Early Quaker Education in Pennsylvania

CHAPTER II MEETING ORGANIZATION: ITS CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION — SUMMARY

The organization of meetings in the Society of Friends was based almost entirely on the recommendation of its founder, and still obtains without many variations from the type which was thus early begun. The organization thus planned was not developed completely at one time, but depended rather on the growth of the society in this or that section of the country. Meetings, as at first established, were not so specialized in their functions as they came to be later; there were those for worship and sufferings, the latter becoming in due time a specialized part of the yearly meeting, and for taking action in regard to poor members. The time was further occupied in disciplining those members who were not faithful to the doctrines of the church.

It is of particular importance for us to understand the ordinary arrangement of the meetings and their relation to each other, since it was by virtue of this organization of the church that its schools were set up. Perhaps no other factor played so important a part in the success which was met with in setting up schools, as that through the organization of the meetings all localities were kept in closer touch with each other than would otherwise have been possible at that time. As it was, the local meetings were literally forced to listen to the school-proposition, even though they were in the backwoods of America, or inhabited the Barbados. The chief means of communication established were church letters, travelling ministers, representatives from the constituent meetings, and reports of general meetings which were distributed to all those belonging thereunto.[38]

Originally the purpose of the church organization seems to have been twofold. It was realized that among those who became members some would be less constant in their behavior than others; hence some sort of oversight was necessary to keep each and every one in line. In the second place, there were many adherents in limited circumstances and the Quakers’ belief made it imperative that these people be taken care of in the best manner possible.[39] Realizing the existence of these conditions among members, it was clear to Fox that a definitely organized meeting was necessary whereby (1) the necessary assistance could be extended to those in need, (2) discipline could be enforced for the maintenance of the religious life of the organization, and (3) new meetings could be officially established when and where they became necessary.

The earliest mention that is made of a meeting established for these purposes is in the case of Balby, in Yorkshire, in 1658.[40] This statement is not exactly accurate, it seems, for we have also mention made of a general meeting, or what came to be known as a yearly meeting, as early as 1654 when one was held at Swannington in Leicestershire.[41] The meeting at Balby seems to have been of considerable importance and is frequently mentioned as one of the stopping places of George Fox. He recounts a meeting held at that place in 1660 “in a great orchard of John Killam’s where it was supposed some thousands of people and Friends were gathered together.”[42] The business of the yearly meeting seems to have been to devote some time to the affairs of the church; at any rate, this idea is expressed by Fox in writing of a similar meeting held at Skipton in 1660.[43] The characteristic of these meetings, that is always mentioned, is that they were attended by representatives from various towns and counties. The yearly meeting is still a representative body.

The smaller meetings for worship were, of course, the first established. Aside from the question of worship, however, the development of the organization was from the larger unit to the smaller. We have noted above the beginning of the general or yearly meeting. As the sect grew in numbers, and the labor of caring for these, sometimes in a physical sense and again in the religious, increased, it became necessary to have a finer organization, the smaller units of which would reach the smallest communities. By 1665 there were established (1) the yearly and (2) the quarterly meetings, and in 1666 Fox recommended the establishment of a smaller unit, the monthly meeting, saying:

Immediately after this, there is mentioned the establishment of monthly meetings in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk, Huntingdonshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire and many others.[45] Three years later (1669) he reports fourteen monthly meetings in the county of York.[46] The rapid increase in the number of meetings and the extent of territory covered by them is a fair indication of the phenomenal growth of the society.

Following his resolve and subsequent exertions toward setting up of monthly meetings, during which he made very extensive campaigns, there came the great step which was taken to organize all under the general leadership of a yearly meeting, that of London. This was accomplished in 1672.[47] This general meeting of ministers drew up a resolution or minute to this effect:

The meeting convened in the year following, in accordance with the above resolution. Many of the duties performed by the General Meeting of Ministers were transferred to the representatives of the various meetings. The ministers, though in fact subject to the approval or disapproval of monthly meetings, did not relinquish their oversight of each other.

The smallest unit in the organization was the particular or preparative meeting. This meeting is not mentioned in all localities, though it is clear from Fox’s statements that he recognized this as a part of the organization, for in a letter of 1669 he writes concerning the representatives of the quarterly meetings that,

This statement is given here merely for the purpose of pointing out how completely the ideas of Fox were embodied in even the smallest unit of church organization. There is adequate proof of their existence in all sections occupied by the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and of their great importance in carrying out the details both of relief work for the poor, and in the establishment of schools.[50]

There have been noted different phases of the development of the meeting organization. When finally it was complete in all its parts, there existed a hierarchy of meetings, the lower and smaller units of which were subject to and under the direction of the higher. This resultant organization may be made somewhat clearer by means of a diagrammatical representation.

The above diagram represents the relation of the various kinds of meetings in the organization of the Society of Friends. The yearly meeting (Fig. 1, Y) is the general head of the entire organization. Its functions are of a general directive nature and its influence of very wide extent. For example, it will be shown a little later that the Yearly Meeting of London issued, very early, certain communications concerning education which were sent to each meeting belonging to the London Yearly Meeting. In the same manner it exercised its influence along other lines than education. There is no special virtue in the number of meetings represented above; for example, the three Q’s do not mean that each and every yearly meeting had three quarterly meetings under its care. The number is not specified. In the case of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting there are at present nine quarterly meetings and two half-yearly meetings.[51] The same variation is also true in the number of monthly meetings in a quarter, Caln Quarterly having only one monthly meeting, while Western Quarterly has six.[52] The same is true as to the number of preparative meetings.

The quarterly meeting is representative of the monthly meetings which comprise it. Its functions are chiefly directive and advisory, though it may often occur that a bad case of discipline may be turned over to it by the monthly meeting. In the case of school regulations, its chief concern was to pass on the recommendations of the yearly meeting to the monthly meetings and to repeat them frequently, that the lower meetings might be stirred up to action.[53] It was also through the quarterly meetings that the reports on the conditions of schools in the monthly meetings were collected and sent to the yearly meeting. It was also quite customary for the monthly units to pass any of their decisions on a matter up to the quarterly unit for its formal approval or disapproval. Especially is this marked in educational affairs, and particularly in the Philadelphia Quarter.[54] This is most marked in the earliest years after establishment, and is due, no doubt, to a lack at that time of a very close differentiation in the functions of the meetings.

The monthly meetings are primarily the business units of the organization. Before them come all cases of care for the poor, apprenticing of children, enforcement of discipline, establishment of schools, requests for permission to marry, to remove to a new location and still many others. They may settle some of these finally, or they may act in connection with their superior meeting as mentioned above.

The preparative meeting is the smallest organization unit and has its finger on the pulse of the local community at all times.[55] Officially it acts as the agent of the monthly meeting in carrying out the details of any piece of work that must be done, and which the monthly meeting is willing to delegate thus far.[56] Thus in the case of Horsham, for instance, the business of the schools in the scope of the preparative meeting is turned over to it and their organization and maintenance are under the care of its school committee.[57] The preparative meeting is at all times cognizant of breaches of discipline among its members and responsible to report such to the monthly meeting for settlement. One might go to great length to enumerate and explain all the detailed duties of each of these branches of the organization, but it is believed sufficient has been said of them, to make their action in educational matters intelligible.

We have noted, somewhat briefly to be sure, the organization and interrelation of the meetings in the Society of Friends. It is now necessary to point out what connection existed between this organization and the program put forward for the establishment of schools. This will be done by the presentation of certain extracts from meeting records which seem in all cases to have been responsible for kindling an interest in education in near and distant meetings, and keeping that interest alive by virtue of many advices until some material results were forthcoming. The selections presented are not continuous; they are chosen because they are representative and illustrative of the point in question.

The Yearly Meeting of London was established (see page 17) in 1672. Consistent with the purpose of its establishment, as then stated, it began at once to busy itself with certain important problems of the church. Among the first that received a considerable amount of attention was the education of the youths of members in the society, which was, of course, soon extended to include others. For instance, in 1690, there is given out this educational advice.

And again in the year following we find the following advice:

More specific instructions follow in 1695.

At a much later date, 1745, very similar instructions are found among those issued.

A casual reading of the above statements, or any of numerous others like them, will suffice to point out to what great extent they are similar to the statements of Fox and other Quakers who were interested in education.[62] For convenience, the content of these extracts from the yearly meeting minutes may be summarized in something like the following:

They are accompanied by:

The influence of these fundamental ideas about education is clearly reflected in the type of schools that were first set up in England. Those recommended by Fox at Waltham and Shacklewell in 1667, for both boys and girls, represent the first attempt.[64] At a later date, 1702, Clerkenwell was established under the oversight of London and Middlesex Quarterly Meetings, and in the latter part of the century the Ackworth School, founded by John Fothergill in 1779.[65] In all the schools established, of which those mentioned are representative, there is always found this primary emphasis on moral and useful training.[66]

The great influence of English Quaker education on that in America was made secure by virtue of the very intimate relation between the meetings in both countries; this relation being constantly maintained through the traveling ministers, and tracts and epistles sent out by the yearly meetings. The same alertness, characteristic of London Yearly Meeting in these affairs, was likewise assumed by the Burlington and Philadelphia Meetings, from whence came numerous advices. As concrete evidence of this close relation existing, and the consequent communications, a few extracts thereof are inserted.

That these letters of advice were not mere formalities but were really seriously considered and acted upon favorably or unfavorably, as in the first case below, is shown adequately in the following:

In the case of Darby Monthly Meeting, later in the century, there is an instance in which the recommendations of the yearly meeting (1778) are followed most minutely in the reorganization.

A committee was accordingly appointed and directed to choose their officers, that their business might be begun at once and properly performed.

In addition to the advices sent out in the form of letters from the yearly sessions, the meeting also furthered regularly the distribution of books, tracts and pamphlets, usually the expression of prominent Friends, such as, for example, Penn’s Advice to His Children, Barclay’s Apology, Sewell’s History of Quakers, Barclay’s Catechism, Turford’s Grounds of a Holy Life, and many others of similar nature. Works of this kind were frequently sent over in lots, sometimes for free distribution, or to be sold to members; as witness the following:

The foregoing presentation of conditions within the church organization, their method of interaction, has been made so that the reader may understand that whatever activities may be later noted among the Quakers in Pennsylvania in connection with the establishment of schools, were intimately connected with and were in fact the result of the English influence.

The form of organization of the meeting in the Society of Friends was due to the needs then existing, and was planned, even to the smallest unit, by the founder of the society. The chief purposes of the organization, when first begun, were (1) moral and religious discipline of members, (2) assistance to the poor among their number, and (3) to protect themselves against the oppression of outsiders (function of the meeting on sufferings). The functions of the higher meeting (yearly) were chiefly advisory in character, while those of the lower meetings (preparative) were to work out the details. Educationally, the yearly meeting exercised an influence very early by its frequent recommendations and the literature sent to the smaller individual meetings. This rôle was likewise assumed by the Burlington and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting.[73] This close relationship between the meetings of different order and the educational influence is in part shown by extracts taken from the meeting records.

CHAPTER III EDUCATIONAL IDEALS OF QUAKER LEADERS — SUMMARY

Any institution one may name has its adverse critics. The basis of their criticism is often ill-defined; it is sometimes fact, sometimes imagination; it may spring from a knowledge of truth, or possibly from ignorance.

Quakerism has had many critics and the effect of wise criticism may be seen in some of the changes from the old to the modern Quakerism. Much of that which was unjust and without foundation of fact, failed to have any effect whatever. But though the effect on the institution may have been nil, it occurs in some cases that the criticism still lives in the popular mind and is accorded a good degree of authenticity. By those better informed it may not be so considered. It is with one of these criticisms, concerning the attitude of Quakers toward education, that we are chiefly concerned in this chapter. Due chiefly to a misinterpretation of the doctrine of inner light and its application, which was mentioned in the first chapter, there arose an erroneous conception of the Quakers’ attitude towards education. This conception is not always constant; it varies now to this side, now to that, but does not cease to persist. In order that this criticism may be put as clearly as possible before the reader, use is made here of a quotation from the works of S. H. Cox, at one time a member of Friends, who expresses with clearness the opinion of a very considerable group of critics.

It is not necessary to discuss directly the views set forth in the above quotation, as they are stated clearly enough in the author’s own language. However, in the following pages, there will be presented the views on education of as many prominent Friends as space will permit, that in so doing they may be considered in connection with the remarks of their critics and a just comparison made. In presenting the views of Quaker educators reference may be made to salient points in the criticism, which seem out of keeping with the ideas set forth and without foundation as matters of fact.

There are quite a number of men, in the brief period studied, who stand out clearly and express themselves definitely in favor of education, though they do not consider it the first requisite for a minister of the gospel.[76] From this number it will be feasible to select only a few for the chief consideration, relegating the remainder to a place of comparative unimportance and incidental notice. The work of George Fox, though he was poorly educated, had a remarkable effect on the educational work of the society. But it is not necessary to review that in the present chapter as it has been presented in the first.[77]

By far the most familiar of all characters in Quaker history is that of William Penn. And to his influence must be attributed largely the hearty interest in education shown, not only in Philadelphia, but also in the surrounding communities. He was well educated, but it is not desired to make a case for or against him on the basis of his education; let us judge by his written or spoken expression and actual procedure in practice. No attempt is made to prove or disprove his contentions as to what was right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary in education. The questions asked in his case and the others that follow is: What did they approve or disapprove of in education?

Not only in works that might be called strictly educational did Penn give educational advice, valuable alike to youth and to parents, the directors of youth. His advice to his children on the value of diligence and its necessity for success, and the propriety of frugality, even in the homes of the rich, embodies many of the most essential principles in education at any time. It is especially applicable to the education of the man of business, emphasizing the importance of the practical duties in life. Some pointed statements are especially worthy of repetition.

This bit of philosophy is educational in its bearing in very much the same way as that of Benjamin Franklin.

In the letters to his wife and children, referring to the care for their education, he is more specifically concerned with actual school education.

His preference, as might be expected from an Englishman of that time, was for a tutorial system of education. His reasons therefore seem to have been based chiefly on moral grounds.

The above quotation alone would seem to be adequate proof that Penn did not oppose education, but urged it for others and in his own family. But still more convincing and irrefutable evidence is found in the preamble to this school charter, whence an extract is taken.

If, as must be admitted, the previous statement points out the lack of any opposition to the ordinary rudimentary education that is necessary for the everyday walks of life, the last one certainly does the same in reference to his attitude towards a higher classical education. Moreover, this is not a mere skeleton of words never clothed with the flesh of action. The principles set forth in the charter were actually incorporated in the work of the schools established in Philadelphia, and we find them maintaining a classical school for languages and higher mathematics.[83] The practical elements received the just emphasis which belonged to them; it was necessary that the boys and girls be made able to earn a living and be at least ordinarily intelligent citizens. The example of Philadelphia was followed by other communities; practical needs were given the first consideration and a higher classical education offered when it became possible. Not only were these studies, which we would term higher education, mentioned by Penn and other writers among Quakers, but they were taken up and recommended by the yearly meeting. For example, in 1737, the minutes recommend that as opportunity can be found, children should be privileged to learn “French, High and Low Dutch, Danish, etc.”[84] This particular recommendation was made by the meeting because of a felt need.[85] If then in case of a need for a particular subject, they were willing to recommend that it be taught, can it be truly said that they opposed all education?

It may be well to examine Barclay, since it is with him and his writings that Cox takes issue. In his Apology for Christian Divinity Vindicated is to be found a very clear statement of his position on the subject, and he voices it as the principle of the whole society as well. He seems to be answering some critic, who has taken him to task for his educational views:

Another character of very great importance in this connection is Anthony Benezet. Born, 1713, at St. Quentin in France, of “an ancient and respectable family” he spent his early years in France and then in Holland, whither his father had fled for refuge.[88] A few months were spent in Rotterdam and the family then moved to London where the father entered into the mercantile business and retrieved to some extent his fallen fortunes. This enabled him to give Anthony sufficient education to qualify him for that business, for which, however, he seemed to evince but little taste. Being of a very religious nature, he became a member of Friends at about fourteen years of age, and in that society found the field of his whole life’s activity, which was chiefly educational.[89] Considerable space will be devoted to his work in respect to the education of Negroes, so that will be entirely omitted in this place.[90] He was a voluminous writer, producing chiefly tracts and letters, and a great majority of these have a definite educational bearing. Because of the great number of them it is impossible really to do them justice, but an attempt will be made to state a few brief theses for which he unchangingly stands.

First, education is a religious and social duty.[91] It is exceedingly interesting to notice that he looks upon education as in the first place a governmental function, if the governments of this world were influenced by true wisdom, they would make the proper education of youth their first and special care;[92] but since governments have neglected to do this, it occurs to him that it is a service for which Quakers are remarkably well fitted. It is a service for which the wage is very small and which secures no return of special social favors for the laborer. But they, being a quiet people, not wishing to gain great wealth or to shine in social positions, can find their sphere of activity in the education of the youthful members of society.

Second, a special care in the education of the poor is urged.[93] This should become the duty and secure the interest of the well-to-do public spirited man, for if the upper class does not safeguard it, they cannot be educated. The poor child represents so much unimproved property, the owner being unable to improve it, which, if taken over by philanthropists, may become of some consequence to himself and perform great services for society at large. Such a movement would, besides being a great aid to the poor and uneducated, be also a worthy occupation for those who at present have nothing but time and money to spend. It would help them to realize that there is something real in the world, something greater than wealth and broader than religious denominations. The heart of Benezet knew no bounds; in his philanthropy he included all classes.

Third, a definite stand is made for higher standards for teachers.

He endeavors to show that the work of a teacher is pleasant and should interest a better class of masters than it has in the past. The experiences of Benezet in the school work were of most pleasant nature. Not only by his own statement, but judged also by the accounts given in his memoirs by Robert Vaux, it seems that he was unusually kind and sympathetic as a master, which won him the greatest respect of his pupils.[95] The tasks of schoolteaching are only unpleasant when being performed merely for the sake of the wage obtained. Those who attempt to teach large numbers for the sake of a large income find it disagreeable; they form the class of teachers against whom he would discriminate.[96] Add to these three principles, his great contribution toward the freedom and education of the Negroes, his long life of service, and we have all for which he lived. It is stated that he had no private life; at any rate it sinks into oblivion in comparison with his interest and active work in public philanthropies.[97]

The educational influence of John Woolman in regard to Negro and Indian education will be mentioned in another chapter,[98] but concerning education generally he was equally outspoken, and being a member of some consequence he was able to make his influence felt. Like Benezet, he regarded education as a social duty, both to each individual and to the community of individuals. This duty could not be performed by immoral tutors and schoolmasters, for the pupil could be made to rise no higher than the master; so the result would be an immoral society.[99] The responsibility, in the last analysis, for the right conduct of schools falls upon the parents. If they are indifferent, nothing can be accomplished for the schools, for the whole community is no better or more insistent in its demands than the individuals constituting it. For this reason he urges individual philanthropy to come to the aid of the schools, which are badly neglected; those who possess wealth can do no better, for, as he says:

If to this list of advocates of education, it is necessary to add others, mention should be made of Henry Tuke, George Whitehead, and William Crouch. In defending certain differences between the Quaker doctrine and that of other denominations, the former discusses this one, in not considering human learning essential to a minister of the gospel.[101] The reasons adduced are chiefly biblical; the knowledge of human literature is not recommended by the New Testament as being necessary for a minister, and this is considered conclusive proof. Moreover, it is pointed out that Paul, though a well educated man, disclaimed the value of his education for that service, and wished always to appear to the people as an unlettered man of God.[102] But Tuke goes on to explain that though it is not essential for a minister, learning is not unesteemed nor its usefulness slighted.[103] Members are desired to direct their attention to education, for a right use of it may promote religion and benefit civil society.[104] That the use of Latin and Greek is not decried may be seen in the work of Penn and Whitehead, who were both scholars, and whose works are full of classical references and illustrations. In one instance their chief argument against swearing is produced from certain references to the works of Socrates and Xenocrates, pointing out that the Greeks were aware of a higher righteousness excelling that of the legal Jews.[105] The same point of view with reference to a knowledge of the classics is taken by William Crouch, as is understood at once by this statement:

Moreover, from various sources one is assured that a classical education was not abhorred by the Quakers of Philadelphia. The work offered in the classical school was for any one who had the ability to do it and its attainment was encouraged by Friends. The higher education was for girls as well as for boys, as we may judge from reading the journal kept by Sally Wister (or Wistar), a Quaker girl of the days of the Revolution.[107] She attended the school kept by Anthony Benezet,[108] which was one of the highest class, moral and literary, and patronized by the best classes of the citizens. Extracts from her Journal indicate that her education had not been limited to the mere rudiments, but that she enjoyed also an elementary knowledge, at least, of Latin and French.[109] This sort of education was clearly not uncommon among Friends and it was not the object of opposition on their part. It must, however, be kept in mind that the Quakers never confused education necessarily with true Christianity.[110] Religion in this life and the salvation of one’s soul in the next was a problem which concerned the poor as well as the rich, the untutored as well as the learned. How could the demands be greater for one than the other; the same tests had to be met and passed by all, the educated one received no favors though more might be expected of him.[111] Education was looked upon as an asset which might be turned to great use for Christianity, but the lack of it was never a bar to Christianity.[112] On the other hand, education might easily become, according to the Quakers’ views, a definite hindrance to Christianity.[113]

It would be quite improper in connection with this subject to fail to mention the scheme, Utopian in that day, which was conceived in the mind of Thomas Budd, for the development of a system of education for Pennsylvania and New Jersey. At the very outset it seems more comprehensive than anything suggested by any other leader, and in fact it embodied so much that it was quite beyond the limit of expectation for either of the colonies. Thomas Budd, though not at first a member of Friends, became convinced of the justice of their principles and joined the society before the year 1678.[114] He was a man of affairs and became greatly interested in the colonization of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, whither he soon came as a colonist himself. At that time it was equally true, as at the present, that if a scheme or undertaking was to be put through, it must be made as attractive as possible to the prospector. The attempt to do this called forth a considerable exercise of individual initiative, and one result was the educational plan outlined by Thomas Budd and published in Philadelphia in 1685. The details of the scheme as outlined are deemed of sufficient interest and importance to warrant their reproduction here.

The author does not claim to be entirely original in his scheme, having been influenced, he says, by a similar thing described by Andrew Yarenton in a book, England’s Improvements by Sea and Land.[116] His chief interest seems to be in the benefit to be derived for the commercial life of the colonies, and for that reason there is accordingly a great stress on the industrial education. By this introduction of the industrial schools, spinning for example, in the larger cities and the preparation of children at an early age for participation in that great occupation, the production of linen cloth could be made equal not only to the domestic demands but also a considerable margin for the foreign trade.[117] It is pointed out that the colonial consumer pays twice as much for his purchase as its cost of production in France or Germany, and that he pays this extra cost into the coffers of the English merchants. This profit should accrue to the home merchants.

The educational and also the industrial scheme is to receive the backing of the colonial government. It is recommended that laws be passed for the encouragement of linen manufacturers and that farmers “that keep a plow” should sow an acre of flax and two of hemp, with which to supply the manufacturers.[118] Educational support by the government was not secured, as is amply evidenced by the unsurpassed development of private and parochial schools of all denominations. The churches were the sponsors for education. It is worthy of note, however, that the elements emphasized by Budd, (1) education in the arts and sciences for all those capable of it, (2) industrial education for a trade for every one, (3) moral and religious training, and (4) equal educational opportunities for poor and rich or otherwise unfavored classes, are the same as those urged officially by the Quakers.[119]

Far from receiving governmental support, it was necessary that the schools be supported by individual or small group enterprise. The society recognized this, and it is stated in the organization of the church that the duty of the monthly meeting is to provide for the subsistence of the poor and for their education.[120] Furthermore it is recommended that all special bequests of Friends be kept as a distinct fund for the purpose originally intended by the donor, and that if expended for any other purpose, it must be again made up by the quarterly meeting.[121] One of the most frequent uses designated, judging from the records, seems to have been the educational.[122]

The reader may have perused the foregoing pages with more or less interest; a curiosity may have been aroused concerning the present-day attitude of Friends, educationally. Have they experienced any considerable change? The institutional evidences of their continued interest are familiar enough to the educationist. But what is the attitude within the schools: Is instruction stiff and more formal there than in the public schools, and what can be said of the progress among the teachers? To answer all of these questions and similar ones is not the purpose of this present work. And in the following excerpt, taken from an expression drawn up by a body of teachers, it is not hoped to find conclusive proof of this or that, but perhaps it may be taken as a fairly reliable indication of the present professional attitude.

This chapter treats of the attitude of Friends towards education. At the beginning there is presented a criticism of S. H. Cox, which is a concrete example of the type of criticism referred to in these pages. Following this there are presented the educational views of several Friends,—Penn, Barclay, Benezet, Woolman, Whitehead, Crouch, Tuke, and Thomas Budd, in order that the reader may judge of the truth or error presented in the criticism. The chief points made in Cox’s criticism are: (1) hostility of the Quaker system to classical education, (2) general hostility of the Friends to colleges and seminaries of learning, and (3) that the “light within” was sufficient without any education.

From the material next presented it is shown that: (1) Penn recommended both practical and higher education, (2) useful arts and sciences are recommended to be taught in public schools, (3) the classics were introduced as a part of the curriculum in the Penn Charter School, and also in other schools established by the society, (4) Barclay explains that the society holds a classical education not absolutely necessary for a minister, though it is useful, (5) the learning of languages is recommended by the London Yearly Meeting, (6) education is advocated by Benezet as a religious and social duty; the education of the poor and unfortunate classes and races is urged; a higher education for schoolmasters is recommended, (7) Woolman urges the education of Negroes and Indians as a social duty; the responsibility is placed on the individual, (8) Crouch states that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are recognized as useful and are not opposed when taught for that purpose, (9) Budd, one of the early Quakers in Pennsylvania, introduced a very comprehensive and Utopian scheme for (a) industrial education and (b) higher education, proposing to organize it under the control of the General Assembly, and (10) indications are that progress, within the teaching body in Friends’ institutions, is quite comparable with that of other institutions, though there is no attempt to produce conclusive evidence either to that effect or the contrary.

CHAPTER IV EDUCATION IN PHILADELPHIA [124] — MASTERS AND MISTRESSES FROM 1700 TO 1800 — SUPPORT OF THE SCHOOLS — BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS — OTHER SCHOOLS IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY — GERMANTOWN — SCHOOLS AT EXETER MONTHLY MEETING — SUMMARY

It is probable that Penn reached Philadelphia in the latter days of October or the early part of November,[126] though no student of Philadelphia history has yet been able to settle the question of the day absolutely. Tradition says he came up the river in an open boat and landed at the landing on Dock Street near the new tavern, the Blue Anchor, which had just been erected by George Guest, a Quaker.[127] The formal ceremony of transferring the territory which had been arranged between Penn and the Duke of York before leaving England,[128] was accomplished with the Duke’s commissioners, Moll and Herman,[129] and the official debut of Pennsylvania in colonial society was no longer a hope but a reality.

The foundation of the colony’s educational institutions had, however, not been delayed till the formalities of “making” a colony were over. Education received early consideration in the Frame of Government which was drawn up from England by Penn and agreed to on April 25, 1682, before he prepared to depart for Pennsylvania.[130] In that document it is clearly set forth that education was the function of the civil authority, though the intentions of the author were not realized fully for more than a hundred and fifty years.[131] The same idea is present in each of the three Frames of Government which were drawn up; the first, April 25, 1682;[132] the second, April 2, 1683;[133] and the third, November 7, 1696,[134] under Governor Markham. The instrument drawn on April 2, 1683, contained in part the following stipulations, which bear the impression of the Quaker ideal of education.

The plan for education as above set forth was not destined to be the one followed consistently for more than a century and a half of development, though throughout the first decades the relations between the schools of Friends and the governing Council were very close.[136] It is significant that the first school was actually ordered by the Council, in keeping with Penn’s provisions. About one year after Penn’s arrival in Philadelphia the educational problem came to the attention of the Council and received decided recognition, as the following witnesses:

Thus the first impetus to education in Pennsylvania came through properly constituted governmental authority. The Council records show that the interest in educational affairs was maintained for some time. In the month following a law was proposed for making several sorts of books for the use of persons in the province, and also recommended that care be taken about “Learning and Instruction of youth, to witt: a school in the arts and sciences.”[138] This interest in, and the close relation of the Council to, education were not long continued however; for this there is no satisfactory explanation, though it is very clear that the attitude on the part of the government did change.[139] This change is evidenced in the policy as outlined by the Charter of 1701, in which there is no reference made to education or the responsibility of the Governor or Council therefor.[140] To the writer it seems that the withdrawal of the Council from any very active participation in the affairs of education may have been due to two reasons: first, the willingness evinced by private interests to establish schools and thus take over to themselves the duties of educators (evidenced by the establishment of Keith’s school by Friends in 1689 without the assistance or advice of the Council);[141] and second, the urgent details of establishing a new government, which occupied their first attention.

If further proof of the withdrawal of the colonial government from the active establishment of schools, and of the fact that they did accept and recognize the assistance of private agencies is desired, it is to be found in various acts of legislation of the first half century. Specific instances of such permissive legislation were the acts of May 28, 1715,[142] and also of February 6, 1730-1.[143] This legislation is chiefly concerned with granting privileges to purchase and hold land and erect buildings for the use of institutions stated therein, among which schools are mentioned. In this connection the statute of 1715, which evidences the facts stated above, is quoted.

On “11th month, 9th, 1682,” the Friends met and enacted business relating chiefly to the sick, a meeting house, purchase of books and such other details of importance, but made no reference to schools or the education of youth.[144] This remained true for all meetings till 1689,[145] the chief part of business in the meantime having to do with either (1) strictly religious affairs or (2) raising money for the poor and the orphans. The absence of any remarks or any plans for schools from 1682 to 1689 is more easily understood when it is recalled that the school under Enock Flower was set up in 1683.[146] There is no evidence to prove definitely that Flower continued as schoolmaster during the whole of this time, but (1) the absence of any record of change, (2) no record of schools kept by the Friends Meeting, (3) the fact that he was a teacher of long experience (twenty years) and probably as satisfactory as any to be found, and (4) the absence of keen competition on the part of neighboring places to draw him away, would lead one to believe it probable that he remained there for the greater part of the period at least.

In 1689 Friends determined to establish a school, designed to meet the demands of rich and of poor,[147] which does not seem at all strange since they were known to have been supporting their poor and the orphans by subscriptions since their first establishment.[148] The transaction of the business relating thereto was performed in the monthly meeting and referred to the quarterly meeting (higher) for its approval. The following extract from the records of the meeting gives the result of their decision:

The number of children who attended this school is not known, but it is clear that it grew rapidly. In January, succeeding the first establishment, the new master complained of the “inconvenience and straitness” of his school and Anthony Morris and Samuel Carpenter were appointed to consult with Robert Turner for a more convenient situation.[150] The first interpretation of “straitness” would undoubtedly be that it was crowded, and that might well have been true without there having been an increase in the size of the school; more conclusive proof of the rapid increase in numbers is to be found in the fact that Thomas Makin was hired as usher to assist Keith,[151] probably about February, 1690.[152] A more convenient room for the school was arranged for with John Fuller at thirteen pounds per year, three pounds more than was paid for the first.[153]

In the 3rd month, 1691, Keith made known his intention of leaving the school,[154] whether because of dissatisfaction with the school itself or the beginning of the feeling against the Quakers which resulted in his rupture with them,[155] it is not known, and recommended to the meeting the appointment of his usher, Thomas Makin, to take his place.[156] It was Keith’s desire to leave on 4th month, 10th and he may have discontinued teaching at that time, but it appears that his account against the meeting was not settled until the eleventh or the twelfth month, 1691.[157] According to his suggestion concerning Makin, the meeting appointed a committee to consult with him,[158] the outcome of which was a satisfactory agreement. It would appear from numerous references to the subject, that the matter of getting the subscriptions and keeping them paid was a chief source of trouble, which required their constant energies and attention.[159] In 1693 Thomas Makin brought in a bill against the meeting for £12/15/7, which was still owing for his services as usher in 1690.[160]

The last four years of the century saw greater strides made in the better establishment of education as a system. In 1696 it was agreed that there should be established four meetings a year, the chief function of which was the religious education of the youth in the principles of Friends.[161] Steps were shortly taken for the establishment of the so-called “free school.” Penn had written to Thomas Lloyd, President of the Council, in 1689, advising that a grammar school be set up (that of George Keith)[162] and it was this same school which in 1697 the meeting desired to make a “free school.” On 10th month, 31st, 1697:

In the month following (11th month) Samuel Carpenter reported to the assembly that the committee had met with Daniel Pastorius and Thomas Makin and agreed to pay each of them forty pounds per year for keeping school.[164] The means of support was the familiar subscription blank, Samuel Carpenter and James Fox being the first appointed to take them. School was to begin the first of the following month, in the room over the meeting house, which had been prepared for that purpose.[165] In the 12th month a petition was sent to the Governor and Council, requesting the ordaining and establishment of the “Public School.” The text of the petition is as follows:

This request was immediately granted by the Council,[167] and the school thus incorporated in 1697.[168] In 1701 Penn confirmed its incorporation by the following charter:

The charter of 1701 was confirmed and enlarged by another of 1708,[170] according to which the corporation was to consist of fifteen persons (Quakers) by the name of “The Overseers of the Public School, founded in Philadelphia, at the request of, cost and charges of the people called Quakers.” The charter of 1711[171] contained extended privileges[172] and also provided that the election of new members of the board of overseers should be the right of the overseers themselves, thus constituting them a self-perpetuating corporation.[173] From this the reader might expect that the school at once became independent of the Friends’ meeting, but this did not occur, since the original members or overseers were Friends and continued to appoint Friends as their successors. Reports on the various details of the business of the school continued to come into the monthly meeting, but it is not to be considered that we find there a complete story of its existence.[174] In 1699 it was found that the affairs of the school took too much time in meeting and therefore it was decided that Friends in the care of schools and press should meet on sixth day before monthly meeting, transact their business and keep a record thereof in books provided for the purpose.[175]

The affairs of the school continued much the same as though no charter had been requested or granted. The records lead one to think that the growth was very rapid. Pastorius and Makin had become the masters in 1697 and by 1699 the indications are that “mistresses” were also employed, money being turned over to Anthony Morris to “pay the schoolmasters’ and the mistresses’ salaries.”[176] This is the first mention made of women as teachers. Pastorius having severed his connections with the school in 1701 steps were taken to fill the vacancy, it being decided that the newcomer should show his ability by competing with the one remaining master, Thomas Makin.[177]

Nothing like a complete or connected story can be given with reference to the masters and mistresses of this period, due to a lack of adequate available records. In August, 1701, Thomas Makin announced his intention of leaving the school and requested that his accounts be settled.[179] John Cadwalader, who had been his assistant since 1700, was interviewed as to his ability to undertake the headship of the school; intimating if he thought himself fit, he would be further considered.[180] There is no direct record of how Mr. Cadwalader rated himself as teacher, but he was continued in the capacity of master. He found the limited salary[181] almost too small for the support of his family and upon his request it was soon raised to fifty pounds per year.[182] At the same time the salary of a mistress, Olive Songhurst, whom we meet for the first time and with scant introduction, was increased five or ten pounds. The prospect of a higher salary does not appear to have attracted him much for we learn of his intended separation from the school in May, 1702. It is not clear that he did actually sever his connection therewith at that time, for in June, 1703, it was desired that John Cadwalader, schoolmaster, be paid ten pounds that was left by Robert Jones for the use of the Public School.[183] This sum may have been for other services such as copying, which he frequently performed,[184] but it is more probable that he was convinced of the advantages of remaining at a salary of fifty pounds per year, with the additional sums paid for the copying work.[185]

John Every’s connection with the school as usher is first announced in April, 1702, when he made demands for an increase of salary to thirty pounds, which was agreed to.[186] He remained there nearly two years and then departed, making a place for Thomas Makin, who returned at his request, agreeing to accept the salary previously paid to Every. These two masters, Makin and Cadwalader, appear to have been employed continuously until 1706, when they decided the school could not furnish a competent living for both of them and Cadwalader accordingly left.[187] There were further suggestions considered at that time and Friends appointed to endeavor to secure a qualified master from England. So far as the meeting’s minutes record, it seems that Thomas Makin was the only master employed from 1706 to 1708, when it was suggested that Jacob Naylor be employed as a teacher.[188]

The duties of the schoolmasters were by no means limited to the routine of the schoolroom. They were required to be careful of their several scholars and often had to do police duty among them during the meetings on first day.[189] The master’s only hope for any respite from the imposition of such duties was to stand firmly for his rights, else he might have been given charge of all the children in the meeting. John Walby, a master, when asked to perform a similar service, made answer that “he would take care of his own scholars, but did not care to undertake any further.”[190] His objection was sustained and another Friend endeavored to perform the task.

In 1711 William Robbins[191] came to wield the rod in Friends School, having requested permission to keep school in a part of the Friends’ schoolhouse, which was “granted for the present.”[192] It cannot be determined how long he remained in that capacity, but the following year it was proposed that Richard Warden be allowed to teach school in one end of the schoolhouse, and it is quite probable that he filled the place of Robbins.[193] On the other hand, if Robbins did leave at that time he had returned again to the school in 1715.[194] Thomas Makin had in the meantime severed his connection with the school, but not permanently. Seven years after the employment of Richard Warden (1719) a vacancy occurred and a committee was appointed to visit the overseers requesting them to take action regarding the vacancy.[195] From this it may be judged that the overseers were at times remiss in their attention to their trust. The overseers were set in action, and Thomas Makin was secured to fill the place, provided he would agree to teach six children of the poor and give up the house when Friends ordered him to do so.[196] He doubtless filled a minor position at this time, though he was offered a better one, later in 1722, provided Richard Brockden were willing to leave it, which does not appear to have met with the said Brockden’s approval.[197] Of Richard Brockden little is known, save that he had been schoolmaster at Byberry about 1710 or 1711.[198] In 1724 William Robbins[199] mentioned above as a teacher some years earlier, applied for a place as master. It was agreed that he be allowed to teach on the condition that he would agree to teach at least four children for the use of the house, if ordered to do so.[200]

It is quite probable that for most of the ten years preceding 1730 the school was under the charge of three or four masters just mentioned, Robbins, Brockden, Makin and Warden. They shifted quite often, that is certain. In 1730 mention is made of a John Walby as master; but no further account of him is given.[201] Thomas Makin’s career as teacher very likely came to an end in that period, as he was getting aged, though he may have taught up to the time of his death. An account of his death is given in the Weekly Mercury of 1733.[202]

From 1730 there is only an occasional mention made of the masters employed at the public school, until we come to the period about 1770 when the names were occasionally given in committee reports on the condition of the schools. However, with the fourth decade came a period of real greatness, for in 1742[203] began the services of Anthony Benezet, of whom considerable mention is made elsewhere, who continued in the public school till 1782.[204] He had throughout his life been interested in the Negroes and for several years previous had cherished a desire to work in their schools. His request, in that regard, was accordingly granted in 1782, after John Houghton relinquished that position.[205] He continued to teach the Negro school, until the time of his death two years later.[206] In 1748 Robert Willian came from England for the purpose of keeping Friends school, and was accordingly accepted into their meeting, having produced the customary certificate from his home meeting at Scarborough in Yorkshire.[207] The next mention of a new master in the ranks is concerned with Josai, who married in 1763.[208] Encouragement was at all times given to women as teachers, mention having already been made to their employment as early as 1699.[209] In 1764:

The recommendations of the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia in 1778,[211] produced a very beneficial effect upon the school affairs in all of its monthly meetings. Thereafter, reports were sent in, bad, good and indifferent, which were much superior to anything that had been done previously, though they were still too infrequent and abbreviated in regard to information contained. A digest of the report of 1779 follows, which shows the number of teachers in the several schools at that time:[212]

It appears from the meeting’s records that these masters and mistresses were all Friends, and that the schools which they taught were under the direction of the overseers of the public school.[213] Five years later another report was prepared and presented on the state of schools. At the later date several new names are found among the teachers.[214]

The five schools above mentioned were under the direction of the school corporation of overseers, and poor children were taught there free of expense. The committee also reported on five other schools, whose masters and mistresses were either Friends or made the professions of that religious society.[216]

This report of 1784 is the best during the century which gives a clew to the members in the teachers’ ranks. The growth from a school employing one teacher to a system employing ten does not seem great when measured by our present standards of increase, but for that century it is significant of rapid growth. Many of the teachers were people of no great importance, whose names were probably never known outside of Quaker circles; others were distinctly well known. In 1799 we find one other Quaker schoolmaster mentioned, Richard Hartshorne. The idea of a boarding school for Friends’ children had received quite an impetus about 1791, due largely to the interest and influence of Owen Biddle,[217] and by 1799 the school was ready to begin operations.[218] Richard Hartshorne was chosen to serve as its first superintendent and with the permission of the Monthly Meeting of Philadelphia moved to Westtown in 1799.[219]

From the very beginning of the schools in Philadelphia their primary means of support lay in voluntary subscriptions. We have already seen that this was the accepted means of raising money to maintain the poor and orphans,[220] and also to build their meeting houses; it was quite the natural way, really about the only way then familiar to them for maintaining their school system. As the meeting grew and the schools also increased many members were led to believe that it was advisable to endow them with legacies. This being in accordance with the recommendations of the Yearly Meetings of London and Philadelphia,[221] it became quite a common procedure in Philadelphia, as also in the other monthly meetings. Their third means of support was the rate which was paid by all children whose parents were able to bear the expense of their education.

As has been stated, subscriptions were made voluntarily, though they might be rigorously solicited, enough at least to make some feel uncomfortable who did not contribute when they were able. There are instances which might be considered as mandatory though such cases are very rare. One such occurred in 1701 when, Tobias Dinnock desiring a certificate, the meeting reported there was nothing to hinder it save that he had not paid anything toward the school.[222] This does not mean that he had to subscribe but it was doubtless unpleasant pressure to have brought to bear on one. Subscriptions were usually made and paid at the subscriber’s convenience, or on a date which he designated when making the subscription. Though this was ideally satisfactory it often failed to work out just at the right time, so it was necessary to appoint a committee to go out after the subscriber and get that which he had promised to pay. The first record of a committee appointed on a service of this kind was in 1691. The work of such committees was continued throughout the century, and the following extract will indicate very well their function, without further explanation or reference.

The rates paid by parents in the earlier years of their colony are seen in the establishment of Flower’s school in 1683.[224] The next references made to the amounts paid for instruction, under the rate system, are in the report of the school committee of the Overseers in 1784.[225] Flower received four shillings per quarter for teaching reading, six shillings for reading and writing, and eight for reading, writing and casting accounts; if by the year, then everything was furnished for ten pounds. In 1784 Isaac Weaver received thirty shillings per quarter for teaching the same subjects which Flower had taught for eight.[226] William Brown also received the same amount for the same subjects which he taught the whole day.[227] Joseph Clarke was teaching for thirty shillings. For instruction in the three R’s it appears that the general tendency for the cost in 1784 was about twenty-two shillings higher than it was in 1683.[228] Small children were taught generally at about fifteen shillings per quarter, or half the customary price for older pupils whatever that might be. The general custom was that in cases where the school corporation sent poor children to a teacher they were admitted for a lesser rate than the others; if fifteen shillings were paid by others, then ten shillings might be paid for the poor children, schooled at the trustees’ expense. These prices for teaching among the Quaker masters are quite comparable with those demanded by other private masters in the city at about the same dates.[229]

As was cited previously in this work,[230] the practice of making special donations, bequests and legacies was urged by the yearly meeting as a proper means of support for the schools or other institutions. These recommendations of the yearly meeting which were written in the form of letters, were transmitted to the quarterly meetings and through them reached all members of the monthly and preparative meetings in the compass of the general assembly. It cannot be doubted that they were a very important means to instill a desire to give to a worthy cause, and the very similar procedure in all monthly meetings seems to indicate that they constituted the most effectual means for getting anything definite done towards establishing any permanent foundation.

Nothing in the way of a complete survey of various legacies and donations given to the schools in Philadelphia will be attempted here, even granting that it might be interesting enough, but a few of them will be treated briefly. The first example of this individual philanthropy came before the monthly meeting in 1699, when the will of John Lineham was read, by which he proposed to leave “twenty pounds for the use of the public school.”[231] This sum was not to be expended at once for present needs but was to be kept as a “stock forever for that use.” Two members, John Kinsey and Ralph Jackson, were ordered to pay in the said amount that it might be turned over to Edward Shippen the treasurer. Other legacies were left by Robert Wade[232] and Mary Richards.[233] In regard to the former there was trouble about getting it settled, which lasted for many years.[234] The above names are only a few of the many who are mentioned by the minutes up to 1700 as having left donations for the school. There were indeed many others. In that year (1702) it was considered advisable that an account be kept of all legacies which had been granted to the use of the public school, as also those granted for the poor. Isaac Norris was appointed to prepare this account. Its purpose was probably to straighten out the tangle into which some of them had fallen (especially that of Robert Wade) and that one man might be held responsible for the expenditure of funds. No funds were to be paid out for the use of schools by Norris, except on the order of the overseers. Funds for the poor might be expended at the order of the monthly meeting.[235]

The appointment of some one to see that an account of legacies be kept, resulted in some investigation of those already granted. It appears that that of Robert Wade, who probably died before 1686,[236] had not been paid at all according to the stipulation of the donor, which stated that £5 should be paid yearly for the use of the school. The first record of a payment of the £5 was in 1699.[237] David Lloyd and John Jones were accordingly appointed to attend to it.[238] Their success does not seem to have been very marked as in 1704 the minute again urges them to treat with John Wade (brother) concerning the legacy.[239] This was done, but their efforts met with a refusal to pay the money,[240] so a committee of three Friends was appointed with others to advise whether it should be sued for or not. Such activity continued without any significant variant features until 1707, when it was proposed by those “concerned,” presumably his brother, to buy off the legacy. Having been unpaid for several years past, it was considered best that something be gotten out of it, so a committee of three of the overseers was appointed to treat with the buyers and make as satisfactory terms as they could.[241] The minutes point to the fact that it was not settled to any one’s satisfaction. In 1712 it was still before the meeting and again in 1727 the overseers are directed to use “their care to get the legacy left by Robert Wade secured.”[242] Among other legacies, obtained more easily, was one devised by Jonas Langford, which was brought to the attention of the meeting in 1711. The amount of it was £50 in Antigua money.

The Public School, established by charter, was not the only recipient of such permanent endowments. The Negro School was a popular and proper object of philanthropy and was benefited by bequests very early after its establishment in 1770.[243] The first donation came in 1771 when £2, Pennsylvania currency, were given to Israel Pemberton and Anthony Benezet or their executors to be appropriated for the promotion of the school for Negroes, and to be paid to such trustees as might be appointed to the care of the said school.[244] In the year following another legacy of £10 was left for the instruction of the Negroes, and paid to Richard Blackham, treasurer of that institution.[245] Anthony Benezet at his death left a considerable sum as a legacy, which, added to the amount of salary which was still owing him for services in the said school, had amounted by 1800 to £103 and 4s.[246] The amount of other donations to that institution up to date amounted to £117/5/11.[247]

In addition to the ways already mentioned there was also occasional recourse to a bond issue for raising funds, but the last was not common, being used only in emergency cases. The first example of it, which has come to the writer’s attention, was in 1701, when it had been decided to build a school house and the work being begun, a lack of funds occurred which prevented continuing. To meet this emergency it was agreed that the committee having charge of the financial matters should “take up 100 pounds upon interest for one year, giving bond jointly for the same and this meeting does engage to indemnify them for the payment.”[248]

Various items on buildings and grounds occupy a considerable amount of attention on the part of the monthly meeting though the minutes are usually of general nature. The place of Keith’s school (1689) was doubtless no more than an ordinary house procured for the use of his family and the school at the same time.[249] This proved satisfactory only for a short time, and to remedy Keith’s complaint (1690)[250] of its “straightness” another more convenient room was arranged for by the committee with John Fuller for the rent of £13 a year. The former had cost but ten.[251] It is likely that the school continued to be held in the same house, others similarly, for about seven years; there is, at any rate, no mention of change of place or location for that period of time. At the end of that time the meeting made preparation to receive the school into the “inner chamber over the meeting house,” the expense of fitting it up being paid out of the meeting’s stock.[252] It was in this school in the loft of the meeting house that Daniel Pastorius and Thomas Makin first taught the school together.[253] The meeting house served thus as schoolhouse until early in the year 1698, when property was purchased for the purpose, the meeting minute of the transaction being as follows:

In 1701 we find the first record for building a house for the sole use of the school, presumably on the lot previously purchased by the meeting.[255] Robert Burrough and Nathaniel Edgcomb were appointed to get the subscription for the building and pay to Anthony Morris, who was to agree with suitable workmen for the building.[256] The dimensions, “20 feet wide by 60 feet long,” were, at first consideration, thought to be satisfactory, but it was finally decided to build it 24 feet by 60 feet.[257] The work was at first to be supported by subscriptions, but before its completion it became necessary to issue bonds for the amount of £100.[258]

The acquisition of property, this time by gift, continued. In 1701, Daniel Lloyd reported that a deed for the lot in High Street, given by Samuel Carpenter to Friends for the use of the free school, was signed to the said Samuel, and the meeting directed him to get another drawn to the overseers of the school.[259] It might easily appear that the new schoolhouse, just proposed, was to be built on this lot and not that previously purchased of Lionell Brittain. After due consideration it seems, however, that the greater weight is in favor of its having been built on the Lionell tract. The minutes show that as late as 2d month, 24th, 1708, the deed for the lot from Samuel Carpenter to the meeting had not been drawn up.[260] But as was previously mentioned, Anthony Morris had been told to engage workmen (3d, 30th, 1701)[261] and the statement that £100 had to be raised by bond to carry on the work (2nd month, 28th, 1701)[262] would indicate that the work had actually been begun and was perhaps well towards completion by the end of that year. It seems quite impossible that any such building program would have been carried on so long before the transfer of property was properly drawn up and signed. The years 1704 and 1705 are busy with the details of getting several pieces of property, purchased and received as gifts, confirmed by the commissioners of property.[263] Late in 1705 it is stated:

Some light is thrown upon the interior arrangement of the school. In 1712 Thomas Griffith was ordered to pay Christer Thomason 12 for “making” a stove in the schoolhouse,[265] presumably an old fashioned brick stove, such as a few years later was condemned by William Robbins as being “injurious to many of the scholars.”[266] Mr. Robbins proposed that a “chimney might be erected,” and Samuel Preston was appointed to have it done, if not inconvenient or expensive. He reported that it would be a greater charge than represented and would hardly answer the end proposed nearly so satisfactorily as an iron stove, which he had thought necessary and had accordingly had set up, to be removed however if the meeting did not approve of his action.[267] The charge for the iron stove was £7.[268] Such items as the foregoing were brought up in the monthly meeting which appointed some one to attend to this or that detail; as the schools grew these were left more in the hands of the school committee or overseers, who reported occasionally thereon.

This tendency on the part of the meeting to turn over the details of management to the overseers came to a head about 1725,[269] when it was agreed by the meeting that all titles to the schoolhouses and other property be conveyed the overseers of the public schools and a minute be drawn up relating to such decision.[270] In the month following, the minutes of the committee’s report were made referring to the transfer:

Then follows a minute of the overseers stating their appreciation of the meeting’s coöperation in the work of the school.

This transfer was at once acknowledged by the overseers in a minute of the same date, and Thomas Griffiths and John Goodson were desired to execute the proper papers conveying the properties to the said overseers of the public schools, which was accordingly done before the next meeting (4th month, 1725).[272]

By this time (1733) the old building erected in 1701 was badly in need of repairs, but on a closer examination it was decided more economical to pull down the old and build a new one, more convenient, on the north side of the school lot.[273]

The work was begun immediately, though a lack of funds hindered its completion for some time.[274] The demand for an increase of building space seems to have been regular and urgent, indicating a healthy growth of the system. In 1740, when the consideration for a new meeting house came up, it was decided to build it large, “with chambers over it commodious for school rooms.”[275] In 1744 the overseers, finding the old school building inconvenient in divers respects, requested the monthly meeting to name a committee to confer with them on a plan, location and dimensions of a new building. Michael Lightfoot and twelve others were named.[276] The committee decided to locate the building on the south side of the lot devised by William Forest, the dimensions to be about 60 feet by 35 feet in the clear and two stories high, also a cellar under it, rising three feet above the surface of the ground. This quite pretentious building was not to be finished entirely at this time. The plan was to enclose all of it and finish the interior as the size of the school demanded.[277]

For twelve years apparently no further building projects were launched. Then the overseers appealed to the meeting for permission to erect a school on the middle of the lot left to them by George Fox. This was agreed to by that assembly and a committee named to remove the present incumbent of the lot who had not paid the rent for some years past.[278] Their next building was begun, not for the purpose of a place of instruction, but as investment: It was proposed to the monthly assembly in 1760 that several houses be erected on the schoolhouse lot fronting Chestnut Street, expenses defrayed out of the treasury of the overseers, for the purpose of increasing the yearly income of the property.[279] The suggestion was well received and the liberty granted to erect one or more such houses.[280] In 1767 the accommodations for the Girls’ School, being unsatisfactory, the overseers of the school requested permission to have the chamber of the meeting house fitted up as a place for them, which was taken under consideration by a committee of the meeting appointed for that purpose.[281]

The Negro School, established 1770, was first housed in a building rented for that use,[282] in which it continued for nearly a year. The plans for a permanent school made a building for that purpose desirable, and in 1771 the committee on education of the Negroes requested that a house be built on the lot where the alms-houses were situated, which was granted.[283] This house was occupied by the school until charge of it was assumed by Anthony Benezet (1782), who held the school in his own house.[284]

In the foregoing pages we have mentioned some of the facts of the establishment and development of the school in Philadelphia, with reference to (1) founding, (2) support, (3) masters, (4) properties, buildings and grounds. It is deemed advisable to omit from this chapter any presentation of curriculum, excepting as that has been mentioned at a few places, reserving such presentation to a chapter comprising all the schools established in Pennsylvania. As a fitting close to the previous discussion of the century’s development, we present, almost entire, one of the reports returned by the committee of the meeting, which in a fair way will tell the reader more about the growth up to, and the status of the system in 1784, than will any discussion. Portions of the report are discussed in other chapters.

The other item of very great interest, though not in reality immediately connected with the schools in Philadelphia, concerns the establishment of a boarding school, which was to be founded and planned after one of the oldest and largest schools of the society, the great Ackworth School in England.[286] The project was greatly encouraged by Owen Biddle, who (6th month, 10th, 1790) published a pamphlet of 52 pages in which the plea for such a school was elaborated.[287] A committee was appointed to confer with him, and reported they wished to present their wishes also to the other monthly meetings of the city,[288] and they concurring, to present the wishes of the monthly meetings to the quarterly and so on to the yearly meeting.[289] The report, when presented to the other two monthly meetings, met with favor,[290] and it was accordingly agreed (1792) to bring the matter before the quarterly meeting.[291] The approval of the quarterly and yearly meetings[292] in the time immediately ensuing resulted in the plans being set on foot for a subscription of £5000 and which was made open to all members of the yearly meeting in whatsoever quarter; the amount of these, in 1797, was £247/10.[293] The school established at Westtown on the tract of land purchased by the yearly meeting, was opened in 1800,[294] with Richard Hartshorne as the first superintendent.[295] Rules and regulations for its conduct had been drawn up by a committee appointed by the yearly meeting in 1794.[296]

The date of the first school in Byberry has not been definitely determined, though it can surely be placed at a very early period in its history, as early as 1710 or 1711. Richard Brockden, who later taught school in Philadelphia,[297] was a teacher in the school at Byberry, for a minute of Abington monthly meeting states in the 4th month of the later year that “At this meeting Richard Brockden, late schoolmaster at Byberry, had a certificate granted him in order to go to England.”[298]

This would indicate that the said Richard had been teaching at Byberry, and it is quite probable that he had, but it is not conclusive evidence that he did so. About the middle of the eighteenth century the Byberry Meeting became very active in schooling the children of poor Friends. This movement, it seems from all records found, was due in large measure to an apportionment received from a legacy left by William Carter to the charge of Abington Meeting, for the schooling of the children of Friends in poverty.[299] In 1755, it was:

The money thus devised to the meeting was in the care of the committee appointed by the same, whose duty it was to receive requests and to investigate all cases where help was requested or found to be necessary. The accounts of the said committee were audited at a period when necessary by Friends appointed especially for that purpose.[301] This form of philanthropy became very popular here, as in other meetings, almost every meeting bearing forward a new record of it. In 1758 James Thorntown and Giles Knight reported that they had received of James Paul (treasurer of Abington Monthly Meeting) the sum of £6, part of the donation left for the poor children’s schooling, and had applied £2/5 of the same to that use, leaving a remainder of £3/15 in the hands of Knight.[302] In 1770 the records run in this manner:

Though very few references are made throughout the early period of the schools, it is quite certain from the nature of these reports on education of the poor that the schools were continued regularly. When the yearly meeting began to demand reports on the condition of the schools, there was no stir about the matter whatever, the first report being that those who have our school under care “report that it is in good order.”[304] The requests coming into the preparative meeting for information on schools, were referred to the standing school committee.[305]

The standing committee performed all duties in connection with the school, with the exception of certain cases of difficulty, where it was necessary to call on the meeting for assistance, at which time that body coöperated with them through specially appointed committees.[306] The Byberry Preparative Meeting was, of course, not independent in this matter of school organization; their place was very much in accord with that suggested by a committee report to the various preparative meetings in 1790:

In the month following the reception of these suggestions from the monthly meeting’s committee, the Byberry school trustees made the following report on the conditions of the schools, and the nature of their own activities.

The gist of their report six months thereafter is as follows:[309]

1. The trustees have met several times at the school in the last six months.

2. Afternoons are usually spent hearing the scholars read and in examining their learning.

3. The masters keep strictly the rules, which the trustees have laid down.

4. We believe the school is kept in good order.

In 1792 it was considered necessary to enlarge the schoolhouse to make adequate facilities for the increasing number of children. The committee appointed on the subject decided there should be an addition of ten feet for the length; their suggestion was approved and a subscription begun to carry forward the work as speedily as could be done.[310] Thomas Walmsley was appointed to have oversight of the work.[311] The status of the school at the end of the century is stated in the report to Horsham Monthly Meeting, as follows:

It has already been mentioned that Francis Daniel Pastorius taught in the Friends School at Philadelphia during the period from 1697 to 1700.[313] While in the school at Philadelphia it appears that he left his residence at Germantown vacant and took up his abode in the city. The following letter, written by his children, to their grandfather in Windsheim, indicates their longing for their “own home” at Germantown and the tedium of their school days in the Philadelphia school.

The school at Germantown was opened on January 11, 1702, though Dr. Seidensticker thinks that this must have been preceded for some time by an evening school.[315]

The first overseers chosen were Aret Klincken, Peter Schumacher, and Paul Wulff.[316] Those who contributed voluntarily to the school were: Anton Loof, Peter Schumacher, Paul Wulff, Jacob Delaplaine, Jonas Potts, Isaak Schumacher, Walter Simons, Levin Herberdink, Johann Bleikers, Dirck Jansen ... Johannas Umstett, Heifert Papen, Jan Lensen, Peter Bon, Hermann Bon, Dirck Keyser, Claus Tamson, Gerhard Ruttinghusen (and two others whose names can not be deciphered).[317]

The patrons of the school for the first year were: Aret Klincken, Reinert Tysen, Tünes Künders, Wilhelm Strepers, Paul Kästner, Reinier Hermans, Abraham op de Graeff, Christian Warmer, Arnold van Vossen, Johann Cunrad Codweiss, Cornelis Sivert, Aret Küster, Jan Doeden and Lanert Arets.[318]

The school admitted both boys and girls for instruction. The amounts paid by voluntary contributors varied from 2/ to 15/ per year, while the tuition charged was from 4d. to 6d. per week.[319] The evening school was intended for those who were forced to work during the day time, or for others who, because of their age, could not enter the regular day school.[320] Among the patrons from 1706-1708 there are to be found a great number of English names,[321] which may no doubt indicate that the school under the German master was recognized by English inhabitants to be of very high standard. His experience in Philadelphia would speak for that.

Some question has been raised as to whether Pastorius taught the school in the English or the German tongue. Though in his manuscript it is found that he did use somewhat broken English,[322] we know that he taught the English school at Philadelphia, where most of the children were English.[323] The majority of his pupils at Germantown were, of course, German,[324] and doubtless German was spoken between them, and the teacher at times. The fact, however, that the titles of Pastorius’ school books were written in English, is pointed out by Seidensticker as an indication that the language of the province was given preference in the school.[325] It is also to be noted that the General Court had in 1696 ordered that the minutes of the Ratsbuch be transcribed into English, lending further evidence to the idea that the importance of the official language was recognized.[326] The length of continuation of the Friends’ school at Germantown is not known, though it seems likely that Pastorius may have continued in its service till the time of his death, or at least until 1718.[327]

Exeter Monthly Meeting, established 1737, being set off from Gwynedd Monthly,[328] did not have any schools under their jurisdiction at a very early date. The first indication that the subject of education was being seriously considered was about 1758 when youths’ meetings were established, two each year, one at Exeter and the other at Maiden Creek.[329] These youths’ meetings, sanctioned by the quarterly meeting,[330] and another at Robeson several years later,[331] were the first steps taken for education of youth, and controlled by the meeting. It is true, there was a school (day school) even at this time situated near Samuel Lea’s, as we learn from a chance reference,[332] but though it was attended by Friends children in part, it was neither controlled by them, nor under the monthly meeting. This condition lasted until the recommendations of the yearly meeting of 1777 and 1778 caused the monthly meeting to look into the educational situation.

In accord with the recommendations concerning “the proper education of youth” published in these years, and sent out, the meeting at Exeter appointed Samuel Hughes, Abel Thomas, Benjamin Pearson, Mordecai Lee, James Thomas and John Scarlet to take the question under their consideration.[333] For two years and a half the substance of the reports of the above named committee and its successors, was to the effect that not much had been accomplished.[334] In 1781 the committee reported they had visited the preparative meetings (two of them), and recommended to them the careful consideration of the youths’ education, under good moral tutors.[335] A year later, the committee was released, having, according to reports, accomplished nothing.[336] Those delegates who attended the quarterly meeting in 1783, brought back new advices, and were directed to furnish each preparative meeting with a copy and request a report on school conditions among them; at the following monthly assembly more of the preparatives were ready to report.[337] Despairing of any report, unless of their own making, the monthly meeting appointed a committee of nine men to visit all the preparatives and report what they thought of their schools.[338] They produced the following statement.

Maiden Creek was at this time (1784) making earnest efforts to meet the standards set by the general meeting. In the eleventh month they requested a number of persons to be named to whom they might give a deed of trust for the ground agreed upon for the use of their school.[340] Three were suggested and the deed and declaration of trust accordingly drawn up. Efforts in the meantime had been made towards establishing a school at Reading and a committee to conduct a subscription for that purpose named.[341] Help was solicited from the yearly meeting, but James Pemberton answered for that body that there was no money to be spared at the time, so Reading was advised to build such a house as their circumstances would permit.[342] Near the close of 1787 those having direct charge thereof made the following report of their progress:

After the school had been in progress two years, Samuel Jackson reported that it “appeared to be in an increasing way”[344] but its prosperity was not to be long continued. In 1705 it was reported “discontinued,”[345] and no reason assigned for it excepting “the situation of the Friends there” which, taking into consideration the shortage of funds when it was begun, we may infer, had reference to the financial situation. The action of the monthly meeting in regard to it was left entirely to their own judgment.[346]

In this chapter we have considered the schools of Philadelphia (city and county), and also those at Exeter Monthly Meeting, which belonged to the Philadelphia Quarter.

Education in the Quaker colony was initially provided for in the instrument of government, drawn up before the Proprietary left England; in accord with said provisions the first school (Flower’s) was set up by the Council in 1683. Thereafter, however, the initiative was usually taken by the Quaker meeting, which in 1689 set up a school and in 1697 applied for a charter under the laws of the province. This petition was granted and Penn gave the first charter in 1701. Later charters, in 1708 and 1711, granted extended privileges; by the last one the body of overseers were made self-perpetuating, and thus as independent of the meeting as they wished to be. The letter said to have been written to Thomas Lloyd, which credits Penn with suggesting the school of 1689, has not yet been discovered.

The earliest masters were Keith, Makin, Pastorius, and Cadwalader. Mistresses were mentioned in connection with the schools from about 1699, Olive Songhurst being the first one named. Salaries were not high and seem in some cases to have hardly sufficed for the family of the master; increases were made upon complaint. Extra duties for the teacher included keeping charge of the boys and girls in meeting. From 1689 to 1779 the system increased from employing one to one which required nine. In 1784 ten were reported.

Philadelphia Friends’ schools were first supported by (1) rates and (2) subscriptions, while (3) legacies and special gifts soon came to form a considerable item in their support. Bequests were also a factor in the support of the Negro School. Funds were occasionally raised by bond issues, and derived from tenements built on school property.

Schools were first held in rented property and in the meeting house, but in 1698 steps were taken to purchase property of Lionell Brittain for the use of schools. Property was received as a gift from Samuel Carpenter in 1701. The first record of a schoolhouse was the one to be begun in 1701. In accord with their charter rights the power and independence of the overseers increased. In 1725 the monthly meeting conveyed to them all money and the titles for all school property. The Negro School was provided with a building in 1771. The end of the century is marked by the establishment by the yearly meeting of a Boarding School at Westtown in Chester County.

The exact date of Byberry’s first school is not determined; but must have been early, since Richard Brockden is reported to have been schoolmaster there in 1711. School activity, however, seems to have increased greatly near the middle of the century. The school was under the care of a standing committee, which was to visit schools every six weeks and make two reports thereon each year. Poor children were schooled by the trustees of the school funds.

Germantown school began in 1702, though perhaps an evening school existed before that date. Pastorius continued in this school as master, at least until 1718. The official language used in the school was probably English. The names of the first patrons were all German; a large number of English names among them in 1708 is an indication of how the school and its master were regarded.

In 1758 youths’ meetings were established by Exeter, but no school committee was appointed until 1778. This committee accomplished nothing and made no report of value. By a report of 1784, Maidencreek, Reading, and Robeson were credited with one school each, which measured up in some ways to the desired standards. Exeter had none. The Reading School was discontinued in 1795.

The total number of schools reported at Philadelphia, Germantown, Byberry, and Exeter monthly meeting, was fifteen.

CHAPTER V SCHOOLS OF BUCKS COUNTY — SUMMARY

The establishment of schools in Bucks County will be discussed (1) under the head of the monthly meetings therein situated and (2) in the order of their establishment in point of time. The several monthly meetings and their dates of establishment, respectively, are as follows: Falls, 1683; Middletown, 1683 (known as Neshaminy until 1706); Buckingham, set off from Falls, 1720; Wrightstown, set off from Buckingham, 1734; and Richland, set off from Gwynedd (in Montgomery County) in 1742.[347] Of these meetings, all were a part of Bucks Quarterly Meeting save Richland, which belonged to that of Abington.[348]

The first way in which the early Quakers usually looked after education was to arrange for a useful apprenticeship suitable to the individual, which was calculated to enable him or her to earn a living. The moral training was always considered when an apprentice was to be placed. The placing of youths as apprentices was in the charge of Friends appointed by the monthly meeting. The early records of Falls Monthly Meeting show them active in regard to this type of education. In 1704 this report was made before the meeting.

A similar one of 1714 points out the continued interest and attention in that respect.

Another phase of education, more particularly the moral, was cared for in the youths’ meetings, which were established at intervals, usually not more than four or five times during the year. It was the practice for the youths’ meetings to be established by the quarterly meetings, in conjunction with representatives of the monthly meetings. In 1713, Bucks Quarterly took up the re-establishment of those within their limits, and ordered them accordingly, as the following extract states.

To locate the date of the first school at Falls is difficult; it seems impossible to do so from the information to be gleaned from the records. We may be certain, however, that there was a school in the neighborhood at a very early date, though we can hardly determine the year. In 1730 the following request was made of the meeting:

The presence in their vicinity, of an old schoolhouse which, moreover, needed repairs before it could be used, would indicate that a school had been there for a number of years. Taking fifteen years as a very moderate span for the life of the building, before it should need any considerable repairs we could state with a good degree of assurance that the school building had probably been built not later than 1715, and that the school dated back to that time at the very latest.[353] But at the next meeting this encounters a very dangerous obstruction. That meeting, referring to the request of the seventh month, second, speaks of “the request about having the old meetinghouse,” instead of, old schoolhouse.[354] It further mentions that it was desired for the purpose of a school.[355] From this it appears that the truth of our above conclusion depends upon the accuracy of the records for seventh month, second, 1730 and for eighth month, seventh, 1730. If the record of the first date is correct our conclusion is unfounded and the date for the first established school can probably be placed about 1730, or shortly thereafter.[356]

The records for the next thirty years reveal but little of the activities of the schools in Falls Monthly Meeting, though we are led to believe them in continuance, but perhaps not regularly. In 1759 the meeting had agreed to allow a house to be built on their grounds for the accommodation of a school master, but the house was not built there, since Mahlon Kirkbride had already purchased some adjoining ground on which there was a house built for that purpose.[357] The said Kirkbride offered to convey the same property to some Friends, in trust for the meeting, and Robert Lucas, Story Kirkbride, Mahlon Kirkbride, Jr., Jonathan Palmer, Jr., and Edward Bayly, Jr., were appointed to receive the conveyance. This is the first record of any permanent benefaction received. In 1783 the urgent Advices of the Yearly Meeting being brought to their attention,[358] a committee was appointed which reported the results of their investigation up to that time in the following manner.

In accord with the above report the monthly meeting urged each preparative meeting to appoint a committee on schools; the monthly meeting named James Moon, John Merrick, Jonathan Kirkbride, William Satterthwaite, William Bidgood, Jr., John Stapler and Joseph Gillingham to join with those of the preparatives for that service.[360] Five months thereafter they reported,

The three preparative meetings were Falls, Makefield, and Bristol, the last named being transferred to Middletown in 1788.[362] Makefield Meeting was considerably assisted by help from private sources; they reported to the monthly meeting in 1787:

In 1790 a committee of the quarterly meeting was appointed to confer with those of the monthly meetings on schools, hoping that the union of all might be more productive of results than all working separately.[364] In 1794 plans were set on foot for a new schoolhouse at Falls Preparative, said house to be two stories in height and about twenty-two feet by thirty.[365] It was to be placed “near the line” of the meeting’s land at the west end of the meeting house. The monthly meeting was to pay £75, the employers who are members, £75, and the school committee £50 from the money arising from donations left for the purposes of schools. The house was not built until 1799, due to some unknown delay; its dimensions were twenty-four by twenty-six feet, one story high, with a cellar of the same dimensions.[366]

In 1797 the attention of the monthly meeting was called to the proposals of the yearly meeting for the founding of a boarding school.[367] Copies of the printed rules proposed for its government had been received, and a committee was appointed to distribute them and to take subscriptions from any who were interested to contribute.[368]

The problem of school support occupied a considerable part of Falls Meeting’s time. The means of support were here, as in others already mentioned, (1) subscriptions, (2) donations and (3) rates. In 1760 it was considered necessary to appoint a committee of fourteen members to take an inventory of all legacies and donations, lands and benefactions which had been left to the meeting.[369] Some had been given for definitely stated uses; and others allowed the application to be determined by the members of the meeting. It was the will of the assembly that the committee appointed should especially determine what funds might be applied to the use of the schools. They reported at the next meeting that the legacy left by Elinor Bryner might be applied to the use of schools, along with those given definitely for that purpose.[370] The method by which the funds were to be applied to that use were indicated in the suggestions of the committee at a later meeting, as follows:

Such a plan as here indicated was consistently followed throughout the century in regard to school support. The interest on legacies had to be paid annually.[372]

In 1781 the meeting was advised that Samuel Rhoads of Philadelphia had offered to sell four acres of ground adjoining the schoolhouse lot, to be used for the promotion of the school, and the benefit of the schoolmasters.[373] The consideration asked was £60, and Rhoads and his two brothers-in-law, Joseph Pemberton and Samuel Pleasants, offered to donate £20, making it cost the meeting but £40. The committee on school support was directed to consider this proposal. Bristol Preparative also received very valuable assistance for the use of poor children’s schooling, in the bequest of £50 Pennsylvania currency which was left them by John Baldwin of Philadelphia.[374] The great concern of the meeting for the best expenditure of these donations for educating not only the poor Whites but also the Negroes, is seen in their minute of 1787.[375] Careful account was kept and the accounts frequently audited, sometimes at the request of individuals.[376] In 1790 the committee reported their concerns as follows:

The establishment of these permanent funds was frequently expressed by the numerous committees as the most important consideration for the execution of the school idea. They attempted again and again to provide a uniform means of establishing such funds, but due to the unequal circumstances of the several meetings it was impossible to do so.[378] The uniform plan was kept as an ideal to be striven for and recommended to the quarterly meeting for its advisement in the matter;[379] in the meantime individual contributions were urged on all who felt inclined to endow a worthy cause.[380] The amounts given were frequent though small, many of them being about £5.[381]

In addition to the local expenses of the meetings, (1) for worship, (2) for the use of schools, (3) for the maintenance of the poor, etc., there were also quotas to be raised for the yearly meeting stock, which added materially to the burden of each of the preparative meetings. The quota for the meetings belonging to Falls in 1797 was £500.[382]

If we may look over the Quaker treasurer’s shoulder as he runs his accounts at the end of the century, we find him situated financially as follows:

The Middletown Meeting began its educational work more promptly than did Falls.[384] Ten years after the first establishment of the meeting a request was brought forward as follows:

It is quite probable that the school established as requested, was a temporary and irregular affair, depending on the will of the individual patrons. Certainly, it had not any official connection with the meeting, and probably did not have for many years. In 1699, a request similar to that of 1693 was made by Thomas Stackhouse and others, desiring the use of the meeting house for a schoolmaster,[386] which implies they had not advanced much beyond their state of 1693. This request was likewise granted, provided no hindrance be caused to the meetings.

Because of very inadequate records in this regard, much is left to be surmised concerning the continuation of the schools thus early begun. The meeting was in continual touch with the desires and proposals of the yearly meeting,[387] and it does not seem justifiable to suppose that education languished, because scant records of it remain. The general tone of their minutes is one of self-satisfaction, and implies that they themselves were well pleased with their state. The elaborate recommendations of the yearly meeting in 1750[388] did not meet with their approval as they thought it quite impossible for those members living remote in the country districts.[389] That they disagreed with the plan indicates neither a lack of interest in the subject, nor a lack of schools in their locality. Rather, it may indicate the opposite.

In 1755 there was made the first donation to a permanent foundation for a free school. At a meeting in that year an extract of Adam Harker’s will was produced, where it appeared he had,

Whether there was a new school erected as a result of the bequest or whether it was turned to the use of one already existing does not appear; the latter suggestion is much the more probable. The advices of 1777 and 1778 and the years following aroused the members to the responsibilities which they must accept. In 1779 they made report as follows:

And in 1780:

All questions in regard to schools or educational affairs whatsoever were dismissed summarily, and given to the charge of the committee on schools.[393] A committee reported in 1782 that nothing had been done more than to visit the school they already had.[394] The failure to bring forth results may have been with the committee; at any rate the meeting decided to try a new one.

In 1785 this committee reported that visits had been made to families in the interests of education but that little was effected.[396] The committee was released and the consideration of education left to the next meeting,[397] at which a new committee of three was appointed. This one, so far as their record goes, was neither more active nor more successful than the others. In 1788 they report “nothing much has been done in respect to schools since last year,” which report was sent to the yearly meeting.[398] The record is not complete to the end of the century, but for the period considered does not offer any evidence of more than passing educational interest and activity. Nothing unusual is to be noted in the finance and support of the school at Middletown. Mention was made of Harker’s will, which, it seems, was the first legacy left to its benefit.[399]

The attention of the meeting was early given to the care of the orphans and the poor, and especially to their satisfactory placement among people as apprentices. The following from the records for 1699 will serve for illustration.

The attention of Buckingham Meeting was also turned toward the education of apprentices, and careful scrutiny given those who removed to apprentice themselves elsewhere, as also those who removed to Buckingham Meeting. In 1764 Mahlon Michener, son of John, removed his certificate to Philadelphia, “having been placed as apprentice” in the vicinity of that meeting.[400] John Parry, minor, an apprentice to Thomas Fell, blacksmith, produced a certificate in Abington Monthly,[401] which was accepted and also that of Isaac Gommere from the same place.[402] The poor were provided for by the legacy left for that purpose by John Holcomb in 1749.[403] Whether this might, a part of it, have been spent for schooling is not known.

In 1755 there was a minute entered in the records to the effect that a legacy had been left to Buckingham by their deceased friend Adam Harker, for the purpose of establishing a free school in that place.[404] The amount of the bequest was the same (£40) as that left to the Middletown Meeting by Harker.[405] This was the first bequest for definite school purposes; the indications are that many followed. In 1778, a minute gives their financial status as £244/4/11½ and they entertained a proposition and concluded to raise £500 more.[406] At the same time, the recommendations from the yearly meeting being read,[407] a committee of the following persons was appointed for investigation and assistance on the subject of schools, viz.: Paul Preston, Joseph Watson, Joseph Preston, John Gillingham, Benjamin Paxson, Benjamin Kinsey, Thomas Watson, Joseph Eastburn, John Kinsey, John Balderston, Jonathan Shaw, Benjamin Cutler, Thomas Good, Jr., John Brown, and Robert Kirkbride.[408] The action of this committee is not brought out in the minutes of the meeting.

The quarterly meeting made a new appeal in 1780 for a more decided action by the various tributary meetings which was followed by the appointment of a new committee.[409] They were requested to “visit the school” for the “help and assistance” of the master and to report their action to a future meeting. In the twelfth month of the same year they made these recommendations:

A new committee was appointed in 1784.[411] They convened with the committees of the preparatives and discussed the recommendations and means suggested by the yearly meeting. Their conclusion was to the effect that one thing in the recommendations was absolutely necessary, namely, that all funds, legacies, properties, etc., provided for the schools, should be vested in trustees for that purpose.[412] Without taking this step they saw no way to attain even the least success. It was further suggested that the trustees or committee thus appointed should investigate the present houses for schools, their condition and location, in each of the particular meetings, that a wiser plan might be followed in locating the new ones. The meeting considering the report decided to adopt its suggestions and accordingly appointed thirteen men,

and make a report as soon as possible.[413] Its report, produced in the first month, 1785, was quite long. Only the essential points of it are given in the following digest.[414]

1. Most of the committee appointed met and decided to confirm the former committee’s report.

2. We find that there are many schoolhouses within the bounds that include the members of the meeting.

3. They suggest that these two houses be used as previously and that new houses be erected not more than three miles apart.

4. They maintain an uncertain state has prevailed among the schools.

5. The following places are recommended for new schools to be built:

It was thought such divisions would as nearly answer the needs as rivers and mountains would permit, and would provide for all of Buckingham territory and a little of Wrightstown. Any variation from this proposed building plan was desired to be brought before the committee for their judgment and acquiescence. In accordance with this suggestion the Friends of Solebury (1785) requested the assistance and advice of the committee in locating their school which they desired in a different place from that previously suggested by the committee. They conferred with the committee and finding their choice of site as good as could be obtained, it was agreed to build the new house on the southeast corner of Hugh Ely’s land, of Solebury.[416] In 1786 Solebury Friends requested a committee of the monthly meeting to be named to whom they might give a title for the land.[417] In 1793 Buckingham was permitted to build a school on the meeting house land, the meeting to be in charge of the said school.[418]

Having settled thus satisfactorily a systematic method of getting the schools located, they addressed themselves to the task of raising school funds.[419] A committee of eleven members was appointed, which, four months later, reported a plan of subscription paper to be used in getting funds for purchasing lands and buildings.[420] The plan as reported and approved by the monthly meeting was the following:

In 1790 the state of schools in the monthly meeting was given as follows:

The form of subscription above mentioned was used for raising funds till 1793 when a committee on schools incorporated it with a few other suggestions in their plans.[422] These may be summarized as follows:

1. Each contributor to subscribe a principal sum.

2. All sums to be lumped together and invested in trustees, accountable to the monthly meeting.

3. All interests to be paid annually and applied each year to the schools in the compass of the monthly meeting.

4. All tutors to be members of Friends.

5. Funds to be first applied to the schooling of poor Friends’ children, their necessities to be judged by the monthly meeting.

6. The remainder to be applied equally to the payment for other children, proportionate to the time they attend school.[423]

7. Interest to continue till the principal is paid.

8. All principals paid in are to be invested or “put to use” by the trustees.

The total number of subscriptions listed up to date was 117; the total amount subscribed was £759; the individual subscriptions varied from £1 to £25.[424] The meeting also succeeded in getting such former donations, as Harker’s legacy, appropriated to this permanent fund.[425]

In 1796 Jeremiah Praul, Joseph Yerkes, and Benjamin Kite were appointed to have the care of receiving all applications from prospective masters, and in case of vacancies to seek and have ready a list of available and well-qualified members.[426]

One can hardly attempt to place a date for the beginning of the schools in Wrightstown Meeting. But by a report made late in the eighteenth century (1792) we gather a very good idea of the state of schools in that locality. The cause of the rather halting progress is perhaps found in the latter part of this committee’s report, which states that the best plan conceived is for each particular meeting to raise its own subscription for its own school,[427] which in part was right, but more direction on the part of the monthly meeting would doubtless have produced better results. The report of 1792 is here submitted.

In 1793 the extracts from the yearly meeting being read and especially those concerned with the establishment of schools, it was decided to appoint a committee “to endeavor to promote that service as recommended,” and make a report that might be sent to the yearly assembly.[429]

In 1790 a committee was appointed to look after the state of various legacies which had been left from time to time for the “support of a free school.”[430] This committee made report shortly thereafter that the amount of the principals and interest at the time was £248/13/10.[431] A question arose as to the proper application of the interest on a legacy left by Jonathan Abbitt and others, and was referred to the school committee. They decided it might be expended for the schooling of Friends’ children in straightened circumstances, provided they be taught in a school kept in Wrightstown.[432]

A number of other legacies were granted from time to time for the encouragement of a free school, among them being one by Adam Harker (£40),[433] who had also benefitted Middletown and Buckingham, and that of David Buckman, the text of which is given below.

In 1791 a committee presented a report on the status of legacies, which is given herewith in shortened form.

1. The will of David Twining.

2. A committee of six suggested to take the said legacy and apply its interest to the said school.

3. Report of a committee on Adam Harker’s will.

4. The trustees appointed by David Buckman, deceased, in his last will and testament to have the care of a legacy of £50 given by the said David to this meeting for establishing a Free School in Wrightstown, report that they have received said legacy and put it out to interest on a mortgage bearing date the seventeenth day of the third month last.[435]

In 1799 a legacy of £30 was left to Wrightstown Meeting “to be laid out in the education of poor children in the school house on the meeting house land.”[436] From later records running into the first two decades of the next century, it appears that the state of the donations was never gotten into very good shape. When they came into the hands of the trustees in 1822 they were “indistinguishable one from another,” so far as the purposes for which each was intended. At the time when some of the bequests were made there was a large stone schoolhouse standing on the meeting’s grounds to which they alluded in their wills.[437] This building was torn down about 1815 and two schools set up, one two miles above the meeting house, and the other about three-quarters of a mile below it. The total amount of the legacies had increased by 1822 to about $6,800.[438]

Richland Monthly Meeting (1742), the latest of all in Bucks County to be established, with which we are now dealing, belonged to the Abington Quarter (whose limits were chiefly in Montgomery County). The school, its date of beginning not known (probably in 1742),[439] was early endowed with legacies left voluntarily and primarily for the education of the poor; the first one of considerable worth was that of Morris Morris. An extract from the minutes shows that,

This beginning was increased in 1796 by £20 granted from the estate of Edward Roberts.[441] The following record from a school account book of legacies, known as the “Jonathan Walton Fund” is cited, which indicates the manner of the school expenditures[442]:

The establishment of schools of Falls, Middletown, Wrightstown, Buckingham, and Richland meetings is discussed in this chapter. Their first activity was to establish youths’ meetings and look after the placing of apprentices. The date of the first school at Falls is not determined, though the educational activity appears to have been on a par with other meetings. In 1759 property was conveyed to trustees for the use of the school, and at various dates thereafter. A school committee reported three schools, one in each preparative, in 1784. The usual means of support were employed. The school money amounted in 1799 to £777/9/4½.

Middletown’s first school was held in the meeting house, in accord with a permit granted by Friends. The real progress of schools among them is not determined, though we know that they are supplied with schools. It is likely, judging from the nature of the committee’s reports, that they did not meet the standards set by the yearly meeting. The free school, endowed with £40 in 1755 by Harker, was to be under care of the monthly meeting.

Buckingham meeting assumed a regular care in the apprenticing of children, and, like Middletown, was endowed by Adam Harker. A school committee was appointed in 1778, and the visiting of schools required. An unusual plan for building schoolhouses was devised in 1785; and also a scheme for school support in 1785 which was improved in 1793. A special committee of two men had charge of employing masters. Two schools are reported as under the care of the meetings’ committee, in 1790.

The cause for the apparently slow progress of Wrightstown concerning schools lay chiefly in a lack of permanent funds. Back of this, there seems to have been a failure on the part of the monthly meeting to unite and direct the activities of its preparatives, for the individual contributions were considerable. Though “schools” are mentioned in the minutes, it seems most likely that only the one at Wrightstown was in reality a school of the monthly meeting.

Little is discovered concerning the Richland school save that it was endowed in 1762 by Morris. The account books of the Walton fund show that the children were schooled at the expense of the meeting.

There were probably eight schools regularly established in the five monthly meetings.

CHAPTER VI SCHOOLS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY — SUMMARY

Following the procedure in the preceding chapter, the establishment of schools in Montgomery County will be treated (1) under the head of the monthly meetings in whose limits they were located and (2) in the order of the time of settlement. The monthly meetings in Montgomery County and their dates of establishment are as follows: (1) Abington, 1683; (2) Gwynedd, set off from Radnor, located in present Delaware County, 1714, and (3) Horsham, set off from Abington in 1782.[443] In connection with the schools established in Montgomery County will also be considered briefly the same activity of Warrington Monthly Meeting (York County), which belongs at present to Baltimore Yearly Meeting. Warrington was established as a monthly meeting in 1747,[444] being set off from that of Sadsbury. Brief mention is made of Westland Meeting.

The first records left by Abington Meeting, which relate particularly to any phase of education, are those in reference to the establishment of youths’ meetings. It is implied by these minutes that nothing was done in this regard till about 1695, when,

This apparently resulted in an agreement that the youths’ meetings should be established at the home of Richard Worrall.[446] It is to be inferred that considerable attention was given to this earliest phase of education. In 1699 the Friends of Abington urged:

The youths’ meetings were not of permanent foundation, and their date for meeting was shifted frequently, which gave them characteristic irregularity.[448] The purposes to be secured by the youths’ meetings were chiefly moral.[449]

The gift of property for the foundation of Abington Friends’ School dates back to 1697.[450] The donor, John Barnes, had purchased 250 acres adjoining the tract possessed by Sarah Fuller, receiving patent for the same on June 1st, 1684.[451] Shortly after this he added to his possessions also the tract formerly possessed by Sarah Fuller.[452] From this total (600 acres) he deeded one hundred and thirty acres on Feb. 5th, 1696, to the use of a meeting house and schoolhouse for the Friends of Abington Meeting.[453] The tract lies about ten miles north of the city of Philadelphia. The Abington School, thus possessing such a large heritage and firm foundation in a material way, at least is a close rival of the Penn Charter School of Philadelphia, the petition for which was presented to the Council 1697-8,[454] and whose first charter was granted in 1701.[455]

The exact date when a school was first held in property on this land cannot be determined. The meeting house on the newly acquired lands was built between the years 1697 and 1700, with assistance from the meeting at Philadelphia. It is probable that a school may have been taught at the meeting house for a time as that custom was followed in many other meetings,[456] but this is a mere probability. The best evidence of a school at an early date is that relating to Jacob Taylor who, about 1701, was “concerned in a school at Abington,” but was to be asked to take the management of a land office.[457] Mr. Bean, writing in the local history of Montgomery County, says that Jacob Taylor was land surveyor from 1706 to 1733.[458] That he was engaged in teaching during the entire period from 1701 to 1706 we do not know, but it is quite probable that he was the first schoolmaster who taught in a regularly established school.

In 1722, referring to the bequest of land by John Barnes, the minute of the monthly meeting states:

In 1726 Thomas Fletcher was chosen to act as one of the trustees of the said donation and the school affairs, in the place of his deceased father, Robert Fletcher.[460] Everard Bolton’s place (deceased) was filled by Nicholas Austen as trustee in 1727.[461] In 1742 Abington Friends took a deed of conveyance of Thomas Canby for the land and premises belonging to their school and meeting house.[462] Besides the bequest of Barnes already mentioned, there were several others which deserve mention. In 1749 a committee appointed to investigate the donation left to the meeting by William Carter in his last will and testament, reported they had attended to it, and produced to the meeting an extract from the will before mentioned.[463] Quoting from the Abington records the purpose of the will was given to be as follows:

The details of the expenditure of money left for such purposes were taken care of usually by the overseers of the poor and also by the school committee, whose duty it was to inquire in each of the preparative meetings concerning children who might be in need of help and whether they would be willing to accept assistance. Their investigations were reported to the monthly meeting to be considered before any expenditures were made.[465] If they were satisfactory to the meeting, disbursements were then ordered to the preparatives according to their needs as stated.[466] The preparative meeting was also free to make a voluntary request for a part of any fund for aid to poor children, if they desired to do so. In 1760,

It was not always necessary to bring the cases to the monthly meeting to be decided whether aid should be given or withheld. It occurred often that the funds were apportioned to the various preparatives, monthly or quarterly meetings and their representatives allowed to apply it according to their judgment.[469] In 1766 those appointed to view the accounts of the treasurer of Abington Meeting made the following report as to the state of the funds which had accrued:

A minute of 1735 entered in the meeting’s records affords us an interesting glimpse into the nature of the books used for the Friends’ schools. These books are very frequently mentioned in many of the meeting’s records, and many of them were always on sale by booksellers such as Franklin in Philadelphia.[471] There seems to be no doubt that they constituted one of the staples of the mental pabulum. The extract in which they are mentioned illustrates also the initiative taken by the meeting in the direction of affairs relating to schools.

The Abington Meeting began at an early date to work for a better organization among its schools, coöperating heartily with the suggestions of the yearly meeting from time to time. The yearly meeting in 1746 and 1750 made several suggestions for the improvement of schools,[473] which were in 1751 followed by Abington with a statement that

This report means nothing in terms of accomplishment, but indicates willingness and an active interest in educational problems. In reading of their “discouragements” one must keep in mind the standards set by the yearly meeting, and that their report was their idea of how they measured up to them.

The first mention of any school (or any reference to indicate there may have been a school in the limits of Gwynedd) is that of 1721, in a petition for a road, entered by Roland Hughes and Robert Humphrey.[475] The mention herein made is of a schoolhouse located near the property of Robert Humphrey and Roland Hughes and not far distant from the road to Philadelphia. Neither has trace been found of any school actually established nor of schoolmaster to have charge over it, yet the presence of a building erected for that purpose lends credence to the view that there was a school there, though perhaps irregularly conducted. Procedure in other districts was usually that schools were present before the schoolhouses were built.[476]

The first mention of a schoolmaster is relative to Marmaduke Pardo, who came with the following certificate from Pembrokeshire in Wales.

This certificate was signed by Richard Roberts and several others. With such recommendations, the citizens of Gwynedd were very fortunate if perchance they did secure him as a master. Other writers have, it seems, taken for granted that he actually taught in the school, but there is no exact evidence on the point, only a very great probability.[478]

The following extract indicates there was an established school at Morristown in 1766.

As with the schools and school affairs of other meetings, their history becomes more tangible about the last quarter of the century. The recommendations of the yearly meeting being received in 1777 and their attention thus directed consciously to the question of education, a committee was appointed consisting of the following men: David Bacon, John Elliott, Jr., Charles West, David Estaugh, William Brown, Thomas Hollowell, John Gracey, Abraham Liddon, Samuel Lloyd, Abraham Cadwalader, John Heman, David Evans, Samuel Lee, Joseph Penrose, Joseph Lukens and John Evans.[480] The committee reported in 1779 that the establishment of schools had been under consideration, but that no fund had yet been raised or land purchased for the establishment thereof, as the yearly meeting had directed.[481] Accordingly the same committee was continued. In 1780 a minute of the meeting states that:

And again in 1785:

The activity of the committee does not appear to have been very great. After a consideration of their obligations on the subject again in 1791 it was decided to appoint a new committee which was to work definitely toward a plan for raising a fund for school purposes, and to make a report on the state of schools in the monthly meeting. Their report which appeared in 1793 showed a considerable number of schools but none established on permanent foundations, and many not in the membership of Friends. The state of all the schools as reported is given in the following extract.[484]

The care and education of the poor was an occasion for great concern among the Friends of Gwynedd. This means not only that their education was looked after but that in case father and mother married a second time, the meeting saw to it that the children’s (if any by the first marriage) rights should be regarded. The affairs of the children had to be settled before permission for marriage was fully and freely given.[485] They were not always satisfied with their dealing with such children, however. About 1756 they declared that the children are well taken care of physically but that there is too great a neglect in regard to their learning and apprenticeship among Friends.[486]

Later they are able to report, no doubt with considerable satisfaction, that after due inspection, no Friends’ children are found placed from among Friends.[487] All cases of necessity in the concern of education were resolutely dealt with, even though, as shown in the following extract, the recipients of the assistance were rather unwilling.

For a slight insight into the condition of schools in the latter years of the eighteenth century, we can do no better than present a letter written by Joseph Foulke, which furnishes a personal touch not found elsewhere.

Merion seems to have left no written records of educational activity. There is a possibility that Marmaduke Pardo[490] may have been connected with a school there, soon after his coming from Wales, but this is little better than a conjecture.[491] In the loft of the present building (which, however, does not date back so early as this study) there is a school room in which are rude tables and benches. One of them bears the date, 1711, rudely cut with a jackknife. If, in the early eighteenth century, the meeting house still sufficed for school, it is quite probable that the same was true much earlier; at any rate, no search thus far has revealed anything concerning an early schoolhouse. The Radnor Monthly Meeting Minutes in 1791 state:

which would favor still further the idea that any school held there at that time was perhaps in the meeting house.

The earliest mention made of Horsham Meeting is that in the Abington Minutes of 1777, stating:

This was doubtless very near the time of its first establishment as a preparative meeting. The earliest preparative minutes accessible are those beginning 1757.[494] We may feel certain, however, that there was a school before this time, for in the Gazette for 1753 there appeared an advertisement which stated:

This may have been the same stone house in which Isaac Comly of Byberry taught in 1799, we cannot say. In the records of the preparative meeting on the first page there is an account of donations concerning schools, but the page is so badly mutilated that no straight account can be made of it.[496] It will be recalled from the account given of Abington schools that Horsham members were also benefitted by Carter’s legacy and others.[497]

A committee appointed to investigate the conditions of schools in Horsham Meeting reported (1779):

And again in 1783 that,

From 1782 onwards Horsham was a regularly constituted monthly meeting.[500] Almost the first thing performed by this newly constituted body was to order a report on schools which was brought into the monthly meeting in 1784,[501] the text of which is reproduced below.

After this there was no report for nearly two years, when the meeting, taking cognizance of the fact, urged all the preparatives to appoint individual committees of their own to attend to school affairs. In 1787 the committee of the monthly meeting made report that within the compass of the monthly meeting there were three schools under the care of the preparative meetings, in all of which the masters were members of the society of Friends.[502]

The value of the organization of meetings for getting something accomplished can hardly be overestimated. The directing power of the quarterly meeting must have often been the cause which produced a conscious activity in the lower meetings. The quarterly meetings were at all times feeling the educational pulse of their constituents and making suggestions, requiring reports, etc., which did not fail to keep up the local interest. The quarterly meeting at Abington in 1792 made the following suggestions:

The report of the monthly meeting in 1792 indicates that that meeting’s concern for the education of the poor was comparable to others mentioned; they state that all of the children “partake of learning freely” and their and other Friends’ children “are placed among Friends” as apprentices.

The earliest Quaker settlements in Warrington were in 1735,[504] and their first meetings for worship were held with the Friends at Newberry. Warrington Preparative Meeting was organized in 1745;[505] while the monthly meeting records date to 1747.[506] For nearly thirty years there is no notice in the records concerned with education, saving those which refer to the settling of youths’ meetings. Those were very frequent.[507] The report on the youths’ meetings in 1779 was as follows:

Three years later, 1782, it was considered necessary to leave off holding the youths’ meetings, for what reasons it is not known, but on a protest from some members it was concluded that it might be continued for at least another meeting.[509] In 1778 the yearly meeting extract was received, in which the establishment of schools was recommended; committees of both men and women were at once named for the service and desired to report.[510] In the year following, the report was made on the part of Warrington Preparative Meeting:

The trustees thus appointed, it seems, were not so successful as might have been desired, if we may judge by their report made in 1780.

The tone of the next report of 1782 is more encouraging.

In 1784 it was reported that the committee had attended at York and that there appeared to be a good prospect for a school to be established there according to the desires expressed in the yearly meeting’s advices.[514] It was also stated that some provision was made at each particular meeting for the same, and it was expected a particular report would be rendered thereof.[515] This report, however, did not come into the monthly meeting as it appears.

The conditions at York seem to have been the most promising as presented in a committee’s report of 1784 which is here submitted:

The statements of the monthly meeting in the above report are corroborated by a later report of the Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly, which was made a few months later, though it appears the schoolhouse at Warrington was not yet completed.[517]

The progress that had been made by Westland Monthly Meeting[518] is indicated by the following report of that date:

A still later report of 1797 is no more definite than the former; this is very generally characteristic of the reports, and even at a late date when other meetings were making very definite ones, indicates that a very unsatisfactory state existed in the schools of Westland. Many other reports examined, which were sent in before the committee, of the century, made no improvement in regard to definiteness.

The schools in the limits of Abington, Gwynedd, Horsham, Warrington, and Westland meetings are discussed in this chapter.

Probably the first schoolmaster at Abington, who was connected with a regularly established school, was Jacob Taylor. Land for the meeting and school uses was deeded by John Barnes in 1696, and a meeting house built by 1700. Assistance was also afforded by a legacy granted by William Carter for educating poor children. Such funds were in charge of, and expended by, trustees appointed for that purpose. Fox’s and Crisp’s Primers are mentioned for use in the schools.

Mention is made of a schoolhouse near Gwynedd in 1721, but no records of the school are discovered. Marmaduke Pardo, an experienced teacher, came to Gwynedd from Wales, and being well recommended as such, it is likely that he was employed in school teaching; but nothing explicit to that effect is found. Late in the century Joseph Foulke states he attended school in Gwynedd. A schoolhouse at Morristown is mentioned in 1766. Committees on schools and funds followed the procedure noticed in other meetings. School land, schoolhouse funds, and a house for a master were provided in Montgomery township in 1793. Another school in the compass of Plymouth is mentioned, and another one, “adjoining the meeting house at Plymouth.” Other temporary schools, used under varying circumstances, are said to be maintained. Merion and the Valley do not appear to have met the yearly meeting’s requirements in any way.

No explicit mention is made of a school at Horsham in the early minutes, but the advertisement for a teacher in 1753 indicates they were supplied with a school. A report of Horsham Preparative in 1729 mentions four schools, kept “nearly agreeable to direction.” In 1783 a list of rules was adopted for their government. Each preparative meeting was directed in 1787 to have its own committee on schools.

Judging from the minutes of their transactions, the schools of Warrington and Westland meetings seem to have been organized and carried on in a very desultory fashion. Those at York and Warrington were the best situated. There were probably as many as twelve regularly established schools in the above meetings by the end of the century.

CHAPTER VII SCHOOLS OF CHESTER COUNTY — SUMMARY

The several monthly meetings, which are discussed in this chapter, were, for the period of this study (before 1800) members of Chester (or Concord Quarterly) Meeting, until the establishment of Western Quarterly Meeting in 1758,[520] when a number of them were included in that quarter. In 1800 a new Quarterly Meeting (Caln) was established from those formerly constituting Western Quarterly.[521] The monthly meetings with which we are to deal, the dates of their establishment, and the order of their presentation here, are as follows: (1) Kennett, known as Newark till 1760, 1686, or before; (2) New Garden, set off from Kennett in 1718; (3) Goshen, set off from Chester, 1722; (4) Bradford, 1737; (5) Uwchlan, set off from Goshen, 1763; (6) London Grove, set off from New Garden, 1792.[522] Those just named were situated within the limits of present Chester County.[523] The last meeting to be considered in this chapter, (7) Sadsbury, established in 1737, was situated in Lancaster County.[524]

In the records of Kennett (Newark) Meeting, the writer has been unable to find any early explicit reference to education. Among the early references to children, are the minutes of 1715 in regard to those of the widow Howard at the time of her remarriage.[525] The meeting appointed a committee to look after the affairs of her children to see that the will of the deceased father was entirely complied with. Again in 1727 the meeting appointed a committee to see that the provision for the orphan children be fulfilled before allowing the widow to remarry.[526] These two cases serve to point out that an early care and interest in the affairs of children was manifested on the part of the meeting.

Local historians have very little to offer in the way of clews to the education of the Quakers in the last part of the seventeenth and early eighteenth century, though they all agree that the Quakers furnished the foundations of education, and it was begun very early, even from the first establishment in the various counties.[527] Some of the early schools have already been discussed, in cases where it was possible to state the earliest beginnings.[528]

In 1777 those who had attended the Western Quarterly Meeting reported they had received the recommendations of the yearly meeting requiring the monthly meetings to have particular charge of the education of the children, with especial reference to the employment of schoolmasters who were Friends.[529] The same concern being mentioned a month later, with emphasis on the school education, a committee of six Friends was appointed to join with a committee of the quarterly meeting to confer on the matter.[530] In 1779, their action appears to be just a little more definite, but from the records it is difficult to say whether it meant very much or not; the minutes at that time stated:

From that date (1779) to 1781, there appears no comment on the subject, save the usual periodic announcements that the Advices of the Yearly Meeting “have been regularly received.” In 1781, however,

In the seventh month thereafter, in the same year, John Parker reported that the school which he and Caleb Pierce had been appointed to oversee was discontinued.[533] They were released from their service in the care of schools. The former committee on that subject, appointed in 1779, seems, however, from the minute of the tenth month, 1781, to have been continued as a standing committee on the subject.[534] The following extract implies that the committee of 1779 was replaced by another which, by the way, had more specifically named duties. The implication of the minute is that there were at least two schools, perhaps more.

In the same year it was also recommended to the preparative meetings that each appoint a committee of their own to represent them and act with the committee of the monthly meeting in the concern of schools.[536] The intervening years, from 1783 to 1785, offer nothing beyond the usual general reports concerning the appointment of committees and the like. In 1785, the committee on schools produced this report:

The answer to the fifth query of the same year likewise informs us that care has been taken in the education of the poor children, and Friends’ children “are generally placed among Friends.”[538]

The request for the appointment of a new committee on schools, made by the old committee, does not seem to have received consideration till 1788. In the meantime we must assume that the old committee continued to serve, since occasional reports were sent in. The men appointed on the new committee were: Jacob Greave, Samuel Nichols, Amos Harvey, Samuel Harlan, Moses Pennock, Robert Lambourn, Jr., Christopher Hollingsworth, John Way, and William Phillips, Jr.[539] In 1790 the monthly meeting ordered a special committee to recommend a deeper educational concern to the particular meetings.[540]

The desired results, in the shape of a more perfected organization and permanent foundation to be provided for schools, did not come until about 1792 and thereafter. In that year, the committee reported its past activity in respect to schools established, and made certain valuable suggestions to guide future action, as the following extract witnesses:

The above report, being read, is agreed to be further considered at our next meeting.[541] Unfortunately for the satisfaction of our curiosity about the internal organization of the schools, the rules which they state were drawn up were not incorporated in the minutes of the monthly meeting. They were probably similar, however, to those adopted by the Horsham School Committee at a slightly earlier date.[542]

In consideration of the recommendations made in the above report, the meeting assembled in the seventh month, appointed nine of their members as trustees, to receive all donations for the purpose of schools.[543] About a year thereafter, a report signed by Joshua Pusey and John Jones was submitted by the monthly meeting to the quarterly meeting, which was in substantial accord with all that had already been done.[544] It may be well to summarize briefly their recommendations.

1. We have considered the relative situation of the members in our compass.

2. The affairs of education have not yet received the attention they deserve.

3. We find several school houses have been erected, but

4. The demands made by the yearly meeting are not met, therefore,

5. Friends must subscribe funds, either in monthly or preparative meetings.

6. The funds must be available for application for meetings. Friends are so scattered and few that they cannot support a school alone and have been forced to patronize “mixed schools.”

7. Those laboring under difficulties should be taught gratis, or at least, at low rates.

In 1795 the committee on schools produced a plan for subscriptions to a permanent school fund,[545] which was referred to the next meeting. A report was then made, but it was thought that since all of the committee had not collaborated it should be, and accordingly was, postponed for the time being.[546] In the fifth month a report was made, but still some changes were thought to be necessary.[547]

Not until the twelfth month (1785) was the report finally produced, which is given below. There has been some reference made by local historians of Chester County, stating that Kennett Monthly Meeting had as early as 1787 provided a plan for subscription for the provision of permanent funds.[548] The rule “number 5,” which is quoted by them, is exactly the same rule as the fifth one which is mentioned below. The writer has found no such reference to a plan for funds at the earlier date (1787). It seems quite probable that the statement made in Mr. Cope’s work is an oversight, perhaps an error in setting up an eight in place of a nine. The entire list of nine rules is given.

The condition of the schools in Kennett Monthly Meeting was made known in 1798 in the report presented by Robert Lambourn for the committee. A digest of that report is as follows:

The New Garden Meeting in 1773 made record of having placed £4/11/9 in the hands of Jacob Wright, to be applied at the further directions of the meeting to the placing out of poor Friends’ children or the relief of indigent Friends.[551] Between that time and 1778, we learn no more of this educational philanthropic interest. In that year the usual reminder sent out by the yearly meeting came to them, calling attention to educational needs.[552] A committee was appointed which stated in a report, 1779, “some care is taken therein, and more appearing necessary, they are continued.”[553] An extract of a few months later is as follows:

Following the report of 1779, which showed there were two schools in charge of the meeting, there is furnished no further information until 1785. In the third month, 1785, a large committee of thirteen members was appointed to take charge of the “weighty affairs” recommended.[555] This committee produced a report in the eighth month of the same year, which is gratifying in that it is more substantial than many others brought in. It is given herewith.

In 1786, George Gawthrop and Thomas Richards were added to the committee.[557] From the first to the fourth month of that year, the committee reported they had visited one school,[558] but their report indicates nothing performed, more than the visit. Four months later it is reported they had attended to the subject of schools somewhat, but that it still required much greater attention; and they were advised to meet with the monthly meeting’s clerk that he might prepare his report on schools for the quarterly meeting.[559]

Though that report and the one of the quarterly meeting really tell us nothing, we are better rewarded in one produced just a year later, which points plainly to some of the difficulties the early school trustees had to face.

In 1794 William Jackson deeded to Joseph Preston and others a piece of ground for a schoolhouse,[561] which was to be in trust for the Friends’ meeting. This is the first transfer of ground for school purposes found among the New Garden Friends. Among the stipulations of the deed are the following:

1. The master is to be a member of Friends.

2. The master must teach according to the rules laid down (presumably by the school trustees) as before mentioned in the case of the Horsham School Rules.[562]

3. The purpose stated is for the “promotion of piety and good order” and to “propagate useful learning.”

On 12-2-1701, some Friends at Goshen applied to their quarterly meeting for the privilege of establishing a meeting for worship,[563] but this request was not approved until the meeting of the quarter in 1703.[564] In 1707 they proposed building a house for worship which was granted by the quarterly meeting in the twelfth month.[565] Their monthly meeting, as stated before, was not established until 1722.[566] The preparative meetings in its compass were Goshen, Newtown, and Uwchlan.[567]

Though starting at a much later date as a monthly meeting the records of Goshen are in some ways far superior to many other meetings. In the first place, they devoted considerable attention to the yearly meetings’ proposals of 1746 and 1750,[568] which by many meetings received very scant attention. The concrete results of this attention, however, do not stand forth, as reports on the subjects are not plentiful till the “1778 era.” In that year of all years, they received the urgent accounts from the yearly meeting.[569] They appear to have gone to work at once, or perhaps had already begun, as a committee in the care of schools reported in the sixth month, 1779, that “a piece of ground is agreed for and a schoolhouse is now building in East Bradford.”[570] This school was to be made up from the Friends of Goshen, Bradford, and Birmingham,[571] and to be established in accord with the stipulations of the yearly meeting aforesaid.[572] Goshen Monthly Meeting was requested to name some Friend to receive the land in trust, and Thomas Hoopes, Jr., was accordingly appointed for the purpose.[573]

In 1782, the present school committee, deciding that something should be done concerning the regulation of schools, desired an addition to their number, those added being Abraham Pratt, William Lewis, John Mailin, and Josiah Hibberd.[574] Two months later this committee brought forth the following proposals, which are self-explanatory.

Their report was left for further consideration.

In 1784 a drive was organized on the preparative meetings. The monthly meeting received a visit from the committee of the quarterly meeting, which suggested the appointment of a large committee and the distribution of the printed advices of the yearly meeting of 1778, to be read before each of the preparative meetings.[576] In conformity with this suggestion, the former school committee was released and a new one of ten members appointed as a standing committee, directed to follow out the previously made suggestions.[577] In their report issued shortly thereafter, there is an account of the beginning of a school in Willistown, which is as the following:

Another report for 1785 gives the state of schools for that date.

The chief concern to which the committee now addressed itself was the problem as to how they might establish a permanent fund for the schooling of poor children in their limits. For this problem they seem to have found a satisfactory solution for the time being, in 1786, which they reported to the monthly meeting for its approval. It appears to have been satisfactory to the meeting in the following form, the essential features being the same as those incorporated in the plans of meetings already mentioned.

For the next six years there are but two reports worthy of attention, which may be briefly summarized in this manner:

1787

1. One school, under the monthly meeting,

2. Another school house, whose

1792

1. There is a school in Williston

The report of the standing monthly meeting’s committee in 1795 notes these further advances. The reference to the purchase of ground in Willistown would lead to the belief that the school of Willistown mentioned in the report of 1792 was not located on the meeting’s property; but the tenor of the report of 1784 leaves the impression that the “new house” might have been the meeting’s property.[583] The report of 1795 is as follows:

In 1796 the school at Goshen was apparently closed for several months, though the reference made to this fact may have been to one at Willistown;[585] exactly which one can not be deciphered from the minutes. In 1797 the committee reported a house had been built on the ground lately purchased (presumably that mentioned in the report of 1795)[586] and a school was being kept therein, according to the advices in all respects, save the membership of the master being outside of Friends.[587] “The other school” was taught by a member, and was very much as might be desired in all respects.[588] One of the schools (not clear which one) became vacant again for a short time in 1798.[589]

What became of the school established about 1779 by Bradford, Goshen, and Birmingham[590] is not made clear by Goshen records. It is probable that when the two schools at Willistown and Goshen came under their direction, they ceased to have any further connection with the earlier one in East Bradford. Further mention will be made of the East Bradford school in the material presented for that monthly meeting, in the pages just following. It may be only briefly mentioned in this connection that in 1797 the Goshen meeting appointed a committee to secure subscriptions for the yearly meeting’s boarding school which had been proposed in 1794,[591] and was opened for students in 1799.[592]

Some meetings for worship by the Friends in the district, later to be known as Bradford Meeting, were held as early as 1719,[593] and regular meetings for worship were established in 1725.[594] Not until 1737, however, had they become of sufficient importance to warrant the establishment of a monthly meeting.[595]

In 1762 Bradford’s minutes refer to settling the affairs and providing for the support and the education of the children.[596] It was proposed that application be made to the next court that those under indenture to ⸺ might be bound out so as to have a Christian education, and to enable them “to acquire a livelihood with reputation.”[597] It is implied that the Mr. ⸺ had not provided for them properly in those respects. In 1765 fourteen epistles were received and directed to be read in each of the preparative meetings (Bradford and Caln).[598] Though no school is mentioned at these early dates, there seems to be no doubt that schools were in operation, perhaps a sort of family school. This brief extract would indicate that the above assumption is not without foundation:

The cost of this schooling was paid by the two preparative meetings which produced their quotas four months later.[600] Thenceforward, till 1778, nothing of note is recorded, save occasional notices of the education of the youth.

The year 1778 produced the following minute:

Like an electric current suddenly shunted into the circuit, these extracts of 1777 and 1778 seemed to increase the voltage in the wires of the organization, producing a general hum of activity. A committee, immediately appointed, reported in 1779 they had considered the situation,[602] and in 1780 produced the report which is given below. As will be noted, their report mentions the “Union School” of Goshen, East Bradford and Birmingham, which has already received some consideration in the case of Goshen.[603]

A subsequent report of 1781 points out that an additional school has been established, presumably through the coöperation of the meetings of Bradford, Kennett, and New Garden.[605] The records of Kennett and New Garden do not seem to recognize this coöperative school, however. To the writer, it seems that the probable state of affairs was that the one school was so located that it was patronized by the three communities though its direction lay in the hands of Bradford Meeting. The contiguous situation of the townships makes this a plausible and a probable solution. The school was soon to be discontinued for a time.[606] The report of 1781 is herewith submitted.

The conditions presented in the report of the second month remained the same, save that the school between Kennett, New Garden, and Bradford was reported “discontinued” in the sixth month, 1781.[608] Later in that year, the old committee was released and a new list of men, Thomas Baldwin, Joel Harlan, Thomas Sugar, Nathan Cooper, Benjamin Hanley, John Hoopes, Thomas Fisher, Griffith Mendenhall, Samuel Fisher, and George Harrison constituted a “standing committee.”[609] In 1782 four schools were reported;[610] in 1783, several schools not entirely agreeable to the desires expressed in the Yearly Meeting’s Advices;[611] in 1784, three are reported in the verge of Bradford Particular Meeting, mostly under the direction of Friends, but “none at either of the Calns” (East or West).[612] Subsequent reports show that the cessation of the schools at Caln was only temporary. The presentation of this very brief span of their history may be closed with an abbreviated statement of a committee report made in 1792.[613]

In the same year that Uwchlan became a monthly meeting, the Friends entered a protest, saying that the making of wills was too much neglected, but that such as were made were not misapplied.[614] It is quite probable that the first statement is an indication of a philanthropic spirit in the meeting, between which and educational activity there has been noted a high correlation. Moreover, their explicit statement in 1765 concerning the education of the negroes would indicate the education of their own children was already taken care of.[615] The usual transformation in the kind of reports, noted in other meetings about 1778 and following, is likewise apparent in the meeting at present under discussion.

Though a school committee was appointed much earlier (1779) there was a very definite report made before 1782. Two reports made then in successive months are worthy of our attention.

And a month later

In 1783 a new committee was commissioned to procure a particular statement of the schools wherein Friends were concerned either as masters or as employers, viz.: Thomas Richards, Jesse Jones, Joshua Baldwin, Reuben John, William Millhouse, Griffith John, Simon Meredith, William Cooper, Elihu Evans, Aaron Duncan, and Joseph Starr.[618] This committee is not to be confused with the trustees of the school funds, who were entirely distinct, and whose sole function was to receive and apply the funds for the education of the indigent children. The trustees’ report stated in 1784 that the amount of the legacies and donations up to that date amounted to £120/10/00.[619]

Near this time, very probably in 1784, a new school was established by Friends at Nantmeal, for which Uwchlan Meeting appointed a special committee which was to make a report; the report made in 1785 stated that they had visited the school and found it well conducted.[620] In 1787, the school committee produced a report on all schools, which was to be sent to the quarterly meeting. It embodied some statement of the results achieved, difficulties to be faced, and further gave an insight into the coöperation of Friends in the “mixed schools” of their communities. As sent to the quarterly meeting, the report was as follows:

In 1794, the London Grove Monthly Meeting, just created, began its educational work by appointing a committee to take subscriptions for a fund to support a “regular school.”[622] In 1795, the preparative meeting proposing that a standing committee be appointed to inspect the necessities of the poor and the school education of their children, the following were named to unite with a committee of women on that concern, viz.: Samuel Swayne, Josiah Hoopes, John Man, and Jonathan Buslow.[623] Four months later the committee appointed to raise the funds by subscription (see above) reported that a sum of “more than fifty pounds” was already subscribed.[624] No statement of the number of schools established in the limits of the London Grove Meeting is given between the time of its establishment and the end of the century; nor are any other details vouchsafed. It will suffice for a voucher of their intentions and the work actually begun in that period, to insert the following statement of their plan for founding their schools.

There remains to be presented in this chapter the activities of Sadsbury Meeting, which, though outside the limits of Chester County, was made up very largely of members residing in Chester County.[626] The most distinctly educational work of any sort was the youths’ meeting, which was very frequently mentioned as early as 1739, only two years after they became a monthly meeting.[627] Numerous statements of these meetings occur throughout the first thirty years and more. Attention was also directed to a care for the children of the poor.

In 1779 the first committee to carry out the instruction of 1777 and 1778 was appointed, consisting of the following members: James Miller, Andrew Moore, and Samuel Simons.[629] They were to afford assistance to each of the preparative meetings (Sadsbury and Leacock). This they reported in the second month they had done; James Moore, Isaac Taylor, John Moore, James Smith, Abraham Gibbons, and James Webb were then appointed to do the work.[630] In 1782 a visit was made to Sadsbury Meeting by the committee appointed by the quarterly meeting.[631] They reported further at that time:

The conditions remain substantially the same for the five subsequent years, with frequently interspersed reports, made to the monthly meetings and to be sent to the quarterly meeting. In that year, as the following report shows, the school at Sadsbury was discontinued, and the old committee removed to make place for a new one.

It is not ascertainable from the minutes just how long this school remained closed, but a minute of 1789, directing that Barclay’s Catechism be distributed for the use of the schools, indicates that it was not discontinued for a long time.[634] Isaac Taylor, R. Moore, William Gibbons, and William Webb were appointed to distribute the said books.[635]

In 1792, Lampeter Preparative Meeting (called Leacock in 1732, but changed to Lampeter in 1749)[636] laid before the monthly meeting a request to be permitted to build a school house on or near their meeting house land for the purpose of a boarding school to be under the care of the monthly meeting.[637] Their request was not acted upon until the next meeting when it was referred to a committee of eleven men, who were to consider the proposals and report their judgment to the monthly meeting when convenient.[638] It appears from the following extract of the monthly meeting that they were somewhat critical.

At the session of the monthly meeting held two months later, the newly appointed committee was successful in getting a satisfactory hearing for their decision in regard to the Lampeter Boarding School.

In 1793, the school committee recommended in the following report that more definite steps be taken to meet the demand of the yearly meeting in regard to (1) the accommodations for a master and (2) the establishment of a permanent school fund.

By a later minute we are informed that an instrument of writing (subscription plan) has been drawn up for the purpose of raising funds,[642] which, however, did not prove wholly satisfactory,[643] and was postponed for further consideration. As presented finally and accepted on twelfth month, 10th, 1793, the plan for raising permanent funds was as follows:

The situation of schools near the close of the century is shown in a report of 1797 to be as stated below. Though this report states no fund is established, a later report of 1798 states that some progress has been made in that respect.[645]

The report for 1797 is as follows:

At the very close of the century Sadsbury Friends were interested in raising a fund to help in the establishment of the Yearly Meeting’s boarding school at Westtown, Pennsylvania.[647]

This chapter considers the establishment of schools in Kennett, New Garden, Goshen, Bradford, Uwchlan, London Grove and Sadsbury monthly meetings.

No early definite reference is made to education, though the careful interest in children’s welfare is at all times evident. Not until the “1777 era” do the reports give any considerable information concerning schools. Committees were thereafter always in attendance upon the problems of the schools. In 1781 a “union school” was reported between Kennett, Bradford and New Garden, which was afterwards discontinued. In 1785 they report “several schools,” in partial accord with demands of the yearly meeting. Land for Kennett school “number one” was purchased in 1792, and rules drawn up for its control. Their scheme for raising permanent funds was not completed until 1795. Two schools, taught by members of the society, were under the care of the meeting’s committee in 1798.

Two schools were reported at New Garden in 1779 and another was at that time proposed. Some land was conveyed to the meeting in 1785 for the use of a school, and a house built upon it. Another piece of land was deeded by William Jackson in 1794 for a similar purpose. Certain stipulations were made concerning the school to be established there. It was found more consistent in summer to employ mistresses rather than masters.

Though established at a late date, Goshen was very active educationally. Land was purchased and a house was being built for a union school between Goshen, Bradford and Birmingham, in 1779. Committees were appointed, which gave reports better than those usually returned. A plan for funds was adopted in 1786. No further mention is found in regard to the union schools after the establishment of the schools at Goshen and Willistown.

Bradford’s first educational activity was in connection with the apprenticing of children. A single case in which a boy was put to school by the meeting occurred in 1767; the expense therefore was defrayed by the preparative meetings. Educational activity increased in 1778; three schools were reported in 1780 and a committee appointed to assist in establishing others. They appear to have been successful; five schools were reported in 1792, though one was about to be discontinued. Not all of the masters were Friends.

The statement that Negroes were being educated in 1765, induces one to believe that Friends’ children were provided for. Three schools were mentioned in 1779, in which the masters and many of the employers were Friends. In 1789 a school was established at Nantmeal under a special committee of Uwchlan Meeting; it was reported discontinued in 1787. The meeting at London Grove, established (1792), reported no schools in its compass before the end of the century; although an elaborate plan was drawn up for the establishment of school funds.

Youths’ meetings were established by Sadsbury as early as 1739 and instances in which poor children were educated are cited for 1769. The first committee seems to have been appointed for schools in 1779. A school was reported for Sadsbury in 1782, but was later discontinued for a brief time, which cannot be definitely determined. In 1792 it was agreed that Lampeter Preparative might have permission to establish a boarding school. A plan for funds was drawn up, but no success reported in raising them until 1798. Three schools are reported established, and under the care of Quaker masters in 1797.

The entire number of schools set up by the above named meetings was eighteen or nineteen.

CHAPTER VIII SCHOOLS OF DELAWARE COUNTY — SUMMARY

The activity of the several monthly meetings in Delaware County in the establishment of schools will be considered under the heads of the respective meetings in the following order, Chester, Darby, Radnor, and Concord. These are four of the earliest monthly meetings established in Pennsylvania, the dates of their establishment being: Chester, 1681; and Darby, Radnor, and Concord in 1684.[648] The aim of this chapter, as of the others dealing with the several counties, is to present, first the source material which has been found to have any bearing on the establishment of schools and the attitude of the monthly meetings toward them.

Penn having come to New Castle on October 27, 1682, and performed the ceremonies of taking possession of the province,[649] appears to have gone thence to Upland, from whence he sent a letter to Ephriam Harman (dated October 29, 1682) regarding summoning a court to be held at New Castle (November 2, 1682).[650] But Upland was not destined to remain the name of the city, as Penn’s biographers tell us. It is stated that Penn, having arrived and being filled with emotion at having had a successful journey, turned to a friend and said, “What wilt thou that I should call this place?” He replied, “Chester.”[651]

In passing it should be mentioned that an interest in education does not date entirely from the coming of the Quakers and the establishment of Penn’s colony. The records of the court of Upland inform us (1679) that, without a doubt, some children received the advantages of an education. It may have been very restricted, we cannot determine that. The records of that date state, however, that: “The Plt demands of this Deft 200 Gilders for teaching this Defts children to read one yeare.”[652] There is no doubt that Friends were not concerned with education in this case.[653]

The first meetings of Chester Monthly Meeting were held in the Court House[654] at Chester, and meetings for worship usually among the members at their homes, previously designated.[655] In March, 1686, Urin Keen conveyed in trust to John Simcock, Thomas Brassey, John Brinton, Caleb Pusey, Randall Vernon, Thomas Vernon, Joshua Hastings, Mordecai Maddock, Thomas Martin, Richard Few, Walter Faucet and Edward Carter, a piece of ground in Chester

In the year following, it was urged by the monthly meeting that Friends agree with workmen to build a meeting house at Chester 24 feet square by 16 feet in height.[657] The first meeting house, built on the ground above mentioned, was completed about 1793.[658]

The earliest record of schools established by Friends dates back to about 1770. Though this is the first record of a device of property for the purpose, and the minutes of the meeting are also negligent of educational affairs, it does not seem probable to the writer that the locality was without schools. There were probably neighborhood schools, not subject to any organization on the part of the meeting. On December 31, 1769, Joseph Hoskins, a Friend, willed a lot of ground for the use of schools,[659] and though his death did not occur till some years later, the meeting appears to have known of the intended bequest and to have built a school house in 1770.[660] It was further ordered by the will that the sum of thirty pounds be paid to John Eyre and James Barton for the schooling and education of such poor children of the inhabitants of the borough of said Chester as the preparative meeting shall for the time being think fit to order and direct.[661] Mr. Jordan in his history of the county, describes the schoolhouse:

The school mentioned in the committee’s report on schools situated at Middletown,[663] was established by Friends in 1783, but an earlier school existed (1740), according to Mr. Jordan,[664] the buildings for the same having been donated by Thomas Yarnall and Thomas Minshall, whose names are very prominently mentioned in Quaker records. The meeting minutes make no mention of such a school being established, however, and it must be understood to have been entirely on individual initiative. In 1791, Enock Taylor and wife, Quakers, conveyed a quarter acre of land to the use of Chester Monthly Meeting of Friends for the use of a school.[665] Judging, however, from the later reports of the monthly meeting we would be led to believe that no school was established at that time.[666] On December 20, 1791, David Hall conveyed adjoining property for the same use.[667]

About 1778 the monthly meeting became more active in regard to its interest in schools, appointing committees to investigate conditions and report the state to its sessions.[668] In 1779 and 1781, there appeared two reports on the condition of the Negroes and their education which are presented in another chapter.[669] In 1782 there likewise appeared a report of the committee on schools in general.[670] This committee, appointed in accord with the suggestions of the yearly meeting, agreed substantially that the best way to the establishment of schools systematically, was to arrange for a subscription which might be applied to that use at the discretion of the monthly meeting. This was to be used for paying the master’s salary, and to educate poor Friends’ children, where it might appear to be of advantage to do so.[671] These suggestions were directed to be copied and put into the hands of the members in each of the preparative meetings.[672] Three months thereafter, the meeting appointed a treasurer for funds and a committee for the oversight of schools, who were to act in general accord with the suggestions made in the first report.[673] The minute of the meeting of that date runs as follows:

The work thus started was not entirely satisfactory to the committee, however. They report that “the work goes very slowly” and name, as one cause, the great difficulty of getting suitable teachers.[675] Provision seems to have been made for the schooling of poor children, “such as can conveniently be sent.”[676] This reference may mean that all such were schooled who were within reach of a school, or that they sent all for whom they had a sufficient fund. In 1783 they acknowledged the receipt of the most recent advices of the yearly meeting which again recommended the serious subject of schools to their attention. Again in 1792 we find this minute:

In 1796 the concern of a boarding school, which we have found was also interesting all of the other monthly meetings, in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, came also to the attention of Chester. They indicated their willingness to coöperate in the scheme by the appointment of a committee, which appears from a minute made in the meeting in 1793.

The general state of schools under the meeting’s jurisdiction is made known by the following report sent in by the school committee to the monthly meeting held on 1-27-1800.

The Blue Hill School, mentioned in the above report of the committee, no doubt dated back to a few years following 1791, in which James Turner bequeathed his “Blue Hill Estate” to George Miller for the use of schools established at the direction of Chester Monthly Meeting.[680]

The meeting’s schools also received a considerable assistance through a legacy of £50 left by Thomas Evans for the establishment and support of a school within the verge of Chester Monthly.[682] He makes it clear in his bequest that he has been influenced to do this by the recommendations of the yearly meeting, the influence of which has been instanced in many cases before this one.

Not only to the advancement of education and enlightenment by means of schools alone did Friends of the Chester Meeting lend their encouragement. In a minute of 1689 we find an interesting reference to assistance proposed for the encouragement of printing in Philadelphia.

We have noticed that there appeared to be very little in the records of the monthly meeting until about 1770 and that they contained little of educational interest before that time. The records of the Quarterly Meeting of Chester (later known as Concord) are, however, full of suggestions which indicate that educational interests had their attention much before that date, though they were not under a perfected organization. As early as 1732 advances were made for the care and instruction of poor children which would fit them to earn a living. We may mention the financial assistance promised by Joseph Mead in that year.

In 1739 the interest arising from this gift was withdrawn at his request and paid to the Springfield Friends to help them build their meeting house.[686]

In response to the yearly meeting’s urgent request of 1746 and 1750,[687] we have their action recorded in this minute of the year 1754.

The meetings at Darby were at first usually held at the home of John Blunston, who in 1687 deeded one acre of ground in Darby aforesaid for the use of building a meeting house,[689] on which the meeting house was begun in the following year,[690] and finished in 1689.[691] Happily, in the case of Darby Meeting we can point out a definite statement concerning a school established by the meeting, and which, quite probably, was the first school at that place. In 1692 the minutes note that,

His salary for the first year is not known, but the minutes a year later give some clue as to the amount paid.

As has occurred in all other monthly meetings thus far considered, there was always little done in the way of organization and supervision of school affairs till after 1770.[694] There were however various committees appointed from time to time, especially in the case of legacies and donations which were quite common even at early dates.[695] The movement towards better organization, however, began more earnestly in 1778, with the receipt of a number of letters from the yearly meeting, in regard to which the following minute was made:

In the twelfth month Darby Friends received a committee appointed by the quarterly meeting (Concord) to investigate conditions and promote schools among the monthly meetings.[697] John Howe, Aaron Oakford, Isaac Lloyd, Benjamin Lobb, and Josiah Bunting were appointed by Darby to join with the quarterly meeting’s committee in its work.[698] The next year the question of building a schoolhouse occupied their attention.[699] It was proposed to deal with persons holding some land adjoining that of the meeting, that it might be purchased as school property and a suitable building erected thereon. Finding, however, that those holding the adjacent property were not at the time disposed to sell, it was decided to begin a subscription for erecting a schoolhouse on the meeting’s land, which has been mentioned as having been left to the meeting’s use by John Blunston.[700] The work on this building was evidently begun between 1779 and 1781, as we may infer from the minute of the latter year.

The tenor of a minute of the meeting next following was to the effect that enough money had been secured for the completion of the work.[702]

In 1784 another visit was received from the committee of the quarterly meeting, whose purpose was “the establishing and keeping up suitable schools,” as recommended in the several years past.[703] The reports of the committee of the school at this date indicate that the status was nearly what was expected by the yearly meeting, respecting (1) foundation, (2) masters, (3) supervision by committees, (4) accommodations for the master, etc.[704] In 1787, Nathaniel Newlin one of the meeting’s representatives to the quarterly meeting brought back a request from that body for “a circumstantial account” of the state of schools, to be transmitted to the quarterly meeting the next eighth month.[705] The said Nathaniel was placed on the school committee in the eleventh month following,[706] and later, John Bull and Benjamin Bartram were appointed in the places of Aaron Oakford and Phillip Price who requested to be released.[707] In the first month of the year following there was produced a report by the committee, which in fact became the governing document for the schools established and to be established in Darby. There is presented here a digest of the report; a complete statement of it may be found in Chapter II.

1. Recalling the advices of the yearly meeting, they recognize:

2. Therefore it is agreed that in the future five Friends should be appointed and called the Overseers of Darby School, three of them to be sufficient number to transact business.

3. Their duties:

In 1792 the new overseers reported they had continued to visit the school and inspect the learning of the children, which they did with satisfaction, implying that all conditions were as desired.[709] In the eleventh month four new members were appointed to the school overseers;[710] as it is not stated that any had been released, we are uncertain as to whether the number required had been increased or not; quite likely they were appointed only for temporary assistance. In 1793 it was reported from the school overseers that Benjamin Lobb had agreed to grant a lot of ground on the upper part of his plantation, to build a schoolhouse upon; the overseers proposed that the expenses be defrayed by subscription.[711] A subscription was started for the same, and Friends desired to forward it, that the school might be begun.[712] The cost of this school was estimated at £110.[713] It is not known just when this school under Friends’ care was begun in Upper Darby but at various stages these things are known about it. (1) On the 28th of the third month, 1793, it was reported that Lobb had offered the ground, (2) the cost of the building was estimated, fifth month, second, 1793, at £110, (3) eighth month, twelfth, 1793, the Chester Quarterly Meeting received the report that Darby was going to establish a school for Friends, (4) in 1796 the committee of overseers reported, “our school has been kept in good degree accordingly as desired by the yearly meeting,”[714] (5) the committee of overseers still mention but one school under their care and (6) eighth month, second, 1798, the school overseers report that the schools are kept as recommended by the yearly meeting. It would appear then that the school did not actually begin until some time between 1797 and 1798,[715] since all prior reports had recognized but one school.

Mr. Jordan states that in 1779 a deed set aside 24 perches of ground in upper Darby on the Darby-Haverford Road for the use of schools.[716] This seems to have no connection with the schools established by the meeting; it was the first official deed for ground for schools, but many bequests of great value had been made previously.[717] The text of the minutes recording these bequests follows on a later page.

The state of schools as reported by the committee in 1797 was as follows:

As mentioned above, the second school in Upper Darby seems to have been put into operation by 1798. The committee’s report, summarized, is as the following.[719]

Signed Truman Morris, John Hunt and Isaac Oakford.

As has been previously suggested the financial assistance to Darby schools came in a very considerable measure from legacies, left from time to time, but it was also necessary to use subscription and rate plans for school support. The text of one of these bequests, as recorded in the Darby records, is given below.

Smith’s History of Delaware County states that as early as 1788 there was a school established at Radnor.[721] The first reference to a school found in the Radnor Monthly Meeting’s records was in 1731.[722] At that date Richard Harrison and some Friends

The school had doubtless been in existence for at least a short time before that. Their answers to the fifth query in 1757 state that they are careful of the education of the poor and find themselves clear of placing children from among Friends.[723] They also, at that date, report themselves free of holding slaves;[724] likewise in 1759, in regard to both.[725] In 1768, in regard to a case of apprenticing children, this minute is recorded by the meeting:

In 1759 we find that Friends are reminded by the monthly meeting of the “necessary duty” of making their wills in time of health, and that endeavors are used to apply public gifts to the uses intended.[727] The only “uses intended” must have been for some of these purposes: The support of the poor, their education, for negro support and education, or for purely religious purposes, all of which, the last one excepted, were, in a way, if we may judge from other meetings’ practices, educational. The suggestion of leaving bequests for public purposes, taken in connection with the answers to the fifth and seventh queries, and the known fact that there was a school in 1731, lead us to believe that the Radnor Meeting was pretty well awake to educational problems. However true that may be, it is just as certain that any exact data on her schools are very rare for the early period before 1778. In that year the usual declaration of the yearly meeting at Philadelphia was received concerning the question of schools.[728]

A committee of the quarterly meeting in 1778 produced a report embodying certain conclusions arrived at, both as to causes of existing evils and the proposed solutions. Only a digest of this report can be given here.[729]

1. We believe it a subject of much importance.

2. Corruptions have been introduced by mingling in outside schools.

3. It is necessary to have schools under masters and mistresses who take care of religious education.

4. We believe it our duty to spread the work through the yearly meeting.

The effect of the yearly and quarterly meetings’ suggestions was the appointment of Samuel Briggs, William Lawrence, Jacob Jones, John Robeson, Samuel Richards, and Daniel Maule to attend to the affairs of education, “as may be opened in the wisdom of truth.”[730] This last may, to our modern way of thinking, suggest rather a blind guidance, but not so to the old time Friends. The report to the quarterly meeting in 1779 does not suggest that any progress has been made, as was desired, save in respect to the masters employed in the schools.

The next step, as reported in 1781, was the appointment of Friends to attend each of the preparative meetings and to do all possible “to spread the concern” of schools and excite an attention thereunto. No visits were as yet made to individual families, and the general feeling of the meeting appeared to be that not much progress had been made.[732] When reading these reports of the monthly meetings it is well to keep in mind the chief things which the yearly meeting had desired, (1) the establishment of permanent school funds, (2) employment of Friends as teachers, (3) houses and permanent lands, gardens and so forth to be provided for the accommodation of the masters, etc. With this in mind it is easy to see that the report of the meetings might be rather faltering even though they were in some manner supplied with the benefits of education. In 1781 the quarterly meeting advised those still unsuccessful in their attempts to meet the set standards “should be animated and encouraged to give weighty attention to this important matter.”[733] The only success achieved by Radnor, according to their own report, was in the employment of Friends for school masters.[734] In 1786,

In 1790 it was reported that one of the preparative meetings was considering the purchase of a lot of ground for the purpose of schools,[736] probably that of Haverford. In July 1791 the committee on school affairs gave a pretty full report, at any rate the best we can get, on the condition of Radnor’s schools situated in each of the preparative meetings. The statement issued by the committee was the following:

The definition of the time when Concord established its first schools under the meeting’s care, is only possible within rather extended limits. We can only say that at such a time certain schools were in existence; earlier than that we have no authentic source of information. Jordan, in his History of Delaware County, places the date of Birmingham’s first school as 1806,[738] it being built on a lot conveyed for that purpose by John Burgess. From the report of the Concord Monthly Meeting in 1779, which will be presented later, it appears that Birmingham had a school at that date which was established “in some measure agreeable to the demands of the yearly meeting.”[739] It is spoken of as a regularly established school, which the writer has found in most meetings to mean that a house, master, funds, and sometimes a permanent lot were provided. This is merely suggestive. It certainly does not prove that there was a lot and building provided, but the indications are in favor of that, rather than against it. The same author, in reference to Upper Chichester, states,

The source for the statement is not given, but it appears it must be subject to the like inaccuracy suggested above in reference to Birmingham.

The report of the school committee which seems to contravert the time of the establishment of schools, given by Jordan, is herewith included.

In 1780 the minutes of the meeting state that another full report on schools was brought in, but such a report is not found in the minutes. In 1781, the question being revived by the receipt of the yearly meeting’s extracts, a committee of Joshua Sharpe, Richard Strode, Hugh Judge, Samuel Trimble, George Martin, and Caleb Pierce were appointed to take the extracts and visit each of the preparative meetings, at which they were to be read.[742] They further directed the time for Birmingham to hold their meeting, so that the visit of the committee might be arranged.[743] It is known that these visits were performed, and others following that date.[744]

It was noted in the committee’s report presented in 1779, that Concord did not yet have a school under its care,[745] though one was desired. The report of 1786 indicates that all of the preparatives were at that time supplied. A digest of the said report is produced here, also that of 1787.

Digest of their report.

The report of the next year, 1787, was:[747]

The encouragement given to the school of Concord through individual philanthropy is to be noted in the will of Nathan Yarnall, an extract from which appeared in the Concord minutes.

Such aid as this doubtless hastened the coming of the first school which was reported by the committee in 1786.[749]

The establishment of schools in Chester, Radnor, Darby and Concord meetings is discussed in this chapter.

There is evidence that education was provided for some children in Chester before the Quakers came to the colony. The first meetings at Chester were held in the Court House, but land for a meeting house was devised in 1688. The first property devised for school purposes was that of Hoskins in 1769. A schoolhouse was built on the land in 1770. A school is said to have been at Middletown in 1740, in a building donated by Thomas Yarnall and Thomas Minshall. Land was also given for schools in 1791 by Enock Taylor and his wife. About 1778 the usual committees were appointed and subscription plans formulated. At the end of the century three schools were reported under Friends’ care.

The first school at Darby was taught by Benjamin Clift in 1692, 1693 and perhaps longer, though no further record is found. Not much progress is noticed until about 1778, when the quarterly and monthly meetings’ committees united on the subject of schools. A schoolhouse was erected between 1779 and 1781. According to reports of 1784 and 1790 the Darby School was satisfactorily situated. A new school in Upper Darby on Benjamin Lobb’s lot was proposed in 1793, but not built before 1798. Two schools, kept as recommended, are reported in 1798.

Smith says that as early as 1788 there was a school at Radnor. The meeting records mention one as early as 1731. The meeting was active in educating and apprenticing the poor. The reports, however, do not indicate that they were very successful in meeting the standards set by the yearly meeting for the schools. In 1791 one of the preparatives, probably Haverford, considered the purchase of grounds for a school. A full report of the same year shows two schools (Radnor and Haverford) which are subject to the control of the monthly meeting. Merion and the Valley had no schools established according to the plan proposed.

The very early state of Concord’s schools has not been determined, though one was at Birmingham in 1779. Mr. Jordan is inclined to place the date of Birmingham’s first school about 1806. The date stated by him for Chichester (1793) also seems to be too late. The minutes recognize the Birmingham school in 1779 and also one at Chichester at the same date. In 1787 one school is reported for each preparative meeting, Concord, Chichester, and Birmingham.

CHAPTER IX SCHOOL SUPPORT, ORGANIZATION, AND CURRICULUM — SUPPORT — VALUE OF LEGACIES FOR SCHOOL SUPPORT — ORGANIZATION — THE SCHOOL — THE CURRICULUM — METHOD — OTHER LITERATURE USED IN THE MEETINGS — SUMMARY

At various times in the course of this study, it has been mentioned that the activities of the lower branches of the meeting organization were directed by means of advices sent out from the yearly meetings. These advices, particularly at the earlier dates, were of a very general nature, and, as one would judge from the name, were only recommendations as to what should be done, with occasional expressions of approbation or reproof as the action of the constituent meetings merited. As years went on, however, the advices became of more consequence, sometimes mapping out plans of action in considerable detail.[750] One of the questions which came to demand a great deal of attention was that of supporting teachers in the schools. Great trouble had always been experienced in getting masters, properly qualified mentally and morally, who would continue long in the same place of service. The suggestions of the yearly meeting in 1750 sought to remedy that serious condition. The opinion then expressed was that,

It was directed that the meeting’s clerk send copies of the above recommendation to all quarterly meetings, which were in turn to supply each of their monthly meetings and direct them to send in a report to the next yearly meeting.[752]

The above is cited as one of many similar recommendations; and, without the presentation of any more of them, it may be well to point out one of the great weaknesses of the system—that weakness being the lack of a strong central control in the organization which could formulate plans and compel them to be carried into execution. A financial plan based on that idea would no doubt have resulted quite differently than did the one pursued, which left it wholly to the determination of the locality whether they would settle regular funds for the schools. Since this study is historical we shall limit ourselves to that point of view exclusively. Let us notice then the reception of the recommendations in the case of a few meetings, tracing it to the lowest meeting whence, in the last analysis, the funds usually came.

What became of the recommendation when it had been sent out from the yearly meeting? In some cases committees were appointed in the quarterly meetings to which it came. An instance of this is the case of Concord Quarterly Meeting which in 1754 appointed a committee to inspect and examine the accounts and all moneys which were given to charitable and educational purposes.[753] At another time Concord appointed a committee to visit the monthly and preparative meetings to ascertain the state of schools among them; this committee reported soon after that they had visited the meetings but that not much had been done in regard to schools.[754] The appointment of these committees was quite a common practice and, no doubt, they had considerable influence. They often worked with the committees of the monthly meetings,[755] and in some instances produced very full reports of their activity, which they, of course, forwarded to the yearly meeting.[756] The duties in general performed by the quarterly meetings, as doers of the yearly meeting’s will, were as follows:

1. To transmit the advices through the representatives to the various monthly meetings.

2. To appoint committees (a) for investigation and (b) for coöperation with those in the monthly meetings.

3. To collect reports and make final report for their locality to the yearly meeting.

4. At some stages of development the quarterly performed some duties later performed by the monthly meeting.[757]

What became of the recommendation when sent on from quarterly meeting? After arriving at and being perused by the monthly, they were always sent by the representatives back to the various particulars, or preparatives, there to be considered also.[758] The preparative meeting was not primarily a “record-meeting” and little can be found of their organization, if they had any, for raising funds, save from the reports of the monthly meetings. This does not mean, however, that the preparatives did not share in raising the funds; it means only that the organization for so doing was in the monthly meeting.[759] The plans adopted by that body were drawn up in the most part by a committee which was representative of each particular meeting. Let us examine briefly the general nature of the plans proposed by some of the meetings for establishing permanent funds. Only those of two or three will be mentioned, as there was great similarity in all of them. The text of the plan for some of the meetings may be found in the chapter in which those meetings are considered.[760]

In 1796 the minutes of Kennett recorded a plan their committee had devised for the establishment of a permanent fund. As has already been suggested, one of the greatest weaknesses of the whole system was that everything was done upon individual choice.[761] That is probably the first thing to strike the reader’s attention as he looks over the plans devised. We will state as concisely as possible the chief points.

(a) Subscriptions were voluntary, and if a note were given it bore interest at 5%;

(b) There was a regularly constituted board of trustees for the funds;

(c) Record was to be kept of receipts and expenditures and reported to the monthly meeting;

(d) All money paid in was to be vested in real property as soon as possible;

(e) Disagreement among the trustees must be settled before the monthly meeting;

(f) Funds were to be used for paying salaries or keeping buildings in repair provided the amount of the principal fund be not lessened.[762] From reports of the success in establishing schools in Kennett meeting,[763] one must believe that their trustees managed the funds wisely and that subscriptions were generously made, but their exact financial state is not given.

Similar plans were devised by many other meetings, such as London Grove,[764] Darby,[765] Sadsbury,[766] and Buckingham.[767] In all the outstanding characteristics are the same as those mentioned in the Kennett plan. One very interesting characteristic which frequently recurs, is that in the fifth rule of Kennett which allows that the funds may be used also for the poor, who are not members of Friends.[768]

Other forms of support besides the subscription just mentioned were, (1) legacies, given on terms determined at the will of the donors, (2) fees, and, occasionally, (3) issue of bonds for rather small sums, which were needed in case of emergency, such as completing a school house which had been begun. An instance of the third method occurred in 1701 when Philadelphia Monthly Meeting agreed that £100 be raised in that manner for completing the work on the school house.[769] Many similar instances were found in records of other meetings. The rate system was so commonly used as a means of support in the early schools that it needs no special attention here. Some of the rates paid for teaching will be noted in a later presentation of masters’ salaries. Legacies have been very frequently mentioned in previous chapters and it is here necessary only to call attention to the chief characteristics of the bequests and refer the reader to previous chapters if he wishes to examine the text of them.[770] The common characteristics are:

(1) Entirely voluntary, though the making of them was frequently urged by the meeting[771] and was in fact the concern of the queries which were regularly sent out. By this means the yearly meeting was informed of the interest taken in making donations.

(2) Almost universally consisted of (a) sums of money or (b) land.

(3) The donor chose trustees in the meeting to be subject to its direction.

(4) The purpose was generally definitely stated; also how the money should be invested.

An entire chapter might be devoted to this interesting and very important means of support of the Quaker schools, but much less space must suffice. The value of it may be indicated by a few figures given in statements of a few meetings and school records. The table gives the yearly value of the legacies or other permanent endowments at the year stated. The list is not complete, due to inadequate records, but may be taken as indicative of the extent of this form of support.[772]

The machinery of organization which had any connection with the direction of the school system has already been frequently referred to. It is the same organization which was discussed in Chapter II.[780] It has further been pointed out that one of the functions of the head of this organization, the yearly or general assembly, was to issue advices for the direction of the lower units. These advices began very early, so far as they are concerned with education. In 1692 London Yearly Meeting warned all others to be careful of a “Christian care in the education of their children,”[781] and followed it successively each year with more suggestions.[782] These advices all found their way to the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia and Burlington, and the similarity between the advices of the two meetings is striking but not surprising.

It may be convenient for the reader if some of the chief recommendations of the London Advices are stated briefly, that the likeness of the two may be noted later when we examine those of Philadelphia. They are:

1. Education is to be useful and practical.[783]

2. The major emphasis is placed on Christian and moral instruction.[784]

3. The teachers must be capable of good moral influence.[785]

4. Teachers must be members of Friends.[786]

5. Free education is to be provided for the poor[787] (first it was only mentioned for the children of Friends, later others).

6. The coöperation of teachers is urged for the betterment of methods of teaching.[788]

7. The weaker communities are to be aided by the stronger.[789]

8. Both parents and teachers must realize the force of example.[790]

9. Close censorship of all reading material for the youth.[791]

From this very brief statement of London Advices and with little attention paid to their manner of getting into and influencing those of Philadelphia, save to state that the chief means were: (1) epistles sent, (2) travelling ministers, and (3) through representatives sent from the lower meetings, let us turn to consider those of the last named meeting. As early as 1694 we find that that body approved certain “proposals about the education of youth,” the initiative for which seems to have come from Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting.[792] So far as the minute of the meeting goes, one would hardly dignify this statement so much as to say that it suggested a plan of education. If such a plan were submitted, it was carefully kept out of the minutes of that date. The very nature of the advice continues as with those of London until near the middle of the century, but as one reads the records they are seen to grow gradually in definiteness until beginning (to name a definite date) about 1746 and on through the period of 1777 and 1778, there are elaborated certain ideas for the establishment of schools in town and country. It is not until those later years that anything like strong central control is felt, and certainly there were earlier no visible results of such centralizing influence. Even then it took the form of urgent suggestions which, though producing very considerable results, cannot be regarded candidly as the best that might have been done. It is with these suggestions of the latter part of the century that we are chiefly concerned. The most important are here stated in brief manner.

1. Education is to be useful in nature.

2. The minima to be attained are moral and Christian training and an ability to read and write.

3. The meetings are to assist each other in settling schools.

4. Members of Friends are to be employed as teachers in the schools; good moral influence of the teachers is of first importance.

5. A fixed income, house, and garden are necessary for securing a better and more permanent teaching body.

6. All teachers, employed, are to be approved by the monthly meeting.

7. Quarterly meetings are to appoint visiting committees.

8. Permanent funds recommended to be put in care of trustees.

9. Schools to be under the care of monthly meetings’ committees and reports are to be made thereon.

10. The poor children to be educated free of charge, and also the Negroes, where they are not able to pay. Children not Friends were not omitted,[793] as we find in the plans actually followed by the monthly meetings.

The chief functions of the quarterly meeting were: (1) to transmit these advices; (2) to gather and return reports of the accomplishments within its limits; and (3) to keep in touch with the work by means of committees. Sufficient material has in the writer’s opinion been presented in the way of reports in previous chapters relating to schools established in the various counties, to make it unnecessary here.[794] To characterize it as an intermediary agent and its functions as supervisory and directive seems to be adequate.

The monthly meeting was above all others the organizing business unit and the welfare of schools appears to have depended much on its activity. It is to the monthly meeting that we are indebted for almost all of the reports on schools, and it has been noticed that not until raised to the dignity of being a monthly meeting, did many meetings assume any important part in directing education. A few preparatives, which might be considered as a little exceptional, were Byberry, Falls, and Horsham. They appear to have handled their schools a little more independently than did others. Duties which were as a general rule performed by each of the monthly meetings were these:[795]

1. To investigate the state of schools in their preparatives.

2. To appoint committees to visit, assist and report on schools established, and recommend the establishment of others where necessary.

3. To approve masters, retire them, and fill vacancies.

4. Through trustees or committees on funds, (a) to finance the education of poor children, (b) to pay salaries, (c) to build school houses, and (d) to establish permanent endowments.

5. To take final reports to be sent to the yearly meeting.

These functions have all been brought to the reader’s attention by reports and minutes quoted in chapters on the schools in various counties. This brief presentation of the organization and direction on the part of the meetings should be sufficient to point out: (1) that the general nature of the organization is a hierarchy of units; (2) that the direction of school activities comes from the higher to the lower, and is of a general and suggestive rather than specific and mandatory nature; (3) that the monthly meeting formed the real working unit, and that on its diligence probably depended the welfare of the preparatives’ schools. We shall now attend for a moment to a few of the details of the school in so far as we may judge them from the records at our disposal.

It has already been mentioned that one of the yearly meeting’s earnest recommendations was that a lot of ground be provided where schools might be necessary, sufficient for a garden, orchard, grass for a cow, etc., and that a suitable house and stables and other necessary things be arranged for the securing of more permanent and better qualified teachers.[796] There were certainly several of the meetings where land for the purposes of schools was possessed before these recommendations were made. Notable instances, which may be mentioned, were Philadelphia and Abington, and many others, who early secured permanent lands for the meeting which were also used for the erection of schools. Some of the early acquisitions of school property in Philadelphia were: (1) that purchased in 1698 of Lionell Brittain;[797] (2) another deeded by John Goodson and Thomas Lightfoot to the overseers;[798] and (3) that devised by William Forrest, upon which the overseers erected a school in 1744.[799] There was also the piece of ground left to the monthly meeting of that place by George Fox, upon which the meeting gave permission for the building of a school, free from ground rent.[800] The property gained by Abington in 1696 was for the support of a school.[801] A meeting house was erected on the land between 1696 and 1700. These cases of endowment directly for schools were very limited as to locality at the early part of the eighteenth century. Their number increased in later years, and the increase may have been due partly to the influence of the yearly meeting’s urgent advices.

A few instances of the tendency toward the policy of purchasing permanent lands may be mentioned. In 1779, Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly reported two of their monthly meetings had purchased grounds and erected houses for the said purpose.[802] Another meeting had purchased sixteen acres, built a house, but had difficulty in securing a suitable master.[803] All other accommodations recommended for masters had been provided. Near the close of the century (1794) William Jackson of New Garden deeded a lot of ground to Friends of that meeting for the use of a school.[804] New Garden also reported a school house built about 1795 on land given for the purpose by Jeremiah Barnard.[805] In 1792 Kennett reported that their preparative meeting had purchased of Abraham Taylor a piece of ground for a school and were preparing to build a house on it. It was situated about 2½ miles from Kennett.[806] Other instances of like procedure were: Goshen, 1795[807] and 1782;[808] Darby, 1793;[809] and Buckingham in 1794.[810] Similar cases might be cited for almost every monthly meeting in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania, and it doubtless extended elsewhere. It is to be noted that this general purchasing of school property did not come until late in the eighteenth century, when the great advancement in Quaker education had its beginning. It may be fairly stated that by the end of the century most of the schools were established on school property held by the meeting for that purpose. As pointed out above, this had been a slow development, beginning with a few in the seventeenth century that started with land endowments.

The earliest schoolhouses would doubtless present an interesting picture if we could see them inside and out. Unfortunately there is little information extant, which throws light upon the earliest. In fact, at the very earliest establishment of schools, there were no special houses built for them. For many of them this condition prevailed till fairly near the close of the century. Joseph Foulke, writing in 1859, concerning his first school days, stated that he first attended school at Gwynedd, which was held in the meeting house, there being none other for that purpose.[811] His next schooling, in 1795, was at a family school taught by Hannah Lukens, who lived in a little house on the Bethlehem Road. He then attended school in a log schoolhouse, built about 1798 by his father.[812] Other instances may be cited in connection with the use of the meeting house for schoolhouse. In 1693-4 Middletown Friends allowed a school to be held in the meeting house, provided it should cause no disturbance,[813] and again in 1699 a similar request was granted.[814] As late as 1740 Philadelphia Meeting proposed to erect a meeting house with chambers over it sufficiently large for the accommodation of a school,[815] though, as mentioned before, they already had some of their schools in regularly constructed schoolhouses.[816]

The writer has had the opportunity to visit one of these little schoolrooms established in the meeting house. Not much is known of the school at Merion, though the oldest of Friends meetings, but it is quite certain that whenever their school began and however pretentious it may have been, it must have been held in the upper part of the meeting house. The schoolroom in the present building is quite hidden away under the eaves. The walls are bare and the rafters low overhead. Ample light is furnished. Rude wooden benches and tables, the latter with sloping tops, constitute the furniture of the room as it now stands. One of the table tops bears the date 1711, doubtless the telltale of some vandal outcropping, which might tempt one to place a school at that early date. It is however too meagre and uncertain evidence to justify such a conclusion.[817]

From a few sources of information we gather some clews as to the size of the schoolhouse generally. The house proposed by the Goshen Meeting in 1782 was to be 27 feet square from out to out and to cost about £150.[818] The new one proposed at Falls some twelve years later was to be somewhat more pretentious being twenty-two feet by thirty and having two stories. Its cost was estimated at £200.[819] We infer from the minutes that a building was badly needed at Falls, the old roof being “very leaky and the ceiling about to fall.” In spite of this fact it does not appear that the house was erected until about 1799; the final dimensions decided upon were twenty-six feet by twenty-four, one story, and a cellar of the same dimensions.[820] It is not certain how much space was actually devoted to the use of the school room, since the building doubtless accommodated the master and his family at the same time. The schoolhouse begun in Philadelphia about 1701,[821] was to be twenty-four by sixty feet. Another one in 1744, built on the Forrest property, was to be about sixty by thirty-five feet, two stories high, with a basement underneath raised three feet above the surface of the ground.[822] The cost of the last building when completed in 1746 was £794.[823] Anthony Benezet, who apparently was teaching in an old building, made complaint in 1744 that it was “too hot in summer and too dark in winter” and therefore urged that a window be put in the south side.[824] The writer has found a single instance to indicate how the school building was heated. Judging from such meager data we would say that the first schools probably up to 1715 or 1720 were heated by the old-fashioned brick stoves. They were at any rate employed in some, but were beginning to lose their popularity in that period. One was removed in 1715 and an iron stove substituted for it.[825]

The size of the schools, measured by the number of pupils, must be judged mostly from material found relating to Philadelphia. It was doubtless true that in the country regions there were fewer children within reach of the school and it was not necessary to state limits beyond which they might not go. The yearly meeting certainly recommended that the number of children be specified, which the master was to teach, but this was often taken to mean that they should promise to teach a certain number of children for the use of the school. The schools were always composed of these two classes, the independent or pay scholar and the poor or free scholar. Some of the Philadelphia reports state the number attending, of each of these classes. In that system the teachers were required to keep a roll, especially of the poor children, and turn it over for the inspection of the overseers.[826] In country districts the school committee usually kept account of the poor scholars, seeing that they were supplied with all things necessary.[827] It may prove interesting to examine the Philadelphia system a little more fully.

First, let it be noted that cases of both boys and girls were investigated by the overseers, and if capable and in need of assistance, they were put under the tutorage of masters or mistresses free of any charge.[828] Not only were the children of Friends admitted, but an effort was made to find out the needy, of other denominations, and put them to school also.[829] All articles necessary were furnished free to the poor scholars by the Board, the master was required to keep an account of each item and present the bill therefor in his reports to that body.[830] The number of poor in Anthony Benezet’s school in 1743-4, about a year after he entered it, was 14.[831] There was very little fluctuation as to the number for many years; in 1749 there were 17.[832] Below are given the reports of some of the schools in 1757.[833] It seldom or never occurred that a report for all schools was made at one time.

Immediately following the above report, another stated there were 38 in the Latin School, 37 free scholars under Alexander Seaton, 17 (free) under Joseph Stiles, 30 under Ann Thornton, and 30 (free) under Rebeckah Burchall.[834] The slight discrepancy in the figures is not explained. A later report of 1784 shows the following schools and the enrollment of each. (1) Proud, (Latin), number not given; Todd, (English), 88 on the list; Isaac Weaver, 28; William Brown, 29 girls; Sarah Lancaster, 64; Mary Harry, 15 or 16; Joseph Clarke, about 30; Mrs. Clarke, 15 or 16 boys and girls; Ann Marsh, about 50 boys and girls; Mary McDonnell, 15 young children.[835] From this it seems that the only two schools which have increased considerably in number are the Latin and English, both of which employed ushers or assistants.[836] The chief indication of the system’s growth is the increase from five or six schools to at least ten. The approximate number of children recorded as having attended the schools under the overseers from 1712 to 1770 was 720.[837]

Children were frequently sent away from home to attend school, due to a lack of adequate facilities near at hand. The following letter, from an anxious mother, is a very interesting commentary on the attitude taken by the less educated toward the propriety of spending time for education. Though impolite to read private letters, it may be pardoned in this case.

A fairly good mental picture of the school, and the atmosphere pervading it, is obtained from a perusal of the list of rules which were adopted both for the guidance of the masters and the observance of the pupils. We cannot gain much from a discussion since they are self-explanatory, hence there is submitted a concise digest of those issued for the masters and mistresses in the several schools.

1. All pupils must be at school promptly.

2. No one shall be absent without a permit from parents.

3. Strict obedience to the monitor is demanded, but if there is a real grievance, complaint may be made to the master.

4. Be orderly in coming to and leaving school.

5. Use the plain language to all persons; be civil to all.

6. To avoid, in hours of leisure, all “ranting games” and quarrelling with one another.

7. Shall not play or keep company with rude boys of the town, but play with own school fellows.

8. They shall come to school on 5th day prepared to go to the regular meeting.[839]

The rules above, which, if all followed, one must admit would have made an almost model school so far as behavior was concerned, were shortly thereafter expanded a little to meet the needs of the Latin and English schools. Those rules, however, were more concerned with the curriculum and part of method, and were doubtless a guide for the instructors more than to be followed by the pupils. They will receive attention in the next few pages in the discussion of the curriculum. We shall however be interested at this juncture to read the rules adopted by Robert Proud, schoolmaster and historian, for the government of the Latin School, in which he was the head master for many years. They are very similar to those already noted, though drawn up by Proud for his school alone.

Rule 9 deals with the proper attitude and behavior.

Rule 10 deals with the behavior in the religious meetings.

In spite of the most excellent rules, which, we have seen, were drawn,[841] it appears the attendance problem was one which caused some masters no little worry. Proud’s manuscripts again inform us that on one occasion, after continuous aggravation due to absences, he felt called upon to send a note to the overseers concerning that serious affair. He first mentions the ends desired to be gained by such a school, and points out that they are being fallen short of, because of the laxity in attendance. Moreover, the worst offenders are the sons of the overseers. He says in particular:

There were, it seems, the usual causes at work which produced such havoc in the attendance record, and such distress in the minds of masters. A letter written by James Logan to his friend John Dickinson, in 1704, strengthens our belief that such was the case. He wrote in part:

We have not much information from which to judge the discipline of the school. From the rules already considered one would expect that strict discipline was observed, but of the master’s methods of enforcing it we know but little. There were doubtless two extremes. On the one hand, we might take Anthony Benezet as the very personification of mildness, and who ruled by love.[844] On the other hand, there was John Todd who would thrash a boy very severely, and who took great delight in getting his victim to admit the pain that he knew he felt.[845]

To secure better discipline, attendance, and also to induce striving for scholarship, it was customary to give rewards. We noted in the items sent in to the overseers in masters’ reports that certain amounts were for “premiums.”[846] This policy of rewards was early agreed upon by the overseers who sought in various ways to establish little funds for that purpose. In 1755 it was proposed that each one pay two shillings for missing a board meeting and one shilling for being late; the accruing amount to be paid out in premiums to encourage industry among the boys.[847] The fines were collected and then turned over to the masters who applied them as they saw fit.[848] The extent of the practice of giving rewards is not exactly known, but it seems to have been general throughout all the schools of the Board in Philadelphia, if we may judge from the regularity with which the bills for “premiums” were presented. It was also true that the school committees in other monthly meetings arranged to give rewards on visiting day to the scholars having the best records.[849]

The early school days seem to have been long and tedious. Attention has already been called to the letter of Pastorius’ children to their grandfather, in which they complained of the long eight hour school day.[850] The school continued, according to their account, six days in the week excepting Saturday afternoon.[851] Besides this it was customary in all places to attend meeting on fifth day (Thursday),[852] save in places where it may have been too far distant, an exception was made possible.[853] Evening schools were quite common, as has been stated before in the case of Germantown,[854] and increased in number toward the latter part of the century. In 1750 John Wilson, usher to Robert Willian, expressed his intention of opening an evening school which appears to have been acceptable to the Board.[855] The prevalence of the evening school among people not Friends is at once apparent when one glances at the advertisements in the colonial newspapers. A few of those private evening schools were: one kept by William Dawson and John Gladson, teaching writing, arithmetic, and navigation;[856] others by John Shuppy,[857] Mr. Lyonet,[858] and Messrs. Barthelemy and Besayde.[859]

The length of the school day is better indicated, and perhaps the source of information is more reliable, near the end of the century. The rules issued by the Board in 1795 state that the hours are to be from 8 to 12 in the morning, and from 2 to 5 in the afternoon, these hours to be observed from third month, first to eleventh month, first; in the remaining months the hours were 9 to 12 and 2 to 5.[860] Vacations were very scarce and very brief.[861] In the main, according to the rules issued at least, they were to be: (1) at the periods of the quarterly and yearly meetings; and (2) a vacation of three weeks, commencing on seventh day preceding the last sixth day of the week of the seventh month.[862] The other rules issued at this date besides these mentioned relating to holidays and length of the school day were the same as were previously stated.[863] The hours named above appear to us rather long for the small children; arrangement seems to have been made for them, though no statement of it is made in the school regulations. There were, however, the schools of (1) William Brown and (2) Sarah Lancaster, who taught children for half days,[864] and also the Girls’ School, in which Anthony Benezet taught (1754), was mentioned as though it were to be conducted only in the morning.[865] It is not to be understood that the half day arrangement was always followed in the case of younger children, for Sarah Lancaster taught thirty-five children whole days “at 15/ per quarter.”[866] It seems that the amount of time for them to attend was probably determined by the desires of their parents.

An interesting and instructive light is cast upon the inner life of the school in Philadelphia, by some of the manuscript collections of the very old Philadelphia families. For instance, we learn that in the public school there were published certain magazines, gazettes, chronicles, and so forth, a few of them named as follows: The Examiner, The Universal Magazine, 1774, Students’ Gazette (about 1774 to 1777), The P. S. Gazette, Latonia, 1777 to 1778, the Public School Gazetteer, containing the freshest advices, foreign and domestic (a palpable imitation of the newspapers in the city of that date), and The Students’ Magazine.[867] The contents of all of them were no doubt very interesting to the boys and girls at the time of their publication, and are so even now, and at times give light on topics of importance. It may perhaps interest the reader to see some of the entries. We find the following which gives a clew to the book used for instruction in grammar.

Another of interest bewails the departure of Thomas Lloyd from school to go into Lancaster County.

Another brief notice indicates that the Quaker preferment for plain dress was also made to prevail in the schoolroom.

Some supervision of the work on the part of overseers and school committees seems to have been at all times expected, though attention hardly needs be called to it after the presentation of so many reports made by committees, in the chapters relating to the establishment of schools in the several counties. From the irregularity in the reports we judge, however, that the visitation must have likewise been irregular in many places. In 1755 the Board in Philadelphia decided that for the encouragement of masters and scholars there should be visits made each month, preceding the usual monthly meetings. Also if “play days” were thought necessary they were to be arranged for between the masters and the committee of visitors.[871] The minutes indicate that these monthly visits were regularly performed. The Negro School, established in 1770, was also in charge of a committee to visit, superintend, and advise regarding its affairs.[872]

If we go back to our references on the advices of the yearly meetings of London and Philadelphia we shall find there the basic reasons for the subjects which are to be mentioned as taught regularly in the schools. We recall that there was an emphasis placed on the moral, the useful and practical, and the subjects first to be mentioned were: writing, reading, and arithmetic, which constituted the necessities.[873] Furthermore, the Frame of Government of 1696, the product of Quaker minds and hands, recommended to erect and order all public houses and encourage and reward the authors of useful sciences and laudable inventions.[874] It is seen also from later advices of the yearly meeting that the useful was not limited necessarily to the four R’s, religion, arithmetic, writing, and reading. In 1737, they recommended that as opportunity could be found, children should be permitted to learn “French, High and Low Dutch, Danish, etc.”[875] The use of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew is also justified by Crouch,[876] and it is well known and evident in all their writings that Penn, Barclay, Fothergill, Lloyd, Proud, Pastorius, and innumerable others were classically educated men.

The curriculum of the first school (Enoch Flower’s) consisted of reading, writing, and casting accounts,[877] and it seems entirely probable that these were the chief constituents, along with moral instruction, for many years, in all save the Latin School. At any rate there occur no disproving factors in that early period. In 1742, when Anthony Benezet came from the Germantown school to Philadelphia, he was employed to teach arithmetic, writing, accounts, and French.[878] John Walby, employed about ten years before him (Benezet) was to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic.[879] Alexander Seaton was employed in 1751 to teach a school “in the upper part of the City,” the subjects being writing, arithmetic, and parts of the mathematics.[880] In 1754, when Benezet first began in the Girls’ School (mornings), he was required to instruct in reading, writing, arithmetic, and English grammar.[881] Then, besides what we may term the English School, in which Seaton and Benezet taught for some time, there were others which we might term “petty schools,” for example, one kept by Debby Godfrey,[882] who taught some poor children to learn to sew and read, and another, taught by Ann Redman (1761), previously occupied by Rebeckah Burchall, where were taught reading, writing, and plain sewing.[883]

Since writing letters was an art much used and cultivated in the Colonial Period, and writing was greatly emphasized in the schools, it may be of interest to insert a letter written by a school boy in 1735. The letter is written in a fairly regular boyish hand, and is probably the production of a youngster about 12 years of age.

At later dates than those above mentioned the records of the overseers, reports made in the monthly meetings of Philadelphia, Horsham School Minutes, Darby, and others, indicate that the curriculum consisted of reading, English, writing, arithmetic, branches of the mathematics, sewing, spelling, needlework, and other things suitable for girls.[885] The only one which is mentioned at this latter date, and not at the former, is spelling. This of course does not mean, necessarily, that spelling had just been introduced. In 1756 the visiting committee reported that spelling books and Bibles were needed in the schools for the poor children,[886] and since Benezet’s spelling book came to a second edition in 1779,[887] and Fox’s Instructions for Right Spelling was published in Philadelphia in 1702,[888] we may be certain that spelling as a regular study began at a very early date. If we compare this curriculum with those mentioned by private tutors at the same time, we find them essentially the same. There was, however, frequent mention of such subjects as navigation, calk guaging, mensuration, bookkeeping,[889] surveying,[890] dialling,[891] astronomy, and fortification,[892] which are not mentioned definitely in the curriculum of the Friends’ schools. It is quite probable that those above, dealing with higher mathematics, were included in the higher mathematics taught in the Classical School. But one cannot imagine that “fortification” was granted a place. Those studies of the mathematics may be mentioned again in studying the curriculum of the Latin School.

The curriculum in the Negro School (1770) consisted approximately of the same subjects, though they may have been modified to some extent in presentation, and restricted more or less to the rudiments. The subjects of instruction mentioned when the school first began were reading, writing, and arithmetic, and were to be taught under “prudent” and “competent” direction.[893]

What books were used for the instruction in this curriculum of the English and Lower schools? We cannot state absolutely in the case of all studies, but we can judge with comparative certainty what books were most available for their use.

In the case of those used for religious instruction, the meeting records usually mentioned the name, which enables one to state with absolute certainty that certain books were used. Bibles for the use of schools were requested by the visiting committees of the overseers in Philadelphia, for the use of poor scholars.[894] Other books of religious and denominational character such as Penn’s Reflections, Maxims, and Advice to His Children, are mentioned definitely by Darby,[895] Horsham School Committee,[896] Sadsbury,[897] and Byberry Preparative meetings[898] as being received for use in connection with the schools. Byberry Preparative,[899] Radnor[900] and Sadsbury[901] monthly meetings mention further the receipt of Barclay’s Apologies for school use. Besides these, which were undoubtedly used for school instruction, there was a long list of journals, essays, letters, epistles, histories of Friends, etc., which always were in the possession of each meeting and may have been used indirectly at least. They will be mentioned more at length in pages following.

The spelling book prepared by Fox and published in Philadelphia in 1702,[902] must have claimed a place in the Friends’ schools, though the books are nowhere mentioned by name. The title of this book includes reading, writing, spelling, and other things useful and necessary, and may easily have served for other purposes than use in spelling instruction. Other spellers, which became available from time to time, were Benezet’s Pennsylvania Spelling Book and The Alphabet printed by Henry Miller, 1770.[903] Among those which were used later in the century, Prowell, in speaking of the schools in York County, notes Comly’s, Cobb’s, and Webster’s.[904] From this array, which is no doubt incomplete, we may judge the schools were well supplied.

Of the primers available, and likely to be used, there were a host. The first which should be mentioned was that published by Fox in 1659; it is not known whether this primer was used in Philadelphia. It seems that it was not printed there.[905] In 1677-8, the monthly meeting authorized the purchase of “primmers,”[906] however, and the choice must have been either Fox’s or Pastorius’. No student of early printing in Philadelphia has yet been able to determine when the latter’s was published. Hildeburn is in doubt,[907] while Smith thinks the “primmers” ordered by the meeting 1697-8 must have been those of Pastorius.[908] The minute, however, does not state which. In 1696 Pastorius indicated his willingness to take charge of a printing press for Friends,[909] but, since it had to be brought from England, it is not likely, though possible, that he himself could have printed the book, before the time of the “primmer” purchase was mentioned. Since Pastorius lists a Fox’s Primmer among the books in his possession,[910] that book must have been known in the monthly meeting too, and may have been the one used.[911] The data are inadequate and uncertain for reaching a decision in the matter.

Other primers published and available in Philadelphia and which may well have gotten into Friends’ schools were Franklin’s, 1764; The New England Primmer Improved, 1770; The Newest American Primer, 1779; The New England Primmer Improved, 1779; and A Primmer, 1779.[912] The minutes of the meetings give little guidance as to which were or were not used. We know only they had this list (and perhaps more) from which to select. Still other books which were probably used in the English work were Dilworth’s A New Guide to the English Tongue and The Child’s New Plaything or Best Amusement, intended to make the Learning to Read a Diversion instead of a Task, both of which were published in 1757.[913]

For use in the writing school, we find one definite reference made to Bickam’s Universal Penman, which was purchased for use in Alexander Seaton’s School in 1762.[914] The various primers and spellers already mentioned dealt largely with writing also, giving models which were to be set before the pupil in the books or to be written out for him by the master. Some of the mottoes called to mind were: “Command you may your mind from Play” and “A man of words and not of deeds, is like a garden full of weeds.”[915] The first exercises in writing were the making of elements such as straight lines, curves, and then single letters, and words. The various samples which the writer has noticed in the boy’s letter quoted,[916] and the student manuscript papers,[917] were of very good quality, the median grade of them being about “eleven” on the Thorndike Handwriting Scale.[918]

Various arithmetics may be mentioned. There were Gough’s A Treatise of Arithmetic, Theory, etc., 1770, and Practical Arithmetic, 1767, neither of which appears to have been published in Philadelphia, but may have been better recommended than others, since gotten up by a Friend. Dilworth’s Schoolmaster’s Assistant published in Philadelphia, 1773,[919] was no doubt a close competitor with Pike’s, Park’s, and Daboll’s arithmetics, which Prowell mentions as being common in the latter part of the century.[920] He also describes a book gotten up by Elihu Underwood, schoolmaster at Warrington, in which he copied very orderly all the exercises of the arithmetic.[921] The Norris Collection likewise contains a few pupils’ copy books filled with neatly arranged exercises in addition, multiplication, division, both decimal and vulgar fractions, and another one which would correspond to our present-day commercial arithmetic, but which Isaac Norris probably called his merchants’ accounts.[922] The books vary in dates from 1729 to 1779.

The curriculum of the classical school is best indicated by statements made on employing teachers for that place, which, though they indicate the subjects, do not state what materials were used for study. Whether the materials used in the study of the Greek and Latin tongues included the so-called “profane authors” is a matter for speculation. Robert Willian in 1748 was brought from England to teach Latin and Greek and other parts of learning.[923] The “other parts” may have included some English grammar, writing, and mathematics, as these are frequently mentioned elsewhere as being a part of the Latin school course.[924] Several masters employed from time to time for instruction in these subjects were (after Willian): Alexander Buller,[925] writing, mathematics, and the Latin tongue; John Wilson, as usher[926] to the master in the same school, and later as master;[927] King;[928] William Johnson;[929] Charles Thompson;[930] and Robert Proud.[931] Others might be named, all of whom seem to have been employed for teaching substantially the same curriculum. Arithmetic and reading are at times mentioned as being taught in the Latin school, usually by the ushers.[932]

The curriculum of what was known as the English School overlapped in some respects that of the Latin. Among the subjects usually taught there may be mentioned: arithmetic, writing, accounts, French,[933] reading,[934] and probably some mathematics.[935] The Girls School’s curriculum, taught by Benezet in 1754, consisted of reading, writing, arithmetic, and English grammar.[936]

Some light is cast on the method of instruction in the English and Latin schools by instructions given by the Board for the use of the master. Latin scholars were to be accustomed to analyze and parse their several lessons; and the English scholars to learn it grammatically. Moreover the double translation method for Latin and Greek was required for instruction in those subjects; and practice in handwriting and spelling.[937] The reader is also referred to page 183 to the rules of Robert Proud, in which he states that Latin, as far as the pupils are able, must be used in the school. The reading of the Scriptures was required three times a week,[938] and in later rules (1795), they name also the works of Penn and Barclay as being required. They are placed in the same category with the Scriptures.[939]

Of the grammars used we made reference previously to that of Rudiman,[940] which was published in Philadelphia in 1776.[941] This was the first American edition. Another, Davy’s Adminiculum Puerile,[942] or a help for school boys, containing fundamental exercises for beginners, syntax, cautions for mistakes, English for Latin verses, and so forth, which was made easily available by a Philadelphia reprint in 1758, may have been in use. We might expect to find that some of the worthy masters, Pastorius, Willian, Thompson, Wilson, Proud, and others made some contribution in the way of Latin text-books; we are, in that respect, disappointed. Another grammar, but of the English tongue, was that prepared by James and John Gough, which, after being duly inspected by the Board, was adopted for use in the English School in 1761.[943] Since English grammar was also taught in the Latin School, it may have been used in that department also. Concerning the French book or grammar which Anthony Benezet may have used when he was engaged to teach that subject in 1742,[944] we cannot state definitely. However, there was a French School Book published in Philadelphia in 1730,[945] and it may safely be assumed to have been available for his use. The character of the book we do not know. Perrin’s Grammar of the French Tongue was printed in Philadelphia, 1779,[946] and was no doubt the best book available for use of the schools at and subsequent to that time. It may be well to mention here some school books which were in the possession of Daniel Pastorius; their presence may indicate that they, or a part of them, were used in the school. They were: Education, The Young Clerk’s Tutor, Elements of Geometry, A Short Introduction to Grammar, The English School Master, G. Fox’s Primmer, and Teacher’s Instruction for Children.[947]

Some idea of the extent to which mathematics was taught may be gained from certain old exercise books. Some of those, which doubtless belong to the lower schools, dealt with arithmetical exercises, with whole numbers, vulgar and decimal fractions, and commercial arithmetic.[948] Others, clearly more advanced, and doubtless belonging to the Latin school, though some were taught in the English, are chiefly filled with theorems and proven solutions in geometry, trigonometry, conic sections, and spherical trigonometry.[949] This compares quite favorably with the courses suggested in the newspapers, as we have already mentioned.

Concerning this topic little is to be added to what has already been suggested in connection with the discussion of the subject matter. Some points of method, of which we are reasonably certain, will be stated. In religious instruction, where the Bible, Penn’s, Barclay’s, Fox’s, and other works were used as the material, a catechetical method was used by parents in the home, by the masters and mistresses in the schools, and in the youths’ meetings, which were always among the first established. This method still prevails to some extent for the young children. Drill in spelling and handwriting has already been mentioned as urged by the overseers in their directions to the masters and mistresses in the Latin and English schools.[950] The chief elements of Latin and Greek instruction were: analysis, parsing, double translation, and the necessary memory drills. The pupils in Proud’s school were also required to speak Latin so far as able to do so. We have also mentioned that in teaching writing the practise was to begin with simple lines, curves, etc., and proceed to the more complex performances.[951] In the majority of subjects “copybooks” were required to be kept. All of these the writer has been privileged to observe, being kept in a very neat and regular fashion.[952]

Besides the books already mentioned that are known to have been concerned directly with schools, there were innumerable others which were printed by Friends and circulated at their suggestion among all the meetings. They are largely religious and doctrinal treatises; many of them, though not found thus stated, may have been used in instruction. They were at least of educational importance to the communities that read them. They are mentioned in the minutes of every meeting. Though usually paid for by the meeting, the Board of Overseers in Philadelphia went on record to the effect that fines for absence from, or tardiness in coming to their meetings should be applied to the purchase of books for the school library.[953] Sometimes they were given by bequest, as in the case of the Philadelphia school, which received through the monthly meeting a large collection (for that day) from Thomas Chalkly.[954] The list, as given below, is made up from records of Sadsbury, Westland, Warrington and Fairfax, Uwchlan, Concord, Radnor, New Garden, London Yearly, Philadelphia Yearly, Gwynedd, Falls, Exeter, Wrightstown, Darby, Byberry, Horsham, Abington, and Buckingham meetings, and though perhaps it does not contain all, it does have those most commonly used. This list is as follows:

• Banks, Journal, Life and Travels.
• Barclay, Anarchy of the Ranters.
• Bathurst, Truth Vindicated.
• Benezet, Account of the Friends (in the German language).
• On the Keeping of Slaves.
• Churchman, Journal.
• Claridge, Posthumous works.
• Crisp, Epistles of Stephen Crisp.
• Davis, Journal.
• Edmundson, Journal.
• Elwood, Works.
• Fothergill, Journal.
• Fox, Journal.
• Fuller, Catechism.
• Hall, A Mite into the Treasury.
• Holme, A Serious Call in Christian Love to all People.
• Keith, Way to the City of God.
• London Yearly Meeting’s Epistles.
• Penn, No Cross No Crown.
• Rise and Progress of the Quakers.
• Travels in Germany.
• Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s Epistles.
• Richardson, Life of John Richardson.
• Sewell, History of Friends.

• Scott, Journal.
• Spaulding, Reason for leaving the National Mode of Worship.
• Stanton, Journal.
• Treatises on Tythes.
• Treatises on Reasons for Silent Waiting.
• Turford, Grounds of an Holy Life.
• Woolman, Journal.

The first problem presented was how to establish some satisfactory means of school support, which should be permanent, and thus conducive to better schools in every way. Recommendations from the yearly meetings dwelt upon this point in the yearly advices, but being of a general and advisory character, could not compel the lower units to act at once. This lack of power in a control authority was the greatest weakness, and because of it, educational development was not so rapid as it might otherwise have been. The chief forms of school support were: (1) subscription, (2) rates, (3) bonds, and (4) legacies. In accordance with suggestions made by the yearly meeting, plans were adopted by most meetings (in the latter half of the century) for the establishment of permanent funds. These plans were based upon the subscription idea. The chief characteristics of the plans adopted were:

The organization was headed by the yearly meeting, whose advices were distributed among the lower units. The quarterly meeting was nothing more than a supervisory and directing group. The real work of organizing schools was performed by the monthly and preparative meetings. The other quarterly and monthly meetings worked through specially appointed committees.

Several schools, in Philadelphia and Abington, for example, very early acquired permanent lands for their foundation. Others did not gain such foundations until the latter part of the eighteenth century. Even where land was possessed, the schools were quite often held for a time in the meeting houses. Sometimes the meeting house was used until late in the 19th century, as in the case of the Merion School. Other schools were held in the home of the teacher. The buildings were not large, and were often used for the masters’ families, or parts of them let out to tenants. In one case in Philadelphia the schoolhouse was heated for a time with a brick stove.

There were always two classes recognized, the pay pupil and the free pupil. Every necessity was furnished the latter by the board or committee in charge of schools. Teachers (in Philadelphia, at least) had to keep a list of scholars and their expenditures and report to the board. The size of schools remained about the same, but the increase in number of schools indicated the growth of the system in Philadelphia.

Very explicit rules were laid down for the government of the pupils’ behavior, both in school and out. By some masters they were enforced mildly; by others harshly. In spite of excellent rules and premiums offered, the masters were perplexed with the discipline and attendance problems. School was kept for five and one-half days per week and from seven to eight hours each day; however, some were kept only half days. Vacations were brief and seldom. The various student papers indicate the presence of a student organization. To promote the interest of the pupils and assist the master, visitations were performed at periods by the committee on schools.

The curriculum of the Latin School consisted of Latin, Greek, English grammar, writing and mathematics. There was some overlapping of the curricula of the English and Latin schools. Rudiman’s Grammar was used, and Davy’s Adminiculum Puerile, Gough’s English Mannor, and Perrin’s Grammar of the French Tongue were available for use. Whether classical authors were or were not included in the materials used in Greek and Latin classes is not shown by the records. It has been stated that parsing, analysis, double translation, and speaking Latin as much as possible in school, were the chief elements in the method of instruction. Mathematics included anything as advanced as spherical trigonometry and conic sections.

The curriculum of the lower schools consisted of reading, writing, casting accounts and arithmetic. No mention is made that French was taught before Benezet’s coming in 1742. Though no early explicit reference to spelling is made, we infer it must have been taught at an early date. Many schools were kept for poor children in which were taught reading, writing and sewing. The curriculum of the Negro School consisted of reading, writing and arithmetic.

A large amount of literature of religious character was circulated through the meetings, and probably constituted a good part of the materials used in the schools.

CHAPTER X MASTERS AND MISTRESSES — SUMMARY

There is on this subject a considerable amount of available material, though much of it is difficult of access. Of a long list of Quaker masters, and mistresses too, for they employed women from the very earliest date, it will be impossible in the brief space of this chapter to say more than a word. Some will only be mentioned because of scarcity of material concerning them; others must be only mentioned, even though they are of such importance that the story of their lives have required and would require volumes to write.[955]

Before a discussion of the masters and mistresses employed in the Quaker schools, it should be ascertained, if possible, what were the ideals or standards which were consciously set up to guide in their selection. What sort of tutors did they desire? This has already been touched upon, in other chapters, so we may simply state the chief criteria without further discussion. These, as stated from time to time by the yearly meetings and reiterated by quarterly, monthly, and preparatives, were: (1) morality, (2) be a member of Friends, and (3) competent to teach the subjects for which employed.[956] The selection of teachers possessing such qualifications was usually entrusted to the care of committees as has already been sufficiently pointed out.

In a majority of cases there was a real concern on the part of the monthly meetings’ committees to secure teachers possessing the above named qualities,[957] their success in so doing increasing towards the latter part of the 18th century. The fact that they have been successful in securing Friends for teachers is usually mentioned in their reports.[958] In bequests of property for use of schools, it was quite customary to state that the masters or mistresses should be Friends, and to be otherwise conducted as directed by the yearly meeting.[959] There were of necessity some failures in the attempt to secure such qualified masters, the failures being sometimes recorded in the minutes.[960] The failures seem generally to have been caused by the scarcity of the masters rather than carelessness on the part of the meeting or its committees.[961]

The source whence teachers were secured was usually, in the case of the lower schools, home talent, no record having been found where a teacher was sent for or came from a great distance especially to take charge of schools. But innumerable instances, of which a few are cited later in this work, are at hand, where home talent was employed.[962] Enoch Flower, the first master employed, was “an inhabitant of the said town.”[963]

In the case of the classical school, the practice was quite different. The difference was doubtless the result of necessity, rather than of choice. The first master, Keith, of the school which was first established by the meeting, and his successors, Makin, Cadwalader, and Pastorius, were, of course, as much native to the place as were any of the early settlers in the city. Of later masters, however, quite a number were brought from England especially for the business of “keeping school” or sought in other of the colonies. Certain specific cases may be mentioned. In 1784 Robert Willian came from England “to undertake keeping Friends’ school,” producing a certificate from Scarborough Meeting in Yorkshire.[964] In 1746 the committee had been appointed to write to England concerning a teacher for the Public School.[965] Previous to this time a similar attempt had been made to secure someone to take the place of William Robbins.[966] Similarly, Robert Proud was recommended by John Fothergill in 1758 to Israel Pemberton (of Philadelphia) as a very suitable master for the school.[967] Their “teacher’s agency” in England was constituted by two members, John Fothergill and John Hunt; at any rate, for some forty or fifty years they always informed them as soon as they had need of masters, and except in a few cases, masters were sent over. At one time (1760) not being able to hear of a possible applicant in England, an attempt was made to induce Peter Warren, an inhabitant of Virginia, to come to the position, at a salary of £150, plus £20 to transport his family.[968] In the ensuing correspondence it was stated by the said Warren that he chose to go to Pittsburg; to inhabitants of Philadelphia his choice must have seemed ridiculous.

However, the overseers of the school were not daunted. Quite in keeping with the system of apprenticing the youth in various occupations to members of Friends, and also in keeping with the general custom of the day, they sought out the brightest and most capable poor lad in their limits, and if they found him interested at all in the “futures” of teaching, they made the offer of an apprenticeship in the school. Instances may be cited which will clarify their procedure.

In 1756 it was proposed that Samuel Eldridge be apprenticed to the board to prepare him to become a teacher of Latin and Greek;[969] he was to study Latin, Greek, Arithmetic, Accounts, and Mathematics.[970] He was to be furnished, besides the instruction, clothing and board, and was paid £30 annually. In return for this he studied and performed such duties in the capacity of usher as his progress in the various subjects would permit. At the end of the period of his indenture (1760) the board manifested their approval of his services by a gift of £10.[971] At another time shortly subsequent thereto there was mentioned the desirability of encouraging James Dickinson, Richard Dickinson, and Joseph Rice to continue their schooling in order to become school masters; members of the board were named to speak with them and to ascertain their desires and intentions.[972] One of them, James Dickinson, was in 1762 indented to serve three years in the same manner as Eldridge.[973] King also, in 1754, was taken in as usher at a very small salary, later to become a master in the school.[974] The exact extent of the apprenticing of school masters is not determined, but it does not seem to have been widely practised in and around Philadelphia. This appearance might, however, be corrected if greater sources of information were available.

One would judge from the complaints of the yearly meetings, and their recommendations, that better and more permanent accommodations be afforded, so that teachers might be more easily kept,[975] that the tenure of the early Quaker schoolmaster was short. The yearly meeting recognized the advantage accruing from longer tenure, and did seek to remove some of the causes which worked against it. Just how much they were able to increase the tenure it is impossible to say. We may, however, cite certain cases in which the duration of a master’s service is known. Benjamin Clift was apparently employed to teach in Darby for two years at least.[976] Jacob Taylor, who was concerned with a school at Abington about 1701,[977] and became a land surveyor about 1706[978], may have continued to teach there between those two dates. He seems to have been resident there in that period,[979] and the scarcity of teachers was everywhere evident, as has already been pointed out. This is certainly not a proof of his incumbency; it indicates a probability. Keith was employed from 1689[980] to 1691;[981] Thomas Makin from the latter date, intermittently, until his death, 1733;[982] Pastorius from the latter part of 1697 or the first part of 1698[983] to 1700;[984] Robert Willian probably from 1748[985] to 1753;[986] Seaton from 1751[987] to 1763,[988] and Robert Proud, not continuously however, from 1759[989] to 1770[990] and again master in 1784.[991] These were taken at random. The longest period of service, doubtless, must be credited to Anthony Benezet who first taught in Philadelphia in 1742[992] and continued there with very brief intermissions until his death in 1784.[993]

These are only a few cases and the majority of them in the city where it was possible to employ the best, pay them better, and hence, keep them longer. Hence, too much weight must not be given to the facts above stated as proving a long term of service was common. If a study of a number of cases in country districts were possible, the results would probably be very different.

It is difficult to get information about the length of service of the mistresses. When first mentioned in Philadelphia records[994] they are spoken of as so many nonentities, their names not given. The term of service of Olive Songhurst, the first mistress whose name is mentioned,[995] we cannot determine. The women teachers seem quite frequently to have begun work under the overseers without much notice and to have left off with little more. There are, however, a few cases where we know that the term of service was of considerable length. Rebeckah Burchall seems to have taught continuously at one school from 1755[996] to 1761.[997] Whether she discontinued service on leaving that school is not known. Ann Thornton was probably not continued in service more than two years. She began in 1755 when she filled Anthony Benezet’s[998] place and left in 1757.[999] In the meantime, it had been necessary for the board to draw up a set of special rules for the government of her school,[1000] from the nature of which it is probable that she did not take another school under their direction.

From none of the sources of information does it appear that there was any license system whatsoever. The recommendation of well-known Friends was the best pass a teacher could have, as was instanced by those sent over by John Fothergill. In addition to the personal recommendation, the certificate of removal from his home meeting was an assurance to Friends in other parts that an individual was “clear” of all entangling alliances and might be received into full membership. In no case where a teacher came to teach, from a distance, did he fail to take and produce a certificate on his arrival. These, of course, did not certify the things which modern licenses do, but they, in conjunction with the personal recommendation as to ability, seem to have answered the purpose.

The term for which a teacher was hired was in most cases a year for trial, which was renewed again at the year’s end, if satisfactory to both parties. Mention has been made of Benjamin Clift of Darby,[1001] Keith, Makin, Cadwalader, Willian, Proud, and many others. Some were taken for a trial of six months,[1002] and there were cases in which the board reserved the right to discharge the individual on three months’ notice.[1003] The board desired, and in some cases requested, that the employee should give six months’ notice before his resignation should take place. Such notice was customary in 1755.[1004] Two instances have come under the writer’s attention, in which a contract was made for three years. King (son of Joseph King) was employed in 1754 for the three years subsequent thereto at £40, £50 and £60 for the years respectively.[1005] Mr. King resigned regardless of the contract, after six months’ notice, because the school did not agree with his health or inclination.[1006] The other case was that of Keith who was to be employed for one year at £50 and for two years more at £120 each, if he should desire to stay.[1007] In neither of the two cases does there appear to have been any instrument in writing.

The salaries and rates received by many of the teachers have been mentioned in several pages previous to this. For convenience for reference there is presented without discussion a table showing the pay received by various masters at the times their respective services were rendered.[1008] One case, neither so prosaic to us, nor so profitable to the master, defies tabulation, so it is given verbatim.

As stated elsewhere in this work, the amounts received by masters and mistresses in the Friends’ school measure about the same as those stated for other private masters in the city at the same time. In the table above, the seeming increase from £50 per year in 1689 to £250 per year paid Robert Proud in 1784, and the slender salaries of the women as compared with those of the men, are worthy of attention.[1011] Though all of the teachers in the Negro School had had long experience, their salaries did not equal that of Classical School teachers; but they did keep pace with those in the English School. The price paid for young children was usually low, about one-half that paid for older ones in the same subjects. Children sent by the board were received at a less charge, or perhaps free of charge if that body had already made arrangement to that effect. The contrast between the salary received by the country masters Clift (Darby) and Underwood (Warrington) is very interesting. Such salaries were doubtless effective in causing unrest and a floating teacher population, against which the yearly meeting frequently remonstrated, and earnestly sought to correct.

In the pages following, brief attention will be given to several of the Quaker teachers who have come to the attention of the writer during the course of this study. Many of them have been mentioned in other parts of it, reference to whom is to be found in the index. Though the women were given more scanty attention in the records and seem to have filled a less prominent place in the schools, we may gallantly, yet illogically, give them first attention here. In another light, it may not seem illogical. Women were leaders in the Quaker meetings and were privileged to speak, a favor not granted elsewhere. In the early yearly meeting recommendations they urged good mistresses be chosen as well as good masters.[1012] Women were also recognized by London Grove Monthly Meeting in 1795, when a committee of women Friends were appointed to meet with a like committee of men to consider the question of schools.[1013]

As before stated, mistresses in Philadelphia were mentioned by the monthly meeting as early as 1699,[1014] but we are not informed who they were. The first, Olive Songhurst, whose name is given, was employed for some time about 1702,[1015] and if we may judge her service by a raise of salary granted in that year, it seems to have been acceptable to the meeting. After Olive Songhurst a long period of time passes in which the writer has found no mistress named in the minutes, though mistresses are frequently mentioned. It is not, therefore, to be assumed that this list is complete either in the case of masters or mistresses; those who are mentioned may prove of some interest or service to other students.

Ann Thornton was mentioned as being employed by the board in 1755, when it was proposed that she might take Anthony Benezet’s place in a Girls’ School, which he had entered the year before. It is not very probable that she was an inexperienced teacher at the time, since the board was usually careful to place strong and proven teachers in its best schools. She was to receive no more than thirty scholars and had to promise to look after them in meeting, which seemingly unpleasant task she hesitated to take.[1016] It is the writer’s opinion, based on the fact that the board was forced to make a list of rules especially for her school,[1017] and the tenor of her dismissal when Benezet was again available, and that she does not appear to have been employed again by the board, that her work in the school and agreement with the board were not satisfactory.

Rebeckah Burchall, employed near the same time as Ann Thornton, was engaged in teaching poor children.[1018] It was also stipulated that she guard the girls in meetings, especially her pupils.[1019] So in 1755, had we entered the quiet Friends’ meeting we would have no doubt seen the two prim Quaker ladies just mentioned sitting in silent and upright watchfulness amid their youthful charges. Gentlemen were not immune from such duties.

Widow Mellor is mentioned in 1755 as keeping a small school,[1020] which probably was quite similar to the one kept by Debby Godfrey, a poor woman to whom the board decided to send some poor children to learn to read and write.[1021] The minute reads as though it was a condescension, and very likely it was a form of charity on their part. Jane Loftu, likewise, (1761) taught thirty-two poor children, her charge made to the board for the service being £32.[1022] Ann Redman seems to have been a teacher of more than ordinary merit. She is first noted as a teacher at the Fairhill School, at which place she was visited by members of the Public School Board, who seem to have been so well impressed with her as a teacher that she was immediately asked to come into the school just vacated by Rebekah Burchall. Her employment was teaching reading, writing, and plain sewing.[1023] Mary Wily, a teacher employed by the board in 1762, received very little attention. A question is raised concerning her, however, by an objection made by the board to her account presented for certain schooling.[1024] It was settled amicably it seems. Ann Pattison, first mentioned as being employed in 1763,[1025] is doubtless the same as the Patterson later employed in 1766.[1026] She was employed in teaching poor children. Mary Gosnold, Rebecca Seaton, and Mary Moss are mentioned in 1764 as teachers of poor children.[1027] Rebecca Seaton does not appear in the ranks of teachers (at least on Friends’ records) till after the death of Alexander Seaton, her husband. It seems quite evident that the mistresses were assigned, more especially, to the keeping of school for the poor, though it was by no means limited to them. Sarah Mott was also a teacher for poor children.[1028]

Hannah Cathall, we feel certain, must have been a teacher of considerable merit. She began her service at least as early as 1765[1029] and in 1779 was still in that employment, being at that date engaged in a school with Rebecca Jones, for instructing girls in reading, writing, “and other branches suitable to them.”[1030] They also received poor girls sent by the overseers. Other mistresses employed by the board in 1779 were Sarah Lancaster, teaching the rudiments to young children of both sexes (sewing especially for girls), Essex Flower in a school similar to Lancaster’s, and Ann Rakestraw who had charge of a reading and spelling school.[1031] Sarah Lancaster still continued in the schools’ service in 1784, having in attendance sixty-four scholars, part of whom attended only half days. The other mistresses mentioned at that time were Mary Harry, teaching a school for children, Mrs. Clarke, teaching boys and girls, reading and sewing for the girls; Ann Marsh in a school similar to that of Mrs. Clarke’s, and Mary McDonnell, who taught fifteen young children, what studies we do not know.[1032] The committee’s report for that date shows that nearly one-half or perhaps more of the children attending the schools of the Friends’ masters and mistresses were children of the members of other denominations. In almost every case the teachers were Friends, or, as they termed it, “people of friendly persuasions.”

Mistresses devoted their abilities also to the instruction of the Negro children. Sarah Dougherty was for a time (about 1790) employed in the Negro School, but for some reason, unexplained, Elizabeth Meccum was employed in her stead.[1033] Elizabeth Meccum remained in that capacity till the time of her death, which occurred between 1795 and 1798.[1034] Joseph Foulke, in a letter concerning his schooling at Gwynedd Meeting, mentions Hannah Lukens who kept a “family school” and also Hannah Foulke,[1035] both of whom were members of Gwynedd, but further information of them the writer does not have.

If one were to measure American Quaker schoolmasters as some American men of science have been measured, by the amount of space they have gained in literature, they would not stand out very strikingly. Of fifty-five male teachers in and around Philadelphia, but twenty-one of them are mentioned in five standard works on local history and genealogy. None of the fifty-five teachers receive mention in all five of the works; three of them are chronicled in four; seven are mentioned in three of the five; ten are spoken of in two, twenty-one are given a place in one; and thirty-four receive no notice. If rated according to such a scheme, Pastorius, Benezet, and Charles Thompson would head the list, while quite a number group themselves at the other end of it. The scheme, though it has not been carried out fully, for example no attempt has been made to measure the length of the notice, does seem to favor those who stood high at the time of their service.[1036]

In the brief notices following, concerning the male teachers, it is not intended to write biographies. Some of them have already been written, and to them the reader is directed, if he or she wishes a full account of the man’s life. Others will not, cannot, ever be written for obvious reasons. In the space allotted to them here, there is set down only what has been found of interest concerning them as teachers.

In 1742 Anthony Benezet came from Germantown where he had been engaged in a school,[1037] to be employed by the Board of Overseers of Philadelphia. He was employed at a salary of £50 to teach arithmetic, writing, accounts, and French.[1038] He appears to have given very satisfactory service and to have remained in the same position until 1754 when he was placed in charge of the Girls School, under the Board’s direction.[1039] Some students have been under the impression that the Girls School was entirely independent and a private venture;[1040] but this could not have been true, for the Board named the subjects he should teach and specified that he receive at the school “no more than thirty scholars.”[1041] The school was, however, the result of Benezet’s proposal.

Not only was he kindly to the pupils as a teacher,[1042] but he was a father to the poor lads whenever he could help them in any way. In 1754 Samuel Boulds was bound to him, so that he might look after his schooling, and he further requested the Board to care for the same, if he should die or leave the school before the lad was grown up.[1043] His health not being good, he requested leave from his school during the summer of 1754.[1044] Apparently his health did not improve sufficiently and he did not return to the school till 1757, taking the place of Ann Thornton.[1045] Another instance of his philanthropy came to light in his request (1762) that certain of the children of the poor French neutrals be allowed to go to the Public School which was granted only upon his certification of those he felt sure would attend regularly.[1046] Shortly thereafter on account of ill health, he was again forced to leave the Girls School, which he did until 1767, when he returned to resume his work again.[1047] It was no difficulty for him to start a school. The suggestion was made to the Board in one month, and in the following he was teaching the school, and made his regular report at their meeting.

From the information the writer has assembled, it appears that he continued with the White school, after his return in 1767, until 1782, when at his request he was accepted by the committee to take charge of the Negro School.[1048] He had throughout his life written eloquently in defense of freedom’s cause,[1049] and the origin of the Negro School, in 1770, was perhaps due to him more than to any other man in the Friends’ meeting.

Jonathan Binns was to have taken charge of the Public School in 1734, if his health improved, but no report being made by him it is inferred he did not perform such service.[1050] Alexander Buller was employed in 1738 to teach writing, mathematics, and the Latin tongue. Three years later he ran an advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette, as follows:

William Brown was teaching girls reading, writing, arithmetic and language in 1784.[1052] Daniel Britt interested himself in the instruction of Negroes in whose school he was employed from about 1790[1053] to 1796 or 1797.[1054] He was succeeded by Elisha Pickering who probably taught till 1799, being followed by Benjamin Mears.[1055]

John Cadwalader came to Philadelphia in 1699[1056] and the year following was recommended by Griffith Owen as a man “fit for an assistant in the school.”[1057] He was accordingly employed, it being decided that he and Thomas Makin, who had entered the school as usher to Keith, should compete with each other to show the best results. From the records one cannot determine just when he left the school, though he stated, in 1702,[1058] that he intended to do so. It seems likely, from a minute of 1703, that he must have taught longer than he intended when making the above statements.[1059] Thomas Makin, with whom he was associated, was employed at various times until his death in 1733.[1060] He is credited with being “a good Latinist,”[1061] and was the author of a Latin poem in which he celebrated Pennsylvania. George Keith, Scotchman, kindly recommended him for the mastership in 1691, when he (Keith) decided to leave.[1062] Keith had come to the school as first master when the school was set up in 1689. He is stated, by writers of history, to have been of disputatious disposition, and this probably accounted for the dissatisfaction which arose in the school. Soon after leaving the school he published in connection with Talbot a critical article, “Means of Quaker Stability,”[1063] in which is evident the rancor toward the society, which he had previously concealed.

Concerning Benjamin Clift, schoolmaster at Darby, no additional information has been found, beyond that given in the minutes of the monthly meeting. Joseph Clarke was a teacher of a girls’ school in 1784,[1064] which was attended by about thirty girls. William Dickinson was first employed (1764) to take the place of Moses Patterson,[1065] as usher to John Todd in the Latin School.[1066] The Board seems to have taken exception to him, though nothing has been intimated elsewhere as to his character, for they reserved the right to discharge him on three months’ notice, if they desired. Such reservations were not general.

Moses Patterson, had begun his teaching career in 1760 when he undertook to teach a school at Fairhill Meeting.[1067] He then was made usher to Alexander Seaton in which position he remained till 1764.[1068] He desired then to quit as usher, and apparently did; he is next heard of in 1765 as teacher of “poor children.”[1069]

Robert Willian was employed in 1748, having been brought from England, to teach Latin, Greek and other learning.[1070] His first term of employment was for one year, as was the Board’s general custom in hiring teachers, but it seems that his contract was renewed until 1753, at which time his place was taken by John Wilson.[1071] Wilson had entered the school’s employ as usher in 1750, but was, in addition to that, granted permission to teach an evening school.[1072] It is not known how long he remained as master, but in 1754 there was a proposition to allow J. King to go into the Latin School,[1073] and it is likely he took Wilson’s place. King, however, as stated elsewhere, did not remain there more than a year, because of ill health and inclination.[1074] Wilson is later mentioned in connection with the Latin school (1769); how much of the time, between 1754 and 1769 he had spent in the Latin School it is impossible to say.

When King (1755) announced his intention to resign at the end of six months, the Board attempted to procure Paul Jackson, who at the time was instructor at the Academy.[1075] Jackson was well qualified for the place and, besides his work at the Academy, had prepared lectures in “experimental philosophy” which he proposed to give for the “entertainment of the curious.”[1076] He did not find himself free at this time to remove from the employ of the trustees of that institution, but Charles Thompson, who had been employed there as usher was engaged for the Friends’ School.[1077] It seems that the logical man for the place would have been William Johnson, who first taught a school at Fairhill[1078] (1753) and attended Latin School, free of charge, to prepare him to be an usher (1754).[1079] The headship was not offered him, however,[1080] but a year later his salary for the assistantship was raised £20 to keep him from going to Burlington.[1081] We find that Charles Thompson (from the Academy) remained in the Friends’ School until 1760, when he decided to leave the business of school keeping for another.[1082] His first training in Latin, Greek, and mathematics was gained in Alison’s Seminary. After leaving the Friends’ School he was interested in political life and became secretary of the Revolutionary Congress in 1775.[1083]

When Thompson indicated his desire to leave the Latin School, the Board took steps to secure a master from England. A letter was sent to J. Fothergill and John Hunt who recommended Robert Proud as a very likely candidate.[1084] This recommendation was favorably considered and Proud accordingly came to Philadelphia. He immediately chose W. W. Fentham as his usher, whom, he stated, the Board might remove if they did not find him satisfactory.[1085] It appears that Proud remained master from this time until 1770, when he announced his resignation.[1086] He was again in the employ of the Latin School in 1784, having an usher to assist him in instructing the thirty boys who are stated to have been in attendance on that date.[1087] How long this period of service continued the writer has not determined. The reader has already been introduced to Proud’s school by means of the rules he constructed for it, which were presented on a previous page. His reverence for learning and his attempt to inculcate that respect for it in the minds of his pupils is perhaps best indicated by these lines:

When Proud left the Latin school in 1770, Friends again had recourse to the English supply house, receiving from thence John Thompson, eldest son of Jonah Thompson, who had previously taught in Philadelphia.[1089] John Thompson entered the school on twelfth month, fifth, 1770 and remained in that position at least until 1779. At that date he had twenty-four boys in charge, to whom he taught Latin and Greek, with occasionally some writing and arithmetic.[1090]

An interesting student’s commentary on the “Hon. John Thompson” is furnished by the following extract from the publications of the Public School Gazetteer, 1777.

One of the most worthy masters to be noted in the English School, near the middle of the century, was Alexander Seaton. In 1751 he desired to start a school in the upper part of the city, which was to be under the care of the Board. In this school, which was accordingly set up, were taught writing, arithmetic, and mathematics.[1092] He was thus employed until 1754 when, as above stated, Benezet desiring to set up a girls’ school, he was requested to take Benezet’s place in the English School.[1093] At various dates he was assisted by Moses Patterson, Phineas Jenkins,[1094] and George Smith.[1095] In 1763, when he died, his place was filled by John Todd.[1096]

Todd remained many years in Friends’ School. In 1779 he is reported by the overseers as having 60 boys of various religious denominations, to whom was taught reading, English writing, arithmetic and some branches of mathematics.[1097] A like condition prevailed in his school five years later, with the exception that the number of boys had increased to 88. The committee report states that the “master is careful to preserve good order in his school.”[1098] This agrees, but is a much less picturesque statement of the case than is portrayed by Watson.[1099] He is pictured as immoderately strict and as taking diabolic satisfaction in every opportunity to use the strap. Watson closes his description with the statement that “it was not that his love of learning was at fault, so much as the old British system of introducing learning and discipline into the brains of boys and soldiers by dint of punishment.”[1100]

A number of other almost unknown masters who taught in and around Philadelphia may be briefly mentioned. William Waring is stated by Watson to have taught astronomy and mathematics in the Friends’ School at the same time with Jeremiah Paul.[1101] Associated with the school, at the same time with Paul, Todd, and Waring, was Jimmy McCue, who performed the services of usher.[1102] Yerkes, mentioned as having been in a single school, is mentioned by the monthly meeting reports as though it were under the direction of Friends. When so reported (1779) he was teaching not more than 50 scholars (all Friends). The subjects of instruction were reading, writing, English, arithmetic, and some branches of mathematics.[1103] No further information of Isaac Weaver has been obtained than is given on page 260.

Leonard Snowdon was reported to have arrived from London about 1737 to take charge of a school, but no further particulars are found concerning him.[1104] In 1757 William Thorne was reported as teaching poor children.[1105] He is one of the very few masters who taught in the Friends’ Schools, who advertised in the newspapers for pupils; such advertisement was possibly after he discontinued his services for the Board.[1106] The advertisement does, however, serve to give us more information as to his qualifications, than we could otherwise obtain. He was engaged at the time (1766) in conducting a writing, arithmetic, mathematics and merchants’ accounts school in Vidal’s Alley.[1107] At another time he advertised to teach writing, arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, navigation, mensuration, surveying, guaging, and accounts.[1108] John Sitch (1758) is mentioned as receiving some of the scholars from William Johnson’s school.[1109] Joseph Pemberton was encouraged by the Board to start a school in 1758. Its location, as everything else concerning it, is very indefinite, being “in the upper part of town.”[1110] Other masters mentioned by various authors, and to whom reference has been made before, but whose history is almost unknown, are Rowland Richards, John Every, Marmaduke Pardo, John Walby, William Coggins, Benjamin Albertson, Hugh Foulke, John Chamberlain, Christian Dull, Daniel Price, Samuel Jones, and Samuel Evans.[1111]

Of Richard Brockden, who taught at Byberry about 1710 or 1711,[1112] and later (about 1722)[1113] for a short time in Philadelphia, very little is known. The minute just referred to, however, leaves the impression that Friends were very willing for him to leave the school, but, on his request, allowed him to remain. Walter Moor, a schoolmaster at Byberry (about 1753) leaves no record as a master, but we are certain his character was not satisfactory to Friends. In 1753 they complained of his drinking to excess and removing from place to place without giving notice of it.[1114] An instance of this sort, though not entirely out of keeping with custom in those days, was severely criticised at all times in the meetings. This is the only explicit case of drunkenness, on the part of teachers who were employed by Friends, which has come to the writer’s attention. The frequent mention of reproof of members for that offense, in the early years of the century, however, would lead one to believe that such great success in eliminating it from those in the teaching profession was scarcely possible. However that may be, no case has been found (in newspaper reports, where the names were mentioned) in which any Quaker master engaged in disreputable brawling was lodged in jail, which was noted on the part of several other private masters of Philadelphia.[1115] This latter source of information is perhaps more reliable than the meeting records.

Among Quaker schoolmasters, who have been mentioned frequently, is Christopher Taylor. He was educated in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and, in 1695,[1116] published a compendium of the three languages. He was a teacher at Waltham Abbey School,[1117] and, coming to Philadelphia in 1682, established a school on Tinicum Island, of which very little authentic information is to be had. William Underwood was a teacher at Warrington about 1740.[1118] Elihu Underwood has already been mentioned on several occasions as the most extraordinary master of Warington, having executed an attractive copy of arithmetic exercises from an old English arithmetic.[1119] Others, only to be mentioned, were: D. B. Ayres, Richland Meeting, 1793;[1120] Christopher Smith, Byberry, 1784;[1121] Bryan Fitzpatrick, Horsham, 1784;[1122] Joseph Kirk, 1793,[1123] and Isaac Carver, at or near Horsham, 1784;[1124] Thomas Pearson at Maiden Creek (Exeter Monthly Meeting), 1784;[1125] Benjamin Parks and wife, at Reading, 1784;[1126] and Caleb Johnson at Reading, 1787.[1127] An unknown master of Bucks County is mentioned by General John Lacey in his memoirs, as he comments on his early educational opportunities. He, himself, was a member of a family of Friends.

Such were the country schools, if judged by his writing as a fair sample.

The primary requirements for masters and mistresses, as determined by the yearly meeting, were (1) high morality, (2) membership with Friends, and (3) competency to teach the subjects for which employed. These standards were consciously striven for, as indicated by their reports on the subject.

As a rule, the teachers selected for the lower schools were native to the place, though there were exceptions. A large number of the Latin masters, however, were secured through Friends in England. To supply the lack of teachers, in Philadelphia at any rate, recourse was occasionally had to the apprenticeship system, as instanced by the cases of Eldridge, and James Dickinson.

The yearly assembly recommended better accommodations for teachers, that they might be more easily retained in the same position. The cases mentioned indicate a very good length of tenure; Clift, two years; Taylor, perhaps five; Keith, about two; Makin, intermittently for about forty; and many others, similarly. These figures are undoubtedly not representative, the majority being taken from the city. Personal recommendation and certificates of removal served some of the purposes of the teacher license system. The contract was verbal only, so far as evidence appears and the term of it usually for one year.

Attention is called to the seeming great increase in salaries during the century, and great variation in the amounts paid at any one time, especially between those of country and city masters. The salaries of women appear to have been very meager as compared with those of the men. No appreciable difference is found between the salaries or rates of Quaker masters and those of private masters in the city at the same time. Rates charged for poor children, schooled by the Board, were less than those fixed for others.

A few mistresses in the schools are mentioned. For the most part, the length of their service is not known. A large proportion of them were engaged in teaching poor children, though not limited to that. A large proportion, over half of the poor children taught by them, were members of various denominations. Their service was not limited to the schools for Whites, some being employed in the Negro School, near the end of the century.

Brief attention is given individual masters. As rated by the frequency of their mention in five standard authorities, Pastorius, Benezet, and Thompson lead the list; it is not believed that this measure is adequate, however. Concerning the qualifications of the masters, we find that all degrees of ability and training were represented. Pastorius may be taken as a type of the classically trained master of the Latin School. The other extreme might be represented by several of the ill-paid country masters. John Lacey describes such a master and his school in his memoirs.

One definite case of drunkenness on the part of a master has come to light. Though not probable that the record is so clear, it does appear that excessive outlawries were not committed. The chief sources studied on this point were the newspapers of the period and minutes of various Quaker meetings.

CHAPTER XI EDUCATION OF NEGROES AND INDIANS — EARLIEST TRACES OF THE NEGRO IN PENNSYLVANIA — QUAKER LEADERS AND THE NEGRO PROBLEM — THE CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND THE NEGRO QUESTION — ATTITUDE TOWARD THE INDIANS — SUMMARY

To the reader of the history of Pennsylvania, the statement that the colony was established in 1681 by William Penn seems sufficient reason for thinking that was the first settlement. But there were other people already established there and among them were to be found Negroes, as is very readily ascertained from the records. The people who occupied the territory along the Delaware, later to be called Pennsylvania, before its charter as a colony was granted, were chiefly Swedes, English, and Dutch, who had crossed over the river from the neighboring colonies.[1129]

Negroes were not numerous. There remains rather scant evidence of their presence in any considerable number, but authentic record of certain instances. It is found, for example, that as early as 1639 a convict was sentenced to South River, as the Delaware was then called, to serve out his time with the Negroes.[1130] This is the earliest record found; though frequent mention is made of them after this date. In 1664, the West India Company agreed to furnish about fifty Negroes to work in the lowlands on the Delaware River.[1131] This is the earliest explicit record that is found of trafficking in Negroes in Pennsylvania. The slave trade, thus begun by the Dutch Company, was continued, now rising, now falling, till the final abolition of slavery in 1780.[1132] The law of 1780, which provided for a gradual abolition, was subjected to such frequent evasion that in 1788 it became necessary to pass another for its clarification and enforcement.[1133] By the middle of the seventeenth century, the importation of slaves had become a part of the regular work of the merchants of Philadelphia, with the exception of a few conscientious Quakers who refused to profit thereby. Records of the end of the century indicate that the number of Negroes had by that time become very considerable, though no exact figures are obtainable.[1134]

But it is not to be assumed that because the slave trade began thus early and continued to grow, it did so without meeting any opposition. In fact it is probably due to a few years of opposition by various factors, which are here only mentioned briefly, that the slave trade did not become as prodigious in Pennsylvania as in other states, and that she was the first to pass an abolition law against it.[1135] Chief among the factors which opposed the increase of Negro serfdom were these: (1) the conscientious scruples of Friends in reference to the traffic;[1136] (2) the objection on the part of the German inhabitants (partially as Quakers, but not entirely);[1137] and, (3) the dissatisfaction caused among White laborers by the enforced competition of the Negroes.[1138]

As a result of this opposition to the importation of slaves, there was enacted various legislation restricting it, although there was at the same time an urgent demand on the part of some for slave labor. One of the first attempts on the part of the Colonial Assembly to restrict slave traffic was the act of 1700, imposing the maximum duty of 20 shillings per head imported, which amount was in 1705 increased to 40 shillings.[1139] Not entirely satisfied with this stroke, the Assembly attempted (1712) practically to prohibit importation by placing a levy of £20 per head, but this act was at once repealed by the crown.[1140] However great may have been the failure in legislation, it seems that the feeling against importation was quite marked and, for that reason, the number imported fell considerably. If the statement of a merchant, Jonathan Dickinson, may be taken as indicative, we may judge that it was the slack demand that brought about a decrease in importation. He says, writing to Jamaica, April, 1715,

However strongly the general public was opposed to the slave importation, it was nevertheless possible for the interests of the few to dominate. First, there was the desire on the part of the trading company for the rich profits derived, and the crown was loath to fail to safeguard the company in its demands; this service it performed by regularly repealing the obnoxious legislation, which was enacted and favored by the majority of the citizens represented in the Assembly.[1142] Second, certain influential classes of citizens, for example, the iron masters, wished for the continuance of importation because of the advantage accruing to them through the competition between Whites and slave labor. This is instanced in 1727 by a petition on their part for the removal of the duty because of the scarcity of available Whites.[1143]

This conflict between the ideals of different classes, complicated by the economic problem of labor, continued to be fought out chiefly in words, and legislation, until by the middle of the eighteenth century it is estimated, by some historians of Pennsylvania, that importation had nearly ceased.[1144] The period following 1750, however, saw importation again positively accelerated, due to the greater security in the possession of Negro slaves compared with that of the White servants. Passing over the crest of this wave of increase, we find a rapid decline in importation and sale of Negroes during the years immediately preceding the American Revolution; but even after the Revolution, fought for the principles of freedom, independence and equality, there occur not infrequent instances of the traffic in human flesh and blood.[1145] These cases form the exception rather than the rule, however, and in 1780 there was secured the law for gradual prohibition, to which reference has already been made.[1146]

The condition of the slaves in Pennsylvania was in many respects better than in other states; especially is this true if they are compared with those in the South, who were employed mostly in plantation work. Their clothing, if we may judge by the descriptions which usually accompanied the advertisement of runaways, was usually good and very striking in its variety, as witnesses the following description.[1147]

Socially they were less restricted and did not suffer the sharp separation from the Whites that was characteristic of the South. They were not on an equality, that was not to be expected, but they enjoyed considerable freedom among themselves,[1149] and the various religious societies were, at least to a considerable degree, interested in their spiritual welfare. We find, at any rate, no considerable opposition to their advancement as was present in Virginia, even at a much later date.[1150] The Moravians, as before stated, were usually opposed to holding slaves, and where they were held, they were on a basis of religious equality.[1151] The Lutherans were likewise tolerant, but it is to the credit of the Episcopalians that most is due. Negroes were baptized in their church and then instructed in religion by a minister provided for that purpose.[1152] Not only were the established congregations favorable to the aid of the Negro, but many itinerant ministers were desirous of educating him.

There is one outstanding instance of the latter which may serve as an illustration. It is that of Reverend Whitefield, who took up five thousand acres of land on the forks of the Delaware in Pennsylvania, where he hoped to erect a Negro school. The movement was given wide publicity and subscriptions were asked for its support.[1153] In the papers which advertise the beginning of the project, there is found no statement as to the successful outcome of it; the whole scheme seems to have melted away as easily as it had arisen. The scheme of Whitefield, was equalled, and perhaps even excelled, by a much earlier proposal, 1722, which was made anonymously through the columns of the Mercury.[1154] The service was to be rendered to the servants of any religious denomination, and without any expense to them whatsoever. It was chiefly desired that the Negroes might be taught to read the Scriptures.[1155]

If justice were to be done to the various attempts on the part of itinerant ministers and the regularly established churches to aid in bringing enlightenment to the Negroes in Pennsylvania, it would require volumes. Such mention as has been made is for the purpose of pointing out the universality of the missionary spirit, so that it may not be understood that the entire work was carried on under the direction of Friends, to whose activities much more space must necessarily be given in this work. In the pages following it will be attempted to outline as definitely as possible, from the available records, what was actually accomplished by the organization of Friends towards Negro education.

However auspicious may have been the opportunity for attempts to plant slavery on the soil of Pennsylvania, it was neither destined to meet unqualified success nor to pass without rigorous opposition. The German population from the very outset, as we have already stated, was hostile to the idea of slavery.[1156] Likewise, the Quakers were dominated by men who believed that slavery had no justification, and throughout their lives were actuated by this belief. Brief mention may be made of three of these leaders, sufficient at least to indicate their viewpoint and the remedy which they advocated.

George Fox, their revered founder, was quite naturally referred to in matters of importance and far reaching consequence. Through the influence of his ministry, the doctrine of the freedom of all men and of inherent rights, which they possessed by virtue of being men, came to be accepted in the church organization, and was published in the discipline and various letters of that body.[1157] These acts of the church organization will be dealt with presently. Fox defends his position mainly on the religious basis; it is quite likely that a religious training and education is uppermost in his mind throughout his plea for the Negro. He does not limit himself to their case, but insists, also, on the education of the Indian natives. The education (religious) which he specifically mentions, is for the purpose of their salvation, but the attention of Quakers was not limited to that alone. Religious education did, however, receive their first consideration. The essence of Fox’s influential utterances on this subject is contained in the following extract.

From among the Quaker exponents of the freedom of all men, we can scarcely select one of greater influence than John Woolman. He was born in 1720,[1159] and thus grew up to manhood in a period when the opposition to slavery on the part of Friends was on the increase, and lived through its zenith, after which slavery among Pennsylvania Friends scarcely existed.[1160] He was well educated. The greater part of his life was spent travelling as a minister from place to place, now working among the Indians[1161] and again visiting meetings in the interest of the freedom of the Negro.[1162] His journeys throughout the colonies served to keep the individual meetings awake to the problem before them, and the firm conviction of the man won no less number of supporters than the eloquence of his appeal. The influence of Woolman did not, however, limit itself to the channels of his sermons; in 1754 appeared one of his best expressions on the traffic, entitled Some Considerations on the Keeping of Negroes. Nothing was permitted to stand in the light of his conviction as to the right; he refused to continue his practice of writing wills in all cases where the disposition of slaves was involved.[1163]

But it is impossible to give in this limited space an adequate resumé of the work of this great spokesman of freedom. A brief representative statement from his works, added to what has already been said, is perhaps the most satisfactory treatment that can be given.

While speaking of the life and work of the two above mentioned Quaker reformers, one other person seems to call imperatively for attention. His work was equally widespread and the public was kept open to his influence through several of his books and pamphlets published on the subject of slaves and slaveholding.[1166] A French Hugenot by birth, Anthony Benezet came early to America, where he was a staunch member of Friends, and in whose society he performed a continuous service for the freedom and education of the Negroes, until the time of his death in 1784.[1167] His immediate connection with the Negro School, established by Friends in 1770[1168] will be considered more fully elsewhere. The arguments advanced by him against slavery are based on the grounds of practicality and justice. The system is injurious to the slave and the master, and inconsistent with the ideals of a free community. We, ourselves, must agree with him in his position as set forth in the following selection.

Besides the three representatives mentioned, there were a host of others, many of them still earlier but perhaps none who exercised so great an influence. Among those worthy of mention were George Keith, a dissenter among Quakers, but one of the earliest teachers in Philadelphia, and a very ardent antagonist of slavery. Others, whose zeal outran their discretion, such as Ralph Sandiford, Benjamin Lay,[1170] and William Southeby, might be profitably discussed here, but lack of space eliminates their consideration. Still other itinerant ministers, Banks, Pennington, and Chalkley, though not so precipitous in their actions as the three above named, were none the less worthy spokesmen of the cause.

Under this head it is intended to present, (1) the activity of the society as an organization, and (2) the establishment of Negro education in the various meetings where any record of it remains. In doing so, let the reader keep in mind the principles set forth previously by the three representatives who have been mentioned as leaders in the cause of Negro education and liberation.

As is quite naturally expected, after this brief introduction to the belief of the Quaker leaders, we find that the society placed itself as a unit opposed to the perpetuation of bondage among the Blacks. Friends were astonished to find, when they arrived, that slavery existed in Penn’s colony, and as early as 1688 those settled at Germantown entered a memorable protest against it.[1171] Five years later George Keith, a Quaker who a few years later came into disfavor with the society, entered a vigorous denunciation of the practice of holding slaves.[1172] The general tenor of these protests is against perpetual bondage, their idea being that since it already existed, there should be a time limit set at the expiration of which all those held should become free.

It would have been possible for individual protests and those of smaller meetings to have gone on indefinitely and still have accomplished but little in the way of influencing others. Similar expressions from a central organization, speaking with some semblance of authority, could have accomplished much more, and did so, though not till some years later. The advices issued by the yearly meeting were usually in the nature of reproof, scarcely or never mandatory. One of the earliest was drawn up at the yearly meeting in 1727 and sent to the meetings subject thereto.

It is difficult to understand how any communication of this nature could have force in a situation that seemed to demand something in the way of command. But when it is recalled with what persistence such advices were given, and again repeated in the appropriate meetings, and that they were received by the monthly and preparative meetings very much as dutiful children would listen to the advice of father or mother, then the influence exerted by them does not seem so strange.

Moreover, there is ample evidence in the reports of various meetings at all times that the advices of the yearly meeting were being followed with considerable success. Philadelphia reported (1756) that they knew of no Friends who had been concerned in importing Negroes or other slaves.[1174] By 1772 the yearly meeting reported by way of letter that, due to the discouragement of the practice of slaveholding on the part of Friends in the colonies, it had greatly diminished in some parts, and in others disappeared almost altogether, as was true in the case of Pennsylvania.[1175] For the sake of more complete illustration of the type of expression issued, the following is quoted more at length.

The reader will have noticed that the chief emphasis is placed upon the wrongfulness of bartering slaves; this may be explained by saying that that was the first problem they had to face. Not until they were able to secure the Negroes’ freedom could an education be of much value to him, for all that he made of his life belonged to his master. But as soon as he became free, there arose other needs, other desires. New prospects opened before him, and there was a possibility that he might accomplish something for himself and his posterity. This was realized by the church organization and it followed the move for freedom by emphatic requests that the meetings take care of the spiritual and intellectual education of the negroes. The following will illustrate very clearly the insistence with which the local church investigated the activity of its members, and the penalty levied on the disobedient one. In 1759, it was reported that ... had purchased several Negroes; this being a breach of discipline, two members were appointed to speak with him on the subject, according to their custom. The final report on his case was made in 1762. They may be praised for longsuffering and condemned for inefficiency.

Instances similar to this one are almost without number; reference is made to a few of them only.[1178] The work of each of the particular meetings is more completely brought out in the following pages.

Of all meetings in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, there were none which accomplished more for the education of the Negro than did Philadelphia Monthly. As has already been noted elsewhere in this work, there was quite early a considerable interest manifested by the meeting in regard to the question of servitude, and also the masters’ care in giving them Christian instruction.[1179] There is no record to show that at these early dates there was any permanent school; all care was, without question, left to those who had Negroes in their employ, education being tutorial entirely. The master’s care was well guarded by the meeting’s committee on Negroes, however, and in this way a central responsible party was provided. In addition, there was also established a meeting which was held once each three months in the interest of Negroes.[1180]

In 1770 there came to the front a definite movement for the establishment of a systematic means of educating Negro children. The proposal for its consideration, made first month, 26th, was referred to the meeting in second month for action.[1181] On that occasion, there being expressed a definite sentiment in favor of action, a committee was appointed consisting of twenty-two members with permission for any other Friends to attend its deliberations who cared to do so.[1182] The date for the committee meeting was set by the monthly meeting. At the subsequent monthly meeting, the committee made its first report, which being acceptable to all was approved, and further steps were taken to secure immediate action. A digest of the report and proposals of the committee is here presented.[1183]

1. The instruction of Negro and mulatto children in reading, writing, arithmetic, and other useful learning—sewing and knitting, according to their capacity, is to be provided.

2. The instruction is to be under the care of Friends.

3. The monthly meeting to nominate a committee of Friends, whose duties are:

4. The children of free Negroes and mulattoes are to be given preferment.

5. Tuition to be free of any expense to the parents.

6. If enrollment of such children is not large enough, the committee may admit others according to their judgment.

Acting upon the recommendations incorporated in the report, a subscription paper was at once prepared, and the campaign for funds began.[1184] A committee of the following named Friends was appointed to assume the direction of the school agreeable to the articles of the report, viz.; Israel Pemberton, Samuel Emlen, James Pemberton, Richard Blackham, John Drinker, Hugh Forbes, and Edward Jones.[1185] Their term of service was stated as “until a new nomination be made by this meeting” and any vacancy occurring in the meantime was to be filled in the same way.[1186] Only three months later (sixth month) the committee of seven reported they had agreed with Moses Patterson as teacher, hired a house, and that a number of children were already admitted for instruction.[1187] In first month of the following year the committee requested permission to erect a school for the use of the Blacks, on the same lot occupied by the almshouse. The request was at once granted.[1188]

Though it was originally stated that the committee should report once a year to the monthly meeting, there was by no means a full report recorded in the minutes each year. They are adequate enough, however, to furnish some idea of the progress made with the school.

The details of a few reports will be presented. It appears from the records that the committee’s reports were always made the basis of judgment as to whether the meeting would continue the school or abandon it.[1189] Fortunately, the reports were usually favorable, excepting in matters of financial consideration; in this respect there was quite often a shortage.[1190] In the report of the first twelve years there is little that deserves repetition. The school continued regularly, according to statements made at intervals, and all things seemed to convince Friends that it was worthy of their support. Let us note the condition of the school at the end of twelve years, 1782.

For the five years preceding the instruction had been under the care of John Houghton, who, unfortunately, had to retire because of failing health.[1191] His place was taken two months later by Anthony Benezet, a teacher of great merit, and one who perhaps had the welfare of the Negro more at heart than any other man in the colony.[1192] At his suggestion, the school was removed from the house erected for that purpose and established in his own home. Great tribute was paid to the character of the work done by Houghton, with special reference to his painstaking visiting of families, seeking thus to increase the interest of parents, and ultimately the school attendance. It is stated that during the five years he was employed, two hundred and fifty children and grown persons had entered the school.[1193] The chief value derived, according to the committee’s view, was the increased appreciation aroused among the Whites for the Blacks. They were forced to realize that the Negro had talents which might be developed as their own, giving him an insight into greater possibilities which were not beyond his reach.

The report on the financial status was not so hopeful. The fees for the master, for the years 1779, 1780, and 1781 were eighty, ninety, and one hundred pounds respectively; in addition, there was the expense of odd jobs of work, wood for winter use, and also the item of books.[1194] To increase the difficulties arising from mere items of expense, there was introduced another factor, the payment to the treasurer of paper money which had greatly depreciated in value since it was subscribed.[1195] The result of the experiment, up to date, financially, was a deficit of £74/7/10. A part of this amount was covered by outstanding subscriptions, a considerable number of which could not be collected.[1196] The meeting was appealed to, to make up the deficit as usual by subscription. This method, though commonly resorted to, was in most places supplemented by special legacies left to trustees for any purpose the donor might designate.[1197] Legacies for schools were particularly urged by the quarterly and yearly meetings.

In 1784 there seems to have been but one school for the Blacks, the one taught by Benezet. The report stated that there was a decided need for another one in the near future; in 1786 it appears by answers to the queries that the school has been added and that both are supported by the voluntary contributions of Friends.[1198] The attendance problem was evidently not yet solved satisfactorily; it would perplex a teacher to-day. About one hundred were under the instruction of Benezet in 1784, but only fifteen to thirty-five generally attended.[1199] The progress of this number in reading, writing, and arithmetic was deemed satisfactory, though it was admitted it might be improved with more regular attendance.

The salary paid Benezet at this time was £100 plus the £20 which was allowed as the rent for his dwelling, which he continued to use as a school house.

From 1786 two schools continued. In 1790 the incumbent of the master’s position was Daniel Britt; the mistress of the other was Sarah Dougherty. The latter served only to sixth month, 1790, at which time she was replaced by Elizabeth Meccum who later became the wife of Daniel Britt.[1200] Though there was a very large enrollment at this time, the actual attendance was between eighteen and thirty in each of the schools.[1201] The instruction continued as above stated and was recognized on the whole as satisfactory, its only failure being due to irregular attendance, occasioned by illiberal masters, who detained the Negroes in their service. The master’s salary for the year, £100, was double that paid to the mistress. Finances were generally in a bad state, though they had been considerably augmented by a generous gift of £175 from England, and a special donation by William Craig.[1202] In spite of this, the committee was still indebted to the estate of Anthony Benezet to the extent of about £100.[1203] These difficulties do not seem to have been insuperable, however; the regular annual income (about 1784) was fairly well established, being derived from the rental of property and grounds.[1204]

Under the direction of Daniel Britt and his wife the school continued to progress; most gratifying was the increase of the regular attendance to about eighty, which was as large as could be conveniently accommodated in the two schools.[1205] The services of Britt and his wife ceased in the period from 1795 to 1798, the latter having died and the former being aged and infirm. The master’s place was taken by Elisha Pickering, at a salary now grown to £150 per year. That of the mistress still remained at the mark of former years, £50. The amount of annual rents had increased to £190/9/11 and besides this there was an interest from £146/7 which was a part of the bequest of Anthony Benezet.[1206] The annual expenditures were estimated at £230, which considerably exceeded the income. It was customary to require tuition for the children whose masters were “bound by indenture to give them school learning,” and from this source was eked out the sum necessary to defray expenses.[1207] There is found no statement in the committee’s reports to indicate the amount of tuition usually demanded. The following bill may be of interest, however, since it shows various items of expenditures of the school committee.[1208]

Committee of education, to Othneil Alsop, Dr.

From available records it is impossible to give more than an elementary knowledge of how the school was run. Nothing is found concerning the inner organization. We can know its purposes, its means at command for attaining them, and approximately the number of children it was able to reach. The length of school term is not quite clear; it seems evident that there were summer and winter sessions, how long we do not know, and that there was scarcely any interruption of their continuity. Occurrences which caused an interruption of the session usually were commented on in the committee’s reports.[1209] A summary of the report showing the status of the schools in 1800 is given below.[1210] At that time they were under the direction of committees of the northern, central, and southern districts.

1. Benjamin Mears, master at $500 a year; Elizabeth Meccum, mistress at £50 per year.

2. Schools have been kept open throughout the year 1798-99 with the exception of twelve weeks on account of sickness.

3. The attendance, from seventy to eighty day scholars, winter and autumn.

4. Some applicants for admission have been refused because of a lack of room; room enough for all in summer.

5. Finance:

For two reasons it has been thought advisable to present as fully as possible the situation in regard to the Negro’s education in Philadelphia. First, they were present in Philadelphia in so considerable numbers that it necessitated a complete organization on the part of the society if any aid was to be offered; second, the method of dealing with them was closely followed in other localities, in case there were sufficient numbers to warrant it. The activity of other monthly meetings in this question of oversight and education of the Negro will be touched upon briefly.

As was above suggested, and will be shown more explicitly hereinafter, there were many of the country districts where the Negro problem scarcely existed.[1211] In many others the number of the race was so small that a separate school was entirely out of the question; but more was needed than the mere presence of a White school, to make certain that they received even the rudiments of an education. A constant readjustment of the general ideal of attitude toward them was necessary for each individual community. The details of information concerning the work of each meeting was interesting enough, but perhaps it will be more instructive to point out and illustrate the general characteristics which applied to most, or at least a large number of them.

As a general rule, if Negro inhabitants were numerous, a committee was delegated to the service of their care and education.[1212] In some places this was made a standing committee having specified duties; in others, the committees were appointed only to investigate conditions and make a report, so that further action might be taken by the meeting. It may be well to note the type of this service which the committees were required to perform. The duties, performed by the two kinds of committees, were but slightly differentiated; the chief difference lay in the length of the term of service.

The first task for them was to actually visit the Negro families within the compass of the particular meeting;[1213] the second, to determine as exactly as possible the economic status of the home;[1214] the third, to ascertain the number of children capable of receiving schooling;[1215] fourth, to inform themselves as to the attitude of the parents towards their children’s education;[1216] fifth, to deal with members of Friends who possessed slaves or paid servants, endeavoring to point out to them the obligation for their education, and also for their freedom;[1217] sixth, to inform themselves as to the occupation pursued by the Negroes, if any;[1218] and finally, to make a report of conditions, in such shape that it might be transmitted to the quarterly meeting, and outline the plan of procedure, according to the demands of the situation.[1219] From such a range of information, considering the characteristic thoroughness of the people, it must be inferred that they were able to understand the needs, which is always a first requisite for their satisfaction. Moreover, the knowledge that the quarterly meetings demanded written statements of what they had done always worked to facilitate prompt action as soon as the situation was defined. Rather late in the century, 1779, the yearly meeting became insistent as to the treatment of those who held slaves, though the punishment for failure to educate them was not so drastic. Extracts sent to the meetings in that year required that all members holding slaves should be disowned.[1220] Instances where this punishment was used are not wanting.[1221]

The financial burden of Negro education usually fell on the local meeting. Those owning slaves were required to pay for their education, but when they became free, as most of them did by the time of the Revolution, it was impossible for them to pay for themselves. This burden, which the society assumed, was usually met: (1) by subscription,[1222] (2) by special legacies, and (3) by income from investments in property. In the smaller localities, the first was the predominate means; in the larger, such as Philadelphia, a larger proportion was derived from the second and third,[1223] though the first was common to all.

The situation at Exeter Monthly Meeting seems to have been well disposed of, if one may judge by the brevity of their annals. Writing, 1764, in answer to an inquiry on the part of Philadelphia Quarterly Meeting, to which they belonged, they report:

In 1758 they had reported two Negroes only, and with substantially the same comments.[1225] The report may either mean they had no problem at the outset, or that they were remarkably successful in their attempt to solve it.

Radnor Monthly Meeting reported in 1756 that they were clear with respect to buying, importing, disposing of, or holding slaves,[1226] and continued substantially the same report until 1768.[1227] They were all, according to reports, well fed and clothed and many attended meetings,[1228] but no statement is made at that early date concerning any attempt to educate them. From sundry reports after 1768 it seems necessary to assume that the earlier reports were not entirely accurate in stating that the meeting was “clear” of slaves. Without this assumption, it is difficult to understand the great increase in the cases of discipline for that offense. This increase was doubtless due to a closer scrutiny of the Negro question than had been formerly customary.

Beginning with 1768, there were several cases reported of dealing in slaves, either buying, selling, or holding. First, there was “one slave sold,”[1229] and two years later the records state “none imported but some purchased and some sold since last account.”[1230] It was further admitted (1770) that “nothing has yet been done by us in visiting those who hold slaves,”[1231] but a few years later (1776) there is ample evidence cited that they attended to each individual case; there are several instances where expulsion from the society was threatened,[1232] and actually carried into execution.[1233] In 1778 the committee on slaves reported: (1) they had visited all members holding slaves, (2) obtained manumissions from David Harvard for two slaves, (3) Anthony Tunnis also released a slave, and (4) mentioned two other cases for consideration—(a) that of John Harvard, holding one slave though he admits it to be wrong, and (b) that of Samuel Harvard who refuses to set free a Negro man aged forty, though he condemns the slaveholding practice.[1234] In 1780 the meeting reported none imported, sold, or purchased, and almost none held,[1235] and by 1790 even the latter had disappeared.[1236]

There was at this time constant oversight of the freed Negroes and some of the children were given the opportunity of schooling without charge to the parents.[1237]

Negro slavery flourished early in Bucks County,[1238] and still continued to persist until after the abolition in 1780,[1239] which resulted in a gradual diminution of slavery throughout the state. A little later we shall notice the distribution of slaves as indicated by the registration which was required by the law in 1782.[1240]

The presence of Negroes in the compass of Middletown is first made known through the record of 1703 which stated that Robert Heaton and Thomas Stackpole were appointed to fence off a portion of the ground to bury Negroes in.[1241] The first reference to their liberation (other than by death) is the case of Jeremiah Langhorne, who in 1742 freed all of his Negroes, the entire number being about thirty or forty.[1242] Just how frequently such liberations occurred and how generally they were participated in by Friends is not accurately ascertainable from the records, but by the year 1782 just following the stringent abolition act we have the following report:

In 1783 a similar report issued from the monthly meeting, stating that a noteworthy care was evident among them for the Negroes, both old and young, but that a more considerable care was necessary to be taken in regard to their education.[1244]

In 1759 Buckingham Meeting appointed John Ely and Isaac Pickering to speak with one of their members who had purchased slaves.[1245] This was done because it was a conflict with the discipline. The burden of their advice is that he should bring up the young Negroes in useful learning and Christianity, and later set them free if they desired it. There is nothing further to indicate the nature of the education, and since there is no evidence of a school for them, it was probably in their homes or in connection with the White schools. No other references are found which point to any progress until 1778 when the meeting appointed Thomas Watson and Oliver Paxson to advise and assist the free Negroes in their religious duties and also in regard to their school education.[1246] This appointment was made in accordance with the more stringent regulations which were given out by the quarterly and yearly meetings in 1777.[1247] These regulations requested only that committee be appointed to look into the status of the Negroes and seek to better their conditions, but the one next following, 1779, required those holding slaves to be disowned.[1248]

The records of Bucks Quarterly Meeting are in very substantial agreement with those of the individual meetings, Falls, Wrightstown, Middletown and Buckingham, which constituted it.[1249] The question of the rightfulness of buying or owning slaves seems to have come first to a conscious consideration about 1730, when it was debated in the meeting.[1250] They were unable to come to a decision in the matter and accordingly referred it back to the yearly meeting.[1251] Though unsuccessful in debating the question satisfactorily, their practical success seems to have been very commendable, for in 1766 there is reported only one Negro purchased lately throughout the quarter.[1252] This does not mean that no Negroes were held, for as will be shown later there were many in that region; it does mean, however, that their control of any increase in slaves was very satisfactory to the yearly meeting’s demands. By 1772 the record has still been greatly improved, as they report:

Though all indications are to the effect that slave purchasing was near the minimum, the meetings were clearly not satisfied. Committees were at all times kept by both the quarterly and monthly meetings,[1254] to visit with those who held slaves to persuade them to give them their freedom. The committee for this service in the quarterly meeting reported in 1777:

The next report made in the eleventh month of the year is substantially the same, several slaves having been “manumitted or set free,” and, also, the defiant attitude being still present among some members.[1256] The similarity of these reports continues till the very last years of the century, with however a few additions. At some time prior to 1795, not more than three years, there were established meetings for Negroes which were held at stated times, always under the direction of Friends.[1257] In 1799 the quarterly meeting was able to report “no slaves among us” and that “some care” is extended to those set free.[1258]

Very early, the meetings were urged to give their attention to the religious and school education of the negroes that were in their possession,[1259] but a majority of the reports from meetings are to the effect that this did not receive satisfactory attention.[1260] No evidence remains in any records to show that there was a separate school ever established for Negroes, and it is quite possible that there never was during the 18th century. The demands transmitted through Bucks Quarterly were not so strictly enforced in regard to education as in regard to liberation, and it is more than probable that it was in most cases determined by the individual conscience than by the group. In regard to forcing liberation by public opinion, there are many examples where individuals were singled out and threatened with ejection from the society if they refused their slaves freedom,[1261] but there are few references to such action taken for failure to educate them; there are, however, occasional ones mentioned. Most references to their education were in the nature of advice, which doubtless was followed in many cases,[1262] and disregarded in many more.

In spite of the continuous exertions of the Friends’ meetings to keep down the number of slaves purchased, and to increase the number of liberations among those already possessed by their members, it appears from an investigation of the matter made by Davis, that almost one-third of the total number of slaves in 1782 (Bucks County) were to be found in the townships Falls, Middletown, Lower and Upper Makefield, Bristol and Wrightstown, where the Quakers were most numerous.[1263] The entire number of slaves registered in 1782 was five hundred and twenty, and this may be regarded as fairly accurate since failure to register them meant the loss of the slave.[1264] The number registered in the townships where Baptists and Presbyterians were settled, Warwick, Warrington, New Britain, Newtown and Bedminster, was very small, while the German districts registered but thirty-two.[1265]

The meetings constituting Western Quarterly Meeting (Chester County), Kennett, London Grove, and New Garden have very meagre references to slaves or slave holding up to about 1770. One of the monthly meetings, London Grove, was not established until 1792,[1266] and between that date and 1800 made no reports of any consequence.

In 1770 Kennett Meeting’s committee performed a general visit to all possessed of slaves and found there was not the desired willingness to manumit them which they had expected.[1267] From the report made seven years later, we must judge the situation had not changed very considerably since we find one member signified to them that he did not incline to release his Negroes from bondage, nor did he know that ever he should.[1268]

It does not, however, seem that the occasional stubborn brother had a discouraging effect on the rest of the meeting. In 1779 the records stated,

It is desired that Friends attend to the circumstances and the situation of such negroes as have been set free, that we may fully discharge our duty to them, by endeavoring to instruct them, both for their spiritual and temporal good....[1269]

A committee of three men was immediately appointed to perform the service. This work with committees continued constantly, with the result that nine years later (1788) the meeting reported “none held as slaves amongst us” and that attention was given to education.[1270] The registration of 1780 showed only three held as slaves in the whole township.[1271]

In New Garden attention was early called to the Negroes,[1272] and a committee appointed then reported in 1781 that most of them were living among Friends and were generally well provided for.[1273] That committee was released,[1274] and a new one reported in 1785 the following state of affairs:

In 1789 one case of holding a slave came before the meeting, but at its direction a writ of manumission was immediately secured for the same.[1276] The registration in 1780 for New Garden township returned one slave only, held by a Scotchman.[1277]

Uwchlan Monthly Meeting (Caln Quarterly), as early as 1765, received a report from a delegation sent from the quarterly meeting stating it as their opinion that Friends ought to inspect into the care which Friends who had Negroes, extended toward them with regard to their education.[1278] A committee was accordingly appointed by the monthly meeting to serve in that capacity. How considerable was their activity in the interval elapsing between their appointment and their first formal report of conditions which was returned to the meeting in 1779, one cannot judge accurately. We may judge from the report above mentioned that there was no Negro school, for that race alone; it was perhaps not demanded by the numbers who would have been eligible.[1279] It appears the committee had visited all (Wilmington excepted) who had been freed, and found all generally in a very satisfactory state. Some are reported not able to give their children schooling, and for them aid is solicited;[1280] for others advice is requested to guide them in their outward affairs. The direction of the Negroes’ education, as nearly as can be made out, was of the most practical nature, laying emphasis on the industrial side, at that time an apprentice type of education.[1281] The interest in the apprentice did not stop as soon as he was placed, but continued, for it was customary to place him with Friends, if possible, and the member of Friends was responsible to his meeting for the fulfilment of his contract with the apprenticed. The following extract from the Middletown records will serve to show the general regulation by which the apprenticing was carried on among members of the society.

Sadsbury, 1782, reported they had visited the free Negroes, who were situated nearly as before.[1283] No statement was given of the entire number within this locality, but five were listed as having no trade.[1284] It appears, however, in spite of that fact, they were not dependent on the community for support. One woman owned a house and lot, “her own purchase”; a man with family rented a small tenement; and the other three worked as common laborers.[1285]

The Bradford minutes (also of Cain Quarterly) devote almost no space to the status of the Negro in their vicinity. This may have been because there were few slaves there. At the registration of slaves, compelled by law in 1780,[1286] the townships of East and West Bradford returned none whatever.[1287]

In the discussion of Concord Quarterly there will be material presented from Chester, Concord and Goshen. In 1779 Chester Monthly Meeting reported they had made a visit to all freed Negroes, of whom it was said, some were quite poor and unable to school their children.[1288] The visiting committee recommended that the poor should be put out to trades and given schooling, and suggested that a subscription should be raised for that purpose. The meeting was heartily in favor of this and at once appointed a committee to look after the subscriptions and their application.[1289] Two years later (1781) after a similar visitation by committee, it was reported that they had been advised of their temporal and religious duties, many sent to school and books distributed among them.[1290] At these dates no special schools for Negroes were mentioned, and the date of their establishment is not found, but in 1785 the report of the committee on Negroes, requesting a new subscription for supporting Negro schools, indicated that there were special schools established for them.[1291]

The situation at Concord Meeting was very similar to that of Chester, as appears by their report of 1779. Following the customary visitation, it was stated that the visit was satisfactory in many places, but in some families were found small children, eight of whom were of school age, but whose parents were unable to school them.[1292] The meeting was asked to give its attention to the matter, but nothing was found in the minutes to indicate what they did further to remedy the matter.

The Goshen Meeting seems from its answers to the queries in 1756 to be in a very satisfactory state with regard to slaveholding, “none having been purchased of late years,” though they consider they are not careful enough in educating them in Christian principles.[1293] They were, however, careful to deal individually with those few who were engaged in any manner in holding slaves in bondage.[1294] In 1758 the record stated:

Four years later conditions were somewhat improved, and their report stated:

If we read a little further the records for the same year, we are informed that some were sent to school, supposedly to a “White school” due to the small number of Negroes among Friends.[1297] From the above references, then, taken in connection with one of the second month, 1764, we are led to infer that the education of the Negroes under Friends’ care was carried on in a school and not in the home, under individual instructors, whoever might be able to do it. The reference of 1764 stated “some are sent to school to learn to read.”[1298]

Simultaneously with this care in their education, the meeting was working on each individual case, among the members, to convince them of the propriety of the manumission practice. In 1776 Randle Mailin manumitted his Negro man Peter Cuff, and produced his record of the same to the meeting to have it recorded on their books.[1299] The next year (1777) Nathan Hoop manumitted a Negro woman, 18 years old, and her two mulatto boys as soon as they should become 21 years of age.[1300] The following brief extract is illustrative of the many cases where pressure was brought to bear in a kindly way, to the end that this or that person might set Negroes free.

In 1778 the Goshen Meeting appointed a committee, Randle Mailin and Caleb Maris, to join with a committee appointed by the Quarterly Meeting (Concord) to advise together concerning the education of the Negroes.[1302] This is a very good indication that organized action was taken, educationally, and that it was not left to individual choice. In 1780 the monthly meeting reported to the yearly meeting that its committee (the one formerly appointed) had been “advising Negroes” on their religious education and had their “schooling under care.”[1303] The registry of slaves in 1780 showed thirteen as the full quota for Goshen township.[1304] As a general rule very few were returned from the Quaker townships while the vast majority came from those of the Welsh (Charlestown, Tredyffrin and East Nantmeal) and the Scotch-Irish (Newtown, Londonderry, Oxford and East Nottingham.)[1305]

From the meeting records in the Abington Quarter there will be presented some of the material relating to Horsham, Byberry (not established a monthly meeting till 1810),[1306] and Gwynedd, which may be taken as representative of that quarterly meeting.

Though there is scant evidence in the Horsham Monthly Meeting minutes to indicate what they did in reference to the Negroes’ education, we are not left entirely in the dark. The Horsham School Committee, which made a report of its own after 1783, made occasional reference thereto, and it must be understood from these reports that the Negroes were schooled at the expense of the school committee. The only proof of this statement, given in the records, is found in statements like the following:

This makes clear that cases of Negro schooling were taken before the same committee as cases of poor Whites and were investigated and disposed of in the same manner.

Byberry Preparative Meeting makes no reference during the early years to the status of the Negro in its limits. Martindale, in a History of Byberry and Moreland, states that slavery came into Byberry about 1721,[1308] the slaves being employed by the more opulent class to do the roughest work. The inventory of a Friends’ property (1727) showed that he possessed “one negro girl, £20, and one negro boy, £30.”[1309] Of their intervening history little is recorded, though the Negroes were set free by many members of Friends, and in 1779 the meeting authorized Silas Walmsley and William Walmsley to provide a suitable burying ground for the use of Negroes who had been freed.[1310] What was done for their education is not known.

It is noticeable that in the earliest answers to the query concerning Negroes (about 1756) the majority of the monthly meetings usually answered in an offhand manner that they were “clear” or there were “none to be charged with that breech,” or something to that effect. The writer believes these reports first sent in were perhaps made from only a general knowledge of the situation, and not the result of an exact knowledge of their members’ practices. This statement is not capable of an exact proof, but the remarkable similarity in all the meeting records for the first few reports, certainly indicate that such was the case. Quite frequently, yes, in most cases, the “clear” reports are followed after a few months or years by statements that some are imported, a few held as slaves, or one Negro sold and similar reports. This was true in the case of Gwynedd. In 1756 the meeting reported “we have not to charge any,”[1311] and three months following, “Friends think themselves clear in this respect”;[1312] the nature of the wording in the last would imply it was based more on implicit faith than explicit judgment. Eleven years thereafter we have more definite reports, such as:

From that time forward the reports made to the monthly meeting were very definite. In 1775 a report was brought in which purported to cover the entire compass of the meeting. It stated the number held, their status, and what was done for their benefit. It is interesting to note that a few enjoyed some educational opportunities, limited to be sure, the details of which are presented here, as they appeared in the minutes of the meeting.

In 1779 it is reported that the affairs of Negroes are still in the hands of the committee for that purpose, but that not much more has been accomplished than was last reported.[1316] It would seem though that the committee was decidedly active in dealing with individual cases of discipline both at that time and in the years following. Especially did they urge first the freedom of the slave, and when this was refused, as it occasionally was, they did not hesitate to eject the recalcitrant member.[1317] So effective was their service that by 1790 there were none held as slaves by Friends and in regard to their education they reported: “Some care and labor is extended towards the instruction and education of such Negroes as are under Friends’ care.”[1318]

It would be interesting to compare the Friends’ own account of their activity with that of an outsider who merely looked on, but the writer has been unable to find any opinion on the subject by any contemporary, either through this investigation or from those made by others. Many, it is true, comment on their social and economic status but little mention is ever made of their education.[1319]

The Warrington and Fairfax Quarterly Meeting (Baltimore Yearly Meeting) reported in 1776 that their Negroes were well taken care of, but their education was “much neglected.”[1320] Three years later they reported:

The uncommon relation existing from the time of the first settlement of Penn’s colony throughout the entire colonial history, is well known to every schoolboy; such relations, between any possibly antagonistic groups, have been without parallel in the history of this country. Applegarth, speaking of this happy relationship, states that the results of his study revealed but two instances in which Friends had been massacred by Indians, and these cases were entirely the results of misunderstanding.[1322]

It is aside from the point to relate at length the means employed by Penn and the Quakers to cultivate the friendship of these people. Nothing was more forceful than his immediate association with, and travels among them, and the messages in which he explained that he and his people were one with them and that they were all the “Friends of Onas.”

Indian affairs were considered in a rational manner and occupied much of the time of the Governor and Council. Instances of a solicitous interest in the Indians[1323] are seen in the laws of 1701, forbidding the sale of rum to any but the chiefs, who should distribute it as they thought best,[1324] and a still more restrictive law in 1722, which prohibited the sale of liquor to Indians. Of still more importance was the establishment of the principle that an abuse committed by an Indian towards the Whites must be adjusted by the Indian chief, not revenged by the Whites, which was given out in the instructions to colonists; and the converse stated later (1728) by the Governor, that if a White injured an Indian he should make complaint to the Whites, who would then punish the offense under their own laws.[1325]

Friends’ ministers were also active in the missionary work among the Indians, which was first urged and practiced by George Fox. Not only the numerous excursions of Penn, but also those of Thomas Story, Thomas Turner, Chalkley and others, evidence the ready spirit with which the commands of Fox were received.[1326] Besides the general missionary work and relief for the Indians, that from time to time is mentioned in the several meetings, there is no evidence that anything considerable towards a school education was attempted till the latter part of the century. In a letter of the yearly meeting in 1796, it is stated that Friends are,

An excellent illustration of this movement towards the education of the Indian, and the naive friendly manner with which they made known their needs is found in the following communications, which are self-explanatory.

In 1795 a committee was appointed by the Yearly Meeting of Pennsylvania and New Jersey for the promotion and improvement of the Indian natives.[1330] Their first act was to attempt to learn the Indian’s attitude towards such an activity on the part of Friends.[1331] Accordingly a circular letter was sent out to the various neighboring tribes, and also accompanied by a letter from the secretary of state, signifying the government’s coöperation and sanction.[1332] From the responses it appeared that only the Oneidas and part of the Tuscaroras were willing to accept any assistance, so the following summer of 1796, three Friends, approved by the committee, were sent and settled among the Oneidas. In the winter of 1796 they established a school, continued for several years, and taught by an Indian who had been educated in New England.[1333] The Indians were found, at first, to be quite averse to any continuous labor, and it was necessary for the Friends to establish themselves, and to improve a piece of land, in the hope that the Indians would see the results and become interested in the process. This seems to have worked quite satisfactorily, for in 1799 they report that the Indians have improved some lands and “sowed them with wheat.”[1334] The various occupations mentioned as being taught the boys were: smith work, tilling soil, sewing, the preparation of lumber in sawmills, and the details included therein. The girls were frequently instructed in spinning, knitting, sewing, school learning, etc.[1335]

At this time (1799) the Oneidas became distrustful of the motives of those in charge of the settlement, thinking that such an investment in implements and the permanent nature of the farms laid out, indicated an intention to seek after a time to take their territory from them. The settlers became aware of this feeling and to prove their good faith, decided to leave the settlement with all implements and improvements in sole charge of the natives. The preparations to leave were accomplished in a friendly conference, held in September, 1799.[1336] The success of this work, for the Oneidas, had been watched by the Seneca tribes, and resulted in an interest in the same thing, culminating in the letters requesting the Friends’ assistance, which have already been presented.[1337]

Though slavery had fixed itself, very early, as an institution in Pennsylvania, it was not destined to continue its growth unmolested. Some of the chief factors working against it were: (1) The scruples of Friends, and other sects, (2) the Germans and (3) the opposition of White labor. Restrictive legislation was passed in 1700, 1705 and 1712, placing an ever increasing duty upon those imported. Gradual abolition was provided for by statutes of 1780 and 1788. Socially and economically the condition of the Negro in Pennsylvania was more desirable than in states of her latitude and further south.

To three Quakers, opposed to Negro slavery, some brief attention is given. Their expressions also indicate a solicitous interest in the education of the Indian. Their influence was extended by missionary journeys, speaking in public, and numerous pamphlets published on that subject. This work was by no means limited to the Quakers. Slavery was denounced as impracticable, unjust and inconsistent with the ideals of a free nation.

(1) Not only individual leaders, but also the organized meetings arrayed themselves to fight against slavery. The first memorial to that effect was on the part of Germantown Meeting in 1688. This was sent to the Quarterly Meeting of Philadelphia, but at that date they took no action in regard to it. In 1727 the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s advisers censured the practice of trading in slaves. A more extensive warning and reproof was administered in 1758. Throughout the early half of the century efforts were made to secure favor for the slaves’ freedom; it was necessary that in some measure that should come first.

(2) After the active campaign for freedom, the interest in education increased, and, in the last half of the century, there are frequent statements of that nature in records of meetings. Separate schools were established for them where possible. One in Philadelphia was set up by the meeting, though in large measure due to the active personal influence of Benezet, who, after 1782, taught in the school till his death. Moses Patterson was the first teacher; after 1786 two schools are always mentioned in reports. In the five years preceding 1782 it is estimated that two hundred and fifty Negroes attended the school.

Some attention is given to the Negroes and their education, or lack of it, in each of the meetings. The care of this subject in those meetings was in the charge of a committee, the general character of whose duties was indicated on page 247. The support of the Negro schools and the education of the poor children was similar to that of other schools.[1338] Reports on the progress in freeing, supporting, and educating the Negro, were required by their superior meetings.

The relations between Friends and Indians were most cordial from the beginning. Though their education was preached early by missionaries and practised in a smaller way, little organized effort was made until 1795. In that year the yearly assembly took the necessary steps to establish schools among neighboring tribes, the first mentioned being for the Oneidas. The desire of the Indian for aid in these matters is indicated by the quoted letter of Cornplanter, the Seneca chief.

CHAPTER XII CONCLUSION

The society, established by George Fox, near the middle of the seventeenth century, increased rapidly in numbers, due very largely to the efforts of its founder and the services of the men whom he associated with him in his work. This influence was extended by means of (1) journeys made to foreign parts; (2) letters; and (3) preaching out of doors to all who would listen. Fox, from the first, was interested in education, particularly moral and practical, and recommended the establishment of several schools. He was primarily interested in (1) moral training; (2) religious instruction; and (3) in education of a practical sort which would fit every individual to earn a livelihood. These ends which he strove for were likewise accepted as worthy to be achieved, and consciously striven for by the society in its organized meetings. This organization of meetings itself was devised by Fox and regularly constituted in various parts before the time of his death. It consisted of yearly, quarterly, monthly, and particular meetings, whose relations were well defined. The functions of the first were general and directive; those of the last were particular and effective. The chief weakness, already pointed out in previous chapters, was the lack of compulsory power in the yearly meeting. Its recommendations gained results, but might be neglected in communities desiring to do so.

An organization, of itself, performs nothing. Its accomplishments depend on men who have purposes, and the determination and ability to execute them. A considerable number of such men were members of Friends, and expressed themselves definitely on education. Such leaders as Penn, Fothergill, Fox, Banks, Chalkley, Crisp, Crouch, Pastorius, Benezet and others as important, were responsible for its educational guidance and in the end, accomplishments. From a study of their expressions it appears that the criticisms, concerning the Quakers’ antipathy to education, are without foundation, and arose, for the most part, from their statement that a classical education was not essential for a minister. The life and the education of most of them attest the fact that they sought a higher education for themselves and promoted it for others. Not only for their own society, but for the rich and poor of others, were efforts made to establish schools. The education of Indians and Negroes was similarly urged both on the part of individuals and the organization. The tangible results of their efforts in this regard were seen in the various local meetings.

In the establishment of schools, the direction lay in the hands of the yearly meeting. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s advices on that subject, for the first half century, were very general in nature and seemingly of little import to the various lower meetings. A development is noticed, however, toward a definite plan for schools to be established. The advices of 1746 and continuing thereafter, 1750, 1751, 1753, 1755, 1778, and following, are definite in their ideas as to what should be done, and the persistency with which they were urged in the meetings, where all school affairs came to be attended to by committees, seems to have effected tangible results. Committee reports on educational conditions increased greatly in definiteness after 1777, which allows a better estimate to be made of what was done. From such reports it is estimated that by the end of the century there were sixty or seventy schools established “according to direction” given by the yearly meeting. Many others are reported in various meetings, which did not measure up in any great degree to the standards set.

These standards[1339] (stated elsewhere in this work) demanded a high moral quality in masters and mistresses, as well as training in the subjects to be taught. From a study of the manuscript records and newspapers it appears that the moral standards, met by Quaker masters, were as high, and, in Philadelphia, perhaps higher than those of the other private school masters. The cases of open lawlessness are at least more numerous in the latter case. The degree of preparation for teaching ranged from the highest, the best college trained men of the day, to the lowest, those who possessed a most elementary education.

The opportunities offered for study, both in the lower and in the Classical School, were at all times equal at least to those of the other schools of the day.

The Quakers established no system of public schools, though they were called such quite frequently. As public school sentiment grew, and the Quaker schools correspondingly declined in many places, they often were taken over as public schools. In that sense they were, truly enough, the foundation of public schools. Education was free to the poor; in a few cases the funds might be applied to lower the rates paid by the regular pay scholars, but such were exceptional.

In 1750 there were about fifty particular meetings in the territory covered by this study; those were under the direction of seventeen monthly meetings.[1340] With the exception of nine of them we know from their reports that they had schools then, or established them in the period following 1750, in which the increased activity and interest of the yearly meeting brought the subject more fully to their notice. From the nature of the reports, it is often impossible to determine the date of establishing such a school, and because of the irregularity of reports it is not known how long a school may have been in operation before reported. For these reasons any estimate such as made above is very unsatisfactory.

It is not to be understood that at the time above mentioned the schools were in all cases “according to the plan” of the yearly meeting. Many reports have been quoted wherein schools were mentioned which did not measure up to the standards.[1341] Some lacked buildings, grounds, Friends as masters, masters’ accommodations, and so forth.

Assuming the nine meetings, for which no schools were reported in the minutes, did not have them, there were about forty schools under control of the Quakers, who at that date constituted one-third of the entire population.[1342] The population estimated by Oldmixon was about 100,000 in 1741.[1343] Though the colony increased rapidly by immigration,[1344] the Quaker increase was not proportionate to their numbers stated above.[1345] In 1795 it is stated that the Episcopalians and Quakers together constituted but one-third of the whole population, which then numbered about 434,373.[1346] The number of regularly established Quaker schools at that date was between sixty and seventy.

If in 1741 we estimate the number of school age children of Quaker parentage between six and seven thousand, which is probably a less number than there actually were, it is apparent that the schools regularly established were in no way adequate to the school population. The remainder were doubtless cared for in the frequently mentioned mixed schools and neighborhood schools, which are known to have been common. These were sometimes under partial control of the Quaker meetings. What proportion the number of Quaker schools bears to those established by other agencies is not known. No studies made up to the present time have attempted to estimate the number of schools established by all or particular agencies. Any comparison is impossible until such a study is made.

FOOTNOTES