by Sue Corbett
It would be impossible within the necessarily narrow limits of this notice to follow step by step the various means by which Miss Beale raised the Ladies’ College, Cheltenham, to the almost unique position it soon occupied under her able guidance. The council, or governing body, felt complete confidence in her aims and methods of pursuing them, and very wisely left her almost entirely a free hand. The introduction of a University examiner from Oxford in 1863 to test the educational work done in the college caused a considerable stir. Some parents refused to allow their girls to take part in the examination. Other parents, however, fully sympathized with what Miss Beale was doing, and appreciated the thoroughness of the education she was offering their children.
One main difficulty at the outset, long as it was before the opening of University education to women, was the scarcity of well-trained and well-educated teachers. Miss Beale grappled with this in a characteristic fashion by training her teachers herself; and the training department has for close upon half a century been an important part of the educational institutions of Cheltenham. In 1877 Miss Beale started in Cheltenham St Hilda’s College. This is a hall of residence for elder girls, for teachers in course of training, and other ladies preparing for University degrees. In 1900 St Hilda’s College was amalgamated with St Hilda’s Hall, Oxford, another of Miss Beale’s creations. Therefore, besides the great school over which she was called to preside in 1858, Miss Beale called into existence two colleges for women where work of University standard is done.
The jubilee of Cheltenham Ladies’ College was spread over two years, 1904 and 1905. At this time the number of pupils under instruction was 1,000, divided between four departments — (1) the kindergarten; (2) the junior school (for children from eight to 12); (3) the middle school (for children from 13 to 15); (4) the college proper, for elder girls. Buildings, including art and technical schools, a first-rate scientific laboratory, and a library, had been erected at a cost of more than £100,000, besides boarding-houses, sanatorium, playgrounds, &c., which had cost an additional £60,000. These figures are sufficiently eloquent when it is remembered that the college was founded with a total capital of only £2,000. In 1905 its annual income was £60,000.
Among the visitors assembled to do honour to Miss Beale at the jubilee gathering in 1905 were the Marquis of Londonderry, President of the Board of Education, the Bishop of Bristol and the Dean of Durham, representing the older Universities, heads of women’s colleges in Oxford, Cambridge, and London, the borough member, a representative of the Corporation of Cheltenham, and last, but by no means least in interest, the Dean of the Women’s University of Japan.
The high value of Miss Beale’s services to education received a large and well-deserved measure of public recognition. In 1889 she was made Officier de l’Académie de Paris; in 1895 she became tutor in letters of Durham University; in 1901 she was placed on the advisory board of London University for arranging the matriculation examination; in the same year the freedom of the borough of Cheltenham was conferred upon her; and in 1902 she received the honorary LL.D. degree of the University of Edinburgh. Her advice was sought by educationists far and wide. The late Master of Balliol, Dr Jowett, after a visit to Cheltenham, wrote to her with much cordiality of the “great institution” which she had created; he sought her advice as to how Oxford could best help to raise the standard of education in girls’ schools.
She was keenly alive to the importance of family and domestic claims on women, and advocated for them better education, a wider sphere of activity, and a share in public life, including women’s suffrage, because she believed the reflex action of these changes upon the family and upon domestic life would be beneficial.
Some of her critics, among educational reformers, have said that Cheltenham was the be-all and end-all of her existence, that her horizon in educational matters was bounded by its requirements. This may in part be true; even if wholly true it is not inexcusable. To have created so great an institution is no mean accomplishment, no unworthy life’s work. To see it a little out of its true proportion may be forgiven to its creator. She sometimes quoted the saying, “Usefulness is the rent we pay for room upon the earth.” No one can say of her that her rent was in arrear.
Dorothea Beale, educational pioneer and principal of Cheltenham Ladies’ College, was born on March 21, 1831. She died on November 9, 1906, aged 75
BARONESS BURDETT-COUTTS
* * *
PHILANTHROPIST WHOSE ENDOWMENTS RANGED FROM CHURCHES AND HOUSING PROJECTS TO A FISHERY SCHOOL IN IRELAND
DECEMBER 31, 1906
We announce with deep regret the death of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts, which occurred yesterday morning, at her residence in Stratton-street, Piccadilly, at the age of 92. Her ladyship had been in Stratton-street with Mr Burdett-Coutts, MP, since October. She was seized, as we announced on Saturday, with acute bronchitis. Late on Friday night she made somewhat of a rally, and her wonderful vitality, which had saved her several times in recent years, gave some hope that her life might be prolonged. After a consultation at noon on Saturday, her doctors stated that her condition showed no improvement and that, if anything, she was rather weaker. During the latter part of the day she grew worse, but was able to recognize the older members of her household, giving her hand to each in turn. She was always conscious to the very end, and Mr Burdett-Coutts, who was with her throughout, remained at her bedside during the last 12 hours. About 5 o’clock yesterday morning it seemed apparent that the end had come, but she partially rallied again and again during the next five hours until she passed peacefully away at 10.30am.
The Queen and the Princess of Wales sent telegrams of sympathy and inquiry to Mr Burdett-Coutts on Saturday. Her Majesty’s telegram contained a gracious personal message to the Baroness, which the latter was able to understand and appreciate. The King and other members of the Royal Family were informed by telegraph when Lady Burdett-Coutts died, and many distinguished personages who had made sympathetic inquiries in the course of Saturday were similarly informed.
The following telegram from Lord Knollys, at Sandringham, was sent to Mr Burdett-Coutts:—“I am commanded by the King and Queen to express their great regret to hear of the death of Lady Burdett-Coutts. They sincerely sympathize with you in your loss.”
Throughout yesterday Mr Burdett-Coutts was in almost constant receipt of telegrams from all parts of the country and of written communications from sympathizers who are out of town. The Lord Mayor sent the following telegram:—“Very sorry. Deeply sympathize with you. The City of London has lost one of its noblest and best beloved honorary freemen.” The Rev Dr. Sheppard, the Sub-Dean of the Chapels Royal and Sub-Almoner to the King, announced the death at the service held at the Chapel Royal yesterday morning.
The Right Hon Angela Georgina, Baroness Burdett-Coutts, was born on April 21, 1814, and was the youngest daughter of Sir Francis Burdett, the well-known Radical Member for Westminster. Her mother was one of the three daughters of Thomas Coutts, the founder of the famous banking house — three daughters who, thanks to their beauty and wealth, and in spite of the humble origin of their Scotch mother, all made great marriages. Susan, the eldest, became Countess of Guilford; Frances, the second, became Marchioness of Bute; and Sophia, the youngest, married Sir Francis Burdett, who, though he professed opinions which were at that time generally ostracised by “society,” was the head of an old and distinguished English family.
Thomas Coutts himself was an interesting character, to whose great business capacity, shrewd insight into things, and kindness of heart, combined with extreme frugality of habits, reference is often made in the current literature of his time, and who was brought back to notice a few years ago by his letters, printed in the Whitefoord Papers. He and his brothers were bankers in Edinburgh, who in the third quarter of the eighteenth century set up a branch in London, and who rose into importance after the crash caused by the failure of their swindling countryman Fordyce. Late in life, having survived all his brothe
rs, and being by that time very rich, Thomas Coutts married as his second wife the fascinating actress Harriet Mellon, to whom on his death in 1821 he bequeathed his great fortune. His widow presently became Duchess of St Albans; but when she died, in 1837, she restored her wealth to the family from which it came, leaving practically the whole of it to Thomas Coutts’s grand-daughter, Miss Burdett, then a young woman of three-and-twenty. Miss Burdett thus became the owner of a half-share of the profits of the bank, of the well-known house at the corner of Stratton-street, and of a large quantity of plate, jewellery, and other valuable property; and in recognition of the source of all this wealth she took the surname of Coutts in addition to her own. At any time such wealth would have marked out its owner for notice, especially if she happened to be a young and attractive woman; but in those days, when international finance was in its infancy, when there were no American railway kings, and when the Transvaal had not been heard of, the owner of a million of money — and Miss Burdett-Coutts’s fortune was probably more — naturally filled a greater position than would be the case at the present day. Miss Burdett-Coutts at once became an excessively interesting personage.
“The faymale heiress, Miss Anjaley Coutts,” as Barham called her in his ballad on the Coronation, attracted all eyes, and became the object of the curiosity of all the world and of the cupidity of a good part of it. If she kept the letters containing offers of marriage, they must fill chests of drawers, and of course the more avowedly begging letters which she received from this time till the end of her life were annually to be numbered by many thousands. But all through her early and middle life she remained resolutely single, finding enough to occupy her mind and her heart in the great schemes of charity and practical beneficence to which she henceforth devoted herself. The record of her life is, in fact, a record of attempts consistently made to alleviate the lot of the suffering and to further schemes which she believed to be of public advantage. It must be remembered that in 1837 the true theory of giving was far less understood than it is now; the common notion of “doing good” was more or less the old notion of Lady Bountiful and of somewhat indiscriminate alms-giving. It will always be reckoned to the credit of Miss Burdett-Coutts that, young as she was, and without any guidance except her own good sense, she saw the unsatisfactoriness of such a system; and she endeavoured from the first so to arrange her great charities that they should be of real service to those who received them. From the modern point of view, indeed, it would be possible to find fault with many of her proposals and actions. Sometimes, as in the case of one of her favourite foundations, Columbia Market, she fought against economical conditions and trade combinations which were too strong for her, and naturally she was defeated; but, on the whole, a survey of her life only leads to the conclusion that the popular admiration felt towards her by the masses of London was well founded, and that she consistently maintained a noble view, rare among millionaires of every epoch, of the responsibilities of wealth.
Any attempt to specify the schemes of public benevolence which were founded or encouraged by Miss Burdett-Coutts must be very imperfect; but we may mention a few, which will show how wide were her sympathies and how far-reaching her ideas of social improvement. If any single principle is to be discovered in her purely charitable benefactions, it is that she desired, not to keep unfortunate people in conditions of life which had been proved to lead to failure, but, by providing them with new conditions, to give them a fresh start. For example, her “Home” at Shepherd’s-bush was one of the earliest practical attempts to reclaim women who had lost their characters; and its method was first to get them back into habits of honest work, and secondly to send them out to the colonies under kindly supervision, where a large number of them found happiness and a new life. Similarly, when the Spitalfields silk trade began to fail, Miss Burdett-Coutts founded sewing schools in that district, and thus qualified large numbers of women and girls for a change of work. Again, she was largely instrumental in founding the Shoeblack Brigade; and, when the cruel winter of 1860-61 revealed the unsatisfactory condition of the weaving and tanning trades in East and South-East London, she took a decisive part in organizing an aid association which enabled many families to emigrate to Queensland. These, with the less successful Columbia Market scheme, are notable instances of the efforts made by Miss Burdett-Coutts to help the poor of London; but many more might be added to them in this department alone. For example, three drinking fountains in London bear her name — one in Victoria Park, one at the entrance to the Zoological Gardens, and one near Columbia Market. Again, she founded and supported more than one institute in London, especially the St Stephen’s Technical Institute in Vincent-square, Westminster; while she was chiefly responsible for the admirable public library and swimming bath in Great Smith-street, which she opened in 1893. The former of these, the St Stephen’s Institute, was founded by Miss Burdett-Coutts in 1846 and maintained by her down to her death — a leading instance of the manner in which she sometimes anticipated the ideas of a later generation on matters of public utility.
London alone, however, did not by any means exhaust the charitable energies of Miss Burdett-Coutts. She very early recognized, as we have indicated, the great fact of the unity of the British Empire and of the general good that may be effected by well-managed emigration. But she was not wedded to this idea; she did not find in emigration a cure for every social ill. If, for example, she did much to help certain districts of Ireland and of the west coast of Scotland by assisting some of the inhabitants to emigrate, she did still more by her long and consistent efforts to improve the fisheries of Ireland, especially near Skibbereen, and by her industrial fishing school at Baltimore, on the coast of Cork. The reception which was given her at this place in 1887 was extremely enthusiastic; and it is certain that no little good, if not quite as much as she and others had hoped for, has resulted from these well-meant efforts. And if these are proofs that her charity extended from London to the Kingdom and the Empire, it could at times be cosmopolitan as well.
One instance, which occurred a few years ago, showed the touch of sentimentalism which existed in her, as it must, we suppose, in all philanthropists. This was her visit, in 1896, when she was already more than eighty years of age, to the island of Corsica, in order that she might restore to the inhabitants the mortal remains of their great patriot, General Paoli, which for more than a century had rested in the churchyard of Old St Pancras. The idea was the Baroness’ s own, and she bore the whole expense of the transfer. Naturally the warm-hearted Southern people, mindful of the old friendship between their island and ourselves, were deeply touched, and there was great enthusiasm throughout Corsica. Another of these examples of what we have called cosmopolitan charity was the institution of the Turkish Compassionate Fund during the war of 1877-78, through which some £30,000 were distributed among the starving peasantry and the fugitives. Political feeling ran high in this country at that moment; and possibly the Baroness may have been partly influenced by it in wishing that, while the Russian and Servian wounded were being comforted through other funds, the Turkish side should not be neglected; but we may be sure that the dominant motive on her part was one of pure human compassion, which must be counted to her for righteousness.
Although in her charities properly so-called Lady Burdett-Coutts knew no distinction of creed or sect, she was herself a loyal and very beneficent daughter of the Church of England. Her contributions to churches and church schools throughout the country were large and numerous, while some of her benefactions of this kind demand special notice. With a far-sighted care for the interests of the Empire at large which was less common sixty years ago than it is to-day, she devoted one of the earliest and greatest of her benefactions to strengthening the position of the Church in the Colonies. It was in 1847, when she was a young woman of 33, that she endowed out of her own purse the Bishoprics of Cape Town and Adelaide; and ten years later, at the cost of no less than £50,000, she founded the Bishopric of British Columbia, and pr
ovided a fund for endowing churches and clergy in that colony. At home, Miss Burdett-Coutts’s first considerable work was to build and endow, in one of the poorest districts of Westminster, a church in memory of her father; and not only a church but schools and buildings which presently developed into a great technical institute and the home of innumerable guilds and benefit clubs. The work began in 1846, and on June 24, 1850, the large Gothic church of St Stephen, the work of Mr Ferry, a Manchester architect, was consecrated by the Bishop of London. It used to be said that for this work Miss Burdett-Coutts had signed a cheque for £30,000. So in fact she did; but before the site had been paid for, the tenants compensated, the buildings completed, and the large endowment fund provided, the total cost had amounted not to £30,000 but to £90,000. In 1864, at the request of Bishop Waldegrave, prompted by Dr Tait, then Bishop of London — Miss Coutts’s constant friend and adviser — she built another church dedicated to St Stephen in one of the poorest districts of Carlisle; and here again she was not content with half-measures, but built and endowed what a high authority has called “a model church.” Later she largely contributed to the restoration of the churches of Ramsbury and Baydon, in Wiltshire, her father’s county, and gave £15,000 to the Bishop of London as a contribution to the building of three churches in the metropolitan area.
The help she gave to elementary education, in the dark days before 1870, was scarcely less considerable. We have spoken of the schools of St Stephen’s, Westminster; and, though these were her first care, she constantly interested herself in helping forward education elsewhere. For example, she was one of the first trustees of the Townshend Schools (founded out of the bequest of the Rev. Chauncey Hare Townshend) for the benefit of the children of the very poor, who could not afford to pay the fees that until 1890 were required in almost all schools; she placed at her own expense hundreds of East-end boys in training-ships; and she showed her practical sympathy with the night-school movement by maintaining a large school of that type in Cooper’s-gardens in the East-end. She was the first, also, to establish cooking and sewing schools in London. At the same time she was quite alive to the importance of helping the claims of a somewhat more advanced education; for she was a constant supporter of the Birkbeck Literary and Scientific Institute, she established the first Art Students’ Home for Ladies, and she cordially aided the development of the St Stephen’s Institute into the Westminster Institute of Technical Training.
