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.