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]