any pson shall neglect to bring unto his house his full Due by the 29 of the 8 month in 52 that then he shall bring anote of the names and the sum of theyr debt unto the 7 men who are hearby required to take some speedy Course to [ ] him to his due. This order consented to By mr Richard Norcros"

The school is now successfully launched. It should be noticed that there is no compulsory attendance. The town provides a school master, and a school house, to which it has by vote added a "turret," and everybody is free to send his boys, for such time as he pleases, to study what he pleases. The system is purely elective. As the benefits received will be unequal, the arrangement is made that a small weekly sum shall be paid by those who use the school. But the annual salary has been fixed at thirty pounds and remains the same for twenty-four years by annual vote in some such form as this: "Ordered that Mr Norcrose shall Kepe scole the yeer inshuinge and is to have for his paines 30£"

If the payments from the parents fell short of thirty pounds, the town made up the balance from the public treasury. These records are peculiarly valuable as containing not only the recorded votes of the town and of the selectmen, but also the annual financial report, so that we know just how much the town had to pay of the master's salary. This varied from year to year as follows: 12, 13£ 0s. 4d., 19£ 10s. 8d., 17£, 10£ 9s. 3d., 13£ 2s., showing considerable variation in the size of the school.

A question early arose as to the schooling of children from out of town. After considerable discussion it was voted that "all scolers that their parents live out of towne shall pay for scholing twenty five shillings for ayear." This is paid into the treasury and Mr. Norcross is allowed a gratuity of 3£ for teaching them.

In 1667 a vote is recorded which is of especial importance, as it settles some much disputed questions in Massachusetts educational history: "agreed with mr Norcross to keepe schoole for the yeare insuinge: for 30£: & the towne agreed that the schoole should be Free to all the setteled Inhabitance: Children that thir Freinds live in other townes: to pay as before: & their payment to be deducted out of the 30 £: and the remaynder to be made up by Rate"

It has been the contention of many writers, among them one so well-informed as Hon. Henry Barnard, that the word free, as

used by the early inhabitants, did not refer to support at all, but meant "open to all." Thus. Rev. Chas. Hammond, in his famous article on Academies, says: "It has been most unwarrantably assumed that a free school was one in which the tuition was gratuitous; but, in this sense, not even the common English rudimental schools of the first generation were free, for, though supported in part by public appropriations, yet the parents of the children provided also a part of the tuition, in nearly all the schools of every grade."

But it is evident that the good people of Watertown knew what they meant by a free school; that it was one in which the parents paid no individual tuition fees. And the vote marks a positive advance in the school history.

The next year, Mr. Norcross is again chosen, and, in the vote, it is stated: "And to be a free schoole as it was last year." The next year "Mr. Norcross was chosen to keep a free schoole."

In 1670, a quaintly worded vote contains one significant phrase, which I put in italics: "Ther have been a complaint by Mr. Norcross that the schooling of children is like to be hendered for want of wood to keepe a fir, and for the preventing of such an enconvenance the schooll being the townes It is ordered by the select therefore that the inhabitants that send their children to the school shall send in for every scholler a quarter of a cord of wood by the fiften day of this instant desember or 2s in money to by wood withall.”

Next year it is voted that if the parents fail to send wood "they shall have no Benifite of the school as a free school tell the first of apprill next."

For a quarter of a century the current of school affairs has run smoothly. Mr. Norcross seems to have given general satisfaction, and the salary seems to have been, on the whole, promptly paid. Indeed, the school occasioned much less friction than the church.

But, in 1675, the spell seems to have been broken. Whether a younger generation felt that the master had "outlived his usefulness," or whether he felt the weight of advancing years, we are not told, but we find a new man taking the helm: "The town agreed with Mr. Goddard to ceep the scoole in this towne for a year * * * and the town to alow him for his salary 30 pounds and A fortnites time in haysill."

The new master seems not to have been a success, and, the next year, the town, for the first time, delegates its power to choose and contract to the selectmen : "Left with the selectmen to agree with a scoole master as chepe as they can." Some question seems to have arisen as to the tuition business, for, two months later, the town votes: "That they would have the scoole cept a free scoole as formarly." These people will take no backward step.

The selectmen finally choose one of their own number, and make a most interesting contract: Agreed with leftenant shearmon to ceep an inglish scoole this year and to begin the 9th of aprill at the scoole house and the town to alow him twenty pounds in the town Reat, and if the said leftenant dezireth to lay down his imployment at the years end then he shall give the town a quarter of a years warning and if the town dezyreth to chang ther scoole master thay shall give the like warning; the selectmen agree allsoo that the said scoole shall be cept from the first of may to the last of august; 8 owers in the day to witt to begin at seven in the morning and not to break up untill five at night, noone time acsepted and from the last of august untill the last of octobur 6 owers in the day soo allsoo in the months of March and Eaprill and the 4 winter months to begin at tenn of the clock in the morning and continue untill 2 o clock in the afternoon."

We notice here the reduced salary, the notice of change, the specification of hours, the one session in the winter, and the omission of Latin. It is to be an "inglish scoole." inglish scoole." The reduction of salary may be due to the fact that the master was also selectman and assessor, and was drawing some salary from the town for the latter service.

There is evidently trouble in the air; a school war seems to be on. The old board of selectmen, which chose one of its own number master, is voted down and a new board chosen. Mr. Goddard appears to have kept on teaching, for, in 1678, the new selectmen notify both Shearmon and Goddard that their services will not be wanted at the expiration of the three months. Having done this, they proceed to reinstate the old master: "The selectmen agreed with Mr. Richard Norcross to ceep the scoole at the scoole house for the year folowing and to begin the 9th of Eaprill 1679 and to teach both Lattin & inglish Scollurs so many

as shall be sent unto him from the inhabitants & once a week to teach them thear catticise; only in the months of May June July and August he is to teach only lattin scollurs and writturs and them at his own house & thear to afford them all needfull help * * * * and the town at the Jeneral town metting to meak thear anuall choyse for time to cum."

Master Norcross is to open school on the ninth of April. On the eighth of April - "Corporall Willingten & Robart Hevington with the consent of the selectmen demanded the cee of the scoolehouse of leftenant shearmon, but he refused to deliver it."

Here is a pretty state of affairs! The schoolmaster defies the selectmen. There is apparently a deadlock during the summer, but, at the annual town meeting, in October, the old board of selectmen of 1676, with Shearmon among them, is re-elected. They immediately call a truce: "It was agreed upon that there should be publike notise given for to call the Towne together ye next munday that so ye Towne may com to som Loveing agreement and conclution aboute a schooll master." "At a gener

:

The town declares in favor of the new regime: all town meeting ye: 5 of January: 1679 the towne by a voate declared that Leiutenant Sherman is still to keepe the schooll as he have formerly." So Mr. Norcross disappears, and the first volume of records ends.

We cannot be too thankful to the people and the committee of Watertown for putting before us these quaintly worded and badly spelled ancient records. They let us into the heart of things, and show us how sound and wise and persistent were those early people. They show us, too, on how substantial a foundation our modern school system rests.

These records are equally full and equally interesting in their pictures of the efforts to execute the law of 1642, providing for home instruction, but they are too copious for this article.

Don't overwork your vocabulary when things get all snarled up. Promptness and accuracy are needed to be taught right along with psychology and the differential calculus.

Sleeping car berths have some advantages over day-coach accommodations; but their place is not in the school rooms of today.

THE QUESTION OF TEACHERS' SALARIES.

JOHN P. GARBER, KENDERTON SCHOOL, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

It speaks well for the teacher that there is scarcely any literature on the subject of his salary; that so little of his brain substance has been devoted to efforts to increase his pay. Printer's ink and platform eloquence have been poured forth with the greatest profusion in the struggle of the laboring man to secure a larger share of, and the capitalist to hold on to his multiplied dollars. On the other hand, the faithful teacher has performed more than his alloted task, and has humbly accepted the crumbs left on the public table after all the other great and noble and hungry servants of the people have fed therefrom.

Of course, any salaried officer would easily consider it a great public benefit to have his pay increased. But we believe not only that teachers are underpaid, but that our calling, with its far-reaching influence over the destiny of the nation, would be greatly enhanced by a more commensurate remuneration. Certainly no one at all familiar with the culture, the broad sympathies, the professional zeal and the artistic work of the good teacher, and with the daily demands of the school-room upon bodily and mental vigor, would refuse to be liberal in his rewards for such service. But, unfortunately, all are not in full sympathy with the teacher, nor is the appreciation of education and the desire for the best means of securing it, as highly developed in all communities as they should be. It is probable, too, that, as teachers, we have not duly considered why general appreciation of our services has grown so slowly, nor have we always used the best means to obtain it.

In presenting the matter for our thought I shall consider: 1. The source of the teacher's pay.

2.

How its amount is, and how it should be, regulated.

3.

The best means of securing its increase.

4. The social effects of liberal salaries for teachers.

I. ITS SOURCE.

Political economists tell us that the product of industry is divided among landlords, laborers and capitalists. Landlords include all those receiving rentals or incomes from