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 WoodChair, Publications Committee

Table of Contents

IntroductionDane Morrison, President of the New England Historians Association…………………………..3

John Fisher's Remarkable Treatment in the American RevolutionTom 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 MerchantsSandra Rux, Curator John Paul Jones House……………………………………………………..16

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

Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It?Jeffrey Hopper……………………………………………………………………………………46

2

Introduction

Every spring for nearly fifty years, historians throughout New England have observed a cherished academic tradition—the 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’: London’s 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. MorrisonPresident, New England Historical AssociationProfessor of Early American History, Salem State University

3

John Fisher's Remarkable Treatment in the American RevolutionTom 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 Queen’s 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

4

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 family’s

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 Queen’s Chapel and named for his father, who was still in England at the time.

Anna was probably still living in her parent’s grand mansion, just down the hill from the church.

Five months later, Mark Hunking Wentworth, concerned for his daughter’s 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

5

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 King’s 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 brother-

in-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 twenty-

two-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

7

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

8

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:

9

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

Fisher’s 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.

14

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 1680’s 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 Newfoundland—given 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

15

and station in life, although he was literate and able to keep the accounts for his business.

Surviving receipts are nearly illegible—fortunately 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 year—the 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).

16

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 Margery’s 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 Indians—first King Philip’s War in 1676 and then King William’s War from 1689-1699

—decimated 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 Pepperrell’s house was designated as a garrison for Kittery Point.

Queen Anne’s 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 mother’s 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

17

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

18

sloops traded with the West Indies during 1705—Olive, Merrimac, and Nonesuch. Sloop Miriam

was assigned to trading goods with the scattered North Carolina population—buying 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 Anne’s 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 King’s 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 Frost—members 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...."

19

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

Newfoundland—which was almost entirely dependent upon New England merchants for supplies

—to 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 fleet—6

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

20

One of Pepperell’s 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

21

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 Pepperrell’s 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

22

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 News-

Letter reported that he arrived with a lioness cub four months old that ate only live animals–dogs,

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,

23

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 leather—and 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 1725—it would seem milling one's

own lumber was not as profitable as expected.

24

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

25

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.

26

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.

27

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.

28

“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.

Mary’s 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

29

1. John Hose, c. 1773Connecticut Historical Society, Object Number: 1953.16.0a,bMary 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

30

case of women’s 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,

31

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

strong guild and the generational family involvement. Many are known to us now only through

32

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

College, Blackheath, after the shoe business had failed in the late 1790s. A thorough record of his

33

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 Hose’s 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

long hours were hardly unusual and this is supported by contemporary accounts.lxv Further, he

34

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 “turn’d 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 person’s 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 cordwainer’s life from another seemingly mundane

document in the Hose family papers. John Hose’s 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.

Hose’s 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

clientele and certainly had abundant knowledge of the destination of his products. Although only

35

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

He carefully measured the foot and the lower leg for boots--“according to Mr. Didsbury’s

Directions.” Boots were one of the most important and expensive items in a man's wardrobe,

36

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 women’s 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:

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

37

shoes…which 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 Hamilton’s 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 women’s

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

women’s shoes fabricated using materials found in the Colonies. Thomas F. Pierce & Son, based

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

38

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 day’s labor to purchase a pair of shoes. Shoe buckles cost

(again this is a very limited sampling) approximately half a day’s work for the silver-plated

variety. A published broadside with a price list from Philadelphia in 1790 is consistent with these

costs: good men’s 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]

39

2. “A List of Prices of Boots and Shoes, & c….1790”Philadelphia Master Cordwainers Price List, broadsideNote 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.

40

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 1770-

1775, 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. 1770Charleston MuseumEliza Pinckney light blue satin shoes with metallic braid

http://charlestonmuseum.tumblr.com/post/3701726426#.UkF1Bxbm6uk

41

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

42

Smithfield 1827 from John Greenwood’s maphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smithfield_1827.jpeg

Tactile History Surrounds Us, But Do We Sense It?Jeffrey Hopper

43

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 (András

Szántó). If finances were the only reason for concern, then there might be some sense in

weathering the economic storm, but as András Szántó states in his January 2010 article on

museum attendance, “The median age of visitors has shot up since 1982, from 36 to 43 years—a

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 children’s 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

44

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 visitor’s 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,

45

special events, publications, museum shops, and restaurants—to 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.

46

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 pre-

1920s 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

47

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.

48

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 UK—I.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 Athenæum in

December 4-5, 1998, spoke to the beginnings of the Trust. Part of Pearce’s presentation so well

encapsulates the original thinking behind the process, that it is worth quoting in full:

49

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

50

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 decision-

making 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 relative’s

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

51

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 Heritage’s 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

52

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 un-

restored 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 off-

hours, 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 Trust’s acceptance

53

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/guest’s 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 Heritage’s 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 Heritage’s 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.

54

By adapting The Landmark Trust’s 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

55

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 master’s 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.

56

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. Bartholomew’s 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

57

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.

Paul’s Cathedral, we never expected what greeted us on Saturday evening—a 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. Paul’s 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. Bart’s 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 fêtes, while the gatehouse is three

stories tall with the two-story living quarters located over the ground level castle entrance.

58

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 (author’s 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

59

A view of a slit window lighting the staircase (author’s 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.

60

Two landings on the stairwell (author’s 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

61

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 façade. 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

62

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 host’s 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 Trust’s 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

63

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 visitor’s 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 Trust’s 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

public’s and the museum’s 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 public’s 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

64

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.

65

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.

SzántóAndrás. http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Will-US-museums-succeed-in-reinventing-themselves?%20/20030 (1/20/2011) Website.

Wright, Jonathan. “Country House Revealed.” BBC History Magazine. 12.5 (2011) 77. Print.

66

i Gentleman’s Magazine, volume 31 (1761), p. 238.ii 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 King’s Representative: Benning Wentworth, Colonial Governor, 1741-1767.” Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1961, p.146.v 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 Loyalistsxii 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.3xxvii 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 Gentleman’s Magazine vol. 97 (1805), p. 588.

xxxiv Neil Rolde, Sir William Pepperrell of Colonial New England (Brunswick ME, 1981), 2-3.xxxv 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 Drew’s 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 Macpheadris’s 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 F81liii Dudley Stoddard Collection, Portsmouth Athenaeum, Letter from John Wentworth to Archibald Macpheadris Jan 19, 1722, MS107 B01 F40.liv Fairchild, op. cit., 102.lv Connecticut Historical Society, Object Number 1953.16.0a,b

lvi The author is indebted to the research contributions of two Hose descendants, Linda Pardoe and Colin Michael 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.

lviii 4. D.A. Saguto has annotated and republished M. De Garsault’s 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 Williamsburg’s website are especially useful.

lx Robert Campbell, “The London Tradesman” (1747), in Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker, 2.

lxi Hose Family documents suggest a date of about 1699 for John Hose’s birth, based on Church records. He married

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. Hose’s 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.

lxv Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker.

lxvi Saguto, Art of the Shoemaker.

lxvii Petition to Morden College, from Thomas Hose, City of London. Hose Family Papers. Underline by author.

lxviii Edward Shippen, Philadelphia, To J. Didsbury, London, order for shoes September 7, 1767. Ms1989.10Microfilm, M-

1561. http://research.history.org/JDRLibrary/Special_Collections/SpecialCollectionsDocs/MiscShippen.cfm

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

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

lxxi The Act Laying Duties on Imports was communicated by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton to the 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 Shoes…Philadelphia 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 MackenzieThis 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 PeacockUseful cornucopia of styles & types

Women's Shoes in America, 1795-1930, Nancy RexfordA 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 SwanA 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.