A Vindication of the Clergy Daughters’ School

The pamphlet repeats many of the communications that appeared in the press in defence of the school and of W. Carus Wilson, but also includes other examples of supportive letters.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=57xcAAAAcAAJ 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

A VINDICATION OF THE CLERGY DAUGHTERS’ SCHOOL, AND OF THE REV. W. CARUS WILSON, FROM THE REMARKS IN “ THE LIFE OF CHARLOTTE BRONTË.”

BY THE REV. H. SHEPHEARD, M.A., INCUMBENT OF CASTERTON, HON. CHAPLAIN AND HON. SECRETARY OF THE CLERGY DAUGHTERS’ SCHOOL, LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD.

KIRKBY LONSDALE : PUBLISHED BY ROBERT MORPHET, PRINTER ; AND BY SEELEY, JACKSON AND HALLIDAY, 54, FLEET STREET,LONDON.

1857

A VINDICATION, &c.

THE following pages are rendered necessary by the fact, that falsehood uncontradicted often comes to be taken for truth. There is also a greater readiness in human nature to credit calumny than to be at the pains of inquiring into the grounds of it . The cause of this is, that evil is predominant in the world. Experience makes people distrustful of the purity of other men’s motives, and too ready to receive an unfavourable impression.

That all these causes have combined to give wings to the recent slanderous reports against the Clergy Daughters’ School and its excellent and benevolent Founder, there can be little doubt. The following simple statement of facts and their legitimate inferences has been drawn up for the purpose of satisfying all impartial readers, that the charges made against the School and its Founder are erroneous and unjust ; and thereby vindicating the character of a good and noble-minded man, and preventing the injury likely to fall upon a valuable Institution from uncontradicted calumny.

No vindication is required by those who know the facts of the case, or are personally acquainted with Mr. Carus Wilson. But even the friends of truth and charity, if living at a distance, may have been for a moment startled by the misstatements which have been so widely circulated. And it is chiefly for the sake of such that these pages are written; while those who have been witnesses of Mr. Carus Wilson’s life-long works of faith and labours of love will cordially sympathize and rejoice.

Our business here is chiefly with facts. I may, however, be permitted to question the good taste and charity of heading a page full of calumnies, with such a title as “Character of Carus Wilson. “ It avails nothing against such discourtesy and injustice that Mrs. Gaskell occasionally speaks of Mr. Carus Wilson with commendation and sympathy, and regret on account of the supposed annoyance caused him by recent reports. She has herself renewed whatever was injurious to him in the novel of “ Jane Eyre” : the obloquy raised by that publication had long since died away, and would have lain buried in oblivion had not Mrs. Gaskell revived it. The caricature of the Cowen Bridge School, under the name of “ Lowood, “ had even not been recognized as an intended portrait by many readers who knew the School ; but is now avowed and re-published by Mrs. Gaskell, with large additions, and all the seriousness of a professed record of facts.

I do not mean to impute to Mrs. Gaskell, or to Charlotte Bronté, any direct intention to injure the Clergy Daughters’ School. Miss Bronté appears to have viewed the scenes of her early childhood at Cowen Bridge, remembered at the dim distance of more than 20 years, through the glass of her own vivid imagination, and certainly under the colouring of prejudice. Nor can she, I think, be exonerated from the charge of a libellous infringement upon the sacredness of personal character, when drawing a picture which was really intended for a portrait, while it had in it all the distortions of a caricature.

Mrs. Gaskell has still the opportunity of clearing herself by a frank and full disavowal of wrong intention, and by retracting her misrepresentations of Mr. Carus Wilson and the school— misrepresentations which would probably lay her open to an action at law.

It is now acknowledged that the “ Lowood” school in “ Jane Eyre” was intended by Miss Bronté as, in general, a portrait of the Clergy Daughters’ School, as first established by Mr. Carus Wilson, at Cowen Bridge ; that “ Helen Burns” meant Maria Bronté, and Miss Scatcherd” one of the teachers, whom Mrs. Gaskell has been prudent enough to decline identifying; the “ Rev. Mr. Brocklehurst” being, of course, Mr. Carus Wilson himself.

The impression made upon the public mind by “Jane Eyre” and Mrs. Gaskell’s book together is, that the children at the Cowen Bridge School were half-starved, their food being generally bad and insufficient ; that their treatment was habitually unfeeling and tyrannical ; that the low fever which visited the school was caused principally by bad food, and aggravated by the cruelty of those at the head of the establishment ; that the two elder sisters of Charlotte Bronté sunk under ill-treatment, and that Charlotte herself suffered her whole life long in health from it ; that Mr. Carus Wilson’s character was deformed by spiritual pride, love of power, want of tenderness, injudicious and almost fanatical severity, and a long list of other odious qualities.

And this character is supposed in many quarters to have continued in the school ; so that, “in consequence of what is said on the subject, some ignorant reviewers of the London press have arrived at the conclusion that at Cowen Bridge, or Casterton, a sort of Do-the-boys Hall exists. In this neighbourhood the interesting institutions alluded to are well known, and we can only smile at the verdancy of our London contemporaries ; but it is rather hard on Mr. Wilson, whose reputation is an affair of public, we might say, national interest, that his good name should be introduced in other parts of the country under circumstances so prejudicial.” — (Lancaster Gazette. ) So wide and strong has been the current of popular feeling against the Clergy Daughters’ School, in consequence of Mrs. Gaskell’s publication, that journals and periodicals of the character of The Times, Examiner, Daily News, Athenæum, Critic, and Literary Gazette have joined in the outcry against the imaginary Do-the-Boys Hall.

Hatred of oppression, and promptness to take up the cause of those who suffer wrong, are strong features in the English character ; the very force of which makes our countrymen liable to be misled by false alarms. It will be seen that while Mrs. Gaskell has been presenting herself as a champion of the innocent victims of Mr. Carus Wilson’s supposed cruelty, she has herself stood in need of a counsellor to remind her that, “ As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, ‘Am not I in sport?’” [While I write, there appears in the "Times" Mrs. Gaskell's public retractation and apology, demanded by the solicitor of a certain lady for a libel upon her character in ch. 13, vol . I. , and ch. 2 , vol. II. , of the Life of Charlotte Bront ,' Candid persons will form their own judgment, from this, of the value of Mrs. Gaskell's other statements,]

With what justice any charges have been brought against the school or its founder is the question now to be examined.

It is important to observe, at the outset, that all that has been said against the school, either by Miss Bronté or Mrs. Gaskell, refers to the first few months of its existence.

For it was during those months only that Charlotte Bronté and her sisters were at Cowen Bridge. And any candid and careful reader of Mrs. Gaskell’s book will perceive that she herself finds no fault except in reference to that short time -when the school was in its infancy, scarcely organised, and without the full advantage of arrangements such as Mr. Carus Wilson was able afterwards to make.

It is but fair to Mrs. Gaskell, as well as to the school and Mr. Carus Wilson, that this point should be well understood. And I gladly give Mrs. Gaskell credit for all the admissions she has made favourable to Mr. Carus Wilson’s conduct. She allows that the complaints of bad food were chiefly owing to “the bad management of a cook, “ who was speedily dismissed ; and that “henceforward the food was so well prepared that no one could ever reasonably complain of it. “ And that “ there does not appear to have been any parsimony” at any time. That at one only, out of four daily meals, was there any limitation, namely, in the evening ; that the dietary, as shown in manuscript, was neither bad nor unwholesome, nor, on the whole, wanting in variety ;” and that “ Mr. Wilson himself ordered in the food, and was anxious that it should be of good quality “ that, during the fever, “ Mr. Wilson supplied everything ordered by the doctors, of the best quality, and in the most liberal manner.” She speaks of his “perpetual sacrifices of time and money” to the school ; of what was “ noble and conscientious” in his character ; of the “ great amount of good which he did by his constant, unwearied superintendence.”

And if the rest of Mrs. Gaskell’s statements had been consistent with these, there would have been no vituperation and no cause of complaint. But these admissions, as far as they go, are contradictions of what she has elsewhere asserted, or implied, or left to be tacitly inferred. They are irreconcileable with the ideas conveyed by “ Jane Eyre,” yet Mrs. Gaskell has not, so far as I am aware, in any way discredited Miss Bronte’s book. They are, moreover, admissions which ought to have led her to see that the man who had in his character so much that was “ noble, conscientious,” generous, and self-denying, could not have been the proud, overbearing, irritating, and unfeeling person which she partly asserts, and partly implies, that he was. The same principles which could alone inspire the noble qualities must have corrected the others.

The charges brought against the Cowen Bridge School concerning bad food, exposure, neglect, and cruel treatment by teachers, all rest upon either the recollections of Miss Bronté herself, or anonymous informants.

With respect to the latter sources of information, it is only right that Mrs. Gaskell should authenticate her statements by giving the names of her informants. Anonymous accusations are stabs in the dark. They are both doubtful, and discreditable to any cause. They cannot be admitted in a fair inquiry ; nor will they carry weight with persons of candid mind. One of the worst features attributed to the school by Mrs. Gaskell herself is the cruelty imputed to a teacher represented as “ Miss Scatcherd” in the novel. But she does not let us know who was the witness of the unfeeling acts described. Nor does she assure us that these acts were not habitual or frequent, nor that they were committed without Mr. Carus Wilson’s sanction or knowledge. Nor does she tell us who “ Miss Scatcherd” was meant to represent. Without these authentications and explanations, her statement is wanting in that openness and plain dealing, which are the necessary credentials of truth.

Then, with respect to the former source, Miss Bronté’s own recollections—the “ English Churchman” (a journal opposed to Mr. Carus Wilson’s theological principles) has the following candid and just remarks :— “It must be borne in mind that although ‘Jane Eyre’ was written in maturer years, those parts which relate to Mr. Wilson’s school were founded entirely upon impressions received when the authoress was under 10” (under 9) “ years of age, and not committed to paper for several (22) years ; and precocious as she and her sisters were, we must not place entire reliance upon the impressions of school-life at such an age.”—(English Churchman, May 28, 1857. ) This is fair and candid : so much so, that Mrs. Gaskell would have done well to pause before she endorsed and amplified any charges against the Cowen Bridge School or its founder, made upon so slender a foundation. Probably few persons can trust their recollection, after the lapse of twenty years, of any events which came under their notice at 8 or 9 years of age. But to attack the character of a benevolent man and a valuable institution on such grounds, is as contrary to common sense as to charity.

Mrs. Gaskell is so incorrect in some of her statements as to matters of fact, that one stands in doubt how she can have been so misinformed on a subject which she professes to have investigated .

She states, for example, that “ Mr. Wilson was a wealthy clergyman .’ No one could have written this otherwise than by guess. Those who knew Mr. Carus Wilson as a young man, or even, as I did myself, twenty years ago, would bear witness to the remarkable simplicity and economy of all his habits and household ; and those who were acquainted with his circumstances would know that Mrs. Gaskell’s description did not apply to him.

Again, she says, “ Mr. Wilson opened the school with from 70 to 80 pupils, as far as I can make out.” The real number was sixteen ! as appears from the school books. The whole number admitted during the first eighteen months, up to the time when Charlotte Bronté left the school, was 53. It would be well if Mrs. Gaskell had been more careful in making out facts, both here and in matters of greater moment. It is well known that she made a visit, before her book was published, to the scenes of the Cowen Bridge and Casterton Schools, and that she took pains to collect information ; yet such were the sources from which she obtained it, that she could “ make out” that the school was opened with five times its real number of pupils !

Once more—either through want of information, or through negligence (a serious fault, when character is attacked), Mrs. Gaskell has failed to correct a misrepresentation in “Jane Eyre,” which conveys an unfounded and injurious insinuation. Mr. Carus Wilson’s wife and daughters are described, under the names of “ Mrs. and the Misses Brocklehurst,” as presenting a striking contrast in dress and fashionable appearance to the rigid plainness enforced by the lectures in the school-room. Now, at the time when Charlotte Bronté was at Cowen Bridge, Mr. Carus Wilson’s oldest children were hardly out of the nursery, and could not, therefore, have furnished the originals of the “ Misses Brocklehurst,” — “ fine girls of 16 or 17,” with their “ hats” and “ feathers” and “ profusion of curls.” The animus of this misrepresentation need not be pointed out.

Mrs. Gaskell does not seem to be aware that the fever which broke out in the school was already in the village, and may, therefore, probably have been carried into the school by infection, and not originated there by bad food, as she asserts (p. 76), but has omitted to show.

Nor is there any ground for attributing the fever to “ the unhealthiness of the school. “ Mrs. Gaskell herself seems to concur in this opinion, for she says, — “ I can hardly understand how the school came to be so unhealthy ; the air all round about was so sweet and thyme-scented when I visited it last summer” (p. 67). That the situation of Cowen Bridge is not unhealthy, but well adapted for a public institution, I have the testimony of the medical man who has attended the village there for many years past. And any one can satisfy himself, by a visit to the spot, that the country round, especially towards Tunstall (complained of as unsheltered,” p. 72), is beautiful and salubrious, sheltered, as the whole of that part of the vale of Lune is, from the east winds by high mountains, and not particularly open or exposed in any other direction.

And was it for want of correct information that Mrs. Gaskell failed to disabuse the public of the misrepresentations conveyed in “ Jane Eyre, “ ch. 10 (p . 81 , 4th Edition) ?

It is there represented (taking Lowood for Cowen Bridge) that “the virulence of the fever and the number of its victims drew public attention to the School”— that in consequence, large subscriptions were made “ for the erection of a more convenient building in a better situation” — various improvements made — and “the funds entrusted to the management of a Committee” — that Mr. Carus Wilson was only not dismissed from the management of his own School on account of his “wealth and family connections” -and was “ aided” in the discharge of his duties by gentlemen of rather more enlarged and sympathizing minds : his office of inspector, also, was shared by those who knew how to combine reason with strictness, comfort with economy, compassion with uprightness. “

Now if these sentences were not intended as a representation of the facts of the Cowen Bridge School, let them be frankly disowned by Mrs. Gaskell, as justice demands.

If they were so intended, let the candid reader judge from the following facts, how far the delineation is just.

The fever made no “victims” whatever ; for of the whole number attacked ( 30, not 40, as sometimes stated) every child recovered — a sufficient proof of its mild character, and of the care bestowed on the invalids — and a proof also that the site could not be so unhealthy as has been represented ; for otherwise the fever would certainly have taken on a more malignant character.

The School was not removed to Casterton at that time, nor on account of the fever : for the change was not made till 8 years afterwards.

No Committee of management was appointed —no gentlemen whatever were associated with Mr. Carus Wilson — he was not “ aided” or controlled in his duties by any person- “the funds” were not intrusted to any one but himself — but he continued, as he had done before, to receive contributions from persons high and low, far and near, given with undoubting and admiring confidence, and alone, and unaided, bore the whole burden and responsibility of the conduct of the School, numbering eventually 140 pupils, for a quarter of a century after the fever. It was not till the year 1850, 17 years after the removal of the School to Casterton, that his failing health, broken by nearly 30 years of incessant labour, compelled him to resign his charge, and that a Committee was formed, the first meeting of which was held in March 1851 : and that Committee was entirely selected and appointed by Mr. Carus Wilson himself.

It is true that certain Trustees were appointed at an earlier period : but none of them ever took any part in the management of the School or its funds : those “funds” being the contributions accorded by the public to Mr. Carus Wilson’s untiring exertions, and with full confidence in his personal character.

Mrs. Gaskell has even failed to do as much justice to the School, in its subsequent progress, as Miss Bronté herself. For Miss Bronte goes on to say — “The School, thus improved, became in time a truly useful and noble institution . I bear my testimony to its value and importance.”

Mrs. Gaskell herself visited the Casterton School a short time before the publication of her book — her name appears in the Visitors’ Book under date of March, 1856 — she was shewn over the whole establishment ; saw the Pupils, and expressed nothing but satisfaction.

Was she not aware that Jane Eyre” had given a most unfavourable public impression of the Clergy Daughters’ School generally- and that the public at large, not having the means of discriminating, are apt to connect with the very name of an institution the discredit which perhaps was never even cast upon it but in reference to one particular period of its history? Would it not, then, have been an act on her part graceful, indeed, but no more than mere justice demanded, to have introduced into her publication a frank and full avowal, that whatever may have been the merits of the Cowen Bridge School of 1825, she saw no ground for anything but satisfaction with the Casterton School of 1856 ?

That she has omitted to make any such admission in the “ Life of Charlotte Bronté” is one of the worst features of the book. An institution depending upon public support would be ruined by the withdrawal of public confidence : and if the misrepresentations of Miss Bronté and Mrs. Gaskell had taken possession of the public mind, the Clergy Daughters’ School must have been extinguished. The sufferers by such a misfortune would have been exclusively those for whose benefit the School is carried on- certainly a class of persons whom a generous mind would grieve to see suffering — the unworthily paid and over-burdened Clergy of the Church of England . Mrs. Gaskell has done much that might injure and endanger the School-but to repair the injury, or avert the danger, she has done nothing.

I now produce some testimonies, such as are still within reach respecting the events of more than 30 years ago, sufficient to satisfy candid readers of the inaccuracy of “Jane Eyre” and the “ Life” in the account there given of the School and its Founder—premising, however, that I do not mean to affirm, as no one does affirm , that the school was faultless. It would be too much to expect that in such an institution there should never be an instance of food spoilt by careless cooking, or of hasty conduct in a teacher. There does appear to have been some cause for complaint of the negligence of the first cook, but as she was soon dismissed, and Mrs. Gaskell herself admits that there was no cause henceforward for complaint, the evil could not have been of long continuance.

But it is just ground for complaint against Miss Bronté and her biographer, that exceptional instances are represented as if they had been specimens of the general practice — that what took place doubtless without Mr. Carus Wilson’s knowledge, and certainly against his wish, may be supposed by the reader to have been either allowed or overlooked by him — and that thus, occasional failures, such as must happen in every institution and even in private families, are made the ground of sweeping charges of habitual and culpable neglect, and even of unfeeling harshness.

The following extract is from a letter written in 1855, by a former teacher who was at Cowen Bridge during the whole time of the residence of the little Brontés’ there. It was occasioned by the injurious remarks of the press on the announcement of Charlotte Bronté’s death :

“In July, 1824, the Rev. Mr. Bronté arrived at Cowen Bridge with two of his daughters, Maria and Elizabeth, 12 and 10 years of age ; the children were delicate ; both had but recently recovered from the measles and whooping cough, so recently indeed that doubts were entertained whether they could be admitted with safety to the other pupils. They were received, however, and went on so well that in September their father returned, bringing with him two more of his children, Charlotte, 9” (she was really but 8), “ and Emily, 6 years of age. During both these visits Mr. Bronté lodged at the school, sat at the same table with the children, saw the whole routine of the establishment, and, so far as I have ever known, was satisfied with every thing that came under his observation. “ —” The two younger children enjoyed, uniformly, good health.” Charlotte was “ a general favourite. To the best of my recollection she was never under disgrace, however slight ; punishment she certainly did not experience while she was at Cowen Bridge.” (Compare with this, “Jane Eyre,” p. 62, &c. , 4th Edition. ) “ In size, Charlotte was remarkably diminutive ; and if, as has been recently asserted, she never grew an inch after leaving the Clergy School, ‘ she must have been a literal dwarf, and could not have obtained a situation as teacher in a school at Brussels, or any where else ; the idea is absurd.” (The unavoidable inference is, that the story of her not growing after leaving Cowen Bridge is as incorrect as the rest. ) “ In respect of the treatment of the pupils at Cowen Bridge, I will say that neither Mr. Bronté’s daughters nor any other of the children were denied a sufficient quantity of food. Any statement to the contrary is entirely false. The daily dinner consisted of meat, vegetables, and pudding, in abundance ; the children were permitted and expected to ask for whatever they desired, and they were never limited . “ — “It has been remarked that the food of the school was such that none but starving children could eat it ;’ and in support of this statement reference is made to a certain occasion when the medical attendant was consulted about it. In reply to this, let me say that during the spring of 1825 a low fever, although not an alarming one, prevailed in the school, and the managers, naturally anxious to ascertain whether any local cause occasioned the epidemic, took an opportunity to ask the physician’s opinion of the food that happened to be then on the table. I recollect that he spoke rather scornfully of a baked rice pudding, but as the ingredients of this dish were chiefly rice, sugar, and milk, its effects 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. “ [Mrs. Gaskell is again in error when she says ( p . 76) that "Mr. Wilson sent for additional advice," &c. This gentleman was the ordinary and only medical attendant at Cowen Bridge during the fever, and at all times.]

“I have not the least hesitation in saying that, upon the whole, the comforts were as many, and the privations as few, at Cowen Bridge as can well be found in so large an establishment. How far young or 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. The younger children in all large institutions are liable to be oppressed ; but the exposure to this evil at Cowen Bridge was not more than in other schools, but, as I believe, far less . Then, again, thoughtless servants will occasionally spoil food, even in private families ; and in public schools they are likely to be still less particular, unless they are well looked after. But in this respect the institution in question compares very favourably with other and more expensive schools, as from personal experience I have reason to know. For me to be longer silent, would, I think, be wrong. When it is known that I have been absent from my native land upwards of twelve years” (in 1855), “and that ten years previously I had from conscientious motives withdrawn from the Church of England, I think I need not fear being considered a partisan. My object is to do justice in this controversy, and to state to the public things as they have been and are. You are at liberty to give my address, should the truthfulness of the foregoing be doubted.Yours, truly, A. H., Aug., 1855.”

Whether the medical attendant expressed his disapproval of the rice pudding by “ spitting it out,” or otherwise, is immaterial, since he was “not on good terms” with Mr. Carus Wilson, as Mrs. Gaskell informs us. The housekeeper who was at Cowen Bridge from the beginning of the fever for a period of twenty years, is still living, and well known in this neighbourhood for her respectability of character and excellent discharge of her duties ; and it is her honest boast that during her whole time at the Clergy School she never had a joint of meat spoiled, or a dish of sour or “bingy” milk.

The following is from a pupil of a later date at Cowen Bridge, who allows me to publish her name if need be :—

“I cannot hear the slanders and falsehoods propagated by the circulation of Charlotte Bronté’s and Mrs. Gaskell’s books without feeling called on, as an early pupil at Cowen Bridge, to bear an opposite testimony with respect to the treatment we received, and to Mr. Wilson’s bearing towards us. From my age and the peculiar circumstances of my case, previous to my becoming, at my own desire, on my father’s sudden death, an inmate of the Cowen Bridge establishment, I was in a position to judge far more accurately than a child of 9 years old could. Many, many of the old pupils must feel equally indignant with myself that dear Mr. Wilson’s kindness and love should be so heartlessly and wickedly misconstrued. I have been quite anxious to do something by which the public may know that I, and more than 100 besides of the early pupils of Cowen Bridge, are ready to bear a directly opposite testimony to that of Charlotte Bronté. I can only say I have often wished for some of the same nice oatmeal and oat-cake that was used in the Clergy School at Cowen Bridge when I was there. It was the same as you” (addressed to Mrs. Carus Wilson) “ had at your own table for the use of your own children when we of the school were your guests, and the same your own children partook of when you visited us at the school ; and one of the very things that so excited my admiration was the beautiful consistency of the uniformity of the rules laid down and observed in your own dealings towards your children and the Clergy School girls. The porridge was invariably made with milk. The cookery was excellent, and the food consequently far more palatable than that of many a private family, and cleanliness conspicuous. I never saw or heard of the first cook, and therefore cannot testify. I can only say that in any little or greater ailment in my time the directors within the walls were always ready to indulge to a degree beyond what the medical attendant thought good for his patients. The provision for the table was most liberal and abundant. “ —” E. A. F.”

Another Cowen Bridge pupil writes :—

“ I can most unhesitatingly affirm that during the four years I was there” (at Cowen Bridge), “the food was very good, and there was always an abundant supply for growing girls . 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. Whilst I was at Cowen Bridge no sick child could have been treated as Maria Bronté is said to have been, by a teacher. When a child was ill in the evening the order was always given that she should not rise in the morning either till after she had had her breakfast, or had been visited. If a child was taken ill in the night she had only to say in the morning that she felt indisposed, and no teacher would, in my time, have taken on herself to desire her to rise ; neither would any of the teachers I ever knew at Cowen Bridge have used violence towards a pupil. They 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, 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. I entered the school at the age of 15, with feelings deeply wounded at the circumstance that I was to be indebted to the charity of others for the education I was there to receive ; but never, during the whole of my residence in the school, was I reminded of this by word or deed. [Compare with this the "Life," p. 77, line 12. The same reckless assumption, disregard of truth, and invidious criticism , run through the whole of this " character of Carus Wilson"] It was a point on which I was peculiarly sensitive ; but Mr. Wilson and his family seemed to have lost sight of it in their intercourse with us ; and I do not remember that I ever beard, whilst in the school, any remarks from my companions which might imply any fear of him. On the contrary, my impression is that we all felt perfect confidence in his kind feeling and good will towards each of us ; and whenever any unhappy child had been very naughty, and was threatened with being brought before Mr. Wilson, she hailed it as a good omen, because she felt sure of his forgiveness on acknowledging her fault and expressing her sorrow for it. I cannot say with what justice it was, but I remember well that we often thought he extenuated the faults of the pupils to the teachers, and pressed on the latter the great necessity of self-command and tenderness in their management of children. 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 allusion to our dependent position—this is altogether a false representation of his conduct towards us.

“Looking back to my school days, I cannot say that the treatment was other than most lenient and indulgent. Childish faults were passed over with kind admonitions or warnings ; the hope was always held out that the fault would not be repeated ; and no efforts were spared to encourage the children to persevere ‘in trying to be good. ‘ In cases of obstinate resistance to authority, or of persistency in known sin, punishment was resorted to ; but the severity never exceeded that which I have witnessed in private families, where parental love and judgment presided. In extreme cases, in which evil example and influence were likely to prove injurious to the rest, it was found necessary to expel some of the girls whose evil dispositions made them dangerous companions, and who gave no hope of improvement. I know that Mr. Wilson never took this step till compelled to do so by the urgency of the case ; and no one acquainted with the circumstances ever questioned his tenderness or justice in requesting that the girl should not return to school. In wishing to spare the character of the children, he has sometimes declined to enter into full particulars–and thus, I am sorry to say, he has acquired in some cases the character of being capricious. “ — “ It would be a great comfort to me if I could do anything to clear the school and its generous founder of the calumnies published against them by one who never knew either.” —” A. F. V.”

The writer of this last letter is willing to publish her name if necessary. Her graphic delineation of a system of education which seems to have been a model, would derive additional weight from the known value set upon the judgment and experience of the writer by many distinguished witnesses.

One such testimony must outweigh, with all candid persons, a whole volume of slanderous reports and anonymous imputations.

I subjoin, as a sequel, the following lines from a practical man of business, who will, I doubt not, also allow his name to be published, if needful : —

“I think one point in defence of Casterton has been quite overlooked, and that is, the continued good health of the many children you have had” (the letter is to Mrs. Carus Wilson) “from the Tropics. I know above twenty who have been many years at Casterton, and I am certain that every one of them would bear testimony to the kind and considerate attention paid to them under all circumstances. Many are now engaged in the mission work, in North and South India, Ceylon, the West Indies, &c. , from any of whom I am certain you would have a complete refutation of the slanders heaped on your schools. Both Mr. Wilson and yourself know well that ‘to do good and suffer for it’ is far more acceptable to God than all the praises of sinful men. “— “ Yours, &c. , C. Y.”

Mr. Carus Wilson, though himself indifferent to the attacks made upon him, writes, in answer to inquiries :—

“I can most truly say that every charge is perfectly false. Having suffered myself at school from bad food, I was specially sensitive on this point when I established the Cowen Bridge School. Often, when quite unexpected, have I looked into the kitchen, and sat down at meals with the pupils. 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. The oatmeal provided, I am certain, was of the very best, and, if I mistake not, was got from the very first from Mr. Nutter. The children never had water porridge. If they had meal (but that was not for long) , it was boiled milk with oatmeal in it, such as my children always had. I really do not think the cooking was bad. It is impossible to say there might not be as much of casual failures as in a private family, but I used constantly to inspect and inquire, and, moreover, we had teachers who, I am sure, would have complained and remonstrated if there had been anything wrong.”

“There was plenty of good spring water. I had it conveyed in pipes from a field on the other side of the road. I never failed to dismiss any servants who were found unsatisfactory. I am sure there was abundance on the table. I used constantly to go and inspect ; now and then sit down with the pupils and see their helpings ; and not seldom watch what came out, to be assured by the remnant that there had been enough. “ — “The other ridiculous parts in ‘ Jane Eyre’ are not worth noticing.”

The following is from a clergyman, the husband of the teacher represented by “ Miss Temple” in “Jane Eyre,” whom Mrs. Gaskell eulogizes without reservation. This lady died last year.—

“ Often, “ he says, “have I heard my dear late wife speak of her sojourn at Cowen Bridge. I never heard her speak otherwise than in admiration of Mr. Carus Wilson’s personal sacrifices, and of the parental affection which he uniformly manifested towards the children. She frequently stated how fond they all were of him. Of the food and general treatment of the children she always spoke in terms of approval. I have heard her allude to some unfortunate cook who used at times to spoil the porridge, but she said she was very soon dismissed. “

In reference to Mr. Carus Wilson’s personal character, and the estimation in which he was held among the pupils, the following extract from a letter of a former Casterton pupil may serve as a specimen of the general feeling :—

“It would occupy too much time to relate the many incidents that occurred during my long pupilage at Casterton ; but one thing I must not omit— that is, Mr. Wilson’s coming into the school-room. He always met us with a smile and an encouraging word—he loved to see us happy ; and when a holiday was given he used to say, with one of his sweet smiles,’Now mind it is to be a full-grown holiday’ — meaning, that all punishments were to be excused ; for it was his maxim to rule by love. And when any fault was brought to his knowledge, he mildly rebuked us, which far sooner reclaimed us than the severest punishment.

Often did we wish that his portrait which hung in the Entrance Hall could be kept in the school-room, for so much was he loved by the pupils that they used to say his very look would keep them out of disgrace.”

With respect to the inconveniences of the walks to Tunstall Church, it is surely a proof of Mr. Carus Wilson’s active anxiety to remedy them, that only about six months had elapsed after the opening of the school when, on September 10th, 1824, a meeting was held for the purpose of taking measures to enlarge Leck Chapel for the accommodation of the pupils, as is recorded in a diary kept at the time.

Mrs. Gaskell represents the bad food, exposure, and neglect at the Cowen Bridge School to have been the causes of Charlotte Bronté’s suffering through life ; and it is implied, if not asserted, both in “ Jane Eyre” and the “ Life, “ that the two elder sisters died in consequence of similar treatment.

But were there no other causes known to Mrs. Gaskell—no other circumstances in the early lives of these children, to which the early deaths of the two, and the suffering of the third, may have been owing? Let us hear Mrs. Gaskell herself.

She informs us that the disease of which their mother died was “internal cancer.” (” Life, “ p. 48.) Their early childhood was passed either at Thornton, of which “the neighbourhood was desolate and wild ; great tracts of bleak land sweeping up Clayton Heights” (p. 44) ; or at Haworth Parsonage, which Mrs. Gaskell thus describes —The nursery, or “ children’s study,” “had not the comfort of a fire-place in it. “ (p. 46.) And this, too, “ in a place where neither flowers nor vegetables would flourish, and where a tree of even moderate dimensions might be hunted for far and wide ; where the snow lay long and late on the moors ; and where often, on autumnal or winter nights, the four winds of heaven seemed to meet and rage together, tearing round the house as if they were wild beasts striving to find an entrance. “ The aunt who lived with them “particularly dreaded the cold damp arising from the flag floors in the passages and parlours of Haworth Parsonage. The stairs, too, I believe, are made of stone. “ I have heard that Miss Bramwell always went about the house in pattens,” &c., (p. 62.)

And in this cold damp house, living chiefly in a room without a fire-place, in a climate rigorous enough to have tried the strongest constitution, these delicate children, inheriting a diseased and consumptive habit from their mother, were not allowed “flesh-meat to eat,” and “ had nothing but potatoes for their dinner!” (p. 48, 49. ) For Mr. Bronté wished to make his children hardy, and indifferent to the pleasures of eating and dress, “ and “ went at his object with unsparing earnestness of purpose.” (p. 51.)

Now, let any candid reader say — Has not Mrs. Gaskell herself here described causes enough to account for fatal disease and early death ? the consumptive constitution ‚in children, too, remarkably small and delicate in frame (p. 45, &c. ) — the bitter climate — the long winters — the freezing winds searching every crevice and corner of the old house - the bleak moors—the cold damp floors — the potato diet— the fireless nursery ! —When Mrs. Gaskell described the Cowen Bridge pupils as “ children whose thin blood flowed languidly in consequence of their half-starved condition, “ (p. 72) did it never occur to her whether the very condition she so indignantly ascribes to Cowen Bridge treatment had not been long before established in the little Brontés by the miseries and hardships of the cheerless home at Haworth Parsonage ? Nothing more was wanting than some exciting cause to precipitate the poor children into fatal disease.

And such an exciting cause actually did occur just previously to their being placed at Cowen Bridge—an attack of combined measles and whooping cough— the very occurrence likely to develop the consumption which already was lurking in their blood. They were not strong,” Mrs. Gaskell tells us, “ when they came” (to Cowen Bridge), “ having only just recovered from a complication of measles and whooping cough ; indeed. I suspect they had scarcely recovered” (p. 71 ) . And yet Mrs. Gaskell leaves the public to believe that the poor children died of harsh treatment at Cowen Bridge !

Whether the little Brontés were fit subjects for a school education or not is a very different question. The two elder sisters were evidently sent to school in a condition far more appropriate for a hospital ; and if Charlotte herself “ suffered in heart and body all her life long,” to which of the two causes is the suffering most reasonably to be ascribed ?—to the few months she spent at Cowen Bridge, where she was never punished, never once in disgrace, “ a general favourite, “ and “ enjoying uniformly good health, “ or to the moral neglect and physical misery of Haworth Parsonage, where her life was passed - misery detailed by Mrs. Gaskell with as little regard to Mr. Bronté’s feelings as she has shown for Mr. Carus Wilson and others ? It is surely no wonder that Charlotte was “spiritless” (p. 48) long before she ever went to Cowen Bridge ; nor that she suffered all her life from the wretchedness of her childhood at her own home, as described by Mrs. Gaskell herself.

Let Mrs. Gaskell now be heard further, and I doubt whether she will not be found the most formidable adversary of her own case. A bad cause generally betrays itself by some self-contradiction or inconsistency ; and Mrs. Gaskell is not exempt from this moral fatality.

These are her own words :

“ Miss Bronté more than once said to me that she would not have written what she did of “ Lowood” in “ Jane Eyre” if she had thought the place would have been so immediately identified with Cowen Bridge, although there was not a word in her account of the institution but what was true at the time she knew it. She also said that she had not considered it necessary, in a work of fiction, to state every particular with the impartiality that might be required in a court of justice. “- “ I believe she herself would have been glad of an opportunity,” Mrs. Gaskell proceeds to say, “to correct the over-strong 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.— ( Life, p . 64. )

In plain English, Mrs. Gaskell acknowledges, that Charlotte Bronte’s own account of Cowen Bridge School is not to be trusted ! —It was admitted by Miss Bronté herself not to be correct ; that it did not give a just and fair impression of Mr. Carus Wilson’s School. She would have been glad to correct, if possible, the unjust impression she had made on the public mind ; and Mrs. Gaskell admits, that from a morbid state both of health and feeling, tinging the mind itself with gloomy ideas, she probably mistook her fancies for facts, and believed her own exaggerations to have been the realities of her Cowen Bridge life !

Really, the admissions here volunteered by Mrs. Gaskell herself are such, that if they had been insinuated by an opponent, they would have been branded as unjust and malicious suggestions ! A fair and candid reader of “ Jane Eyre” would never have suspected, what is here virtually admitted, that when Miss Bronté wrote the description of Cowen Bridge School, as “Lowood,” she was conscious of distorting, instead of depicting, the truth ; and, moreover, that her impressions of the truth were not true, but were falsified and exaggerated by an active, but morbid, imagination. Let any candid person say whether Mrs. Gaskell does not here virtually condemn and demolish her whole case ?

I find in the “ Scarborough Gazette,” the following just and acute observations :—” The remarks about the (Lowood) school in “ Jane Eyre” were identified as being meant for the school above named—a circumstance which the authoress afterwards regretted ; at least, so says her biographer. If those remarks were true and applicable, why express regret in having exposed a grievous wrong? And if the authoress, after publication, felt them to be without point of application to this institution, then why must her biographer, Mrs. Gaskell, seek to perpetuate, as she does, impressions against it which appear to be without foundation, and of which, therefore, she should rather have disabused the public mind ?”

And yet upon such dreamy, distant, and diseased recollections, and by such acknowledged fictions, Mrs. Gaskell has held up to public censure a valuable institution, and has misrepresented a good man, whose whole life, now verging on threescore years and ten, might have been a sufficient refutation of such slanders, by the single-minded and self-denying devotedness with which he has laboured for one great object, -the good of his fellow-creatures !

The next extract is from a former Cowen Bridge pupil, who entered the school just as Charlotte Bronté had quitted it. She writes to Mrs. Carus Wilson :—

“ I will now try to answer your queries regarding our treatment at the Cowen Bridge School. What could induce Mrs. Gaskell to take such a crooked course against so valuable an institution ? Surely she knows not what manner of spirit she is of. You ask if I was starved’ at Cowen Bridge, and cruelly treated,’ &c. If it were not a false and serious charge against dear Mr. Wilson and the arrangements of his excellent school, I really should be inclined to laugh at the idea of such a thing. As a growing girl, with an excellent appetite, instead of being starved, ‘ I always had much more than I really wanted. A different dinner was provided on each day, and each girl, if she wished, was helped twice to meat and pudding. We had four meals every day. I was very delicate during the time I was there, but always enjoyed my food, because it was good and nicely done.

“Dear Mr. Wilson occasionally gave us a lecture on a Wednesday evening, and it was a season valued by the whole school. The simple Gospel truths were brought before us in so affectionate a manner as to make us prize the time as it came round. I could fill a volume with the many mercies I enjoyed and the kindness I experienced. Miss Andrews had the charge of us” (a party in the holidays), “ and her kindness was unvaried.

“The cookery was always very good—I never remember the meat to have been tainted, or the milk sour ; the food was always excellent, well cooked, and plenty of it. As far as I can recollect, on Saturday the meat was nicely cut and seasoned, the potatoes sliced, and then all was minced together and made into what was called ‘ potato pie ; ‘ and a very savoury dish it was. The oatmeal was always pure, as far as I can recollect. As to ‘sooty,’ dirty’ rice and food, boiled in foul rain water, ‘ I have no remembrance of it whatever. The milk and water appeared to be in equal quantities. How many pieces of bread we had I know not ; but this I do know—we had an abundance, and of oat-cake also, I think it was required that we should not leave our porridge, but we had the choice of a large or small basin before we commenced. I only remember one case, when a girl was required to eat her porridge, and it was kept until she had eaten it ; but it was the exception, not the rule ; and because Miss Evans considered it was from temper that she would not eat it. “

“ Of the blister’ case I knew nothing. [Alluding to the story told at p. 73 of the " Life."] I never even heard anything about it. It could not have happened without my hearing of it. I never remember a child being whipped during the year I was there. The most severe punishment ever resorted to was that the naughty one should either stand upon the form during school hours, or sit on a high stool in the middle of the room next to Miss Evans, whom we all loved much. Miss Andrews was my very favourite ; she was firm, but invariably kind. The statements in the letters of Mr. Nicholls and ‘ A Lover of Truth’ (in the Manchester Examiner) are, to my knowledge, altogether untrue. We had brown and white bread, so that we took which we liked.

“During the year I was at Cowen Bridge I never went to any church except the Parish Church” (Leck Chapel, about half a mile from the school) “ I never remember a case of wet feet-it could not have occurred except through the carelessness of the girl herself. We had wooden clogs. Any case of sickness, however slight, was instantly attended to, and great care manifested.

“I never remember Mr. Wilson lecturing us on the sin of caring for carnal things ; nor do I remember that any complaint was ever made to him about the food. By ‘ Miss Temple’ (in ‘Jane Eyre’ ) Miss Evans is intended, and Miss Andrews is ‘ Miss Scatcherd.’ All the teachers were kind and forbearing,—Yours, &c. , H. D——. “

This writer allows me to publish her name, if necessary. It will be seen that hardly a particular of the charges brought against the school has escaped contradiction in this letter ; and if, as the writer supposes, the character of “ Miss Scatcherd” is a caricature of Miss Andrews, it is a mere libel .

The following letter, again, will surely carry conviction to impartial minds :—

“JANE EYRE” AND THE COWEN BRIDGE SCHOOL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE HALIFAX GUARDIAN.
Sir,—My attention has been called to two letters recently published in your paper, purporting to be rejoinders to the replies of Mr. Wilson, to the assailants of Casterton School, and its venerable and excellent founder.

If, as I have been informed, the letter of Mr. Wilson did not appear in your columns, I question the justice and impartiality of your allowing the letters of Mr. Nicholls to appear there. Many of your readers see no other paper ; and how, I ask, could they come to a just conclusion by perusing the statements of one party only, on the points at issue ?

It gives me inexpressible pain to see the repeated attempts made, by the distortion and exaggeration of facts, and what looks very like wilful misrepresentations of character, to disparage a valuable institution, and to cast odium upon a venerated minister of our church, who has spent his best days in energetic labours in his Master’s cause, and for the benefit of the families of his poorer brethren in the ministry.

As an old pupil, both of the school at Cowen Bridge, and at Casterton, I claim to be heard .

Charlotte Bronté was, if I have been correctly informed, a pupil at Cowen Bridge about nine months. I was a pupil there for two years ; and subsequently at Casterton for more than seven years ; thus my residence extended over a period of more than nine years. You will allow, therefore, that I had more ample opportunities of forming a judgment as to the real character and management of that institution than Charlotte Bronté ; and though I do not appear in the attractive character of a novelist, yet as a clergyman’s daughter and a clergyman’s wife, I trust that my statements may be considered as worthy of credit as those of Charlotte Bronté, her biographer, or her reviewers.

I was one of the “ victims” of that visitation of fever at Cowen Bridge, about which so much has been said, and to this hour I have a vivid recollection of the motherly care and attention I received, and the tender solicitude shown towards me on that trying occasion . Nor have I the slightest reason to think that I was treated better than my fellow pupils. Nor do I for a moment believe that the fever took its rise from the quantity or quality of the food provided, but was introduced to the school from the village, or by a pupil returning to the school.

As to the extract from the letter of a correspondent of Mr. Nichols (whose name for reasons best known to himself he withholds), you will please to put my humble testimony in opposition to it. I solemnly affirm that our food was uniformly abundant, good, and generally well cooked ; but no reasonable person could expect that in a large establishment like that, any more than in a private family, a failure in cooking should not sometimes happen.

And as to the pupils walking to the church in wet weather, and sitting the whole time of service with wet and cold feet, I do not say this never occurred ; but this I do say, that it was the usual practice for the pupils not to go to church in wet weather, but to have prayers and a sermon at the school ; so that this occurrence must have been rare indeed.

I may add that I have four sisters, who have been at the same school, one of them at Cowen Bridge, and the other three at Casterton ; and after a lengthened pupilage there, in two of those cases of upwards of nine years, they are unanimous in their testimony to the general excellence of the institution and its management, and we feel it difficult to repress our indignation at the unjustifiable attack made upon it and its founder. And as the best proof of my regard for, and confidence in, the institution, I am now preparing to send two of my own dear little girls there.

I ought perhaps to apologise for thus asking for space in your paper for the insertion of this letter, but I believe the public will not be unwilling to hear both sides of this question, so that they may be better able to arrive at a just conclusion. And I have a conviction also, that the cause of justice and truth will weigh more powerfully with you than the consideration of a little space in your paper.

I do not think, tenderly as we would deal with the memory of the dead, that we ought to hesitate to rectify the errors they may have fallen into while living, in cases where the sacred interests of truth are involved ; or to repel the darts they may have aimed, in their productions, at the characters of the living, especially those whose lives have been spent in diffusing benefits widely around them.

The character of the founder of that institution has been cruelly and falsely assailed ; as all who know him will readily admit ; but he will think it no dishonour “ to suffer for righteousness’ sake. “

It would be almost too much to expect that no injury should be sustained by the institution from the repeated attacks made upon it with such perverse energy ; most thankful, therefore, should I be could I enlist the sympathies of the wealthy in this locality in its behalf, and add to the number of its subscribers . I know no institution that has a stronger claim to the sympathies and support of the Christian church.

Trusting to your sense of justice and impartiality to insert this in your next publication,
I remain, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
SARAH BALDWIN.
Mytholmroyd Parsonage, near Halifax,
June 9th, 1857.

Some recollections have been kindly communicated to me by a friend whose name is a guarantee for the weight of his testimony— J. M. Strachan, Esq. , of Teddington Grove, Middlesex . The following are extracts from a fuller statement :—

“ The day we spent ( in 1826) at Casterton Hall, “ (then the residence of the late venerable father of the Rev. W. Carus Wilson) “ happened to be the anniversary of the late Mr. Carus Wilson’s birthday, and among the many persons, members of the family and neighbours, who assembled to commemorate the day, we first heard of the Cowen Bridge School, by the whole of its inmates being admitted to enjoy the festivity of a holiday in the beautiful grounds, and a bountiful repast on the lawn .

“The charms of that day—the acquaintance formed with the venerable heads of the family- the gradual introduction to the details of laborious occupation, in which the Rector of Whittington, (the eldest son) and his admirable helpmeet were engaged, for the diffusion of a religious literature for the young and for the humbler classes-in the exercise of a large and beneficent charity by means of the school for the daughters of the humbler clergy, and in other local institutions — imparted to me a feeling of admiration and regard which made me desirous to reside in the neighbourhood, in order to cultivate the friendship of a family of such rare excellence. I engaged a house within a few miles of Kirkby Lonsdale, nearly equi-distant from Casterton, Whittington, and Cowen Bridge ; and we spent much of our time there during the two following years.

“ Mrs. Strachan’s fondness for schools led her to become as thoroughly acquainted with the daily life of Cowen Bridge School as it was possible for any person to be who was not actually an inmate of the establishment. She frequently visited the school without previous notice—knew the teachers well— watched the system of teaching, and was familiar with every branch of the management. She was accustomed to invite small parties of the pupils to visit our house for several days at a time, She knew (for she had often seen him and Mrs. Wilson at the school) that each visited the institution statedly— Mr. Wilson for the religious instruction of the pupils— Mrs. Wilson to inspect the interior details of management ; in order to do which effectually, and to be able to see the entire domestic arrangements perfectly maintained, she often slept in the house.

“It was Mr. Wilson’s custom to afford every possible opportunity for innocent and healthful recreation to the pupils ; and every year, to the discomfort of his own family, such of them as from the distance of their parents could not return home in the summer vacations, were received into his pleasant private residence at Silverdale, on the shores of Morecambe Bay.” ( Cove House’ thus became, for many years successively, a scene of health and enjoyment for the Clergy School pupils, to the number sometimes of 30 or 40 at a time. )

“It was usual to invite the parents of the pupils, when bringing them to the school, to remain at the house as far as its accommodation admitted, and to dine at the common table, where superintendent, teachers and pupils, had their meals together.

“If it were possible for a person to be informed of the whole system of management and treatment of the children, the opportunity was afforded to Mrs. Strachan ; and her deliberate opinion is, that it was not possible for an institution of the nature of Cowen Bridge School to be conducted with more regard to the wants, and even the feelings, of the pupils ; nor, on the part of its benevolent founder, with a more conscientious endeavour to perform to the utmost of his power the responsible task he had assumed from the purest motives and with the most intelligent regard to the welfare of the pupils and the comfort of their parents. “

The schools were afterwards removed to Casterton , where the pupils of the Clergy Daughters’ School were increased to near 150 in number, including the Preparatory School ; and the Servants’ Training School had long numbered above 100.

“ In the year 1842” (after many years absence, interrupted by occasional visits) “ we engaged the Parsonage at Casterton as a summer residence ; and, during our sojourn there, which extended over a great part of that year, Mrs. Strachan renewed her intimate intercourse with the excellent Superintendent of the schools, and was accustomed to visit them at all times, and had the delight of finding them still what they had always been (with the added improvement of the greater accommodation afforded by the larger buildings of the new situation ), the abodes of a healthy, cheerful and improving body of pupils ; and to hear from time to time, as she had done during a course of many years, what numbers of well trained young persons had left the schools, to be the comfort of their homes or to fill useful positions in society ; retaining the happiest and most grateful remembrance of the schools, to whose instruction and management they have been indebted for all they enjoy in this life and hope for in another.

“All these institutions were fruits of the untiring zeal of one man, devoted to the promotion of the best interests, temporal and spiritual, of the daughters of his brother clergymen and his humbler neighbours ; deriving no personal benefit, while conferring benefits on so many ; looking for no reward but that which arises from the consciousness of doing good, and the crowning recompense of Him who has said, ‘ Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’

“In the year 1827, the late Bishop of London, then Bishop of Chester, visited the Cowen Bridge School, during a tour in that part of his diocese, accompanied by Mrs. Blomfield. We were to have met the Bishop on the occasion, but through a mistake of the hour did not arrive at the school till a few minutes after he and Mrs. Blomfield had left. We found the superintendent and teachers generally touched with the kind approval of the Institution expressed by the Bishop. His lordship had carefully inspected the school and examined the classes, while Mrs. Blomfield had visited the interior of the establishment and enquired into all the details of the management. Upon quitting the school, after hearing Mrs. Blomfield’s account of the other parts of the establishment, the Bishop turned to Mr. Wilson, and observed, that if it should please Divine Providence to deprive his daughters of their parents, he knew no institution where he could more desire them to be placed. ‘

“The Bishop continued to befriend the school till succeeded by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose interest in the schools, founded on frequent personal visits while Bishop of Chester, has not abated by his elevation to the seat of Metropolitan.

It would be easy, but it is needless, to multiply similar testimonies to an institution, and a clergyman, whose excellence has been for thirty-three years known to multitudes, and was doubted by none, till they were assailed by the authoress of “ Jane Eyre”—a novel of such a nature that in very many families it is a prohibited book—and with good reason.

Truth, however, loses nothing by enquiry, as pure gold suffers no diminution in the fire. The ultimate sufferers by calumny are the unhappy authors of it themselves.

The unseemly attacks which have been lately renewed will assuredly redound to the honour of the Clergy Daughters’ School and its excellent Founder ; and the more that the lapse of time and the progress of enquiry shall elicit the truth of the case, the more will the kind friends and supporters of the institution find reason to be satisfied that the good effected by means of their generous aid, is extensive, valuable, and permanent ; and that, whoever may disparage his labours, or asperse his character, the Rev. Mr. Carus Wilson will be abundantly justified and richly honoured when all who have benefited by his works of love shall rise up for ever and call him blessed.

HENRY SHEPHEARD, M.A., Casterton Parsonage, June 16th, 1857. Incumbent