The Portsmouth Athenaeum Journal 2013

Papers Presented by Proprietors at:

Saturday April 20, 2013Westfield State University, Westfield, Massachusetts

The Publication Committee launches these inaugural Athenaeum online publications with the hope of extending to the Web the Athenaeum's mission of convivial exchange and intellectual discourse. Our goals are also to increase access to and understanding of the Athenaeum's collections on the part of Proprietors, scholars and the public. In addition, we hope to document the Athenaeum's impermanent but valuable programs, exhibits and lectures. As our publication policy states, the committee welcomes articles reflective of the scope of the Athenaeum's collection and library holdings by knowledgeable authors on subjects of interest to Proprietors. Submissions may also document Athenaeum exhibits via text and images or lectures prepared as essays. Sherry Wood Chair, Publications Committee

Table of Contents

Introduction
Dane Morrison, President of the New England Historians Association..3

John Fisher's Remarkable Treatment in the American Revolution

Tom Hardiman, Keeper, Portsmouth Athenaeum.4

An Expanded Horizon: Impact of the Peace of Utrecht and the 1713 Treaty of Portsmouth with the Indians on Two Piscataqua Merchants
Sandra Rux, Curator John Paul Jones House..16

Goods to America The Hose Family Exports Shoes From London, c. 1730-1797
Kimberly Alexander, Ph.D. History Department, University of New Hampshire, Durham..30

Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It?

Jeffrey Hopper46

Introduction
Every spring for nearly fifty years, historians throughout New England have observed a cherished academic traditionthe meetings of the New England Historical Association. Those of April 2013, held at Westfield State University in Massachusetts, were particularly noteworthy for both the rigorous scholarship represented in fifty papers and the backdrop of historic and tragic events. The horrific bombing of another New England tradition, the Boston marathon, and the search for the culprits in the days leading up to the conference, played havoc with travel plans and necessarily kept some of those who had intended to come to Westfield with their loved ones at home. Even so, many were able to participate in what turned out to be a surprisingly successful set of meetings. I am delighted to introduce four exceptionally rich papers from those meetings. All come from members of the Portsmouth Athenaeum and all represent the outstanding scholarship that we have come to associate with this beloved institution. In John Fisher and his Unusual Exploits in the American Revolution, Athenaeum Keeper Tom Hardiman offered a glimpse into his work on eighteenth-century political economy, and particularly, the British customs service that was at the center of the emerging conflict between colonial officials and local merchants. Sandra Rux, Curator and Manager of the John Paul Jones House Museum, explored the multicultural complexities of war-torn colonial America in An Expanded Horizon: Impact on Piscataqua Merchants of the Treaty of Utrecht and the 1713 Treaty signed in Portsmouth by English, French and Native Americans. A session on Fashion and Fancy featured Kimberly S. Alexander, University of New Hampshire adjunct professor, who discussed her ongoing work on the transfer of British-made goods to the American colonies in her paper, published here as Goods to America: Londons Hose Family Exports Shoes, c. 1730-1797. Finally, independent scholar and Athenaeum member Jeffrey Hopper contributed to a lively session, Representing Place, in which he challenged the audience to consider the question, Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It? Together, the four Portsmouth-based historians treated the audience to the kind of exacting research and thoughtful inquiry that we find taking place every week at the Athenaeum. Dane A. Morrison President, New England Historical Association Professor of Early American History, Salem State University

John Fisher's Remarkable Treatment in the American Revolution

Tom Hardiman, Keeper, Portsmouth Athenaeum

John Fisher was a significant, but overlooked character in the American Revolution. He was christened on the sixteenth of April, 1735, in the church of St. Mary Redcliff, Bristol, England, where he maintained strong family connections throughout his life. His father, also John Fisher, was a successful Bristol distiller. In May of 1761, at the age of 26, Fisher was appointed Naval Officer of the Province of New Hampshire and Deputy Naval Officer for the ports of Newbury, Massachusetts and York in the Massachusetts District of Maine.i He arrived in Portsmouth in February of 1762. The Naval Officer was responsible for recording every ship entering or leaving the port, where and when the ship was built, the owner or master, its destination or point of departure, and its cargo. On June 10, 1763 in a service at the Anglican Queens Chapel, John Fisher was married to Anna Wentworth (1746-1813), the sixteen-year-old only daughter of Mark Hunking Wentworth. Mark Wentworth was the wealthiest merchant in town, with a virtual monopoly in the mast trade for the Royal Navy. Mark's brother Benning was the Royal Governor and Surveyor General of the King's Woods for North America. The practical advantage of the union to the Wentworth clan is

obvious, but Fisher could hardly have imagined in the summer of 1763 how invaluable Anna and her family connections would be to him throughout his life and for their children and generations to come. Fisher was welcomed into the family fold by being initiated into the Wentworth familys other major business: land speculation and development. In August 1763, Fisher and 63 other proprietors were granted shares of land in the new townships of Georgia, Highgate, Shelburne, Swanton, St. Albans, and St. George in what is now Vermont.ii In October of 1763, after only 20 months in office, John Fisher left his post at Portsmouth to return to England. Fisher traveled to England along with his new brother-in-law, John Wentworth, nephew of governor Benning Wentworth.iii The four weeks on board ship would have provided the perfect opportunity for the two ambitious young men to get to know one another, form a bond, and identify their mutual interests. In London, Fisher testified to the Board of Trade about Benning Wentworth's Vermont township grants, which were principally to relatives and in each of which the governor reserved two shares for himself.iv Fisher's testimony led to the King's rejection of New Hampshire's claim to any of the Vermont territory and marked the beginning of the end of Benning Wentworth's long reign as governor. Back in Portsmouth on May 4th, 1764, Anna Wentworth Fisher gave birth to a son. He was christened at Queens Chapel and named for his father, who was still in England at the time. Anna was probably still living in her parents grand mansion, just down the hill from the church. Five months later, Mark Hunking Wentworth, concerned for his daughters now growing family, bought a house for her in the south end of town.v The house fronted on Pleasant Street and had gardens extending back to the South Mill Pond. On January 10, 1765, despite having spent the previous fifteen months neglecting his duties as Naval Officer for New Hampshire, Fisher was

appointed to the office of Collector of Customs for the District of Salem and Marblehead, Massachusetts.vi On July 29th, 1766, John Wentworth was appointed to replace his uncle as Royal Governor of New Hampshire. In a major coup for the family, John also succeeded his uncle as Surveyor General of the Kings Woods. When he arrived back in Portsmouth in April, Wentworth chose not to move into the fine house the Province agents had purchased for him, but instead took up residence in the house of his sister on Pleasant Street, after the Fishers had removed to Salem.

Fisher/Wentworth House, Pleasant Street, Portsmouth, New Hampshire

In July of 1768 Fisher was removed from office by the Board of Customs Commissioners under accusation of improper trade and was obliged to return to London to plead his case. The New Hampshire Gazette reported on March 24, 1769 "We hear that the Brig American Soldier, 6

from this Port, arrived at Dartmouth, in 32 days; - in which went Passenger John Fisher, Esq.; Collector for the Port of Salem, who was suspended by the Honorable Board of Commissioners. Mr. Fisher immediately went up to London and on his arrival there, was so happy, as to find he had been reinstated in his former Office, some Days before he reached England." With the prospect of recovery of the Vermont properties looking dim, Fisher undoubtedly looked to build a more stable and secure estate for his growing family in New Hampshire. Between October of 1767 and May of 1768, Fisher purchased a large amount of property in Barnstead nearby to farmland his father-in-law had in Alton and the baronial manor his brotherin-law John was building in Wolfeboro. On January 3rd, 1769, while Fisher was still in England, the governor granted to him and fifty-nine others a new township in the Sunapee region. Wentworth gave the new town the unabashed name of "Protectworth," and reserved 12,000 acres of the best land for himself.vii This was just the beginning of a massive plan for the development of the wilds of the interior into productive and marketable farm land, all to the benefit of Wentworth, Fisher, and their kin. On June24, 1771, Fisher sent a petition to the Masonian Proprietors in Portsmouth requesting that the township of Hereford, originally granted as Dantzig in 1753, be declared forfeited under the terms of the grant and re-granted to him and his associates. The property, now Newbury, was adjoining the Wentworth and Fisher reserve of Protectworth and would greatly increase the family's already vast holdings in the Sunapee region. On February 5th of 1772, the Proprietors granted all twentytwo-thousand acres to Fisher and renamed the town Fishersfield.viii On May 16, 1774 John Fisher bought the house and land of Nathaniel Adams on the Portsmouth parade.ix With the revolutionary spirit rising in Massachusetts, it was no longer safe for King's officers in Boston or Salem. With the danger in Massachusetts increasing daily, Anna

and the children had already moved back to Portsmouth before they bought the Adams house. Her third daughter, Sarah, was born in Portsmouth on the 15th of April, 1774. The Wentworth dream of an idyllic asylum in rural New Hampshire was shattered on Tuesday the 13th of December, 1774, when Paul Revere rode to Portsmouth to warn the Committee of Correspondence that troops from Boston were on their way to secure the gunpowder at Fort William & Mary. The next day, several hundred of the citizens of Portsmouth and New Castle, led by John Langdon, overwhelmed the tiny garrison of the fort and took away about a hundred barrels of powder. The following night, a smaller force led by John Sullivan of Durham took many of the larger cannon out of the beleaguered fort. By the time of the next meeting of the Provincial Assembly in February of 1775, the governor found that many of the men responsible for the attacks on the fort in December were now elected by their districts as representatives, so he prorogued the Assembly until May5, when it was again adjourned by the governor. The governor's last refuge of power was the Council, and in its meeting on May 29th, John Fisher was made Secretary pro hac vice of that lame duck body.x Wentworth returned to New Hampshire briefly on September 21 in the armed schooner Hope to again prorogue the Assembly until April 24th. Because the governor needed to be within the bounds of his Province to dismiss the Assembly, he made the proclamation from Gosport harbor at the Isles of Shoals. On hearing that the governor had returned and incorrectly assuming that British troops were on their way, the Provincial Congress ordered all officers of Royal government seized and imprisoned. John Fisher received "secret Information of this Order" and fled down the Connecticut valley to New York, leaving his wife and six children, including their four-month-old

daughter, Frances Anne, in the care of her parents back in Portsmouth. He returned to London in January of 1776.xi On July 15, 1777 John Wentworth, in Flatbush, Long Island, sent a letter to his father in Portsmouth that began: DEAR SIR. -- I herewith inclose you a copy of a letter lately received from Mr. Fisher, and earnestly recommend my dear sister Fisher exactly accede thereto, as it is of great importance to the education of their two sons especially. I cannot suppose there can be objection or opposition be made to their children being sent thro' the Country; I therefore suggest that they should be sent to Providence by a Flagg of Truce to Newport, where Mr. McDonough will be to take charge of and bring them safe to me, or in case of my absence to Mr. Brinley at New York, who Mr. Fisher desired and has promised me his best attentions. It will be prudent before they are sent , to secure their reception at and passports from Providence, of which, and the time they may be expected, I wish to be previously notified, by the first & most public conveyance. My sister and our respected Parents may rest fully satisfied that I will take effectual care for their ample accomodation and safe passage to England, and will send a discreet person with them, unless the person pointed out by Mr. Fisher, or some other prefer'd by you, is permitted to attend them.xii He followed up a few weeks later on August 3rd: Mr. Woodbury Langdon promised Mr. Fisher his assistance to expedite the children from Portsmouth, &c. but on his arrival & soliciting permission to pass into New England, he has been arrested and is now (an enlarged) prisoner, restricted to the City of New York, & it is generally tho't may expect to meet whatever Colo. Holland of Londonderry experiences.xiii Langdon had been in London since the beginning of the war attempting to close out accounts with his creditors there before the assets were nullified by the conflict. The actions of his brother in the raid on Fort William & Mary and his role as contractor for the Congress in building several new ships for the American Navy were the primary reasons for Langdon's arrest in New York. It did not help his case that several years earlier he had supported Peter Livius, one of the New Hampshire Provincial Councilors, in his efforts to remove the governor from office on charges of corruption and nepotism.

On September 12, 1777 the Committee of Safety decreed:

It having been represented to us that Woodbury Langdon Esqr. is now confined in New York as a prisoner, by the influence of John Wentworth, Esq. late Govr. of this State, and not to be released, otherwise than by exchange for Colo. Holland, who is confined here as a criminal; Therefore Resolved, That Mark Hg. Wentworth, Esq. be required to give his parole in writing, for himself and Family, also the wife and children of John Fisher, Esq., that they do not leave the town of Portsmouth without permit from the Legislative authority of this State.xiv John Fisher spent most of 1778 in New York as part of the Carlisle Commission, empowered under Lord North and parliament to negotiate a peace with the American Congress before the Americans could reach an alliance with France.xv On October 13 he wrote to Anna, I unhappily find myself under the necessity of returning to England where the very ill State of my Brother's Health and the critical Situation of his Affairs which you know are of the last consequence to me require my immediate Presence and Attention. I am unable however to bear in my present Health and Spirits the Idea of another Separation from all I hold dear how short soever it may be; I therefore must entreat you will not lose a Moments time in coming to me with such of my dear Children as you think proper and our good parents think most adviseable.xvi He made arrangements to meet her in New London, CT at the end of the month. She submitted another petition to the legislature and was granted permission to go to England with four of her children. Three-year-old Frances and four-year old Sarah were left behind to live with their grandparents. They may have been thought too young to combat the myriad infectious diseases that were common aboard ships in the period. Three weeks after Anna and the children left, on November 19, the New Hampshire Legislature passed "An Act to prevent the return to this State of certain persons therein named, and of others who have left or shall leave this State, or either of the United States of America & have joined or shall join the Enemies thereof." John Fisher was the third person named in the proscription, after Governor Wentworth and Peter Livius.xvii Seventy-five loyalists in all were banned from returning to the state on pain of imprisonment. Nine day later the Legislature passed

10

"An Act to confiscate the estates of sundry persons therein named."xviii Again John Wentworth headed the list, but this time Fisher's name was not included. Before the end of winter, John Fisher began working to restore his family and property in New Hampshire. On March 16, 1779, his father-in-law presented a petition to the Legislature in Exeter requesting that Fisher be allowed to return to New Hampshire. He recounted the circumstances of Mr. Fisher's reasons for returning to England in text nearly verbatim from Anna's petition of the previous October. He then added: Your Petitioner further suggests that he has the strongest reasons to believe, that Mr. Fisher declined engaging in any Business in Great Britain which might hinder his return here. That when he came to New York, it was with design to come here which no doubt he would have accomplished, had not those sad accidents prevented: And as Mr. Fisher's conduct when here & while absent has not been inimical, but on the contrary, he has ever exhibited a friendly disposition, in acts of kindness and generosity to American Prisoners, as many in this, and the other United States gratefully acknowledge and will testify. Which facts had they been know to the General Assembly of this State, at the time of passing the proscribing act your Petitr. conceives would have prevented the said Fisher's name from being inserted among the proscribed.xix In his plea, Mark Hunking Wentworth conspicuously omitted the fact that Fisher had spent most of the past year working to nullify American independence. He did, however produce sworn testimony from four Portsmouth men, Captain Thomas Palmer, Capt. Thomas Lewis, Capt. John Gregory, and Nahum Akerman on behalf of his son, Benjamin, who gave dramatic witness to the humanitarian work Fisher did in aid of his fellow townsmen held in unspeakable conditions on prison ships in New York harbor during his time there.xx In October of 1781, John Fisher was appointed Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Northern Department under George Germain and in place of fellow New Hampshire exile Benjamin Thompson (1753-1814, later Count Rumford), who, in his exceeding zeal to return America to British rule, had left his clerical post in London to take a commission as Lieutenant

11

Colonel commanding the King's American Dragoons in the Carolinas and New York.xxi After Lord Cornwallis' surrender at Yorktown, Germain, was relieved of his position in February of 1782 and replaced by Welbore Ellis. One month later, in a fit of pique, George III abolished the entire Northern Department of State, putting Ellis and Fisher out of work.xxii

On March 24, 1784, the then unemployed John Fisher submitted a lengthy report to the Royal Commission Inquiring into the Losses of American Loyalists, requesting compensation for his loss of offices with the defeat in the revolution. His request for reimbursement discounted the increase in duties from the closure of the port of Boston in 1774, and only cited the average of his pay as Collector for Salem and Marblehead and Naval Officer for Portsmouth, Newbury, and York. Fisher presented copies of "Sundry Acts of Exile, Confiscation, and Disability," claiming that he had been divested of his estates, despite the fact that he was not named in the seizure act. Misleadingly, he stated "He stands deprived of all Right and Title to his Property, Real and Personal within that Province, and his Wife debar'd and cut off from Inheritance of all the Estates of her Family, in consequence of his Loyalty to His Majesty and Attachment to the British Government."xxiii He may have cited a law passed November 28, 1781 "An Act to Prevent Inhabitants of Great Britain And Others Inimical to the United States of North America from Purchasing Territory within this State,"xxiv but that law only affected transfer of property, not its ownership. In fact, the state and its towns were quite assiduous in calculating the property taxes due on the vast tracts owned by absentee proprietors like Fisher. On 7 April 1781, the legislature voted to rent the improved lands of absentees & subjects of Great Britain to ensure the collection of revenues.xxv

12

In lieu of granting him an enormous cash award, the Commissioners Inquiring into the Losses of American Loyalists arranged for a plum patronage appointment for Fisher as Secretary to the Commissioners of the Excise.xxvi This lucrative position carried a base salary of 603 11s 06d and the companion duty of Distributor of Stamps added 284 13s 04dxxvii On October 5th, 1785 he granted power of attorney to John Peirce and on February 24th of the next year he had Peirce petition the New Hampshire Legislature for the return of his lands.xxviii The act passed four days later cited "the Treaty of peace guarantied the restoration of said Fishers Estate."xxix He was also granted a personal exemption from the law barring transfer of property by British subjects. Only a year after being richly compensated by the British government for his losses, Fisher had all of his American property restored. The legislature further expanded Fisher's rights by an act passed on December 10, 1791 "Empowering the Children of John Fisher to hold real estate in this State."xxx The law cited "said Fisher has a numerous family of Children some of whom were born in England and are thereby Aliens." While the intent of the law was to allow Fisher's children to inherit his property after his demise, it was not restricted to that and empowered the younger Fishers to sell property in New Hampshire "in like manner as Citizens of this State." This provision became critical after Anna Fishers mother, Madam Wentworth, died on November 20, 1794, making her daughter and the two granddaughters who lived with her after 1778 her principal heirs.xxxi

13

Malshanger House, Oakley Hampshire, United Kingdom

In 1799, Fisher inherited vast estates in Hampshire through his maternal cousins.xxxii He remade the estate at Malshanger in the image of the Government House his brother-in-law was building in Halifax at the same time. Malshanger remained the family home until John's death in 1805, when it was liquidated by the terms of his will.xxxiii From his beginnings as Naval Officer in Portsmouth in the 1760s, Fisher became a major player in colonial government and one of the richest and most influential civil servants in the British government, but has not merited more than a sentence or two in any published history.

Gentlemans Magazine, volume 31 (1761), p. 238. Bouton, Nathaniel, et al., eds. Documents and Records Relating to New Hampshire, 1623-1800 (New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers) (Concord and Manchester, 1867-1941) vol. XXVI, pp. 178, 223, 413, 442, 446, 488. iii Bouton, et al., vol. XVIII, pp. 556-558. iv Looney, John Francis The Kings Representative: Benning Wentworth, Colonial Governor, 1741 -1767. Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1961, p.146.
ii

14

Lacy, Hariet S. and Jane C. Giffen The Governor Wentworth House in Portsmouth, Historical New Hampshire Vol. XXIII, No. 1 (Spring 1968), pp.50-54; RC Deeds bk 70, p. 303. vi Historical Collections of the Essex Institute v. II, p. 172. vii Bouton, et al., vol XIII, pp. 442-448. viii Bouton, et al., vol XXVIII, pp. 91-92. ix PA MS22 OV box 5 folder 14 [RC Deeds 107-123] x Bouton, et al., vol XVIII, pp. 663-664. xi NH Loyalists xii Bouton, et al., vol. VIII, pp 627-628. xiii ibid. p. 659. xiv Bouton, et al., vol VIII, p.677. xv Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain Vol. I (London: 1904) p. 208. xvi Bouton, et al., vol. VIII, p.695-696. xvii Metcalf, Henry Harrison, Laws of New Hampshire (Bristol, NH, 1915) vol. 4, p. 177. xviii ibid. p. 191. xix Bouton, et al., vol. XVII, pp. 322-323. xx ibid., vol XVII, pp. 323-325. xxi Ward, George Atkinson, The Journal and Letters of Samuel Curwen, an American in England (Boston, 1864) p. 360-361. xxii Newport Mercury June 22, 1782. xxiii NH Loyalists. xxiv Metcalf, vol. 4, p 427. xxv Bouton, et al., vol. X, p.537. xxvi London Gazette 11 January, 1785 p.3 xxvii Walsh, James Leslie Friend of Government of Damned Tory: The Creation of the Loyalist Identity in Revolutionary New Hampshire, 1774-1784. p.77, note 45. xxviii Fisher Papers, NHHS, 1981-114; Bouton, et al., vol. XX, p.468. xxix Metcalf, vol. 5, pp. 129-130. xxx Metcalf, vol. 5, pp. 787-788. xxxi PA MS9 ff 12. xxxii Hampshire Record Office 108M87/10. xxxiii Gentlemans Magazine vol. 97 (1805), p. 588.

15

An Expanded Horizon: Impact of the Peace of Utrecht and the 1713 Treaty of Portsmouth with the Indians on Two Piscataqua Merchants
Sandra Rux, Curator John Paul Jones House

Between the late 1680s and 1713 turmoil characterized life in the Piscataqua. European wars disrupted trade and native attacks reduced settlement in northern New England to the Portsmouth NH and Kittery Maine area. The Treaty of Utrecht signed in 1713 ended Queen Anne's War between the French and the English. However the native population of northern New England felt that this treaty ignored their claims. In order to stop the fighting in New England, a treaty was agreed to by the native tribes, French and English and in July 1713 was signed in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. While the treaty did not end all conflicts between the native tribes and the English it did allow commercial development to accelerate in Portsmouth and made it safe for people to resettle the Maine coastal towns. This paper examines how two merchants, one a longtime resident of Kittery, and the other a recent arrival in Portsmouth, used the improved conditions to build significant fortunes. We will first examine the life and career of William Pepperrell. It is likely that William Pepperrell came to the Isles of Shoals in 1675 or 1676 by way of Newfoundlandgiven he was in his early twenties, it is probable he had been involved in Newfoundland for some time and learned of the Shoals or fished there before relocating. His parents Andrew and Joan lived near Plymouth, England where Andrew fished for a living. Baptized in 1651, William may have been born as early as 1648. He received little education, as was the norm for young people of his time

16

and station in life, although he was literate and able to keep the accounts for his business. Surviving receipts are nearly illegiblefortunately for future researchers, son William Jr. took over the clerical duties for the family at a very young age. The Newfoundland fishing trade was controlled by a small number of West Country merchant-venturers who had common interests and concerns, were often related by marriage, and accumulated considerable wealth. Because the Newfoundland trade was highly competitive, rivalries between individual merchants, merchant families, or entire merchant communities could be fierce. Religious and political differences further divided them. This happened frequently during the 17th century, and it is an indication of how troubled the Newfoundland trade was during that period. While Newfoundland remained the primary English fishery, various sites along the coast of Maine were developed as smaller, alternative fisheries, including the Isles of Shoals. Here it was possible to catch and cure fish almost any time of yearthe warmer climate allowed for production of a particular kind of dried fish called dunfish that involved drying the cod more slowly with less salt. Fisheries at the Shoals were busiest from the 1630's to the 1660's. By 1670 the population had grown to approximately 500 people and as many as 1500 men found employment at the peak of fishing season. By contrast, only six or seven houses had been built before 1650 on the mainland at Kittery Point. xxxiv Pepperrell arrived at the Shoals with very little capital. His first trading venture with authentic evidence is a voyage to Newfoundland in autumn of 1682. Pepperrell's vessel was a small sloop, probably loaded with Connecticut pork, pine boards and a hogshead or two of rum. Local legend says this is how he won the hand of Margery Bray (even though they married two years before the voyage).

17

John Bray had come to Kittery Point around 1660 from Plymouth England to build ships for merchants in Portsmouth, York and the Isles of Shoals. William married Margery Bray, the eldest daughter, in 1680, and probably lived with the Bray family. In 1682 Bray deeded land next to his own to Pepperrell on which to build a house. In 1681 William and Margerys first child, Andrew was born, followed by four girls and in 1696, William Jr. xxxv By 1696 Kittery had grown to about 900 people scattered over 125 square miles. Wars with the Indiansfirst King Philips War in 1676 and then King Williams War from 16891699decimated the Maine coastal settlements. The northern parts of Kittery were frequently attacked, but Kittery Point was unscathed. All residents of Kittery were assigned to a garrison house in case of attack. William Pepperrells house was designated as a garrison for Kittery Point. Queen Annes War (1705-1713) meant continued Indian threats and disruption of commerce. Kittery traders had a close relationship with Barbados. Thomas Langley, next door neighbor to the Pepperrells, had lived there before he moved to Kittery, and Robert Cutt maintained connections with his mothers family there. This helped William Pepperrell establish the connections he needed. By 1693 he had extended his activities to the southern colonies. In April 1693 Andrew, a 30 ton barque, arrived in Maryland from Virginia and took on 3 hogsheads of tobacco; sloop Margery, 24 tons, arrived at Maryland from Barbados and sailed with tobacco four months later, bound for Piscataqua. In the same year, William sent his first vessel to Albemarle Sound in North Carolina. xxxvi Although these were small transactions, they added up. He also ventured to the Canary Islands where he sold a brigantine and its cargo. Profits contributed to his growing sterling balance in England. His only local accounts until after 1713 were a few with local fisherman and one or two merchants of Portsmouth and New Castle. The fishermen provided fish for southern voyages, and the merchants took West Indies goods and

18

naval stores in exchange for the provisions, staves, fish and supplies necessary for operation of his vessels. His sterling balance was thus profit and not a means of paying for English imports destined for the Piscataqua market.xxxvii

Attic of the Pepperell House

During 1705 Pepperrell sent more ships than usual directly to England, possibly because his former partner in Barbados, Benjamin Hole, had moved to Topsham England. Ship William and Andrew was the first of these, and Pepperrell himself traveled on the voyage. Three small

19

sloops traded with the West Indies during 1705Olive, Merrimac, and Nonesuch. Sloop Miriam was assigned to trading goods with the scattered North Carolina populationbuying pork and naval stores in exchange for English goods.xxxviii Even though eight of the early years were a time of war with the French and Native Americans, Pepperrell continued to develop trade routes and added a number of vessels. On the eve of Queen Annes War, he owned seven, including Mary, shared with Benjamin and Joseph Hole of Barbados; and Three Friend, owned with Samuel Lillie, a major ship owner in Boston. From 1708-1713, William Pepperrell strengthened ties with leading merchants of Boston. He owned the William and Andrew jointly with Andrew Belcher, who was on the Kings Council of Massachusetts. Their sons maintained this connection profitably for over fifty years. He also strengthened Piscataqua connections by the marriage of son Andrew to Jane Eliot and eldest daughter Mary to John Frostmembers of two of the oldest and most powerful families in the Piscataqua. The decade from 1713-1723, the first in over twenty-five years to provide a substantial period of peace between France and England, saw an increase in trade in the Piscataqua. Although Pepperrell's oldest son Andrew died in 1713, son William at 17 was able to step into his shoes. William Sr. continued as the primary operator of their business. Trade with Barbados, Antigua and North Carolina continued as before, with more trips to England, and a few to France. Although William had a reliable partner in Thomas Kerby of Antigua, who gathered products for him, the frequent droughts there meant an uncertain sugar crop. Kerby complained about trying to sell the endless lumber and fish: "I must observe to you that the dispatch of a lumber cargo is more fatiguing and causes more writing than a cargo of 500 slaves or as many pipes of wine...."

20

Pepperrell replied sympathetically and kept sending lumber. Trade with Barbados continued with more stability. xxxix Pepperrell resumed trade with Newfoundland after the 1713 peace. European demand for fish was increasing, causing both the fishing business and the permanent population of Newfoundlandwhich was almost entirely dependent upon New England merchants for suppliesto grow. Although he had not traded with Newfoundland during the war years, Pepperrell had earlier been the one of the first of the New England merchants to venture there. He supplied lumber from Piscataqua and other goods from his own trade with the West Indies and Carolina, eliminating the need to rely on other merchants. Return products from Newfoundland were luxury commodities, including silks, brandy and other French goods, often purchased from French merchants in Cape Breton. During these years Pepperrell established fishing stations in St Peters (Fort Toulouse) and the Canso islands to provide cargoes for Europe and the West Indies. Although one might have expected him to buy fish from the Newfoundland fishery, European goods were more profitable. During the 1713-1723 decade at least 18 or 19 vessels joined the Pepperrell fleet6 brigantines, 2 schooners, 8 sloops and 1 pink. The vessels were small; most of them between 20 and 100 tons, and probably only lightly armed. In comparison, in all of the earlier years only 15 or 16 vessels can be identified as belonging to the Pepperrells.xl Trade with local people increased in this decade. The accounts with local blacksmiths, carpenters, cobblers and smaller merchants began to resemble that of country storekeeper and local banker. Pepperell's accounts with Portsmouth merchants George Jaffrey, from whom he purchased salt in exchange for pitch, tar, corn, rum and fish and Archibald Macpheadris, from whom he received iron from his Lamprey River ironworks in exchange for corn, also grew.xli

21

One of Pepperells most important activities during this decade was rebuilding the interior towns wiped out in the Indian wars. The Pepperells acquired land with some of their profits. It was said that William Jr. could walk about thirty miles from his house in Kittery to Pepperrellborough (Saco) without leaving his own land!

William Pepperell House. Kittery, Maine

By 1723, William Jr. had taken over much of the family business. The 1720's were prosperous, but war between France and Spain threatened and buccaneers made frequent attacks. The Pepperrells adjusted by trading less with Newfoundland, Spain and Portugal. Trade with the French islands increased, and more classical triangle trade voyages were taken. Basic to the Pepperrells trade were two native products, lumber and fish, that were in brisk and widespread demand. Non-commodity returns, namely money, bills of exchange, and passengers, were also an important item in the Pepperrell ledger. The same type of lumber

22

cargoes that were shipped to Newfoundland comprised, with the addition of fish, the outbound cargoes to the West Indies, Spain and Portugal. It was common for the Pepperrells to switch the direction of their trade back and forth according to the circumstances of the moment. If one general characteristic typified Pepperrells business activities it was flexibility, made possible by the many small vessels in which he held a controlling share. William Sr. died in February 1734, having spent over a half-century building his empire and becoming one of the richest men in New England. He managed to grow wealth despite wars, changing commercial regulations and the natural disasters that struck all engaged in the maritime trade. He obviously made many good decisions including his choice of partners and what cargoes to buy and sell, but he was also lucky. He lived a very long time, had the good fortune to have sons and sons-in-law to assist in the business, and vessels that did not suffer from any more than the normal amount of problems. While his strategy was different from some Piscataqua merchants, particularly the Wentworths, who made much of their fortune dealing in masts for the British navy, it was at least equally successful.

Tomb of Sir William Pepperell, Portsmouth, NH

23

We now turn our attention to the newcomer. Archibald Macpheadris, born in Antrim Ireland around 1680, was almost a generation younger than Pepperrell Sr.. We know nothing about his youth or education, although he wrote well, and was well acquainted with and related to Irish and English merchants in Spain, Portugal and the West Indies. His first appearance in Boston was in 1709 when he joined the Scots Charitable Society. The Boston News-Letter lists him as clearing outward for Barbados on the ship Lake Frigot the week of June 5, 1710.xlii Macpheadris next appears in 1712 in Cadiz, having run aground in a storm with the ship Richmond Galley. In this case we know he was only the master, not the owner, from a letter written to him by the owners who advised him to contact William Jerry about the remaining cargo.xliii While we do not know what Archibald Macpheadris was doing between the grounding of Richmond Galley and his arrival in New Hampshire with ship Richmond in September 1714, he must have been successful. Ship Richmond, of which he was at least part owner, was registered in New Castle, NH as 350 tons with 24 guns requiring twenty-four men for operation, and was built in Great Britain. In addition to carrying cargo, an armed ship such as this would also convoy smaller vessels to protect them from pirates. On December 30, 1714 it was reported that Captain Macpheadris in ship Richmond would sail for Cadiz in three weeks. Macpheadris and the Richmond were back in Piscataqua in July 1715 with a most unusual cargo. The Boston NewsLetter reported that he arrived with a lioness cub four months old that ate only live animalsdogs, cats and chickens. xlivOn September 15, Richmond cleared for Lisbon with 32,000 feet of oak plank, 33 beams for houses each 40 feet long, 4,000 feet of boards each twenty feet long, forty spars each fifty feet long, and twenty-five quintels of fish.xlv If one wished to trade in lumber,

24

Portsmouth was an obvious place to settle once the Indian threat was reduced. Unlike Pepperrell, Macpheadris aimed to get rich rapidly. Once he had decided to settle in Portsmouth, Macpheadris bought several lots on Daniel Street, close to the Piscataqua River, and hired John Drew, London trained builder and architect. Macpheadris's grand brick house was among the largest and undoubtedly the most stylish of Portsmouth residences, complete with furniture from Bristol. xlviHe arrived back in Portsmouth early in July 1716 and set about preparing cargoes for several ships. On September 7 he advised Robert Fenwick in Cadiz that fish would not be ready for the schooner until next week, and proposed to load it instead with tar for Bristol and with the net proceeds sail to Cork for a cargo of butter, beef, pork, and tanned leatherand then to Cadiz by the 1st of May. On the same day he wrote to James Hackett in Cadiz advising he had managed to sell Hackett's 150-ton ship and invested the proceeds in a half-interest of Macpheadris's new ship of 300 tons named Sara. He describes her as a good fit for the Spanish West Indies trade. He could not build the great ship yet because there was no water to cut plank, indicating that unlike Richmond, built in Great Britain, Macpheadris was having ships built in Portsmouth. Because of the delays in getting timber and plank, in 1717 he bought his own mill at Quampehagan (now South Berwick, ME). His brother John who married in New York in 1712 was in Dover by 1719, possibly managing the mill. Macpheadris sold the mill to Benjamin Wentworth in 1725it would seem milling one's own lumber was not as profitable as expected.

25

Warner House, Portsmouth, NH, built for Archibald Macpheadris

With business moving along briskly and his magnificent house finished, Macpheadris married 15-year-old Sarah Wentworth, daughter of Lieutenant Governor John Wentworth, on January 1, 1718. Shortly after the wedding, Macpheadris received several large parcels of land from his father-in-law. While in Portsmouth, he arranged to send vessels to Cork, Belfast, Dublin and Waterford to bring over Irish farmers for plantations in Casco. Farmers and fishermen were to be encouraged by the large supply of salmon, and the need was for those who knew how to cure them.xlvii His involvement in recruiting emigrants was unusual, as this was customarily managed in Ireland. His brother, Captain Gilbert Macpheadris, arrived in Piscataqua July 20 1722 with 200 Irish people, showing the scale of their efforts. xlviii

26

Men were also needed for the iron mine at the Lamprey River owned by Macpheadris, John Wentworth, George Jaffrey and Robert Wilkinson. In 1719, the original owners built a bloomery that produced wrought iron bars. Macpheadris was invited to join them to recruit workers experienced in bog iron and charcoal manufacturing. This was a combination of industry and real estate venture. The royal provincial charter required the proprietors to build the iron forge, fifty dwellings and a meetinghouse within seven years in an area of Dover known as the Two Mile Streak. The settlement created for the ironworkers was known as New Portsmouth or the Irish Lots. xlix In August 1718 Macpheadris left Portsmouth for Cadiz in the "great ship" with four other vessels in convoy, all with cargoes of fish or lumber. This voyage included a winter in Cadiz and trips to Ireland, Portugal and England buying and selling various products. While it was a success, his correspondents in Lisbon advised him that back in Portsmouth they believed that he had died in Cadiz in March and that his spouse and relations were in mourning. l Once he returned home, Macpheadris spent some months getting forge men for the iron works, arranging for shipments of fish and lumber to Spain and Ireland, and getting the prize ship "now called Mary," ready for sea. He owned Mary with George Bethune and his brother-in-law Benning Wentworth. Macpheadris was to sail the ship to Cadiz and sell the cargo and, if possible, the ship. If not sold, he was to engage in other ventures in Spain. However, Macpheadris sent the ship from Cadiz to Cork on an unplanned venture. George Bethune, in settling his account with Macpheadris, deducted a sum for this. liTrade with Spain was complicated by threat of war in 1720. Although English ships were not supposed to trade with Spain, Macpheadris and the Irish merchants with whom he worked generally evaded the restrictions.

27

Even though Macpheadris was appointed to the New Hampshire Council in 1722, lii and had a growing family, with son Gilbert born in 1721 and daughter Mary in 1722, he continued to travel each year to Spain and Ireland. His father-in-law John Wentworth wrote in January 1722 to "Archibald Macpheadris in Cadiz or elsewhere: the affairs of the iron works are dull occasioned by the extreme spring freshet and then drought followed by the Indian war...Intrust you can get a good forge man as we are much imposed upon by these villains. "liii So expert was Macpheadris in dealing with the Spanish trade that other merchants, including William Pepperrell, called upon him for assistance in dealing with the Spanish market. In 1726, with war between England and Spain again threatened. Pepperrell ordered Captain Clear, who was selling a cargo in Cadiz, to consult with Macpheadris. Clear had the misfortune to run aground at Cadiz and ruin much of his cargo.liv Macpheadris died in Portsmouth in February 1729, about age 49. As was common for merchants of the time, it took many years to untangle his estate. In the end, the house, quarter interest in the iron works and land he had acquired through his marriage to Sarah were the most valuable assets. Son Gilbert died about the same time as Archibald, leaving Sarah and daughter Mary as the heirs. Unlike Pepperrell, Macpheadris did not have the good fortune to live a long time or to have sons to carry on the business. He took many risks in trading with Spain and Portugal while they were at war, or nearly so, with England. New Hampshire was a source of products for European and West Indies markets and a place where he improved his social status by building a mansion, marrying well and becoming a member of the King's Council. Even though periodic Indian disturbances continued, the peace agreements of 1713 allowed for greater exploitation of forest products and the beginnings of industries such as iron mining and smelting.

28

By looking at the histories of these two very different merchants, it is evident that peace in 1713 changed conditions for each. For the Pepperrell family, it was safe to trade once again with Newfoundland and Europe. It was also profitable to acquire land in the decimated coastal towns and to participate in the rebuilding process. Macpheadris might not have come to the Piscataqua area without the peace agreements. He operated, and then owned, armed merchant ships that could convoy smaller ships through the dangerous seas as well as trade in a variety of commodities. Although he saw opportunity in America, he never gave up his primary trade between Ireland and Spain. As a sea captain and merchant, he expanded where he could best build his fortune, and Piscataqua was an area needing people and capital to build Portsmouth into a significant seaport.
xxxiv xxxv

Neil Rolde, Sir William Pepperrell of Colonial New England (Brunswick ME, 1981), 2-3. Ibid., 4-5. xxxvi Byron Fairchild, Messrs. William Pepperrell: Merchants at Piscataqua (Ithaca, 1954), 32-33. xxxvii Ibid., 39. xxxviii Ibid, 42-45. xxxix Ibid, 52-55. xl Ibid, 77. xli Ibid, 80-81. xlii Boston News-Letter (Boston, MA), June 5, 1710, issue 321, 2. xliii Warner House Archives on deposit at the Portsmouth Athenaeum, Letter from Richmond Galley owners to Archibald Macpheadris, MS003 B02 F 16.03, 1712. xliv Boston News-Letter (Boston MA), July 8, 1715, issue 586, 2. xlv Dudley Stoddard Collection, Portsmouth Athenaeum, Ship Richmond bill of lading, MS 107 B02 F75. xlvi Warner House Archives on deposit at the Portsmouth Athenaeum, John Drews bill to Archibald Macpheadris; and MS003 B02 F17.01 bill of lading for ship Olive Branch. xlvii Warner House Archives on deposit at the Portsmouth Athenaeum, Letter from Archibald Macpheadris to Robert Wilson, MS003 B02 F19.04. xlviii Boston Gazette (Boston, MA), issue 139, 2. xlix John Wastrom, After The Macpheadris-Warner House: What happened to John Drew, Hugh Montgomery and their memorandum book after the house was built, Piscataqua Decorative Arts Society III (2003), 9-10. l Warner House Archives on deposit at the Portsmouth Athenaeum, letter from Lewin and Taylor in Lisbon to Archibald Macpheadris Sept. 2, 1719. li Dudley Stoddard Collection, Portsmouth Athenaeum MS 107 B01 F62 and B 02 F42 and Warner House Archives on deposit at Portsmouth Athenaeum MS 003 B02 F22. Account of repairs of prize ship Mary and problems with Macpheadriss actions in Cadiz. lii Macpheadris appears as a member of the Council in the NH colonial records beginning in 1722 but the official commission from England is dated July 9, 1724. Dudley Stoddard Collection, Portsmouth Athenaeum, MS107 B02 F81 liii Dudley Stoddard Collection, Portsmouth Athenaeum, Letter from John Wentworth to Archibald Macpheadris Jan 19, 1722, MS107 B01 F40. liv Fairchild, op. cit., 102.

29

Goods to America The Hose Family Exports Shoes From London, c. 1730-1797
Kimberly Alexander, Ph.D. History Department University of New Hampshire, Durham

It was a Thursday, June 3rd, 1773, when Mary Simpkins married Robert Rand in Boston. Marys father, William, was a well-known jeweler and silversmith. Rand was a Boston merchant, from an established New England family. Despite the fact that the Boston Tea Party was a mere six months away and her husband fought against the British, serving as sergeant of the Bedford Minute-Men at Concord, Mary (b. 1754) wore wedding shoes from London. She was most likely quite pleased with her stylish silk brocade wedding shoes. [illus. 1] Clearly a treasured family heirloom, they were passed down to her daughter and eventually, found their way to the collections of the Connecticut Historical Society. The cream-colored silk shoes, brocaded with pink and green flowers were made, according to their label, by the cordwainers Jno. Hose & Son. At the Rose in Cheapside near Milk Street. London.lv

30

1. John Hose, c. 1773

Connecticut Historical Society, Object Number: 1953.16.0a,b Mary Simpkins Rand Wedding Shoes

http://emuseum.chs.org:8080/emuseum/

Like hundreds of London shoes which made their way to the shops of Colonial America, one may be inclined to ponder just how this came to be. The question of how a product--or, in the

31

case of womens shoes, a commodity-- found their way to the Colonies, is intriguing to say the least. The author was recently contacted regarding a rich collection of documents related to the Hose family, providing material for a valuable case study.lvi The focus of this paper will be limited to the 1730s-1790s, the primary years of activity of the Hose firm. This paper will trace the journey of several pairs of shoes, beginning with their production in a London shop, across the Atlantic, and ending on the feet of customers in British America.

The Hose Family Shop, London Visiting the Ward of the Cordwainer in Georgian London was to experience the crowded, bustling streets of a great metropolis in which vendors and shopkeepers feverishly hawked their wares to sophisticated consumers who sought the ultimate in fashion. Skilled cordwainers such as the well-established concern of the Hose family (John and his only son, Thomas, junior) were located on Lombard Street at the boot." The Chamberlain family occupied a shop at Cheapside, while Ridout & Davis did business near Aldgate. They were among the scores of cordwainers who maintained active workshops and stores throughout London. Most were concentrated within the Ward of the Cordwainer, bounded to the North by Cheapside and Poultry, to the South by Cannon Street, to the West by Bread Street and to the East by Walbrook.lvii In 1738, D.A. Saguto reveals that there were between six to seven hundred master cordwainers in metropolitan London.lviii

While there were certainly many variations on the experience, there are elements common to most: An indentured apprenticeship of approximately seven years with a Master cordwainer was followed by time as a journeyman and ultimately, if one attained a high level of proficiency,

32

acceptance into the Worshipful Brotherhood of Cordwainers. The goal was to eventually achieve the status of Master and accept apprentices, thus continuing the cycle of the art and mystery of making shoes.lix

Even a cordwainer fortunate enough to open his own shop found that the hours were long-most worked from about six in the morning until eight in the evening, six days a week. The monetary rewards were uneven, even for those in the upper echelon of their trade. Theft and shoplifting were constant concerns. Competition was stiff. Materials were dear as goods from around the globe arrived in great quantities in ships to be used in crafting the most fashionable footwear: goat skin leather from Spain and Morocco, silk and silk thread from China and France.lx As observed by leading authority on historic garments, Linda Baumgarten, the availability of textiles in British America was dictated far more by tariffs and navigation acts than by distance.

We get a sense of the day-to-day struggles of a London cordwainer from the few documents that have survived in the collections of the Hose family. Through birth, marriage, and death records, apprenticeship documents, a will, and depositions that describe two cases of theft from the shop (heard before the Old Bailey in 1740 and 1744), the activities and personalities of this cordwaining family begin to emerge from the shadows of over two centuries of history. While numerous elegant examples of the production by these skilled artisans have survived and are preserved in North American and British collections, this paper posits an alternate perspective, a behind-the-scene glimpse of the daily challenges which faced one family of artisans in Georgian London. It is rare to have such full documentation on cordwainers, despite a 33

strong guild and the generational family involvement. Many are known to us now only through the labels remaining on their shoes and little else. Because information on the makers is scant and the visual results so pleasing, we tend to focus on the final product rather than the process of creation and the driving market forces which create them. John Hose, the senior family member, was listed as a Master in the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers records in 1760. He was followed in 1760 by Thomas Hose, junior in 1784. It is likely that additional family members assisted in some capacity and several apprentices have been documented as well.lxi

The research is significant as the shoes fabricated by these skilled artisans were among the earliest to feature labels, illustrating not only pride in their craft, but also a growing interest in advertising and trade specialization. As noted authority on the history of shoes, June Swann (Shoes, 1982) comments: The labels suggest not just mass-produced ready-mades, but also pride of workmanship My research indicates the use of labels may also be related to duties and tariffs on foreign goods into Colonial ports. The appearance of shoes by the Hose family, and others such as Ridout & Davis and W. Chamberlain & Sons in North American collections underscores their importance as "commodities" in Colonial America. As costume and fashion historians, we generally observe the final product rather than the fabricator of these sought-after accessories. Further, when one is able to establish even a rudimentary timeline, it aids in the dating of these significant Georgian-era survivals.

Two particularly poignant examples of documents pertaining to the lives of the Hose family will shape this article: the 9 July 1740 theft by James Waldron of "a Pair of Pumps" from John Hose (b. abt 1699) and the 1780s application of Thomas Hose, junior, to enter Morden

34

College, Blackheath, after the shoe business had failed in the late 1790s. A thorough record of his life and livelihood was documented in order for him to live in Morden College, a home for merchants and skilled tradesmen who had fallen on hard times.lxii

Even after a Hose shoe was finished, it faced a number of obstacles before it reached its destination in Portsmouth, Boston, or Philadelphia. One of the more common problems was theft, like that which occurred on a warm Saturday evening, June 28th, 1740. A Saturday evening in congested, dense commercial Cheapside, would have seen many strollers out and about- there were dozens of taverns lining the streets where Thomas and John Hose ran their cordwainers shop. It was getting on toward 9:00, the bells of St. Mary-le-Bow had probably just rung, when shouts disturbed John Hoses concentration.lxiii

As Hose testified: Last Saturday was se'nnight, about half an Hour after 8 at Night, I had a Customer or two in my Shop, (I live in Cheapside ) and a little Girl cry'd out Mr. Hose, a Man has got a Pair of Pumps. I being lame, could not run after him; but my People pursued him, and took him in Bow Church Yard, and told me he had dropped the Pumps, by the Corner of the Church Yard. When he was brought to my Shop, he fell down on his Knees, begg'd Mercy, and desired I would let the People pump him.lxiv

This account from the Old Bailey proceedings is revealing on many counts. It provides a strong lens for looking into the life and work of a mid-eighteenth century urban craftsman. In the short passage, we learn that the Hose shop was open until at least 8:30 on a Saturday night. The

35

long hours were hardly unusual and this is supported by contemporary accounts.lxv Further, he still had customers in his shop at this late hour. He notes living in Cheapside, which was within the traditional boundaries of the Ward of the Corwainer. The fact that "a little Girl" sounded the alarm, gives a sense of community--of looking out for one another, for knowing your neighbor. Of the stolen goods, the turnd Leather Pumps" were valued at 10d. While we do not know whether his lameness was permanent or temporary, in 1740, John Hose was approximately 41, at a time when the average persons life expectancy in Britain was just under about 36.9 years of age. He notes "his people pursued him" indicating several hands in the shop, most likely apprentices, chased down the culprit and brought him back to Mr. Hose. The would-be thief begged for mercy and asked that Hose "let the people pump" him. Clearly, that did not satisfy Mr. Hose, who pressed charges. It is of interest that, despite the presence of witnesses, Mr. Waldron was found not guilty and acquitted. Perhaps this was due to the fact that he was able to hide the proof--the ill-gotten pumps--in the churchyard.lxvi

The crafting of elegant shoes did not guarantee a life of comfort or ease for its maker. We get an idea of the precarious nature of a cordwainers life from another seemingly mundane document in the Hose family papers. John Hoses son, Thomas Hose junior, finished his apprenticeship with his father, becoming a master himself in 1784. In the previous year, he notes that he was actively engaged in business [at Lombard Street] in exporting goods to America and the British West Indies from the period of 1783-1797. This significant quote survives in Mr. Hoses letter to the regents of Morden College, Blackheath, which maintained a home for impoverished but hard-working tradespeople and guild members. It is significant because it reveals, without question, that the cordwainer was at least to a certain extent self-selecting his

36

clientele and certainly had abundant knowledge of the destination of his products. Although only referencing his own experience, it is natural to speculate that his father had also had a direct role in exporting shoes to America, especially when combined with the evidence supplied by the shoe labels which have survived.lxvii

Goods To America Today, the diligent researcher can identify a good number of pairs of shoes in North American collections, and trace the labels back to their manufacturers in London. Clearly, the Hose family production was available to an elite clientele and was thereby acknowledged to be in the upper tier of their art. Not surprisingly, many of their shoes were for special occasions weddings, balls, inaugurations and so forth another reason these shoes have often survived as they were connected with significant family or national events. Once completed in the Hose shop, shoes had several avenues to their destinations in Colonial America: special, custom orders, in shop sales, or export to other British towns or the Colonies and West Indies, via ships or Colonial merchants or factors. In some cases, shoes were special order items taken home by an individual ship captain, a super cargo, a traveler or a merchant for a wife, a sweetheart, daughter(s) or for themselves. An example of this may be seen in the following receipt dated, 17 September 1767, in which a Philadelphia client contracts a bootmaker for custom boots and shoes: Mr. Didsbury desired to make for Edward Shippen of Philadelphia a pair of high boots; a pair of neat dress shoes with stitched heels; 4 pairs of stronger shoes, with common heels; 2 pair of very stout shoes, with thick soals [sic] for Winter.lxviii

37

He carefully measured the foot and the lower leg for boots--according to Mr. Didsburys Directions. Boots were one of the most important and expensive items in a man's wardrobe, generally costing between one and five times as much as shoes. Indeed, to be a boot maker was to have attained the highest echelon of the trade, followed by shoemaker or cordwainer and then cobbler and piece workers. In other cases, Colonists worked with British-based merchants and factors who acquired goods on behalf of clients. One of the best-known examples is George Washington, who, early in his career, ordered his garments directly from London via a factor or representative. After his marriage to Martha Custis Washington, he frequently turned to the London-based Carr & Co., which secured goods, such as textiles, clothing and shoes for her.

By the mid-1700s, there is substantial evidence in ship manifests and cargo lists, custom house records and store advertisements to suggest that ladies shoes were in high demand and were being purchased for the export trade in large numbers. To wit: 80 pairs of ladies shoes were listed as coming in to Salem, Massachusetts with Captain Bowditch in 1772; on January 5th 1775, the sloop Exeter Packet, owned by James Bott, also of Salem, sailed with 33 pairs of womens shoes, and so on. Indeed, "women's shoes" were frequently listed separately from other items in ships' cargos.lxix

In Portsmouth, NH, as with other seaport cities and towns, there was much travel between the American colonies and Britain. In 1777, the powerful Hunkings and the Wentworths families had strong ties to Great Britain and the Crown and travelled back and forth frequently. Indeed, in his article on John Fisher, Esq., Thomas Hardiman shared the following from a letter dated January 17, 1777 from John Wentworth to Mrs. Fisher:

38

I think it probable that Mr. Fisher and Rindge will be here early in the spring I have a box qt 16 pr. childrens shoes -- 3 pr. woms. silk and 3 pr. Calamanco shoeswhich Mr. Fisher sent for you, by Mr. Brinley.lxx Shoes and boots had a high duty or tax imposed upon them, a trend that continued with Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamiltons 1790 duty, in which: boots, per pair, fifty cents; shoes, slippers and goloshoes, made of leather, per pair, seven cents; shoes and slippers, made of silk or stuff, per pair, ten cents, and so on.lxxi

Ladies shoes were readily available--at a price--to the foot-trade via sale in various seaport towns in high-end shops. Their arrival from London is noted almost gleefully in the newspaper advertisements. As found in the ship manifests, ladies shoes tend to be listed separately, even in shop advertisements and handbills; Gilliam Butler, Robert Trail, Samuel Penhallow, and John MacMacmaster were among those in Portsmouth who singled out womens shoes from their lists of available products. Ship logs and manifests, shopkeepers advertisements in newspapers and custom house records, all support the importance of the shoe trade for fashionable ladies and the British economy.

The issue of buying locally made versus imported goods such as shoes had vexed the colonists from the early days of settlement, when shoemakers were scarce and so were the materials needed to adhere to the latest fashions in England. As early as 1764 there was what might be considered the first shoe exhibit or trade fair in New York. The Exposition for the Promotion of Arts and Agriculture... offered as a first prize 10 pounds to the best pair of womens shoes fabricated using materials found in the Colonies. Thomas F. Pierce & Son, based

39

in Providence, Rhode Island, began selling shoes at retail by 1767, and by 1782, also from Rhode Island, individual embroidered vamps were offered for sale.lxxii

While Lyn [sic] calamancoes and leathers [from the shoemaking region of Essex County, Massachusetts] were offered for sale in Portsmouth by the 1780s, the value of the London shoe was vastly higher. Indeed, a Portsmouth, New Hampshire shopkeeper advertised Lyn [sic] made calamanco shoes, indicating wide availability and yet, women who could afford the additional costs of fabrication and import duties (enacted in 1789 for example at the Continental Congress), would choose the latest from London over domestic made-product.

While average daily wages fluctuate from region to region and from job to job, the average cost of a day of labor in Northern New England in the 1780s was roughly about three shillings a day. Based on sources, such as account books in Deerfield, Massachusetts and Haverhill, New Hampshire, a pair of women's shoes cost about six shillings and a man's, eight shillings. This translates into roughly 2 days labor to purchase a pair of shoes. Shoe buckles cost (again this is a very limited sampling) approximately half a days work for the silver-plated variety. A published broadside with a price list from Philadelphia in 1790 is consistent with these costs: good mens shoes, such as the channeled pumps, started at 18 shillings and 6 pence; while a good ladies shoe lined and bound started at 10 shillings.lxxiii [Illus. 2]

40

2. A List of Prices of Boots and Shoes, & c.1790 Philadelphia Master Cordwainers Price List, broadside Note that the broadside refers to the "Master Cordwainers," suggestive of its roots in the British guild and apprenticeship system. The document has been published in numerous historical imprint volumes.

41

Whether it was because of the initial investment or the intervening Revolutionary War, or a combination of both, one finds a great number of women's shoes available leading up to 17701775, and then the supply dries up. The various non-intercourse or non-importation acts are put into place in the Colonies, beginning as early as 1764 and culminating with the closing of Boston Harbor in 1775. A gap follows until about 1784 and the close of the conflict. In 1784, a new, easily identifiable style emerges and the London merchants attempt to glut the new American market with excess stock. This is the time period mentioned by Thomas Hose in his correspondence to Morden College.

3. Thomas Hose, c. 1770 Charleston Museum Eliza Pinckney light blue satin shoes with metallic braid http://charlestonmuseum.tumblr.com/post/3701726426#.UkF1Bxbm6uk

42

Fortunately, shoes by the Hose family have found their way into public institutions, due to their link with significant people and events and no doubt also due to their high level of craftsmanship. Among several noteworthy examples, one may cite Hose family shoes in the collections of the Charleston Museum, Connecticut Historical Society, Historic Deerfield and Historic New England. The Hose family shoes were highly sought after. They may have been shipped to the Colonies as special or custom orders, requiring makers labels to identify country of origin for importation duties. Perhaps, the labeling was simply to promote the individual cordwainers, in a profitable North American Colonial marketplace. Surviving evidence reveals that the labeling of shoes did not begin much before the fourth decade of the eighteenth-century. American shoemakers would soon follow suit with labels appearing in the work of Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey shoes just after the mid-eighteenth century.

For additional examples of work by the Hose family, see collections at Historic Deerfield and Historic New England.

Notes
lv

Connecticut Historical Society, Object Number 1953.16.0a,b The author is indebted to the research contributions of two Hose descendants, Linda Pardoe and Colin Michael

lvi

Hose, for making key documents available to the author. Further, Judith Millidge of the Worshipful Company of Cordwainers has generously shared her knowledge.
lvii

Bow Lane and Queen Street run along a north-south axis through the Ward; Watling Street runs east-west and

Queen Victoria Street runs diagonally through part of the Ward.

43

lviii

4. D.A. Saguto has annotated and republished M. De Garsaults 1767 classic, Art of the Shoemaker, subtitled An

Annotated Translation (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, 2009), 2.

lix

For a contemporary account of apprenticeships, see Robert Campbell The London Tradesman, 1767, and others,

in Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker; Cordwainers: Shoemakers of the City of London, Clive Willcocks, 2009 and materials available on the historic trades on Colonial Williamsburgs website are especially u seful.
lx

Robert Campbell, The London Tradesman (1747), in Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker, 2. Hose Family documents suggest a date of about 1699 for John Hose s birth, based on Church records. He married

lxi

Elizabeth Collver in Notthingham on August 18, 1731. In the same year, he acquired his Freedom papers (signifying the end of his apprenticeship) from the City of London and established himself in Cheapside. His only son was Thomas who followed him in the business. John Hose died March 31, 1769 and was buried in a vault at St. Mary Islington. In addition to passing his skill as a cordwainer to his son, he also apprenticed William Chamberlain, another cordwainer whose shoes are found in North American collections and whose production quality was very high.
lxii

Old Bailey records are available online for two thefts relating to John Hose--the 1740 theft discussed in this paper

and a second theft in 1744. The documents presented to the officials at Morden College, for Thomas Hose, junior, are in family papers, but the family has kindly made it available to the author.
lxiii

Among the dozens of taverns and hostelries in this part of the ward, there were also two churches in the mid-

seventeenth century: St. Mary Aldermay and St. Mary-le-Bow. Given Mr. Hoses reference to catching the culprit in the Bow Church Yard, St. Mary-le-Bow seems likely.
lxiv

Old Bailey records available online: Heard on 9 July 1740 James Waldron, Theft. Trial number: t17400709-25. Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker. Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker. Petition to Morden College, from Thomas Hose, City of London. Hose Family Papers. Underline by author.

lxv

lxvi

lxvii

lxviii

Edward Shippen, Philadelphia, To J. Didsbury, London, order for shoes September 7, 1767.

Ms1989.10 Microfilm, M-1561. http://research.history.org/JDRLibrary/Special_Collections/SpecialCollectionsDocs/MiscShippen.cfm

lxix

Electronic correspondence with Thomas Hardiman, Keeper, Portsmouth Atheneaum, April 2012.

44

lxx

Electronic correspondence with Thomas Hardiman, Keeper, Portsmouth Atheneaum, April 2012. The Act Laying Duties on Imports was communicated by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to the

lxxi

United States House of Representatives on April 23, 1790. In order to promote manufacturing in the United States, Hamilton proposed that imported goods be more costly thereby forcing, Americans to buy more local products. While the proposition failed as it was essentially a tariff, it is nonetheless instructive regarding considerable public sentiment.
lxxii

Little is currently known about this event which took place in New York, and which has been mentioned as the

first shoe exhibit or trade fair. The Exposition for the Promotion of Arts and Agriculture... but it is worthy of further investigation.
lxxiii

A List of Prices of Boots and ShoesPhiladelphia 8th November, 1790. The events that resulted in the creation

of this document are outside the scope of the current paper.

A short, selected bibliography for shoes and shoemaking in the Georgian and Regency eras: Shoes and Slippers from Snowshill, Althea Mackenzie This slim volume is an extremely well-written and well-sourced with some rare images from the National Trust Collection at Snowshill. Shoes: The Complete Source Book, John Peacock Useful cornucopia of styles & types Women's Shoes in America, 1795-1930, Nancy Rexford A gem, must have. M. De Garsault's 1767 Art of the Shoemaker. An Annotated Translation by D.A. Saguto Go-to book on shoes and a constant inspiration from a true master. Shoes, June Swan A thorough book by a leading light in the field. Would love to see an updated version with more color plates. Although not specifically about shoes, Colonial Williamsburg's What Clothes Reveal by Linda Baumgarten, is an especially useful source book and includes material on selling to America.

45

Smithfield 1827 from John Greenwoods map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smithfield_1827.jpeg

Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It?

Jeffrey Hopper

46

Prospects

As we look at ways to engage the public with history, specifically museums and historical sites, some background information might be helpful. The recession of the early twenty-first century endangered the normal funding process, endowments, donations, and investments; and thus the viability of historic societies and history museums throughout the United States (Andrs Sznt). If finances were the only reason for concern, then there might be some sense in weathering the economic storm, but as Andrs Sznt states in his January 2010 article on museum attendance, The median age of visitors has shot up since 1982, from 36 to 43 yearsa bump that cannot be explained away with aging baby boomers. Especially worrisome is a twelve percent decline in arts attendance among college-educated Americans. The combined loss of endowment and investment income with that of museum attendance by young college-educated visitors creates a far stronger cause for concern. While not the only means of visitation and funding, this group represents the cornerstone of future trustees, overseers, friends, and additionally the group most likely to initiate and sustain museum endowments. How do we engage visitors? is a recurring question for the museum profession. Reach Advisors, an independent museum-consulting group, conducted a survey for a history museum located in the northeastern region of the US that addressed the question of observation versus immersion. Their work began with a childrens visitor survey of history museums during the spring of 2007 and concluded with a targeted members and visitors survey during the winter of 2008 (Reach Advisors Authentic, 25-29). The survey was devoted to determining the target audiences and their interests and requirements. However, for this paper, the most interesting question was what they, the participants in the study, would do, if they could do anything with no restrictions. In

47

response, fifty-three percent of the respondents expressed a desire to live the life, nineteen percents wanted to extend the experience by spending more time in either the day or the night. Similarly, twenty-nine percent of respondents to the Connecticut Cultural Consumer Survey requested more programs/event/exhibits to better serve them (Reach Advisors, Connecticut 11). Traditionally, museums respond to visitors surveys requesting more interaction with more exhibits. Perhaps the response requires a more expansive reading of exhibit to include the museum and its environment. The movement away from museum attendance and the request for a more immersive experience by those attending museums should be a wake-up call. While museums, and most obviously history museums, are dedicated to the preservation of history whether it is object, art, science or history to name a few, it may be less obvious that as the teaching of history in its largest sense, the remembrance of all that has occurred in the past may be occurring primarily at museums. In which case, the idea of actively engaging solely with a group of educated and amateur historians may be outdated and new approaches may be required to engage a visitor of the present for whom unfortunately history has become a luxury. For the history museum audience, who wants to live it, this speaks to a different level of engagement.

Staying Where We Visit Most historic houses will never be museums. Most museums will never rent their historic houses to the public, at least not for accommodation. Most people will never live in an historic house, aside from a stay in a bed and breakfast or historic inn. With that in mind, is it time for US museums to look at the rental of historic property, as is done in the UK, to help maintain and self fund US museum property? As with all institutions, museums require funding and the normal avenues are endowments, government grants, corporate donations, pledge drives, exhibitions,

48

special events, publications, museum shops, and restaurantsto name a few. These funding sources have worked in the past, but are there other means of raising revenue and increasing visitor involvement? Beyond the regular forms of funding, other options exist such as the sale of artifacts or buildings to fund the museum (Robin Pogrebin). Less dramatic, but not without repercussion, is the rental of property to outside sources--residential, commercial, profit, and nonprofit or a combination of these groups (Colonial Williamsburg). A third option is the potential rental of properties on a short-term basis for vacation stays, which might help entice a younger audience to return to the fold. For the sake of this paper, the last option assumes that the general audience visited museums during childhood, but continues to visit them sporadically at best. The rental of historic properties by nonprofits has existed in the UK since the 1960s (Landmark Trust). Does Anyone Live in Old Buildings? A quick look at some numbers may help determine what is old and who lives there. Figure 1 displays visually the numbers gathered during the 2000 Census, which determined that only 8.3 percent of the US housing stock was built before 1920 (These Old Houses: 2001 2).
Figure 1: Population and Historic Housing Units

This chart provides a graphic representation of the 1940 and 2000 census numbers for population and historic housing.

49

As a comparison, the 1940 census reports that the housing stock consisted of 20.6 million housing units built before 1920, but by 2001, the pre-1920 housing stock number was down to 9.8 million (These Old Houses: 2001 17). With the destruction of older housing, it is increasingly difficult to connect with the past in the most fundamental way, literally living in it. According to the US census, the population in 1940 was 132,122,446 and by 2000 it was 281,421,906; thus in 1940, fifteen and six-tenths percent of the population lived in pre-1920s housing stock, while only three and four-tenths percent could claim the same by the year 2000. The breakdown of pre1920s in millions of housing units per region follows: the Northeast 4.3, the Midwest 3.4, the South 1.4, and the West .8. It is worth noting that even though an old house might seem common, it is increasingly a regional phenomenon.

A Theoretical Projection of Institutional Preservation The figures above highlight the ceaseless trend of old housing stock disappearing over time. Historical societies, preservation groups, and history museums preserved or saved a portion of this stock. Another look at numerical data may prove helpful. As of March 2011, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) lists 86,255 places on its website. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) conducted a numerical survey in 2005 and concluded that there were roughly 17,500 museums in the US. The actual total was 18,410 but the IMLS concluded that approximately five percent of the entries were for non-museum organizations (American Association of Museums website). Volume Two of The Official Museum Directory of the American Associations of Museums (AAM) lists over 70 categories of museums with a base of 8,300 entries (AAM website). History museums and historical societies are a segment of the 70

50

categories noted by the Museum Directory and similarly, they are a segment of the number of museums that the IMLS lists at 17,500. For the sake of argument, assume all 17,500 museums are history museums owning and preserving historical buildings, and that each of these museums saves 20 buildings, resulting in 350,000 preserved buildings. If the NRHP totals are included, that brings the total to 436,255, and assuming again, for the sake of argument, that these form part of the total 9.2 million pre-1920s housing units from the 2000 Census, then four and seven-tenths percent of the historic housing stock is in some manner preserved. If the calculation drops numbers from NHRP because they represent building stock that can still be sold and therefore vulnerable to non-preservation factors, the total number of buildings theoretically saved from the uncertainties of the real estate market drops to three and eight-tenths percent. Of course, this is assuming that all museums listed are history museums, which they are not, and that all museums listed preserve buildings, which they do not, so the real number of preserved buildings is in question. Regardless, the number of buildings preserved as museum sites represents a small segment of the overall number of older buildings and the calculation highlights that discrepancy. Figure 2 below provides a visual representation of this numerical calculation.
Figure 2: Theoretical Percentage of Housing Units

Based on the 2000 Census this pie chart presents a graphic view of the theoretical number of historic houses preserved against the general pool of housing units.

51

Although the calculation of numbers above is theoretical, the outcome of this calculation illustrates numerically why The Landmark Trust in the United Kingdom (UK) began. Although the raw numbers for the United Kingdom (UK) might be different from the United States (US), the same dilemma presented itself to museums and historic societies in the UKI.e., how to preserve the historic building stock without bankrupting those same institutions. (For the sake of argument, this paper assumes that historic buildings need to be preserved.) As an initial inquiry, this paper loosely examines two institutions: The Landmark Trust, a UK based charity, and English Heritage, a government funded preservation entity. Several factors pushed this choice to the forefront. The Landmark Trust is a charity, allowing greater parity of comparison, to most US museums and historic properties, which tend to be charitable or nonprofit institutions. Like many US charities, the Trust developed from the vision of an individual or small group to a larger scale and professionally run charity. Its successful growth and continuity of purpose provided the model for other museums and historic preservation groups in the UK; it is the gold standard of the holiday rental scheme. English Heritage has only recently developed a rental program and as such it learned from The Landmark Trust and modified its approach to vacation rentals.

Landmark Trust

Sir John Smith (1923-2007) founded he Landmark Trust in the 1960s. Peter H. Pearce, Director of The Landmark Trust, in a symposium held at the Philadelphia Athenum in December 4-5, 1998, spoke to the beginnings of the Trust. Part of Pearces presentation so well encapsulates the original thinking behind the process, that it is worth quoting in full:

52

The National Trust had its hands full and no money to endow these small, economically unsustainable buildings. Private owners lacked the resources and sometimes the will to look after them. Sir John had the idea that by taking these buildings on and converting them to self-catering holiday accommodation, the problem of endowment could be avoided as the income thus received would pay for their maintenance. Thus the Landmark Trust was born. In the 1960s, the idea of preserving historic buildings by converting them to a new use was quite a new one, and holiday use almost unheard of - the typical holiday cottage was not a distinguished building. Here as in many ways Landmark was to be an innovator, and has now been followed by others. However there was much more to the idea behind the Landmark Trust than simple preservation. Sir John saw that in these post-war decades a whole way of life was being lost, and with it the knowledge of it by following generations. Humble vernacular buildings had lost the agricultural way of life which supported them; industry had moved on from the industrial revolution which gave so many fine buildings; many military buildings had been left high and dry by the reduced or changed needs of the armed forces; the mediaeval half-timbered buildings of Britain were becoming abandoned as too expensive and uncomfortable to live in; banqueting houses, follies and other relics of an aristocratic estate life now vanished were in decay. Sir John saw the opportunity not only to preserve these buildings but to provide a window to the modern generation of adults and children on the way of life which had created them. While people stayed in them, they also provided an income for their upkeep. It is one of the great strengths of the Landmark Trust that now, with 167 buildings, we can say with reasonable safety that expensive though it is to maintain these buildings, this cost is met from holiday lettings and that once restored their future is secure without a supporting endowment.

The Landmark Trust established an alternative to the traditional model of museum and historical preservation, but it did not deviate from the concept that preservation was paramount. Although different from the traditional means of preservation, the Trust sought to augment the field and provide refuge for buildings outside the normal fold of preservation, such as gatehouses, follies, or a farmhouse. Now embraced as part of the culture, during the 1960s some preservationists and museums viewed these vernacular buildings as expendable. It should be remembered that in the 1960s, Victorian era buildings were seen as expendable, unworthy of preservation, much as 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s suburban tract housing is seen in some quarters

53

today. Over the ensuing decades, The Landmark Trust continued to increase its housing portfolio. Part of the success of The Landmark Trust may be due to brand recognition. All decisions are centralized and come from the main office in Shottesbrooke, Maidenhead, Berkshire, UK. The standards and offerings of the Trust are instantly recognizable. The same Furnishings Manager has been in place for thirty years. If any part of the fabric of the buildings needs replacement, similar, if not exact goods, come from the central warehouse. There is no latitude for divergence, which helps to maintain a distinct look within a portfolio of buildings spread throughout England, Wales, France, and Italy; leeway might tarnish the brand. The decisionmaking policy descends through regional managers to 350-plus caretakers and gardeners, and all properties are on a ten-year rolling maintenance plan, centrally directed by a staff of five surveyors (Stanford interview). The Landmark Trust established its own style, which is a carefully constructed product of casual, yet studied English country diffidence. Based on personal observation during a stay at one of the London properties, 43 Cloth Fair, the property is reminiscent of a well-heeled relatives city apartment, nothing ostentatious, but unquestionably a certain type of elegance and expense. As a case in point, all the wallpapers are reprinted William Morris wallpapers, in particular, the living/dining room is a special color reprint to match the last occupants choice of paper, in this case that of Sir John Betjeman, Poet Laureate of England, and a champion of historic preservation. As noted in the handbook provided for the guests as guide to the house and its neighborhood, this paper is a special reprint, as the manufacturer no longer prints the pattern in the color as seen. The hard furnishings are antiques of a better quality and while not period Chippendale tables or chairs, they are better-end nineteenth- and early twentieth-century

54

reproductions. The kitchen is new, up-to-date, and fully stocked with utensils and electrical goods, while the bathroom is reminiscent of any British bathroom of the last fifty years. While up-to-date in most other aspects, the Trust provides no telephones, radios, or televisions, which helps to distance the visitor from the present, but at the same time engulfs some visitors in a knowable sensory past.

English Heritage English Heritage is a semi-autonomous agency created by the British Government in 1984 as its statutory advisor in matters relating to the historic environment and to encourage people to understand, value, care for and enjoy their historic environment (History of English Heritage, EH website 16). With an emphasis on preservation, presentation and education, there is a marked difference between English Heritage and The Landmark Trust. As such, English Heritage views its vacation rentals differently from that of The Landmark Trust. As a government agency, English Heritage is reliant upon an ever-decreasing funding pool, and the push is on to create new areas of revenue growth, with an emphasis on funding sources that contribute to the overall bottom line. An example of English Heritages approach is Mount Grace Priory in Yorkshire, UK, which makes use of outlying buildings as vacation rentals. The background information about Mount Grace Priory comes from a two-day workshop on Preservation and Presentation presented by English Heritage and Oxford University and held at Oxford University from February 8-9, 2011. The presenters used the priory as a case study for a workshop that the author attended. The property is the only Carthusian charterhouse easily accessible to the public and contains the remnants of the priory. A circa 1650 manor house exists, created from parts of the priory and

55

later altered in the Arts and Crafts manner in the 1890s. Additionally, the site includes the remains of the Victorian landscape/gardens. A run of small dependencies forms a wing to the main house. The manor house remains largely underused with rooms of various historic periods, although currently the emphasis is on restoring key rooms to the Arts and Crafts period. The problem for the site is an embarrassment of riches, a rare priory, a rare Commonwealth Manor House (few manor houses were built between1649-1660), and a large unrestored Victorian garden. However, the scale of the property requires constant preservation on a limited and limiting budget, a common problem with most historic sites. With the manor house under-utilized and under-funded, the run of dependencies lay fallow. English Heritage developed these outbuildings, a string of single story structures attached to, but not accessible from, the main house into one vacation rental cottage. Self-contained, the unit provides income, and allows overnight visitors the added benefit of using the Priory ruins and the adjacent land during offhours, thus giving them a night in the museum. Owing to its location in the North Yorkshire Moors and earlier ecclesiastical history some visitors use this vacation rental as a meditative retreat, reestablishing its earlier use. It exists. Use it. Maintaining properties over a large geographic setting provided further insight into the English Heritage rental model. The mission of English Heritage differs from that of The Landmark Trust, so that the use of rental property is as an added resource, not a central feature. English Heritage sees its approach as subsidiary to its overall preservation and presentation policy, whereas for Landmark Trust the preservation and rental feature is more central. Without stretching too much, this can be seen more as what can we offer (English Heritage) rather than this is what we are going to offer (The Landmark Trust). The Landmark Trusts acceptance

56

and development of its branding requirements reflects the unique nature of its charity work. In order to succeed, the visitor/guest needs to immediately understand and recognize where they are and with whom they are staying. Even though The Landmark Trust is a charity, it is operating within a much wider hospitality network and needs to compete in a similar manner, at least from the standpoint of marketing an image or perception of a stay to a perspective visitor. Once booked and checked-in, the visitor/guests expectations must be fulfilled or the first visit will be the only visit. This expectation of results should not be confused with a rejection of the experience, which is not the same thing as unfulfilled expectations. It is a question of fit of experience, not necessarily a question of quality of experience. English Heritage, with its emphasis on the preservation and presentation of historic sites, acts more as a far flung museum with diverse holdings from Stonehenge in Wiltshire to a Cold War Command Center in Yorkshire, than it does as an accommodation agency. The need to create brand identification for a vacation rental does not rise to the level it must with Landmark Trust. The visitor/guest to English Heritages rental selection is choosing it as an additional feature to an existing perception of the institution. As such, the need to centralize the operation is not as paramount as it is with The Landmark Trust. Control rests with the regional offices and the emphasis is on modern comfort, and the amenities that go with that life (i.e. television and telephone service). With only sixteen properties throughout England (English Heritage website), the non-centralized nature of this undertaking may make sense, but if this section of the offerings grows, then English Heritages approach can develop its own problems, such as replacement of furnishings, a regular maintenance schedule, etc., and a more centralized operation may be needed to control a far-flung property portfolio.

57

By adapting The Landmark Trusts existing model of historic preservation/rental, English Heritage moves the rental away from a free standing building in a picturesque setting to a rental in a historic setting. Although still part of a package, the emphasis shifts from the building as the object of desire to the building forming part of the object of desire, illustrating the differences between the two models in their approach to the scale of involvement: estate versus house. The guest of The Landmark Trust preserve a house through use, while the guest of English Heritage helps to preserve a building within a setting, which may be a building attached to historic gardens, such as the Pool House at Witley Court, Yorkshire or a group of buildings such as Mount Grace Priory. English Heritage focuses on the conversion of existing properties, eliminating the need to tender offers from outside sources and freeing staff time for existing property development. The culling of properties still exists, but English Heritage minimizes the years that The Landmark Trust devotes to vetting new properties by working with what it has rather than what it offers. Certainly, it helps English Heritage that it has a substantial catalog of buildings and estates, but it also needs to maintain these holdings while not in use, Mount Grace Priory is an example of the scope of maintaining an entire estate. This is not the case for Landmark Trust, which only maintains what it rents. The emphasis on conversion of underused properties by English Heritage rather than properties of character by The Landmark Trust helps to diminish the need to brand for English Heritage that otherwise drives The Landmark Trust model of historic vacation rental. The property development of English Heritage forms part of an existing historic package or framework. The object of the rental is to help preserve and use otherwise dormant buildings, but an additional attraction for the guest is the ability to stay in the museum or historic setting afterhours. While this is the primary model for English Heritage, The Landmark Trust uses this

58

model as well with such properties as Hill House in Helensburgh, Scotland, and Fish Court, a former grace and favor apartment, at Hampton Court Palace, England, allowing guests some afterhours site access. The ability to temporarily reside in an historic setting can provide a more relaxed and perhaps fuller appreciation of the surroundings. The visitor may have the leisure to experience more than would occur during a ticket visit. Other Senses An unforeseen aspect of this inquiry into use of space was the way in which the visitor becomes part of the space and how this affects the senses. The use of historic properties for vacation rental was the basis of my masters thesis. My wife and I stayed at two of the The Landmark Trust properties, the first time, 43 Cloth Fair, London, as part of the research into The Landmark Trust and the second time--Cawood Castle, York, England, after graduation and the first non-working vacation in several years.

59

St. Bartholomew the Great, London http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:St_Bartholomew_the_great_churchyard.JPG

The London property mentioned earlier is located in the Smithfield section of the city. It sits across the road from St. Bartholomews Church (12th Century), and an alleyway separates it from its next-door neighbor, a building purported to be a survivor of the fire of 1666. The first floor is commercial and the top two floors are residential. The building is an example of an eighteenth-century, mixed-use, urban building. This area of London, although much altered by the Second World War and the subsequent rebuilding, retains some of the footprint of the old City with a warren of narrow meandering roads. Relatively speaking, this is an old urban area with an established commercial, rather than residential, footprint, congested during the workweek and

60

nearly deserted on the weekend--much like the financial districts of any city. The unforeseen sensory event of this site was the scheduled, but not weekly, ringing of the bells. Although we stayed across the street from one church and passed several every day on our walks, including St. Pauls Cathedral, we never expected what greeted us on Saturday eveninga traveling clarion. We elected to use buses on this particular trip and on Saturday evening, laden with groceries, we disembarked from a bus at the St. Pauls stop. We were immediately struck with sound of the bells from St. Vedast Foster Lane and, as it happened, the bells of St Bartholomew-the-Great. It really was a shock, as the force of the peals bounced from all the hard surfaces of the city--stone, brick, cement, and glass--then into us. Bells had been ringing for centuries in this location and as we walked back to the apartment, the sound modified as one set of bells began to over take the other. As the road meandered, the clarity of the peel determined our proximity to the center of the parish, and the rigidity of the perceived map became fuzzy. When we reached the apartment, I lingered in the alley by the apartment door. St. Barts bell tower was across the street from me, and the reverberation of the great bell went through me in waves. The sound of the bell passed through me as it had through countless inhabitants of this section of London for hundreds of years, and the thought that came to mind as I stood there that Saturday evening was that understanding the continuity of history may hinge on more than words. Cawood Castle is located in Cawood, England about 15 miles south of York. At one time, it was a country residence of the Archbishop of York, but over time, the castle has dwindled to a gatehouse with an attached hall to one side and a substantial eighteenth-century house to the other side. The hall is an empty two-story shell and used for village ftes, while the gatehouse is three stories tall with the two-story living quarters located over the ground level castle entrance.

61

Modern conveniences were sandwiched between the gatehouse and its eighteenth-century neighbor. Access to the second floor and living quarters is via a wide staircase, constructed

The stairwell with a rope banister (authors photo)

to convert the gatehouse into a local court building during the eighteenth-century. Once in the living quarters, accessing the top floor, roof and bathrooms is by way of the medieval circular stone stairs. The diameter of this staircase is approximately 7 feet and with a central spine, creating a very tight and steep set of stairs. Secured at the top of the stairs, a rope banister freely drops to the ground and provides the only means of hand support. The staircase comprises three stories, but electric light only exists between the top two floors. During daylight hours, several glazed wall slits provide more light, allowing use of the entire staircase. We stayed at Cawood

62

A view of a slit window lighting the staircase (authors photo)

during the winter, and at the beginning of the stay this staircase proved daunting, as the treads were narrow, the banister, if used, moved with every step of the climb or descent, and the landings in front of doors seemed more of an after thought than a design component.

63

Two landings on the stairwell (authors photo)

However, by the end of the stay the stairs were not a challenge, as we adapted how we moved from large heated living spaces to a narrow, dark, cold stairway. While not earth shattering, it did provide a glimpse into movement, which became apparent at the end of our trip when we climbed the tower at York Cathedral. The scale was slightly different, but the requirements were the same, as were design elements such as slit windows and modified landings for rest and the passage of faster climbers. The repetitive use of the staircase turned into a lesson on movement and space from an earlier period. Staying in both buildings allowed us to slacken

64

our pace and inhabit the space. At each site, The Landmark Trust provides a small well-stocked library allowing visitors to investigate the history of their buildings and surrounding environment.

Does It Work? From the standpoint of the UK experience, the question as to whether or not the vacation rental scheme works, would seem to be, yes it does. Given the level of government involvement in other aspects of British life, one of the more successful preservation groups, based on its survival and growth over a fifty-year span, is the nonprofit The Landmark Trust. The origins of the Trust began with the preservation of the obscure, the unwanted, the utilitarian, and the oddity. The Landmark Trust provides an example of reacting to a perceived loss of history by moving beyond the confines of conventional thinking. The Landmark Trust began to preserve the odd structures: farmsteads, follies, and small houses seen at the time as unimportant either to the historic record or, aside from living history museums, museums in general. In the past, museums collected the interiors, and even the edifices of the important and the historically well-placed building. The collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston contain important American interiors, while the Victorian and Albert Museum in London displays an important sixteenth century London faade. Historic preservation for art museum depends on scale as much as any other criteria, and not without reason; one building can only hold a building or room of smaller scale than its galleries. The preservation of a historic building presents perpetual challenges to the budget and programs of museums that are almost organic in nature and reminiscent of the upkeep faced by zoos and botanical gardens. Time does not stand still to the onslaught of nature. Most museums have limited budgets that preclude spending money on the upkeep of property of dubious worth and without some

65

meaningful purpose; these superfluous buildings begin the spiral of decay. Daniel Cruickshank, a leading British historian and preservationist, noted in a recent interview, No house, unless it has a sound use, is ever truly safe (Wright 77). It seems odd that given the success rate of historic vacation rentals in the UK, that the same market in the US is almost nonexistent. The Landmark Trust did initiate a program in Vermont in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but that program devolved from them by the early 2000s, and after twenty years developed only four properties in a thirty-mile geographic spread. While a laudable effort, it appears to have a regional outlook, and provides scant influence on the growth of the system in this country. Colonial Williamsburg operates hotels as a means of hosting visitors and even its historic house rentals are extensions of its hotel network, with all the services and the restrictions of a hotel (Williamsburg Accommodation website). It seems that the UK import that succeeded best was the Bed and Breakfast (B&B), an experience that provides the charm of staying in the hosts house with the comforts of limited hotel service. However, from a service standpoint the host is more of an innkeeper than they are a householder renting a bedroom for a night or two. The preparation of a daily breakfast and housekeeping duties is an investment in labor, which may partially explain the growth of private bed and breakfasts in historic areas as opposed to the development of this mode of accommodation by museums. Beyond the scope of this paper, an area for future research may be that of the seasonal lodge system provided by the National Park Service. The examples of The Landmark Trusts slow, but steady growth of historic preservation, renovation, and accommodation provides a working model to other nonprofit organizations. Undeniably, this example began with a consistent and steady cash flow, which most organizations may not have. However, the example of success in the field only helps to establish the credibility

66

of the concept, both from an implementation and from a fiscal standpoint. The careful selection of historic property for accommodation purposes requires market analysis and understanding. By paying attention to these details, The Landmark Trust ensures that its branding enhances and links to its mission, creating a viable niche market. English Heritage takes this concept one step further with its model of the bolt on vacation rental to its holdings. By developing buildings that are already in its portfolio, the rental scheme enhances the visitors experience and adds to the cash flow of the organization. Both organizations developed their vacation rental schemes over a large geographic area as befits the intent and holdings of the organizations. That said, both models show how existing structures can be used by other museums to create vacation rentals. The Landmark Trusts Hill House in Scotland provides the example of a historic house museum that allows vacation rental of a portion of its rooms, and by doing so provides the public with an opportunity to immerse itself in the authentic work of an iconic world class architect. English Heritage demonstrates the use of auxiliary buildings for vacation rental purposes, and in so doing preserves structures that required upkeep but no useful outcome. The research into using museum space in this manner resulted from a question posed in a private conversation several years ago, which was how to use dormant museum buildings to the publics and the museums benefit. Initial research explored some of the traditional uses of fallow museum space, such as concerts, meetings, and special events, but those solutions made use of the space for a limited amount of time. After the conversation, several thoughts came to mind: the visitor surveys that spoke to the publics desire for a more immersive experience, the declining attendance figures for some museums, and at the time the construction of new housing at the expense of historic housing. The notion of staying overnight in a museum seemed to provide one model for this question of how to better use dormant museum space. The UK

67

provides successful examples of one type of accommodation model, that of the vacation rental, as opposed to the traditional housekeeper, innkeeper, or hotelkeeper model. Additionally, it presents a model of vacation that is historically American, e.g., the weekly or weekend house rental at the ocean, on the lake, or in the mountains, that forms the basis of many family seasons and memories. The ability to stay on the museum grounds and in a museum property engages the museum visitor in a fundamentally different way than any other museum program. Some of the authenticity of the experience involves the sensory relationship of the visitor to the building. The authenticity of the architecture and setting provides the immersion of the present with the past. The sound of a creaking floor, slightly askew doors, windows and rooms of an older scale, the smell of old plaster and wood, and the surrounding sensory environment can add to an appreciation of the site beyond the traditionally supplied details. Decidedly atmospheric, but not necessarily theatrical or inauthentic, it may help answer part of the call for an immersive experience. The tactile senses help visitors navigate existing sites; enhancing this experience may provide visitors with further insight. Certainly, this is not a panacea for the question of what to do with dormant museum space, but rather it may be a starting point to an answer. The model works in the UK; the model has worked for over a century in family vacation destinations in the US. The UK models of The Landmark Trust and English Heritage provide examples of established nonprofits working within the confines of their missions, and with the active engagement of their staffs, to preserve for and allow the use by the public of historic houses for vacation rentals. The question of viability for US museums rests on the ability and desire of these organizations to underwrite historic rental conversion as means of historic preservation of its buildings, and at the same time engage the pubic in a different manner.

68

Bibliography http://www.aam-us.org/aboutmuseums/abc.cfm (2/19/2011) Website. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/h121-04-1.pdf , These Old Houses (1/24/2011) Website. http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt (1/24/2011) Website. http://www.colonialwilliamsburgresort.com/hotels/deluxe/colonialhouses (12/7/2009) Website. www.english-heritage.org#90398F (2/26/2011) Website. Landmark Trust Handbook, Shottesbrook, Maidenhead, Berkshire: Landmark Trust, 1972. Print Landmark Trust Handbook, Shottesbrook, Maidenhead, Berkshire: Landmark Trust, 2009. Print. http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/ (12/07/2009) http://www.landmarktrust.org.uk/pdf/autumn_newsletter_2007.pdf (2/19/2011) Website. Pearce Peter, Director of Landmark trust talk Dec 4-5, 1998 symposium. http://www.philaathenaeum.org/hmuseum/pearce.htm (2/19/2011) Website. Pemberton Mark, Head of the National Collections Group, English Heritage. Email Interview, February-March 2011. Pogrebin Robin Small Town, Big Word, Major Issue. December 27, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/arts/design/28librarian.html?_r=1 (1/20/2011) Website. Reach Advisors. Authentic Respite from an Unreal World: The Resonance of Outdoor History Museums. April 2008. Print and PDF. Reach Advisors. Connecticut Cultural Consumers Study, Executive Summary, February 2009. Print. Stanford Caroline, Historian of Landmark Trust Interviewed on Wednesday February 9, 2011 in Oxford, UK. SzntAndrs. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Will-US-museums-succeed-inreinventing-themselves?%20/20030 (1/20/2011) Website. Wright, Jonathan. Country House Revealed. BBC History Magazine. 12.5 (2011) 77. Print.

69