Early Quaker education in Pennsylvania

SUPPORT

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]

VALUE OF LEGACIES FOR SCHOOL SUPPORT

ORGANIZATION

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.

THE SCHOOL

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.