CHELTENHAM
‘He builded better than he knew.’—EMERSON.
Dorothea Beale in age remembered that in youth she had planned ‘an
air-castle school, with a central quadrangle, cloisters and rooms over.’
To few is it given, as it was given to her, to realise so nearly the
dreams of youth, for few possess the sense of purpose and the indomitable
will which fell to her portion. But the college of her vision did not
come into being without a process of development so slow that for
some years progress could hardly be recorded, nor without infinite
disappointment even in matters which seemed at the time vital; not
without ceaseless effort, seen and unseen, on the part of the Lady
Principal.
We have reached, in the twentieth century, a period in the history of
education in which schools may be said to be founded ready-made. A great
and fine ‘plant,’ opening ceremonies, royal patronage, appear necessities
from the beginning. The Ladies’ College, Cheltenham, was twenty years
old before it had a building of its own, its first stone was laid by
an unknown hand, its opening rite consisted of school prayers in the
ordinary way on a Monday morning, at 9 A.M., with the addition of a few
words rather nervously read by the Lady Principal. The college has never
had a patron, nor did it even have any specially distinguished visitor,
till the Empress Frederick came in 1897.
The Ladies’ College did not originate with Miss Beale. She brought to it,
when it was but a weakling and like to perish, all her dreams and all her
energies. She made it emphatically her own; but its first inception was
with a small number of Cheltenham residents, notably with the Reverend H.
Walford Bellairs, then H.M. Inspector of Schools for Gloucestershire,[30]
and the Reverend C. A. Bromby,[31] Principal of the Training Colleges.
Its foundation was a continuation of work already begun in the town with
the opening of Cheltenham College, in 1843. This was one of the earliest
of the great nineteenth century public schools, and one of the very few
which has no ancient origin. A very slight glance at the history of the
town, which has produced two great colleges, will serve to show that
their work in its midst has been almost that of a quiet and beneficent
revolution.
The mild air and fertile soil of the great plain below the Cotswold
Hills were recognised as early as the days of Edward the Confessor, when
Cheltenham was called upon to furnish a large amount of bread for the
royal kennels. For centuries only a little market town with a beautiful
Early Gothic church on the banks of an insignificant stream, it crept
out of obscurity in the pages of Ogilby who, in 1785, described it
as inhabited by people ‘much given to plant tobacco, though they are
suppressed by authority.’
Forty years after this the discovery of the medicinal properties of
its waters made the place attractive to those who could afford to take
the remedy, and in the later years of George the Third, it came to be
the ‘Queen of watering places.’ Details of the long royal visit of
1788 may be read in the pages of Fanny Burney and others. The King
would afterwards speak of Cheltenham and the Vale of Gloucester as ‘the
finest part of my kingdom that I have beheld.’ Other distinguished
visitors followed: the Prince Regent, who gave a ball; Charles James
Fox; Wellington, within a year of Waterloo; Louis Philippe and Marie
Amélie in their exile; and many others, among whom, as a boy, came Byron,
to wander, according to a continental biographer, ‘on the seashore at
Cheltenham!’
As late as 1870 there was in Cheltenham scarcely a house which did not
testify by its grandiose, pseudo-classic[32] architecture to the past
magnificence of a town which had striven to be worthy of a court. Even
to-day there are but few which do not follow the lines laid down by the
builders of the early years of the nineteenth century, a time at which
the town grew with mushroom speed. It was a period when population was
rapidly increasing all over the country; but in few places were the leaps
and bounds so marked as in Cheltenham, where in 1840, a census return was
tenfold larger than it had been in 1804.
This rapid growth was due, less to the famous wells and pump-rooms than
to the reputation of its climate, and the absence of any great winter
severity, attractive to those who had lived in tropical countries. Hence
Cheltenham became a favourite residence for Anglo-Indians, military and
civil. The town grew perhaps a little less distinguished, but not less
gay and popular. The fashion in Cheltenham waters passed; kings and dukes
sought their ‘cure’ abroad; but it was possible to have balls and other
amusements without a Prince Regent, while the hunting season especially
became a time of festivity. And side by side with the lovers of pleasure,
who formed so large and sparkling a part of Cheltenham society, existed
those who took all life with deep, almost forbidding seriousness.
To meet the needs of the rapidly growing population during the first
forty years of the nineteenth century, several churches were built
under the auspices of different persons. Church-building in the days of
proprietary sittings was a not unprofitable investment; there were also
liberal benefactors to support Mr. Close, who was incumbent of Cheltenham
for nearly thirty years, in his schemes for the welfare of his flock.
Francis Close, a disciple of Charles Simeon, came to Cheltenham in 1824,
as curate-in-charge of Holy Trinity, a newly erected chapel-of-ease to
the parish church. The living of Cheltenham was already at that time
in the hands of Simeon, who had purchased it from its various patrons,
and presented it to the Reverend C. Jervis. On the death of Mr. Jervis,
Simeon appointed young Close to this important charge. From the first
Mr. Close was a very popular preacher. ‘It was,’ says an admirer, ‘a new
and interesting sight to see so singularly handsome a young man filled
with such religious zeal.’ A man of pronounced and narrow views, immense
activity and determination, combined with geniality and cheerfulness, he
sought to regulate the ways of society, and to some extent succeeded. He
ruled the town from the pulpit of the parish church as from a throne,
and earned, among those who loved him least, the name of the ‘Pope of
Cheltenham.’[33] He preached against racing, acting, dancing. But if, as
has been said, he established dinner-parties and destroyed the theatre,
he acted only with others of his school of thought. Those were the days
of eating and drinking, since some form of recreation was necessary,
and, moreover, abstinence had a suspiciously Roman look. They were days
when all forms of art, not that of the theatre alone, were regarded with
distrust. It is true that Mr. Close gave a lecture on ‘Literature and
the Fine Arts considered as Legitimate Pursuits of a Religious Man’;
he also preached a sermon entitled ‘The Restoration of Churches is the
Restoration of Popery,’ and he said to the head-mistress of a fashionable
boarding-school where dancing was included in the curriculum: ‘When Mrs.
Close wished my daughters taught dancing, I reminded her of her marriage
vow.’
Mr. Close’s energies took visible and permanent shape in the buildings
which arose during his long incumbency. Eight churches grew up around
the parish church, but that, alas! was not their model. Most of the
new ones displayed all the worst features of a debased style of church
architecture: a diminutive chancel, three-decker arrangements for parson
and clerk, high pews, with safe doors for the congregation.
National schools were built, and training colleges founded, also under
the direction of Mr. Close, and he took his share in the institution of
the Proprietary College for Boys, in 1843.
With the new churches came new clergy, among whom, the most popular
name at the time, was that of Archibald Boyd, vicar of Christchurch, a
very eloquent preacher who brought the little schoolroom in the hamlet
of Alstone, where he lectured on Sunday evenings, into rivalry with the
parish church. To-day, he is famous for having had as his curate, for
five years, the young Frederick Robertson, whose afternoon sermons at
Christchurch, in spite of the suspicion of unorthodoxy which early began
to attach itself to his name, drew many thoughtful hearers, such as the
Principal of Cheltenham College.
The most leading mind at the time among the younger clergy was that of
Charles Henry Bromby, who became vicar of St. Paul’s in 1843. He was a
man of large mental gifts, and had special perception of the intellectual
needs of his day. The Working Men’s Club, which he established in
his parish, was among the very first in the country. All the great
educational institutions of Cheltenham are indebted to his outlook and
zeal. Joint-founder of Cheltenham College, and later, though he took no
public part and earned no name in the matter, of that for ‘Young Ladies
and Children,’ his most active interest and work was for the teaching
of the poor. He became first Principal of the Training Colleges[34] for
headmasters and mistresses of national schools, starting the work on wise
and secure lines, and rapidly bringing it to the front among that of
kindred institutions.
Mr. Bellairs was actively as well as zealously associated with Mr. Bromby
in all the great schemes, by which Cheltenham, rich and poor, was to be
enlightened, and in the case of the Proprietary College for Ladies, it is
his name which comes to the front, and it was in his house that the first
meeting to draw up its constitution was held.
There was every reason to hope that a high-class day-school for girls,
then almost unknown, might succeed in Cheltenham, where parents had had
a successful experience of such a school for their boys. Everywhere,
people, who cared about a good education for girls, found it difficult
to obtain even at great cost. Many liked to keep their children with
them; those who were indifferent would be glad to avail themselves of the
cheaper method of the day-school, provided it could be run on exclusive
lines. There had been for some years in the town, select boarding
schools, where a few day-scholars were received. The advantage over these
of a large public school, necessarily of a more permanent character than
a small private institution could be, was obvious.
At the meeting in the house of Mr. Bellairs, on September 30, 1853,
a date which Miss Beale has noted as the birthday of the Ladies’
College, there were present but three others. These were the Reverend
W. Dobson, Principal of Cheltenham College, the Reverend H. A. Holden,
Vice-Principal, and Dr. S. E. Comyn. One other gentleman should be named
among these early builders, namely, Mr. Nathaniel Hartland. Colonel
Fitzmaurice was also a member of the first council.
The founders of this college and day-school for girls were anxious to
make it clear that their aim was to develop in the pupils character and
fitness for the duties of later life. Hence the first report states that
it was intended ‘to afford, on reasonable terms, an education based upon
religious principles which, preserving the modesty and gentleness of the
female character, should so far cultivate [a girl’s] intellectual powers
as to fit her for the discharge of those responsible duties which devolve
upon her as a wife, mother, mistress and friend, the natural companion
and helpmeet for man.’ In framing the constitutions Mr. Bellairs and his
colleagues had before their minds the successful College for Boys, and
adopted its rules with regard to religious instruction, and the social
rank of the pupils.
The draft of the resolutions, made at the first meeting, may still be
read. Hardly less remarkable than the development of later days is the
permanent nature of the impress given to the College at its first start.
Some of the resolutions were:—
‘That an Institution for the daughters and young children of
Noblemen and Gentlemen be established in Cheltenham, and be
entitled the Cheltenham College for the education of young
Ladies and Children.
‘The College to be established by means of one hundred shares
of £10 each; the possessor of each share to have the power of
nominating a Pupil, and a vote at annual and special meetings.
...
‘That the management of the College for the ensuing year shall
be vested in the Founders, viz.... who for this purpose shall
be constituted the Committee of Management after the expiration
of the first year, exclusive of the Treasurer and Honorary
Secretary, who will be _ex officio_ members of the Board, they
being shareholders and members of the Church of England....
‘That the College be under the direction of a Principal, a
Lady from whom the pupils will receive religious instruction
at appointed times in accordance with the doctrine and the
teaching of the Church of England....
‘That at the end of each year the pupils be examined by
competent persons appointed by the Committee.
‘That the College shall consist of two departments, the Junior
for children of both sexes, admissible after five years of age,
the boys to be removed when they have attained their eighth
year.
‘The appointment of the Lady Principal and all subordinate
teachers and officers to be vested in the Committee.’
With few alterations these resolutions passed into the prospectus issued
to the public in November 1853, an exact copy of which will be found in
the appendix.[35] Experimental prospectuses, which never left the hands
of the Committee, exist to show how the founders formed and modified
their views for the College. It was proposed at one time to have a noble
patron and a visitor, besides the working Committee; but as Miss Beale
somewhat whimsically relates, this was found to be impracticable. ‘It was
thought that it would add to the prestige of the College, and diminish
the prejudice which then existed, to have a distinguished patron, and
so Lord de Saumerez, then resident in Cheltenham, was applied to, but
in vain. So there was no Patron.’[36] There was also no visitor until
1875, when Dr. Ellicott, then Bishop of Gloucester, kindly undertook the
charge. The difficulty of securing patronage was probably what caused
the Council, in virtue of one of their own rules, to invite Mr. Close to
accept the office of President, with a seat at the Board. At the same
time Mr. Bellairs was appointed Vice-President.
In the first instance it was intended that the College should be confined
to day-scholars; then, in case this restriction should limit the scope
of the work and perhaps injure it financially, a sort of half-measure
was planned, and it was proposed to state that: ‘the Committee will
not interfere with any arrangements made by the Parents and Friends
of pupils for Boarding their Children, provided the numbers in any
given Boarding-House do not exceed six. Should Boarding-Houses ever be
opened offering accommodation to a greater number of pupils than six,
the Committee reserve to themselves the power of insisting upon and
conferring a License, before Children in such Boarding-Houses be allowed
the privilege of becoming Students in the College.’
As early as the 1st of November three ladies had been found to undertake
boarding-houses, and they were not restricted as to numbers. The
low terms of the boarding-houses (£40 a year including all expenses,
of course without the tuition fees) suggest that the ideas of the
liberal-minded Committee may have forestalled those of the future Lady
Principal, ever eager to help on those who deserved but could not afford
education. The tuition fees were on the same low scale; from six guineas
to twenty guineas, and including pianoforte lessons, class singing,
elementary drawing and needlework, besides English subjects and French.
Shares had been taken up to the number of one hundred and fifty-seven, so
the Council had enough money at their disposal to justify the necessary
initial outlay. After an unsuccessful effort to obtain Lake House,
which its owner declined to let for the purposes of a school, Cambray
House, a fine old Georgian building with a beautiful garden, was taken
at a rent of £200 a year. Some hundreds of pounds were spent in making
this house suitable for its purpose, arranging a schoolroom (40 by 30
feet), a system of heating, and so on, while a part of it was set aside
as a residence for the Lady Principal. The Committee appointed in this
capacity Mrs. Procter, widow of Colonel Procter, ‘a highly educated
officer,’ but her daughter Annie Procter, who was called Vice-Principal,
was the actual head of the College. ‘The former,’ ran the first report,
‘is possessed of that age and experience which are necessary for the
training of the young; the latter of that youth and vigour which are
necessary for teaching.’ A younger sister had the post of assistant
secretary, and several regular teachers and professors were also
appointed.
[Illustration: _Cambray House._
_From an old engraving._]
The College was actually opened on February 13, 1854, the pupils,
eighty-two in number, having been examined a week before that date. Thus
the inauguration ceremony was the actual beginning of work. When writing
her Jubilee history of the College, Miss Beale collected reminiscences
from some who were present on the opening day. Nothing more impressive
was forthcoming than a scrimmage of dogs in the cloak-room, the calling
over of names, followed by immediate sorting into classes already
arranged as a result of the examination, and that ‘various old gentlemen
promenaded about the first few days, and held conclaves in a Board-Room
on the right hand of the front door.’ The age of the pupils varied
considerably from that of tiny mites to that of grown-up girls. They were
arranged in different departments, the lowest being a kind of infant
school on raised benches.
At first the numbers increased rapidly, and by the end of the year there
were one hundred and twenty pupils. But the fees were too low, and the
Committee soon had cause for anxiety over expenses. In the first year,
1854, more than £1300 was expended in regular salaries and in payments
to visiting teachers; the accounts in December showed a deficit of £400.
Matters improved but slowly in 1855, and in order to lessen expenses,
various changes were suggested, such as the substitution of German, which
the Vice-Principal could teach, for Latin, and an arrangement by which
the pianoforte should be taught on a class system. In the general meeting
of that year, it was resolved no longer to admit boys to the College, and
with them disappeared the whole of the infant department, not to reappear
till the Kindergarten was opened in 1882.
This change led to a slight diminution of numbers, and the report
of the year 1856 (published in and dated February 1857), while it
embodied many words of praise from the examiners and showed a balance
of receipts above expenditure in the current expenses, yet breathed a
consciousness of many difficulties and obstacles to be overcome. It was
acknowledged that had it been desirable to purchase furniture for the
Lady Principal instead of paying her £25 a year for the use of her own,
it could not have been done from the funds in hand. ‘In conclusion,’
said the Chairman, ‘your Council beg to express their thanks to those
parents who, during the past year, have continued to place confidence in
the College and its system. On their own part and on that of the Lady
Principal and the Vice-Principal, they desire to assure the public that
no efforts shall be wanting on their part to amend what may appear, on
mature consideration, to be defective.... They cannot depart from their
fundamental principle, which, as they stated, is soundness rather than
show; _magna est veritas et prævalebit_.’
Next year, 1857, the numbers crept down, first to ninety-three, then to
eighty-nine, and the capital account, which had never gone up, was little
above £400. Shares which should have been £10, were offered for half that
sum. The want of success was partly due to want of harmony between Miss
Procter and the Council on points of educational method. In May 1858,
when the numbers were again reduced, and the prospect of improvement very
small, the Procters resigned; also the ladies who took boarders one by
one gave up. So poor was the outlook for the College at this time that
the Council might have felt justified in abandoning the whole scheme.
Fortunately, however, those who possessed the foresight and courage,
which could still carry it on, were supported by the circumstance that
the lease of Cambray House had a couple more years to run. So it came to
pass that in May 1858, within a fortnight of Miss Procter’s resignation,
the Council advertised for a Lady Principal thus:—
CHELTENHAM LADIES’ COLLEGE
‘A Vacancy having occurred in the Office of Lady Principal,
Candidates for the Appointment are requested to apply by letter
(with references) before the 1st of June, to J. P. Bell, Esq.,
Hon. Sec., Cheltenham.
‘A well-educated and experienced Lady (between the ages of 35
and 45) is desired, capable of conducting an Institution with
not less than 100 day-pupils.
‘A competent knowledge of German and French, and a good
acquaintance with general English Literature, Arithmetic, and
the common branches of female education, are expected.
‘Salary, upwards of £200 a year, with furnished apartments, and
other advantages.
‘No Testimonials to be sent until applied for, and no answers
will be returned except to Candidates apparently eligible.’
The shareholders requested a general meeting in order to receive an
explanation of the cause which led to the resignation of Miss Procter,
and this was convened for June 2. The Committee was occupied during the
fortnight which succeeded this in selecting and interviewing some of the
fifty candidates for the Headship, and Miss Beale was elected on June 13.
In July Miss Procter took her final leave in the following letter to Mr.
Hartland:—
GLENDALE HOUSE, _July 28, 1858_.
‘MY DEAR SIR,—I thank you much for your kind letter enclosing
your cheque for £41, 10s. 6d.
‘I take this opportunity of sending you the keys of the
College. The house has been cleaned throughout. The Chimneys
have all been swept.
‘Some few stores,—nearly a ¼ cwt. of soap, some dip candles,
and two new scrubbing brushes,—are in a closet in the pantry.
‘The new zinc ventilator is in the press used for the drawing
materials.
‘Two cast-iron fenders, of mine, have been removed from two of
the class-rooms.—I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,
S. ANNE PROCTER.’
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._’
and Miss Reynolds privately approached Mr. Bellairs:—
‘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.’
To Mr. Penrice Bell:—
‘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.