Though there is scant evidence in the Horsham Monthly Meeting minutes to indicate what they did in reference to the Negroes’ education, we are not left entirely in the dark. The Horsham School Committee, which made a report of its own after 1783, made occasional reference thereto, and it must be understood from these reports that the Negroes were schooled at the expense of the school committee. The only proof of this statement, given in the records, is found in statements like the following: An account of Thomas Hallowell for schooling Griffith Camel’s and negro Caesar’s children was produced and considered, and the treasurer ordered to pay him grant given. That of Caesar’s lies for inspection.[1307] This makes clear that cases of Negro schooling were taken before the same committee as cases of poor Whites and were investigated and disposed of in the same manner. [Sidenote: Byberry] [Sidenote: Slaves in 1721] [Sidenote: 1727] Byberry Preparative Meeting makes no reference during the early years to the status of the Negro in its limits. Martindale, in a _History of Byberry and Moreland_, states that slavery came into Byberry about 1721,[1308] the slaves being employed by the more opulent class to do the roughest work. The inventory of a Friends’ property (1727) showed that he possessed “one negro girl, £20, and one negro boy, £30.”[1309] Of their intervening history little is recorded, though the Negroes were set free by many members of Friends, and in 1779 the meeting authorized Silas Walmsley and William Walmsley to provide a suitable burying ground for the use of Negroes who had been freed.[1310] What was done for their education is not known. [Sidenote: Records not always to be relied upon] It is noticeable that in the earliest answers to the query concerning Negroes (about 1756) the majority of the monthly meetings usually answered in an offhand manner that they were “clear” or there were “none to be charged with that breech,” or something to that effect. The writer believes these reports first sent in were perhaps made from only a general knowledge of the situation, and not the result of an exact knowledge of their members’ practices. This statement is not capable of an exact proof, but the remarkable similarity in all the meeting records for the first few reports, certainly indicate that such was the case. Quite frequently, yes, in most cases, the “clear” reports are followed after a few months or years by statements that some are imported, a few held as slaves, or one Negro sold and similar reports. This was true in the case of Gwynedd. In 1756 the meeting reported “we have not to charge any,”[1311] and three months following, “Friends think themselves clear in this respect”;[1312] the nature of the wording in the last would imply it was based more on implicit faith than explicit judgment. Eleven years thereafter we have more definite reports, such as: