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.