*

endeavor to instruct said Jonathan in said art and trade of a smith also that said Jonathan may have the liberty to go in night school in the winter." It is worth noting that both apprentices were expected to attend night school in the winter.

In order to present a full discussion of the subject, other references to evening schools may be added. Evert Pietersen, at New Amsterdam in 1661, was specifically allowed to charge more tuition in the case of pupils coming at night. An evening school was kept at Kingston certainly in 1668, and apparently as a regular custom.2 An apprenticeship arranged by the Flatlands deacons in 1765 provided that the master should "teach and Instruct or Cause to be taught or Instructed" the apprentice "to Read, write, and two Quarters night schooling of Syphering." When Petrus van Steenbergh took charge of the school of the Reformed Dutch Church in New York City in 1773 he was allowed to "keep an evening school." Taking all these references together, and considering that they are widely separated in time and place, and that nearly every one refers to the evening school as if it were an established custom, we seem authorized to consider that the Dutch of America from the first considered the evening school as a normal and proper feature of the village school.

The schoolhouse has been constantly referred to; and it has been all the while evident that it was built, owned, and repaired by the public; that one building served as a dwelling for the master and as a house for the school has not been so explicit. We may therefore bring together the references bearing on the subject. In 1670 Joosten was promised that he should have "the next summer a new and proper dwelling on the school lot." The contract for erecting this building the next year describes it as "the schoolhouse." Apparently, then, the two terms are used interchangeably. In Storm's contract at the New Lotts in 1681 it was stipulated that the people should furnish "the schoolmaster with a dwelling house * * * venient for holding school therein." Bricks for an oven for the New Lotts schoolhouse in "17" show that the schoolhouse was then a dwelling. The house at New Lotts might, of course, be of different style from that at Flatbush; but the custom is almost certainly shown. When Van Marken was dismissed, he was ordered to "surrender the schoolhouse." In a similar situation, Tibout was ordered "to put his affairs in order and to leave his house at an early date." Both orders evidently contemplated the same situation and the same response. So always there is reference to but one house; sometimes it is called the schoolhouse; sometimes it is the

10

8

1 Vanderbilt, op cit., p. 261.

2 See p. 212.

3 Flatlands church records.

Eccl. Rec., p. 4261.

• Flatbush town records, 105: 207.

6 Flatbush churchmasters' accounts. pp. 14, 19.

7 Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 50.

8 Flatbush churchmasters' accounts, p 185.

9 Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 30.

10 [bid., p. 55.

con

1

dwelling house of the master. Both terms are evidently used interchangeably. Perhaps the most satisfactory single reference to show that at Flatbush there was only one house, which consequently was used both as a dwelling and as a school, is found in an itemized list of the school property included in a petition for a charter of the church in 1711. In this list the various lots of land are mentioned in all the detail which legal exactness could require, “allso one howse & Lott of ground in the said Town called the School howse containing Eight acres." Here it may be taken as certain that there is no omission. There was "one house * * * called the schoolhouse." Evidently, then, from 2 a very early date and throughout the period there was at Flatbush a schoolhouse in which the master also lived. The lot wherein this stood contained in 1711 about 8 acres, and upon it, besides the dwelling house, stood a barn (at least part of the time), and there went along with this a suitable pasture lot (rented to the domine after 1715), woodland, and salt meadow. As to the dimensions of the schoolhouse, we have

no knowledge.

As to the school furniture and supplies, there are few references. Tables are a number of times referred to; on one occasion (1694) three were bought at once. Probably these were used for the writing pupils. Benches, of course, were used, and a number of references to them are found. In 1736 an hourglass was bought for the schoolmaster at New Lotts. For calling the pupils into school a bell was used at Flatbush-possibly the church bell; at the New Lotts (1681) a "horn or drum.” Apparently, the small schoolboy with stones to throw was as omnipresent then as at some later periods, for putting in glass for the school was one of the commonest expenses from 1670 to the close of the period. Of all matters pertaining to the schoolhouse, the most remarkable purchase or repair was in 1681, when the churchmasters paid 12 guilders "for toes and teeth made in the schoolhouse." One stands amazed!

A brief discussion of the management of public affairs may serve to show more exactly the place of the school in the general scheme of public administration. The Dutch had a village court of schout and schepens as the only body of local control, and in the selection of these officials the public had no voice. This body united with the

1 Doc. Hist. of N. Y., iii, 113.

2 Further references bearing on the point are found in the Flatbush town records, 106: 113; ibid., 107: 59, 61 (sec. 5).

3 Flatbush churchmasters' accounts, pp. 137, 181, 229, 238.

4 Ibid., pp. 147, 148, 238.

Ibid., p. 229.

6 Flatbush consistory minutes, p. 39.

7 Ibid., p. 49.

Flatbush churchmasters' accounts, pp. 6, 125, 149, etc.

9 Ibid., p. 66. The Dutch words are "teen en tander." Most probably it was a colloquial phrase in use among the carpenters.

consistory to control school affairs. When the Duke's laws were put into operation with the coming of the English, this court was continued with the officers called by their English names of constable and overseers, and elected by the people in town meeting assembled. For many years after the passing of the Dutch régime this village court continued to be the principal body of local control, looking after the school as had been done during the Dutch period. All the contracts up to and including Van Ekelen's in 1682 were signed conjointly by it and the consistory. With the Liesler insurrection a strong democratic movement set in which seems to have lessened materially the influence of the village court.

The town meeting, which from this time becomes more important in public affairs, was composed of all householders, including even women who were heads of families. The meeting had to be summoned by "a warrant from a justice," and apparently the purpose of the meeting had to be stated in the call. We give a specimen of such a summons in the original English, which was then used in higher legal processes. It is interesting to note the schoolhouse as the place of gathering:

Kings County ss

To the Constable of Flatbush: These.

You are hereby in his Majesties name required and commanded to give warning to all the freeholders and inhabitants of the town of Flatbush aforesaid to appear at the schoolhouse at Flatbush aforesaid on Wednesday next ensuing the date thereof, at tenn of the clock in the morning of the same day to conclude with one another about the places and especially concerning the charges as the church masters has ben at for getting a new cover upon the church of Flatbush aforesaid, etc. Hereof you are not to fail.

Given under my hand and seal, this ninth day of February, in the sixth year of his Majesties Reign, A. D. 1733.

Rych Suydam.2

A town meeting so summoned took care of the general welfare; it could sell the public land,3 levy taxes, and make regulations regarding public fencing." It had considerable authority in what we should now call church matters. In 1701, for example, it selected "four men from the people in cooperation with four from the consistory to prepare such articles (concerning the church of Midwoud) as they shall find good for the benefit of the church and the people and that the same shall take effect without any objection on the part of any one." It had the legal right of electing the minister, and it exercised the right to a greater or less degree. The minister's salary, and the manner of raising it, were also decided by town meeting, as was

1 Flatbush town records, 106: 35 ff.

2 Ibid., p. 178.

Ibid., p. 167.

▲ Ibid., p. 208.

28311°-12-13

Ibid., p. 35 ff.
• Ibid., p. 3.
1Ibid., pp. 26, 113.

the question of selling or renting the church lots. After 1711 it elected the church masters and prescribed their duties. Thus in that year it required of the churchmasters that

they shall with all vigilance and diligence give their attention to the lands over which they have jurisdiction to the end that the same may be leased in good order and form and the rent guaranteed; furthermore to have the same oversight over the schoolhouse and over the church, which is now in bad condition, that suitable repairs may be made therein, and whatever other property may belong to the people.2

The churchmasters so chosen were commanded at the close of the year to "render an accounting of receipts and expenditures to the entire body." 3

The most interesting function of the town meeting, so far as concerns our present inquiry, was their selection of a committee to choose a schoolmaster. In all, six instances appear where this was done, beginning in 1691 and extending to 1773.1

The churchmasters and consistory were important factors in the administration of public affairs. The former were, as we have seen, distinctly the servants of the town. To the quotation from the town meeting minutes given above may be added another excerpt to show how the church and school funds were public funds and subject to explicit direction from the town meeting. The town meeting in question (6 May, 1740) had been called "to decide with another regarding the calling of minister, how and what he shall be paid." We, the people of Midwoud above mentioned, have reached a complete agreement regarding the payment of our ministers they shall be paid from the interest of the bonds which the churchmasters have in their possession; and also from the rent of the church lots; * * and it is further agreed that the surplus money from the interest of aforesaid shall be used for the repair of the church and school (that is, the Low Dutch schoolhouse in Midwoud) and the schoolhouse in New Lands. And in case there shall still be a surplus remaining of the aforesaid money, the churchmasters shall have the power to use the same and to spend it for the best advantage of the town of Midwoud. And the church wardens shall be bound each and every year to render an accounting to the next chosen church wardens ** or to the people or otherwise, as the people shall deem good."

*

*

*

*

*

It is evident from the foregoing that the churchmasters got their name from the principal object of their care, and in no true sense are to be conceived of as servants of the church. In Flatbush,

1 Flatbush town records, 106: 150.

2 Ibid., p. 81.

3 Ibid. Apparently before 1711 the village court had chosen the churchmasters. At any rate that was the custom in 1679. At that time De Van Zuuren was trying to enlarge the powers of the consistory. In response to his prodding, the consistory "decreed that the management and lands of the Low Dutch Church ought to be entrusted to the consistory of the same," and accordingly requested "the right of choosing the churchmasters in conjunction with their Honors the Constable and Overseers." The request was granted for the election at hand. The next succeeding churchmaster, however, "was chosen by the magistrates without the consistory." For a short time this alternation seems to have prevailed. (Flatbush consistory minutes, pp. 17, 41.)

Flatbush town records, 106: 104, 136, 204, 216; ibid., 107: 59; Kings County court and roads records, 1, 5-6. Flatbush town records, 106: 113,

after 1711, they were virtually a standing committee of the people (town meeting), charged with the care of public property. As such they were elected by the people and had to report annually to the people.

The consistory, unlike the churchmasters, were the real servants of the church. The place of the consistory in the ecclesiastical organization had been fixed by the Synod of Dort (1618-19) beyond the reach of those democratic influences which in time changed so much of Dutch life in America.1 In accordance with the enactment of the synod that the consistory "see to it that everywhere there were good schoolmasters," we find that during the Dutch period and for many years thereafter the consistory conjointly with the local civil authorities made contracts with schoolmasters. This was done uniformly, it appears, in the seventeenth century. Furthermore the consistory thus took part not only in the selection of the schoolmaster, but in discharging him from his office. In the cases of Van Marken (1680) and Tibout (1682), it did this in conjunction with the magistrates, but in the case of Van Ekelen, discharged in 1691, it is expressly declared that "the church councel did. dismiss the aforesaid Joanes Van Ekelen."4 This act of dismissing Van Ekelen (1691) seems to have marked the climax of power reached by the consistory. Probably too it hastened the decline of that same power. A very strong democratic spirit had by this time set in, in which the "common people"s were arrayed against what had hitherto been a ruling clique. The people distinctly resented this action of the consistory in displacing Van Ekelen with Schenck. While the paucity of available records forbids a final generalization, it seems certain that the school passed more and more into the hands of the town meeting. The last explicit record found of participation by the consistory in school affairs is the case where a town meeting in 1711 to choose two men to secure a schoolmaster was called "upon the petition of the consistory." Apparently the consistory lost ground because it was too far removed from popular opinion to make its activity acceptable to the "common people." Doubtless, too, the unfortunate dissensions within the Dutch churches beginning about 1691 tended to weaken the force of the church authorities. During the first decade of the eighteenth century there were in several of these Long Island Dutch churches two rival consistories, each claiming to have the only legal existence."

1 Eccl. Rec., pp. 4220-1, 4338.

2 Ibid., p. 4220.

In this connection attention should be called to Van Zuuren's protest, in 1690, to his consistory that the civil authorities of right should have no part in the control of the school. (See p. 171.)

4 Pages 172, 173, 175.

To use DeVarick's phrase, Pratt, op. cit., p. 72; Eccl. Rec., p. 1048 ff.

Eccl. Rec., pp. 1943, 1944, 2084.