‘The gentleman (a resident clergyman of some influence) to whom the two quoted letters were addressed, is now absent for a few days; and it remains to be seen whether his scruples and objections are, if not removed, at least rendered quiescent by your reply. If he should withdraw his children, and make known the grounds of doing so, the effect would undoubtedly be prejudicial to the College, and the experiment of conducting it under your auspices might be futile. Much may depend on what answer you can conscientiously make to this question:— Holding the opinions you have expressed, should you consider it a duty and feel it incumbent on you to inculcate them in your Divinity instruction to the pupils? If you could favour me by a few lines by _return_ of post (as I leave before post hour on Friday morning) on this point, which I can annex to your letter of to-day, I could see my colleagues on the subject once more, and arrange what shall be done in my absence.—Yours truly, J. PENRICE BELL, _Hon. Sec._’ Among Miss Beale’s papers exists an undated and much erased note, which appears to be her answer to the above. It begins with the remark: ‘I am glad to find the Council has not decided that I am so great a heretic as from your first letter I feared they would’; and it closes with the statement: ‘I quite feel it to be a Christian duty, if it be possible to live peaceably with all men, not giving heed to those things which minister questions rather than godly edifying, but I am sure you will feel I should be unworthy of your confidence could I through any fear of consequences resort to the least untruthfulness.’ Meanwhile Mr. Bellairs also wrote:— ‘ ... Mr. Bell’s letter was, I imagine, of a private character, as I had heard nothing of the subject of it before the arrival of your note of to-day. ‘So far as I am concerned, my impression is that we of the Council have nothing to do _now_ with your private Theological opinions, whatever they are, unless they are so extreme as would damage the College (and within tolerably wide limits, I individually am very indifferent on the matter). I trust you have good sense and propriety sufficient to induce you to avoid all teaching which would in any degree disturb the character which the College ought, in my opinion, to maintain: viz. a place of learning in which all members of the Church of England may receive religious instruction in an honest and straightforward way, according to the teaching of the Bible and the formularies of the Church, without extreme interpretation one way or the other. I shall probably hear more of this matter when I see Mr. Bell.’