This article continues the author’s “The Educational Development of the Southern Colonies.”

405

COMPULSORY EDUCATION IN THE
SOUTHERN COLONIES

MARCUS W. JERNEGAN
University of Chicago

I. VIRGINIA

If one turns to the existing accounts of the history of American education in the colonial period of our history, he will observe that many writers assume that most of those persons who received any instruction attended organized schools. That such an inference is entirely erroneous is easily realized by the performance of a simple arithmetical problem—namely, that of dividing the population at any given date by the number of schools known to have been in existence at that date. The percentage of persons receiving a part of their education in such institutions would be highest in the New England colonies, but even in this section it would surprise most students if they were aware of how many learned how to read or write through some other agency than organized schools.¹

If we pass beyond New England to the middle and southern colonies, it is safe to say that a still smaller percentage of the total number who secured the rudiments of an education received it in an organized school. It is doubtless true that there were many private schools whose existence we shall

406

never be able to prove, but, even allowing for this possibility, it is not believed that the point made above would be greatly modified. It is therefore important to stress the agencies other than schools if we are to gain a proper perspective of the evolution of American education. The well-known tendency to read into the past the ideals, and even the institutions, of the present is responsible for a very common fallacy—that of mistaking the special for the general fact. Contemporary conditions, not later theories, govern and explain the development of institutions; and the general fact, the typical institution, cannot vary widely from the general conditions, which must in the long run determine what is general and what exceptional.

During the colonial period much the larger proportion of the people at any one time were living under frontier conditions. Wherever such conditions were the controlling factor, organized institutions, such as the church and school, were not general, except perhaps in portions of New England, notwithstanding the assertions of our enthusiastic and imaginative racial, sectarian, and other types of historians, who often assert the contrary but fail to produce the evidence.¹ When a given area ceased to be governed by frontier conditions, then organized institutions gradually became the general rather than the special fact. Frontier conditions imply, among other things, a sparse population; absorption of energies, time, and thought in satisfying material needs—shelter, subsistence, and protection; occupations largely connected with agriculture or extractive industries; lack of easy means of communication, and hence isolation, particularly in the late fall, winter, and early spring months; and, finally, conservation of labor, even of children, during those months of the year in which the farming operations are pressing. If we realize also the weak cultural ideals,

407

inevitable and inherent in frontier groups, and the impossibility of locating organized schools so that any large proportion of those of school age could be reached, under such conditions, even supposing the desire to exist, we can easily see that a great many persons who learned how to read and write must have taken advantage of other agencies than schools. Two were of the greatest importance—namely, home instruction given by the parents, and the apprenticeship system, instruction given by the master or his agent.

Both of these agencies were in common and voluntary use in every colony. Voluntary education through apprenticeship occurred when, through custom or agreement, an indenture was drawn so as to secure for the apprentice book or religious instruction, with or without instruction in a trade, and his maintenance, the latter being one of the main purposes of the system in its historical development. No special law concerning the enforcement of the indenture was needed in such cases, for indentures were almost universally looked upon as contracts, became a matter of public record, and hence were enforcible in the courts. In some of the colonies parental education was made compulsory through laws passed to this effect as in New England. In this study we are concerned with the system of compulsory education in the southern colonies, Virginia in particular, as it was instituted by law through the agencies of parents, guardians, and overseers, and particularly through masters and mistresses in connection with the system of apprenticeship.

Having discussed the general factors¹ which influenced the development of education in the southern colonies, we will now note how far they enacted laws involving the principle of compulsory education, and first with respect to Virginia. In view of the factors mentioned, it is not surprising that laws of this

408

character referred to special, rather than to all, classes of children, as was generally the case at first in New England.¹ The classes provided for were orphans, poor children, and those of illegitimate birth, in the last case with respect to three classes: first, those born of free white women and white servants, second, those born of convict servant women, and third, mulatto children born of a free, or white servant, mother. The conception that the state was in part responsible for the education of the classes mentioned was expressed in compulsory laws, specifying the machinery for enforcement, similar to those in New England.

ORPHANS

The first class provided for was orphans. The legislation respecting these unfortunates is relatively large in the southern and middle colonies as compared with New England, where there is hardly a reference to such children. No less than seventeen acts were passed by Virginia alone relating to this class, most of them involving the principle of compulsory education. The principal reason for the increase of orphans was the presence of the white servant, and to some extent the negro slave.² A little less than one year after Massachusetts passed her first act on compulsory education, that of June 14, 1642, Virginia enacted one in March, 1642/3,³ relating to orphans, the first of many laws relating to this class. Because guardians and overseers had neglected and “very much abused” orphans’ estates, they were ordered to report annually an account of the estate and their service to the commissioners

409

of the county court. They were also ordered “to educate and instruct them according to their best endeavours in Christian religion and in rudiments of learning.” If they were found delinquent in their duties in these respects, the commissioners were ordered to see that the said orphans were provided for “according to their estates and qualities.”

The act of 1656¹ provided that orphans must be educated on the interest of their estates according to its proportion, but if “so meane and inconsiderable that it will not reach to a free education,” then such orphans must be bound out as apprentices until twenty-one years of age, to learn some manual trade, unless friends or relatives agreed to keep them for the interest of their estate. The court was ordered to take sufficient security for orphans’ estates, inquire yearly of the security, whether orphans were “educated according as their estates will beare,” remove them to other guardians if notorious defect were found, and change the master of orphans bound as apprentices if he used them “rigourously” or neglected to teach them his trade.

It will be noticed that the degree of education varied with the estate and quality of the orphan, and that in case of orphans apprenticed no book education is specified, though the law seems to imply that the court should provide for such education in the indenture. It was not until 1705, however, that specific instructions were given to this effect. The act of 1656 is clearly compulsory in character, as it is mandatory and provides for education and for a penalty for neglect by the guardian or master, that is, removal of the child. An order of the assembly of 1659² required sheriffs to summon all persons to bring in their accounts of orphans’ estates, and clerks of county courts to register these accounts. An “Orphan’s Court,”³ to consider cases concerning orphans, was held in one county as early as

410

1648.¹ A general act of 1645/6 had already provided that commissioners of county courts, neglecting to punish offenders “according to the merit of the cause,” upon complaint could be fined at the discretion of the governor and council.²

An act of 1705³ again repeated most of the provisions of the two earlier acts, but added for the first time a specific requirement respecting the education of apprenticed orphans; namely, that “the master of every such orphan shall be obliged to teach him to read and write.” That of 1730⁴ also reiterated the powers conferred in previous acts, declared that “great abuses” had been committed by guardians of orphans and justices of county courts, who had been negligent, and called again for annual reports by guardians, gave them custody of their “tuition,” and gave power to the county court to make additional rules “for the better education and usage of orphans” when complaint was made that guardians were “neglecting the care of their education,” with power to appoint another guardian, if the former did not “take due care of the educating and maintaining of any orphan, according to his degree and circumstances.” The act of 1740,⁵ for enforcing the execution of laws for better managing of orphans’ estates, because of neglect by the justice of many county courts, recapitulated the previous orders and provided for an annual return

411

to the August court of accounts of guardians, ordered the justices to direct process to issue against all guardians failing to appear, and provided for a penalty to be imposed on justices of county courts who neglected their duty, a forfeit of five thousand pounds of tobacco, one half to the use of the county and the other half to the informer.

The act of 1705 was the first to provide definitely for book education, and apparently made it compulsory only for boys. A failure to carry out the educational terms of the indenture, as in the case of those referring to trade education, might lead to the removal of an orphan apprenticed, as is proved by cases on record. The neglect by justices mentioned in the act of 1730 doubtless continued and led to that of 1740, providing for a severe penalty to be levied upon negligent justices. By this date then, the imposing of penalties was highly developed, as guardians, masters, and justices could all be penalized for neglect of orphans.

The last act passed before the Revolution was that of 1748,¹ in effect June 10, 1751. It was a codification of previous laws, and in fact repealed all former acts. Nearly all the former orders mentioned were repeated, and there was added this clause referring to orphans apprenticed: “Every male [to be apprenticed] to some tradesman, merchant, mariner, or other person approved by the court,” to twenty-one years of age, and “every female to some suitable trade or employment” to eighteen years of age, and the master or mistress of such servant “shall find and provide for him or her, diet, cloathes, lodgings and accommodations fit and necessary, and shall teach, or cause him or her to be taught to read and write.” This was the most comprehensive law enacted in the colonies on the education of orphans, and shows unexpected concern

412

by Virginia for the education of girls as well as boys, of this class.

POOR CHILDREN

It has already been shown¹ that the nature of the population of Virginia, and of the South in general, was made up of several groups, such as the higher planter class, the smaller planter with a few slaves, the independent farmer, the white servant, who after his term of service of four or five years usually became a small farmer, a laborer, or an artisan, and the negro slave. Out of the last class there developed two more, the free negro and the mulatto servant; the latter, born of a free white mother or white servant, after a long period of service becoming a free man or woman. There was therefore a large element of the population from which poor children might arise. Moreover, many of the white servants were of poor stock, ignorant, lazy, and with low moral standards. Some were convict servants, those liberated from the English jails and sold as servants, or given a sentence by English judges of servitude in the colonies in lieu of a jail sentence in England.² The moral standards of this last class were very low, and of course there is no need to comment on the lack of moral standards of the negro slaves. There was complaint from an early date of “vagrant idle, and dissolute persons,” largely recruited from the white servants. They frequently became the fathers of illegitimate children, by both free white and white servant women. They ran away, with the result that their children were often thrown on the parish for support. White men servants after their term of service might become vagabonds or dissolute persons, or, if married, desert their wives and children, who would then be thrown on the parish. Some white servant women also gave

413

birth to illegitimate mulatto children, which by the law¹ of Virginia were free after their term of service.

The problem then for Virginia, and for other colonies, was much the same as that which had confronted Old and New England, only it was a more serious and pressing one. That problem was first economic—how to protect the parish from the burden of maintaining poor children; how to provide for an artisan class skilled in trades and needed in the colony; how to reduce idleness and unemployment, and how to add rapidly to the wealth and property of all the people. The second aspect of the problem was educational. The natural conception of the relation of the state to education was largely laissez faire, on the theory that this was a matter to be intrusted to private initiative or the church. But the pressure of a rapidly growing class of poor children, and the consequent expense to the parish, coupled with the difficulty of obtaining the much-needed supply of artisans, forced the state to modify this conception. Poor parents could not educate their children, and some degree of book education was desirable for artisans in order that they might be efficient in their trades. Two influences also promoted this conception. The period from the Reformation to the great Civil War is marked, in England, by the stimulating effect of religion on education—especially the efforts of competing religious denominations and their anxiety to increase their power through instruction in the peculiar tenets of their creed and in their catechism. In states where there was union of Church and State—the Established Church in Virginia—this influence was strong. A second influence was the beginnings of the humanitarian movement, as exhibited in philanthropy, the desire to give poor children some opportunity for education, best illustrated in the work of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.²

414

All these forces led to the conception that the state was responsible, to some extent at least, for the education of certain classes of children. From an economic, religious, and humanitarian standpoint, it was undesirable that a large body of illiterate laborers, tradesmen, or farmers should be allowed to develop. From a purely selfish standpoint, the money cost, the state was compelled to take some action. As in the New England colonies, and perhaps influenced by their legislation,¹ the system of apprenticeship seemed to be the most effective agency to gain the ends desired, with the least expense, loss of time from labor, and, in the case of the southern colonies, the least interference with their general attitude toward the relation of the state to education.²

An examination of the legislation of Virginia reveals the fact that at least eight important laws were passed from 1646 to 1769 having for their purpose religious, industrial, or book education of poor children of various classes; that five of these acts contemplated some form of book education, and that four of them can be properly classed as compulsory laws. There were in addition general laws applying to all children and providing for compulsory religious education. An act of February, 1631/2,³ provided that all churchwardens should take an oath administered before the commissioner of the monthly court, to the effect that they “present such maysters and mistresses as shall be delinquents in the catechisinge the youth and ignorant persons.” Another act⁴ of the same session provided that the minister should upon every Sunday “examine, catechise, and instruct the youth and ignorant persons of his parrish, in the ten commandments the articles

415

of the beliefe and in the Lord’s prayer. . . . And all fathers, mothers, maysters and mistresses shall cause theire children, servants or apprentizes which have not learned the catachisme to come to the church” to learn the same, and if any of the above neglected their duties they should be “censured by the corts in those places holden.” By the act of 1644/5¹ ministers failing to catechise every Sunday were to forfeit five hundred pounds of tobacco for the use of the parish. Finally the act of 1645/6² provided that all masters and families failing to send their children and servants to be catechised, upon warning given by the minister where they would officiate, were to be subject to a penalty of five hundred pounds of tobacco for the use of the parish “unless sufficient cause be shewn to the contrary.”

The increase of children in Virginia was slow for the first thirty years of the settlement, but by 1646³ “God Almighty, among many his other blessings, hath vouchsafed increase of children to this colony, who now are multiplied to a considerable number, who if instructed in good and lawful trades, may much improve the honor and reputation of the country, and noe lesse their owne good and their parents comfort.” This refers, of course, not to children of wealthy planters and well-to-do farmers, but to poor children. The first three acts relating to this class were those of 1646, 1668, and 1672. They did not, strictly speaking, involve compulsory education, since the laws are permissive rather than mandatory, but they require comment in order to show the conditions accounting for the passage of later compulsory laws.

The act of 1646⁴ refers to sundry laws and statutes of parliament established “for the better educateing of youth in

416

honest and profitable trades and manufactures, as also to avoyde sloath and idlenesse wherewith such young children are easily corrupted, as also for the reliefe of such parents whose poverty extends not to give them good breeding.” Accordingly justices of the peace were given power to bind out poor children to tradesmen or husbandmen “to be brought up in some good and lawful calling.” The remainder of the act outlines an ambitious plan for industrial education. Two children from each county, chosen by the commissioners of the counties, were to be sent to public flax houses to be taught in “cording knitting and spinning.” Such children were to be taken only from those parents who “by reason of their poverty are disabled to maintaine and educate them.” State and county were to provide the funds to defray the cost of buildings, food, clothing, shelter, etc., including “a sow shote of sixe months old, two laying hens,” etc. The act of 1668¹ was somewhat similar. It contemplated the promotion of manufactures—wool, flax, and hemp—and the increase of artificers. It gave power to the commissioners of each county court, with the assistance of the vestries of the parishes, to build houses for “educating and instructing poore children in the knowledge of spinning, weaving and other useful occupations and trades,” with power to take poor children from indigent parents to place them to work in such houses. In 1672,² because of the increase of “vagabonds idle and desolute persons,” justices of the peace and county courts were impowered to place out all children whose parents were not able to bring them up apprentices

417

to tradesmen, males to twenty-one and females “to other necessary employments,” to eighteen, and churchwardens of every parish were to be ordered by the county courts to give an account annually at the orphan’s court “of all such children within their parish, as they judge to be within the said capacity.”

None of these three acts specifies book education, and there is no evidence that the workhouses provided for were ever built. There was no reason, of course, why the justices could not introduce a clause into the indenture providing for book education, if they wished to, and such a practice was not uncommon from 1646 on, but we are here concerned principally with the laws which made this practice compulsory. With these permissive acts as a foundation, Virginia opened the eighteenth century with a law providing for compulsory book education of orphan boys, as already stated, and in 1727 this act was made applicable to poor boys apprenticed.

The act of 1727¹ complains that idle and disorderly persons able to work “strole from one county to another, neglecting to labour,” and vagabonds “run from their habitations and leave either wives or children, without suitable means for their subsistance.” When such parents, because of “idle dissolute and disorderly course of life,” were judged by the county court to be incapable of supporting and bringing up such children, or when they neglected to “take due care of the education and instruction of such child or children, in christian principles,” the churchwardens, on certificate from the county court, were given power “to bind out or put out to service or apprentice” the children of such parents, for such time and “under such covenants as hath been usual and customary, or the law directs in the case of orphan children.” This last clause refers to the act of 1705 which required that in the case

418

of orphan boys apprenticed, “the master of every such orphan shall be obliged to teach him to read and write.”¹

The act of 1748,² in force June 10, 1751, was a revision of that of 1727, with important changes respecting the education of poor children. When county courts judged that any person or persons were incapable of supporting and bringing up their children “in honest courses,” or when it appears to the court “that he, she, or they, neglect to take due care of the education of his, her, or their child or children, and their instruction in the principles of christianity,” then on order of the county court churchwardens of parishes could bind such children apprentices “in the same manner, and under such covenants and conditions as the law directs for poor orphan children.” This refers to another act of 1748 passed at the same session, providing that the master of an apprenticed orphan should “teach, or cause him or her to be taught to read and write.” It will be noticed that this act specifies for the first time as a reason why the court should take a child from a parent the “neglect to take due care of his education.” Previous acts had mentioned lack of support, lack of ability to bring up to trades, or lack of instruction in Christian religion. This approaches the ideals of New England in the seventeenth century, and, as we shall see, there is not wanting evidence to show that parents were called to account merely for neglecting the education of their children.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

Virginia also passed laws for the education of another class of children, those of illegitimate birth. By the end of the seventeenth century there was a large number of indented servants, causing serious problems to arise respecting the maintenance

419

and education of children of this class. Laws were passed as early as 1642/3¹ against the marriage of servants without the consent of their masters, against fornication between servants, and against fornication between freemen and servants. The number of illegitimate children seems to have been considerable, judging from the laws and the recorded cases in the parish records. The first act bearing on the subject was that of 1657/8,² requiring the father of an illegitimate child to give security to indemnify the parish against the expense of keeping the child. If the father were an indented servant, he would be unable to obey the act; hence, in 1662, another act³ provided that the parish should “take care to keepe the child during the time of the reputed father’s service by indenture or custome, and that after he is free the said reputed father shall make satisfaction to the parish.” Thus in the indenture there might be provision for teaching the child to read. If the child were not indentured and the father died or ran away, it became a permanent charge on the parish. The only method of relieving the parish of this expense was to bind out the child as an apprentice, as was provided for in the act. The act of 1769⁴ complains that the laws in force are insufficient to provide for indemnifying parishes “from the great charges frequently arising from children begotten out of lawful matrimony.” It provides specifically for binding out by the churchwardens the illegitimate child of a single free white woman, in language similar to that of 1748, including this phrase: “and the master or mistress of every such apprentice shall find and provide for him or her diet, cloathes, lodging, and accommodations fit and necessary, and shall teach or cause him or her to be taught to read and write.” If the illegitimate child were born of a convict servant woman during the time

420

of her service, because such a servant could not legally give testimony, and hence the reputed father could not be discovered, the master of such servant was obliged to maintain the child until it was twenty-one or eighteen years of age, and was entitled to its service, provided he “find or provide for such child, the like accommodations, education and freedom dues, and shall be compelled to answer his or her complaint, made to the county court, for default therein, or for ill usage, in like manner, as is before directed in the case of other apprentices.”¹

MULATTO CHILDREN

The act of 1691² complained that there was need of preventing “that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another.” A free English white woman having an illegitimate child by a negro or mulatto was subject to a fine or was sold for five years. If the woman were a servant, she was sold for the same number of years after her time as a servant had expired, and in each case the child was to be bound out until he or she should be thirty years of age. By the act of 1705³ this was increased to thirty-one. The law of Virginia had provided as early as 1662⁴ that all children “born in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of their mother.” A mulatto, then, born of a free white or white servant mother, was not a slave, but after the time of service expired was a free man or woman. The act of 1753⁵ continued these provisions for binding out such children, but

421

up to this date no specific provision had been made for their education unless we consider the laws relating to poor children as applicable. The act of 1765¹ reduced the time of service, males to twenty-one and females to eighteen years of age, because the former age was “of unreasonable severity towards such children.” Moreover, because mulattoes had been sold as slaves, a penalty of fifty pounds was imposed on the seller to be paid to the purchaser, and an additional penalty of twenty pounds to the informer. For a second offense the service of the servant was forfeited, and the latter was to be bound out to serve to twenty-one years of age “in the same manner as is by law directed for the binding out of orphan children.” This would seem to indicate that provision for teaching such a boy or girl to read and write was contemplated. There were actual indentures, to be cited later, which so provided.

CONCLUSION

It is apparent that Virginia considered the education of these unfortunate classes—orphans, poor, illegitimate, and even mulatto children—to be a matter of importance, for no less than ten important laws² were passed involving these classes which mention specifically that the guardian or master is responsible for some book education. They provide for direct education by guardians or others for orphans with estates and for poor orphans and children through the system of apprenticeship; and those acts which do not directly mention education, or such subjects as reading or writing, do not prevent the inclusion of educational clauses in the indenture, as is proved by cases to be cited.³ The attitude of Virginia

422

toward education was evidently one which recognized that the state was responsible for the education of only those children whose parents were not likely to attend to the matter themselves. There is only one law which would allow the justices to interfere with other children than the poor, for the act of 1748 may be so interpreted. The assumption was that education was a private affair and that capable parents would voluntarily attend to the education of their own children. It will be noticed that during most of the seventeenth century Massachusetts and Connecticut made no such assumption.

It will be observed that the acts concerning orphans provide: first, for education through payment of tuition fees, in the case of those orphans whose estates produced interest on the principal sufficient for the purpose; secondly, for education through the system of apprenticeship, where orphans had a very small estate or none whatever. Although the first law mentioning book education for orphans apprenticed was that of 1705, yet the general acts of 1646 and 1672, giving power to justices of the peace to bind out poor children, would permit them to include a clause in an indenture providing for book education for an orphan bound out. A case of an apprenticed orphan with such a clause included in the indenture is recorded as early as 1648.¹ The fact that a session of the county court was called an “Orphans’ Court” at this early date is evidence that the class was of some importance.

It will be noted that there is a progressive increase of orders respecting the administrative features of these laws. The purpose was to provide better methods of discovering whether an orphan was being educated to protect his estate for this purpose, to increase the degree of education, and to provide penalties for negligence. Thus guardians were to make annual reports, provide security, and see that orphans were instructed

423

according to the proportion of their estates. Judges at first merely saw that orphans were provided for; then they were to make yearly inquiry; then they must apprentice the orphan if the estate was small, remove him from the master or guardian in case of neglect, and appoint new masters or guardians. Sheriffs also summoned guardians, and clerks of courts made public record of their accounts. Judges were obliged to see that an educational clause was inserted in the indenture, after 1705 for boys and after 1751 for girls, and could make additional rules for education in 1730. In 1679 they were chargeable for losses for their failure to take sufficient security from guardians, while in 1740 they were subject to a severe penalty for neglect of the laws respecting orphans.

A comparison of the legislation of Virginia with that of the New England colonies with respect to the compulsory education of poor children shows similarities as well as differences. The economic motives appear to be much the same; namely, the effort to avoid pauperism and idleness, and a desire to develop an artisan class. The religious and educational motives are also similar. The laws apply mainly to special, not to all, classes of children, as was the case in New England during most of the seventeenth century, and the purpose of book education is not so specifically stated. There is a failure to mention a specific money penalty, to be imposed on parents or masters or the churchwardens for negligence of the law. The classes of children involved, however, were poor and illegitimate children, and since the desire to relieve the parish of the burden of supporting such children was very strong, a money penalty was perhaps not needed in order to make it certain that they would be apprenticed. It will be remembered that not even Massachusetts imposed a money penalty on officers, except in one instance, after the laws on compulsory education were framed so as to apply only to poor children apprenticed—that is, after the act of 1703. The plan for workhouses for poor children

424

contemplated state, county, and parish support by taxation, though the acts are not compulsory, and only that of 1755 mentioned education directly.

It is apparent that Virginia not only recognized her responsibility for the compulsory education of the classes of children mentioned, but passed a series of notable acts designed to accomplish the purpose. While they are not so elaborate as those of the New England colonies for the seventeenth century, they are in the eighteenth century quite up to the New England standard and in some respects above it. For example, the law required that after 1751 all orphan and poor girls apprenticed should be taught to read and also to write. No New England colony, after 1710, required all girls apprenticed to be taught to read and write. The acts cited show that we may fairly assert that Virginia established a compulsory system of education for these special classes of children. The laws are mandatory, indicate the machinery for enforcement, name the responsible officers, provide penalties for negligence of parents, guardians, and masters namely, removal of the child and, in the case of negligent justices, provided a money penalty, or its equivalent in tobacco. The central feature of the system was the county court, composed of the justices of the peace. It was entirely responsible for the workings of the laws respecting orphans. In the case of poor and illegitimate children the churchwardens were about equally responsible with the justices. There is thus the same tendency as in New England, that of making special officers of local units the responsible persons for carrying out the law. There is also the same tendency to increase the amount of education required for boys and girls apprenticed, and to place less emphasis on religious instruction in the eighteenth as compared with the seventeenth century. We shall see from the evidence in court and parish records that these acts were enforced, to some extent at least, but how effectually or universally it is difficult to say. But this observation

425

can be made quite as truly of the legislation of the New England colonies. Later articles will discuss the enforcement of the compulsory education laws cited, in both the New England and the southern colonies.¹