QUEEN’S COLLEGE
‘Long shall the College live and grow,
When we three sleep in peace,
And scholars better far than we
Its glory shall increase.’
_Eliza Beale on the Jubilee of Queen’s College._
Mr. Llewelyn Davis rightly said that the establishment of Queen’s
College was an epoch in women’s education. Like that of all really great
institutions, its development and growth were an outcome of the needs
of the time. But the movement which led up to it was ‘not from beneath
but from above. It was compassion in the hearts of a few good men which
moved them to help a forlorn class of solitary and ill-paid workers, that
seemed the immediate cause. A little band of men full of faith and good
works came to the help of a man whose influence was quiet but strong.’
The good man of whom Miss Beale thus spoke was David Laing, who was vicar
of Holy Trinity Church, Kentish Town, from 1847 to 1858. Good he was, in
many senses of the word: a man of education, wide culture, and personal
force. He showed both large-hearted charity and wisdom in dealing with
the needs of those for whom it was his duty to care, and he was ready to
make any self-sacrifice required in carrying out his schemes for them.
In 1843 he became Honorary Secretary of the Governesses’ Benevolent
Institution, a position he occupied till his death in 1860, and the
lamentable state of women’s education, particularly that of professing
teachers, was brought forcibly before him. The society, which had had
a kind of passive existence only for two or three years, began at once
under Mr. Laing to develop manifold activities. Within a year the work
of help for which it was primarily intended was in full swing, and its
scope of usefulness was enlarged by the establishment of a registry and a
scheme for granting diplomas to governesses.
It was soon found to be a real difficulty to know the efficient teacher
from the mere pretender. For the lack of education is frequently seen in
an assumption of knowledge. In the days when women were required to teach
everything, a confession of ignorance on almost any subject was regarded
as a disgrace. The advance of true education is marked by the fact that
it is no longer necessary for a governess to pretend to knowledge she
does not possess.
It was soon seen that if the registry for teachers was to be of any
value, some test must be established for the women it undertook to
recommend. The first efforts at examination revealed such depths of
ignorance, that the further necessity of instructing those who wished
to avail themselves of the society’s diplomas was perceived. This need
happily coalesced with the generous plan of Miss Murray, Maid of Honour
to the Queen. She seems first to have thought of a college for women, and
had already received donations of money towards such an object. These
she transferred to Mr. Laing, when in 1844 he entered into communication
with the Government respecting the establishment of a college. In 1847
Queen Victoria graciously gave her permission for the adoption of the
title ‘Queen’s College,’ and a house in Harley Street, adjacent to that
occupied by the Governesses’ Benevolent Institution was taken. Mr. Laing
then called upon some of the Professors of King’s College to help him in
the work by giving lectures to governesses and others, and it was largely
owing to their talent and unwearied kindness that the College became
rapidly so successful.
It should not, however, be thought that Queen’s College was destined
by its founders solely to help governesses, though in this direction
its usefulness was immediately seen. Miss Murray and Mr. Laing, like
Alfred Tennyson and others less immediately interested in the scheme,
looked beyond such direct results to the larger needs of women. The time
had come when it was recognised that marriage could not be the lot of
all,—that there might be purpose and interest in a woman’s life even
when she could not be married, and that to use marriage merely as an
escape from an empty impoverished existence was an act unworthy of a good
woman. Women were now willing to fit themselves for life independently
of marriage, and for this end were seeking intellectual development.
Therefore the founders of Queen’s College planned that the education
should be general, and not merely an initiation into a craft which a
governess might learn as if she were a member of a certain guild. For the
governess herself, it was surely best that she should be educated as if
she had interests in common with the rest of her sex, and for all women
it was needful that they should seek means to inform, occupy, and control
their own active minds and ‘wandering affections.’ Mr. Laing thought
with compassionate horror of the wasted lives of many women, of their
capabilities and sympathies which were meant to enrich the lives of
others, degraded by misuse or disuse into positively harmful activities.
After Queen’s College had been opened for some months he wrote, in words
which some will recognise as a favourite quotation of Miss Beale’s, ‘the
fate of some victim of a conventional marriage, or of a life of celibacy
ending in deranged health, is particularly sad and pitiful. Like the
daughters of Pandarus who, after being nurtured by the goddesses and fed
on honey and incense by the Graces, are snatched away by the Harpies,
“And doomed for all their loving eyes, To serve the Furies who hate
constantly.”’
Miles Beale was among those who shared such thoughts for women. It was
his aim to give his daughters every opportunity to cultivate their minds
and pursue any path of knowledge they should desire. Above all, he wished
that they should not regard marriage as a necessity.
The inaugural lecture on the opening of Queen’s College was delivered
by the Rev. F. D. Maurice, the first Head of the College, on Wednesday,
March 29, 1848. As his inspiring but stern words fell upon the ears of
Dorothea Beale, we may well believe that the sense of vocation which
must early have grown for her out of her natural dutifulness, became
to her more clearly shaped. Certainly, in reading them now, we feel we
are tracing back to its source a stream of that thought with which she
herself in due time awed and inspired many a young teacher. ‘The vocation
of a teacher is an awful one; you cannot do her real good, she will do
others unspeakable harm if she is not aware of its usefulness. Merely
to supply her with necessaries, merely to assist her in procuring them
for herself ... is not fitting her for her work. You may but confirm
her in the notion that the training of an immortal spirit may be
just as lawfully undertaken in a case of emergency as that of selling
ribbands. How can you give a woman self-respect, how can you win for her
the respect of others, in whom such a notion or any modification of it
dwells? Your business is by all means to dispossess her of it; to make
her feel the greatness of her work, and yet to show her that it can be
honestly performed.’
The speaker went on to deal with the word ‘Accomplishments,’ a word which
at that time was supposed to cover the whole of a woman’s education; and
he pleaded that something more than finish, something substantial and
elementary was needed for those whose duty was ‘to watch closely the
first utterances of infancy, the first dawnings of intelligence;—how
thoughts spring into acts, how acts pass into habits. Surely they ought,
above all others, to feel that the truths which lie nearest to us are the
most wonderful ... that study is not worth much if it is not busy about
the roots of things.’
Again, with what responsive if silent joy must the girl who had toiled
alone at Euclid and Algebra have heard his encouraging words on
Mathematics, then held to be an unfeminine pursuit. ‘To regard numbers
with the kind of wonder with which a child regards them, to feel that
when we are learning the laws of number we are looking into the very laws
of the universe,—this makes the study of exceeding worth to the mind
and character; yet it does not create the least impatience of ordinary
occupations; ... on the contrary ... it helps us to know that nothing is
mean but what is false.’
The concluding thoughts of Mr. Maurice’s address must be familiar to
Cheltenham pupils: ‘The teacher in every department, if he does his duty,
will admonish his pupils that they are not to make fashion, or public
opinion, their rule ... that if these are their ends, they will not be
sincere in their work or do it well.... Colleges for men and women ...
exist to testify that opinion is not the God they ought to worship.’ We
can hardly realise, after nearly sixty years of the liberal education won
for us largely through this first concerted effort of earnest men and
women, the trembling joy and diffidence of those pupils,—some of them
mere girls, some already themselves engaged in the work of teaching,—who
formed the first classes in Harley Street. We have become so accustomed
to the new order of things then inaugurated, that their allusions to
Tennyson’s _Princess_, their fear of being regarded as _outré_ seem to
us almost self-conscious and unnecessary. Professor Maurice opened his
address with an apology for the word ‘College’; on another occasion he
spoke of the project as ‘equally extravagant if not equally imaginative
with that lately set forth by our great poet.’ Miss Wedgwood recalls
dismay under the ‘witless laughter roused by the mention of the College
after I had been its pupil for more than a year.’
Nor was this all. A more annoying opposition took shape in articles
in the _Quarterly_ in which the theological opinions of the lecturers
were attacked. The writer found fault in the first place on such points
as these: the early age of admission was likely to lead to desultory
education; the absence of proper framework and machinery, and the want of
proper authority were to be deplored; the low rate of payment might lead
governesses availing themselves of the classes to get by their means a
smattering of knowledge. He then proceeded to attack the professors for
a ‘sort of modified Pantheism and Latitudinarianism prevailing in their
so-called theology,’ adding that the lecturer on English Composition
distinguished himself above the rest of his company by the ‘Germanisms
embroidered on his prose.’ Mr. Laing took up a vigorous pen to answer
the _Quarterly_, and in defence of Maurice, Kingsley, and the rest,
exclaimed: ‘These men are doing a righteous and godly work in the face of
heaven and earth.’
It is a wonderful history. Remarkable, too, were the women and girls who
seized the advantages offered them, who were waiting almost literally for
the College doors to be opened. Mrs. Davenport, then Miss Sarah Woodman,
records with natural pride the fact that she was the first pupil. She was
quickly followed by Miss King, and we may be sure that the three Miss
Beales were not far behind them.
Among the earliest pupils beside those already named, were Miss Buss,
Miss Frances Martin, Miss Jex-Blake, Miss Elizabeth Gilbert, and Miss
Adelaide Anne Procter, whose simple holland dress without ornament, bands
of dark hair, pale complexion, and regular features are noted for us by a
young fellow-student, Miss Wardell. And the teachers were worthy of the
pupils. Among the lecturers and examiners were the Rev. F. D. Maurice,
the Rev. E. H. Plumptre, afterwards Dean of Wells, the translator of
Dante, the Rev. Charles Kingsley, the Rev. R. C. Trench, then Dean of
Westminster, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin, John Hullah, W. Sterndale
Bennett, Dr. Brewer the historian, Professors Bernays and Brasseur.
These are well-known names, but there were many others almost forgotten
to-day, who were interesting and inspiring teachers. There were no
lady-teachers at first, but Miss Beale enumerates with grateful words a
staff of lady-visitors, ‘who undertook, of course gratuitously, the often
burdensome duty of chaperoning. Lady Stanley of Alderley, stately and
beautiful all her life, but especially then; Mrs. Wedgwood, the daughter
of Sir James Mackintosh, so clever and kind, whom everybody liked;
Miss Elizabeth Twining, Lady Monteagle, and Lady Page Wood were often
present; and a Mrs. Hayes, of whom I have lost sight, was one of the most
diligent. I never happened to meet Lady Canning, she went to India almost
immediately.’
Before tracing Miss Beale’s own connection with Queen’s, it is worth
while to read the following letters written to her by Miss Buss in 1889,
in which the working of the College, especially with regard to the
evening classes, is shown in a detailed and personal way:
_January 13, 1889._
‘Queen’s College was distinctly an outcome of the Governesses’
Benevolent Institution. It was found that governesses living
in the Home in Harley Street were often very ignorant, and
Mr. Laing, a University man himself, asked some of the King’s
College professors to give some lectures to the ladies living
in the Home, so that they might be better informed when leaving
to take a situation. The professors responded, some lectures
were given, but it soon became evident that outsiders must be
admitted to help to pay expenses—so the College was opened in
1848....
‘Mr. Laing kept his original idea before him, and soon induced
some of the professors to give, free of charge, courses of
evening lectures to women actually engaged in teaching. I was
a member at the very outset, being the youngest woman then
attending the evening lectures. A very able man, Mr. Clark,
Principal of Battersea, gave a splendid course of Geography
lectures (of England, I think), Mr. Cock took Arithmetic, Mr.
Brewer, Latin translation—he was a first-rate teacher. Some
one else took Latin Grammar, Mr. Laing gave Scripture. The
first term I attended six nights a week, the second, four. F.
D. Maurice took Elizabethan Literature somewhat later; Trench
gave his lectures on English from his manuscript notes, and how
delightful they were! English Past and Present, etc. I do not
remember Kingsley, I was not introduced to him until many years
after. Nicolay gave Ancient History, and was not popular....
‘Queen’s College began the Women’s Education Movement
undoubtedly, but it became conservative, and did not grow....
There was a Rev. A. B. Strettel, who taught grammar well, but
only to the day-students, I think. Recalling the old days in
this way takes one back to one’s youth. Queen’s College opened
a new life to me, I mean intellectually. To come in contact
with the minds of such men was indeed delightful, and it was
a new experience to me and to most of the women who were
fortunate enough to become students.... Believe me, as always,
yours affectionately and admiringly,
FRANCES M. BUSS.’
In reply to some questions from Miss Beale in answer to the above, Miss
Buss wrote again on January 17, 1889:—
‘The day classes were of course attended by girls and women
from outside. I attended the evening classes in 1849. Our
school was opened in 1850, and then as we began with sixty
girls, and ended the first quarter with eighty, I had not time
to attend and work as I had done before. Mr. Laing always
wanted to help women teachers, and he was strong enough to get
the King’s College men to teach governesses gratuitously in the
evening, each professor only attending one night in the week.
The men had plenty of work and pay for their day lectures.
The evening classes went on for some time, and were very well
attended by women, all of whom were teaching. Some of these
women (I among them) presented themselves for the irregularly
conducted examinations, for which certificates were offered.
Each professor did as he liked, he saw the candidate alone—at
any rate in my case it was so—told her to write answers to
questions set by him, asked a few _vivâ voce_ questions, and
then gave a certificate. No papers were printed, therefore no
one could know what line the examiner would take. I have three
of these certificates. Later, the examination became more
formal and more valuable; a sort of standard was created.’
Dorothea Beale was, as a matter of fact, strictly a pupil of Queen’s
College for an even shorter time than her great contemporary. But there
for the first time she obtained the object of her ambition—mathematical
training, given by Mr. Astley Cock. Of this she characteristically
remarked, ‘as the class was small I could go at my own pace. The work
was however elementary, and as I had read a good deal alone, I found
private lessons necessary.... I read with him privately Trigonometry,
Conics, and the Differential Calculus.’ After a time Miss Beale was asked
to help in teaching mathematics, and in 1849 was appointed the first
lady mathematical tutor. ‘I had the _entrée_ of any class I liked, being
tutor, and attended at various times—Latin, Greek, German, and Mental
Science.’ She speaks also of the delight she had ‘at the opening of a
Greek class by Professor Plumptre. The class, it is true, languished and
died in less than two years. For nearly a year it consisted of myself and
a friend, and most thoroughly did we enjoy reading Plato and Sophocles
under such a teacher.’ Miss Beale also much enjoyed an interesting German
literature class held by Dr. Bernays.[19] The formal reports of progress
made, of attendance, and even of good conduct at the classes may still
be seen. The attendance, it goes without saying, was always regular, the
conduct very good, and the progress most satisfactory.
In 1854 Mr. Plumptre required help with the Latin tuition, and asked Miss
Beale to take a junior class. In the same year she was offered the post
of head teacher in the school under Miss Parry, from whom she says she
received ‘much kindness, and learned from her many valuable lessons; we
travelled abroad together during one long vacation.’
Queen’s College, both by the tuition it afforded, and the experience
it gave in teaching and managing classes, was an important factor in
Dorothea Beale’s training for her life’s work. There was a yet further
advantage in its certificates. Miss Beale and her sisters, like Miss
Buss and others engaged in the work of education, desired and obtained
from the College diplomas certifying their ability to teach. These were
obtained by examinations, which in the earliest days were conducted in
the manner described in Miss Buss’s letter already quoted. Miss Dorothea
Beale herself spoke with unmitigated pleasure of her first examination
conducted by Professor Maurice. ‘The _vivâ voce_ was a delightful
conversation; he led us on by his sympathetic manner and kindly
appreciation, so that we hardly remembered he was an examiner’; and she
says later, ‘I remember to this day what a pleasant hour we had of _vivâ
voce_; his wonderful power of intellectual sympathy came out, and made
us forget that we were being examined; he seemed to take pleasure in
following up our thoughts on the bearings of the history we had read,
so that it appeared we were holding a delightful conversation on the
subject. Again, in speaking of language, he wanted not merely formal
and conventional grammar, and showed such pleasure when a grammatical
definition was enlarged beyond the scope of ordinary school-books.’
It should be remembered that the examination which proved to be so
‘delightful’ was on the result of her own private reading encouraged
by home sympathy, and a few public lectures. The questions asked were
of wide scope; some were quite simple, almost superficial; others were
framed so as to draw upon intelligence or a reserve of knowledge.
The educational certificates of sixty years ago, the first ever given,
have a great and touching interest for those who love to follow the
development of intellectual advance. The simple way in which the
advantages offered by the examinations held by the Committee of Queen’s
College are set forth speaks of effort and hope, unconnected with the
school routine and studied preparation made necessary by the large and
complicated system of the present day. Below the lists of Patrons,
Committee, and Lady Visitors, it is stated that the Committee is prepared
to give certificates in any of the following subjects: The knowledge of
Scripture; English Grammar and Literature; History, Ancient or Modern;
French, German, Italian, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc.; Music, Vocal or
Instrumental; Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry; Geography, Geology, Natural
Philosophy, Botany, etc.; Drawing, Painting in any style; Principles and
Methods of Teaching. To this truly magnificent offer,—infinite indeed
if any value is to be attributed to ‘etc.’—is attached the note: ‘As it
would be absurd to suppose that any governess could combine all these
varied subjects, the List is offered, that Parents may select those to
which they attach most importance; and may observe how the certificates
meet their wishes.’
Miss Dorothea Beale obtained six of these certificates, and four of the
later ones, granted under slightly different conditions. The first, dated
June 12, 1848, for English Literature and English Grammar, states that
the examiner, Professor Maurice, is of opinion that Miss Dorothea Beale
‘has shown much intelligence, and a very satisfactory acquaintance with
these subjects.’ The diploma bears also, as do the other certificates,
the signature of Mr. Laing, the Honorary Secretary, and of the Rev. C. F.
Nicolay, Deputy Chairman, and afterwards called Dean of Queen’s College.
Mr. Nicolay was also Librarian of King’s College. The next certificate,
for French, is only three days later in date, June 15, 1848. On this,
Professor Isidore Brasseur states that he considers Miss Dorothea Beale
‘well qualified to teach that language (which she speaks fluently, having
acquired it in France) theoretically and by practice.’ The two diplomas
gained in December of the same year are of even greater interest for her
pupils at Cheltenham. The first of these, dated December 11, 1848, and
signed by the Rev. Thomas Jackson, Principal of the Battersea Training
College, who had examined her in the Principles and Method of Teaching,
states that ‘she has paid praiseworthy attention to the subject, and
is likely to become an accomplished teacher.’ We note the office of
the examiner. Already then, in 1848, itself a mere infant, elementary
education was giving the lead in this important subject; for when at
last, after a long day of desultory and often unfruitful toil, those who
were the professed teachers of the rich sought to learn the meaning and
methods of their work, they found that they could only do so in England
from the teachers of the poor.
The date of the next certificate, December 26, shows how much these
diplomas were dependent on voluntary and individual attention, and
opportunity on the part of the examiners. This, signed by Professor
Plumptre, states that in her knowledge of Holy Scripture, Miss Dorothea
Beale exhibits ‘a very intimate knowledge of its history and Scripture.’
On January 16, of the following year, a certificate for Geography was
signed by Mr. Nicolay, who is of opinion that ‘she has studied the
subject carefully in its details, and that her knowledge in its various
branches is satisfactory.’
In November 1850 Miss Beale received from her mathematical tutor, the
Rev. T. Cock, a certificate of efficiency in Arithmetic, Geometry,
Algebra, and Trigonometry. He is of opinion that ‘she has acquired a
sound knowledge of the first principles of these four subjects, showing
considerable ingenuity in the application of them to examples and
problems; that she possesses the power of defining and distinguishing
with clearness and brevity, and that appreciation of mathematical
reasoning which, if further cultivated, will enable her to study with
success those treatises on Natural Philosophy which require a knowledge
of the exact sciences.’
In 1855, after the certificates had become classified, this diploma was
exchanged for a first-class certificate. And in the course of these later
years she received two other first-class certificates, one for Latin, and
one for German; and, for pianoforte playing, a second-class certificate,
signed by W. Sterndale Bennett. For this was required the performance
of the more important sonatas of Mozart (without accompaniments), the
early sonatas of Beethoven, the ‘Lieder ohne Worte’ of Mendelssohn, and
Cramer’s Studies. This must have been for Dorothea Beale a period of
happy and fruitful life and work, during which her interests enlarged
in many directions. The connection with Queen’s College brought much
congenial acquaintance, while at home she was working vigorously at
German and still following the classical work of her brothers.
In 1851 Miss Beale’s family removed to 31 Finsbury Square, then a great
medical centre; thirty-one houses were occupied by medical men. There
were friends to share her aims and interests. Among these we specially
note Mrs. Blenkarne and Miss Elizabeth Alston. To the first of these
Dorothea confided her hopes and aims, and gained from her sympathy and
help, a boon she never forgot. The links of the friendship so begun ran
on throughout her life. Mrs. Blenkarne’s daughters and great nieces were
educated at Cheltenham.
In Elizabeth Alston Dorothea had a friend of her own age—a friend who
survives to tell of the many happy hours the young girls spent together,
of the books they read and discussed, their philanthropic works, and
dreams of good. Dorothea, always fond of teaching, gladly instructed
her friends. Miss Alston learned from her to read St. Mark in Greek,
and in return taught her to sing. ‘We would linger long at the piano,
as I sought to make her convey by her singing the depth of meaning in
the words, “But the Lord is mindful of his own.” She told me it was a
revelation to her.’
As late as 1902 Miss Beale wrote to that friend of her youth: ‘I think
with gratitude of those lessons you gave me in singing; this, I believe,
has helped much to make me able to teach without fatigue. “In questa
tomba oscura” was fine for a chest voice. I suppose you are as much
interested in music as ever.’ And in 1903, with an allusion to those
designs on all knowledge which the friends had shared, she wrote:
‘Sanscrit is very fascinating; my Sanscrit studies were cut short by my
coming here.’
The vacations of this period were spent sometimes at watering-places like
Brighton, or Blackheath, where she would be in charge of the younger
members of the family. To this day is remembered her conscientious way
of taking them for a walk with her watch in her hand. Sometimes she went
to Germany or Switzerland, where she took every opportunity of studying
schools and methods of education. She was most happy in her work. The
actual teaching, apart from the subject, was in itself a delight. That
power of inspiration which she held should be one of the gifts a teacher
should earnestly covet, was already hers. This was felt not only by the
elder pupils, whose minds under her guidance opened to the interests
of Latin and mathematics. The children in the school knew it also. An
unexpected tribute from one of these once reached Miss Beale, when the
parent of a pupil wrote: ‘I have just learned from my little girl that
the Lady Principal of the Cheltenham Ladies’ College was my dear and
valued teacher of olden days, at Queen’s College.... I assure you I
have never ceased to cherish a warm affection for you, and I have never
forgotten your great kindness to me in Harley Street.’ In 1905, at the
time of the College jubilee, one who had been a child pupil of Miss
Beale’s wrote to her: ‘The few months during which I was under your
tuition more than fifty years ago were an epoch to me. Young as I was,
I ever afterwards judged teaching by the standard set by yours, and
very seldom indeed, I may truly say, has it been subsequently reached.
The fifty years that have since passed, full as they have been, have
never effaced the impression then received, both of your teaching and
of something more comprehensive than teaching, which contact with you
engendered, and which impels me to take this opportunity—late in the day
as it is—to express and to thank you for.... I had a most keen desire to
visit Cheltenham and the buildings and institutions which embody in so
grand a manner the impress which my childish mind received.’
There is also ample evidence that the professors and lady-visitors of the
College highly esteemed Miss Beale’s work there. ‘The flattering regard
in which you are held at Queen’s,’ wrote her father to her just after she
had left the College, are words fully justified by other letters which
exist.
It is clear that this spring of work was full of hope and delight, as
well as of scrupulous effort. Dorothea Beale possessed at this time
a growing confidence in her own powers, educational ideals which were
slowly shaping themselves, and a consciousness of her fitness for the
work on which she was engaged.
Then, at the end of 1856, the connection with Queen’s College came rather
abruptly to an end by Miss Beale’s own wish. She appears to have been
some time feeling that there was a tendency for the whole administration
of the College to get too much into the hands of one person; and that
there was consequently not enough scope for that womanly influence
which she felt to be so important where the education of young girls is
concerned. She returned to her work after the summer holiday of 1856—a
holiday spent in visiting Swiss and German schools—to find the power of
the lady-visitors more restricted than ever. In fact, she said, ‘the time
had come when it could be truly said, “the lady-visitors have no power.”’
As she was not in a position to effect the changes she desired, she sent
in her resignation, and her friend and fellow-teacher, Miss Rowley, did
the same. The actual moment for doing this in November seems to have
been decided for Miss Beale by hearing she could obtain the post of
head-teacher at Casterton.
Miss Beale’s connection with Queen’s College had been long and close, and
her gratitude to it was so great that she hoped to be allowed to resign
without explanation. This was during the headship of Dr. Plumptre. When
Miss Beale’s resignation reached him, he urged her to make the reasons
for it known, and his letter on the subject shows something of the
consideration in which she was held.
‘If there is an evil which cannot be remedied, are you right
in leaving those to whom the welfare of the College is very
dear to all the discomfort of feeling or imagining that there
is something amiss without giving them any clue to that which,
whatever it be, has been at all important enough to lead you
to resign? Are you right in exposing the College itself to the
consequence of the construction which will inevitably be put
upon your conduct—whether that construction be true or false?
I may form three or four conjectures as to the motives that
have led you to this decision—but it is all guess work—I think
the decision itself to be deplored. We shall lose an able
and earnest fellow-worker. You will lose a position of great
usefulness—you give up a work to which you have been called and
opportunities of doing good. I believe that these lamentable
results might have been avoided, but it is too late for this;
there is at any rate time for the openness which, I think, we
have a right to look for.
‘I will not end without thanking you for your consideration
in calling to tell me what you had done, and for all the
assistance you have given me in my College work.—I am, yours
most sincerely,
E. H. PLUMPTRE.’
Miss Beale finally gave the desired explanation with full detail and this
preface:—
‘Before consenting to answer any questions, I think it right
that we should state that when we sent in our resignation, we
naturally supposed we should be allowed to do so without being
required to give any reasons.
‘It was only after several weeks of resistance that, at the
earnest appeal of Mr. Plumptre, who placed it before us as a
moral duty, that we at last reluctantly consented to speak to
him and to the Lady Visitors. From the course we adopted, I
think you will see we are prompted [solely] ... by a desire for
the good of a College in which we feel the warmest interest.’
The defects she deplored—pioneer mistakes she called them later—were
then enumerated in detail, and she dwelt especially on the hindrance to
education caused by so much authority being left to one individual, who
could not possibly be in a position to know the abilities and standard of
work of every pupil. Much harm, she pleaded, had been done
‘by withdrawing pupils from the school, compelling them
without my consent and contrary to the wishes of their parents
to attend College classes, although they are unable to spell
correctly and are ignorant of the first principles of grammar;
classes in which you know it is impossible to give that
individual attention required by children of twelve, who, owing
to the rank from which so many of our pupils are now derived,
are singularly deficient in mental training, and require to be
obliged in extra time to do work given them; to be trained,
watched, educated by ladies (who alone can understand, and
therefore truly educate) girls. My pupils in the school are not
removed by competent professors who understand the subjects
there taught. The instruction which is in itself good, and if
given four or five years later would be beneficial, has been
rendered useless.’
On learning Miss Beale’s reasons for leaving, and that her decision was
irrevocable, Mr. Plumptre wrote: ‘I wish to state at once that I believe
most thoroughly that what you have done has been done conscientiously
because it seemed to you—painful as it was—to be in the line of duty.’
But before this letter reached her, Dorothea had accepted another post,
that of head-teacher in the Clergy Daughters’ School at Casterton.