MASTERS AND MISTRESSES
[Sidenote: Discussion of individual masters to be brief]
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]
[Sidenote: Qualifications demanded of teachers; morality, membership and
competency]
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.
[Sidenote: Serious attempt made to meet the standards set]
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]
[Sidenote: Teachers in lower schools usually from the home locality]
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]
[Sidenote: Many Latin School masters came from a distance]
[Sidenote: Willian]
[Sidenote: Robert Proud]
[Sidenote: Peter Warren]
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.
[Sidenote: To supply teachers, the apprenticeship system used]
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.
[Sidenote: Samuel Eldridge apprenticed]
[Sidenote: and others]
[Sidenote: The extent of the system not great]
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.
[Sidenote: The tenure of masters]
[Sidenote: Cases cited of B. Clift, J. Taylor]
[Sidenote: G. Keith, Makin and others]
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.
[Sidenote: Tenure of mistresses]
[Sidenote: Songhurst]
[Sidenote: Burchall]
[Sidenote: Thornton]
[Sidenote: Her success questionable]
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.
[Sidenote: No system of license found]
[Sidenote: Recommendation and certificate of removal; their use]
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.
[Sidenote: The term of employment usually a year]
[Sidenote: No written contract found]
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.
[Sidenote: Teachers’ salaries; tabulated]
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.
[Sidenote: Pay of Friends’ masters similar to that of other private
masters]
[Sidenote: The charge for poor children less]
[Sidenote: Country masters ill paid]
18th Day of X br 1735.
Reced of Richard Buffington, Junior 18 s per Hatt, 4s 6d by
stockings, 17s 6d In money—In all forty Shillings; Being in
full for a yeare Scholeing, I say Reced per
me JOH MORSE[1009].
Name Year per Q per year (Reference)
Flower, E. 1683 4/ 6/ or 8/ or £ 10 _Col. Rec._, I, 13.
Keith, G. 1689 (following) 50 Ph., 5-26-1689.
120
Makin 1697 40 } Ph., 11-28-1697.
Pastorius 1697 40 }
Cadwalader 1700 for a half year trial 20 Ph., 1-28-1700.
Cadwalader 1702 50 Ph., 1-27-1702.
Every, J. 1702 Usher 30 Ph., 4-26-1702.
Benezet, A. 1742 50 P. C. S. M., I, 33.
Willian, R. 1749 150 _Ibid._, 73.
Wilson, J. 1750 Usher 60 _Ibid._, 84.
Seaton, A. 1751 (allowed) 20 _Ibid._, 90.
Wilson, J. 1753 70 _Ibid._, 101.
Johnson, Wm. 1753 (allowed) 10 _Ibid._, 106.
Benezet 1754 80 _Ibid._, 117.
King 1754 (proposed in a contract) 40 _Ibid._, 122.
50
60
Thornton, Ann 1755 20 _Ibid._, 130.
Johnson, Wm. 1755 (assistant) 40 _Ibid._, 131.
Thompson, Chas. 1755 150 _Ibid._, 133.
Johnson, Wm. 1756 (raised 20 to keep him) 60 _Ibid._, 141.
Fentham, Jos. 1756 85 _Ibid._, 144.
Patterson, M. 1761 70 _Ibid._, 235.
Thompson, J. 1770 200 _Ibid._, 341.
Proud, Robert 1759 150 _Ibid._, 175.
Proud, Robert 1784 250 Ph., 1-30-1784.
His usher 80 _Ibid._
Todd, J. 1784 (for entrance 15/
and 20/) _Ibid._
(for poor sent by
Board 10/) _Ibid._
Weaver, I. 1784 30/ 30 _Ibid._
Brown, Wm. 1784 (whole days) 30/ } _Ibid._
(half days) 15/ }
{(children) 15/ }
{(sent by board) 10/ }
Lancaster, Sarah 1784 {(sent by board) half } _Ibid._
{(sent by board half }
{ day) 7/6 }
Harry, Mary (children) 15/ _Ibid._
Clark, Joseph (older girls 30/) _Ibid._
Mrs. Clarke 15/ _Ibid._
Marsh, Ann 20/ _Ibid._
McDonnell, Mary 1784 15/ _Ibid._
Clift, B. 1693 £12 Darby, 9-20-1693
Underwood, Elihu 1773 (Credit for school
keeping) 2/2/0/
by 2 raccoon skins
0/4/0/
By netting a pair of
stockings 0/2/6/[1010]
Meccum, Eliza 1798 (Negro School) 50 Ph., 2-25-1798
Pickering, Elisha 1798 (Negro School) 150 _Ibid._
Benezet, A. 1794 (Negro School) 120 _Ibid._
Britt, Daniel 1793 (Negro School) 100 _Ibid._, 1-25-1793
Dougherty, Sarah 1793 (Negro School) 50 _Ibid._
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.
[Sidenote: Mistresses to be first considered]
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]
[Sidenote: Olive Songhurst]
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.
[Sidenote: Ann Thornton in Girls’ School, 1755]
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.
[Sidenote: Burchall employed at same time; duties]
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.
[Sidenote: Several other mistresses named, many in charge of poor
children]
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]
[Sidenote: Subjects of instruction; reading, writing, sewing, spelling,
and other “suitable subjects for girls”]
[Sidenote: Other denominations in Friends schools]
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.”
[Sidenote: Mistresses in the Negro School]
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.
[Sidenote: Teachers rated by the frequency with which they are mentioned
by well recognized writers]
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]
[Sidenote: Individual notice to be very brief]
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.
[Sidenote: Anthony Benezet]
[Sidenote: Given charge of Girls School]
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.
[Sidenote: Attitude as a teacher]
[Sidenote: Aids children of French neutrals]
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.
[Sidenote: Enters the Negro School in 1782]
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.
[Sidenote: Jonathan Binns]
Jonathan Binns was to have taken charge of the Public School in 1734, if
his health improved, but no report being made by him it is inferred he
did not perform such service.[1050] Alexander Buller was employed in 1738
to teach writing, mathematics, and the Latin tongue. Three years later he
ran an advertisement in the _Pennsylvania Gazette_, as follows:
[Sidenote: Alexander Buller; one of few who advertised for pupils]
Writing, Arithmetic, Merchants’ Accounts, Navigation, Algebra,
and other parts of the mathematics are taught by Alexander
Buller, at the Public School in Strawberry Alley. He proposes
to keep a night school for the winter and begins on the 23d
instant when constant attendance shall be given. November 5,
1741.[1051]
[Sidenote: William Brown, Daniel Britt, Pickering and Mears]
William Brown was teaching girls reading, writing, arithmetic and
language in 1784.[1052] Daniel Britt interested himself in the
instruction of Negroes in whose school he was employed from about
1790[1053] to 1796 or 1797.[1054] He was succeeded by Elisha Pickering
who probably taught till 1799, being followed by Benjamin Mears.[1055]
[Sidenote: John Cadwalader]
[Sidenote: Thomas Makin]
[Sidenote: George Keith; dissatisfaction with him]
John Cadwalader came to Philadelphia in 1699[1056] and the year following
was recommended by Griffith Owen as a man “fit for an assistant in the
school.”[1057] He was accordingly employed, it being decided that he
and Thomas Makin, who had entered the school as usher to Keith, should
compete with each other to show the best results. From the records one
cannot determine just when he left the school, though he stated, in
1702,[1058] that he intended to do so. It seems likely, from a minute of
1703, that he must have taught longer than he intended when making the
above statements.[1059] Thomas Makin, with whom he was associated, was
employed at various times until his death in 1733.[1060] He is credited
with being “a good Latinist,”[1061] and was the author of a Latin poem
in which he celebrated Pennsylvania. George Keith, Scotchman, kindly
recommended him for the mastership in 1691, when he (Keith) decided
to leave.[1062] Keith had come to the school as first master when the
school was set up in 1689. He is stated, by writers of history, to
have been of disputatious disposition, and this probably accounted for
the dissatisfaction which arose in the school. Soon after leaving the
school he published in connection with Talbot a critical article, “Means
of Quaker Stability,”[1063] in which is evident the rancor toward the
society, which he had previously concealed.
[Sidenote: Clift Clarke]
[Sidenote: Dickinson]
Concerning Benjamin Clift, schoolmaster at Darby, no additional
information has been found, beyond that given in the minutes of the
monthly meeting. Joseph Clarke was a teacher of a girls’ school in
1784,[1064] which was attended by about thirty girls. William Dickinson
was first employed (1764) to take the place of Moses Patterson,[1065] as
usher to John Todd in the Latin School.[1066] The Board seems to have
taken exception to him, though nothing has been intimated elsewhere as
to his character, for they reserved the right to discharge him on three
months’ notice, if they desired. Such reservations were not general.
[Sidenote: Patterson]
Moses Patterson, had begun his teaching career in 1760 when he undertook
to teach a school at Fairhill Meeting.[1067] He then was made usher
to Alexander Seaton in which position he remained till 1764.[1068] He
desired then to quit as usher, and apparently did; he is next heard of in
1765 as teacher of “poor children.”[1069]
[Sidenote: Masters in Latin School after 1748; Willian]
[Sidenote: Wilson and King]
Robert Willian was employed in 1748, having been brought from England, to
teach Latin, Greek and other learning.[1070] His first term of employment
was for one year, as was the Board’s general custom in hiring teachers,
but it seems that his contract was renewed until 1753, at which time his
place was taken by John Wilson.[1071] Wilson had entered the school’s
employ as usher in 1750, but was, in addition to that, granted permission
to teach an evening school.[1072] It is not known how long he remained as
master, but in 1754 there was a proposition to allow J. King to go into
the Latin School,[1073] and it is likely he took Wilson’s place. King,
however, as stated elsewhere, did not remain there more than a year,
because of ill health and inclination.[1074] Wilson is later mentioned in
connection with the Latin school (1769); how much of the time, between
1754 and 1769 he had spent in the Latin School it is impossible to say.
[Sidenote: Latin School tries to obtain services of Jackson]
[Sidenote: Thompson engaged, however]
[Sidenote: His training and later interests.]
When King (1755) announced his intention to resign at the end of six
months, the Board attempted to procure Paul Jackson, who at the time
was instructor at the Academy.[1075] Jackson was well qualified for
the place and, besides his work at the Academy, had prepared lectures
in “experimental philosophy” which he proposed to give for the
“entertainment of the curious.”[1076] He did not find himself free at
this time to remove from the employ of the trustees of that institution,
but Charles Thompson, who had been employed there as usher was engaged
for the Friends’ School.[1077] It seems that the logical man for the
place would have been William Johnson, who first taught a school at
Fairhill[1078] (1753) and attended Latin School, free of charge, to
prepare him to be an usher (1754).[1079] The headship was not offered
him, however,[1080] but a year later his salary for the assistantship
was raised £20 to keep him from going to Burlington.[1081] We find that
Charles Thompson (from the Academy) remained in the Friends’ School
until 1760, when he decided to leave the business of school keeping for
another.[1082] His first training in Latin, Greek, and mathematics was
gained in Alison’s Seminary. After leaving the Friends’ School he was
interested in political life and became secretary of the Revolutionary
Congress in 1775.[1083]
[Sidenote: Robert Proud recommended for master]
[Sidenote: Time of his service]
When Thompson indicated his desire to leave the Latin School, the Board
took steps to secure a master from England. A letter was sent to J.
Fothergill and John Hunt who recommended Robert Proud as a very likely
candidate.[1084] This recommendation was favorably considered and Proud
accordingly came to Philadelphia. He immediately chose W. W. Fentham as
his usher, whom, he stated, the Board might remove if they did not find
him satisfactory.[1085] It appears that Proud remained master from this
time until 1770, when he announced his resignation.[1086] He was again in
the employ of the Latin School in 1784, having an usher to assist him in
instructing the thirty boys who are stated to have been in attendance on
that date.[1087] How long this period of service continued the writer has
not determined. The reader has already been introduced to Proud’s school
by means of the rules he constructed for it, which were presented on a
previous page. His reverence for learning and his attempt to inculcate
that respect for it in the minds of his pupils is perhaps best indicated
by these lines:
“To learning ever be inclined;
With good instruction store thy mind,
For without learning, living here
Like Death and Darkness doth appear.”[1088]
[Sidenote: John Thompson recommended]
When Proud left the Latin school in 1770, Friends again had recourse to
the English supply house, receiving from thence John Thompson, eldest son
of Jonah Thompson, who had previously taught in Philadelphia.[1089] John
Thompson entered the school on twelfth month, fifth, 1770 and remained
in that position at least until 1779. At that date he had twenty-four
boys in charge, to whom he taught Latin and Greek, with occasionally some
writing and arithmetic.[1090]
An interesting student’s commentary on the “Hon. John Thompson” is
furnished by the following extract from the publications of the _Public
School Gazetteer_, 1777.
On Thursday last in the afternoon the Hon. John Thompson, Esq.,
dismissed the school long before the usual time. This (we hope)
is a prelude to the restoration of our rights.[1091]
[Sidenote: Masters of the English School: Seaton]
One of the most worthy masters to be noted in the English School, near
the middle of the century, was Alexander Seaton. In 1751 he desired to
start a school in the upper part of the city, which was to be under
the care of the Board. In this school, which was accordingly set up,
were taught writing, arithmetic, and mathematics.[1092] He was thus
employed until 1754 when, as above stated, Benezet desiring to set up a
girls’ school, he was requested to take Benezet’s place in the English
School.[1093] At various dates he was assisted by Moses Patterson,
Phineas Jenkins,[1094] and George Smith.[1095] In 1763, when he died, his
place was filled by John Todd.[1096]
[Sidenote: John Todd, a teacher for many years]
[Sidenote: Severity of his discipline]
Todd remained many years in Friends’ School. In 1779 he is reported by
the overseers as having 60 boys of various religious denominations, to
whom was taught reading, English writing, arithmetic and some branches of
mathematics.[1097] A like condition prevailed in his school five years
later, with the exception that the number of boys had increased to 88.
The committee report states that the “master is careful to preserve good
order in his school.”[1098] This agrees, but is a much less picturesque
statement of the case than is portrayed by Watson.[1099] He is pictured
as immoderately strict and as taking diabolic satisfaction in every
opportunity to use the strap. Watson closes his description with the
statement that “it was not that his love of learning was at fault, so
much as the old British system of introducing learning and discipline
into the brains of boys and soldiers by dint of punishment.”[1100]
[Sidenote: Waring, J. Paul, and Yerkes mentioned]
A number of other almost unknown masters who taught in and around
Philadelphia may be briefly mentioned. William Waring is stated by Watson
to have taught astronomy and mathematics in the Friends’ School at the
same time with Jeremiah Paul.[1101] Associated with the school, at the
same time with Paul, Todd, and Waring, was Jimmy McCue, who performed
the services of usher.[1102] Yerkes, mentioned as having been in a
single school, is mentioned by the monthly meeting reports as though
it were under the direction of Friends. When so reported (1779) he
was teaching not more than 50 scholars (all Friends). The subjects of
instruction were reading, writing, English, arithmetic, and some branches
of mathematics.[1103] No further information of Isaac Weaver has been
obtained than is given on page 260.
[Sidenote: Snowdon]
[Sidenote: Thorne]
[Sidenote: Subjects taught by Thorne]
[Sidenote: Sitch, Pemberton, Richards, Every and others]
Leonard Snowdon was reported to have arrived from London about 1737
to take charge of a school, but no further particulars are found
concerning him.[1104] In 1757 William Thorne was reported as teaching
poor children.[1105] He is one of the very few masters who taught in
the Friends’ Schools, who advertised in the newspapers for pupils;
such advertisement was possibly after he discontinued his services
for the Board.[1106] The advertisement does, however, serve to give
us more information as to his qualifications, than we could otherwise
obtain. He was engaged at the time (1766) in conducting a writing,
arithmetic, mathematics and merchants’ accounts school in Vidal’s
Alley.[1107] At another time he advertised to teach writing, arithmetic,
geometry, trigonometry, navigation, mensuration, surveying, guaging,
and accounts.[1108] John Sitch (1758) is mentioned as receiving some
of the scholars from William Johnson’s school.[1109] Joseph Pemberton
was encouraged by the Board to start a school in 1758. Its location, as
everything else concerning it, is very indefinite, being “in the upper
part of town.”[1110] Other masters mentioned by various authors, and to
whom reference has been made before, but whose history is almost unknown,
are Rowland Richards, John Every, Marmaduke Pardo, John Walby, William
Coggins, Benjamin Albertson, Hugh Foulke, John Chamberlain, Christian
Dull, Daniel Price, Samuel Jones, and Samuel Evans.[1111]
[Sidenote: Early schoolmasters at Byberry]
[Sidenote: Character of Moor unsatisfactory to Friends]
[Sidenote: No extreme cases of lawlessness among Quaker masters]
Of Richard Brockden, who taught at Byberry about 1710 or 1711,[1112] and
later (about 1722)[1113] for a short time in Philadelphia, very little
is known. The minute just referred to, however, leaves the impression
that Friends were very willing for him to leave the school, but, on his
request, allowed him to remain. Walter Moor, a schoolmaster at Byberry
(about 1753) leaves no record as a master, but we are certain his
_character_ was not satisfactory to Friends. In 1753 they complained of
his drinking to excess and removing from place to place without giving
notice of it.[1114] An instance of this sort, though not entirely out
of keeping with custom in those days, was severely criticised at all
times in the meetings. This is the only explicit case of drunkenness,
on the part of teachers who were employed by Friends, which has come to
the writer’s attention. The frequent mention of reproof of members for
that offense, in the early years of the century, however, would lead one
to believe that such great success in eliminating it from those in the
teaching profession was scarcely possible. However that may be, no case
has been found (in newspaper reports, where the names were mentioned)
in which any Quaker master engaged in disreputable brawling was lodged
in jail, which was noted on the part of several other private masters of
Philadelphia.[1115] This latter source of information is perhaps more
reliable than the meeting records.
[Sidenote: Taylor]
[Sidenote: Underwood]
[Sidenote: Teachers previously mentioned]
Among Quaker schoolmasters, who have been mentioned frequently, is
Christopher Taylor. He was educated in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and,
in 1695,[1116] published a compendium of the three languages. He was
a teacher at Waltham Abbey School,[1117] and, coming to Philadelphia
in 1682, established a school on Tinicum Island, of which very little
authentic information is to be had. William Underwood was a teacher at
Warrington about 1740.[1118] Elihu Underwood has already been mentioned
on several occasions as the most extraordinary master of Warington,
having executed an attractive copy of arithmetic exercises from an
old English arithmetic.[1119] Others, only to be mentioned, were: D.
B. Ayres, Richland Meeting, 1793;[1120] Christopher Smith, Byberry,
1784;[1121] Bryan Fitzpatrick, Horsham, 1784;[1122] Joseph Kirk,
1793,[1123] and Isaac Carver, at or near Horsham, 1784;[1124] Thomas
Pearson at Maiden Creek (Exeter Monthly Meeting), 1784;[1125] Benjamin
Parks and wife, at Reading, 1784;[1126] and Caleb Johnson at Reading,
1787.[1127] An unknown master of Bucks County is mentioned by General
John Lacey in his memoirs, as he comments on his early educational
opportunities. He, himself, was a member of a family of Friends.
I was early sent to school, such as it was. The master himself
could neither read or write correctly, as he knew nothing
of Grammar, it was not to be expected he could teach it to
others. Grammar was never taught in any school I went to—no
book of this kind, or the remote rudiments of it was—that
I remember—talked of at any of the country schools I was
acquainted with. None but Quaker families resided in the
neighborhood where I was brought up, among whom the Bible
and Testament and Dilworth’s spelling-book were the only
books suffered to be used in the Quaker schools from which
circumstances no one will hesitate to acknowledge the extreme
limited education and acquirements of literal knowledge by
youth so circumscribed.[1128]
Such were the country schools, if judged by his writing as a fair sample.
SUMMARY
[Sidenote: Standards]
The primary requirements for masters and mistresses, as determined by the
yearly meeting, were (1) high morality, (2) membership with Friends, and
(3) competency to teach the subjects for which employed. These standards
were consciously striven for, as indicated by their reports on the
subject.
[Sidenote: Whence came teachers?]
As a rule, the teachers selected for the lower schools were native to the
place, though there were exceptions. A large number of the Latin masters,
however, were secured through Friends in England. To supply the lack of
teachers, in Philadelphia at any rate, recourse was occasionally had to
the apprenticeship system, as instanced by the cases of Eldridge, and
James Dickinson.
[Sidenote: Tenure]
[Sidenote: No license system]
[Sidenote: Contracts]
The yearly assembly recommended better accommodations for teachers,
that they might be more easily retained in the same position. The cases
mentioned indicate a very good length of tenure; Clift, two years;
Taylor, perhaps five; Keith, about two; Makin, intermittently for
about forty; and many others, similarly. These figures are undoubtedly
not representative, the majority being taken from the city. Personal
recommendation and certificates of removal served some of the purposes
of the teacher license system. The contract was verbal only, so far as
evidence appears and the term of it usually for one year.
[Sidenote: Salaries]
Attention is called to the seeming great increase in salaries during
the century, and great variation in the amounts paid at any one time,
especially between those of country and city masters. The salaries of
women appear to have been very meager as compared with those of the men.
No appreciable difference is found between the salaries or rates of
Quaker masters and those of private masters in the city at the same time.
Rates charged for poor children, schooled by the Board, were less than
those fixed for others.
[Sidenote: Women teachers considered]
A few mistresses in the schools are mentioned. For the most part, the
length of their service is not known. A large proportion of them were
engaged in teaching poor children, though not limited to that. A large
proportion, over half of the poor children taught by them, were members
of various denominations. Their service was not limited to the schools
for Whites, some being employed in the Negro School, near the end of the
century.
[Sidenote: Masters]
[Sidenote: Rank]
Brief attention is given individual masters. As rated by the frequency
of their mention in five standard authorities, Pastorius, Benezet, and
Thompson lead the list; it is not believed that this measure is adequate,
however. Concerning the qualifications of the masters, we find that all
degrees of ability and training were represented. Pastorius may be taken
as a type of the classically trained master of the Latin School. The
other extreme might be represented by several of the ill-paid country
masters. John Lacey describes such a master and his school in his memoirs.
[Sidenote: Character]
One definite case of drunkenness on the part of a master has come to
light. Though not probable that the record is so clear, it does appear
that excessive outlawries were not committed. The chief sources studied
on this point were the newspapers of the period and minutes of various
Quaker meetings.