A Public Controversy Plays Out#
Following the publication of Mrs. Gaskell’s characterisation of W. Carus Wilson and the Cowan’s Bridge School in her Life of Chaatlotte Bronte, W. W. Carus Wilson, the Revd. W. Carus Wilson’s son, jumped to his father’s defence and provoked a good old-fashioned controversy that would play out in the letter pages of various newspapers for the next couple of months.
At the beginning of April, 1857, the Lancaster Gazette remarked on their northern son’s life away from Casterton in a report on the Revd. W. Carus Wilson’s involvvment with the Soldiers’ Institute in Portsmouth.
Our late estimable neighbour, April 1857
Lancaster Gazette - Saturday 11 April 1857
THE REV. W. CARUS WILSON
Our late estimable neighbour, the Bey. W. Carus Wilson, is obliged by the delicate state of his health to seek the climate of a warmer region than our own in the north, but whilst absent from the paternal hall at Casterton, the rev. gentleman, in spite of his bodily ailments, finds time and strength to put out his talent to interest, and as usual to be going about doing good. Whilst sojourning in Piedmont Mr. Carus Wilson was ever actively employed in the cause of Christian truth and Christian liberty, and having returned from the continent, he is now, we find, a resident in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth, where it seems a wide field for the exercise of his philanthropy soon opened itself up. His active mind discovered that the routine of the private soldier’s life required looking after — that to prevent him from exchanging the listlessness of the barrack room for the debauchery of the canteen, some third-retreat must be offered to him for the occupation of his leisure hours. A library of amusing publications sug- gested itself, and mainly by the rev. gentleman’s efforts a Soldiers’ Institute baa been established in Portsmouth garrison. We find in a Portsmouth paper the following report of the first annual meeting :
[First annual report of the Soldiers' Institute then follows.]
But by the end of April, W. Carus Wilson’s name would be appear frequently in the norther papers for another reason.
An Initial Response to the Charges Against the Cowan Bridge School#
W. W. Carus Wilson’s first letter appeared widely, and denounced the claims made by Mrs. Gaskell against both his father and the Cowan Bridge school.
Allow me to make a few remarks, April 1857
Morning Herald (London) - Friday 24 April 1857
“JANE EYRE.” TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD. Sir,—Allow me to make a few remarks on the “Life of Charlotte Bronte,” by Mrs. Gaskell, which will be one of the popular works of the day.
I chiefly wish to call attention to the unfounded statements made on the Clergy Daughters’ School, where Miss Bronte commenced her school career, when it was at Cowan Bridge.
I have seen letters from teachers and pupils who were there with her, denying all that she stated regarding that invaluable institution; and the lady who was superintendent at the time sent to a review, which was published, a long letter condemning the whole account in “Jane Eyre.”
Miss Bronte left the school at the age of nine, Mrs. Gaskell tells us, so what judgment could she form? And her father being a very austere and peculiar man, denying his children animal food, and they all being naturally very delicate, as we read also in Mrs. Gaskell’s work, is it fair to trace all her sufferings in after life to the very short time she was at the establishment, as Mrs. Gaskell also informs us?
The attack on my father, the Rev. W. Carus Wilson, coming from the pen of Mrs. Gaskell, who is, I believe, the wife of a Socinian preacher, is intended, from the strain of the whole work, as a sneer at the Evangelical party in the Church.
My father has spent a long life solely for the good of others; and though, from his independent position in life, and the wonderful way in which God has prospered every work he has undertaken for the good of the Church and his fellow creatures, he might have much to boast of, yet I can truly say there lives not a man with a lower opinion of himself, or more opposite to the character Mrs. Gaskell has sketched of him.
Your obedient servant,
W. W. CARUS WILSON.
The initial, short letter, was followed by a second, short letter that also introduced a much longer excerpt from a critical review. This review would also be widely circulated in letters to other periodicals, such as the Leeds Mercury.
May I ask for a corner, May 1857
Leeds Mercury - Saturday 16 May 1857
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITORS OF THE LEEDS MERCURY. GENTLEMEN,—
May I ask for a corner for the following, taken out of a Review, which is a complete answer to the Statements in the Life of Charlotte Bronte regarding my father’s charitable institutions.— Yours,
W. W. CARUS WILSON.
The letter then quotes at length from a review that was also circulated widely, as in the following example.
The review opens by recalling the original publication of “Jane Eyre”, and the approach taken by Mrs. Gaskell in painting the character of Charlotte Bronte in the “Life”.
Coarse expressions and immoral tendencies, May 1857
Essex Standard - Friday 22 May 1857
NEW PUBLICATION
The Life of Charlotte Bronte. “By Mrs. Gaskell, London: Smith, Elder, and Co.
Those who have enjoyed the literary luxury of such works as “Jane Eyre,” “Shirley,” and “ Villette,” will peruse with much interest the life of their gifted authoress. Mrs. Gaskell has given to the public a deeply-interesting memoir, and we can hardly realize the mournful fact that Charlotte Bronte now sleeps beneath those wild Yorkshire hills that nursed her genius. But such is the case, and the pen of praise or blame will fall but lightly now upon her tomb.
We remember that on the appearance of “Jane Eyre,” it was severely censured by the Quarterly, the Times, and other leading reviews and papers, for its coarse expressions and immoral tendencies. There was a profanity prevading many of its pages, and we grieve to find the same irreverent turn given to passages from Scripture in some parts of Miss Bronte’s letters, which appear in her Life by Mrs. Gaskell, and which will make this certainly most touching memoir a prohibited book with many, as was “Jane Eyre.” Such expressions, for instance, as the following:— Miss Bronte, in writing to a friend, addresses her as only “ a little lower than the angels.” Again, in pointing to a picture of Thackeray, for whom she had unbounded worship, she exclaimed to a friend, “A lion shall come out of Judah.” Too many other passages of a similar strain in this work could be quoted. It is the Rev. H. Melvill who observes that “it is to sharpen every arrow of the devil to sharpen our wit on the Bible ; “ and we cannot see how any one can imagine that the insertion of irreverent expressions can in any tale or memoir add force or interest.
The closing hour, pictured by Mrs. Gaskell, is very painful. Miss Bronte entered into eternity, not with the bright light and joy that cheered and comforted “ Leila Ada,” or an “ Adelaide Newton,” but with the simple exclamation (her last on earth) to her husband, “ Oh, I am not going to die, am I?— He won’t separate us, we have been so happy together!”
The review then addresses the depiction of Charlotte’s time at the Clergy daughter’s School.
Rhe seeds of good must have been sown in her, (cont.)
She could not have been without religious impressions; we may be sure that in such au establishment as the “Clergy Daughters’ School “ the seeds of good must have been sown in her ; but we fear her great talents were a snare— they were not used in after-life for the glory and honour of her God. Can we wonder, then, at the bitter attack she made in “Jane Eyre “ on the “Clergy Daughters’ School,” and on the Rev. W. Carus Wilson, its benevolent founder? And, if report be true that Mrs. Gaskell is a Socinian, does she seek to aim a blow at our Church by such unjust and quite unnecessary personal remarks on so influential a member of it?
The author of the review then embarks on a glowing appreciation of the Revd. Carus Wilson.
No one can have laboured so publicly and usefully, (cont.)
No one can have laboured so publicly and usefully for the cause of evangelical truth as the Rev. W. Carus Wilson has done without meeting with opponents, and perhaps enemies— but, we are informed by those best capable of judging, that the character sketched of him by Mrs. Gaskell is as false as the assertions about the school at Cowan Bridge.
With much that many might boast of, and envy, the wonderful way in which God has prospered every work he has undertaken, whether it be as regards the charitable institutions he established about 30 years ago ; or his periodicals that so many have owed their conversion to ; or the churches entrusted to him (in the building of some of which he was instrumental) ; or whether as regards his independent fortune, which raises him far above the malicious insinuations of Miss Bronte, that the pupils in the charitable institutions under his control “were starved “—yet we are assured that no one has a lower opinion of himself than Mr. Wilson, or a deeper feeling of the little he has done, now, at the close of a long life, spent only for the good of his fellow-creatures.
Mrs. Gaskell’s description of him is then challenged.
Knowing nothing of him, (cont.)
Mrs. Gaskell, knowing nothing of him or the schools personally, must have grounded her remarks as to his “ love of power”, his “spiritual pride,” his reminding the pupils of their “dependent condition” (a thing most opposite to his nature, for no one was more beloved by them), on the testimony of some enemy, perhaps a turned-off teacher or pupil.
She then suggests that when “Jayne Eyre” first appeared, not only did many previous pupils identify Lowood with the Cowen Bridge school, but that they wrote letters of support directly to Carus Wilson and in praise of their time there. A public letter of support is also claimed to have appeared in a Review in 1855.
As I have it in my power, (cont.)
Now, we are in a position to state that when “Jane Eyre “ came out many old pupils and teachers, who were at Cowan Bridge when Miss Bronte was there, wrote to Mr. Wilson’s family, denying and grieving over her statements as to “ bad diet and treatment,” &c; and the lady who was the superintendent of that institution in 1824 (whose husband now heads a college in America) wrote in 1855 a long and complete answer to all the assertions in “Jane Eyre.” and her able letter appeared in a Review. We wish we could have inserted all this important letter, but we have only space for the following extract. She says : —
“The columns of the leading papers have been for some time past much occupied with obituary notices of the late Miss Bronte and many conveying the impression that her treatment at the Clergy Daughters’ School when at Cowan Bridge, was of a character not only to affect her health, but to darken her prospects in afterlife. Now, as I have it in my power entirely to refute these charges. I should consider myself guilty in a measure concerning them, did I not make known to the world the truth of the case, and thereby exonerate an excellent and eminently useful clergyman from the imputations cast on him in ‘Jane Eyre,’ as well as to vindicate an institution which has been to the Poverty-stricken clergy a blessing of inestimable value.”
She then goes on to say —
“In July, 1824, the Rev. Mr. Bronte arrived at Cowan Bridge with two of his daughters, Maria and Elizabeth ; the children were so delicate that there were doubts whether they could be admitted into the school. They were received, and went on so well that their father brought in September two more, Charlotte and Emily. During both these visits Mr. Bronte stayed at the school, sat at the table with the pupils, and saw the whole routine of the establishment. They all inherited consumption from their mother and were taken home; none of them, as has been stated, had any attack of fever or died at the school. I can truly say that none of the pupils were denied a sufficient quantity of food; they were never limited ; meat, vegetable, and puddings daily in abundance; any statement to the contrary is most false. Charlotte was a bright, clever, happy little girl, never in disgrace. In size remarkably diminutive, and if, as has been asserted, she never grew an inch after leaving the school, she must have been a literal dwarf. * * * Let us hope that in caricaturing an institution which has been such a blessing to the daughters of her own Church she had no injurious motives, but, misled by a vivid imagination, and a dim recollection of thirty years, when she was but a child, she published in an unguarded moment, unmindful of the consequences, mis-statements, the tendency of which has been to calumniate a most excellent institution, and to bring disgrace on religion. * * * When it is known that I have been absent 12 years from my native land, and 10 years previously had withdrawn, from conscientious motives from the Church of England, I think I need not fear being considered a partisan ; my only object is to do justice, and to state to the public things as they have been and are.”
That Mrs. Gaskell must have been aware of the letter, but then “suppressed” it, is then remarked upon, as is the wider support of other happy pupils.
She quotes one sentence, (cont.)
The whole of this letter Mrs. Gaskell must have seen, as she quotes one sentence out of it word for word, but has carefully suppressed all in it that bears so favourably on the school. She allows “it is a subject she approaches with the greatest difficulty”; and, admitting an improvement in the school seems greatly puzzled how to do this, and yet defend her friend’s assertions in “Jane Eyre.”
With the above we would take the testimony of hundreds of pupils, who with their parents have gratefully acknowledged the advantages they received at these institutions, rather than the account of one, however talented, who when but a child of nine left the establishment, and has so ungenerously cast an odium upon him who first planned such a help to our poorer clergy, and who has yearly undertaken the risk of the support of near 800 pupils and teachers ; for, including a preparatory school, there are about 150 daughters of clergymen boarded, clothed, and educated, at only £14 a-year each, including everything, and, in the “Servants’ School,” above 100 girls trained for service, each paying but £10 a-year. The schools are situated in Westmoreland, built on Mr. Carus Wilson’s property, half-a-mile from Casterton Hall, his residence. They stand amid beautiful scenery, on high and healthy situations. They require above £1,000 a-year, in addition to the payment of the pupils, to cover all expenses.
In passing, mention is made of the sickly nature of the Brontës and their envoiced vegetarian diet.
they were all naturally very delicate
We read further in the “ Life” that Mr. Bronte was an austere and peculiar man, denying his children animal food, &c., and that they were all naturally very delicate. It is hardly fair then to trace, as is done, all Miss Bronte’s after-sufferings to Cowan Bridge. The statement, too, is false, that “fever decimated the pupils yearly ;” there have been but two attacks since the schools were established, which only carried off 6 pupils.
Charlotte’s claimed regrets about her portrayal of the school are also mentioned and then contrasted with Mrs. Gaskell’s attack.
Mrs. Gaskell says, (comt.)
Mrs. Gaskell says that Miss Bronte often regretted her remarks in “Jane Eyre” about the school, as she never thought it would have been so identified. Why then should Mrs. Gaskell have continued them in the “Life”. Would it not have been fairer to have given a fuller and more favourable account of the schools ; for in her visit to Cowan Bridge last year, so close to Casterton, she most probably would have visited them, and witnessed their flourishing condition under the able management of a committee, during Mr. Wilson’s long absence from ill health? We have not space at present to touch on any parts of the second volume of this popular work, and have only dwelt on those in the first that we consider most open to criticism.
The review closes with a less than positive view of Charlotte’s character, in part explained away by her younger life.
Mrs. Gaskell says, (comt.)
Were the work free from those objectionable points it might be capable of good ; for who can picture the struggles of the suffering sisters, lonely and friendless, in the seclusion of Haworth Parsonage; their affliction with their brother (so public a notice of whom we think a great pity) ; their resignation and devotion to their father, and not extol that peculiar ardour which led them to overcome every obstacle, and to cast such a meteor on the crowded paths of literature? Much as we must admire Miss Bronte’s genius we cannot altogether eulogise her character; it seems to have imbibed the coldness and isolation of Haworth. But when we consider her solitude and sufferings we are the more disposed to draw the curtain over much we could have wished otherwise, beyond what we have noticed, in one so gifted, and who by her pen has shed such lustre on the literary world.
Note.— The substance of the above Review, in the shape of a letter, has appeared in the Times, Morning Herald, Daily News, Record, and other papers.
Elsewhere, the review might be introduced by an editorial statement, rather than via a piece of correspondence.
A work of some unkind and unjust allusions, May 1857
Lancaster Gazette - Saturday 09 May 1857
THE REV. CARUS WILSON AND THE AUTHOR OF THE BRONTE MEMOIRS.
A work that is chiefly remarkable for what we should think a very undesirable revelation of the private affairs of a deceased family, and entitled Memoirs of Charlotte Bronte, is exciting a good deal of interest in the literary world, and in this work some unkind and unjust allusions to the Rev. Carus Wilson, printed in one of Charlotte Bronte’s novels, are again brought before the public. The attack made on the rev. gentleman has reference to the clergy daughters’ schools, and in consequence of what is said on the subject in the Bronte Memoirs some ignorant reviewers of the public press in London have arrived at the conclusion that at Cowan Bridge or Casterton, a sort of Dotheboys Hall exists. In this neighbourhood the interesting establishments alluded to are well known, and we can only smile at the verdancy of our London contemporaries, but it is rather hard upon Mr. Wilson, whose reputation is an affair of public, we might say national, interest, that his good name should be introduced to his friends in other parts of the country, under circumstances so prejudicial. To do Mr. Wilson as much justice as in our power lies, we copy with great pleasure the following article, which has appeared in a newspaper in the south of England :—
Those who have enjoyed the literary luxury of such works as “ Jane Eyre,” “ Shirley,” and “ Villette,” …
Mr Nicholls Responds#
A copy of the review sent to the Leeds Mercury appears to have made its way to the Parsonage at Haworth, where Charlotte Brontê’s husband, Mr. Nicholls, took issue with W. W. Carus Wilson’s defence of his father and the charges made of Cowen Bridge School by Mrs. Gaskell.
He opens with a review of the points he considers the younger Carus Wilson to be challenging, before going on to consider each in turn.
Mr. Nicholls’ letter appears to be originally written to the Manchester Guardian, appearing on Friday May 22 1857, and opening:
Sir,— You have published by request of Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson, an extract from a review which he asserts “is an ample answer to the statements regarding his father’s charitable institutions.”
The letter was then republished a day later in various Leeds newspapers.
The statements referred to, May 1857
Leeds Mercury - Saturday 23 May 1857
The letter also appeared in the Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 23 May 1857.
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITORS OF THE LEEDS MERCURY. GENTLEMEN,-On Saturday last, you published, by request of Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson, an extract from a review, containing, he says, “a complete answer to the statements regarding his father’s charitable institutions.”
The statements referred to are, I presume, the following: that the unhealthy situation of Cowan Bridge, unwholesome food, and exposure to cold, &c., enfeebled the girls and pre-disposed them to disease; that fever broke out among them; that about forty of them suffered from it; that the surgeon, who was called in, condemned the girls’ daily food by the expressive action of spitting out a portion of it which he had taken in order to taste it; that the school was removed to a new situation and a committee of management appointed.
Now let us examine the “Complete answer,” and see how these charges are disposed of. And first, the reviewer assumes that these statements rest solely on the testimony “ of one who, when but a child of nine, left the establishment.” A reference, however, to “The Life of Charlotte it Bronte,” will show that this is a false assumption. He praises the situation of the school, “ on Mr. Carus Wilson’s property, half a mile from Casterton-hall, high and healthy ;” but he has not the candour to state that this description applies to the present site, and not to that referred to in “ Jane Eyre.”
He eulogises Mr. Wilson’s liberality, but omits to state that funds are raised from the public for the support of the establishment, which Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson modestly calls his “ father’s charitable institutions.”
He makes no mention whatever of the condemnation of the food by the medical gentleman, of the fever which scourged the school, and the consequent change of site, and reformation of the establishment.
Mr Nicholls also challenges the evidence obtained from “the lady superintendent” and her evidence regarding the alleged poor quality, or otherwise, of the food provided to the girls at the school.
But what about the cooking? (cont.)
But, surely, the lady superintendent, “ whose able letter appeared in a review,” will supply the gentleman’s omissions, and in her “long and complete answer to the assertions in Jane Eyre,” make some reference to this eventful period in the existence of “ the clergy daughters’ school.” She does no such thing, at least as quoted in the review.
She eulogises Mr. Wilson; asseverates her own impartiality; refers to her apostasy from her Church, and expatriation from her country; makes a somewhat erroneous statement respecting Mr. Bronte’s family; hazards some conjectures about the intentions of the author of “Jane Eyre ;” and lays before us a bill of fare at Cowan Bridge- “meat, vegetables, and puddings daily in abundance.” Very good, Madam! but what about the cooking that spoiled these provisions; boiled the puddings in unclean water; compounded the Saturday’s nauseous mess from the fragments accumulated in a dirty larder during the week; and too often sent up the porridge, not merely burnt, but with offensive fragments of other substances discoverable in it?
The status of the Lady Superintendent’s letter, and the tardiness of its author in speaking out in defence of the school despite it apparently being identified with Lowood on the publication of “Jane Eyre”, was also remarked upon.
Silent for more than seven years, (cont.)
The Reviewer says “ the whole of this letter Mrs. Gaskell must have seen, as she quotes one sentence out of it word for word.” Whether Mrs. Gaskell has seen this letter, I do not know; but if the Reviewer will refer to “ The Life,” vol. i., page 78, he will find that Mrs. Gaskell quotes from a letter which she had herself received from the same lady, who evidently in both instances used the same form of expression — identical, however, in only three words, “ bright, clever, little” — in reference to the same child. May I not justly retort the charge of disingenuousness on the Reviewer; who must have known this, when he accused Mrs. Gaskell of making a garbled quotation?
“ Jane Eyre” was published in 1847; Lowood was almost immediately identified with Cowan Bridge, yet “ The Lady who was superintendent in 1824” was discreetly silent for more than seven years, until, in fact, the author was laid in her grave. So were Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson and the Reviewer, for aught I know. Their present proceedings are merely an illustration of a very old fable. To the day of her death “ Currer Bell” maintained than the picture drawn in “Jane Eyre” was, on the whole, a true Picture of Cowan-bridge school, as she knew it by experience; that the institution was subsequently greatly improved she knew, and stated in the same work, in which she exposed its former mismanagement.
I am told that the Reviewer, referred to in this letter, has, with exquisite taste and great charity, alluded to the closing hours of my wife’s life, describing them as painful. Painful indeed they were, but not in his sense of the term. On this subject I would say to him, “ Who art thou that judgest another? Judge not that ye be not judged. First cast out the beam out of thine own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.”
Trusting to your sense of justice to give this letter a place in your Saturday’s impression,
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
A. B. NICHOLLS. Haworth Parsonage, May 20th, 1857.
W. W. Carus Wilson Promptly Replies#
W. W. Carus Wilson responded, by what seems to be almost a return of post, to Mr Nicholls’ challenges. His letter includes a direct quote from his father, the Revd. W. Carus Wilson.
If you will allow me a reply, May 1857
Leeds Mercury - Thursday 28 May 1857
Also reappears in Leeds Mercury - Thursday 04 June 1857.
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITORS OF THE LEEDS MERCURY. GENTLEMEN,— If you will allow me a reply to a letter from Mr. Nicholls, in yesterday’s* Manchester Times* and to-day’s Leeds Mercury, it shall be my last, and very brief. Mr. Nicholls is quite welcome to the “burnt pudding” fact, and to the testimony of the pupil who may, from a delicate constitution, have been as unfit as the Brontës were for any school. I cannot defend an isolated case of “wet feet,” &c., in any school. But it is the charge of “bad and insufficient food” being a general thing that I am prepared to prove false by ten testimonies to every one Mr. Nicholls can show to the contrary.
That the school was removed at once in consequence of the fever and unhealthy site, as Mr. Nicholls states, is quite false. It was not removed till ten years after.
I could enter far more into detail had I space, but will conclude with the following extract out of a letter from my father to me.
“I can most truly say that every charge is false. Having suffered once myself at a school from bad food, I was specially sensitive on this point when I established the Cowan-bridge school. Often, when quite unexpected, have I sat down at meals with the pupils, and looked into the kitchen. As to my ‘lecturing the children on the sin of caring for carnal things when the bad state of the food was represented to me,’ I can positively declare that no complaint was ever made to me, neither did I ever see one cause for any complaint.”
Let me tell Mr. Nicholls that his wife’s sweeping and slanderous charges against my father and his institutions have been quite as painful to some, as the refutation of them has been to himself. Yours respectfully,
W. W. CARUS WILSON. Weston-super-Mare, June 2.
He also wrote to the Leeds Intelligencer, which had also carried Mr. Nicholl’s response.
I leave your readers to form their own judgment, May 1857
Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 30 May 1857
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITOR OF THE INTELLIGENCER. Sir, —
If the Rev. Nicholls will refer to the refutation which in your paper of last Saturday he endeavours to answer, he will see that the reviewer particularly stated that he wished there had been space to have inserted all the letters of the lady who was over the Cowan Bridge School when Charlotte Bronte was there. In a former letter to you, the statements of the “ half-starved” condition of the pupils were disposed of. If you will kindly give me room, I will quote for your readers that part of the letter which bears on the subject Mr. Nicholls says has been evaded, viz., the fever, and the spoiling of food. During the spring of 1825 a low fever, though not an alarming one (Mr. Nicholls says “it scourged the school”) prevailed, and the managers naturally anxious to know if any local cause occasioned it asked the doctor’s opinion of the food that happened to be on the table. I recollect he spoke rather scornfully of a baked rice pudding, but as the ingredients were rice, sugar, and milk, its effect could hardly have been so serious as have been affirmed. I thus furnish you with the simple fact from which these statements have been manufactured. I have not the least hesitation in saying that the comforts were as many, and the privations as few, at Cowan Bridge, as can well be found in so large an establishment. How far young and delicate children are able to contend with the necessary evils of a public school, is in my opinion a very grave question, and does not enter into the present discussion. Then again, “thoughtless servants will spoil food even in private families.” In addition to the above, my father has denied the accounts in “ Jane Eyre,” and declared he was most particular about the food at Cowan Bridge.
I leave your readers to form their own judgment between the testimony of this lady and my father, and a child who left the institution when but nine years old.
If there are any besides, perhaps a dismissed pupil or teacher, who can bear out C. Bronte’s assertions, there are many more Cowan Bridge pupils who have written to me, during the last month, saying “how happy they were there, how all loved my father, how entirely false the character Mrs. Gaskell has sketched of him, and how good the food was, better (some have said) than they have got at their own homes.”
Mr. Nicholls complains of the expression, “my father’s charitable institution.” It was my father who first established them ; had them built on his own property, collected single handed, for 30 years, all subscriptions for them, running the risk himself of their yearly support, and thereby doing for his brother clergy what no other man has done. No “committee of management was formed” till about six years ago, when ill-health obliged my father to live abroad. Mr. Nicholls also complains that in the refutation no mention is made of funds being raised yearly for the schools, and of their removal to Casterton. Both these facts are well known, and sufficiently attended to in the review. Mr. Nicholls is surprised that no defence was made on the publication of “Jane Eyre.” But that was a novel, and persons and places were not publicly and certainly identified till the obituary notices of the press in 1855, and the Memoir of C. Bronte appeared. It was in 1855 that the letter of refutation was sent to review, by the lady who was over Cowan Bridge School when C. Bronte was there ; who from conscientious motives left the Church of England, and who married the head of a college, in America, which Mr. Nicholls charitably calls “ Apostacy and expatriation.” It is only natural that Mr. Nicholls should seek to defend his wife’s assertions ; but considering that to add force to her fiction, she first cast odium on an invaluable institution, and a public benefactor to mankind, which, as Mrs. Gaskell says, she often regretted, I think Mr. Nicholls should be the first to share in that regret, and to repair the great injury that has been done.
Yours, W. W. CARUS WILSON.
Weston-super-Mare, May 25th.
The Revd. Henry Shepheard Steps In#
At this point, another pen joins the fray in defense of W. Carus Wilson, in the form of a letter from the Revd. Henry Shepheard, incumbent of Casterton and the honorary secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School at the time.
Another champion has now entered on the field, May 1857
Lancaster Guardian - Saturday 30 May 1857
“JANE EYRE” AND THE CASTERTON SCHOOLS.
Many of our readers will be aware of the controversy which has been carried on in the metropolitan and other journals, with reference to the charges brought against The Clergy Daughters’ School, founded by Mr. Carus Wilson, and formerly located at Cowen Bridge, but latterly at Casterton. These charges appeared in that striking novel “Jane Eyre,” and although a fictitious name was adopted, it was soon pretty well known that the Casterton school was prefigured in the Lowood establishment, and in the experience of the heroine of the book. Miss Charlotte Bronte, the talented authoress, was believed to record her own reminiscences of residence in that institution. No notice, however, was taken by Mr. Carus Wilson of these imputations at the time, but there has lately appeared a memoir of the authoress, by Mrs. Gaskell, of Manchester, in which the charges were re-produced, and the establishment and founder localised. Mr. W. Wilson then came forward to refute the calumnies which had been cast upon the institution established by his father, and the Rev. Mr. Nicholl, who married Miss Bronte subsequent to the publication of “Jane Eyre,” has replied in vindication of the authenticity his late wife’s statements.
Another champion has now entered on the field, in the person of the Rev. H. Shepherd, M.A., incumbent of Casterton, and chaplain and secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School, who has addressed a letter to the Times, which had “adopted and commented upon the charges brought against the Cowen Bridge School and its founder, as if they were true.”—From this letter we subjoin the following extracts:—
I am willing to hope that neither Charlotte Bronte herself nor her biographer had any intention of injuring either the Clergy Daughters’ School or Mr. Carus Wilson. [A substantial extract follows.]
In defence of the school, May 1857
Usk Observer - Saturday 30 May 1857
The publication of the life of CHARLOTTE BRONTE, and the charges contained in it against the Cowen-bridge School has led to a good deal of angry feeling. The Rev. H. Shepheard, M.A., late Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford, Incumbent of Casterton, and Chaplain and Secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School, in a letter in Wednesday’s Times, defends the school, which he says “ has been carried on since 1833 at Casterton, and, to borrow the words of a Preston paper the vile attack made on the rev. gentleman (Mr. Carus Wilson) has reference to the Clergy Daughters’ Schools; and, in consequence of what is said on the subject in the Bronte memoirs, some ignorant reviewers of the public press in London have arrived at the conclusion that at Cowen-bridge, or Casterton, “ there exists,” as observes the editor of the Lancaster Gazette, “a sort of Dotheboys’ Hall. In this neighbourhood the interesting establishments alluded to are well known, and we can only smile at the verdancy of our London contemporaries,” &c.’ Now, sir, in the visitors’ book of the Casterton school there appears the name of ‘Mrs. Gaskill’ as having visited the institution in March, 1856. She was shown over the whole house, saw the pupils, and expressed nothing but satisfaction. Would it not have been, then, an act of bare justice, as well an ingenuous and graceful acknowledgment, on her part, to have inserted in her memoir a frank avowal that whatever may have been the merits or demerits of the Cowen-bridge School of 1824, the Casterton School of 1856 presented before her own eyes a spectacle of health and comfort in the pupils, and a result of generous large-hearted benevolence in the founder, such as might well bring upon him, not calumny and vituperation, but blessings and gratitude? Such an avowal is indispensably required on Mrs. Gaskill’s part, if she desires to relieve herself from the charge of conduct which I do not choose to characterise. Her own mind evidently has its misgivings as to the truth of the alleged facts even of the Cowen-bridge story.
One letter, originally sent to the Manchester Guardian, also appeared in the Lancaster Guardian.
The Casterton School Controversy, June 1857
Lancaster Guardian - Saturday 06 June 1857
THE CASTERTON SCHOOL CONTROVERSY.
This paper warfare is still continued, though the subject is pretty nigh exhausted. The last two letters which have appeared are by Mr. Nicholls, in reply to Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson and Mr. Shepheard, incumbent of Casterton.
Mr. Nicholls, in a letter to the editor of the Manchester Guardian, says:—
“Will you kindly allow me to thank Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson for his last letter? We have now got the following admissions:— That ‘in 183S there prevailed at Cowan Bridge low fever, not an alarming one’ (I should like to know what would alarm Mr. Wilson, if the illness of about forty girls failed to produce that effect); that ‘the doctor rather scornfully’ condemned the food; that ‘ the servants thoughtlessly spoiled’ it; and that ‘the schools were removed to Casterton,’ from what cause Mr. Wilson does not say.
“ But mark how easily Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson disposes of witnesses:—‘If there are any besides, perhaps a dismissed pupil or teacher.’ Even at the risk of incurring such a summary dismissal, I cannot forbear giving him the following extract from a letter which I have received from a former pupil at Cowan Bridge:—
“‘On first reading ‘Jane Eyre,’ several years ago, I recognised immediately the picture then drawn, and was far from considering it in any way exaggerated; in fact I thought at the time, and still think, the matter rather understated than otherwise. I suffered so severely from the treatment, that I was never in the schoolroom daring the last three months I was there, until about a week before I left, and was considered to be far gone in consumption. My mother (whose only child I was) was never informed of my illness, and I might certainly have died there without her being informed of it, had not a severe illness of her own caused her hastily to summon me home. She was so much shocked at my appearance, that she refused to allow me to return, though pressed to so. I was some time before my constitution recovered the blow it then received. I attribute my illness to the unhealthy situation of the school, the long walks to church in bad weather, (for in winter our feet were often wet daring the whole of the service,) and the scanty and ill prepared food. * * * The housekeeper was very dirty. I have frequently seen grease swimming on the milk and water we had for breakfast, in consequence of its having been boiled in a greasy copper; and I perfectly remember having once been sent for a cup of tea for teacher, who was ill in bed, and no teaspoon being to hand, the housekeeper stirred it with her finger, she being engaged in cutting raw meat at the time. I could give you scores of such instances as these, which fell under my own observation. Our food was almost always badly cooked, and besides that we certainly had not enough of it, whatever may be said to the contrary. * * * In a word the system at Cowan Bridge was a very harsh one, and I was very glad to hear that an improvement took place after the school was removed to Casterton, for it was much needed. I had no knowledge whatever of Mrs. Nicholls personally, and therefore my statement may fairly be considered an impartial one. You are quite welcome to make what use you think proper of this letter.’
“If Mr. Wilson’s friends had confined themselves to legitimate review of Mrs. Gaskell’s work, I should never have written a single line on this subject; but when they attacked the dead, and adopted the questionable course of disseminating their vile slander anonymously through the post-office (actually sending a copy to Mr. Bronte), I should indeed have been inexcusable if I had allowed their assertions to pass unchallenged.
“Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson publishes a refutation, as he calls it. I have shown that was nothing of the sort. To bandy farther statements with him I have neither time nor inclination; besides I am quite sore that both yon and your readers would soon be as tired of us and our discussion as the poor girls were of their burnt porridge, with “mixture as before.”—Apologising for again trespassing on your valuable space, I am, sir, your obedient servant, A. B. Nicholls.”
Mr. Shepheard is of course heard on the other side, in reply to a former letter by Mr. Nicholls. He says:—
“ There appears to be altogether a mistake in Mr. Nicholls’ mind to the reason of the Clergy Daughters’ School being removed to Casterton. He speaks of “ the fever that scourged the school, and the consequent change of site, and reformation of the establishment.” This is total misconception, as will appear at once from a comparison dates. The fever broke out in 1825; the school was removed to Casterton in 1833 — eight years afterwards. The mere fact speaks for itself that the change of site had nothing do with the fever. This assumption is perfectly groundless as is the other, that it was for the purpose of reforming the establishment. There were obvious reasons, quite independent of the management of the school or the healthiness of the site, why it should be removed (as the Servants’ School was likewise) to the spot where Mr. Carus Wilson was himself the resident minister. I have medical testimony that the situation of Cowan Bridge is not unhealthy, but well adapted for a public institution, lying on a high level, with good fall for drainage, and free from fogs and mists. It is also an incorrect statement that 40 girls were attacked by the fever. The number was 30, end they all recovered. The little Brontes escaped the infection entirely. The fever was of mild character; a circumstance which, I believe, every medical man would consider as a decided proof that the situation could not be unhealthy. For, in unhealthy situations, fevers which might otherwise be mild, are pretty sure to take on a malignant character.
“It is one of the worst features in the whole affair, that some exceptional instances of mismanagement in the subordinates at the first establishment of the school, which may really have happened, are made by tacit inference to mark its general character, and that through its whole course.
“ In a recent letter to the public journals I have admitted that there may have been instances of burnt or badly cooked food; and I have since received confirmation, from new sources, of the correctness of that admission. A correspondent writes to me:— “I fear that there must have been some grounds of complaint against the conduct of the cook, when first the school opened. It could not be expected that a new institution should be perfect in all its parts; and it is vary shocking to one’s feelings that circumstances which caused Mr. Wilson so much sorrow and anxiety should be attributed to his indifference and neglect with bitter reproach.”
“Just so, sir; and Mrs. Gaskell herself, to do her justice, exonerates Mr. Wilson of the charge of indifference and neglect, and rightly lays the blame on the right person—the cook; and this cook was dismissed in a few months.
“The same remark applies to the statements of harsh treatment of the pupils by a teacher. I have not been able to meet with any confirmation of these accounts; and certainly they ought to be either retracted, or authenticated producing the name of the teacher, or at least the names of eye-witnesses. But even supposing, for argument’s sake, the story of ‘Helen Burns’s’ ill-treatment to be true, it is a gross injustice and inexcusable calumny to represent the whole Cowan Bridge institution generally characterised by a spirit of harsh and hateful tyranny, on account of the conduct of one teacher at one time. There is also an implied falsehood in representing Maria Bronte under the name of Helen Burns, as having died at the school at all—for she died at her own home, and it is a still further step in calumniating, to represent these things as in any way sanctioned or tolerated by Mr. Carus Wilson, as ‘Jane Eyre’ unquestionably does. Would Mrs. Gaskell, or did Charlotte Bronte, venture to assert, that Mr. Carus Wilson would permit a child to be treated as Helen Burns is represented to have been? or that he would have retained in the school any teacher who had been guilty of such injustice and cruelty ? If not Mrs. Gaskell is bound, in common justice, to clear him of such odious imputations. * * * *
“While on the subject, let me point out another gross misrepresentation, Mrs. Carus Wilson and her two daughters are professedly described in “Jane Eyre” as presenting, in their fashionable dress and appearance, a revolting contrast to the plainness enforced by their husband and father’s lectures in the schoolroom. It is a sufficient refutation of this disgraceful insinuation to state, that at the time C. Bronte was at Cowan Bridge, Mr. Carus Wilson’s eldest daughters were scarcely out of the nursery—not girls of 16 or 17—and could not, therefore, have furnished the originals of the two Misses Brocklehurst in “Jane Eyre.”
“From this one specimen of C. Bronte truthfulness, let the candid public judge of the value of her other caricatures of Cowan Bridge and its conductors.
“Mr. Nicholls is mistaken in supposing that the lady who wrote to Mrs. Gaskell is the same who is referred to by Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson. In short, the attacks made against the school, and Mr. Carus Wilson, both by C. Bronte and Mrs. Gaskell, are so full of misrepresentations and ignorant mistakes matters of fact, as to forfeit for the writers all reasonable claim to credit. Those who were either so ill informed, or ill disposed, deserve not even the indulgence accorded to involuntary error; for certainly they were in duty bound, before they undertook even the exposure of alleged facts by which any person’s character feelings might be wounded, to use the most scrupulous care in ascertaining, and fidelity in narrating them.
“I repeat, that these sweeping charges of habitual neglect, mismanagement, and harshness at the Cowan Bridge School, are wholly unsupported by fact and unworthy of credit. And as to the personal invectives in the ‘Life,’ against Mr. Carus Wilson himself, there is not even a single fact so much as specified in support of them. They are a tissue of falsehoods against a man wholly unknown to the calumniator.
“Instead of falsely accusing a good man, the charity which ‘covereth a multitude of sins’ might have suggested that it would be more Christian to pass over in silence even real inconsistencies, had they occurred, a reflection not perhaps unsuitable for one who has used such extraordinary freedom in criticising the Christian character of others, as Mrs. Gaskell has done in the ‘Life of Charlotte Bronte.”—I am, sir, yours truly,
“ H. Shepheard, M.A.,
“Incumbent of Casterton, and Chaplain and Secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School.
“Casterton, 28th May, 1857.”
A letter that appeared in the Westmorland Gazette of Saturday 30 May, 1857, is substantively the same as a letter that appeared in The Times of Wednesday 27 May, 1857.
The version in the Times begins as follows:
,Sir, -In a recent number of The Times prominent notice was taken of the Life of Charlotte Bronté, authoress of Jane Eyre, and the charges brought against the Cowen-bridge School and its founder, the Rev. W. Carus Wilson, were adopted and commented upon in your article as if they were true.
The same sense of justice and indignation against wrong which prompted your severe remarks on the supposed cruelties of the Cowen-bridge School will, I trust, engage you to give equal publicity to the following statements on the other side.
Trusting in the love of justice, May 1857
Westmorland Gazette - Saturday 30 May 1857
“JANE EYRE” AND “CHARLOTTE BRONTE”
To the Editor of the Westmorland Gazette.
Sr,— Prominent notice has been taken recently by the press of the “Life of Charlotte Bronte,” authoress of “ Jane Eyre,” and the charges brought against the Cowan Bridge School, and its founder the Rev. Wm. Carus Wilson, have been in some instances adopted and commented upon is if they were true.
I trust that a love of justice will engage you to give publicity to the following remarks on the other side.
I am willing to hope that neither Charlotte Bronte herself, nor her biographer, had any intention of injuring either the Clergy Daughters School or Mr. Carus Wilson. It is indeed, difficult to believe that these writers could be guilty of so wanton an attack upon public benevolence and private character. But the injury is not less real because it is undesigned. And it is only bare justice to this excellent institution and its benevolent founder that the false impressions created by these books should be counteracted by a contradiction as widely disseminated, if possible, as the calumnies themselves.
The charges made against Mr. Carus Wilson and the school either directly and by name, or by implication with the “ Lowood “ establishment in “Jane Eyre,” are chiefly these — That the pupils were half-starved, the food provided for them being bad and insufficient — that they were treated with habitual neglect and want of feeling — that the low fever which broke out among them caused principally by the bad food, and aggravated by the cruelty of those at the head of the establishment — that the two elder sisters of Charlotte Bronte sunk under this treatment, and that Charlotte Bronte herself suffered her whole life long in health from it – that Mr. Carus Wilson’s character was deformed by “spiritual pride,” “ want of tenderness,” and long list of other unsightly excrescences.
Now, Sir, in answer to all this, I am prepared to produce good evidence and proof, that in the whole mass of the foregoing charges there is not one word of truth. I am compelled by the force of testimony now in my possession to believe that the promulgator of such falsehoods has received her information from those who were either ignorant of the real facts, or disposed, from wrong motives, to distort and misrepresent them. The testimony I have myself been able to collect, respecting events which happened more than thirty years ago, is furnished by those who were inmates of the establishment before, during, and after, the residence of the little Brontes within its walls.
The account given by Charlotte Bronte’s biographer of the School and Mr. Carus Wilson is full of inaccuracies as to minor details of fact — not of much moment in themselves, but sufficient to show that her sources of information were not to be relied on. Whether the little Brontes were fit subjects for a school education is a different question altogether. The two younger children, Charlotte and Emily, “enjoyed uniformly good health” at Cowan Bridge. But Maria and Elizabeth, the former of whom is represented as the principal victim of the Cowan Bridge cruelties, in the character of “ Helen Burns,” were clearly not in a fit state of health to be sent to any school at all. They “ were not strong enough when they came, having only just recovered from a complication of measles and hooping-cough; indeed I suspect they had scarcely recovered,” &c. These are Mrs. Gaskell’s own words; and she informs us moreover, that their mother died of internal cancer. These two children died of consumption inherent in a diseased constitution; and who can wonder at such a result, with such a constitution, after reading Mrs. Gaskell’s own description of the potato diet of their own home — “the cold damp arising from the fag floors and passages” of Haworth Parsonage — the bleak moors, long winters, and bitter blasts of the rude climate, where, “often, on autumnal or winter nights, the four winds of heaven seemed to meet and rage together, tearing round the house as they were wild beasts striving find an entrance.” Let any reasonable man say whether Mrs. Gaskell has not herself here described disease and hardship enough in the comfortless and cheerless home of their infancy to account for the early death of these two poor children, without imputing blame to the Cowan Bridge authorities for neglect and cruelty.
The testimony of an eye witness that Charlotte and Emily “enjoyed uniformly good health “ the school, is a sufficient refutation of Mrs Gaskell’s statement that “ Charlotte suffered her whole life long, in heart and body, from the consequences of what happened there.”
It may, Sir, answer the purpose of novel writers and book makers to write pathetic descriptions of scenes of suffering, and pungent satires on personal character but if truth is disregarded, and charity forgotten, let them remember that “as a mad man casteth fire-brands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour and saith, I not in sport?”
As regards the diet at Cowen Bridge, it would be too much to expect that either in a public institution or even a private family, there should never be an instance of food being burnt or badly cooked. But here again I have the testimony of an eye-witness that “in this respect the institution in question compares very favorably with other and more expensive schools.”
But, Sir, there is another aspect of the affair. It is not only the actors and interests of thirty years ago that are touched by Mrs. Gaskell’s book.
The institution begun at Cowan Bridge has been carried on since 1833 at Casterton ; and (to borrow the words of a Preston paper) “ the vile attack made on the rev. gentleman (Mr. Carus Wilson) has reference to the Clergy Daughters’ Schools, and in consequence of what is said on the subject in the Bronte memoirs, some ignorant reviewers of the public press in London have arrived at the conclusion that at Cowan Bridge, or Casterton, “there exists,” as observes the Editor of the Lancaster Gazette, “a sort of Dotheboys’ Hall. In this neighbourhood, the interesting establishments alluded to are well known, and we can only smile at the verdancy of our London contemporaries,” &c. Now, Sir, in the Visitors’ Book of the Casterton School there appears the name of “ Mrs. Gaskell,” as having visited the institution in March, 1856. She was shewn over the whole house, saw the pupils, and expressed nothing but satisfaction. Would it not have been, then, an act of bare justice, as well as an ingenuous and graceful acknowledgment, on her part, to have inserted in her memoir a frank avowal, that whatever may have been the merits or demerits of the Cowan Bridge School of 1824, the Casterton School of 1856 presented before her own eyes a spectacle of health and comfort in the pupils, and a result of generous large hearted benevolence in the founder, such as might well bring upon him not calumny and vituperation, but blessings and gratitude? Such an avowal is indispensably required on Mrs. Gaskell’s part, if she desires to relieve herself from the charge of conduct which I not choose to characterize.
Her own mind evidently has its misgivings as to the truth of the alleged facts, even, of the Cowan Bridge story. She in effect admits that Charlotte Bronte’s own recollection of the facts was indistinct; falsified and exaggerated by her own vivid imagination. Let any candid person read the following extract from the Bronte memoir, and say whether it does not virtually surrender Mrs. Gaskell’s whole case. “I believe she herself (Charlotte) Bronte) would have been glad of an opportunity to correct the overstrong impression which was made upon the public by her vivid picture, though even she, suffering her whole life long, both in heart and body, from the consequences of what happened there, might have been apt, to the last, to take her deep belief in facts for the facts themselves — her conception of truth for the absolute truth,” (p. 64).
In plain English, Charlotte Bronte’s own account of Cowan Bridge is not to be trusted! And indeed how should it be so ? She wrote, after the lapse of twenty years, of what came under her notice at eight or nine years of age, and besides the misty dimness of recollections so distant, who does not know the microscopic effect upon the mind of a child, by which mole-hills are magnified into mountains, men into giants, and trifles into serious troubles ?
And yet, Sir, upon such dreamy recollections and self-condemned fictions, Charlotte Bronte’s biographer has ventured to hold up to public execration an admirable institution ; and to vilify a great and good man, whose whole life, now verging towards three-score years and ten, has been one continuous refutation of such slanders, by the single-minded and self-denying devotedness, remarkable even in these days of active benevolence, with which he has lived for one sole object, the good of his fellow creatures!
The Clergy Daughters’ School is a public institution, open to public inspection; and all who desire to know the truth are invited, as the best possible test, to visit the school itself; their horrors of starvation will be pleasantly dissipated by a burst of merriment from a hundred round and rosy cheeked girls, and their better feelings, I trust, raised in thankfulness to Him “from whom all good counsels and all just works do proceed,” while they gaze upon the fruits of Mr. Carus Wilson’s faithful labours, and hear of the love and veneration felt for one whose name will be remembered with gratitude by children’s children, long after his calumniators are forgotten.
As regards the fever which broke out in the school, I have evidence that it existed in the village at the same time; it may therefore very probably have been communicated to the school by infection; at any rate, the fact destroys Mrs. Gaskell’s assumption that it was caused by the bad food of the institution. And the same witness, an inmate of the school during the fever, and one who remembers the little Brontes there, can testify that so far from the fever being “aggravated by the cruelty” of the managers, every possible care was taken of the invalids; wine, and everything else recommended by the medical attendant, were liberally supplied, and not one child was attacked who did not recover. The only “ cruelty” connected with the event is the cruelty of imputing unfeeling conduct those who were doing their best to alleviate a prudential visitation, and who were spending and being in a great and benevolent and arduous undertaking for the good of others.
It will not do, Sir, for bookmakers to Seize upon the characters of public institutions or private persons as so , much literary capital —
“ To point a moral, or adorn a tale.”
The claim of character be respected is a sacred right; and the disregard of it (to use the forcible words of the Times on another point) is “a species of criminality which is shamefully neglected in the statutes of the realm.” Mr. Carus Wilson, indeed, can well afford a smile of pity for his assailants; and will, I am sure, desire no other revenge upon them than to return them good for evil and blessing for railing. It would occupy too much of your space to answer all Mrs. Gaskell’s opprobrious remarks in detail; though I have the means of disproving, point by point, more than one of her alleged facts; but I will conclude these observations with an extract from a letter lately received from a former of Cowan Bridge, as a testimony to the general character both of Mr. Wilson and the school:
“ On leaving school I was questioned the subject by friends — one of whom has lately said that my testimony at that time was what it is now — that the bread, milk, meat, vegetables, &c, were of the best quality, and that we always had as much as we wished for. Whilst at school I do not think I ever heard any complaints about the diet amongst the girls. I must say that nothing could exceed the care and kindness which watched over us; the wants of each individual child were attended to; the slightest ailment or indisposition was brought under the particular notice of the superintendent, and was sure to receive every attention. Whilst I was at Cowan Bridge no sick child could have been treated as Maria Bronte is said to have been, by a teacher, &c. They (the teachers) were, as a body, animated by a high sense of responsibility joined to a feeling of affectionate interest the girls, generally speaking.
“I cannot express the indignation with which I have read the character of Mr. Wilson as described by Mrs. Gaskell. It is very plain that she never knew him, or she never could have spoken of him in such terms.
“ Oh no I never saw in Mr. Wilson ‘ spiritual pride,’ ‘ love of power,’ or ‘ want of tenderness,’ in his treatment of us.
“ It would be a great comfort to me if I could do anything to clear the school and its generous founder from the calumnies published against them by one who never knew either.”
The writer of this letter allows me to publish her name, if necessary. She is one whose name would add weight to her testimony— and whose worth would be attested by high and noble witnesses. I could add abundance more of extracts, did space permit; but I hope enough has been said to throw light upon the real nature of the case. The public will form their own opinion both of Mr. Wilson and his assailants.
I am, Sir, truly yours,
Henry Shepheard, M.A.,
Late Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford; Incumbent of Casterton, and Chaplain and Secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School.
Casterton, 26th May, 1857.
Mr Nicholls Responds Again#
Back in Haworth, Mr Nicholls had responded to W. W. Carus Wilson’s letter in the Leeds Intelligencer of Saturday 30 May 1857.
All was perfection at Cowan Bridge, but…, June 1857
Leeds Mercury - Tuesday 02 June 1857
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITORS OF THE LEEDS MERCURY.
GENTLEMEN,— Will you kindly allow me to thank Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson for his last letter?
In his former statement all was perfection at Cowan Bridge; now we have the following points admitted:— That “during the spring of 1825 there prevailed a low fever, although not an alarming one” (what would alarm Mr. W. if the illness of about forty girls failed to produce that effect?); that “ the doctor rather scornfully condemned” the girls’ food; that “the servants thoughtlessly spoiled” it; that there were “privations;” that the schools were removed to a new situation—from. what cause Mr Wilson does not say.
But mark how easily Mr. Wilson disposes of any adverse testimony: “If there are any besides, perhaps a dismissed pupil or teacher.”
Even at the risk of incurring such a summary dismissal, I cannot forbear giving him the following extract from a letter, which I have received from a former pupil at Cowan Bridge: merely premising that I fear it will tax even his ingenuity to rank the lady under either category:—
“ On first reading ‘Jane Eyre,’ several years ago, I recognised immediately the picture there drawn, and was far from considering it in any way exaggerated: in fact, I thought at the time, and still think, the matter rather understated than otherwise. I suffered so severely from the treatment that, I was never in the school-room during the last three months I was there, until about a week before I left; and was considered to be far gone in a consumption. My mother (whose only child I was) was never informed of my illness, and I might certainly have died there without her being informed of it, had not a severe illness of her own caused her hastily to summon me home. She was so shocked at my appearance that she refused to allow me to return, though pressed to do so. It was some time before my constitution recovered the blow it then received. I attributed my illness to the unhealthy situation of the school, the long walks to church in bad weather (for in winter our feet were often wet during the whole of the service), and the scanty and ill-prepared food. The housekeeper was very dirty with the cooking—I have frequently seen grease swimming on the milk and water we had for breakfast, in consequence of its having been boiled in a greasy copper; and I perfectly remember having once been sent for a cup of tea for a teacher who was ill in bed, and no teaspoon being at hand, the housekeeper stirred it with her finger—she being engaged in cutting raw meat at the time. Our food was almost always badly cooked and besides that, we certainly had not enough of it, whatever may be said to the contrary. * * * In a word, the system at Cowan Bridge was a very harsh one, and I was very glad to hear that an improvement took place after the School was removed to Casterton, for it was much needed. I had no knowledge whatever of Mrs. Nicholls personally, and therefore my statement may fairly be considered an impartial one. You are quite welcome to make what use you think proper of this letter.”
If Mr. Wilson’s friends had confined themselves to a legitimate review of Mrs. Gaskell’s work, I should never have written a line on this subject ; but when they attacked the dead, and adopted the questionable course of disseminating their vile slander anonymously through the post-office (actually sending a copy to Mr. Brontë), I should, indeed, have been inexcusable if I had allowed their assertions to pass unchallenged .
Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson published a refutation, as he calls it; I have shown that it was nothing of the sort. To bandy further statements with him I have neither time nor inclination ; besides, I am quite sure that both you and your readers would soon be as tired of us and our discussion as the poor girls were of their burnt porridge with “mixture as before.”
Apologising for again trespassing on your valuable space,
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,
A. B. NICHOLLS.
Haworth Parsonage, May 29th, 1857.
Much the same letter, though with a slightly different opening, also appears in the Leeds Intelligencer and the Leeds Times.
A careful ommission of the negatives, June 1857
Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 06 June 1857
CHARLOTTE BRONTE. TO THE EDITOR OF THE INTELLIGENCER.
Sir,— I was aware that the reviewer had expressed the wish referred to by Mr. Wilson; and I now see that, while inserting all that was favourable to management at the school, he carefully omitted whatever was told against it.
Let me, however, thank Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson for his last letter. In his former communications to you all was perfection at Cowan Bridge, now have the following points admitted: —That during …
…
P.S. Will Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson give the maiden name of the superintendent who “married the head of a college in America”? For, if she is, as I suspect, most intimately acquainted with the “Miss Scatcherd” of “Jane Eyre,” there is a strong reason why she should wish to disparage the testimony of the avenging sister of “Helen Burns” (Maria Bronte), who was so cruelly treated by the amiable lady.
To the Editor of the Leeds Times, June 1857
Leeds Times - Saturday 06 June 1857
CORRESPONDENCE. CHARLOTTE BRONTE.
To the Editor of the Leeds Times.
Sir,—Will you kindly allow me to thank Mr. W. W. Carus Wilson for his last letter ? In his former statement all was perfection at Cowan Bridge : now we have the following points admitted: — That “ during…
The version in the Leeds Intelligencer of Saturday 06 June 1857 is immediately followed on the printed page by the letter from W. W. Carus Wilson that appeared in the Leeds Mercury of Thursday 28 May 1857.
This is turn is followed directly on the page by a fragment of the Henry Shepheard letter that appeared in The Times and that was reporinted in the Westmoreland Gazette.
Charlotte Bronte’s own account of Cowanbridge is not to be trusted, June 1857
Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 06 June 1857
A long letter, in defence of the Clergy Daughters’ School and Mr. Carus Wilson, from the allegations made by C. Bronte, and repeated by Mrs. Gaskill, appeared in The Times on Wednesday. It was signed H. Shepheard, M. A., late Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford, incumbent of Casterton, and Chaplain and Secretary of the Clergy Daughters’ School, and dated Casterton, May 25. It concluded as follows:—
In plain English, Charlotte Bronte’s own account of Cowanbridge is not to be trusted: and, indeed, how should it be so? She wrote, after the lapse of 20 years, of what came under her notice at eight or nine years of age, and, besides the misty dimness of recollections so distant, who does not know the microscopic effect upon the mind of a child, by which molehills are magnified into mountains, men into giants, and trifles into serious troubles?
And yet, Sir, upon such dreamy recollections and self-condemned fictions Charlotte Bronte’s biographer has ventured to hold up to public execration an admirable institution, and to vilify a great and good man, whose whole life, now verging towards three score years and ten, has been one continuous refutation of such slanders, the single-minded and self-denying devotedness, remarkable even in these days of active benevolence, with which he has lived for one sole object—the good of his fellow-creatures!
The Clergy Daughters’ School is a public institution, open to public inspection; and all who desire to know the truth are invited, as the best possible test, to visit the school itself; the horrors of starvation will be pleasantly dissipated by a burst of merriment from 100 round and rosy-cheeked girls, and their better feelings, I trust, raised in thankfulness to Him “ from whom all good counsels and all just works do proceed,” while they gaze upon the fruits of Mr. Carus Wilson’s faithful labours, and bear the love and veneration felt for one whose name will be remembered with gratitude by children’s children, long alter his calumniators are forgotten.
As regards the fever which broke out in the school, I have evidence that it existed in the village at the same time, and may, therefore, very probably have been communicated to the school by infection ; at any rate, the fact destroys Mrs. Gaskell’s assumption that it was caused by the bad food of the institution. And the same witness, an inmate of the school during the fever, and one who remembers the little Brontes there, can testify that, so far from the fever being “ aggravated by the cruelty” of the managers, every possible care was taken of the invalids; wine and everything else recommended by the medical attendant, were liberally supplied, and not one child was attacked who did not recover. The only “ cruelty” connected with the event is the cruelty of imputing unfeeling conduct to those who were doing their best to alleviate a Providential visitation, and who were spending and being spent in a great and benevolent and arduous undertaking for the good of others.
It will not do, sir, for bookmakers to seize upon the characters of public institutions or private persons as so much literary capital “To point a moral adorn a tale.” The claim of character to be respected is a sacred right; and the disregard of it (to use your own forcible words) is “a species of criminality which is shamefully neglected in the statutes of the realm.” Mr. Carus Wilson, indeed, can well afford smile of pity for his assailants, and will, I am sure, desire no other revenge upon them than to return them good for evil and blessing for railing. It would occupy too much of your space to answer all Mrs. Gaskell’s opprobrious remarks in detail, though I have the means of disproving, point by point, more than one of her alleged facts; but I will conclude these observations with an extract from a letter lately received from a former pupil of Cowan-bridge, as a testimony to the general character both of Mr. Wilson and the school:—
On leaving school I was questioned on the subject by friends, one of whom has lately said that my testimony at that time was, what it is now, that the bread, milk, meat, vegetables, &c., were of the best quality, and that we always had as much as we wished for.’ While at school I do not think I ever heard any complaints about the diet among the girls. I must say that nothing could exceed the care and kindness which watched over us ; the wants of each individual child were attended to; the slightest ailment or indisposition was brought under the particular notice of the superintendent, and was sure to receive every attention. While I was at Cowan-bridge no sick child could have been treated as Maria Bronte is said to have been by a teacher, &c. They (the teachers) were, as a body, animated by a high sense of responsibility, joined to a feeling of affectionate interest in the girls, generally speaking.
“I cannot express the indignation with which I have read the character of Mr. Wilson, described by Mrs. Gaskell. It is very plain that she never knew him, or she never could have spoken of him in such terms. … Oh, no; I never saw in Mr. Wilson ‘spiritual pride,’’ love of power,’ or ‘want of tenderness’ in his treatment of us. He never wounded our feelings by any illusion to our dependent position ; this is altogether a false representation of his conduct towards us. … It would be a great comfort to me if I could anything to clear the school and its generous founder of the calumnies published against them by one who never knew either.”
The writer of this letter allows me to publish her name if necessary. She is one whose name would add weight to her testimony, and whose worth would be attested by high and noble witnesses. I could add abundance more of extracts, did space permit; but I hope enough has been said to throw light upon the real nature of the case. The public will their opinion both of Mr. Wilson and his assailants.
As well as the main players in the debate, minor other communications also appeared. In the following example, I’m not sure where the letter from “A Lover of Truth” can be found?
A letter of support, June 1857
Leeds Intelligencer - Saturday 13 June 1857
CHARLOTTE BRONTE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INTELLIGENCER.
Sir,—The lady who signs herself “ A Lover of Truth” in the letter referring to the Cowen Bridge School has, I think, mistaken the purport of the refutation in your paper from the Rev. H. Shepheard and Mr. W. Carus Wilson. If Mrs. Gaskill had simply stated in her “Life” that for two or three weeks there was once a cook at Cowen Bridge who occasionally spoiled porridge, and that she was very soon dismissed, instead of giving the public the impression that the pupils were “half starved,” “ cruelly treated,” and Mr. Carus Wilson “proud” and “unfeeling,” “ inconsistent,” &c., there would have been no need for any defence. In common with other warmly attached pupils I can bear testimony to the practical kindness of Mr. Wilson’s conduct, and to the kindness of the teachers as well as to the comfort and happiness all experienced there.—Yours truly,
A Cowen Bridge Pupil in the early Years of the School.
P.S.—I enclose my card, with full name and address.
[We hope that this letter will close all correspondence the subject.—Editor.]
A few days later, a widely syndicated note remarks that the Rev. W Carus Wilson has published his own refutation. This appears to contain at least the letters that had appeared to date in the correspondence debate between his son, W. W. Carus Wilson, Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Shepheard.
A “Refutation of the Statements”, June 1857
Liverpool Daily Post - Thursday 11 June 1857
Also in The Halesworth Times and East Suffolk Advertiser. - Tuesday 16 June 1857 and many other publications.
We observe the Rev. W. Carus Wilson has published a “Refutation of the Statements in the Life of a Charlotte Bronté regarding the Casterton Clergy Daughters’ School.” The pamphlet contains, among other matter, the letter which have appeared in the Examiner and Times from the pens of Mr, Wilson, Mr. Nicholls, and Mr. Shepherd.
A second pamphlet, signed on by Mr. Shepheard, also collates much of the material that appeared in the newspaper correspondence, as well as copies of several letters in support of the school.
A Vindication …, June 16th, 1857
A Vindication of the Clergy Daughters’ School: And of the Rev. W. Carus Wilson, from the Remarks in “The Life of Charlotte Brontë.”, Henry Shepheard, 1857.
See a transcript of this publication in the appendix.
Mrs. Gaskill Recants#
As well as engaging in a public debate, it seems that W. W. Carus Wilson had also been in correspondence with Mrs. Gaskill directly. And that Mrs. Gaskill appears to have agreed to revise her “Life” as a consequence.
Rectifying the injury, July 1857
Manchester Daily Examiner & Times - Monday 13 July 1857
THE CHARLOTTE BRONTE CONTROVERSY:—
To the Editor of the Examiner and Times.
Sir,— In answer to the most just suggestion of “A Railway Auditor”, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say, the in a correspondence I have had with Mrs. Gaskell, I have found her most willing to rectify the injury she hes done my father sad his institutions; and her third edition will be a work I believe which none can cavil at, but all extol. I gladly do her this justice in saying that I am sure she is only anxious to elicit truth. In her “Life” your readers will remember that “Mellany Hayne” is mentioned as the “great friend’ of C. Bronte, at Cowan Bridge. Her brother, Mr. Haynes*, the incumbent of Sydenham, and his wife, say that they never heard their sister, who is now in Nova Scotia, speak otherwise than in the highest terms of the school and my father. Then the “Miss Temple,” so eulogised in “Jane Eyre,” by C. Bronte, died last year, but her husband, a clergyman, thus writes: “Often have I heard my late dear wife speak of her sojourn at Cowan Bridge, always in admiration of Mr. Carus Wilson’s parental kindness to the pupils and their Love for him,—of the food and general treatment of the children in terms of approvaL I have heard her allude to some unfortunate cook, who used sometimes to spoil the porridge, but who, she said, was very soon dismissed.”
I think the whole of this controversy is solved in the above testimony. I may add, shortly after C. Bronte had been at Cowan Bridge, the late Bishop of London visited the school, with Mrs. Blomfield; and after an examination of the classes, and a careful inspection of the whole establishment, observed to mu father, “ That if it should please God to deprive his daughters their parents he no institution where he could more desire them to be placed.”
This is a sufficient answer to the asserted miseries and cruelties at Cowan Bridge, as well as the shame some few pupils have felt in after life, I believe, at having been at a charitable establishment, and who have supplied Mrs. Gaskell with statements which have been contradicted by a vast majority of other pupils.—I am, &c,
Weston-Super-Mare. W. W. Carus Wilson.
A review of the third edition in September 1857 appears to have allayed many of the earlier concerns.
Revised and corrected, free from all mistakes and personalities, September 1857
Weston-super-Mare Gazette, and General Advertiser - Saturday 26 September 1857
THIRD EDITION OF THE LIFE OF CHARLOTTE BRONTE.
From the Preston Herald, Sept. 19.
We see that Smith, Elder, and Co., have advertised the above as now ready. We trust that Mrs. Gaskell has presented the public with a memoir of the talented authoress of “Jane Eyre” free from all mistakes and personalities; as the advertisement says it is revised and corrected. Few works have called forth such comments and controversy. Mr. Carus Wilson and his institutions have not been the only victims of misrepresentations. Mr. Bronte and his son have both been maligned. Mr. Dearden, of Bradford, in a letter written lately to the Daily News, contradicts on the authority of servants who were in the Bronte family, all the remarks Mrs. Gaskell has made on Mr. Bronte ; indeed Mr. Dearden gives statements from Mr. Bronte himself contradicting them. As regards the view given to the public of Miss Martineau. her quarrel is evidently with C. Bronte, for in her letter to the Daily News, Aug. 24th, she says—
“When I find that in my own case scarcely one of Miss Bronte’s statements about me is altogether true, I cannot be surprised at her biographer having misled in other cases.”
Mrs. Gaskell’s task has doubtless been a difficult one, and C. Bronte’s system of exaggeration made it the more so. In the Edinburgh Review, for last July, the following sentence occurs:—
The observations are addressed to the misrepresentations and exaggerations of modern novelties, who in their descriptions of public institutions have not always respected the domain of private charity. The description of Lowwood, in “Jane Eyre” is evidently the result of a morbid impression on the mind of a highly sensitive child of nine, but it is due the estimable persons who were connected with it to state that the frightful charges brought against it by C. Bronte are denied; and the charitable designs of its founder have not been perverted in the way she has led her readers to believe. Again, we are assured persons who received their education at the school in Brussels, that nothing can be more unjust than the aspersions she has thrown in ‘ Villette’ on that establishment, and the excellent persons who managed it. If the habits of social intercourse, if personal peculiarities, and even the arrangements of charitable institutions are to be exhibited to the world in the colors of an auto-de-fé, the novelists will become a pest to society, and will degrade their talents as some have done to the service of malignant passions, calumny, and falsehood.”
In the British Quarterly, of last July, we read —
“ Much has been said about the school at Cowen Bridge, much we think unfair; it has scarcely deserved the bitter things said both of it and its founder.”
Then in the National Review, tor the same month, we also read—
“Of what strong, it is not too much to say, rash and inconsiderate assertions Miss Bronte was capable of, may be judged from a letter she wrote in 1848, giving an account of the school expressly for the purpose of a lady who proposed sending a pupil there. Speaking of it as it was at the time from which her experience dated, she says— ‘The establishment was at that time in its infancy, and a sad ricketty infancy it was. Typhus dever decimated the school periodically, and consumption and scrofulain every variety, bad air and water, bad diet preyed on the ill-fated pupils.’ This is a description of a lazar-house. Mrs. Gaskell speaks only of one fever, and distinctly states only one pupil died, and that after he removal home.”
We could give more extracts out of other Reviews, all proving how a corrected memoir was needed. We think the husband C. Bronte would have shown more regard for her memory if he had kept aloof from the controversy; he has only her word to go on, and she left Cowen Bridge when quite a child. At all events he would have made a better use of his pen if he had cleared up the impression Mrs Gaskell has given of him to the public ; he has been victimised also. We quote out of Blackwood’s Magazine, for July:—
“Either from intention or through a most awkward arrangement of dates, and letters, and names, she (Mrs. Gaskell) quietly forces the reader to the conclusion, that the novelists [sic] finally accepted as her husband, the curate whom in ‘Shirley’ she had written down as the greatest ass imaginable.”
Many years later, we hear the last traces of any orally communicated tales that might have been told of Charlotte’s time in Kirby Lonsdale, whether as a pupil or on visits back there in later years.
A lady of 80, October 1912
Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer - Wednesday 16 October 1912
CHARLOTTE BRONTE AND SILVERDALE (FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
In one of the local guides to Silverdale we are informed that “Charlotte Bronte was educated at Casterton, not very far away, and when fever broke out she was sent to ‘ The Cove,’ where an apartment is still known as ‘The Bronte Room.’ “ This statement contains one glaring inaccuracy, for Charlotte Bronte was not educated at Casterton The Clergy Daughters’ School now at Casterton, was in her day at Cowan Bridge, and she left before its locality was changed. Readers of “Jane Eyre “ can never forget her pictures of the life at Cowan Bridge school, and her presentation its founder, the Rev. William Carus Wilson as Mr. Brocklehurst. One of Wilson’s houses was that now known as Cove House. Silverdale, but it does not seem at all likely that Charlotte would be invited there as a guest, and none of her biographers allude to any temporary removal from Cowan Bridge. Yet the tradition is very persistent, and there is certainly a “ Bronte Room “ in The Cove, and it is in the older part of the house. Mr. Wilson built the former church at Silverdale in 1829, and the present vicarage in 1837. In 1893 there was resident in Silverdale a lady of 80, who had been a teacher at Casterton, and did not think the imaginary Brocklehurst was too severe a picture of the real Carus Wilson. This lady mentioned the stay of Charlotte Bronte at The Cove as a matter within her knowledge, although it had happened before her connection with the school. It is, of course, possible that when the fever broke out at Cowan Bridge some of the children who had not been attacked were taken to The Cove as a place of safety. Charlotte cannot have been removed there for convalescence, none of the Brontes had the fever. Such is Mrs. Gaskell’s explicit statement.
Having been recently in Silverdale, I have tried to ascertain the foundation for the local tradition. The result is not entirely satisfactory, as direct evidence, yet it is not easy to disbelieve it entirely.
Certainly one would like think that at lovely Silverdale, with its wealth of woods, and its sea breezes, Charlotte Bronte may have found some compensation for the discomforts, physical and moral, of her dreary school days at Cowan Bridge.