Miss Mary Gurney, London.
Miss Lucy March Phillipps, Cheltenham.
Mrs. James Owen, Cheltenham.
Miss Catherine Winkworth, Clifton.
Much was gained by this remodelling, but the period of uneasy development was not yet over. One annual meeting which discussed the constitution of the College appears in private notes made by the Principal for her History as ‘Bear Garden.’ Reorganisation was seen to be essential. The College, founded in 1853 as a voluntary association, had by 1880 grown far beyond the calculations of its founders. Besides the school buildings and the Lady Principal’s house, it possessed Fauconberg House and the sanatorium at Leckhampton. To give it a safe legal foundation it was therefore registered ‘with limited liability’ under the Companies’ Acts of 1862 and 1867, without the addition of the word ‘limited’ to its name. New regulations concerning the holding of shares and property—the appointment of officers—were also made.
‘The Shareholders formally renounced all interest on their shares, and on January 31, 1880, the College was duly incorporated. On May 1 of the same year, the Lady Principal and other officials were formally re-elected.
‘The new Constitution provided for a Governing Body of twenty-four Members, of whom eighteen, namely twelve men and six women, were to be Members elected by the Shareholders, and the remaining six Representative Members, each holding office for six years. The six Representative Members were to be appointed by: (1) The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; (2) The Hebdomadal Council of the University of Oxford; (3) The Council of the Senate of the University of Cambridge; (4) The Senate of the University of London; (5) The Lady Principal; and (6) The Teachers.
Miss Beale did not often speak of the difficulties which necessarily she had to meet, as one called upon to direct the development of a great institution. But she had counsel and sympathy for those who were similarly placed. Miss Buss wrote thus to Miss Ridley of help she obtained from her:—
‘I had a long and grave talk to Miss Beale, who counsels fight, but not on any personal ground. She says, “Resign, if there is interference with the mistress’ liberty of action. That is a public question, and one of public interest.” She was so good and loving; she was so tender; and she is so wise and calm. She told me some of her own worries, and said that sometimes she quivered in every nerve at her own Council meetings. People came in and asked for information, involving hours of work for no result; ignored all that had been done, and talked as if they alone had done everything and knew everything. She urged me to try and be impersonal, so to speak; to remember that these and similar difficulties would always occur where there are several people. She said that women were always accused of being too personal, and harm was done by giving a handle to such an assertion.’[46]
The first efforts of the new Council to grapple with their task revealed that one source of difficulty lay in the government of the boarding-houses. The early founders had foreseen this when, in their first prospectus, they announced that they would not be responsible for any houses. Experience, however, soon showed that by this policy, grave dangers were at the same time incurred. Into Miss Beale’s early struggle for pupils the question of boarding-houses scarcely entered, though for the want of them she often had sadly to witness the loss of good pupils to the College. There were among the day-pupils many children of Anglo-Indians in England for a time. On the return of these parents to India, they were forced to make boarding arrangements for the children left behind. It was not till 1864 that the first regularly constituted boarding-house was opened under Miss Caines. This was at 24 Lansdown Place, now joined to No. 25, and known as St. Helen’s. In 1870 Miss Caines removed to Fauconberg House, the first property purchased by the College.