The William Trent House Preservation Plan

Home , B29 (New York City bus), Calhoun Street Bridge, Charles Conrad Abbott, Edward Burd, Hammerstone, William Biles

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings and Grounds July 2021 Acknowledgements Funding for this report was provided, in large part, through the New Jersey Historic Trust’s Preserve New Jersey Grant Program. This program is extraordinarily important for the documentation and preservation of New Jersey’s historic resources. The team wishes to thank the staff and board members of The William Trent House and its Association who were very helpful in providing information about and access to this National Historic Landmark. In particular, we would like to thank the President of the Trent House Association, Princess Hoagland; Association Treasurer, Sam Stephens, PhD; Association Trustee, Kevin Joy; and Shawn Carney, Docent and Researcher. In addition, we would like to thank the City of Trenton for their support, especially Maria Richardson, the Director of the Department of Recreation, Natural Resources and Culture; and Randy Baum, formerly with the City and now with the consulting firm BRS, Inc.

Consultant Team

Clarke Caton Hintz; Architecture, Planning, Landscape Architecture, Historic Preservation

• John D. S. Hatch, FAIA, Principal-in-Charge • Michael Hanrahan, AIA, Project Manager • Melissa McMullen, Graphics • Sin Thach, Site Assessment Hunter Research; Cultural Resource Consulting and Archaeology • Richard Hunter, PhD, Principal-in-Charge • Patricia Madrigal, Publications Director • Jim Lee, Principal Archaeologist • Evan Mydlowski, GIS/ Graphic Specialist Princeton Engineering Group; MEP/ FP Engineers • Ira Guterman, PE, Principal-in-Charge • Richard Olszewski, Project Manager Harrison Hamnett; Structural Engineers • John Harrison, PE, Principal-in-Charge Becker & Frondorf; Cost Estimators • John Frondorf, Principal-in-Charge

2 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan

Preface: I. Executive Summary 5 Table of Contents II. Introduction 11

Part 1: Site and Building History and Development: III. Historical Overview 17

IV. Archaeological Overview 47

V. Site and Landscape Overview 71

Part 2: Treatment and Use: VI. Treatment Philosophy 79

VII. Architectural Description & Recommendations 85

VIII. Site Description and Recommendations 119

IX. Use & Interpretation of the Historic Resources 127

X. Code & Accessibility Review 135

XI. Structural Evaluation 145

XII. Building Systems Evaluation 147

XIII. Summary of Interpretive & Admin. Recommendations 171

XIV. Prioritized Recommendations 177

Appendices: Appendix 1: History of The William Trent House 185

Appendix 2: Archaeology

Appendix 3: Measured Drawings

Appendix 4: Cost Estimate

Appendix 5: Maintenance Plan

Appendix 6: Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment

Appendix 7: Glossary

References

July 2021 3 Aerial drone photograph of the South elevation of The William Trent House; courtesy of Hunter Research (view facing north)

4 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Executive Summary Preface: Introduction:

The subject of this Preservation Plan is The William Trent House in Trenton, New Jersey. In addition to the house itself, the report addresses the current Visitor Center, the grounds and the built features I. Executive located around the site. The William Trent House is a National Historic Landmark, recognized for Summary its associations with William Trent, a wealthy and prominent immigrant to Philadelphia and the nominal founder of what is now the City of Trenton. However, the site has many other significant associations, including thousands of years of Native American activity, an important role during the American Revolution, housing several New Jersey Governors, and as an estate in a rapidly changing and ultimately industrial part of the city. The many stories embodied by the buildings and grounds of The William Trent House can provide compelling insight into Trenton’s, New Jersey’s and, indeed, the nation’s history.

General Description

The William Trent House, constructed 1719-1721, is considered to be one of the finest examples of Georgian residential architecture in the Delaware Valley and indeed one of the finest in the United States. At one time one of the largest private residences in West Jersey, it is an imposing, 2 1/2 story symmetrical building capped with a reconstructed cupola that is a notable landmark in downtown Trenton. Designed as a free-standing architectural object in a garden, it has two main entry facades (south and north), although all four principal elevations were carefully designed and constructed. Detail showing the Trent House with its kitchen wing The south and north elevations have five, symmetrical bays, allowing for impressive central entries on from the Daniel W. Coxe map of Trenton, c. 1804 (view these two main facades. facing south)

The interior of the house is also symmetrical with a central hall and rooms arranged to either side. There is a large entry hallway and staircase and four rooms on each floor. Many of the interior features are original, including the stairway and floor boards. The nine fireplaces and cellar kitchen hearth are all in good condition, with one fireplace on the second floor surrounded by its original delft tiles.

The interior walls were plastered over oak plank and lath and then whitewashed. The plaster was restored in the 1930s restoration, and original finishes reapplied during the restoration of the early 2000s.

July 2021 5 The Visitor Center was likely built in the 1890s as a carriage house by Edward H. Stokes. It was then extensively renovated and reconfigured as a caretaker’s cottage during the 1934 restoration project. In the early 2000s, the building was again renovated and reconfigured on the interior as a isitorV Center with administrative offices on the second floor. The current building reflects the original massing and, to a certain extent, the original window and door opening configuration from the 1890s, but the exterior was redesigned in the Colonial Revival style. The goal of the 1934 project was to make the Victorian carriage house fit the contemporary vision of colonial architecture.

Originally situated on 800 acres purchased from Mahlon Stacy, Jr. in 1714, The William Trent House began as the domestic focus of a country estate established by a wealthy Philadelphia merchant. In the ensuing 300 years, the site has gone through many fascinating changes as it has experienced important events (notably, the Revolutionary War) and momentous economic changes (the Industrial East elevation of the Carriage House/Visitor Center Revolution and the decline of American cities from the 1950s - 1990s). Now about two-and-a-half (view facing west) acres, the site configuration largely reflects the work of the Stokes family from 1861-1929, while also embodying aspects of the mid-1930s WPA Colonial Revival project to restore the house and grounds, and then subsequent efforts, particularly in a series of restorations in the early 2000s, to reconfigure and interpret the site to reflect a number of periods. The grounds include a few mature trees dating back to and pre-dating the 1934 restoration, plantings from the restoration in the early 2000s, brick walls and other built features (including a reconstructed well-head and ice house) that reflect both the site’s 18th and 19th-century history, and the Colonial Revival restoration in the 1930s.

Purpose and Scope of this Report:

In 1997, Susan Maxman Architects (SMA) completed a comprehensive Historic Structures Report for The William Trent House, including extensive historical research, detailed conditions assessments of the building and its historic features, and recommendations for interpretation and restoration of the house. In 2006, SMA designed the restoration of the house, removing the most obvious “Colonial Revival” intrusions into the historic features of the house and site, in particular furnishings, window treatments, the Colonial Revival Gardens, etc.; and providing a much more accurate depiction of the house in its earliest days.

While this was a comprehensive renovation project in many ways, certain aspects of The William Trent House were not addressed at that time. In particular, the HVAC system, which had been installed in the mid-1980s, was adjusted and left in place. This system has now reached the end of its The main pedestrian entry gate from William Trent Place (view facing east) useful life and needs replacement. The building experiences wide swings in temperature and humidity, and the system occasionally fails altogether.

6 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Also renovated during the restoration in the early 2000s, the former carriage house then caretaker’s cottage became the Visi- tor Center that today includes administrative offices on the upper floor. Not interpreted as a historic structure, rather it has been used for a variety of functions, including meetings, presentations, exhibits, and the gift store. The building, like the Trent House itself, is in relatively good condition, although there are some roof leaks and HVAC issues that need to be addressed.

The current site configuration largely reflects the recommendations and design work completed by SMA, allowing for a wide range of interpretive opportunities, from its construction by William Trent through the colonial revival “restoration.”

As described by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, the goal of a preservation plan is to “assess and guide the effects of a proposed treatment or construction-related capital project on the existing fabric of a property.” To that end, this document identifies a number of conditions in each of the structures and on the grounds that should be addressed in order to preserve, better use and better interpret these important, historic resources. This plan will, among other things, make prioritized recommendations for addressing these various issues, and propose short, mid and long-term changes that will help sustain and tell the story of this extraordinary site.

Prior Studies and Reports:

There have been extensive studies of The William Trent House in recent years. These include:

• Historic Documentation and Strategic Planning Recommendations for The William Trent House, by Susan Maxman Architects 1/1/1997 (Volume I. Strategic Planning Recommendations, Interpretive Programming and Physical Planning; Volume II. History and Archaeological Management Plan; and Volume III. Evaluation of Existing Conditions and Preser- vation Recommendations) • Restoration of The William Trent House, Outline Specifications 2/28/2000 Susan Maxman Architects • Technical Specification for Asbestos Abatement and Related Work at The William Trent House by USA Environmental Management, Inc. 12/2000 • Restoration of The William Trent House, Susan Maxman Architects, Contract Documents 2/2001, revised 9/1/2001 • Electrical and Lighting Plans for The William Trent House, Susan Maxman Architects 2/16/01 Revised 4/11/2003 • Restoration of The William Trent House Project Manual Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Susan Maxman Architects, revised 9/10/2001 and 11/18/2001 • Final Report- Asbestos Abatement Activities at The William Trent House Carriage House, by USA Environmental Manage- ment, Inc. 10/2001 • Restoration of The William Trent House Bid Documents 4/23/2004 by Susan Maxman Architects for City of Trenton De- partment of Natural Resources, Recreation and Culture

July 2021 7 • Restoration of The William Trent House Accessibility Report, Susan Maxman Architects 7/07/2004 • Restoration of The William Trent House Project Manual, Landscape Construction Master Plan, Susan Maxman Architects 12/15/2005 • Restoration of The William Trent House Project Manual, Masonry Restoration/ Phase I Work, SMP Architects 7/25/2007 • William Trent House Exterior Lighting Plans, The Lighting Practice 2/01/2011 There are also extensive drawings available at the Trent House, including existing condition and design drawings from the 1934- 1936 restoration, as well as drawings from various major and minor renovation campaigns, and concept plans for how the site should fit with larger redevelopment plans in that part of the City.

There have also been numerous archaeological studies on the property extending over a quarter of a century. These are summarized in Chapter IV.

Recommended Treatment Philosophy:

The preservation philosophy for the historic buildings, site and other features at The William Trent House starts with the assumption that all work should be planned, designed and executed in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. That being said, the different historic resources at The William Trent House site should be treated in individual yet interrelated ways.

The William Trent House:

Given the house’s landmark status, its history of restoration and interpretation to its original form in 1934-1936, and the subsequent restoration work that was completed in 2006-2007 and more recently, the appropriate, overall treatment for the house qualifies as “preservation.” This treatment emphasizes the stabilization, repair and maintenance of the important historic features, while permitting sensitive improvements and upgrades to mechanical systems, access and other aspects needed for safety, etc. As the building’s use (museum) is not expected to change, preservation is the appropriate treatment.

The Visitor Center:

Constructed as a carriage house, then renovated and reconfigured as a caretaker’s cottage, and then renovated once again as a Visitor Center with multiple functions, including public orientation, gift shop, exhibits, presentations and offices, the appropriate treatment for this resource is “rehabilitation.” This treatment “...is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.” The use of the Visitor Center will need to remain flexible over time, and a “rehabilitation” treatment philosophy allows this to happen in an appropriate way. Rehabilitation will allow the existing materials and

8 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan character-defining features to remain while allowing for compatible new uses and respectful reconfigurations. Clearly, even in these rehabilitation zones, all efforts should be made to retain as much of the surviving original and historic fabric as possible.

The Grounds:

For the grounds and their character-defining features, the recommended treatment is generally “rehabilitation”, with certain features, including the well head, the ice house and the brick wall, warranting “preservation” as their primary treatment approach. It should be noted that portions of the grounds are extremely sensitive and significant from an archaeological point of view. This topic is discussed in greater detail in Chapter IV, along with recommendations for how to approach construction and other activities on the grounds.

Recommended Use:

The buildings and grounds of The William Trent House have been used as a museum since its first restoration in 1936. This is one of the uses, which included “...public library, an historical museum and art gallery, or any or all of them ...,” required by the terms of the Stokes family donation of the property to the City of Trenton in 1929. It is the intention of the Trent House Association and the City of Trenton to continue to use the site, and especially the house itself, as a museum for the foreseeable future, although the Association in particular is seeking to expand how the site is used and understood. The long term goal is to make the general public aware that important archival collections relating to the history of the house and the City of Trenton are also housed at the site.

The house itself, the Visitor Center, the site and its features provide an extraordinary array of historic and archaeological resources that represent many fascinating aspects of Trenton’s, New Jersey’s and indeed the nation’s history. The current Mission Statement for the house was recently revised to better reflect the opportunities provided by the site’s full history: “To share the authentic history of the house, property, and people with our communities, connecting the past with today and tomorrow.” This new mission statement, combined with the revised Vision Statement (“Pursuing truths to impact the future”) is now closely aligned with the findings of this report which underscores the many inspiring stories that can be told at The illiamW Trent House. As these stories are told and effectively interpreted, the City and the Association can anticipate expanded interest and more diverse visitation.

Owners and Stewards:

The City of Trenton owns and maintains The William Trent House site, including the Museum, the Visitor Center and the grounds, and funds docent/tour guide services. The Trent House Association manages the site, working in cooperation with the City to identify site maintenance and repair needs. The Association also furnishes the Museum, develops permanent and rotating exhibits, conducts and funds research, designs and maintains the kitchen garden and orchard, supports the Museum website, and conducts public programs and events.

July 2021 9 View of the east elevation, with the reconstructed well head to the right (view facing to the northwest)

10 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Introduction Statement of Significance:

The William Trent House property was designated a National Historic Landmark and accepted into the National Register of Historic Places on April 15, 1970 (NR Reference #: SG100000827). It II. Introduction was accepted into the New Jersey Register of Historic Places just over a year later on May 27, 1971. Formal documentation in support of this status was not completed until 1975 and amounts to seven brief descriptive paragraphs, a three-paragraph historical narrative and a four-sentence statement of significance, all compiled into a six-page document accompanied by five photographs. These materials do not do justice to such an important historic property, one of the most consequential in the entire Delaware Valley.

The 1970s National Register documentation identifies The William Trent House as being historically significant in the area of architecture within the period 1700-1799, characterizing the house as a“ distinguished example of an early Georgian house designed in the William and Mary or Queen Anne style.” Early National Register nominations such as these did not attempt to justify the significance of a property with reference to the four eligibility criteria which would soon be routinely used to measure historical value and the appropriateness of including a particular resource in the federal government’s official list of historic places deemed worthy of preservation.

In truth, by 2021 evaluative standards, the Trent House’s National Register documentation is woefully Interior of one of the primary rooms on the first floor of inadequate. The significance of this property in Trenton and Delaware Valley history is unsurpassed The William Trent House, June 2020 and deserving of a comprehensive analysis that is beyond the scope of this preservation plan. Suffice it to say that The William Trent House likely will meet all four of the National Register’s criteria of evaluation, with the quality of significance residing in the property, as follows, under:

> Criterion A, for association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, e.g., early European settlement in the Delaware Valley; the foundation of the City of Trenton; the American Revolution (including the Battles of Trenton and involvement with later campaigns); the industrial development of Trenton; the transition from a plantation economy to an industrial economy; and the urban growth of Trenton;

> Criterion B, association with the lives of persons significant in our past, e.g., Mahlon Stacy, William Trent, George Thomas, Lewis Morris, John Cox, Philemon Dickerson, Joseph Wood and Rodman Price;

July 2021 11 > Criterion C, embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or representation of the work of a master, or possession of high artistic values, or representation of a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, e.g., as seen in the Georgian and Colonial Revival architectural and landscape treatments of the Trent House and its surrounding grounds; and

> Criterion D, for yielding or being likely to yield information important in prehistory or history, e.g., as seen in the demonstrated presence of prehistoric, Contact period, colonial, Revolutionary War and late 18th/19th-century archaeological resources.

Furthermore, The William Trent House’s significance likely extends across multiple periods from at least the prehistoric Archaic period some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago through the 1930s and touches multiple potential areas of significance, including prehistoric and historic archaeology, architecture, First floor hallway of the William Trent House (view commerce, exploration/settlement, industry, landscape architecture, military and politics/ facing south) government.

Description of Methodology:

The architecture firm of Clarke Caton Hintz, located in Trenton, New Jersey, was responsible for the coordination of the Preservation Plan with John Hatch, FAIA, serving as the Partner in Charge and Michael Hanrahan, AIA, as Project Manager. Scott Hicks and Benjamin Nicolson, AIA were members of the conditions assessment team.

The cultural resource consulting firm of Hunter Research, also located in Trenton, completed the extensive historical research included in this report, as well as the archaeological assessment. In addition, they provided extensive editorial assistance throughout the document and authored Chapters III and IV, as well as Appendices 1 and 2. Their team was led by Richard Hunter, Principal, and James Lee, Principal Archaeologist, with assistance from Patricia Madrigal, Publications Director, and Evan Mydlowski, GIS Specialist.

Harrison Hamnett, PC, a structural engineering firm based in Pennington, NJ, completed the structural assessment of the two historic buildings on the site. The Princeton Engineering Group, an MEP/ FP engineering firm based in Princeton Junction, New Jersey, completed the assessment of the HVAC, electrical and plumbing systems. Becker and Frondorf of Philadelphia completed the cost Second floor hallway in The William Trent House estimating.

12 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Clarke Caton Hintz and the Preservation Plan team undertook this plan in the spring, summer and fall of 2020. Work began with review of the previous reports. The history of the buildings and site was recorded based on previous reports with additional research. Simultaneously, the team completed conditions assessments for the grounds and the structures on the site, including the architectural, structural and mechanical systems. The team also completed an archaeological assessment of the grounds. Upon completion of these investigations, the information was compiled and included in this report. Based on these existing conditions, a treatment plan was developed along with a philosophy and interpretive recommendations to guide the future work.

Organization of the Plan:

This Preservation Plan is divided into the preface followed by two main sections. The preface consists of the Executive Summary and this Introduction. The first main section, called Site and Building History and Development, addresses the past development of the site and historic buildings, the history of change, as well as a brief summary of the current character and conditions. This section also addresses the site as a whole as well as characterizes and offers recommendations for treating and interpreting archaeological resources. Part 2 of the Preservation Plan, called Treatment and Use, provides the philosophical and practical framework for future work at The William Trent House, the Visitor Center and on the grounds. It begins by addressing the treatment philosophy and the use and treatment of the various resources. This section then addresses the conditions of the building and grounds, and provides more detailed recommendations for each aspect of The William Trent House site. The section ends by providing prioritization of the work and preliminary cost estimates.

The appendices form an important part of this document and include extensive additional information on the history of the site, the archaeology, as well as Measured Drawings, Cost Estimates, a Maintenance Plan, a Hazard and Vulnerability Assessment and Glossary.

Recommendations for Additional Historical Research

There are a number of areas ripe for additional study regarding the history of The William Trent House and its many occupants. In particular, the ready availability of military records (notably at fold3.com), census data and newspapers online, along with New Jersey land records, surrogates’ records and court records, which the New Jersey State Archives is cataloging and making ever more searchable, there is ample scope for researchers to piece together a more vivid picture of comings and goings at the Trent House, not only of its prominent owners and tenants, but also of its servants, its enslaved people and its countless visitors. With this burgeoning of research data, the intricacies of the households occupying the Trent House property can be understood in much greater detail and the lives of the occupants may be compared with other similar properties across the Delaware Valley and throughout the region.

July 2021 13 Some of the more tantalizing areas for deeper historical/archival research include the following: > Interaction between the Stacy family and the Delaware Valley Native American population > The British mercantile underpinnings of The William Trent House plantation as seen through the Stacy, Trent and Thomas families > Indentured servants and enslaved people at The William Trent House in the colonial and early federal periods > The role of The William Trent House as a Governor’s Mansion during the Lewis Morris, Philemon Dickerson and Rodman Price administrations > The Trent House property as a speculative investment and the sequence and process of its subdivision and redevelopment > The life and medical practice of Loyalist Dr. William Bryant before, during and after the American Revolution > Military action at the Trent House before, during and after the Battles of Trenton in December 1776 and January 1777 > The Bloomsbury estate as a base of military supply operations during John Cox’s term as Assistant Quartermaster General (1778-80) > The Bloomsbury estate as a focus of Trenton/Philadelphia society during the John Cox tenure in the 1780s > The Bloomsbury estate as a haven for refugees from the Sainte-Domingue Revolution (e.g., the Worlock and de Woofoin families) > The Trent House property and industrial development along the Delaware riverfront and the Trenton Water Power in the early/mid-19th century > Nineteenth- and early 20th-century residential development around the Trent House > The Wood and Stokes households and Trenton high society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries > The Trent House property and the colonial revival movement in the 1930s

Funding Sources:

This plan was funded by the Trent House Association in combination with a generous grant from the New Jersey Historic Trust through its Preserve New Jersey Historic Preservation Fund.

Limitations of the Plan:

This plan addresses the conditions of the main structures at the site, including The William Trent House and the Visitor Center, as well as the condition of the grounds and various built features on the grounds. Only visible and readily accessible conditions

14 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan were assessed. It is possible that certain conditions hidden by intact existing finishes could not be investigated.

As noted in this document, an updated National Register nomination, interpretive plan, signage plan and a document that spells out archaeological protocols are all important next steps that should be undertaken at The William Trent House. In addition, the need for on-going maintenance and support for the site is crucial.

July 2021 15 South elevation of The William Trent House is on the right, with the east elevation of the Visitor Center straight ahead (view facing west; June, 2020)

16 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Historical Overview of The William Trent House and Its Grounds Part 1: History of the A. Methodology and Sources Building & Grounds The history of The William Trent House has been narrated numerous times over the years with varying degrees of accuracy. By far the most comprehensive and informative telling is contained in Volume II of the Historical Documentation and Strategic Planning Study produced by Susan Maxman III. Historical Architects in 1997. Authored by Noble Preservation Services, and drawing on multiple primary archival and published sources, this text provides a detailed, wide-ranging and well referenced Overview account of the complex history of the house, its many notable occupants and the associated property (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:Volume II, Section A).

The recounting of the story of the Trent House property included as Appendix 1 in this preservation plan makes extensive use of the Maxman document, which may be considered as the principal source material, unless indicated otherwise in the bibliographic referencing. The appendix provides a prehistoric and historical context for the pre-Trent period (the 17th century and earlier), but otherwise focuses chiefly on the land use history of the property, with particular attention being given to the various buildings that have stood on the site at one time or another over almost three-and-a-half centuries. The history provided in the appendix also draws heavily on the evidence of historic maps, photographs and other imagery with numerous illustrations being included as an accompaniment to the narrative.

The main thrust of the preservation plan is directed toward what remains today of the core of the historic Trent House property, namely the 1.59-acre area enclosed by the brick wall and iron railing containing William Trent’s house of 1719-21 and the late 19th-century barn/carriage house, both extensively restored in the mid-1930s. However, as this small parcel of land descends directly from what was originally a sizeable plantation of several hundred acres established by Mahlon Stacy in the late 17th century, any discussion of the early history at times ranges well beyond the present-day house lot to include land around the mouth of the Assunpink Creek and still further afield. From By 1874, as seen in this bird’s eye view, the 800-acre the mid-19th century onward, the 0.88-acre portion of the present-day Trent House property lying Trent House estate had been reduced to a roughly west of the brick wall along the east side of Bloomsbury (formerly Fair) Street underwent a very acre-and-a-half walled enclave within South Trenton’s Bloomsbury neighborhood (Fowler & Bailey’s bird’s eye different sequence of development, largely driven by a branch of the Trenton Water Power, built in the view of Trenton in 1874) late 1830s, which extended along the Delaware riverbank adjacent to the Trent House. The history of mixed industrial and residential land use in this latter area is traced briefly from the early 19th through the mid-20th century, chiefly through the lens of historic maps and photographs.

July 2021 17 As noted above, the Maxman report is the principal source of historical information used for this preservation plan. The Maxman document is based on extensive research into land records, surrogates’ records, newspaper accounts and sales advertisements, family papers, the voluminous Trent House archive (which includes documentation of the Civil Works Administration, the Works Progress Administration and the Historic American Buildings Survey), maps, photographs and numerous published and unpublished secondary sources (e.g., Raum 1871; Lee 1895; Mills 1902; Trenton Historical Society 1929; Rounds 1932; Podmore 1964; Toothman 1977). The Maxman research was conducted mostly in Trenton at The William Trent House, the Trentoniana Collection of the Trenton Free Public Library and the New Jersey State Archives, along with visits to the Historical Society of Pennsylvania archive in Philadelphia.

In addition to the Maxman report, the current preservation plan has drawn extensively on research carried out in recent years by Shawn Carney, docent and researcher of The William Trent House Association, on the various residents of the property and the subject of slavery. Two other key sources of historical data on the colonial period have been the Hunter Research cultural resources report on the South Broad Street Bridge over Assunpink Creek (Hunter Research, Inc. 2003a) and the second in the five-volume series produced in connection with the reconstruction of N.J. Route 29, dealing with the history and archaeology of the Lambert/Douglas Locations of principal Native American archaeological sites in downtown Trenton; prepared by Hunter Research Plantation and Rosey Hill Mansion Site (Hunter

18 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Research, Inc. 2011). The first of these latter two documents traces the fortunes of the mill site associated with the rentT House property from the time of Trenton’s original founding in 1679; the second focuses on the farmstead neighboring the Trent House to the south.

With the increased availability of online research sources since the mid-1990s, the preservation plan also targeted certain areas for supplementary research, notably a more thorough review of historic maps, photographs and images, genealogical sources, census data and newspapers. The history presented in the appendix also addresses in some depth the Native American and pre-Trent, historic-period use of the site and, more superficially, the period from circa 1940 to the present day, both topics that are minimally covered in the Maxman report. Completion of this task involved a review of several archaeological reports on excavations at the Trent House (notably, Hunter Research, Inc. 1995, 2003b, 2005, 2007, 2016, 2019; Adamczyk 2019; Stiteler 2020), along with additional research into online primary and secondary historical sources, more recent maps and aerial photographs, and various Trent House files.

B. Historical Outline:

Note: The historical outline presented here is an abbreviated version of the detailed land use history provided in Appendix 1 of this document. Source materials for text and images are identified in the appendix.

Pre-Contact Native American Occupation:

The William Trent House occupies a critical geographic location on the left bank of the Delaware River at the “Falls of the Delaware,” the name by which the Trenton area was known in the early years of European settlement. This area, focused around the mouth of the Assunpink Creek, saw intense aboriginal activity from the earliest phase of human prehistory. The Trent House site occupies a low knoll formed on the Valley Heads Terrace, an alluvial deposit originally laid down following a brief re-advance of glacial ice in upstate New York toward the end of the Pleistocene epoch, probably around 14,000 years ago. The bulk of the Native American cultural materials from the Trent House property appear to date from the Middle and Late Woodland periods (roughly 2,000 to 400 years B.P.) based on the recovery of diagnostic projectile points and sherds of distinctive pottery types. However, lithic artifacts attributable to the Middle and Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods have also been found, demonstrating a human presence in the area extending back at least 6,000 years and perhaps even further. Over the course of these 5,000 to 6,000 years of Native American activity at the falls, one envisions a gradually increasing population of hunting and gathering bands becoming progressively more sedentary, establishing first seasonal and then more permanent camps as incipient horticulture began to be practiced between 500 and 1,000 years ago.

July 2021 19 Native American and Early European Contact:

During the 17th century, as European explorers and settlers – initially Dutch and Swedish, and then increasingly English – ventured up the Delaware Valley as far as the falls, the Native American peoples come into clearer focus and begin to appear in the contemporary historical record. The Middle Delaware Valley during this period was occupied by the Unami, a subgroup of the Lenape, themselves a subset of the Delaware Indians. More specifically, the area around the falls was referred to as Sanhickan or Sanhickans, signifying both a place and a resident Native American population of the same name.

At the time of the earliest Euro-American settlement in the Delaware Valley the Algonquian-speaking Delaware or Lenape Indians of the Delaware Valley were divided into two local subgroups – the Munsee (Minsi) and the Unami. Each group spoke its own unique dialect and differed somewhat in cultural practices. Both the Munsee and the Unami were subdivided into smaller groups. The Sanhickans at the falls, probably several hundred strong and one of the largest subgroups of the Unami, spoke a dialect known as Unalachtigo and they were often at odds with their neighbors, both the Munsee to the north and, more critically, the Susquehannocks to the west, who typically out- competed the Sanhickans and other Unami Lenape groups in the all-important fur trade.

In response, in the 1630s and 1640s, as the colony of New Sweden took root in the Lower Delaware, the Unami sought other commodities with which to barter for European trade goods. Maize was chief among these commodities and in much demand by Swedish settlers. Although one of the goals of New Sweden had been to establish an agriculturally self-sufficient colony, with maize and meat A fanciful image of a Delaware Indian family from a cheaply available from the Native American population, there was little impetus for the settlers to Swedish text published by Thomas Campanius Holm clear land and establish farms. The Swedes never really managed to grow enough food to support in 1702 themselves and, in fact, did not even come close to doing so until the waning years of their colony. Significantly, several 17th-century descriptions of the landscape of the Delaware Valley, as well as a number of later secondary sources, make reference to Indian corn fields along the east bank of the Delaware between the mouth of Crosswicks Creek to that of the Assunpink.

In the later 1640s and 1650s, the Susquehannock hold over the Delaware Valley fur trade loosened in the face of their conflict with the Seneca, an Iroquoian group to the north and west. This allowed the Unami to play a more influential role in the fur trade with the Dutch and Swedish settlers. Beavers pelts and other desirable furs were collected mostly from the west in what is today central Pennsylvania, but also from the north along the upper reaches of the Delaware and from the hilly

20 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan wilderness between the head waters of the Delaware and Lakes Ontario and Erie. Trades were then brokered between the hunters and members of neighboring groups. Furs were exchanged for wampum, beads and trinkets, axes and tools, shirts and cloth, alcohol and, occasionally, guns. They were traded and traded again until they passed into Susquehannock and Minsi hands and then finally into the possession of the Unami. In this manner, Sanhickans at the falls of the Delaware participated as important middlemen in the complex system of trade that brought Native American goods into the European orbit.

Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware River in Mid-17th Century:

Both the Dutch and Swedish states maintained a presence in the Delaware Valley for almost 40 years prior to the arrival of the English. Dutch adventurers arrived first, establishing an outpost in the wilderness on urlingtonB Island, the original intended seat of the Dutch West India Company in North America. Most of the Dutch West India Company’s activity on the Delaware River was focused some 35 miles downstream from the falls at Nassau, a fortified outpost near present-day Gloucester City, New Jersey. In general, Dutch interests in the Delaware Valley were centered on trading with the Indians for furs, rather than on fostering enduring settlement. The Swedes, on the other hand, sought to implant the colony of New Sweden and established what is generally held to be the first permanent European settlement in the Delaware alleyV at Fort Christina, near the site of modern Wilmington. The Swedes purchased vast tracts of land from the Indians and began to settle in clusters of farmsteads that were heavily dependent on the river for access to the outside world. The place the “wild inhabitants call Sankikans” was the farthest flung limit of either Swedish or Dutch influence along the Middle and Lower Delaware.

The word “Sankikans” is generally accepted as a compounding of the word “sanck,” meaning “flint” and “hikan,” meaning “end of flow.” This is conveniently interpreted as meaning “the rocks at the head of tide,” i.e., the Falls of the Delaware, the topographic landmark that most early historic cartographers of the Delaware River associated with the term “Sankikans” on their parchment maps. Almost always the term is applied by 17th-century Dutch and Swedish authors to the general area around the falls, but never is an exact correspondence between the falls and the name offered.

English Rule and Quaker Migration:

On March 12, 1664, King Charles II of England granted his brother James, the Duke of York, a patent for title to property including land in Maine, Long Island and all the territory between the Connecticut River and the Delaware Bay. On June 24 of the same year, James granted the lands roughly comprising the present-day State of New Jersey to two political allies and supporters, Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. Just over two months later, on August 29, New Amsterdam, without any means of defense, surrendered to an English naval force and New Netherland, including the Delaware River, fell under English control.

July 2021 21 southern New Jersey downstream of the falls, most of whom were Swedish and Finnish farmers who had continued living there under Dutch control. In 1673 war broke out again between Holland and England and for a few months, the Dutch briefly regained supremacy over their former colony of New Netherland. The Treaty of Westminster of 1674, signed by Charles II on February 19 and ratified by the Dutch on March 5, returned these territories to the English, with the final transfer of authority to the English taking place on November 10, 1674.

In March of 1674 Lord John Berkeley sold his half share of the proprietary rights of New Jersey to two Quakers, Edward Byllynge and John Fenwick, whose purchase was motivated chiefly by profit but also by the goal of establishing a New World refuge for English Quakers. Following two years in which the division of West and East Jersey was formalized, the rights of provincial government were debated and Byllynge went into bankruptcy, the province of West Jersey began to take clearer shape with the signing of the “Quintipartite Deed” on July 1, 1676. With this agreement, three trustees of Byllynge’s Quaker immigrants, among them William Penn, treated share, Byllynge himself and Fenwick formally recognized Fenwick’s 10% interest in the original with the Indians up and down both sides of the Delaware Valley throughout the late 17th century, as imagined in purchase in return for Fenwick signing over his rights to the remaining 90% to the other four parties. the early 1830s by American Quaker folk artist Edward A joint stock company of 100 shares valued at $350 each was created and the predominantly Quaker Hicks organization known as the West Jersey Proprietors came into being. So began in the late 1670s a long and complicated process of the proprietors acquiring land from the Indians and subdividing and selling off parcels for settlement.

Fenwick had already established his own settlement at Salem in the Lower Delaware in the fall of 1675 prior to the signing of the Quintipartite Deed. The first purchasers of the yllyngeB shares did not begin arriving in the Delaware Valley until August of 1677, a group of 230 mostly Quaker emigrants arriving on the Kent and disembarking at the mouth of Raccoon Creek in present-day Gloucester County, New Jersey. Among this group were several Quakers from Yorkshire who were assigned a sizeable tract of land, the so-called “Yorkshire Tenth,” which extended along the New Jersey side of the Delaware River from Rancocas Creek upstream to the falls at the mouth of Assunpink Creek. On October 10, 1677, representatives of these English settlers acquired the ownership rights to this tract from a group of Indians living in the area led by the local chieftain Ockanickon. The settlers fixed on the site of present-day Burlington at the mouth of Assiscunk Creek as the location of their first town.

English Settlement at the Falls of the Delaware:

By 1679, a group of English settlers, many of them Quakers, had established a loose-knit settlement on the west bank of the river just below the falls. The settlement was nucleated enough to merit

22 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan a name, “Crewcorne” (probably named after Crewkerne, Somerset, England), but none of the tracts was smaller in size than 100 acres, making it more a grouping of neighboring farms than a town or village proper. Settlement on the east bank of the Delaware at the falls began in the spring of 1679 with the arrival of Mahlon Stacy, one of the Yorkshire Quakers who had consolidated Edward Byllynge’s debt and waived it in exchange for ten shares in the Province of West Jersey, retaining two full shares for himself. Stacy, along with most of the other Yorkshire Friends in West Jersey, arrived in the New World aboard the Shield in 1678. He spent his first winter in Burlington before taking up the property to which he was entitled in the following spring. Mahlon Stacy had selected a large and prominent property straddling both sides of Assunpink Creek near its confluence with the Delaware.

Stacy’s property was initially part of a much larger 2,000-acre tract jointly held by Stacy, William Emley, Thomas Lambert, John Lambert and Joshua Wright, and the group had originally been contemplating founding a town. Although the five men, all Quakers from the North Midlands/South Yorkshire area of England, legally held the tract jointly, amongst themselves they seem to have recognized the boundaries of individual properties. The recorded metes and bounds of the 2,000-acre survey are somewhat difficult to interpret, but the tract seems to have included all of the land on the east side of the falls fronting the Delaware, extending south from a point 1,320 feet north of the mouth of Assunpink Creek to the mouth of present-day Watson’s Creek. This vast area would have included the plantation on which Mahlon Stacy had already settled (and the site of the later Trent House), and thus may represent formal legal confirmation of earlier property assignment/selection.

The earliest properties set off at the falls mostly contained between 100 and 200 acres. Over time, however, the average size of the plots grew, with several tracts in the 300 to 400-acre range being laid out in the 1680s. Most of these properties included frontage on one or more of the navigable local waterways, with the most sought-after properties fronting the Delaware River. Mahlon Stacy’s property fronted the Delaware and also had the advantage of being bisected by the Assunpink Creek. Other, only slightly less desirable properties at the falls overlooked the Delaware River and also included frontage on the smaller tributary today known as Watson’s Creek. Another geographic feature significant in the layout of these early plantations was the bluff that rises immediately to the east of the Delaware River and to the north of the marsh and lowlands surrounding Watson’s Creek. Most of the early properties subdivided from the larger 2,000-acre tract extended back from the river or creek on to which they fronted. They were defined in this manner to include areas of lowland adjacent to the watercourse suitable for grazing and meadow, as well as property atop the bluff edge that was more suitable for cultivation and wood lots.

The Stacys and Ballifield:

After arriving at the Falls of the Delaware in the spring of 1679, Mahlon Stacy, aged 40 years, set about constructing a dwelling and a gristmill, both of which were in existence by November of the same year. Who actually helped Stacy erect these structures is unclear – perhaps his neighbors, or perhaps indentured servants of whom at least one, Hugh Staniland, is thought to have accompanied Stacy to the falls early on. One would also expect a millwright to have been on hand to oversee the construction of the mill.

July 2021 23 The site of Stacy’s gristmill is well established as being on the south bank of Assunpink Creek, upstream of the present-day South Broad Street crossing, where later mills drew waterpower until well into the mid-19th century. The location of his first dwelling is unknown, although it was probably situated close to the mill and the former Indian trail that evolved into the main overland route connecting Bordentown and Burlington with Inian’s Ferry (New Brunswick). This dwelling was likely hastily constructed to accommodate the operators of the mill and was soon supplemented by a permanent residence which became the domestic focus of the Stacy plantation that came to be known as Ballifield, named for his family home back in England.

Mahlon Stacy and his wife, Rebecca, had arrived in the Delaware Valley with three young daughters (a son had also died in infancy). They produced four more children in the New World: three daughters (one of whom died at less than a year old) and finally another son, ahlon,M Jr., who was born in 1686 and to whom the Ballifield plantation passed in the early 18th century. Over the course of the final quarter of the 17th century, the elder Mahlon Stacy, through his milling operations and real estate transactions became commercially and politically prominent within the province. He engaged in several property sales and acquisitions over the course of the late 1670s and 1680s, cementing his control over the land around the mouth of the Assunpink and creating the basis for his Ballifield plantation.

Mahlon Stacy, Sr. died in 1704. In his will, he left the 500-acre Ballifield plantation (including the mills and other houses) to his son, Mahlon, Jr., then aged 18 years, to pass to him when he attained the age of 21 years. His widow, Rebecca, was to receive a third of the profits and income of the mill and have “the use and benefit of the two parlours and the chamber over the south parlor” in the The survey map produced for Mahlon Stacy, Jr. when he house. An inventory of Mahlon, Sr.’s estate, taken the day after the will was proved on April 25, 1704, sold the Ballifield plantation to William Trent in 1714 valued his personal assets at £1,034.0s.6d, including “Four Negros” valued at £110.0s.0d, the first indication that several enslaved people were present at Ballifield. Despite the growing antipathy of Quakers toward slavery over the course of the 18th century, it was not unusual for early West Jersey planters of this faith to hold small numbers of both enslaved and indentured persons.

It was probably following the death of his mother in 1711 that Mahlon Stacy, Jr., came into full control of Ballifield and the Stacy family properties. Within three years, he was negotiating a sale of what was by then an 800-acre plantation to William Trent, a prominent and wealthy Philadelphia merchant. The sale to William Trent was completed on August 16, 1714 and in the following month a survey was conducted to confirm the bounds of the land that had changed hands. The resulting map is

24 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Mahlon Stacy’s Survey of 1714 Superimposed over a Modern Aerial Photograph of Downtown Trenton. The area enclosed in red in actuality measures 860 acres and roughly defines the 800-acre tract surveyed by Mahlon Stacy, Jr. and conveyed to William Trent. The plotting of buildings, outlined in yellow, is approximate. Source: New Jersey Geographic Information Network (NJGIN) 2015 and Basse’s Book of Surveys.

exceptionally informative and shows how the Ballifield plantation was centered around the mouth of Assunpink reekC with the family homestead located close to the present-day William Trent House.

The Trents and The William Trent House:

July 2021 25 was some years before he set about building a new residence there. Indeed, it seems that he concentrated first on rebuilding the mill, since an inventory of New Jersey mills taken in 1717 reveals that Trent’s gristmill was assessed at a tax rate higher than any other gristmill in the colony and at a rate four times higher than any other gristmill in West Jersey.

The precise date when William Trent constructed his new residence at the falls is uncertain, but this action is generally thought to have taken place between 1719 and 1721, with the Trent family taking up residence there in the late fall of the latter year. As originally built, The William Trent House adopted a typical Georgian plan, faithfully retained in the mid-1930s, with a center hall and two rooms on either side, each with a corner fireplace, on both of its floors. The building had a full basement and attic, a chimney in its east and west gable ends and a central cupola. In its original form, the house did not have a separate kitchen wing attached to the house, nor does cooking appear to have taken place on the first floor. Kitchen functions are thought to have been initially carried out in the basement. In addition to the house, William Trent likely erected new outbuildings, such as barns, wagon houses, corn cribs and privies, while perhaps retaining some of the Ballifield structures that were still in good repair.

In the few years that William Trent enjoyed residence at the Trent House, he played an active part in Burlington and Hunterdon county politics and judicial matters, but of more lasting importance he began, around 1720, to lay out a town (“Trent’s Town”) on the north bank of the Assunpink. He was largely responsible for establishing the street grid that is rooted in the triangle of roads today known as Broad, Warren and Front streets (originally Queen, King and Lower, Water or High streets), using this as a framework for subdivision and development. He also set aside a lot for the Hunterdon County courthouse on the east side of Warren Street.

In terms of industrial and other business ventures, in addition to rebuilding and greatly increasing the capacity of the gristmill, Trent erected a sawmill and fulling mill, probably drawing on the same waterpower system as that used by the gristmill, and also operated a bake house. In 1723 he entered into a partnership with John Porterfield and Thomas Lambert, buying 30 acres upstream along the Assunpink (near the present-day East State Street crossing) to support the development of an ironworks that came into production later in the 1720s. A key component in this budding economic system was the dock below the falls at the foot of Ferry Street, which enabled Trent and others to ship goods in and out of town and maintain links with Burlington, Philadelphia and the outside world. From around 1720, in collaboration with William Blow of Hunterdon County, Trent also operated an unofficial ferry across the Delaware from the foot of erryF Street, a service that drew vital traffic to the King’s Highway and into Trent’s Town.

William Trent died under somewhat murky circumstances, supposedly of apoplexy, but possibly poisoned, on Christmas Day, 1724. At the time of his death, his economic condition may have been somewhat shaky. A full inventory of his estate was not taken for more than a year after he died and its value, when finally established in 1726, was set at just over £1,100, which appears low for the lifestyle he led and the many income generating properties he held. Itemized in the inventory of 1726 are

26 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan the contents of the house and outbuildings, the mill complex and bake house, five cart horses, five oxen, four cows and 59 sheep. Of particular note is the listing of no less than 11 enslaved persons (six men, one woman and four children), who served variously in the house, on the plantation, in the mills and in the bake house.

Following a legal dispute over William Trent’s estate between his widow, Mary, and his eldest son (her stepson), James, the 300-acre core of the plantation with the mills and the ferry patent was sold off in 1729. In the five-year period between William Trent’s death and this sale, it remains unclear who was resident in the Trent House, although it thought likely that his widow, Mary Coddington Trent, and their son, William, aged around four when his father died, continued living there. The 11 enslaved persons itemized in William Trent’s pro- bate inventory completed in April 1726. Source: https:// Kingsbury, A Governor’s Residence: www.williamtrenthouse.org/uploads/1/3/1/1/131110538/ trent_house_inventory.pdf The purchaser of the 300-acre Trent plantation on March 28, 1729 was William Morris, a Philadelphia-born merchant from Barbados who was also a half-brother of William Trent’s second wife, Mary Coddington. Morris acquired much of the Trent family property and played a prominent role in the development of downtown Trenton in the 1730s and 1740s. Morris was a leading member of Trenton’s Quaker community and was instrumental in establishing a meeting house in the town in 1737-39. In March of 1733 a devastating flood on the Assunpink took out the dams for both the grist, saw and fulling mill complex and the ironworks further upstream. The cost of the repairs proved beyond Morris’s means and he was forced to sell the 300-acre tract with the house, mills and ferry patent in the fall of the same year. Little is known about Morris’s brief four-and-a-half-year tenure as owner of the Trent House but he is thought to have lived on the premises with his first wife and as many as seven of their nine children, including one that was born in the house.

George Thomas, the new owner of the former Trent family plantation, was a prominent and politically influential plantation owner in Antigua, one of the Leeward Islands in the British estW Indies. In 1738 he was appointed Deputy Governor of Pennsylvania, serving in this capacity until 1747. During the 20-year period of his ownership of the Trent House, Thomas was based in Philadelphia. He never lived there on any sort of permanent basis, instead renting out the house and mills. He likely bought the Trenton tract from Morris as a speculative venture, and his eventual sale of the property in 1753 coincided with his return to the Leeward Islands to take up the governorship there. Lewis Morris (1671-1746), the first separate Governor It is not known for certain to whom George Thomas rented the Trent House between 1733, when he of New Jersey, rented the Trent House for the final four acquired the property, and the early 1740s, but by the spring of 1742 Joseph Warrell, the Attorney years of his life, dying on the premises while the New Jersey Assembly was in session in downtown Trenton General of New Jersey, and his family were living there. Later that year he was replaced as tenant by

July 2021 27 Lewis Morris, the Governor of New Jersey (no relation to William Morris), who persuaded Thomas to erect a new kitchen wing to the east of the house, as the use of the basement for culinary purposes was being hampered by flooding and drainage problems. Although his most permanent home was at his Morrisania estate in the Bronx, Morris resided at the Trent House while overseeing the business of New Jersey government. He died in the house in May of 1746, while the New Jersey Assembly was in session in Trenton. It appears that by the time Lewis Morris was in residence at the former Trent House, the plantation had taken on the name of “Kingsbury,” presumably a reflection of both his and Thomas’s loyalty to the British Crown.

In 1753, George Thomas sold the Kingsbury/Trent House property to Robert Lettis Hooper II, a merchant, mill owner, surveyor and real estate developer, who had moved to Trenton from Rocky Hill An evocative depiction of the Trent House as the focus of George Thomas’s grand estate as shown on a map of near Princeton. Around the time of this transfer of ownership, the plantation was surveyed with a circa 1750-1753 view to its subdivision and development, which resulted in the drafting of an informative map that included a detailed sketch of the house. Hooper established his family in their new home, continued the operation of the mills and set about subdividing and selling off roughly 100 acres of the 300- acre property. However, he may have over-extended himself in his development efforts and he soon suffered other business losses, most notably those relating to a failing Philadelphia store in which he was a partner with one of his sons. Beginning in 1759 and continuing through the 1760s, a series of detailed and informative advertisements offering the roughly 200-acre core of the Kingsbury plantation for sale, began appearing in the Philadelphia newspapers. These culminated in 1769 with the purchase of the property by Dr. William Bryant of New York.

Dr. Bryant, Colonel Cox and the Revolutionary War:

Dr. William Bryant, purchaser of the Kingsbury plantation and ferry, was a Yale-educated, New York City-based physician, who had trained as a surgeon in Paris. After moving from New York to Trenton in 1769, he built up a successful practice in the Delaware Valley in the 1770s, while also selling off several of the Kingsbury building lots laid out along Broad and Ferry streets. In the late fall of 1776 the Revolutionary War arrived on Trenton’s doorstep as the British forces under General William Howe pushed General George Washington’s Continental Army southwestward across New Jersey and over onto the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. Bryant himself was not especially sympathetic to the patriot cause, being a retired British army surgeon still receiving half pay. Back in January of 1776, under suspicion for his Loyalist leanings, he committed to the Continental Congress that he would remain within 12 miles of his Kingsbury home, except for trips to patriot-held Philadelphia. This likely enabled him to still continue his medical practice.

28 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan In early December of 1776, as news came in of the imminent arrival of the retreating Continental Army and their British pursuers, Kingsbury fell precisely within the bull’s eye of the Revolutionary conflict and William Bryant’s property figured prominently in the lead-up to the First Battle of Trenton. Dr. Bryant’s riverfront property was commandeered by Hessian troops, while substantial Continental Army artillery batteries were emplaced across the river so as to include Dr. Bryant’s House and the Trenton Ferry crossing within their field of fire. A Hessian picket at the Assunpink Creek bridge was responsible for sending a patrol down to Bryant’s house every half hour. Another picket stationed at the tavern at Trenton Ferry provided sentinels posted at Bryant’s house. On December 19 a more substantial Hessian patrol marched out of the town of Trenton down to Bryant’s house and the ferry in an effort to deter the increasing number of attacks from American troops across the river.

Dr. Bryant’s home escaped serious damage during both battles of Trenton on December 26, 1776 and January 2, 1777. His whereabouts at the time of the first battle are not known. He may well have been ensconced safely in his house, within earshot but out of range of the hostilities that played out over the course of an hour or so that winter morning. A small detachment of Hessians posted near his house managed to escape to Burlington. A week later, as part of the American defensive action at the Assunpink Creek bridge, a defensive position was established by Colonel Daniel Hitchcock’s Assistant Quartermaster General John Cox (1732-93), brigade on Bryant’s Kingsbury property a short distance downstream from the bridge along the creek, a leading member of the American republic’s patriot north of his house. A temporary breastwork was thrown up and a brief skirmish occurred there when military elite a party of Hessian and British soldiers were repulsed trying to cross over the creek.

Following the American victories at Trenton and Princeton, the town of Trenton remained under American control for the remainder of the war and William Bryant’s fortunes during the war years seem not to have been too seriously affected by his Loyalist background. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1778, he proceeded to sell his Kingsbury property to John Cox, a leading figure in New ersey’sJ patriot military elite, and moved into one of his other in-town properties, to continue his medical work. Bryant retired shortly thereafter and later returned to New York where he died in 1786.

John Cox acquired the 197-acre Kingsbury plantation and another four parcels totaling 180.5 acres for the considerable sum of £10,600. At the time of the purchase, Cox, a veteran of the Trenton battles, had recently been appointed one of two Assistant Quartermaster Generals reporting to the Continental Army’s Quartermaster General Nathanael Greene. A former owner of the Batsto Furnace, an important supplier of ordnance to the army, he proceeded to use the Trent House

July 2021 29 property not only as his primary home, but also as a base of operations for carrying out his Quartermaster Department duties. Cox was responsible for renaming Kingsbury with the less Royalist-sounding moniker “Bloomsbury” and the property emerged as an important focus of Trenton and Delaware Valley society during the late 1770s and throughout the 1780s. Among the many prominent Revolutionary figures who are reasonably claimed to have visited Bloomsbury during the war years are George Washington, Nathanael Greene, the Marquis de Lafayette and the Comte de Rochambeau.

In the later war years, when most of the military activity was occurring further to the north in the Hudson Valley and to the south in the Carolinas, Trenton maintained its importance as a supply hub. Cox allowed the farm fields on his Bloomsbury property to be used as a camp site by both American and French troops. In the late summer of 1781, and then again in the late summer of the following year, encampments of a much different and more massive sort took root on the outskirts of Bloomsbury. These represented the stopovers along the route of the French army on its march southward through New Jersey from Rhode Island to the war-ending John Cox’s expansive Bloomsbury estate as seen on a survey map of circa 1789-92 (the Trent House is indicated with an arrow) American victory at Yorktown, Virginia, returning a year later along much the same route. French military cartographers documented their army’s itinerary through a series of remarkably detailed, colorful and accurate maps, which include depictions of the camp location and river crossing in Trenton, both of which highlight the Trent House (marked on one map as a “Chateau”).

Bloomsbury in the Early Federal Period:

The Cox family – John, his wife Esther and their six daughters – lived comfortably on the Bloomsbury estate through the 1780s. On April 21, 1789, they were among the many Trentonians who received George Washington en route to his inauguration in New York City, the young girls supposedly strewing flowers at Washington’s feet as he passed beneath a triumphal arch erected on the bridge over the Assunpink, the site of the The Bloomsbury estate was but one of several fine riverfront properties lining the falls of the Delaware at the turn of the 19th century second battle of Trenton. By this time Cox was nearing 60 years old, in

30 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan poor health and contemplating sale of his Kingsbury holdings so he could return to Philadelphia to spend his final years. These plans caused him to have a survey made of his estate with the aid of which he might subdivide and sell off his property. The resultant map, produced sometime between 1789 and 1792, includes a valuable plan of the estate grounds and a medallion with an elevation view of the house.

In the summer of 1792, the Cox’s Kingsbury home was briefly occupied by Simeon Worlock, an English-born refugee from the Saint-Domingue Revolution who had recently escaped to Philadelphia. Worlock, who died in Trenton in July of 1792, was the son of another Simeon Worlock celebrated for his success in curing and inoculating smallpox in France and Saint-Domingue in the 1770s. A few months later, in September 1792, John and Esther Cox ended up selling the Bloomsbury estate to a different refugee from the Saint-Domingue uprisings, a minor French nobleman and sugar planter Chevalier Marin Bazile Gaston L’Official de Woofoin.

The de Woofoin family – father, son and daughter – are thought to have resided there until, in 1795, de Woofoin and his son resolved to return to Saint-Domingue to reclaim their properties. Upon their return to the Caribbean both were killed, leaving the daughter, Henriette, still a teenager, abandoned as an orphan at the Trent House. The Bloomsbury estate was then conveyed back to the Cox estate and sold in 1797 to wealthy Philadelphia merchant William Coxe.

From 1795 through into the 1830s, the Trent House was mostly occupied by tenants as the property passed from William Coxe upon his death in 1801 to his son, Daniel W. Coxe. Both Coxes viewed the land as an investment opportunity with Trenton growing rapidly as a state capital, regional market town and budding manufacturing center. The younger Coxe, who owned Bloomsbury for more than 30 years, lived in Philadelphia for most of his life, amassing considerable wealth dealing in cotton and flour and speculating in Spanish land grants in the southern and southwestern states. However, he intensified the efforts to subdivide and develop the Bloomsbury estate and was responsible for producing another informative survey map of the property around 1804, along with another elevation sketch of the house.

Daniel W. Coxe also constructed a sizeable mill complex on the banks of the Delaware close to the house in 1818. This important facility, known as Coxe’s Mills or the Bloomsbury Mills, drew its power from a wing dam in the Delaware. The first and primary operation on the site was a merchant gristmill, which effectively superseded Trenton’s original grain processing site at the South Broad Street crossing of the Assunpink, but it also included a sawmill, oil mill, fulling mill and plaster mill. By 1819, the upper part of the gristmill was being used for wool carding, a clue that textile operations were beginning to spread into many of Trenton’s available milling spaces during this initial period of industrialization in the city.

Bloomsbury and the Industrial Revolution:

July 2021 31 the early 1830s, water-powered industrial development in the city received a massive boost when the Trenton Delaware Falls Company brought on line the power canal later known as the Trenton Water Power. In 1837, a branch raceway from the Trenton Water Power was constructed starting just below the aqueduct over the Assunpink, extending along the left bank of the Delaware River to Coxe’s Mills and continuing on for another 500 feet, thereby opening up several additional mill sites for development. This design change in the Trenton Water Power, perhaps conceived while Coxe still owned the Bloomsbury estate, was implemented during the tenure of the next owner of the Trent House property.

In 1835, Daniel W. Coxe and his wife, Margaret, conveyed the Bloomsbury estate to Philemon Dickerson of Paterson. Dickerson, a Jacksonian Democrat and U.S. Representative since 1833, was elected New Jersey’s 12th governor in 1836, apparently also never lived permanently at Bloomsbury, although during his brief one-year gubernatorial term, one A view of the south facade of the Trent House in 1849 when it was known as Blooms- bury House presumes he may have taken up temporary residence there. His interest in the Bloomsbury property seems to have been driven primarily by its development potential and most especially by the prospect of establishing water-powered industrial facilities along the nearby riverbank, hence his involvement in building a branch raceway of the Trenton Water Power.

Philemon Dickerson, during the three years he owned the Bloomsbury property, was engaged in some form of informal partnership with James M. Redmond, who seems to have been pursuing a number of local investments and development deals at the time and may have been living in the house with his family. At some point, prior to 1838, the house was set off on its own 2.55-acre parcel, while various other tracts were being sold off for industrial and residential development. In this latter year, Joseph Wood (c. 1801- James M. Redmond bought the Bloomsbury “Mansion House” lot from 1860), local businessman Dickerson, but within a few months, owing to financial difficulties, he and Mayor of Trenton from 1856-1859, was responsible ceded ownership to his father, John C. Redmond. Five years later, the for adding a new east wing younger Redmond’s financial condition had repaired sufficiently that he to The William Trent House was able to buy the property back from his father. in 1853

32 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan In 1852, James M. Redmond sold the 2.55-acre parcel with Bloomsbury House for a handsome profit to Joseph Wood, a wealthy Trenton merchant, investor and real estate developer, who went on to serve as mayor of the city from 1856 to 1859. In the following year Wood is believed to have torn down the mid-18th-century kitchen wing and replaced it with a larger east wing that adjoined the original house, whereupon he sold the property for more than double the price he paid for it to Jeremiah Stull, a Cumberland County farmer, politician and developer. In early 1854, Stull was advertising the property for rent, but before the year was out he had passed away, still owing Joseph Wood a considerable sum for his purchase of the property. More than five years later, in the spring of 1859, after protracted legal proceedings brought by Wood against the Stull estate, Wood regained control of the property. In the interim, Bloomsbury House was briefly rented in 1855-56 by Abram S. Hewitt, a future U.S. Congressman and Mayor of New York, who was a part-owner of the Trenton Iron Company and at the time of his tenancy heavily engaged in the development of This map of 1882 shows The William Trent House at close to full build-out and Trenton’s iron industry and the revitalization of the Trenton Water Power. separated from the riverfront by a line of mills on the branch raceway of the Trenton Following Hewitt’s departure, the property was rented from 1856 through Water Power 1859 by New Jersey’s 17th governor, Rodman McCamley Price.

The Stokes Family and Woodlawn:

Woodlawn passed, perhaps not surprisingly, from Joseph Wood’s estate into the hands of Edward H. Stokes. Two generations of the Stokes family subsequently lived at Woodlawn until well into the second decade of the

July 2021 33 20th century. In the final decades of the 19th century, while Edward H. Stokes was still alive, the property was the focus of many Trenton high society gatherings. The gardens, in particular, with their many exotic plantings, were a particular attraction for visitors. Edward H. Stokes remained living there until his death in 1900, after which his widow stayed on in the company of her bachelor attorney/poet son, Edward Ansley Stokes, and niece, Ida Stokes, until her own death in 1914. Edward A. and Ida Stokes were both still in residence in 1915, but by 1920 Edward was living in Morristown and the property was largely in the hands of caretakers and occupied by boarders, with habitation confined to the east wing and the original portion of the house mothballed. For most of the Stokes family tenure, the house and grounds were maintained with the help of an array of male and female servants, including cooks, chambermaids, coachmen and gardeners. Over the course of the Stokes era from 1860 through 1929, when Woodlawn was donated to the City of Trenton, a rich sequence of The William Trent House poised for restoration and demolition of its east wing in 1934 historic maps, photographs and aerial photographs provides a valuable (view facing south) sense of how the physical character of the property and its immediate surroundings changed over time (see appendix).

City-Owned Historic Site:

On October 30, 1929, the day after Black Tuesday of the stock market collapse, Edward A. Stokes, having long since vacated the Trent House, donated the 1.58-acre Woodlawn property to the City of Trenton on behalf of the Stokes family, on the condition that the house be restored to its original state and preserved as a public library, museum and art gallery. Despite the dire context of the approaching Great Depression, the Stokes family’s gifting of Woodlawn to the City served as the highlight of “Historic Day” midway through the weeklong celebrations of the 250th anniversary of Trenton’s original settlement by Europeans. However, for all the pomp and circumstance, at this point in time, Woodlawn in truth existed as a somewhat forlorn and abandoned mansion that had seen better days, surrounded by city streets lined with rundown workers housing and a riverfront industrial zone that was in an advanced state of decline.

34 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Planning for the restoration of the Trent House property slowly began to take shape in the early 1930s in the midst of the Great Depression. A key figure in this process was the City Librarian, Howard ughes,H who had maintained a long-time research interest in the Trent House and helped engineer the Stokes family donation. With the library’s board of trustees, Hughes assembled a team of prominent local architects led by J. Osborne Hunt, who had recently designed the New Jersey State House Annex in downtown Trenton.

Restoration work got under way in early 1933 with funding support for the labor provided by the federal government through the Civil Works Administration. During the almost four years that the restoration took to complete, analysis of Works Progress Administration (WPA) payroll records indicates that there were at times an estimated 80 to 100 craftsmen and laborers working on the project, in addition to the architects and engineers. Initial tasks involved documenting the original main block of the house and carriage house and removing later modifications, furnishings, fixtures, pipes, wiring and other historically appropriate infrastructure from the building interiors.

Removal of the east wing and disassembly of the greenhouse commenced in January of 1934 with work on the exterior of the original house starting soon after, followed by the interior restoration. The restoration of the carriage house was undertaken early on in the project and was probably carried out concurrent with construction of a new boiler room adjacent to its south side and the creation of the underground utility tunnel supplying services to the main house. Over the remainder of 1934, continuing through 1935 and into 1936, work continued on the restoration of house exterior and interior. The greenhouse was reassembled on the south side of the carriage house and the brick wall surrounding the property was largely rebuilt. New iron gates were installed and the grounds were regraded. The basic restoration of the buildings and initial, temporary landscaping of the grounds were largely complete by the late summer of 1936 and a formal dedication by the Trenton Free Public Library board took place on October 14. A 12-member Trent House Commission was then formed by city ordinance to maintain and manage the facility as a museum (eventually superseded by the Trent House Association, incorporated in 1957), with a separate committee being set up to oversee the furnishing of the house. The commission and its committees labored for three more years until the house was formally opened to the public as a historic museum on June 1, 1939.

In the meantime, the Trenton Garden Club was charged with creating some suitable colonial revival-style landscaping for the grounds, a task that was initially guided by a plan of the property prepared by local landscape architect, Abram L. Urban, immediately prior to the restoration, probably around 1933-34. The Garden Club next engaged the services of noted New York City and Princeton landscape architect Isabella Pendleton who drafted a landscape plan in 1938 that guided the improvement and planting of the grounds over the course of the following three years. The landscaping improvements were evidently complete by the fall of 1941 as a celebratory luncheon was held in honor of Ms. Pendleton on December 2.

July 2021 35 in Trenton in the 1930s. By the mid-20th century, Bloomsbury, with its mix of mid- and late 19th-century row housing, commercial premises and factories, was no longer considered economically viable by city and state planners, resulting in this choice riverfront location being targeted for a state government-directed urban renewal project that would meet a long-standing goal of both consolidating and expanding state offices. In 1958, Frank Grad & Sons, retained as the State’s planning consultants for the new State Capitol complex, prepared a state office campus master plan for a 3,600-foot-long, boomerang-shaped section of the Delaware riverfront that wrapped around the State House and included the mouth of the Assunpink, extending from Calhoun Street to Market Street and U.S. Route 1. Between the Assunpink Creek and Market Street, 36.5-acres of private property, covering roughly eight square blocks, were targeted for acquisition and urban renewal. Centered within this 36.5-acre parcel was a proposed southern campus node of five office buildings, arranged around The Trent House surrounded in the late 1960s by the recently constructed highways, a plaza, and surrounded by surface parking within a park-like landscape. parking lots and state office buildings that replaced the former loomsburyB neighborhood Northwest of the State House Annex on West State Street, another northern node of development was planned for the construction of two additional office buildings. The master plan anticipated a new park being constructed around and to the south of the Trent House and also called for the reconfiguration of the road network along the riverbank.

A somewhat scaled-back version of the Grad plan ultimately came into existence in the early 1960s. Legislation was passed authorizing land acquisition and construction of eight building units – the Department of Labor and Industry Building, the Department of Education Building, an office building and laboratory center for the Departments of Health and Agriculture and the four-unit Cultural Center, consisting of a State Library, Museum, Auditorium and Planetarium. These eight buildings were completed between 1961 and 1965.

36 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan project, largely orchestrated by the City of Trenton and the Greater Trenton Council, was conceived and implemented in parallel with the State’s office expansion and highway construction plans. It involved clearing and redeveloping a much larger 100-acre site south of the Assunpink that included not only the State’s office building locations but also most of the rest of the historic Bloomsbury neighborhood. A key feature of this project was a further reconfiguration of the highway network around the mouth of the Assunpink and along the Delaware riverfront, completed by the New Jersey Department of Transportation in 1969-70, which resulted in the N.J. Route 29 corridor taking on the appearance it still essentially has today.

The sole survivor of old Bloomsbury that was able to withstand the massive force of urban renewal in the 1960s was The William Trent House, which found itself isolated on a 1.59-acre parcel, surrounded by a brick wall, to which was added, almost as an afterthought, another 0.88 acres on its western side, being a strip of land left stranded by the Market Street off-ramp from N.J. Route 29. All around, but most especially in 1961-65, the tide of demolition swept through the neighboring streets and the historically Jewish and east European but now largely black community living there was forced to relocate.

The Trent House gained some solace from being designated a National Historic Landmark and admitted to the National Register of Historic Places on April 15, 1970, but one final urban renewal onslaught remained to be visited on the property. This was the State’s construction of the Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex, designed by Grad Associates and Studio Hillier and completed in 1982, located directly across William Trent Place (former South Warren Street). This enormous Modernist edifice towers overs the Trent House, dwarfing its architecture and gardens, a constant and jarring juxtaposition of late 20th-century government infrastructure with Trenton’s colonial and early federal roots, and a sobering reminder of the devastating social and physical effects of mid-20th-century “redlining” and redevelopment..

C. Construction Chronology

Before The William Trent House – the Trent House property has produced abundant evidence of Native American activity extending back 5,000 to 6,000 years and with a particular emphasis on the period from around 2,000 to 400 years ago. No evidence of Native American structures such as “long houses” has been found, although traces could exist on the site. The extent and type of archaeological exploration conducted to date has been insufficient to allow detection of such remains.

Permanent historic period occupation of the Trent House site dates from soon after 1679 when Mahlon Stacy, Sr. erected a gristmill nearby on Assunpink Creek and established the plantation of Ballifield. It is generally held that Stacy built an initial dwelling near the mill, which was soon superseded by a more substantial homestead close to The William Trent House. The exact location of this second dwelling, also sometimes referred to as “Dore House” (dower house), is not known, but based on historical, cartographic and archaeological data, it is thought most likely to lie north or northeast of the Trent House. Its site may lie beyond the limits of the present 2.47-acre enclosed area that today forms the Trent House property. The late 17th/early 18th-century core of the Ballifield plantation will have contained other outbuildings and farm buildings in addition to the main

July 2021 37 38 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan dwelling. Archaeological evidence in the form of structural remains and related cultural deposits and artifacts may yet survive from some or all of these buildings within the present-day Trent House property.

The William Trent House – The William Trent House was constructed between 1719 and 1721 as a south-facing, five-bay, two-story brick structure with a center hall, two rooms on each side on both floors, and corner fireplaces in each of the rooms which fed into chimneys in the east and west gable ends of the building. A hipped roof was capped with a cupola and the full basement contained the Medallion on the circa 1789-1792 Cox map showing the kitchen. A cooking hearth and oven were located along the west wall of the basement beneath the south facade of the Trent House and the kitchen wing southwest first-floor room. In the mid-19th century porches were added to the front (south) and rear (north) sides of the house.

In 1742, at the request of prospective tenant Governor Lewis Morris, then owner George Thomas built a separate two-story brick kitchen wing to the east of the main house, which was connected to the northeast corner of the main house by a one-story gangway or colonnade. The kitchen wing contained a large kitchen with a cooking hearth on the first floor and four rooms orapartments” “ above, one of which had a fireplace. The first floor also enclosed a well (believed to be the same well that exists to the east of the house today). The connecting gangway may have originally been open and then later enclosed.

The kitchen wing and gangway of 1742 may have been added on to in subsequent years, but were demolished in 1853 when Joseph Wood replaced them with a brick wing that directly abutted the main house. A two-story frame wing may have been added onto the north of the new east wing at the same time or shortly thereafter. By circa 1860 a glass conservatory had been added along the south side of the east wing. This latter structure was replaced by another conservatory structure between 1908 and 1926 and then disassembled and reassembled as a greenhouse on the south side of the restored carriage house in 1934-36. The new east wing in its final late 19th-century form during the Stokes family tenure (1860-1929) was oriented toward South Warren Street, competing with the earlier south and north orientations of the main house. The east wing was demolished in early 1934 as part of the Works Progress Administration (WPA)-sponsored restoration. Unfortunately, it was not documented by the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) before its demolition.

The main house was restored in 1933-36 with WPA funding assistance and upon completion was dedicated by the Trenton Free Public Library Board on October 14, 1936. While architectural drawings were made of the main house and carriage house prior to their restoration, the east

July 2021 39 wing sadly went undocumented. The restoration program entailed a combination of selective demolition, including the removal of the east wing, and replication of original exterior and interior features. Following completion of the restoration, the house was documented by the Historic American Buildings Survey in 1936. Since the mid-1930s restoration, the building’s HVAC system was upgraded in 1988, exterior drainage improvements were implemented around the perimeter of the house in 2001-02 and an ADA-compliant lift was installed outside the north entrance in 2004-05.

Carriage House – the existing carriage house, largely reconfigured in 1934-36, incorporates the brick shell and basic frame of a pre-existing barn/carriage house built between 1890 and 1905. The mid-1930s restoration, supervised by J. Osborne Hunt, included adjustments to the fenestration and removal of a cupola from the earlier barn/carriage house and a southward expansion of the pre-existing building that made accommodation for a new boiler room and the relocated greenhouse from the main house. The building is on the site of earlier 19th-century

The east facade of the late 19th century carriage house before the building’s outbuildings. reconstruction as a Colonial Revival caretaker’s cottage in 1934-1936 Ice House – the core of the heavily restored ice house, with its stone foundations, brick walls and brick-vaulted, earth covered roof, dates from at least the mid-19th century. It underwent a partial restoration in the mid-1930s followed by a more substantial restoration in 1982-83 under the direction of George H. Pearson, which involved installing an enclosing brick retaining wall and additional brick vault, and rebuilding the brick entry.

Well –the well located east of the house is thought to have been rediscovered during demolition of the east wing in 1934. The well head was then restored in 1934-36 and enclosed beneath a canopy (since removed). This is the well that would have been positioned inside the 1742 kitchen wing. It may also be the original Trent-era well from circa 1719-21 and could even date from the Stacy era, circa 1679-1714.

40 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Walls, Railings and Gates – the current appearance of the brick walls that surround almost all of the 1.59-acre parcel containing the Trent House and the carriage house is primarily a result of the mid- and late 1930s landscape restoration. However, some portions of both the walls and railings may date from the mid- to late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Fowler & Bailey bird’s eye view of Trenton in 1874 and the Sanborn map of the same year show a brick wall along the east side of Bloomsbury (former Fair) Street, which marks the western edge of the property. The 1874 Sanborn map also shows a brick wall extending along most of the southern boundary, while the 1890 Sanborn map further indicates that the western brick wall was eight feet high and shows it turning east at its northern end and defining the westernmost end of the northern property line. The Scarlett & Scarlett map, also from 1890, shows even more of the northern property line as having a brick wall. Most of the walls shown on the late 19th-century maps are thought to have been pulled down rather than incorporated within the brick walls that were constructed in the mid-1930s and which still surround The reconstructed well head located to the east of The the property today. William Trent House (view facing northwest)

Based on map and photographic evidence, the low brick wall capped with a two-tiered cast-iron railing connecting to brick pillars, which currently defines the eastern edge of the property, was put in place between 1890 and 1899. The two gates along this edge of the property appear to be of similar vintage as indicated by the 1905 Lathrop map and a photograph of 1899. These features are thought to have been restored in the mid-1930s and subsequently maintained.

Landscape Elements – historic maps show a wide range of landscaping features at the Trent House property from the mid-18th through the mid-20th century, while photographs and newspaper articles from the late 19th century onward provide an even clearer sense of the character of the elaborate gardens and surrounding grounds during the Stokes family era (1860-1929). Very few above-ground traces of these earlier landscape designs and their various elements (driveways, paths, garden beds, orchards, plantings, etc.) remain today, although in the early 21st century an attempt was made to replicate the 18th-century allée of English cherry trees leading south from the southern façade of the house down to the dock at the foot of Ferry Street. This truncated length of recreated allée aims to reflect the historical connection of the house to the Delaware River and the wharf at the foot of erryF Street, but it covers not even one tenth of the original length of this feature.

A major landscape restoration was undertaken in the 1938-41 by the Trenton Garden Club, but again very little of this landscape design remains in evidence today, although reconstructed brick walks surrounding the house and leading to the southern of the two gates along the eastern edge of the property, as well as the location of the present vegetable/herb garden, echo features of the 1938

July 2021 41 colonial revival plan prepared by landscape architect Isabella Pendleton. One tree from the 1938 landscape plan still survives – a hemlock located roughly 110 feet north of the house on the northern edge of the property. Two other trees – a horse chestnut and a mulberry – to the north of and closer to the house, both planted prior to 1930, were incorporated into the 1938 plan and still remain today.

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey of the grounds to the north, east and south of the house produced anomalies that may, upon ground truthing, prove to be remains of historic landscaping features, most notably the circular drive and related features to the north of the house which appear to be present in an engraving of 1850 and on the circa 1789-92 Cox-era map of the property. However, these anomalies may also be the result of the 1938-41 activities of the Trenton Garden Club.

Sites of Other Trent House-related Outbuildings – historic maps also indicate the existence of several domestic and farm outbuildings associated with the Trent House property, none of which, except for the carriage house and ice house, survive today. The Stacy survey map of 1714, the Plan de la Bataille map of 1777, the Berthier map of 1781 and the Cox survey map of circa 1789-92 all show one or more secondary buildings close to the house. The sites of most of these buildings probably lie beyond the limits of the present-day Trent House grounds, but the circa 1789-92 map depict two structures east of the house, one of them possibly the kitchen wing of 1742, that were probably situated within the fenced eastern boundary. A strong GPR anomaly roughly coincides with the easternmost of these two structures, which may be a smokehouse or some other type of domestic outbuilding. The Coxe map of circa 1804 confirms that the main focus of the larger farm buildings, including the stable block, lay northeast of the house on the east side of William Trent Place (formerly South Warren and Bloomsbury Street).

By the mid- to late 19th century, the orientation of the Trent House was more obviously to the north and downtown Trenton and the farming function of the property had ceased. These changes seem to have been accompanied by a repositioning of the service buildings, apart from the ice house, to the west and northwest of the house. The Fowler & Bailey bird’s eye view of 1874 shows a summer house and possible barn/carriage house located along the Fair Street frontage, while maps from this time onward until 1930 show several, mostly small and unidentified, frame structures in this part of the property. The J.E. English plan of the grounds surveyed in 1930 is helpful in delineating the footprints of the original carriage house, an outhouse and a playhouse (probably the summer house). Except in the case of the still extant carriage house, all of these secondary structures could lend themselves to GPR survey and archaeological exploration.

Sites of 132-142 Bloomsbury Street (odd numbers only) – a row of six connected two-story brick dwellings was built sometime between 1908 and 1926 along the east side of Bloomsbury (formerly Fair) Street in the northwest corner of the 1.59-acre portion of the Trent House property. These were pulled down in the early 1960s. No above-ground trace of these buildings survives, although brick walls define the rear (east) property line of all six parcels, the north property line of 132 loomsburyB Street and part of the south property line of 142 Bloomsbury Street.

42 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Oblique aerial photograph, circa 1929, view looking north with The William Trent House circled (Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Free Public Library)

Sites of Structures West of Bloomsbury Street – a range of mid-19th through early 20th-century industrial and residential structures formerly existed west of Bloomsbury Street, within the 0.88-acre western portion of the Trent House property. The driving force for development in this area was the branch raceway of the Trenton Water Power, constructed in the late 1830s. A segment of the raceway between the woolen mills and the canning factory traversed the Trent House property and is evident on maps of 1849, 1860, 1870, 1881 and 1882. It is also visible in the Fowler & Bailer bird’s eye view of 1874. At some point later in the 1880s the raceway appears to have been covered over, since it is not shown on the maps of 1890 or later.

Based on historic map analysis, buildings associated with the Orleans Woolen Mill (later the Princeton Worsted Mills) were present in what is now the northwest corner of the Trent House property. There was at first a frame structure, erected in the late 1840s, replaced in the mid-1880s by a much larger two-story brick structure used for wool sorting and storage, to which

July 2021 43 were added several more frame structures. By 1908, a new two-story brick building containing a machine repair shop and washing, dyeing and fulling operations had been erected by the Princeton Worsted Mills. The entire woolen mill complex, whose main building was located to the northwest off of the Trent House site, was pulled down in the early 1960s. Part of the eastern portion of the Grant & Dunn tomato canning factory, in existence from at least 1870 through 1890, would also have stood on the westernmost section of the Trent House property. The canning factory was demolished by 1905 and the Princeton Worsted Mills expanded on to the site soon afterwards, erecting new buildings some of which stood until circa 1960.

Directly across Bloomsbury Street from the carriage house there stood a row of five connected brick dwellings at 147-155 Bloomsbury Street (odd numbers only). Although difficult to track on the earlier historic maps, these dwellings may have been erected as early as circa 1860. They remained standing until at least 1955, and are thought to have been pulled down in the early 1960s.

There are no above-ground traces of any of the industrial and residential structures that formerly stood west of Bloomsbury Street within the 0.88-acre portion of the Trent House property.

D. Recommendations for Additional Historical Research

The William Trent House maintains its own rich archive, lodged in the second story of the carriage house. This body of material is partially cataloged and moderately well organized, but would benefit from systematic scanning and digitization of its paper records and drawings, and from development and ongoing maintenance of an archival database. Especially valuable in this archive is the collection of architectural drawings made in the mid-1930s by architects working on the restoration of the house and carriage house, and details of the post-restoration record of the house made by the Historic American Buildings Survey in 1936 (also available online at the Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/item/nj0575/).

There are several major archival repositories that contain pertinent historical information about the Trent House and its inhabitants. The most critical are the New Jersey State Archives, the Pennsylvania State Archives, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the New-York Historical Society, the David Library of the American Revolution and the Trentoniana Collection of the Trenton Free Public Library. These repositories are continually adding to, cataloging, updating and digitizing their collections and most have not been recently visited and systematically consulted with a view to identifying specific collections with materials relating to the Trent House. In addition, major collections of records pertaining to prominent historical figures are always in the process of transcription, analysis and publication and may include relevant information. As just one example, Volumes II-VI of the 13-volume series The Papers of General Nathanael Greene (1976-2005) contains a wealth of correspondence between Greene and Colonel John Cox during the period when Cox was based at the Bloomsbury estate and which can shed valuable light on Trenton’s role as a provisioning hub for the Continental Army.

44 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan With the increasing accessibility of research materials online, there is an ever-expanding universe opening up for fruitful study of the history of The William Trent House and its many occupants. In particular, the ready availability of military records (notably at fold3.com), census data and newspapers online, along with New Jersey land records, surrogates’ records and court records, which the New Jersey State Archives is cataloging and making ever more searchable, there is ample scope for researchers to piece together a more vivid picture of comings and goings at the Trent House, not only of its prominent owners and tenants, but also of its servants, its enslaved people and its countless visitors. With this burgeoning of research data, the intricacies of the households occupying the Trent House property can be understood in much greater detail and the lives of the occupants may be compared with other similar properties across the Delaware Valley and throughout the region.

Among some of the more tantalizing areas for deeper historical/archival research are the following: > Interaction between the Stacy family and the Delaware Valley Native American population > The British mercantile underpinnings of the Trent House plantation as seen through the Stacy, Trent and Thomas families > Indentured servants and the enslaved at the Trent House in the colonial and early federal periods > The role of the Trent House as a Governor’s Mansion during the Lewis Morris, Philemon Dickerson and Rodman Price administrations > The Trent House property as a speculative investment and the sequence and process of its subdivision and redevelopment > The life and medical practice of Loyalist Dr. William Bryant before, during and after the American Revolution > Military action at the Trent House before, during and after the Battles of Trenton in December 1776 and January 1777 > The Bloomsbury estate as a base of military supply operations during John Cox’s term as Assistant Quartermaster General (1778-80) > The Bloomsbury estate as a focus of Trenton/Philadelphia society during the John Cox tenure in the 1780s > The Bloomsbury estate as a haven for refugees from the Sainte-Domingue Revolution (e.g., the Worlock and de Woofoin families) > The Trent House property and industrial development along the Delaware riverfront and the Trenton Water Power in the early/mid-19th century > Nineteenth- and early 20th-century residential development around the Trent House > The Wood and Stokes households and Trenton high society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries > The Trent House property and the colonial revival movement in the 1930s

July 2021 45 Aerial view of the Trent House site in 1970, after the surrounding neighborhoods had been demolished through “urban renewal” and Route 29 and state office buildings had been constructed; the Trent House is indicated with a yellow arrow

46 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Archaeological Overview

A. Introduction An archaeological management plan was produced for The William Trent House property in the mid- IV. Archaeological 1990s by Dr. Lu Ann De Cunzo of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Delaware. This document was included as Section B of Volume II of the Historical Documentation & Strategic Overview Planning Study issued by Susan Maxman Architects on January 1, 1997. The De Cunzo plan still has value in 2020 in so far as it provides a solid framework for archaeological research, summarizing the archaeological potential of the site as it was then understood based on historical data and limited archaeological investigation. The plan also lays out an archaeological management policy, preservation ethic and priorities that are still broadly applicable to the site.

Four main topics were identified in the mid-1990s as relevant for archaeological inquiry and remain so today:

> Native American Life and Culture. The William Trent House occupies a critical location at the confluence of the Assunpink Creek and the Delaware River. This is reflected in the chronological and functional range of Native American artifacts found there over the past quarter century. Future archaeological investigations at the Trent House will continue encountering similar materials in both intact prehistoric and later mixed, historic cultural deposits. The bulk of the Native American cultural materials date from the Middle and Late Woodland periods (roughly 2,000 to 400 years B.P.), but lithic artifacts attributable to the Middle and Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods have also been found, demonstrating a human presence in the area extending back at least 6,000 years and perhaps even further. The most recent excavations further emphasize the importance of the site as a Contact period archaeological resource yielding artifacts that reflect interaction between native indigenous people (in this case, the Sanhickans, a branch of the Unami Lenape) and incoming European settlers (most likely, the Stacy family and their indentured and enslaved retainers).

> Cultural Landscape. The landscape around the Trent House likely contained formal elements from at least the Trent era (circa 1714-1733) onwards. A long series of historic maps show changing configurations to this landscape through time with surveys of the property made in circa 1750-53, circa 1789-1792, circa 1804, 1930 and 1938 offering revealing glimpses of the grounds surrounding the house. Views and photographs from the mid-19th-century onwards

July 2021 47 further fill out the landscape picture. A major point of interest is the apparent change in perception of the “house’s orientation, principal approach and façade” (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:B.6.2). As originally built, the main façade was clearly to the south, facing towards the ferry and downriver, and enjoying the warm southern aspect. By the early 19th century the north side appears to have been increasingly regarded as the main approach to the house, reflecting a stronger connection to downtown Trenton. In the later 19th century, the importance of the South Warren Street façade was also evident in the elaborate treatment of the house’s new eastern additions.

> Domestic Life. Archaeological investigations have shown the area to the east of the house to be exceptionally rich in material culture remains and to include not only the foundations of the east wing erected in 1853 but also of the kitchen and gangway built in 1742. Other structural remains, pits, midden deposits, etc. likely also survive east and north of the house. Throughout the site, materials discarded by the varied residents of the house during their day-to-day existence can illuminate their lives in quite powerful ways. Residents of wealthy Anglo-American and French aristocratic background, for example, may leave distinctive material culture imprints, while evidence of the Revolutionary War conflict of December 1776 and January 1777 may also be found. Of particular interest so far as the mid-18th through mid-19th- century kitchen wing and outbuildings are concerned is their occupation and use by enslaved people of African heritage. Increasingly, sophisticated analyses of artifacts and artifact patterning are enabling these largely “invisible” people to be identified from the physical evidence they leave behind ((cf. Silber and Catts 2004; Delle 2019). The African-American presence at The William Trent House is as yet a still unfolding story to which archaeology will undoubtedly contribute.

> Industry. This topic refers to the mid-19th through early 20th-century industrial and residential sites on the Delaware River side of The William Trent House along Bloomsbury (former Fair) Street. Although likely compromised in some measure by the wholesale clearance of the Bloomsbury neighborhood in the 1960s and by subsequent urban renewal actions, this western portion of The William Trent House property may contain substantial mill foundations, the filled- in ditch of the Trenton Water Power branch raceway and cultural deposits associated with the occupation of row houses along the Fair Street frontage. Historical and industrial archaeologists are provided here with an opportunity to study technology, production processes and related work patterns, and the material culture of industrial workers at home.

The current archaeological resource plan updates the earlier De Cunzo archaeological management plan and, with the benefit of several episodes of exploratory investigation, presents a more granular approach to future management and researching of the Trent House’s archaeological record. In addition, recommendations are offered for means by which the site’s archaeology might be interpreted for the visiting public and incorporated into public programming.

B. Summary of Archaeological Work Completed to Date

Restoration and site improvements funded by the City of Trenton and the State of New Jersey have been ongoing at The William Trent House property for several decades. Since the mid-1990s these activities have taken impacts on the site’s archaeological

48 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Aerial site plan summarizing archaeological activity at The William Trent House property, 1995-2019

resources into account in accordance with the requirements of the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act of 1970 (Chapter 268, N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq. and as amended). The various episodes of archaeological investigation (in 1995, 2000-03, 2004-05, 2007, 2015, 2019 and 2020) have all been carried out within the framework established by the archaeological management plan and supporting historical research included in the Historical Documentation & Strategic Planning Study (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:Volume II). Test trench excavated in 1995 across the concrete and The previous archaeological work may be summarized as follows (Appendix 2): stone utility tunnel between The William Trent House and the Carriage House showing undisturbed soils > Utility Tunnel Archaeological Investigations: In 1995, archaeological testing was conducted at alongside bearing Native American cultural materi- two locations alongside the mid-1930s utility tunnel connecting The William Trent House and als; scales in feet and tenths of feet. Source: Hunter the carriage house. Manual excavation of two trenches, each 15 by five feet in plan, showed Research, Inc. 94051/R3:022

July 2021 49 that the tunnel was of concrete and stone masonry construction and confirmed that it had been built in the mid-1930s. The soil profile in both tests revealed a buried A horizon at a depth of around 1.5 feet containing mixed prehistoric and historic cultural materials. The A horizon, between six and 12 inches in thickness, overlay a four-inch-thick A/B horizon interface and a seven to eight-inch-thick B horizon, both of which produced exclusively prehistoric artifacts. Native American artifacts were found at depths of up to 3.5 to four feet below the present grade, including in the upper portion of the underlying C horizon. In total, more than 2,300 artifacts were recovered, more than half of which were of Native American origin, including items datable from the Late Archaic through the Late Woodland period, demonstrating occupation of the site over a time span of 5,000 to 6,000 years. Historic artifacts were chiefly domestic in Public Archaeology Day, June 23, 2001; members of the character and of 18th- and 19th-century date (Hunter Research, Inc. 1995). local community excavating shovel tests in the western portion of the Trent House property; view facing southeast. > Public Archaeology Program: In 2000-2001 a public archaeology program was implemented Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 00045/D1:002. at the Trent House, funded in part by the New Jersey Historical Commission. The program involved middle school students from Trenton area schools and students from the Garden State Youth Facility undertaking a variety of tasks under the guidance of teachers, Trent House staff and Hunter Research professional archaeologists. In all, more than 300 students took part in the program spread across several days in the fall of 2000 and the spring and early summer of 2001. Two public archaeology days were also held in June 2001 during which approximately 130 members of the public, many of them in family groups, visited the site. The bulk of the activity centered on a systematic shovel testing of the Trent House grounds and resulted in participants receiving training in excavation technique, field documentation, soil description, artifact processing and basic artifact identification.

The public archaeology program saw the excavation of 235 18-inch-diameter shovel tests and a single five-foot-square excavation unit. Tests were distributed evenly across a grid covering most of the Trent House property, except for the northeast quadrant where trees, the driveway, the ice house and buried utilities prevented easy digging, and to the west of Bloomsbury Street where industrial development reduced the archaeological potential. The vast majority of the excavations did not extend deeper than 1.5 to two feet, which means that they did not penetrate Archaeological monitoring of the mid-1930s brick drain the full depth of cultural stratigraphy (typically between 3.5 and four feet) that was later shown being removed along the south side of the Trent House in 2002; the front steps, rebuilt in 1935, sit atop the stone to exist over most of the site, most notably around the perimeter of the house. However, these footings of a mid-19th-century stoop visible in the fore- investigations did generally reinforce the results of the two trenches dug in 1995 by showing ground; scales in feet and tenths of feet; view facing east. that the eastern portion of the site (east of Bloomsbury Street) was richly endowed with both Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 02076/D4:008. prehistoric and historic cultural deposits.

50 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan In all, just over 5,400 artifacts were recovered, of which approximately 100 were of Native American origin. Among the latter items were a Late Woodland triangular quartz Levanna projectile point, a core, debitage and thermally altered rock found southeast of the house and a Middle Woodland argillite Fox Creek projectile point, a hammerstone, debitage and thermally altered rock found to the west. A wide range of 18th and 19th-century historic cultural materials was recovered in tests to the west, east, southeast and south of the house, including an abundance of building materials to the east on the site of the 1742 kitchen wing and gangway and the 1853 east wing. Of particular note were several fragments of buff-bodied brick, thought to be of late 17th or early 18th-century date, pieces of earthenware sugar molds, and sherds of mid-18th-century pottery types, such as “scratch blue” stoneware, white salt- glazed stoneware, tin-glazed earthenware and creamware, all mostly found to the east and southeast of the house (Hunter Research, Inc. 2003).

> Archaeological Monitoring of Drainage Improvements: In 2001-02, monitoring of the Archaeological monitoring of the mid-1930s brick drain removal and replacement of the mid-1930s perimeter drain system surrounding the house, being removed along the west side of the Trent House in and the excavation of a five-by eight-foot excavation unit adjacent to the northeast exterior door 2002; view facing south. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. encountered structural remains of various 18th and 19th-century additions and porches. Along the east side of the house, from south to north, remains were documented of the footings of the early 20th-century hot house beds and the circa 1860s conservatory/greenhouse, the southern foundations of the 1853 east wing and the 1742 gangway, and the foundations of the rear section of the 1853 wing. No evidence was observed for basements being associated with any of these structures. Monitoring of the drain removal to the south of the house documented the remains of footings for the 19th-century portico and stoop outside the front door beneath the mid-1930s restoration construction of the front entry. Monitoring also documented the remains of footings for the 19th/early 20th-century porch that extended along the full width of the northern façade and exposed the perimeter drain and utility tunnel along the west side of the house.

The excavation unit placed adjacent to the stair giving access to the house’s northeast exterior door allowed for a closer examination of the southern foundation of the 1742 gangway. This wall was first observed at a depth of 1.5 feet and was set within a builders’ trench that cut down into a four to six-inch-thick buried A horizon. This latter soil horizon, evident at a depth of Excavation unit placed in 2001 over the mid-1930s brick roughly 1.7 feet, contained mostly prehistoric artifacts and was interpreted as a late 17th/ and concrete drain on the east side of the Trent House; drain at top of view, foundation of 1742 gangway at early 18th-century occupation layer pre-dating the construction of the 1742 kitchen wing. The lower right and soils bearing Native American cultural underlying B horizon produced only prehistoric artifacts. materials at lower left; view facing west. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 01049/R2:027

July 2021 51 A total of 395 artifacts were gathered from the monitoring and related excavation activity, with the vast majority (364 items) being recovered from the excavation unit. Among the 58 prehistoric artifacts were a Middle Archaic argillite stemmed projectile point of Morrow Mountain II type, typically datable to 6,800-6,000 years ago and possibly the oldest artifact yet recovered from the Trent House property. Other prehistoric artifacts recovered included a Middle Woodland argillite Fox Creek projectile point, three cores, two cobble tools, lithic debitage and thermally altered rock, along with two sherds of Native American pottery and a stem fragment of a smoking pipe. Historic cultural materials consisted of the usual range of 18th and 19th-century ceramic sherds, glass and nail fragments and building materials that Public Archaeology Day, June 6, 2015; members of the have come to characterize the Trent House site (Hunter Research, Inc. 2003). local community excavating units and screening soils in the area to the east of the Trent House; view facing south > Archaeological Monitoring of Lift Installation: In 2004-05 archaeological monitoring southeast. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 14048/D2:001. accompanied the installation of an ADA-compliant lift at the north entrance to the house. Trenching for this installation took place within soils that had been recently disturbed during the drainage improvements of 2001-02. No archaeological deposits of interest were noted and no artifacts were recovered (Hunter Research, Inc. 2005).

> Archaeological Monitoring of Landscaping and Utility Improvements: In 2007 archaeological monitoring was performed for the removal of trees east of the house, for the planting of eight cherry trees (replicating the allée) to the south of the house, and for the installation View showing four excavation units in the area to the east of an electrical line for lighting along former Bloomsbury Street to the west of the carriage of the Trent House; the well rediscovered and restored in the house. The planting of the six of the eight trees to the south of the house revealed stratigraphy mid-1930s is at left; the foundation of the 1742 kitchen wing is visible in the second excavation unit from the left; view consisting of two landscaping deposits overlying a buried A horizon, which in turn overlay facing east. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 14048/D3:016. a B horizon containing prehistoric artifacts. One other tree planting excavation produced evidence of a possible 18th-century pit or midden with ceramics and faunal remains. In all, 208 artifacts, mostly historic domestic materials but also including five Native American lithic items, were recovered from the tree planting excavations. The installation of the utility line along Bloomsbury Street trenched through mostly disturbed soils, although a probable late 19th-century brick-lined storm drain, 1.5 feet in diameter, was encountered (Hunter Research, Inc. 2007).

> Public Archaeology Program, Archaeological Investigations on the East Side of the House: In October 2014 and June 2015 four days of archaeological fieldwork were carried out by members View of Excavation Unit 1403 showing the foundation of of the local community under professional archaeological supervision and with the approval of the 1742 kitchen wing; scales in feet and tenths of feet; view the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office. Five 2.5 x five-foot units were excavated east of the facing west. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 14048/ D2:010. house on the site of the 1742 kitchen wing and gangway and 1853 east wing. Foundations of

52 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan both of these structures were distinguished, although the full depth of the cultural soil profile was not examined at this time. A range of predominantly mid-18th through late 19th-century domestic cultural materials were recovered, totaling 2,516 artifacts. A small quantity of Native American lithic materials, 23 items in all, were also recovered, all found in historic contexts (Hunter Research, Inc. 2016).

> Ground Penetrating Radar Survey: On May 2, 2016 Peter A. Leach of the University of Connecticut conducted a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey of The William Trent House grounds to the north, east and south of the house using a GSSI SIR-3000 GPR system with a 400 MHz central-frequency antenna. The results of this study, covering approximately 0.75 Dr. Peter Leach of the University of Connecticut acres of the property, exceeded all expectations. Numerous subsurface anomalies of potential conducting a ground-penetrating radar survey on the archaeological interest were observed at depths of up to four feet below grade, some of which it Trent House property in 2016; view facing northeast. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 16006/Plate 5. was thought could date from the colonial period and Trenton’s early settlement years.

In total, 14 buried structural elements (i.e., foundations typically associated with buildings or structures), nine potential historical structures (projected buildings associated with buried structural elements), four pathways, six garden features, four shaft features (most likely, wells or privies) and the base of a flagpole were detected. Of particular note were: a substantial anomaly to the south of the house which it was thought might represent a sizeable buried building foundation; at least one anomaly that appeared to correspond with an outbuilding on the circa 1789-92 Cox map; and several anomalies north of the house that likely derived from landscaping features and other buildings. The GPR survey served as a valuable guide in subsequent archaeological planning pointing excavators to likely subsurface features of interest (Leach 2016).

> Archaeology Field School: Over the course of 20 days spread across the months of June, July and August in 2019, an archaeology field school with an additional public archaeology component was conducted by the Monmouth University Department of History and Anthropology and Hunter Research, Inc. This endeavor was funded by a grant from the NJM Insurance Group with additional financial support from the Trent House Association, Monmouth University and Hunter Research. Extensive public outreach was conducted before, during and after the field school and provision was also made for volunteer participation by employees of the NJM Insurance Group.

Following a work plan approved by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, the field school participants reopened and completed three 2.5 x five-foot excavation units east of the house

July 2021 53 Site plan of The William Trent House property showing selected ground-penetrating radar anomalies detected in 2016. Source: Leach 2016

54 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Site plan showing excavation locations east and south of the Trent House as of 2019 and projected outlines of the 1742 Kitchen Wing and 1853 East Wing. Source: Hunter et al. 2020.

July 2021 55 that had been started in the 2014-15 public archaeology program; excavated two additional 2.5 x five-foot excavation units east of the house; and excavated four contiguous five-foot-square excavation units to the south of the house. All told, 137.5 square feet of previously unexcavated ground and 37.5 square feet of previously partially excavated ground were investigated, representing less than 0.3% of the estimated archaeologically sensitive area around the Trent House.

The field school investigations had two principal goals: 1) to delimit and further clarify the partially understood remains of the 1742 kitchen wing and the 1853 east wing; and 2) to test a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) anomaly in the front (south) yard of the house which it was Monmouth University students participating in training thought might represent the remains of Mahlon Stacy’s late 17th-century dwelling at Ballifield. excavations at the Trent House in June 2019 under the In a more general sense, these investigations also aimed to characterize more fully the poorly supervision of Monmouth University and Hunter Re- understood cultural stratigraphy and soil formations on the Trent House property. search staff; view facing east. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 19018/D2:023 The field school excavations pinpointed the south and east foundations of the 1742 kitchen wing, allowing its 20 x 30-foot footprint, as referenced in a 1759 sale advertisement, to be largely delineated. The well, probably the original domestic water source for the Trent House and possibly predating the construction of the kitchen wing, was established as being centrally located on the building’s north-south axis and slightly east of center on its east-west axis. The footprint of the 20-foot-long, 14-foot-wide gangway was also projected, centered on the basement and first floor entries at the northern end of the Trent House’s eastern wall. The excavations showed conclusively that the 1742 kitchen wing was demolished to make way for the construction of a new east wing in 1853, with brick demolition rubble being used to fill the well. The foundations for the east wall and southeast corner of the new east wing were documented as cutting through and being set deeper into the ground than the earlier kitchen wing foundations. The excavations in the south yard in front of the Trent House found no evidence of structural remains of buildings, despite the recovery of considerable quantities of early and mid-18th-century domestic artifacts. The GPR anomaly posited as a possible house foundation was found to be geological in origin: a substantial in-situ block of bedrock concealed just below the ground surface at a depth of roughly 2.5 feet. Excavation units completed east of the Trent House in July 2019; the foundation at lower left is part of the In all, close to 4,300 historic artifacts were recovered from the 2019 field school excavations. 1742 kitchen wing; the deeper foundation in the center of the view is part of the 1853 east wing; scales in feet These materials date predominantly from the 18th and early/mid-19th centuries, with smaller and tenths of feet; view facing south. Source: Hunter quantities of late 17th and later 19th-century artifacts. The assemblage bears fine witness to Research, Inc. 19018/D4:001 the wealth and living habits of the property’s occupants, reflecting intensive domestic activity

56 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan A composite photomosaic showing the soil profile from over almost two centuries. Of particular note in the historic artifact assemblage are Contact four contiguous excavation units dug in the south yard of the Trent House; gneiss bedrock is visible at the period items, including late 17th/early 18th-century trade goods (glass beads and copper) and base of the trench; the dark brown band is a buried A a fragment of a 17th-century Tidewater clay pipe bowl, along with sherds of late 17th through horizon dating from the late 17th and early 18th-century mid-18th-century pottery and fragments of yellow/buff-bodied “Dutch” brick. Both east and pre-Trent era; scales in feet and tenths of feet. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 19018/D7:067 south of the house the historic deposits and features were found to seal evidence of a deep and prolonged Native American occupation dating from at least the Late Archaic through Late Woodland and Contact periods into the immediate pre-Trent era. The field school excavations revealed close to two feet of broadly stratified Native American cultural deposits and yielded some 2,305 prehistoric artifacts. This assemblage includes several diagnostic projectile points, stone tools and an abundance of lithic debris (mostly reflecting tool maintenance), along with smaller quantities of thermally altered rock and pottery (Hunter, Lee and Veit 2020).

> Soils and Geomorphology Study: With funding support from the NJM Insurance Group and the Trent House Association, a three-day program of soil augering was carried out in July 2020 by soil scientist John M. Stiteler with assistance from Hunter Research, Inc. archaeological staff. Sixty-one 4-inch-diameter bucket auger tests were excavated on a 25-foot grid laid out across the lawn surrounding the Trent House. This work, a direct outgrowth of the 2019 archaeology field school, sought to obtain a clearer understanding of the soils throughout the 1.59-acre eastern portion of the Trent House property with particular attention being given to soil formation processes and the age of the soils, which would assist archaeologists in gauging the prehistoric archaeological potential of the site. Geomorphologist John Stiteler using a 4-inch-diameter The vast majority of the natural soils are now understood to be of alluvial origin and the bucket auger to extract soil samples and lay them out in sequence for pedological examination in July 2020; view product of post-glacial deposition, largely laid down in the waning stages of meltwater facing north. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 20040/

July 2021 57 Excavation profile in excavation units east of the Trent House. Source: Hunter et al. 2020

flow approximately 14,000 years ago and forming part of what is known as the alleyV Heads Terrace. On this basis, prehistoric artifacts from the full time span of human occupation in the Northeastern United States – from the Paleoindian period to the Contact period – may be anticipated on the Trent House property. The depth of soils to the top of the gneiss bedrock ranged from 37 to 113 inches with cultural materials typically occurring within the uppermost 42 to 48 inches. Soil testing documented two dominant historic fill layers, one associated with the mid-1930s landscaping and grading, and the second an underlying well-mixed occupation layer in existence from the early 18th through early 20th centuries. Beneath the latter fill, a buried A horizon dating from the late 17th and early 18th centuries was noted close to the house sealed Glass intaglio with “La Fayette” inscription recovered beneath a layer of redeposited subsoil resulting from the excavation of the basement in 1719-21. during soil auger testing in July 2020; this artifact was The buried A horizon overlay Bwb1, Bwb2 and C horizon soils with Native American artifacts probably inlaid in a ring or sleeve link. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. 20040/D2 largely occurring in the Bwb1 horizon. Several shallow auger refusals, especially to the north and east of the house, were considered a possible indication of buried foundations.

58 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Aerial site plan of The William Trent House property showing locations of soil auger tests, 2020. Source: Stiteler and Hunter Research, Inc. 2020.

July 2021 59 A small quantity of artifacts (411 specimens) were recovered from the soil augering, consisting mostly of 18th through 20th-century domestic materials (ceramics, glass, nails, shell, animal bone), along with a few pieces of prehistoric lithic debitage and thermally altered rock. One item of particular interest was a light green, glass intaglio with “La Fayette” molded into one side. Probably an inlay from a ring or sleeve link, it was likely made in the United States in the early 19th century and may have commemorated Lafayette’s tour of America in 1824. One of the stops on the tour was in Trenton and Lafayette may very well have visited the Trent House.

C. Archaeological Resource Management Goals

Over the past quarter century, a range of archaeological explorations has demonstrated that the 2.47-acre Trent House property holds some unusually rich cultural deposits and features, notably the structural remains of the 1853 east wing of the house and its predecessor 1742 kitchen wing and gangway, and soil layers containing a wealth of late 17th through early 20th-century domestic cultural materials. The recent excavations of 2019 have shown conclusively that the site also contains cultural deposits bearing abundant evidence of Native American occupation from the Archaic through Contact periods extending over a time span of at least 5,000 to 6,000 years. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey conducted to the north, east and south of the house in 2016 identified numerous anomalies, some of which are likely associated with archaeological remains, including other building foundations, landscaping elements and shaft features, such as wells, privies and pits. Systematic soil augering carried out in 2020 further indicates that cultural deposits extend throughout the 1.59-acre eastern portion of the property within a stable soil profile that originally formed some 14,000 years ago. The largely untested 0.88-acre western portion of the property likely holds substantial industrial and residential remains from the 1830s through the mid-20th century.

Four principal archaeological resource management goals are recognized going forward in the preservation planning for The William Trent House property:

> Preserve and Protect the Archaeological Resource – the primary goal should be to preserve and protect the archaeology of The William Trent House property for future study and for appreciation by future generations. Preservation and protection are preferred in the belief that, in the years and decades to come, researchers, site managers and interpreters will have available to them more sophisticated and revealing techniques of archaeological inquiry. Fulfilling this goal will require restricting and regulating ground disturbance within archaeologically sensitive areas of the site as much as possible and, where such disturbance is unavoidable, taking measures to explore, document and analyze archaeological remains in advance of their destruction. Preservation and protection should also extend to the curation and conservation of archaeological materials collected from the site through excavation, monitoring and other activities such as gardening and landscaping.

> Support the Trent House Educational Mission – The William Trent House is one of the premier historic sites in New Jersey and the Delaware Valley and a valuable educational resource for students of all levels, heritage tourists and the

60 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan local community. The site’s archaeological resources can support the Trent House educational mission as the subject of presentations, online and print media publications, archaeology-based site tours, archaeological field schools for students and the local community, and workshops on artifact identification and analysis. Archaeology is a unique medium of communication providing tangible, tactile and visual links to the past, often revealing through material culture otherwise inaccessible detail about the lives of the lesser known denizens of a site like the Trent House (as opposed to the lives of its well-documented landowners and tenants).

> Inform Site Development and Interpretation – the results of archaeological excavations and material culture analyses can contribute substantively to both onsite and offsite interpretation of the Trent House property. Onsite interpretation can incorporate the accurate delineation of building footprints and other features revealed through archaeological excavation. Archaeology will also be a major contributor of content to interpretive signage and can inform trail development focused on introducing the site’s many layers of history to visitors. Offsite, the Trent House archaeological resources can form the basis for and contribute to exhibits, displays and publication materials both digitally and in traditional print format.

> Conduct Prioritized Targeted Research – notwithstanding the need to preserve and protect archaeological resources on the Trent House property, provision can still be made for limited, carefully targeted archaeological excavation and ongoing analysis of artifacts conducted within the framework of a responsible research design. Specific research questions relating to the location, function and layout of specific buildings and other features on the property justify further targeted excavation, while ground-truthing of ground-penetrating radar anomalies and investigating a broader sample of Native American deposits from across the entire site also merit consideration as subjects for future archaeological fieldwork. The less archaeologically sensitive western portion of the property is well-suited to exploratory testing through public archaeology programs. Potentially productive topics for artifact and collections research include detailed study of Native American lithics and ceramics, identification and analysis of Contact period cultural materials, morphological and compositional analysis of the yellow/buff-bodied “Dutch” bricks and a thorough consideration of the material culture expression of all categories of inhabitants of the site during both prehistoric and historic periods, including Native Americans, landowners, tenants, indentured servants and the enslaved.

D. Archaeology and Future Site Development

Archaeological Sensitivity: The William Trent House property is an extraordinarily sensitive resource in terms of both its Native American and historic period archaeological potential. Virtually the entire site holds some measure of archaeological interest, be it the deeper-buried prehistoric soils insofar as these survive intact, the extensive remains of historic period domestic occupation or the evidence of 19th and 20th-century industrial activity in the western portion of the property. Three levels of archaeological sensitivity are recognized: high, where there is a strong prospect of either or both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources surviving largely intact below ground; moderate, where the potential for either or both prehistoric and

July 2021 61 historic archaeological resources is not entirely exhausted, but may be somewhat reduced as a result of historic period land use or land alteration; and low, where there is little to no reasonable expectation for the survival of significant, intact archaeological remains of either prehistoric or historic importance.

Prehistoric archaeological resources may be expected to survive throughout the site except where they have been removed by historic period land use. Based on the evidence of 18th and early 19th-century historic maps, the pre-urban Delaware River shoreline originally lay just west of the present-day Trent House property, roughly along the alignment of the Route 29 off-ramp to Market Street. Theoretically, prior to European settlement, soils bearing evidence of Native American occupation would therefore have existed all across the Trent House grounds, although the recent geomorphological studies suggest that soils extending west of the house to the riverbank were subject to a dynamic riverine environment and were less stable than those to the north, east and south of the house. The construction of buildings, utilities installation, landscaping and gardening during the historic period have compromised prehistoric archaeological deposits over parts of the site, but only in a few locations, such as within the basements of the Trent House, 132-142 Bloomsbury Street and buildings west of Bloomsbury Street, and where deep-buried utilities exist, can it be certain that no prehistoric archaeological potential exists at all. Basements and utilities aside, prehistoric cultural deposits are still likely to survive throughout the portion of the site east of Bloomsbury Street, including beneath the carriage house and under Bloomsbury Street itself. Excavations show conclusively that they survive intact to the east and south of the house beginning at depths of 1.5 to two feet below present grade.

Similarly, structural remains, shaft features and cultural deposits of the historic period are projected to survive over most of the Trent House property. The plan on the opposite page shows the approximate locations of the principal structures of archaeological interest based on historic maps and excavations conducted to date. The most critical zone lies east of the house, where remains of the 1742 kitchen wing and gangway, the 1853 east wing, the 19th-century ice house and other 18th and 19th- century outbuildings are known or projected to be, but it is no less likely that evidence of additional early outbuildings and features like privies and refuse pits may have been positioned to the north and west of the house. The area to the south of the house is considered less likely to hold traces of outbuildings or shaft features owing to this being the house’s southern prospect and original face to the world as seen by visitors approaching from the wharf and ferry. However, remains of landscaping features as well as pre-Trent-era early historic and prehistoric cultural deposits may be expected in the south yard. In the northwest corner of the eastern portion of the property, the rear yards of 132-142 Bloomsbury Street offer some limited potential for yielding archaeological evidence of the lifeways of working class Trentonians during their brief period of early 20th-century usage. The largely untested area west of Bloomsbury Street is an archaeological unknown and may contain structural remains of industrial buildings from circa 1840 onwards connected with the Orleans woolen mill and the Grant & Dunn canning factory, evidence of the Trenton Water Power branch raceway ditch, and foundations and rear yard deposits relating to the mid-19th- century row of workers housing at 147-155 Bloomsbury Street (providing an interesting counterpoint to the later row at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street).

62 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Aerial site plan of The William Trent House property showing locations of former buildings

July 2021 63 Aerial site plan of The William Trent House property showing zones of archaeological sensitivity

64 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The archaeological sensitivity of the property is preliminarily assessed cartographically on the following page, a depiction that should be refined and updated as further archaeological information is generated. The assessment may be summarized as follows:

> High Archaeological Sensitivity – high potential for both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources throughout the eastern 1.59-acre portion of the property (east of Bloomsbury Street) except for: the Trent House footprint and a zone extending north, west and south beyond the exterior walls of the house; the utility tunnel connecting the Trent House to the carriage house; the carriage house footprint and a 40-by-80-foot area between the carriage house and the southern property boundary; the properties at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street; and trenches for utility lines, holes for tree plantings/ removals and past archaeological excavations extending deeper than three feet. Archaeological resources of interest: prehistoric, Contact and late 17th through early 20th-century deposits; structural remains of 1742 kitchen wing and gangway, 1853 east wing, mid-19th-century ice house and 18th and 19th-century outbuildings and shaft features.

> Moderate Archaeological Sensitivity – moderate potential for both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources throughout the western 0.88-acre portion of the property (west of Bloomsbury Street) plus: the zone extending north, west and south beyond the exterior walls of the Trent House; the carriage house footprint (which has no basement) and a 40-by-80-foot area between the carriage house and the southern property boundary; the rear yards of 132-142 Bloomsbury Street; and the locations of former and existing tree plantings. Archaeological resources of interest: prehistoric, Contact and late 17th through early 20th-century deposits; 18th and 19th-century outbuildings and shaft features; early 20th- century rear yard deposits at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street; 19th and early 20th-century industrial buildings; the Trenton Water Power branch raceway; and structural remains and rear yard deposits of 147-155 Bloomsbury Street.

> Low Archaeological Sensitivity – archaeological potential largely destroyed in the following locations: within the Trent House basement; along the utility tunnel connecting the Trent House to the carriage house; the basements at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street; and trenches for utility lines and past archaeological excavations extending deeper than three feet.

Archaeological Procedures in the Event of Ground Disturbance: Ground disturbance of one sort or another on the Trent House property is inevitable in the years to come and for this reason archaeological resources may be at risk. A set of established procedures is necessary to ensure that the least possible damage is visited upon buried structural remains and archaeological deposits. The following recommendations are keyed to the archaeological sensitivity mapping developed the plan on the opposite page.

Generally speaking, ground disturbance in areas of low archaeological sensitivity should not be subject to any archaeological constraints and can proceed without any archaeological oversight. If cultural materials of interest are recovered in these areas, they should be brought to the attention of a qualified archaeologist for the purposes of identification and analysis.

July 2021 65 In areas of moderate archaeological sensitivity, archaeological monitoring of any excavation in excess of six inches in depth is recommended with provision being made for the archaeologist to halt excavation in the event buried features or cultural deposits of potential interest are encountered. If excavation is halted, decisions may be necessary as to whether simple documentation of exposed archaeological resources is sufficient or a more formal archaeological exploration is required. In the most complex scenario, where significant remains are encountered, a program of archaeological data recovery, developed in coordination with and approved by the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO), may need to be implemented. To prepare for a range of potential situations that might arise in areas of moderate archaeological sensitivity, it would be advisable for the Trent House Association to have in place an archaeological resource management and monitoring plan, pre-approved by the NJHPO, to guide future excavations in these areas.

Ideally, ground disturbance in excess of six inches in depth in areas of high archaeological sensitivity should not be permitted, except in the case of limited, targeted archaeological research excavations performed with NJHPO approval. Recognizing that this may not always be practical and ground disturbance in excess of this depth in some high sensitivity areas may be unavoidable, it is recommended that these locations be archaeologically pre-tested and, if appropriate, subjected to formal data recovery or monitoring. As suggested for the moderate sensitivity areas, an archaeological resource management and monitoring plan, pre-approved by the NJHPO, can provide a framework for addressing archaeological resources in high sensitivity areas where ground disturbance contingent on site improvements is unavoidable.

Cultural materials gathered in the course of archaeological fieldwork should be identified, analyzed and cataloged in accordance with currently acceptable professional standards, and, in the case of exceptional finds, conserved. ieldF documentation (notes, drawings, photographs, digital data) should be organized and archived at the Trent House. The site record and the recovered cultural materials should form the basis for a technical report, prepared in accordance with NJHPO guidelines, that describes and interprets the findings. All archaeological activity should be coordinated with the NJHPO, as required by the New erseyJ Register of Historic Places Act, and overseen by an archaeologist experienced in the prehistoric and historic archaeology of the Delaware Valley who meets the federal standards for qualified professional archaeologists as specified in 36 CFR 61.

> New Construction – to the fullest extent possible, any new construction in the form of buildings or outdoor structures should be restricted to areas of low or moderate sensitivity. If new construction is to take place in areas of moderate archaeological sensitivity, the area of proposed ground disturbance should be subjected to a Phase II-level archaeological survey, which may result in a need for some measure of archaeological data recovery prior to construction or monitoring during construction.

> Utilities Improvements – utilities improvements (drains, sewers, water lines, electric and gas lines, etc.) should, as much as possible, seek to re-use trenches and alignments that are already in place, minimizing disturbance of previously undisturbed archaeological deposits. New utility alignments in areas of moderate and high archaeological sensitivity

66 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan should be tested through a combined Phase I and II-level archaeological survey, most likely requiring a combination of shovel testing and unit excavation at a fixed interval along the alignment. Depending on the results of the testing, archaeological data recovery or monitoring may be necessary.

> Landscaping and Gardening – landscaping and gardening present a particular challenge in areas of high archaeological sensitivity in that tree and shrub planting and garden cultivation invariably will involve ground disturbance in excess of six inches and will likely unearth cultural materials of potential archaeological interest. It is recommended that large new plantings (trees with large root balls) be made sparingly and preferably in locations where previous plantings have taken place. The current vegetable garden (located on the site of the mid-1930s formal herb garden and probable earlier garden features) sits atop soils that show promise for yielding prehistoric and early historic cultural materials. If gardening is to continue in this location, it is recommended that a minimum of a foot of topsoil be imported to protect the underlying archaeological deposits or, alternatively, gardening should focus on the use of raised beds. Relocation of areas of deep cultivation might also be considered, either to the portion of the site west of Bloomsbury Street or to the site of the 132- 142 Bloomsbury Street properties.

Archaeology and Site Interpretation: The archaeology of the Trent House property is currently minimally interpreted beyond the display of a few artifacts and excavation-related graphics, the occasional presentation and some limited distribution, hard-to- obtain technical reports. The site itself offers some challenging opportunities for interpretation of what lies below ground.

Perhaps most challenging of all is how best to interpret the Native American archaeological component that lies most deeply buried on the site. For the most part this will be done through indoor display and explanation of artifacts, presentations and programming that brings Native American lifeways and the archaeological investigative process before the public. A portion of the physical site, preferably west of Bloomsbury Street, could perhaps be set aside for Native American interpretational purposes and outdoor programming (see below).

The historic archaeological resources at the Trent House site lend themselves to more tangible forms of interpretation, most notably through the surface delineation of buried structures and judicious placement of explanatory signage and routing of pathways. The area east of and adjacent to the house is the prime location for outlining the footprints of former structures, in this case both the 1742 kitchen and gangway and the 1853 east wing with its adjoining greenhouse and cold frames. The outlining of the 1742 kitchen, in particular, will make the well far more intelligible to visitors as the property’s critical domestic water source. Precise delineation of these structures is achievable with the assistance of archaeology; it is suggested that the 1742 kitchen and gangway be outlined with brick and the 1853 east wing and appendages with faux stone or concrete, allowing these two successive phases of site development to be easily distinguishable. Consideration might also be given to infilling the footprints of these buildings with a gravel surface and perhaps installing benches, muted landscaping and lighting to accent this important part of the site. This area should also be considered as a potential locus for outdoor events and programming (the well could even be reactivated, safely).

July 2021 67 Elsewhere on the property, there are other buildings that may be interpretable through surface delineation of their footprints. These include outbuildings revealed through future archaeological endeavors (e.g., those hinted at by the GPR anomalies and historic maps, such as the summer house and the privy just north of the carriage house), the workers’ homes at 132-142 and 147-155 Bloomsbury Street, and the larger industrial structures west of Bloomsbury Street. The alignment of the raceway connecting the Orleans woolen mill and the Grant & Dunn canning factory offers another possibility: a portion of its course could be represented as a linear pond or water feature, possibly even incorporating some of the raceway’s historic fabric, if it should remain sufficiently intact.

A cohesive system of historic interpretive signage should be an essential part of explaining the historic archaeological resources to the visiting public. Feature-specific signs should be considered for each of the delineated building footprints as well as for the house and carriage house, the ice house and well, while the signage as a whole merits the most careful integration with the site circulation. A trail around the perimeter of the property with accompanying signage might also provide an opportunity to address the interpretation of broader, less feature-specific topics such as Native American occupation at the Falls of the Delaware, the agrarian history of the property and the former glory of the Trent House gardens and landscape. It is strongly recommended that signage be designed so as not to obstruct views of the house, carriage house and yard, and for this reason it is preferred that signs be set flat in the ground or raised only slightly above ground level. Unobtrusive mounting of signs on buildings other than the Trent House or on the interior face of the brick perimeter wall may bear consideration.

Because of the now radically reduced size of the original historic property, its modern urban context and our limited knowledge of the 18th and 19th-century landscape, physical recreation or interpretation of the Trent House’s historic gardens is not recommended, except perhaps for selected elements of the 1938 Trent Garden Club colonial revival design, such as the formal herb garden west of the house. A critical factor in any attempt at historic landscape interpretation on the site is the ability of the site’s managers to maintain any restored horticultural or arboreal treatments in the long term.

Public Archaeology Programming Opportunities: The archaeology of the Trent House provides many tantalizing public programming opportunities, both on and off site, indoors and outdoors. The suitability of the site as a venue for introducing the investigative methods of archaeology to the general public and for training future archaeologists has already been demonstrated to good effect in 2000-01, 2014-15 and 2019. Future field schools and public open days where actual excavation takes place are recommended on a limited and carefully controlled basis within the framework of an NJHPO-approved research design that seeks to answer surgically, specific and important questions about the site that are relevant to its interpretation and management. In this context, excavation within areas of high archaeological sensitivity should only be undertaken under the closest professional supervision and preferably not by novice students or inexperienced members of the public. Fortunately, there is ample scope in the area west of Bloomsbury Street and on the site of the 132-142 Bloomsbury Street properties where introductory instruction in excavation technique and documentation could be offered. It must always be kept in mind that the archaeology of the Trent House property is not a limitless resource and it is important to leave the bulk of the site intact for future researchers.

68 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The processing of field documentation and cultural materials generated by archaeological excavations and testing offers opportunities for students and the public to become engaged in drafting and photography, stratigraphic analysis, artifact identification and cataloging, exhibit preparation and other post-excavation activities. orkshopsW and seminars led by professional archaeologists are a practical and constructive vehicle for educational programming and community involvement. Formal lectures and the online and print publication can further support these efforts.

Another appealing spin-off of archaeological investigations where public participation can be encouraged is in the realm of experimental archaeology. Traditional Native American tasks such as stone tool manufacture (flint knapping), making pottery by hand, cooking through stone boiling (using stones heated on an open fire to bring water to a boil) or roasting pits, archery and spear throwing with the assistance of an atlatl are examples of activities that could be conducted out of doors on the Trent House property, perhaps providing the basis for “open days.” Instruction should be sought both within the professional archaeological community and from members of regional Native American tribal groups.

Regulatory Oversight: In all matters pertaining to the archaeology of The William Trent House consideration must be given to the historic designation status of the property, a circumstance that will frequently require the Trent House Association and the City of Trenton to coordinate with the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJHPO). As a National Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places-listed site, the Trent House property is afforded some protection by federal law from publicly funded and permitted federal actions that could negatively affect archaeological resources (chiefly through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [80 Stat 915, as amended]). In practice, however, much stronger protections are afforded the site’s archaeological resources through its listing in the New Jersey Register of Historic Places. Under the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:1B-15.128 et seq. [N.J.A.C. 7:4]), NJHPO review is required of any state, county or municipal undertaking involving properties listed on the New Jersey Register (https://www.nj.gov/dep/ hpo/2protection/njrrevew.htm). This state oversight, which includes professional archaeological review, is designed to prevent destruction or damage of historic resources by public agencies. Thus, planned ground disturbance attendant on site or building improvements, new utilities installations and even archaeological field schools (archaeological excavation being an inherently destructive process) are subject to review and approval by the NJHPO and in some instances by the New Jersey Historic Sites Council. The Trent House is also a designated City of Trenton historic landmark, although the accompanying municipal legislation makes no provision for the protection of archaeological resources.

July 2021 69 Location of Fair Street

Aerial view of The William Trent House grounds showing the garden to the north of the current Visitor Center as well as the walkway reflecting the former alignment of Fair Street

70 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Site and Landscape Overview

As can be seen from the rich archaeological resources described in the previous section, the site of The William Trent House was occupied by Native American groups for several thousand years prior to European settlement. The Falls of the Delaware were well known as a propitious location with V. Site & Landscape good access to water, game and fish. The same characteristics that made the site attractive to Native American groups were similarly appealing to the first European settlers. Overview In 1679, Mahlon Stacy led a group of Quaker refugees and settled in the area. He established a plantation and built his home, Ballifield, close to the location of the current illiamW Trent House. The land and house were then purchased in 1714 by William Trent, who proceeded to build his country estate and retreat at this prime location. The landscape and gardens around The William Trent House have been key features of this historic site since the main house was constructed around 1719. The site was always envisioned by Trent as a country estate with productive farmland and quickly came to include a variety of outbuildings, barns, workshops, orchards, gardens and fields. “Kingsbury,” as it became known later in the colonial period, was likely intended to replicate the country manors being constructed in Great Britain during the early 18th century. Trent, an immigrant from Scotland, would surely have been aware of the architectural and landscape trends occurring at the time, and likely intended to emulate the many impressive country estates in the homeland. Daniel W. Coxe map of 1804 showing the house and the proposed subdivision of the land around it Over the course of the next three centuries, the site around The William Trent House underwent drastic changes, reflecting the social and economic changes occurring in the town that took the rentT family name and in the country as a whole. As described earlier in this document, the house and its land were sold repeatedly and for different purposes. A key change came when Robert Lettis Hooper II in 1753 purchased what was then a 300-acre estate and sought to subdivide and sell off parts of the property. “His development was comprised of one hundred acres of the three hundred acre site. By August 1758, Hooper had subdivided the land along the new streets of Broad and Ferry into uniform building lots which he offered for sale in his “New Town of Kingsbury...” (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-34). During the tenure of John Cox (1778-92), a prominent patriot who renamed the estate “Bloomsbury” in place of the royalist-sounding “Kingsbury,” further efforts were made to sell off parcels for new housing, while in the early 19th century, with Trenton experiencing the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, Daniel W. Coxe was intensely interested in subdividing what was then less than 200 acres for both residential and industrial development. Apparently, Coxe even intended that The

July 2021 71 William Trent House would be eventually demolished as the land would become more valuable than the structure. Prior to gaining clear title in 1802, he published a leasing advertisement that, “... provides useful descriptions of several of the landscape features. The orchard had grown to 450 apple trees and the garden, Coxe wrote, was planted with a variety of fruit. He described the coach house as constructed of stone and noted the presence of stables which held six carriages and ten horses and a 100’ long stone cow house. This is the first indication of the building materials of any of the outbuildings and their stone construction suggests their permanency” (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-58). With these and later subdivisions, William Trent’s estate was gradually absorbed into the downtown core of what is now the City of Trenton. The dramatic growth and development of Trenton was spurred by the construction of major regional transportation arteries, most notably the Delaware and Raritan Canal in 1831-34 and the Camden and Amboy Railroad (Trenton to New Brunswick branch line) and the Philadelphia & Trenton Railroad, which came to the city in the late 1830s and

1905 Lathrop Map showing development around what 1840s. The Trenton Water Power, a seven-mile-long power canal tapping the Delaware River, built remains of the Trent House site between Fair and Warren concurrently with the Delaware and Raritan Canal, spurred mill development in the downtown and in Streets, labeled as “Edward A. Stokes Est.” south Trenton. A branch raceway of the Water Power was added in 1836-37, passing close by the Trent House and supporting a series of additional mills along the waterfront. Industrial development in turn spurred residential and commercial growth in the area around the Trent House, a neighborhood which came to be known as Bloomsbury. The William Trent House (or Bloomsbury House as it was known during this period) along with its remaining gardens lingered on as a fascinating survival of Trenton’s early European settlement in this drastically changed landscape. Edward H. Stokes’ purchase of the house and surrounding land in 1861 along with his son’s (Edward A. Stokes) tenure at the site until 1929 brought major changes to the house, through additions and alterations, and to the site, by re-imagining it as a grand Victorian-era urban estate called “Woodlawn.” The Stokes family were prominent members of Trenton’s social elite and intended the house and its landscape to reflect their elevated role in local society. The remaining land around the house, which more or less corresponds to the present-day grounds to the east of the former Bloomsbury (also earlier known as Fair) Street, was conceived in the manner of a highly designed “natural” landscape with curving drives and walks, and the corresponding use of exotic and expensive plantings. These included:

Oblique aerial photograph, circa 1929; view looking north “...many old plants and bushes, to-day that money could not buy. Along the house, he (Edward H. with the Trent House circled in red (Source: Trentoniana Stokes) has a row of orange and lemon trees and here and there are fig trees...A century plant, in years as Collection, Trenton Public Library) well as name, is one of the attractions...The numerous beds of flowers, around which gravel walks are laid,

72 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 1930 survey of the grounds of The William Trent House showing the final site configuration left by Edward A. Stokes, including the winding driveway and extensive, mature plantings

July 2021 73 are all surrounded with the evergreen bay wood plant...In the front of the residence is a large rubber tree which Mr. Stokes prizes very much” (Trenton Evening Times. July 7, 1889). In addition to the plantings, the Stokes also completed built improvements to the site. As can be seen on the 1905 Lathrop map on page 78, there are a brick carriage house, several unidentified small structures (believed to include a summer house and the current ice house) and the greatly expanded house. By the time the 1930 survey was completed (shown on page 81), an additional corner of the site had been sold and developed as row houses at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street (upper right of plan). Industrial and residential buildings surrounded the site, including across Bloomsbury Street to the west. Following the instructions of Edward A. Stokes, when he donated the Trent House property to the City of Trenton in 1929, the house was to be restored and used as a Library or Museum. This donation was coincidental to two important national trends that would profoundly influence the future of The William Trent House: the Colonial Revival movement in building and site design, and the financial and therefore funding implications of the reatG Depression. In terms of the building, the Colonial Revival movement promoted an idealized, “grand” vision of what colonial America was like. It had a great impact on how the “restoration” of the house was approached, leading to the wholesale removal of the later, mainly Victorian additions and reconfigurations that had been largely implemented by the Stokes family, and on the decorative treatment of the interior. Much of the restoration work, undertaken in the mid-1930s, was funded by the Works Progress Administration, a federal program that pumped money into infrastructure, construction and restoration projects as a means of job creation during the Great Depression. In terms of the site, the Trenton Garden Club commissioned Colonial Revival plans that were intended to complement the “restoration” of the house. These were an excellent example of the Colonial Revival movement as expressed in garden and landscape design. The winding paths and driveways of the Stokes era were removed, as were many of the trees, particularly the fruit trees, and the rose garden. In their place, an episodic plan with highly symmetrical and elegant parts was developed, heavily reliant on the symmetrical and rectilinear brick paths and the boxwood and other hedges being installed at places like Colonial Williamsburg. The restoration of The William Trent House itself and the reconfiguration (in actuality, the reimagining) of the Victorian carriage house as a colonial outbuilding all helped to create this Colonial Revival image and setting. Some of the elements constructed or modified in the mid-1930s are still in place, including the carriage house (now the isitorV Center building), the brick walls and openings around the site, the brick walk at the main entry of the Trent House and the brick walks and low brick walls around the house. More recently, a number of changes have been made to the site in an attempt to reflect and interpret its long history of change. For example, an heirloom vegetable garden has been planted to the northwest of the main house, and to the north of the Visitor Center. An allée of trees has been planted aligning with the main entry to the Trent House facing to the south, based on 18th-century historic maps. An apple orchard was planted on the west side of the brick wall, on the far side of what was Bloomsbury Street. Other parts of the site are lightly programmed and interpreted, being left open.

74 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan After inspecting the site, the team noted that a small number of trees and plantings from the Stokes era still remain, including several large trees around the house marked both on the 1938 plan to the right, and on the 1930 survey on the previous page. Given the site’s pivotal location, its importance in thousands of years of human activity, the prominence of its early European owners, the part the site and its residents played in the American Revolution, the fascinating development of the site over time, the development of the surrounding neighborhood during and after the Industrial Revolution, and the redevelopment of the site after it was donated to the City of Trenton, there are a large number of fascinating interpretive opportunities both in The William Trent House itself and in the surrounding grounds. These opportunities are addressed in Chapter VIII: Site Description and Recommendations.

1938 Trenton Garden Club plans of the grounds of The William Trent House, creating a “Colonial Revival” landscape

July 2021 75 1930’s postcard from Colonial Williamsburg showing the historic gardens in that City that were reconstructed in the Colonial Revival style

76 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan An historic map of colonial Trenton, the 1938 Trenton Garden Club plan for the Trent House gardens and a 1988 photograph showing those gardens still in place are juxtaposed on this presentation board from the Trent House archives

July 2021 77 Likely constructed in the 1890’s as a Carriage House, the building was altered and expanded during the 1930’s restoration as a caretaker’s cottage. The greenhouse was located to the left, but demolished at a later date. Renovations in the early 2000’s brought it to its current form and function as the Visitor Center for the site (view facing northwest).

78 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Treatment Philosophy for the Historic Resources: Buildings and Grounds Part 2: Treatment The preservation philosophy for the historic buildings, the grounds and other features at The William Trent House is founded in the understanding that all work should be planned, designed and executed & Use in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. That being said, the different historic resources at The William Trent House site should be treated in individual yet interrelated ways. This Preservation Plan recommends two different treatments for the VI. Treatment two primary built resources at the site: Preservation for The William Trent House and Site, and Reha- bilitation for the Visitor Center. In addition, this document recommends Preservation as the primary Philosophy treatment for the historic built features on the grounds. These two treatment approaches are defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

The following definition of “Preservation as a Treatment” is included in the Standards:

Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Exhibits in the basement of The William Trent House Following are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation:

The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.

1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research.

July 2021 79 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color and texture.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

This treatment emphasizes the preservation of the existing resource, including its configuration, finishes and features.

The following definition of “Rehabilitation” is included in the Standards:

Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Following are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:

The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of

80 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

“Rehabilitation” recognizes that the preservation of the resource may require new uses and configurations, but emphasizes identifying and preserving the important, character-defining features.

“Preservation” is the recommended treatment for the exterior and interior envelope of The William Trent House with the exception of the basement restroom, kitchen, former gift shop area and tunnel. This National Historic Landmark has undergone a number of expansionary and remodeling iterations since its original construction as a grand country house, including additions and then major alterations in the late 19th century as the Stokes family made it their family residence within the City of Trenton. With Edward A. Stokes’ gift of the house and property to the City of Trenton in 1929, The William Trent House entered a dramatically new and different stage: In the early 1930s, it was “restored”, in the Colonial Revival sense of the word, and turned into a house museum. While this major project sought to return the original section of the house to its original appearance, the “restoration” included a fair amount of speculation, particularly regarding the level and type of interior finishes and furnishings.

The second restoration in early 2000s was much more closely based on physical evidence and extensive research. Inappropriate work completed in the first restoration was removed, and the finishes and furnishings were reconsidered. The current configuration of the house preserves and restores many of its original features. Therefore, the appropriate ongoing treatment is “Preservation.” The one exception to this approach is in the basement, particularly in the former gift shop area and restrooms. These spaces are more utilitarian and need to have flexible uses. The treatment in these areas of the house should be “Rehabilitation.”

First constructed as a carriage house in the 1890s, then renovated in the 1930s to incorporate a caretaker’s apartment, and then subsequently renovated in the early 2000s as the Visitor Center, this structure needs to maintain flexibility for new and unforeseen, yet compatible uses, while preserving its most important, character-defining features. That is why this report proposes “Rehabilitation” as the most appropriate treatment for the Carriage House.

July 2021 81 On a related note, the current nomination of The William Trent House to the State and National Registers of Historic Places, completed in 1978, is a relatively early example of a Register registration document, and lacks the detail that one would expect to find for more current nominations. The site and its various features, as well as the carriage house, are all covered in a one sentence description, with the carriage house being dismissed as “post-historic.” There is no consideration whatsoever of the property’s archaeological potential.

This Preservation Plan recommends that the nomination be revised to include current conditions; a more extensive and accurate history of the site; updated and expanded descriptions of the house, Visitor Center/ carriage house, the ice house, well and the site and its built features (including walls and walks); and a summary of the property’s rich and wide-ranging archaeological resources. The Period of Significance of The William Trent House property should be more rigorously defined and expanded, since the current nomination’s acknowledgment of significance focuses largely on the construction date of the house around 1719. The Periods of Significance identified in the Susan Maxman Architects report, Volume II, The William Trent House Historical Documentation & Strategic Planning Study centered on five time frames:

> William Trent Period, 1714-1729

> Revolutionary War Period, 1776-1777

> Daniel William Coxe Period, 1802-1835

> Stokes Period, 1861-1929

> WPA Restoration Period, 1929-1938

These five periods encapsulate important aspects in the development of the site, important events associated with the rentT House, and important people associated with the House. However, as this Preservation Plan shows, there are other periods in the history of The William Trent House that are also significant and that should be acknowledged. The entire Period of Significance, ranging from Native American occupation of the site, to the purchase of 800 acres by William Trent from Mahlon Stacy up through the Colonial Revival restoration of the House, Carriage House and gardens in the 1930s, means that the Visitor Center and other built features of the site should be considered important, character-defining features of The William Trent House site. A case may also be made for extending the period of historical significance beyond the 1930s through the remainder of the 20th century to capture the Trent House property’s importance as a model of historic preservation isolated within the context of ongoing urban redevelopment. In deciding on the period and areas of historical significance for The William Trent House it is important that the site’s full breadth and depth of history be suitably acknowledged. In addition, the site’s significance most likely relates to all four eligibility criteria outlined by the Secretary of the Interior for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places: A. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Propertyembodies

82 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction; and D. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The extraordinary range and depth of the site’s significance is why it is listed as a National Historic Landmark.

The south elevation of The William Trent House with the Hughes Justice Complex in the background underscores the long history of the site (view facing east)

July 2021 83 East and south (main entry) elevations of The William Trent House. The well and ice house are to the right (view facing northwest).

84 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Architectural Description & Treatment Recommendations

The William Trent House Existing Conditions VII. Architectural The William Trent House is an excellent example of Georgian architecture as interpreted in the American colonies. This architectural style is based on classical forms of the Italian Renaissance and Description & was the first architect-inspired style built in America, reflecting a period of growth and prosperity Treatment and a desire for more formally designed buildings. Construction followed building manuals called “pattern books” that began arriving in the colonies around 1700. Common features of Georgian style Recommendations buildings include: a symmetrical exterior form and elevations; multi-paned double-hung windows; symmetrical elevations and corresponding plans with a central hall; hipped or side-gabled roof with dentilated or modillioned cornices; brick or stone walls with a water table and/or belt course; and a transomed window over a paneled front door. These features are all found on the Trent House.

The interior of the House is symmetrical with a central hall and rooms arranged to either side. There is a large entry and staircase and four rooms on each of the two main floors. anyM of the interior features are original, including the stairway and floor boards. The nine fireplaces and cellar kitchen hearth are all in good condition, with one fireplace on the second floor surrounded by its original Delft tiles.

Analysis of building materials used in the Trent House indicates that the exterior walls are likely made of locally produced brick on a fieldstone foundation. The dentiled roof is crowned by a hexagonal cupola with weather vane (the cupola is a reconstruction from the 1930’s WPA restoration Exposed beams at the ceiling in the basement of The project). Some of the segmental arches over the main windows may be of imported Dutch brick. The William Trent House original wood structure and wood trim, both interior and exterior, is of oak and pine.

The interior walls were plastered over oak plank and lath and then whitewashed. The plaster was restored as part of the 1930’s restoration project, and original finishes reapplied during the restoration of the early 2000’s.

As described on the museum’s website, the house that William Trent built more than 300 years ago has undergone many changes during that period. By the time the house was donated to the City of Trenton in 1929, the roof had been lowered and the cupola removed, porticos had been built on both entrances, and a large two story wing was added to the east side, either incorporating or replacing the

July 2021 85 kitchen wing that had been added in the middle of the 18th century. The intention of the 1934 restoration was to return the house to its original, “colonial” appearance, as stipulated in the gift by the last private owner, Edward A. Stokes. The work began with dismantling these additions, raising the roof line, and reconstructing the cupola, as well as refinishing the interior according to the best information of the day. Some of this work was redone and/or corrected in the subsequent restoration of the early 2000’s, including installation of plaster and other historically documented finishes.

Abbreviations in table: CDF = Character defining feature

The William Trent House Exterior: South Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendations

Walls Brick: Flemish bond with glazed Primarily original, Good Yes Brick and mortar are in good condition. Maintain. window headers. First floor with some new windows have flat brick arches of brick from 1934 yellow brick likely from 1934. restoration. Entry Steps Bluestone and Sandstone 1930’s with 1950’s Fair to Good Yes Monitor cracking and efflorescence. Repair broken stones and later repairs and maintain. Cornice Painted wood Original and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain reconstruction

Front Door Pair of three panel mortise and 1934 and 1950’s Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial tenoned doors each 29” x 92” x 1 reproduction revival reproductions. Note: The current door security 5/8”. Lock and keeper box lock with system depends on a wood bar placed across the interior. reproduction hardware from 1934 Security depends on staff and docents to unbar the doors, restoration. Six panel transom and requires monitoring when the building is open to above. visitors. Because this is labor intensive, it is suggested that access and security be reviewed. Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 12 1934 restoration Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial over 12 on the first and second revival reproductions. floors; basement windows are 10 light awning windows Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1934 slate roof Good Yes Continue to maintain. replaced in 2002 restoration

86 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 1: General view of the South Elevatio (view facing north) Photo 2: South elevation in juxtaposition with the adjacent Photo 3: View towards the Visitor Center (view facing west) state courts building (view facing east)

Photo 4: Main entry steps showing 1930’s sandstone with later repairs. There is on-going damage to these steps. The front door is a 1930’s Colonial Revival reproduction. Access for visitors is difficult due to the reproduction hardware.

July 2021 87 The William Trent House

The William Trent House Exterior: East Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Fieldstone Base Stone base in a random pattern Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to check for damage to pointing.

Water table Brick: Eight courses topped with Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to course of quarter-round bricks check for damage to pointing.

Walls Brick: Flemish bond with glazed Primarily original, Good Yes Brick and mortar are in good condition. Maintain. window headers. with some new brick from 1934 restoration. Entry Steps Bluestone and Sandstone 1930’s with 1950’s Fair to Good Yes Monitor cracking and efflorescence. Steps should be repairs repointed. Cornice Painted wood Original and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain reconstruction

Side Door Single wood paneled door in the 1934 and 1950’s Good Yes Continue to maintain. Door is a high quality colonial same design as the north and reproduction revival reproductions. south entry doors, but with an eight light transom arranged in two rows; hardware includes a modern deadbolt lock. Basement Access Pair of wood doors painted white 1934, later Good Yes Continue to maintain Door that provide access to steps to replacement basement (these were added in the 1934 restoration) Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 12 1934 restoration Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial over 12 on the first and second revival reproductions. floors

Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1934 slate roof Good Yes Continue to maintain. replaced in 2002 restoration

88 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 5: General view of the east elevation. These steps also Photo 6: The reconstructed well head is in the foreground Photo 7: Detail of the side entry door (view facing west) need some repair (view facing west). (view facing slightly south of west)

Photo 8: View of the east and south elevations (view facing northwest)

July 2021 89 The William Trent House

The William Trent House Exterior: North Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Fieldstone Base Stone base in a random pattern Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to check for damage to pointing. Water table Brick: Eight courses topped with course Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to of quarter-round bricks check for damage to pointing. Walls Brick: Flemish bond with glazed Primarily Good Yes Brick and mortar are in good condition. Maintain. window headers. First floor windows original, with have flat brick arches of yellow brick some new brick likely from 1934. from 1934 restoration. Entry Steps Bluestone and Sandstone with painted 1930’s with Fair to Good Yes Monitor cracking and efflorescence. Continue to steel handrails and ADA access lift 1950’s repairs maintain. Periodically check lift to insure that it continues to provide ADA access. Cornice Painted wood Original Good Yes Maintain and 1930’s reconstruction Entry Door Pair of three panel mortise and tenoned 1934 and Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial doors each 29” x 92” x 1 5/8”. Lock 1950’s revival reproductions. Continue to maintain. These are and keeper box lock with reproduction high quality colonial revival reproductions. Note: The hardware from 1934 restoration. Six reproduction current door security system depends on a wood bar panel transom above. placed across the interior. Security depends on staff and docents to unbar the doors, and requires monitoring when the building is open to visitors. Because this is labor intensive, it is suggested that access and security be reviewed. Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 12 over 12 1934 Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial on the first and second floors; basement restoration revival reproductions. windows are 10 light awning windows

Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1934 slate Good Yes Continue to maintain. roof replaced in 2002 restoration

90 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 9: General view of the North elevation (view facing Photo 10: Detail of the sandstone entry steps, steel handrails south) and the handicapped access lift. Like the south entry, these steps are also showing some deterioration.

Photo 11: Detail of the North entry (view facing south)

July 2021 91 The William Trent House

The William Trent House Exterior: West Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Fieldstone Base Stone base in a random pattern Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to check for damage to pointing.

Water table Brick: Eight courses topped with course Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to of quarter-round bricks check for damage to pointing.

Walls Brick: Flemish bond with glazed Primarily Good Yes Brick and mortar are in good condition. Maintain. window headers. First floor windows original, with have flat brick arches of yellow brick some new brick likely from 1934. from 1934 restoration. Cornice Painted wood Original Good Yes Continue to maintain and 1930’s reconstruction

Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 12 over 12 1934 Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial on the first and second floors; basement restoration revival reproductions. windows are 10 light awning windows

Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1934 slate Good Yes Continue to maintain. roof replaced in 2002 restoration

92 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 12: General view of the West elevation (view facing east) Photo 13: West and North elevations, with brick walk and low Photo 14: Detail of the cornice. Some peeling paint and brick wall in the foreground. The low wall is a remnant of minor wood damage was apparent on this elevation; this has the Colonial Revival garden design of the 1930s (view facing subsequently been repaired east).

Photo 15: Detail of the cornice (view facing northeast)

July 2021 93 The William Trent House

William Trent House Interior: First Floor Major Rooms

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Floors Wide board unfinished wood Original and Good Yes Floors in high traffic area are occasionally splintering. A floor 1930’s protection plan should be developed. Repair and maintain this important character defining feature. Walls Plaster Original and Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Continue to maintain Painted wood paneling 1930’s

Ceilings Plaster, with plaster crown Original and Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Continue to maintain molding 1930’s

Door openings Wood moldings Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

Doors Raised six panel doors with Original and Good Yes Maintain reproduction hardware 1930’s

Window openings Wood, with wood interior Original and Good Yes Maintain shutters 1930’s

Fireplace and Wood Original and Good Yes Maintain mantles 1930’s

Other cabinetry Wood Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

94 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 16: Plaster walls and interior shutters Photo 17: The six panel doors are typically from the 1930s Photo 18: Lighting should be replaced with LED fixtures with restoration UV shielding

Photo 19: SW room on the 1st floor, with typical wainscoting, Photo 20: Typical wood and plaster moldings on the first Photo 21: The wide board floors should be protected either trim and plaster cornice floor with unobtrusive modern or period floor coverings in high graffic areas, or visitors’ shoes covered

July 2021 95 The William Trent House

William Trent House Interior: First Floor Entry Hall and Stairs

Feature Description Period Cond CDF Recommend

Floors Wide board unfinished Original and 1930’s Good Yes Floors in high traffic areas are occasionally splintering. A floor wood protection plan should be developed. Repair and maintain this important character defining feature.

Walls Plaster Original and 1930’s Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Repair and maintain Painted wood paneling

Ceilings Plaster, with plaster Original and 1930’s Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Repair and maintain crown molding

Door openings Wood moldings Original and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain

Window Wood, with wood interior Original and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain openings shutters

Main Stair Unfinished wood treads; Original and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain. Floors in high traffic areas are occasionally splintering. A turned and painted floor protection plan should be developed. Repair and maintain this balusters; painted newels important character defining feature. and handrails

96 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 24: North entry door barred for security. Access should be rethought so that entry can be monitored more easily. Photo 22: Stair to the basement, showing some floor damage Photo 23: Impressive arches in the main hall on the first floor

Photo 25: The main stair includes original and reproduced Photo 26: Bare wood stair treads are splintering and should features be protected

July 2021 97 The William Trent House

William Trent House Interior: Second Floor Primary Rooms

Feature Description Period Cond CDF Recommend

Ceilings Plaster, with plaster crown Original and Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Repair and maintain molding 1930’s Door openings Wood moldings Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

Doors Raised six panel doors with Original and Good Yes Maintain reproduction hardware 1930’s

Window Wood, with wood interior Original and Good Yes Maintain openings shutters 1930’s

Fireplace and Wood; one room has delft tile Original and Good Yes Maintain mantles surround 1930’s

Other cabinetry Wood Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

98 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 27: Access to the small bedroom at the SW corner Photo 28: Second floor bedroom at the SE corner Photo 29: Colonial revival cabinetry constructed around an original fireplace

Photo 30: Detail of fireplace and cabinetry in bedroom Photo 31: Original Delft tile surround, with original and Photo 32: Lighting should be replaced with LED fixtures reconstructed trim around the fireplace

July 2021 99 The William Trent House

William Trent House Interior: Second Floor Hallway

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Ceilings Plaster, with plaster crown Original and Good Yes Monitor plaster cracking. Repair and maintain molding 1930’s

Door openings Wood moldings Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

Window Wood, with wood interior Original and Good Yes Maintain openings shutters 1930’s

Main Stair Unfinished wood treads; Original and Good Yes Maintain turned and painted balusters; 1930’s painted newels and handrails

Other cabinetry Wood Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

100 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 33: Stair treads should be protected Photo 34: Second floor hall Photo 35: Shutters and exit sign in second floor hall

Photo 36: Second floor hall; access to the cupola is on the left

July 2021 101 The William Trent House

William Trent House Interior: Basement

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Floors Brick 1930’s Good Yes Maintain Bluestone Walls Painted field and rubble stone Mainly original Good; Some minor Yes Eliminate water infiltration from window wells; repair and water damage that repaint walls as required. Maintain. has caused peeling paint and some mortar damage

Ceilings Exposed wood structure Original and Good Yes Maintain 1930’s

Door openings Painted flat wood frames and Largely 1930’s Good Yes Maintain trim reproductions

Window Masonry Window Wells Original Good Yes Regularly clean debris from window wells and seek to openings eliminate any water infiltration; repair and repaint walls as required. Maintain.

Fireplace and Large cooking fireplace with Reconstructed in Good Yes Maintain mantles bake oven 1930’s

Kitchen Contemporary, utilitarian Various Fair No Renovate as required kitchen area Restroom Utilitarian restroom with 1930’s and later Poor No Renovate fixtures and finishes so that this restroom can be masonry walls and floor and used by visitors exposed piping

102 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 37: Basement stair, with painted fieldstone walls Photo 38: Some peeling paint is apparent around the window Photo 39: Exposed beams and floor boards in the basement wells

Photo 40: Restrooms should be upgraded and made ready Photo 41: Storage in basement Photo 42: Contemporary kitchen in basement for visitors

July 2021 103 1933 blueprint of the Carriage House (now Visitor Center), showing much of its original configuration

104 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Visitor Center Existing Conditions

Likely built in the 1890’s as a Carriage House by Edward A. Stokes after he took ownership of the house and site, the building was extensively renovated and reconfigured as a caretaker’s cottage during the 1934 restoration project. In the early 2000’s, the building was again renovated and reconfigured on the interior as a Visitor Center with administrative offices on the second floor. The current building reflects the original overall shape and volume, and, to a certain extent, the original window and door opening configuration from the 1890’s. The 1934 project is a good example of the Colonial Revival movement, taking the Italianate original design and changing the details to make the building fit the contemporary vision of colonial architecture. The original arched two over two windows, which had arched stone lintels, were altered to fit with the colonial revival style popular at the time. The cupola and pediment were removed, and a number of exterior openings, both East elevation of the Visitor Center as it now appears. doors and windows, relocated to make the building functional as a caretaker’s cottage as well as to The original cupola was removed and the window emphasize its symmetry. The interior was also extensively reconfigured, with new trim and finishes details altered from the building’s original, Italianate added. appearance (view facing northwest).

Abbreviations in table: Cond = Condition

CDF = Character defining feature

Recommend = Recommendations

West elevation of the Visitor Center looking up what was once Fair Street and then Bloomsbury Street (view facing north)

July 2021 105 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: West Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Fieldstone Base Stone base in a random pattern Original (1890’s) Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to check for damage to pointing. Walls Running bond brick Primarily original, Good Yes Brick and mortar are generally in good condition, with with some new some areas showing water damage. These areas require brick from 1930’s repointing. Continue to maintain. renovation.

Entry Steps Brownstone Likely 1930’s Good Yes Maintain.

Cornice Painted Wood 1930’s renovation Good Yes Maintain

Front Door Six panel wood door with transom 1930’s renovation Good Yes Maintain above.

Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 1930’s renovation Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial typically six over six revival reproductions.

Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1930’s slate roof Fair to poor; Yes Repair; replace within five years; replacing in kind is slate is preferable; composite material can be considered reaching the end of its useful life “Flat” Roof Membrane roof, not visible from Unknown Poor No Replace as soon as possible ground level

106 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 43: West elevation of the Visitor Center (view facing Photo 44: The blank window at the center of this photograph Photo 45: West elevation and front door, showing the Colo- northeast) once looked into the greenhouse that had been an addition nial Revival detailing added in the 1930’s (view facing east) on the Trent House and relocated here in the 1930s; it was subsequently demolished (view facing east).

Photo 46: West elevation. This area has some water damage Photo 47: Oil tank in the former greenhouse area (view fac- near the base and requires repointing (view facing northeast). ing northwest)

July 2021 107 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: North Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Fieldstone Base Stone base in a random pattern Original Good Yes Subject to water damage from splashing. Monitor to check for (1890’s) damage to pointing.

Cornice Painted Wood 1930’s Good Yes Maintain renovation Side Door Six panel wood door with transom 1930’s Good Yes Maintain above. renovation

Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 1930’s Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial revival typically six over six renovation reproductions.

108 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 49: North elevation. This facade was regularized as Photo 50: Detail of the North elevation (view facing south- Photo 51: This is a relocated door on the north elevation, dat- part of the 1930’s Colonial Revival renovation (view facing west) ing from the 1930’s renovation. south).

Photo 52: Lower portion of the North elevation, showing some water damage and areas that need to be repointed (view facing south)

July 2021 109 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: East Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Walls Running bond brick Primarily Good to fair Yes Brick and mortar are generally in good condition, with some original, with areas showing water damage. These areas require repointing. some new brick Continue to maintain. from 1930’s There are “shadows” where shutters had been installed. renovation. Reinstalling the original or good reconstructions would be appropriate. Cornice Painted Wood 1930’s Good Yes Maintain renovation Entry Door Pair of two panel doors. Recent Likely 1930’s Good Yes Maintain. Since these are large doors opening directly hardware. renovation. into the multi-use space, it may make sense to consider a reconfiguration with “airlock.” Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 1930’s Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial revival typically six over six renovation reproductions.

Slate Roof Slate tiles with copper flashing 1930’s slate roof Fair to poor; Yes Repair; replace within five years; replacing in kind is slate is preferable; composite material can be considered reaching the end of its useful life Storage Shed Contemporary, pre-manufactured Recent Good No This shed detracts from the experience of the building and site shed and should be removed.

110 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 53: East elevation (view facing west)

Photo 54: The shed on the left should be relocated so that it is Photo 55: The area to the left is the location of the greenhouse not located so prominently (view facing southwest) that had been relocated from the main house and reconstructed here. This was demolished more than 30 years ago (view facing west).

Photo 56: Slate tiles are missing, and deterioration of the slate roof and flashings are evident )view facing east).

July 2021 111 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: South Elevation

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Cornice Painted wood 1930’s Good Yes Maintain renovation

Rear Door Six panel wood door Replaced in Good No Maintain. 2019 Windows Wood, double-hung windows, 1930’s Good Yes Continue to maintain. These are high quality colonial revival typically six over six renovation reproductions.

112 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 57: Oblique view of the South elevation, showing the brick lower level and the wood addition on top (view facing northwest). Photo 58: Brick wall inside the former greenhouse area (view Photo 59: Formerly inside the reconstructed greenhouse, facing north). this is now an exterior wall with louvers for the building’s HVAC system (view facing north).

Photo 60: Rear door to the Visitor Center, with the oil tank to the left (view facing north)

July 2021 113 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: First Floor

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation

Floors Wood, brick and concrete 1930’s; some may be Good Yes Maintain earlier

Walls Plaster and gypsum drywall 1930’s and renovation Good No Maintain as Visitor Center in early 2000’s

Ceilings Plaster and gypsum drywall 1930’s and renovation Poor to Good No After roof repair/ replacement, repair and/or replace as Visitor Center in damaged drywall, especially in kitchen early 2000’s

Door openings Painted wood trim 1930’s and renovation Good Earlier trim: Maintain older, decorative trim as Visitor Center in Yes early 2000’s

Doors Painted wood panel doors, two Four panel: Likely Good Early doors: Maintain older panel doors and four panel 1930’s; two panel are Yes from the more recent renovations Window Painted wood trim 1930’s and renovation Good Earlier trim: Maintain older, decorative trim openings as Visitor Center in Yes early 2000’s

Stairs Clear finished treads and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain risers; painted balusters and handrail, etc.

Restroom and other Contemporary fixtures Renovation of building Fair to Good No Maintain plumbing fixtures as Visitor Center in the early 2000’s

114 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Other cabinetry Kitchen cabinets, etc. Renovation of building Fair to Good No as Visitor Center in the early 2000’s

Photo 61: The main space on the ground floor serves multiple functions.

Photo 62: The double entry doors are large and open directly Photo 63: Storage room on the first floor to the exterior without a weather break

Photo 66: Water damage from the “flat” roof over the kitchen

Photo 64: View to the kitchen on the first floor Photo 65: Water damage, and communication panels needed repair and upgrade

July 2021 115 The William Trent House

Visitor Center: Second Floor

Feature Description Period Condition CDF Recommendation Floors Wood 1930’s Good Yes Maintain

Walls Plaster and gypsum drywall 1930’s and renovation Good No Maintain as Visitor Center in early 2000’s

Door openings Painted wood trim 1930’s and renovation Good Earlier Maintain older, decorative trim as Visitor Center in trim: early 2000’s Yes

Doors Painted wood panel doors, two Four panel: Likely Good Early Maintain older panel doors and four panel 1930’s; two panel are doors: from the more recent Yes renovations Window Painted wood trim 1930’s and renovation Good Earlier Maintain older, decorative trim openings as Visitor Center in trim: early 2000’s Yes

Stairs Clear finished treads and 1930’s Good Yes Maintain risers; painted balusters and handrail, etc.

Restroom and other Contemporary fixtures Renovation of building Fair to Good No Maintain plumbing fixtures as Visitor Center in the early 2000’s

116 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photo 67: Main stairs to the second floor Photo 68: Upper floor of the Visitor Center with 1930s Photo 69: Office on the second floor detailing

Photo 70: Water damage on the ceiling Photo 71: Second floor bathroom Photo 72: Plaster damage from water infiltration on the second floor

July 2021 117 1930 survey of the Trent House site soon after its donation to the City of Trenton and prior to restoration; the 19th century additions to the house, as well as plantings in the gardens and the surrounding houses and some industrial structures, are indicated (plan has been turned so that North is facing to the top of the page)

118 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Site Description & Recommendations

The William Trent House currently occupies 2.47 acres (two lots of 1.59 and .88 acres) bounded by Market Street, William Trent Place, parking lots for the State of New Jersey (owned by the City of Trenton) and Route 29. Originally comprised of more than 800 acres that included much of what is VIII. Site Description now downtown Trenton, the area surrounding the present-day, much-reduced Trent House property has changed dramatically as it underwent subdivision and development, first by the rents,T and & Recommendations then by a series of successive owners. The final changes occurred when the last private owner of the house, Edward A. Stokes, donated The William Trent House, the carriage house and the surrounding property to the City of Trenton in 1929 on the condition that the house be restored and used as a library, museum, art gallery or some combination. In the 1960s, as the surrounding area was being demolished for “urban renewal” and to make way for the construction of Route 29, an additional .88 acres was added to the site, including the former Fair Street right-of-way and a number of properties between that street and the future Route 29. This acquisition brought the site to its current configuration.

The site includes several built structures including, of course, The William Trent House itself; the Visitor Center (originally constructed as a carriage house by the Stokes family between 1890 and 1905); a reconstructed well to the east of the house; and a reconstructed ice house to the northeast of the house.

Built landscape features include the brick walls located on the south and west sides of the Trent House property, constructed by the Stokes family and marking the limits of their property, and then altered during the 1934-36 restoration; the brick walls and steel fencing along Market and William Trent Place (likely constructed in the late 19th century and given a “colonial” appearance during Detail of the Fowler and Bailey bird’s eye view of the 1930s restoration); brick paths and low brick walls, largely constructed during the mid-1930s Trenton from 1874 showing what is now the Trent “restoration”; and a crushed gravel courtyard, relaid and reconfigured in the 2004 renovation project. House and its grounds. This is shortly after Edward H. Stokes purchased the property. The site also includes extensive plantings, a few still surviving from, and even before, the 1930s restoration, with the remainder planted in the subsequent years, including a major planting campaign during the 2007 renovation. The overall condition of the site is fair to good. Some of the site issues requiring attention include:

> Both the well and the icehouse need masonry repairs and exterior wood repairs and repainting

> The gravel paths and courtyard are overgrown with weeds and are ill-defined

July 2021 119 > There are holes and pits on the grounds in various locations; ground mounted exterior lighting around the William Trenton House is inoperable or damaged

> There are missing trees, trees with dead limb and several tree stumps that need to be removed

> Pedestrian access into the site is circuitous and difficult to navigate

> While in overall good condition, there are portions of the brick wall that need to be repointed, and the decorative iron and steel fencing will need to be repainted

As previously stated in this report, the site presents an extraordinary range of opportunities for interpretation and programming. The extensive archaeological resources, as well as the fascinating history of change at the site and in the surrounding neighborhood present a rare opportunity for compelling interpretation of many important aspects of American history. Opportunities for interpretation on the site include:

> Native Americans

> Site development during the colonial period

> The Revolutionary War

> Industrial Trenton and the Trent House neighborhood

The current site design includes a number of nods to these themes, including a kitchen garden (referring both to colonial gardens and to the location of a garden during the Stokes period), an allée of cherry trees to the south of the main entrance of the house (referring to the allée of trees that appears on 18th century maps); and the path and tree plantings intended to interpret the alignment of Fair Street. However, these features are not always clearly defined and are not adequately interpreted for visitors. Certain aspects of the current site design and organization could be reinforced to improve the access to the site and foster a better understanding of the site’s history. In addition, the construction of a new Visitor Center, if appropriately placed, could help by providing important programmatic space, but also assist in interpreting the site’s 19th and 20th-century development, particularly its former industrial and residential neighbors. The two concept site design variations on the next pages have the following goals:

Concept 1: Concept 1: Strengthen the interpretation of the colonial period, industrial Trenton and the Victorian period (Stokes family). Aspects of this design variation include:

> Emphasizing the allée of trees to the south of the house and adding interpretive signage

120 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan > Outlining the extent of the 18th-century kitchen wing at grade and adding ground-level interpretive signage

> Planting and interpreting a colonial kitchen garden to the west of the house, including interpretive signage

> Adding paths, trees, plantings and interpretive signage to the north of the house to interpret the Stokes period

> Outlining the additions to the east of the Trent House constructed by the Stokes family and adding ground-level interpretive signage

> Strengthening the design of the former Bloomsbury (Fair) Street corridor and adding signage interpreting industrial Trenton and the changes around the estate

> Constructing a new Visitor Center along this former right of way to emphasize its character as a former street and to reflect the industrial character of the area in the 19th and early 20th centuries

> Adding signage that interprets the earliest history of the site, in particular Native American use and settlement in the area

Concept 2: Strengthen the interpretation of the Colonial Revival period, industrial Trenton and the Victorian period (Stokes family). Aspects of this design variation include:

> Reconstructing the Colonial Revival garden to the south of the house and adding interpretive signage

> Outlining the extent of the 18th-century kitchen wing at grade and adding ground-level interpretive signage

> Reconstructing the Colonial Revival herb garden to the west of the house, including interpretive signage

> Adding paths, trees, plantings and interpretive signage to the north of the house to interpret the Stokes period

> Outlining the additions to the east of the Trent House constructed by the Stokes family and adding ground-level interpretive signage

> Strengthening the design of the former Fair Street corridor and adding signage interpreting industrial Trenton and the changes around the estate

> Adding signage that interprets the earliest history of the site, in particular Native American use and settlement in the area

July 2021 121 Site Concept Design 1: Clarify the interpretation of the early landscape while adding interpretation of the 19th and 20th century changes

122 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Site Concept Design 2: Include interpretation of the early landscape, but add interpretation of the Victorian period, the Colonial Revival landscape, and the development of the surrounding industrial neighborhood

July 2021 123 Both concepts provide opportunities for experiencing the house and site in new and different ways, encouraging visits from a more diverse group of people with a broader range of interests.

Another important aspect of the site is related not to its interpretation but rather to its use, and the ability of the Trent House Association and the City of Trenton to gain income from renting the site and facilities for appropriate events. The grounds of The William Trent House are an extraordinary community resource partly because of their location close to downtown and partly because of their enclosed, secure and bucolic nature. The property is surrounded by a fence, has excellent automobile, public transportation and pedestrian access, and is idyllic within an urban environment, with each part of the grounds having a different character, thus allowing for different kinds of events to be accommodated in each area.

The Trent House Association already hosts educational and fundraising events throughout the year, including the previously described public archaeology days, various sales and events around the holidays, and fun, educational events designed for children and adults. Occasionally, the site is used for private celebrations, including weddings, but these types of potentially lucrative events are not currently marketed due to lack of staff capacity and lack of catering and other, more specialized or larger meeting and gathering spaces. Many historic sites have found that hosting conferences and other private events can provide an important income stream that helps to insure long-term economic sustainability.

The proposed, expanded Visitor Center could be designed to provide space for these kinds of events and functions that would provide on-going, predictable income for The William Trent House. These events could include conferences, board meetings, board retreats, lectures, presentations, and weddings and other celebrations, etc. To accommodate these kinds of events, adequate restroom facilities, a warming kitchen, a large presentation space, a smaller meeting room and access to outdoor seating could be provided. A Visitor Center designed with these kinds of spaces would allow The William Trent House to become a popular venue with an important income stream. If designed with this purpose in mind, the proposed Visitor Center could also allow these types of events to take place without needing to closing the main house and grounds to the public.

124 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Proposed location of Visitor Center

Aerial view of the grounds showing the portion that would be reserved for interpreting the various periods of significance for the site; the area above the current Visitor Center could provide the location for the proposed Visitor Center as well as certain kinds of event programming

July 2021 125 145 Bloomsbury Street in 1958 was one of a number of industrial buildings constructed around the Trent House site starting in the early 19th century; view facing southwest.

126 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Use and Interpretation of the Historic Resources

The William Trent House, the Visitor Center, the built landscape features and the associated grounds offer an extraordinary opportunity to interpret Trenton, New Jersey, and important aspects of national history in a wide range of compelling ways. The site has been used as a museum since the WPA restoration of 1934-36 and should continue to operate in this way, with a new emphasis on its IX. Use & role as a research center for the site and certain aspects of Trenton’s history. Originally devoted to Interpretation interpreting solely the Trent family and life in the 1720s, over the years the use and interpretation of this National Historic Landmark have expanded in exciting ways. Initial interpretation began with a narrow, often fanciful and relatively inaccurate depiction of the imagined colonial life of the Trents, but today goes far beyond this. For example, more recent interpretive exhibits explore the fact that the Trent family owned slaves, display some of the extraordinary Native American and colonial archaeological resources found on the site, and describe the impact of the Colonial Revival movement on the property.

Going forward, the three principal elements of The William Trent House property – the house itself, the carriage house and the grounds – should be used and interpreted in different yet coordinated and synergistic ways to provide a broad and expansive view of the site, allowing for multiple interpretations and encouraging multiple visits from a larger and more diverse group of patrons.

The William Trent House:

The main house has been used as a museum and has interpreted the Trent family and Trenton’s early history since the 1934-36 WPA restoration. The interpretation of the house has evolved over time, starting with a relatively typical Colonial Revival approach, which included idealized and upscaled furnishings and decorations that were not accurate to the period. More recently, and particularly since the restoration activity of the early 2000s, interpretation has developed to include a much more accurate representation of colonial life at the house, and now includes discussions of slavery and the individual slaves who were forced to serve on the Trent’s estate and in their household. The plaque at the entry gate commemorating the donation of the site to the City of Trenton and its restoration The William Trent House should continue to be used as a museum. As previously described, the by the WPA in 1934-1936; view facing west. interpretive opportunities in the House include:

> The Trent family, other colonial owners and occupants, and important visitors

> Slavery and indentured servitude at the estate and in New Jersey

July 2021 127 > The restoration of the house in 1934-1936 in the Colonial Revival style, and the more recent restoration based on extensive research

The Carriage House (Visitor Center):

The carriage house and current Visitor Center should continue to be used as office, research and multi-use space to assist visitors. Its use as a research center and archives can be emphasized, as this fits nicely with the terms of the Stokes family donation to the City in 1929. The building can also be used to interpret the Colonial Revival ethos, since its style and configuration were purposely changed during the restoration of the early 1930s.

One of the drawbacks of the current Visitor Center is that its size and configuration are inadequate to provide the needed orientation, exhibit, presentation, administrative and gift shop space needed to accommodate visitors. One of the long-term recommendations of this plan is to construct a new, larger Visitor Center (see below). The new building would be devoted to orienting visitors, providing space for gift sales, more room for permanent and changing exhibits, and a much larger space for presentations. If a new Visitor Center is built, the current Visitor Center can continue to be used as additional exhibit space, as well as space for research and administrative offices.

The Grounds:

The grounds of The William Trent House present extraordinarily rich opportunities for interpretation and programming. The dramatic changes that have occurred on the grounds, and in the surrounding neighborhood, over many decades reflect the larger trends that dramatically changed the physical form of Trenton and the built environment of the nation.

The grounds contain a mix of buildings (the house and Visitor Center), built landscape features (walks, walls, railings, the well, the ice house, etc.), plantings (lawns, gardens, trees and shrubbery, etc.) and archaeological resources. Given this range of features and opportunities, the grounds are currently the least clearly interpreted and programmed aspect of The William Trent House property. The restoration projects of the early 2000s implemented purposeful and drastic changes to the site, including the removal of many aspects of the Colonial Revival gardens and subsequent replacement with new landscape features (e.g., an allée of cherry trees to the south of the main house that references a key aspect of the 18th century estate). However, these landscape features are not clearly interpreted or even coherently designed. The site would therefore benefit from a clear master plan that carefully addresses the interpretive opportunities. Although the various archaeological discoveries have only been made quite recently, there is ample scope for interpreting buried remains on the property (e.g., the 1742 kitchen wing, the 1853 east wing, and other outbuildings and lost landscape elements).

With regard to landscape and broader site interpretation, certain aspects of the current site design and organization could be reinforced, including the allée of trees to the south of the house which references the colonial-era allée shown on early maps;

128 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Interpret Victorian Era Interpret Industrial Trenton

Interpret Colonial Period

Indicate Outlines of Former Additions

Interpret Native Americans

Interpret Colonial Period

The red stars on this site aerial indicate potential locations for site interpretation; the red ellipse is a schematic indicating a potential walk to connect these site interpretation locations. A proposed location for a new Visitor and Exhibit Center is also indicated.

July 2021 129 and the reference to Bloomsbury (former Fair) Street running parallel and adjacent to the property’s western brick wall and the west side of the Visitor Center. The courtyard at the Visitor Center, which served as the access area for carriages when the building was first constructed, could also be emphasized and more clearly interpreted. Concept plans that provide options for preserving, organizing and interpreting the site are included in Chapter VIII.

Opportunities for interpretation of the grounds fall within four main categories:

> Native Americans

> Site development during the colonial period

> The Revolutionary War

> Industrial Trenton and the Trent House neighborhood

A New Visitor Center:

When the carriage house/caretaker’s cottage was renovated as a Visitor Center as one of the numerous projects undertaken in the early 2000’s, the new facility provided much needed visitor amenity space, as well as offices for the rentT House Association. However, since that time, it has become increasingly apparent that this building is now inadequate in several ways. First, the location and design of the main entry can be confusing, particularly for first time visitors approaching the building from the parking area to the south. If not being guided, the first door typically seen by these visitors appears to be the main entry but is not available for public access. Instead, visitors are guided further along, then around the building to the courtyard and then achieve entry through a pair of large double doors.

Second, the main space on the ground floor is trying to do too many things at once. It is used to greet visitors, as a small gift shop, for exhibits and for public meetings. This means that furniture constantly needs relocating for different functions, and that no single program function is adequately served. This Preservation Plan recommends that in the long term, a new, larger Visitor Center be constructed to the west of the current Visitor Center, along what was once known as Fair or Bloomsbury Street. This area is less sensitive from an archaeological point of view and will not interfere with viewsheds of the house and its surrounding gardens. The program for the new Visitor Center should include visitor orientation, exhibit space for both permanent and changing exhibits, a presentation space for meetings, lectures, and films; and a gift shop. This will allow the current Visitor Center to be used for administrative offices, archives, research and special exhibit space. A preliminary location for the Visitor Center is shown Chapter VIII, with a preliminary program described in Chapter XIII.

130 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Sustainable Operation of The William Trent House:

Like many historic sites, one of the biggest challenges facing The William Trent House is long-term, stable funding for operations. This includes funding for maintenance of the buildings and care of the collections, but also funding for sufficient staff to adequately administer, monitor, promote and fund this extraordinarily significant site. This issue is a good example of the “chicken and egg” conundrum: The current visitation to the site does not justify or help fund additional staff, but the site can’t attract, schedule or support the additional visitation that the significance of the site warrants because it doesn’t have sufficient staff.

This issue was underscored in the recently completed report The New Jersey Revolutionary War Sites: Site and Visitor Readiness Assessment. In this report, the visitor readiness is defined as:

“…the consistent delivery of an experience at an historic site, event, or activity. Defined by adhering to published hours of operation, “consistency” provides the experience marketed to visitors at the published price of admission (if applicable), and offers a variety of amenities and services (gift shop, tour guides, on-site literature, etc.) to aid in the delivery of the desired experiences. Cleanliness and safety are expected; and quality is assumed at visitor-ready sites. The designation of visitor readiness affirms the promise and responsibility of the host – providing open and accessible sites ready to welcome visitors. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, one of the first destinations to create a designation program for heritage sites, describes visitor readiness as “being prepared to welcome the public, having the ability to meet their expectations, and exhibiting high standards of appearance and operation.””

The criteria used to assess whether a site is visitor ready include: a) Open a minimum of three days a week, including one weekend day; b) Staffed (including both professional and volunteer staff); c) Programming, guided tours scheduled at least once a month; d) Information available on site for visitors (exhibits, brochures, interpretive signs); e) Visible signage, lighting and well- marked entrance/access; f) ADA Compliant; g) Public parking, restrooms available.

In many ways, the William Trent House IS visitor ready, and other chapters of this report address physical aspects that can be improved to make the William Trent House even more attractive and welcoming for visitors. That being said, the limited professional staff at the site impacts visitor experience and visitation capacity, and many of the interpretive and long-term recommendations made in this Preservation Plan will require staff support to make them feasible. The hands-on Board of Trustees fills in many gaps, but volunteer efforts must be supported with sufficient, full-time and part-time trained staff to ensure the quality and predictability of the visitor experience. This will become particularly important if the William Trent House is serious about expanding with the construction of a new Visitor Center, and expanding the site’s interpretation and programming. Determining the optimal level of professional staffing will likely need a separate, focused planning effort, but sites of this caliber typically require at least three full-time positions, including an Executive Director, Director of Educational Programming and a Curator, as well as docents, which could be largely volunteer supplemented by a handful of part-time

July 2021 131 paid positions. In addition, a full or part-time Director of Development will also be needed at some point. To support this level of staffing, the annual operating budget would likely need to increase to at least $400,000 per year. Some of this can be funded with earned revenue, but the Trustees, the City of Trenton, Mercer County and other entities will need to come up with additional, predictable funding if the William Trent House is to begin to reach its full potential.

132 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Recent drone photograph showing the south elevation of The William Trent House (view facing north; Hunter Research, Inc. 2019)

July 2021 133 The main stair in The William Trent House. This is an open stair, permitted by New Jersey’s Rehabilitation subcode because of the historic significance of the structure and the controlled nature of visitation.

134 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Code and Accessibility Review of the Historic Buildings at The William Trent House Introduction: Clarke Caton Hintz completed a code analysis of the two historic structures that can accommodate staff and visitors: The William Trent House and the Visitor Center. The purpose of this analysis is to understand existing and potential building and life safety issues, as well as code inspection and X. Code & accessibility issues so that improvements to the safety and usability of these historic structures can be Accessibility designed and budgeted.

Applicable codes: 2018 NJ-IBC 5:23 NJ rehabilitation code

Site Area: 1.59 acres (69,200 sf) approx.

Building Footprint: William Trent House: 1,975 sf Visitor Center: 1,677 sf

Existing Building Area: William Trent House: North entry to The William Trent House, showing the Basement: 2,359 sf handicapped accessible lift at this door (view facing southeast) First Floor: 1,975 sf Second Floor: 1,777 sf Third Floor (Attic/Cupola): 56 sf Total: 6,446 sf

Visitor Center: First Floor: 1,677 sf Second Floor: 1,677 sf Total: 3,390 sf

Building Height: William Trent House: 2 stories with basement | +47 ft. approx.

July 2021 135 Visitor Center: 2 stories | +31 ft. approx.

Approximate Year Built: William Trent House: 1719 Visitor Center: 1890’s, with major renovation/ reconfiguration in 1934-1936

Construction: William Trent House: Masonry exterior with interior wood frame and structure Visitor Center: Masonry exterior with interior wood frame and structure

Existing Use Group: William Trent House: B: Basement, 1st floor, 2nd floor. Note: Museums with occupancy below 50 can be considered a “B” use (maximum occupancy should be noted). Visitor Center: B: 1st Floor, 2nd Floor

Proposed Use Groups: William Trent House: B, No Change Visitor Center: B, No Change

Existing Construction Class: William Trent Hose: III-B (Masonry Exterior Walls; Combustible Interior Structure, Unprotected) Visitor Center: III-B ((Masonry Exterior Walls; Combustible Interior Structure, Unprotected)

Existing Fire Protection: Neither building has a sprinkler system.

Maximum Allowable building height: B uses type III-B: Three stories and 55 ft.: Both buildings comply

Maximum Allowable Building Area: B-use type III-B non-sprinklered: 19,000 sf maximum: Both buildings comply

NJ REHABILITATION SUBCODE (NJAC 5:23-6) Definition of Work Type: Renovations and Alterations to be defined with final scope of work. Evaluation is provided based on Alterations which is more stringent with special provisions for Historic buildings.

136 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 5:23-6.33 Historic Buildings Since The William Trent House is listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places (it is actually a National Historic Landmark), the following requirements apply per 5:23-6.33 Historic Buildings:

(a) 3. When a historic building is used as a historic museum, the building shall be classified as roupG B provided the following conditions are met: (i) A limit on occupancy not to exceed 50 is set by the construction official based on egress capacity and travel distance. (1) For buildings with single means of egress, occupancy will be limited to the first and second floor, and travel distance not to exceed 75 feet. (ii) There is supervision by a guide or other employee or volunteer knowledgeable in emergency exit procedures. (b) Special provisions: Historic buildings undergoing repair, renovation, alteration, restoration or reconstruction consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties may comply with the following in lieu of compliance with the corresponding requirements of this subcode. 1. Materials and methods: Original or replica materials and original methods of construction may be used, subject to the provisions of this section. 2. Exterior walls shall not be required to be modified to meet the requirements for fire-resistive wall construction. 3. One hour fire-resistive assemblies: Where one hour fire-resistive construction is required by this subcode, it need not be provided regardless of construction or occupancy where the existing wall and ceiling finish is lath and plaster... 5. Means of Egress: Existing door openings and corridor and stairway widths of less than that specified in 5:23-6.10 through 6.30 may be approved, provided that, in the opinion of the subcode official, there is sufficient width and height for a person to pass through the opening or traverse the exit. 6. Doors: The existing front or main exit doors need not swing in the direction of exit travel when serving fewer than 50 people or when other approved exits having sufficient capacity to serve the total occupant load are provided... 8. Interior Finishes: The existing finishes or replacement finishes on corridor walls and ceilings may be accepted where it is demonstrated that it is the historic finish. 9 i. Enclosure: Stairway enclosures may be omitted in a historic building for that portion of the stair serving the first and second floor. This provision shall be applied to only one stair per building. (1) In buildings of three stories or fewer, exit enclosure construction shall limit the spread of smoke by the use of tight fitting doors and solid elements. Such elements shall not require a fire resistance rating.

5:23-6.11 Basic requirements in all Groups Capacity of Means of Egress: The maximum permitted occupant load of a space shall be determined by the capacity of the means of egress serving the space as calculated in accordance with Table 1:

July 2021 137 CAPACITY PER UNIT (22 inch) OF EGRESS WIDTH WITHOUT SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEM GROUP STAIRWAYS DOORS, RAMPS, STAIRWAYS DOORS, RAMPS, CORRIDORS CORRIDORS B 60/22” 100/22” 90/22” 150/22”

The William Trent House > The second floor is served by an interior staircase with 4’-4” of width. otalT egress width equals 52” having a capacity that exceeds the expected occupant load of the 2nd floors. > The first floor is provided with 2 double doors having a width of 4’-8” each. otal T width of 112” having a capacity that exceeds the expected occupant load. > The basement is provided with 2 stairs having a width of 38” and 50” totaling 88” having a capacity that exceeds the expected occupant load of the basement.

Visitor Center > The second floor is served by an interior staircase with 34” of width. otalT egress width equals 34” having a capacity that meets the expected occupant load of the 2nd floor. > The first floor is provided with two means of egress 1 single-leaf door with a width of 34” and double doors having a width of 6’-2”. Total width of 108” having a capacity that exceeds the expected occupant load. Comment: Per code for historic buildings existing door openings and corridor and stairway widths of less than that specified in 5:23-6.10 through 6.30 may be approved, provided that, in the opinion of the subcode official, there is sufficient width and height for a person to pass through the opening or traverse the exit. This provides sufficient leeway to approve existing configurations.

Existing Interior Finish Requirements: Shall have flame spread rating not greater than prescribed below. Where an approved automatic sprinkler system is provided, interior finish of Class II or Class III materials shall be permitted where Class I or Class II materials, respectively, are required.

Exit Enclosures: Class I Exit Access: Class II Rooms/Spaces: Class III Comment: Per code for historic buildings existing finishes or replacement finishes on corridor walls and ceilings may be accepted where it is demonstrated that it is the historic finish. In any case, we believe the existing finishes meet these requirements.

138 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 5:23-6.6 Alterations Accessibility Requirements: 3. In buildings required by Chapter 11 of the building subcode to be accessible, when space is reconfigured, the altered space shall comply with Chapter 11 of the building subcode. Where full compliance is technically infeasible, compliance shall be achieved to the maximum extent feasible.

1104.4.1.1 Regardless of the square footage of the buildings or floors, buildings of two or more stories that are owned and occupied by public entities shall provide a vertical accessible route between floors. Comment: Major building alterations may require an elevator/lift, particularly in the Visitor Center. As a National Historic Landmark with limited access and which will not be reconfigured, The William Trent House will likely not be required to have an interior lift. However, accommodation to allow handicapped visitors to experience the second floor and lower floor exhibits in some way should be made.

5:23-6.17 Basic requirements -- B Exits: (a) Two Exits shall be required for stories with less than 500 occupants. Comment: Existing complies. Two exits are provided at level of discharge.

Egress Doorways: (c) A minimum of two egress doorways shall be required for all rooms and spaces with an occupant load greater than 50 or in which the travel distance exceeds 75 feet. All egress doors serving an occupant load greater than 50 shall swing in the direction of exit travel. Comment: Since none of the existing rooms or spaces in The William Trent House and the Visitor Center have occupant loads greater than 50, the existing conditions comply.

Capacity of Means of Egress: (d) The capacity of the means of egress in each work area shall be determined in accordance with NJAC 5:23-6.11(b). Comment: Per the calculations and comments on the previous page, the existing conditions comply.

Dead End Corridors: (e) Existing dead end corridors shall not exceed 35 feet in length. Comment: Existing complies.

Means of Egress Lighting: (f) Artificial lighting with an intensity of not less than one foot-candle at floor level shall be required during all times that the conditions of occupancy of the building require that the exits be available. Comment: Existing to be evaluated at time of next renovation to make sure that the buildings comply.

July 2021 139 Illuminated Exit Signs: (g) Illuminated exit signs shall be provided for all required means of egress in all buildings, rooms or spaces required to have more than one exit or exit access. Comment: Existing configuration complies

Handrails: (h) Every required exit stairway having three or more risers and not provided with handrails or in which the existing handrails are in danger of collapsing when used under emergency existing conditions, shall be provided with handrails for the full length of the run of steps. Comment: Existing historic handrails comply per the Rehabilitation Subcode

Guards: (i) Every open portion of a stair, landing or balcony which is more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall be provided with guards. Comment: Both buildings comply

Vertical Opening Protection: (j) Vertical openings not exceeding three stories, a minimum 30-minute UFC fire barrier is required. Comment: The existing stair at The William Trent House connects three stories and does not have an opening protective. Since it is listed on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, the existing stair does comply, see note 9i.

Structural Elements: (k) Structural elements which are uncovered during the course of the rehabilitation and which are found to be unsound or otherwise structurally deficient, shall be reinforced, supported or replaced in accordance with the applicable structural design criteria of the building subcode. Where structural elements are sound, there is no excessive deflection), and fixed loads are not changing in a way that will increase the stresses on existing structures beyond that which is permitted by 5:23-6.7(c), existing structural elements shall be permitted to remain. Comment: Existing conditions comply; see the Structural Evaluation, Chapter XI, for more information.

Plumbing Fixtures: (l) Plumbing fixtures to be provided per table 7.21.1 of the plumbing subcode. Comment: Per Historic Buildings provision of the Rehabilitation Subcode, the Use Group is classified as Group B.

Plumbing Fixture Calculations:

The William Trent House: Comment: Per Historic Buildings provision of the Rehabilitation Subcode, occupancy should exceed 50 people.

140 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Total occupants: 50 occupants / 2 = 25 per sex. Fixture Requirements: 1 drinking water facilities 1 service sink per floor Men: 2 urinal/ toilet; 2 lavatory Women: 2 toilet; 2 lavatory

Comment: Existing does not comply. Restrooms are in the basement and no drinking fountain is provided. No ADA access to restrooms is provided and service sink is only in basement. That being said, access to the building is only by guided tour and since this is a National Historic Landmark, these conditions are likely acceptable.

Visitor Center: Comment: Historic Buildings provision of the Rehabilitation Subcode, occupancy should exceed 50 people.

Total occupants: 50 occupants / 2 = 25 per sex. Fixture Requirements: 1 drinking water facilities 1 service sink per floor Men: 2 toilet; 2 lavatory Women: 2 toilet; 2 lavatory

Comment: Existing mainly complies and can also accommodate the capacity from The William Trent House. Service sink should be added in the future on both levels.

Mechanical Requirements: (m) All spaces intended for occupancy shall be provided with either natural or mechanical ventilation Comment: Existing complies, but some systems have reached the ends of their useful lives. See the Building Systems Evaluation, Chapter XII.

5:23-6.14A Supplemental requirements - Groups B Manual Alarm System: Manual alarm systems are not required in buildings which do not have occupied floors which are two or more stories above the lowest level of exit discharge or floors two or more stories below the highest level of exit discharge. Comment: Existing complies, a manual fire alarm system is not required.

July 2021 141 ADA Access:

As a public building, both The William Trent House and the Visitor Center fall under the purview of the Federal Civil Rights legislation known as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The goal of this legislation is to improve access for handicapped people to all “public” buildings and facilities. It requires that architectural and communication barriers are to be removed or altered to provide equal access where “readily achievable.” This standard is hard to define, but NJ provides a guideline with its building code sections that address accessibility.

The William Trent House: The William Trent House is provided with an ADA accessible lift at the north entrance for wheelchair access. This permits visitors access to the first floor but no access is provided to the basement or second floor. Furthermore, the existing restrooms are located at the basement level and neither provide accessible toilets. Since the building is a National Historic Landmark, since access is by guided tour only and since accessible restrooms are provided in the Visitor Center, the current configuration likely meets the spirit if not the letter of current code requirements.

Visitor Center: The Visitor Center provides ADA access south of the building through double doors which are at grade. It also provides two ADA restrooms for use directly adjacent to the entry of this access point.

142 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The restrooms in the basement of The William Trent House should be made pleasant and ADA accessible

July 2021 143 Photograph 1 Photograph 2 Photograph 3

Photograph 4 Photograph 5

144 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Structural Evaluation

Harrison Hamnett Structural Engineers visited the site to perform a walkthrough condition survey of The William Trent House and the Visitor Center. The purpose of this assessment was to identify structural defect and obtain sufficient information to determine the overall structural condition of the XI. Structural buildings. Evaluation

Both buildings are mostly masonry bearing wall structures with the floor and roof framing being heavy timber construction. See Photographs 1, 2, 3. There are attic spaces and basements for both buildings. There is also an underground tunnel that connects the two buildings.

The main house (The William Trent House) is in good structural condition. There were no structural defects identified that are a major concern.

The Visitor Center/ Carriage House is also in good structural condition. There have been a few roof leaks in the past. However, the water infiltration appears to have been arrested. With the small amount of damage to the plaster ceiling, it is most likely that there is not any structural rot damage to the wood rafters or ceiling joists. See Photograph 4. No remedial work is required. See Photograph 5.

The tunnel structure is in good structural condition. However, there are a few areas in the ceiling Photograph 6 structure where the reinforcing steel has rusted and spalled the concrete, exposing the reinforcing steel. See Photograph 6. At this time, this is not a serious concern. However, with continued water infiltration, the reinforcing steel will continue to deteriorate, and the structure may be compromised. At this time, we would recommend repairing this condition with the application of an overhead type concrete repair patch to the ceiling of the tunnel structure. This will conceal the existing reinforcing steel and help to reduce deterioration from the moisture type conditions that are in the tunnel.

Except for the tunnel repair work, it is our opinion that all structures are in good condition. Remedial type structural work is not required. With continued maintenance, the buildings should remain in good condition and continue to adequately support all anticipated loads.

July 2021 145 Fig. H-2 Fig. H-3

Fig. H-1

Fig. H-4 Fig. H-5

146 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Building Systems Evaluation: Mechanical and Electrical

Introduction This report has been prepared by the Princeton Engineering Group XII. Building Systems HVAC Systems: The William Trent House Evaluation Systems Description and Conditions Assessment

Heating:

The William Trent House is heated by an oil-fired steam boiler (Fig H-1), B-1, Smith Model 19A-S/W-4, 3.6 gph oil input,1292 sf EDR steam, 310 MBH IBR. The boiler is served by a Beckett burner. The boiler serving the Trent House is located in a mechanical room on the first floor of the Carriage House. The boiler is vented into a masonry chimney.

Steam is conveyed to the Trent House through a pipe main routed through an underground tunnel (Fig H-2) connecting the two buildings. Condensate from the building systems returns by gravity to a steam condensate receiver located in the tunnel (Fig H-3). The receiver is a duplex unit, with two 1/3 hp pumps. From there, it is pumped back up to the boiler.

Fuel oil is stored in an outdoor storage tank adjacent to the Carriage House mechanical room (Fig H-4). Fig. H-6 The William Trent House is heated by steam coils in two air handling units (AHU) located in the attic of that building (Fig H-5). Heated air is conveyed from these units via ductwork to openings in the flues of the two masonry chimneys. Air is distributed to each upper floor space by supply registers within and at the top of each fireplace (Fig H-6). Air is distributed to the basement through patterned brick openings in the masonry walls (Fig H-7). Air is returned to the AHUs through louvers into a first-floor storage closet and thence to a shaft up to the attic (Fig H-8). The AHU’s are Trane draw- through Climate Changers, Model CCDB06.

The heating system is controlled by a thermostat (Fig H-9) located in the first floor storage closet, which serves as a return air plenum. There is only the one temperature control zone for the building.

Availability of natural gas should be explored, as gas is much less expensive than oil. The existing boiler has dual fuel capability, thus can be converted to gas.

July 2021 147 Steam is an intrinsically inefficient means of heating compared to modern hot water systems with gas-fired high efficiency boilers.

The boiler, while old, appears to be in serviceable condition. The condensate piping shows signs of deterioration; some condensate piping has been replaced. There is no permanent chemical treatment system for the steam system; if regular treatment is not applied, the life expectancy of the system will be reduced. Steam condensate is corrosive; further failures of this piping can be expected.

The oil storage tank is of modern double wall construction with safety controls against fuel leakage.

The attic air handling units are of relatively recent construction, but show damage and deterioration to pipe insulation (Fig H-10) and ductwork and duct insulation (Fig H-11). Damaged insulation on Fig. H-7 chilled water piping has caused corrosion by allowing excessive condensation on surfaces. It is likely that poor access for maintenance is a significant cause of damage, as workers were forced to service equipment across intervening ductwork and piping.

The use of the first floor closet as an air return plenum would not be permitted under current building codes, but the inherent limitations of working within an historic structure must be recognized. However, this space should not be used for storage, especially of combustible or odor emitting materials. Items in the closet block access to an electric panel and impede air flow(Fig H-12).

Cooling:

Cooling is provided by a Trane package outdoor water chiller, Model CGACC157 (Fig H-13) with outdoor circulating pump. The chilled water piping runs underground to the Trent House (Fig H-14).

Chilled water is piped to cooling coils in the two attic air handling units. Cool air is distributed via the same distribution system as the heating. The air-cooled chiller was not operating at the time of our visit and is reported to be in poor operating condition. There are signs of corrosion, especially where insulation is damaged or missing in the attic.

While this is not a significant concern during heating operation, use of the masonry flues for cooling can lead to condensation within the masonry and possible interior damage. There are no obvious signs of such damage, but this would not be evident from the outside.

Fig. H-8

148 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Ventilation:

The building mechanical system does not introduce outside air into the building.

Combustion air for the boiler is provided through two louvers with motorized dampers to the outdoors. These dampers are designed to be interlocked with the boiler so that air is supplied when the boiler is in operation (Fig H-15).

The Trent House bathrooms are not equipped with mechanical exhaust, which is required by code. Each bathroom, however, has a small vent opening in the ceiling, which appears to connect to the outdoors (Fig H-16).

There is a dehumidifier located in the basement (Fig H-17) , which indicates that excessive dampness is an issue.

Recommendations

The availability of natural gas should be investigated. If feasible, replace the fuel supply to both Fig. H-9 boilers with gas as soon as possible.

If not currently in place, a chemical treatment system for the steam heating should be instituted.

In the longer term, the steam heating system is inefficient and in somewhat degraded condition. There are signs of excessive corrosion in the condensate piping. Eventual replacement of the heating with an hydronic heating system is recommended. If gas is available, a high-efficiency condensing boiler should replace the existing B-1. The steam and condensate piping, condensate receiver and AHU steam coils will be removed and new hot water piping installed, using the same route. Circulating pumps, chemical treatment, valves and accessories will be required.

The existing air cooled chiller should be replaced by a modern unit. This would be a package unit, complete with duplex pumps, expansion tank and controls. All above ground chilled water piping at the chiller should be replaced. The underground chilled water piping should be pressure tested for leakage; if leakage is seen, this piping shall be replaced by an insulated pipe/conduit system such as manufactured by Perma-Pipe.

The two attic air handling units should be considered for replacement. However, overhaul and repair may be feasible along with replacement of the heating coil. All the duct and piping insulation should Fig. H-10

July 2021 149 be removed, ductwork inspected, repaired and resealed and new insulation applied. Board insulation should be used on the ductwork for better resistance to damage. Where ductwork impedes access to equipment, a plywood platform should be installed over the ducts so that workers do not apply weight to the ductwork.

Piping valves and accessories should be inspected for condition and proper operation and new insulation applied.

The basement bathrooms are to be provided with mechanical exhaust.

All stored materials should be removed from the 1st floor closet air return plenum.

The desirability of humidity control should be assessed by a conservator. Use of humidification in an historic structure, however, has the potential of causing damage to the building fabric during cold weather. The lack of proper insulation and vapor barriers in the outside walls can lead to condensation, which, in turn, can cause deterioration of the structure.

A modern web based digital controls system should be installed, linking both buildings. This would reduce energy consumption, provide better environmental conditions and allow off-site personnel to monitor conditions at the building and respond to system problems. This is especially important now because staff is at the building less frequently due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Fig. H-11

Fig. H-12

150 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Fig. H-13

Fig. H-14 Fig. H-15

Fig. H-16 Fig. H-17

July 2021 151 HVAC Systems: Carriage House / Visitor Center

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment

Heating:

The Carriage House is heated by an oil-fired hydronic boiler (Fig H-18), B-2, Smith 8 Series-S/W-6, 2.1 gph oil input, 249 MBH IBR. The boiler is served by a Smith burner. The boiler is located in a mechanical room on the first floor of the Carriage House. The boiler is vented into a masonry chimney. Fuel oil is stored in the same outdoor tank as serves boiler B-1.

A hot water circulating system serves the building. Circulating pumps distribute heating water to coils in each of three air handling units.

AH-1(Fig H-19). - Located in the attic, serves the 2nd floor. AH-1 is a Carrier Model40RM-008- B61OHC.

AH-2(Fig H-20). - Located in the 1st floor mechanical room, serves the 1st floor. AH-2 is a Carrier Model39LF06KA. Fig. H-18 AH-3(Fig H-21). - Located in the 1st floor mechanical room, serves the 1st floor. AH-3 is a First Co. Model 36MBXB-3HH

Warm air is ducted from the AHUs to ceiling diffusers in the spaces served.

Each AHU is controlled by a thermostat located in the space. The thermostat in the Caretakers Office (Fig H-22) is a manual type with no time clock control.

The boiler appears to be in serviceable condition and has dual fuel capability, thus can be converted to gas. Similarly to boiler B-1, availability of natural gas should be explored, as gas is much less expensive than oil.

The air handling units are of relatively recent construction, and appear to be in serviceable condition. AH-2 was not operating, but the building was relatively comfortable at the time of our visit.

Cooling:

Fig. H-19 Cooling is provided by split system direct expansion condensing units and cooling coils in each AHU.

152 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The condensing units are located on grade in the enclosed yard outside the Carriage House (Fig H-23).

C-1- Carrier Model 38AKS008, nominal 6.8 ton capacity.

C-2- Carrier Model 38AKS008 nominal 6.8 ton capacity. This unit was not operating at the time of our visit.

C-3- Carrier Model 38CKC036, nominal 3 ton capacity.

Ventilation:

AH-1 and AH-2 introduce outside air into the building via an outside air intake louver adjacent to the boiler combustion air louver (Fig H-24).

Combustion air for the boiler is provided through the same two louvers with motorized dampers as serves boiler B-1.

The bathrooms are equipped with mechanical exhaust. There is no exhaust in the 2nd floor kitchen, however.

Recommendations:

The availability of natural gas should be investigated. If feasible, replace the fuel supply to both boilers with gas as soon as possible. Fig. H-20 If gas is available, consideration should be given to replacing the existing standard efficiency boiler with a high efficiency, condensing, type. This would reduce heating costs still further.

AH-2/C-2 should be restored to operation.

Recommendations for controls are given in the Trent House portion of the report. At a minimum, all thermostats should be digital time clock type.

Duct interiors should be cleaned as there is evidence of buildup of dust and dirt(Fig H-25).

July 2021 153 Fig. H-22 Fig. H-23

Fig. H-21

Fig. H-24 Fig. H-25

154 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Electrical Systems: The William Trent House

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment

Service:

The power comes from the Utility Company underground. There is no visible signs of the service on the grounds. There is a power manhole on the opposite side of the wall from the building, near the Grand Jury parking. (Fig. E-1). The electrical meter is located in the basement.

The main service panel board (MSP) is located in the basement in the room labeled “Oven” on the plans (Fig. E-2). They provide 120 / 208v, three phase power. The main circuit breaker and panelboard are rated for 200 amperes (A).

The MSP appears to have been added when a central air conditioning system to the site including a chiller and air conditioning panels in this building and the “care taker cottage” (Fig. E-3). Fig. E-1 Distribution:

There is one branch, electric panel in the crawl space under the first floor stair. The panel appears in good condition. The electrical panel is located in a storage space under the stairs (Fig. E-4). It was blocked by storage and could not be examined. This is a code violation as the panel must have ready access. There is inadequate working clearance for the panel per the National Electrical Code. This is a hazardous condition. This panel appears to have been the service panel prior to the air conditioning upgrade to the electric service. The panel is 120 / 208v, single phase power. The main circuit breaker and panelboard are rated for 100 amperes (A). The main circuit breaker is labeled as a service disconnect and this is incorrect. This label should be removed to avoid hazards to fire fighters ig.(F E-5). The panel was manufactured by Gould/ITE. This panel serves the lighting and receptacle loads in the building.

Wiring:

The feeders to major equipment and panels is copper wire in conduit. The majority of the branch circuit wiring is armored cable (Fig. E-6). The wiring, generally, appears in good condition.

Fig. E-2

July 2021 155 Fig. E-3

Fig. E-4 Fig. E-5

Fig. E-6 Fig. E-7

156 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan There are numerous open junction and pull boxes in the building. These include fire/security system in the crawl space under the first-floor stair and the attic (Fig. E-7 & E-8). These are code violations.

Armored cable is required to be secured within 12 inches of outlet boxes and devices. There are numerous locations that require these cables to be secured better.

The wiring in the tunnel between the two building is in poor and hazardous condition. The conduit is corroded in some locations, a conduit connection has pulled apart and there are exposed cables (Fig. E-9 & E-10).

Wiring Devices:

The receptacles are generally, grounded, three prong type receptacles. They appeared in good condition.

Lighting:

The existing lighting consists of various, incandescent and fluorescent fixtures. The majority of the lighting on the display areas is track lighting (Fig. E-11).

The majority of the fluorescent fixtures contained the older T12 lamps igure(F E-12). These lamps Fig. E-8 have been discontinued. Some fixtures contain newer T8 Lamps.

There are limited light fixtures that historic have an historic appearance (Fig. E-13).

Fluorescent, stack light fixtures are used in restrooms and corridors. These fixtures allow full light output on the sides of the fixtures while blocking the lamp from direct viewing (Fig. E-14).

The lighting in the tunnel and crawl space under the stairs is in poor condition (Fig. E-15 & 16).

Emergency and exit lighting system consists of central battery, inverter units connected to small spotlights in the building (Fig. E-17 & 18).

All exterior exits require emergency lighting.

There are no lighting controls for occupancy sensing or daylight harvesting. This building is exempt from the code requirement for automatic controls. Fig. E-9

July 2021 157 Fig. E-10 Fig. E-11 Fig. E-12

Fig. E-15

Fig. E-13 Fig. E-14

158 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Fire Alarm:

The fire alarm system is by Firelyte. The main junction box and controller is in the crawl space, beneath the first-floor stair.

Smoke detectors are located throughout the building. Pull stations are located at the exits. Duct type, smoke detectors are located at both air handlers in the attic (Fig. E-19). Heat detectors are installed in the attic (Fig. E-20). Alarm strobes are in the building and appear to meet current code.

Lightning Protection:

A faraday cage, type lightning protections system is installed. The conductor and rods appeared in good condition. No visible defects were observed.

Recommendations:

Service: The service appears adequate and in good condition. No recommendations.

Distribution: The “Service Disconnect” label should be removed from the first floor panel. This panel should be removed and replaced with a larger panel in a code compliant space. Additional panels Fig. E-16 may be required by other recommendations in this report.

Wiring: An electrician should be hired to replace missing box covers and secure armored cable in non display area of the building.

The wiring and conduit should be replaced and properly secured in the tunnel.

Lighting: All fluorescent fixtures with T12 lamps should be replaced with LED fixtures. All track fixture lamps should be replaced with LEDs where appropriate. A wireless lighting control system should be added to minimize use of lighting when rooms are unoccupied or when there is sufficient day light in the room.

Emergency lighting should be added to the exterior exits.

Fig. E-17

July 2021 159 Fig. E-18 Fig. E-19 Fig. E-20

Fig. E-21 Fig. E-22 Fig. E-23

160 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Electrical Systems: Carriage House / Visitor Center

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment:

Electrical:

The power comes from the Utility Company underground. There are no visible signs of the service on the grounds. It is believed that the service comes from the same manhole as the Trent House, but existing drawings were not available to review. The electrical meter is located on the exterior of the building (Fig. E-21).

The main service panel board (PP) is located in the room, adjacent to the Boiler Room, on the ground floor (Fig. E-22). They provide 120 / 208v, three phase power. The main circuit breaker and panelboard are rated for 200 amperes (A).

Distribution:

There is one branch, electric panel, “LP” (Fig. E-21). The panel is located adjacent to panel PP and is powered from Panel PP. The panel appears in good condition. Fig. E-24 Wiring:

The majority of the wiring is copper conductors in metallic, jacketed cable. It appears to be well installed.

Wiring Devices:

The receptacles are grounded, three prong type receptacles. They generally, appeared in good condition. The receptacle located under the panel, PP, has evidence of corrosion and should be replaced (Fig. E-23). The boiler disconnects are not lockable (Fig. E-24).

Lighting:

The majority of the room lighting consists of compact, fluorescent fixtures of a historic character. There did not appear to be any historic fixtures in the building.

Track lighting is installed in the main display/work room with supplemental downlights (Fig. E-25).

Fig. E-25

July 2021 161 Emergency lighting is provided by self powered exit signs with integral spot lights and remote fixtures with batteries located in the attic level (Fig. E-26 & E-27).

There are no lighting controls for occupancy sensing or daylight harvesting. This building is exempt from the code requirement for automatic controls.

Fire Alarm:

The fire alarm system is by Magnum Alert combination fire and security system.

Smoke detectors are located throughout the building. Pull stations are located at the exits. Heat detectors are installed in the attic and boiler room (Fig. E-28).

There are no fire detection devices in the second floor, office, at the northeast corner of the building or the electric room behind the boiler room. Alarm strobes are in the building and do not appear to meet current code.

Lightning Protection:

A faraday cage, type lightning protections system is installed. The conductor and rods appeared in good condition. No visible defects were observed.

Recommendations: Fig. E-26 Service: The service appears adequate and in good condition. No recommendations.

Lighting: All track fixture lamps should be replaced with LEDs where appropriate. A wireless lighting control system should be added to minimize use of lighting when rooms are unoccupied or when there is sufficient day light in the room.

Emergency lighting should be added to the exterior exits.

Wiring Devices: The receptacle below the electric panel should be replaced and investigated to see if there is moisture getting into the box.

The boiler disconnects should be provided with locking handles.

Fire Alarm: Heat detectors should be added to the electric panel room and a smoke detector to the Fig. E-27 office on the second floor.

162 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Plumbing Systems: The William Trent House:

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment:

Sanitary & Vent:

The existing sanitary and vent system is primarily hub and spigot cast iron. Piping located at some of the fixtures consists of brass, copper, and/or PVC. The sanitary line is underground (Fig.P-1) and runs through the tunnel (Fig. P-2) connecting the Carriage House. Sanitary piping is limited to the basement area of The William Trent House. Fig. E-28 Storm System:

The building is not provided with gutters or downspouts. Rain water typically runs off the roof edge to grade. The drip line at grade is paved with brick pavers (Fig. P-3).

Water:

The existing water service runs from the Carriage House to The William Trent House in the tunnel. Water piping is limited to the basement area of The William Trent House.

Hot water is provided by a 30-gallon electric water heater located in the basement. The water heater is a Rheem Model 61VP30S, 120V, 1 Phase, 2000 Watts. This unit is approximately twenty-one years old. It is past its expected useful life span (Fig. P-6).

A hot water recirculation system is not currently provided.

Water piping is typically copper piping with soldered fittings. However, some of the piping appeared to be galvanized steel threaded piping. Typically gate valves are installed throughout. The water Fig. E-24 piping is not insulated.

Plumbing Fixtures:

The restrooms in the basement each include a floor mounted, bottom outlet toilet with manual flush valve (Fig. P-4). The restrooms also include a wall mounted lavatory (Fig. P-5) with single handle mixing faucet. These fixtures are fairly modern and should be in compliance with current water flow requirements. Fig. P-1

July 2021 163 Fig. P-2

Fig. P-3 Fig. P-4

Fig. P-5 Fig. P-6 Fig. P-7

164 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The men’s room also includes a free standing, floor mounted, bottom outlet urinal with manual flush valve (Fig. P-5). This type of fixture is no longer manufactured and is likely to be at least sixty years old. The flush valve serving this unit is more recent and similar in age to those serving the toilets.

These restrooms are not ADA compliant.

There is also a kitchen area located in the basement. This includes a two-bowl stainless steel, countertop kitchen sink. The faucet is a single handle, goose neck faucet with side spray. An undercounter Thermador residential dishwasher is located next to the sink. The dishwasher is estimated to be at least 30 years old and past its expected useful life span.

Gas:

The building is not provided with natural gas or propane. However, there does appear to be an Fig. P-8 abandoned gas line in the connecting tunnel.

Recommendations:

Sanitary & Vent: As a precaution the existing underground sanitary piping should be inspected with an internal video system to evaluate the condition of the buried piping.

Traps of fixtures receiving little to no use should be periodically refilled to prevent sewer gases from entering the building (weekly).

Storm System: Typically, a means to direct storm water away from the foundation of the building is desired. If feasible this should be considered, however due to the historic nature of the building and grounds this may not be possible.

Water: Hot water temperature limiting devices are to be provided at all handwashing facilities to restrict the outlet temperature to a maximum of 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The water heater control is not permitted to be used for this purpose.

Any new or replaced domestic water piping shall be insulated to meet the requirements of the energy code. The existing hot water piping should be insulated as well.

The existing electric water heater should be replaced with new. In the event fixtures are removed or added from the building, the capacity of the water heater should be re-evaluated. Fig. P-9

July 2021 165 Plumbing Fixtures:

The manually operated lavatory faucets should be replaced with self-closing faucets to comply with the plumbing code requirements.

If the restrooms are to receive new finishes and/or existing fixtures are to be replaced, it is recommended that low flow fixtures be provided. Water closets would be reduced to 1.28 gallons per flush, urinal 0.125 gallon per flush, and lavatories 0.5 gallons per minute.

If the kitchen area is to remain in use, the dishwasher should be considered for replacement.

Existing fixtures should receive periodic maintenance and be exercised to ensure they are operating properly.

Any plumbing fixtures which are no longer needed or desired should be removed and associated piping properly removed and/ or capped.

Gas: Any abandoned gas piping should be removed. The availability of natural gas service should be investigated for HVAC Upgrades and operational cost savings.

Plumbing Systems: Carriage House / Visitor Center:

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment:

Sanitary & Vent:

The existing sanitary and vent system is primarily hub and spigot cast iron piping. However, some fixture connections consist of copper, brass, and/or PVC piping. The sanitary main exists the building underground and is shared with the adjacent building.

Storm System:

Roof drainage generally consists of concealed gutters, down spouts, and scuppers. The down sprouts indirectly discharge to a storm drainage system at grade. An exterior trench drain in located at the double doors for the visitors center. A portion of the building has a low flat roof with a scupper for drainage. This area also collects rain water from a portion of the higher roof. The scupper was blocked with debris at the time of the site visit (Fig. P-9). Ceiling damage in the kitchen area below was present at the time of the site visit.

166 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Water:

A 2” water service connects to this building and the adjacent Trent House. The water meter (Fig. P-7) with remote readout is located in the boiler room. Backflow prevention on the service entrance was not observed.

The domestic water provides make-up water to the heating system. An atmospheric backflow preventer suitable for this installation is located at the make-up water connection.

Hot water is provided by a 30-gallon electric water heater (Fig. P-8)located in the basement. The water heater is a State Model P63020LS, 240V, 1 Phase, 4500 Watts. This unit is approximately 18 years old. It is past it’s expected useful life span.

A hot water recirculation system is not provided.

Water piping is typically copper piping with soldered fittings. Typically gate valves are installed throughout. The water piping is insulated, but the insulation is not continuous. Fig. P-10 Plumbing Fixtures:

Two ADA compliant restrooms have been provided on the ground floor of the visitors center. These include floor mounted, bottom outlet tank toilets (Fig. P-10), a wall mounted urinal, and wall mounted lavatories with single lever mixing faucets (Fig. P-11).

Outside these restrooms is a dual height, ADA compliant drinking fountain (Fig. P-12). However, this drinking fountain is obstructed if both of the exterior double doors are open.

A kitchen is located on the ground floor with a stainless steel, countertop kitchen sink. The faucet is a single lever, residential kitchen faucet with side spray.

A residential bathroom is located on the second floor. This includes a floor mounted, bottom outlet, tank toilet, a wall mounted lavatory with single lever faucet, and a bathtub/shower.

Wall hydrants with vacuum breakers are provided around the exterior of the building.

All fixtures appear to be in good condition.

Fig. P-11

July 2021 167 Gas:

Natural gas service is not provided to the building.

An above ground double wall oil storage tank is located outside the building to fuel the boilers.

Recommendations

Sanitary & Vent:

As a precaution the existing underground sanitary piping should be inspected with an internal video system to evaluate the condition of the buried piping.

Storm System:

The existing gutters, scuppers, and downspouts should be routinely cleaned to prevent obstructions.

Water:

Domestic water piping should be continuously insulated to comply with the requirements of the Fig. P-12 Energy Code.

The electric water heater should be replaced in kind. If changes to the types or quantity of plumbing fixtures requiring hot water are to be made, the capacity of the water heater should be evaluated.

Plumbing Fixtures:

The manually operated lavatory faucets should be replaced with self-closing faucets to comply with the plumbing code requirements.

All new plumbing systems, equipment, and fixtures should be provided to meet the requirements of the new architectural program of the Carriage House / Visitor Center.

Gas:

Any abandoned gas piping should be removed. The availability of natural gas service should be investigated for HVAC Upgrades and operational cost savings.

168 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Fire Protection Systems: William Trent House

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment:

William Trent House is not currently provided with a fire suppression system. Fire Extinguishers are located in various areas throughout the building.

Recommendations:

Although not required, an automatic fire suppression system should be considered for the building.

Fire Protection Systems: Carriage House / Visitor Center:

Systems Description and Conditions Assessment:

Carriage House is not currently provided with a fire suppression system. Fire Extinguishers are located in various areas throughout the building.

Recommendations:

Although not required, an automatic fire suppression system should be considered for the building.

July 2021 169 Aerial of The William Trent House site

170 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Summary of Interpretive & Administrative Recommendations

Since the completion in 1997 of a comprehensive historical research and existing conditions assessment by a team led by Susan Maxman Architects, significant restoration and renovation work has been completed at The William Trent House, the Visitor Center and the site. During the early 2000’s, The William Trent House itself underwent a major restoration, with repairs XIII. Interpretive and improvements made to all aspects of the exterior, and to interior finishes and lighting. The & Administrative HVAC system was not replaced at that time as it had been replaced in 1988 using the designs of the Princeton architecture firm of Short and Ford. The Visitor Center and the grounds were also Recommendations addressed in the early 2000s. The Visitor Center, the former carriage house and then caretaker’s cottage, was renovated and reconfigured to provide orientation/ meeting/ gift shop and support space on the ground floor, with administrative offices and storage upstairs. On the grounds, much of the Colonial Revival gardens constructed in 1938 were removed, and simpler brick walks and plantings intended to refer to the 18th century landscape installed. More recently, the exteriors of the Trent House and the Visitor Center were repainted and repaired.

There are now a number of building systems, particularly HVAC, that require significant attention and/or replacement. There are some other building systems, including the roofs at the Visitor Center, some repointing of exterior masonry, interior repairs to the Visitor Center from water damage, etc., that should also be addressed in the short term. The following chapter delineates these recommendations in greater detail.

In terms of the site as a whole, including the buildings and the landscape features, there are a number of interesting and compelling interpretive opportunities, including the site’s important The multi-use space currently on the first floor of the Visitor Center; this room has numerous functions, archaeological resources that need to be responsibly managed. The 250th anniversary of the including visitor orientation, exhibits, presentations and American Revolution coming up in 2026-2033 presents a useful deadline for addressing some of a gift shop these building condition and interpretive opportunities, particularly interpretation relating to the American Revolution. As a National Historic Landmark with a truly remarkable history, the Trent House can and ought to be a major historic and cultural attraction in Trenton, and one of the top heritage tourism sites in New Jersey and the Delaware Valley.

Funding from public sources like the New Jersey Historic Trust, which has provided a series of grants, as well as private foundations and benefactors, can and should be sought to help with ongoing maintenance, needed repairs, replacement of building systems and with major new projects that will make the site even more attractive. Following is a description of some of the administrative and interpretive opportunities for The William Trent House:

July 2021 171 Administrative/Management

> Obtain a firm commitment from the City of Trenton to maintain, develop, promote, and adequately staff the site, including partnering with the THA in the pursuit of capital improvement grants by providing required matching funds

> Contract with professional landscaping services to renovate and provide regular maintenance of the grounds (trees, lawns, pathways, and courtyards)

> Contract with conservation cleaning services for regular cleaning of the Museum

> Expand hours of City-paid docent services; the current limited hours discourages visitation

Site Interpretation/Visitor Services

Immediate:

> Improve main entrances to the site, making vehicular access clearer and more obvious from the south, and allowing pedestrian access from the east

Short Term:

> Prepare an interpretive plan for the house and site

> Interpret the site to include the full 5,000 years of human use and give strong emphasis to all groups of peoples who inhabited the site

> Create/update and initiate implementation of a comprehensive exhibit plan for the visitor center and museum

> Develop and implement a site-wide signage plan for historic interpretive signage throughout the grounds

> Delineate footprints of 1742 kitchen wing and 1853 east wing

Long Term:

> Construct a new Visitor Center to the west of the current Visitor Center, to include exhibit space, lecture/presentation space, gift shop, etc.

> Renovated current Visitor Center to become administrative offices and space for archives and research

> Prepare an updated and expanded nomination to the State and National Registers of Historic Places that more fully

172 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan addresses the significance of The William Below is a conceptual program for a new Visitor Trent House and site Center that could be constructed on the site, to the west of the current Visitor Center/ Carriage Archaeological Resource Management House:

> Develop a procedures manual for planning SPACE IDENTIFICATION SF and executing future archaeological investigations, both for future regulatory Common Lobby (Orientation) 500 compliance and for ongoing scholarly Reception Desk 150 research Coat Room 100 Women’s Restroom 200 > Develop specific educational and public Men’s Restroom 160 programming related to site archaeology Family Restroom 65 Exhibits in the basement kitchen of The William Trent such as archaeology field schools, public House archaeology events, artifact identification Interpretive workshops, etc. Exhibits 2,000 Exhibit Storage 500 Visitor Center Conservation/ Prep Room 150 Multi-Purpose Room 1,000 One of the long term priorities identified in this Historian & Conservator Office 150 report is the construction of a new Visitor Center. IT Closet (Exhibit) 50 The current Visitor Center, while providing im- Retail portant programming and administrative space Gift Shop 400 that had not previously been available at the site, Storage Room 200 is now clearly inadequate. In particular, the main Cash/Security Room 60 entrance to the building is awkwardly placed away from primary visitor access from parking; Catering Kitchen 500 the multi-use space on the first floor is too small Utility 500 Janitor 35 and has too many functions (orientation, administration, presentations, exhibits AND gift shop; and there is insufficient space for permanent and TOTAL NET SF 5,685 changing exhibits that would help illuminate the site’s rich history and attract new and returning Efficiency Factor+33% +1,895 View of the pedestrian entry gate from William Trent visitors. Place; this is currently locked, forcing visitors arriving by TOTAL GROSS SF 7,580 foot to walk around the building and through the parking lot to gain access

July 2021 173 Sustainable Operation of The William Trent House:

Like many historic sites, one of the biggest challenges facing The William Trent House is long-term, stable funding for operations. This includes funding for maintenance of the buildings and care of the collections, but also funding for sufficient staff to adequately administer, monitor, promote and fund this extraordinarily significant site. This issue is a good example of the “chicken and egg” conundrum: The current visitation to the site does not justify or help fund additional staff, but the site can’t attract, schedule or support the additional visitation that the significance of the site warrantsbecause it doesn’t have sufficient staff.

In many ways, The William Trent House is a visitor ready site with wonderful, attractive resources. Earlier chapters of this report address physical aspects that can be improved to make The William Trent House even more attractive and welcoming for visitors. That being said, the limited professional staff at the site impacts visitor experience and visitation capacity, and many of the interpretive and long-term recommendations made in this Preservation Plan will require staff support to make them feasible. The hands-on Board of Trustees fills in many gaps, but volunteer efforts must be supported with sufficient, full-time and part-time trained staff to ensure the quality and predictability of the visitor experience. This will become particularly important if The William Trent House is serious about expanding with the construction of a new Visitor Center, and expanding the site’s interpretation and programming. Determining the optimal level of professional staffing will likely need a separate, focused planning effort, but sites of this caliber typically require at least three full-time positions, including an Executive Director, Direc- tor of Educational Programming and a Curator, as well as docents, which could be largely volunteer supplemented by a handful of part-time paid positions. In addition, a full or part-time Director of Development will also be needed at some point. To support this level of staffing, the annual operating budget would likely need to increase to at least $400,000 per year. Some of this can be funded with earned revenue, but the Trustees, the City of Trenton, Mercer County and other entities will need to come up with additional, predictable funding if The William Trent House is to begin to reach its full potential.

174 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The main stair on the first floor of The William Trent House

July 2021 175 Pedestrian approach to the site from William Trent Place; the gate on the left is typically locked, thus forcing pedestrians to walk around the property to the entry adjacent to the parking lot

176 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Prioritized Recommendations

Introduction

This Preservation Plan describes four levels of recommended repairs: Emergent, Immediate, Short Term and Long Term: XIV. Prioritized > “Emergent” are those issues that should be dealt with immediately, without delay. These conditions impact the preservation of the historic resources and/or public safety. Recommendations

> “Immediate” are those repairs and recommendations that must be completed to remedy safety concerns or to protect the building. We recommend that these repairs be undertaken immediately and be completed within 1-2 years. In the conditions assessment, the condition of these items was generally indicated as “poor.”

> “Short Term” are those recommendations and repairs which can most efficiently be undertaken in conjunction with the overall rehabilitation of the building and/or repairs. They are based on the program requirements for new use and if delayed, will not pose a threat to the building, its fabric or its users. We recommend that work in this category be completed within 3-5 years. In the conditions assessment, the condition of these items was generally indicated as “fair.”

> Long Term” are those repairs and recommendations which relate to the interpretation of the building and the site or to longer term improvements and longer term maintenance issues. Deferment of these recommendations will not create hazardous conditions for the buildings or their users. Cornice of The William Trent House (view facing north east) Following is the prioritized list of recommendations and repairs as identified and discussed in the previous chapter. Appendix 4 includes conceptual, itemized cost estimates relating to these priorities.

The William Trent House:

Emergent:

Building Systems: > Provide mechanical exhaust for the basement restrooms > Overhaul outdoor chiller; assure proper operation > Check for proper operation of attic air handling units and controls > Institute regular maintenance program for HVAC equipment

July 2021 177 > Clear out stored materials from 1st floor plenum return closet > The “Service Disconnect” label should be removed from the first-floor electrical panel > Replace missing electrical box covers > Replace and secure wiring and conduit in the tunnel > Plumbing traps should be periodically refilled > Existing plumbing fixtures should receive periodic maintenance and be exercised to ensure they are operating properly

Immediate:

Building Exterior: Front entry steps requiring repair > Repair the front entry steps > Confirm that ADA access lift is fully operational

Building Interior: > Repaint in “Best Parlour” where finishes are peeling > Implement strategy for protecting floors, either through strategic floor covering at high traffic areas or protective shoe coverings for all visitors (Note: Do not coat or refinish the floors) > Patch/ repair spalling concrete in tunnel; address water infiltration issues

Building Systems: > Replace air cooled chiller, pumps and accessories > Test buried chilled water piping; replace if necessary > Replace attic air handling units; remove and replace all duct and piping insulation > Install a steam humidification system which balances conservation of the collection with preservation of the building fabric > Replace steam heating system with high efficiency hydronic boiler system > Remove steam and condensate piping and replace with hot water piping > Convert the boiler from oil to natural gas, if latter is available > Replace the first-floor electric panel with a larger panel in a code compliant space

178 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan > Hire an electrician to secure armored cable in non-display areas of the building > Emergency lighting should be added to the exterior exits > Inspect the existing underground sanitary piping with an internal video system to evaluate the condition of buried piping > Hot water temperature limiting devices are to be provided at all handwashing facilities to restrict the outlet temperature to a maximum of 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The water heater control is not permitted to be used for this purpose > Any plumbing fixtures which are no longer needed or desired should be removed and associated piping properly removed and/or capped

Short-Term:

Building Exterior: The doors to the William Trent House are currently se- > Check for masonry, roof, exterior woodwork issues and damage; repair as required. cured off-hours with a wooden post set across the opening > Reconfigure door hardware and security to permit simpler access, and to allow grounds to be used for the public without house being monitored

Building Interior: > Consider installing security cameras to allow for more flexible use of house and for monitoring > Expand exhibit and interpretive space in the basement

Building Systems: > Insulate new, replaced and existing domestic water piping to meet the requirements of the energy code > Replace the existing electric water heater with new; in the event fixtures are removed or added from the building, the capacity of the water heater should be re-evaluated > Remove abandoned gas piping > Develop a maintenance plan to replace existing gate valves with new gate or ball valves > Install integrated web-based central controls system for both buildings; this would preferably be implemented as part of the replacement of the HVAC systems

July 2021 179 Long-Term:

Building Interior: > Check for plaster and paint damage. Repair/ repaint as required > Remove kitchen area to allow for new uses (storage, interpretation, etc.) > Renovate restrooms in the basement; make ADA accessible

Building Exterior: > Check for masonry, roof, exterior woodwork issues and damage. Repair/ as required > Repaint all exterior wood and trim

Building Systems: Typical track lighting installation in the William Trent House > Replace all fluorescent fixtures with LED fixtures > Replace all track fixture lamps with LEDs where appropriate > Install a wireless lighting control system to minimize use of lighting when rooms are unoccupied or when there is sufficient daylight in the room > Adjust storm drainage system to insure that storm water flows away from the foundation of the building > Replace manually operated lavatory faucets with self-closing faucets to comply with plumbing code requirements > When restrooms renovated, install low flow fixtures > Remove kitchen plumbing, etc.

Visitor Center/Carriage House

Emergent:

Building Systems: > Restore AH-2 to proper operation > Replace the receptacle below the electric panel; investigate to see if there is moisture getting into the box > Install heat detectors in the electric panel room and a smoke detector to the office on the

180 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan second floor > Clean duct interiors

Building Exterior: > Replace roof at “flat” area > Clean gutters and downspouts; make fully operational

Immediate:

Building Exterior:

> Repair/ replace slate roof Damaged plaster on the second floor of the Visitor Center Building Interior: > Repair damaged plaster on second floor and in kitchen and utility areas > Refresh finishes in the restrooms

Building Systems: > Install digital time clock thermostats for all HVAC systems > Add emergency lighting to the exterior exits > Provide the boiler disconnects with locking handles > Inspect underground sanitary piping with an internal video system to evaluate its condition

Short- Term:

Building Exterior: > Repair damaged brick (25 sf) > Check for masonry, roof, exterior woodwork issues and damage; repair as required

Building Interior: > Repaint the interior > Replace carpet on the first floor

July 2021 181 Building Systems: > Convert the boilers from oil to natural gas, if latter is available. > Remove oil storage tank. > Insulate domestic water piping to comply with the requirements of the Energy Code > Replace the electric water heater, and evaluate its capacity if there are changes to the type and number of plumbing fixtures > Remove any abandoned gas piping > Investigate the availability of natural gas service for HVAC upgrades and operational cost savings

Long-Term:

General:

> Construct new Visitor Center that includes orientation, exhibit, presentation and gift shop space Oil tank outside the Visitor Center Building Interior:

> Reconfigure/ renovate the interior as required for office, research and archive storage and exhibit space

Building Exterior:

> On-going maintenance and repairs

Building Systems > Replace existing standard efficiency boiler with a high efficiency, condensing type > Install integrated web-based central controls system for both buildings; this would preferably be implemented as part of the overall replacement of the HVAC systems > Replace R-22 refrigerant with more environmentally friendly compound > Replace all track fixture lamps with LEDs where appropriate > Install a wireless lighting control system to minimize use of lighting when rooms are unoccupied or when there is sufficient daylight in the room > Replace the manually operated lavatory faucets with self-closing faucets to comply with the

182 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan plumbing code requirements > Provide new plumbing systems, equipment, and fixtures to meet the requirements of the new architectural program of the Carriage House / Visitor Center

Grounds:

Note: As the site has sensitive archaeological resources, any work on the grounds will require careful consideration and compliance with the New Jersey Register of Historic Places Act. See Chapter IV for additional information.

Immediate: > Repair the exterior masonry and woodwork on both the wellhouse and the icehouse

> Repair gravel paths and courtyard; remove weeds The gate leading to William Trent Place is typically > Fill in holes and pits on the grounds locked > Remove dead limbs from trees > Open gates to the site to allow easy access for pedestrians > Replace non-working exterior lights around The William Trent House; replace wiring, etc., as required

Short Term: > Install additional interpretive signage as next steps in expanding site interpretation > Improve walking surface from parking lot entry to entry of the Visitor Center > Strengthen visual understanding of Fair Street > Delineate footprints of 1742 kitchen wing and 1853 east wing > Strengthen site understanding with specific areas of interpretation, including Colonial, Revolutionary War, Stokes, Colonial Revival, and outdoor event space; implement first phase of interpretive signage program

Long Term: > Continue to strengthen site understanding with additional site interpretation, signage, and other installations > Construct new path system to connect site interpretation nodes

July 2021 183

Appendix 1: A Land Use History of the The William Trent House Property The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds Table of Contents

1. Native American Occupation

2. Native American and Early European Contact

3. Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware River in the Mid-17th Century

4. English Rule and Quaker Migration

5. English Settlement at the Falls of the Delaware

6. The Stacys and Ballifield

7. The Trents and The William Trent House

8. Kingsbury, A Governor’s Residence

9. Dr. Bryant, Colonel Cox and the Revolutionary War

10. Bloomsbury in the Early Federal Period

11. Bloomsbury and the Industrial Revolution

12. The Stokes Family and Woodlawn

13. City-Owned Historic Site

186 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 1. Locations of Prehistoric Sites in Downtown Trenton List of Figures 2. Hendricks, Map of Captain Cornelius Hendricks, 1616

3. Danckaerts, Map of the Delaware from Burlington to Trenton, circa 1679

4. Mahlon Stacey’s Resurvey, 1714

5. Mahlon Stacy’s Survey of 1714 Superimposed over a Modern Aerial Photograph

6. Front Part of Coll. Thomas’ Estate in Kingsbury in West Jersey, circa 1750-53

7. Wiederhold, Sketch of the engagement at Trenton …..., 1777

8. Plan de la Bataille de Trenton, 1777

9. Berthier, Ford across the Delaware at Trenton, 1781

10. Berthier, 25a Camp à Trenton, 1781

11. A Rough Sketch of the Southwesterly Part of Nottingham Township …., circa 1783

12a-c. Sundry Pieces of Land …. Belonging to Jn. Cox, circa 1789-92

13. Colbert, Trenton Sur La Delaware, 1798

Figure 14a-c. Sundry Lots of Land the Property of Daniel W. Coxe …., circa 1804

15. Sketch of Daniel W. Coxe’s Proposed Subdivision, circa 1815-1836

16. Bird, Trenton Bridge …. From Above …. July 24, 1826

17. Trenton Delaware Falls Company’s Canal or Main Raceway, 1833

18. Gordon, Map of Trenton and Its Vicinity, 1836

19. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Delaware River from Bordentown to Trenton, 1844

20a-b. Sidney, Map of the City of Trenton, New Jersey, 1849

21. Engraving titled “Bloomsbury Court” showing the north elevation, circa 1850

22. Lake and Beers, Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Trenton, 1860

July 2021 187 23. Beers, Map of the City of Trenton, 1870 List of Figures 24. Fowler and Bailey, Trenton, N.J. (Bird’s-eye View), 1874 25. Sanborn, Insurance Diagrams of Trenton, 1874 [1886]

26. Robinson and Pidgeon, Atlas of the City of Trenton and Suburbs, New Jersey, 1881

27. Haven, A New Real Estate and Insurance Map of Trenton, 1882

28. Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Trenton, 1890

29. Scarlett & Scarlett, Fire Map of Mercer County, 1890

30. Lathrop, Atlas of the City of Trenton and Borough of Princeton, 1905

31. Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Trenton, 1908

32. Oblique Aerial Photograph, circa 1926

33. Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Trenton, 1927

34. Oblique Aerial Photograph, circa 1929

35. Franklin Survey Company, Real Estate Plat-Book of the City of Trenton, 1930

36. English, Plan of Survey of Bloomsbury Court, 1930

37. Urban, Plan of House and Grounds Before Restoration, circa 1933-34

38. Trenton Garden Club, Design and Planting Plan for Grounds, 1938

39. Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Trenton, 1950

40. Sanborn Map Company, Insurance Maps of Trenton, 1955

41. Frank Grad & Sons, Site Plan of Present and Projected State Office Buildings, 1958

42. Oblique aerial view, circa 1965

43. Oblique aerial view, circa 1969

44. Oblique aerial view, circa 1970

188 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 1. George Thomas, circa 1720, by Enoch Seeman 2. George Thomas and Servant Boy, late 1730s, by Charles Philips List of Portraits 3. Lewis Morris, circa 1726, by John Watson

4. George Washington, circa 1779-1781, by Charles Willson Peale

5. Colonel John Cox, 1778, by Charles Willson Peale

6. Colonel John Cox, 1792, by Charles Willson Peale

7. Henriette de Woofoin, circa 1804, by an unknown artist

8. Daniel W. Coxe, 1792, by José Francisco Xavier de Salazar y Mendoza

9. Philemon Dickerson, 1907, by Henry Harrison

10. Joseph Wood, circa 1850, by an unknown artist

11. Abram S. Hewitt, circa 1855, by an unknown artist

12. Rodman McCamley Price, 1903, by Henry Harrison

13. Edward H. Stokes, circa 1895

14. Edward A. Stokes, circa 1920

July 2021 189 1. Oblique aerial view of The William Trent House property, 2019 List of Photographs 2. South façade of The William Trent House, 2020 3. Ballifield, ancestral home of Mahlon Stacy, in Handsworth, South Yorkshire, England

4. South and east elevations of The William Trent House, circa 1890

5. East elevation of The William Trent House, 1899

6. South and east elevations of The William Trent House, March, 1926

7. South and east elevations of The William Trent House, January 9, 1934

8. North and east elevations of The William Trent House, January 9, 1934

9. North elevation of The William Trent House, January 9, 1934

10. South and east elevations of The William Trent House, February 1, 1934

11. William Trent House following demolition of the east wing, 1934

12. Re-graded and landscaped site of the removed east wing, 1940

13. 132-142 Bloomsbury Street, 1958

14. 115 Bloomsbury Street (Princeton Worsted Mills), 1958

15. 145 Bloomsbury Street (Princeton Worsted Mills), 1958

List of Tables

1. Sequence of Ownership, 1677-1929

190 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan A LAND USE HISTORY OF The William Trent House PROPERTY

1. Native American Occupation

The William Trent House occupies a critical geographic location on the left bank of the Delaware River at the “fall line” of this major east coast drainage system. The “Falls of the Delaware,” the name by which the Trenton area was known before any members of the Trent family took ownership of land at the mouth of the Assunpink Creek, were a focus of intense aboriginal activity from the earliest phase of human prehistory. Coinciding with the head of tide and the head of navigation and serving as the furthest downstream point at which the Delaware River could be – with some difficulty – forded on foot, the falls required Native Americans traveling up and down the river to portage their canoes and dugouts around this obstacle in the river. The falls thus acted as an inevitable point of Photograph 1. Oblique aerial view of The William Trent House property. 2019. Source: Hunter Research, Inc. convergence for people moving around in the landscape either on foot or in watercraft. 19018/D1-DR2-200.

The waters of the Delaware, both above and especially just below this impediment in the river, were rich spawning grounds for anadromous fish such as sturgeon, shad and alewife, which the Lenape and their forebears harvested with regularity each spring. The wetlands on the river margins, most notably around the mouth of Crosswicks Creek, but also where the Assunpink joined the Delaware, teemed with wild game and birds, while the trees and shrubs reliably bore edible fruits and berries. As a habitat for human hunting and gathering, the environment surrounding the Falls of the Delaware was extraordinarily fecund, while the valley floors offered up boulders and pebbles suitable for fashioning into stone tools, and the riverbanks yielded clay for pottery.

In exploiting the natural riches of this section of the Middle Delaware Valley, native peoples lingered and camped and eventually established villages on the well-drained floodplain terraces bordering the Delaware and its principal tributaries. The archaeological traces of this hunting, gathering and settlement activity are plentiful and have been documented with increasing intensity and precision over the past century and a half. A major regional focus of Native American occupation lay just south of Trenton along the bluffs overlooking Crosswicks and Watson’s creeks and in the neighboring tidal marshes. Now memorialized as the Abbott Farm National Historic Landmark in an area recently rebranded as the Abbott Marshlands, this collection of archaeological resources ranks as one of the most consequential concentrations of Native American social and material culture along the entire eastern seaboard (Hunter Research, Inc. 2009; Veit 2013-2015).

The zone of Native American occupation today associated archaeologically with the Abbott Farm landmark in reality extended well upstream along the left bank of the Delaware up to the mouth of

July 2021 191 the Assunpink and the falls, only its expression has been largely muted 7 by the growth of metropolitan Trenton (and its companion settlement, Pre-Urban Shoreline5 6 4 Morrisville, across the river). In the course of the City’s southward F a l l s Petty's Run expansion in the second half of the 19th century and the early decades of Assunpink Creek the 20th century, there were countless reports of archaeological findings.

o f To this day one may expect to find Native American cultural deposits on 2 development sites and in rear yards of homes where intact pre-urban soils

t h e Binghamton still survive, especially within 500 feet or so of major drainages. Terrace It is within this broader context that evidence for Native American D e l a w a r e occupation on the Trent House property should be viewed (Figure 1). The

1 Douglas Gut Trent House site occupies a low knoll formed on the Valley Heads Terrace, an alluvial deposit originally laid down following a brief re-advance of Valley glacial ice in upstate New York toward the end of the Pleistocene epoch, Heads probably around 14,000 years ago. In addition to the abundance of Terrace Native American materials recovered at the Trent House site (see the

Pre-Urban Shoreline Archaeological Resource Plan section of the Preservation Plan for more detail), this terrace has yielded several other archaeological finds within Legend downtown Trenton in recent years. Among these are traces of a probable Binghamton Terrace ± Head of Valley Heads Terrace Tide Late Woodland period village between the foot of Cass and Federal streets encountered during the reconstruction of N.J. Route 29 in the late 1990s Prehistoric Site Locations 3 1. William Trent House, 28-Me-306 and fragmentary sites on either side of Petty’s Run between the New Jersey 2. Taxation Building Site, 28-Me-12 3. Douglas Gut Archaeological Complex, 28-Me-273 State House and the Old Barracks, found in the 1980s and 2008 (Hunter 4. Old Barracks, 28-Me-125 5. Thomas Edison State University, 28-Me-262 6. Petty's Run Archaeological Site, 28-Me-182 Research, Inc. 2002, 2014). To the south of the Assunpink, on the site of 7. State House Garage, 28-Me-245 the new Taxation Building on John Fitch Way, another fragment of a much 0250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 larger area of Native American occupation was documented in 2017-19 Feet displaying a soil sequence and artifacts broadly similar to those at the Trent Figure 1. Aerial Photograph Showing the Locations of Prehistoric Sites in Downtown House (Hunter Research, Inc. 2020). Trenton in Relation to Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Terrace Formations and Drainage Features. Source: New Jersey Geographic Information Network (NJGIN) 2015 and Hunter Research, Inc. 2020. The bulk of the cultural materials from these Valley Heads Terrace archaeological sites, including the Trent House property, appear to date from the Middle and Late Woodland periods (roughly 2,000 to 400 years B.P.) based on the recovery of diagnostic projectile points and sherds of distinctive pottery types. However, lithic artifacts attributable to the

192 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Middle and Late Archaic and Early Woodland periods have also been found, demonstrating a human presence in the area extending back at least 6,000 years and perhaps even further. Over the course of these 5,000 to 6,000 years of Native American activity at the falls, one envisions a gradually increasing population of hunting and gathering bands becoming progressively more sedentary, establishing first seasonal and then more permanent camps as incipient horticulture began to be practiced between 500 and 1,000 years ago.

2. Native American and Early European Contact

During the 17th century, as European explorers and settlers – initially Dutch and Swedish, and then increasingly English – ventured up the Delaware Valley as far as the falls, the Native American peoples come into clearer focus and begin to appear in the contemporary historical record. The Middle Delaware Valley during this period was occupied by the Unami, a subgroup of the Lenape, Photograph 2. View looking north showing the south themselves a subset of the Delaware Indians. More specifically, the area around the falls was referred façade of The William Trent House. 2020. Source: to as Sanhickan or Sanhickans, signifying both a place and a resident Native American population of Hunter Research, Inc. 20040/D1-001. the same name.

The Falls of the Delaware have long been held to be the site of one of the largest Indian populations in New Jersey at the time of their first contact with Europeans. The map of the Delaware River prepared by Captain Cornelius Hendricks in 1616 (Figure 2) appears to show a large grouping of Native American longhouses labeled “Stanke=kans” straddling the river near the falls. Thomas Campanius Holm’s important description of the Delaware Valley in the 1640s, published for the first time in 1702, provides the closest contemporary picture of a Native American settlement at the Falls of the Delaware. He noted simply that, at the falls, “they (meaning the native peoples) had a settlement in a wide plain” (Holm 1702:82 [Benedict 1920]). However, this is the nearest any period account comes to suggesting that the falls were the site of a nucleated village at the time of European contact. Nearly every other 17th-century account of European visits to the falls makes note of the presence of Indians there, but never are more than two or three individuals mentioned, and never is there any mention of a village or even of isolated houses.

The dearth of historical accounts documenting the existence of a specific Indian settlement at the falls may have been a function of the seasonality of the Native American occupation of the site, or it may have been due to the rapid decline of the Native American population in the area during the first years of European settlement. Warfare and pestilence greatly reduced the numbers of native peoples on the Delaware River during these years and many of those who survived simply left in search of

July 2021 193 lands where they would be free to continue the lifestyle and preserve the culture of their ancestors without the pressures and threats of European ± neighbors. At the time of the earliest Euro-American settlement in the Delaware Valley the Algonquian-speaking Delaware or Lenape Indians of the Delaware Valley were divided into two local subgroups – the Munsee (Minsi) and the Unami. Each group spoke its own unique dialect and differed somewhat in cultural practices. Both the Munsee and the Unami were subdivided into smaller groups. The Sanhickans at the falls, one of the largest subgroups of the Unami, spoke a dialect known as Unalachtigo and they were often at odds with their neighbors, both the Munsee to the north and, more critically, the Susquehannocks to the west (Wacker 1975:58, 83, 87-88; Kinsey 1972:393; Goddard 1978:215; Kraft 1986:199).

The Susquehannocks or “White Minquas,” as they were sometimes known by 17th- and 18th-century Europeans, were a larger and much more powerful people than the Lenape. Pressured by the Iroquois to the north and lured by the prospect of European trade, the Susquehannocks by the early 17th century had taken control of the lands stretching west of the Delaware River, extending along both sides of the Susquehanna Valley and southward into Maryland. This brought them into direct contact and competition, and eventually into bloody conflict, with the Lenape.

In 1632, the Dutch explorer, David Pieterszoon De Vries, noted that he had found the entire South [Delaware] River in a state of unrest after a party of Minquas warriors killed 90 men of the Sanhickans (Weslager 1969:39). Figure 2. Hendricks, Cornelius. Map of Captain Cornelius Hendricks. 1616. Inset These events were a prelude to a larger conflict between the Lenape and enlargement shows the vicinity of the Falls of the Delaware. No scale given. Susquehannocks that took place in 1633 and 1634. Around this time, Robert Evelin, one of 15 adventurers who comprised the advance (and ultimately only) party of an ill-conceived and abortive English proprietary colony known as the Province of New Albion, wrote that he believed the full number of Indians along the Delaware below the falls, “to be eight hundred, and are in several factions and war against the Sasquehannocks”

194 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan (Smith 1877:29). Evelin spent four years on the Delaware between 1633 and 1637. One of his companions, Thomas Yong reported in 1634 that a Lenape Indian told him that his people had “wholly left that side [the western bank] of the river, which was next to their enemies [the Susquehannocks], and had retired themselves on the other side farre up into the woods, the better to secure themselves from their enemies” (Myers 1912:38). This left the area open to Swedish settlement and the Unami under some degree of dominance by the Susquehannocks (Mickle 1845:33; Kupperman 1995:96; Williams 1995:114).

Although the Sanhickans and other Unami Lenape groups in the Lower Delaware Valley held most of the lands immediately adjacent to the Dutch and Swedish outposts in the mid-17th century, the Susquehannocks still managed to out-compete the Lenape in the fur trade. This was partially a result of their superiority in the conflicts of the 1630s, but also because the Lenape had managed to exterminate most fur-bearing animals in their limited territory, while the Susquehannocks had vast inland wilderness reserves in which to gather and trade for pelts (Kraft 1986:199; Becker 1995:123).

Largely excluded from the profitable fur trade for much of the second quarter of the 17th century, the Unami sought other commodities with which to barter for European trade goods. Maize was chief among these commodities and in much demand during the period of Swedish tenancy in the Delaware Valley. One of the goals of New Sweden had been to establish an agriculturally self-sufficient colony. However, with maize and meat so cheaply available from the Native American population, there was little impetus for the Swedish settlers to clear land, establish farms and put down permanent roots. The Swedes never really managed to grow enough food to support themselves and, in fact, did not even come close to doing so until the waning years of their colony. Instead, they concentrated on the fur trade, clearing relatively little land and devoting only minimal effort to agriculture. Much of their basic sustenance was purchased either from the Dutch in New Amsterdam, from English traders in Hartford (Connecticut), or from the Native American population. Thus, the Swedes, and later the first Quakers, came to rely heavily on the Native American population for maize, venison and fish.

Driven from the west bank of the Delaware River and largely excluded from the fur trade by the Susquehannocks, the Unami Lenape began to expand the size of their maize fields in the 1630s and 1640s in order to satisfy their hunger for trade goods and, later, for alcohol. Significantly, several 17th-century descriptions of the landscape of the Delaware Valley, as well as a number of later secondary sources, make reference to Indian corn fields along the east bank of the Delaware between the mouth of Crosswicks Creek to that of the Assunpink. Thomas Campanius Holm described the area thus in the 1640s during the height of Swedish occupation:

From Trakonick, and further up on the east side of the river, the soil is fine, and bears black maize of the color of tar: the In- dians have planted it there for many years … About the falls of the Assunpink, and farther up the river, the land is rich, and there are a great many plantations on it. It does not produce much Indian corn, but a great quantity of grape vines, white, red, brown, and blue (Holm 1702:49).

July 2021 195 Peter Lindstrom in his Geographica Americae of 1656 (as translated by the noted Swedish colonial scholar, Amandus John- son, in 1925) further described the area and its corn fields:

Further on from Trackonick, along the east side upwards to the river fall Asinpinck and above, there is along the river a beau- tiful and good land, suitable for black and blue maize … concerning the ground up here at the river fall on the east side [it can be stated] that it is uneven and stony, wherefore the land here along the river edge is generally rich and occupied by a large number of plantations … (Johnson 1925:167).

Although desperately needing the maize the Unami possessed in such abundance, the Swedish administration greatly resented the reliance of their settlement on native agriculture. Not only were they forced to pay the Indians for their food, but the plentiful supply of meat, grain and vegetables available from the Unami deterred the growth of Swedish colonial farming. What incentive was there for Swedish settlers to clear fields, plant crops and raise livestock, when all the food they needed could be readily and inexpensively obtained through trade. The Unami were thus viewed as one of the prime obstacles to the establishment of a self-sufficient Swedish colony on the Delaware.

This situation would change, however, in less than a quarter century. The Susquehannocks had other enemies to the north and west, principally the Seneca, an Iroqouis group with whom they had been in fierce conflict for close to a century. In the intervening period the Swedish settlement of the west bank of the Delaware had helped to heal old wounds by establishing something of a buffer between the Lenape and Susquehannock peoples (Williams 1995:118). By the mid-17th century, a truce and alliance had been negotiated between the Lenape and the Susquehannocks. With the distraction of the latter by the Seneca, the Lenape were left to assume the prime role in the Delaware Valley fur trade and interest in maize as a cash crop among the Unami decreased, although never entirely vanished during the years of Swedish occupation. Two and a half decades later, there appears to have been a brief resurgence of Native American maize propagation during the early years of the Quaker settlement in the Delaware Valley, but the English adapted more rapidly than the Swedes to farming in the New World and their need for Indian-grown maize was limited to only the first few years of their residency.

The Unami were now free to regain their position as middlemen between the Dutch and Swedish traders and the remaining Susquehannocks and Munsee. Beavers pelts and other desirable furs were collected mostly from the west in what is today central Pennsylvania, but also from the north along the upper reaches of the Delaware and from the hilly wilderness between the head waters of the Delaware and Lakes Ontario and Erie. Game was pursued there – trapped, shot and speared, along small lakes and valley streams, in primeval forest and on the mountain sides – by native hunters who had never met a Unami or a Swede. Cleaned and dressed, the pelts were lugged back along wooded trails to distant settlements, where they were collected and temporarily stockpiled. Trades were then brokered between the hunters and members of neighboring groups. Furs were exchanged for wampum, beads and trinkets, axes and tools, shirts and cloth, alcohol and, occasionally, guns. They were traded and traded again until they passed into Susquehannock and Minsi hands and then finally into the possession of the Unami.

196 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Again, however, the Unami garnered the ire of the Swedish colonial officials stationed in the Lower Delaware Valley. Having no furs of their own to sell, the Unami were viewed as a nuisance and a hindrance to efficient and profitable trade. A report written by Johan Rising to the Swedish crown in 1655, and paraphrased by anthropologist Marshall Becker, stated that the “Lenape [Unami] would buy Swedish goods half on credit, and then pay with difficulty. They run to the Minques [Susquehannocks], and there buy beavers and elk skins, etc., for our goods, and then proceed before our eyes to Manathas [Manhattan], where the traders can pay more for them than we do, because more goods and more ships arrive there” (Becker 1995:130).

In this manner the Lenape effectively outmaneuvered the Swedes in the fur trade by taking advantage of Swedish credit and catering specifically to the markets that the Swedes themselves wished to exploit. When the Lenape took their furs directly to Manhattan, they were cutting out the Swedes from functioning as middlemen. This is why the Swedes wanted to restore direct trade themselves with the diminished Susquehannocks and, in turn, the same reason the Dutch wanted the Swedes dislodged from the Delaware. In the later 17th century, all these complex trading options that were available to the various Native American and European groups were superseded by the overarching grip of English colonial control.

3. Dutch and Swedes on the Delaware River in the Mid-17th Century

Most of the Dutch West India Company’s activity on the Delaware River was focused some 35 miles downstream from the falls at Nassau, a fortified outpost near present-day Gloucester City, New Jersey. Debate has also persisted for over a century about the possible existence of a Dutch trading post on the site of modern Trenton. The most vigorous proponent of this still unproven theory was Carlos Godfrey, who believed that the foundations of this trading post had been uncovered during the excavation of foundations for a group of row homes near the intersection of South Warren and Ferry streets in the 1880s (Godfrey 1919:224- 230; Kalb et al. 1982). In general, Dutch interests in the Delaware Valley were centered on trading with the Indians for furs, rather than on fostering enduring settlement.

The Swedes, on the other hand, sought to implant the colony of New Sweden and established what is generally held to be the first permanent European settlement in the Delaware Valley at Fort Christina, near the site of modern Wilmington. The Swedes purchased vast tracts of land from the Indians and began to settle in clusters of farmsteads that were heavily dependent on the river for access to the outside world. As a result, these farms were typically oriented towards the creeks and streams that

July 2021 197 drained into the Delaware, and the zone of settlement covered the fertile plain that extends along both sides of the river between the site of present-day Philadelphia and the head of the bay. The place the “wild inhabitants call Sankikans” was the farthest flung limit of either Swedish or Dutch influence along the Middle and Lower Delaware.

For more than 125 years, there has been debate as to the etymological derivation of the word “Sankikans.” Today, it is generally accepted that the term most likely derives from a compounding of the word “sanck,” meaning “flint” and “hikan,” meaning “end of flow.” This is conveniently interpreted as meaning “the rocks at the head of tide,” i.e., the Falls of the Delaware, the topographic landmark that most early historic cartographers of the Delaware River associated with the term “Sankikans” on their parchment maps. Almost always the term is applied by 17th-century Dutch and Swedish authors to the general area around the falls, but never is an exact correspondence between the falls and the name offered.

Only three known records survive that help to identify the specific location to which the name was applied. The first is a -de scription of a trip made upriver in the mid-1640s from Fort Nassau by Andries Hudde, the Dutch commissary of the fort. Hudde was ordered to ascend the river by Willem Kieft, the Governor of New Netherland, in order to investigate ultimately er- roneous reports of gold mines located along the upper reaches of the river. Reporting to Kieft on the failure of the expedition, Hudde wrote that he had “betook myself therefore to Sanghikans.” From “Sanghikans” he tried to proceed up river “to the Great Falls, where according to the specimens, hope of good success was” (Johnson 1930:263).

Clearly, from this account, “Sanghikans” was not considered by Hudde to refer to the falls themselves, but rather to some place or feature below them. An additional clue to the identity of the specific place to which uddeH referred can perhaps be found in a second, more specific reference to the location of Sanhickans. This occurs in a much later record of the English colony of New York, dated 1678, which documents the transfer of certain land rights from Samuel Edsall to George Heathcote involving “an Island called by the Ingin name of Sankhikans, lying in Delaware river near the falls” (Fernow 1877:570).

A third tantalizing reference to Sanhickans occurs in a report of Johan Printz, Governor of New Sweden, recounting an attempt in 1664 by English settlers from New Haven to establish a colony on the Delaware. Printz wrote that “the idea of the Puritans was this: to erect a fort above our post at Zanchikan and garrison it with people and cannon and then strengthen their position there, so as to draw to themselves the entire profit of the River here” (Johnson 1930:222). This statement would seem to indicate that the Swedes maintained a strategic position, possibly a trading post at Sanhickans, and presumably this post would have been located on the island that later came into the possession of George Heathcote.

4. English Rule and Quaker Migration

Throughout the 1650s and 1660s, England sought to establish a firmer hold over trade and settlement all along the eastern seaboard of North America. On March 12, 1664, King Charles II of England, in an act of flagrant nepotism, granted his brother James, the Duke of York, a patent for title to property including land in Maine, Long Island and all the territory between

198 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan the Connecticut River and the Delaware Bay. On June 24 of the same year, James granted the lands roughly comprising the present-day State of New Jersey to two political allies and supporters, Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. Both the king’s generosity to his brother and the Duke of York’s grants to Berkeley and Carteret were tempered by the fact that the lands between the Connecticut and Delaware Rivers were still under Dutch control. However, England had never acknowledged Dutch claims to New Netherland, and an English initiative was in any event under way to forcibly remove the Dutch West India Colony from its seat in New Amsterdam (Pomfret 1956:65-105).

On August 28, 1664 an English fleet under the command of Colonel Richard Nicholls entered New York Bay. Without any means of effective defense against an English naval force of this size, the Dutch Director, Peter Stuyvesant, was forced to surrender Fort New Amsterdam the following day. With the fall of New Amsterdam, the English effectively took over control of New Netherland, although it was not until late in September that English troops were sent south to remove the last vestiges of Dutch control from the Delaware River.

From 1664 to 1673, New Jersey was ruled under the joint proprietorship of Berkeley and Carteret, and was broadly subject to the Governor of New York. During this period, it is estimated that there were no more than 100 European residents in southern New Jersey downstream of the falls, most of whom were Swedish and Finnish farmers who had continued living there under Dutch control. In 1673 war broke out again between Holland and England and for a few months, the Dutch briefly regained supremacy over their former colony of New Netherland. The Treaty of Westminster of 1674, signed by Charles II on February 19 and ratified by the Dutch on March 5, returned these territories to the English, with the final transfer of authority to the English taking place on November 10, 1674. All of the Delaware Valley once again fell under the control of the English crown. The English, for the most part, respected private property rights to lands purchased under the earlier regimes and did not attempt to dramatically reshape the local political scene. Persons holding important posts under the Dutch tended to hold important positions under the English.

Around this time, perhaps in 1675, evidence of an attempt to place a permanent European settlement in the vicinity of the falls is first recorded in the early records of the Colony of New ork.Y Preserved within these archives is an unsigned petition requesting permission from Governor Edward Andros for a group of anonymous petitioners and their families to settle on a 4,000-acre tract of land extending four miles above and four miles below the Falls of the Delaware (Fernow 1877:521). There is no record, however, that any action was ever taken with reference to this petition. Within two years, a second petition followed. In September of 1677, a group composed of the Delaware Valley’s most prominent Swedish settlers requested of the local English court at Upland (near present-day Chester, Pennsylvania) and the Governor of New York that they be permitted to settle together in a town on the west side of the river just below the falls on land recently purchased from the Indians by representatives of Governor Andros of New York (Fernow 1877:586). Once again, no evidence of formal action upon or approval of this request.

July 2021 199 In the meantime, the future of the Delaware Valley had changed dramatically on March 18, 1674, when Lord John Berkeley sold his half share of the proprietary rights of New Jersey to two English Quakers, Edward Byllynge and John Fenwick, for £1,000. Byllynge provided most of the financial backing, but was himself in the midst of bankruptcy. He probably viewed the purchase as an investment through which he could quickly reclaim both his reputation and misspent fortune. Unable to formally participate in the purchase due to these ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, Byllynge arranged for Fenwick to “front” the transaction on his behalf (Pomfret 1956:65-68).

Fenwick and Byllynge had a dual motive in making such a large investment in a largely unknown and distant land. First and foremost in their minds was profit. Second, probably a distant second, was the goal of establishing a refuge for English Quakers. The territory they were purchasing was envisioned, both by them and their Quaker brethren, as a colony with cheap and plentiful land, free of the religious persecution and the morally corrupting influences encountered in England. Unfortunately for the two would-be colonial proprietors, there were still some major unresolved issues hindering both their expected financial salvation and the establishment of a Quaker Utopia. irstF was the question of the right of Berkeley to sell his interests in the Colony in the first place. The Duke of York had granted New Jersey to Berkeley and Carteret jointly and undivided. There had been no actual formal division of the property. This situation was further complicated by the fact that, following the English repossession of New Netherlands in 1674, the Duke of York refused to reaffirm Berkeley’s rights to the colony in spite of the fact that he had readily done so for Carteret. The Duke, upon learning of Berkeley’s sale to Fenwick and Byllynge, was reticent to facilitate this arrangement and further the goals of English Quakerism (Pomfret 1956:67).

A second stumbling point involved Fenwick and Byllynge’s right to govern their holdings. The patent that Charles II had given the Duke of York in 1664 had specifically included the right of government subject only to the King, but the Duke’s grant to Berkeley and Carteret had not included such a caveat. Thus, the question remained as to whether Berkeley’s grant included the right of government or whether it involved only the rights to the land itself. This meant that Fenwick and Byllynge would have to battle both for the right to settle on the lands they had purchased and for the right to set up a government independent of the Governor and bureaucracy then in place in New York.

Further complicating matters, Fenwick and Byllynge could not agree on the best manner in which to settle their colony. The squabbling over this issue became increasingly bitter and ultimately divisive. Because of his bankruptcy, Byllynge was forced to allow the deeds for the new province to be made out in Fenwick’s name. Fenwick, in possession of the title, then refused to transfer them back to Byllynge’s trustees (Gawen Lawrie and Nicholas Lucas). To avoid a court implemented settlement, William Penn was appointed to arbitrate the dispute. Penn agreed to join Lawrie and Lucas as a trustee of Byllynge’s estate. The three trustees, Fenwick and Byllynge then signed the “Quintipartite Deed” on July 1, 1676 formally recognizing Fenwick’s 10% interest in the purchase in return for him signing over his rights to the remaining 90%.

200 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan During this transitional period in the mid-1670s, Byllynge’s trustees also set about planning the settlement of the colony. Believing that they possessed the right to govern as well as occupy the lands purchased from Lord Berkeley, the trustees formulated a seminal document entitled The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders, and Inhabitants of the Province of West-New-Jersey in America. They both anticipated and hoped that the shares in the new colony would be sold to members of the Society of Friends. However, although the Concessions and Agreements were tailored towards the creation of a safe haven for Quakerism, its authors also wished to create a governmental framework attractive to all potential purchasers to facilitate the sale of shares. Thus, the colony would be a religious haven, but first and foremost the sale of shares needed to be profitable, albeit profitable in a fair and just Quaker manner. The plainly written document that resulted from their efforts was perhaps the most liberal and democratic colonial charter of its time. It spelled out a system of government founded on the power of a General Assembly periodically elected through the secret ballot of freeholders. The cornerstone of the document was its forward-looking guarantee of individual liberties both religious and civic.

The Concessions and Agreements also spelled out the methods by which shares in the colony were to be sold. The proprietors were concerned, for example, that land rights should be openly distributed and not dominated by the interests of a relatively few wealthy individuals since one of the principal problems facing early Quakerism in England was the dearth of available freeholds in the marginalized agricultural areas that tended to be Quaker strongholds. Quakerism also placed a strong emphasis on the importance of family and on the nurturing of children within the faith. During the years immediately preceding the Quaker settlement of the Delaware Valley, the relatively insular Society of Friends was focused far more on the retention of “birthright” children of established friends than on attracting potential converts as “convinced” friends (Levy 1988).

Quakers felt threatened by the growing urbanization that was ushering in the British Industrial Revolution. Quaker children were drawn away from the family to apprenticeships and low paying jobs in cities where they were subject to the corrupting influences of the modern urban social landscape. ewF Quaker children who followed this course remained Quakers for very long. In order to preserve their families and preserve the Society of Friends, Quakers guarded their children’s growth closely, which meant keeping their offspring at home within agrarian Quaker communities isolated from the corruption of the modern urban world. The difficulty was that the typical Quaker family could afford only to stake the future of the eldest son. In accordance with the prevailing principle of primogeniture, the eldest son would inherit the entire estate of the father. For most Quakers, this meant either outright title to the family farm or, since much of the land was still held in a declining state of feudalism, the rights to the lease thereon (Levy 1988).

Land was such a scarce commodity in 17th-century England that only a few Quaker families had estates or leaseholds large enough to be divided among multiple heirs. Wealthy Quakers might be able to find suitable apprenticeships for second and third sons under the oversight of Quaker craftsmen, but in most cases the younger children were lost to their families and their faith when they were forced to leave home to support themselves. The need for real estate to support Quaker children

July 2021 201 was therefore just as important to the minds and hearts of 17th-century Friends as the more often cited desire to escape from religious persecution, a phenomenon that had begun to abate by the time of the initial settlement of New Jersey.

It was this desire to provide small landed estates for growing Quaker families which drove the West Jersey trustees in their efforts to establish a land distribution system which would avoid the concentration of most of the land in the hands of a relatively few individuals. A joint stock company of 100 shares valued at £350 each was thus created with fractions of shares as small as 4/25ths being sold. If all of the shares were sold, £35,000 would be raised on Fenwick’s and Byllynge’s initial investment of £1,000 which was sufficient to clear Byllynge of his debts. The purchaser of each share was to acquire rights to 1/100 of the lands of the province. After setting aside the ten shares granted to John Fenwick and additional shares tendered to some of Byllynge’s creditors, the trustees were then left with a block of approximately 70 shares to sell. About 40 of these shares were sold by 1677. In the end the wishes of the trustees were fulfilled; all but one of the purchasers, Dr. Daniel Coxe, were Quakers (Pomfret 1956:86-89).

Most buyers of the West Jersey shares were Englishmen, but 17 Irishmen and three Scotsmen were also included within the list of purchasers. Of the approximately 120 purchasers in total, 32 individuals acquired one or more full shares. Most, however, acquired only a fraction of a single share. Both Quaker investors and potential settlers bought shares in the colony, with real estate speculators outnumbering potential colonists and only 25% of the purchasers actually settling in West Jersey. Six of the 120 purchasers also held stakes in the Province of East Jersey and ten later became first purchasers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. By and large, the purchasers were relatively affluent. Few 17th-century English Quakers could be considered wealthy, but most of those who bought shares in the colony were from the wealthiest stratum of the Society of Friends. In spite of the driving force posed by the need for agricultural land, most purchasers were craftsmen or “middle-class” merchants. They were the individuals with the most capital to invest. Only three were identified as “yeomen” (Pomfret 1956:86-89).

John Fenwick arrived in the Delaware Bay in the fall of 1675 aboard the Griffin with approximately 150 settlers. This group established West Jersey’s first English colonial settlement at the site of present-day Salem, New Jersey. The initial purchasers of Byllynge’s shares did not arrive in the province until August of 1677 when the Kent, carrying 230 passengers, entered the Delaware Bay. This expedition was overseen by nine commissioners: Thomas Olive, Daniel Wills, John Penford, Benjamin Scott, Joseph Helmsley, Robert Stacy, Thomas Foulke, John Kinsey and Richard Guy (Pomfret 1956:103). Instructed to plant the colony above Fenwick’s settlement at Salem, the commissioners had the Kent unload the settlers at the mouth of Raccoon Creek in present-day Gloucester County, New Jersey. Nearly all of the ship’s passengers were Quakers and they were divided into two main groups: a party from London and the outlying vicinity; and a group from Yorkshire and counties in the neighboring North Midlands.

The London proprietors settled on the lands between Pennsauken Creek and Rancocas Creek and established a town in the vicinity of present-day Gloucester City. The Yorkshire contingent’s financial interests in the colony were based on the single

202 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan largest group of shares assigned by Byllynge’s trustees. Five Yorkshire Quakers (Thomas Hutchinson, Mahlon Stacy, George Hutchenson, Joseph Helmsley and Thomas Pearson) had purchased all the debt of Edward Byllynge to persons in Yorkshire and agreed to forgive it in return for ten shares of the colony to be used in founding a settlement for Yorkshire Friends at the Falls of the Delaware (Pomfret 1956:88). Members of the Yorkshire group were to be assigned properties between Rancocas Creek and Assunpink Creek. Upon reviewing their limited numbers, they came to the conclusion that a single relatively central town made more sense. Thus, the village of Bridlington or Burlington came to be laid out at the mouth of the Assiscunk Creek opposite Mattinecunk Island (Pomfret 1956:104).

The Quaker commissioners relied on the help of the resident Swedes to act as intermediaries between themselves and the leaders of the local Native American population. On September 10, 1677, three of the Delaware Valley’s most prominent Swedish settlers, Israel Helme, Peter Rambo and Lacy Cock, assisted the commissioners in bargaining with the appropriate Native American “sachems” for the purchase of the lands on the east side of the Delaware River between Timber Creek and Rancocas Creek. Seventeen days later, a similar purchase was arranged with different Indian representatives for the area between Oldman’s Creek and Timber Creek and, finally, on October 10, 1677, the English arranged to barter with Ockanickon, Weskeakitt, Petheatus, Nauhoosing, Ahtakkones, Apperingues and Kekroppamant for the lands from Rancocas Creek north to the Assunpink (Table 1). After relatively little negotiation, Ockanickon and his compatriots relinquished their rights to this vast tract in return for a list of sundry commodities that reads like the inventory of a common London store owner (Smith 1877:95):

Forty six fathoms of duffolds, thirty blankets, one hundred and fifty pounds of powder, thirty guns, sixty kettles, thirty axes, thirty hoes, thirty awls, thirty needles, thirty looking glasses, thirty pairs of stockings, seven anchors of brandy or rum, thirty knives, thirty barrows of load, thirty six rings, thirty jews harps, thirty combs, thirty bracelets, thirty bells, thirty tobacco tongs or stools, thirty pairs of sissors, twelve tobacco boxes, thirty flints, ten spoonfuls of red paint, one hundred fish hooks, one gross of tobacco pipes and thirty shirts est(W Jersey Deed B:4).

This list of goods, item for item and quantity for quantity, is almost exactly identical to the lists recorded in the deeds for the two earlier land purchases made by the Quakers prior to their meeting with Ockanickon and his associates. This would imply that little actual negotiation took place with the English Quakers approaching the designated native representatives and offering them a previously determined amount of goods for their lands. In each case the Indians accepted. Having already made two previous agreements, it turned out that, in the case of the transfer of land between the Rancocas and the Assunpink, the Quaker representatives lacked sufficient trade goods to finalize the arrangement and wereobligated “ to agree with the Indians not to settle till the remainder was paid” (Smith 1877:97). Ockanickon apparently harbored no ill will towards his new Quaker neighbors.

Of the Native Americans who signed the deed of October 10 at least three – Ockanickon, Weskeakitt and Nauhoosing – were probably the representatives of Native American peoples actually living in the area around the falls. This is demonstrated by

July 2021 203 the fact that, on July 15, 1682, William Penn journeyed to the west side of the falls in order to secure the purchase of the lands that today comprise southern Bucks County. There he met with 11 Indian sachems, including Ockanickon, Weskeakitt and Nauhoosing. Thus the community of Native American peoples at the falls, to the extent that it constituted a community in the way we understand it today, included persons on both sides of the river represented by at least some of the same individuals (Myers 1937:11).

Although little, if anything, is recorded about the subsequent activity of Weskeakitt and Nauhoosing after their meeting with William Penn, more is known about Ockanickon. Recorded by Thomas Budd as being one of eight local “Indian Kings,” Ockanickon was present at many of the councils held to resolve disputes between the Indians and the settlers. He had frequent interactions with the settlers and spent his final days with them, dying in urlingtonB in the early 1680s. Thomas Budd’s Good Order Established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in America, first published in 1685, records what were held to be Ockanickon’s final words as interpreted by Henry Jacob Falkinberg and recorded by John Cripps. Ockanickon, wishing to leave behind a message to his designated successor (his brother’s son, Jachkursoe), demonstrated his interest in continuity of peace between the two peoples. In his recommendations to Jachkursoe, he instructed that:

If any Indians should speak any evil of Indians or Christians, do not joyn with it, but look to that which is Good, and to joyn with the same always. Look at the Sun from the Rising of it to the Setting of the same. In Speeches that shall be made between the Indians and Christians, if any thing be spoke that is evil, do not joyn with that, but joyn with that which is good, and refuse the evil (Budd 1865:66).

He referred to the English commissioners as his brethren and departed this world soon afterwards (Budd 1865:65-66). His earthly remains were laid to rest within the Burlington Friends burial ground and lie there today beside those of the early Quaker settlers he befriended.

5. English Settlement at the Falls of the Delaware

The first lands to be taken up by the English were those immediately adjacent to the Delaware and its largest tributaries. These properties offered both the best and most fertile soils and, obviously, close proximity to major waterways. The watercourses represented the easiest and most efficient local transportation and communication routes. Rivers and creeks defined early West Jersey: they were the sources of place names; they formed boundaries between tenths, settlement areas and individual properties; nucleated settlements developed at their mouths. Until bridges began to be constructed in the 1680s and 1690s, they also hindered overland traffic as readily as they facilitated waterborne transport. Although a basic road network had begun to take shape, most transportation of people, goods and produce continued to be undertaken by boat throughout most of the 17th century. Ships, shallops, ketches, canoes, barges and other watercraft linked settlement to settlement and plantation to plantation. The major overland routes that did develop followed the earlier Native American network of trails. The most

204 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan significant of the early roads were those that linked Burlington with the Falls of the Delaware, the falls with Elizabethtown in East Jersey and, by the 1680s, the Salem Road or King’s Highway, which linked the colony’s principal settlement, Burlington, in the north with its second most populous town, Salem, in the south. The road to Elizabethtown eventually led on to New York, later connecting this latter settlement with Philadelphia. It also served to connect the Delaware and Raritan valleys providing a vital linkage between the principal West Jersey settlements and those of East Jersey.

Craftsmen and trades people were in considerable demand in the new colony. Although agriculture was the principal task of most of the settlers, those who had formerly held other occupations possessed secondary skills that were often tapped in order to provide supplementary income. For example, carpenters, bricklayers, masons and blacksmiths were needed to erect the colony’s buildings and infrastructure. Tailors, tanners, weavers and cobblers were needed to clothe the people. Millers and coopers processed and packed grain both for local use and for shipment to the ports of Burlington and Philadelphia, and beyond to the West Indies and Europe. Most of these men all practiced agriculture to some degree, but a few very early on became tradesmen opening shops at Burlington or Gloucester.

By 1679, a group of English settlers, many of them Quakers, had established a loose-knit settlement on the west bank of the river just below the falls. Among the first to arrive were John ckerman,A Thomas Scholey, Robert Scholey, John Lucas, Gilbert Wheeler, William Biles, Samuel Syche and Richard Ridgeway. A John Wood is also said to have taken up residence at the falls in 1678 on 478 acres at the site of present-day Morrisville (Dana 1909:242-245). The settlement was nucleated enough to merit a name, “Crewcorne” (probably named after Crewkerne, Somerset, England), but none of the tracts was smaller in size than 100 acres, making it more a grouping of neighboring farms than a town or village proper.

Initially, the central focus of Crewcorne was Gilbert Wheeler’s tavern (Snipes et al. 1992:48). From the riverfront in the vicinity of the tavern, a ferry operated across the Delaware which took travelers from the head of present-day Biles Island to the start of the “wagon route” to Elizabeth, New Jersey. This path began on the east bank of the river at the foot of the bluff below the site of present-day Riverview Cemetery. Wheeler’s tavern served as Crewcorne’s focal point until the first Bucks County Courthouse was erected. Although the records documenting the existence of the courthouse are sketchy, and there is considerable debate about exactly where the building stood, a courthouse had been erected in the vicinity of the falls by at least 1686 (Snipes et al. 1992:16). The house of William Biles, Crewcorne’s most prominent resident, was another important landmark. It was at this homestead that the Falls Monthly Meeting of the Society of Friends was established in 1683.

The settlement of Crewcorne is shown, but not named, on an early map of the lands between Burlington and the falls copied by Jasper Danckaerts in 1679 (Figure 3). Danckaerts and Peter Sluyter were two members of a Labadist sect sent over to the New World to scout locations for a planned Labadist settlement. They traveled together through New Netherland in 1679 passing through New Jersey and down the Delaware River, recording their experiences in a journal now preserved in the collections of the Long Island Historical Society. Their guides for much of this journey were prominent Delaware River residents Israel

July 2021 205 TABLE 1. WILLLIAM TRENT HOUSE PROPERTY - SEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP, 1677-1929 Date of Size of Property/ Grantor Grantee Tenant Consideration Reference Acquisition Description

46 fathoms of duffolds, 30 blankets, 150 pounds of powder, 30 guns, 60 kettles, 30 axes, 30 hoes, 30 awls, 30 needles, 30 looking glasses, 30 pairs of stockings, 7 Joseph Holmsby, Robert Stacy, Ockanickon Weskeakitt, tract of land lying along the Delaware anchors of brandy or rum, 30 knives, 30 William Emley, Thomas Holde, West Jersey Deed October 10, 1677 Petheatus, Nauhoosing, River between the Assunpink and barrows of load, 36 rings, 30 jews harps, 30 Thomas Olive, -- Wills, John B:4 Apperingues and Kekroppamant Rancocas Creeks combs, 30 bracelets, 30 bells, 30 tobacco Pennford and Benjamin Scott tongs or stools, 30 pairs of scissors, 12 tobacco boxes, 30 flints, 10 spoonfuls of red paint, 100 fish hooks, one gross of tobacco pipes and 30 shirts

Joseph Holmsby, Robert Stacy, Mahlon Stacy, Joshua Wright, William Emley, Thomas Holde, Revel’s Book of Surveys: 76; c. 1679-83 Thomas Lambert, John Lambert 2,000 acres Thomas Olive, -- Wills, John West Jersey Deed B:311 and William Emley Pennford and Benjamin Scott

Mahlon Stacy, Joshua Wright, 580-acre portion of 2,000-acre tract at Revel’s Book of Surveys: 76; 1683 Thomas Lambert, John Lambert Mahlon Stacy the Falls West Jersey Deed B:311 and William Emley

incl. portion of 2,000-acre tract at the inherited by Mahlon Stacy, Jr. on the death of 1704 Mahlon Stacy Mahlon Stacy, Jr. West Jersey Will 1:41-43 Falls and other parcels his father Mahlon Stacy, Sr.

West Jersey Deeds BBB:122, August 16/17, 1714 Mahlon Stacy, Jr. William Trent 800 acres 5 shillings BBB:123

inherited by James Trent following the death March 12, 1724/25 William Trent estate James Trent 800 acres of his father Wiliam Trent on December 25, 1724; William Trent died intestate

March 28, 1729 James Trent William Morris 300 acres and ferry patent £2,800 West Jersey Deed D:382

Attorney General Joseph Warrell; 300 acres, three other parcels totaling West Jersey Deeds DD:333, October 12/13, 1733 William Morris George Thomas 5 shillings Governor Lewis Morris 126 acres and ferry patent DD:336

300 acres, seven other parcels January 31, 1753 George and Elizabeth Thomas Robert Lettis Hooper £2,900 West Jersey Deed U:335 totaling 267.5 acres and ferry patent

197 acres and 4.75-acre island (w/. October 28, 1769 Robert Lettis Hooper Dr. William Bryant £2,800 West Jersey Deed AE:291 exceptions)

197 acres, 4.75-acre island and four October 28, 1778 Dr. William and Mary Bryant John Cox Simeon Worlock other parcels totaling 180 acres (w/. £10,600 West Jersey Deed AN:457 exceptions)

206 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan TABLE 1 (CONT.). WILLLIAM TRENT HOUSE PROPERTY - SEQUENCE OF OWNERSHIP, 1677-1929 Date of Size of Property/ Grantor Grantee Tenant Consideration Reference Acquisition Description

197 acres, 4.75-acre island and five Marin Bazile Gaston L'official de September 24, 1792 John and Esther Cox other parcels totaling 184.75 acres £6,000 West Jersey Deed AR:285 Woofoin (w/. exceptions)

197 acres, 4.75-acre island and five Marin Bazile Gaston L'official de October 27, 1795 Esther Cox and John Cox estate Henriette de Woofoin? other parcels totaling 184.75 acres £5,500 West Jersey Deed AT:176 Woofoin estate (w/. exceptions)

October 12, 1797 Esther Cox and John Cox estate William Coxe Henriette de Woofoin? 197 acres and 4.75-acre island £5,500 West Jersey Deed AT:181

Edward Burd and Edward Shippen 197 acres, 4.75-acre island and seven January 17, 1801 William Coxe $1 West Jersey Deed AV:1 Burd (in trust for Margaret Coxe) other parcels totaling 190 acres

Margaret Coxe (widow of William Edward Burd and Edward Shippen unknown (possibly 197 acres and October 1, 1802 unknown West Jersey Deed AV:133 Coxe) Burd 4.75-acre island)

unknown (inherited by Daniel W. Coxe Edward Burd and Edward Shippen unknown (possibly 197 acres and October 1, 1802 Daniel W. Coxe following the death of his father William Coxe West Jersey Deed AV:135 Burd 4.75-acre island) in 1801 )

August 10, 1835 Daniel W. Coxe Philemon Dickerson 85 acres and 4.75-acre island $50,000 Burlington County Deed M:224

2.55 acres and parcel on Bloomsbury September 20, 1838 Philemon and Sydney Dickerson James M. Redmond $7,640 Mercer County Deed A:338 Street

January 15, 1839 James M. and Ann B. Redmond John C. Redmond 2.55 acres $10,000 Mercer County Deed A:344 February 20, 1844 John C. And Laetitia Redmond James M. Redmond 2.55 acres $10,000 Mercer County Deed F:420

December 16, 1852 James M. And Ann B. Redmond Joseph Wood 2.55 acres $20,000 Mercer County Deed X:232

Abram S. Hewitt; Governor September 22, 1853 Joseph Wood Jeremiah Stull 2.55 acres $45,000 Mercer County Deed 27:217 Rodman Price

February 9 and May 1.83 acres (February 1859); 0.06 Mercer County Deeds 44:3, Jeremiah Stull estate Joseph Wood $10,412.25 31, 1859 acres (May 1859) 44:489

August 20, 1861 Joseph Wood estate Edward H. Stokes 1.89 acres $15,000 Mercer County Deed 50:235

property sold at sheriff's sale to meet May 29, 1901 Samuel F. Atchley (Sheriff) Barton B. Hutchinson 1.58 acres not found outstanding mortgage obligations

Barton B. and Sarah M. May 29, 1901 Edward A. Stokes 1.58 acres $1 Mercer County Deed 246:347 Hutchinson

October 30, 1929 Edward A. Stokes City of Trenton not specified $1.00 (gift of the Stokes family) Mercer County Deed 31:58

July 2021 207 Helme, Ephraim Herman and Peter Aldrichs. Speaking of the early settlers at Crewcorne, Jasper Danckaerts noted in 1679 that: [t]here are Quakers ± who either are more wise, or through poverty act so, who do not buy any land on the east side of the river, but buy on the west side, where it is cheaper in consequence of the Indians being there (Jameson 1967:155-156).

Although Crewcorne was a defined place in the minds of its residents, the term “The Falls” was a more commonly utilized appellation that described both the physical and geographic location as well as the extended community that soon developed on both sides of the river. After all, settlers on opposite sides of the river were relatively close to each other and, at the same time, relatively isolated from anyone else. The children of these first property holders intermarried frequently. Many settlers, like the brothers, Robert and John Scholey, located first on one side of the river and then moved to the other, while others owned lands on both sides of the river concurrently. Both groups of families looked to Burlington as their market town and local village center and the membership of the majority in the Society of Friends was another unifying factor. Most settlers on both sides of the river were Quakers, but initially there were no Quaker meetings on the west side of the river. The Burlington and later Chesterfield Quarterly and Monthly Meetings of Friends had oversight over all of the Quakers at the falls who met together for business and worship. Later, when the Falls Monthly Meeting of Friends was established, the site of the meeting rotated between houses on the east and west sides of the river.

Settlement on the east bank of the Delaware at the falls began in the spring of 1679 with the arrival of Mahlon Stacy “of Handsworth in the County Figure 3. Danckaerts, Jasper. Map of the Delaware from Burlington to Trenton. Circa of York, Tanner” (West Jersey Deed B:311). Mahlon Stacy was one of the 1679. No scale given. Approximate location of The William Trent House circled. Yorkshire Quakers who had consolidated Edward Byllynge’s Yorkshire debt and waived it in exchange for ten shares in the Province of West Jersey, retaining two full shares for himself. Stacy, along with most of the other Yorkshire Friends in West Jersey, arrived in the New World aboard the Shield in 1678. His elder brother, Robert Stacy, had preceded him by about a year and served as one of the initial Quaker commissioners. Most of the

208 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan passengers on the Shield spent their first winter in Burlington before taking up the properties to which they were entitled in the following spring. Each owner was permitted to select his own land, but there were a few stipulations. No one possessing more than one eighth of a share in the enterprise was permitted to layout more than 500 acres in one place. Similarly, limits were placed on how much creek or river frontage could be surveyed to any individual, and no one was to take up lands on both sides of a creek without the permission of the commissioners. With the coming of spring, Mahlon Stacy selected a large and prominent property straddling both sides of Assunpink Creek (despite the prohibitions) near its confluence with the Delaware, just above the first fall line.

Mahlon Stacy clearly had high hopes, soon describing his new homeland in positive terms:

It is a country that produceth all things for the support and sustenance of man, in a plentiful manner … I have traveled through most of the places that are settled, and some that are not, and in every place, I find the country very apt to answer the expectation of the diligent: I have seen orchards laden with fruit to admiration, their very limbs torn to pieces with the weight, and most delicious to the taste and lovely to behold; I have seen an apple tree from a pippin kernel, yield a barrel of curious cyder; and peaches in such plenty, that some people took their carts a peach-gathering; I could not but smile at the conceit of it… For my part, I like it so well, I never had the least thought of returning to England, except on the account of trade. Mahlon Stacy, 1680 (Smith 1877:111-113)

Most of the accounts of interaction between the local native population and the settlers have come down to us through the writings and publications of the Quaker proprietors of West Jersey, and thus are likely biased in order to present the dealings between the two peoples as being both peaceful and cordial in line with the teachings and tenets of the Society of Friends. Even so, the local Indian population apparently did work very hard at peaceful coexistence. If nothing else, the Indians probably understood that they were sure to lose any large-scale conflict and also that the settlers offered a much-expanded opportunity for trade.

Thomas Budd, one of the most prominent early settlers in West Jersey, wrote in 1685: “The Indians are but few in Number, and have been very serviceable to us by selling us Venison, Indian Corn, Pease and beans, Fish and Fowl, Buck Skins, Beaver, otter, and other Skins and Furs; the Men hunt, Fish and Fowl, and the Women plant the Corn, and carry Burthens …” (Budd 1865:62). Mahlon Stacy himself also wrote on several occasions concerning his positive interactions with the Indian population. He noted that the settlers “had cranberries brought to our houses by the Indians in great plenty … As for Venison and fowls, we have great plenty: We have brought home to our houses by the Indians, seven or eight fat bucks of a day; and sometimes put by as many; having no occasion for them …” (Smith 1877:112).

Nonetheless, like the Swedish Governor Printz before him, Mahlon Stacy betrayed his own European and Christian prejudices when, in 1680, he wrote to George Hutchenson that:

July 2021 209 The Lord is…removing the Heathen that know him not and making room for a better people, that fears His name. ‘Tis Hardly credible to believe, how the Indians are wasted in Two years time: and especially the last summer (Toothman 1977:17).

The decrease in numbers of Native Americans was caused by two factors. The first and most benign was the retreat and migration of many of the Indians away from the heaviest areas of European settlement. The second and probably more significant reason why Native Americans came less frequently to ahlonM Stacy’s door was smallpox. This disease swept through the Delaware Valley like wildfire, decimating the Indian population. Many of the Indians, quite correctly, blamed the Europeans for the plague and tensions rose accordingly.

Thomas Budd, again writing in 1685, noted:

The Indians told us, they were advised to make War on us, and cut us off whilst we were but few, and said, They were told, that we sold them the Small-pox, with the match Coat they had bought of us, which caused our People to be in Fears and Jealousies concerning them; therefore we sent for the Indian Kings, to speak with them, who with many more Indians, came to Burlington … to which one of them, in behalf of the rest, made this following Speech in answer saying …, to the Small-Pox, it was once in my Grandfathers time, and it could not be the English that could send it us then, there being no English in the Country, and it was once in my Fathers time, they could not send it us then neither; and now it is in my time, I do not believe that they have sent it us now: I do believe it is the man above that hath sent it us (Budd 1865:69).

According to this Quaker account, it would seem that both Mahlon Stacy and the council of Indian chiefs believed that it was God’s will that the people who had occupied the Delaware Valley for so many years before the coming of the Europeans should be swept away and replaced by growing Quaker families. However, in spite of the decline in population, the Indians did not vanish from the landscape completely, nor did they abandon their remaining legal interests in the real estate they had formerly occupied. In 1703, for example, “upon the application of Mahamickwon, alias king Charles, an Indian sachem, unto the council of proprietors” requested the settlement of a dispute concerning the eastern boundary “of two Indian purchases, formerly made from Rankokas Creek to Timber Creek, and from Rankokas to Assunpink.” Mahamickwon still claimed title to the lands east of the original purchase line and wished to clarify a discrepancy between the verbally agreed upon boundary and that which was set down on paper (Smith 1877:96). Interestingly, it seems that some of the Indian population that had formerly inhabited lands near the falls had since moved east and north into central New Jersey, as well as west to Crewcorne and beyond.

Free from the daily inconvenience of the native peoples, Mahlon Stacy was at liberty to start developing his plantation. As difficult as this may have been, living on the edge of what he would have considered a wilderness, Stacy set about establishing a home. In addition to building a house, Stacy also erected a gristmill on Assunpink Creek, perhaps the second or third such mill to be constructed on the Delaware. On their journey through New Jersey in the fall of 1679, Jasper Danckaerts and Peter Sluyter visited the gristmill at the falls and recorded the event in their journal:

210 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan [W]e arrive at the falls of the South [Delaware] River about sundown, passing a creek where a new grist-mill was erected by the Quakers, who live hereabouts in great numbers, and daily increase. But it seemed to us as if this mill could not stand long, especially if the flow of water were heavy, because the work was not well arranged. We rode over here, and went directly to the house of the person who had constructed it, who was a Quaker, where we dismounted, and willingly dismissed our horses. The house was very small, and from the incivility of the inmates and the unfitness of the place, we expected poor lodgings. As it was still daylight, and we had heard so much of the falls of the South River, or, at least, we ourselves had imagined it, we went back to the river, in order to look at them; but we discovered we had deceived ourselves in our ideas. We had supposed it was a place, where the water came tumbling down in great quantity and force from a great height above, over a rock into an abyss, as the word falls would seem to imply, and as we had heard and read of the falls of the South River are nothing more than a place of about two English miles in length, or not so much, where the river is full of stones, almost across it, which are not very large, but in consequence of the shallowness, the water runs rapidly and breaks against them, causing some noise, but not very much, which place, if it were necessary, could be made navigable on one side. This miller’s house is the highest up the river, hitherto inhabited. Here we had to lodge; and although we were too tired to eat, we had to remain sitting upright the whole night, not being able to find room enough to lie upon the ground. eW had a fire, however, but the dwellings are so wretchedly constructed, that if you are not so close to the fire as almost to burn yourself, you cannot keep warm, for the wind blows through them everywhere. Most of the English, and many others, have their houses made of nothing but clapboards, as they call them there, in this manner: they first make a wooden frame, the same as they do in Westphalia, and at Altena, but not so strong; they then split the boards of clapwood, so that they are like cooper’s pipe staves, except they are not bent. These are made very thin, with a large knife. They are about five or six feet long, and are nailed on the outside of the frame, with the ends lapped over each other. They are not usually laid so close together, as to prevent you from sticking a finger between them, in consequence either of their not being well joined, or the boards being crooked. When it is cold and windy the best people plaster them with clay. Such are almost all the English houses in the country, except those they have which were built by people of other nations. Now this house was new and airy; and as the night was very windy from the north, and extremely cold with clear moonshine, I shall not readily forget it. Ephraim and his wife obtained a bed; but we passed through the night without sleeping much (James and Jameson 1959:96-97).

Although Stacy’s plantation tract was clearly one of the most desirable properties in the province (if not one of the most comfortable), some evidence exists that its selection may have also been tied to the continuing interest in establishing a village for Yorkshire Friends in the vicinity of the falls. The scheme seems not to have completely died with the joint settlement of the provincial capital of Burlington. Writing from Burlington in the early spring of 1679 about his immediate future, William Emley, later to become one of Mahlon Stacy’s close neighbors, stated that: “We are now going to settle a Town at the Falls” (Toothman 1977:48). Four years later, Emley, along with Stacy, Thomas Lambert, John Lambert and Joshua Wright, were surveyed a tract of 2,000 acres there (Table 1). At least initially, the five men, all Quakers from the North Midlands/South Yorkshire area of England, legally held the property jointly, although amongst themselves they seem to have recognized the boundaries of individual tracts. The existence of this communally held land may be additional evidence of the attempt to establish a settlement for the Yorkshire Friends at the falls.

July 2021 211 By the date of the 2,000-acre survey of 1683, in addition to Mahlon Stacy, two others of the original five Yorkshire proprietors, Thomas Hutchinson and George Hutchenson, had also taken up tracts at the falls. Another early settler in the area, Robert Pearson, may well have been related to Thomas Pearson, another of the five original Yorkshire proprietors. Most of the land on the eastern bank of the Delaware at the falls was either in the possession of one of the original five orkshireY proprietors or of Yorkshire Quakers who purchased proprietary rights from them. The few exceptions seem to have been settlers crossing over the Delaware from Pennsylvania or servants in the retinue of the Yorkshiremen.

Although the recorded metes and bounds of the 2,000-acre survey are somewhat difficult to interpret, this tract seems to have included all of the land on the east side of the falls fronting the Delaware, extending south from a point 1,320 feet north of the mouth of Assunpink Creek to the mouth of present-day Watson’s Creek. This vast tract would have included the plantation on which Mahlon Stacy had already settled, and thus may represent formal legal confirmation of earlier property assignment/ selection.

The earliest properties set off at the falls mostly contained between 100 and 200 acres. Over time, however, the average size of the plots grew, with several tracts in the 300 to 400-acre range being laid out in the 1680s. Most of these properties included frontage on one or more of the navigable local waterways, with the most sought-after properties fronting the Delaware River. Mahlon Stacy’s property, as previously discussed, fronted the Delaware and also had the advantage of being bisected by Assunpink Creek (Table 1). Other, only slightly less desirable properties at the falls overlooked the Delaware River and also included frontage on the smaller tributary today known as Watson’s Creek. Another geographic feature significant in the layout of these early plantations was the bluff that rises immediately to the east of the Delaware River and to the north of the marsh and lowlands surrounding Watson’s Creek. Most of the first properties surveyed extended back from the creek or river on to which they fronted so as to include areas of lowland adjacent to the watercourse suitable for grazing and meadow, as well as property atop the bluff edge that was more suitable for cultivation and wood lots (Toothman 1977:53-58).

6. The Stacys and Ballifield

Born in 1638 in Handsworth, near Sheffield, Yorkshire, England, Mahlon Stacy (1638-1704) was raised in what would appear to have been comfortable circumstances at the family home, Ballifield (Photograph 1), the same name that he later affixed to his plantation at the Falls of the Delaware. Mahlon was the third and youngest son of John and Mary (Fullwood) Stacy. His eldest brother, Thomas (1619-1687), remained in Yorkshire his whole life, while his other sibling, Robert (circa 1631-1686), as noted above, emigrated to West Jersey in 1677. Mahlon married Rebecca Ely in 1668 and the pair produced a son, John (who lived less than three months), and three daughters, Elizabeth, Sarah and Mary, whilst still living in England. At the time of his marriage, Mahlon Stacy was described as being “of Dorehouse in ye parish of Hansworth & County of York.” The appellation “dorehouse” likely means “dower house,” a term used to refer to a house set apart for the use of the widow of a male owner of an estate after his death, which in this case is thought to mean that Ballifield was in the hands of Mahlon’s mother Mary, since his father had previously died in 1658 (Pearson 2020).

212 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan After arriving at the Falls of the Delaware in the spring of 1679, Mahlon Stacy, now aged 40 years, set about constructing a dwelling and a gristmill, both of which were in existence by November of the same year, when visited by Danckaerts and Sluyter. Who actually helped Stacy erect these structures is unclear – perhaps his neighbors, or perhaps indentured servants of whom at least one, Hugh Staniland, is thought to have accompanied Stacy to the falls early on. One would also expect a millwright to have been on hand to oversee the construction of the mill. It seems somewhat unlikely that Mahlon’s wife, Rebecca, and their three young daughters, all under six years of age, would have been present; they perhaps remained in the relative safety and comfort of nearby Burlington.

The site of Stacy’s gristmill is well established as being on the south bank of Assunpink Creek, upstream of the present-day South Broad Street crossing, where later mills drew waterpower until well into the mid-19th century. The location of the less than salubrious clapboard dwelling described by Danckaerts is unknown, although it was probably situated close to the mill and to the “wagon route” and former Indian trail that evolved into the main overland route connecting Bordentown and Photograph 3. View of Ballifield, the ancestral home of Mahlon Stacy in the village of Burlington with Inian’s Ferry (New Brunswick). This dwelling was likely Handsworth, today a suburb of the City of Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England. This hastily constructed to accommodate the operators of the mill and was soon photograph shows Ballifield as it appeared in the early 20th century. The house was supplemented by a permanent residence more befitting as the focus of heavily remodeled in the centuries following Mahlon Stacy’s emigration to New Jersey. Source: Ely et al. 1910:123. Stacy’s Ballifield plantation and a home suitable for his growing family.

Mahlon and Rebecca Stacy produced four more children in the New World: three daughters, Ruth, Rebecca (who died within a year or so) followed by another Rebecca who lived to adulthood, and finally another son, ahlon,M Jr., who was born in 1686 and through whom the Ballifield plantation descended into the early 18th century (see below). All five of the Stacys’ grown daughters married into early Quaker settler families in the Delaware Valley, wedding respectively Abel Janney (Elizabeth), Joseph Kirkbride (Sarah), Reuben Pownall (Mary), William Beakes and then Samuel Atkinson (Ruth) and Joshua Wright (Rebecca).

July 2021 213 Over the course of the final quarter of the 17th century, the elder Mahlon Stacy, through his milling operations and real estate transactions became commercially and politically prominent within the province. Noted historian, Francis Bazley Lee, ranked him in 1895 as “easily among the half score of men who framed the destinies of Burlington County between 1676 and 1715” (even though Stacy died in 1704). Besides being a leading West Jersey trader and merchant, he represented West Jersey in the General Assembly from 1682 through 1685, was a member of the Governor’s Council in 1682 and 1683, and served as a justice for Burlington County from 1685 until 1701. Mahlon, Sr. exerted great influence over the disposition of property, acting as an Indian Land commissioner in the early/mid-1680s and becoming in 1692 one of the Proprietors of West Jersey assigned the responsibility of allocating lands.

Stacy himself engaged in several property sales and acquisitions over the course of the late 1670s and 1680s, cementing his control over the land around the mouth of the Assunpink and creating the basis for his Ballifield plantation. Included in the joint 1683 purchase by Stacy, Joshua Wright, John and Thomas Lambert, and William Emley of the 2,000-acre tract extending along the Delaware from just above the Assunpink to Watson’s Creek were 580 acres that were specifically surveyed to Stacy and his servant Hugh Staniland (Table 1). This latter parcel represented the core of the Ballifield plantation, straddling the mouth and lower reaches of the Assunpink. Staniland, upon completion of his period of indenture in 1684, received a 60-acre portion of the property, which lay on the north side of Assunpink Creek, bordering the east side of today’s Broad Street (Felcone 1985:13- 14; Hunter Research, Inc. 2011).

Mahlon Stacy, Sr. died on April 3, 1704. In his will, proved three weeks later, he left the 500-acre Ballifield plantation, including the mills and other houses, to his son, Mahlon, Jr., then aged 18 years, to pass to him when he attained the age of 21 years (Table 1). To four of his five daughters and his grandson, Mahlon Kirkbride, by his fifth daughter, he left a second tract of unspecified size (possibly 500 acres) and another 400-acre parcel, both located further upstream along the Assunpink reek.C His widow, Rebecca, was to receive a third of the profits and income of the mill and have “the use and benefit of the two parlours and the chamber over the south parlor” in the house. She also had control of the orchard, “free liberty at all times to use the pump for water and also free liberty at her own choice to keep cows and to cut hay for winter fodder during her life.” An inventory of Mahlon, Sr.’s estate, taken the day after the will was proved on April 25, 1704, valued his personal assets at £1,034.0s.6d, including “Four Negros” valued at £110.0s.0d, the first indication that several enslaved people were present at Ballifield. Despite the growing antipathy of Quakers toward slavery over the course of the 18th century, it was not unusual for early West Jersey planters of this faith to hold small numbers of both enslaved and indentured persons (West Jersey Will 1:41-43; Unrecorded Will and Inventory 4:85-89).

Rebecca Stacy, Mahlon, Sr.’s widow, evidently continued living at Ballifield following her husband’s death, presumably sharing the home with her son, Mahlon, Jr. In these circumstances, the Ballifield residence would have met the criterion for a “dower house” and it is likely during this period, and up until Rebecca’s death seven-and-a-half years later, that the term “Dorehouse” was in common usage. Rebecca died in the fall of 1711 and her will was proved on October 26, 1711. Of particular note, among

214 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan her dying wishes expressed in her will, is her granting of freedom and 20 shillings a year for life to “nager” woman Jane, who one assumes cared for her in her later years. Mention is also made in the will of an indentured servant, Sarah Ely, while the inventory of her personal estate, valued at £381.15s.8d, makes reference to two negro boys, Will and Dick, together valued at £100, thereby accounting for more than a quarter of her personal wealth (West Jersey Will 1:333-335; West Jersey Inventory 315C, 319C).

It was probably following the death of his mother that Mahlon Stacy, Jr., now aged 25 years, came into full control of Ballifield and the Stacy family properties. Within three years, he was negotiating a sale of what was by then an 800-acre plantation to William Trent, a prominent and wealthy Philadelphia merchant, which evidently required him to receive a quitclaim deed from William Emley, Jr., and Thomas Lambert, Jr. on July 15, 1714 to obtain clear title (West Jersey Deed DD:415). The sale to William Trent was completed on August 16, 1714 (Table 1) and in the following month a survey – in fact, a resurvey – was conducted by William Emley to confirm the bounds of the land that had changed hands. Completed on September 12, 1714, this manuscript map is exceptionally informative and superimposed over a modern-day aerial photograph of downtown Trenton shows how the Ballifield plantation was centered around the mouth of Assunpink reekC (Figures 4 and 5). The survey map shows the rivers and creeks, the incipient road network, the all-important crossing of Assunpink Creek where the gristmill and several homes were clustered and the triumvirate of buildings in the southwestern corner of the property where the Ballifield homestead is believed to have been located, close to the present-day William Trent House.

In the year following his sale of Ballifield to William Trent, Mahlon Stacy, Jr., left for England and reportedly lived there for an extended period with a cousin at the Stacy family’s original Ballifield seat in South Yorkshire. It is unclear if he was accompanied on this trip by his wife Sarah (Bainbridge), whom he had married in 1712. The pair apparently had no children and Sarah died in Pennsylvania in 1733. At some point, Mahlon, Jr. returned to the Delaware Valley and settled in the Mount Holly area in Northampton Township, Burlington County. Throughout his life he owned, acquired and sold several properties in West Jersey, chiefly in Burlington and Hunterdon Counties, many of them inherited from his father. Mahlon Stacy, Jr. died in May of 1742 with no immediate heirs, leaving the fate of his property and his personal estate (valued at £1,903.11s.10d) to be settled by his sisters’ families (West Jersey Will 4:376; Collins 2019).

7. The Trents and The William Trent House

William Trent, a native of Inverness, Scotland, arrived in the Delaware Valley in the early 1680s with his brother, James, and a cousin, Maurice. The three engaged in the lucrative tobacco trade and within a decade William was among the top 20 wealthiest merchants in Philadelphia. His mercantile activities soon extended far beyond tobacco and by the first decade of the 18th century he was trading in countless other goods, exporting Indian corn, bread, flour, tallow, hardware and pelts, and importing wine, brandy, rum, molasses and dry goods. William Trent was also heavily engaged in shipping into Philadelphia both indentured servants from Britain and enslaved Africans. To support this activity, he owned or part-owned many ocean-

July 2021 215 going vessels, including as many as 24 sloops, a dozen brigantines and many other ships in the five-year period from 1703 to 1708.

Inheriting his brother’s estate in 1698, William Trent parlayed his wealth and merchant status into considerable political influence and after a brief trip to London around 1700 he returned to Philadelphia, taking up an appointment as a member of Pennsylvania’s Provincial Council in 1704. He held this position until he moved permanently to Trenton to live in

Figure 4. Mahlon Stacey’s Resurvey. 1714. Scale 1 inch: 3360 feet (approximately). Source: Basse’s Book of Surveys. Approximate location of The William Trent House circled.

216 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Nathaniel Pettit's House

Delaware River Petty's Run Assunpink Creek

Stacy's Mill

Dorehouse (Ballifield) Legend

Ruth Beakes Property Boundary (1714) House ± Buildings (1714) Hydrology (1714)

0500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000

Feet

Figure 5. Mahlon Stacy’s Survey of 1714 Superimposed over a Modern Aerial Photograph of Downtown Trenton. The area enclosed in red in actuality measures 860 acres and roughly defines the 800-acre tract surveyed by Mahlon Stacy, Jr. and conveyed to William Trent. The plotting of buildings, outlined in yellow, is approximate (note, for example, that Stacy’s mill is shown on the north bank of the Assunpink, when it is known to have been on the south bank). Source: New Jersey Geographic Information Network (NJGIN) 2015 and Basse’s Book of Surveys.

July 2021 217 1721. He further participated in Pennsylvania politics as a member of the Assembly in 1710, 1715, 1717, 1719 and 1720, being elected Speaker in 1717 and 1719. After moving to New Jersey, he was elected to the Provincial Assembly as a representative for Burlington County where he was chosen Speaker. He was also appointed a justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1704 and served as the first Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court from November 1723 until his death on Christmas Day, 1724 (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-4 to A.3-8).

Beginning in the 1680s and continuing into the early 18th century, William Trent bought and sold numerous properties in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey, even owning and living in William Penn’s former Philadelphia residence, the well-known “Slate Roof House,” from 1703 until 1708. He sold the latter shortly after the death of his first wife, Mary Burge, with whom he had three sons, James (of whom more, shortly), John, and Maurice. On July 20, 1710, in his late 50s, William married again, this time to 19-year-old Mary Coddington, daughter of the Governor of Rhode Island. Together, they had two children: Thomas, who died as an infant; and William (circa 1721/22-1787), who engaged in the fur trade, served as an officer in the French and Indian War and became a major, although not entirely successful, land speculator in the Ohio Country in the years prior to the American Revolution.

William Trent experienced a somewhat tumultuous life in Philadelphia as his business and political fortunes waxed and waned. He lost ships and cargoes at sea; he fought to keep down taxes on imported goods; his second wife played a central role in a notorious scandal in 1714-15 involving improprieties with the Reverend Francis Phillips, the minister of Christ Church; and all the while he upheld his position as a leading member of the Church of England in a Quaker-controlled city. Perhaps by 1714, when he acquired Ballifield, as he entered his sixth decade, he was tiring of the pressures of urban life, or perhaps, more likely, he saw the mill seat on the Assunpink and the ferry and dock at the foot of Ferry Street as business opportunities that could flourish with the expansion of settlement into the newly formed unterdonH County.

William Trent had had business dealings with the elder Mahlon Stacy prior to the latter’s demise in 1704 and he was certainly aware of the gristmill on the Assunpink adjacent to the Falls of the Delaware. Trent’s purchase of the Ballifield plantation from the younger Mahlon in 1714 may well have resulted from an extended familiarity between the two families. Nevertheless, Trent did not immediately set about building a new residence. Indeed, it seems that he concentrated first on rebuilding the mill, since an inventory of New Jersey mills taken in 1717 reveals that Trent’s gristmill was assessed at a tax rate higher than any other gristmill in the colony and at a rate four times higher than any other gristmill in West Jersey (Bush 1986:389-393).

The precise date when William Trent constructed his new residence at the falls is uncertain, but this action is generally thought to have taken place between 1719 and 1721. Certainly by the fall of 1721 Trent was wrapping up his affairs in Philadelphia, since his last recorded attendance at meetings of the Pennsylvania Provincial Council and the Philadelphia Common Council occurred in early October of that year, while he is first in evidence officiating as a Burlington County judge in December. The assumption is that he moved to the falls in the intervening weeks and that the house was by then complete. It is likely that the

218 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan house was designed by a Philadelphia architect or master builder, the candidate most often suggested for this role being James Portues, who had been responsible for the construction of Christ Church and Isaac Norris’s house “Fair Hill,” both of which would have been well known to Trent, since he worshipped at the former, and had business dealings with Norris.

It is also possible that the Trents stayed in the Stacy residence while their new house was being built, since it is clear from the documentary record that the Ballifield homestead remained standing until at least the 1740s and perhaps for several years after this. The precise location of the Stacy residence, the putative “dorehouse,” is unknown, although on both aesthetic and practical grounds, one might expect Trent to have erected his new house in front (to the south) of the older house so as to have an unobstructed view of the river and ferry, and to maintain the new building’s warmer southern aspect and the primacy of its main south-oriented façade. Based on this site logic, historic maps (notably, Figures 4 and 12b below) and archaeological and geophysical testing results to date, the Stacy residence is judged most likely to have been situated to the north or northeast of the Trent House.

As originally built, The William Trent House adopted a typical Georgian plan, faithfully retained in the mid-1930s, with a center hall and two rooms on either side, each with a corner fireplace, on both of its floors. The building had a full basement and attic, a chimney in its east and west gable ends and a central cupola. In its original form, the house did not have a separate kitchen wing attached to the house, nor does cooking appear to have taken place on the first floor. Kitchen functions are thought to have been initially carried out in the basement. A footnote to a letter that Governor Lewis Morris wrote to George Thomas, then owner of the Trent House, in April 1742 would seem to confirm this: “P.S. The old kitchen chimney & yt. joining to it are burst which will render it very dangerous to make fires in any of the chimneys adjoining to them in the most comfortable ideS of the house” (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-28). Twentieth-century plans of the basement, both pre-and post-1934 restoration, show an oven in the west end of the basement sharing a chimney stack with the fireplaces above. Household cooking in the early 18th century was most probably conducted in this location.

Buildings materials are thought to have been mostly procured locally, despite a persistent belief that bricks used in the house’s construction were brought over from Europe as ballast. Brickmaking was well-established in the Delaware Valley by the second decade of the 18th century and it is now generally accepted that the bricks are American-made. The foundation stone is probably Wissahickon schist derived from one of the several quarries active on both sides of the falls. Some of the hardware items and furnishings, however, could well have been imported from England. In addition to the house, William Trent likely erected new outbuildings, such as barns, wagon houses, corn cribs and privies, while perhaps retaining some of the Ballifield structures that were still in good repair. The present-day, restored well, critically located just to the east of the house, may be the original Trent-era source of potable water for the property. For reasons of hygiene, this would mean that any privies would probably have been north or west of the house.

July 2021 219 In the few years that William Trent enjoyed residence at the Trent House, he played an active part in Burlington and Hunterdon county politics and judicial matters, but of more lasting importance he began, around 1720, to lay out a town (“Trent’s Town”) on the north bank of the Assunpink. He was largely responsible for establishing the street grid that is rooted in the triangle of roads today known as Broad, Warren and Front streets (originally Queen, King and Lower, Water or High streets), using this as a framework for subdivision and development. He also set aside a lot for the Hunterdon County courthouse on the east side of Warren Street.

William Trent died, supposedly of apoplexy, under somewhat murky circumstances on Christmas Day, 1724. More than 13 years later, on March 7, 1738, a notice appeared in the Pennsylvania Gazette, stating that “two Negroes,” both subsequently hung, had been arrested for allegedly boasting of poisoning “Mr. Trent and two of his Sons, Mr. Lambert and two of his Wives.” The truth of these claims remains open to question and the manner of Trent’s death uncertain, although the fact that he died intestate would seem to suggest his demise was unexpected (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-19 to A.3-21).

At the time of his death, William Trent owed Isaac Norris a substantial sum (£250.6s.1d) and his economic condition may have been somewhat shaky. Mary Coddington Trent, his widow, chose not to be an administrator of her husband’s estate so that she could exercise her dower rights and she made a point of having the contents of her own room (“Madam Trent’s Room”) separately inventoried shortly after his death. A full inventory of William Trent’s estate was not taken for more than a year after he died, which may have enabled James, his eldest son and administrator, to dispose of some of his personal assets in the interim. The value of the estate, when finally established in 1726, was set at just over £1,100, which appears low for the lifestyle he led and the many income generating properties he held. The 16-month delay in taking the inventory may also have been integral to what proved to be a protracted dispute over the estate that dragged on for several years between Trent’s widow and his son. Itemized in the inventory of 1726 are the contents of the house and outbuildings, the mill complex and bake house, five cart horses, five oxen, four cows and 59 sheep, whose wool was presumably processed in the fulling mill. Of particular note is

220 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan the listing of no less than 11 enslaved persons (six men, one woman and four children), who served variously in the house, on the plantation, in the mills and in the bake house. Also noteworthy is a “great Boat” (probably a sloop) which would have plied the Delaware from the falls to Philadelphia and back on a regular basis.

Mary Coddington Trent eventually successfully obtained her dower rights, which was accomplished in 1728 in the New Jersey Supreme Court where she sued her stepson, James, in his capacity as administrator of her husband’s estate. As a result of losing this suit James was required to pay his stepmother the mortgage on the Trent plantation as well as cede to her the profits of the mills and The 11 enslaved persons itemized in William Trent’s pro- other industrial and commercial facilities. This evidently placed James Trent under some financial bate inventory completed in April 1726. Source: https:// pressure for he is recorded as selling off numerous Trenton properties between 1728 and the time www.williamtrenthouse.org/uploads/1/3/1/1/131110538/ of his own death in 1735, including, in 1729, the 300-acre core of the plantation with the mills and trent_house_inventory.pdf the ferry patent. The patent for the ferry had been formally granted to James in 1726, a welcome boost since this would have increased the value of the plantation property and provided an important supplementary source of income (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-20 to A.3-23).

It is not entirely clear who was in residence at the Trent House in the period immediately following William Trent’s death in 1724. It is unlikely that Mary Coddington Trent and her stepson James both lived there owing to their dispute over the estate. Mary perhaps continued living there with her son, William, aged around four, as she was entitled by law to do since she was a widow with a minor, but by 1735 she had removed to Philadelphia. James and his wife, Elizabeth Wilber Trent, may have resided nearby, possibly on the adjoining ferry plantation property. Mary Trent went on to outlive her husband by almost half a century, dying in 1772 and supposedly being buried in the old Hopewell Episcopal churchyard presumably alongside her husband. The activities and whereabouts of both Mary Coddington Trent and James Trent in the years following the death of William Trent are topics worthy of further research.

8. Kingsbury, A Governor’s Residence

The purchaser of the 300-acre Trent plantation on March 28, 1729 was William Morris (c. 1695- 1776), a Philadelphia-born merchant from Barbados who was also a half-brother of William Trent’s second wife, Mary Coddington (Table 1). Through his family connections in Philadelphia, William was heavily engaged in the West Indies trade, and sought to expand his stateside business interests deeper into the Delaware Valley hinterland. He acquired much of the Trent family property, perhaps

July 2021 221 at the urging of Mary Trent, and played a prominent role in the development of downtown Trenton in the 1730s and 1740s. Morris was a leading member of Trenton’s Quaker community and was instrumental in establishing a meeting house in the town in 1737-39. He was appointed a Hunterdon County judge in 1739, but declined to take up the position, and he also served as one of the town’s 12 burgesses during the brief period (1746-50) when Trenton was a free borough. In 1757 Morris was one of several Trenton residents who signed a petition to the General Assembly requesting that a barracks be erected in the town (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-24 to A.3-25).

In the early 1730s William Morris may have over-extended himself as became apparent when a devastating flood on the Assunpink in March 1733 took out the dams for both the grist, saw and fulling mill complex and the ironworks further upstream. The cost of the repairs proved beyond Morris’s means and he was forced to sell the 300-acre tract with the house, mills and ferry patent in the fall of the same year (Table 1). Although no mention has been found in the documentary record, it is more than likely that the Trent House was affected by the flooding of the Assunpink, perhaps disabling the kitchen in the basement and inundating the surrounding grounds. Little is known about Morris’s brief four-and-a-half-year tenure as owner of the Trent House. It is presumed that he lived on the premises with his first wife, Sarah Dury Morris, and as many as seven of their nine children, including one that was born in the house. It seems plausible, also, that his half-sister, Mary Trent, occasionally visited and perhaps even lived there during this period. Portrait 1. George Thomas, circa 1720. This portrait of George Thomas as a young man was likely painted Like William Morris, George Thomas (c. 1695-1774), the new owner of the former Trent family by Enoch Seeman on one of Thomas’s many trips to England. Source: http://www.artnet.com/artists/ plantation, had deep roots in the Caribbean. Born and raised in Antigua, one of the Leeward Islands enoch-seeman/portrait-of-sir-george-thomas-governor-of- in the British West Indies, he served as a member of the Assembly of Antigua in 1716-17 and 1721-28, 289bIONte2mdPn0_7Hjz2w2 being elected Speaker in 1727-28 (Portrait 1). From 1728 through 1738 he served on the council of the Leeward Islands, visiting England in the late 1730s whereupon he was appointed Deputy Governor of Pennsylvania in 1738 (Portrait 2). Serving in this capacity, the top governmental position in the Commonwealth (there was no Governor above him), until 1747, Thomas was based in Philadelphia where he wrangled for several years with the Pennsylvania Assembly over financial and military matters and was heavily involved with Indian affairs. He was appointed Governor of the Leeward Islands in 1753, serving in this role until 1766, when he removed to England for the remainder of his life (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-26 to A.3-27).

George Thomas owned the Trent House property for 20 years, but apparently never lived there on any sort of permanent basis, instead renting out the house and mills. The circumstances surrounding his

222 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan original acquisition of the property are unclear, since his principal activities in the early 1730s seem to have been centered more on the Leeward Islands and England. He perhaps bought the Trenton tract from Morris as a speculative venture, following a visit to Philadelphia. His eventual sale of the property in 1753, in contrast, coincides more obviously with his return to the Leeward Islands to take up the governorship there, which would explain his disposing of his Delaware Valley holdings.

It is not known for certain to whom Thomas rented the Trent House between October 12, 1733, when he acquired the property, and the early 1740s, but by the spring of 1742 it would appear that Joseph Warrell, the Attorney General of New Jersey, and his family were living there. Warrell served as Attorney General from 1733 until 1754, when he retired owing to ill health. He lived out his final years at his Belleville estate outside Trenton, dying there in the summer of 1758. Warrell’s renting of the Trent House is deduced from correspondence that George Thomas received in April, 1742 from another prospective tenant, Lewis Morris, the Governor of New Jersey, who would take up residence there later that year (Trenton Historical Society 1929:603; Sheridan 1993:185). Lewis Morris, who was installed in the Trent House for the final three-and-a-half years of his life, was one of its most significant inhabitants (Portrait 3). He was the patriarch of the well-known Morris family of New York, who were apparently unrelated to the Philadelphia Morrises from whom William Morris descended, even though both Morris families accumulated much of their wealth as sugar planters and slaveholders in Barbados. Born in 1671, and orphaned a year later following the death of both of his parents, Lewis Morris was raised on the family’s Broncksland (Bronx) estate by a Quaker Portrait 2. George Thomas and Servant Boy, late 1730s. uncle, also named Lewis Morris. The younger Lewis inherited the family properties in 1691 on the This portrait, reasonably claimed as being of George Thomas, is thought to have been painted by Charles Philips death of his uncle, built the New York tract up into the so-called manor of “Morrisania” and went on in England around the time of Thomas’s appointment as to enjoy a prominent career in politics and the judiciary in both New York and New Jersey. Among Deputy Governor of Pennsylvania, circa 1737-38. Source: his considerable inherited landholdings in New Jersey was a second manor property in Tinton Falls in http://www.historicalportraits.com/Gallery.asp?Page=Ite m&ItemID=1705&Desc=Portrait-of-a-Gentleman-with-a- Monmouth County with its valuable ironworks. Young-Servant,-possibly-Sir-George-Thomas-Bt-(c.1-%7C- Charles-Philips Lewis Morris’s appointment as the first separate royal Governor of New Jersey in 1738 represented the pinnacle of his career (Sheridan 1981; Stellhorn and Birkner 1982:54-58). With the New Jersey Assembly meeting alternately in Perth Amboy and Burlington, it made sense for Morris to make a home in the bustling market town of Trenton roughly midway between the two former provincial capitals. Beginning on November 1, 1740 he rented the large stuccoed stone home of John Dagworthy on the southwest corner of King (Warren) and Second (State) streets in the heart of Trenton. Built in 1730 and containing an exceptionally large attic suitable for holding public

July 2021 223 meetings, this building served as the governor’s official residence for two years until in the fall of 1742 Morris moved to the Trent House, which was to serve as his principal New Jersey home until his death in 1746. Throughout this period Morris was influential in Trenton affairs, most notably helping the town to obtain free royal borough status on September 6, 1745. It was also during his tenure at the Trent House that the property first took on the name of “Kingsbury,” which reflects Morris’s strong adherence to the authority of the British crown.

Much useful detail about the condition and layout of the Trent House is contained in a pair of letters written by Lewis Morris to George Thomas on April 10 and 23, 1742 in which the terms of the lease were discussed. Morris, by then in his 70s and in failing health, was concerned that certain repairs be carried out and a new kitchen wing be built next to the main block and linked to it by a gangway or covered breezeway. Quite apart from the bursting of the kitchen chimney noted earlier, the basement of the main block was plagued by water and drainage problems and these were no doubt factors causing Morris to pressure Thomas into building a new kitchen. Morris wrote very specifically that “the [new] wing it should be made big enough for a kitchen & be a convenient place to lodge servants in above. It should be set at some small distance from the house so as to communicate with the house by the doore at the N.E. corner. The porch there should be taken down, the staires that enter into the cellar that way taken away & the doore place walled up.” In this same correspondence, Portrait 3. Lewis Morris, circa 1726 (Brooklyn Morris notes that “your old house [thought to be the earlier Stacy residence] …. with no change may Museum). This portrait of Lewis Morris in his mid-50s be made a good house for a Laundry tho if you incline to take it downe there is materials enough in was painted by Perth Amboy-based Scottish artist, John Watson. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ it to make a good Laundry in a more convenient place ….” Later documents make clear that Thomas File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Governor_Lewis_Morris_-_ went ahead and constructed a kitchen wing to facilitate Morris’s renting of the house, although it is John_Watson_-_overall.jpg not known if he followed Morris’s advice about converting the “old house” into a laundry (Sheridan 1993:184-185).

Owing to his advanced age and declining health, Governor Lewis Morris insisted that the 16th session of the Assembly convene in Trenton on February 26, 1746. Assembly meetings were held in the town (possibly in the Dagworthy house) with frequent communications being dispatched to the ailing governor at the Trent House. Lewis Morris died at the age of 74 on May 21, 1746 while still in office, almost certainly at the Trent House, where he was presumably attended by his wife and some at least of their ten children. Morris also, without doubt, had a retinue of servants and enslaved persons on hand to maintain the family and property, although they are largely invisible in the documentary record. His will, prepared shortly before his death, refers to his wife having “the disposal of the one fourth part of all my negroes, cattle, sheep, hogs, beds, linen, plate now belonging

224 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan to me at Morrisania or at Kingsbury in New Jersie to such of my children as she shall think fit” which would seem to confirm that several enslaved were included in the household (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-27 to A.3-29). ±

The physical extent of the property rented by Lewis Morris is not known, but may have been restricted to the house, outbuildings and immediately surrounding grounds, as opposed to the entire 300-acre tract, the three additional parcels totaling 126 acres and the ferry patent that George Thomas purchased from William Morris in 1733. Thomas likely made other rental arrangements for the mills and other parts of the property and he may also have been contemplating the subdivision and sale of parts of his estate, since a map prepared in the early 1750s, A Plan of the Front Part of Coll. Thomas’ Estate in Kingsbury in West Jersey (Figure 6), shows the southern portion of his property below Ferry Street platted out in anticipation of future development. This same map, believed to have been produced either for George Thomas or the next owner of the property, Robert Lettis Hooper, contains the earliest known depiction of the Trent House, a neat schematic view labeled Kingsbury House showing the southern façade. The main block of the Figure 6. A Plan of the Front Part of Coll. Thomas’ Estate in Kingsbury in West Jersey. house is shown as a two-story, five-bay, hip-roofed structure with a central Circa 1750-53. Scale: 1 inch: 730 feet (approximately). cupola and chimneys in the east and west walls, while the adjoining kitchen wing to the east is smaller in scale, two stories tall, two bays wide, again with a hipped roof, and with a single central chimney. No doorway is evident in the southern elevation of the kitchen wing, and this structure is linked to the main block of the house by a one-story, three-bay, possibly open or colonnaded gangway. It is clear from this view, and from subsequent late 18th- and early 19th-century images, that the southern elevation was the primary façade for the house and kitchen wing, and considerable attention was given to its symmetry and aesthetic appearance.

The circa 1750-53 map also depicts an allée leading south from the house down to the wharf on the riverbank at the foot of Ferry Street where sloops would dock and the ferry crossed over to Pennsylvania. Later sale

July 2021 225 advertisements indicate that the allée consisted of a driveway lined with English cherry trees, supposedly planted by Lewis Morris’s wife, an avid gardener. The wharf operations were supplemented by a storehouse, a barn and a bake house. The map shows Ferry Street and the section of what is approximately today’s South Broad Street, both labeled “New York Road,” heading north to the mill and the bridge over the Assunpink. Another road loops west and north around the Trent House, paralleling the tree-lined riverbank of the Delaware and Assunpink, and joining the New York Road at a building identified as “Fuller’s House,” presumably where the operator of the fulling mill lived. A row of houses lines the north bank of Assunpink Creek and is probably intended to represent the southern edge of the town of Trenton along Front Street. The Assunpink, termed “Samkinck Rivulet,” follows a well-defined course to its confluence with the Delaware, bordered to the north by the gravel flats and an island (variously known as Delaware Island, Fish Island and Yard Island) where lotteries began to be held around this time. The drainage in the southeast corner of the map, noted as flowing through “Meadow Ground,” corresponds to the stream known as Douglas Gut, a short tributary of the Delaware (and possible ancestral course of the Assunpink) that supported a series of fish ponds later in the 18th century.

Who George Thomas’s tenants of the Trent House were after Lewis Morris died in 1746 remains unknown and the next event of note is Thomas’s sale of the 300-acre tract with the house and mills, seven other parcels totaling 267.5 acres, and the ferry patent to Robert Lettis Hooper on January 31, 1753 (Table 1). Hooper (1709-85) was the second of four generations of this notable New Jersey family bearing these same forenames. His father, Robert Lettis Hooper I (died 1739), son of another Barbadian plantation owner with New Jersey land and mercantile interests, was appointed Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1725 following the death of William Trent; Robert Lettis Hooper III (circa 1730-97), was a Philadelphia merchant, a Deputy Quartermaster General during the Revolutionary War and a Vice President of the New Jersey Legislative Council; Robert Lettis Hooper IV, born in 1788, survived only two years. The Trent House purchaser Robert Lettis Hooper II was a merchant, mill owner, surveyor and real estate developer who moved to Trenton in 1751 from Rocky Hill near Princeton. He was likely already familiar with the Trent House owing to his family and social connections with Lewis Morris (for example, Hooper’s sister, Isabella, a niece of Morris, was a visitor there in May of 1744 [Sheridan 1993:310]). He involved himself in Trenton community affairs in the 1750s and 1760s, serving as a member of the Union Fire Company, a vestryman at St. Michael’s Episcopal Church, a manager of a lottery held to establish a grammar school and a petitioner for the building of the Trenton barracks.

In 1753, Hooper established his family in their new home at the Trent House, continued the operation of the mills and set about subdividing roughly 100 acres of the 300-acre property. By 1758, he had cleared, laid out and was offering for sale several lots along Broad and Ferry streets in what he referred to as his “New Town of Kingsbury,” setting in motion a slow process of at first largely residential development that continued well into the 19th century. He also leased out the operation of the ferry to Andrew Ramsay, who had previously run the Long Island ferry to and from Manhattan. However, Hooper may have over- extended himself in his development efforts and he soon suffered other business losses, most notably those relating to a failing

226 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Philadelphia store in which he was a partner with his son, Jacob Roetter Hooper. In the summer of 1759 sale notices began appearing for the Kingsbury mansion, outbuildings and 200 acres of land, while in the spring of 1761 he placed the fulling mill and dye house on the market. Later that year the store partnership with his son was dissolved and all its merchandise was sold off.

Still the financial difficulties persisted. In January 1765 Hooper advertised what would appear to be most if not all of his Kingsbury and Trenton real estate as available for purchase: the main house (the Trent House) and outbuildings, the entire mill complex, several other dwellings and commercial premises, the ferry with its patent and land in excess of 650 acres. This prompted no takers. A public auction of the Trenton Mills followed in April, resulting in the mills and a 29-acre tract being purchased for £4,000 by Philadelphia merchant, Robert Waln, whose family retained ownership of this critical water-powered industrial site until the mid-19th century (West Jersey Deed AV-129). Hooper’s financial problems, however, were far from over. On September 3, 1765, a notice in the Pennsylvania Journal made known that creditors of the Hoopers’ Philadelphia store had seized a portion of his Trenton properties. Two years later, Robert Lettis Hooper resumed advertising for sale the 200-acre core of the Kingsbury plantation property, along with a house on King Street and another near the mills, while in 1770, he separately put on the market the ferry and a 442-acre tract extending south along the riverbank, downstream to the port of Lamberton. In 1769, he finally succeeded in divesting himself of the Kingsbury plantation, conveying a 197-acre parcel, including the rentT House, and a 4.75-acre island in the Delaware to Dr. William Bryant of New York (Table 1). In the following year, the ferry and the larger tract to the south were acquired by Daniel Coxe, who was at the time probably Trenton’s wealthiest resident (Audit Office AO 13/93, 374).

For all of their dire implications, the many sale notices posted by Robert Lettis Hooper II for his Trenton area properties are revealing in that they provide much valuable detail about the various buildings and other features of his “home Plantation” in Kingsbury. Of particular interest, for example, is the description of the house’s kitchen wing provided in the sale advertisement of June 25, 1759. This structure, erected in 1742 by George Thomas at the behest of Lewis Morris, was “a Large Brick Kitchen, 30 feet by 20, with a Handsome pav’d Gangway between the House and Kitchen, 14 feet by 20 Long, the Kitchen two Story High, with a Well in it, and Four handsome Apartments above for Servants, with a Fire-place in one room, if any of the Servants should be ill.” This sale notice confirms that the kitchen was built much in accordance with Morris’s original requirements and delivers critical dimensions and construction details. Of particular interest from an archaeological standpoint is the comment that the well (presumed to be the restored well presently on the site) was located within the building. Most of the advertisements from the late 1750s and 1760s repeat the same basic information about the main house and kitchen wing, but later ones describe a more expanded array of outbuildings, including “a good stone smoak-house, chaise house, poultry-house and all other useful buildings,” which later maps suggest lay mostly to the northeast of the dwelling (see below, Figures 12b and 14b; Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-35 to A.3-39).

July 2021 227 The composition of the Hooper household whilst the family resided in Kingsbury is not entirely clear. Robert Lettis Hooper and his wife (her name is unknown; assuming she was still living) were presumably present. Two adult sons, Robert Lettis and Jacob Roetter, may have visited, but likely lived elsewhere. The identities of any other Hooper offspring require further research. One assumes there was also a complement of servants, while a sale advertisement of June 25, 1759, repeated almost word for word in another sale notice of March 12, 1767, makes reference to any purchaser potentially being “supplied with three negro men and a wench that understands all manner of farming and was born and bred in the family” (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-33 to A.3-41).

9. Dr. Bryant, Colonel Cox and the Revolutionary War

Dr. William Bryant (1731-86), purchaser of the Kingsbury plantation and ferry in 1769, was a Yale-educated, New York City- based physician, who had trained as a surgeon in Paris. After moving from New York to Trenton in 1769, he built up a successful practice in the Delaware Valley in the 1770s, while also selling off several of the Kingsbury building lots laid out along Broad and Ferry streets. He and his wife, Mary Brayen Bryant, had no children, although an affair with a local woman named Charity Murrow produced a son who was named after Bryant. Dr. and Mrs. Bryant appear to have lived comfortably at the Trent House in the period leading up to the American Revolution, unencumbered by the kind of debt that so hampered the Hoopers and managing their household and property with the help of two indentured servants and at least one enslaved person. How the Bryants handled agricultural operations is unclear; they may have used the servants and enslaved labor to tend the fields and livestock or they may have leased out the farmland and fishery rights on the property (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-42).

In the late fall of 1776 the Revolutionary War arrived on Trenton’s doorstep as the British forces under General William Howe pushed General George Washington’s Continental Army southwestward across New Jersey and over onto the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. The political sympathies of New Jerseyans in Burlington and Hunterdon counties were difficult to read in these early years of the Revolution. Many residents sat on the fence waiting to see which side would gain the upper hand before they declared their support. Others wavered back and forth in their allegiance based on the rise and fall of the armies. The pacifist stance of Burlington County’s large Quaker population was alternately interpreted as Loyalist by the revolutionaries and unsupportive by the British.

Dr. William Bryant himself was not especially sympathetic to the patriot cause, being a retired British army surgeon still receiving half pay. Back in January of 1776, under suspicion for his Loyalist leanings, he committed to the Continental Congress that he would remain within 12 miles of his Kingsbury home, except for trips to patriot-held Philadelphia. This likely enabled him to still continue his medical practice. For much of the year, Bryant appears to have been responsible for housing Captain Ibbetson Hamar of the British 7th Regiment of Foot, who had been captured at the fall of Fort Chambly on October 17, 1775. While several other British prisoners were loosely confined elsewhere in renton,T how Hamar came to be staying

228 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan with a local Loyalist sympathizer in Kingsbury is not entirely understood. Although there were many residents with Loyalist proclivities in the Trenton area, other than Daniel Coxe, who owned the ferry and the large adjoining tract extending down to Lamberton, most of Bryant’s riverfront neighbors were staunch and active revolutionaries. The wharves and piers along the river to the south of the Coxe-owned land were important points of supply for Washington’s army in the early years of the war when much of the military action was swirling around central New Jersey (Kidder 2017:51, 67, 87).

In early December of 1776, as news came in of the imminent arrival of the retreating Continental Army and their British pursuers, Kingsbury fell precisely within the bull’s eye of the Revolutionary conflict and William Bryant’s property figured prominently in the lead-up to the First Battle of Trenton. Continental forces began scouring the river to collect and confiscate all of the available boats. These vessels would be used to transport Washington’s army across the river to safer positions in Pennsylvania. They would then be destroyed, or placed under guard to prevent them from falling into British hands. By December 6, large numbers of refugees were crossing the Delaware River into Pennsylvania amidst scenes of confusion, making use of boats stationed at Beatty’s Ferry (situated just north of Trenton, near today’s Calhoun Street bridge) and Coxe’s Trenton Ferry at the foot of Ferry Street (Dwyer 1983:90). On December 8, the British forces entered the town just as the final contingents of the Continental Army were escaping across the Delaware. British troops moving down Ferry Street in pursuit came under cannon fire from Continental batteries entrenched on the ennsylvaniaP bank (Stryker 1898:28).

General Howe’s army scoured the Delaware for boats, but found none available. Unable to pursue Washington across the river, the British Army settled in for a winter stay of uncertain length. Hessian forces of approximately 1,400 in number, consisting of three regiments of infantry, a detachment of artillery and 50 yagers, plus 20 light dragoons of the 16th British Regiment, ended up occupying Trenton for almost three weeks (Stryker 1898:40). During this period, Dr. Bryant’s and Daniel Coxe’s riverfront properties were commandeered by Hessian troops (Audit Office AO 12/74, 42-43). On the opposite side of the river, rebel forces took up defensive positions, throwing up earthworks at most potential crossing points between Dunk’s Ferry to the south and Coryell’s Ferry to the north. Components of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey militias were tasked with defending the shore between Yardley’s Ferry and Bordentown. On the west bank of the Delaware, directly opposite Trenton, substantial artillery batteries were emplaced so as to include Dr. Bryant’s House and the Trenton Ferry crossing within their field of fire (Stryker 1898:30).

Hessian forces were mostly quartered in the town of Trenton with pickets established at key points on the outskirts, along roads and at river crossings. A picket at the Assunpink Creek bridge comprising a former sergeant and 18 men was responsible for sending a patrol down to Bryant’s house every half hour. Another picket comprising one commissioned and five non- commissioned officers and 22 men was stationed at the tavern at rentonT Ferry and provided sentinels posted at Bryant’s house. Guards posted near the river bank were forbidden to show themselves in the daytime, as whenever they did so in any numbers, the Americans fired at them from one of the batteries on the Pennsylvania side of the river. American troops also made a

July 2021 229 number of forays across the river, destroying properties along the riverbank, which led on December 19 to a more substantial Hessian patrol marching out of the town down to Bryant’s house and the ferry in an effort to deter further attacks (Kalb et al. 1982:3; Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-45; Kidder 2017:133-134, 138).

A few days later, on December 23, with the Hessians uncertain about the next move by Washington’s forces, Dr. Bryant learned from a female enslaved person in his employ recently returned from across the river that an American assault was about to take place. He went into town to inform the Hessian commander, Colonel Rall, who dismissed the news as mere “old woman’s talk.” Less than three days later, the Americans slipped across the river at McConkey’s Ferry (Washington Crossing), stole into town shortly after dawn on December 26 and caught the Hessian troops unawares, winning a surprise and crucial victory at the First Battle of Trenton. The American forces numbered some 2,400 men, the Hessians around 1,400. At the conclusion of the conflict 22 Hessians (including Colonel Rall) had been killed, 83 wounded, 896 taken prisoner and the rest escaped. There were no American fatalities and fewer than ten were wounded, although several died in the lead-up to the battle and its aftermath. Dr. Bryant’s whereabouts at the time of the battle are not known. He may well have been ensconced safely in his house, within earshot but out of range of the hostilities that played out over the course of an hour or so that winter morning. A small detachment of Hessians posted near his house managed to escape to Burlington (Kidder 2017:142-158).

In the months following, as recriminations flowed back and forth over the surprising outcome of the first battle, theessian H actions were subjected to a thorough inquiry in the form of a German court martial. In support of these proceedings, held in the spring of 1777, a detailed map showing troop positions was prepared by each of three junior Hessian officers who had participated in the battle, Lieutenants Friedrich Fischer, Jacob Piel and Andreas Wiederhold (Smith 1965; Stryker 1898). The maps are broadly similar in their content and somewhat sketchy accuracy; the one by Lieutenant Wiederhold is reproduced here as perhaps the most legible of the three in its depiction of the Kingsbury area. It shows parts of the Hessian contingent both at “Doctor Haus” and at the Trenton Ferry, each labeled “E,” which is explained in the legend as “Detachment of 1 Off[icer] and 30 privet, which retired to Burlington.” The larger of the two buildings at the “Doctor Haus” represents the main house (the Trent House); the smaller one is perhaps a barn (neither appear oriented correctly on the map); and the two lines of trees extending down to the ferry may indicate the allée of cherry trees or an orchard. The American battery positions are also shown on the opposite side of the river facing the doctor’s house and the ferry landing.

Another map of obscure origin entitled Plan de la Bataille de Trenton (Figure 8), held by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, may be a roughly contemporary French copy of the Hessian maps. It is very similar in appearance and content to the Weiderhold map, but also displays some interesting differences. The Trent House and the building to the south are shown within an enclosure, while the two lines of trees are also enclosed, which is perhaps more suggestive of an orchard than an allée. Only a single building is depicted in the vicinity of the ferry house, but another building, not shown by any of the other maps, is depicted on the north side of the road to the ferry, immediately adjacent to the riverbank. Hessian detachments are

230 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan ±

Figure 7. Wiederhold, A. Sketch of the engagement at Trenton, given on the 26th of December 1776 …...1777 Scale: 1 inch: 1420 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

July 2021 231 shown just north of the Trent House and on the north side of the road leading to the ferry in much the same spots as indicated by the Wiederhold map. Interestingly, all of the Hessian maps and the French map from 1777 show the drainage known as Douglas Gut flowing from south to north, entering the Delaware close to the mouth of Assunpink Creek, as opposed to the opposite direction and joining the Delaware at the northern end of Lamberton (cf. Figure 4 and below, Figure 9a). This latter north-to-south course is believed to be the correct flow and one suspects the four maps from 1777 were prepared each in the knowledge of one or more of the others. After the American success in the first battle, Washington’s troops briefly occupied Trenton, knowing full well that the full force of the British army, approaching from Princeton under the command of General Charles Cornwallis, would soon be upon them. A week later on January 2, in the late afternoon, the Continental Army gained another crucial victory over the British in Trenton, this time defending the crossing at the Assunpink Creek bridge as dusk set in, thereby enabling American troops to regroup under cover of darkness and march north to Princeton for another successful surprise offensive the next morning. As part of the American defensive action at the Assunpink Creek bridge, a defensive position was established by Colonel Daniel

Figure 8. Plan de la Bataille de Trenton. 1777. No scale given. The William Trent House is the larger of the two structures identified as “Maison du docteur.”

232 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Hitchcock’s brigade on William Bryant’s Kingsbury property a short distance downstream from the bridge along the creek. A temporary breastwork was thrown up and a brief skirmish occurred when a party of Hessian and British soldiers were repulsed trying to cross over the creek.

The American military successes at Trenton and Princeton represented a critical turning point in the Revolutionary War and in the fortunes of the American cause for independence. Within two years, the central role of Trenton to the success of the Patriot movement was already being widely acknowledged and steps were soon taken to embed these triumphs in the national psyche for the benefit of future generations. On January 18, 1779, the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania passed a resolution commissioning Charles Willson Peale, the pre-eminent American portrait artist of his day, to paint a portrait of George Washington for the Council Chamber. Following his selection as the artist, Peale traveled to the Princeton and Trenton battlefields in February of 1779 to make sketches for the background of his painting. Peale, himself, had been present with the American Army during these two battles.

The original version of the portrait, now in the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, was greeted enthusiastically by its patrons and the general public. Peale soon had orders for numerous copies, especially commissions from Europe. In all but one version of the painting, Washington is depicted standing in the foreground of a view showing the battlefield at Princeton. The sole exception is a portrait that descended in Washington’s family and now hangs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City (Portrait 4). Probably painted between June and August of 1780, it depicts Washington standing against a background showing Trenton’s Delaware River waterfront as seen looking southeast down the river from roughly the location of the present- day New Jersey State House. The view provides a unique record of the area around the mouth of Assunpink Creek in February of 1779. Among the buildings depicted are the barracks and a single large reddish structure dominating the shoreline further to the south, which is almost certainly The William Trent House standing out in the otherwise bleak recreated winter landscape. This building, the earliest known image of the Trent House, is recognizable, not only for its red brick but also for its gable-end chimneys and prominent central cupola. Following the American victories at Trenton and Princeton, the town remained under American control for the remainder of the war. With its port facilities in Lamberton, also known as Trenton Landing, the town played a vital role as a supply hub for the Continental Army and was frequently host to American troops. In January of 1778, Pulaski’s Legion, a brigade of four Continental light horse regiments under the command of Brigadier General Casimir Pulaski, a Polish Count, was assigned to Trenton to protect the inhabitants and train for future military action. These troops remained in Trenton for most of the year and included among their number a certain Nicholas de Belleville, a French-born surgeon who served as Pulaski’s personal physician. During his stay in Trenton, de Belleville was befriended by fellow physician William Bryant, who persuaded him to remain behind when Pulaski’s Legion was ordered south. The pair set up a medical practice together, de Belleville soon married a local girl, Ann Brittain, and became one of the most highly respected doctors in the country (Kidder 2017:217, 219-221, 236- 237).

July 2021 233 Portrait 4. George Washington, circa 1779-1781 (Metropolitan Museum of Art). This one version of Charles Willson Peale’s well-known portrait, is unique in showing Washington against a Trenton riverfront background that includes The William Trent House at the far right of the inset. Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11707

William Bryant’s fortunes during the war years seem not to have been too seriously affected by his Loyalist background. His position as a local doctor and his partnering with Nicholas de Belleville perhaps secured his reputation in the local community, protecting him from partisan attack. Around the same time that he set up his practice with de Belleville in the fall of 1778, Bryant sold his Kingsbury property to John Cox, a leading figure in New ersey’sJ patriot military elite (Portrait 5), and appears to have moved into one of his other in-town properties, perhaps to facilitate his medical work. Approaching 50 years of age, Bryant soon after retired from medical practice, although he remained active buying and selling property in Trenton until at least 1783. He moved to New York City sometime after 1783, dying there in January 1786 and leaving considerable real estate and personal effects, including a number of enslaved people (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-43).

234 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan John Cox acquired the 197-acre Kingsbury plantation and another four parcels totaling 180.5 acres from Dr. William and Mary Bryant on October 28, 1778 for the considerable sum of £10,600 (Table 1). Born in 1732 in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Cox became a successful Philadelphia merchant before the war, trading in securities and engaging in the iron business and salt refining. In 1760 he married Esther Bowes, daughter of Francis Bowes, a Hunterdon County judge and attorney practicing law in Trenton in the 1720s, but who later moved to Philadelphia. At the time he purchased the Kingsbury property, Cox, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Philadelphia Associators who had fought at Trenton, had recently been appointed one of two Assistant Quartermaster Generals reporting to the Continental Army’s Quartermaster General Nathanael Greene. He had been the principal owner of the Batsto Furnace, an important supplier of ordnance to the army, for much of the 1770s, and he proceeded to use the Trent House property not only as his primary home, but also as a base of operations for carrying out his Quartermaster Department duties (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-52).

John Cox was responsible for renaming Kingsbury with the less Royalist-sounding moniker “Bloomsbury” and the property emerged as an important focus of Trenton and Delaware Valley society during the late 1770s and throughout the 1780s. Among the many prominent Revolutionary figures who are reasonably claimed to have visited Bloomsbury during the war years are George Washington, Portrait 5. Colonel John Cox, 1778 (Smithsonian Nathanael Greene, the Marquis de Lafayette and the Comte de Rochambeau, although it is far from American Art Museum). This miniature of John Cox, certain whether any of these notables stayed overnight or for any extended length of time. watercolor on ivory, was painted by Charles Willson Peale and completed on April 23, 1778 while the Continental Army was encamped at Valley Forge. Source: https:// In the later war years, when most of the military activity was occurring further to the north in the americanart.si.edu/artwork/colonel-john-cox-38362 Hudson Valley and to the south in the Carolinas, Trenton maintained its importance as a supply hub. Cox allowed the farm fields on his Bloomsbury property to be used as a camp site by both American and French troops. In 1780, for example, Adjutant-General Joseph Reed, a personal aide to Washington, born and raised in Trenton, wrote to his wife from the Bloomsbury encampment, remarking on “Mr. Cox’s watermelon patch [being] robbed.” In the late summer of 1781, and then again in the late summer of the following year, encampments of a much different and more massive sort took root on the outskirts of Bloomsbury. These represented the stopovers along the route of the French army commanded by the Comte de Rochambeau on its march southward through New Jersey from Rhode Island to Virginia, returning a year later along much the same route. In the interim, on October 19, 1781, the French army and navy assisted the Continental Army in finally forcing General Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, effectively concluding the military phase of the American War of Independence. The French army kept a detailed account of its itinerary from Newport, Rhode Island

July 2021 235 to Yorktown, Virginia and back, and prepared maps of the route and the communities where encampments were made (Rice and Brown 1972). This series of aesthetically appealing maps and plans provides valuable insights into the cultural landscape of the eastern seaboard in the later years of the Revolution. The particular renderings dealing with the Trenton area are no exception.

A colorful sketch showing the winding route of the ford (gué) across the falls, which was passable at low water on foot or horseback, includes a plan view of an enclosed structure marked “Chateau” which corresponds to The William Trent House (Figure 9). This is the only building shown on the map and it seems that a view from the river, lining up the downstream end of the island on the New Jersey side of the river with the cupola on the Chateau, provided a line of sight line (“Direction” on the map) which would help those navigating the falls.

A detailed plan of Trenton, entitled 25a Camp à Trenton (Figure 10), shows two clusters of buildings, marked in red, to the south of Assunpink Creek in Bloomsbury: The William Trent House (and one outbuilding) fronted by formal gardens and an allée of trees leading south toward the road that led down to Trenton Ferry; and the ferry house and two other buildings on the riverbank at the foot of the road to the ferry. The map also shows the French forces encamped on the higher ground along the southwestern side of the road to Burlington between present-day Ferry and Cass streets. The artillery and wagon park was located along the river on the south side of the road leading down to the ferry in preparation for the crossing over into Pennsylvania. The encampment on the return trip in early September of 1782 occupied roughly the same area as in 1781, but extended slightly further to the south. The accompanying narrative accounts by French officers unfortunately add little to the information on the maps. Trenton is described as “larger than Princeton but less well built and pretty,” and “several houses” are noted at the ferry. The ford at the falls was evidently very well marked, since the French artillery used it (rather than the ferry) to cross the river during the return march in 1782 (Rice and Brown 1972:I-163; II-71-72).

236 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan ±

Figure 9. Berthier, Louis-Alexandre. Ford across the Delaware at Trenton. 1781. (Reproduced in Brown and Rice 1972:71). No scale given. The location of The William Trent House (“Chateau”) is indicated with an arrow.

July 2021 237

Figure 10. Berthier, Louis-Alexandre. 25a Camp à ± Trenton. 1781. (Reproduced in Brown and Rice 1972:70). Scale (main map): 1 inch: 1270 feet (approximately); (inset): 1 inch: 690 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

238 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 10. Bloomsbury in the Early Federal Period

The Cox family – John, his wife Esther and their six daughters – continued to live comfortably on the Bloomsbury estate through the 1780s. Beginning in October of 1782, John served as an elected official representing urlingtonB County on the New Jersey Legislative Council, a body where he eventually rose to become Vice President. It was during this period that the Kingsbury/Lamberton section of the Delaware River frontage was under serious consideration as a site for the new federal capital, which resulted in much speculative land dealing. The Congress of the United States even met in Trenton for two months in November and December of 1784, but New Jersey’s hopes of hosting the federal government were dashed when Washington lobbied hard for selection of a more southerly site. A sketch map prepared around this time shows the section of the riverfront under consideration for development as a center of government and includes some curious detail in the Kingsbury vicinity (Figure 11). The Trent House is not indicated, but an annotation “Furman’s Mill Seat” and the route of a canal would seem to foreshadow an industrial development that would not come to be realized for another three decades.

On April 21, 1789, the Cox family was among the many Trentonians who received George Washington en route to his inauguration in New York City, an event memorialized in numerous paintings and engravings, including a large-scale oil mural by N.C. Wyeth, recently installed at Thomas Edison State University. Some of the Cox daughters were among the young girls who supposedly strew flowers at Washington’s feet as he passed beneath a triumphal arch erected on the bridge over the Assunpink, the site of one of his famous military actions. John Cox was by this time nearing 60 years old and in poor health. He was contemplating sale of his Kingsbury holdings and a return to Philadelphia to spend his final years. This caused him to have a survey made of his estate with the aid of which he might subdivide and sell off his property (Figure 12a). Although the date of 1789 is given in the medallion enclosing the map title, the map contains one very prominent feature that did not exist until a few years later, namely the New Jersey State House, which was not constructed until the spring, summer and fall of 1792. Since Cox himself died in the spring of 1793, the map is probably best seen as a product of the years 1789-92.

Cox’s Bloomsbury survey map was drawn to scale and shows revealing detail of the house and nearby outbuildings (Figure 12b). Formal pathways are shown extending north and south of the house with a garden stretching west to the riverbank. A driveway headed northeast to the Bordentown Road (then still known as Queen Street), following the course of modern Market Street. Clearly, by this time, the house was oriented as much to the north and to the town of Trenton as it was to the south and to the ferry and river approach. Immediately northeast of the house a smaller structure, evidently the kitchen, is shown with a smaller outbuilding to the east, separated by a lane or spur from the main driveway. The kitchen is clearly set back from the southern plane of the house, also projecting north beyond its northern plane. No gangway is shown. To the east and northeast of the kitchen and small outbuilding is a range of three much larger outbuildings in a farmyard-like setting, most likely barns and stables, perhaps also including a chaise or wagon house.

July 2021 239 ±

Figure 11. A Rough Sketch of the Southwesterly Part of Nottingham Township fronting the Delaware …., circa 1783. No scale given. The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow and dashed circle. Note the annotations referencing a canal and mill seat.

240 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 12a. A Plan and Survey of Sundry Pieces of Land Adjoining the Delaware River and Assunpink Creek Belonging to Jn. Cox. Circa 1789-92. Scale: 1 inch: 1200 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

July 2021 241 050 100 200 300 400 Feet ±

Figure 12b. Detail of A Plan and Survey of Sundry Pieces of Land Adjoining the Delaware River and Assunpink Creek Belonging to Jn. Cox. Circa 1789-92. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

242 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 12c. Detailed View of South Elevation of The William Trent House. A Plan and Survey of Sundry Pieces of Land Adjoining the Delaware River and Assunpink Creek Belonging to Jn. Cox. Circa 1789-92.

The map medallion (Figure 12c) includes a sketch of the south elevation of the house and kitchen wing that generally resembles that depicted on the Colonel Thomas map some four decades earlier (cf. Figure 6). The house again is depicted with five bays, a central front door (now with entry steps), a hipped roof topped by a cupola, and chimneys in the east and west walls. The kitchen wing, likewise, is shown as two bays wide without a door, with a hipped roof and central chimney. In contravention to the map, the house and kitchen are shown in the medallion as being connected by a low one-story gangway. The gangway appears to be flat-roofed and enclosed, with two windows or doors on its south side. Unfortunately, the sketch again, like the circa 1750-53 image, presents the southern elevations of these buildings in the same plane and does not show the kitchen and gangway as being set back from the main house, as the map would suggest.

By 1792, and perhaps sooner, John Cox had relocated to Philadelphia where he lived out his final years with his wife and three unmarried daughters. It was during this period that his portrait was painted for a second time by Charles Willson

July 2021 243 Peale (Portrait 6) in which he appears a well-to-do man of the world, somewhat overweight with roseate cheeks. In the summer of 1792, the Cox’s Kingsbury home was briefly occupied by Simeon Worlock, an English-born refugee from the Saint-Domingue Revolution who had recently escaped to Philadelphia. Worlock was the son of another Simeon Worlock (circa 1730-circa 1787), celebrated for his success in curing and inoculating smallpox in France and Saint-Domingue in the 1770s. From a letter to his wife published in the Philadelphia and New York newspapers in November 1791, it is clear that the younger Worlock was still in Saint-Domingue in the fall of that year, sending an update on the uprisings, which he viewed optimistically as almost under control. However, it was not long before he was stateside and evidently looking to rebuild his life in the Delaware Valley. He may even have been considering purchasing the Cox property, but whatever his intentions, he passed away in July of 1792 and was buried in Trenton’s First Presbyterian churchyard, his grave marked by a plaque that read in part: “he went at the age of 19 to St. Domingo where he resided until the Insurrection in 1791 when he was forced to fly for safety with his family and friends, leaving behind an ample fortune having purchased the Bloomsbury estate near this place, he lived to enjoy it but three weeks, departed this life on the 23rd of July 1792 in the 35th year of his age.” There are no land records to support Worlock’s purchase of the Bloomsbury estate (General Advertiser, November 9, 1791; Trenton Historical Society 1929:295-296; Bennett 2017; Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-56).

John and Esther Cox did nevertheless end up selling the Bloomsbury estate a few months later to a different refugee from the Saint-Domingue uprisings, a minor French nobleman and sugar planter

Portrait 6. Colonel John Cox, 1792. This portrait of John Chevalier Marin Bazile Gaston L’Official de Woofoin (Table 1). Whether de Woofoin knew or was Cox toward the end of his life was painted by Charles connected in some way to Simeon Worlock is not known and bears further research. They both Wilson Peale in Philadelphia. Source: http://www.artnet. appear to have arrived in Philadelphia around the same time, whereupon Chevalier de Woofoin and com/artists/charles-willson-peale/portrait-of-colonel-john- his son Louis (Lewes) met up with his young daughter Henriette, who had recently fled Paris and the cox-z9LS5YEzkfGyeV47rZ_VsQ2 French Revolution for the United States, and moved to Bloomsbury. The de Woofoin family – father, son and daughter – are thought to have resided there until, in 1795, de Woofoin and his son resolved to return to Saint-Domingue to reclaim their properties. Upon their return to the Caribbean both were killed, leaving Henriette, still a teenager, abandoned as an orphan at the Trent House. The Bloomsbury estate was then conveyed back to the executors of John Cox’s estate, including Cox’s widow, Esther, probably on account of de Woofoin still owing payments relating to his 1792 purchase (Table 1). The Cox executors next put the property up for sale in the fall of 1797, advertising in the Philadelphia newspapers. The sale notices continued to reference the two-story brick kitchen along with other outbuildings, notably “a stone coach house and stables, sufficient to contain six carriages

244 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan and ten horses, and a stone cow house upwards of 100 feet in length” (Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser, October 10, 1797).

The Bloomsbury property was quickly purchased on October 12, 1797 by William Coxe, a leading Philadelphia merchant and direct descendant and relative of the succession of Daniel Coxes tracing back to Dr. Daniel Coxe, the West Jersey Governor (note: these Coxes are no relation to the John Cox family as distinguished by the terminal “e” in the surname) (Table 1). William Coxe, like so many of his predecessors, seems to have acquired the property as a speculative investment for its re-sale and development potential. An advertisement posted by William and his son Tench Coxe in the following spring announced their interest in leasing the house, noting that it came with “a brick kitchen and wash house,” although it is unclear whether these cooking and laundry functions involved the same or separate buildings (Philadelphia Gazette, April 7, 1798). Throughout the later 1790s the house appears to have been occupied by tenants. Quite possibly, Henriette de Woofoin (Portrait 7), the orphaned daughter of Chevalier de Woofoin, continued to live in the Trent House for much of this period, perhaps even staying there into the first decade of the next century until she made the acquaintance of and then married (in 1804) her neighbor John Baptiste Sartori. Sartori, the U.S. Consul to the Vatican, lived at the Rosey Hill Mansion on the estate adjoining Bloomsbury to the south (Hunter and Harshbarger 2014).

Both sides of the Delaware River waterfront stretching downstream from Trenton to Bordentown took on a distinctly European, mostly French, and somewhat elitist flavor from the 1790s until the 1830s Portrait 7. Henriette de Woofoin, circa 1804. This as several wealthy members of the political, diplomatic and merchant classes took up residence in privately held miniature, produced by an unknown artist, well-appointed houses spread along the banks of the river. Interest in this area may have started with shows Henriette around the time of her marriage to John displaced refugees from the Caribbean and mainland Europe, but it was soon spurred further by the Baptist Sartori, her Trenton neighbor and U.S. Consul to the Papal States. Source: Hunter and Harshbarger 2014. outbreak of yellow fever in Philadelphia in 1793. This settlement phenomenon peaked in the second decade of the 19th century when Joseph Bonaparte, following his brother Napoleon’s demise, chose to make his home at Point Breeze, a choice location recorded in several fine contemporary paintings. An evocative view further upstream, Trenton Sur La Delaware, painted by Edouard Charles-Victurnen Colbert in 1798, also provides some sense of the setting along the river early on in this period (Figure 13). The Trent House dominates the front right foreground in this image, but unfortunately the picture does not extend far enough east to show the kitchen wing. Curiously, the house is depicted without chimneys, although the hipped roof, cupola and central front entrance with steps are all clearly shown.

July 2021 245 Figure 13. Colbert, Edouard Charles-Victurnen. Trenton Sur La Delaware. 1798. View looking northwest. The William Trent House is the building in the right foreground. The former paper mill of Stacy Potts is nestled down at the mouth of Assunpink Creek just beyond with the New Jersey State House on the bluffs above. This view captures vividly the proliferation of handsome riverfront mansions that lined this section of the Delaware River at the turn of the 19th century. Source: New Jersey Historical Society 1962.

246 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan The Coxe family continued to seek new tenants for Bloomsbury House, advertising in the spring of 1800, and then again toward the end of the following year after William Coxe’s death on October 11, 1801. The property passed briefly into the hands of William’s executors before coming into the hands of his son Daniel W. Coxe on October 1, 1802 (Table 1). Daniel W. Coxe (1769-1852), who owned Bloomsbury for more than 30 years, lived in Philadelphia for most of his life, amassing considerable wealth dealing in cotton and flour and speculating in Spanish land grants in the southern and southwestern states (Portrait 8). He intensified the efforts to subdivide and develop the Bloomsbury property at a time when Trenton was making its first moves toward becoming an industrial center.

Early on during the period of his ownership Coxe had his Bloomsbury estate surveyed and the resulting map included a valuable depiction of the house and principal outbuildings (Figure 14a-b). The date of the survey map is not given in the title medallion, but it is thought to have been made no later than 1804, since the survey shows neither Bridge Street nor the bridge over the Delaware River, constructed in 1804-06. The view of Bloomsbury House shows the north elevation, which in itself is an expression of the building’s increasing primary focus toward the town, as opposed to its original orientation downriver to the south (Figure 14c). Again, the main block of the house is depicted as five bays wide with a hipped roof, central cupola and chimneys in the east and west walls. The kitchen wing, however, is shown with a gabled roof as opposed to the hipped roof of the two earlier sketches of circa 1750-53 and 1789-92. The north elevation of the wing also has three bays with a first-floor door at the western end in contrast to the two bays (and no entryway) shown in the south elevation Portrait 8. Daniel W. Coxe, 1792. This privately held in the earlier views. The attic story displays two window openings in the northern gable end of the oil portrait painted by José Francisco Xavier de Salazar y Mendoza shows Coxe as a young man in his early 20s building, while the western elevation has three bays and a central first-floor door. The positioning when he would have been living in Philadelphia. Source: of the chimney is unclear; it appears to be either in the south gable end of the building, or possibly https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Portrait-of-Daniel- in the center. Overall, in comparing the views of the kitchen wing in the John Cox and Daniel W. William-Coxe--1769---/343A9BC1D5DFF521 Coxe survey maps, one wonders if there was not a remodeling of the roof and upper story sometime between circa 1792 and 1804.

The rendering of the outbuildings to the northeast of the house on the Daniel W. Coxe map shows one very long, low one-and-a-half-story structure, presumably the stable block, and a shorter but taller, two- or even three-story structure which could have been a barn or perhaps a wash house or tenant house (although no chimneys are indicated) (Figure 14c). The placement of these buildings corresponds well with the outbuilding locations shown on the John Cox survey map of 1789-92 (cf. Figure 12b).

July 2021 247 ±

Figure 14a. A Plan of Sundry Lots of Land the Property of Daniel W. Coxe, Esquire, Part of His Bloomsbury Estate. Circa 1804. Scale: 1 inch: 680 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Note the mill building on the riverbank northwest of the house and the mill dam connecting to the “Yard’s Island” in the river.

248 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 050 100 200 300 400 ± Feet

Figure 14b. Detail of A Plan of Sundry Lots of Land the Property of Daniel W. Coxe, Esquire, Part of His Bloomsbury Estate. Circa 1804. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. Note the mill building on the riverbank northwest of the house.

July 2021 249 ±

Figure 14c (above). Close-up View of the North Elevation of the House. A Plan of Sundry Lots of Land the Property of Daniel W. Coxe, Esquire, Part of His Bloomsbury Estate. Circa 1804.

Figure 15 (left). Sketch of Daniel W. Coxe’s Proposed Subdivision of the Area Immediately Surrounding The William Trent House. Bloomsbury Book. Circa 1815- 1836. No scale given.

One other sketch map from the Daniel W. Coxe era bears mention with reference to the house and kitchen wing arrangement (Figure 15). Included in the so-called Bloomsbury Book, which is held in the Daniel W. Coxe Papers at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, this map shows a scheme for subdividing the core of the Bloomsbury property immediately north of Falls Street, a road that was apparently already in existence at the time the map was drawn. The date of the map is uncertain, but since the Bloomsbury Book generally covers the period circa 1815-36, it is thought to have been drawn sometime within that roughly two-decade period. Of particular interest is the manner in which the house and kitchen wing have been outlined on the map, evidently added in pencil onto this heavily annotated development plan. While not drawn to scale, it is very clear that the kitchen wing was a separate structure set back from the south plane of the house in much the same manner as shown on the John Cox survey map of 1789-92 (cf. Figure 12b). Also of note is that the gangway is shown connecting to the northeast corner of the house (to the rear or north of the building) and to the southwest corner of the kitchen wing (but set back slightly from the southern face of the wing).

250 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Daniel W. Coxe ultimately constructed a sizeable mill complex on the banks of the Delaware close to the Bloomsbury mansion in 1818. This important facility, known as Coxe’s Mills or the Bloomsbury Mills, drew its power from a wing dam in the Delaware. The first and primary operation on the site was a merchant gristmill, which effectively superseded Trenton’s original grain processing site at the South Broad Street crossing of the Assunpink (Mahlon Stacy’s gristmill and then the Trenton Mills), but it also included a sawmill, oil mill, fulling mill and plaster mill. By 1819, the upper part of the Coxe gristmill was being used for wool carding, a clue that textile operations were beginning to spread into many of Trenton’s available milling spaces during this initial period of industrialization in the city (Trenton Federalist, September 28, 1818; May 28, 1819; Hunter et al. 2009).

Clearer evidence that Coxe, a brother of political and industrial economist Tench Coxe, was interested in expanding his milling activities beyond grain processing into manufacturing is provided in a sale advertisement for his Figure 16. Bird, Robert Montgomery. Trenton Bridge …. From Above …. July 24, 1826. entire Trenton estate published in 1825. In addition to the gristmill, this R.M.B. Watercolor, Penn Libraries, University of Pennsylvania. This view, looking downstream and probably painted en plein air from the bluff edge to the rear of the New sale notice references a second, recently built and closely adjoining three- Jersey State House, shows the gravel flats and Yard’s Island at the mouth of Assunpink story stone mill of roughly similar size that is described as “now ready for Creek, the bridge across the Delaware erected 1804-06, and Coxe’s Mills on the left bank. the reception of any description of machinery” (Trenton Federalist, March 21, 1825). A contemporary watercolor by Robert Montgomery Bird, painted the following summer, shows the disposition of these two buildings, with the later structure in the foreground, with its multiple windows, easily recognizable as a textile mill (Figure 16).

During his long tenure of the Bloomsbury property (1802-35) Daniel W. Coxe supposedly never lived permanently at Bloomsbury, although he and his family periodically spent summers there to escape the heat and bustle of Philadelphia city life. Coxe’s real estate and entrepreneurial interests extended far and wide across the country, but his energies in Trenton seem to have been mostly focused on the sale and subdivision of his lands and on industrial development that would be to his direct benefit. It may be

July 2021 251 reasonably assumed that Bloomsbury House itself was inhabited mostly by tenants during Coxe’s period of ownership and advertisements offering the property for rent periodically appeared in the two principal local newspapers of the time, the Trenton Federalist and the Emporium and True American. Similarly, the grist and sawmill were also advertised for sale or lease in the mid-1820s. Among other uses during the Coxe tenure, Bloomsbury House was occasionally used as a military recruiting station and as a tavern, both in the first decade of the 19th century.

11. Bloomsbury and the Industrial Revolution

Coxe’s Mills represented just one of several early industrializing initiatives in Trenton with other textile mills being established around the same time along the Assunpink downstream from the original Trenton Mills site and also along Petty’s Run. In the early 1830s, water-powered industrial development in the city received a massive boost when the Trenton Delaware Falls Company brought on line the power canal later known as the Trenton Water Power (Figures 17 and 18). This 7.5-mile-long waterway, which required the purchase of land from a resistant Coxe, initially bypassed Bloomsbury House well to the east, leaving intact his mills’ waterpower configuration on the riverbank. However, the Trenton Water Power’s tapping of the Delaware River and the proliferation of mills along the Assunpink may have had a detrimental effect on the water power available at Coxe’s Mills, which soon led to a major modification of the power canal. In 1837, a branch raceway Portrait 9. Philemon Dickerson, 1907. This portrait of Governor Dickerson was painted posthumously by Henry from the Trenton Water Power was constructed starting just below the aqueduct over the Assunpink, Harrison, an English-born artist who lived in Jersey City. extending along the left bank of the Delaware River to Coxe’s Mills and continuing on for another Source: New Jersey State Museum SHPC 19. 500 feet, thereby opening up several additional mill sites for development (see below, Figures 19 and 20a). This design change in the Trenton Water Power, perhaps conceived while Coxe still owned the Bloomsbury estate, was implemented during the tenure of the next owner of the Trent House property.

On August 10, 1835, Daniel W. and Margaret Coxe conveyed Bloomsbury House and what was then an 85-acre property referred to as the “Bloomsbury Town Lots or the Bloomsbury Estate,” along with the 4.75-acre island at the mouth of the Assunpink, to Philemon Dickerson of Paterson (Table 1). Dickerson, a Jacksonian Democrat and U.S. Representative since 1833 who was elected New Jersey’s 12th governor in 1836 (Portrait 9), apparently also never lived permanently at Bloomsbury, although during his brief one-year gubernatorial term, one presumes he may have taken up temporary residence there. His interest in the Bloomsbury property seems to have been driven primarily by its

252 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 17. Board of Managers of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company. Detail of Map and Profile of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company’s Canal or Main Raceway. 1833. Scale: 1 inch: 900 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with a dashed circle.

July 2021 253 Figure 18. Gordon, T. Detail of Map of Trenton and Its Vicinity. 1836. Scale: 1 inch: 1000 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with a dashed circle.

254 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan development potential and most especially by the prospect of establishing water-powered industrial facilities along the nearby riverbank. Dickerson, who lived somewhat in the shadow of his older brother, Mahlon, New Jersey’s well-regarded seventh governor (1815-17), trained as an attorney and established a practice in Paterson in 1816, where he would have been well aware of the possibilities of waterpower. His purchase of the Bloomsbury estate is thought to have paved the way for the construction of the branch raceway of the Trenton Water Power, which led to the establishment of several more mills along the riverbank, while also providing a more reliable hydropower source for Coxe’s former mills (Figures 19 and 20a) (Stellhorn and Birkner 1982:108- 110).

Philemon Dickerson, during the three years he owned the Bloomsbury property, was engaged in some form of informal partnership with James M. Redmond, the son of John C. Redmond, a prominent Trenton banker. The younger Redmond, who seems to have been pursuing a number of local investments and development deals, may have been living in the house with his family at this time. At some point, prior to 1838, the house was set off on its own 2.55-acre parcel, while various other tracts were being sold off for industrial and residential development. James Redmond ran afoul of the “Panic of 1837” and in May of 1838, he approached Nicholas Biddle, President of the Bank of the United States, requesting a loan to offset losses incurred from the sluggish industrial development along the Trenton Water Power. The loan did not materialize, but Redmond did still manage to acquire from Dickerson on September 20, 1838 for $7,640 the 2.55-acre Bloomsbury “Mansion House” lot. His financial difficulties persisted, however, and early the following year he sold the property to his father, John C. Redmond, for $10,000. Five years later, the younger Redmond’s financial condition had repaired sufficiently that he was able to buy the property back from his father for the same sum (Table 1) (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-65 to A.3-66).

Throughout this period, from the mid-1830s until 1852, when James M. and Ann B. Redmond sold the Bloomsbury property to Joseph Wood, the Redmond family maintained the mansion as their home. By 1850, as shown by the federal census, this was a sizeable household. In addition to James, listed as a “gentleman,” and his wife, Ann, there were six children: three daughters and three sons, including twin boys, with all three sons probably being born in the house. Also listed in the household are two African-Americans (Isabella Conrad, aged 25, and John Scudder, aged 18) and one Irish-born single woman (Mary Wayland, aged 25). Scudder is listed as a waiter, presumably in the home, while the two women most likely worked as servants (U.S. Federal Census of New Jersey, Population Schedules 1850).

It is unclear what, if any, improvements might have been made to the house during the Redmond tenure at Bloomsbury, especially if the family was having money problems. However, the Sidney map of Trenton in 1849 (Figure 20a) and two contemporary views, one an engraving included as an inset on the Sidney map (Figure 20b) and the other an undated engraving believed to have been produced around 1850 (Figure 21), may be instructive in this regard. The Sidney map shows Bloomsbury House as an L-shaped block which is presumed to comprise the main block with an eastern addition that is set back from the

July 2021 255 main block’s southern façade. It is not possible from the map alone to make a judgment as to whether the eastern addition is the kitchen wing that was erected in 1742. A small detached outbuilding is shown just north of the addition and may represent the ice house.

The view of the house in 1849, included as an inset on the map and showing the southern elevation, is rather more informative. The main block still has a hipped roof but no longer sports a cupola, and a Greek Revival-style porch supported on two columns projects from the front entry enclosing steps and a stoop. Owing to trees and the poor quality of the image, the wing adjoining the east side of the main block is difficult to discern. It is two stories in height, set back from the main block, and has two first- floor windows in its southern elevation. The roof, unfortunately, is mostly obscured by foliage. Between the two-story wing and the main block there would appear to be at least one more window or door opening. For the most part, this view corresponds well with the sketches of the building created circa 1789-92 and circa 1804 (cf. Figures 12c and 14c). Tentatively, it is suggested that the eastern wing depicted in 1849 is essentially the same structure as the kitchen wing erected by George Thomas for Governor Lewis Morris in 1742.

The second view, circa 1850, shows the north elevation of the main block of the house with a porch along its full width supported on a series of columns, but the eastern wing is frustratingly obscured by trees and shrubs. It is clear, however, that whatever structure may lurk beyond the vegetation, it is not substantial. If the east wing shown in late 19th/early 20th-century photographs and maps were present in 1850, it would surely be more visible than this engraving suggests. In the meantime, the environment around Bloomsbury House was changing dramatically as mill seats were developed along the nearby riverbank and row homes were erected on surrounding streets. By 1844, as shown on a U.S. Coast Survey map, the branch raceway had been connected to the former Coxe’s mill complex at the foot of Mill Street and other buildings were appearing along the river frontage (Figure 19). Within five years, as evidenced by the 1849 Sidney map, there were no less than six water-power operations on the branch raceway: the Fisher & Norris anvil factory; the Trenton Paper Manufacturing Company (probably the former Coxe textile mill); the Phoenix Iron Works; Cary’s flour mill (Coxe’s original gristmill); the Orleans Mill (another textile mill); and the Van Cleve & McKean iron foundry and machine shop. By this time, row homes also lined portions of Union, Decatur, Bloomsbury and Fair streets (Figure 20a).

On December 16, 1852 James Redmond and his wife, Ann, sold the 2.55-acre parcel with Bloomsbury House for $20,000 to Joseph Wood, a wealthy Trenton merchant, investor and real estate developer who was a founder member of the Mechanics National Bank and went on to serve as mayor of the city from 1856 to 1859 (Portrait 10; Table 1). A notice appeared in the local newspaper at the time stating that Wood had purchased the property and “contemplates making some extensive improvements” (Trenton State Gazette, December 15, 1852). Less than a year later, Wood sold the property to Jeremiah Stull, a Cumberland County farmer, politician and developer, for $45,000 (Table 1). The newspaper comment about extensive improvements and

256 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 19. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. Detail of Delaware River from Bordentown to Trenton. 1844. Scale: 1 inch: 680 feet (approximately). The location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

July 2021 257 062.5 125 250 375 500

Feet ±

Figure 20a. Sidney, J. Map of the City of Trenton, New Jersey. 1849. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

258 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 20b (above). Sidney, J. Engraving titled “J.M. Redmond.” Inset View of The William Trent House. Map of the City of Trenton, New Jersey. 1849. Note the absence of a cupola and the addition of a front porch on the main block and the resemblance of the two-story wing to the sketches of the building created circa 1789-92 and circa 1804 (cf. Figures 12c and 14c).

Figure 21 (right). Unknown Artist . Engraving titled “Bloomsbury Court” showing the north elevation. Circa 1850. Source: Mills 1902:264.

July 2021 259 the considerable increase in sale price strongly suggest that Joseph Wood, over the course of 1853, was responsible for the enlargement of the east wing of the house, which it is thought also involved the demolition of the mid-18th-century kitchen wing.

Both Wood and Stull seem to have been interested in the property as an investment and there is no clear evidence that either lived in the house in the early 1850s. In early 1854, Stull was advertising the property for rent (Daily True American, March 13, 1854), but before the year was out he had passed away. At the time of his death he appears to have still owed money to Joseph Wood for the purchase of the Bloomsbury property, since in early January of 1855 Wood brought suit against Stull’s heirs in Chancery Court (Trenton State Gazette, March 7, 1855). The outcome of this action is uncertain, but eventually, four years later, on January 3, 1859, Stull’s executors advertised for sale several Trenton properties, among them: “No. 1 – all that large mansion (now occupied by ex-Gov. Price) with coach house, stables, ice house and lot of ground …. a very valuable property, being planted with a large variety of ornamental shade trees, shrubbery, grape vines, etc. It is most beautifully laid out – gravel Portrait 10. Joseph Wood, circa 1850. This portrait, by walks, lined with evergreens running through it. Those wishing a desirable private residence would an unknown artist, likely shows Wood at the pinnacle of his career in the 1850s. Source: Trentoniana Collection, do well by securing this” (Daily True American, January 3, 1859). The purchase of the property, now Trenton Public Library. reduced in size to 1.89 acres and accomplished in two separate transactions in February and May of 1859, was undertaken by none other than Joseph Wood, for the modest sum of $10,412.25, which may reflect a settlement of the earlier legal proceeding (Table 1).

During the period when Jeremiah Stull and the Stull heirs owned the Bloomsbury property (1853- 59), there were at least two notable tenants. For a part of the first year of their married life in 1855- 56, Abram S. Hewitt and his wife, Amelia Cooper (daughter of Peter Cooper), lived there. Hewitt, a future U.S. Congressman and Mayor of New York, was a part-owner of the Trenton Iron Company and at the time of his tenancy was heavily engaged in the development of Trenton’s iron industry and the revitalization of the Trenton Water Power (Portrait 11). The Hewitts were married on April 6, 1855 in New York and soon thereafter departed for Trenton. Their first daughter was born in Trenton on February 28, 1856, quite possibly at Bloomsbury House (Nevins 1935:147).

A more protracted residency then followed involving New Jersey’s 17th governor, Rodman McCamley Portrait 11. Abram S. Hewitt, circa 1855. A portrait Price (Portrait 12), and his family, which appears to have lasted from 1856 through 1859. Price, of Hewitt shortly before his marriage to Amelia Cooper, who represented New Jersey in the U.S. Congress from 1851 to 1853, served as governor from 1854 daughter of Peter Cooper, on April 6, 1855. Source: until 1857. In the period when his term overlapped with his occupation of Bloomsbury House, Nevins 1935:opp. 80, artist unknown.

260 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan the premises would have functioned as the governor’s official residence and indeed the property is marked as “Governor’s House” on the Lamborn map of Trenton, surveyed in 1859 (not illustrated). In the federal census of 1850, when the Prices were living in North Bergen, the household comprised him and his wife, Matilda, a son and daughter, and a retinue of 11 servants. How many of these individuals relocated to Bloomsbury to maintain the governor’s residence is uncertain (U.S. Federal Census of New Jersey, Population Schedules 1850; Stellhorn and Birkner 1982:121-126).

Upon reacquiring the Bloomsbury property, Joseph Wood removed ex-governor Price and took up residence there himself, if only briefly, for he died on May 8, 1860, just over a year after moving there. Even so, he still left an imprint for it was from around this time that the property became known as “Woodlawn,” a name that persisted until the 1930s, honoring his surname in suitably arboreal fashion. From federal census records for 1860, compiled shortly after Joseph’s death, it would seem that the Wood household also included his daughter, Permelia S. Stokes, aged 22, her husband, Edward H. Stokes, aged 37, Edward’s mother, Miriam Stokes, aged 73, and three servants, Precillai [sic] Small, the housekeeper, aged 43, Lydia Boyd, the cook, aged 50, and Catherine Kale, a domestic, aged 26. Edward Stokes is listed as an artist with real estate valued at $1,200 and a personal estate at $8,000; his wife Permelia’s real and personal estate were valued at $81,000 and $125,000 respectively. The Stokes had married on June 21, 1860, less than two months after Joseph Wood’s death (U.S. Federal Census of New Jersey, Population Schedules 1850). Portrait 12. Rodman McCamley Price, 1903. This portrait of Governor Price was painted posthumously by Henry Harrison, an English-born artist who lived in Jersey 12. The Stokes Family and Woodlawn City. Source: New Jersey State Museum SHPC 38.

Woodlawn passed, perhaps not surprisingly, from Joseph Wood’s estate into the hands of Edward H. Stokes for the arguably low figure of $15,000, a sum amount in which Stokes’ wife Permelia, Joseph’s daughter, likely had a say (Table 1). Edward Harris Stokes, a Moorestown, New Jersey native, was a prominent member of Trenton society, a landowner, a director of the Mechanics National Bank, the Trenton Gas Light Company, Standard Fire Insurance and Riverview Cemetery, and a trustee of the Trenton Public Schools, the State Industrial School for Girls and the Second Presbyterian Church (Portrait 13). As the 1860 census records note he was also an accomplished artist, a skill to which he would also have added photographer and daguerreotypist (Saretzky 2013).

Two generations of the Stokes family lived at Woodlawn until well into the second decade of the 20th century and in the final decades of the 19th century, the property was the focus of many Trenton high

July 2021 261 ±

037.5 75 150 225 300 Feet ± Figure 22. Lake, D.J., and S.N. Beers. Detail of Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Figure 23. Beers, F.W. Map of the City of Trenton. 1870. The present-day Trent House Trenton. 1860. Scale: 1 inch: 600 feet (approximately). The location of The William property is outlined with a dashed line. Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

262 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan society gatherings. The gardens, in particular, with their many exotic plantings, were a particular attraction for visitors (Trenton Evening Times, July 7, 1889; February 8, 1893). Edward H. Stokes remained living there until his death in 1900, after which his widow stayed on in the company of her bachelor attorney/poet son, Edward Ansley Stokes (Portrait 14), and niece, Ida Stokes, until her own death in 1914. New Jersey census data show Edward A. and Ida Stokes both still in residence in 1915, but by 1920 Edward was living in Morristown and the property was largely in the hands of caretakers and occupied by boarders, with habitation confined to the east wing and the original portion of the house mothballed. For most of the Stokes family tenure, the house and grounds were maintained with the help of an array of male and female servants, including cooks, chambermaids, coachmen and gardeners.

The actual ownership status of Woodlawn during the Stokes era was a little more complex. Edward H. Stokes’ ownership was subject to two mortgages totaling almost $16,000 held by John Woolverton acting as a trustee of Permelia S. Wood (Edward’s wife) under the terms of Joseph Wood’s will. In 1887, by a decree of the Court of Chancery, Woolverton was relieved of his trustee position and replaced by Edward A. Stokes. Following Edward H. Stokes’s death in 1900, his son, Edward A. foreclosed on the mortgages, a sheriff’s sale ensued on May 29, 1901 at which the 1.58-acre property was purchased by Barton B. Hutchinson, whereupon Hutchinson and his wife on the same day sold the property back to Edward A. Stokes for a nominal dollar (Susan Maxman Architects 1997:A.3-77).

Over the course of the Stokes era from 1860 through 1929, when Woodlawn was donated to the City of Trenton, a rich sequence of historic maps, photographs and aerial photographs provides a valuable sense of how the physical character of the property and its immediate surroundings changed over time. The detailed inset of Trenton included in the Lake and Beers wall map of the Philadelphia and Trenton vicinity, published in 1860 (Figure 22), shows the main house with its new east wing and a small outbuilding to the north (probably the ice house). It is not clear whether a carriage house is present, but most of the nearby industrial facilities along the branch raceway are identifiable as the same as in 1849 (marked as “paper mill,” “Phoenix Iron Works,” “Flour Mill” and “Foundry.” Portrait 13 (top). Edward H. Stokes, circa 1895. Source: Row houses for workers line the surrounding streets and include a line of small brick dwellings Lee 1907:206. identifiable on later maps as being 147-155 Bloomsbury Street (odd numbers only) which were still Portrait 14 (bottom). Edward A. Stokes, circa 1920. standing as late as 1955 (see below, Figure 40). The site of these houses is on the present-day Trent Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library. House property directly across former Bloomsbury Street from the carriage house. The Beers map of Trenton, published a decade later in 1870 (Figure 23), is both more detailed

July 2021 263 and more accurate. It shows the “Res. of E.H. Stokes” with an east wing and rear additions that dwarf the original house, the whole structure encircled by a carriage drive, which perhaps reflects in landscape terms the beginnings of a transition from Georgian symmetry to picturesque. Along the nearby riverbank between Mill and Fall streets are numerous industrial buildings, including at least five water-powered operations on the branch raceway: the Phoenix Iron Works run by Charles Carr; C. Walton’s flour mill; Samuel K. Wilson’s woolen mill; an unidentified building (later shown to be a canning factory); and Kendrick & Runkle’s American Chain Cable Works.

Both more evocative and informative are the Fowler and Bailey bird’s eye view and the Sanborn fire insurance map, both of 1874 (Figures 24 and 25), which reveal the east wing as being comprised of a core brick section, two stories high, with two smaller frame rear additions (one of two stories, the other a single story) and a one-story frame greenhouse ranged across the full width of its south elevation. The Stokes family were known as avid gardeners, so it is likely the greenhouse addition dates from early on during their period of ownership. Also on the property, towards the river along the Fair Street frontage, is a two-story frame structure with a cupola which is identified as a summer house on the Sanborn map and visible in the bird’s eye view. The 1874 map shows a two-story frame carriage house along Fair Street southwest of the house, which is perhaps identifiable in the bird’s eye view, along with several small frame shed-like structures to the west and north of the house. Across Fair Street along the riverbank, the industrial facilities are depicted in particular detail for insurance purposes and the 1874 map has been pasted over in places to update the conditions as of 1886. Most of the larger buildings are shown as being constructed in brick with frame appendages (e.g., the Phoenix Iron Works, the Orleans Woolen Mill the canning factory and the foundry), although the original Coxe’s mill (Walton’s flour mill and a part of the Phoenix Iron Works) is distinguishable as a two-section stone structure, shaded in blue (cf. Figure 16).

City of Trenton maps from 1881 and 1882 both confirm the same general arrangement of the house and outbuildings on the Trent House property, but by 1890, as shown by the Sanborn and Scarlett & Scarlett fire insurance maps, the narrow corridor- like space between the rear of the brick core of the east wing and the adjoining two-story frame rear addition had been filled in and a more unified eastern façade was created (Figures 26-29). All of the outbuildings in 1890 decade are identifiable as frame structures and some correlate well with the locations of the summer house, ice house, barn/carriage house and outhouse shown on earlier and later maps (cf. Figures 22 and 24-27, and see below, Figures 30-37).

A photograph dated tentatively to around 1890 based on historic maps and the size of certain trees (i.e., the same specimens when compared in later photographs) adds a critical new element to the documentary record (Photograph 4). This view, looking northwest from the southeast corner of the present-day property, shows the dominant east façade of the three-bay east wing with a first-floor bay window and an elaborate greenhouse entrance facing Southarren W Street. The Classical Revival treatment of the south and east elevations of the east wing are clearly evident, as is the juxtaposition of the greenhouse with the original

264 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 030 60 120 180 240 Feet ± Figure 24. Fowler and Bailey. Detail from Trenton, N.J. (Bird’s-eye View). 1874. The Figure 25. Sanborn, D.A. Plate 4. Insurance Diagrams of Trenton. 1874 [partially location of The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. updated to 1886]. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. Note that portions of this map have been pasted over with updates from 1886 (e.g., on the west side of Bloomsbury Street), but the section showing the Trent House property is part of the unaltered 1874 original.

July 2021 265 main block of the house. The purported one-story west wing attached to the western end of the main block is probably the exterior of one of the Orleans Woolen Mill buildings across Fair (Bloomsbury) Street on the riverfront northwest of the house (contra Susan Maxman Architects 1997: Appendix b, Image 6; cf. Figures 28 and 29). Another photograph, more securely dated to 1899, shows the east wing façade more clearly, providing a fine view of the statue in the second-floor niche above the bay window and of the wrought-iron fence along South Warren Street (Photograph 5).

The maps from 1881, 1882 and 1890 (Figures 26-29) also show the evolving nature of the nearby industrialized riverfront across Fair Street and the infilling of vacant land with more brick and frame row homes along Fair, Mill, South Warren and Falls streets. The Phoenix Iron Works and the flour mill continued much as before during this period, but the Orleans Woolen

Photograph 4. View looking northwest showing the south and east elevations of Photograph 5. View looking west showing the east elevation of The William Trent The William Trent House. Circa 1890. The date assigned to this image is based House. 1899. The east wing was constructed in 1853, based on historical data. on historic evidence and comparison of the trees in the foreground with those in The conservatory, partially concealed by the tree at center, was in existence by at later photographs. The original main section of the house, built circa 1719-21, least 1874 (cf. Figures 24 and 25) and may also date from 1853, but was replaced is at left. The front porch on the original section of the house was in place by between 1908 and 1926 (cf. Figures 31 and 33; Photograph 4). The original 1849 (cf. Figure 20b). The east wing at right was constructed in 1853, based on main section of the house, built circa 1719-21, is at rear. Source: A Review of the historical data. The conservatory was in existence by at least 1874 (cf. Figures Department of Police, Trenton, New Jersey 1899). 24 and 25) and may also date from 1853, but was replaced between 1908 and 1926 (cf. Figures 31 and 33; Photograph 4). Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses.

266 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Mill was undergoing significant expansion. By 1890, the canning factory, according to the Scarlett & Scarlett map, had shut down and was vacant, while both sets of 1890 fire insurance maps show that the foundry/chain and cable works had been replaced by the United Ice Company’s stables.

Between 1890 and 1905, as indicated by the Lathrop atlas of the latter year (and by later maps and photographs), it appears that the one-story rear addition to the east wing was enlarged to two stories (Figure 30). This is based largely on the building footprint which more closely resembles that shown on the subsequent Sanborn fire insurance map of 1908 (Figure 31), where the structure is clearly two stories in height, rather than on the earlier Sanborn and Scarlett & Scarlett maps of 1890 (Figures 28 and 29), where a one-story structure is depicted. The Lathrop atlas also shows that the frame barn/carriage house was replaced by a brick structure between 1890 and 1905 (this is incorporated into the carriage house that still stands on the property today), while a circular feature depicted just north of the house may be an attempt at showing the mound atop semi-subterranean ice house.

Sometime between 1908 and 1926, the original greenhouse along the south side of the east wing was replaced, as may be deduced from a comparison of the Sanborn map of the earlier year (Figure 31) with a photograph published in the Trenton Magazine in March of 1926

(Photograph 6). The latter photograph also shows for the first time the 0 30 60 120 180 240 existence of cold frames installed along the south side of the greenhouse. Feet ± The second-phase greenhouse structure with its protruding eastern end Figure 26. Robinson, E. and R.H. Pidgeon. Atlas of the City of Trenton and Suburbs, is also visible on the Sanborn fire insurance map published in 1927 (see New Jersey. 1881. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. below, Figure 33).

In the early years of the 20th century, the industrial activity along the riverfront adjacent to Woodlawn began to decline, in large part because of the increasing inefficiency of the branch raceway as an energy source and the replacement of waterpower with coal-fired steam, electricity and gas.

July 2021 267 037.5 75 150 225 300 ± Feet

Figure 27. Haven, C.C. A New Real Estate and Insurance Map of Trenton. 1882. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

268 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 030 60 120 180 240 030 60 120 180 240 Feet ± Feet ± Figure 28. Sanborn Map Company. Plate 28. Insurance Maps of Trenton. 1890. The Figure 29. Scarlett & Scarlett. Plate 15. Fire Map of Mercer County. 1890. The present- present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

July 2021 269 030 60 120 180 240 025 50 100 150 200 Feet ± Feet ± Figure 30. Lathrop, J.M. Plate 4. Atlas of the City of Trenton and Borough of Princeton. Figure 31. Sanborn Map Company. Volume 2, Plate 139. Insurance Maps of Trenton. 1905. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. 1908. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

270 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photograph 6. View looking northwest showing the south and east elevations of The William Trent House. March, 1926. The original main section of the house, built circa 1719-21, is at left. The front porch on the original section of the house was in place by 1849 (cf. Figure 20b). The east wing at right was constructed in 1853, based on historical data. The conservatory shown here was constructed between 1908 and 1926 (cf. Figures 31 and 33). Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses; Trenton Magazine, March 1926; Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey, NJ-200.

Figure 32. Oblique Aerial Photograph, circa 1926. View looking northeast. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Note the dilapidated stone shell of the flour mill, the original Coxe gristmill built in 1818, to the left of the Princeton Worsted Mills. Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library.

July 2021 271 By 1905, while the former Phoenix Iron Works (now operated by John E. Thropp & Sons Company), the flour mill (Trenton Milling Company) and the Orleans Woolen Mill (Alryan Woolen Mill – probably a misspelling) were all still in business, the canning factory and foundry buildings at the furthest end of the raceway, and thus most affected by any reduction in water power, had been pulled down (Figure 30). However, in 1908, the Orleans Woolen Mill, by this time replaced by the Princeton Worsted Mills, may still have been making limited use of waterpower or using the raceway water supply for dyeing, since a tail race is shown on the Sanborn maps of that year (Figure 31).

An oblique aerial view from 1926 (Figure 32), combined with the Sanborn map coverage from 1927 (Figure 33), shows the character of the riverfront to good effect with the dominance of the Princeton Worsted Mills complex and the dilapidated state of the flour mill – Coxe’s original gristmill built in 1818, now used for storage – just to the north. The William Trent House is visible in the aerial view, as is the summer house and barn/carriage house along Fair Street. Also of note in the aerial view and on the 1927 Sanborn map is the row of six adjoining brick homes, 132-142 Bloomsbury Street (even numbers only), constructed between 1908 and 1926 on land subdivided from the northwest corner of the Woodlawn property (see below, Photograph 13), and also the small brick dwellings at 147-155 Bloomsbury Street (odd numbers only) which are thought to date from circa 1860.

030 60 120 180 240 Feet ± Figure 33. Sanborn Map Company. Volume 1, Plate 19. Insurance Maps of Trenton. 1927. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

272 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan 13. City-Owned Historic Site

Figure 34. Oblique Aerial Photograph, circa 1929. View looking north. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library.

July 2021 273 “Historic Day” midway through the weeklong celebrations of the 250th anniversary of Trenton’s original settlement by Europeans (Quigley and Collier 1984:83-84). However, for all the pomp and circumstance, at this point in time, Woodlawn in truth existed as a somewhat forlorn and abandoned mansion that had seen better days, surrounded by city streets lined with rundown workers housing and a riverfront industrial zone that was in an advanced state of decline (Figures 34 and 35).

A plan of the “Bloomsbury Court” property, as Woodlawn was sometimes known, was surveyed by J.E. English in August of 1930, presumably in support of preliminary planning for the site (Figure 36). This map of the site helpfully shows the outline of the house, including its east wing, the front and rear porches, the “hot house” (greenhouse) and hot beds. The “ice cellar” is outlined just north of the east wing, while along the western edge of the property are shown a “brick barn” (the carriage house) with an outhouse nearby to the north and a “play house” (the summer house) beyond. In the northwest corner is the “row of brick houses” (132-142 Bloomsbury Street), on land annotated as “this parcel not deeded to City.” The 1930 survey plan is especially revealing in that it documents the grounds in some detail, showing driveways and paths, trees, shrubs and hedges (often naming species) and other prominent features such as a flagpole southeast of the house, a grape arbor to the north and a rose garden next to the outhouse. 0 35 70 140 210 280 Feet ± Planning for the restoration of the Trent House property slowly began to Figure 35. Franklin Survey Company. Sheet 13. Real Estate Plat-Book of the City of Trenton, 1930. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. take shape in the early 1930s in the midst of the Great Depression. A key figure in this process was the City Librarian, Howard Hughes, who had maintained a long-time research interest in the Trent House and helped engineer the Stokes family donation. With the library’s board of trustees, Hughes assembled a team of prominent local architects led by J. Osborne Hunt, who had recently designed the New Jersey State House Annex in downtown Trenton. Hunt’s team included Samuel Mountford of the firm of Micklewright & Mountford, J. Harmon Harvey and Leon Slack.

274 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Mountford, with his partner Albert E. Micklewright, had worked on other historic preservation projects and their firm was considered expert in the restoration of colonial buildings. He took over leadership of the Trent House restoration following Hunt’s death on March 20, 1935. Harvey produced many of the drawings of the house, while Slack was mostly involved in the renovation of the carriage house.

A valuable series of photographs exists from 1934 documenting the transformation of Woodlawn into the restored William Trent House, the cherished edifice that has survived in large part down to the present

July 2021 275 Photograph 7 (above, left). View looking northwest showing the south and east elevations of The William Trent House. January 9, 1934. Photograph taken just prior to demolition of the east wing, disassembly of the conservatory and restoration of the original main section of the house. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses; Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey, NJ-200 and WPA Project 2976, Photograph 58.

Photograph 8 (above, right). View looking southwest showing the north and east elevations of The William Trent House. January 9, 1934. Photograph taken just prior to demolition of the east wing, disassembly of the conservatory and restoration of the original main section of the house. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses; Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey, NJ-200 and WPA Project 2976, Photograph 61.

Photograph 9 (left). View looking south showing the north elevation of The William Trent House. January 9, 1934. Photograph taken just prior to demolition of the east wing, disassembly of the conservatory and restoration of the original main section of the house. Note the ice house bulkhead entrance just visible at far left at the base of the tree. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses; Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey, NJ-200 and WPA Project 2976, Photograph 60. Photograph 10 (above, left). View looking east northeast showing the south and east elevations of The William Trent House. February 1, 1934. Photograph taken in the early stages of demolition of the two-section east wing. Note the conservatory has already been disassembled and part of the second-story front portion of the east wing and the statue in the alcove above the east wing bay window have been removed. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses; Library of Congress, Historic American Buildings Survey, NJ-200 and WPA Project 2976, Photograph 97.

Photograph 11 (above, right). View looking northwest showing the original main section of The William Trent House following demolition of the east wing. 1934. Note the outlines of the east wing and conservatory, and the re-opened original first floor window and blocked conservatory doorway, in the east wall of the house. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses.

day. Several images, three of which are included here, were captured in early January just prior to demolition of the east wing (Photographs 7-9). These show the east wing and greenhouse in their final, fully evolved form, as well as the ice house north of the house. Another photograph, taken almost a month later, shows the demolition under way, with the greenhouse and statue removed and the western end of the second floor of the east wing’s brick core torn down (Photograph 10). This view also reveals that the first-floor south elevation of the brick core was composed of three equal bays, each with a window, but no doors. A final view, probably taken a month or two later in 1934, with the ground still snow-covered, shows the east wing fully removed and the scars of its junction with the main block of the house clearly evident (Photograph 11).

Over the remainder of 1934, continuing through 1935 and into 1936, work continued on the restoration of house exterior and interior. The greenhouse was reassembled on the south side of the carriage house and the brick wall surrounding the property

July 2021 277 Figure 37. Urban, Abram L. Plan of House and Grounds Before Restoration. Circa Figure 38. Trenton Garden Club. Design and Planting Plan for Grounds of The 1933-34. Source: William Trent House Archive. William Trent House. 1938. Source: William Trent House Archive.

278 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan was largely rebuilt. New iron gates were installed and the grounds were regraded. During this period, it is also believed that the well (probably rediscovered during the demolition of the east wing) was restored and enclosed beneath a simple frame canopy, while the ice house was likely stabilized. The basic restoration of the buildings and initial, temporary landscaping of the grounds were largely complete by the late summer of 1936 and a formal dedication by the Trenton Free Public Library board took place on October 14. A 12-member Trent House Commission was then formed by city ordinance to maintain and manage the facility as a museum (eventually superseded by the Trent House Association, incorporated in 1957), with a separate committee being set up to oversee the furnishing of the house. The commission and its committees labored for three more years until the house was formally opened to the public as a historic museum on June 1, 1939 (Trenton Evening Times, June 1, 1939).

In the meantime, the Trenton Garden Club was charged with creating some suitable colonial revival-style landscaping for the grounds, a task that was guided by a plan of the property prepared by local landscape architect, Photograph 12. View looking north across the re-graded and landscaped site of the Abram L. Urban, immediately prior to the restoration, probably around removed east wing. 1940. The restored original main section of The William Trent House is at left. Note the restored well with the ice house beyond. Source: Trenton Free 1933-34 (Figure 37). This plan is similar to the survey produced in 1930 Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Historic Houses. by J.E. English, but shows a different driveway configuration, a vegetable garden and flower garden, and emphasizes the more well established trees. The Garden Club next engaged the services of noted New York City and Princeton landscape architect Isabella Pendleton who drafted a landscape plan in 1938 that guided the improvement and planting of the grounds over the course of the following three years (Figure 38).

The Pendleton plan retained many of the larger trees and reconfigured the drive to enter from the northeast corner of the property, looping north and west of the house to terminate at a gravel courtyard between the house and carriage house. A rectilinear pattern of brick walkways surrounded the house and led south to a seating area, north to the drive and east to South Warren Street. A formal herb garden was positioned west of the

July 2021 279 The William Trent House

025 50 100 150 200 025 50 100 150 200 Feet ± Feet ± Figure 39. Sanborn Map Company. Volume 1, Plate 19. Insurance Maps of Trenton. Figure 40. Sanborn Map Company. Volume 1, Plate 19. Insurance Maps of Trenton. 1950. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line. 1955. The present-day Trent House property is outlined with a dashed line.

280 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan house and north of the carriage house and courtyard. Hemlocks, yews, fruit trees, shrubs and a ground cover of English ivy were envisioned around much of the perimeter of the property and around the principal landscape features. Trumpet vine and wisteria were earmarked for the house itself. Most of the Pendleton landscaping is believed to have been implemented by 1941, but few pictures have been found from this period to verify the full extent of changes made to the grounds. A photograph from 1940 showing the restored landscape to the east of the house, along with the restored well, suggests that this was still a work in progress at that time (Photograph 12). The landscaping improvements were evidently complete by the fall of 1941 as a celebratory luncheon was held in honor of Ms. Pendleton on December 2 (Trenton Evening Times, November 3, 1938; November 30, 1941).

In the post-World War II era, the Bloomsbury neighborhood surrounding the Trent House was viewed as rundown, a condition that was exacerbated by the “redlining” practices of mortgage lenders and local government, which had begun to be imposed in Trenton in the 1930s. By the mid-20th century, Bloomsbury, with its mix of mid- and late 19th-century row housing, commercial premises and factories, was no longer considered economically viable by city and state planners (Figures 39 and 40), resulting in this choice riverfront location being targeted for a state government-directed urban renewal project that would meet a long-standing goal of both consolidating and expanding state offices. ithW no new space for state government departments having been constructed in Trenton since the completion of the State House Annex in 1931, the New Jersey Capitol Building Commission was established in 1945 to develop and oversee a comprehensive state office development plan. The commission initially supported plans to site new state office buildings in the rentonT suburbs, but early during Governor Robert B. Meyner’s administration (1954-62), the State Legislature reversed course and began planning for a centralized state government office and administrative complex in downtown Trenton.

In 1956, the State Legislature formed a Legislative Study Commission that sought to “reverse the previously proposed decentralization and suburban dispersal of State activities and to centralize the State office and administrative functions in the immediate area of the historic seat of New Jersey’s government.” Using the Delaware River as its scenic backdrop, plans for the development of a state campus comprised of several office buildings centered around the State House offered a more promising solution to the ongoing issues of overcrowded and dispersed office space. tA its outset, the State Office Building Program proposed the construction of three buildings for the Department of Education, Department of Health and the Department of Labor and Industry as they were the departments that “have much direct contact with the citizens of New Jersey.” At the time, these three departments were spread throughout Trenton occupying three, six and 13 buildings respectively. Ultimately, the Departments of Health (along with Agriculture) and Labor and Industry would take up residence in new office buildings erected close to the Trent House north of Market Street and west of South Warren Street (State Capitol Development Commission and Frank Grad & Sons 1964).

July 2021 281 In 1958, Frank Grad & Sons, retained as the State’s planning consultants for the new State Capitol complex, prepared a state office campus master plan for a 3,600-foot-long, boomerang-shaped section of the Delaware riverfront that wrapped around the State House and included the mouth of the Assunpink, extending from Calhoun Street to Market Street and U.S. Route 1 (Figure 41). Between the Assunpink Creek and Market Street, 36.5-acres of private property, covering roughly eight square blocks, were targeted for acquisition and urban renewal. Centered within this 36.5-acre parcel was a proposed southern campus node of five office buildings, arranged around a plaza, and surrounded by surface parking within a park-like landscape. Northwest of the State House Annex on West State Street, another northern node of development was planned for the

Figure 41. Frank Grad & Sons, Architects-Engineers. Site Plan of Present and Projected State Office Buildings, Trenton, New Jersey. April 1, 1958. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow.

282 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan construction of two additional office buildings. The master plan anticipated a new park being constructed around and to the south of the Trent House and also called for the reconfiguration of the road network along the riverbank.

In 1959, the Legislative Study Commission officially adopted the rankF Grad & Sons master plan, and established the State Capitol Development Program. The program embraced the overall concept of the Grad master plan, but the details quickly evolved during the course of execution and over time the plan was scaled back. In 1959, 1960 and 1962, legislation was passed authorizing “land acquisition and construction of 4 major projects involving 8 building units, i.e., the Department of Labor and Industry Building, the Department of Education Building, an office building and laboratory center for the Departments of Health and Agriculture and the 4-unit Cultural Center, consisting of a State Library, Museum, Auditorium and Planetarium.” The eight buildings were completed between 1961 and 1965.

South of the Assunpink Creek, the Labor and Industry Building was started in 1961 and finished in 1963, while the Health and Agriculture office building and laboratory were started in late 1962 and finally occupied in mid-1965. These three buildings were the only ones to be erected out of the five originally planned state office buildings slated for this 36.5-acre parcel south of the creek (Figure 42). The vast majority of the surface area of the parcel was commandeered for surface parking. The Cultural Center to the northwest of the State House Annex on West State Street was constructed between 1961 and 1965 and ultimately included the New Jersey Department of Education Building, State Library, State Museum, Auditorium and Planetarium. During this period, the so-called East-West Highway (the predecessor of N.J. Route 29) was realigned closer to the river with access ramps leading to and from Market Street and John Fitch Way.

Concurrent with the State’s office building program, the John Fitch Way Project, a related urban renewal scheme for this section of downtown Trenton, was also underway during the later 1950s and 1960s. This project, largely orchestrated by the City of Trenton and the Greater Trenton Council, was conceived and implemented in parallel with the State’s office expansion and highway construction plans. It involved clearing and redeveloping a much larger 100-acre site south of the Assunpink that included not only the State’s office building locations but also most of the rest of the historic Bloomsbury neighborhood. A key feature of this project was a further reconfiguration of the highway network around the mouth of the Assunpink and along the Delaware riverfront, completed by the New Jersey Department of Transportation in 1969-70 (Figures 43 and 44), which resulted in the N.J. Route 29 corridor taking on the appearance it still essentially has today. The State’s highway building activities and use of property in the John Fitch Way project area for office expansion were viewed at the time as having a potential beneficial effect upon the whole rebuilding effort extending south from the Assunpink to the recently constructed U.S. Route 1 Freeway and the Trenton-Morrisville Toll Bridge (completed in 1951). The John Fitch Way project ultimately saw the uniting of all State of New Jersey, Mercer County and City of Trenton urban renewal actions in this section of downtown Trenton, but resulted in the almost total obliteration of the 19th-century working-class residential and industrial neighborhood of Bloomsbury.

July 2021 283 Figure 42. Oblique aerial view, circa 1965. View looking northwest. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library.

284 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Figure 43. Oblique aerial view, circa 1969. View looking south southeast. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library.

July 2021 285 The sole survivor of old Bloomsbury that was able to withstand the massive force of urban renewal in the 1960s was The William Trent House, which found itself isolated on a 1.59-acre parcel, surrounded by a brick wall, to which was added, almost as an afterthought, another 0.88 acres on its western side, being a strip of land left stranded by the Market Street off-ramp from N.J. Route 29. All around, but most especially in 1961-65, the tide of demolition swept through the neighboring streets and the historically Jewish and east European but now largely black community living there was forced to relocate, some of the families ultimately ending up in the Kingsbury Twin Towers development completed in the early 1970s.

Close by, the row of six connected, two-story brick workers’ homes at 132-142 Bloomsbury Street (even numbers) were documented by the City of Trenton Tax Assessment Department in 1958 (Photograph 13), but had been pulled down by 1963, the land being fully re-absorbed into the Trent House property by the late 1990s. A similar fate was experienced by the Princeton Worsted Mills factory at 115 and 145 Bloomsbury Street, also documented in 1958 (Photographs 14 and 15) and demolished by May of 1962, when the plant’s last remaining structure, its smokestack, was pulled down (Trenton Evening Times, May 15, 1962). Portions of this factory site lie within the 0.88-acre parcel west of the Trent House. The progress of the demolition and subsequent office building and highway construction can be tracked through the 1960s on aerial photographs (Figures 42-44) (National Environmental Figure 44. Oblique aerial view, circa 1970. View looking northeast. The William Trent House is indicated with an arrow. Source: Trentoniana Collection, Trenton Public Library. Title Research 1963, 1970). Also, visible in these aerial

286 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan Photograph 13. 132-142 Bloomsbury Street (even numbers only), 1958. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Tax Assessor’s Records. views are the Trent House grounds, which appear well maintained and to still retain most of the features from the 1938-41 Trenton Garden Club landscaping plans.

In concert with the razing of the Bloomsbury neighborhood, city planners also expended some energy on re-imagining how the Trent House and its immediate surroundings might be redesigned. One such scheme, the so-called “Trent House Mall” concocted by the Trenton’s Central Planning Board in January of 1962, proposed some modest rearrangement of the Trent House grounds, chiefly to the north of the house, and offered a kitchen garden on the site of the 132-142 Bloomsbury Street row homes, a bowling green and orchard to the west of Bloomsbury Street on the Princeton Worsted Mills site, and a restaurant in the southeast corner of the 0.88-acre parcel (Central Planning Board 1962). These plans came to naught, however, and the Trent House grounds and surrounding cleared ground remained largely unchanged throughout the 1960s.

July 2021 287 Photograph 14 (above, left). 115 Bloomsbury Street (Princeton Worsted Mills), 1958. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Tax Assessor’s Records.

Photograph 15 (above, right). 145 Bloomsbury Street (Princeton Worsted Mills), 1958. Source: Trenton Free Public Library, Trentoniana Collection, Tax Assessor’s Records.

physical effects of mid-20th-century “redlining” and redevelopment.

Over the course of the 1970s, the City of Trenton and The William Trent House Association maintained and staffed the Trent House property as a historic site open to the public. Some limited landscaping improvements were made during this period, notably the creation of a small circular paved plaza with boxwood plantings to the west of Bloomsbury Street which accentuated the east-west axis along the front of the house and provided a stronger approach to the site at the entrance just northwest of the carriage house. Other tree plantings were made throughout the 0.88-acre western parcel, which helped to give the site more privacy, but otherwise the basic outline of the 1938-41 landscaping remained in force in 1.59-acre parcel containing the Trent House. In the 1980s, following the construction of the Hughes Justice Center, the expanse of ground to the south of the Trent House was converted to surface parking for State office workers, allowing a new point of entry into the site to be introduced along the former loomsburyB Street axis. Overall, however, the maintenance of the house and grounds generally suffered throughout the 1980s and 1990s, partly as a result of limited City financial support, a trend that continued into the 21st century.

Yet, some important projects were still completed in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1982-83, the failing “root cellar” (the ice house) was stabilized through construction of a new brick enclosing wall and repair of the entry stair, work that was designed and supervised by local architect, George Pearson. In 1988, a major utilities upgrade was undertaken, designed by Short and Ford Architects and engineers Seeler-Smith, Inc. This focused on improving the

288 The William Trent House | Preservation Plan house’s HVAC equipment which entailed installation of a chiller system northwest of the house, running new water lines and modifying the heating system. In the mid-/late 1990s Susan Maxman Architects undertook a major planning review of the entire Trent House site that addressed architectural, engineering and landscaping needs, in addition to considering historical and archaeological aspects of the property. This work resulted in several corrective and restorative measures, including major drainage improvements around the perimeter of the house in 2001-02 and the installation of an American Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant lift outside the north entrance to the house in 2004-05. In 2005-06 Maxman also developed landscaping plans for the portions of the property, which had continued to suffer from a lack of maintenance in the intervening years. For example, many of the plantings installed during the Trenton Garden Club’s landscaping program in 1938-41 had aged to the point where their removal had either taken place or was still necessary. Many of the formal garden features to the north and south of the house had not been kept up; some had been removed or become obscured, while the geometrically laid-out herb garden to the west had been converted to an all-purpose kitchen garden. In 2007, as per the Maxman plans, a paved circular feature with boxwood, several hemlocks, two maples and a large linden to the south of the house and the remnants of a pear orchard to the east, all from the 1938-41 landscaping episode, were removed. In their place, two lines of four English cherry trees, echoing the 18th-century allée, were planted south of the house, sections of brick walkway were installed and grading and reseeding were undertaken. On the 0.88-acre parcel west of Bloomsbury Street, the paved circular feature surrounding an oak tree and boxwood were removed and replaced with lawn. As of 2020, since these landscaping changes were performed, the Trent House grounds have remained large untouched save for maintenance actions, vegetable and herb gardening, archaeological excavations and installations of outdoor exhibits.

July 2021 289

Appendix 2: Summary of Archaeology

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds

Appendix 3: Measured Drawings

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds

Appendix 4: Cost Estimate

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds Project: Wm. Trent House Number: 21004E1R1 Client: Clarke/Caton/Hintz Date: January 11, 2021 Rev. 24 Jun 21 Phase: Concept

ESTIMATE SUMMARY

CODE DESCRIPTION 7,800 SF COST

A Recommendations - Immediate $857,000 B Recommendations - Short Term $446,000 C Recommendations - Long Term $672,000

Total $1,975,000

Notes Emergent items are included in "Immediate" and are marked with an "E." Their cost totals $30,510 Proposed Visitor Center: 7,580 sf at $500 to $800/ sf = $3.8 to $6.1 million Costs are current for winter 2020-2021; escalation is not included. Hazardous materials removal/remediation if any, is not included. Soft costs, including fees and other owner's costs, are not included.

■

Page 1 ESTIMATE Proj: Wm. Trent House Date: January 11, 2021 Rev. 24 Jun 21

CODE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST

A Recommendations - Immediate

A1 Trent House - Paint Trim/Cornice* 170 LF 25.00 Completed A2 - Paint Trim/Windows* 37 EA 250.00 Completed A3 - Paint Trim/Cupola* 300 SF 5.00 Completed A4 - Repair Front Steps/No Scope 54 LF 100.00 5,400 A5 - "E" HC Lift/Confirm Operational/No Scope 1 LS - Existing to Remain A6 - Protect Floor/Shoe Covering 1 LS - Operational Issue A7 - Renov. B'ment Toilets/Remove/Cap/per Room 2 EA 1,000.00 2,000 A8 - Repair Spalled Conc. @ Tunnel/No Scope 1 LS 7,500.00 7,500 A9 - Repair Water Infiltration @ Tunnel/No Scope 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000 A10 - Replace Air-cooled Chiller/Demo/Piping/Etc. 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000 A11 - Replace AHUs/Ductwork/Piping/Etc. 4,800 SF 35.00 168,000 A12 - Steam Humidification/Allowance 4,800 SF 10.00 48,000 A13 - Convert Heating to Hydronic/Pumps/Piping/Etc. 4,800 SF 15.00 72,000 A14 - "E" Replace Wiring/Conduit @ Tunnel/Not Shown 1 LS 3,000.00 7,500 A15 - Emergency Lighting @ Exits 4 EA 1,000.00 4,000 A16 - "E" Service @ Chiller/Allowance 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 A17 - "E" Remove Stored Materials @ Closet/Allowance 1 LS 200.00 200 A18 - "E" Minor Electrical Coverplates/Etc/Allowance 1 LS 800.00 800 A19 - Periodic Refill @ Plumbing Traps 1 LS - Operational Issue A20 - Repair Plaster and Repaint Walss in Best Parlor 1 LS 7,500.00 7,500 A21 Carriage House - "E" Replace Flat Roof 200 SF 30.00 6,000 A22 - Replace Slate Roof 4,000 SF 50.00 200,000 A23 - "E" Clean Gutters/Downspouts 1 LS 800.00 800 A24 - Repair Plaster Ceiling @ Kitchenette 150 SF 20.00 3,000 A25 - Refresh Finishes @ Toilet Rooms/No Spec. 230 SF 30.00 6,900 A26 - "E" Repair AH2/No Scope/7TN/Allowance 1 LS 7,000.00 7,000 A27 - "E" Clean Ductwork 1 LS 3,000.00 3,000 A28 - New T-stats/Timers 4 EA 800.00 3,200 A29 - "E" Replace Electric Receptacle 1 EA 150.00 150 A30 - Boiler Disconnect Locks 1 LS 400.00 400 A31 - "E" Add Smoke/Heat Detectors 2 EA 400.00 800 A32 - Emergency Lighting @ Exits 3 EA 1,000.00 3,000 A37 Sitework - Wellhouse/Repair/Repaint/Roof 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 A38 - Icehouse/Repair/Repaint/Doors 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 A39 - Clean/Repair/Weed Paths/No Scope 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 A40 - Fill Holes/Pits/No Scope 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 A41 - Trim Trees/Remove Deadwood/No Scope 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 A42 - Open Gates 1 LS 800.00 800 A43 0 A44 0 A45 0 A46 0 A47 0 A48 0 0 0 0

Subtotal $620,450 General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond 20.0% $124,550 Contingency 15.0% $112,000 Total $857,000

■

Page 2 ESTIMATE Proj: Wm. Trent House Date: January 11, 2021 Rev. 24 Jun 21

CODE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST

B Recommendations - Short Term

B1 Trent House - Security Hardware/CR @ Doors* 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000 B2 - Minor Mas/Roof/Trim Repair/No Scope 1 LS - TBD B3 - Lower B'ment Toilets/Ramp for HC Access 320 SF 50.00 16,000 B4 - Renovate Basement for Exhibit Space/No Scope 1,100 SF 75.00 82,500 B5 - Remove Oil Boiler/Tank/Add New Gas Boiler 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000 B6 - New Electric Panel @ Existing Service 1 LS 7,500.00 7,500 B7 - Secure Armored Cable/Scope Unclear 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000 B8 - Inspect Sanitary Piping 1 LS - Operational Issue B9 - Hot Water Valves/Insul/Removals/Etc. 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 B10 Carriage House - Repair Damaged Brick 25 SF 100.00 2,500 B11 - Minor Masonry/Roof/Trim Repairs/No Scope 1 LS - TBD B12 - Repaint Interior Throughout/Assume 9' H 9,900 SF 2.25 22,280 B13 - Replace Carpet/1st Floor 900 SF 7.50 6,750 B14 - Remove Oil Boiler/Tank/Add New Gas Boiler 1 LS 12,500.00 12,500 B15 - Inspect Sanitary Piping 1 LS - Operational Issue B16 - Clean Gutters/Downspouts 1 LS - w/ Immediate B17 - Insulate Piping 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000 B18 - New Water Heater 1 EA 1,500.00 1,500 B19 - Misc. Plumbing Removals 1 LS 1,000.00 1,000 B20 - Investigate Gas Availability 1 LS - Operational Issue Sitework - Strengthen Visual @ Bloomsbury Street, B21 Scope TBD 1 LS 15,000.00 15,000 B22 - Repave Path/Parking to VC/Assume 50LF/Brick 250 SF 25.00 6,250 B23 - Interpretive Signage Allowance* 1 LS 50,000.00 50,000 B24 - Delineate Kitchen & East Wings + Interpretation* 1 LS 75,000.00 75,000 B25 0 B26 0 B27 0 B28 0 B29 B30 0 B31 0 B32 0 B33 0 B34 0 B35 0 B36 0 B37 0 B38 0 B39 0 B40 0 B41 0 B42 B43 B44 B45 B46 B47

Subtotal $323,280 General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond 20.0% $64,720 Contingency 15.0% $58,000 Total $446,000

■

Page 3 ESTIMATE Proj: Wm. Trent House Date: January 11, 2021 Rev. 24 Jun 21

CODE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST COST

C Recommendations - Long Term

C1 Trent House - Repair/Repaint @ Plaster/No Scope 1 LS - TBD C2 - Remove Kitchen/Renovate as Storage 140 SF 35.00 4,900 C3 - Minor Masonry/Roof/Trim Repairs/No Scope 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 C4 - Paint Exterior Trim 1 LS - TBD C5 - Renov. B'ment Toilets/Refinish/CT & Paint 200 SF 60.00 12,000 C6 - Renov. B'ment Toilets/New Doors/Hdw 3 EA 2,000.00 6,000 C7 - Renov. B'ment Toilets/Accessories/per Rm. 2 EA 1,000.00 2,000 C8 - Renov. B'ment Toilets/New Fixtures 6 EA 2,500.00 15,000 C9 - Exhaust Fans/Ducts @ Toilet Rooms 2 EA 1,500.00 3,000 C10 - Mechanical Controls Upgrade 4,800 SF 10.00 48,000 C11 - New Lighting Throughout/Allowance 4,800 SF 20.00 96,000 C12 - New Lighting Controls Throughout/Allowance 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 - New Security/Video Camers Throughout/Allowance 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000 C13 - Adjust Drainage/No Scope 1 LS 25,000.00 25,000 C14 - Maintenance Plans for Valve Replacement 1 LS - Operational Issue C15 Carriage House - Construct New Visitor Center TBD C16 - Renovate/Reconfigure for Offices 3,000 SF 80.00 240,000 C17 Sitework - Provide Historic Period Interpretation 1 LS TBD C18 - New Pathways/Assume Brick/5' W LF TBD C19 0 C20 0 C21 0 C22 0 C23 0 C26 0 C27 0 C28 0 C29 0 C30 0 C31 0 C32 0 C33 0 C34 0 C35 0 C36 0 C37 0 C38 0 C39 0 C40 0 C41 0 C42 0 C43 0 C44 0 C45 0 C46 0 C47 0 C48 0

Subtotal $486,900 General Conditions / O. H. & P. / Bond 20.0% $97,100 Contingency 15.0% $88,000 Total $672,000

■

Page 4

Appendix 5: Maintenance Plan

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds The roof of the Visitor Center; view looking east Maintenance Plan

Deferred maintenance is the most common cause of deterioration to historic buildings. To avoid unchecked deterioration, ongoing preventative maintenance must be completed on a regular basis. This maintenance is the most vital and cost-effective tool for the preservation of historic structures. To assist with this crucial component for the protection of the building, we recommend establishing a cyclical maintenance program. This program should include weekly, monthly, semi-annual and annual tasks including annual full-scale inspection of the exterior and interior of the building. This maintenance program should guide the present and future care of the resource.

In general, exterior elements should be examined at least once a year. Exterior maintenance should eliminate water penetration by maintaining materials and finishes and ensuring that water is directed away from the building. Also critical to the exterior maintenance is routine inspection and cleaning of roof gutters and downspouts. One of the most common causes of water damage is clogged or damaged gutters and leaders that lead to leaks or overflow. Gutters are to be inspected and cleaned at least four times annually – twice in the fall when they are most likely to become clogged with falling leaves and twice in the spring during the heaviest rains. On a fairly regular basis — approximately once every five years, or upon noticing damage — a professional should be called in to inspect the condition of the roof and roof drainage system.

Interior elements should be examined during regular housekeeping as well as with general vigilance in semi-annual inspections. Their maintenance should preserve existing materials and finishes. Replacement of interior elements is usually included as a part of major renovations. The smooth operation of doors and windows should be maintained, as unnecessary damage to the doors, windows and hardware can occur from stresses arising from ill-fitting elements.

Site maintenance should be undertaken twice annually, once in the spring and once in the fall, in addition to regular lawn mowing, leaf and snow removal, as one might maintain their own yard at home. This type of work can often be undertaken by volunteers during a well-planned work day, which is also a great way to bring community members together and develop interest in the resource.

Finally, inspections and maintenance of building systems, such as electrical and fire alarm, should be completed regularly by qualified professionals so as to maintain the systems in good working order. Inspection of the electrical system and a fire alarm system are critical to maintaining these vital systems in working order.

Because of the importance of maintenance in a historic building, a yearly maintenance and operation budget should be established. Half of the fund is generally allocated for immediate maintenance and repairs, while the remainder is saved for the replacement of major items such as roofs, etc. All maintenance inspections and repair work should be documented and kept in a maintenance log. This log should be a complete record of housekeeping and maintenance activities, details of any work performed, materials used, dates executed, cost incurred and names of personnel and contractors involved. It should also contain the dates of inspections and detailed accounts of the findings including problem areas, plans for repair and, after repairs are complete, a description of techniques used for the repair. The notebook should be periodically reviewed for repeated repairs which may indicate a deeper problem. Digital photography should be used to document existing conditions of key locations and features around the building, as well as documenting maintenance and repair work.

The following Maintenance Schedule includes the tasks that should be included in the maintenance program. These tasks have been outlined by the frequency with which they should be conducted. Additional tasks should be added as necessary so that a thorough program is developed and maintained. Following the Maintenance Schedule is a Maintenance Log to be used to record maintenance data. An electronic version of the log is to be provided to the owner with the 100% submission of this report. Damaged brick at the base of teh Visitor Center

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY

SITE

Gardens Build-up against foundation 2/year Remove from foundation 2/year Keep mulch, leaves and foundation plantings clear of foundation, basement windows and other woodwork that may be in close proximity to the ground.

Grade Slope back to building and fill voids 1/year Minor grading and filling. 1/year Maintain slope away from building. Fill voids that might develop from heavy run-off or other conditions. Correct cause.

Trees and Shrubs Contacting and overhanging buildings 2/year Pruning by volunteers or 2/year Trim shrubs and trees away from building to limit leaves in gutters, professionals prevent damage from falling limbs and encourage air flow and light near building.

Walking surfaces and paths Deflection, gravel build-up near buildin Weekly Sweeping/ Raking/ Weeding Weekly Keep paths and walkways swept to reduce transfer of damaging grit into building through foot traffic. Reset displaced bricks/ pavers to correct tripping hazards. Weed gravel surfaces regularly. Snow and ice removal At snowfall and icy conditions Seasonally Seasonally Do not pile excess snow against foundation or other building elements. Avoid heavy use of salt or other ice melting products in winter. Sweep up excess material after surfaces have dried.

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY

ARCHITECTURAL EXTERIOR Slate Roof Surface condition/moss growth 1/year Replace Roof 50 years

Sliding or damaged shingles Replace Roof

Damaged sheathing 1/year Replace Roof 50 years regular roof repair should prevent sheathing damage

Gutters/Leaders/Drainage Cleaning, leaks and displacement 4/year Repair or replace. Re-align or At signs of distress Clean gutters 4/year minimum. Inspect roof drainage from patch seams. exterior 1/year during heavy rains

Flashing Surface condition 1/year Repair or replace Coordinate major flashing work with roof repairs or replacement

Wood Trim and siding Surface Condition 1/year Prep and paint. Patch or replace 3-5 years damaaged elements.

Fungus, plant growth 1/year Clean and treat and paint with 3-5 years regular painting schedule

Movement, splitting & cracking 1/year Repair or replace at signs of distress

Anchor condition/ separation from 1/year re-anchor or replace at signs of distress substrate

Water staining and damage 1/year Check cause, correct and repair. at signs of distress

Insect damage 1/year Inspection by extermination As Required Treatment regimen to be determined by inspector. professional.

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY Masonry Foundation and Walls Surface condition 1/year

Spalling, efflorescence 1/year Clean and spot repoint at signs of distress Inspect cause for possible water infiltration related cause.

If widespread conditions requiring spot pointing are observed, the entire foundation should potentially be re-pointed. Cracking 1/year Spot repoint at signs of distress At time of repair consideration should be given to repointing entire elevations using appropriate lime-based mortar.

Settlement 1/year Correct cause of settlement at signs of distress

Mortar joint condition 1/year Spot repoint at signs of distress

Plant growth 1/year Remove at signs of growth

Doors Operation 2/year Repair, adjust door and hardware at signs of distress for smooth operation. or binding.

Surface condition 1/year Wood preservative treatment 3-5 years

Hardware and weatherstripping 2/year Repair at signs of distress

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY Windows Operation 2/year Repair, adjust window and at signs of distress hardware for smooth operation. or binding.

Surface condition 1/year Prep and paint. Patch areas of 3-5 years deterioration or damage.

Glazing 1/year Repair 3-5 years Partial re-glazing. Use traditional linseed oil based glazing compound. Allow to cure adequately prior to priming and painting.

Hardware and weatherstripping 2/year Repair at signs of distress

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ARCHITECTURAL INTERIOR Wood Flooring Surface condition 1/year Refinish flooring with only 10 years Sweep weekly to remove abrasive dirt. Wood floors should be minimal sanding to remove old damp mopped monthly depending on use to remove built-up dirt. finish only. Provide period appropriate area rugs to protect floors in areas of highest foot traffic. Splitting 1/year Repair using dutchman repairs or At sign of distress Inspect structural support to ensure floors are properly supported select replacement. throughout.

Anchor condition 1/year Re-secure anchors At sign of distress If anchors are popping, it could be the result of inadequately supported floors.

Water staining or damage 1/year Check cause, correct and repair. At sign of distress

Buckling 1/year Check cause, correct and repair. At sign of distress This could be the result of high humidity levels in the space on one side of the flooring.

Plaster Plaster Attachment 1/year Plaster washer attachment At sign of distress Inspect for underlying structural or other causes and correct prior to completing plaster repairs.

Cracking 1/year Repair larger cracks. At sign of distress Rake out joint and secure plaster on both sides of joint. Repair using compatible plaster materials. Inspect for underlying structural or other causes and correct prior to completing plaster repairs. Interior Doors Operation With regular Trim door or adjust hardware. At sign of distress Trim door, adjust hardware etc. to remove stresses on door and use hardware. If problem persists it could be movement in the wall that needs to be stabilized to prevent continued problems.

Surface condition 1/year Prep and paint. 5-7 years

Millwork and Trim Surface condition 1/year Prep and paint. 5-7 years

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY STRUCTURAL

Timber Frame Movement Deflection 1/year1 Repair at sign of distress repair to be designed by engineer or architect

Connection @ bearing 1/year1 Repair at sign of distress repair to be designed by engineer or architect

Checking & splitting 1/year1 Repair at sign of distress repair to be designed by engineer or architect

Water infiltration 1/year Repair Leak at sign of distress

Movement 1/year1 Repair at sign of distress repair to be designed by engineer or architect

Timber deterioration 1/year1 Correct cause and repair 1/year repair to be designed by engineer or architect

Insect infestation Monthly Treat treatment regimen to be determined by inspector

MECHANICAL Comprehensive system evaluation 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector

Furnace inspection and cleaning 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector

Fuel tank and lines inspection 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE

FEATURE TO BE INSPECTED CONDITION TO INSPECT INSPECTION REPAIR / REPLACEMENT TREATMENT NOTES FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ELECTRICAL Comprehensive system evaluation 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector

Fire alarm system 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector through yearly maintenance contract

PLUMBING Comprehensive system evaluation 1 1/year Inspection by outside inspector

Hot water heater, piping and fixture 1/year Inspection by outside inspector inspection. 1

1. An outside inspector, or structural engineer should be consulted at signs of distress in the framing.

2. The term "at signs of distress" under frequency means that a regular inspection of these items is not in general necessary but that when the element and/or adjacent material begins to show signs of deterioration then the area should be opened and the element inspected.

3. The term "regularly with housekeeping" under frequency means that separate regular inspections are not generally necessary. Instead, these elements should be examined and conditions noted when regular cleaning is taking place.

Appendix 6: Hazard & Vulnerability Assessment The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds HAZARD AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Overview:

Over the past several years, the issue of institutional “resiliency” has become increasingly important. Defined as the ability of an institution or community to, first, directly address the immediate impact of a disaster, hazard, shock or stress, and then its ability to successfully recover from the results of these occurrences. This resiliency is important for an institution as a whole, but also relates to its structures and facilities, both historic and more recent.

With the real and measurable increase in the frequency and severity of weather and climate-related disasters, as well as the real and perceived increase in other kinds of disasters (e.g. mass shootings), this type of assessment is increasingly important, particularly for high-profile sites and institutions like The William Trent House It is recommended that The William Trent House make a comprehensive assessment of its readiness to address hazards; a list of issues to consider is included at the end of this section.

The William Trent House, while located close to the Delaware River, is, relatively speaking, in a low-risk flood area (500 year) and it is not in a high-risk seismic area. The Visitor Center/ Carriage House is in a moderate flood risk area, although it’s ground floor is several feet above grade and there is no basement, thus reducing the danger of damage from flooding.

The most typical hazards impacting an institution’s built and historic resources derive from weather-related events and the increasing impact of climate change. As storms become more extreme and more common, institutions need to address the vulnerabilities of their buildings. The historic buildings and site features on the grounds of The William Trent House were constructed with high quality materials and sturdy structure systems. They were intended to be long-lasting, and their current solid condition is a testament to the quality of the design and construction, and the City’s and Association’s ongoing commitment to preserving and maintaining these historic resources. That being said, deferred maintenance can take its toll on the buildings and can increase vulnerabilities. Repairing and replacing leaking roofs, making sure that water from roofs is directed away from the buildings and from any low spots on the grounds, the maintenance of windows and doors, etc., are all issues that need to be addressed promptly and in a comprehensive manner. Likewise, the exterior masonry will begin to provide entry points for wind-driven rain if not regularly inspected and maintained. A number of locations requiring repointing, particularly on the Visitor Center, have been indicated in this report.

Some of the building systems need work if they are to remain operational in an emergency. The installation of emergency generators should be considered during the next major renovation campaign. This will allow the buildings to continue to operate and be secure in the event of a power outage.

Security is a second major issue. Like many historic sites, The William Trent House’s grounds are more or less open in spite of the visible fence and gates. Discreetly place security cameras were recently installed to add another dimension of security. The accessibility of the grounds and the discreet security measures are part of the attraction and charm of historic sites. Any security improvements should be made with at least two goals in mind: Most important is visitor and staff safety; second is making sure that the interventions don’t damage or negatively impact the historic resources. If a new Visitor Center is constructed, the new building could provide important resources to shelter and protect nearby residents. Although not in a residential area at the moment, there are plans to construct housing on the parking lots to the south of the site, and The William Trent House is easily accessible and highly visible. A new building with large, multi-use spaces might prove to be a benefit for the community as a whole by providing meeting spaces, shelter and other resources during and in the immediate aftermath of an serious event or disaster.

Resilience also includes the institution’s longer-term ability to recover from a disaster. Resources and suppliers should be identified in case of damage. It likely does not make sense for the site to provide longer term assistance to residents, but the City and The William Trent House Association should assess this possibility.

The list of issues on the following page is a sample Hazard Vulnerability Analysis tool, adapted from a document published by the Hospital Association of Southern California. It provides a list of issues to review and address for public facilities: Hazard and Vulnerability Analysis 4. Local cultural norms Issues to consider for internal resources include 1. Will supplies on hand meet critical needs? Issues to consider for probability include: Issues to consider for property impact include: 2. Coordination with local and state agencies 1. Known risk 1. Cost to replace 3. Community training 2. Historical data 2. Cost to set up temporary replacement 4. Other community resources 3. Manufacturer/ vendor statistics 3. Cost to repair

4. Subjective evaluation/ best estimate 4. Time to recover

5. Local Emergency Planning Committee Issues to consider for service impact include input 1. Service interruption Issues to consider for response include: 2. Employees unable to report to work 1. Time to marshal on-scene response 3. Clients unable to reach the facility 2. Scope of response capability and staff train- 4. Library in violation of regulatory or safety ing standards 3. On-site support resources/ supplies 5. Imposition of penalties or legal costs 4. Estimated severity and duration of the 6. Reputation and public image incident 7. Financial impact/ burden 5. Historical evaluation of response success

6. Local Emergency Planning Committee Issues to consider for preparedness include input 1. Status of current plans

Issue to consider for human impact include 2. Frequency of drills

1. Potential for staff death or injury 3. Training status

2. Potential for client death or injury 4. Insurance

3. Emotional/ psychological impact 5. Availability of alternative sources for critical supplies and services FEMA Map showing that the Trent House is in a low flood risk area, while the Visitor Center./ Carriage House is in a moderate flood risk area

Appendix 7: Glossary

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds GLOSSARY

Addition: New construction added to an existing building or structure.

Alteration: Any act or process that changes a portion of the exterior architectural appearance or exceptionally significant interiors of a building, structure or object, including, but not limited to, the erection, construction, reconstruction, or removal of any exterior or interior architectural features or configuration of a structure; treatments such as sand blasting, water blasting, chemical cleaning, chemical stopping, or removal of any architectural feature, but not including changes to the color of exterior paint.

Appropriate: Especially suitable or compatible.

Apron: A flat, broad piece of finished lumber or trim placed directly under a window sill.

Areaway: An open sunken space adjacent to basement windows or doors to provide light and air and/or access to the lower level.

Balustrade: A railing with upper and lower rails, balusters, and pedestals.

Building: A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construction is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. “Building” may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. Examples include: carriage house, church, courthouse, house, library, shed, stable, store, theater, train station, garage, detached kitchen, barn, or privy.

Compatible: In harmony with location, context, setting, and historic character.

Contemporary: Reflecting characteristics of the current period. Contemporary denotes characteristics which illustrate that a building, structure, or detail was constructed in the present or recent past rather than being imitative or reflective of a historic design.

Crawl Space: Any interior space of limited height, but sufficient to permit workmen access to otherwise concealed ductwork, piping, or wiring.

Crazing: Fine, random cracks or fissures in a network on or under a surface of plaster, cement, mortar, concrete, ceramic coat- ing, or paint film.

Demolish/Demolition: Any act or process that destroys in part or whole a building, structure, or resource. This definition often refers to deliberate demolition of a building or site or allowing a building to fall into such a state of disrepair that it becomes necessary or desirable to demolish it.

Design Guidelines: The “Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings” as adopted by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, and other guidelines which may be adopted from time to time. Dressed (stone): Finished by cutting or smoothing.

Efflorescence: An encrustation of soluble salts, commonly white, deposited on the surface of stone, brick, plaster, or mortar; usually caused by free alkalies leached from mortar or adjacent concrete as moisture moves through it.

Enlarge: To extend a building, structure, or resource beyond its existing footprint, usually through the construction of an addition or new exterior feature.

Fascia: A flat, wide, horizontal band on a wall surface, especially the bands of an architrave. (Bucher)

Fascia Board: A wide board set, vertically to cover the lower ends of rafters or the joint between the top of a wall and the projecting eaves.

Fenestration: The system (arrangement and proportioning) of openings penetrating an exterior wall system.

Flashing: Sheet metal or other flexible material formed to prevent water from entering a building or structure at joints or inter- sections, such as where a roof intersects a wall or chimney.

Gable: The generally triangular portion of a wall between the two sloped edges of a roof.

Gable Roof: A pitched roof with two inclined planes having equal angles that meet at a peak in the center and terminate at a vertical gable.

Gypsum Board: A wallboard having a gypsum core.

Historic Context: Patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning and significance within history or prehistory is made clear. Historic contexts are historical patterns that can be identified through consideration of the history of the property and the history of the surrounding area. Historic context may relate to an event or series of events, pattern of development, building form, architectural style, engineering technique, landscape, artistic value, use of materials of methods of construction, or be associated with the life of an important person; also the setting in which a historic element, site, structure, street, or district exists.

Historic Fabric: Original or old building materials (masonry, wood, stone, metals, marble) or construction.

Historic Integrity: The ability of a property to convey its significance; the retention of sufficient aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, or associating for a property to convey its historic significance.

Historic Significance: Determines why, where, and when a property is important. Historic significance is the importance of a property with regard to history, architecture, engineering, or the culture of a state, community, or nation. The key to determining whether the characteristics or associations of a property are significant is to consider the property within its historic context. Properties can be significant for their association or linkage to events or persons important in the past, as representatives of manmade expression of culture (design/construction) or technology, or for their ability to yield important information about history or prehistory.

Integrity: The authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period.

Jamb: The vertical piece or surface that forms the side of an opening, such as a window, door, or vault.

Joist: A structural member laid horizontally in a series from wall to wall or beam to beam, to support the weight of a floor, ceiling, or roof.

Lath: A thin, narrow strip of wood or metal used in making a supporting structure for plaster, shingles, slates, or tiles.

Leader: A vertical pipe, often of sheet metal, used to conduct water from a roof drain or gutter to the ground or cistern. Also known as a downspout.

Lintel: A horizontal beam that carries the load above an opening, such as a window or door.

Listing: the formal entry of a property in the National Register of Historic Places; also referred to as registration.

Maintain: To keep in an existing state of preservation or repair.

Mothball (Stabilization): Temporarily closing or stabilizing a building to protect it from the weather as well as to secure it from vandalism; the act or process of applying measures essential to the maintenance of a deteriorated building as it exists at present, establishing structural stability and a weather-resistant enclosure.

Muntin: A thin vertical strip of wood or metal used to separate and hold in place the panes of glass within a window sash.

National Register Criteria: The established criteria for evaluating the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Regis- ter of Historic Places.

National Register of Historic Places: The official list of the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America’s historic and archaeological resources.

Newel Post: A tall and more of less ornamental post at the head or foot of a stair, supporting the handrail. Nomination: Official recommendation for listing a property in the State and/or National Register of istoricH Places.

Object: The term object is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Examples include: boundary markers, mileposts, fountains, sculptures,etc.

Obscured: Covered, concealed, or hidden from view.

Period of Significance: the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or person, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing. Period of significance usually begins with a date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction. For prehistoric properties, the period of significance is the broad span of time about which the site or district is likely to provide information; it is often the period associated with a particular cultural group.

Pilaster: A shallow, often rectangular decorative element applied to the vertical surface of a wall, in order to create the look of a column without providing structural support.

Pointing: 1. In masonry, the final treatment of joints by the troweling of mortar or a putty-like filler into the joints. 2. The material with which the joints are filled. 3. The removal of mortar from between the joints of masonry units and the replacing of it with new mortar (repointing).

Portland cement: A strong, inflexible hydraulic cement used to bind mortar. Mortar or patching materials with a high Portland cement content should not be used on pre-1920 buildings. The Portland cement is harder than the masonry, thereby causing serious damage over annual freeze-thaw cycles.

Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

Rafter: A structural member that rests on the top of a wall or other supporting surface and rises at a slope to the ridge or peak of the roof; a series of rafters supports the roof deck and eaves.

Rail: A horizontal member in the frame of a door, window, panel etc.

Reconstruction: the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.

Refurbish: to renovate, or make clean, fresh, or functional again through a process of major maintenance or minor repair.

Rehabilitation: The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

Remodel: To change a building without regard to its distinctive features or style. Often involves changing the appearance of a structure by removing or covering original details and substituting new materials and forms.

Renovate: To repair a structure and make it usable again, without attempting to restore its historic appearance or duplicate original construction methods or material.

Repair: Acts of ordinary maintenance that do not include a change in the design, material, form, or outer appearance of a resource, such as repainting. This includes methods of stabilizing and preventing further decay and may incorporate replacement in kind or refurbishment of materials on a building or structure.

Replication: Constructing a building so that it is an exact replica or imitation of an historic architectural style or period.

Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.

Retain: To keep secure and intact. In the guidelines, “retain” and “maintain” describe the act of keeping an element, detail, or structure and continuing the same level of repair to aid in the preservation of elements, sites and structures.

Rhythm: Regular occurrence of elements or features such as spacing between buildings.

Ridge: The line formed where two sloping roof surfaces meet at the top.

Riser: The vertical face of a stair step.

Rubble Stone Masonry: Stonework constructed with rubble stones of irregular size and shape.

Scale: Proportional elements that demonstrate the size, materials, and style of buildings.

Shed Roof: A roof with a single slope, with the rafters spanning from one outside wall to the opposite wall.

Shoe Molding: A molding used next to the floor on an interior baseboard. Significant: Having particularly important associations within the contexts of architecture, history, and culture.

Sill: The horizontal structural member at the base of a wall, window, or door opening, to which vertical members are attached.

Site: The location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing or ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. Examples include: battlefield, campsite, designed landscape, shipwreck, ruins of a building or structure, natural feature, trail, rock carvings, ceremonial site.

Stabilization: The act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials.

Stile: The vertical member to which the rails of a door, window or other frame are joined.

Stop: The molding or trim on the inside face of a door or window frame against which the door or window closes.

Streetscape: The distinguishing character of a particular street as created by its width, degree of curvature, paving materials, design of the street furniture, and forms of surrounding buildings.

Structure: The term “structure” is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usually for purposes other than creating human shelter. Examples include: bandstand, bridge, canal, corncrib, dam, earthwork, fence, gazebo, grain elevator, highway, irrigation system, lighthouse, railroad grade, silo, trolley car, tunnel, and windmill

Style: A type of architecture distinguished by special characteristics of structure and ornament and often related in time; also a general quality of a distinctive character.

Tread: The horizontal surface of a step.

Vernacular: A regional form or adaptation of an architectural style.

Window Sash: The part of a window frame that holds the glazing, especially when movable; originally always wood, may also be metal, and in late-twentieth century, plastics. (Bucher)

Note: These definitions have been collected from a variety of sources, including the National arkP Service, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards…”; Preservation Virginia’s Glossary of Preservation Terms; Illustrated Dictionary of Historic Architecture by Cyril M. Harris; The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture by John Fleming; The Dictionary of Building Preservation edited by Ward Bucher; and Form, Space and Order by D.K. Ching.

References

The William Trent House Preservation Plan: Historic Buildings And Grounds References

A Plan and Survey of Sundry Pieces of Land Adjoining the Delaware River and Assunpink Creek Belonging to Jn. Cox 1789 Copy of manuscript map on file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

A Plan of Sundry Lots of Land the Property of Daniel W. Coxe, Esquire, Part of His Bloomsbury Estate c. 1804 Copy of manuscript map on file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), renton,T New Jersey.

A Plan of the Front Part of Coll. Thomas’ Estate in Kingsbury in West Jersey c. 1750 Copy of manuscript map on file, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

A Review of the Department of Police, Trenton, New Jersey 1899 Superior Officer’s Police Protective Association and Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, Trenton, New Jersey.

A Rough Sketch of the Southwesterly Part of Nottingham fronting the Delaware … c. 1783 On file, National Archives, Papers of the Continental Congress, Series M247, M/F Roll 60, Item 46, p. 49.

Adamczyk, Richard 2019 Pre-Contact Archaeology at The William Trent House: A Site-Specific Analysis and Regional Synthesis of Native American Occupation in Trenton. M.A. Thesis, Department of History and Anthropology, Monmouth University.

Audit Office Original manuscripts on file, National Archives, Kew, London. Copies also on microfilm, New Jersey State Archives, Trenton, New Jersey and the David Library, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Basse’s Book of Surveys Manuscript on file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Becker, Marshall J. 1995 Lenape Maize Sales to the Swedish Colonists: Cultural Stability During the Early Colonial Period. In New Sweden in America, edited by Carol E. Hoffecker, Richard Waldron, Lorraine E. Williams and Barbara E. Benson, pp. 121 136. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware.

Beers, Frederick W. 1870 Map of the City of Trenton, New Jersey. F.W. Beers & Company, New York, New York.

Benedict, W.H. 1920 New Jersey as It Appeared to Early Observers and Travelers. Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society V (3):150 168. Bennett, Michael 2017 Curing and Inoculating Smallpox: The Career of Simeon Worlock in Paris, Brittany and Sainte-Domingue in the 1770s. French History and Civilization 8:27-38.

Berthier, Louis Alexandre 1781 de Prince Town à Trenton. In The American Campaigns of Rochambeau’s Army 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783, Volume II, translated and edited by H.C. Rice and A.S. Brown, 1972. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey and Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.

Bird, Robert Montgomery 1826 Trenton Bridge … From Above … July 24 1826. R.M.B. Watercolor held by the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Bloomsbury Book, c. 1815-1836 c. 1815-1836 Daniel William Coxe Papers, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Board of Managers of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company 1833 Second Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Trenton Delaware Falls Company. On file, Hagley Museum and Library, Wilmington, Delaware.

Budd, T. 1865 [1685] Good Order Established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in America. A new edition with notes by Edward Armstrong. William Gowans, New York, New York.

Bush, B. (compiler) 1986 Laws of the Royal Colony of New Jersey, 1702 1775. Division of Archives and Records Management (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Central Planning Board 1962 Trent House Mall, General Development Plan. On file, William Trent House Archive, Trenton, New Jersey.

Claypoole’s American Daily Advertiser October 10, 1797. On file (online), accessed January 2016, http://www.genealogybank.com/explore/newspapers/all

Colbert, Edouard Charles-Victurnen 1798 Trenton Sur La Delaware. 1962 facsimile, New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey.

Collins, William (profile manager) 2019 Mahlon Stacy (1686-1742). Electronic document, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stacy-1283, accessed October 15, 2020. Daily True American 1854 For Rent. That Splendid Mansion …. March 13, p. 3.

1859 For Sale or Rent. Executors’ Sale of Real Estate. January 3, p. 3.

Dana, R.S. 1909 Morrisville and Its Vicinity. In A Collection of Papers Read Before the Bucks County Historical Society, pp. 242 257. B.F. Fackenthal, Jr., Riegelsville, Pennsylvania.

Danckaerts, J. 1867 Journal of a Voyage to New York, and a Tour in Several of the American Colonies in 1679-80. Long Island Historical Society, Brooklyn, New York.

Delle, James A. 2019 The Archaeology of Northern Slavery and Freedom. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, Florida.

Dwyer, William M. 1983 The Day is Ours! The Viking Press, New York, New York.

Ely, R.P., W.S. Ely and D.B. Ely (compilers) 1910 An Historical Narrative of the Ely, Revell and Stacye Families Who were Among the Founders of Trenton and Burlington in the Province of West Jersey 1678-1683. Fleming H. Revell Co., New York, New York.

English, J.E. 1930 Plan of Survey of Bloomsbury Court. Manuscript map on file, William Trent House Archive, Trenton, New Jersey.

Felcone, Joseph J. 1985 Ewing Township, Mercer County, New Jersey: A History to the Year 1700. Joseph J. Felcone, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey.

Fernow, Berthold 1877 Documents Relating to the History of the Dutch and Swedish Settlements on the Delaware River. The Argus Company, Albany, New York.

Fowler & Bailey 1874 Trenton, New Jersey (Bird’s-eye View). H.J. Toudy & Co. Steam Lithographers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Frank Grad & Sons, Architects-Engineers 1958 Site Plan of Present and Projected State Office Buildings, Trenton, New Jersey. April 1, 1958. On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey. Franklin Survey Company 1930 Real Estate Plat Book of the City of Trenton and Borough of Princeton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Franklin Survey Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

General Advertiser 1791 Extract from a letter from Mr. Worlock at St. Domingo, to his wife in Philadelphia. November 9, Issue 347, p. 3

Goddard, Ives 1978 Delaware. Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 15. Northeast. Edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 213-239. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Godfrey, Carlos E. 1919 The Dutch Trading Post. The Trenton Historical Society, Trenton, New Jersey.

Gordon, Thomas F. 1836 Map of the City of Trenton and Its Vicinity. J.F. and C.A. Watson, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Haven, Charles C. 1882 A New Real Estate and Insurance Map of the City of Trenton Including Chambersburg, Millham, and Parts of Ewing, Lawrence, and Hamilton Townships, Mercer County. E.P. Noll & Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Hendricks, Cornelius 1616 Map of Captain Cornelius Hendricks. S.D. Halsey and P.S. Miller, Amsterdam, Netherlands (1989).

Holm, T.C. 1702 A Short Description of the Province of New Sweden Now Called by the English Pennsylvania in America. (Original, circa 1670 1702). Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania III, Part II (1836). Translated by Peter S. Du Ponceau, pp. 1 166.

Hunter Research, Inc. 1995 Archaeological Investigations on the Tunnel at The William Trent House, City of Trenton, Mercer County. New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2002 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations and Monitoring, New Jersey Route 29, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey, Volume 1: Prehistoric Sites. Draft report on file, New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), Trenton, New Jersey.

2003a South Broad Street Bridge Cultural Resources Assessment, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2003b The William Trent House, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey: Archaeological Investigations, Research, Public Outreach, and Construction Monitoring 2000-2003. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey. 2005 Archaeological Monitoring of Lift Installation, William Trent House, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2007 Archaeological Monitoring Services, Trent House Landscaping, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2009 The Abbott Farm National Historic Landmark Interpretive Plan, Cultural Resource Technical Document, Hamilton Township, Mercer County, Bordentown Township and the City of Bordentown, Burlington County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2011 Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations and Monitoring, New Jersey Route 29, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Volume II. Lambert/Douglas Plantation and Rosey Hill Mansion Site. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office, NJDEP, Trenton, New Jersey.

2014 Petty’s Run Archaeological Site: Iron, Steel, Cotton and Paper in Historic Trenton. 3 Volumes. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2016 William Trent House Public Archaeology Program: Archaeological Investigations on the East Side of the House, The 1719 William Trent House Museum, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

2020 Historical and Archaeological Investigations, New Jersey State Taxation Building Site, John Fitch Way, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

Hunter, Richard W. and J. Patrick Harshbarger 2014 Sartori to Sacred Heart: Early Catholic Trenton. Sacred Heart Church, Trenton, New Jersey.

Hunter, Richard W., James S. Lee and Richard F. Veit 2020 The William Trent House Archaeology Field School of 2019 Interim Report. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

Hunter, Richard W., Nadine Sergejeff and Damon Tvarayanas 2009 On the Eagle’s Wings: Textiles, Trenton, and a First taste of the Industrial Revolution. New Jersey History 124 (1):57-98.

James, Bartlett Burleigh and J. Franklin Jameson (editors) 1959 Journal of Jasper Danckaerts. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, New York.

Jameson, J. Franklin 1967 Narratives of New Netherland 1609 1664. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, New York. Johnson, Amandus 1925 Geographica Americae with an Account of the Delaware Indians, Based on Surveys and Notes Made in 1654 1656 by Peter Lindestrom: Translated from the Original Manuscript with Notes, Introduction and an Appendix of Indian Geographical Names with Their Meanings. The Swedish Colonial Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

1930 The Instruction for Johan Printz Governor of New Sweden. The Swedish Colonial Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Kalb, Kurt R., Janet Kopleck, Deborah Fimbel and Ihor J. Sypko 1982 An Urban Ferry Tale. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 38:1 19.

Kidder, William L. 2017 Crossroads of the Revolution: Trenton, 1774-1783. Knox Press, Lawrence Township, New Jersey.

Kinsey, William F., III (editor) 1972 Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley. Anthropological Series. Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Kraft, Herbert C. 1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History and Ethnography. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey.

Kupperman, K.O. 1995 Scandinavian Colonists Confront the New World. In New Sweden in America, edited by Carol E. Hoffecker, Richard Waldron, Lorraine E. Williams and Barbara E. Benson, pp. 89 111. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware.

Lake, D.J. and S.N. Beers 1860 Map of the Vicinity of Philadelphia and Trenton. Electronic document, David Rumsey Map Collection, https://www.davidrumsey.com/ luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~200338~3000966:Map-Of-The-Vicinity-Of-Philadelphia, accessed November 2020.

Lamborn, Robert H. 1859 Map of the City of Trenton and Part of Hamilton Township Mercer County, New Jersey. Robert H. Lamborn, Trenton, New Jersey.

Lathrop, J.M. 1905 Atlas of the City of Trenton and Borough of Princeton. A.H. Mueller & Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Leach, Peter A. 2016 Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey, William Trent House, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey. Lee, Francis Bazley 1895 History of Trenton, New Jersey, The Record of Its Early Settlement and Corporate Progress. J.L. Murphy, Trenton, New Jersey.

1907 Genealogical and Personal Memorial of Mercer County, New Jersey. Volume 1. The Lewis Publishing Company, New York, New York and Chicago, Illinois.

Leiby, Adrian 1964 The Early Dutch and Swedish Settlers of New Jersey. D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey.

Levy, Barry 1988 Quakers and the American Family: British Settlements in the Delaware Valley, 1650 1765. Oxford University Press, New York.

Mahlon Stacey’s Resurvey 1714 In Basse’s Book of Surveys. On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Mickle, I. 1845 Reminiscences of Old Gloucester, or Incidents in the History of the Counties of Gloucester, Atlantic and Camden, New Jersey. Townsend Ward, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Mills, Weymer Jay 1902 Historic Houses of New Jersey. J.B. Lippincott Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Myers, A.C. (editor) 1912 Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Delaware. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York.

1937 William Penn His Own Account of the Lenni Lenape or Delaware Indians, 1683. Albert Cook Myers, Moylan, Pennsylvania.

Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1931-2015 City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Electronic document, https://historicaerials.com, accessed November 2020.

Nevins, A. 1935 Abram S. Hewitt: With Some Account of Peter Cooper. Harper & Brothers, New York, New York.

Pearson, Ron (profile manager) 2019 Mahlon Stacy (1638-1704). Electronic document, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Stacy-192, accessed October 15, 2020.

Philadelphia Gazette April 7, 1798. On file (online), accessed January 2016, http://www.genealogybank.com/explore/newspapers/all Plan de la Bataille de Trenton 1777 Manuscript map on file, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Podmore, Harry J. 1964 The William Trent House. Chapter XXV in Trenton Old and New, edited by Mary J. Messler. Trenton Tercentenary Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.

Pomfret, John E. 1956 The Province of West New Jersey 1609 1702: A History of the Origins of an American Colony. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Quigley, Mary Alice and David Collier 1984 A Capital Place: The Story of Trenton. Windsor Publications, Inc. Woodland Hills, California.

Raum, John O. 1871 History of the City of Trenton. W.T. Nicholson & Co., Trenton, New Jersey.

Revel’s Book of Surveys On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Rice, Howard C., Jr., and Anne S. Brown, K. (translators and editors) 1972 The American Campaigns of Rochambeau’s Army 1780, 1781, 1782, 1783. 2 volumes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey and Brown University Press, Providence, Rhode Island.

Robinson, E., and R.H. Pidgeon 1881 Atlas of the City of Trenton and Suburbs. E. Robinson, New York, New York.

Rounds, David 1932 Bloomsbury Court – A Colonial House. On file, William Trent House, Trenton, New Jersey.

Sanborn, D.A. 1874 Insurance Diagrams of Trenton: Updated to 1886. Corrected to 1893. D.A. Sanborn, New York, New York.

Sanborn Map Company 1890 Insurance Maps of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.

1908 Insurance Maps of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.

1927 Insurance Maps of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York. 1950 Insurance Maps of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.

1955 Insurance Maps of the City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Sanborn Map Company, New York, New York.

Saretzky, Gary 2013 Nineteenth Century New Jersey Photographers. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/19125250/nineteenth-century-new-jersey-photographers-gary-saretzky

Scarlett & Scarlett 1890 Scarlett & Scarlett’s Fire Map of Mercer County. Scarlett & Scarlett, Newark, New Jersey.

Sheridan, Eugene R. 1981 Lewis Morris, 1671-1746: A Study in Early American Politics. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse , New York.

Sheridan, Eugene R. (editor) 1993 The Papers of Lewis Morris, Volume III: 1738-1746. New Jersey Historical Society, Newark, New Jersey.

Showman, Richard K. (editor) 1976-2005 The Papers of General Nathanael Greene. 13 Volumes. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Sidney, J.C. 1849 Map of the City of Trenton, New Jersey. M. Dripps, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Silber, Barbara Chi Hsiao and Wade P. Catts 2004 The Beverwyck Site. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/78cac489-7e8c-4e04- 920c-51ba81d9f87c/, accessed December 2020.

Sketch of Daniel W. Coxe’s Proposed Subdivision of the Area Immediately Surrounding The William Trent House c.1815-36 “Bloomsbury Book,” Daniel William Coxe Papers, Manuscript, AM91231, Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

Smith, S. 1877 [1765] The History of the Colony of Nova Caesarea or New Jersey: Containing, an Account of Its First Settlement, Progressive Improvements, the Original and Present Constitution, and Other Events, to the Year 1721. With Some Particulars Since; and a Short View of Its Present State. W.F. Sharp, Trenton, New Jersey.

Snipes, Samuel Moon, Jeffrey L. Marshall, Stephanie Will 1992 Falls Township, Bucks County: A 300th Anniversary History. Falls Township Tri Centennial Committee, Falls Township, Pennsylvania. State Capitol Development Commission and Frank Grad & Sons 1964 The First Report of the State Capitol Development Commission on the State Capitol Development Program. On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Stellhorn, Paul A. and Michael J. Birkner (editors) 1982 The Governors of New Jersey 1664-1974: Biographical Essays. New Jersey Historical Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.

Stiteler, John M. and Hunter Research, Inc. 2020 Report of Soils and geomorphology Study Conducted as an Adjunct to Archaeological Investigations at The William Trent House, City of Trenton, New Jersey. On file, William Trent House, Trenton, New Jersey.

Stryker, William S. 1898 [2001] The Battles of Trenton and Princeton. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (reprinted by the Old Barracks Association, Trenton, New Jersey).

Susan Maxman Architects 1997 The William Trent House, Trenton, New Jersey. Historical Documentation & Strategic Planning Study, Volume II: History and Archaeological Management Plan. On file, New Jersey Historic Preservation Office (NJDEP), Trenton, New Jersey.

Toothman, Stephanie S. 1977 Trenton, New Jersey, 1719-1779: A Study of Community Growth and Organization. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, American Studies Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Trenton Evening Times 1889 Woodlawn’s Many Attractions. July 7, p.7.

1893 Old Woodlawn. A Historic Feature of Ancient Trenton. February 8, p. 8.

1938 Trent House Garden Started by Trenton’s Patriotic Women. November 3, p. 3.

1939 Restored Trent House Opened Formally as Historic Museum. June 1, p.1.

1941 Program Listed by Garden Club. November 30, p. 11.

1962 Tired Old Smokestack Bows, Dies. May 15, p.1.

Trenton Federalist 1818 For Sale, or to be rented …. A Capital Saw-Mill. September 28, p. 1. 1819 Wool Carding. June 28, p.1.

1825 Sale Notice (Bloomsbury). March 21, p.1.

Trenton Garden Club 1938 Design and Planting Plan for Grounds of The William Trent House. Manuscript map on file, William Trent House Archive, Trenton, New Jersey.

Trenton Historical Society 1929 A History of Trenton 1679-1929, Two Hundred and Fifty Years of a Notable Town with Links in Four Centuries. 2 Volumes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Trenton State Gazette 1852 Sales of Real Estate. December 15, p. 3.

1855 In Chancery of New Jersey. Between Joseph Wood, complainant, Jeremiah Stull, defendant. March 7, p. 3.

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey 1844 Delaware River from Bordentown to Trenton, New Jersey. On file, National Archives, Record Group 23, Sheet No. 172, Washington D.C.

Unrecorded Wills and Inventories On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Urban, Abram L. c. 1933-34 Plan of House and Grounds Before Restoration. Manuscript map on file, William Trent House Archive, Trenton, New Jersey.

U.S. Federal Census of New Jersey, Population Schedules 1850 Census Place: Nottingham Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. Electronic document, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/ collections/8054/images/4201726_00658?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=d613802a62067c7cf233ce86dcb2d66c&usePUB=true&_ phsrc=idg975&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=4467272

1850 Census Place: North Bergen Township, Hudson County, New Jersey. Electronic document, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/ collections/8054/images/4201724_00070?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=ca6a734e7c8754c9802abd94c3f12b16&usePUB=tr ue&_phsrc=idg1001&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&_ga=2.224773146.1666192388.1603748860-1046582415.1522942509&_ gac=1.23467080.1603827073.Cj0KCQjwit_8BRCoARIsAIx3Rj6nmbtG-c2aIAISbBkWdvEn5ovFCmEw2a9k3FoAhvoYEvZ4ZpOHcfIaApwsEA Lw_wcB&pId=4391775

1860 Census Place: 4th Ward, City of Trenton, Mercer County, New Jersey. Electronic document, https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/7667/images/4235182_00418?treeid=&personid=&hintid=&queryId=ce6a4d0bd234f21ca f61ebbaf4a8dc50&usePUB=true&_phsrc=idg1004&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&pId=54377483 Veit, Richard 2013-2015 Special Edition: The Abbott Farm National Historic Landmark. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 68-70.

Veit, Richard and Charles A. Bello 1999 “A Unique and Valuable Historical and Indian Collection”: Charles Conrad Abbott Explores a 17th-century Dutch Trading Post in the Delaware Valley. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 15:95-123.

Wacker, P.O. 1975 Land and People: A Cultural Geography of Preindustrial New Jersey. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Weslager, C.A. 1969 [1967] The English on the Delaware 1610 1682. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

West Jersey Deeds On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

West Jersey Wills and Inventories On file, New Jersey State Archives (NJDS), Trenton, New Jersey.

Wiederhold, Andreas 1777 Lieutenant Wiederhold’s Map of Trenton in 1776. In The Battles of Trenton and Princeton, by William S. Stryker, 1898, p. 126. The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (reprinted 2001, the Old Barracks Association, Trenton, New Jersey).

Williams, Lorraine E. 1995 Indians and Europeans in the Delaware Valley, 1620 1655. In New Sweden in America, edited by Carol E. Hoffecker, Richard Waldron, Lorraine E. Williams and Barbara E. Benson, pp. 112 120. University of Delaware Press, Newark, Delaware.