionally, in order to
know what we ought to assert and what surrender.
“Dr. Hodgson showed me, in the ‘Autocrat of the
Breakfast-Table,’ a passage about the ‘_membre à question_,’ and
the ‘_membre à by-laws_;’ the latter is called ‘_un Empereur
manqué_,’ and is the member who awes the rest of a committee by
his rigid adherence to by-laws.
“Just think of _men_ discussing for hours the arrangements of
girls’ boarding-houses—how the beds should stand, etc.!”
All who have been behind the scenes in the development of public schools
for girls can read in between the lines here the various stages by which
the Association of Head-mistresses came into being.
The question of the management of these new schools was naturally one of
supreme interest to the women who had made such schools possible. When
Miss Davies was asked by Lord Taunton, during her examination by the
Commission, to mention any point of importance in connection with the
education of women, she fixed on the point of the presence of women on
the councils of girls’ schools, on equal terms with men, and not on any
separate ladies’ committee. She was warmly supported by Miss Beale and
Miss Buss in this view that, for the management of girls, women were
essential. Miss Buss, in a letter written some time afterwards, but
before the change in her own schools, sums up the whole question
concisely—
“If your plans lead you to prefer a committee to a board of
trustees, I advise you not to allow two committees—one of
gentlemen for money matters, and one of ladies for internal
arrangements. Two committees always clash, sooner or later. The
mistress disagrees with the ladies’ committee, the gentlemen
interfere, and the usual result is that the ladies resign in a
body. I do not think any better plan can be devised than a
single council of men and women, with certain well-defined
duties to perform, but with no power of continual and daily
interference with the mistress. In this opinion I am unbiassed
by personal feeling, because, as this school is my own property,
I have never had to work with a committee. But I hear on all
sides of the difficulties which arise, and which are,
apparently, to be prevented only by the plan I have suggested.”
Mrs. Grey, when examined on March 25, 1873, before the “Endowed Schools
Committee,” gave her opinion in favour of women on the governing body of
every school, on the ground that a ladies’ committee “was powerful only
to object and interfere, but powerless to carry into effect any of their
suggestions, however valuable these might be.”
It is evident that what is wanted is a consultative body—a sort of Privy
Council—to advise and help in matters external, and in cases of special
difficulty; whilst, in the internal affairs of the school, the head must
be held responsible. It would follow that, to make a council really
useful, there must be some principle of selection to secure the right
persons, so that it should not be said in the future, as has been so
often possible to say in the past, that “head-masters and mistresses are
chosen with care, their degrees, experience, etc., all sifted, and then
they are set to work under a governing body chosen haphazard, or
anyhow!”
Most of the great schools owed their prosperity to the skill and
character of some one man or woman, and, even after they had attained
success, were still dependent on their head, who, instead of being
allowed free play, was checked and thwarted by this haphazard
council—the “expert” being under the control of the mere “amateur.”
In such cases, the “managing committee” is clearly not what is wanted.
Here are weighty words from a head-mistress, who must take highest rank
among the “experts”—
“No one knows how much of one’s health and energy is lost to the
school by the anxieties of getting those who do not understand
the complicated machinery not to interfere with things with
which the head alone ought to deal.
“Governors have no idea of the worries head-mistresses have,
when hysterical girls invent absurd stories; when parents and
doctors attribute every illness, real or imaginary, to lessons;
when teachers get wrong, or when they suddenly disappear, take
head-mistress-ships elsewhere, and draw away their friends and
pupils.
“Then, again, the governing body will blame for the inevitable,
or a head will deal with ninety-nine intricate cases, and in the
hundredth will make a mistake; they naturally know nothing of
the former, but of the latter they hear, only to condemn.”
This is one very important side. The head clearly has very definite
rights. But, there is also the other side, and the members of the
council have also their rights. Even the “mere amateur” is not without
rights, as a person who, in combining special interest in education,
with wider and more varied experience than can be enjoyed by the
professional educator, is therefore of use on the council in his power
of seeing things from the outside, and thus bringing to bear on them a
judgment not warped by mere professional bias. Even on the most
haphazard council, the persons elected are at least supposed to have
some power of help. These “amateurs” are consequently persons who are
more used to lead than to follow, to take the active rather than the
passive attitude, and to whom mere acquiescence is as uncongenial as it
is unaccustomed. It is therefore easy to imagine such a council growing
restive, even under the most competent leading, and asking, “Is it
really our whole duty to sit here simply to register the decrees of the
head-mistress?”
To strike the happy mean between tyranny and subjection is the duty
alike of the governing body and of head-master or mistress. The
governing body must not rule; nor, on the other hand, must its members
be too passive, or acquiesce when they ought to oppose. If they are
bound to follow competent leading, they are no less bound to dismiss the
incompetent. The captain of a ship gives place to a duly accredited
pilot, but he is none the less bound to judge whether the ship is making
for the straight course or not. To give up his command into unskilful
hands is, on the one side, as foolish as it would be to tie the pilot to
the mast, and let the ship go down, whilst the crew dispute for the
right to steer.
It is evident that, with the best intentions on both sides, great tact
and forbearance are needed to prevent occasional friction. And we need
not wonder that, as a matter of fact, there was on most governing bodies
in those early days a considerable amount of friction.
Of this Miss Buss had, in her own experience, comparatively little; but
what she had, arose entirely from this very point. She had arranged,
when she gave up her private school, that it should be in the hands of a
body of trustees, who would hold it for the public good, but who were
not intended to interfere with her own development of the work which she
had herself begun and carried on to success.
As the founder of the school, and as a life-member of a board on which
the other members were elected for short periods, her position was
unique. To this, also, must be added the fact that, for the first two
years, the new schools were carried on by means of her own liberal
donations and those of her personal friends. It was not to be expected
that she could hold the same relation to her governing body as the
ordinary head-mistress, who is appointed by them, and over whom they
have the right of dismissal.
It was perhaps a little unfortunate that at the time of special
difficulty, the chairmanship seemed to have become permanent in the
appointment of a chairman, who, however fitted for the post, was yet
only imperfectly acquainted with the early history of the school, and,
therefore, not unnaturally gave undue weight to the help given by the
Board, regarding the new scheme rather as an entirely fresh departure,
than as what it actually was, merely the expansion of an existing
organization, and still dependent on the skill to which it owed its
rise. He had been accustomed to long-established foundations, where
everything went by rule, and to committees where the word of the
chairman was law. Miss Buss was used to supreme power over her own
school, and she was, like most women of that day, unused to business
routine. This was, moreover, one of the very first governing bodies on
which women were elected on equal terms with men. Such an arrangement
was too new as yet to go without hitch. It would follow, quite
naturally, that men, out of mere force of habit, as well as in real
kindness of heart, should adopt a paternal and authoritative attitude
towards all women, even to those most competent to stand alone.
Miss Buss was by nature one of the least self-assertive of women. She
had always been helped by some strong man, and had accepted all help
with gratitude. First Mr. Laing, and then Dr. Hodgson (with her father
and brothers, as a matter of course), had been recognized as friends and
helpers.
But, at the same time, one of the most definite aims of her life had
been to raise the status of the head-mistress to the same level as that
of the head-master. For the sake of all teachers—not for her own
sake—she deprecated the secondary place given to women who were doing
the same work as men. She also thought the internal management of her
school should be left to her, as it would have been to a head-master in
her place, and for this she stood firm, even when, as a matter of mere
feeling, she might have given way, for she was really one of the
old-fashioned women who would personally endure anything for the sake of
peace.
It is more than probable that she felt some things too strongly, and
that she misunderstood others. In those days, most women suffered quite
needlessly from sheer ignorance of business routine. They lacked the
training and discipline which carry men unscathed through the roughness
of public life. Two men meeting on a committee may oppose each other
tooth and nail, but these men may afterwards go home and dine
comfortably together, bearing no traces of the fray. At that date, two
women, after a similar encounter, would have gone their separate ways,
to weep over a solitary cup of tea, and when next they met would pass
each other with the cut direct.
To a woman like Miss Buss, nothing of this sort would have been
possible, for even if she had not had too much common sense, she had
that most uncommon power of forgiveness which led to the saying, “If you
really want to know _how_ kind Miss Buss is you must do her some
injury!”
Nevertheless, however evanescent her feeling might be, she did for the
time feel her worries very intensely. It chanced that, as my way lay
beyond Myra Lodge, I usually drove her home from the meetings, and she
then relieved her pent-up feelings by rapid discussion of any vexed
question from her own point of view. By the time our drive ended, she
was, as a rule, quite ready for her ordinary meal, and we parted more
often than not with a jest, for this process was merely a question of
“blowing off the steam,” and I served as safety-valve. It was entirely a
matter of temperament. Whilst some temperaments fail to perceive the
existence of a grievance until it is formulated in words, others can
throw off in words all the bitterness of even the worst grievances. Miss
Buss belonged to the latter class, and, as I understood this thoroughly,
I could forget her words as soon as spoken. Where such hasty utterances
were taken seriously by persons of the opposite temperament, she was at
times seriously misunderstood.
During the nine years of suspense between the changes of 1870 and the
opening of the new buildings in 1879 there was much to try the most
perfect patience. Here is a little note showing the kind of thing that
used at first to cause a protest—
“MY VERY DEAR LITTLE ANNIE,
“I feel a little ashamed of my impatience to-day, but am
happy to find that Miss Elford was in the same frame of mind.
Lady X. talked quite wildly about this and that, and what ought
or ought not to be. These ladies have not an idea beyond the
parish school, where the lady of the manor is supreme, and
dictates to the children what they shall wear, and what they
shall not, how to do their hair, etc., etc. If it were not so
pitiable in its ignorance I could find it in my heart to cry, or
to run away and leave the board to manage its schools.
“How very thankful I am that you have always a soothing effect
on me. My dear love to you,
“ARNIE.”
This was probably one of many instances in which Miss Buss suffered from
an imperfect knowledge on the part of the public. Endowments for girls’
schools were still so novel that the demand for money for the Camden
School was, in some absurd way, associated with the Founder, as if she
were herself a recipient, instead of being, as she was, one of the most
generous of donors, giving herself and her means for the public good.
For example of the sort of trial involved in working with a committee to
one so used as Miss Buss had been to direct, rapid and free action, we
may take an experience in 1872, when the governing body, intent only on
saving her trouble in the temporary absence of the Rev. A. J. Buss
(Clerk to the Board), appointed a special Prize Day Committee. It had
been decided that, to bring the work more clearly before the public, the
Princess Louise should be asked to give the prizes in the Albert Hall.
We give Miss Buss’ report from her Journal-letters—
“June 22.
“I went yesterday to the Albert Hall and heard that it was let
for the 19th.
“The secretary was very polite, however, and, finding he had to
do with a princess, got the date altered to suit us. The fees
will cost £30. The secretary says we ought to distribute bills
through the exhibition, besides advertising, and let people in
who choose to _pay_ for entrance. This will require
consideration on Monday.
“Mr. Roby will speak, and I mean to ask him to say what Miss
Davies has done for education. On Saturday there is a conference
of teachers in the rooms of the Society of Arts. We shall see
plenty of people there, and can ask some one to speak. Dr. Lyon
Playfair is to take the chair.
“For the day itself we must invite _thousands_. Every member of
Parliament, every member of a city company, every clergyman and
Nonconformist of note. Invite all the press, all known
educationalists, etc., etc.
“Let us hope we shall have our own hall by next year, and then
we shall not need to go away from home.”
“July 2.
“Mr. Forster can’t take the chair. Lord Derby declines, and now,
at 2 p.m., comes a note to say the Princess Louise _will not be
able to attend_!
“Dr. Storrar goes to-morrow morning to see Mr. Holzmann, and
consult with him. We hope to get access to Princess Mary.
“If not where are we? Curiously enough, this sort of thing does
not worry me—at least, not much.... Nothing but the necessity of
working with other people would have made me allow the matter to
be so delayed. _June_ is our month, and always has been.
However, I am quite cool about matters. The inevitable must be
endured.”
“Myra Lodge, July 11, 8 a.m.
“The chairman sends Col. Airey’s note to say Princess Mary
declines. I shall go at once to consult Mr. Elliott.”
“202, Camden Road, July 11, 11 a.m.
“Mr. Elliott is going to try the Duke of Edinburgh. I am to get
rid of the Albert Hall, however, _coûte que coûte_.
“Everything is at a standstill. Never in my working life has
there been such a complete _fiasco_.”
“July 13.
“I must write later to answer your notes fully, but, at 8
o’clock this morning, I went to our vicar, Mr. Cutts, for a note
to the bishop’s chaplain, whom I do not know. I then went to Mr.
Elliott; returned to breakfast, and then dashed out with the
fixed determination not to return until the Prize Day
arrangements had been made.
“I drove in the storm to St. James’ Square (London House),
Bishop not there, but at Fulham; drove to Fulham, sent in my
note to the chaplain, who saw me _at once_, and asked me to go
to the bishop. I said I wanted to ask a question, and would not
disturb him if possible. So Mr. Gamier took in my message,
‘Would the bishop preside for even half an hour at our
meeting—on _any hour_ and _any day_ in the next fortnight.’
“The bishop positively had not one hour available. He went
through his list, but he would give me _Monday_, the _29th_, at
3 o’clock. Of course I accepted, rushed away to St. James’
Hall—not to be had anyhow for two months—thence to Willis’
Rooms, which we can have.
“How much I regret allowing a committee to be formed! If Mr.
Elliott, Mr. Danson, and I had been empowered to act, we should
have had one of the Princesses. There would have been no delay
by notes going first to the chairman and then having to be sent
to me. If I had had the note of Princess Louise’s secretary at 8
a.m., by 10 I should have been at her house, and should
_certainly_ have got an introduction to Princess Mary. In this
case, the memorial to the latter would have been in her hands by
Saturday morning, instead of Tuesday! and would have been
accompanied by a note from either Princess Louise or Lord Lorne.
“Don’t think me very egotistical, but don’t expect me to summon
a committee for the Prize Day again.
“I shall quietly go my own way now, and _do_ the things. That
last committee took up two hours and twenty-five minutes of my
time in the middle of the day, and for what? (I told you two
hours, but made a mistake.)
“I forgot to say I went to the printer, ordered all the
invitations, and expect them on Monday. But Willis’ Rooms,
though handsome, are _not large_. With every card we will send
out the slip about Princess Louise’s failure in her engagement.”
The meeting went off as well as these meetings always did. But next year
the Princess Mary of Teck was secured without difficulty; as well as
afterwards several other members of the Royal Family, including even the
Prince and Princess of Wales.
It must have been at this period that an equally characteristic little
story is told. Miss Buss, in the height of her vexation, sought comfort
beside her sister and her boy. As she entered the room, she exclaimed,
“_This_ is what I have brought on myself, and _for what_?” with an
impatient stamp of her foot. Baby Frank lifted his great eyes solemnly
to his aunt, and, with a deliberate stamp of his baby foot, echoed, “And
for vot?” on which, as she clasped him in her arms, all her indignation
vanished in a shower of kisses.
But that she did not demand mere acquiescence from her friends is proved
by many of her letters, one of which may be given, not only as showing
her many-sidedness, but also as revealing the true humility which was
the secret of her strength.
She had been long overstrained by anxiety and suspense, and had to some
extent lost patience under the many demands on her. At one time, indeed,
she even entertained serious thoughts of resigning her post unless
things could be made easier for her by the assurance of greater freedom
of action. On the occasion of this particular letter, the usual talk had
failed, and I must have written that same evening still more strongly,
urging either a more complete submission to the inevitable, or else some
bold stroke for liberty. She thus responds—
“Late as it is, and in spite of a distressing headache, I must
just write a few words to say how much I love and thank you for
your note. The advice in it I will try to follow.
“Yet, dearest Annie, it tears me in pieces to have to be always
asserting myself. But it seems to me to be impossible to go on
without a certain amount of freedom of action.
“Dearest Annie, I sobbed myself to sleep like a child, such a
thing not having occurred for years. The Mystery of Pain!—if it
were a clear duly to bear it, I would go through anything, but I
cannot see the duty, and can feel the pain....
“You must take me as I am, dear Annie, with all my failings. If
I am too impetuous, too energetic, too rash, these are all part
of such virtues as I may possess, and, without the two first,
the work that I have done would never have been done; and the
last I do not think I am. Other feelings, of course, I have,
unconscious and unknown to me. But take me as I am.
“I had a long and grave talk to Miss ——, who counsels fight, but
not on any personal ground. She says, ‘Resign, if there is
interference with the mistress’ liberty of action. That is a
public question, and one of public interest.’
“She was so good and loving; she was so tender; and she is so
wise and calm.
“She told me some of her own worries, and said that sometimes
she quivered in every nerve at her own council meetings. People
came in and asked for information, involving hours of work for
no result; ignored all that had been done, and talked as if they
alone had done everything and knew everything. She urged me to
try and be _im_personal, so to speak; to remember that these and
similar difficulties would always occur where there are several
people. She said that _women_ were always accused of being _too
personal_, and harm was done by giving a handle to such an
assertion.
“Dearest Annie! I must try to follow your advice, and think of
the work and not of myself. Please help me! Be a true friend,
and don’t fear saying even unpleasant things to me if you think
them deserved. I shall not quarrel.
“Worried and annoyed as I have been, I have never in my whole
life been cut by, or had a quarrel with, even the most absurd
parent! But you know I am to give in my resignation, if a public
question, such as payment of teachers, hours of work etc., is
raised.”
There were few head-mistresses who in those early days escaped some such
trouble. Referring to one very well-known instance, in 1874, Miss Buss
remarks—
“I see they are still in a state of fight at Milton Mount; there
seems to have been a great storm at the annual meeting. I am so
sorry for Miss Hadland, who is one of the best and bravest women
I know. I feel that she has fought for a principle, and not in
mere self-assertion. It is hard discipline to be thwarted at
every turn when she has only a single eye for the children’s
best education for this life and the next. Any worries that I
have had in the past sink into insignificance compared with Miss
Hadland’s.”
The recurrence of such difficulties rendered it desirable that the
head-mistresses should take counsel together, and try to secure some
firm and settled line of action which might lead to the avoidance of
misunderstandings between themselves and their governing bodies.
There was already in existence a very useful “School-Mistresses’
Association,” of which the head-mistresses were all members. But, as
including assistant-mistresses, private governesses, and even the “mere
amateur,” these meetings were better adapted for the discussion of
general educational questions than for the special difficulties of one
branch of the profession.
Miss Buss had been one of the most active members of the
School-Mistresses’ Association, which had its origin in a suggestion
made by Miss Davies, to which reference is made in a letter, dated
December, 1865, from Miss Buss to Miss Davies—
“I think your proposal about the meetings admirable. The first
meeting with men, Mr. Fitch, or some one, in the chair; the rest
modelled on the Kensington Society.[12] But where you will get
your papers from, is the question! There is so little leisure in
a teacher’s life.
“I think it would be useful and pleasant to meet the
Assistant-Commissioners, and hear some of their experience.
Such a meeting might be annual, and the others quarterly. I
mean a mixed meeting of men and women for the annual,
because, after the Commission ceases to sit, I suppose the
Assistant-Commissioners will disappear.”
Footnote 12:
The “Kensington Society,” to which reference is here made, is thus
described by Miss Davies—
“The Kensington Society was not exactly an educational union, though
it arose out of the agitation for the local examinations. I had, in
working for that, made acquaintance, partly by correspondence, with a
good many people of kindred interests. It seemed a pity that we should
lose sight of each other when that particular bit of work was
accomplished; so a little society was formed to meet and read papers
from time to time. Mrs. Manning, the step-mother of Miss Adelaide
Manning, was president, and as the meetings were often held at her
house in Kensington, we took that name. Miss Buss was a member, but
did not take an active part. This society lived, I think, for about
three years.”
The School-Mistresses’ Association was finally started in April, 1867,
with Miss Davies as honorary secretary. Miss Buss became president in
the second year.
In an early report, reference is made to a suggestion from Miss Clough,
which led to the first action having for its object co-operation among
teachers. It was ascertained that—
“While practically school-mistresses were singularly isolated,
some teachers having scarcely so much as a speaking acquaintance
with any professional associate, such isolation was involuntary,
and felt to be a great drawback to usefulness. It was agreed to
meet together, at stated times, for the discussion of subjects
specially interesting to teachers.”
A Library Committee, with Miss Gertrude King as secretary, undertook the
formation of a Teachers’ Library, and of a Registry for Professors. With
the exception of the attempt of the Governesses’ Benevolent Institution,
this seems to have been the first effort made by any educational body
towards duly qualified and certified teaching.
The meeting mentioned in Miss Buss’ letter was held, early in 1866, at
the house of Miss Garrett (Mrs. Garrett-Anderson), and was attended by
several of the Assistant-Commissioners, and by other persons interested
in the new movements. Matters relating to the Schools Inquiry—still in
progress—were discussed, as well as the question of education in
general.
A valuable series of papers on general educational points, by able
writers, was issued by the association, and various technical questions
were fully discussed; but the larger movements, such as the Local
Examinations, and the proposed Woman’s College at Hitchin, occupy a very
prominent place in the report which dwells on what is the true basis of
any useful association—
“Apart from any tangible results, it has been felt that the
recognition of a common bond—the kindling of zeal and courage,
by the contact of congenial minds—the cheering consciousness of
sympathy in working together for a great end, amply justify the
existence of such an association.”
The School-Mistresses’ Association continued its work until the increase
of the new Endowed Schools made a division of its members into three
distinct classes, head-mistresses, assistant-mistresses, and private
governesses. The two first formed themselves into distinct associations,
while the third was absorbed by the Teachers’ Guild, which also drew in
the amateurs.
Having fostered and protected this threefold fruitage up to the period
of ripening, the parent association then fell apart, its work being
done.
The Teachers’ Guild was originated by Miss Buss, at a meeting held
on February 7, 1883, at the North London Collegiate School for
Girls. On May 16 it was formally inaugurated at a meeting of the
School-Mistresses’ Association, and it was then taken up warmly by
the Head-mistresses’ Association.
Of the rise of the Assistant-mistresses’ Association, Miss E. P. Hughes
writes, referring to the help given by Miss Buss—
“In 1884, at a little meeting in my room at Newnham, it was
decided to start the Assistant-mistresses’ Association, the
initiative being left to Mrs. Corrie Grant, Miss Eves, and
myself. I wrote to Miss Buss and to several other leaders in
education. Miss Buss’ answer was the first we received, and I
distinctly remember the impression it produced. She sympathized
keenly with the desire for union, seeing at once the possible
danger of antagonism to other associations, but also seeing the
way to avoid this danger. Without her sympathy and advice I do
not think the association would have been started just
then.”[13]
Footnote 13:
That Miss Buss’ interest did not relax is shown by the resolution
passed by the Assistant-mistresses’ Association after the news of her
death: “A great loss has fallen on the profession, a loss we should
call irreparable did we not know that no devoted service dies, but
lives and bears fruit in many wonderful and unexpected ways. A great
worker has been called to her rest, and we who remain seem little as
compared with her who is gone. As teachers we must all feel how much
we have lost, while to some the loss is dearer and more personal.”
Miss Buss and Miss Beale may claim to have started the Head-mistresses’
Association, with the help of Miss H. M. Jones and a few others, who met
at Myra Lodge in the Christmas vacation of 1873, to formulate its
constitution.
In her memorial notice,[14] Miss Toplis tells us that the name of this
new association was due to Miss Buss, as she says—
Footnote 14:
_Educational Review_, January, 1895.
“How many of those who now hold the honourable position and
title of head-mistress know that they owe this title to her? She
had succeeded in convincing the authorities that in the new
schools which were to come into existence a woman could be the
actual head, and that there was no need to put her and her
school under a man as director (which was the only idea that
occurred to them); and then arose this question, what should the
lady be called?—superintendent, lady-principal, director? ‘A
thought flashed into my mind,’ she used to say, ‘if head-master,
why not head-mistress, as the exact equivalent?’ And, much to my
surprise, the suggestion was immediately accepted.”
Miss Buss became president of the association, retaining the office till
the end, when her place was taken by Miss Beale; the duties during the
long illness being undertaken by Miss H. M. Jones, as deputy-president.
Miss H. M. Jones, in a letter on Christmas Day, 1894, speaks for the
whole body in her expression of sorrow—
“How many will feel to-day that they have lost a friend on whose
judgment and advice they could always rely! Few women have
exercised so great an influence on the educational movements of
the present day, and still fewer have worked so hard as she has
done to secure the greatest possible advantages to the girls of
this and future generations. She will be greatly missed and
greatly mourned.
“It is just twenty-one years ago that a few of us
head-mistresses met during the Christmas holidays to establish
the Association, of which she has since then been the honoured
president, and in which she always took so great an interest. In
fact, as you know, Miss Buss has been foremost as a leader in
all our deliberations and in all our efforts.”
Miss Elsie Day, of the Grey Coat Hospital, Westminster, adds a very
interesting fact in the history of the Association; as, after the
expression of personal grief, she says—
“She was emphatically the mother of the head-mistresses. We
looked to no one, as we did to her, for wise and loving help.
For myself, I can only say I have loved her for twenty years.
“What I am anxious for is, that in any notice of her, when it
would be suitable, it should be mentioned that it was at her
request that, when the Head-mistresses’ Association met here, in
1885, there was a special celebration for the Association. She
wrote in the sweetest and most modest way, asking me if I saw my
way to it, and Canon Furse celebrated at my request. Such an
early celebration has been held and much appreciated almost
every year since.
“It is because I believe that I have had the credit of
initiating this that I am desirous that it should be known that,
although I made the arrangements, the thought was hers. We want
to help the younger heads to realize her beautiful unwitting
saintliness.”
Another friend among the head-mistresses, whom she often visited, tells
how at night Miss Buss liked that they should kneel down, and together
say the _Veni Creator_.[15]
Footnote 15:
This simplicity and devoutness are well shown in a letter to my
father, in reply to a poem which he had sent her. He was for many
years an invalid, and Miss Buss kept him in constant remembrance in
sending flowers or books. She knew that she was never forgotten in his
prayers—
“Myra Lodge, December 4, 1883.
“DEAR MR. RIDLEY,
“It is very good of you to write to me, and I shall take great
care of your letter. Miss Hickey’s poem is very beautiful and
suggestive. In my intensely active life I do feel, at times
especially, the need of spiritual uplifting. Early last week, before
your letter came, I had felt this from joining a communion service in
the house of a dear friend, whose only child, a grown-up son, was
dangerously ill.
“I know very little of thought-transference, but I wonder whether in
some wonderful and mysterious way this craving was made known to you.
“With my love and earnest thanks,
“Believe me, dear Mr. Ridley,
“Yours most truly,
“FRANCES M. BUSS.”
Those who knew her best know best the force of the description given of
her by her friend Miss Beale in her deeply appreciative sketch[16]—
Footnote 16:
_Guardian_, January 9, 1895.
“_How_ full of prayer was her life only a few intimate friends
know; one felt that for her the words were true, ‘They that wait
on the Lord shall renew their strength;’ and one is glad to
think that these words are in a higher sense true for her now—
‘I count that heaven itself is only work
To a surer issue,’
and that those who have entered into rest, yet rest not, but in
their glorified life give utterance to that fuller vision of
holiness which was once hidden by the clouds of earth.”
The prayerful attitude of spirit characteristic of all who live “as
seeing things invisible” must tend to the graces of simplicity and
humility. Nothing was more touching than to note these special graces in
one so strong and so capable, so eager and impetuous, and dowered with a
will that swept everything before it. Her own personal wants were of the
simplest, and no one ever gave less trouble to those around her. From
Mr. Latham, who, as secretary to the Endowed Schools’ Commission, saw
most of her in her public life, comes a very striking testimony to this
point in her character when, after acknowledging with full appreciation
how she “has done the state good service,” he adds—
“The simplicity of her life and the tranquillity of her
demeanour always seemed to me to mark her out in rather a
special way among her comrades in the cause of the education of
women and girls, of which she was a most distinguished pioneer.”
Amid the apparently endless multiplicity of her objects in life ran the
one simple purpose of faithful service, and thus in all complexity there
was still a complete order. Confusion is the result only of the clash of
selfish aims with social duties. To the “heart at leisure from itself”
life must always remain simple and harmonious.
To this humility Miss Beale also bears witness, touching first on a
point of special interest in connection with their professional work—
“The next thing that struck us was her _generosity_, not only in
money—though that was very great—but in personal service, in
thoughtfulness of others. If there was any improvement she could
suggest in organization, in methods of teaching, she made it her
business, at no little expense of money and time, to distribute
the information to others; never considering them as rivals, but
as fellow-workers, in a common cause.
“Next to her charity, one was impressed by her _humility_. ‘Let
each esteem other better than themselves,’ was the rule of her
own life, while she always seemed to look for excellences,
rather than failings, and to seek to develop, in all, the right
emulation, ‘If there be any virtue, any praise, think of these
things.’”
One of our greatest teachers tells us that “the test of a truly great
man is his humility,” and certainly to the small, self-centred soul no
grace is more difficult of attainment.
This humility was very striking in its contrast with the strength and
power of this strong woman. In things large or small it was the same;
she was the first to admit, either to teachers or pupils, any error of
judgment, or any small seeming inconsiderateness, so easy in her
terribly overcrowded life. Of this, one of the staff says aptly—
“She had also the power, so often wanting in a strong leader, of
acknowledging a mistake. I shall never forget the impression
made on me on receiving a note from her, apologizing for what I
might perhaps characterize as a failure in courtesy. That was
several years ago, but even then she was able to plead the
pressure on her nerves of the work whose magnitude none of us
can ever know.”
And one of the party of a Roman holiday relates, with moist eyes, how,
one day when she had retired to her room, up a long flight of stairs,
she heard a knock at the door, and there found Miss Buss, who had
followed her all the way up just to say, “I am afraid, my dear, that I
passed you without saying good morning; but I was thinking of something
else at the moment, and only remembered it afterwards!”
* * * * *
In speaking of “our dear friend and helper, Miss Buss,” Miss Cooper, of
Edgbaston, takes up the lesson of the life just closed, as she says—
“The whole of the educational world will grieve, and will feel
the void caused by her death. But the full realization of the
loss can only be felt by those who were drawn into the more
intimate personal and professional relations in which Miss Buss
showed her great and generous spirit in the best aspect.
“It is of the greatest help to remember the brave and loving
spirit just gone from us, and to recall not only her words of
hope and cheer to us, but also her encouragement to take up her
work when it had perforce to be given up; and, in our turn, to
help the younger members of our profession both in their own
daily needs and difficulties, and also in their endeavour after
a life that should realize the highest ideals with which such
leaders as Miss Buss have inspired us.
“From such help as she gave us, one learns the gospel of
helpfulness for others, and her life has inspired, and will
continue to inspire, some of the best work that has made
education a real and valuable thing for the women of
England—work which has still to develop into greater usefulness
as greater opportunities are presented to it.”
And, over and over, from the younger members of the association, come in
varying form the same heartfelt utterances of personal loss, as in this—
“I cannot tell you how much she helped me from the first time I
met her, when I went from the Cambridge Training College to work
under her at her own school, till I left to become head of the
West Ham School. There I rejoiced in having her as one of my
governors, and there she has given me help and encouragement
that I never can repay. But I know I am only one of _many_ whom
she taught and advised without a thought of the trouble to
herself.”
Never, surely, had formal vote of condolence less of mere form, or more
of love and sorrow than that sent by the Head-mistresses’ Association to
the friends of their “honoured and beloved president,” as they say—
“As a body, we lament the loss of our head; as individuals, we
mourn a dear and honoured friend, who, whether in the cause of
public progress or of private friendship, was ever ready to
spend herself, her time, and thought for others, and share with
them the fruits of her sound judgment and experience.
“We appreciate most thoroughly the splendid work that she
accomplished in the sphere of education, and the important part
she played in gaining for women the great educational advantages
which they now enjoy, but for the moment we are more disposed to
dwell upon her personal influence, her wide sympathies, her
never-failing readiness to give help and counsel, her public
spirit, and her loyal, affectionate disposition.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------