Chapter V: 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.

_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.