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]

SUPPORT OF THE SCHOOLS

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]

BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

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.