SMALL BEGINNINGS.
O, I am sure they really came from Thee,
The urge, the ardour, the unconquerable will,
The potent, felt, interior command, stronger than words,
A message from the Heavens whispering to me even in sleep.
These speed me on.
--WALT WHITMAN, “Prayer of Columbus”.
Until about 1825, Cheltenham was simply a small market-town,
famous for its mild climate and fertile soil, but at this time its
medicinal springs were discovered, and it became the fashion for
royalty and aristocracy to take the waters. Between 1801 and 1840
the population of Cheltenham increased tenfold. In 1843, Cheltenham
College, a proprietary school for boys, was opened. Ten years later,
on September 30, 1853, a meeting was held in the house of the Rev.
H. Walford Bellairs, who was Her Majesty’s Inspector of Schools in
Gloucestershire, and a prospectus was drawn up of “A College in
Cheltenham for the education of young ladies and children under eight”.
The instruction was to include the Liturgy of the Church of England,
grammar, geography, arithmetic, French, drawing, needlework. The fees
were to range from 6 guineas to 20 guineas a year, and the capital was
to consist of £2000 in £10 shares. The entire management and control
were to be in the hands of the founders, the Rev. H. W. Bellairs; the
Rev. W. Dobson, Principal of Cheltenham College; the Rev. H. A. Holden,
Vice-Principal; Lieutenant-Colonel Fitzmaurice; Dr. S. E. Comyn; and
Mr. Nathaniel Hartland.
They appointed as Principal Mrs. Procter, the widow of Colonel Procter,
and as Vice-Principal her daughter, Miss Procter, who was understood
to be the actual head. Mrs. Procter was to furnish the wisdom and
stability of mature years, Miss Procter the youth and vigour necessary
for teaching. A younger sister held the post of secretary.
At first it was intended that the college should be restricted to day
pupils, but it was soon found that this would limit its usefulness,
and some months before the opening of the school the proprietors had
arranged for three boarding-houses, the fees of which were extremely
low, being only £40 a year.
Cheltenham Ladies’ College was laid on good foundations. The founders
had an ardent desire for a thorough and liberal education, and their
ideas were well carried out from the very beginning of the school’s
career. The teaching appears to have been of a high order, the teachers
were people of conscience and ability. In her “History of Cheltenham
Ladies’ College,” Miss Beale quotes from old pupils who spoke most
highly of the early days.
The school was opened on February 13, 1854, in Cambray House, where the
great Duke of Wellington had once stayed for about six weeks. It was
a fine square-built house with a beautiful garden. By the end of the
first year the 100 pupils had increased to 150; the second year also
marked an increase. But after that the numbers began to go down, until
at the end of 1857 the numbers had fallen to 89, and the capital had
begun to diminish.
Some disagreement on educational methods then arose between Miss
Procter and the Committee, with the result that the former resigned and
started another school in Cheltenham, which was continued for thirty
years.
The Principal’s letter to the Committee on her departure shows her
scrupulous care of the property of others:--
“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 ¹⁄₄ cwt. of soap, some dip candles, and two
new scrubbing brushes--are in the 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.”
It was in May, 1858, that the advertisement for a new Principal of
Cheltenham College appeared in various papers.
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 June 1 to J. P. Bell, Esq., Hon. Sec., Cheltenham.
“A well educated and experienced lady (between the ages of thirty-five
and forty-five) is desired, capable of conducting an institution with
not less than one hundred 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.”
Dorothea Beale applied for this post and was accepted as a candidate
for the headship. She had now to set about getting testimonials and
recommendations. Some of these are interesting.
Miss Elwell, at whose school she had taught, 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.”
Her friend, Elizabeth Ann Alston, wrote:--
“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.”
Many testimonials were given as to her character and work, and these
made such a favourable impression on the Cheltenham Committee that she
was summoned for an interview on June 14.
She evidently had not any suitable clothes to wear on such a formidable
occasion, and had to borrow a blue silk frock from her sister Eliza.
Perhaps the work on her history had prevented her from attending to
her wardrobe. She was appointed and everything seemed happily settled.
One can imagine with what joy she looked forward to this opportunity
of doing the work she longed to do untrammelled by bonds made by those
of differing ideas. After all these months of waiting she had at last
obtained her heart’s desire.
But the stigma of leaving Casterton was not easily removed, and a great
blow awaited her.
On July 12 she received a letter from Mr. J. Penrice Bell, the
Honorary Secretary of the Committee, saying that he had received from
two gentlemen letters about her religious views, that might make it
necessary for the Cheltenham Ladies’ College Committee to reconsider
their decision. He quoted briefly their allegations:--
“‘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.’”
To a sensitive girl like Dorothea Beale this was indeed a shock,
but she was determined not to lose the desired work through any
misunderstanding, and replied at once to Mr. Bell explaining her views
on baptism, which were said to be “extreme”:--
“If you understand by the _opus operatum_ ‘efficacy’ of baptism that
all who are baptized are therefore saved.... 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: to be the
appointed means for admitting members into the Church of Christ’.”
The allegation that she belonged to the High Church party she dealt
with:--
“Your second question [i.e. did she belong to the High Church?] ...
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.... 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.”
The conclusion of her letter shows how clearly she realised the effect
that might be produced if the Committee revoked their decision:--
“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 suspense whilst the Committee’s decision hung in the balance must
have been great. Her diary indicates this:--
_July 12._--Mr. Bell’s letter about High Church from Cheltenham, and
my answer. Some vanity. (Prayer) for resignation.
_July 14._--Letter from Cheltenham. Neglect of prayer. Several times
rude.
The Committee, however, seem to have been satisfied with her letter to
Mr. Bell, and another to Mr. Bellairs, in which she referred him to
two friends who knew what her religious views were, sending him also
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 expressing without necessity one’s inner religious life”.
They still had one more question, which Mr. Bell asked in his next
letter:--
“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?”
To this she replied:--
“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 would feel
I should be unworthy of your confidence could I through any fear of
consequences resort to the least untruthfulness.”
[Illustration: DOROTHEA BEALE IN 1859
p. 32]
The difficulty was thus ended, and Dorothea Beale entered her
kingdom. In spite of the many possibilities of giving offence, from
the beginning she made the Scripture lessons the very centre of her
teaching. To these she went herself not only with her carefully
prepared work but with her heart and soul equally equipped. She
demanded equal reverence in her pupils, and during times of building at
the college the noise of the hammer was suspended when these lessons
were being given.
There is little record about the beginning of her work at Cheltenham.
Twice Miss Brewer, who was to be Vice-Principal, called upon her:
and there are one or two entries in her diary about “shopping” and
“turning-out”. Even the date (August 4) on which she set out for
Cheltenham with her mother is only known by deduction. One can imagine,
however, the spirit in which Dorothea Beale set out into the unknown.
Was it to be failure or success? Were her powers equal to the many
difficulties that lay before her? Would the Committee turn out to be
the kind of people with whom she could work? But we know enough to be
sure that she looked to God as her guide in all things, and that in
offering herself for this great work of education she laid her life and
all her powers at His feet.
Dorothea Beale’s first two years at Cheltenham were a struggle from
beginning to end. When she arrived the College had begun to go down,
and many of the elder girls had left with Miss Procter, so that the
oldest pupils were now only thirteen or fourteen years of age. Mrs.
Raikes in her “Life,” quotes a description of her from a pupil who was
at the school when she arrived:--
“I can see her now as she appeared in reality--the slight, young
figure, the very gentle, gliding movements, the quiet face with the
look of intense thoughtfulness and utter absence of all poor and common
stress and turmoil, the intellectual brow, the wonderful eyes with
their calm outlook and their expression of inner vision.”
One of her first decisions was to continue and make permanent the
rule of silence, which Miss Procter had introduced at the beginning
of the college. She was, at first, full of doubts as to the wisdom of
this rule but was so well satisfied with the results that she never
saw any reason to alter it. Pupils were allowed to speak only with a
teacher’s permission, which was always given when it was necessary.
Her reasons for the ordaining of this rule were to inculcate habits of
self-control, to prevent the making of friendships of which parents
might not approve, to secure concentration and good discipline. It was
very rigidly enforced, and if a girl broke it only a few times in the
term a remark to that effect was inevitably put into her Report. One
of the jokes frequently made against the Ladies’ College was that no
Cheltenham girl could talk!
The history of these two years is given very graphically in Miss
Beale’s History of the College, from which the following account is
almost entirely taken. When Miss Beale was appointed there were only
sixty-nine girls left, of whom fifteen had already given notice (of
these only one actually left). Only £400 was left out of the original
capital. The ladies who had kept boarding-houses gave up on account of
the uncertainty, and several of the original shareholders sold their
£10 shares for £5.
“Several birds of prey,” said Miss Beale, “were seen hovering about
expecting the demise of the College, and it would probably have ceased
to exist had there not remained two years of the Cambray lease, for
the rent of which £200 a year had to be found. It is impossible to
give an adequate idea of the hard struggle for existence maintained
during the next two years, and of the minute economies which had to be
practised. _Haec nunc meminisse juvat._ The Principal was blamed for
ordering prospectuses without leave at the cost of fifteen shillings,
and the second-hand furniture procured would not have delighted people
of æsthetic taste. Curtains were dispensed with as far as possible, and
it was questioned whether a carving-knife was required by the Principal
in her furnished apartments.”
The teaching staff was reduced as far as possible and the Principal
and Vice-Principal gave up their half-holiday to chaperone those girls
who took lessons from masters. The Principal did a great deal of
teaching at this time including Scripture throughout the College.
Everything that could be done in those two years to curtail expenditure
was done. The gain or loss of one pupil was considered an important
event. One day Miss Beale was at dinner when a father called with two
girls. The maid sent him away, saying that her mistress was at dinner.
Miss Beale, however, sent her at once in pursuit after the departing
visitors. She spoke to the maid afterwards about this matter and said,
“I am never at dinner”.
At the end of these two years the lease of Cambray House expired, and,
though the deficit was less at the end of 1860 than in 1859, there
was not a single member of the Committee who was willing to take the
responsibility of renewing the lease. Many causes conspired to make the
school unpopular at this time, and the question of giving it up had to
be seriously considered.
Just when things were at their worst a deliverer appeared in the person
of Mr. J. Houghton Brancker, who was asked to audit the accounts.
After a thorough investigation this gentleman gave his verdict that
it was impossible for the school ever to pay its way with the then
system of fees. Accordingly he drew up a scheme which he considered
satisfactory, lowering the ordinary fees, but making music and drawing,
which had hitherto been included in the ordinary curriculum, extra
subjects. Mr. Brancker was asked to join the Council; under his able
rule as chancellor of the exchequer, the College finances began to
improve, and grinding anxiety about money matters soon became a thing
of the past. Cambray House was taken by the year until things were in
a more satisfactory state, but such a precaution was unnecessary, as
the College after this had a career of almost unbroken progress and
prosperity.
Financial difficulties were not, however, the only ones that Miss Beale
had to fight, nor were they the hardest. Far greater foes to her peace
of mind were those of ignorance, prejudice, and lack of ideals about
girls’ education. Practical difficulties, too, stood in the way of high
attainment. Dorothea Beale relates some of these in her “History of the
Ladies’ College”. It was said that college life would “turn girls into
boys”. Day schools for girls were unpopular, and the custom of having
morning and afternoon school caused parents a great deal of trouble in
sending maids with their children. Teachers were scarce and those to be
had were very inferior.
“Do you prepare your lessons?” asked Dorothea Beale of a candidate.
“Oh no!” she replied, “I never teach anything I don’t understand.”
Parents looked with horror on the teaching of mathematics and even
advanced arithmetic, in spite of the poverty to which ignorance of
investments often reduced women.
Some reminiscences of former pupils give a little idea of what Dorothea
Beale was like in her teaching and in her relationship to her children.
“I never remember her raising her voice, scolding us, being satirical
or impatient with dullness or inattention. She was not satirical even
when a small girl, on being asked what criticism might be passed
on Milton’s treatment of “Paradise Lost,” ventured the audacious
suggestion that the poet was ‘verbose’.”
Her methods were designed to encourage rather than to repress. A pupil
recalls “an afternoon when she visited the needlework room and found
me being most justly blamed for inefficiency. In kindly tones she said
to the shy and clumsy culprit: ‘You ought to sew well, for your mother
has such beautiful long fingers,’ and somehow I felt comforted and
encouraged. Then there was a day when I summoned up courage to go and
tell her that I had been guilty of some small disobedience as well as
others who had been detected and punished. She seized the opportunity
of impressing upon me that as I was (though only fourteen) a teacher
in my father’s Sunday School--a fact of which I did not know she was
aware--I must surely see that obedience to rule was necessary. I can
still hear the low, earnest tones in which she made her appeal to my
sense of justice and right.”
At this period of her life her power was probably as great as it ever
was, though the scope was comparatively narrow.
“It is my peculiar privilege,” writes one, “to have spent all my
college career in her class, to go through years of her special
personal teaching. In later days when the College assumed large
dimensions, such an experience must have been rare; to those who could
claim it, it meant a potent influence for life. How vividly can I
recall her sitting on her little daïs, scanning the long schoolroom
and discovering anything amiss at the far end of it; or making a tour
of inspection to the various classes with a smiling countenance that
banished terror.”
Her personal relationship to any of her children in sorrow was always a
very tender one.
“When I was almost a child at College I lost my mother and shall never
forget Miss Beale’s tender sympathy and help. She took such interest
in my preparation for Confirmation and brought me herself to my first
Communion--just she and I alone: a day I shall always remember. All
through my girlhood she was a kind and ready adviser, and continued her
interest throughout my married life. One always felt whatever happened
to one, ‘Now I must tell Miss Beale’.”
So with the varied joys of teaching, and the difficulties of narrow
means, and the opposition of supporters of the old régime, did Dorothea
Beale’s life at Cheltenham begin.
Forty years later she wrote of this time:--
“How often I was full of discouragement. It was not so much the want of
money as the want of ideals that depressed me. If I went into society I
heard it said: ‘What is the good of education for our girls? They have
not to earn their living.’ Those who spoke did not see that, for women
as for men, it is a sin to bury the talents God has given: they seemed
not to know that the baptismal right was the same for girls as for
boys, alike enrolled in the army of light, soldiers of Jesus Christ.”
No knight of olden times who rode forth against the evils of his day
needed greater courage than this woman who set out to destroy the evils
of prejudice, custom, and ignorance. I have spoken sometimes with her
“old girls,” who were with her in the early days, and were among the
first to enter on paths untrodden by women’s feet. They were like men
who seek a new land; no sacrifice seemed too great; no toil seemed too
hard. Following their dauntless leader they knew themselves to be the
vanguard of a great army of women infinite in number and of unknown
power.