On March 29, 1848, Professor F. D. Maurice, who has been called the ‘parent and founder of the College,’ delivered an inaugural address on ‘Queen’s College, London, its objects and methods.’ After apologising for the word ‘college’ as somewhat too ambitious for the project in hand, he thought well to answer in advance the objections of those who might use Pope’s hackneyed line about ‘a little learning’ as a means of discrediting the new classes. Even he did not anticipate very deep draughts from the spring of knowledge. ‘We are aware that our pupils are not likely to advance far in mathematics, but we believe that if they learn really what they do learn, they will not have got what is dangerous but what is safe.... I cannot conceive that a young lady can feel her mind in a more dangerous state than it was, because she has gained a truer glimpse into the conditions under which the world in which it has pleased God to place her actually exists.’ Each of the first courses was preceded by a preliminary lecture, in which the professor introduced, and almost apologised for his subject. Latin was to win toleration as ‘one road, and perhaps the shortest, to a thorough study of English’; in each case it was shown that the evils anticipated from that particular subject were fanciful. These explanations strike us quaintly now; it is hard to realise how great was the terror of learned ladies which in those days it was fashionable to assume. Still, in spite of prejudice, the College flourished. There were no less than two hundred entries the first term. In 1853 it had grown sufficiently independent to stand on its own feet, and breaking away from the parent institution, it was incorporated by Royal Charter. Its objects were declared to be the general education of ladies, and the granting of certificates of knowledge. Professor Maurice became Chairman of Committee and Principal; and Queen’s, which loves its old traditions, has continued the practice of appointing a male Principal, therein differing from every other women’s college in the United Kingdom. It feels so keenly the debt it owes its founders, that it cherishes the idea—mistaken surely—that it can best do them honour by maintaining the college such as it was in their day. Thus the fate of many a pioneer has overtaken Queen’s. The vanguard have become the laggards, and useful and admirable as is its work, it has been outstripped by younger institutions, and no longer stands in the forefront of the battle. This is the common fate; it is easier to improve than to originate, but the debt of gratitude we all owe to Queen’s is none the less because so many others have harvested where she sowed.