It was perhaps primarily interest in young teachers which led Miss Beale to join a movement made in 1897 to induce ladies to take up work in elementary schools. Miss Beale was present at a large meeting held that year in Westminster Town Hall, when the need and importance of this work were set forth in speeches by the Bishop of Stepney,[66] Sir Joshua Fitch, and others. As a result a Government Training Department was at once formed at the Ladies’ College, and work began with seven students, who in the same year were encouraged by addresses from Sir H. E. Oakeley, H.M.I., and Sir Joshua Fitch. The field of practice for these students was found in All Saints’ Schools, where there were four departments all supplied with the best apparatus. Other schools in the town were also glad at different times to receive these teachers. Miss Beale became much interested in the work, and proposed to build a practising school of her own for the elementary department of the College, engaged a head-mistress, and bought land for building. Then in 1901 came the regulations for local education committees, which would have put Miss Beale’s school under local control. She therefore gave up the idea of building and sold her land. Later regulations made her find it impossible to continue the elementary work on the lines she wished. The Government demands proved a fetter to one who felt she should be free to work towards her ideal. To her mind the real progress of elementary education in the country depended, not on the ‘introduction of new subjects of instruction, which must impose new and burdensome labour on teachers and children. It should be gained by the better training of teachers, by the adoption of better methods, by a wiser economy of time, and by showing teachers how to put more knowledge, more skill, more thought, more love, and more enthusiasm into their work.’ The legislation of 1901 made her feel that ‘My Lords’ did not recognise these principles as all-important; that they undervalued such an effort as she was making at Cheltenham; that they were unjust to voluntary schools. She felt as if she were playing an unfair game, and declined any longer to help forward a movement of which she could not see the goal. It may be marked also that she could never feel full sympathy for free education. From this time she again limited herself to training secondary teachers. Conditions which made elementary training the one serious work which Miss Beale took up only to abandon it, are indeed to be regretted. The magnificent plant, the fine opportunities for learning and practising, such as the Ladies’ College could supply, above all the large-minded teaching, the sense of real education which the Lady Principal would give, were thus lost to a cause which affects the wellbeing of the whole nation.
The Secondary Training Department became a recognised division of the College in 1885. So high a value did Miss Beale put upon this that she wrote of the work of the mistress in whose charge it was, as ‘only second in importance to that of the Head.’
St. Hilda’s work, using the term which Miss Beale herself would have used, meant much more than teaching definite subjects and preparing for examinations: it meant inspiration and the leading out of minds. It demanded unlimited devotion to a cause. It is probable that Miss Beale had for long cherished, and had only gradually relinquished a hope, though she never formed any definite plan, of seeing arise out of her work for education a body of women willing to form a teaching order. Opposed to sisterhood schools as she was, chiefly because her ideal of education was so high and apart, that she could not bear to see it receive in any way a secondary place, she recognised the immense value that some kind of rule would have, if voluntarily imposed for the sake of education. In other words, while she did not like to see people taking up teachers’ work because they were Sisters, she would have liked to see those she inspired and trained voluntarily take upon themselves some of the restrictions of a Sister’s life because they were teachers. The thought may have come to her first when, in 1856 and 1858, Mrs. Lancaster pressed her to undertake penitentiary work under rule. It was this which led to the severity of her dress and grave demeanour at Casterton, this which was echoed in a half-expressed wish that her staff at Cheltenham should wear black. When, after long years of waiting, it became her part to train women for the work of education, the aim of inducing them to adopt a separate devoted life, with or without visible signs of it, was ever before her.
Now that St. Hilda’s work may be witnessed in the three great institutions bearing this name, it is of no common interest to trace Miss Beale’s own plan for its development. The plan itself and the noble ideal behind it are not more remarkable than the ability with which she waited, resigned her individual fancy, and became an agent rather than an author. The following extract (circa 1884) states her first design:—
‘It is thought that a protest in act is specially needed in these days, now that teachers are so highly paid, and that an association of teachers who should be ready to take up any work required, whether it was paid or not, would be able to carry on work more effectively and continuously than an unorganised body of women.
‘It is proposed, therefore, that after three years,—ten of those who agree in this general principle should unite together as members of the Society of St. Hilda,—that they should pay, if young, into the funds of the Society whatever they earn from that time (but keeping complete control over any invested property), the Society providing them a fixed salary, a home when disengaged or out of health, but holding a right to send them out to any work which seems needed. The community may, if two-thirds agree, reject any member on returning to her what she has paid in, minus a fair sum for her maintenance. A member may withdraw with half any calculated surplus of earnings over expenditure, on giving one year’s notice. Some members might reside permanently and assist in various ways as writers and editors.
‘It is proposed that the members contributing the money should form the governing body,—elect a Superior,—that the votes should be in proportion to the money contributed. That all the money should, after paying maintenance, be expended, after leaving a moderate reserve fund, on providing some charitable work, and that the members should, at the will of the Superior, be assigned to any post she may think fit.
‘The work should be primarily teaching or assisting in some way in educational work amongst rich or poor, specially religious teaching, to which, it is hoped, some members will chiefly devote themselves, e.g. by lectures, by corresponding with those who need advice or help in religious matters, opening the house to receive as visitors any who need a time of quiet and retreat doing mission work at home and abroad. There should be only a very simple rule to be signed by the workers. Prayer at morning, evening, and midday; and such special rules as seem desirable. A holiday in proportion to the character of the work. The dress should be simple, but not conspicuous, and some badge should be worn by the members.’
In this connection it is interesting to read this extract from a letter written to a teacher who was unsettled as to her vocation, and was contemplating entering a sisterhood:—
‘April 89.