Welp provisionally." Provisional as this was, it marked the last of the second school. Later Mr. Welp's salary was reduced to "£16 above his income" from tuition and other fees. In the meanwhile agitation for an English-speaking minister had been successfully made, though only against determined opposition.3 In a letter of January 10, 1763, written by the consistory to Holland asking for an English-speaking minister, the decay of the Dutch language is pathetically set forth: "We have daily the mortification to see the offspring of the wealthiest members of our congregation leave our divine worship, not being able to apprehend what is taught. "There is scarce a principal family in this city and even in our own church whose children clearly understand the Dutch language." 4 In 1765 Mr. Welp came before the consistory and "stated that the deacons had decided that they could not continue him on the same footing upon which he had before stood-receiving from them £16 above his income. He therefore humbly asked, inasmuch as the Dutch school was so poor, and his recording the names of baptized children had also greatly diminished, that the consistory would please to provide some other way. This the consistory considered favorably, and ordered that inasmuch as he had been appointed catechist and consoler of the sick, the £16 should on this account be allowed him."5 Even if we do not here admit that the baptisms had in fact fallen off, evidently the Dutch school was such a failure that Welp had to take up the offices of catechist and siecken-trooster in order to make ends meet. Not only did the Dutch school fail of its purpose to keep alive the Dutch language, but there was strong effort to organize an English school, of higher grade. "A proposal was made by Mr. Jacobus van Zant to establish a Latin and English grammar school under the direction of our consistory. * * * This was agreed to by the majority." A subscription was begun to build or hire a suitable schoolhouse," but "for important reasons"-unknown to us now— the matter was delayed, and apparently came to nothing. In the meanwhile the opponents of English preaching had not been reconciled. In 1767 they made a lengthy appeal to the colonial governor to redress their alleged wrongs. (Among the petitioners was Huybert van Wagenen who had previously served as schoolmaster.) The seventh grievance alleged in the appeal was "that the Dutch school is not taken care of by the rulers to the total ruin of the 1 Consistory minutes, Aug. 22, 1757.-Dunshee, op. cit., p. 51. Eccl. Rec., p. 3983. It was asserted by the opponents of the English party that "even Rev. Ritzema once avowed that rather than allow an English minister to speak in our church he would lay his head upon the block and say 'Cut it off."" Eccl. Rec., p. 3880. Dutch education." The answer made by the school authorities to this seventh alleged grievance was "that we have at present and for twelve years past have employed Mr. Welp, who was sent for to Holland as a schoolmaster and catechist; he keeps a school constantly open, receives payment from us for teaching the poor children of the congregation to the number of thirty, which number never was completed; he is a person very well qualified to catechise and teach school, and we pay him a very handsome salary for his service, insomuch that his place is coveted by others."2 That not 30 poor children cared to avail themselves of free education in the Dutch language is sufficient commentary on the folly of trying longer to keep up a school exclusively in that tongue. The deacons seem to have accepted this view; for we find them requesting that the catechists be discharged because their salaries could not be raised "without injury to the poor." The consistory, however, would not agree to the plan. But later they withdrew from Mr. Welp the £16 allowed him as a catechist and as visitor of the sick; "for he is not in a condition, owing to bodily infirmity, to bear the burden" of these offices. This action in the case of an ill man seems a little hard; but perhaps we do not know enough to judge. When Mr. Welp died, some three years later, the church was more liberal. They canceled a debt against his estate of £5, paid his funeral expenses, allowed the family to continue in the church house for some months without charge, and gave the widow an annual pension of 20 pounds. In 1772 there was contributed "a sum of five and seventy pounds, eight shillings, as the beginning of a fund for the erection and maintenance of a public school, to be set up by the consistory."5 We hear nothing more of this prior to the Revolution. Quite likely the example of the Trinity Church School, which was now receiving many bequests, incited these members of the Dutch church to like activity. When the consistory came to elect a successor to Mr. Welp, they recognized, as we have it in their own words, that "the Dutch language is constantly diminishing and is going out of use." They therefore "deemed it proper to call a person who is qualified to instruct and educate the children in the English as well as the Dutch language." The person selected for this was "Mr. Peter van Steenbergh, at present schoolmaster at Flatbush on Long Island." The instructions given are quite similar to those that we have previously examined. "For the instruction of 30 poor children" he was to receive £60; "firewood for one year, £8;" "books, paper, ink, quills, etc., for one year, £5; for the care of certain church chambers, £8." 1 Doc. Hist. of N. Y., iii, p. 309. ▲ Ibid., pp. 4259, 4262. 5 Consistory minutes, Apr. 23, 1772. Ibid., p. 4240. * Consistory minutes, Apr. 30, 1770. Eccl. Rec., p. 4184. "For your encouragement, you shall have a dwelling house and garden free, and also a good room for the school." "It shall be allowed you to instruct as many other children as may offer themselves to you, but not beyond the number of 30, and also to keep an evening school." Mr. Steenbergh accepted the proffered place and continued in charge as "the public schoolmaster of this congregation" until "the commencement of the war," when the school suspended operations.2 The consistory at this time decided to build a schoolhouse at a cost not exceeding £400.3 "With its dependencies, however, the final cost was £856:15:14." When the house was finished, the consistory adopted some rather interesting rules regarding the free scholars: 1. No boy shall be received under nine, and no girl under eight years of age. 2. No child so received shall remain in the school longer than three years, so as to make room for new ones; yet if no new ones be hindered thereby they may remain. Children of the church members were to be given preference. The consistory should make a public visitation to the school every quarter, while the elders and deacons should go monthly "to see what progress the scholars are making."5 The last school reference prior to the Revolution is in a consistory minute of March 6, 1774, which states that the deacons were appointed a standing committee in relation to the poor children who are now maintained in the school." Mr. Dunshee states (p. 94) that the school from its origin to 1808 was "under the supervision of the board of deacons." One hesitates to differ from Mr. Dunshee on a point which would seem to lie so peculiarly within the scope of his knowledge, but the evidence hardly bears out the assertion. The reference just above given is an illustration to the point. The consistory, not the deacons-so far as appears from the recordssettled every question relating to the school from 1674 to the date of the last-quoted reference. It is true that the deacons seem to have been peculiarly charged with the care of the church finances, and in this capacity we find them making recommendations to the consistory touching the school. In only one instance-when De Lanoy was asked to teach 10 poor children-does it appear that the deacons first acted without a special authorization. But in this case they "took the first opportunity to make this known to the meeting (of the consistory), expecting that it would be approved." 1 Eccl. Rec., p. 4261. 2 Consistory minutes, Sept. 7, 1784. Dunshee, op. cit., p. 65. Eccl. Rec., p. 4262. ▲ Ibid., p. 4272. 5 Consistory minutes, Aug. 6, 1773. Ibid., 4264-4265. bid., p. 4276. Ibid., Nov. 21, 1743. Ibid., 2829. We have now traced the history of this the oldest school in New York from 1638 to the Revolution. There is no reason to suppose that at any time within this period was the continuity of existence broken. While it ceased in 1674 to be the official city school, it nevertheless retained throughout the whole colonial period of nearly a century and a half its connection with the Reformed Dutch Church of the city. We may suppose, though the evidence is not abundant, that until the early decades of the eighteenth century the school remained uniquely the established elementary school for the Dutch-speaking population. With the spread of the English language the usefulness. of the school evidently declined and became more and more a charity school, although that name was not applied until after the Revolution.1 We noted the ineffectual effort to use the school to perpetuate the Dutch language. The presence of the two languages in New York City must have operated to the injury of the cause of education within the city. For the greater portion of the period under consideration the inhabitants of Dutch descent were in the majority. Their whole previous history both in Old and New Netherlands had made the church and the municipality, conjointly, the proper guardians and support of public education. In colonial New York, however, these two worked at cross purposes. If the municipality was to support any school, it must be for the teaching of English. The church, however, would support only Dutch schools. The great mass of the Dutch population could not give exclusive support to an education which served one day of the week only, ignoring the economic demands of the other six. Nor on the other hand could they, under the leadership of their ministers, feel cordial interest in a municipal school which would not merely ignore the church but would apparently wean the youth away from its influence. As a result of these conflicting interests the English apathy toward public support of education, instead of the Dutch custom of municipal schools, became the established policy of New York City during the colonial period. We can never cease to regret that the splendid interest of the Dutch in education and the powerful force of their customary support of municipal schools should have been to so great a degree lost through the inability of their religious leaders to accept the English language as an inevitable necessity. Had the system of municipal schools been retained after 1674, giving instruction, however, in both languages, the transition from the Dutch to the English language could have been made with greater ease and with far less hurt to the Dutch church; and New York City would have gained a full hundred years in the development of its school system. 1 Dunshee, op. cit., p. 65. CHAPTER XI. THE SCHOOL OF NEW HAERLEM AFTER 1664. As we saw in Chapter VIII, Jan de la Montagne was schoolmaster in New Haerlem at the beginning of the English occupation. This position he held until October 23, 1670,1 when he resigned. What his salary was under the new régime, or how it was collected, does not appear. To judge from what happened later, voluntary subscriptions furnished the greater part of the salary. The village was still small, the church in 1665 consisting of only 23 resident members. In 1667 was erected a building primarily for church purposes but used also as a schoolhouse, having, moreover, a loft from which rent was sometimes collected. This seems so remarkable a compound of church, school, and finance, that we should doubt the statement did not the records plainly assert that the deacons, with the consent of the magistrates and community, let at public auction "the loft over the church or schoolhouse." This seems to be one case where the schoolmaster did not live in the schoolhouse.3 We have said above that Montagne resigned October 23, 1670. To be exact, this was the date when his successor, Hendrick Jansen Van der Vin, was elected. The term of Van der Vin's service was fixed at three years. His salary for services as schoolmaster and voorlezer was "f. 400 yearly in seawant or in grain at seawant price," and also a dwelling house, with 60 loads of firewood. This last was furnished by the inhabitants, three furnishing 12 loads each, and four, 6 loads each. The salary was made up principally by subscription, Montagne, the outgoing master, subscribing 10 florins, 7 stivers. In order to help with the salary the town lot, garden, and meadow were leased for six years at 120 florins a year, in seawant or grain at seawant price.5 After one year's trial of the subscription plan, a tax was authorized to raise Van der Vin's salary, "calculated 2/3 on the lands and 1/3 on the erven (town residence lots); amounting for each morgen to f. 1: 12: 6, and for each erf. f. 6: 7." But, notes Montagne on the margin of the court record, "It came to nothing." As yet the 1 Riker, History of Harlem, p. 269. 2 Ibid., p. 285. The quotation marks here are Riker's, from which we infer that the quotation itself was taken from the now hidden town records. 3 But see p. 162. 4 Riker surmises (p. 277) that Arent Evertson Molenaer may have served temporarily between Montagne and Van der Vin. Apparently there is no documentary proof of this. Ibid., p. 269. This salary (f. 400 seawant) was about equal to 40 dollars. |