Mr. Llewelyn Davis rightly said that the establishment of Queen’s College was an epoch in women’s education. Like that of all really great institutions, its development and growth were an outcome of the needs of the time. But the movement which led up to it was ‘not from beneath but from above. It was compassion in the hearts of a few good men which moved them to help a forlorn class of solitary and ill-paid workers, that seemed the immediate cause. A little band of men full of faith and good works came to the help of a man whose influence was quiet but strong.’ The good man of whom Miss Beale thus spoke was David Laing, who was vicar of Holy Trinity Church, Kentish Town, from 1847 to 1858. Good he was, in many senses of the word: a man of education, wide culture, and personal force. He showed both large-hearted charity and wisdom in dealing with the needs of those for whom it was his duty to care, and he was ready to make any self-sacrifice required in carrying out his schemes for them.

In 1843 he became Honorary Secretary of the Governesses’ Benevolent Institution, a position he occupied till his death in 1860, and the lamentable state of women’s education, particularly that of professing teachers, was brought forcibly before him. The society, which had had a kind of passive existence only for two or three years, began at once under Mr. Laing to develop manifold activities. Within a year the work of help for which it was primarily intended was in full swing, and its scope of usefulness was enlarged by the establishment of a registry and a scheme for granting diplomas to governesses.

It was soon found to be a real difficulty to know the efficient teacher from the mere pretender. For the lack of education is frequently seen in an assumption of knowledge. In the days when women were required to teach everything, a confession of ignorance on almost any subject was regarded as a disgrace. The advance of true education is marked by the fact that it is no longer necessary for a governess to pretend to knowledge she does not possess.

It was soon seen that if the registry for teachers was to be of any value, some test must be established for the women it undertook to recommend. The first efforts at examination revealed such depths of ignorance, that the further necessity of instructing those who wished to avail themselves of the society’s diplomas was perceived. This need happily coalesced with the generous plan of Miss Murray, Maid of Honour to the Queen. She seems first to have thought of a college for women, and had already received donations of money towards such an object. These she transferred to Mr. Laing, when in 1844 he entered into communication with the Government respecting the establishment of a college. In 1847 Queen Victoria graciously gave her permission for the adoption of the title ‘Queen’s College,’ and a house in Harley Street, adjacent to that occupied by the Governesses’ Benevolent Institution was taken. Mr. Laing then called upon some of the Professors of King’s College to help him in the work by giving lectures to governesses and others, and it was largely owing to their talent and unwearied kindness that the College became rapidly so successful.

It should not, however, be thought that Queen’s College was destined by its founders solely to help governesses, though in this direction its usefulness was immediately seen. Miss Murray and Mr. Laing, like Alfred Tennyson and others less immediately interested in the scheme, looked beyond such direct results to the larger needs of women. The time had come when it was recognised that marriage could not be the lot of all,—that there might be purpose and interest in a woman’s life even when she could not be married, and that to use marriage merely as an escape from an empty impoverished existence was an act unworthy of a good woman. Women were now willing to fit themselves for life independently of marriage, and for this end were seeking intellectual development. Therefore the founders of Queen’s College planned that the education should be general, and not merely an initiation into a craft which a governess might learn as if she were a member of a certain guild. For the governess herself, it was surely best that she should be educated as if she had interests in common with the rest of her sex, and for all women it was needful that they should seek means to inform, occupy, and control their own active minds and ‘wandering affections.’ Mr. Laing thought with compassionate horror of the wasted lives of many women, of their capabilities and sympathies which were meant to enrich the lives of others, degraded by misuse or disuse into positively harmful activities. After Queen’s College had been opened for some months he wrote, in words which some will recognise as a favourite quotation of Miss Beale’s, ‘the fate of some victim of a conventional marriage, or of a life of celibacy ending in deranged health, is particularly sad and pitiful. Like the daughters of Pandarus who, after being nurtured by the goddesses and fed on honey and incense by the Graces, are snatched away by the Harpies, “And doomed for all their loving eyes, To serve the Furies who hate constantly.”’

Miles Beale was among those who shared such thoughts for women. It was his aim to give his daughters every opportunity to cultivate their minds and pursue any path of knowledge they should desire. Above all, he wished that they should not regard marriage as a necessity.

The inaugural lecture on the opening of Queen’s College was delivered by the Rev. F. D. Maurice, the first Head of the College, on Wednesday, March 29, 1848. As his inspiring but stern words fell upon the ears of Dorothea Beale, we may well believe that the sense of vocation which must early have grown for her out of her natural dutifulness, became to her more clearly shaped. Certainly, in reading them now, we feel we are tracing back to its source a stream of that thought with which she herself in due time awed and inspired many a young teacher. ‘The vocation of a teacher is an awful one; you cannot do her real good, she will do others unspeakable harm if she is not aware of its usefulness. Merely to supply her with necessaries, merely to assist her in procuring them for herself ... is not fitting her for her work. You may but confirm her in the notion that the training of an immortal spirit may be just as lawfully undertaken in a case of emergency as that of selling ribbands. How can you give a woman self-respect, how can you win for her the respect of others, in whom such a notion or any modification of it dwells? Your business is by all means to dispossess her of it; to make her feel the greatness of her work, and yet to show her that it can be honestly performed.’

The speaker went on to deal with the word ‘Accomplishments,’ a word which at that time was supposed to cover the whole of a woman’s education; and he pleaded that something more than finish, something substantial and elementary was needed for those whose duty was ‘to watch closely the first utterances of infancy, the first dawnings of intelligence;—how thoughts spring into acts, how acts pass into habits. Surely they ought, above all others, to feel that the truths which lie nearest to us are the most wonderful ... that study is not worth much if it is not busy about the roots of things.’

Again, with what responsive if silent joy must the girl who had toiled alone at Euclid and Algebra have heard his encouraging words on Mathematics, then held to be an unfeminine pursuit. ‘To regard numbers with the kind of wonder with which a child regards them, to feel that when we are learning the laws of number we are looking into the very laws of the universe,—this makes the study of exceeding worth to the mind and character; yet it does not create the least impatience of ordinary occupations; ... on the contrary ... it helps us to know that nothing is mean but what is false.’

The concluding thoughts of Mr. Maurice’s address must be familiar to Cheltenham pupils: ‘The teacher in every department, if he does his duty, will admonish his pupils that they are not to make fashion, or public opinion, their rule ... that if these are their ends, they will not be sincere in their work or do it well.... Colleges for men and women ... exist to testify that opinion is not the God they ought to worship.’ We can hardly realise, after nearly sixty years of the liberal education won for us largely through this first concerted effort of earnest men and women, the trembling joy and diffidence of those pupils,—some of them mere girls, some already themselves engaged in the work of teaching,—who formed the first classes in Harley Street. We have become so accustomed to the new order of things then inaugurated, that their allusions to Tennyson’s Princess, their fear of being regarded as outrÉ seem to us almost self-conscious and unnecessary. Professor Maurice opened his address with an apology for the word ‘College’; on another occasion he spoke of the project as ‘equally extravagant if not equally imaginative with that lately set forth by our great poet.’ Miss Wedgwood recalls dismay under the ‘witless laughter roused by the mention of the College after I had been its pupil for more than a year.’

Nor was this all. A more annoying opposition took shape in articles in the Quarterly in which the theological opinions of the lecturers were attacked. The writer found fault in the first place on such points as these: the early age of admission was likely to lead to desultory education; the absence of proper framework and machinery, and the want of proper authority were to be deplored; the low rate of payment might lead governesses availing themselves of the classes to get by their means a smattering of knowledge. He then proceeded to attack the professors for a ‘sort of modified Pantheism and Latitudinarianism prevailing in their so-called theology,’ adding that the lecturer on English Composition distinguished himself above the rest of his company by the ‘Germanisms embroidered on his prose.’ Mr. Laing took up a vigorous pen to answer the Quarterly, and in defence of Maurice, Kingsley, and the rest, exclaimed: ‘These men are doing a righteous and godly work in the face of heaven and earth.’

It is a wonderful history. Remarkable, too, were the women and girls who seized the advantages offered them, who were waiting almost literally for the College doors to be opened. Mrs. Davenport, then Miss Sarah Woodman, records with natural pride the fact that she was the first pupil. She was quickly followed by Miss King, and we may be sure that the three Miss Beales were not far behind them.

Among the earliest pupils beside those already named, were Miss Buss, Miss Frances Martin, Miss Jex-Blake, Miss Elizabeth Gilbert, and Miss Adelaide Anne Procter, whose simple holland dress without ornament, bands of dark hair, pale complexion, and regular features are noted for us by a young fellow-student, Miss Wardell. And the teachers were worthy of the pupils. Among the lecturers and examiners were the Rev. F. D. Maurice, the Rev. E. H. Plumptre, afterwards Dean of Wells, the translator of Dante, the Rev. Charles Kingsley, the Rev. R. C. Trench, then Dean of Westminster, afterwards Archbishop of Dublin, John Hullah, W. Sterndale Bennett, Dr. Brewer the historian, Professors Bernays and Brasseur. These are well-known names, but there were many others almost forgotten to-day, who were interesting and inspiring teachers. There were no lady-teachers at first, but Miss Beale enumerates with grateful words a staff of lady-visitors, ‘who undertook, of course gratuitously, the often burdensome duty of chaperoning. Lady Stanley of Alderley, stately and beautiful all her life, but especially then; Mrs. Wedgwood, the daughter of Sir James Mackintosh, so clever and kind, whom everybody liked; Miss Elizabeth Twining, Lady Monteagle, and Lady Page Wood were often present; and a Mrs. Hayes, of whom I have lost sight, was one of the most diligent. I never happened to meet Lady Canning, she went to India almost immediately.’

Before tracing Miss Beale’s own connection with Queen’s, it is worth while to read the following letters written to her by Miss Buss in 1889, in which the working of the College, especially with regard to the evening classes, is shown in a detailed and personal way:

In reply to some questions from Miss Beale in answer to the above, Miss Buss wrote again on January 17, 1889:—

Dorothea Beale was, as a matter of fact, strictly a pupil of Queen’s College for an even shorter time than her great contemporary. But there for the first time she obtained the object of her ambition—mathematical training, given by Mr. Astley Cock. Of this she characteristically remarked, ‘as the class was small I could go at my own pace. The work was however elementary, and as I had read a good deal alone, I found private lessons necessary.... I read with him privately Trigonometry, Conics, and the Differential Calculus.’ After a time Miss Beale was asked to help in teaching mathematics, and in 1849 was appointed the first lady mathematical tutor. ‘I had the entrÉe of any class I liked, being tutor, and attended at various times—Latin, Greek, German, and Mental Science.’ She speaks also of the delight she had ‘at the opening of a Greek class by Professor Plumptre. The class, it is true, languished and died in less than two years. For nearly a year it consisted of myself and a friend, and most thoroughly did we enjoy reading Plato and Sophocles under such a teacher.’ Miss Beale also much enjoyed an interesting German literature class held by Dr. Bernays.[19] The formal reports of progress made, of attendance, and even of good conduct at the classes may still be seen. The attendance, it goes without saying, was always regular, the conduct very good, and the progress most satisfactory.

In 1854 Mr. Plumptre required help with the Latin tuition, and asked Miss Beale to take a junior class. In the same year she was offered the post of head teacher in the school under Miss Parry, from whom she says she received ‘much kindness, and learned from her many valuable lessons; we travelled abroad together during one long vacation.’

Queen’s College, both by the tuition it afforded, and the experience it gave in teaching and managing classes, was an important factor in Dorothea Beale’s training for her life’s work. There was a yet further advantage in its certificates. Miss Beale and her sisters, like Miss Buss and others engaged in the work of education, desired and obtained from the College diplomas certifying their ability to teach. These were obtained by examinations, which in the earliest days were conducted in the manner described in Miss Buss’s letter already quoted. Miss Dorothea Beale herself spoke with unmitigated pleasure of her first examination conducted by Professor Maurice. ‘The viv voce was a delightful conversation; he led us on by his sympathetic manner and kindly appreciation, so that we hardly remembered he was an examiner’; and she says later, ‘I remember to this day what a pleasant hour we had of viv voce; his wonderful power of intellectual sympathy came out, and made us forget that we were being examined; he seemed to take pleasure in following up our thoughts on the bearings of the history we had read, so that it appeared we were holding a delightful conversation on the subject. Again, in speaking of language, he wanted not merely formal and conventional grammar, and showed such pleasure when a grammatical definition was enlarged beyond the scope of ordinary school-books.’

It should be remembered that the examination which proved to be so ‘delightful’ was on the result of her own private reading encouraged by home sympathy, and a few public lectures. The questions asked were of wide scope; some were quite simple, almost superficial; others were framed so as to draw upon intelligence or a reserve of knowledge.

The educational certificates of sixty years ago, the first ever given, have a great and touching interest for those who love to follow the development of intellectual advance. The simple way in which the advantages offered by the examinations held by the Committee of Queen’s College are set forth speaks of effort and hope, unconnected with the school routine and studied preparation made necessary by the large and complicated system of the present day. Below the lists of Patrons, Committee, and Lady Visitors, it is stated that the Committee is prepared to give certificates in any of the following subjects: The knowledge of Scripture; English Grammar and Literature; History, Ancient or Modern; French, German, Italian, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc.; Music, Vocal or Instrumental; Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry; Geography, Geology, Natural Philosophy, Botany, etc.; Drawing, Painting in any style; Principles and Methods of Teaching. To this truly magnificent offer,—infinite indeed if any value is to be attributed to ‘etc.’—is attached the note: ‘As it would be absurd to suppose that any governess could combine all these varied subjects, the List is offered, that Parents may select those to which they attach most importance; and may observe how the certificates meet their wishes.’

Miss Dorothea Beale obtained six of these certificates, and four of the later ones, granted under slightly different conditions. The first, dated June 12, 1848, for English Literature and English Grammar, states that the examiner, Professor Maurice, is of opinion that Miss Dorothea Beale ‘has shown much intelligence, and a very satisfactory acquaintance with these subjects.’ The diploma bears also, as do the other certificates, the signature of Mr. Laing, the Honorary Secretary, and of the Rev. C. F. Nicolay, Deputy Chairman, and afterwards called Dean of Queen’s College. Mr. Nicolay was also Librarian of King’s College. The next certificate, for French, is only three days later in date, June 15, 1848. On this, Professor Isidore Brasseur states that he considers Miss Dorothea Beale ‘well qualified to teach that language (which she speaks fluently, having acquired it in France) theoretically and by practice.’ The two diplomas gained in December of the same year are of even greater interest for her pupils at Cheltenham. The first of these, dated December 11, 1848, and signed by the Rev. Thomas Jackson, Principal of the Battersea Training College, who had examined her in the Principles and Method of Teaching, states that ‘she has paid praiseworthy attention to the subject, and is likely to become an accomplished teacher.’ We note the office of the examiner. Already then, in 1848, itself a mere infant, elementary education was giving the lead in this important subject; for when at last, after a long day of desultory and often unfruitful toil, those who were the professed teachers of the rich sought to learn the meaning and methods of their work, they found that they could only do so in England from the teachers of the poor.

The date of the next certificate, December 26, shows how much these diplomas were dependent on voluntary and individual attention, and opportunity on the part of the examiners. This, signed by Professor Plumptre, states that in her knowledge of Holy Scripture, Miss Dorothea Beale exhibits ‘a very intimate knowledge of its history and Scripture.’ On January 16, of the following year, a certificate for Geography was signed by Mr. Nicolay, who is of opinion that ‘she has studied the subject carefully in its details, and that her knowledge in its various branches is satisfactory.’

In November 1850 Miss Beale received from her mathematical tutor, the Rev. T. Cock, a certificate of efficiency in Arithmetic, Geometry, Algebra, and Trigonometry. He is of opinion that ‘she has acquired a sound knowledge of the first principles of these four subjects, showing considerable ingenuity in the application of them to examples and problems; that she possesses the power of defining and distinguishing with clearness and brevity, and that appreciation of mathematical reasoning which, if further cultivated, will enable her to study with success those treatises on Natural Philosophy which require a knowledge of the exact sciences.’

In 1855, after the certificates had become classified, this diploma was exchanged for a first-class certificate. And in the course of these later years she received two other first-class certificates, one for Latin, and one for German; and, for pianoforte playing, a second-class certificate, signed by W. Sterndale Bennett. For this was required the performance of the more important sonatas of Mozart (without accompaniments), the early sonatas of Beethoven, the ‘Lieder ohne Worte’ of Mendelssohn, and Cramer’s Studies. This must have been for Dorothea Beale a period of happy and fruitful life and work, during which her interests enlarged in many directions. The connection with Queen’s College brought much congenial acquaintance, while at home she was working vigorously at German and still following the classical work of her brothers.

In 1851 Miss Beale’s family removed to 31 Finsbury Square, then a great medical centre; thirty-one houses were occupied by medical men. There were friends to share her aims and interests. Among these we specially note Mrs. Blenkarne and Miss Elizabeth Alston. To the first of these Dorothea confided her hopes and aims, and gained from her sympathy and help, a boon she never forgot. The links of the friendship so begun ran on throughout her life. Mrs. Blenkarne’s daughters and great nieces were educated at Cheltenham.

In Elizabeth Alston Dorothea had a friend of her own age—a friend who survives to tell of the many happy hours the young girls spent together, of the books they read and discussed, their philanthropic works, and dreams of good. Dorothea, always fond of teaching, gladly instructed her friends. Miss Alston learned from her to read St. Mark in Greek, and in return taught her to sing. ‘We would linger long at the piano, as I sought to make her convey by her singing the depth of meaning in the words, “But the Lord is mindful of his own.” She told me it was a revelation to her.’

As late as 1902 Miss Beale wrote to that friend of her youth: ‘I think with gratitude of those lessons you gave me in singing; this, I believe, has helped much to make me able to teach without fatigue. “In questa tomba oscura” was fine for a chest voice. I suppose you are as much interested in music as ever.’ And in 1903, with an allusion to those designs on all knowledge which the friends had shared, she wrote: ‘Sanscrit is very fascinating; my Sanscrit studies were cut short by my coming here.’

The vacations of this period were spent sometimes at watering-places like Brighton, or Blackheath, where she would be in charge of the younger members of the family. To this day is remembered her conscientious way of taking them for a walk with her watch in her hand. Sometimes she went to Germany or Switzerland, where she took every opportunity of studying schools and methods of education. She was most happy in her work. The actual teaching, apart from the subject, was in itself a delight. That power of inspiration which she held should be one of the gifts a teacher should earnestly covet, was already hers. This was felt not only by the elder pupils, whose minds under her guidance opened to the interests of Latin and mathematics. The children in the school knew it also. An unexpected tribute from one of these once reached Miss Beale, when the parent of a pupil wrote: ‘I have just learned from my little girl that the Lady Principal of the Cheltenham Ladies’ College was my dear and valued teacher of olden days, at Queen’s College.... I assure you I have never ceased to cherish a warm affection for you, and I have never forgotten your great kindness to me in Harley Street.’ In 1905, at the time of the College jubilee, one who had been a child pupil of Miss Beale’s wrote to her: ‘The few months during which I was under your tuition more than fifty years ago were an epoch to me. Young as I was, I ever afterwards judged teaching by the standard set by yours, and very seldom indeed, I may truly say, has it been subsequently reached. The fifty years that have since passed, full as they have been, have never effaced the impression then received, both of your teaching and of something more comprehensive than teaching, which contact with you engendered, and which impels me to take this opportunity—late in the day as it is—to express and to thank you for.... I had a most keen desire to visit Cheltenham and the buildings and institutions which embody in so grand a manner the impress which my childish mind received.’

There is also ample evidence that the professors and lady-visitors of the College highly esteemed Miss Beale’s work there. ‘The flattering regard in which you are held at Queen’s,’ wrote her father to her just after she had left the College, are words fully justified by other letters which exist.

It is clear that this spring of work was full of hope and delight, as well as of scrupulous effort. Dorothea Beale possessed at this time a growing confidence in her own powers, educational ideals which were slowly shaping themselves, and a consciousness of her fitness for the work on which she was engaged.

Then, at the end of 1856, the connection with Queen’s College came rather abruptly to an end by Miss Beale’s own wish. She appears to have been some time feeling that there was a tendency for the whole administration of the College to get too much into the hands of one person; and that there was consequently not enough scope for that womanly influence which she felt to be so important where the education of young girls is concerned. She returned to her work after the summer holiday of 1856—a holiday spent in visiting Swiss and German schools—to find the power of the lady-visitors more restricted than ever. In fact, she said, ‘the time had come when it could be truly said, “the lady-visitors have no power.”’ As she was not in a position to effect the changes she desired, she sent in her resignation, and her friend and fellow-teacher, Miss Rowley, did the same. The actual moment for doing this in November seems to have been decided for Miss Beale by hearing she could obtain the post of head-teacher at Casterton.

Miss Beale’s connection with Queen’s College had been long and close, and her gratitude to it was so great that she hoped to be allowed to resign without explanation. This was during the headship of Dr. Plumptre. When Miss Beale’s resignation reached him, he urged her to make the reasons for it known, and his letter on the subject shows something of the consideration in which she was held.

Miss Beale finally gave the desired explanation with full detail and this preface:—

The defects she deplored—pioneer mistakes she called them later—were then enumerated in detail, and she dwelt especially on the hindrance to education caused by so much authority being left to one individual, who could not possibly be in a position to know the abilities and standard of work of every pupil. Much harm, she pleaded, had been done

On learning Miss Beale’s reasons for leaving, and that her decision was irrevocable, Mr. Plumptre wrote: ‘I wish to state at once that I believe most thoroughly that what you have done has been done conscientiously because it seemed to you—painful as it was—to be in the line of duty.’ But before this letter reached her, Dorothea had accepted another post, that of head-teacher in the Clergy Daughters’ School at Casterton.