University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository

Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship

Winter 1982

THE LAYERED SOCIETY: MATERIAL LIFE IN PORTSMOUTH, NH, 1680 TO 1740 (NEW HAMPSHIRE)

KAREN ELIZABETH ANDRESEN

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation

Recommended Citation ANDRESEN, KAREN ELIZABETH, "THE LAYERED SOCIETY: MATERIAL LIFE IN PORTSMOUTH, NH, 1680 TO 1740 (NEW HAMPSHIRE)" (1982). Doctoral Dissertations. 1327. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1327

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear hsting the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

University Modems International 300 N. Zeeb Road

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8320635

Andresen, Karen Elizabeth

THE LAYERED SOCIETY: MATERIAL LIFE IN PORTSMOUTH, N.H., 1680 to 1740

University of New Hampshire Ph.D. 1982

University Microfilms

International300 N. ."!eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1982

by Andresen, Karen Elizabeth All Rights Reserved

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE LAYERED SOCIETY:

MATERIAL LIFE IN PORTSMOUTH, N.H., 1680 to 1740

BY

KAREN E. ANDRESEN

B.A. (History), University of Rochester, 1973

M.A. (Early American History), University of New Hampshire, 1975

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the University of New Hampshire

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Graduate School

Department of History

December 1982

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

0 1982

Karen E. Andresen

1

I I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This d issertatio n has been examined and approved.

Rutman ofessor of History

CJLi Charles E. Clark, Professor of History

Donald j'. /Wilcox, Professor of History

Robert M. Mennel, Professor of History

es Cerny, Ph.

D o t n /frir-z. Date

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

After wrking so long with the individuals in this study, I have

acquired a strange sense of intimacy with them. They are long-dead and

not much remains to remind us of them except the scribblings of clerks,

filed in dusty books. Yet through the pages of probate and town records

I have gained entry into their lives. Vicariously, I have witnessed and

delighted in the birth of their children and stood as a mute and shaken

onlooker at their deathbeds; I have seen their shame and rebelliousness

in court, been party to their political argunents, listened to their

challenges against interlopers. But most of all, I have peeked, pried,

and poked into every corner of each room in their houses. I have

checked the levels in their secret caches of run, tested the ecmfort of

their featherbeds, balked at the mean and sparse furnishings of the

poor, and regaled the plush surroundings of the well-to-do. Perched

uncomfortably on a ladderback chair or teetering on a crude stool, I

have tasted their salty beef and noticed their chipped earthenware. I

have walked their dirt floors and walked the boundaries of their land3,

seen their livestock roaming through pastures and orchards, watched the

presses turn fall apples into sweet cider, and heard the whirl of their

spinning wheels and clanking of their looms. I have discovered clothing

tucked neatly away in cupboards and seen it worn on the backs of my

long-departed but fond acquaintances. It has been a worthwhile trip

through time, and ha3 served to renew a sense of continuity in my life,

although many times I have cursed the silent testimony and wished that

my friends could respond to my questions in person. They cannot, of

iv with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. course, so I have taken the pieces that they left and assembled them

here in a way th at makes sense to me. I can only hope th a t you w ill

enjoy these essays about their lives as much as I enjoyed shaping them.

Hy adventure would not have been possible without the help of many

people and their institutions. Foremost among the many is Darrett

Rutman of the University of New Hampshire. He provided scholarly

training, a sense of direction and, together with his wife Anita,

understanding and a firm hand when I needed it most. Hy sincere thanks

also are extended to Robert Mennel, Don Wilcox, Charles Clark, and James

Cerny, all from the University of New Hampshire. As my doctoral

committee, they patiently edited and commented on this and other

projects. I would also like to thank the Graduate School and Research

Office at UNH, the one for financial assistance over the years, the

other for supporting my computing a c tiv itie s , the UNH Computer Services

staff for their assistance, and the staff of the Dimond Library for

th e ir aid . The American Association of University Women graciously

granted me a year's fellowship to pursue this study. The staffs of the

Wew Hampshire Historical Society, the New Hampshire State Library, and

Strawbery Bank in Portsmouth were also invaluable to my work. To my

friends Ron Lettieri, Laura Ricard, and Laurel Ulrich - I give thanks

for persevering with me. To my newest set of friends and colleagues at

Cornell University I also give many thanks for supporting me as my

deadline approached.

Finally, to my family - to Chris Andresen, Don Andresen, Marge

Redden, Nancy Newbury-Andresen, Herman Redden - and above a ll to David

Williams I give not only thanks but my love.

v

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... v ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... X

ABSTRACT...... xi

C HA PIER...... PAGE

I. PERSPECTIVES ON WEALTH AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE...... 1

I I. THE NATURAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF PORTSMOUTH...... 29

III.MONETARY POLICY IN PORTSMOUTH...... 62

IV. THE OWNERSHIP AND USES OF LAND...... 91

V. THE DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENT...... 113

VI. WCMEN AND WEALTH...... W

VI I. CONCLUSION...... 175

APPENDIX I: ANALYSING THE BIAS OF PROBATE...... 181

APPENDIX II: THE PORTSMOWH INVENTORY CODEBOOK .....2 3 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 259

vi

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Age at Death: Inventoried Male Decedents

1.2 Dates of Inventories: Inventoried Male Decedents

1.3 Wealth Groups: Inventoried Male Decedents

3.1 Currency Evaluation

3.2 Ownership of Silver Coin by Age and Date

3.3 Ownership of Gold Coin by Age and Date

3.4 Ownership of New England Currency by Age and Date

3.5 Ownership of Silver Objects by Wealth Group

3.6 Ownership of Silver Objects by Date

3.7 Age Group by Median Deflated Raw E state Value - Solvent vs. Insolvent Estates with Known Ages

3.8 Date by Median Deflated Raw Estate Value - Solvent v s. Insolvent E states with Known Ages

3.9 Median L ia b ilitie s per Wealth.Group by Date and in Deflated Pounds S terlin g

3.10 Median Liabilities per Age Group by Date and in Deflated Pounds S terlin g

4.1 Percentage of All Estates CWning Lands and Houses

4.2 Percentage of All Estates Owning Gardens and Orchards

4.3 Percentage of All Estates Ctoning Tools

4.4 Percentage of All Estates Owning Barns and Pasturage

4.5 Percentage of All Estates Owning Specified Animals

4.6 Mean Number of Pigs, Horses, Sheep, Fowl, and Oxen Per Household

4.7 Porportions of Estates in Each Wealth Group Owning Various Kinds of Non-Household Goods

5.1 Percentage Ownership Within Wealth Group and Date of Tin, Brass, and Pewter

5.2 Percentage Ownership Within Wealth Group and Date of Earthenware and China

v ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5.3 Percentage of All Estates Owning Specified Flatware

5.4 Percentage Ownership by Date of Spinning Wheels and Looms

5.5 Percentage Ownership by Date of Pictures, Clocks, Screens, and Tea Tables

5.6 Percentage Ownership by Date of Weapons by Number Owned per Individual

5.7 Percentage Ownership of Books and Bibles

5.6 Percentage Ownership by Date o f Warming Pans and Feather Beds

5.9 Percentage Ownership by Date o f Flock, Down, and Trundle Beds

5.10 Proportions of Estates in Each Wealth Group CV/ning Various Kinds of Household Goods

5.11 Proportions of Estates Over Time Owning Various Kinds of Household Goods

6=1 Wealth D istribution by Decile Compared to Widow Sample Distribution: Wealth Values Deflated According to 1696-<705 base Year Average

6.2 Decile Rank of Total Deflated Wealth by Use of Entailment and Primogeniture in Wills

6.3 Wealth for All Widows in Deflated Pounds S terling

6.4 Numbers of Children: Remarrying vs. Non-remarrying Widows

6.5 Widows' Ages at Time of Widowhoods for those with Known Ages

6.6 Wealth of Widows in Deflated Pounds S terlin g : Remarrying vs.. Non­ remarrying Widows

6.7 Remarriage by Deflated Total Wealth

6.8 Length of Widowhood by Deflated Total Worth for Widows with Known Ages who Remarried

6.9 Liabilities Per Wealth Group in Deflated Pounds Sterling for Intestate Estates

6.10 Settlements by Will

A. 1 Commodity Price Series

A.2 Survivorship Rates from the 1688 Tax Rolls

A. 3 Revised North 7 Life Table Reflecting Male Population Above Age 20 i v iii j i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j A.4 Model and Sample Age Cohorts with Age Correction Weights f j A.5 Inventoried Wealth after Deflation for Year and Cohort Weightings

1 A.6 Gini Indices and SSTT's from Portsmouth Tax Records

A.7 Decile Breakdown of Inventoried Wealth after All Weightings

A.8 Wealth Groups

j

ix

3« Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Total Adjusted Wealth Over Three Time Periods

*1.1 Land Prices - Smoothed

4.2 Livestock Prices - Smoothed

A. 1 Livestock Prices

A.2 Land Prices

A. 3 Commodity Prices

A. 4 Pre-adjusted and Total Adjusted Wealth

A. 5 Total Adjusted Wealth Distribution

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT

THE LAYERED SOCIETY:

MATERIAL LIFE IN PORTSMOUTH, N.H., 1680 TO 1740

hv—

KAREN E. ANDRESEN

University o f New Hampshire, December, 1982

I This d isse rta tio n evaluates the m aterial lif e and economic

j culture of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, from 1680 to 1740 through an ! ] analysis of the probate inventories of the estates of 234 males.

It also details the methodology used to determine the twin liases

of probate records - that people whose e sta te s were probated were

generally older and wealthier than people in the overall

population.

The inequality of wealth was fairly static. Using model life

ta b le s, a commodity price se rie s derived from Portsmouth goods, and

weights to account for differences between the ages and economic

status' of the probated and total populations, the Gini Index for

the entire period was calculated at 0.684. That index varied only

slightly over time; 0.641 for 1680 to 1699, 0.622 for 1700 to 1719,

! and 0.687 for 1720 to 1740. This narrow range in inequality is ! I partially attributable to the geographic and social environment of j ! the town. Portsmouth was a penninsula, locked in by water on three

I xl i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a sides and bordered by a town close to another body of water on the

fourth. It was also socially isolated. Newcomers were discouraged

from settling, and families intermarried among families of their

own socio-economic level, creating an inbred society that re­

circulated wealth between generations in a partible manner.

The distribution of wealth ranged from insolvency to over ten

thousand pounds before inflation was taken into account. For

purposes of general evaluation, the population was broken into five

wealth groups, the average assessed wealth being around one hundred

fifty pounds. Ihe ownership of selected material possessions was,

in most cases, not clearly associated with any economic group.

Luxury items were the only goods strictly associated with the elite

group. Land ownership was widespread as, except for the poorest

group, over half of each group owned realty.

; xii j 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

PERSPECTIVES ON WEALTH AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently l i t t l e or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use, but a great quantity of goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.[ 1 ]

With these words, Adam Smith outlined the paradox of value. Utility

and price are not always related in a rational economic sense. Instead,

worth originates in the mind of the beholder. For people studying early

American society, that truism poses a challenge: How to get inside the

consciousnesses and imaginations of people long dead to examine their

value systems and determine what types of things glittered temptingly;

that is to say, what things were to them diamonds. Were the things of

value d iffe re n t for varying economic groups? And did these change over

time?

Our purpose here is to describe and evaluate the nature of wealth in

the small but prosperous seaport community of Portsmouth, New Hampshire

from 1680 to 1740. I t was a town where people thought not so much of

diamonds as of sailing ships, of security from attack, a home lot, a

sturdy ox, a gentle wife or providing husband, a place where water was

[1] Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, ed. Edwin Cannan (New York, 1937), 28.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | indeed taken for granted. But so too were the resources of the forest, ■a j In sura, we will look at wealth by investigating a heterogeneous material

I culture, a landscape modified by "culturally determined behaviour," to A I borrow from James Deetz.[2] Deetz and others in vestigating colonial

society have suggested that the study of material culture should include

not only the artifactual remains of past societies but, also, the way

things were done - "the social transmitted rules of behaviour" - the

1 cultural "baggage" that imparted not only what was important in making a

j go of life but how one proceeded to do it. We borrow, too, from the

works of those in the "Annales" school of France who place importance on

chronologically-remote manners and objects in their natural and social

settings so that both their idiosyncratic and conformist qualities may

be examined when compared to studies of the same in other s o c ie tie s .[3]

Men do not make choices of what they do and and how they do it in

isolation, but rather as an outcome of choices presented to them

consciously or unconsciously through their environment. Consequently,

this study examines wealth in the context of the total society - family,

geography, and p o litic s .

The methodology used to study wealth is, moreover, a prominant and

integral part of this analysis. It involves a number of arduous tasks:

the acquisition of sources, sifting through them to find the most

appropriate documents, devising codes to handle the range of the data

and the questions to be asked of it, developing computer applications to

[2] James Deetz, Li Stnall Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early j American Life (New York, 1977)* 24.

•i ■ C 3 3 See Deetz, Small Things Forgotten, 20-43; Marc Bloch, The ] Historian's Craft (New York, 1953), 20-47. H A I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. evaluate and sort the information, testing and choosing the most

applicable demographic model to describe the population, finding the

correct statistical procedures to evaluate the goods that represent

wealth and, finally, drawing upon the standard historical qualitative

evidence to bind twentieth-century techniques with seventeenth-century

data. In short, our evaluation of wealth will involve a great deal more

than theory and data. The way data are collected and evaluated is a

major part of any researcher's task although it is always grounded in

some ideological stance.

A people's priorities in accruing and using wealth are fundamental

issues in understanding social and economic development, for patterns of

acquiring and dispensing resources speak to the basic needs and values

of any community. Historical studies of wealth have generally focused

on the overall distribution of assets and on patterns of consumption.[4]

But given the fact that communities are neither socially nor

economically uniform, such analyses overlook the effects of sub­

populations on both long and short-term economic change. Disregard for

the varieties of behaviors within single communities has also left a

void in our knowledge of one of the basic elements of historical change

- the evolution of individual needs and wants.

[4] See Alice Hanson Jones, ''Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies about 1770," Journal of Economic History, XXXIII (1972), 98-127; Jones, "Wealth Estimates for the Middle American Colonies, 177*1," Economic Development and Cultural Change, XVIII (1970), 1-172; Jones, American Colonial Wealth; Documents and Methods (New York, 1978), 3 v o ls.; Terry L. Anderson, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies, 1650-1709," Explorations in Economic History, XII (1975). 151-176; James A, Henretta, "Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. Ser-, XXII (1965). 75-92; Bruce C. Daniels, "Defining Economic Classes in Colonial New Hampshire, 1700-1750," Historical New Hampshire, XXVIII (1973). 53-62.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Wealth is a relative concept. To any person at any time, it is a

reflection of unique social values and priorities. A seventeenth-

century minister might have felt wealthy when his conscience was eased

and his church gathered. Poor Richard's Almanac advised that early to

bed and early to rise made a man not only wealthy but wise. Andrew

Carnegie felt wealthy only when he could live royally off the interest

of his investments. Such a triology of perspectives on wealth - as a

spiritual satisfaction, a social ethic, a material well-being - point to

the diversity of a concept formed by personal circumstance. Tangibly

and in an economic sense, wealth is expressed in material possessions.

But the value attached to the possession is formed, reinforced, or

changed by the particular needs and desires of the possessor which are,

in turn, products of environment and culture. Money, or the current

relative market exchange for goods, is often used to define and measure

wealth, but it, like Smith's diamonds, has worth only as a means to

obtain goods and services. Wealth, therefore, has a dual definition:

as money, it is a uniform standard for trade, but behind money lies a

boundless diversity of objects representing a spectruu of environments

and social values.

As a material reflection of needs and wants, the meaning of wealth

changes between and within societies as well as across time. Objects

perceived as treasures or necessities by one group may be considered

worthless by another, or even by the same group at a different time. In

this context, an understanding of the uses and transmissions of a

community's wealth, or that of an individual or family, should provide

an index to social values and priorities. The perception of material

possessions or services as of high or low monetary and social value -

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | the l a t te r measured by the atten tio n paid them by custom or law - gives j | an indication of the importance of objects. And because the wealth of a

| community is only the sum of individuals' wealth, it is essential to

1 understand the flows, demands, and particulars on an individual level. \ | j Economist Robert Lampman has argued that personal choices of what i j types of wealth to accumulate are all-important for, taken together,

] "those decisions . . . influence . . .the rate of capital accumulation, ! j the price of capital, and the distribution of income, economic welfare,

■ and power among persons."[53 An examination of the components of

| personal wealth reveals the patterns of acquisition and dispersal of

j goods and services thought necessary for an individual's present comfort

\ and, perhaps more important in this study, or those on which the future

\ is to be built. In addition, examining a community's wealth by the

1 dissection of individuals' wealth helps us avoid, to some degree,

' falling into the trap of income prejudice - the notion that people with

equivalent assets have equivalent social, economic, religious, or

political outlooks.

Income prejudice is a common pitfall.[6] It is disarmingly easy to

j assume that two people with similar wealth might, on the surface, be

equals. But an intimate examination of their possessions or expenses

might reveal totally different lifestyles and social outlooks.

[5] Robert J. Lampman, The Share of Top Wealth-Holders in National W ealth, 1922-56 (Princeton, 1962), 5.

i [6]. This assumption is built into many arguments, and i3 most obvious j in studies of wealth and social structure where individuals are i classified only by decile groups. While there is nothing intrinsically j wrong with th is procedure, assumptions drawn from i t can be misleading ; just as with any other type of prejudicial statement.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

Portsmouth resid en ts James Blagdon and John Nelson, for example, both

had estates of about one-hundred fifty pounds. Blagdon*s assets were

tied up in fishing stages and three old houses. Nelson owned some land,

but applied one-sixth of his estate toward a gaudy wardrobe. While in

the same wealth "bracket" these two showed, in the use of their

available means, radically different priorities in their lives. In •

comparison and c o n tra st, John Pickering had an e sta te ten times larger

than Blagdon although i t was invested in e s se n tia lly the same way. Can

we infer that these two men were dissimilar on the basis of total wealth

when they so clearly shared the same material values? While standard

economic classification would have them at segregated by wealth, their

use of funds suggests that they indeed shared many values. The

community apparently thought so, as they both served as selectmen and

filled other important town offices.

Personal decisions about how one uses wealth also creates inequality

in the ultimate distribution of property through testament or

philanthropy.[7] Value attached to material goods often determines

whether someone w ill easily p art with them - surrendering possessions to

family, friends, or government. Of the three, however, the family is

the place where wealth has its most direct effect. Goods and services

have no value except in use, and use is decided upon by an individual

not only for immediate satisfaction, but for that of kin - the

individual's lifetime support system. Types of accrued wealth such as

[7] These are only two of many categories. For an examination of decisions about inequality in general and wealth in particular, see Kenneth E, Boulding, "The Pursuit of Equality," in James D. Smith, ed„, The Personal Distribution of Income and Wealth (New York, 1975), 11-28.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. realty, therefore, are reflections of family expectations. Returning to

our example, the man with land and tools is probably making an

investment not only for himself, but for his children. Their

inheritance would enhance the security of property and a place for

] production. The spendthrift might be using his fancy trappings to gain | j a political appointment. His heirs might then inherit a history of

j their father’s patronage. Clearly two different value systems are being

| reflected, and each has a potentially profound effect on the family

I unit. The children and wives of both will be left with entirely j different inheritances, and from those diverse starts make their own

■j j beginnings - the children to chart the course of their adult lives and j the wives, if surviving, to reap or suffer from their respective ii j legacies. Since total economic growth and inequality rests on the 1 j constant redistribution of wealth, the examination of individual choices

■\ may serve to enlighten those seeking to understand stratification.

Without an understanding of wealth at the level of the individual one

can only capture a static picture of economic life. Recent monographs

on colonial American wealth have produced such snapshots.[8] Using

indices of community net worth and inequality ratios alone, historians

have analysed economic growth and change in its broadest form. While

[8] Jones is a good example, as she used single indices, such as net personal worth and Gini indices as indications of wealth. Gloria Main echoes this sentiment in her review of Jones' largest work; "a single year . . .surely provides an insufficient base for cross-sectional analysis, particularly one that proposes to anchor long-term growth estim ates." Business History Review, LII (1978), 410. For a discussion of the merits and drawbacks of measures of wealth distribution, see Hayward R. Alker and Bruce M. Russet, "Indices for Comparing Inequality," in Richard L. M erritt and Stein Rokkan, ed s., Comparing Nations; The Uses of Qiantitative Data in Cross-National Research (New Haven, 1966), 349-372.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 informative, these reveal little of the human decision-making processes I * that account for base-level historical change. In isolation or t 1 comparison, they cannot aid the researcher in directly deciphering the J | vast array of values, ideals, and possible lifestyles of past

1 communities. i

One way to understand the components of early American wealth is j through an examination of probate records. The continuing debate over

; th use and bias of probate has been a feature of the trend toward

i quantitative studies of social structure over the past two decades. 1 Other sources for dealing with wealth - mortgage values and land

i holdings, for example - have been used, but probate remains central.[9]

I H istorians have also combined probate and tax record data in th e ir

investigation of general social phenomenon such as political

dem ocratization, commerce, poor r e l i e f , and demographic change.[10] Yet

the degree to which probate reflects the demographic and economic range

in a population as well as the scope of personal belongings and credit

arrangements are the two most pressing questions facing those using the

[9 ] See Gloria L. Main, "Probate Records as a Source in Early American History," WQ, 3d Ser., XXXII (1975), 89-99; Main, "The Correction of Biases in Colonial American Probate Records," H istorical Methods Newsletter, VIII (1976), 10-28; Daniel Scott Smith, "Underregistration and Biases in Probate Records; An Analysis of Data from Eighteenth- Century Hinghara, Massachusetts," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXII (1975), 100-110; Carole Shammas, "Constructing Wealth Distribution from Probate Records," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, IX (1978), 297-307; Jones, American Colonial Wealth, I, 3-24.

[10] See James T. Lemon and Gary B. Nash, "The D istribution of Wealth in Eighteenth-Century America: A Century cf Change in Chester County, Pennsylvania, 1693-1802," Journal of Social History, II (1968), 1-24; Gary B. Nash, "Urban Wealth and Poverty in Pre-Revolutionary America," J1H, VI (1976), 545-584; Duane Ball, "Dynamics of Population and Wealth in Eighteenth-Century Chester County, Pennsylvania," JIH, VI (1976), 621-644.

1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. source. Appendix I deals with that issue in detail. A brief outline of

the problem and its implications follows.

■i

The first objection to probate as a class of evidence centers on the

argument that it reflects only the older and wealthier segment of the jI j population.[11] Many historians correctly assume that a highly skewed

| impression of a population would be presented if only probated decedents

j were used to represent its total range and proportion of age and

I economic brackets. While more wealthy people were probated than poor,

i | and more old than young - simply because more property was a t stak e, and i j more old than young died - the main issue is the assumption of a high

I correlation between the two, that is, between age and wealth. That

j assumption, in tu rn , is based upon a se t of assumptions as to economic

and social mobility within the "life-cycle" of individuals. Two

I scholars, Anthony Atkinson and John Brittain, have cogently argued

i against those prevailing notions.[12]

j

j [11] This question is very important for historians and economists ! alike. For a solid discussion see Thomas Mayer, Permanent Income, Wealth and Consumption: A Critique of the Permanent Income Theory, the Life-Cycle Hypothesis, and Related Theories Berkeley, 1972).

[12] Anthony B. Atkinson, The Economics of Inequality (Oxford, 1975); i John A. Brittain, The Inheritance of Economic Status (Washington, D.C., ! 1977); Brittain, Inheritance and the Inequality of Material Wealth (Washington, D.C., 1978). Their assumptions for modeling techniques are sim ilar to those summarized by Mildred Davis in her response to David Gallenson’s article, "Middling People," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXV (1978), 526; (1) devotion of quantification in the handling of data, (2) a belief in the use of hypotheses and frequently in the construction of a model, and (3) an attempt to supplement deficient data by indirect method, with a liberal use of statistical inference, expressed by Robert Fogel, one of the leading proponents, as 'measuring directly what cannot be measured directly.'"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1

10

Brittain focused on the role of inheritance as the prime factor in

continuing present-day economic inequality and questioned whether an

age-wealth association was a "major alternative explanation of the I | inequality of wealth."[13] He suggested that the theory lacked I 1 quantitative significance. Atkinson supported Brittain's argunent using

\ contemporary probate data. He admitted that both modern and past estate

\ data was far from a perfect sample of the total personal assets of a

] community, but he argued that if the age-wealth association was strong,

it meant that "wealth inequality [was] a relatively benign phenomena -

one that does not cause or reflect socio-economic immobility."[14] The

elderly are rich only because they have saved money over long lifetimes.

] The young will likewise be wealthy when old. This, however, discounts

| all notions that economic station might be inherited. Atkinson, j additionally, asked "whether in a world without intergenerational

transfers, the observed degree of inequality could be generated only by

life-cycle behavior."[15] His answer was no. The effects of kinship and

the various personal uses and choices in transmission of assets are

governing forces in determining ones wealth. In sum, these arguments

confirm the conclusions of scholars investigating social mobility - that

one usually ends up where one s ta r ts , be i t on the social and/or

[13] B r itta in , Economic S ta tu s, 51.

[14] Ibid., 52.

[15] Ib id ., 53* See also Atkinson, Economics of In eq u ality , 121-153* 1 His stylized pattern of "wealth transmission" (147) and models of wealth ] transmission under "polar assumptions" (151) may be of interest to those i investigating the effects of types of kinship networks and inheritance j on community wealth. ■)\

j3 i i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1

,1 j 11 ] economic ladder.[ 163

Atkinson and Brittain's arguments against the significance of a

| strict age-wealth association are important in understanding wealth i 1 distribution. While a correlation exists between the two, it develops

i in different ways for each individual. Large amounts of wealth are j • indeed a function of a longer life, but the degree of accumulation is

j implicitly tied to how much one has to start with. That sum is

associated with family and inheritance patterns. These elements are all ■j inextricably linked. What fathers had and passed on to sons, the j 1 economic realities facing wives, widows, and daughters in the light of i | th e ir tra d itio n a l dependence - a ll these formed the clim ate within which

I the c r itic a l economic choices were made, and th is underlay the

j development of Portsmouth's economy.

The second general argument against the use of probate is that the

records do not show the full range of personalty (personal belongings)

and realty (land). The objections have regional and procedural roots.

In the first case, historians of the southern colonies are at a

disadvantage. Land was not inventoried due to English practices

dictating separate domains of church and state.[17] Alice Hanson Jones,

[16] Otis Dudley Duncan and Peter M. Blau, The American Occupational Structure (New York, 1967); Otis Dudley Duncan, David L. Featherman, and Beverly Duncan, Socioeconomic Background and Achievement (New York, 1972); Stephan Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress; Social Mobility in a Nineteenth-Century City (Cambridge, Mass., 1964); Thernstrom, The Other i Bostonians: Poverty and Progress in the American M etropolis, 1880-1970 (Cambridge, Mass., 1973); Edward Pessen, ed., Three Centuries of Social M obility in America (Lexington, Mass., 1974).

] [17] See George Haskins, "The Beginnings of P artib le Inheritance in the j American Colonies," in David H. Flaherty, ed., Essays in the History of ' Early American Law (Chapel H ill, 1969), 204-244.

j i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I for example, was forced to turn to wills, tax lists, genealogies, deeds, I conveyances, and estate sales to estimate the full range of individual I wealth in her study of southern and middle colony wealth in American j Colonial Wealth.[183 In New England, however, land and personalty were

] inventoried jointly. New England historians use sources similar to j ,1 j Jones* more for validation of the probate inventory rather than as

| primary evidence. One problem all share, however, is ascertaining the

( credits due from and debts owed to an estate. That information is not | | readily available anywhere. To find it, one must dissect account?, of i I administrations or, for estates without administrations, use regression

I to estimate credits and debits.[19]

1 1 Probate records range from wills through testimony as to the

soundness of a person's mind when drawing up the will, inventories, and •i I creditor's account statements, to final administrations. Aside from

"hard" data, the records reveal bits and pieces of the human condition.

In his role as probate judge, Samuel Sewall had a problem with one man

who arrived one day to prove a will: "[He] held up his Left Hand; I bid

him hold up his Right Hand: He told me he had none."[20] Portsmouth

resident Abigail Rousby's greed became apparent when, a fte r demanding

[18] Jones, American Colonial Wealth, I, 1-37.

[19] Ibid., Ill, 1756-1759. Jones noted that the "failure to find estate accounts or list of debts for many sample cases was the cause of an important data gap on financial l i a b i l i t i e s . They were lacking for nearly half in New England, over half in the Middle Colonies, over a third in Maryland, six-sevenths in North Carolina and all but one in South Carolina." (I, 22).

[20] M. Halsey Thomas, ed., The Diary of Samuel Sewall II (New York, 1973), 1890.

i I i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that a decedent's estate pay her twenty-one pounds for services

rendered, she balked when asked to take an oath to the truth of the

claim. Finally, according to the court record she relented and said

"she would be content to take six pounds for the whole: if that might

be allowed."[21] The love Bridget Graffort had for her friend Samuel

Keais, and the distrust she had for her brother William Vaughan, can be

inferred from testimony about the state of her mind when she drew up her

will - a will in which she named Keais executor, left him property and

some sentimental items, all of which her brother thought were rightfully

his. Witnesses to the signing recounted the deathbed session when Keais

pleaded with Bridget to leave him out of the will, to put in her

brother, and how she stubbornly refused to change her mind. Other

records show that her brother, upon losing in an insanity appeal,

unsuccessfully took the matter to the regional court in Boston.[22] Such

qualitative information lends a gentle, human touch to the quantitative

data drawn from these records. Those hard fa c ts , however, must be

gathered from a variety of probate records, and the richness of the

source varies substantially from individual to individual.

Probating an estate was a process subject to the whims of court,

creditors, and kin. It might never occur. It could take two hours to

complete. It could be lengthy, confusing, and expensive. Witness widow

Elizabeth Fabin's bewilderment:

I was Informed th at Capt Tho: Packer was impowered to take the probat of wills but before I did aply my selff to him I went to my

[21] PPR IV, 111.

[22] PPR IV, 19-21.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. &

14

nabor Fickerins [and] had descors with him[.] [H]ee told mee he beleved the probat of my husbands will would Cost me twenty shilens Iff not more: so I went to Capt Packer to have my husbands will proved but could not have it don under three pounds[.] I told him I had not the money about mee & that I thought it was very hard but it availed nothing for said Lefft. Radford wee must have so much forty shillens Capt Packer must have & twenty shillend I must have which I was forced to pay them[.] Afterwards I told my nabor Pickerin of it & he said he never knew such fees before & that he would inform the governoer & Councill of it & he ded believe I should be Righted in that matter. [233

Additionally, no one document associated with the process revealed the

| full range of a person's wealth. An examination of the probate of one J e s ta te , th a t of Portsmouth merchant George W allis, shows the possible

complexities. Son of a gentleman of the same name, Wallis was raised

just south of town and lived the greater part of his life in the

Strawbery Banke area and Newcastle. He received all of his father's

estate in 1685. 183 pounds, and the inventory of his estate in 1720

showed a pre-administration net worth of 279 pounds 7 shillings. After

a series of legal hearings involving fees and funds subtracted for the

family, the estate was worth 190 pounds. Administrator Nathaniel Berry

- he was Wallis' son-in-law - gave an estate accounting.

A series of charges against and debts due the estate were entered in

the court record of September 12, 1726. F ir s t, two c re d its were added

to the total for wintering a cow and selling six barrels of cider, 4.1.1

li. Second, six creditor's accounts were subtracted, amounting to

36.3*8 li. Included were visit-by-visit accounts of Wallis' tab at the

tavern and dry goods shop. Third, the homestead was sold for forty

j [233 Albert Stillman Batchellor, ed., Probate Records of the Province j of New Hampshire, (Documents and Records Relating to the Province [1623-1800] [40 v o ls., 1867-19433, XXXI, 382.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

pounds more than its appraisal value, a sum added to the assets. Next,

Berry's payment for services in settling the estate were itemized.

Although this sum, 118.17.19 li., was deducted from the estate value, it

did not decrease the estate worth for purposes of our calculations.

Items in this category included Berry's time in writing and posting

notifications, warning Wallis' children to appear in court, three days

spent haggling over details with the probate judge, money paid a friend

traveling "to endeavour an agreement among the dec'd children," two days

determining and posting bonds, and paying Walli3 ' widow and children

their estate portions. Last, Berry attended to unclassifiable details;

land appraised but unsold was revalued, and Wallis' handicapped and only

son was awarded a lifetime stipend and provided with bedding. This

amounted to 14.1.6 l i . Total assets remaining to the son were 190.8.9 -

about the same as his father, although when inflation was taken into

account it represented far less in buying power.[24]

[24] Charles Libby, Sybil Noyes, and Walter Goodwin Davis, Genealogical D ictionary of Mains and New Hampshire (Baltim ore, 1977 [o rig . publ. in five parts, Portland, Me., 1928—19393)• 715. Wallis was one of the availability sample including all extant probate inventories from Portsmouth, Newcastle, and the Isles of Shoals. Manuscript sources for information were the New Hampshire Provincial Probate Records, I, 1655-1698; II, 1692-1698; IV, 1699-1701; VI, 1700-1714; VII, 1700-1729; VIII, 1715-1725; IX, 1716-1718; X, 1718-1727; XII, 1729-1745; XIII, 1731-1733; XIV, 1733-1737; XV, 1738-1746; XVI, 1746-1758; XVIII, 1746-1750, all located in the New Hampshire State Archives, Concord. Printed abstracts of some of the records are available in Albert Stillman Batchellor, ed., Probate Records of the Province of New Hampshire, (Documents and Records Relating to the Province [1623-1800] [40 v o ls ., 1867-1943]) XXXI, 1635-1717 (Concord, 1907), and Henry Harrison Metcalf and Otis Grant Hammond, eds., Probate Records of the Province of New Hampshire, (Documents and Records Relating to the Province [1623-1800] [40 v o ls., 1867-19433) XXXII, 1718-1740 (B risto l, N.H., 1914). The former volume will be hereafter cited as PRPNH I; the latter as PRPNH II. The manuscripts, hereafter cited as PPR, are unordered and have an unreliable index at the Archives. Loosely classified by date and often containing duplicates of docunents scattered throughout the pages, these records must be scoured

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

Wallis' estate account revealed assets not included in his inventory

as well as debts he owed. These semi-hidden c re d its and debits ra ise

problems for the historian trying to assign a valid nunerical total to

any estate. One is faced with decisions: Should only the recorded

total inventory worth be used to define the estate value, or should this

figure be adjusted to take into account some or all estate deductions?

Should all credits and debits be figured into the estate worth,

including property sold to settle debts - a step that would make many

estates appear as if they did not have any land, while in life the

deceased did own some. Should the widow's third or bequests to kin and

others be accounted for, thereby theoretically lowering the paper worth

even more? To resolve th is dilemma and to gain a knowledge both of

those material objects and land which were in a decedent's possessions

and how much of the total worth of these objects actually belonged to

the owner free and clear, two sets of observations were gathered for

each subject: net worth before administration, and again after

administration (estimated if no administration was done) but without

family and legal expenses deducted. Since the study's goal is to

determine the wealth of the living through extrapolation from estates

inventoried at death, we could not include charges and inheritances due

at death because they would not be a part of a normal life.

The net worth of each individual and his belongings were tabulated.

meticulously for information about any one individual. For instance, in Wallis' case, data was found in three volunes in seven locations. The abstracts are helpful where the scrawled manuscript is illegible, but due to poor interpretation of the original record, scanty and incomplete reading, missinformation, and failure to cite sources, the two volumes may be misleading.

3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. \ Net worth equalled the sum of all personalty and realty in the inventory

| in addition to any assets included in supplemental lists of goods I 1 3 submitted to the court at a later date, plus the sum of credits due the 1 I estate, minus the sum of outstanding debts. Those credits and debts /; J were often revealed in administrations; if an estate was not .-"5 1 administered or the administration is not extant, the sums were .1 I estimated by regression. The variables influencing that regression

j formula are explained in Appendix I. In sh o rt, I accepted a deduction

\ or addition to the estate as legitimate if the court did and if it

| pertained to living, not death expenses. The net worth was then

] weighted to account for the age of the decedent and the year in which it

j was set to adjust for age and inflation biases, procedures also detailed

in Appendix I. To evaluate the range and v a rie ty of personalty and i ; realty I devised a coding scheme, described and detailed in full in j i Appendix II, th a t was used to record each and every item in each • I decedent's inventory. Consequently, for each estate I had both a

listing of what was owned at the time of death, and how much that

represented in current and deflated currency after all life-related

financial obligations had been met. These two parts of an individual's

' wealth "p o rtfo lio " were then combined to evaluate each e s ta te . Since we

have examined George W allis' fin an cial s ta te , l e t us return to him to

see how his inventoried possessions help illuminate lifestyle.

A listing of Wallis' belongings and the financial proportion of his

! estate dedicated to each item reveal more of his lifestyle than is

apparent in simply evaluating his net worth. It shows not only what he

i thought important but also gives us clues as to his childrens’ possible ij ] directions in life. Realty was his largest investment. Two hundred I j

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I thirty-nine pounds, 89% of his holdings, were in salt meadow - necessary

I for feeding livestock - a house, pasture, orchards, and common land.

J| His next largest investment was in livestock, 18li.. in three cows and i 3 two yearlings and representing 6 S of his inventoried wealth. The i | remainder consisted of an assortment of furniture, household implements, ! ; pewter, farm tools, and a bible.[25] He apparently inherited most of the

land except that gained through a division of common lands.[26] His f debts with shopkeepers show items Wallis though necessary for the

j comfortable life - yards of osenbrig for clothing, thread, great

quantities of tobacco and rum, allspice, gingerbread, an occasional pot. ..'i { As we shall see, Wallis' wife did not raise sheep for wool, nor did she

j spin cloth. Both types of industry were highly specialized and confined

■j to a few families in Portsmouth. Wallis' only major credit extension a ] was in a ship mortgage. He was among the ranks of small, secondary ship 'i owners with one trading vessel. The ship was a risk that hinted at his

aspirations - possibly to provide for his daughters though his sons-in-

law, possibly an attempt to imitate acquaintances whom he had seen grow

prosperous with wise investments in the maritime industry. The absence

of any mention of cash and silver plate in the inventory, items usually

singled out by appraisers for special note since they were major sources

of funding and a physical reminder of savings, profits, and perceived

[25] Wallis was rather difficult to interpret, for his accounts were often balanced in exchange of goods, rathe.’ than money. For instance, in 1704, work done for another Portsmouthite was paid for in sixteen pounds of butter and one-hundred six ty -eig h t pounds of pork.

[26] See Gary Thomas Lord, "The P o litic s and Social Structure of Seventeenth-Century Portsmouth, New Hampshire" (unpub. Ph.D. d is s ., University of Virginia, 1976), 291-305 for a discussion of the first d iv isio n s.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j status, indicates that Wallis had little surplus of capital. I •i ] Walli3 lived a modest life. He conducted his business within his ■i I community, was financially-tied to his land and a primary occupation of

\ farmer, although venturesome enough to branch into coastal trading, and

ended up in a slig h tly lower economic notch than the one he had started

out in as a young adult. While his father alternately called himself

"gentleman" and "yeoman," and ended his life in the upper middle ranks

of Portsmouth's economic ladder, Wallis carried the title "Esquire" and

finished lif e one rung below on the same scale. Had his lif e been

longer he might have turned that one-vessel investment into a larger .i j operation, and his title probably came from the perceptions of the

community th at he would have indeed done so. While he did not suffer

j for want during his lifetime, the risk that he took played a part in his

| fam ily's economic downturn a fte r his death. To sa tisfy the debt, his

land was sold and the homestead (which he had mortgaged to the Province)

was the only intact inheritance, used to settle the dower rights of his

widow, and for the protection of his only son, the "idiot" Caleb. Less

than cne-hundred pounds was shared equally among his five daughters, and

both his name and property were lost to future generations. Wallis

shows us one way men used the components of th e ir wealth to improve

their lot; he also shows us how it could be diminished after death

through a combination of debt, absence of a capable male heir, and in

this instance, the equal distribution of assets among a large number of

daughters.

An approach to George Wallis stressing the actual components of his

assets and debts, as opposed to one emphasizing s tr ic t nunerical to ta ls ,

I I J Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 gives us an enriched image of his society. When this approach is

i expanded to include a ll those for whom we have such information in

1 Portsmouth, it allows us to ask questions more informative than those

\ associated with the simple distribution of wealth. For example, we may •I ask what types of land, labor, livestock, household goods, tools, and

i credit arrangements were held by whom and for viiat discernable reasons?

] Were there discrete patterns of property ownership present among some

wealth groups and not in others? Were there any changes over time?

What were the effects insolvency or near bankruptcy on future

j generations? Was there any social and/or economic mobility? The

approach also allows us to infer value systems by observing the end-

product of choices made as to material possessions, and establish a

| universe of possible life s ty le s , one prescribed by the goods and

j services available. The foundations of stratification in any society

are extremely complex, and this approach is one way to analyse the

social and economic interactions that advance inter and intra-

generational inequalities.[27]

George Wallis' estate is only one of the 251 extant probate

inventories from the Portsmouth area available from 1680 to 17*10. Two-

hundred thirty-four of these inventories constitute the analytical base

of the study. Sixteen of the 251 are female and were not not included

[27] See Joan Huber and William H. Form, Income and Ideology: An Analysis of the American P olitical Formula (New York, 1973)• 17. through an understanding of the values and ideologies of each sub­ community within larger society, we may come to an evaluation of the process of economic s tra tific a tio n within the whole community. I believe that the "social created arrangements" that maintain inequality are both a function and a cause of inequality (in a cyclical manner) rather than an outcome of a "free economic order."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in the bulk of this study because their number was too small to bear the

burden of a significant statistical analysis. One male estate was

inventoried without values. Without any recorded net worth, and despite

the fact that it provided excellent detail on goods, it had to be

excluded from the sample, leaving 234 male inventories to form the basis

of the study. Since the population in the area nunbered in the

thousands over the period, these inventories do not represent all the

possible estates of deceased men from 1680 to 1740. But they form what

is termed an "availability" sample - that is, all records of an event

(in this case, inventoried male estates) that currently exist. Appendix

I describes in detail how the information from these estates and about

these men was adjusted to reflect the living population. The general

socio-econctnic information in the following pages describes that living

population, as do the descriptive statistics derived from the

examination of the goods and services noted in the estates of the 234.

These extant inventories are the only semi-standardized household,

business, and realty records classified by individual.[28]

The word "standardized" does not mean that the same appraisers used

the same format to record probate information in each case, but rather

[28] The 23** does not include all men dying during the period, nor all those living in the period. The living population from 1680 to 1740 probably nunbered a few thousand, but only 454 individuals had estates mentioned in probate for a variety of reasons. Using rough estimates of deaths per decade, based on lists of polls and estates, I estimate the probated population was about one-third the 3ize of the death population during the period on the whole. Our probate group was an availability sample. All extant male inventoried estates were included in our analysis. See David E. Van Deventer, The Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire (Baltimore, 1976), 194. 197-198, 200 for inventories of polls and estates and published records. See also, Lord, "Politics and Social Structure," 283.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

that different sets of men followed similar informal rules each time

they viewed an e s ta te . Some appraisers were much more precise than

others, noting, for example, in the estate of William Buttons, four

inches of run in a hogshead and one-half poind of bread. Other

appraisers were vague, recording "one schooner" instead of detailing its

rigging, nunber of cables, anchors, boats, and cargo. Some inventories

had to be pieced together from addenduns submitted over many years. But

a ll the data point clearly to th at which in te re sts us - what a person

owned at the time of his death.

The range in ages at death among the sample was broad, as seen in

Table 1.1. And, distribution of the inventories over the period was

Table 1.1

Age at Death: Inventoried Male Decedents Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-17^3

Ages Number

20-29 18 30-39 *»3 40-49 50 50-59 54 60-99 60 Unk. 9

Total 2 p

widespread, as seen in Table 1.2. A few inventories were completed

after 1740, but they were included in the study because the individuals

died within the period of study. Only the slowness of the probate

process precluded the completion of the probate procedure before 1740.

Although probate law stated that estates were to be brought to court

within thirty days of death, the actual process of administration could

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

Table 1.2

Dates of Inventories: Inventoried Hale Decedents Portsmouth, N.H., i680-1743

Year Number Percentage

1680-89 23 9.8 1690-99 27 11.6 1700-09 24 10.3 1710-19 42 17.9 1720-29 53 22.6 1730-40 65 27.8

Total 234 100.0

be drawn out.[29] That procedure is discussed in Qiapter Six. The main

reasons for delays in administration were the use of estate funds to

raise children to the age of seven, the tedious process of gathering

documentation froo all creditors and debtors, and the settling of those

accounts.

Not all estates were fully probated. Making an inventory apparently

was a personal choice in some cases and an economic one in others. The

court or family could choose to inventory to assure that all survivors

received their correct portions of an estate; one would have no choice

i f creditors were demanding th eir due and items had to be sold to meet

payments. In cases where the choice wa3 s tr ic tly personal, where

creditors were not pounding on the doors, why families chose to

inventory solvent estates is still undeterminable. In those instances,

probate was a private matter of public record. In the other case, where

debt forced inventorying, we can imagine that the nunber of creditors

[293 See Elwin L. Page, Judicial Beginnings in New Hampshire, 1640-1700 (Concord, N.H., 1959), 152-161.

j

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was closely related to whether an inventory was made. There probably

also was an association between inventories and family disputes over

property. However, exceptions exist. In Portsmouth we know that a

nunber of the most well-to-do merchants' estates were not probated, and,

at the other end of the scale, we have quite a few inventories of

v irtu a lly penniless men. The absence of those who were most likely to

have large and contested estates and the presence of those who had

nothing to give, lend, or argue over, is mildly baffling when one tries

to pin down exactly why estates were inventoried. However, this fact

also lends this study a special flavor - an "ordinary" outlook on past

l i f e . Because the often-studied e lite are so poorly represented in

Portsmouth probate, th eir grand wealth can not and does not overpower

the analysis of the wealth and material culture of the ordinary folk who

were in the majority of the population. But since with both "sorts" of

people - those whose granduer has overvhelmed our interpretation of the

past, and those who lived meaner but just as or more meaningful lives -

we cannot, with confidence, determine why probate occurred, we must

discover who was actually probated and adjust our’ information to reflect

th at bias.

Care has been taken to adjust for the gaps in the Portsmouth records.

The methodology is explained in Appendix I. However, the weights

derived to accommodate the bias in Portsmouth are likely to be different

from those determined for other locales using the same methods. We can

only hope that such procedures and data will be gathered for a large

nunber of specific locations so that a more substantial and accurate

picture of early American wealth may emerge in the forseeable future.

On the whole, researchers suggest that between forty and sixty percent

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission I of any given early American population did not have an inventoried

I estate, an estimate close to the Portsmouth situation. But for those j ] who were inventoried, we have a wealth of information about one point in

j their lives.

To start our investigation, each decedent was placed in one of five

economic groups. These groupings are not meant to re fle c t individual's

preference or choice in material possessions. They merely represent the

range in adjusted net worth of the Portsmouth population. As outlined

in Appendix I, the adjusted net worth of each inventoried male can be

placed into one of five groups, each group being named for easy

Table 1.3

Wealth Groups: Inventoried Male Decedents Based on Adjusted Net Worth Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^3

Q-oup Number Range

Poor 84 0 .0 - 25.0 Low Middle 46 25. 1 - 75.0 Middle Middle 37 75.1 - 150.0 High Middle 52 150.0 - 500.0 E lite 15 500.1 - 2000.0

reference. Table 1.3 shows the range and nunbers. This frequency is

significant because it outlines and loosely defines how much people had

to work with and tells us, for instance, that not everyone could have

had a grand mansion. It cannot tell us, however, whether a person in

the grand mansions had the same taste in possessions as did a person in

a smaller home. Graph 1.1 shows the distribution of wealth over time in

the form of a Lorenz curve, a curve that graphically displays the Gini

index. This index shows that the inflation-adjusted and age-weighted

wealth distribution in Portsmouth did not change significantly over time

i \ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

Graph 1.1

Total Adjusted Wealth Distribution Portsmouth, N.H. 1680-1740 1680—1699(—) Gini=.641 1700—1719(— ) Gini=.622 1 72 0 -1 740(_____ ) Gini=.687

i oo

P e r c e n t

0 f

V a 1 u e

0 100

Percent of Population

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

although the gap between being "poor” and being "rich" was sig n ifican t.

It provides a general framework in which to evaluate the d ifferen t

strata or layers of Portsmouth society.

The use of the word "group” to describe the different levels of net

wealth is chosen with care. Many studies use the word "class" but that

word carries an historical burden of misuse and brings to mind images of

s tr i c t economic and ideological boundaries, notions which I do not want

to convey. Instead, the groups are a beginning to understanding the

"layered" nature of Portsmouth. The use of the concept of "layers"

brings three ideas together: a layer is a part of a whole and cannot

exist without other layers; a layer has origins in a biological sense -

as a membrane in a living creature very much as types of economic groups

are part and parcel of a whole economy; and layers are hierarchial - one

atop another. The layers used as a rough guide and referred to

periodically throughout this study were chosen by inventoried wealth,

one of the few tangible dissecting tools available for economic studies.

In a sense, they are used to probe the components of personal wealth -

material possessions - the combined value of which constitutes wealth

totals. In the following chapters, those goods and services will be

analysed and discussed within and between the layered groups.

The external structure of the study reflects this aim to work from

the general structure of the society toward the particulars of the inner

workings and individuals. Chapter IWo outlines Portsmouth's history and

natural resources, forces that shaped the economy and society. Chapter

Three explores finance, inflation, and the way they worked together to

influence how and why Portsmouthites conducted business. Chapter Four

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. describes the ownership and uses of land, as well as the impact it had

on individuals. Chapter Five discusses property in and about the home,

the intermingling of the domestic and workaday worlds seen in

personalty. Chapter Six analyses the situation of women in particular

and families in general in isolation - a combination of how their live3

were economically regulated by th eir dependent economic statu s and what

their circunstances were after husbands died. Appendix I details the

methodological historiography and the procedures used to evaluate

wealth. Appendix II is the codebook used to gather machine-readable

data.

Since I cannot convey the true fullness and breadth of personal

wealth and material culta-e in Portsmouth in the following pages, I must

turn to what Cary Carson c a lls the "rule of the le a st and the best."

Carson has noted the enormity o f most h isto rical subjects and the

im possiblity of gathering and relaying a ll data germane to any study. Wc

must collect and present, he argues, the "least amount of best

information needed to solve" any given problem. In an attempt to follow

that lead, I have selected only a few topics out of the available

universe of subjects that could be part of this study, and used hard

data, statistics, tables, and graphs to illustrate the text. That

"hard" information can never replace or supplant the "soft," more human,

s to rie s, ta le s , and sketches of real life in Portsmouth a few hundred

years ago. It only serves to condense it in an effort to enrich the

ever-growing body of information on personal wealth in early America.

< j j Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I I

THE NATURAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF PORTSMOUTH

All inhabitants of Portsmouth shared the same physical world, and the

shape and natural resources of that world both circunscribed their

activities and dictated the form of their economy. Additionally,

whether or not they were politically active, most residents were

affected in some way by periodic dissensions arising between 1679 and

17M0. These two elements of Portsmouth's environment - the strong

influence of the Atlantic Ocean and the Piscataqua River on the one hand

and debates over property ownership and political rule on the other -

formed the backdrop against which the everyday drama of lif e was played.

Foremost in influencing people's lives was Portsmouth's geographical

setting. Water wa3 the area's hallmark - the Piscataqua and the

Atlantic. The Piscataqua was a communications and trade link inward,

connecting Portsmouth with the upstream communities of Dover, Durham,

Newmarket, South Berwick, and Exeter. The Atlantic was Portsmouth's

connection outward, northward to the rich fishing grounds in the Gulf of

Maine, southward to the port of Boston and beyond, east and northeast to

.England and i ts West Country from which most of Portsmouth's residents

had immigrated.

Seven tiny, rocky islands located seven miles offshore and known

collectively as the Isles of Shoals guarded Portsmouth's harbor. First

29

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 30 I charted by John Smith and dubbed "Smith's Isle s," they were the home of | | a permanent population from the early seventeenth century.[1] The

islands' size and natural resources necessarily limited their usefulness

but to an extent they were used as a base for fishing and trade by

mariners from all parts of the Atlantic. Most had neither fresh water

nor arable land. Some disappeared entirely under the high tide, being

less than nine feet in elevation. Ranging from a few hundred to a few

thousand square feet in area, depending on the turn of the tide, the

chain stretched north and south for three raile 3 .[2 ] At the northern end

lay Duck Island, surrounded by shoals. A mile south were Hog,

Smuttynose, Cedar, and Star Islands, all inhabitable, clustered in half­

moon shape to form a cove facing the mainland. At the far tip were

Lunging and White Island, both l i t t l e more than rocks.

Despite their barreness and isolation, these islands attracted many

fishermen because of their sheltered harbor, available locations for

fishing stages, and dry areas for fish flakes. The water's depth in the

harbor area ranged between four and eighteen feet at mean low water but

most of the islands offered one or two points for the safe inshore

mooring of smaller ships. Those not fortunate enough to get such

convenient mooring could anchor safely within shouting distance of

almost any shore on all but stormy days. Snail vessels like the shallop

[1] William G. Saltonstall, Port3 of Piscataqua, (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), 4; John Smith, The General H lstorie of V irginia, New-England, and the Summer Isles (London, 1632), 205-214.

[2] For excellent maps of the Isles, as well as good narrative, see John Scribner Jenness, The Isles of Shoals: An Historic Sketch (Hanover, N.H., 1975 [orig. publ. New York, 1875]).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

were frequent sights at these moorings. The shallop was a sometime

open, sometime partly decked-over, broad-beamed boat equipped with oars

and usually one or more masts and sails that propelled them on coastal

voyages.[3 ] When shallops and other boats of their class were loaded

with their catch they rode low in the water and put a strain on

moorings. Consequently, moorings had to be very secure, anchors heavy,

and rodes or cables long,, In the late seventeenth century, anchors and

rodes cost in all between five and ten pounds while a small shallop

could cost between eight and fifteen pounds.[4] This equipment was a

large investment for all but the very well-to-do, as were the fishing

stages that dotted the islands.

Stages were wooden platforms, anchored or secured to rocks at the

tideline, and projecting out over the water. The catch of fish was

unloaded at one end and prepared - the fish s p lit and sometimes salted -

at the other. The fish were then transferred to drying racks or stakes,

called fish flakes, located on higher ground.[ 5 ] Since most of the catch

was sold abroad, it could not be shipped unless dried. The weight of

wet fish and their rapid decay made drying and salting necessary unless

they were to be eaten immediately. However, the barometric environment

of the Isles was perfect for quick drying. Constant winds combined with

[3 ] Description of the Isles and th e ir fish eries may be found in Harold Innis, The Cod Fisheries (Toronto, 1954); Raymond McFarland, A History of the New England Fisheries (New York, 1911); Charles B. Judah, J r ., The North American Fisheries and British Policy to 1713. Illin o is Studies in the Social Sciences, XVIII Urbana, 1933).

[4] PPR I. 342-343; PPR IX, 170; PPR X, 95.

[5] Jenness, Isles of Shoals, 51, 88, 189.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

relatively low humidity were the key to the success of the Isles

operations.[6 ] Given the paucity of available land on the islands and

the trouble of setting up flakes on the uneven, partially bouldered and

solid rock surfaces, the proprietors of these small but prosperous

"plants" had secure financial investments. The value of these

structures reflected their commercial worth. For example, an assortment

of anchors, moorings, and a stage constituted one-third the value of

Eleanor Wilcomb's three-hundred pound estate in 1700.[7] John Frost had

one-third of his assets tied up in "a fishing shallop[,] part of a

mooring Cable & Stage anchors & other things belonging to the

fish e ry ."[83 When Thomas Diamond died in 1709, records show that he had

invested almost two hundred pounds in flake rooms, moorings, warehouses,

and stages. The importance he attached to this property was clear. In

his will he bequeathed cash to most family members, including his wife,

and dictated that any property except the Shoals fishing compound be

sold if necessary. To his only two direct male heirs, his grandsons, he

left the fishery. That, he thought, was sufficient.[ 9]

The f i 3h that were the raw m aterial for these operations were in

abundance in the cold waters of t-he North Atlantic. Aside from the

small coastal fleets, many fishermen directed their schooners to the

Grand Banks off Newfoundland at le a st three times a year. The small

[6 ] Ib id ., 5.

[73 PPR IV, 124—125.

[83 PPR X, 95-95.

[93 PPR IV, 381-384.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

crews of up to ten hands could expect to net, split, salt, and stow

about five to six hundred quintals of fish per trip - about fifty to

seventy thousand pounds.[lO] In the spring and summer part of the catch

would be haddock, hake, and pollock - all chunky white fish often

grouped as "scale fish."[11] The oily and darker-fleshed mackeral was

also a frequent ocean catch, though in the summer they would move to the

warmer shoals ju st offshore to spawn. The prize catch, however, was

cod. They grew to three feet in length and could weigh up to f if ty

pounds. No part of the fish was wasted in processing. Heads were used

for pig swill, tongues pickled as a delicacy, and the oil sieved from

boiling the cod liv e rs was used in tanning lea th er. Although cod could

be caught during all seasons, those netted in late winter or early

spring were considered prime. The corpulent Jeremy Belknap, whose

appetite for chronicling New Hampshire history was exceeded only by his

craving for food, wrote of cod preparation:

The first, or spring fare, produces a large thick fish, which after being properly salted and dried, is kept alternately above and under ground, t i l l i t become so mellow as to denominated dunb fish . This fish, when boiled, is red, and is eaten generally on Saturday, at the best tables in New England.[12]

The price and potential markets for cod caught in the summer and

autumn were dictated by physical condition. Those white, th in , and less

firm were called "marchantable" cod and sent primaril; to Catholic

[10] Gary T. Lord, ed., Belknap's New Hampshire: An Account of the State in 1792 (Hampton,N.H., 1973). 158.

[11] Ib id ., 130-131.

[12] Ibid., 158.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. European markets. The "sm allest, th in est, and most broken" fish went to

the West Indies where they were a healthy portion of the sugar

plantation slaves’ diet. In the early eighteenth century, when pollock

and scale fish brought between eight and twelve shillings per quintal,

and "refuse" or "Jamaica" cod were sold for ten to fifteen shillings,

the finer cod could sell for up to twenty-two shillings a quintal.[ 13]

Fish were an integral part of Portsmouth’s Atlantic trade. One local

merchant reminded an English business acquaintance of this in 1719 :

I need not Inform your Lordship That the Cod fish Caught A dried here is the Principal Branch of the Returns made from the Continent to Great Britain by the way of Spain, Portugall, and the Streights, etc., for the Great Quantities of woollen and all kinds of Manufacture with which they are Supplyeu from Thence. And Qjr Scale fish and Machrel are of a Like Consequence unto Great B rittain , because the Plantations in the Sugar Islands, whose whole Dependence is On th eir Negro's, Are Supplyed with th is fish , and Can’t Subsist without them.[14]

Given the demand for Isles-processed fish, and the limited geographical

area in which to array the equipment needed for production, the Isles

held a unique position in the Portsmouth economy. They were small and

isolated, but their part in trade was just the opposite.

Both geography and politics influenced the size and distribution of

the population of the Isles. In 1661 the combined population reached

six-hundred. On the two most northerly and populated islands,

Smuttynose and Hog, one could find a few taverns, a court house, and a

[13] PPR. VI, 383; PPR, I, 373; PPR, IV, 125.

[14] Documentary History of the State of Maine: The Trelawny Papers (Maine Historical Society, Collections, [1831-1906]), III, 410-411.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 35 church, in addition to a few grazing animals.[15] At this time,

Smuttynose was the most attractive island to settlers, given a good

supply of fresh water and patches of grassy turf. But in the 1670's the

population began to migrate to the southern islands, with a

concentration on Star Island. The motivation was political. Although

the islands had joined Portsmouth politically in 1672, in 1679 New

Hampshire separated from Massachusetts and the islands were divided

between the two governments. The northern islands fell to

Massachusetts, the southern went to New Hampshire. Faced with a choice

between governments, many islanders opted to move southward and maintain

their allegiance to Portsmouth.[16] The Cutt family exemplifies. Of the

three brothers who originally operated an Isles fishery, at least two

went on to settle eventually in Portsmouth and become active in politics

and trade partnerships, all the while keeping their offshore business in

the black.[17]

Despite prospects for good business, the fisheries were vulnerable to

attack during years of war, and consequently had uneven economic growth.

Before King Phillip's War, business flourished. But beginning in the

late 1670's, apprehension grew because islanders feared attack from the

warlike Abanaki Indians - a non-aligned tribe holding a deadly grudge

[15] Jenness, Isles of Shoals, 82.

[16] Ibid., 105.

[17] Ibid., 86-87; Byron Fairchild, Messrs. William Pepperrell: Merchants at Piscataqua (Ithaca, 1954), 9; Charles W. Brewster, Rambles About Portsmouth (Portsmouth, N.H., 1859-1869). First ser., 30-38.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. against any English in tru d e rs.[18] By 1682, Lieutenant Governor

Cranfield mourned the grim economic outlook for the area - "no fishery

nor tim ber." In 1700, Governor Bellomont echoed those same

thoughts.[19]

The undercurrent of danger kept the population small and relatively

poor until well into the eighteenth century. In 1721 Richard Yeaton

petitioned against increased taxes, citing the fact that those choosing

to "live on a Rock in the Sea" were "few in nunber and most of them

[were] men of no substance [who] live only by their daily fishing, and

near one third of them are single men and threaten to leave us .

which will prove our utter ruin."[20] Desite these dour warnings, some

fishermen were making money. Exports leaped from over 2,000 quintal in

1695 to nearly 9,000 in 1718. Dipping slightly for five years, levels

soon recovered. In 1725 and 1727 respectively, 8,810 and 8,165 quintals

were shipped out. By 1742, however, exports decreased again as fishing

operations shifted further up the Maine coast and danger loomed from the

threat brought on by the newly constructed French fort at

Louisburg.[21] Despite th is uneven economic record, the Isles remained

vital to Portsmouth's trade.

[18] For a description of the Abnaki and other New England tribes, see Alden T. Vaughan, New England F ro n tier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675 (Boston, 1965), especially 51-52, 94-98, 314.

[19] David Van Deventer, The Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 1623-1741 (Baltimore, 1976), 90.

[20] Richard Yeaton to Samuel Shute, April 22, 1721, Jenness, Isles of Shoal, 208.

[21] Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 91-93.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Portsmouth proper was located three miles from the mouth of the

Piscataqua River. From the ocean one travelled through the lower

harbor, noted for treacherous undertows, many small islands, and dotted

with moored vessels crowded in the limited area about the town

proper.[22] From its mouth, the river stretched northwesterly, past

Great Island-, or Newcastle as it came to be known. Beginning in the

late 1670's, every coastal vessel entering the harbour had to pay one

shilling to the captain of the small harbor fort on the northeast tip of

the islan d , recompense for the constant v ig il he and his gunners

maintained against pirates.[23] Smaller craft could avoid the fee by

veering to the south of Newcastle, but given the dangerous currents and

many small islands in the channel it could be a foolish move. Newcastle

itself was about one mile in length from north to south, and half as

wide. Its northern end was best suited for settlement; the rest of the

island was marked with bogs, marshes, and damp lowland. It was

relatively flat except for a few small rises in the northwest corner,

the area from which bridges were built over a few smaller islands to

connect the island with Portsmouth's southeast corner. To the north,

across the Piscataqua, lay Kittery Point, Maine and Pepperrell Cove. To

the northwest a few hundred yards was Seavey's Island, about half the

size of Newcastle and the site of many shipyards. Pierce's and Badger's

Islands lay between Seavey's and Portsmouth, and marked the ends of the

broad expanse designated as the harbor area.

[22] George S. Wasson, Sailing Days on the Penobscot (New York), 1932), 168-169.

[23] Saltonstall, Ports of Piscataqua, 21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

Off Portsmouth proper the breadth of the riv er was large enough to

accommodate the turning of any sized vessel making for a mooring or

wharf. On any given day a visitor to the docks could expect to see a

variety of boats or ships. Most common would be the small dories used

for shuttling passengers up and down the river, or across to the Maine

shore. Next in number would probably be gundalows, the odd, near-

flatbottomed, broad-beamed, single-masted craft used for hauling wood

and supplies on both the river and between the Isles of Shoals and the

shore. Finally, the visitor's attention would be drawn to the larger

and more impressive ships used for coastal runs - to Boston,

Newburyport, or Salem - and transatlantic voyages. A few might be seen

in partial stages of completion in the shipyards of the Cutts or Diamond

families across the river in Kittery; a few probably rocked gently at

th e ir berths on either side of the riv e r. They ranged between the

largest schooners - two-hundred fifty feet long, double and triple

masted, five-hundred ton in weight - through square-rigged barks and two

to four-hundred ton fly-boats and pinks whose high, convex sides had

been adapted from Dutch trading vessels, to the smalles ketches and

sloops, traditionally-rigged and about one-hundred feet in length. One

might have been William Button's Marineman, described as "with masts

yards sayles and all new rigging to fit her for the sea with 3 cables &

one halfer 2 anchors and one hedge anchor[,] 2 boats with sayles and

oars belonging to them and on board of her at present about 600 quintals

of fish."[24]

[24] For description of sailing ships, see G.F. Dow and J. Robinson, Sailing Ships of New England (Salem, 1922). Button's ship was described in his inventory, PPR I, 373-376, and was appraised at 1100li.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

We can sense the rhythm and magnitude of coastal and transatlantic

shipping to and from Portsmouth in the reports of customs officials in

the fall of 1692.[25] Since these officials were concerned only with

taxable or bondable cargoes, we must imagine the flurry of activity from

small boats shuttling around the river th at accompanied the more sedate

comings and goings of the larger ships. Our snapshot begins on what

must have been a busy August the 12th when three flyboats arrived from

London bringing worked goods and d elicacies. The 30Q-*ton America armed

with four guns and manned by a crew of twenty carried goods to embellish

the homes and wardrobes of the populace: wrought pewter, brass and

iron, trunks of wearing apparel, haberdashery, silks, stockings, and

hats. The 250-ton Diligence with its crew of seventeen brought in

personal belonging and bales of linsey-woolsey. The 260-ton Firtree

with its two guns and eighteen men, carried the stuff of every-day

industry: canvas, chain bolts, a furnace, grindstones, a smith’s

bellows, scythes, shovels, saws, iron and cordage. A week late, the

small sloop John and Abigail of Boston left for its home port, carrying

away locally-produced cheese and oil, quintals of fish, and some of the

haberdashery recently arrived from London. Another week passed and the

ketch Elizabeth left for Virginia laden with mackeral, salt, molasses,

rum, and lin en . Two days la te r the coastal sloop Endeavor of Boston

entered with corn, wool, beef, pork, and household goods. Her entry

marked the ex it of the ship Friend1s Adventure bound for the Canary

Islands with fish, oil, and pipestaves. Three days passed before the

[25] New Hampshire Provincial Papers II, 77-85.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

sloop Pelican entered with cloth and household goods.

Within a week and a h a lf, the harbor was busy again. On September

17, three sloops and two ships cleared inward. The smaller vessels

carried hay and an assortment of window glass, bread, and rigging. A

bark and the brigantine arrived fom Barbadoes with rum and sugar. Their

entry preceded those of the brigantine Friendship and the bark Friend's

Increase by a few days. Both also came from Barbadoes; one carried salt

and household goods, the other island rum and sugar. At this point in

time, only two vessels had cleared the harbour in over a month, and at

least twelve large ships lay in port awaiting cargo.

During the next week seven of the ships departed, two locally owned

vessels for Newfoundland, and six sloops for Boston. Between them they

carried away 12,000 white and 6,000 red oak staves, 1*1,000 feet of pine

board, 31,000 hogshead staves, 350 quintals of fish, 3 1/2 tons of

rigging, and 12 barrels of oil - an impressive outpouring of local

goods. TWo of the sloops made quick round-trips. One brought in meat

one day and left with lunber destined for Boston the next. The other

l e f t with lumber and returned from Boston in two days, laden with dye,

sugar, tar, and cranberries. On October 11, the three flyboats from

London that has sat in the harbour for two months started their return

voyage, accompanied by a pink. Together they transported 59 masts, 30

bowsprits, *16 spars, 21 yards, 54 clamps, 59 . 000 pipestaves, 17,000 feet

of oar, 5,500 bolts, some beaver and other animal skins, and two barrels

of cranberries. The parade of timber shipments continued through the

next week. Three sloops le f t for Boston with pipestaves and pine

boards, another left for Nantucket with limber and a harvest of fall

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 5

41

apples. The last entries in late October show two sloops entering with

bread and indian corn, pork, pease, indigo, and personal belongings.

In total, eight transatlantic ships entered in the three-month

period; seven l e f t . The London-based ships were large in tonnage and

crew, as well as being noticably armed. Those plying the Barbadoes

trade were small - 40 to 100 tons - unarmed, and carried less than ten

men. Only three were Portsmouth-built and they were used for trips to

Newfoundland, Virginia, and the West Indies. Of the coastal ships -

primarily sloops - six entered a total of eight times, eleven left a

total of thirteen times. The majority were Boston-built and based. All

but one were unarmed and a ll had crews of only two men. The cargos te ll

us of Portsmouth's economy - of the heavy reliance on timber and fish

for export, of the lack of local grains (recall the bread sent from

Boston), of the lack of meat. Ir. these cargos, too, we see hints of the

plain and fancy things of life. Silks shared space with coarse linens.

Decorative pictures were offloaded next to simple iron fixtures. To

understand where the capital came from to buy these goods we have to

look further upstream from Portsmouth where the natural resources lay t that formed a substantial portion of the outbound cargos.

From the northern end of Portsmouth harbor, local craft travelled

northwest, past the North Mill Pond that marked the end of most of

Portsmouth's settled community, past Christian Shore - dominated by the

Richard Jackson homestead, and through the Narrows to the Long Reach -

bounded on the north by Eliot and York, Maine and on the south by

Newington. At the end of this four-mile stretch the river divided.

Directly ahead was Dover Point, a narrow peninsula gradually widening to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U2

the north and bounded on the east by the conjunction of the Salmon Falls

and Cocheco rivers, and the west by the Bellamy.

The fall lines of the Cocheco and Bellamy lay close to each other,

near the settlement of Dover and about five miles directly north of

Dover Point. The first falls on the Salmon Falls River were near the

community of South Berwick, four miles northeast of Dover. That these

fall lines were so far upriver was a boon to shipping. One could travel

unimpeded for over fifteen miles to the north from Portsmouth's harbor,

and farther than than in a southerly direction. The tributaries to the

north and the lands surrounding them were a source of pride and profit

to their owners. Their ciose proximity to the forests provided them

with ready access to raw materials for the masting and shipbuilding

industries. Dover was preeminent among the inland towns in benefitting

from the trades, although a few fam ilies held a virtu al monopoly on

trade. In 1680, for example, the top third of the population owned

almost three-quarters of the town's taxable wealth.[26] In 171,

Portsmouth merchant Archibald MacPheadris bragged of the natural

resources while trying to lure settlers to the area:

Every good fanner that comes, I w ill give him 100 accers of land for ever at 12 dd pr. acker. And upon the Sea Side Where there is more Salmon & a ll manner of fish than in any place in the World A plenty of Good Middow & timber of all sorts. The river that leads through the land, where all the Shipping lays, is full of Salmon, th at in the Season you may take 1,000 tuns here. There are sole for 20/Barrell . . .[27]

[26] Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 202; Dover Town Accounts 1741-1786, New Hampshire Town Records - Dover, X, New Hampshire State Library, Concord, New Hampshire; see also, John Scales, History of Dover, New Hampshire I (Manchester, N.H., 1923).

[27] Saltonstall, Ports of Piscataqua, 26. From MacPheadris letter

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. To the south of the division of the Piscataqua at Dover Point lay the

large expanses of the brackish Little and Great Bays, fed by tributaries

leading to three more important inland communities - Durham, Newmarket,

and Exeter. Passing through the Horse Races, a narrow channel noted for

the most swift and dangerous currents in northern New England, one

reached Little Bay. Directly on its western shore was the mouth of the

Oyster River. At its fall line three miles upstream was Durham. At the

southerly end of Little Bay was Adams Point, a convenient location for

ferries to the western reaches of Newington and, just beyond,

Portsmouth. Adam's Point marked the beginning of Great Bay, almost four

a ile s wide and two to three long. At i ts western corners were outlets

to the Lamprey River, running westward to Newnarket, and the Exeter or

Squamscot River, tra ilin g southward six miles to Exeter.

The forests crowded these inland communities. They were replete with

trees used for fuel - birch, oak, and beech; trees used for furniture

making - elm and maple for chairs, black birch for tables and bedsteads,

and the richly-hued cherry; trees for making tools, rough planking, and

fencing - hemlock, chestnut, and walnut; even trees whose bark and sap

were used for medicinal and nutritional purposes - sassafras, walnut,

balsam f i r , spruce, and maple.[283 But the trees most eagerly sought

were the white, red, and black oak and the white pine. The black oak

was used for making keels, the red for pipe staves, and the white for

book, December 1717. Warner House, Portsmouth, N.H. For more on MacPheadris, see W. G. Wendell, The Macpheadris-Warner House (Portsmouth, 1966 ).

[283 Lord, Account of the State . . . 1792, 73-77.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. planking and "knees" in boats and ships - the supports for decks and

keels hewed from single pieces of trees that had grown to form a ninety-

degree angle. All three were enormously important, for without them

there would be no casks to hold cargo nor ships to put them in and,

without the white pine - "the prince of the American forest" - there

would be no m asts.[29] White pines were a t the heart of the local

economy, the single best source of masts in the world. However, the

process of getting them from forest to market was a difficult and risky

business.

When Belknap, in awe, wrote of the white pine’s great age and

"majestic" appearance, he also warily noted that their tremendous height

made felling them a terrorizing experience. Scouting parties usually

searched the woods for prime trees in the summer. When they found a

good tree they would strip the bark from its base. Come winter, when

the snow was deep enough to cover rocks and s o ft enough to cushion the

tree when it fell, felling crews would arrive to harvest the pre­

selected trees. First, however, men had to cut a pathway to the nearest

road or riv e r, taking care that i t was wide enough for a team of oxen

and stra ig h t enough to accommodate the fu ll length of a tre e . Then

smaller saplings were cut and laid in the projected fall line of the

tree to provide additional cushioning. When the tree was safely down,

and declared sound, oxen, chains, axles, and wheels were used for

transport. If the tree was too big, it would be trimmed on the spot -

cut in proportions of tifree feet in length for every inch in

[293 Ib id ., 78-79.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. diameter.[30] A thirty-six inch trunk would make a one-hundred eight

foot mast - a rarity: a more frequent twenty-five inch trunk would

produce a seventy-five foot mast. These calculations were used only as

rough estimates because the final length and price were determined after

the tree had undergone a final shaving and rounding of rough edges.

Shorter or broken trunks could be used for the smaller spars and yards.

Finally, the mast was moved. It was either slung under or secured

overhead by chains as i t rested below or atop a few sets of axles

mounted on wheels. The wheels ranged upward to fourteen or sixteen feet

in diameter. Teams of yoked oxen hauled the load from the front, or

braked its movement from the rear. The la tte r method was called

" tra ilin g ," used to control speed while descending h ills . It was

potentially hazardous because as the load went over the crest of a rise,

the oxen in the rear were lifted into the air and often strangled.[ 31]

Oxen and the hauling equipment were valued possessions. Sometimes

sixty to eighty oxen were needed to haul one tre e , and a single, healthy

ox was valued between four and five pounds in the seventeenth century,

between six and fifteen up to the middle of the eighteenth century.

These values were equal to a quarter or a third of a small house, twice

that of a good cow, and twenty-five times that of a prime sheep.[32]

[30] Robert Greenhalgh Albion, Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problems of the Royal Wavy, 1652-1862 (Cambridge, Mass., 1926), 233-237.

[31] Lord, Account of the State . . . 1792, 80.

[32] Cow prices in the Piscataqua ranged from 130 to 3600 pence, and sheep were valued between 60 and 270 pence from 1680 to 1740 according to data from the Portsmouth inventory sample.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission Multiplying these values by the nunber of oxen needed for one job alone

demonstrates the huge investment needed in the mast business. Wheels

were less costly because they could be replaced more easily. They are

rarely mentioned in inventories, suggesting that they were left to rot

in the woods when their usefulness came to an end, their sheer size

making it difficult to transport them from one job to the next. For

those mentioned in the record, value in the late seventeenth-century was

about half a pound, rising to almost a pound after the turn of the

century, and climbing to two to six pounds a fte r 1720.C33]

The magnitude of the masting operations were overwhelming. All who

witnessed and recorded the sights and sounds of lumbering - the

massiveness of the pines, the brute strength of the oxen, the intense

coordination between man and animal in delivering the product to market

- were unfailingly awestruck. The shipping returns of the Piscataqua

also testify to the end-product of these operations and hint at the

countless number of times they must have been repeated to produce the

large quantity of timber products exported. Although fashioning smaller

trees into pine boards, staves, and shingles was a secondary activity

for many farmers - an activity to pursue during the barren winter months

- those export figures serve as an auxilary indicator of industry. In

1695, lumberman shipped out 260,000 board feet of pine. In 17*12 that

quantity rose seven-fold. Stave exports rose similarly. The numbers

doubled from 235.000 in 1695 to 452,84*1 in 1742. Shingle exports

[33] Average value for oxen in pence were, for 1680-99. 1010; 1700-19. 1320; 1720-41, 1745. Average values for wheels in pence were, for 1680-99. 240; 1700-19, 192; 1720-41, 439.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission multiplied by a factor of eight in the same period. By way of

comparison, the mast trade grew tenfold, rising from 56 to 524 exported

from 1695 to 1742.[34]

Shipbuilding also had substantial growth. In 1695, 20 ships

averaging 34 tons were built for the overseas trade. In 1742, 82 were

built at twice that tonnage.[ 35] And while in the seventeenth century

most construction involved brigs, barks, or ketches, in the eighteenth

century demand centered on the faster and larger schooners, ships, and

sloops. Unfortunately, we cannot find out how many people were employed

directly in these businesses and trades, but when we consider how much

labor was required to fell a sizable tree, hew, transport, and saw it,

plus deliver it to purchasers, and then multiply these efforts by the

amount of timber products exported, we can appreciate the work of

hundreds of men of whom we know so little but who were .directly

responsible for the economic well-being of the region.

That well-being was challenged by British legislation that attempted

to control which trees could be felled for whose purposes. The letter

of those regulations implies a highly restrictive and closely monitored

trade beginning in the mid- 1690's, although enforcement proved almost

impossible. The laws were passed because in the seventeenth century

England's navy and commercial fle e t were badly in need of masts and

timber and England's supply was depleted .[36 ] Recognizing England's

[34] Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 96.

[35] Ibid., 105.

[36 ] Albion, Forests and Sea Power, Cap. 5; Joseph J. Malone, Pine

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission I

48

need, New Hampshire traders quickly bought into the imperial contract

system and started selling timber cargoes on a regular basis. The

system worked well with little regulation until the Dominion of New

England was formed. In 1696 the Board of Trade tried to regulate the

types and markets of colonial trade, led by the advice of Edward

Randolph. Randolph had a personal in te re st in the passage of these laws

because he was involved in the Masonian controversy - an issue discussed

in the following pages. Randolph argued th at a controlled New England

market would produce a less competitive colonial market, and would lower

costs of England's badly needed naval stores. The Board accepted

Randolph's rationale and his suggestions became the basis for the more-

restrictive regulation that followed in the next thirty years.[ 37 ]

Measures encouraging increased exportation of naval stores were welcomed

by many colonial merchants, portending increased production and

purchasing power. However, acts restricting the cutting of pines were

not welcomed, and they raised questions about the right assumed by

colonials to cut anything on private and public lands. Mast pine

preservation became a charter provision in Massachusetts in 1691; within

ten years, all colonies had similar provisions reserving large pines for

the Crown. To enforce this policy, surveyors of the forests were

permanently installed just after the turn of the century.[ 38] In 1711*

Trees and Politics: Naval Stores and Forest Power in Colonial New EnglandT~ 1691-1775 (S eattle, 1964), Chap 2.

[37] Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), 161-168. For a review of Randolph and his p o licies, see Michael G. H all, Edward Randolph and the American Colonies (Chapel Hill, 196O).

[38] Malone, Pine Trees and P o litic s, Chap. 3; Michael Kammen, Empire

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

Parliament impressed stronger regulations in the White Pine Act,

followed eleven years later by still stronger legislation. In 1729,

trespass laws, allowing royal officials access to lands in towns settled

a fte r 1690, were revamped.[39]

Colonials resisted publicly and privately. They wanted to control

their own resources and disliked being told that they could not,

especially when the royal officials in charge were corrupt.[MO]

Privately, residents pursued two avenues of rebellion. The first

followed from the fact that the woods were so large and enforcement

group so weak, making i t impossible to monitor a ll cutting. White pines

marked for the Crown were simply cut smaller to form spars, bowsprits,

and planking. Where an illegally-cut pine in mast form would be noticed

immediately, smaller parts of the whole could be sold and exported

without fear of discovery. Second, individuals engaged in a private war

of harassment of officials. One unsuspecting royal official did not

discover small holes drilled in the hull of his boat until it was too

late. He took an unexpected an chilly swim in Great Bay. Another

official took a similarly unscheduled, and unceremonious dip when an

unfriendly crowd threw him off the wharf in Portsmouth. A few royal

and Interest: The American Colonies and the Politics of Mercantilism (Philadelphia, 1970).

[39] Albion, Forests and Sea Power, 24^—254.

[40] Malone, Pine Tree3 and P o litic s , Chap. 3. Referring to one notoriously corrupt surveyor, Jonathan Bridger, Malone wrote, "His appointment was neither the first nor the last event in American Colonial history supporting the view that the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 50

appointees were convicted of trespass by antagonistic local juries.[41]

Publicly, the New Hampshire Assembly passed legislation in line with

royal wishes, but this was only a ruse meant to allay English officials.

Enforcement was never intended.[42] Provincial courts refused to uphold

trespass laws that defied what were taken as English rig h ts. In sum,

the King and Parliament, through legislation and their agents in New

England, tried to enforce economic dependency and fa ile d . New Hampshire

residents were simply not w illing to surrender th e ir economic

prerogatives and private rights.

The woodland products had no intrinsic value without the people who

processed them, assigned them a monetary value, and organized the

channels by which they were sold. The focus for these operations in New

Hampshire was Portsmouth. On the managerial level - overseeing and

financing - the process was centered in a few wealthy families. But the

laborers - from mariners to cordwainers to joiners - shared the same

physical space with the elite, a very small stretch of land. While the

levels of economic stra tific a tio n will be discussed in the next chapter,

let us for a moment consider the effects of geography and political

problems arising from the distribution of available lands among all

residents of the town. Portsmouth experienced tremendous struggles over

land, both in the Masonian controversy and the internal disagreements it

touched off. These problems took on religious overtones periodically

[41] Albion, Forests and Sea Power, 257.

[42] Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 44-55; Elwin L. Page, Judicial Beginnings in New Hampshire, 1640-1700 (Concord, N.H., 1959)* 11-48.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and contributed to the creation of two congregational and one episcopal

churches by the early 1730's. A description Portsmouth's geography

provides a reference point for discussion of these issues.

Portsmouth proper, or Strawbery Banke as it was called until 1653*

was on a broad, flat peninsula a little more than a mile square.[433

Although the physical borders of the town extended a few miles to the

west and south, most of the population lived on this small neck. The

North Mill Pond - a broad, mile-long inlet with one narrow that invited

a bridge - marked the northern boundary. The Piscataqua curved around

the eastern edges. On the south were three natural boundaries: The

South Mill Pond bounded the limits of most housing. Less than a half

mile away, beyond the island-hopping route to Newcastle, was a small

bay. And, about a mile's walk further south was Sagamore Creek, a

serpentine division of Portsmouth from Rye and the Hamptons. This

border was highlighted by a few small ridges used for lookouts by

defenders and hideouts for invaders. The possibility of attack was a

strong reason for residents to live in the peninsular Banke area. The

reaches of water were easily defensible, as was the narrow strip of land

between the North and South Mill Ponds.

The Banke area was so cially and economically segregated by 1680. The

w ealthier fam ilies - the Vaughans, Waldrons, and Cutts - lived in the 3 | northern section of town. Their warehouses - of which only Jacob

[43] Nathaniel Adams, Annals of Portsmouth, Comprising a Period of Two Hundred Years from the First Settlement of the Town: with Biographical Sketches of a Few of the Most Respectable Inhabitants (Portsmouth, 1825), 36-37.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission I

52

Sheafe's 1705 building remains today - lay a few hundred yards to the

south.[44] The less well-to-do lived in the south end of town. Although

the John Pickering family operated a bridge over the South Mill Pond

from 1658, many people chose to liv e to the north of that natural

barrier, and built their houses set back from the water in an area to

the south of a small inlet located near the warehouses. Pickering owned

most of the waterfront area as well as the sawmill located on the pond.

At his death in 1720, most of it was sold in small lots, clearing the

way for a building boom. The area eventually became heavily

populated.[45] The inlet itself was small, swampy, and smelly, a result

of years use as a garbage dump, cesspool, and off-loading point for

small fishing boats. Later the channel was filled in, and now is the

site of the Strawbery Banke preservation area. The warehouse district

lay directly on the other side of the inlet. The glebe lands - 50 acres

granted in 1640 - were in the town's center. But, as land prices

increased in later years, these acres were sold to private citizens.[46]

The small town area suggests a social observation. Social

intercourse between all types of people was unavoidable. Studies of

social and psychological "space" suggest that individuals will draw

[44] Bryant F. Tolies and Carolyn K. Tolies, New Hampshire Architecture; An Illustrated Guide (Hanover, N.H., 1979). 3-37 reviews the Sheafe warehouse and other colonial buildings in Portsmouth.

[45] PPR X, 156-158.

[46] Rev. George M. Adams, An H istorical Discourse delivered at the Celebration of the Two hundredth anniversary of the formation of the North Church, Portsmouth, N.H., July 19, 1871 (Portsmouth, 1871). 19; Adams, Annals, 26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

in v isib le b arriers between themselves and people they do not want to

associate with, immediately sensing threat if those barriers are

crossed, but there was little room to do this in Portsmouth. The area

was simply too compact, and the business areas flowed into the south-end

housing district. While the well-to-do could retire to the north-end at

the day's end, they still had to work in the south-end warehouses. The

adage "familiarity breeds contempt" apparently was fact in the situation

for, as we shall see, divisions and disputes occurred periodically. In

a positive way, however, and perhaps due in part to the compact nature

of town, Portsmouth could reunite even after the bitterest in-fighting.

There was lo ts of room for accommodation in town, but l i t t l e for

d istan ce.

The "Masonian controversy" illu s tra te s how the town residents could

band together. For fifty years, on and off, Portsmouth residents fought

together against John Mason's descendants' claims on all Portsmouth

lands.[47] When John Mason died in late 1635 he held partnerships of

questionable legitimacy in six land grants and patents on southern New

Hampshire. He bequested the 17,000 acres to his heirs despite the fact

th at the land was not his to give. His grandson, Robert Tufton Mason,

revived the issue of ownership after his grandfather's widow chose not

to involve herself. Robert Mason named himself proprietor of the lands

and demanded their return and release from the control of Massachusetts

[47] Van Deventer provides the Kest commentary on the controversy. See also, Jeremy Belknap, History of New Hampshire (Boston, 1791), I, 216-217; Hobart Plllsbury, New Hampshire: A History (New York, 1927), I, 85-130; Everett S. Stackpole, History of New Hampshire (New York, 1916), I.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 54

Bay. Throughout the 1660's and 1670's Mason fought hard to validate his

claim with the Crown.[48]

By the time New Hampshire became a separate province in 1679. Mason

had gained partial support for his claims. He had played an important

role in convincing the Crown to separate New Hampshire and the

commission for the new royal governor was carried over to New Hampshire

by none other than his cousin - the customs collector for New England.

However, Mason had not succeeded in convincing the Lords Chief Justice

of the complete legitimacy of his claim, and had to turn to the new

provincial government and courts to prove his t i t l e . [49] The new

Council, however, blocked hi3 claims by ruling that all contemporary

deeds and land titles were binding, an act that sent Mason back to

England to try yet another plan. He mortgaged his claims to Edward

Cranfield, a new representative the Crown was sending to New Hampshire.

In return, Cranfield promised Mason to try to evict Portsmouth residents

or, alternatively, collect quitrents. Once settled in Portsmouth,

Cranfield reorganized the jury selection process, resulting in pro­

proprietary jurists controlling most landclaim suits.

Cranfield was exceedingly harsh on anyone daring to disobey his

e d ic ts. William Vaughan, a leading merchant, was imprisoned in part for

defending the status quo and in part for refusing to give up his lands.

[48] Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 51.

[49] John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England or the Puritan Theocracy in its Relation to Civil and Religious Liberty (Boston, 1887). 286-287; Page, Judicial Beginnings, 183-185.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. His letters from prison echo the despondency of the entire town at the

Cranfield government, directed as it was by Robert Mason. Is it worthy,

Vaughan wrote, "to inquire whether ever that law was intended for us,

here beinge no customs to be gathered, no exchequer to be applyed to and

therefore how these methods can be observed is not intellegable."[50] He

also reported scattered incidents as Cranfield lashed out at the town:

the minister Joshua Moody was jailed for refusing to administer Anglican

rites; "Good Mrs. Martin," languished, "being not able to live above one

sabbath after the shutting up the doors of the sanctuary,"; John the

Greek's livestock were impressed and he was jailed for refusing to pay a

quitrent; merchant George Jaffrey, jailed for the same reason, had his

house locked, servants dismissed, and his household goods thrown out

into the street; Mary Stileman, the wife of a merchant, was arrested

and jailed for a minor offense; Nathaniel Weare's son was beaten for

refusing to give over the family land claims.[51] These incidents

reflect on both the land claim issue and the disruption of Portsmouth

society. In response, the town soon became anti-proprietary. The legal

system was in shambles, Mason's claims were a farce, and most people

were resisting, although in peril of their lives and property by so

doing. "I have given you but a taste," Vaughan concluded in his letter,

and "we that see it, know more than can possibly be understood by those,

that only hear, in a word such is the height of their heat and rage,

[50] William Vaughan to Nathaniel Weare, February 4, 1683/1** reprinted in Belknap, History, I, li-lxiv.

[51] Jeremy Belknap, History of New Hampshire (Dover, N.H., 1862), 476-486.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1

56

that there is no living for us long in this condition."

Shortly after Vaughan's letter, Cranfield left, only to be replaced

by Mason’s son-in-law Walter Barefoote. By his actions, Barefoote also

provoked townspeople. One charge levied against him mentions things he

did to disturb Portsmouth:

Having in an high and presumtuous manner set up his m ajesty's office of customs without leave from the president and council; . . . for disturbing and obstructing his majesty's subjects in passing from harbour to harbour, and town to town; and for his insolence in making no other answer to any question propounded to him but My name is Walter.[52]

Barefoote le f t in disgrace in la te 1685 when the Dominion of New England

was just beginning. Throughout the next three years, Mason lost most of

his power, and when he died in the fall of 1688 the legal records

substantiating his claims were destroyed. However, the rights to pursue

those claims were sold and, over the next two decades, fought out in the

courts with varying degrees of success. The climax to the land claim

dispute finally came in 1707. The Privy Council heard a case pitting

the current owner of the claims against Richard Waldron, a Portsmouth

merchant. In 1708 the Council found for Waldron, apparently impressed

by the impassioned testimony of George Vaughan, a merchant whose father

William had offered poignant testimony in his letters from prison thirty

years e a r lie r .[53] Although the Masonian element tried to legitim ize

their claims in the western part of the province until 1730, they could

[52] Belknap, History of New Hampshire, I, 181.

[53] Page, Judicial Beginnings, 224; Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 56-58.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

not challenge the seacoast claims any further. Their only legacy in New

Hampshire was the profound distrust of external or proprietary authority

instilled in Portsmouth residents.

Once Portsmouth land titles were secured, the united front started to

d issip a te . Argianents between townspeople became more frequent and hot-

tempered. people turned i n w a r d to solve problems caused by the g r o w in g

heterogeneity of the growing population. Until 1705 town records show

little dissent. Officials and residents met periodically to cast their

votes for new fence viewers, highway surveyors, and cullers of staves,

to discuss town rates, to dispense aid to the needy, to chastise those

who cut down trees illegally on the town commons, to decide that, yes,

the minister's house did need that new coat of whitewash.[54] The town

records of 1707 show the first serious disagreement, an argument over

the meeting house. The old one was dilapidated and either needed

serious repair work or to be replaced entirely. Since this was an issue

of community-wide in te rest and attendance at the meeting was small, the

matter was put off for a while. However, the question of whether the

meeting house should be moved to a different part of town brought much

argument in the interim - as the south-enders were content with the

present location of the building in their section of town. It was

convenient as well as a source of pride.

Debate on the issue was revived in 1711 when a larger group of voters

[54] Portsmouth Town Records, 1645-1713. I, Pt. 2, 252b-255b, 304a, 313a, 314a, University of New Hampshire Special Collections, Durham, N.H. Hereafter cited as PTR.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I

; 58

gathered to decide that a new meetinghouse would be built on a corner of

the glebe lands in the center of town, and the old building would be

left to rot. In 1713 the new building was completed, and Nathaniel

Rogers installed as its minister. Eight months later the south-enders

revolted at a town meeting. Led by merchant and selectman John

Pickering, they demanded that "their" meetinghouse be restored to them.

The meeting grew riotous. According to one commentator, Pickering took

over the assembly illegally, and "there was a great tumult and the

Moderator proceeding to put to vote things Contrary to Notifycation and

Interest of the town."[55] Apparently people favoring the new meeting

house left the meeting, leaving only the south-enders. Taking advantage

of the situation, the south-enders passed a measure approving of the old

meetinghouse and guaranteeing funds for the support of another minister

to attend to the needs of that building and their souls. Then they

adjourned the town meeting.

The rest of the town gave its silent approval to this arrangement.

The south-enders asked Newcastle's John Emerson to be the minister at

their meetinghouse. He agreed, but a problem arose when the town was

asked to pay his salary. Apparently the selectmen approved the

separation of churches only if the south-end paid their own minister.

The town hesitated about paying two salaries, especially when one was

sanctioned only through a highly questionable voting process. Finally

they reached an uneasy compromise. If Emerson was o ffic ia lly in stalled ,

the town would support him. In 1715 Emerson was duly in sta lle d , but

[553 PTR, II, Pt. 1, 41-b-a.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

some resentment remained. In 1716 some selectmen were jailed for

refusing to authorize Emerson's salary.[56] The next year more

resentment surfaced at town meeting. Voters reminded the town of th

"pretended" vote in 1713 when Pickering lost his temper and argued that

"there is a shamm agreement made with Hr. Emerson to officiate as a

minister at the old meeting house, the same being clandestinely put upon

record," and refused to pay Emerson.[57] The animosity died gradually

with the resurgance of military and Indian attacks, and finally stopped.

Deals were made, and both churches maintained their status as

officially-supported. Both ministers became beloved by their respective

churches, although the two men strongly disliked each other.

Two other churches were built in Portsmouth in later years. People

living on the western reaches of town, called the "Plains," built their

own meeting house in 1727. Like the south-enders, they wanted a

spiritual center on their own territory, although the tone of the

sermons was not much different from those in town. In 1732, another

branch of protestantism was introduced. An Episcopalian chapel was

erected in the midst of the homes of the wealthy, London-oriented

merchants. Queen Caroline sent a communion service to grace its altar

as a symbol of approval.[58] As with the two congregational churches in

[56] Adams, Annals, 134.

[57] Ib id .. 135-136.

[58] Ibid., 151, 162. For more detail on South Church (at the old meetinghouse location) see "South Church Records," New England Genealogical Register, LXXX, 419-453; LXXXI, 25-53. 138-146, 281-302, 410-426. For the Episcopalian church, Queen's Chapel, see Thomas Bailey Aldrich, An Old Town by the Sea (Boston, 1917). 29. St. John's now stands on it3 original location.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

town, these two churches helped define community boundaries.

Population pressure also contributed to the move to define sub­

communities within Portsmouth. As the town grew and the chances of

being familiar with each and every new resident lessened, it was normal

that people started developing a sense of neighborhood, and legitimizing

those feelings with in stitu tio n s , The l i s t s of rateble males between

1680 and 1740 show the rates of the a re a 's growth. Between 1680 and

1700 the population remained f a irly steady. A slig h t dip in numbers in

1690 only showed the effect of Newcastle's separation from the rolls.

At the turn of the century, 155 males were listed. By 1710, after land

claims had come to a halt, the population almost doubled to 260 males.

The next decades showed steady increases, 350 in 172C, 515 in 1730, 564

in 1740. Assuming th at each rateable male meant the presence of about

five other family .members, the population rose from less than 900 people

to over 3300 in sixty y ears.[593

Land was available for population expansion to the west and south of

town. However, most people chose to liv e on the peninsula. It was the

center of trade and commerce; it was defensible; but it was crowded. In

1699 the town voted to divide some of its remaining common land into

home lots, but much of the land went to the wealthy because they paid

the largest amount of town taxes. In 1705, twelve acres of glebe land

[593 For inventories of polls and estates, see Van Deventer, Provincial New Hampshire, 194, 197-198, 200; Gary Lord, "The P o litics and Social Structure of Seventeenth-Century New Hampshire" unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1976, 283-

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission was sold for home lots. The houses built on that land relieved the

density problem in other areas temporarily. However, John Pickering's

death in 1721 provided the largest opportunity for home building that

townspeople had in many years. Pickerings holdings were very large, the

value in excess of two-thousand pounds. His heirs began selling some

land in the south end, and people started to move from crowded quarters

to the more spacious subdivision lands. With the increased space came a

reduction in the tensions between the south- and north-ends of town. To

suggest that the alleviation of a density problem and the gain of their

own meeting house explains the lessening of tensions is too facile, but

these two events probably had a bearing on the outcome. The other

components of everyday life - how they engaged in business, how th eir

households were composed demographically and materially, the type of

social relationships existing between family members - also probably

contributed to how they perceived and acted on their social and physical

surroundings. For those answers, we will turn to records of personal

effects in the next chapter.

Portsmouth was a multi-faceted town. Its trade was governed by the

vast resources of the sea and forest, officially regulated by officials

who constantly offended the sensibilities of townspeople, and

u n o fficially directed by the social relationships between those who

lived on the peninsula. Its population could be united against

interlopers but divided within i t s e l f . These b rie f sketches have

outlined the parameters of Portsmouth's problems and victories, and

provide the setting for scenes of everyday life - those things that are

least apparent in the written record but most important to life itself.

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I I I

MONETARY POLICY IN PORTSMOUTH:

The Issues of Inflation and Debt

On a wintery January night in 1663. a drunken shoemaker stood by the

frozen banks of the Picataqua and bellowed angrily toward the skies.

Thomas Parker, a young citizen of Great Island, was all too audibly

disturbed. Earlier that evening the young man had joined friends at

Goodman Pickering's house in Portsmouth. After a few rounds he startled

the others by suddenly beginning to rant and rail. Captain Brian

Pendleton, he shouted, was an "old dog . . . [who] did owe him Fourteen

pence." Parker vehemently wished he "had sope or any thing for i t." \ Nathaniel Fryer "was a bastard and had a hundred fathers, oweing him tow

shillings [and] yet that dog [would] not let him have bread without

money." Richard Cutt "was a bastard [and] a Cheater, askeing for what

he sould more then the worth." The remedies Parker prescribed - murder

and eternal damnation - were not effected; instead, he ended in court.

His blatant drunkeness was not to be tolerated.[1] For us, however,

Parker's complaints, even though made vague by drink, point to the

turbulent economy of early New Hampshire, marked as it was by inflation,

[1] Otis G. Hammond, ed ., New Hampshire Court Records 16U0-1692 (New Hampshire State Papers, XXXX [Concord, 19^33). 514.

62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

cash shortages, and debt.

Given the economics of Portsmouth, a person of Parker's ilk - born

and raised to the lower middle class - was destined to remain at the

mercy of the Pendeltons and Cutts of his world, the elite, despite an

illusion of better financial times for all. To understand the phenomena

of inflation and devaluation I will first examine the scope of fiscal

problems in other colonies and then turn to the evidence from

Portsmouth. While I will also freely extrapolate from literary

materials from other colonies, the intention is to supplement, not

replace, often scanty New Hampshire information.

Young Parker would probably have agreed with a contemporary

v e r s if ie r :

Our money's soon counted for we have just none,

All that we brought with us is wasted and gone.

We buy and sell nothing but upon exchange,

Which makes all our dealings uncertain and strange.[2]

Living in a economic society dependent on b arter due to a scarcity of

coin was "uncertain and strange" for many. Part of the frustration that

young Parker felt probably stemmed from just such a situation, although

knowing that the absence of hard currency occurred for reasons beyond

his personal control probably would not have made him feel any less

[2 3 Anonymous, "An Old Song, written by one of our f ir s t New-England Planters, on their Management in those gold Old Times. To the Tune of A Cobbler There was, etc.," in Harrison T. Messerole, ed., Seventeenth- Century American Poetry (New York, 1968), 503-505. Messerole estimates th at the verse was composed about 1640.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

antagonistic. The problems with sterling originated in trade imbalances

with England and laws forbidding the export of s ilv e r .[ 3] Proceeding

from the abrupt decline in English immigration to New England around

1640, sterling stocks dropped precipitously in proportion to the cost of

necessities purchased from England by co lo n ists. Since England forbade

the exportation of silver bullion there was almost no way to replenish

New England's depleted silver supply except through renewed immigration

or a reverse in the flow of trad e. Large numbers of immigrants, each

carrying small amounts of silver, could add considerably to the amount

of circulating silver, and increased trade could result in silver

cred its deposited to American accounts by B ritish merchants. But with

the limited immigration from around the midpoint of the century and the

heavy reliance on imported goods, sterling in circulation inevitably was

scarce.

Spanish silver dollars - pieces-of-eight - were an alternative

circulating medium but colonial fiscal policies undercut their worth.

Since Spain, unlike England, had native silver mines, her dollars

circulated freely and, with the growth of the West Indian trade,

filtered rapidly into New England.[4] Yet beginning in the late 1640's,

[3] Joseph Albert Ernst, Money and Politics in America, 1755-1775: A Study in the Currency Act of 1764 and the Political Economy of Revolution Tchapel Hill, 1973), 20; Curtis P. Nettels, The Money Supply of the American Colonies Before 1720 (New York, [1934]), Chapter Six; William I. Davisson, "Essex County Price Trends: Money and Markets in 17th Century Massachusetts," Essex Institute Historical Collections, CIII ( 1967), 144-148.

[4] Nettels, Money Supply, 250-277; Robert Chalmers, A History of Currency in the Eritish Colonies (London, [1893])* 392-393; John J. McCusker, Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775 (Chapel Hill, 1978), 132.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intercolonial rate wars began waging over the d o lla r’s exchange.

Contemporary economic theories said that successful trade could flourish

only where large cash reserves existed. And since people assumed that

there was a finite money supply in their world, each colony vied for the

largest part of that supply in an effort to stimulate their trade and

expand their production. They fought this monetary war by competitively

raising exchange rates and lowering the minimum acceptable weights for

the silver dollar, hoping thereby to lure silver to their respective

colonial coffers.[5] The ploy eventually backfired, causing widespread

currency devaluation. In 16^2 a 385-grain dollar was worth t|s.6d.

ste rlin g in Massachusetts and the colonial pound could be exchanged on

par with the English. In 1685 Boston merchants paid 130 pounds colonial

for 100 pounds English: in West Jersey a 262-grain dollar was valued at

7s.6d. and traders paid a third more for sterling than did those in

Boston.[6] Long-term inflation was the high price paid in hopes of

short-term rewards.

The introduction of public bills of credit brought additional

financial complications after 1690, Colonial paper money was an

extension of traditional private loan practices.[7 ] For payment of

[5 ] Ernst, Money and Ftalitics, 23; Charles J. Bullock, Essays on the Monetary History of the United States (New York, 1900) 16-2i5T Bullocks last section deals exclusively with currency reform in New Hampshire.

[6 ] Bullock, Monetary History, 20-23; Nettels, Money Supply, 276-277; John H. Hickcox, History of the B ills of Credit (New York, 1969 [orig. publ. New York, 1866]); Brock, Currency of the American Colonies, 85-9^•

[7] McCusker, Money and Exchange, 19-22; McCusker's volume deals largely with exchange rates based on bills of exchange. See also, Stuary Bruchey, ed.. The Colonial Merchant, (New York), 1966), 193*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

overseas merchandise one generally purchased these "money orders" from a

local merchant with an agent near one's supplier. Redeemable at

variable time periods in lieu of interest, the price of a bill of

exchange was based on the current exchange rate of the colonial pound in

London.[8] Individuals traditionally used this form of promissory note

as had some institutions as security for loans, but governments did not.

So when Massachusetts fell deeply in debt due the cost of Colonel

William Phips1 military expedition in 1690, it broke with tradition and

became the first colony to issue public bills of credit.[ 9] Initially

the colony expected to pay off their bills with the notes and promptly

retire them when tax revenues were sufficient to cover deficits. As

Samuel Sewell noted, the issue of bills of credit were occasioned "not

for want of money; but for want of Money in the Treasury."[10] However,

the ease with which they were accepted and circulated proved an

irresistible lure to the continuation of the practice in Massachusetts.

Other colonies quickly followed suit; Rhode Island, Connecticut, New

York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina printed their own

bills of credit. New Hampshire first issued them after falling into

debt during Queen Anne's War and continued the practice until revising

[8] N ettels, Money Supply, 250; William S. Sumner, A History of American Currency (New York, 1874), 14-15; Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible; Social Change, Political Consciousness, and the Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), 112.

[93 Bullock, Monetary History, 52-53; See also Wesley Frank Craven, The Colonies in T ransition, 1600-1713 (New York, 1968), 324-325; Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), 188-189.

[10] Bullock, Monetary History, 33, 207-212.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 67

standards in 1742. The results were economically staggering in the long

ru n .[11]

New Hampshire was reluctant at first to print bills of credit because

they were satisfie d using "commodity money." Until the beginning of the

eighteenth century certain commodities were accepted as specie

alternatives to English sterling or precious metals. The Province

allowed payment of taxes in units of price-regulated goods such as

barrel staves, peas, pork, and barley. The practice was an economically

healthy way to insure tax payments when citiz e n s were short on cash and,

in essence, subsidized and encouraged the production of essential

commodities and crops. Subtly, the government could direct the flow of

the economy. However, the increasing war debt forced o ffic ia ls to

evaluate other methods of raising money. Pounds of pork and quintals of

cod could not be used to pay for sa la rie s and the munitions used by

provincial troops engaged in Queen Anne’ s War.

Reconsidering their initial hesitation to issue bills of credit, the

New Hampshire assemblymen f ir s t asked s is te r colonies i f New Hampshire

could borrow some of th eir b i ll s . New Hampshire wanted to take

advantage of interest accrued on other colonies' notes without taking

the responsibility for managing it's own. The requests were denied, and

the Assembly fin a lly had to face re a lity - that they desperately needed

money and the only way left to get it was to make it themselves. They

rationalized their decision by reasoning that substantial gains could be

[11] Ibid., 230.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

made for trade through the circulation of more money. With a larger

money supply, existing enterprises could only profit. These favorable

economic conditions, in turn, could lure more trad e. In sum, while the

decision to print bills of credit was forced by a practical problem,

Assemblymen turned to theory to rationalize it to themselves.

New Hampshire began with a comparatively modest issue of three

thousand pounds worth of bills of credit in 1709.[12] The bills were

based on three to five year redemption through property taxes. But,

lik e Massachusetts, New Hampshire found that while they intended to

destroy redeemed b i ll s a fte r a ll war debts were paid, they were reissued

as a way to augment a sagging general fund. At the close of o ffic ia l

hostilities in 1714. officials recycled the bills at renewed rates.

Delighted in the apparent success of the fiscal experiment, the Assembly

began to authorize additional paper monex issues. Table 3.1 shows the

outstanding amounts of New Hampshire b ills of cred it from f i r s t issue

until 1740 and clearly demonstrates that later orders to destroy bills

promptly upon redemption were evaded. If the Assembly had followed

their initial instincts to .destroy each issue when it came due, the

numbers of bills of credit in circulation would have followed a boom and

bust pattern - issue and retirement, issue and retirement, and so on

during the period and that would have been reflected in the table.

Instead, the numbers of outstanding, unbacked, bills only increased.

[12] Van Deventer, Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 120-123;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

Table 3.1

Currency Evaluation Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1743

Year Exchange fiate(a) Ounce price N.H. Bills of Credit of Silver(b) in ci

1709 8.0 3000 1710 140.0 8.0 5000 1711 140.0 8.3 7500 1712 125.0 8.5 8000 1713 8.5 8000 1714 3.0 1715 9.0 8335 1716 10.0 8335 1717 10.0 8335 1718 11.0 22435 1719 210.0 12.0 22345 1720 12.3 22299 1721 13.0 21381 1722 250 .0 14.25 24993 1723 260.0 15.0 24635 1724 16.25 26314 1725 300.0 15.5 24611 1726 310.0 16.0 27567 1727 310.0 16.0 28353 1728 300.0 17.17 27375 1729 310.0 19.6 27308 1730 340.0 20.0 27155 1731 350.0 18.75 27155 1732 350.0 20.0 26200 1733 350 .0 20.0 25207 1734 380.0 25.7 24840 1735 425.0 27.5 22783 1736 500.0 26.5 21783 1737 525.0 26.5 27319 1738 500.0 28.0 24989 1739 500.0 29.5 22985 1740 525.0 28.6 23677 1748 1050.0 56.38 475480

(a) John J. McCusker, Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1660-1775 (Chapel H ill, 1978), 147-149. (b) Charles J. Bullock, Essays on the Monetary History of the United States (New York, 1900), 207-231. (c) Leslie V. Brock, The Currency of the American Colonies, 1700-1764: A Study in Colonial Finance and Imperial Relations (New York, 1975). 591-592.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In 1714 New Hampshire conducted a tentative experiment in land

banking by exchanging two-year bills for property securities. Proving

successful, the operation was continued on larger scale three years

later. Fifteen thousand pounds was issued at ten percent interest for

h alf the value of the exchanged mortgages. The Assembly doled out the

monies gained to towns in d irect proportion to each town's tax

assessments in the hope that such wide dispersion would stimulate the

province's economy equitably. By 1717 about 83001i. were monetized;

with the land bank, within two years, the balance almost tripled at

22,4001i. While concerned about the large balance, the Assembly

continually avoided disposing of most redeemed b ills . For example, in

1729 15,000li. issued in 1717 were due, but less than 6,000 of i t was

burnt. Max Shapiro's work on wealth and inflation offers a possible

motivation for such actions. Such ta c tic s might have been spurred by an

urge for the power that could accompany the control of paper currency -

that is to say, in reissuing bills that should have been destroyed, the

Assembly built a political base among those profiting from the resultant

inflation.[13]

The New Hampshire Council and Massachusetts’ Governor Belcher

periodically tried to convince the Assembly to re-consider the practice,

but fiscal conservatism fe ll on deaf ears. Enthusiasm was the byword,

as in the la te 1720's when Lieutenant Governor Wentworth repeatedly

begged the Board of Trade to allow more New Hampshire issues because he

[13] Bullock, Monetary History, 212-236; Max Shapiro, The Penniless B illionaires (New York, 1980).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. saw them as the primary force behind the five-fold increase in trade

since 1717, Notwithstanding, there were problems with the bills in New

Hampshire as in other colonies - fraud and extension of cre d it beyond

the limits of provincial debt. A commentator wrote of the trouble in

1740: New Hampshire's "Publick Bills are so much counterfeited they

scarce obtain a Currency; . . .Their ordinary Charge of Government is

about 1500[ l i .] New England Currency per Annum."[14] In 1740, more than

23, 0001i. in bills of credit were outstanding.

As the to ta l circulation of b ills of cred it grew in New Hampshire,

the economy appeared to grow in tandem. But as the rela tiv e ly unbacked

currency increased, its total purchasing power decreased. Table 3.1

shows the parallel rise in the numbers of unredeemed b ills of c re d it,

the price of s ilv e r, and the purchase price of one hundred pounds

English sterling. For example, in 1710 100li. of English goods cost

140li. New Hampshire tenor; in 1720, the same purchases tallied about

2201i. Concurrently, the price of an ounce of silver rose fifty

percent. As a result, the worth of goods increased because of

inflation. Samuel Sewall's quick re-evaluation of a loan in 1718

demonstrates how the devaluation of provincial cash affected daily life.

He wrote that he "received of Mrs. Sarah Turill 110li. for principal and

4.1011. Interest. I took no more for the Principal because I saw good

part of the Original Debt was goods, whereas I supos'd it had been all

[14] ,A Discourse Concerning the Currencies of the British Plantations in~America Especially with Regard to th e ir Paper money More Particularly, in Relation to the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, in New England (Boston, 1740).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Money."[15] We must suspect th at such arrangements were commonplace

because of the poor exchange rates.

Massive issues of relatively unsecured notes by colonies did not

automatically cause the silver and sterling exchanges rates to rise. To

the contrary, the bills were intended to, and to a certain degree did

stimulate trade and commerce - all of which should have caused exchange

rates to be static. If sheer quantities of colonial paper currency

automatically brought devaluation, Massachusetts was an anomaly. That

province's exchange rates did not decline until twenty years after her

f i r s t issu es, although her issues were huge compared to New Hampshire's.

When New Hampshire was circu latin g 23,0001i., Massachusetts had more

than 284,0001i. outstanding.[16] Silver prices were also stable for

those first twenty years. After the first quantum revaluation, Spanish

dollars brc^ht eight shillings an ounce.

War was a precipitating factor for inflation - "precipitating" in the

sense that it was not the root cause, but simply the final burden on the

economic system th at tipped the scales against an even exchange rate

with England. New England credit was over-extended at the end of Queen

Anne's War in 1714. Debts for war materials were higher than

anticipated, bills printed to support them were too numerous and

unsupported, and the drain on what silver there was for taxes to

guarantee the bills of credit was too great. With sustained demand and

[15] M. Halsey Thomas, e d ., The Diary of Samuel Sewell, 1674-1729 II (New York, 1973), 887.

[16] N ettels, Money Supply, 255.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

minute supplies, silver's price began to rise, from eight shillings per

ounce in 1709 to twelve in 1719 and twenty in 1730, then soaring to over

fifty-eight in 17*18. Proportionately, the sterling exchange rate rose

from 2.1 in 1719 to 3.4 in 1730, and 10.5 in 17*18. Wise money managers

hoarded th eir silv e r, for one ounce saved was, in a few years, two

earned.

In Portsmouth only a fraction of the population appeared to own

^silver. However, for that eight percent, the times at which we find an

increase in holdings correspond with the rise in silver prices. Table

3.2 displays the frequency of silver reported in inventories.

Table 3.2

Ownership of Silver Coin by Age and Date Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17*13

Ages 1679-99 1700-19 1720-43 Total

20-39 0 1 3 5 40-49 1 1 2 4 50-59 0 2 3 5 60-69 0 2 2 4

Total 1 6 11 18

When compared to the holdings of gold coin and local currency the

ownership of silver appears to be associated with wealth group but not

age. Table 3.3 shows the holdings of gold; Table 3.4 holdings of local

currency.

Gold was very rare and more apt to be formed into jewelry than kept

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

Table 3.3

Ownership of Gold Coin by Age and Date Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1743

Ages 1679-99 1700-19 1720-43 Total

20-39 0 2 4 6 40-49 0 1 1 2 50-59 0 1 2 3 60-99 1 0 0 1

Total 1 4 7 12

in coin, although gold guineas were available. Its ownership appeared

to be associated with wealth level, a logical relationship given its

Table 3.4

Ownership of New England Currency by Age and Date Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1743

Ages 1679-99 1700-19 1720-43 Total

20-39 3 4 1 8 40-49 3 0 0 3 50-59 2 4 0 6 60-99 1 7 3 11

Total 9 15 4 28

preciousness. A surprising feature is that only one out of ten men in

Portsmouth had paper money and this raises serious questions; first, is

our evidence correct, and second, if it is, where did all the paper

money disappear to? We must assume that the families of decedents

probably withheld some cash from appraisers when their households were

inventoried. But the smatterings of mention of cash seem erratic -

without pattern or logic in the record. It is possible that it was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. concentrated in a few hands - for instance, in the coffers of Wentworth

or Vaughan family members - many of whom avoided probate. Additionally,

given the success of the land bank, paper money might have been spread

throughout farms and homes outside the city, where mortgages were

exchanged for cash. The final answer cannot be found in the Portsmouth

records.

Silver could also be used for investment. Aside from coin, it was

fashioned into objects that could be prominently displayed in homes as

physical symbols of an individual's worth. Table 3.5 displays the

ownership of silver objects by wealth group and Table 3.6, ownership by

date. The data in the tables suggest that silver plate ownership was

related to wealth group, a natural association of those having more

assets owning expensive items. Still, silver was not very common and

the chances that an individual owned any did not increase with the

years, although the amount that people owned did increase. Between 1680

and 1699 only 29.8 percent of the probate population had any, and

between 1720 and 1740 the percentage was only 30.3. Silver was, in any

case, a healthy investment and protection against inflation at any

tim e.[17]

Inflation became troublesome in most colonies about 1713. Toward the

end of the war British manufactured goods again began flooding into New

England and, with them, c re d ito r's b ill demanding immediate payment.

[17] For the relationship between silv er ownership and time, eta was .039. The Pearsonian R between the amount of silv er individuals owned and the date was .41 with a significance level of .0002.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

Table 3.5

Ownership of Silver Objects by Wealth Group Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1743

Group No. Owning No. not Owning Total Silver Objects Silver Objects

Poor 5 (2.1) 79 (33.8) 84 (35.9) Low Mid. 9 (3.8) 37 (15.8) 46 (19.7) Mid Mid. 19 (8.1) 18 (7.7) 37 (15.8) Hi Mid. 25 (10.7) 27 (11.5) 52 (22.2) E lite 10 (4.3) 5 (2.1) 15 (6.4)

Total 68 (29.1) 166 (70.9) 234 (100.0

With the silver deficit many chits went unpaid and creditors often

threatened seizure of lands for balances past due. Recognizing a

serious threat to the province's livelihood, the Assembly quickly

enacted legislation to forestall such moves and instituted a plan

allowing debtors six years to repay large debts, blocking possible

property lien s.[1 8 ] However, commodity in flatio n was an even more

pressing problem and issue of far-reaching consequence. A wholesale

price index for Portsmouth compiled by Samuel J . McKinley indicates a

ris e of 180 percent between 1723 and 1748. Price mark-ups by Portsmouth

merchants likewise advanced from 200 to 1500 percent.[19]

[18] Van Deventer, Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 113-

[ 19] Samuel J . McKinley, "The Economic History of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, from its First Settlement to 1830, including a Study of Price Movements There, 1713-1770 and 1804-1830" (Ph.D. d is s ., Harvard University, 1931). 380.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

Table 3.6

Ownership of Silver Objects by Date Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-17^3

Date No. ftming No. not Owning Total Silver Objects Silver Objects

1679-99 14 (6.0) 33 (14.1) 47 (20.1) 1700-19 17 (7.3) 48 (20.5) 65 (27.8) 1720-40 37 (15.8) 85 (36.3) 122 (52.1)

Total 68 (29-1) 166 (70.9) 234 (100.0)

Staples and trade materials were affected by the increase. In 1705

beef sold for one and one-half pence per pound and cod brought fourteen

shillings a quintal. By 1723 prices were eight pence and thirty

shillings respectively.[20] Bolstered by demand and unsecured credit,

other goods became more expensive. In 1723 a barrel of salt pork

wholesaled at one-hundred five shillings and salt cost twenty-two.

Seven years later, the pork brought one-hundred sixty shillings, and

salt doubled in price. Beverages costs also increased. A barrel of

beer wholesaled for seven shillings in 1723 but cost nine in 1730; a

gallon of West Indian run, purchased at cost for four shillings and

resold for six in 1723, cost five and brought nine in 1730.[21] Wages

kept pace with inflation to some degree. In 1681 highway work paid two

shillings a day to a freeman, half that to a lad or servant. By 1733* a

[20] Ibid., 381-389(wholesale), 394-407(retail).

[21] Ib id ., 395-398.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

servant received seven and a half shillings and a freeman nine.[22] Yet,

higher wages could not completely compensate for spiraling prices nor

balance the teetering state of the colonial pound.

For many living through these uncertain decades, comfort - not

survival - was a primary concern. The issue most people confronted was

how best to maintain economic standards without undue sacrifice.

Envision two possible scenes. A frugal housewife quietly sighs as she

learns of recent price increases. Her promise to her daughter of a pair

of pink satin slippers would have to be broken. Maybe next year. Her

husband curses under his breath when he learns that the team of bullocks

he had his eyes on all spring has just been sold for more money than he

could afford. He had dreamed of enlarging his livestock holdings and

the fees from renting out that new team would have been a boost to the

family. In short, economic turns dampened many people's s p irits but did

not break them.

Widows and ministers were two types more affected by inflation for,

e sse n tia lly , th e ir income was fixed. When a husband died, his widow

often became a pensioner. Courts often gave widows a fixed stipend for

the remainder of their lives. But those allotments were not tied to

inflation and that caused hardship. A ten pound pension allowed in 1710

provided most shelter and food; by 1720 the sum brought only six pounds

of comfort, and in 1725, five pounds. Often women were driven to apply

for public aid because of inflation's effects. Ministers were more

[22] Portsmouth Town Records, Bound Typescript, I, Pt.2, 229A.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

likely to appeal to their congregations when their salaries bought less

of life's needs and desires, and congregations were often responsive to

those requests. Still, a group of ministers did appeal to Province to

lessen dependency on paper currency in the 1720's, only to be

rebuffed.[23] The complaints of a few weighed very lightly against the

trade prospects of many. If someone owned commodities or had cash

reserves, prospects were bright for both rose in value the longer they

were held. Silver's value rose; notes and mortgages accrued interest at

about one and one-half percent per year; staples with a long "shelf-

life" increased in value. People owning these types of things fared

well, but residents whose lives revolved around smaller domestic

economies faced harder times.

Throughout the period, one economic facet tied a ll groups together -

debt. Consciously or not, from the province level down to the most

pence-wise widow, a ll recognized the advantage of debt. Borrowing money

or goods against time was an age-old practice. In a period of constant

depreciation and inflation it was a worthwhile risk. But being in debt

meant different things to different people. To the wealthy merchant

family like the Cutts, it was a risk on a ship's mortgage taken in the

hope of a calm voyage without piracy. To the widow Stacy i t was buying

precious little portions of meat or suet to flavor her January gruel in

return for milk from her goat in June. To both, the arrangement was

lik e ly to be informal and co lla te ral not an issue. Lending and

borrowing was premised on personal connections. And, in early

[23] Van Deventer, Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 121.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Portsmouth, it was a rare person who did not do both.

Thomas Mannering did. From the account of his e s ta te 's

adm inistration we can see how th is process worked. Mannering was the

only son of an Isles fisherman, the parents of whom immigrated to

Portsmouth early in the seventeenth century. As a third generation son,

his contacts were widespread throughout the community. He married into

a respected Portsmouth family and managed the fishery for his

livelihood. Probably in his f if tie s when he died, Mannering had an

estate worth over one-thousand pounds, half of which represented the

Isles business and half invested in a house, land, and orchard. He

owned silver objects - a tankard, spoons, and buckles. His house was

comfortably furnished with beds, chairs, spinning wheels, large amounts

of linen and crockery in addition to dozens of cooking implements. His

wardrobe was extensive, including two suits, six shirts, four great

coats, and ten vests for his days on land, and several sets of "old sea

Cloths." In our high-middle wealth group, he lived a life of above

average material comfort.[24]

Mannering also had a large number of debts. When he died he owed 760

pounds to 33 accounts. His outstanding debt of 294 pounds with Weeks

and Carrington, a firm used frequently by area shippers, was the

larg e st. From June 1733 to October 1734 Mannering contracted with them

for barrels of flour, tar, pitch, turpentine, oakum, binding, yards of

cloth, anchors, and nails. Over the eighteen months he had repaid them

to some extent in rum, beef, cheese, cash, and by paying their creditors

[24] Mannering adm inistration, PPR XII, 156-175.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 81 in New Hampshire - witness the cryptic entry: "To Mr. Mannerings

Draught in favour of Jones for Part of Wood's Bill endorsed to Reed."

Other accounts were not as impressive although still important in

business. Ebenezer Moore of Kittery apparently acted as Mannering1s

local agent in some transactions. Moore's receipts against Mannering's

show cash paid out to local account in addition to shoes, stockings, and

an occasional bushel of corn. Mannering repaid him by making fittin g s

for his ship and shoring up wharfing planks. Thomas Hammett of

Portsmouth had shipped a slave and her child to Virginia in 1733 for

Mannering and was repaid in cordage. Most account were local in origin.

Only the Weeks and Carrington account suggests links to Boston and

London.

Some accounts provide glimpses of the basic chores of the workaday

world. John Shaw billed Mannering for days for offloading s a lt from a

schooner, carrying fish from the ship to the warehouse, washing "green"

fish, grinding apples at the mill using his horse's power, transporting

the finished cider to an agent's warehouse, and hauling manure. Aside

from chores, Shaw also provided most of the fresh veal for Mannering's

tab le. His b ill was two pounds for a ll the aforementioned chores, and

that was paid in kind with corn, a half-quintal of fish, and a gallon of

molasses. Very little hard money exchanged hands in any of these

transactions.

For those few demanding payment in cash, delays in settlem ents was

frustrating. As a reminder of a long-overdue payment, Thomas Jackson

sent this plaintive note to Widow Mannering:

I am in a grate Strate for a letel money & if you could faver me

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

with that small matter of money that is my Dou in so Doing you will oblige your humbel Servent . . . I should not sent But i am in a grate strate for it.

The sum in arrears was all of fifteen shillings.[253 The widow responded

to Jackson's plea and settled the debt, able to to do because of ten

debts due the estate, and paid. Ranging from six to one-hundred sixty-

nine pounds, they were large credits. The geographic spread of debtors

to the estate was different from that of its creditors. Only two of the

ten were local; the re s t were traders from Maine or Boston. Payment

methods also differed. Only Henry Keyes paid in kind; the rest paid in

cash. The stark numbers of these c re d its, combined with the l i s t of

debts sheds some light on Mannering's life. Within his community, debts

were not solely financial matters but were obligations of a personal

nature. His work in the fishing business was more or less balanced by

the hard labor of others. Work and goods were paid for in work and

goods. Hard cash was valued secondarily to who produced the goods i t

purchased. Work contracted outside the community was more s te rile and

detached and, more likely, standards of silver replaced standards of

community labor.

The fam iliar interchange of goods and services between Mannering and

his neighbors was representative of the mainstream of everyday economic

transactions in Portsmouth. The economy was diverse and supported

locally by the flow of goods, not cash. That Mannering was fortunate

enough to die with a positive financial balance is perhaps due to a

combination of skill and circumstance. Probably part of his inheritance

[25 3 Ib id ., 167.

■ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

from his father was managerial advice: Who sold the best cordage, which

dealers were likely to short-weight your catch, who would give you the

best exchange rate on the pound, what families reared the best able-

bodied workers. Translating that into everyday practice took patience

and luck. That the times were with him, that Portsmouth had a liv ely

economic environment, that he did not make foolhardy investments - these

were ingredients to his success. Examination of other extant

administrations helps us see people aside from Mannering and how they

were faring at the ends of their lives.

Many Portsmouth estates were certified "insolvent" during

administration, and that label is potentially misleading. Given the

continuous flow of debt and cred it - representing goods borrowed and

owed - a man could be insolvent one day and solvent the next. But if he

died before a debt could be recouped in a future transaction, the debts

stood the flow of debits into credits into debits. Probate records

reflect that hardening. Consequently, insolvency is a relative term and

one that reflects on the outlooks of the survivors of the estate, not of

the decedent. A man could live on debits and credits; heirs were

responsible for paying the one and collecting the other. In short,

since there are limited means through which an historian can review the

exact state of a person's indebtedness in life we have to review debt

from a sta tic point - death. Like any other "snapshot" i t may be very

exact and capture the subject entirely, or it may be an unrepresentative

picture.

Real "insolvency" resulted from an over-extension of credit. Widows

sometimes had to liquidate whole e sta tes, including realty , to repay

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

creditors and this was often the case when the surviving family was

mature. The Jonathan Odiorne 1708 estate settlement was a case in

point.[26] Odiorne first settled on Smuttynose then sold his fishing

gear and moved to the mainland in 1640, married a local woman, and built

a trading business at what is now Odiorne's Point. The couple raised

four children, all of whom were mature adults at the father's death.

Widow Odiorne accepted cash payment for her th ird s of the forty-one

acres owned at the Plains, valued at thirty pounds, and three acres on

Great Island worth six. Twenty-nine pounds of the one-hundred fifty

pound estate went toward dower and adm inistrative fees. The court

ordered that the remaining 121 be distributed among 12 accounts

totalling over 140 pounds. To ensure equal treatment, each creditor was

paid 18s.3d. on the pound. In lif e Odiorne fared well; in death, he was

insolvent.

Thomas Hammett's estate brought on similar problems in 1734.[27] An

immigrant from England, Hammett married a local woman from a comfortable

family and moved into Portsmouth in 1716. Less than twenty years later,

when he was probably in his late forties, he died, his estate indicating

a more-than-modest standard of living. But, it appears that his

occupation as sailmaker was overshadowed by his passion for trading

gambles in the five years prior to his death. His fortune totalled 435

pounds. However, when all debts were called in, the estate was nearly

insolvent. His personalty was too small to cover the 302 pounds owed to

[26] PPR II, 145-148, 241-266.

[27] PPR XII, 142-144; PPR XIV, 194.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. seventeen creditors. One third of that debt was owed to Henry

Sherburne, a local trading magnate. Half of it was for a bond taken out

in 1734, for which the widow was charged five pounds in te re s t. The

mourning party's apparel, despite the apparent dire state of the estate,

was tasteful and expensive. Yards of silk crepe, London shalloon, fine

linen, and mohair were used to dress the family and tailoring bills

attested to the high degree of workmanship. Gallons of wine and rum

flowed at the funeral. So while Hammett died in debt he went out in

sty le .

Although Hammett's estate had a final positive balance, leaving about

one-hundred pounds for the widow and children a fte r most debts had been

paid, the label of near-insolvency was attached because land had to be

sold to meet creditors. This was apparently not a social stigma but

rather a positive attribute. It.meant the family had had a large amount

of wealth in land - a mark of distinction. While it cannot be

determined from available sources if the widow had to sell all the

realty to settle accounts, it was standard practice. In two thirds of

registered insolvent or near insolvent cases, licenses to sell land to

meet debts were recorded with the court. This action meant that land

was freed in town and in the tight Portsmouth housing market, land sold

very quickly. The economic straig h ts of one family often meant a chance

for another to move into or into another part of Portsmouth. In short,

debt situ atio n s such that resulting from Hammett's death increased

physical mobility in Portsmouth because it forced lands to be sold.

Ten percent of the people in the probate sample were insolvent.

Table 3.7 shows the distribution of these estates by age group and their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Table 3.7

Age Group by Median Deflated Raw Estate Value Solvent vs. Insolvent Estates with Known Ages Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^3

Ages Solvent N Insolvent N

20-29 101.7 16 543.3 2 30-39 193.4 36 101.0 7 40-49 163.4 45 99.8 5 50-59 257.0 48 84.9 6 60-99 211.4 56 26.3 4

Total 191.0 201 95.1 24

median worth before administration in comparison with those who were

solvent. Table 3.8 shows the same breakdowns by date. The estate

values have been deflated by date through a commodity price index -

detailed in Appendix I - so the figures show true relative differences

between groups across time. Medians are used because they mediate the

effects of extreme ranges in data on the final totals. Inventory values

before administration are not weighted to compensate for the discrepancy

in age structure between our probate population and the entire

Portsmouth population. Estate worth was weighted only after liabilities

were deducted - and in those figures insolvents net worth is equal to

zero. Consequently, the medians show values that allow us to compare

and contrast age and time period for insolvents and solvents equally.

The data points to two observations. First, insolvent decedents had

remarkably smaller assets than solvent decedents when the two are broken

down by age. Granting that the insolvents were a small sub-population

(important in its e lf in such a v o latile economy), and that th eir average

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

1 Table 3.8 Date by Median Deflated Raw Estate Value Solvent vs. Insolvent Estates with Known Ages Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Date Solvent N Insolvent N

1679-99 141.5 45 93.0 5 1700-19 220.2 61 224.7 5 1720-40 191.8 104 59.4 14

Total 189.2 210 95.1 24

worth was based on a minor subset of the to ta l population, th e ir wealth

values were radically different from those with solvent estates. They

did not fall from great financial heights to the depths of bankruptcy.

Their outstanding expenses and debts were, on a low financial level,

simply greater than their assets. The one exception was a Cutts family

member who died in his twenties when he was, apparently, in the midst of

a large financial deal. His case may be discounted from the overall

impression if it is kept in mind that his future was economically

bright. The others did not share that fortune. The second impression

from the data is that, in regard to age, insolvents had less to lose

than solvents.

Debt without insolvency was a integral to Portsmouth. Since death

interrupted life, and lending and borrowing were part of life,

administrations lend evidence about the degree of indebtedness for

different types of people. Table 3.9 displays mean liabilities by

wealth group by date for all in the sample. Table 3.10 shows the same

by age for time periods. All wealth data has been weighted for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 3*9

Median L ia b ilitie s per Wealth Group by Date In Deflated Pounds Sterling Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^0

Date Poor N L Mid N M Mid N H Mid N E lite N

1679- -99 29.7 22 61.1 8 65.9 9 157.6 9 45.8 1 1700- -19 32.9 19 61.9 14 134.6 12 41.5 15 44.6 4 1720- -40 44.1 43 69.3 24 26.2 16 44.6 28 164.7 10

All 35.9 84 61.2 46 71.3 37 56.5 52 65.3 15

Table 3.10

Median L ia b ilitie s per Age Group by Date In Deflated Pounds Sterling Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Date 20-29 N 30-39 N 40-49 N 50-59 N 60-99 N

1679-99 28.2 3 96.7 10 65.4 12 14.9 12 52.8 11 1700-19 58.1 3 65.4 9 31.9 18 57.7 16 62.4 18 1720-40 34.8 12 101.4 24 26.2 20 88.7 26 51.7 31

All 32.6 18 100.8 43 35.9 50 58.0 54 52.9 60

inflation. Contrary to an expectation that the wealthiest would have

larger liabilities, the elite had debts in the same range as those in

the lowest two wealth groups up to 1720. This was probably a result of

so few being "elite," but those few had estates that were

proportionately so much larger than any others they were separated out

for comparison. Collapsing the categories to include them in the lower

| category would overly-exaggerate the average value of estates in a

revised top group. Otherwise, the ascending amounts of indebtedness by

wealth and date display patterns in line with assets and the gradual

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

growth of wealth inequality over the years that was discussed in Chapter

I. Liabilities by age depict no pattern although they hint slightly of

the increase in insolvency assets between 1700 and 1719. S ta tis tic a l

te s ts between lia b il i ti e s and date and age show no significance, but

there is a slight relationship between debits and wealth group.[28] In

short, while these figures indicate expected debt levels, they are not

firmly related to one another.

The examination of the estate administrations of Thomas Parker,

Thomas Mannering, and Thomas Hammett shows us part of the inner workings

o f Portsmouth's economy; the data relayed in the tables shows the larger

picture. It was a town where debt was a consequence of the normal flow

o f the economy, where any man was apt to be creditor to some, debtor to

others. Most men could, and did repay those debts and collect on those

chits in a fairly regular manner. Those who could not repay - about one

in ten - were not good credit risks to begin with, for they were

primarily the poor. In the main, most people fared well despite the

continuing currency crisis and inflation. Since most of the local

economy was based on exchange of goods and services in kind, not cash,

inflation did not harm trade within the city but, rather, spurred the

economy. I t was a positive good to be indebted to some degree, and most

people were. Information drawn from the estates of the probated

population suggests that neither age nor date had any bearing on

liabilities; only the total amount of one's assets slightly corresponded

[28] Pearsonian for liabilities by date are .05 with significance of .23; liabilities by age were .03 with a significance of .3227. The Pearsonian R for liabilities by wealth group was .12 with a significance of .06.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

with debt. In short, debt was universal. When combined with inflation,

it worked to the benefit of internal trade and to the detriment of cash-

oriented external trade. Debt was part and parcel of Portsmouth's

economy from 1680 to 1740.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

THE OWNERSHIP AND USES OF LAND

When creditors went to court to collect their due from the estates of

decedents, the last thing officials allowed them to impound was land.

When arguments erupted among family members over the disposition of a

decedent's estate, the subject of the controversy was most likely to be

land. When two litigants were locked in a heated court battle the focus

of their disagreements was apt to be trespass or boundary disputes.

Land - its ownership and, by extension, its use for the production of

food and for pasturage, its value as an investment, its site for the

family home with its attendant psychological security - was a dominating

feature of Portsmouth's social and economic landscape, and one in which

the divisions between poor and wealthy were sometimes quite clear,

sometimes quite blurred.

A 1732 record of polls and estates listed 705 improved acres in

Portsmouth proper and 95 in Newcastle.[1] As the site for most

businesses and residences, these eight-hundred acres were located on the

Portsmouth penninsula and the northern tip of Newcastle. The outlying

region of Portsmouth included an additional eight square miles of

p artially -arab le land - acreage on which some residents grew food and

[1] "List of the land Poles and Estates for a New Proportioning for the Province Rates, May 12, 1732," MS New Hampshire Archives, Concord, N.H.

91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. raised livestock - serving as the agricultural counterpoint to the

business core. The confines of that larger area stretched northward to

Newington, set off in 1714, westward to Greenland, incorporated in 1704,

and southward to Rye, partitioned in 1726. Taken together, this roughly

ten square mile tra c t encompassed a variety of types of land put to a

variety of uses. How residents put this land to work demonstrates the

mixed nature of Portsmouth’s land-based economy, and how the land was

transferred between families shows how people regarded land wealth.

Lawrence Friedman's observation that colonials thought "not of ownership

of land, but of rights to land and in land . . . arranged in layers of

time and space" reflecting "tradition, state policy, and the market"

accurately describes Portsmouth.[2]

The land supply in Portsmouth was very tig h t. By 1680 a newcomer had

difficulty buying his way into town. From 1630 to 1650 land was

parceled out to early settlers; in the 1650's there was a recruitment

drive for new residents that ended about 1660. In his study of early

New Hampshire, David Van Deventer pointed to a 1658 law limiting

"strangers" to eight-acre lots, and then only to those who could provide

a trade the Selectmen deemed desirable, noting that "between 1658 and

1672 new inhabitants received minimal town grants . . . depending

entirely upon their occupation." From then on, except for infrequent

divisions of a limited amount of common land in proportion to taxable

wealth, tracts for newcomers were not available simply for the asking.

Even long-time residents felt the pinch, as seen in a general petition

[2] Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law (New York, 1973)-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. at town meeting in April, 1724. Residents hoped that Sandy Beach would

not separate from the town "so that there may be no farthur Curtailing

or Dividing of the Said Town: which is alread reduced to very Narrow

limits."[3] Most outsiders were alienated because the town tried to

preserve its limited space for the indigenous community. Even the

imfamous Walter Barefoote willed property to his relatives in the area

instead of to his immediate family in England. His sister and brother-

in-law received his Portsmouth and Greenland tracts with the stipulation

that i t was entailed to the New Hampshire fam ily.[4] For the most p art,

only established families in town had the stability of land ownership,

and they practiced post and pre-death land transmission to kin to secure

land for future generations.

The rules of transmission of property after a death within families

were re la tiv e ly s ta tic between 1680 and 1740. While the procedures

became more sophisticated and complex over time, the reasoning behind

what was done did not su b stan tially change. When her husband drowned in

October 1681, Hannah Brooking had to ask her father-in-law to petition

the court for her rightful due of the realty.[5] By 1708, a family could

petition judges for their due by themselves. When mariner John Banfield

died in Barbadoes in 1708, his family asked that the eldest son receive

3 double portion, the widow her third, and the other children the

[3] Van Deventer, Emergence of Provincial New Hampshire, 21, 30. Portsmouth Town Records, m s., Vol. 2, Pt. 1, 62-F-A, 20 April 1724.

[4] PRPNH I, 363-36 4.

[5] PRPNH II, 258; Also see Misc. Provincial Papers, ms. New Hampshire Archives, I, 18; Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 112.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

remainder of .the realty divided equally among them.[6] In 1740, the

Honorable John Wheelright approved the division of John Cotton's realty

as follows: the eldest son William received 17 acres 112 p o lls, and the

house, barn, and orchard. Brother Timothy received 23 acres 112 polls

in two pieces as did both his s is te rs , Elizabeth and Mary.[7] These

v ariations in practice were probably the re su lt of a growing population

that caused an increase in case loads, as well as a desire on officials'

parts to streamline standard procedures. In 1680 New Hampshire's

probate code was firmly established. Based immediately on Massachusetts

practice, Portsmouth rulings were based on a form of partible descent

stemming ultim ately from English primogeniture and gavelkind.[8] Within

the standard formula of the eldest son receiving a double portion, the

widow her thirds (or as specified), and the remaining siblings dividing

the rest equally, families usually directed the distribution of lands

among themselves. But people did deviate from th is norm.

In an effort to keep land "in the family" and in "the right hands,"

residents entailed realty and used land as a leverage to enforce proper

conduct. In 1688, Isles fisherman Edward Beals left his lands and

fishing business to his son, his heirs, and their heirs - in that order.

If those primary sons did not have legal heirs, the property reverted to

[6] For John's and his son Hugh's e sta tes, see PRPNH I, 608-609; PPR VII, 489 (warrant of appraisement), PPR X, 445-447 (administration, inventory, and guardianship); Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical D ictionary, 74.

C7] PRPNH II. 168-171.

[8] Friedman, American Law, 55-59, 80.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. his daughters and their heirs.[9] Other men cut their sons or male heirs

off entirely, as did Richard Gerrish, because his son ran off and

married a woman thought unsuitable by his parents. The wealthy Esquire

John Wentworth did the same when he le f t thousands of pounds in realty

and cash to his children but only five shillings to his son-in-law,

Samuel Plaisted, because Plaisted ill-treated Wentworth's favorite

daughter Hannah.[10] In most cases, however, h eirs did not become

lan d less.

Officials and relatives could influence and direct land distribution.

Town fathers could counteract family requests if the appraisers

determined that parceling land would "harm" it. Widow Elizabeth

Harvey's petition for such a division was denied in 1734. The committee

investigating the request decided that separating the family farm into

five parts would be detrimental, although exactly how was not specified.

As a result, and as in the majority of similar cases, the eldest son

retained control of the whole, paying his mother and siblings

proportional shares of the profits from the land.C113 Alternately,

family counselors could advise how land (as well as personalty) should

be meted out. Reverend Joshua Moody left instructions for his children

to a group of friends as well as his brother Caleb, asking them to "give

the best advice and help" to his children and to remind them of "a

[93 PRPNH I, 322-324; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 84.

[103 PRPNH I, 808- 809; PPR VIII., 123-125; PRPNH II, 378-381. Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 258.

[113 PRPNH I, 749; PPR VII, 297.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

tender and denying ffather" who wanted his offspring to remember the

following things:

th at there be noe difference between them; about anything th at I shall leave them and in order to the preventing any difference, I advise them to meete . . .and share m atters between them while the remembrance off a dead Father is ffresh and warme upon th eir Souls; and if they cannot agree between themselves . . .that the major part of the overseers determine the Controversie and they shall sitt Downe by i t . "[12]

In any case, those wishing to own land were forced to abide by community

and familiar directions.

Land transfer was not just a result of death. While still alive,

fathers could and did distribute land. This practice, in a town with a

very tight land supply, provided a homestead for both generations. The

Edmunds family shared responsibility and security in this manner. When

both father and son, John and Thomas Edmunds, were "barborsly moorderd

by the Engin Enimy" on June 26, 1696, son Thomas owned the family land

on which both his young family and his parents lived. Together, the two

families owned a complete functioning farm. Separately, they owned

imcomplete sets of things needed to run the homestead. Thomas owned

milk cows, a horse, some sheep, a few household items, and spinning,

quilling, and flax wheels. His father had cash and book debts, pigs, a

bed, and all the tools needed to work the land and tend to the animals -

wedges, hatchets, saws, chisels, hammers, hooks, adzes, and mattocks.

While not wealthy, the Edmunds' families were practical.[13]

[12] PRPNH I, 384-387.

[13] PPR VII, 369-372.

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

These practices protected land for most residents. Table 4.1 clearly

shows that most families, except for the poor, owned land, from 1700

Table 4.1

Percentage of All Estates Owning Land and Houses Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

LAND Group 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Poor 22.7 57.9 39.5 39.3 Lo Mid 37.5 64.3 70.8 63.0 Middle 66.7 91.7 56.3 70.3 Hi Mid 55.6 53.3 75.0 65.4 E lite 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 40.8 67.2 60.3 58.1

HOUSES Poor 18.2 36.8 32.6 29.8 Lo Mid 37.5 50.0 54.2 50.0 Middle 100.0 66.7 68.8 75.7 Hi Mid 88.9 66.7 71.4 73.1 E lite 100.0 100.0 60.0 73.3

Total 51.2 56.3 52.9 53.4

onwards. The figures in the table also relay a false impression of

growth in the amount of available land, especially for the middle

period. Since the number of newcomers was limited, and the acreage of

the town began to decrease (due to the political separation of

surrounding districts), the increase in the percentage of land and home

owners actually suggests that the increasing native population had begun

to subdivide family lots. Because Portsmouth had no room (or direction)

to grow, the density increased. Areas that had once been extensive

gardens and orchards, for example, became home sites, as shown by the

decrease in those land types in Table 4.2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

Table 4.2

Percentage of All Estates Corning Gardens and Orchards Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Gardens 8.2 4.7 5.0 5.6 Orchards 6.1 4.7 4.1 4.7

Interm arriages between townspeople kept land in th eir hands. Captain

George Snell, long a Shoals resident, moved onshore by the early 1660's.

His personal lif e was marred by tragedy. Although he had five children,

his oldest son died young and his youngest daughter was captured and

taken to Canada by the French. He lost at least three wives during his

l i f e . His ch ild ren 's mother was quickly followed by Portsmouth widows,

the second of which, Dodevah Hull, brought property to the marriage.

His only surviving son, John Snell, was a Portsmouth cooper with a mind

set on real estate. He married a daughter of another local mariner and

parlayed the wealth acquired by the sea-based businesses of both fathers

into a substantial land-based business. By the age of 51 (1718).

Snell's real estate was worth 5701i. of his total assets of 5921i.

Representing a house, shop, wharf, and warehouse, 3001i. was his

paternal inheritance. His other house and land, worth 2701i. came

indirectly from his father-in-law. The remaining 221i. represented

modest furnishings for his residence. His household furnishings would

not give a neighbor the impression that Snell was, according to total

assets, a well-to-do man. Perhaps he remembered the words in his

father's will, that "it is well known what I have lest . . . but God

gives and takes away" when his only son died. To retain family control

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. over the land, however, John willed it to his wife and their son-in-law,

a local shipmaster. Through three generations of economic gain and

personal loss, the Snell men managed their personal part of

Portsmouth.[14]

In fam ilies with more than one son and less than enough property for

each, the situation could be more complicated than with the Snells.

While his oldest brother William was given his grandfather's house in

Strawbery Banke, John Ham had to work hard as a fisherman to purchase

the farm that Dodevah Hull subsequently brought to her marriage with

John Snell. Although he had a small place in Portsmouth, Ham had five

sons and three daughters to care for, and two sons were already sharing

the in-town home. William's case was not so complicated. Staying in

Strawbery Banke as a cooper, he married a local woman and had one son

and four daughters. The son, Samuel, became a weaver in town, and

married the daughter of a local mariner. He willed the family property

to his wife, their eight children, and his maternal kinsmen. Given

Samuel's inherited realty, stemming back to his great-grandfather, it is

not surprising to find that his holdings in real estate were almost

identical to his father’s (45? of total assets), as well as the amount

of his holdings in other areas. Where his father had 8? of his assets

in personal goods, Samuel had 5%; where his father had 34? invested in

livestock, Samuel had 36%. These proportions also were weakly echoed in

his uncle John's home, where 35? was in livestock, 26? in land, and 31?

[14] John Snell PPR X, 59; Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 479.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in home furnishings - evidence in this case of multiple homes that he

owned.[15] Traditions other than real estate ran deep in some families.

Land was a substantial investment, no matter how you viewed it. It

sapped human resources; it's monetary value was high. In all of New

England, for example, Terry Anderson found that between 1680 and 1689.

people normally invested 35% of their available resources in land

(representing 99.91li), and this figure increased to 65%, or 116.091i by

1709.C163 Nevertheless, the situation in Portsmouth was different.

Over the entire period, townspeople invested about one-third of their

assets in land. In the earlier years, the figure was a bit less; in the

later years, a bit more, but realty never constituted the larger part of

the resources of Portsmouth's families. From 1680 to 1699. the

percentage of money put into real estate was, on the average, 17.8%, as

compared to assets in home furnishings (29.7%), and livestock (15.9%).

This meant that people such as Jethro Furber decided to buy feather beds

instead of pasturage. By 1720, tastes and options had changed.

Overall, people dedicated almost twice as much money to realty than

before the turn of the century. In general, 35% of assets were in

realty as compared to home furnishings, which stayed at about the same

lev e l, or livestock, holdings that dropped precipitously to 2.3%. This

rise in realty investment did not necessarily mean that more land was

[15] John Ham: PPR XIV, 200-201; William Ham: PPR VII, 385-386; Samuel Ham: PPR XIII, 163-16^; for a ll , Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 302-303.

[16] Terry Anderson, "Wealth Estimates," 157-158.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

available for purchase. In addition to the subdivisions of family

property for younger generations, land prices rose. While real estate

prices were re la tiv e ly stab le throughout the e a rlie r decades, they began

increase slowly beginning around 1705, and rose sharply from 1714

onwards, as seen in Graph 4.1. Land became dear in more ways than one.

Realty was a scarce resource in town when Nehemiah Partridge was 47

in 1690, and scarce as well as expensive for his son William when he was

the same age in 1718.[17] Nehemiah was a cordwainer and a long-time

resident of town. He married a local woman, Sarah Ell ins, whose father

deeded them the homelot next door to his as a wedding present. That

one-quarter acre homestead represented about half of Nehemiah's assets

which were a l i t t l e more than one hundred pounds. William did not

follow in his father's occupational footsteps but did receive land "in

love and affection" as well as in repayment for an outstanding debt - a

sign of the start of the inflationary period. In 1718 he owned three

small pieces of property, totalling not much more than a tenth of an

acre - one lot measuring 25 by 100 feet that held a barn and another

handkerchief-sized "house lot" measuring 33 hy 45 feet. Yet, for

property less than half the size of his father's, William invested twice

the money, and since he had about the same amount of assets as his

father, the proportion of his total estate in real estate was double

th at of his father - an overwhelming 93%. While William had more

invested in land than most during the period, he demonstrates directly

[17] Nehemiah Partridge, JPPR v n * 449-451 ; Libby, Davis and Noyes, Genealogical Dictionary, 532; William Partridge, PPR X, 100-101.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Graph 4.1 1740 1734 1728 1722 1710 1718 DATE 1704 PORTSMOUTH, N.H. 1680-1740PORTSMOUTH, 1692 1698 1686 - - - I860 0 LAND PRICES IN DEFLATED PENCE - SMOOTHED 1000 2000 4000- 500Q- C C 3000-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the problems and effects of limited land and a tight market in

Portsmouth.

From 1720 to 17U0, the average percentage of assets in realty was

31.79. Investment in land just about equalled that in household

furnishings (35.W , and was almost six times the amount people put into

livestock (5.2i). Land prices were still on the rise and animal prices

had risen slowly since the turn of the century. Graph i».2 shows the

averaged prices of cows, pigs, and sheep over the period. It appears

that people were still subdividing, as with the Partridges, and people

were skipping generations when willing property, as with the Brewster

family. John Brewster, senior, gained a foothold in Portsmouth in 1662

through the Sherburne family. Marrying Mary Sherburne, he acquired a

homestead in the outer part of town with the provision that he or his

heirs could not sell it without giving Mary's father a chance to buy it

back.[18] To ensure that the property stayed in the family and that all

was legal, Brewster apparently entailed the home to his grandson, by­

passing his son John Brewster, Junior. John Junior married a daughter

of his mother's cousin, reinforcing ties with the Sherburne family, and

eventually became an innkeeper and the owner of one of the town's

bowling alleys. His business did well, as bowling was a favorite of

sa ilo rs . He saved enough to invest in a l i t t l e property of his own as

well as to purchase two pews, one in the church near his home, the other

in the "new" south meetinghouse. At age 59 in 1726 he had almost a

[18] Brewster family, Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 109; John Brewster, Senior, PPR I, 368-369; John Brewster, Junior, _PPR VII, 576-579.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. o

Graph 4.2 1740 1734 1728 1722 1718 1710 DATE 1704 PORTSMOUTH, N.H. N.H. 1680-1740PORTSMOUTH, 1683 LIVESTOCK PRICES - SMOOTHED 1088 1692 - - 1880 0 1000 3000- 5000- eooo- I I C N P N C E P R 4000- E S ; E 2000-

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

third of his wealth in land, almost a tenth in household goods, and

about forty percent in cash as befit a tavern keeper catering to an

itinerant population of mariners. If the family home had been willed to

him instead of his son, the distribution of his assets would have been

quite different. But, as things were in Portsmouth, this arrangement

provided a home for everyone.

Those who could not afford a home were at the mercy of th eir

rela tiv e s and the town. When Prudence Tapley's parents were incapable

of housing themselves, she drove a bargain with the selectmen. She

would keep her parents at her house only if she were paid ten pounds per

year by the town and i f they finished a room a t the back of her house

"to Accomodate said old people."[19] Thomas Wakeham's sisters-in -law

were more fortunate. They lived with his family and were granted part

of his estate upon his death.[20]

Land was an exceptionally valuable resource and one acquired through

family and business connections. Its ownership was not firmly related

to any other factors such as date and a decedent's age. While we can

describe the average patterns of ownership over time - how much one was

lik e ly to invest in land - we cannot say an association existed between

time and those averages. How much one invested had no relationship with

when one invested.[21] Likewise, age had almost nothing to do with how

[19] Portsmouth Town Records, II Pt. 1, 28-FA. October 8, 1710.

[20] PPR VII, 70-72.

[21] The eta between date and percentage ownership of land was 1.9, and the F statistic was 2.83 at the .038 significance level. Date was entered as an ordinal; percentage as an interval. Those classifications

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

much land one owned in comparison with other assets.[22] Although a

direct relationship did not exist, we can describe the proportions

invested in realty that did exist for townsfolk of different ages. For

example, those in the 30 to 39 year-old age bracket had about 20 percent

of their assets in land. Those ages HO to 49 had about 30 percent.

Those in their 50's and 60's had about 37 percent in realty. But the

differences in percentages from person to person were too great to allow

us to prove a definite association between age and realty, and time and

re a lty .

By 1740 a small inverse relationship existed between the percentage

of assets invested in land and tools needed to work the land. Most

every home had tools, as can seen in Table 4.3* hut how much was

Table 4.3

Percentage of All Estates Owning Tools Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Group 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Poor 57.1 47.4 50.0 51.2 Lo Mid 62.5 50.0 50.0 52.2 Middle 100.0 61.5 68.8 73.0 Hi Mid 88.9 53.3 89.3 78.8 E lite 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total 72.3 55. ‘i 65.6 64.1

dedicated to them was a different story. Percentage investment in

hold for all other discussions of date and percentages in this chapter.

[22] Eta was .24 with a F statistic of 1.95, significant at the .0625 level. Age was an ordinal type variable, and percentage was an interval. Those classifications hold for all other comparisons of age and percentages in this chapter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. was not related to either date or the age of the owner.[2 3 ] In the

earliest period, people owning land and tools had an average of 17.6% of

their assets in tools and 42.3? in land, but the two were not directly

associated. In the middle years, a slight relationship appeared. While

the average amount invested in tools dropped to 8.8?, the amount

invested in land increased. From 1720 to 1740, that gap slightly

decreased to 12.73? in tools and 55*75 in land, but the inverse

relationship was stronger and explained about 20? of the variance.[24]

In short, for the later years, we see that as assets invested in tools

decreased, those invested in land increased a reasonable degree. Given

the demand for housing and an increased commitment to business, i t seems

likely that tools for working the land would probably decrease in value

as interest and land costs rose.

Monies invested in livestock - for which one needed land - also

dropped according over time although, for instance, purchasing bulls

dropped over time. (Livestock was not, however, related to age.) From

1680 to 1699, the average proportional livestock investment was 15.8?.

In the first two decades of the eighteenth century this dropped to 2.3?

on the whole, and in the following twenty years it stabilized at about

5?. And while we know that a person aged 40 to 49 had about one-tenth

[23] Between percentage of assets in tools and date, the eta was .14 with an F of 1.533, significant at .206. For tools and age, the eta was .21 with an F of 1.561 at .14 significance.

[24] From 1680 to 1699, the pearsonian relationship between assets invested in tools and land was -.1 3 with a significance of .316; in the middle period, the r was -.46 at .02, and for 1720 to 1740, the relationship strengthened to -.46 at .0001, making the r squared equal to .21.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

of his monies in livestock (and about 5X for those 50 to 59. for

instance), those two realities were not associated with one another.[25]

This did not mean than everyone lost interest in maintaining herds or

tending flocks. The pig population caused a problem that attracted town

attention periodically. In 1701 the problem was acute enough to make

the selectman reprimand owners whose pigs were unyoked and were rooting

throughout the neighborhoods, harming fields and pastures. By 1712 the

situation had worsened. Pigs were running loose everywhere and the

selectmen had to issue an ultimatum. All untethered hogs in the Mill

Dam area would be killed on April 23.[26] Other animals were treated

more respectfully. In 1719 Richard Goss thought sheep were important

enough that he willed one ewe to each of his children when they reached

age twenty-one.[27] Goss appeared to be one of the many in Portsmouth

who remained attracted to taking care of animals as a large part of his

liv in g .

If everyone in town had switched over the years from farming and

yeomanry to a life spent in small houses near the business district, a

d irect inverse relationship between livestock and land should have

existed. It did not.[28] How much one proportionally invested in

[25] The eta between proportional assets in livestock and date was .32 with an F of 8.45 at a .0001 significance level. The eta between livestock and age was .22 with an F of 1.54 and a significance level of .15.

[26] Portsmouth Town Records, ms. Vol. 2, Pt. 1, FO 7-B-A, 38-B-A.

[27] Richard Goss, PPR X, 189-190; Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 276-277.

[28] The pearsonian correlation between proportions of assets invested in land and livestock from 1680 to 1699 was -.15 at the .165 level; from

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

livestock was not in any way related to how much one devoted to land.

Rather, there seems to have been a constant low-level dedication to

livestock ownership. Witness the percentage of estates owning realty

directly related to livestock - barns and pasturage - as shown in Table

Table 4.4

Percentage of All Estates Owning Barns and Pasturage Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Barns 8.2 6.3 12.4 9.8 Pasturage 4.1 1.6 4.1 3.4

4.4. The trend over time was relatively static. The same holds true

for how many people actually owned animals, as seen in the distribution

Table 4.5

Percentage of All Estates Owning Specified Animals Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

All Animals 59.9 32.3 46.7 45.3 Cows 46.8 29.2 44.8 39.3 Pigs 44.7 16.9 26.2 30.9 Sheep 17.0 18.5 19.7 18.8 Horses 29.8 15.4 27.9 24.8 Oxen 10.6 6.2 13.9 11.1

of cows, pigs, sheep, oxen, and horses over time in Table 4.5. Averaged

over the en tire community, th at d istrib u tio n represented modest numbers

of animals, as seen in the mean number of pigs, horses, sheep, oxen, and

fowl per household over the years. Table 4.6 displays those averages.

1700 to 1719, the relationship was -.08 at .264; from 1720 to 1740, the relationship was -.01 at .439; for all years, the r was -.11 at .046.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

Table 4.6

Mean Number of Pigs, Horses, Sheep, Fowl, and Oxen Per Household Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^0

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Pigs .47 .17 .26 .28 Horses .29 .15 • 30 .26 Sheep .17 .18 .19 .19 Fowl .02 .01 .06 .04 Oxen .11 .06 .15 .12

Portsmouth land was worked with a minimum of servants and slaves.

Until 1700 only five families had bound labor, representing two male and

one female slaves, three servant women, and one apprentice. From 1700

to 1719 the number of families held, but the types of laborers changed

slig h tly . There were four adult, one very old, and one very young black

male slaves, and one female slave. The numbers of servants and slaves

almost tripled after 1720, and where only the wealthy could afford them

in e a rlie r years, townspeople in the lower economic groups obtained

labor during this period. The most dramatic increase came in the number

of black male slaves. Eighteen families owned fourteen adult, six

young, and three old males, as well as two adult, one young, and one old

female slaves. One mulatto female completed the non-free labor pool.

The increase in servants and slaves was met with some reservations

for townspeople were concerned about who was responsible for their

support and housing. At a June 1731 town meeting, for example,

Portsmouthites voted the following regulations: that anyone in town who

had a visitor for more than one week - be they free white, black, or

Indian - was officially responsible for that visitor's support, and that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111

any person or persons that shall Marry Any Negro or Indian so Coming In to Any Negro or Indian of his or theirs that then the Master or M istress that Admitt or Consent of such Marriage shall so Support them as to free the Town of Any Charge.[29]

In short, the luxury of an unfree labor force for the few was to an

extent a cause of consternation to the many.

In Portsmouth, inelasticity of land supply was the key to its

d istrib u tio n . In many situ atio n s a growing population would drive up

the value of land, generating wealth inequality. As the value of prime

realty grew, outlying lands would be brought into production (that is,

for residences or farming, or business). This outlying land would act

as a modifying influence on land prices. However, Portsmouth was sea-

locked on two sides, and tightly bounded by towns on its other

boundaries. It was also people-locked in the sense that outsiders were

not officially welcomed. Consequently the available land was shifted in

and between a limited number of families, families that were constantly

intermarrying. In such an environment, land ownership as well as the

materials used to work it, and animals to graze and grow strong on it,

were not the preserve of the few for extended periods of time as

summarized in Table 4.7.

[29] Portsmouth Town Records, ms. Vol. 2, Pt. 1, 76A (June 5. 1731).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.7

Proportions of Estates in Each Wealth Group Owning Various Kinds of Non-Household Goods Port smouth, N. H., 1680- 1743

Item Poor Lo.Mid . Middle Hi.Mid. Elite All

Tools 51.2 52.2 73.0 78.8 100.00 64.1 Land 39.3 63.0 70.3 64.4 93.3 58.1 House/Barn 28.9 50.0 64.9 73.1 73.3 51.7 Animals 31.0 43.5 62.2 57.7 46.7 45.3 Cows 21.4 43.5 56.8 51.9 40.0 39.3 Build. Mat. 20.2 21.7 32.4 46.2 60.0 30.8 Ser/Slave 3.6 8.7 8.1 21.2 33.3 11.1 Carts 2.4 8.7 5.4 11.5 13.3 6.8 Gardens 1.2 2.2 2.7 15.4 13-3 5.6 Orchard 0.0 6.5 8.1 7.7 6.7 4.7 Pasture 2.4 6.5 0.0 5.8 0.0 3.4

I:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

THE DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENT

The family home in Portsmouth was the center for domestic affairs.

While we do not have evidence to t e l l us exactly what went on everyday

in each household, inventories can t e l l us what was used in a c tiv itie s

in the home. Domestic objects - furnishings - were a barometer of the

types and levels of familiar activities, of the production of food and

c ra f t, and of life sty le s in the community. Some of the household

objects listed in inventories cannot be easily categorized and their

presence is not readily explained, but taken together all objects

testify to the conscious or unconscious priorities people gave to the

wants and needs of life. That Jethro Furber had ei9 pewter dishes

is more easily understood than why he had a parrot whose cage rested

near that pewter in the kitchen.[1] Why Hugh Banfield coveted a silver­

headed walking stick while others treasured feather beds as chief

luxuries is, similarly, difficult to explain.[2] Still, the relationship

between types of goods in different homes at different times allows us

to start to understand the underpinnings of the home environment in

Portsmouth. The exceptions to such patterns both delight and confound

us by revealing all the humanly idiosyncratic.

[1] PPR I, 297-303.

[2] PPR VII, H89.

113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i

11M

Through probate we can survey three general areas of domestic life -

shelter, sustenance, and how and with what people occupied their days.

Sometimes, the facts are clearly presented for any of these categories;

sometimes, evidence is circunstantial. For instance, not every

inventory was classified by room. In the main, most lis ts suggest that

they were made as appraisers walked through rooms and around the

property but the record does not state this as fact. We must

extrapolate from inventories, identifying rooms to those that do not.

Food supplies are another case in point. We assume that everyone had

food in their homes, but evidence supporting this assumption is scanty.

Discrepancies in the completeness of inventories are not systematic,

suggesting that the whims of the appraisers on the day the inventory was

taken account for differences in detail between one household and the

next. That i t was raw and cold in one house might explain why an

inventory was abbreviated, while an assessment done on a warm and sunny

day might produce a lengthy, detailed inventory. However, to discard

a ll lis tin g s for want of precision in some would be to neglect a rare

chance to visit the intimate family home.

The placement of items throughout any house is an important clue to

home industry, sociability, and intimacy. The preceding chapter showed

that most in our sample owned homes and had acreage for cultivation or

pasturage, suggesting the presence of a bilateral economy of

agriculture and mercantile pursuits. The contents of homes show these

complementary activities. A vicarious trip to the home of one family

neither rich nor poor but comfortably settled allows us to see this

combination. For although Jonathan Odiorne's widow faced insolvency

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. after her husband died in 1708, in life they lived well. Their house, a

two-story, presumably frame, building with a lean-to was on the three

acres they owned in Newcastle. Odiorne also had forty-one acres on the

Plains where he probably kept his cattle.[ 3 ]

On the cool side of their home was the milkhouse. A small

outbuilding, it was in all likelihood the charge of Johnathan's wife

Mary. The milkhouse utensils suggest it was here that she either sold

or gave away milk from the herd, churned cream into b u tter, and made

cheese. In doing so she used quite a few containers and tools. The

building contained five milk pans, two pitchers, two mugs, plates,

b u tter dishes, a bean pudding pan, two funnels, an egg spoon, a

colander, a churn, five cheese plates, three tubes, five trays, and some

bowls. She also kept some pewter there: ten dishes and plates, two

basins and porrigers, two small pots, and a saucer. The sets of paired

mugs and dishes were probably used by the couple for their meals. Their

children had long since left home at the time of the appraisal, so the

extra dishes and implements were most lik e ly used in the production of

the milk from the Odiorne's four cows.

When Mary finished her milk-related chores she walked a few steps to

the house. Her kitchen was one of the two large rooms at the front of

the house, n ot, as was sometimes the case, in the lean-to. The kitchen

was the physical focus of her indoor world. It contained a variety of

metal utensils and containers, a brass kettle, two skillets, a wanning

[3 ] PPR VI, 145-148.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. pan, a copper pot, pestle and mortar, an assortment of iron ware

including two kettles, two pots, a dripping and frying pan, and a flesh

fork and spit. She tended the fire aided by a set of andirons,

trammels, hooks, and small shovel-type implements. To pass the time

industriously since she no longer had small children to care for, Mary

used eith er her spinning wheel or linen wheel - both uncommon among the

homes inventoried.

When friends or relatives visited, Mary might have invited them into

the kitchen or directed them to the other front room, designated the

"Hall." There, she could draw up seven rush chairs to the table and

chat with her friends. Or Jonathan could simply sit and read quietly or

sharpen any of the axes and scythes he stored in the corner of the room.

He also kept his private arsenal there: a pair of pistols, a cutlass,

and some shot molds for fashioning ammunition. Surprisingly, the room

did not contain a bed. Beds were often found in most rooms, for in most

homes room functions were fluid and specialization or separation of

different types of activity into different rooms was uncommon. The room

was a contrast in welcoming and defense, pleasure and work, mirroring

the lifestyle in the early eighteenth century.

The remainder of the house was set aside for a variety of activities.

At the rear of the ground floor was the "lean-to bedrune" where a guest

or the couple might have slept. It held a bedstead, chest, sheets,

curtains and valences, and five table napkins. Since it was partitioned

o ff, privacy was assured. There was also a " lite ll" room above the

lean-to, 3parsely furnished with a pallet bed, blanket, and a covering.

The room was also used for storage as it contained tallow for candle

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

making, woolen yarn for clothing, a half-bushel of corn, sieves, and a

bit of cash. Upstairs were two other bedrooms. One had a feather bed

with bolsters and extensive coverings, the other a cupboard, two chests,

a chamber pot, a set of money scales, a feather bed and linen, and a

straw bed. Outside the house Jonathan stored fishing and livestock-

related gear. He owned a fishing shallop and appurenances and a

gundalow for river transportation. He also had a load of s a lt hay to

feed his livestock, two sets of yokes and chains and a set of cart

wheels and bolts that he could rent to the lunber transporters. These

were the business investments that supported the well-being of the

family.

The Odiornes, while an older couple, owned types of objects common to

may households. Beginning in the heart of the home, the kitchen, Mary

Odiorne’s assortment of metal implements and containers were not much

out of the ordinary. And while the Odiornes did not own any tin

utensils, they had may things fashioned from pewter. Pewter was

inexpensive, an alloy of tin usually melted and remolded every ten to

twenty years because of its malleability. It could be found in over

half of Portsmouth's homes, from poor to rich, while it's source - tin -

never enjoyed a similar popularity.

If someone owned pewter there was a good chance that they also had

some brass, as with the Odiornes.[4] A combination of copper and zinc,

brass was pliable and an excellent heat conductor. Its popularity

[4] The Pearsonian R between the numbers owning brass and pewter was .56 at the .001 significance lev el.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

ranked ju s t below pewter and i t was more common in homes from the middle

groups. Most items fashioned from brass were heavy kitchen pots and

such implements were assessed by weight. For example, in 1728

appraisers assessed two brass kettles weighing fifty pounds at 81i.

Given a high price, most poor fam ilies did not have brass containers and

over time the proportions owning it decreased among that group. Table

Table 5.1

Percentage Ownership Within Wealth Group and Date Tin, Brass, & Pewter Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^0

1679-99 1700- ■19 1720-40 All Years Tin Brass Pew. Tin Brass Pew. Tin Brass Pew Tin Brass Pew.

Poor 9.1 33.3 57.1! 10.5 26.3 52.6! ! 4.7 29.5 53.2!! 7.1 29.8 53.6 Lo.Mid. 0.0 37.5 75.0! 14.3 42.9 71.4! 112.5 58.3 75.0! 110.9 50.0 73.9 Mid. 22.2 50.0 87.5! 25.0 69.9 76.9! ! 6.3 62.5 81.3!116.2 62.2 81.1 Hi.Mid. 11.1 88.9100.0! 33.3 66.7 80.0 114.3 53.6 78.6!119.2 63.5 82.7 E lite 0.0100.0100.0! 0.0 25.0 75.0! !20.0100.0100.0!113.3 80.0 93.3

All 10.2 48.9 7M.5! 18.8 47.7 69.2! ! 9.9 50.8 70.5! 112.4 49.6 70.9

5.1 shows the percentage ownership for all groups over time.

Earthenware was another kitchen standard. Usually refering to what

is now termed "redware" (although a variety of glazes that produced

other hues were available) the pottery was fashioned from porous clay

and came in a variety of shapes and sizes.[5] In 1681 Anthony Ellins had

"white earth dishes" while in 1739 John Collins owned a white

earthenware chamberpot and brown punchbowl. Overall, about one-third of

all homes had earthenware of some type.

[5] For an excellent synopsis of redware and stoneware, see Laura Woodside Watkins, Early New England Pottery (Sturbridge, Mass., 1966), 1- 8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

Where earthenware was fairly common, china was not. A rare

possession at any time, it belonged in the domain of the wealthy in the

early years. After the turn of the century, its ownership was a bit

more widespread. In any case, china's cost was prohibitive for most.

It was a luxury and, as such, fashioned into objects used for gracious

entertaining - cups and saucers, tea or coffee pots.[6] Table 5.2

compares the frequencies of china to earthenware.

Table 5.2

Percentage Ownership Within Wealth Group and Date Earthenware and China Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^0

1679-99 1700-19 1720- All Years Earth China Earth China Earth China Earth China

Poor 13.6 0.0 10.5 0.0 | 23.3 6.8 : 17.9 3.6 Lo.Mid 25.0 0.0 42.9 7.1 I 33.3 4.2 I 34.8 4.3 Middle 44.4 0.0 50.0 0.0 I 31.3 12.5 ! 40.5 5.4 Hi.Mid. 44.4 0.0 60.0 6.7 i 53.6 21.4 | 53.8 13.5 E lite 100.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 I 70.0 10.0 i 66.7 13.3

The modern complement to dishes - flatware - was uncommon in early

Portsmouth. Unspecified flatware, small knives, forks, or spoons were

not standard home implements. Those in the high middle group had the

[6] China pots were not mentioned in inventories before 1720. For the period after that date, we found the following ownership frequency: Group Teapot Coffee Pot Poor 2.3 9.1 Lo. Mid. 0.0 0.0 Middle 6.3 6.3 Hi. Mid. 25.0 0.0 E lite 10.0 30.0

All 8.2 6.6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

greatest tendency to own eating utensils but the chances of finding

flatware in their homes was still less than fifty percent. Knives for

table use increased from 1680 to 1740, and by about 1740 about one

household in five had them. Small forks - different from the "flesh

forks" used for turning and skewering slabs of meat - also met increased

use. About one family in six had them by 1740. Table spoons met with

the least use, averaging about one family in twenty for the entire

period. The ownership of unspecified flatware exhibited similar use.

Table 5.3 shows the low incidence of use of tableware in Portsmouth for

the entire period. In shortc the relative absence of flatware was a

m aterial ch aracteristic that indiscrim inantly cut across economic groups

in Portsmouth. Ownership appeared to be a function of date, suggesting

that availability rather than choice determined ownership during most of

our period.

Table 5.3

Percentage of All Estates Caning Specified Flatware Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Knife 4.3 15.4 13.9 12.4 Spoon 6.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 Fork 4.3 7.7 16.4 11.5 Flatware 2.1 6.2 7.4 6.0

The limited array of flatware also suggests two points about

mealtimes. First, it is apparent that some implements had to have been

used to eat. Until 1740 people probably attached little significance to

separating eating utensils from cooking tools. Second, this situation

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

brings to mind the etiq u ette of mealtimes, a social ceremony of

significance in many modern cultures but of little in early Portsmouth.

Where people now concern themselves with how a meal is served, perhaps

then the emphasis was on who shared i t , or perhaps there was no ceremony

at all, simply an emphasis on the food itself.

Foodstuffs were not regularly inventoried, probably due to their

perishable state. But from what was listed we can tell .that

Portsmouth's diet was rich in proteins and carbohydrates - foods

excellent for nourishing bodies weary and hungry after a long day of

working. During the summer growing months - by tradition from the first

full moon in June until late September (the times at which killing

frosts could be expected) - few foods were stocked save molasses and

rum. There was simply no reason to store extra vegetables or slaughter

meat during the summer because of spoilage. But food stored safely

below the frost line in root cellars or cached in storage rooms in homes

over the winter months show us the basics of meals.

Corn and cider were the most common grain and beverage.[ 7 ] Beer was

infrequently mentioned in storage, although common references to malt

suggest that beer was made regularly in small batches and consumed

quickly. Orchards were plentiful in town and almost every mention of

cider cites several barrels. Indian corn was the leading staple. As in

the Odiorne home, it was stored separately in upper rooms for protection

from moisture or from rodents. As a dietary basic, it was used for

[7 ] In every non-summer inventory mentioning food, corn was mentioned; in about three-quarters, cider was mentioned.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cornmush, corncakes, and porriges.

Barreled pork and beef, peas, and barley were less frequently

lis te d . Animals were slaughtered in the fa ll and the meat was dressed,

rolled in salt in "powdering pans," and stored in barrels until needed.

Most homes in which meat of any kind was inventoried had one barrel of

pork and one of beef. To add substance to meat stews, legumes might

have been added. "Pease" were common in listings, and barley probably

aduea a nutty flavor to many meals. The combination of these few

staples suggests a bland, but nutritious diet.

Other foodstuffs could be found in Portsmouth homes but were less

widely reported. The least common stores were onions, beans, potatoes,

cabbage, and turnips. All could be safely stored until at least

February and were probably added to stews. Bread, in which malt might

also have been used for leavening, was rarely listed although biscuits

appeared on many shopkeepers inventories. To spice food and drink,

nutmeg, allspice, cinnamon, and cloves were available, although their

price was very high. Thirteen ounces of cloves cost an average of

2 li.1 0 s .; one and onc--half ounces of cinnamon were priced at 12s.[8]

Raisins were less expensive, priced at lli, per pound. Sugar, though an

import from the West Indies, was rarely listed except in accounts for

funerals, but gingerbread was apparently a widespread community

favorite. It was found in almost every shop and partially-consumed

loafs were inventoried in many homes. Aside from a routine d ie t, these

[8] PPR I, 372-376.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

extras were available for those able and willing to pay th e ir exorbitant

prices. During the period when fear of Indian and/or French attack was

greatest most of these goods were regularly imported from Boston and

other coastal towns.[9] Locally produced supplies ran low because

farmers were afraid to work too far from the security of th e ir homes.

This fear meant many crops were l e f t to ro t and animals fended for

themselyes. However, during peaceful times it appears that local

supplies almost met all the needs of Portsmouth.

Eating good food, however, did not always insure good health. From

Dr. Richard Mill's accounts in 1716 we learn that Fortsmouthites used a

number of different medications.[10] A rough scale of medicinal use was

determined by the amounts available in his stock. Hartshorn was the

most common medicine, an ammonia-producing powder used for reviving

patients. Following quickly in order were saffron (a diuretic),

quicksilver (for worms), o il of amber (a lu b rican t), matick (for rotting

teeth and gum disease), and Spanish Fly (an aprodisiac). Mills

prescribed many laxatives - jallybun, aprafetia, flower of sulphur, and

casillon.[11] He also sold medicines for rheumatism, warts, kidney

disorders, swellings, as well as opiates.[12] Medicines such as these

rarely appeared in inventories other than doctors', suggesting a

[9] See Chapter II.

[10] Descriptions of medications in the following paragraph were found in the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, 1971).

[11] Ib id ., 105, 3^8, 1261, 3148, 1500.

[12] The medicines were salemonach, laudnara, senna, conserve of pinny, worm seed, epsom sats, oil of turpentine, and snakeroot.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 124

specialized health environment in Portsmouth. Home-made preparations

were not listed in inventories, perhaps because their "shelf-lives" were

too short or they were uncommon.

Just as food and health were related , so were tools and industry.

Let us return to Mary's kitchen to continue reviewing the tools she

worked with daily. Aside from dairying, Mary spent a fair time spinning

carded wool and flax . She was an anomaly in the community in this

respect as most people did not own even one wheel. The same held true

for looms. About one in five women had a spinning wheel and about one

in twenty-five owed looms. Those who spun came from a ll economic

levels, but those who wove were generally on the lower side of the

scale. Table 5.4 shows the distribution of spinning wheels and looms

over time.

Table 5.4

Percentage Ownership By Date of Spinning Wheels and Looms Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Wheel 23.4 18.5 22.1 21.4 Loom 4,3 0=0 4=1 3^0

The steadiness of the distribution of wheels and looms points to the

stability of the craft - the constant need for cloth and perhaps the

continuation of the trades within certain families. The two trades were

separate for, with only one exception, people who spun did not weave and

those who wove did not spin or, at least, they did not have the

facilities in their homes to do such tasks. Most likely, a person owing

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a sheep sheared it and took the wool to a neighbor to be carded and

spun, then took the yarn to a weaver who wove the cloth. Locally

produced cloth was a community e ffo rt.

Imported cloth was available from merchants. Siops were well-stocked

with an assortment of materials in a small spectrum of colors and

patterns. While some inventories disguised the exact nature of many

b o lts, we know that plain fabrics abounded in town throughout the period

and that, beginning around 1700, both the amount and the types of

available fabric increased dramatically. Plain cottons, kenting (a fine

linen cloth from Kent), linen, serge, stuffing (a pileless woolen

fabric), and holland cloth (a generic term covering everything from

unbleached muslin to fine linen) were always found in Portsmouth.[13]

After the turn of the century it was not uncommon to see clothes made

from silk, fine linen, crepe, many hues of calico, damask, shalloon

(closely woven wool used for linings), and kersey (long-ribbed woolen

cloth).[14] The variety suggests an increased awareness of dress and

te x tu re .

Cloth was fashioned into clothes, items unmentioned in the Odiorne

home and not usually found in inventories. Clothing was considered very

personal property and not subject to inventory. From the extant

references, however, the image is one of a society concerned with

u t ility , warmth, color, and, toward the end of the period, a b it of

[13] OED., 1319, 3109.

[14] Ib id ., 1533, 2766.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

flashiness. Men's clothing was fairly standard throughout the years.

Save a fancy for wigs by merchants and town leaders by 1730 - Captain

Benjamin Clark had two wigs in 1731 and Samuel Cutt had two worth ten

shillings in 1738 - men appeared to dress simply.[15] In 1680 a man was

likely to wear the same outfit everyday - leather shoes, woolen

stockings, wool britches, a cotton shirt and, if the conditions

demanded, a waistcoat and wool overcoat. For services or meetings, he

might have a clean shirt or an extra pair of knickers. His underwear,

if any, was cotton. Edward Wells, fairly well-to-do in 1737. had a more

elaborate wardrobe. He had five coats - one plain, one "loose," one

"loose" and "red-coloured," one black with red lin in g , and one simply

"old and black."[l6] He owned two hats - one felt and one beaver fur.

In temperate weather Wells could wear either of his jackets or his

waistcoat and shirt. He had a choice of either cotton or leather

britches and owned for pair of stockings for his one pair of shoes. To

keep himself reasonably clean while working or riding he had a pair of

"spatter-dashes," leather leggings.

Only the clothes of w ealthier women were inventoried. From them we

can see the limits of fashion, if not the standard. Madame Bridget

Graffort's wardrobe was the most extensive and expensive of those

extant, although she died in 1703.[173 She was wealthy, charitable, and

[15] Clark inventory, PPR XV, 65-67; Cutts inventory, PPR XIV, 406-407; PPR XV, 646.

[16] PPR XIV, 311-314.

[17] Graffort inventory, PPR IV, 140—144; Administrative account, PPR IV, 93-94; testimony on w ill, PPR IV, 237—239-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I

127

eccentric by Portsmouth standards. Her interests seem to have been

entertaining, seeing to the education of Portsmouth's children, and

riding side-saddle. A small selection of her clothes follows: Her

I hands might have been covered with black s ilk gloves from which she

draped a matching feather fan; her arms were hidden by any of her

matching sets of wristbands and sleeves; her bodice was flattered by the

blue, red, or black gowns of cottons and silks, under which she could

have worn a yellow silk tabby petticoat, or the white satin trimmed with

green, or the "sky-coloured" that was fringed with white. The outfit

might have been draped with a black girdle edged in gold. When she went

to bed she could choose from a large selection of night robes and caps.

In all likelihood Bridget's gowns were imported, but the fact remains

that she wore them in Portsmouth. Even if others did not follow her

fashionable lead, her many-hued and garnished styles were accepted and

probably the secret envy of less well-to-do women.

A few people wore jewelry. Plain gold rings, silver clasps and

buckles, agate and pearl necklaces, and filigree stickpins were the few

outward displays of inheritance, investment, quiet luxury. The most

common items were eith er wedding or mourning rin g s, suggesting th at the

personal symbolism of jewelry was of greater value than market worth.

On the whole, jewelry was slightly more common toward the middle of the

eighteenth century than in the seventeenth. Where about one-seventh

owned jewelry before 1700, about one-fifth did by 17*10. Similarly, as

one's economic level increased, so did chances th at one owned jewelry;

for all years thirteen percent of poor, one-quarter of the middle, and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

almost half of the elite groups had jewelry.[18]

Other items indicative of some degree of comfort and luxury were

evident in Portsmouth such as silver objects, picture, clocks, screen,

and elaborate furniture. Silver was used both in currency and tooled

into objects for home use or conspicuous display. Having silver did not

appear to be linked with owning other types of either necessary or

luxury goods. Chances were less than one in five that a person owning

silver would have jewelry, one in four for pewter, feather beds, or a

saddle, or one in three for brass utensils or linens.[ 19] Silver was a

select investment.

Pictures, clocks, screens, and elaborate furniture are selected for

specific examination because they were representative of goods no one

really needed for survival but invested in for pleasure. Table 5.5

shows th eir rela tiv e uncommoness in Portsmouth. Tea tables were

selected to represent elaborate furniture because they symbolize not

only investment but the formality of ceremony. None of our estates

[18] Proportions in wealth groups owning jewelry for all years was as follow s:

Poor 13.1 Low Mid 18.7 Middle 24.3 Hi Mid 28.8 E lite 47.6

Between 1679 and 1699 14.9% overall had jew elry, from 1700-1719 21.5% owned some, and from 1720 to 1743, 20. 5t had jewelry.

[19] The Pearsonian relationship between ownership of silver and jewelry was .18 with .003 significance level; with pewter, .26 at . 001; with feather beds, .25 at . 0001; with saddles, .21 a t .0007; with brass u te n s ils , .34 a t .001; with linens, .40 at .0001.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 5.5

Percentage Ownership By Date of Pictures, Clocks, Screens, and Tea Tables Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Pictures 4.1 10.9 24.8 16.7 Clocks 2.0 9.4 4.9 5.6 Screens 6.1 1.6 .8 2.1 Tea Tables 0.0 1.6 3*3 2.1

before 1700 had any, and only some of the wealthier inhabitants owned

them by 1740 - a situation that coincides with the fact that teapots did

not make an appearance until the same time.[20] Similarly, screens were

rare . Before 1700 about one in ten of our middle group and about one in

five of the high middle group owned one. Between 1700 and 1719 screens

belonged exclusively to the high middle group and, from then until 1740,

only the elite owned any. Since screens could be used for privacy a 3

well as decoration, and given that they were owned by those who could

afford privacy, chances are they were used more for decoration. Clocks

were also not necessities in any Portsmouth home. The bell on the

meetinghouse rang at five every summer morning - six in the winter - and

at nine in the evening.[21] The rhythm of work and meals dictated the

passing of hours in-between bells. Consequently, clocks were a luxury,

and this is born out by the infrequency in inventories. No estate had

one before 1700 , only one individual had one before 1720 (he also had a

[20] Between 1720 and 1740 8.2 of our population owned teapots; before then, none were inventoried.

[21] Portsmouth Town Records, II, Pt. 1, 76a.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

tea table), and one of the more well-to-do had one by 1740. Decoration

with-pictures was more common, and their use extended to all types of

homes by the end cf the period. We do not know exactly what was

pictured - none were described in inventories - but everyone apparently

enjoyed them. By 1740, for example, 16.3 percent of the poorest group,

43.8 of the middle, and 30.0 percent of the elite owned at least one

p ictu re. Wealthy merchant George Vaughan had the larg est collection -

23 adorned his walls, as well as a coat-of-arms. In Vaughan's case as

with others, the "luxury" of owning pictures was not directly related to

price. Appraisers priced Vaughan's paintings at six pounds total; other

Portsmouth pictures were priced from four to eight shillings apiece.[22]

People appear to have valued pictures. The few shillings spent on

decoration probably returned a far greater value in enjoyment.

While the Gdionic's did not own any pictures or. for that matter, any

purely decorative items, they did own su fficien t numbers of chairs in

which neighbors could sit while passing on the latest gossip, spinning a

tall yarn, or discussing town politics. Chairs were an invitation to

share - a key element to sociability. Almost everyone had more than

they could possibly need for a ll household members, regardless of the

meanness or elegance of th e ir homes. For a ll years and groups the

average number per household was almost ten, ranging from the poor with

at least five to the elite with almost twenty-five. Aside from a bed of

some sort and cooking utensils, chairs were the most important household

[22] Vaughan will, PPR X, 345; administration, 346; inventory, 347-348.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. furnishing in early Portsmouth.[23] The variety of shape and size was

enormous. The Reverend John Emerson had eight needlework chairs as well

as one "Large Chair of Ease" worth five pounds and presumably his

favorite. Others owned ornate "turkey-work" chairs embellished with

rich designs th at complemented "turkey-work" carpets draped over tables

or chests. George Vaughan had the most chairs in Portsmouth, among

them, one large caned chair assessed at one pound ten s h illin g s , six

"common" chairs priced at two pounds ten shillings, eleven high-backed

leather chairs worth six pounds, six low-backed leather chairs worth

three pounds, four black ones at eight shillings, and one double chair

worth six shillings.[24] Other chairs found in Portsmouth were fashioned

from black walnut and maple. Any of them might have done justice to the

finer tables described in town inventories - Samuel Cutts' "curled maple

tab le," Thomas Perkin's "coloured ovell tab le," or Benjamin Clark's

setting of table, standing candlestick, and escritoire, the latter

valued at ten pounds.[25] Appraisers generally gave an attention to

chair detail and outstanding unusual pieces of furniture which they gave

to no other objects save clothing.

[23] Percentages of people having chairs within wealth group and the mean number in each home were as follows:

Poor 48.8 5.5 Lo. Mid. 67.4 7.3 Middle 75.7 9.1 Hi. Mid. 84.6 16.4 E lite 86.7 20.0

[24] See footnote 22, above.

[25] Ib id .; PPR XIV, 104.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 132

It is interesting to note that Jonathan Odiorne kept his collection

of weapons close to those chairs in which he welcomed friends. Perhaps

the custom was widespread but weapons were usually lis te d toward the end

of inventories, along with livestock and lands, an indication that they

were kept outside of the house, or at least in a part of the house where

common objects were not stored. Almost everyone in Portsmouth had a

gun, musket, or sword for protection, with the percentage of persons

with weaponry highest before 1700. The ravages of King Phillip's War

and attacks on surrounding towns by Indians and French warriors that

continued through King William’s War were impetus enough for anyone

concerned with safety to own weapons. While Portsmouth proper was never

attacked, some people met cruel deaths in outlying areas. Ursula Cutt,

wife of the first President of the Province, was slain in July 1691*;

John Edmunds, his wife Mary, and son Thomas were killed on the farm in

June 1696.C263 Table 5.6 shows the slow decrease in the number of

weapons per household as well as ownership in general over time.

Weapons were available in a variety of styles and prices, but an

average musket cost about a pound in 1700. For a poor family that

musket might have been too expensive, yet more than a third of poor

families owned a gun. It was a high-priority item in any household.

If Odiorne did not spend time polishing or cleaning his guns, he

might have spent time reading, as did many of his neighbors. In all,

over one half of the probated population owned books of some kind and,

[26] Libby, Noyes, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 178, 216.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 5.6

Percentage Ownership by Date of Weapons By Number Owned per Individual Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Number Owned 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

1 21.3 21.5 30.3 26.1 2-3 31.9 18.5 14.7 19.2 4-6 12.8 6.1 4.9 6.8 Over 7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.4

or those, about one-fifth were bibles. Table 5.7 shows the ownership of

bibles and books other than bibles over time. The few extant Portsmouth

book lists point to a high concentration of works by English and

American non-conformists carrying messages of moralism, and giving the

impression that Portsmouthites were concerned with the tenets of faith

and philosophy as well as with a solid grounding in their heritage.[27]

Edward Ayers, a wealthy and literate blacksmith owned Thomas Fuller’s £

Pisgah-sight of Palestine and Samuel Clarke's The Lives of Sundry

Eminent Persons i_n this Later Age. His 1723 collection concentrated on

providential history. Mariner John Turner’s 1738 showed that he owned

few personal items, no land, but a serious work, Richard Baxter's A

Paraphrase on the New Testament.[28] Schoolmaster Thomas Phipps had an

[27] See J.E. Crowley, This Sheba SELF: The Conceptualization of Economic Life in Eighteenth Century America (Baltimore, 1974). 50; Charles E. Clark, "The Second New England; Life Beyond the Merrimack, 1690-1760," Historical New Hampshire XX (1965).

[28] PPR VII, 556-561 ; PPR HI, 278-279. Thomas Fuller, "A Pisgah- sight of Palestine," pub. 1650, 1652, 1668 (see Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography VII, 759); Samuel Clarke, The Lives of Sundry Bninent Persons in this Later Age. In two parts. Of Divines II. Of Nobility and Gentry . . . B^ Samuel Clarke . . . To which is added, his own life, and the lives of the Countess of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. extensive collection of books in the early eighteenth-century,

presumably used by his students. Aside from standard Greek, Latin, and

Hebrew texts and several volumes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and

English law, Phipps used the Thomas Brook's Ihe Crown and Glory of

Christianity and Edward Leigh’s Annotations upon all the New

Testament. [291

Table 5.7

Percentage Ownership by Date of Bibles and Books Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^0

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-90 All fears

Bibles 25.5 13.8 18.0 18.9 Books 51.1 50.8 50.8 50.9

Historical and travel accounts were also popular in town. Mariner

John Collins, dying in 1790 in his early thirties, owned dissenting

m inister Daniel Neal's two-volune History of New England Containing an

Impartial Account of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Affairs of the Country

to . . . 1700, H istorical Account of High Treason Ln the Reign of

Charles the First, and two accounts by Henry Boyd of his voyages to the

Suffolk, Sir Nathaniel Bernardiston, Mr. Richard Blackerlay, and Mr. Samuel Fairclough, drawn up by other hands (London, 1683); Richard Baxter, A Paraphrase on the New Testament, with notes . . . By . . .jt. Baxter, etc~I (1683) •

[29] PPR XIV, 295-297. Thomas Brooks, The Crown and Glory of Christianity (1662); Edward Leigh, Annotations upon all the New Testament, Philologicall and Iheologicall (London, 1650). See also, Lawrence A. Cremin, American Education: Ihe Colonial Experience, 1607-1783 (New York, 1970), 167.

J Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

Barbary Coast.[ 30] Although fu ll of evangelical zeal, these works

educated Collins and his friends to a world and to adventures beyond

Portsmouth's horizon.

Over time for the entire population, the ownership of books was

steady. The percentage owning bibles, however, decreased. Table 5 .7

shows these patterns across the period for all residents. Among our

groups, the ownership patterns were mixed. In the earliest period

ownership of all written works increased from poor to elite; in the

middle period, bible ownership was highest among the poor and, for

books, ranged from about half of the poor to three-quarters of the

elite; in the late period the middle groups had the highest percentage

ownership of bibles and the percentage of book ownership decreased a bit

overall. That a relatively high proportion of the population either had

books or, by association, had access to written works suggests that

Portsmouth was sensitive to the issues explored in "manuals of piety."

Some of those issues and writings probably reinforced the unequal

d istrib u tio n of goods and wealth in town. As James Crowley noted in

This Sheba, SELF, "the outlook on material success . . . [was] a mixture

of certain and uncertainty, because wealth was not a sign of grace, yet

god willed the distribution of the world's goods."[31] In short, books

[30] PPR XV, 51-54. Daniel Neal, The History of New-England Containing an Impartial Account of the Civil and Ecclesia stic a l A ffairs Of the Country To the Year of our Lord, 1700. To which is added The Present State of New-England. With a . . . Ma£. And an Appendix Containing their Present Charter, their Ecclesiastical Discipline, and their Municipal-Laws . . .By Daniel Neal (London, 1720).

[313 Crowley, This Sheba, SELF, 63 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136

could and probably did reinforce a morally-grounded value system in the

community at large.

Status, comfort, and financial investment were intertwined when it

came to the ownership of feather beds. They were often the 3ingle most

costly item in any household, and to have more than one could be a sign

of life-time accianulation - as with the Odiornes - or dowry, or just

plain luxury. Stuffed with goose, chicken, or duck feathers, these

luxurious beds were priced by weight; the heavier the bed, the higher

the assessment. A bed weighing fifty pounds was, on average, priced at

five to seven pounds depending on its condition. In 1724 Edward Ayers

had two such beds, both weighing fifty-seven pounds, yet one cost five

pounds four sh illin g s and the other six pounds e ig h t.[ 32 ] Feather beds

were not. as uncommon as the price might lead one to think Over one-third

of the poor had at least one in the earliest period, although on the

average for all years they had only 0.5 per home. For all years over

half the middle group had one. The number per household was greater as

ones economic level rose. The middle group had 1.1 and the e lite 1.6

per home for all years.[33] Despite the implication of luxury, owning

[32] PPR VII, 555-561.

[33] The average number of feather beds per group over time was as follow s:

Group 1680-1709 1710 - 1740 All Years

Poor .5 .4 .5 Lo. Mid. .9 .6 .7 Middle 1.7 .7 1.1 Hi. Mid. 1.7 .9 1.1 E lite 1.0 1.6 1.6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

feather beds was not directly associated with owning other types of non­

necessary goods. The association between ownership of featherbeds and

jewelry was very low, as well as that between featherbeds and brass and

books. The highest association was with pewter, but a great deal of

variance was apparent in the relationship.[34] One item that did have a

close association with feather bed ownership was the warming pan. As

with the soft beds, warming pans were never a necessity but always an

amenity.

Table 5.8

Percentage Ownership by Date of Warming Pans and Feather Beds Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Wanning Pans 30.6 29.7 46.3 38.5 Feather Beds 48.9 36.9 32.8 37.2

Table 5.8 shows the percentage ownership of both across time.

The Odiornes also had a pallet and a straw mattress, types of beds

less frequently found or, perhaps due to th e ir mean quality, seldom

mentioned. Pallets were rude cots, while straw beds were frequently re­

stuffed when their contents grew stale and moldy. As such, both had

[34] The relationship between feather beds and other items was as foliows:

Item Pear, r Significance

Jewelry .13 .02 Books .12 .034 Brass .23 .0002 Pewter .32 .0001

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138

minimal value. Three other types of beds th at were more frequently

Table 5-9

Percentage Ownership by Date of Flock, Down, and Trundle Beds Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40 All Years

Flock Beds 10.6 7.7 0.0 4.3 Down Beds 8.5 1*5 0.8 2.6 Trundle Beds 8.5 3.1 2.5 3.8

inventoried are shown in Table 5.9 - down, flock, and trundle beds.

Down seems to have carried a d ifferen t meaning from feathers in the

minds of appraisers, a significance lost through the years. There was

no regularity in ownership patterns. Composed of bits of cotton wool

matted together and stuffed into a mattress cover, flock beds were lumpy

and smelly for no air could circulate among the fibers. They lost all

popularity by the end of our period. Trundle beds were a boon for

families with small homes. Accordingly, the lower groups tended to own

them more than the higher. The smallest beds of all, cradles, were

found very infrequently in town. For the en tire period, only 3.6

percent of the poorest, 10.8 percent of the middle economic group, and

20.0 percent of the elite owned cradles.[35] Over the years cradle use

decreased for the most p a rt. Why th is happened we do not know, for as

[35] Percentage ownership of cradles was as follows:

Group 1680-99 1700-1719 1720-1740 All

Poor 4.8 0.0 4.5 3.6 Lo. Mid . 0.0 7.1 8.3 6.5 Middle 12.5 15.4 6.3 10.8 Hi. Mid . 33.3 13.3 7.1 13.5 E lite 100.0 25.0 10.0 20.0

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. homes grew larger in size as time progressed it would seem that children

would have had separate sleeping quarters - and with them, the need for

separate beds. Perhaps there was an increasing tendency to keep infants

with their parents until the babies could safely occupy a standard sized

bed. In any case, the popularity of cradles lessened over time.

It is difficult to determine what covered any of these beds. Some of

the inventories of wealthier estates described individual sheets, pillow

and bolster cases but most listing referred only to bed "furniture,” a

euphemism for linen. From limited listings it appears that some people

had at le a s t one bed with pillows or a b o lste r, and a t least one q u ilt.

Others could afford more than one, as in the case of John Thompson's

"1st 2nd 3rd best rugs & blankets." Sheets were expensive,

infrequently mentioned, and were the lowest in priority for bed

furnishings. The utmost in luxury were valences and curtains and, as

such, were in only a few homes of the wealthier sort. Curtains provided

not only privacy but also warmth as they baffled drafts. In all,

bedding was one of the most important household furnishings. People

apparently treasured a good feather bed above most possessions

regardless of th e ir economic lev el, and made do with other more

temporary bedding when necessary. The degree of embellishment in the

form of coverlets and linens was dependent on discretionary wealth.

The sleeping areas were also the place one was most likely to find

linen, as in the Odiorne home. Linen currently carries the connotation

of sheets and the like. In Portsmouth it was understood as table

coverings and napkins. Why they were stored with bedding is not clear -

perhaps because they were cloth and kept with the cloth things or

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 140

perhaps because they were reserved for special purposes. Linen did lend

a bit of style and graciousness to a home. Overall, about half the town

had at least a few pieces. The percentages ranged from about one in

five among the poor to over half of the rich. On the average, every

home had two pieces, or less than one for the poor and close to four for

the e li te . Over time, the average amounts increased s lig h tly .[363

Owning linen was loosely linked to other sorts of niceties such as

book 3 , china, and brass, but not strongly associated with the ownership

of jewelry or feather beds.[37] Linen just seemed to be one of those

"little touches" that some chose to have and others did not.

Shifting from the specifics of beds and blankets and tables and

chairs, the general picture on household furnishings and utensils is a

bit less clear. A strong relationship did not exist between how much

one invested in these sorts of things and either the age of the owner or

the time period in comparison to the percentages of total assets

[36] Mean number of pieces of linen per wealth group over time:

Group 1680-1709 1710-1740 All Years

Poor 1.0 0.5 0.6 Lo. Mid. 0.5 0.8 0.7 Middle 1.9 0.6 1.1 Hi. Mid. 4.0 2.9 3.3 E lite 1.0 3.7 3.5

[37] The relationship between linen and other items was as follows:

Item Pear, r Significance Books .26 .0001 China .23 .0002 Brass .35 .0001 Jewelry .18 .003 Feather .19 .001 Beds

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dedicated to different categories of goods. For instance, while we know

that from 1680 to 1699 people invested an average of 29.71 of th e ir

wealth in home-related goods, 29.3% from 1700 to 1719, and 35.41 between

1720 and 1740, the averages and the dates were not re la te d . Sim ilarly,

investment in personal items - clothing, jew elry, and books, for example

- was not firmly associated with the passage of time. It is true that

in the early .noHnd people put 11.11 of their wealth in such goods on

the average, and that the average from 1700 to 1719 was 8. 21, changing

to 8.41 in the latest period. But it is not true that how much was

proportionally invested was related to the time.[38] We can also

describe those averages as they related to the, age of the owner, but

cannot associate them strongly with how much was proportionately

invested. For household goods we know th at a person aged 40 to 49 would

have approximately 361 of his assets tied up in pots and pans and the

like. He would also would probably have an average of 11.41 invested in

personal belongings. But how much of each of these categories he had was

not firmly associated with his age.[39] These non-existant relationships

suggest that, on the whole for the categories, life-cycle and the

passage of time in Portsmouth did not have a great influence on

decisions about how to use one’s available assets. What we do have,

however, is a description of facts and trends in ownership of specific

[38] For personal goods and time, the eta was .08, the F statistic was .444 and significant at the .7221 lev el. For household goods and time, the eta wa3 . 1, the F statistic was .786 significant at .5031*

[39] The eta for personal goods and age was .01 with F at 1.236 and a significance of .2839. The eta for household goods and age was .235 with an F of 1.835 and a significance of .0819.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission goods over time and between economic le v e ls .

What we see when we look closely at specifics is the outline of

priorities in acquiring goods. The ascending scale of ownership of

kitchen utensils ran from earthenware to pewter, to brass, to tin, and

finally to china. In furniture, even if a home had little else, it had

many chairs. Most people also had a feather bed, although less

expensive alternatives existed. It is impossible to pinpoint all the

steps on such a scale, but we can suggest what types of goods might have

been found in town. Table 5.10 demonstrates these p r io r itie s , showing a

rough ranking of most goods previously mentioned; Table 5.11 shows a

Table 5.10

Proportions of Estates in Each Wealth Group Ovning Various Kinds of Household Goods Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item Poor Lo.Mid. Middle Hi.Mid. E lite All

Pewter 53.6 73.9 81.1 82.7 93.3 70.9 Chairs 48.8 AW 7 | * 11 • 75.7 84.6 86.7 67.1 Brass 29.8 50.0 62.2 63.5 80.0 49.6 Books 40.5 34.8 59.5 69.2 73.3 50.9 F'ther Beds 27.2 32.6 54.1 38.5 60.0 37.2 Earthware 17.9 34.8 40.5 53.8 66.7 35.9 Silver 6.0 19.6 51.4 48.1 66.7 29.1 Warm'g Pans 26.2 39.1 43.2 46.2 66.7 38.5 Linen 21.4 28.3 43.2 53.8 46.7 35.0 Jewelry 13.1 8.7 24.3 28.8 46.7 19.7 Pictures 8.3 6.5 18.9 34.5 26.7 16.7 Tin 7.1 10.9 16.2 19.2 13.3 12.4 China 3.6 4.3 5.4 13.5 13.3 6.8

similar ranking by date. Ihe fifty percent level of ownership vividly

dissects the necessary from the unnecessary, that is to say, the goods

that formed the foundation of domestic life in town from those that

merely embellished it.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143

Table 5.11

Proportions of Estates Over Time Owning Various Kinds of Household Goods Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1740

Item 1680-99 1700-19 1720-40

Pewter 74.5 69.2 70.5 Chairs 51.1 64.6 74.6 Books 51.1 50.8 50.8 Brass 48.9 47.7 50.8 F'ther Beds 48.9 36.9 32.8 Earthware 26.8 39.1 37.2 S ilver 29.8 26.2 30.3 Warm'g Pans 30.6 29.7 46.3 Linen 38.3 36.9 32.8 Jewelry 14.9 21.8 20.5 Tin 10.2 18.7 9.9 Pictures 4.1 10.9 24.8 China 2.1 3.1 10.7

s I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER VI

WOMEN AND WEALTH:

The Case of the Portsmouth Widows

Up to this point we have discussed Portsmouth's society from the

perspective of what men left behind at their deaths'. We have examined

their general society - political, social, and natural - their lands and

homes, th e ir work, th e ir intimate household environments, the components

of their wealth. Let us now turn briefly to wealth and the wives of the

men of Portsmouth. From the records of death and complementary sources

we can gain an understanding of how death touched families and how women

survived without husbands. Here we take a different viewpoint of

wealth: What happened to i t when the "breadwinner" died, and how did

the society and family deal with what remained?

On March 17, 1718 Samuel Sewall received from Cotton Mather, its

author, a copy of Marah Spoken To: A Brief Essay to Do Good Unto the

Widows.[1] Mather evidently sent it as a hint that the widower remarry,

advice Sewall subsequently took to heart twice. The issues Mather

addressed in the sermon reflected the bitterness of the biblical widow

Marah and her husbandless counterparts in Mather's fold. "I see how

lamentably the widows are daily multiplying by Mortality doing its

[1] See Sewall's comments in M. Halsey Thomas, e d .. The Diary of Samuel Sewall II (New York, 1973), 890, 890n.

144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. m

p art," Mather wrote, likening th eir position to a "Sparow alone on a

Housetop." "Death has killed the bigger half of you," he noted while

holding forth that marriage brought prosperity but widowhood only

d e s titu tio n .[2] Perceiving an abundance of widows and th e ir possible

economic stra ig h ts, Mather dispatched a stern warning against th e ir

oppressors. His church acclaimed the sermon to the point of raising

funds for private printings.

That Marah was so eagerly accepted was probably due to the m arital

status of the listeners and the all-to-common themes illustrated.

Mather noted that fu lly o ne-fifth of his Boston church were widows. He

also touched on the major realities that could accompany the death of a

husband; the numbers of women sharing the experience and destined to

remain widows, the downward economic change that often attended i t , and

how the structure of the law affected the survivors. Using Mather’ s

observations as a base for comparison, we can ask to what extent did New

Hampshire women undergo sim ilar situations? Since the New Hampshire

records do not contain enough hard information on womens' probated

wealth, an examination of the 137 widows of men with probated estates is

one way to assess the economic situ atio n s of a t le a st one sizable group

of women.

Certainly there were other widows in Portsmouth from 1680 to 1740,

but for these 137 we have evidence of their socio-economic condition at

the time of their husbands' deaths, evidence lacking for other women in

[2] Cotton Mather, Marah Spoken To: An Essay to Do Good Unto the Widows (Boston, 1718).

a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the community.[ 3 ] Most of our widows disappear from the record within a

few years of the resolution of their husbands' affairs, but for that

b rie f period we can examine at lea st part of th e ir liv e s . The average

characteristics of this group suggest two points. First, they are a

good cross-section of the larger population. Second, it appears that

Portsmouth's widows did not experience the same trials as Mather thought

his group suffered. In reference to the first point, where the average

adult male age at death in the larger population was 48.2, the sample's

was 49.9. Economically, 25 percent of the widow's estates were in the

lowest 30 percent of the larger wealth distribution, 43 percent in the

middle 40 percent, and 32 percent in the top30 percent. The average

wealth for all years in Portsmouth was 57 pounds; the average for this

sample, 67 pounds. Table 6.1 shows the comparative wealth frequencies.

The sample represents only a slig h tly older and wealthier segment of the

general population.

Concerning the second point: If we were to draw a composite of

Portsmouth's average widow she would be forty-one at the time of her

husband's death, having been married about fifteen years, and raised

between one and three children. Her chances for remarriage were

slightly better than fifty-fifty. Most likely her husband did not leave

[3 ] For each widow, the following data woe collected - date of husband's death, length of marriage, whether she remarried, number of children under the age of 18, number of children over 18, testacy of husband, settlement type, use of entailment, use of primogeniture, commodity price index deflated raw inventory value, estimated or known deflated liabilities, deflated total inventory, number of marriage for her in relation to the husband mentioned in probate. A primary source was Sybil Noyes, Charles Thornton Libby, and Walter Goodwin Davis, Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire (Baltimore, 1979).

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. j

1*17

Table 6.1

Wealth Distribution by Decile for Portsmouth, N.H., 1679—1740 compared to Widow Sample D istribution Wealth Values Deflated According to 1696-1705 Base Year Averages

Decile Range in Deflated No. in Total No. in Sample Pounds Population Population

0-9 0-0 23 12 10-19 .65-6.9 24 9 20-29 7.7-19.7 23 13 30-39 20.0-34.5 24 13 40-49 35.9-56.2 23 15 50-59 56.7-89.8 24 17 60-69 91.8-144.9 23 13 70-79 147.7-253.9 24 11 80-89 259.8-407.6 23 17 90-100 420.3-1961.3 24 15

a will, but if he did he left her a settlement for her natural life (as

opposed to her term as a widow) and did not entail the estate. About

half the men leaving wills invoked some form of primogeniture - either

leaving the entire estate to the eldest son or giving him a double

portion and single portions to the remaining children of both sexes.

Table 6.2 shows entailment and primogeniture by decile group. These

groups were determined for the entire population and the widow's wealth

entered into the appropriate decile according to the value of her

husband's estate.

Median values were used to describe wealth instead of means because

medians mediated the effects that extremes in wealth might have on

values. The median raw wealth was 204 pounds, liabilities from

administrations were 72 pounds, and the total final adjusted estate in

re a lty and personalty amounted to 67 pounds. Table 6.3 shows the

breakdown for widows. Given these observations, i t is d iff ic u lt to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission Table 6 .2

Decile Rank of Total Deflated Wealth by Use of Entailment and Primogeniture in Wills

Decile Rank Entailment Primogeniture Yes-No Yes-No

0-9 0-0 0-0 10-! 9 0-3 0-3 20-29 0-1 0-1 30-39 0-3 1-2 40-49 0-2 2-0 50-59 2-4 4-2 60-69 1—2 1-2 70-79 1-1 1-1 80-89 1-3 2-2 90-100 3-0 2-1

8-19 13-14

Table 6.3

Wealth for All Widows, 1679-1709 and 1710-1742 in deflated pounds sterling

Years Median Raw Median L ia b ilitie s Median Total Estate of Estate Estate

All 204 72 67

1679-1709 140 65 51 1710-1742 205 88 84

compare Portsmouth widows with those of Boston for i t appears th at

Portsmouth’s were remarrying at a fairly high rate, were not

economically distressed compared to the general population, and, as we

shall see, were treated compassionately by the law. These points w ill

be discussed in order. I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 149

Recent studies of New England society indicate that more men than

women remarried. Figures range from 62 percent of widowers remarrying

and 22 percent of the widows in Ipswich, Massachusetts, to 25 and 10

percent in Guilford, Connecticut.[4] Alexander Keyssar's study of

Woburn, Massachusetts widows, where a 30 to 10 percent remarriage ratio

existed, concurs with conclusions drawn from other studies: that one

marriage was the norm for both sexes; th at if a woman was widowed i t was

usually in her mid-to-late years; that her chances for remarriage were

slim.[5] Portsmouth was different. Our sample shows that 62 widows

remarried and 58 did not. The difference between the two groups is

associated with age and life cycle.

To see those differences, let us first turn to those who did not

remarry. They were mature women, averaging 46.6 years old when widowed.

They had lived through their child-bearing years, having been married

an average of 18.4 years and raising about six children. However, their

ch ild ren 's ages spanned a large range, as one might expect from

[4] For Ipswich, see Susan L. Norton, "Population Growth in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts," Population Studies, XXV (1971). 433-452, especially 447. Her figures reflect age-specific proportions of widows and widowers' remarriages from 1663 to 1750, the widows peaking between 40 to 49 and the widowers from age 60 up. For Guilford, see John J. Waters, "Patrimony, Succession, and Social Stability: Guilford, Connecticut in the Eighteenth Century," Perspectives in American History X (1976), 131-160, especially 148. He attributed remarriage rates to childbearing mortality, citing 15 percent of women dying before the age of 40. John Demos, in "Notes on Life in Plymouth Colony," in Stanley N, Katz, ed ., Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development 2nd ed. (Boston, 1976), 70, notes a 40 to 26 percent widower to widow remarriage rate for all those over 50 years of age.

[5] Alexander Keyssar, "Widowhood in Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts: A Problem in the History of the Family," Perspectives, XIII (1974), 83-119.

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. information culled from a large group. To illustrate, Table 6.4

displays the numbers of children 18 and under and over 18 of the non-

remarrying and remarrying groups. Table 6.5 shows the age distribution

Table 6.4

Numbers of Children Remarrying vs. Non-remarrying Widows

Group Years Mean No. <18 Mean No. >18

Remar. 1679-1742 2.0 1.1 1679-1709 1.9 1.0 1710-1742 2.1 1.1

Non-Remar. 1679-1742 2.3 4.2 1679-1709 1.9 2.8 1710-1742 2.4 4.9

Table 6.5

Widow's Ages at Time of Widowhood for those with known ages

Group Years Age No

Remar. 1679-1742 36.0 24 1679-1709 39.8 10 1710-1742 33.4 14

Non-Remar. 1679-1742 46.6 21 1679-1709 46.3 8 1710-1742 46.7 13

at the time of widowhood for both groups.

We know that only 27 husbands of the 137 left wills, or less than 20

percent. They left their wives, for the most part, a reasonable

settlement of the joint estate for life. Of the men who left wills in

the non-remarrying group, nine did not entail the estate, but ten

designated some form of primogeniture. On the average, creditors and

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151

funeral expenses consumed about 70 pounds of the raw estates and most

were left with 81 pounds for future use. This was not always cash, but

rather a combination of the worth of the realty and personalty.

By way of comparison, the average characteristics of the 62 women who

remarried show a younger group with slightly different levels of wealth.

Their average age at widowhood was 36*0, they had been married 12.4

years, and raised 3.1 children. Their husbands were also prone to die

intestate; fifty-four of the sixty-two did not leave wills. Of the

eight who did, one entailed his estate and three invoked some form of

primogeniture. While the median raw e sta te for th is group was larger

than th at of those remaining widows, median debts were also larg e r: 88

pounds. The adjusted final median estate was smaller: 73.4 pounds.

Table 6.6

Wealth of Widows in Deflated Pourds Sterling Remarrying vs. Non-remarrying

Group Year3 Med. Raw Med. Liab. Med Total Estate of Estate of Estate

Remarrying 1679—1742 259.8 88.0 73.4 1679-1709 178.3 61.1 49.7 1710-1742 280.7 139.4 100.9

Non-Remar. 1679-1742 222.6 70.1 81.0 1679-1709 132.9 85.2 34.7 1710-1742 225.0 57.8 86.7

Table 6 .6 shows these d iffe re n c e s.

This range in raw wealth, centering around two-hundred pounds,

represented a healthy standard of living. John partridge's estate

inventory of 1718 was about th a t much, and the lis tin g of his property

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152

suggests a comfortable household.[6] He owned lands and buildings - a

house, barn, and a small homelot with a frame. The land alone

represented 236 of the estate total of 256 pounds. He owned boats - two

gundalows and one canoe. His house was fu lly furnished. A v isito r

walking through his rooms would see a bed, three tables, at least a

dozen chairs, a chest, and a looking glass. The fireplace had its full

complement of tools for tending, and cookware for meal preparation.

Adjacent to the fireplace would be at 1 'ast one of the two spinning

wheels, and silver forks would be stashed away in the chest or on a

shelf. The clock, albeit an unusual item in the town, could be found

out of harm’ s way. Buckets, a handsaw, and an adze would be handy for

small chores. A family could, and did, live happily with these

resources.

Assuming that our widows, in the main, were mature women of

comfortable means, we return to the general characteristics to test if

these descriptors were sta tic over time by dividing the time span in two

periods, 1679 to 1709 and 1710 to 1742. For the group that did not

remarry, average ages at widowhood remained basically the same, 46.3 for

the earlier period and 46.7 for the later. For those remarrying, the

average age decreased over the years; 39.8 for the earlier years and

33.4 for the la te r . But as age decreased, the numbers of children

increased. For those not remarrying, the average for the earlier period

was 4.7 children and, for the later, 7.3. For those remarrying, the

respective averages were 2.9 and 3.2. The length of marriages did not,

[6] Inventory of John Partridge, March 5, 1718, PPR X, 161-162.

permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

however, increase proportionately for each group. Of those remaining

widows, averages for the two time periods were 17.6 and 19.0 years. For

those remarrying, an opposite trend emerged; the average length of a

marriage dropped from 13.6 to 11.9 over the years. In the category of

wealth, those who did not remarry had less than those who did. In the

e a rlie r period, the former had median wealth of 132.9 pounds (raw), 85.2

in liabilities, and 34.7 pounds in final adjusted wealth. In the later

period, these figures increased to 225.0 pounds in raw wealth, 57.8

pounds in liabilities, and 86.7 in total adjusted wealth. For those

remarrying, the median values for the earlier period were 178.3 For raw

wealth, 61.1 for liabilities, and 49.7 For the final estate. These

increased to 280.7 for raw estates, 139.4 for liabilities, and 100.9 for

the final adjusted wealth in the later period. Table 6.7 displays the

Table 6.7

Remarriage by Deflated Total Wealth Portsmouth Widows, 1679—1742

Group Range in Did Remarry Did not Remarry Total Pounds 1679-1709/1710-1742 1679-1742/1710-1742

Poor 0-25 5/10 8/8 31 Lo Mid. 25-75 7/9 3/9 28 Mid Mid. 75-150 3/4 5/8 20 Hi Mid. 150-55 6/12 4/7 29 E lite 500-2000 1/4 0/5 10

22/39 20/37 118

data for each wealth group for the two time periods and types of women.

From this information we can make several assumptions about a woman

who remarried. Over the years her age and length of marriage decreased

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154

while she raised more children, but she was still in an earlier stage of

life than a woman who did not remarry. Her median estate increased

despite inflation, and although her liabilities also increased she and

her children were still better off economically than those remaining

widows. The single most important factor in her remarriage was age.

Her wealth - which one might suspect to have an impact on her remarriage

chances - had very little effect.[7] So while we can suggest qualities

that described a woman likely to remarry, only the fact that a

remarrying widow was younger than her non-remarrying counterparts had

any significant association with becoming a wife again.

Looking more closely at th is remarrying group, we see that th eir

period as widows lasted between four to five years on the average. In

the earlier period, it was 4.3; in the later, 4.7. Neither age nor

wealth had any significant relationship to the length of time she

remained unmarried after the death of her husband. In addition,

testacy, entailment, and primogeniture had no association with it.[8]

Table 6.8 shows the relationship between the length of widowhood and the

total wealth of these women. While other qualities of a marriageable

[7] For a ll years and for those women whose ages were known, the breakdown was as follow s:

Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-99 All

Remarried 7 9 6 1 1 24 Non-remar. 1 4 8 5 3 21

[8] For all years the Pearsonian r between length of widowhood and widow's age was .018 and with deflated total inventory value, .137. The eta between length of widowhood and testacy was .0419, with primogeniture and entailment, .04311.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155

Table 6.8

Length of Widowhood by Deflated Total Wealth for Widows with Known Ages Who Remarried

Wealth Group Length of Widowhood Total in Years

1 2-3 4-5 6 and up

Poor 4 1 2 2 9 Lo Mid. 4 4 1 5 14 Mid Mid. 1 2 1 1 5 Hi Mid. 1 7 2 5 15 E lite 0 1 1 0 2

10 15 7 13 ^5

prospect - a gentle countenance, a strong back, or a resilient nature -

cannot be measured, these few discernable difference suggest the

outlines of the issue.

In short, we are left with an impression of a group of widows of whom

at le a st h alf rem arried. Those who did not were more advanced in th eir

life cycle and a bit less well-off than those who did. The latter group

remarried fairly quickly, but their term as widows was not tied to any

one socio-economic influence. Despite these differences, all shared in

one experience and that was at least some period as a widow. With that

status their lives changed in some manner due to their new legal

position. One way to see those changes is to examine the structure and

implications of probate law.

For most women marriage offered socio-economic protection while

demanding relinquishment of some legal rig h ts. To use Blackstone's

summary; "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; th at

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156

is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during

marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated," with that of her

husband.[ 9 ] A wife could, however, act as a "deputy husband" to the

extent that community standards allowed and engage in most legal actions

as a surrogate for her spouse when circumstance or need arose. But her

individual rig h ts were lim ite d .[10] Her legal freedom to exercise

options on her husband's property was available only if he so stipulated

in his will or if she was fortunate enough to acquire property*prior to

her marriage. Ihose whose husbands died intestate were left with few

legal options.[11] We know that 110, or 80 percent of the widows were in

thi3 position.

Probate law had two functions: to provide for the security of the

family and to settle debts with creditors. The first alone could be a

formidable task. Witness the needs of widow Marston as dictated by

husband Simon in his will of 1735: For the re s t of her lif e his sons

were to provide, winter and summer,

[9] As cited in Leo Kanowitz, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution (Albuquerque, 1969), 35.

[10] See Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, "Good Wives: A Study in Role Definition in Northern New England, 1650-1750" (Ph.D. diss., University of New Hampshire, 1980).

[11] Elwin L. Page, Judicial Beginnings in New Hampshire, 1640-1700 (Concord, N.H., 1959), 154-156. On transmission of property see Richard B. Morris, Studies in the History of American Law (New York, 1930), 69-86, 155-157. For dower rig h ts, see Joan Hoff Wilson, "The Illusion of Change: Women and the American Revolution," in Alfred E. Young, The American Revolution: Explorations in the History of American Radicalism (DeKalb, 111., 1976), 383-445. Also see George Lee Haskins, Law and Authority in Early M assachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design (New York, 1960), 180-183; George Athan B illia s, e d ., Selected Essays? Law and Authority in Colonial America (Barre, Mass., 1365), 22-26.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157

One hundred Weight of Good Pork & one hundred of good beaf & ten Bushels of Indian Corn 4 two bushels of Wheat or wheat 4 Barley 4 two Bushels of Malt 4 two Cows to be kept . . . 4 five Pound of Cotton Wool 4 five Pound to sheeps Wool & twelve Cord of Good Fire Wood 4 one barrel of Cyder . . . and to find their mother with four Sheep.

Additionally, they had to share the house wiph her. Sons Jonathan and

Daniel had to endorse a bond signifying their agreement to these rules,

that is, that they would comply with their father's wishes. One hopes

they did so willingly, not begrudging the living burden on which their

inheritance depended.[12] Luckily the Marston brothers did not have to

deal with creditors, whose concerns were given much attention in

probate. Where family and creditors competed, the family (and widow)

could stand to lose a substantial portion of their security if the law

was followed to the letter. By examining first the intestate law and

administration as representative of general community standards

regarding widows, then second, the varieties and scope of descent and

distribution of property by will, the range of the surviving family's

economic and social outlooks can be b etter understood.

New Hampshire intestate law was derived from that of Massachusetts.

During the union between the two, codification was the same.[13] After

the 1679 separation, little changed save the name of the institution

enforcing probate. In 1679 the Cutt Commission - the new New Hampshire

Executive Council - assumed control of probate matters.[Hi] This

[12] PRPNH II, 534-536.

[13] See Albert Stillman Batchellor, Outline and Development of Probate Law and Probate Jurisdiction in New Hampshire (Concord, N.H.. 1907).

[14] Page, Judicial Beginnings, 30-40.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission continued until the Dominion of New England came into being under the

guidance in New England of Sir Edmund Andros. He took control of

probate, directed it from Boston, and made one significant change - that

judges acting in his stead could probate estates of less than twenty

pounds in New Hampshire, thereby saving indigent survivors from a long

trip to settle an estate.[15] All others had to make the trip. When the

Dominion was dissolved the old provincial laws were revived and by 1693

the provincial courts were operating independently again. The Governor

and Council acted as a supreme court for probate until 1775.[16]

An Act for Settling Intestate Estates of October 1693 set the ground

rules for widows' and survivors' rig h ts .[173 The rig h t of succession as

administrator was set - the widow, her next-of-kin, and creditors. The

administrator was legally responsible for the settlement of the estate.

After all administrative debts and funeral expenses were paid, the widow

was entitled to one-third of the personal estate forever (meaning that

she could dispose of it as she wished), and one-third of the real estate

for her natural life (meaning that it reverted to the heir specified by

law at her death), in addition to any property she might have brought to

the marriage. The residue went to the children, the eldest son

receiving a double portion. If the realty could not be divided "without

[15] "An Act for Probate of Wills & Granting Letters of Administration," in Albert Stillman Batchellor, ed., Laws of New Hampshire, I : Province Period, 206-207. hereafter cited as LNH I.

[16] Batchellor, Outline, 12-24.

[17] Batchellor, LNH I. 566.

( I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

harm” to the land - a definition left to the discretion of court-

appointed overseers - the oldest son received all and paid proportional

payments to his sib lin g s and/or mother according to the worth of the

property. If the estate was insolvent the children lost all title to

the land although the widow would receive her third, a situation that

severely limited her options if she were entrusted with the care of

young children. Tne remainder of the estate would be sold to fulfill

creditors' demands. This law ensured the widow a portion of the estate,

and reinforced common law tradition in primogeniture.

A supplementary act of 1701 clarified allowable estate

deductions.[18] Debts due the Crown and those connected with family

illness - including, from the interpretation of the Court, the cost of

raising children ages 7 and under - were subtracted from the total

estate before anyone could claim their due. This was important for

women with small children because the five shillings per month per young

child could mean the difference between health and starvation.

Additionally, cred ito rs were allowed six months to v alidate th eir claims

on the estate, and, if the widow died, could impound her portion

immediately to meet unpaid debts.

Subsequent acts refined these laws. An act in 1708 directed that

entailment of estates could be broken to meet creditors' demands,[19] In

17m leg islatio n improved the widows' lo t by allowing then to receive

[18] Ib id ., 683-684.

[19] Albert Stillman Batchellor, ed., Laws of New Hampshire, II: The Province Period, 1702—1745, 85. hereafter cited as LNH II.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160

dower th ird s within one month of demand .[20] The act noted that such

"speedy assignment" was of absolute necessity for many women. In May

1718 widows left with insolvent estates lost the right to their share of

personal property and creditors were given another twelve months to levy

claims.[21] Those claims could have devastating effects on estates,

especially those falling into the lowest wealth group, as shown in Table

Table 6.9

L ia b ilitie s Per Wealth Group in Deflated Pounds Sterling Intestate Estates

Group Range in Pounds Median Liab. Mean Liab.

Poor 0-25 38.8 122.2 Low Mid. 25-75 100.8 226.2 Mid Mid. 75-150 58.0 136.2 Hi Mid. 150-500 217.1 247.1 Elite 500-2000 70.4 218.7

6.9. However, i t is possible that not a ll claims were called in

although most likely claims made on insufficient funds would be settled

in proportion to the original debt.

At the same sitting the Assembly reinforced the rights of widows of

solvent but intestate estates to their property.[22] This law remained

in effect until the Revolution. Noting the primacy of the land, the act

read :

Whereas Estates in these Plantations do consist chiefly of Lands, which have been subdued and brought to Improvement by the Industry

[20] Ib id .. 135-137.

[21] Ib id ., 293-295.

[22] Ib id ., 295-298.

$ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161

and Labour of the Proprietors, with the Assistance of their Children; the Younger Children generally having been the longest, the most serviceable unto their Parent in that behalf, who have not Personal Estate to give out to them in Portions, or otherwise to recompence their Labour.

As a justification of primogeniture the law prescribed the sequence of

administrators unchanged from 1693, left a double portion to the oldest

son, and gave responsibility for the division of house and lands to an

imparitial jury of community members, excepting the case where the

family decided the settlement among themselves. The widow received

moiety of the personal estate forever, and the standard one-third realty

for life. The remainder was assigned to the decedent's next-of-kin,

although recognition of collateral heirs stopped at nieces and nephews.

The law reflected three facts of Portsmouth's socio-economic structure:

Ore, the community was still growing and young, sturdy help should be

rewarded; two, this growing population needed more of the rapidly

diminishing land, and because of that, disagreements within families

about how to divide that precious resource were inevitable; and three,

since kinship relations and family trees were rapidly enlarging, some

limit on the degree of legal affiliation was necessary to keep

litigation to a minimum. In addition, the law confirmed the general

trend toward women achieving greater proprietary rights as the

eighteenth century progressed. Concern for the surviving family was an

implied community standard, but th is a ttitu d e was sometimes mediated by

concern for the rep resen ta tiv e s of the lo cal economy - the c re d ito rs .

The division of Elisha Briard's intestate estate exemplifies the

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

implementation of these laws.[23] In 1722 his family submitted the

distribution of the homelot and house to arbitration. His widow, four

daughters, and a son were contestants. The court awarded control to the

son«and daughters with a double portion to the son, but the widow

received a precise allotment for the remainder of her life. The

agreement read :

That a f te r mature Consideration theron we have Agreed to . . . Satt off to the widdow for her Thirds, the Eastern Room in the Dwelling House, the lento and one Third part of the Cellar, and also that p a rt o f the Garden th a t is between the Dwelling House and the Land in the Possession of Mr James Jeffry, it being fourty Three foot in Length from Said House to Mr James Jeffry s Fence.

The houselot measured 85 by 79 feet. After the division, the daughters

returned their shares for payment of annual rents, leaving mother, son,

and daughter-in-law to live there until the son's death a year later.

Such d iv isio n s were commonplace and many widows could expect to liv e out

their lives within such carefully scripted rules in a household they

once directed.

The collective nature of these acts invites several observations

about "intestate" wives. Unless the estate was large, diversified -

that is, including both land and personalty - and relatively debt-fee,

the law could d iv est widows of most of what th e ir marriage had produced

economically and leave them with little for future support. Or, if a

widow had many children who could inherit the bulk of the estate, the

widow could also be in a bad p o sitio n . She would get her th ird s , the

[233 Division with plate drawing of estate division allowed December 5, 1722; PPR VIII, 362. Letter confirming assent between parties, PRPNH II, 67-69.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. | children the rest, and she would probably end up as semi-dependent on

them for the rest of her life. In short, the demands of creditors and

the ages and numbers of children often fashioned her fate as a widow.

While i t is not possible to examine the situ atio n s of a ll in te sta te

wives, the experiences of a few suggest how many might have dealt with

their situations.

Samuel Rollins l e f t his wife Rebecca with an insolvent, in te sta te

estate and seven children when he died in 1694.[24] A carpenter and

wheelwright, he was in his late forties and she about the same age. His

father had left him some land, but the inheritance had not been large.

Rebecca, the daughter of a local carpenter, had received fifty pounds,

an ox and three pigs from her father. The couple had four boys and

three girls, the youngest baptised just fifteen days before her father's

death. Although a detailed inventory is not extant, Rebecca's

accounting as administratrix showed an estate totallying 71.1.0 pounds.

7.17.0 went toward administrative costs and funeral expenses. From

Rebecca's dower accounting we can establish the relative proportions of

personalty and realty according to the ratios set by law. She asked the

court for 13.6.8 pounds for realty, implying that the land accounted for

about 40 pounds - or 56 percent - of the total estate worth, and she

wanted 10.11.4 for her part of the personalty. Forty pounds remained to

be divided among eleven creditors who had accounts totalling about 110

pounds. The probate judge ordered a distribution of 0.7.6 on the pound

and the e sta te was se ttle d . Rebecca seemed to have done quite w ell.

[24] PPR IV, 83. PRPNH I, 111, 293-2 9 5. Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 551, 595-596. i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although s substantial part of the estate was lost to debts, she signed

over her rights to the remaining lands to her family and thereby

indirectly held on to the land - in addition to a parcel entailed to the

children by a paternal grandfather - free of lien. It appears she lived

out her years there, protected and provided for as a widow.

Where Rebecca Rollins1 children probably afforded her comfort, Hannah

Jose's family contacts and status in Portsmouth society protected her

when her husband, Richard, died intestate and nearly insolvent in

1708.[253 Hannah's father, the Honorable Richard Martin, had held

nunerous high provincial offices and left both her and her husband goods

and money in his will of 1694 - part of over six hundred pounds

distributed among family members. Richard inherited land, boats,

wharves, and warehouses directly from his father, and indirectly - due

to the early death of his older brother - the house where he was born

and to which he brought his bride. Richard also held many political

offices and was referred to as "Esquire." The couple had ten children

during their twenty-four year marriage. Jose's inventory of 1708

totalled 924.11.0 pounds, a great portion representing an Isles fishing

operation and land. No administratrix's account was filed immediately

a fte r his death. A court order was fin a lly issued in 1712 demanding an

explanation for the missing statement, and, promptly following it, an

order to sell much of the land and business to settle outstanding debts.

Complying, Hannah obtained the necessary license the very next day and

sold. Apparently there was a seller's market. Her final accounting was

[253 PPR VIII, 185-189; PRPNH I, 177-179; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary 551, 595-596.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165

made six years after this transaction and her statement in that document

gives testimony of her stalling.

Of the 924 pounds in the original e sta te , Hannah owed 814 on 59

separate accounts. After her thirds were subtracted, very little

remained of the apparent fortune. Her dower in personalty amounted to

40 pounds and she salvaged a 58-acre tra c t on which the main house was

located for her realty. This she divided among her children, giving her

eld est son a double portion and the house - where she took up residence.

The children paid her p ro fits from th eir shares, a compromise which le f t

her without clear control of the land but which assured her some

security. Ttoo reasons could have led to the settlement of the estate at

that time - her youngest child reached the age of fourteen, the legal

age at which he could pick a guardian, and Hannah remarried. Delaying

the settlement for the child's sake allowed her to use the fullest

resources of the estate for his upbringing before the property was

discharged and items sold to meet debts. In any case, the affair had to

be concluded either before or during the early stages of her new

marriage so that a clear understanding of what things were rightfully

hers and her childrens' could be established. Her new spouse, sixty

year-old Edward Ayers, was a widower of eight months when they married.

He was an exceptionally wealthy man, a well-respected town official, and

a blacksmith by trade. His library held a collection of classics

unparalleled in the area. Although a father of eight children - his

youngest also fourteen at the marriage - he could well afford Hannah as

a status-rich but penny-poor wife. Hannah died the following year, snug

in her rank of Portsmouth society. Edward lived to take yet a third

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wife a year later and died in 1723.

Elizabeth Stacy appears in sharp contrast to Hannah (Martin) Jose-

Ayers.[26] We can trace her in the historical record just long enough to

see the poorer side of intestate widowhood. Her husband, a simple

tailor, drowned in June 1730. We know little of their life together nor

of her fate. His inventory of 58 pounds showed neither land or house,

only the basic necessities of l i f e . In the chamber of what must have

been a rented house, appraisers noted a bed and bedstead, linens, a

complement of utensils, four tables and thirteen chairs, and the

remnants of the tailor's trade - mohair buttons and shears. In the

lower room, pans shared space with a looking glass and hatchets as well

as yards of material. A parcel of books, some pewter, and an assortment

of casks and tubs completed the household. Elizabeth called in 212.11.6

pounds in cash from 38 outstanding credits. To do so, she travelled to

the Isles seven times, to Boston twice, including one trip made

exclusively to "Catch Peter Nash Debtor to the Estate," and journeyed to

York three times to adjust accounts with clients and to appear in court.

She posted the notifications for creditors and put notices in the

Gazette herself, but still had to pay the probate officials for their

work - 6.5.0 for "their time & trouble of 2 of the commissioners

attendence 9 days Each & one of them Seven Days at 5/0 Diem." The

tailor owed 316.16.9 to 14 people, the largest su to his cloth

suppliers. Closing the estate account in 1732, judge Benjamin Gambling

ruled that a remaining 193.3.7 be distributed among these creditors at

[26] PPR H U , 30-39; PRPNH II, 377-378; Noyes, Libby and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 654.

i Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167

0.7.6 on the pound. One small entry in the final settlement shows

Elizabeth's reward for her hard work and suggests a rather mean future.

Wedged between a bill for attorney1s fees and the clerk1s stipend is

written: "to a bed & furniture & Necessarys for Life of Widow ------

5. 0. 0."

Rebecca, Hannah, and Elizabeth independently shared a variety of

experiences in handling life after their husbands' deaths. As intestate

wives, they acted as administrators and business managers in settling

the e sta tes, positions demanding thorough knowledge of th e ir husbands'

business dealings as well as an ability to handle creditors and courts.

All the while they had the responsibility of raising children alone. In

each case creditors took much of the estate, yet the courts acted with

fairly generous allowances of time, patience, and leniency. While the

strict application of the law would suggest that their financial

outlooks would be grim, reality brought some indulgence and latitude.

Women whose husbands left wills were, for the most part, in better

situations from the start. Ihe letter of the law did not bind them so

tightly. Aside from general restrictions regulating the proving of the

will and handling insolvent estates, widows had a free hand in disposing

property willed to them. Where intestate law served the dual purposes

of providing minimal support to the family and protecting the local

economy by assuring creditors of their due, testate law allowed men to

detail their exact prescriptions for familial support and to address

their families' specific needs. However, both focused on one feature -

the protection of the community's prime source of capital and social

cohesion - the land.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

Land and its distribution primarily in the male line was the core of

many wills. Men wanted to protect their land, insure it3 regular

improvement, and pass it on to their sens. To do so they detailed the

rules of primogeniture countless times over the period and allowed for

many combinations of descent, taking into consideration death, no issue,

illegitimacy, and illness. Yet for widows, land was both an asset and

a liability. Land was a source of wealth in the form of rents, crops,

or potential sa le , but i t was also burdensome because its care took

time, knowledge, and a great deal of physical labor that often was not a

woman's to give. Her work world was prim arily domestic. Few women

could successfully run both household and homestead alone. In short,

without a healthy labor supply, property ownership could be a great

hardship. In an attempt to maintain both their property and their

wives' welfare, men used varying approaches in designing their wills.

Several categories of widow and family support can be seen in the

extant wills, and they demonstrate the means used to exercise the

options. Five patterns emerge in Portsmouth: In the f i r s t , the widow

received all the estate forever; in the second, a settlement for life;

in the third, a settlement during her tenure as a widow; in the fourth,

a settlement during the minority of a child or children; in the fifth, a

basic dower grant. We know the settlement types in twenty-seven

cases.[27] Table 6.10 shows the breakdown of the cases into the five

[27] For comparable breakdowns in other areas, see Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, "The P lan ter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," William and Mary Jjarterly, 3d. Ser., XXXIV (1977), 542-571. For comparison with an English sample, see Carole Shammas, "Women and Inheritance in the Age of Family Capitalism," unpublished paper delivered at the American Historical Association

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 169

groups. Of these twenty-seven, only four remarried, so any attempt to

analyse the relationship between settlement and reasons for remarriage

Table 6.10

Settlements by Will Portsmouth Widows, 1679-1742

Settlement 1679-1709 1710-1742 All Years

All Estate 1 3 4 Est. for Life 6 4 10 E st. for Widowhood 1 2 3 Est. for Minority 2 3 5 Dower or Less 2 3 5

12 15 27

would be unsupportable.

However, i t is worthwhile to look at a few of these settlem ents to

understand how the testacy affected widows. Sarah Partriage-Leavitt

provides a composite picture of a woman receiving two types of

settlement from her two marriages. At the end of her first she received

an estate for her widowhood, and at the end of second, ail the

estate.[28] Her first marriage to merchant Nehemiah Partridge, lasting

twenty-four years, ended in 1691 and produced one son. Partridge

granted Sarah a ll the estate for the terra of her widowhood, to be passed

on to the son should she remarry. In the interim, the son was advised

Meeting, Washington, D.C., 1980; see also, E.P. Thompson, "The Grid of Inheritance; A Comment," in Jack Goody, et al., eds., Family and In heritance; Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800 (Cambridge, 1976).

[283 PPR VII, 449-451 ; PPR XIV, 460-461 ; PPR X, 5-6; PRPNH I, 348; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 532.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to "stay at home and Assist His Mother in Caring the trade on," or to

"travel beyond seas," This te stifie d to Nehemiah1s confidence in Sarah

as both a marriage and business partner. Sarah promptly remarried, this

time to James Leavitt. As a well-respected and successful businessman,

Leavitt probably also admired Sarah's business acumen. This marriage

lasted twenty-seven years, he dying at age sixty-five. She was sixty-

eight. He left his "well-beloved Sarah" all. When she died in 1738 her

assets were very large. Indeed, she was one of only fourteen women to

have an extant inventory between 1679 and 17*12. This wealth came from

both marriages. She was the administratrix of her first husband's

estate and although his inventory totaled over 110 pounds, creditors

took all but her thirds of the personalty, amounting to 20 pounds.

Their home - a wedding gift - was sold to meet claims, so their son, not

Sarah, lost most in the situation. Her second husband's inventory is

not extant, but Sarah's own of 1738 shows the comfort he provided. No

land was listed, but the personalty shows a degree of luxury - feather

beds, gold and silver money, silver objects, cloaks of many hues, fans,

and cows. Totalling over 170 pounds, it represented two husbands'

lifetim es of work as well as her own as wife. While not a property

owner, the relative absence of children in her life combined wi'h a

second husband who did not have overwhelming debts assured her of a

comfortable standard of living until her death at eighty-eight.

8 As Sarah fared well from her settlem ents, so did Elizabeth Locke-

Pitman.[29] She is representative of almost half of the "settled" group

[29] PPR VIII, **24-426; PRPNH I, 382-384; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 101, 442, 558.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ■ - those ten women who received a settlement for their entire lives.

Elizabeth was a widow of whom we know little until she married William

Pitman around 1679. Their twenty-year union produced lour boys. In his

will of 1699 Pitman stipulated that Elizabeth was to have full use and

improvement of the house, land, and business, and to put these resources

to good use in raising the children. He recited the rules of

■ inheritance for his children, starting with his oldest son who was to

inherit the house and land and then pass it on to his legal issue. If

that son did not have any children, the second son received the

inheritance and passed it on in the same manner. These restrictions

also applied to the two other sons if their brothers did not have heirs.

Then it stopped. In all cases, once the chain was established in a

son's family, the estate was entailed forever. As luck would have it,

the first two sons died without issue, the third produced a son but that

son moved to Boston and had no use for the property. Because of the

entailment, he could not sell the land, hence it was turned over to his

uncle, the fourth original son. Pitman's detailed contingency plans I bore fruit in the end, and the widow remained protected throughout it all. Besides a home forever, she had a comfortable living - over 300

pounds from the estate for life. She stayed in the family business and

maintained the account books until at least 1714. She was last taxed in

1732 at the age of eighty.

Although at first appearances those whose husbands left them an

estate for the minority of a child might seem to have been used only as

a vehicle for child support, their situation actually could be quite

good. If the maternal relationship was solid, there was little chance

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v'*3j • 172

that the widow would be turned out in the cold. And, in any case, the

widow was en title d to th e ir standard dower rig h ts. Rebecca Greely is

one of the five women in such a position.[30] Her husband Thomas allowed

her "use and improvement" of the estate u n til th e ir son Thomas'

majority, at which time she was to receive one-third '>f the house, a

bed, and some money. Appointing a male executor, Greely relieved

Rebecca of the burden of se ttlin g his financial a ff a ir s . With this

settlement he bequeathed not only his temporal estate but a social

I setting - entrusting both wife and land to his son’s care and protection

after she had spent years doing the same for him.

Through the la s t type o f d istrib u tio n - the basic dower grant - we

can see not only how the women receiving it fared, but also assume that

it was similar to some women dealing with intestacy. Hannah Snell was

part of this last group, and although her case was complex, it sheds

some light on possible situations.[313 Hannah was first married to a

prominent merchant, Reuben Hull. After his death in 1689 she assumed

control of his business and cared for their children. In 1700 she

married George Snell, another wealthy merchant. Of her six children by

her first marriage, three were still minors at the time, and one of her

older daughters had married Snell's only son a few years earlier.

George and Hannah's marriage apparently completed the consolidation of

the two families and businesses. Within nine years Snell died, leaving

[30] PPR X, 315-316, 334; PRPNH II, 184-186; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 285.

[31] PPR I. 342-348; PPR X, 59; PRPNH I, 331-333, 551-553; Noyes, Libby, and Davis, Genealogical Dictionary, 358, 648.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hannah with a settlement equivalent to dower. As a formalization of

th e ir wedding agreement, he reminded her in his w ill of her obligation

to give each child 100 pounds, " fie r and Enimis only Excepted," and

noted that he had kept detailed records of their debts and legacies

already paid. " If my wif pies to acquit me," he suggested, "and to

betake hear selfe to hear own Estate it is will," for he granted his son

the remainder of his own estate. She received one quarter of the catch

of the Mayflower and a third of the house ren ts, although she was

financially responsible for all repairs. Hannah and her daughter lived

longer than all the male heirs. Both sons of both Hannah's marriages

died early, and the women lived out their years together very

comfortably.

The combined experiences of these women, and of others like them,

suggest important points about the protection and maintenance of New

Hampshire women and widows. Most of th eir husbands acted on one of two

assumptions: First, either they did not think it necessary to make a

will or thought the law provided their spouses with adequate protection

under intestacy and dower rules, or second, that law was not enough,

hence they distributed their resources according to the family's

situation. In the first instance, most men were correct. Intestate law

focused on support for women - reaffirming their traditional role in

society. Following on the natural implications of coverture, the widow

was cared for but forced to subsume her economic and social in te rests to

those of children, creditors, and overseers. Few were able to

accixnulate enough property in their own names to enable them to operate

independently. Most lik ely , many did not want to be independent. While

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174

women were, in a sense, bound to protective custody, rarely were they

abandoned.

While w ills were the exception in the community, most followed the

general outline of the dependency relationship outlined in probate law.

Most husbands allowed for the support and nurture of children and widow.

In many cases, the wife was a business partner, but her primary roles

were those of wife, mother, guardian of the household, and it was those

roles that received most attention in wills. We must suspect that many

of our widows might have sympathized with the women of Mather's church,

but they did not share in the situation described. They might weep over

the plight of Marah but not over their own. For, by and large,

Portsmouth took care of them just as they nurtured it.

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CONCLUSION

THE LAYERED SOCIETY

The "layered" nature of Portsmouth's society and m aterial cu ltu re and

the difficulty in making generalizations about the relationship between

wealth and economic ranking becomes apparent when probate records are

the primary investigatory tool. Those records allow us to categorize

townspeople into economic groups based on their accrued wealth and, when

we discover the objects that constituted that wealth, to see that many

inhabitants had priorities in material wealth that varied in and between

those groups. And as we evaluate the population, proceeding from the

overall picture to the specific - in an effort to identify, quantify,

and generalize about the elements of material culture - the more

idiosyncratic and baffling it appears. But that same process also

allows us to see the personal and human side of Portsmouth society.

These two sides of Portsmouth's socio-economic history are the backbone

of this study in particular and historical interpretation of evidence in

g e n e ra l.

The realities of the seventeenth and eighteenth century were not so

different from those of the twentieth. Portsmouth had a socio-economic

eth ic in which community order and organization were im portant, but

understated. Unofficial means of guiding Portmouthites toward

appropriate lif e s ty le s were more evident than o f f ic ia l d ic ta te s ; the

175 I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. family played a greater part in determining order than the selectmen.

In addition, Portsmouth was a place where industry was paramount for

survival and growth, religion was not a stifling or directive influence,

and many people appeared to have ideas of a comfortable life that were

not related to status-seeking, not associated with particular patterns

of m aterial wealth that were linked to economic level or age, but

rather, were directed toward some small measure of comfort in the

domestic environment that represented the present, and toward a large

measure of control and development of land, livestock, or business that

could be passed on to future generations. Through inter-town marriages

and because of limited physical area for expansion, the town

redistributed its wealth among its members constantly and maintained a

fairly steady distribution of wealth through the years.

While Portsmouth's population and economy grew steadily over the

years, day-to-day life was not always smooth. One delightful facet of

socio-economic investigation with probate and town records is that we

can vicariously observe the personal element of social life, such as the

cases . . .

o of the town selectmen's meeting during which they tried to decide

who had responsibility for the orphan of a town prostitute,

knowing fu ll well th at any of them might be the fath er,

o of the town's system of ju stic e , in which John Cotton's fine for

cutting timber on the town commons was halved in return for Cotton

becoming a "searcher" for other lawbreakers,

o of how the town cared for one of its slow-thinking residents by

paying him a yearly stipend in exchange for sweeping the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

meetinghouse, looking after michievous boys on the Sabbath, and

digging graves.

Likewise, we can poke around households, whose contents as a whole, when

combined with re a lty , constituted the aggregate wealth of the community.

Instead of viewing each object as representative of some economic

category, we can puzzle over or wonder at the reason for the ownership

of things such as . . .

o Jethro Furber's parrot,

o George Vaughan's coat-of-arms.

o Minister Nathaniel Roger's slave.

o Jacob Clark's choice to own two schooners, but to rent a house,

o Tanner John Nelson's meager stock inventory consisting of a sharp

knife, a millstone, and six green hides, while his wardrobe

contained britches of calmanco, close-bodied coats, three colored

coats, silk handkerchiefs, a linen shirts, and shoe buckles,

o The c h ild 's knife and fork found in John Westbrook's home.

An exotic pet, a unique status symbol, unfree labor owned by a man of

the cloth, a lust for the sea and a reluctance to establish a home on

dry land, the whims of a dandy, the attention paid to the eating

utensils of a small child - these are all part of the reality and

romance of Portsmouth's socio-economic past. The dry records yield

small and meaningful gems that clue us into how these long-dead people

worked in and with their environment.

On a more general level, that environment had many layers. Analysis

of and extrapolation from Portsmouth's extant probate records shows five

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I 178

discrete economic levels, levels determined solely on aggregate wealth

and ranging from the insolvent to the outrageously rich. The amount of

Portsmouth's total wealth owned by each of those levels did not change

substantially between 1680 and 1740. In most cases, individuals in each

of these levels distributed their possessions in similar manners.

Partible inheritance was a standard practice as was marriage between

townspeople. Aside from land ownership there was, however, no standard

among individuals in each group about types of goods they owned.

Residents did not overtly covet a single standard of living; there was

no "middle-class" dream. And while people may, as the saying goes, have

come to fish, they quickly realized that security lay in land. Land

ownership was a leveling influence in town - as over half the people in

each group except the very poor had inventoried land. Portsmouth was

materially hetergeneous.

Goods and services flowed easily between people in each group and

between generations. Due in part to the extreme in flatio n that began

around the turn of the century, residents relied heavily on the barter

system, an organizational scheme calling for equality of good and

service exchange as well as extremely fluid credit arrangements. A man

could be insolvent on paper one day if debts due him were not paid, and

wealthy the next if chits were called in. Personal contact was critical

to the smooth and honest functioning of the exchange, a fact that led to

a locally-oriented economy. To do business with another townsperson was

to seal the bargain with a handshake or a nod. In such an environment,

no rigid economic caste system could flourish.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179

In short, Portsmouth defined a social and economic ethic for itself

that worked equitably because it was premised on the realities of life

as they perceived it. It was inbred, fluid, and for the most part,

based on an unequal distribution of wealth. Inequality was acceptable

part of life. In material terms, it took many forms. It was sociable

(chairs were eminently important), comfort-seeking to a point (witness

the widespread ownership of feather beds), economically realistic (in

inflationary times, bullion or silver-crafted goods were very important

and, at all times, stability was found in the land), and diversified in

business (shipping, livestock, fanning, cordwaining, joinery, tanning,

and limbering to name a few). Portsmouth was not particularly mobile.

They lived with limited opportunity for social and/or economic

advancement and, for the most part, appeared quietly dispassionate about

such possiblities. Thus, Portsmouth’s environment and residents’

outlook on life perpetuated this perspective between generations. In

sh o rt, the economic distance between Roger Rose, who had holes in his

cooking pots and who had to keep his "beestees" in the woods for lack of

pasture, and George Vaughan, who owned ten houses, two mills, four

slaves to keep his silver polished and pewter smooth, and hundreds of

acres of land was, in one sense, thousands of pounds of raw wealth. But

from another p erspective - th at o f a common outlook on how the community

was self-structured and functioned on a very personal and materially

unique level - that distance was not so great.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES

I*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I

ANALYSING THE BIAS OF PROBATE

This project has been concerned with two issues that had an impact on

Portsmouth, New Hampshire from 1680 to 17*10. F irs t, what was the

distribution of wealth in regards to individuals and to the entire

population over time. Second, in terms of personalty and realty, what

fora did wealth take and can it provide us with any clues as to the

economic and social values and p rio ritie s of the community? The answers

to these questions are complex and arriving at them involves dissecting I the bias of the primary source used in this investigation - probate records. Because of the p ecu liarities of probate - not a ll esta tes were

probated and those which were tended to reflect an older and wealthier

sub-population than the general population - the data must be adjusted

to reflect not only the decedent’s wealth but the wealth of the entire

community over time. What follows is a discussion of recent literature

on the problem and a description of the methodology used in the study.

Researchers in many fields have grappled with the challenge of

drawing upon small samples and availability samples to understand

processes effecting larger populations. Investigators of early American

wealth are of necessity involved in a similar process. Although a

variety of sources can be used to analyse wealth - tax and land l i s t s ,

probate - no one source completely records information on the wealth of

every community member. As a result historians have turned to

| 181 I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

statistical procedures in an attempt to describe and evaluate the wealth

of many from th at of a few.

The mid-nineteen-sixties heralded new approaches to research in early

American society. With the innovations of second-generation computer

technology and fresh ideas from the French Annales school and the

British Cambridge group, colonialists in this country slowly began to

turn toward quantitative methodology and away from pure narrative. That

so much attention was devoted to wealth was, in part, a reaction of

scholars to their contemporary American society for the national

community i ts e lf had been questioning the sources of inequalities and

social values. For those studying early American society, this general

movement led to a search for precision and hard data to support theories

of social and economic change before and a fte r the American Revolution,

questions long debated using traditional literary evidence that focused

attention on the elite and ignored the majority of the colonial

Americans. An understanding of economic inequality from settlement to

the Revolution was a central question in this search. Historically,

wealth distribution was linked to differences in status, family roles,

and political power. Consequently, to understand how and why wealth was

distributed in colonial America was to gain some insight into social

organization.

It is a relatively simple matter to investigate contemporary wealth.

Census records, the Internal Revenue Service, and many government

agencies have complete information on most people. However, the sources

necessary to investigate colonial wealth are not as available. If they

were, this appendix would not be necessary. The challenge to find the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 183

most unbiased information on colonial wealth has been taken up by many,

and this pursuit, to quote Kenneth Boulding, "locks on first inspection

like a very decent and well-ordered chase. . . [but has], on closer

inspection, alarming ter.lencies to turn into a caucus race with

everybody running off in all directions."[1] In short, the search for

the perfect source and the perfect methodology has resulted in numerous

studies of wealth, none of which replicates any other. The common

ground of these studies is only that each trie s to answer one of three

questions: To what degree was wealth unevenly distributed? How did

this distribution change over time? What were the reasons for wealth

being distributed the way it was?

"Income" distrib u tio n - a common contemporary term - cannot be used

in the study of colonial society. "Wealth" is a more applicable term.

A daily economy premised on regularized wage income emerged from

America's nineteenth-century industrial transformation. To those

earning a living in early America, wage and salary played a small role.

Wealth - in the form o f accumulated stock and money - was gained through

inheritance, business endeavors, and luck. That your father was well-

off meant that you would probably be well-off; that you correctly gauged

the demand for oakun or Barbadoes rum meant th at your account books

would show a profit; that the ship carrying a cargo of Madiera or prized

Dutch tiles crossed the seas without interference from storms or pirates

was happy circumstance. A combination of these elements meant more

[1] Kenneth Boulding, "The Pursuit of Equality," in James D. Smith, ed ., Studies of Income and Wealth XXXIX (New York, 1966), 24.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184

p ro fit than lo ss, and your wealth increased. On the other hand, your

wealth could decrease though an unfortunate set of circumstances.

Wealth was assessed periodically. The community would frequently

value your estate for tax purposes - meaning that each gelding or barn

you owned, for example, would represent more revenue to the town or

province when a highway or bridge needed rep airs. You would gather the

chits representing debts or credits each month or so to square business

accounts with neighbors and agents. And, when you died, your survivors

would evaluate your estate, both for the purposes of dividing it between

themselves and for determining how much would have to be sold to pay off

cre d ito rs. Many records documenting wealth assessments have been lo st

over the years but those that are extant provide clues to historians

today who analyze colonial wealth distribution.

Trade statistics, tax lists, and probate records have been used in

various combinations for evaluation. Import-export figures and tax

records were central to some studies in the mid-1960's. Jacob Price and

James Lemon used the f ir s t to estimate the annual colonial economic

growth rate as i t affected European markets and urbanization in the

eighteenth century.[2] Jackson Turner Main used tax records and

inventories to analyze wealth and to attempt to understand class

structure in 1965, as did James Henretta in investigating economic

[2] Jacob M. Price, "The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake and the European Market, 1697-1775," Journal of Economic History, XXIV (1964), 496-511; James T. Lemon, "Urbanization and the Development of Eighteenth-Century Southeastern Pennsylvania and Adjacent Delaware," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. Ser., XXIV (1967), 501-533*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. development in early Boston.[3 ] Both questioned the relationship between

the social order and property ownership in response to earlier studies

indicating that equitable property distribution was directly linked to a

widespread franchise and political rights. Aubrey Land employed similar

techniques in two analyses of economic behavior in the Chesapeake.[4]

These scholars had problems in defining the exact distribution of wealth

because of their over-reliance on tax records. Tax records

misrepresented distributions for three reasons. First, they excluded

assessments of property located beyond the boundaries of a town or

county. Second, they excluded debts owed by or due a resident. Third,

many records only showed a proportionate amount of a resident's locally-

assessed wealth. For example, if taxes were collected for bridge

construction, and if town officials decided that one-sixteenth of a

resident's annual tax assessment was to be applied to this rate, the

record would show only that proportion of total assessed wealth. In

addition, that assessed wealth would be based on a formula in which farm

animals of different ages, land used for varying purposes, and buildings

used for a variety of purposes were all taxed at different rates. In

3hort, it was almost impossible to extrapolate from these proportionate

rates to what those rates really represented. Overall, these three

drawbacks hindered historians' attempts to accurately interpret

[3] Jackson Turner Main, The Social Structure of Revolutionary America (Princeton, 165); James A. Henretta, "Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXII (1965), 75-92.

[4] Aubrey C. Land, "Economic Base and Social Structure; The Northern Chesapeake in the Eighteenth Century," JEcH, XXV (1965), 639-654; Land, "Economic Behavior in a Planting Society: The Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake," Journal of Southern History, XXXIII (1967). 469-485.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

community wealth.

To compensate, some scholars began to investigate the possiblity of

using probate records to provide information unavailable in tax records.

At first it appeared a discouraging task. James Lemon and Gary Nash, in

their study of Chester County, Pennsylvania wrote,

A meticulous and comprehensive collating of tax lists with inventories of estates, frequently filed in the probate record, would enable a more precise description of wealth. But even then, the task could never be completed because inventories of estates were often not made or filed, and land, though specified by acreage and location in wills, was rarely appraised in inventories.[5]

Even as they wrote, however, several historians were beginning to find

ways around these problems.

William I. Davisson, working to discover wealth trends for

seventeenth-century Massachusetts, provided the first outlines for a

methodology based on probate.[6] Using coded data from probated estates

for the period 1640-1682, he built a comprehensive price series to

compare prices over time. His goal was to examine the effect of select

imperial monetary regulations - the Navigation Acts, Ennumerated

Commodities Act, Staple Act, Plantation Duties Act, and the

establishment of the mint in 1652 - on prices and wealth, but in the

process he was able to offer a start to a viable solution for estimating

personal wealth. By avoiding tax records he worked around Lemon and

[5] James T. Lemon and Gary B. Nash, "The D istribution of Wealth in Eighteenth Century America: A Century of Change in Chester Co., Pennsylvania, 1693-1802," Journal of Social History. II (1968), 8-9.

[8] William I. Davisson, "Essex County Price Trends: Money and Markets in 17th Century Massachusetts," Essex Institute Historical Collection, CIII (1967), 145-185.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Nash's first objection, and by dealing with New England, where land was

included in probate, he avoided their second problem. Vlhat remained was

to develop a deflation scale to deal with inflation over time, and to

analyze which parts of the population were excluded from probate.

Davisson standardized estate value through deflators based on producer

goods (trade goods), consumer goods, and the prices of land, meat,

grain, and "motive power" such as oxen.[73 To compile these indices,

Davisson calculated the prices of units of each of these goods per year

and then combined them. The use of community-specific goods for

estimating deflation was an important contribution, but one that was

ignored in a 1969 study of the same county by Donald Koch.

Koch was interested in the "changes in the distribution of financial

resources and the pattern of political office-holding" in Essex County

between 1636 and 1699. Actually, he demonstrated how not to interpret

probate data.[83 While he cited Davisson, he did not attempt to adjust

his material through deflators. He admitted that small estates were

probably not included in his sample (but did nothing about it), assumed

that debts owed to and by a decedent were "randomly distributed," and

argued that in line with an order of the General Court that estates must

be probated, they were.[93

[73 Ib id ., 157-159, 165, 168-169.

[83 Donald Warner Koch, "Income D istribution an P o litical Structure in Seventeenth-Century Salem Massachusetts," EIHC, CV (1969), 50-71.

[93 Ib id ., 70-71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188

The problem of reconstituting exactly what was missing from probate

and understanding the degree to which it affected wealth distribution

continued to plague historians eager to use the source but wary of its

drawbacks. Russell Menard echoed the frustrations of Lemon and Nash in

1973 while analyzing the social and economic mobility of seventeenth-

century freed servants in Maryland: "There is no way of determining

whether these inventories constitute a representative sample. My

impression is that they are biased in favor of the wealthiest."[10] The

judgement that probate was biased to the older and wealthier segments of

the population and the idea that wealth had to be deflated to fix

precise change over time, so aptly demonstrated by Davisson, was correct

and studies in the early 1970*3 began to detail how these things could

be done. Starting with Alice Hanson Jones' massive project and

continuing through the elaborations and alternatives presented by Terry

Anderson, Gloria Main, and Carole Shammas, the methodology became more

precise and answers drawn from the data more trustworthy.

Jones' work is the best known of the four. Through a series of

articles, a multi-volume set of documents and analysis, and a

comprehensive condensed work, her methods and results have been widely

disseminated and discussed in popular and academic print.[11] Her object

[10] Russell R. Menard, "From Servant to Freeholder: Status Mobility and Property Accumulation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," WMQ. 3d. | Ser., XXX (1973), 4 In.

■ [11] Alice Hanson Jones, "Wealth Estimates for the American Middle I Colonies, 1774," Economic Development and Cultural Change, XVIII (1970), I 1-172; Jones, "Wealth Estimates for the Mew England Colonies about ■ 1770," JEcH, XXXII (1972), 98-127; Jones, American Colonial Wealth: ■ Docunents and Methods, (New York, 1978), 3 Vols., 2nd. ed.; Jones, fi Wealth of a Nation to Be, (New York, 1978).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189

was

To provide a reasonably solid statistical base for generalization concerning wealth for one important point of time, the year 177*1 . . . [and to] give a benchmark for comparative measures of growth of wealth per head and of size distribution of wealth forward to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries an also for comparison backward, if somewhat similar studies could be made for some earlier dates in the eighteenth and even seventeenth cen tu ries.[12]

Her purpose was to derive an unbiased probate sample and to project the

wealth of the total population from that sample. While on paper this

appeared a simple goal, the study involved a long and complicated set of

assumptions, calculations, and procedures.

Jones initially assumed that a representative sample of all probated

estates in 1774 could be selected through an unbiased sampling of four

d iscrete p o litic a l and economic regions - New England, New York, the

Middle Colonies, and the South. The foundation of this sampling

technique was often made vague by Jones' over-attention to formulas in

the text and was not readily understood. Ranking counties and regions

by population and combining contiguous areas into clusters with a total

population of 20,000, she gave each area a statistical weight that

reflected its size, and chose among those according to a random number

table. If a selected area did not have enough inventories for analysis

an alternative wa3 chosen.[13] Her goal was to select, through this

sampling technique, about one hundred inventories in each region within

[12] Jones, American Colonial Wealth, "Preface to First Edition," n.p.

[13] I b id ., 1819-1831.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 190

each cluster but many areas did not have that many probated estates.[14]

Jones' work had some serious problems. Reviewers, however, have

noted that while her immediate purpose was to achieve an "unbiased

probability sample consisting of probate inventories," her sample

actually was one of counties, and it was these, not the inventories,

th at should have been treated as observations in computing

probabilities.[15] In addition, the geographical representation

resulting f r om her sampling appeared askew. That New Hampshire, Maine,

and Rhode Island were not included voided any possible contribution to

the study in terms of goods and services particular to their maritime

and agricultural trades. That Charleston, South Carolina was selected

as representative of its region overstated the wealth and abundance of

goods and services in the area. Furthermore, the selection of a single

year for wealth analysis appeared questionable. For historians,

ingrained with a curiosity about change over time, the choice left much

to be desired. While Jones followed the statistically-oriented and

theoretically-based tenets of the "new economic history" she fell short

of providing a model and set of data palatable to many.[16]

[14] Ib id ., 1833-1834.

[15] For example, see Gloria Main's review in Business History Review, LII (1978), 408-410; David W. Galenson, "Measuring Colonial Wealth," Reviews in American History, IX (1981), 49-54; Linda Auwers, "History from the Mean - Up, Down, and Around: A Review Essay," Historical Methods, XII (1979), 39-45. [16] For general interpretation and methodology in the "new economic history" see Robert William Fogel, "The Reunification of Economic History with Economic Theory," American Economic Review, LV (1965), 92; Fogel, "The New Economic Theory: I ts Findings and Methods," Economic History Review, 2nd. Ser., XIX (1966), 652-653; and for critique, see D. E. Coleman, "The Model Game," ECHR, 2nd. S er., XXX (1977), 346-351.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jones* methods were in some ways sim ilar to Davisson's. For each of

the 919 inventories finally selected, prices and quantities per item in

general "capital" categories were recorded. These categories, or

"components of private wealth" as Jones termed them, were grouped into

eight sub-categories; (1 )servants and slaves, (2)"producer durables" -

* trade and business tools such as livestock, yokes, sheep shears, and

awls, (3)"producer perishables" - such as tallow, linseed oil, and

I straw, (4)business inventories, (5)"consumer durables" - household goods

such as washing tubs, pewter, and feather beds, (6)"consumer

perishables" - household goods with short-lived usefulness such as

cider, bacon, and butter, (7)"mixed portable wealth" - items of

different categories valued together in inventories, (8)financial assets

and liabilities such as cash, bonds, and book debts. Although the

groupings are subject to interpretation, they can be extremely helpful

to historians interested in developing indices of investment.[17] After

coding items into these categories, Jones weighted the total inventory

values to adjust for the different populations they represented. This

t was necessary to answer three questions; To what degree were the

^ inventories representative of the area from which they were selected?

1 How did the distribution of ages among the probated sample compare to

that of the total population? And, how were groups usually not included

in probate - such as paupers and itinerants - accounted for? To answer,

Jones derived weights for the number of cases within a county ("c"

weights), probate-type wealthholder weights ("w" weights), and all

[17] Jones, American Colonial Wealth, 1863-1907.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. wealthholder weights including non-probate types ( V weights). She

also made two alternate assumptions about non-probate's wealth - either

they were at the bottom of the distribution or scattered in descending

numbers from the bottom to the top of the wealth d is tr ib u tio n a l8]

Jones had problems in data collection as well as in sampling and

weighting. Land and finances (debts owed to and by the decedent) were

critical elements of wealth but were often missing from probate records

and difficult to reconstruct from other sources. For example, land was

not inventoried in the South, and deeds and conveyances were difficult

to track accurately. To compensate, Jones relied heavily on modeling

techniques but admitted that she was not completely satisfied with the

results. She conceded the "limitations of our southern land value

analysis" and accepted "streamlined" equations to estimate land values.

Jones constructed her land data from a variety of types of realty,

regardless of their quality or usefulness and analyzed it together to

derive average acreage values.[19] Determining financial assets and

liabilities proved troublesome also. Most estates did not have a formal

"administration" in the sense that creditor' and debtors' account were

called in for a final accounting of estate worth. Assuming that most

everyone had some measure of outstanding lia b ility or asset, th is meant

that a significant part of an individual's financial profile was

missing. In Jones' sample, less than half the estates in New England

and the Middle Colonies had administrations: In the South, about one-

[18] Ib id ., 1739-1755.

[19] Ib id ., 1756-1759.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193

f if th had adm inistrations. In the South, debts were assumed to be

twenty-two percent of portable wealth.[20] In short, the small size of

the sample forced over-reliance on estimations of critical elements of

wealth - estimates that could over-exaggerate the influence of any one

part of wealth when extrapolated to the total population.

Jones also estimated the wealth and personal characteristics of the

total free population. Using weights for probated decedents, probate-

type living wealthholders, and three variant weights for living free

wealthholders, Jones calculated average wealth for three age categories,

both sexes, ten occupations, as well as testacy, physical wealth, and

net worth.[21] The mechanics were fairly complicated, but her

explanation gives a comprehensive outline of the procedure:

The basic principle is to weight each region's sample data according to the relative size of the region's entire wealthholding population. Ihe execution of this principle entails weighting each decedent's weight (c, w, or w»), within his region r, by an appropriate regional wealthholder population weight (a, a', b, b'), to produce a regional weight for each decedent in the regional combination, i.e. the Thirteen Colonies total.[22]

In short, she progressively weighted each decedent for area population

and regional population, and combined the regionals to arrive at a

total. She assumed that non-probates had the same amount of wealth as

probated decedents and estimated that half of the New England population

was probated and one-quarter were probated elsewhere.

[20] Ib id ., 1928-1939.

[21] Ib id ., 1940-2094.

[22] Ibid., 1909.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194

Jones' estimates must be viewed with reservation because of the

combined influence of sampling, data collection, and estimations in so

many segments of the study. In addition, her study lacks that

particular attention to personal detail enjoyed and understood by

historians. Her results were subject to much review and criticism but

nevertheless stand apart as an example of what can be done through use

of weighting and estimation procedures. The project itself took many

years and she freely acknowledged the aid of a multitude of co-workers

and s ta tis tic a l experts. While she expressed the hope that others would

follow her lead and produce similar studies, the magnitude of the

project and the need for outside help - especially in designing and

calculating the weighting systems - could easily discourage any

individual from duplicating her efforts with another sample.

Terry Anderson's work .on the wealth and economic growth of

seventeenth-century New England echos parts of Jones' study on a small

scale. His purpose was to "describe the composition of asset holding in

order to measure the rate of change in to tal wealth and i t s components"

between 1650 and 1709.[23] His sampling procedure reflected Jones'.

From each of the New England counties, he randomly selected th irty

percent of a ll inventories with to ta ls less than two hundred pounds and

B [233 Terry Lee Anderson, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies, 1650-1709," Explorations in Economic History, XII (1975), 151—176 ; Also see Anderson, "The Economic Growth of Seventeenth-Century New England: A Measurement of Regional Income," Unpublished Ph.D. D issertation, University of Washington (1972); Anderson and Robert Paul Thomas, "White Population, Labor Force and Extensive Growth of the New England Economy in the Seventeenth-Century, JEcH, XXXIII (1973). 634-667.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

forty-five percent with more than that figure. Objects were coded into

one of three categories - land, capital, and other. "Capital" was

broken down into three sub-categories. Working capital included items

sold in the market, and cash. Fixed capital included durables used in

production other than shipping. Shipping capital included all vessels

and structures related to maritime trade. Anderson calculated wealth

distributions for each occupation and decade, then linked the results to

figure wealth per capita. To estimate the living population he used a

stable population model based on the work of Alfred Lotka and

supplemented it with United Nations’ life tables.[24] Dividing ages into

categories 20-25, 26-44, and over 45, and using the population model,

Anderson applied constants derived from 1770 population data to

determine the percentage distribution of probate and non-probate type

wealth per age group. Using Jones' population and sex ratio weights for

probate and non-probate types, he then calculated per capita wealth. A

consumer price index derived from local commodities applied to these

final figures compensated for change in real wealth over time.

Gloria Main dealt with similar problems of age differentials in

sample and total population but introduced yet another methodology.

Studying wealth in colonial Maryland and Massachusetts, she

reconstructed populations and from extrapolated from them and extant

probate records to determine wealth distribution. Beginning with two

[24] Anderson and Thomas, "Labor Force," 638-64?; Anderson, "Wealth Estimates," 162-164. See for the basis of the demographic model, S tella H. Sutherland, "Estimated Population of the American Colonies, 1610-1780," Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1960), 755. ~ ~

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196

types of records - a tax list with estate listings for the entire male

population, and probate records spanning a number of years prior and

subsequent to the date of the tax list - Main averaged tax wealth and

compared it to the average probated wealth. With the two averages and

their distributions, and given the fact that many individuals appeared

in both records, she estimated which economic groups were not probated.

To estimate per capita wealth per age for those not probated, she

determined the ages of individuals on the tax list and their ages at

death, and allocated those whose ages were unknown to a wealth level

equal to a probate of the same wealth. Comparing the mean tax per age

group with the mean probate wealth allowed her to determine a correction

factor that showed how much wealth was over-represented by the probated

population. She then analyzed the wealth distribution using estate

multipliers:

One applies the correction factor for wealth-bias to the values of the probated es ates of men in each age group and then multiplies the adjusted values in the group by the proportion prevailing in the living adult male population times 100 or 1000 in order to avoid partitioning u n its .[253

[253 Gloria L. Main, "The Correction of Biases in Colonial Probate Records," H istorical Methods Newsletter, VIII (1974), 10-28; Main, "Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusetts and Maryland,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, VII (1977). 559-581; Main, "Personal Wealth in Colonial America" (Ph.D. diss., Colunbia University, 1972). See also, Daniel Scott Snith, "Underregistration and Bias in Probate Records: An Analysis of Data from Eighteenth-Century Hingham, Massachusetts," WMQ, ed. Ser., XXXII (1975), 100-110. For a discussion of the estate method see Horst Mendershausen, "The Pattern of Estate Tax Wealth," in R.W. Goldsmith, D. Brady, and Mendershausen, A Study of Savings in the United States (Princeton, N.J., 1956), III, and Robert J. Lampman, The Share of Top Wealth-Holders in National Wealth, 1922-1956, National Bureau of Economic Research, Study no. 7** (Princeton, N.J., 1962). In addition and of great use is the highly readable and concise work by Anthony B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197

The problems in this approach, Main noted, were that the five-year

taxable time span did not accurately reflect the age distribution over a

satisfactory period - "the degree over which age affects individual

wealth may fluctuate significantly in relatively short periods of time"

- and the wealthier taxpayers had a tendency to avoid probate in her

study area, causing under-reporting of wealth.[26[ Despite these

difficulties, Main's work is yet another example of determining wealth

distribution from probate if tax inventories are available. However, if

such lists are not extant and confidence in population reconstruction

from demographic sources cannot be assured, the method cannot be applied

satisfactorily.

Carole Shammas' studies of personal wealth in England and colonial

America are more recent than Main's but reflect a methodology more in

lin e with Jo n e s'.[27] She was concerned with the problem of

extrapolation - that when adjustments were made for demographic

differences between probate and non-probate types, wealth could still be

over-represented because age corrections factors would not compensate

Atkinson, "On the Measurement of Inequality," JEcH, II (1970), 244-263, and Atkinson, "The Distribution of Wealth in Britain in the 1960's - the Estate Duty Re-examined," in J.D. Snith, ed., The Personal Distribution of Income and Wealth, Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Studies in Income and Wealth, XXXIX (New York, 1975).

[26] Main, "Correction," 16.

[27] Carole Shammas, "The Determinants of Personal Wealth in Seventeenth-Century England and America," JEcH, XXXVII (1977), 675-690; Shammas, "Constructing a Wealth Distribution from Probate Records," Journal of Interdisciplinary History, IX (1978), 297-307; Shammas, "The Domestic Environment in Early Modern England and America," Journal of Social History. XIV (1980), 3-24.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. for the greater amount of wealth probates most likely owned. To solve

the problem Shammas worked with multiple classification analysis (MCA).

This procedure is used to analyse differences between and within any

group with selected characteristics in an effort to understand the

levels of discreteness or similarity. In a test case of Worcestershire,

England for the period 1669-1670 she outlined the method. For ninety-

seven probated individuals Shammas determined inventory wealth (without

realty or debts owed by the decedent), occupational status (priveleged,

farmer, craft, or laboring), age group (prime - ages 26-60, or dependent

- under 26 or over 60), and literacy (subsequently eliminated from

consideration because it showed no relationship with wealth).[28] She

found that occupation and age explained about one-third of the variance

in decedent's wealth. MCA showed a "grand mean" - the average wealth of

I all decedents, and "adjusted deviations from the mean” for each

combination of age and occupation. Shammas recombined these three

figures and predicted wealth for every combination of age and

occupation. She also redefined the data through logarithmic

transformation, a process that modified the effects that extremes in the

wealth distribution might nave had on the grand mean. For the final

figures - expressed in pounds sterlin g - she used anti-log3. When

Shammas compared predicted wealth with the wealth distribution seen in

the data, she could see which categories were over-represented in

w ealth.[293

[28] Shammas, "Constructing a Wealth Distribution," 298-299.

[293 Ib id ., 304.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Shammas then turned to Gregory King’s 1688 occupational breakdown for

England. Using his figures and her predicted wealth per occupation she

estimated the wealth of England. She derived the shares of mean wealth

per occupation by applying the Princeton Life Table West Level 8 to the

data and "calculated by multiplying the observed mean wealth for each

subgroup by the percentage for each subgroup and summing the

results."t30] In a study of four areas and time periods in England and

America, Shammas used similar techniques to demonstrate the important

influences upon wealth. In order of their significance, they were

occupation, age (declining after age sixty), and literacy.[313

MCA can be used effectively if several considerations are kept in

mind. The consistent use of logarithmic transformations will reduce the

amount of variation in wealth, which in itself is an important feature

in the analysis of a distribution. Repressing the range would undercut

a primary goal of investigation. Additionally, selecting the

occupational and age categories must be done with care. In communities

where men were regularly involved in more than one "profession," more

justification to relegating a person to only one category is necessary.

However, MCA can be a valuable altern ativ e to the problem of the correct

use of coded social variables in estimation techniques such as

regression. In regression, all characteristics or variables are usually

"interval" or "ratio" type numbers. The numbers represent either

equivalent or fixed units (when compared to each other), or measure

[303 Ib id ., 306-307.

[31] Shammas, "Determinants of Personal Wealth," 675-680.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200

equivalent units that have a fixed zero point. The difference between

the two is that the latter may be used for proportionate measurement,

while the former can only be used to measure rela tiv e differences. In

MCA, "nominal" numbers are used to represent social qualities.

"Nominal" refers to "names" and simply means th at no value or rank is

assigned to the number; it is just a labeling code. While nominals may

be occasionally used in regression - with great care - they are

appropriate and easy to use in MCA. In analysis of variance MCA is a

good avenue to discovery of the relationship between wealth and social

characteristics.

This short review of approaches to colonial American wealth has

touched on only the main issues and methodologies. Three points bear

reiteration. First is the huge ideological distance historians have

traveled in two decades. Where it was acceptable to dismiss or ignore

results from quantitative studies in the early 1960's, historians today

can no longer afford to ignore such methodological research. Studies of

wealth and inequality are firmly rooted in statistics, and statistical

results can be transformed into meaningful statements about the lives in

past communities.

Second, these studies demonstrate that methodologies should follow

the lead of the sources and questions. Each of the last four historians

discussed - Jones, Anderson, Main and Shammas - dealt with the same type

of source, but had different questions and assumptions; their

differences led them to compile and deal with data in different ways.

Jones wanted a precise rendering of America's personal wealth from a

national perspective, necessitating intensive modeling. Anderson tested

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1

201

late seventeenth-century economic growth against a stable population

model and Jones' estim ations. Main observed lifetim e wealth breakdowns

against those compiled at the end of the life cycle. Her methods

1 capitalized on those comparisons and contrasts. Shammas centered on

transatlantic differences. Consequently her data had to be collected

and arrayed to reflect common grounds for comparison between cultures,

probate bound all these together as a data base, but each investigator

used different methods with varying levels of success.

Third, a ll scholars have acknowledged that the primary d iffic u ltie s

in using probate are the twin problems of life-cycle and representation.

Probate favors the older and naturallywealthier segment of the colonial

population and certain segments of any community were bound to be over-

or underrepresented. Despite the use to which the records are to be put

these two biases must be accounted for before any further steps can be

taken. In all, probate is a valuable source but it must be used with

precision, critical evaluation, and a recognition of its drawbacks.

With these considerations in mind, let us now turn to how the data

from probated estates was used to determine the distribution of wealth

and the forms that wealth took in the Portsmouth area from 1679 to 17*13.

The procedure is not unique. Rather, it brings together techniques used

in the studies described. Let us begin with a few general assumptions

■ about Portsmouth and its probate records. Between 1679 and 17^3

Portsmouth was a growing community in terms of both business and

population. But, as with any town, there was also death. Some of those

dying were advanced in years and comfortable in means. While they

probably did not accumulate much wealth during their prime years, their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202

homes reflected the acquisition of goods over a lifetime. Some who died

met violent young end3 - sailors lost at sea, foolhearty drunks caught

up in brawls, farmers ambushed in their fields by marauding Indians -

and the homes of these men showed varying levels of domestic maturity.

There were also the indigent, the itinerant, the handicapped. They had

little to speak of save the clothes on their backs and trails of debts.

When you combine these groups you have an unbalanced view of the living

population. You do not see, for the most part, the young families and

the healthy mature adults - a vital sector of the population. But

through the estates of those who were probated you can discover those

who once were part of th at v ita l element.

Let us now turn to the record detailing the remnants of death -

probate. The Portsmouth probate availability sample consists of all

extant estate inventories for male decedents with valued property.[32]

The object of the first part of the analysis is to evaluate the biases

of this sample in order to extrapolate from it to the population at

large and determine levels of real wealth.

[32] Records used were MS New Hampshire Provincial Probate Records, I, 1655-1698; I I, 1692-1698; IV, 1699-1701*. VI, 1700-1714; VII, 1700-1729; VIII, 1715-1725; IX, 1716-1718; X, 1718-1727; XII, 1729-17^6; XIII, 1731-1733; XIV, 1733-1737; XV, 1738-17^6; XVI, 17^6-1758; XVII, 17H6-1750 a ll in the New Hampshire State Archives, Concord. Printed abstracts are available in Albert Stillman Batchellor, ed., Probate Records of the Province of New Hampshire I, 1635-1717 (Concord, 1907), and Henry Harrison Metcalf and Otis Grant Hammond, eds., Probate Records of the Province of New Hampshire II, 1718—17^0 (B risto l, N.H., 1914). Because of a poor interpretation of the original records, scanty and imcomplete reading, misinformation, and failure to cite sources, these two volumes may be misleading.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203

Two adjustments must be made to standardize the data. We assume the

sample is system atically based on an age basis, favoring older

individuals. Consequently, it must be aligned to the living population

using life table probabilities. In addition, the effects of inflation

over the long time span oust be accounted for. While inflation in

B itself is an important factor to be understood in terms of

I developmental trends and real economic growth or decay, it necessitates

that probate inventories be standardized (deflated) to the level of a

single benchmark year for purposes of comparison. Before any weights or

indices can be designed to reduce the effects of the two biases,

however, the nature of the d'La and its peculiarities must be explored.

This involves an explanation of both the coding scheme and the process

of estate administration. The latter reveals the deficiencies in the

final financial accounting of some decedent’s total wealth, and is of

upmost concern in th is study.

One of the motives of this investigation was to understand, in some

detail, the material culture of the Portsmouth area. This required a

knowledge of the objects that made up part of the physical world in

which the seacoast people lived. While Jones and others concentrated on

compiling lists of goods from inventories with economic categories in

mind, consumer and producer durables and perishables for example, i t is

our intent to go beyond those general classifications and to evaluate

the importance of the smaller things in life. For the purpose of this

study it was more important to know how many spinning wheels could be

found in households of various types and real and, knowing that, how

they might relate to childrearing practices or a husband's occupation,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. than to conceptualize them as part of the "equipment" sector of a

"producer durables" category. It was more important to distinguish

between households that could boast of feather beds rather than those

filled with straw, then to lump them with other furniture in a "consumer

durable" category. The primary objective of the coding scheme used here

was to replicate the inventoried items as closely as possible in

quantitative form. This was not always an easy task for the manner in

which inventories were constructed forced decisions about how much or

what parts of the inventory could easily be quantified without

destroying the integrity of the record.

When an inventory was to be made, appraisers were assigned to the

job. These men were apparently selected for their objective eye for the

quality and current price of any given object. Indeed, inventoried

goods sold at auction brought prices exceptionally close to listed

values.[ 33] Appraisers proceeded from room to room, or around a single

room, carefully cataloging the objects, usually omitting only the

decedent's clothing and the spouse's own property. To read an inventory

[33] For example, consider the case of the auction estate in Portsmouth, done within a month of appraisal between appraised and sale prices was relativ ely small

Object Appraisal Price Sale Price 1 1 6 old cane chairs 2-3-0 3-12-0 wearing clothes 8-0-0 6-0-0 pair brass andirons 0-5-0 0-10-0 2 pr. brass candlestics 0-5-0 0-8-0 15 yds. woolen cloth 3-15-0 4-17-6 1 seal 0-1-0 0-1-6 parcel of feathers 1-0-0 3-10-6 pair of curtains 3-0-0 3-0-0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

is to travel vicariously though a household, sharply focusing on each

object and its value, the silver tankard receiving as much attention as

the chipped chamberpot for purposes of evaluation. From this survey, a

l i s t was submitted to the court. While some appraisers were careful to

give each item a price, some did not. The majority of inventories show

strings of objects grouped under one price, a practice that saved time

and paper. For example, instead of listing a pot worth five shillings,

a fender worth three, and a set of iron dogs worth four separately, the

entry might read "to one pot, fender, and iron dogs - 12s." This

practice confounds many who are interested not simply in the total value

of an estate but in the price and description of individual items.

Investigators use two methods to deal with the problem. Jones and

others followed the lead of modern economic h isto rian s and sorted each

item according to its general category. In .the case of multiple

entries, Jones grouped the lot under the heading representing the

greater value of the items. While the lesser items' identities were

lost in this procedure, their value was not even though it was not

directly assigned. In a study of Maryland inventories, Lois Carr and

Lorena Walsh used a different method. They were interested in the

frequency of objects and changes in consumption patterns over time so

they discarded the prices and concentrated on the items themselves.[34]

[34] Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh, "Inventories and the Analysis of Wealth and Consumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland, 1658-1777," Ihe Newberry Papers in Family and Community History, Paper 77-4C. Carr and Walsh, "Inventories and the Analysis of Wealth and Consumption Patterns in St. Mary's County, Maryland, 1658-1777," H istorical Methods, XIII (1980), 81-104.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206

Neither method was appropriate to this study. Consequently I developed

a scheme to maximize as much detail as possible in both price and

description.

Given the choice between preserving eith er item d etail or item price

in multiple entries, I decided to retain item description. While i t was

important to have a total value for each estate, this was available

independently of the listing of goods. To this end, each item was coded

separately with a description, quantity, unit of measurement, and price

(if available). Each was assigned a four digit code for identification,

the code containing three levels of detail. Those codes are given in

Appendix I I , along with a lengthy description of the coding process.

When a group of items was entered under a single price, the first object

in the string was assigned the total price. Each successive item in the

grouping was cross-referenced to that price. The benefit of the scheme

is that full detail of all objects was preserved, as was the total value

of the estate (obtained by summing a ll p rices). The drawback was that

not every item had a price per unit. Sixty-nine percent of the items in

the Portsmouth sample were separately priced; thirty-one percent were

grouped. It was impossible to estimate what these percentages would be

when the scheme wa3 originated; only after it had been carried to

completion and all data was coded could it be determined. This did not

seem to be a problem at first, but when the research focused on how much

wealth value was concentrated in which parts of the economy, it became

troublesome and some questions could not be answered because of it. By

then, however, the task of returning to the original records and

recoding all the data in a different way to compensate for the problem

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207

was too formidable.

The next step after coding was to standardize all inventory values to

compensate for inflation.[35] Two solutions were available. I could

eith er key inflation d irectly to the exchange rate for b ills of exchange

or the price of silver, or use a commodity price index. At the outset,

exchange rates appeared satisfactory. John McCusker's Money and

Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775 provides nearly complete data

for all years. However, bills of exchange reflected not only local

rates, but also international exchanges based on mercantile cash flows

between the colonies and England. While rates would affect Portsmouth

to some degree (the price of imported goods purchased in Portsmouth's

shops would be keyed to exchange) they would not accurately reflect

local market trends nor the prices of commodities used in everyday life.

While fine linens, spices, and special housewares or furnishings became

more common in Portsmouth over the years, they were not universal.

However, supplies such as corn, wheat, and butter were in almost every

home. Consequently, the less glamorous and basic items were used as an

index to reflect Portsmouth's economy.

To gauge commodity price movement, the prices per item in the

inventories which had not been masked by the coding scheme were

extracted in standardized form (per pound, barrel, gill, or hogshead).

Twenty-five commodities were initially selected for analysis. Thirteen

[353 John J. McCusker, Money and Exchange is the best reference work on inflation, as mentioned in Chapter Three.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208

yielded enough annual data to u se.[ 36 ] While some commodities were not

strictly domestic items and a few could be imported, they were all of a

sort that might have found daily use in Portsmouth. The final choices

included corn, gunpowder, pork, beef, oakum, rum, s a lt, wheat, tobacco,

butter, molasses, sugar, and mackeral. Consideration was given to

adding the prices of animals on the hoof, but their wildly variable

values caused by physical differences excluded them from the list. When

animal data was "smoothed" - that is , processed to remove the extremes

in the data - it appeared more stable. However, yearly data was

sketchy. Graph A.1 show3 the average price per year per animal of cows,

horses, pigs, and sheep smoothed with a three-point unweighted running

average. In addition, a price series of the average price per year of

land of unspecified quality and use was compiled. While the series

showed the same upward trend toward the end of the period that commodity

price series did, it too was considered too unstable for inclusion. The

se rie s, however, is shown in Graph A.2.

To select a base period for the index, each of the average prices per

year per item were summed and graphed over time. There was no attempt

to weight each commodity according to daily use or construct a variety

of indices based on imports or exports. After analysis of the trends

over time, sugar was omitted from the series because of its unstable

price and consequent disproportionate effect on the total in relation to

[36 ] Commodities tested for price series analysis were corn, gunpowder, pork, beef, oakum, twine, rum, salt, beans, wheat, tobacco, butter, molasses, sugar, barbadoes rum, beer, flour, mackeral, jamaica cod, turnips, and tea. Animals on the hoof considered for inclusion were cows, dairy cattle, beef, oxen, bulls, pigs, horses, and sheep.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209

its role in the economy. Without sugar, the remaining twelve

commodities rose and fell more in unison and appeared more indicative of

general price flows. Graph A.3 shows the series with and without sugar,

each smoothed by a three-point running average.

After examining the commodity data, the period 1696 to 1705 was

chosen as the base period. The price level for that period was

calculated by summing the prices over the ten years in the base period

and dividing by ten. It equalled 507.8. The index for any other year

was calculated by dividing the commodity value for the year by the

"unity" value, 507.8, and multiplying by 100. For example, in 1719 the

commodity value was 631. Dividing that by 507.8 and multiplying by 100

gives an index value of 124.3. The weight used for standardizing data

from that year is equal to the index divided by 100. Table A.1 displays

the resultant series. With appropriate rates on hand, total inventoried

worth for each of the decedents could be standardized. However, this

did not represent total personal wealth. An adjusted value had to be

calculated by subtracting debts due the estate or adding credits owed.

Any property held outside of Portsmouth had to be tracked down and added

to the estate. Frequently legal actions of creditors or members of a

decedent’s family about the disposition of the estate forced

administration proceedings. For the ninety-seven decedents whose

estates were subject to litigation, the procedure for determining final

worth was a simple matter of addition or subtraction.

The administration of Noble Lazarus' estate in 1728 serves as an

example. A butcher, Lazarus left IVli.2s.8a. in goods. He had no

currency, but four creditors. His possessions were auctioned and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210

Graph A.l

o •v N

* CO r>

to cu O N Ld X h - CU o CU o o r-* (D N T o I ao (0 *O I-10 if) i N < Ld z •H a o i b- m Z3 O o a . Z£ P a. o o a. o ID h~ if) Ld CUm > ID

mCD CD

O co ID

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211

fetched 61i.8s.3d. more than appraised value. This sum was added to his

estate. His debt to creditors was 32li.10s.11d. Consequently his

adjusted total worth approached a minus nine pounds. For our purposes

this sum was recorded as zero, representing no inventoried value. In

addition, the adm inistration showed fees of almost twenty pounds owed

for funeral and court expenses. While that amount does not concern us,

for it was incurred a3 a result of death and not a life-related expense,

it was subtracted from the estate by the court before the creditors

could collect their due.[37] Even in a relatively simple and small

estate, the administration showed the financial impact claims could have

on an individual's financial worth.

Assuming that all Portsmouth decedents had some debts or credits, I

used regression to estimate liabilities and/or assets for cases without

extant administrations. A regression function is a mathematical

description of the relationship between a dependent variable (in this

case, liabilities) and independent variables. I analysed several fiscal

variable in each administered estate and arrived at an equation that

approximated their relationship to the liabilities an /or assets brought

to 1 i ght through the administration process. To find which 1 characteristics best reflected changes in inventory value for those

individuals who had administrations, I reviewed their inventories. For

1 each decedent, the sum of the value of items in each "type" category -

I the most general of the codes - was calculated. Due to the previously

[37] PPR VII, 505-508 for warrant to receive claims; 542 for le tte r of adm inistration; 5*13-5^ for inventory.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DATE

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213

discussed problem with m ultiple-entry coding masking an average of

thirty percent of entries, data was incomplete but it was the best that

could be derived from the available information. The total value each

decedent had in each of the seven type categories was compared to total

assets and these relationships were checked for significance. Social

characteristics such as age and occupation were also analysed for

similarities.

A linear combination of total assets invested in realty, in finance,

and in the remainder of an estate ("total portable wealth") showed a

high degree of association with the amount of liabilities and/or assets.

Personal characteristics did not explain much variance, as Jones also

discovered in her study of New England liabilities in 1774.(383 The

final equation used was:

Liabilities = -280.9 + ,53

.756(assets in real estate) + 1.06(total portable wealth)

This formula explained a large amount of the relationship between

liabilities and the listed variables. In statistical terms, r squared

equalled .917 and both the combination of the variables and their values

individually were significant at the .001 le v e l.[393 This meant that the

C383 Jones, American Colonial Wealth, 1756-1757. The following combinations were also tested for significance on liabilities in varying combinations, and none showed as strong measures against the null hypothesis as the formula specified in the text. Additional variables tested were age at death, percentage of total wealth compared to wealth reported from post cross-referencing screening totals, the actual deflated value this represented, total assets of the unadjusted inventory, age, and occupation.

[39 3 Regression was run with the SPSS. With three degrees of freedom

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Graph A .3

C£ <

1

3 O 2 1-12 X— 0£ Ld 1880 1880 1688 1882 1698 1704 1710 1716 1722 1728 1734 1740

au z uui oO

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. financial assets, real estate holdings, and total portable wealth

explained 91 percent of the variation in liabilities and the probability

of this occurring by chance was less than one in a thousand. Since this

was a satisfactory equation, the appropriate variables for each non-

administered estate were calculated and an estimated liability or asset

was determined. That sum was subtracted or added to the estate totals.

With that correction, the data set now consisted of inventory values

adjusted for both inflation and credits and/or debts. The next step was

to adjust for age bias.

To evaluate what age groups in the general population were under or

over-represented and how much wealth this accounted for, I had to

determine the age structure of the living population. No accurate and

complete record existed for Portsmouth, as it did for Main in her

Massachusetts study. Consequently, I turned to life table modeling.

Since I wanted to get as clear a picture as possible of the

peculiarities of Portsmouth's demographic environment, Anderson's

procedure seemed inadequate because he extrapolated backward from Jones'

data which omitted New Hampshire. My object was not to understand how

Portsmouth "fit" with the larger colonial demographic structure but to

choose a model that most closely described our small community. The

R=.957, R squares.917, standard error=48460 pence, Fs276.9, significant at .001. For each of the variables, the following statistics were calculated:

Variable B Beta Std.Error F

Total Financial .531 .106 .169 10.13 Real Estate .756 .514 .069 118.54 Total Portable 1.060 .510 .098 117.17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216

Table A.1

Commodity Price Series Portsmouth, N.H., 1680—17^3

Year All Commod. price w/o Index Weight sugar 100=507.8 in pence in pence

1680 687 351 69.1 1.43 1681 687 351 69.1 1.43 1682 687 351 69.1 1.43 1683 688 352 69.3 1.44 i6sn 667 340 66.9 1.49 1685 648 328 64.6 1.55 1686 630 317 62.4 1.60 1687 633 327 64.4 1.55 1688 640 341 67.2 1.48 1689 648 356 70.1 1.43 1690 652 367 72.3 1.38 1691 655 377 74.2 1.35 1692 666 395 77.8 1.28 1693 674 410 80.7 1.24 1694 701 430 84.7 1.18 1695 726 448 88.2 1.13 1696 750 465 91.6 1.09 1697 777 485 95.5 1.05 1698 797 498 98.1 1.02 1699 841 535 105.4 .95 1700 855 542 106.7 .94 1701 870 550 108.3 .93 1702 877 550 108.3 .93 1703 848 514 101.2 .99 1704 826 485 95.5 1.05 1705 802 454 89.4 1.12 1706 782 427 84.1 1.19 1707 799 439 86.5 1.16 1708 809 449 88.4 1.13 1709 867 459 90.4 1.11 1710 902 470 92.6 1.08 1711 936 480 94.5 1.05 1712 972 492 97.5 1.03 1713 1010 506 99.6 1.01 1714 1043 515 101.4 .99 1715 1081 529 104.2 .96 1716 1125 549 108.1 .93 1717 1174 574 113.0 .88 1718 1212 588 115.8 .86 1719 1279 631 124.3 .80 1720 1328 656 129.2 .77 1721 1379 683 134.5 .74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1722 1431 711 140.0 .71 1723 1484 740 145.7 .68 1724 1548 780 153.6 .65 1725 1597 805 158.5 .63 1726 1658 842 165.8 .60 1727 1751 911 179.4 .56 1728 1750 940 185.1 .54 1729 1779 999 198.7 .51 1730 1755 1005 197.9 .51 1731 1746 1026 202.0 .49 1732 1985 1085 213.7 .47 1733 2144 1064 209.5 .34 1734 2374 1114 219.4 .46 1735 2595 1155 227.4 .44 1736 2756 1214 239.1 .42 1737 2900 1256 247.3 .40 1738 3017 1270 250.1 .40 1739 4763 1269 249.9 .40 1740 4772 1278 251.7 • 39 1741 4807 1313 258 .6 .39 1742 . 4882 1388 273.3 .36 1743 4960 1466 288.7 .35

process was a bit convoluted, but all steps were necessary to estimate

the demographic stru ctu re. In o utline, I compared certain m ortality-

specific population descriptors from Portsmouth with similar information

contained in life tables. When the data meshed, the life expectation

cohorts from the table were extrapolated back to the sample. Comparing

the percentage of adult males in specific age groups in the sample and

model cohorts led me to determine weights which brought the probated

population in line with the estimated living population. The details of

this operation follow.

One way to estimate population from model life tables is through the

determination of survivorship - what percentage of a population is still

alive a fte r a set number of years. According to models presented by

Ansely Coale and Paul Demeny, in which they o ffer a variety of age

distributions based on mortality schedules and growth rates based on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. demographic norms from four broad geographical areas over the last

century and a half, survivorship may be used carefully to interpret

evidence from sources such as ours.[40] The five-year survivorship rate

- designated P(x) - was chosen for analysis.

To estimate P(x) in Portsmouth I had to find an historical record

that accurately recorded the male population distribution over five

years. I did not have a sequence of tax or census records with such

information for the entire period because the area was was constantly

being geographically redefined during the study period, making it almost

impossible to track the male population. Therefore, I chose to evaluate

the population of Portsmouth's precincts before the separations began in

1691.

After examination of extant tax rolls, "A Constable Rate for December

9, 1688" was selected for the purpose.[41] The document listed 242 males

from three Portsmouth precincts - Strawbery Banke, Newcastle, and

Greenland. Although the list excluded the islands and included

Greenland, an area excluded from the study, it was the most complete

accounting of the distribution of adult males to be found for the

pre-1691 period. In addition, tax records for the three areas were

extant for some later years, providing a base for determination of

survivorship. Each taxed male on each l i s t was cross-checked between

[40] Ansley J. Coale and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations (Princeton, 1966).

[41] "Constable Rate for December 9, 1688" MS Portsmouth Town Records, 1645-1713, I (ty p escrip t, University of New Hampshire Special C ollections, Durham, N.H.) 252B-255B.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219

listings and in a genealogical dictionary for verification,[42] Each

male was then placed in an age category, the results of which are

Table A.2

Survivorship Rates from the 1688 Tax Rolls Portsmouth, N.H. 1688

Age 1688 Total Alive in 1693 P(x)

15-19 2 1 .500 20-24 9 6 .670 25-29 25 24 .960 30-34 13 11 .850 35-39 27 21 .778 40-44 30 26 .867 45-49 17 16 .941 50-54 19 17 .895 55-59 10 10 1.00 60-64 4 4 1.00 65-69 4 4 1.00 70-99 6 5 .833 Unk. 75 67 .893

displayed in Table A.2 with the rates (P(x)) represented.

The survivorship rate then had to be linked to a gross reproductive

rate (GRR) to determine the "fit" of any one model. The GRR signifies

the total number of daughters born to a woman during her childbearing

years according to the appropriate schedule of age-specific fertility.

It can range from zero in a celibate population to about four in some

populations where childbearing traditionally begins at a young age with

uninterrupted cohabitation throughout all fertile years.[43]

[42] Sybil Noyes, Charles Ihornton Libby, and Walter Goodwin Davis, Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire (Baltimore, 1977).

[43] Ansley J.. Coale, The Growth and Structure of Human Populations: A Mathematical Investigation (Princeton, 1972), 7-9. 16-20. See also, E.A. Wrigley, Population and History (New York, 1969), 15-29.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I I 220

Contraceptive techniques, abortion, divorce, age of females at marriage,

and projected length of marriage can affect the GRR. With these in mind

I assumed that in Portsmouth neither contraception nor abortion were

encouraged, divorce was rare, females probably married in the 20 to 25

year-old range, and the length of marriages was liable to be cut short

by the risk of early male death in maritime industry, a danger that may

have artificially limited the number of fertile years.[44] These

assumptions were, and still remain, open to reinterpretation or revision

if firm evidence is found to the contrary. One general indicator of

population growth available showed the aggregate gains due to natural

increase and the probable effects of in-migration. A later tax list,

the "List of Land Poles and Estates for a New Proportioning for the

Province Rates" of Hay 12, 1732 gives the most complete and consistent

accounting for the three 1688 precincts at a later date. It showed 484

Portsmouth, 100 Newcastle, and 104 Greenland polls, a rough five percent

per annum increase in males over forty-four years.[453

Studies of contemporary provincial towns have shown the great rate of

natural increase during our period, but this may have been mediated in

Portsmouth. While I could not estimate the amount of immigration to

Portsmouth, I know that as a locus of maritime trade, the community

underwent economic growth. This fact may have attracted many young

[44] For a good contemporary study, see Susan L. Norton, "Population Growth in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts," Population Studies, XXV (1971), 433-452.

[453 "A List of the land Poles and Estates for a New Proportioning for the Province Rates, May 12, 1732," MS New Hampshire State Archives, Concord.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. adult males to the area. Alternately, the increase could be attributed

to increased numbers of marriages although f e r t i l i t y may have been

blocked by males dying at sea. Also, Portsmouth lost a partial

generation of future adults in the mid-1730's when throat distemper

swept through the region. The disease claimed five percent of the

population between early 1735 and mid—1736.£463 A "B ill of Mortality"

prepared by a local minister cited ninety-nine deaths in Portsmouth

alone, eighty-one of those being under the age of ten. Almost one

thousand succumbed in the seacoast during the fourteen month period and

of these ninety-percent were children .[47] Even though this calamity did

not occur during the period for which we had an overall growth estimate,

the model chosen represented the entire period from 1680 to 1740, so the

epidemic had to be taken into account. These assumptions led me to set

the GRR at 2.0. It appeared likely that the GRR was not at or below

unity and that Portsmouth was not an extremely fertile society.

Consequently, I chose 2.0 as a compromise between the two. I also kept

in mind that the figure was only a part of the stable population model,

a hypothetical description of "the influence of fertility and mortality

on growth, birth and death rates, and age composition."[48]

Using a GRR of 2.0 and the survivorship percentiles estimated from

the tax lists, P(x) was then compared to the levels of the East and

[46] John W. Florin, Death in New England: Regional Variations in Mortality (Chapel Hill, 1971), 42-45.*

[47] Jeremy Belknap, The History of New Hampshire II (Boston, 1731), 122.

[48] Coale, Human Populations, 52. I I

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. North models in the life table series. East and North levels six

through twelve were compared with the sample because of their similar

mortality characteristics. Both had higher infant mortality rates and

lower expected ages at death for adults than the South and West

models.[49] North at first appeared to be a better fit for my data than

East because it reflected a high degree of tuberculosis, a feature of

early New England society. M ortality schedules for populations with

tuberculosis traditionally exhibit increase "in the twenties and

thirties followed by a slight decline centered on age 35 or 40,” and

finished with the standard incremental rise attributed to advanced age.

The possible connection was highly suggestive, leading at least one

scholar to comment that while he believed the Princeton life tables "do

not conform to the age pattern of early New England m ortality," the

North model most closely approximated schedules of the area.

Tangentially, he questioned whether consistent overregistration of

deaths and overenumeration of the population in older age groups could

prove the tables correct, or, whether data from nineteenth-century

tuberculin-related deaths could demonstrate the lack of association

between the disease and life-table projections. In sum, the informed

demographer questioned the validity of either assumption. As a result,

the choice remains to the individual researcher.[50]

[49] Coale and Demer.y, Regional Model Life Tables, 12-13.

[50] Coale, Human Populations, 8; Florin, Death in New England, 10. For comments on the use of North's tables, see Daniel Scott Smith,, "The Estimates of Early American H istorical Demographers: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back, What Steps in the Future?" H istorical Methods XII (1979), 24-38, esp. 30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Six age cohorts of the adult male population were compared for the

1688-1692 data and the prospective models: P(x) for ages 25. 35. 40,

45, and 50 were used because each had su fficie n t numbers of cases. Each

rate was compared with its complement in the model, positive and/or

negative deviations calculated, summed, and those summations compared

among all possible models. Two models approximated the sample - East 5

and North 7. Several characteristics, aside from the tuberculin

incidence, favored the North model. It had lower infant mortality. And

the age of death over five better fit the Portsmouth data.[51] For an

average age at death over five years of age, North had 48.1; East was

52.1. In a sample of Portsmouth widows, the average age of Portsmouth

husbands was about 51, and this figure might have been on the high

side.[52] While the final choice of North 7 as the model and level may

initially appear to be premised on a string of assumptions, a choice had

to be made in order to continue with the process of relating the probate

sample to a stable population.

With the model chosen, the next step was to readjust that model's

life table to reflect only the adult population to align it with the

adult age range of the sample. The model presented cumulative

frequencies of mortality from infancy to the limits of life, so those

[51] Infant mortality for East 5 was 32.63; for North 7, 23.18. In the Ipswich study, Norton stated that even with correction for l if e table data, her "rates of infant and child mortality were strikingly low," and she estimated a rate of 112 per thousand.(p.442)

[52] The ages were probably higher in the study because it was based on decedents mentioned in probate and there was a definite trend toward older men appearing more frequently in the record.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. frequencies had to be recalculated for a sample in which only an adult

age population was analysed. I reapportioned the frequencies for those

living under the age of 20, 40.44 percent, and those dying under those

Table A.3

Revised North 7 Model Life Table Reflecting Male Population Above Age 20 GRR=2.0

Age % Alive at XPying Cohort age x in model age x in sample

20-24 14.2 6.1 25-29 13.2 6.0 30-34 12.3 6.0 35-39 11.3 6.3 40-44 10.3 6.9 45-49 9.3 7.4 50-54 8.1 8.1 55-59 6.9 8.9 60-99 14.3 44.3

Source:

Ansley J. Coale and Paul Deraeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations (Princeton, 1966) 400-401.

ages, 47.22 percent. Table A.3 shows the revised tables. The data in

the table was then compared with the age cohorts derived from the

probated male sample, and I calculated weights that compensated for the

difference, applying them to the probated sample. The formula used was

x(1)sa(1)/b(1) where "a" was the percentage of ages at cohort (1) in the

model, and "b" was the percentage of decedents dying within cohort (1)

of the probate sample. Those results are shown in Table A.4.

With the weights, age bias could then be corrected. The

corresponding weight for each age class was calculated by age and I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

multiplied by the adjusted wealth figure for each decedent. The weights

could only be applied to estates in which the decedent's age was known,

and that fact deleted ten cases from further consideration. Table A.5

shows the outcome of the final weighting procedures in numerical form

Table A.4

Model and Sample Age Cohorts with Age Correction Weights Portsmouth, N.H. 1680-1743

Age % at Age x % dying Age x Correction in model in sample factor

20-29 27.4 7.6 3.61 30-39 23.6 19.6 1.20 40-49 19.6 22.8 0.86 50-59 15.0 23.7 0.63 60-99 14.3 26.3 0.54

Table A.5

Inventoried Wealth after Deflation for Year and a fte r Year and Age Cohort Weightings Rounded Off to the Nearest Pound Portsmouth, N.H. 1680-1743

Age Mean Raw Median Raw Mean Adjusted Median Adjusted Wealth Wealth Wealth Wealth

20-29 337 111 308 227 30-39 411 126 165 87 40-49 217 138 102 51 50-59 659 201 184 67 60-99 489 185 128 39

All 436 155 157 57

according to age cohort. Graph A.4 displays the resu lts in wh3t is

called a Lorenz Curve, a representation of how much of the population

owned how much of the available (and accounted for) wealth. The plot

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

shows the total weighted wealth distribution over three time periods.

The curve's deviation from the diagonal - a line of "equality" - can be

statistically represented in a Gini Index. Although there has never

been a situ atio n where equality was reached - that i s , where each ten

percent of the population has ten percent of the wealth - the diagonal

is always graphed for comparative purposes. The Gini can vary from 0 to

1, ranging from perfect equality to perfect inequality. For all years

B in Portsmouth the Gini was .667 - a fairly inequitable wealth

distribution. From the decile breakdown of wealth used to graph the

Lorenz and to calculate the Gini, we can also see that ^7.13 percent of

the community's wealth was held by the top ten percent of wealth

holders. The index is of particular in te re s t when compared to data used

and referred to in calculating the final figures. Table A.6 displays

the Gini indices and share of the top ten percent of wealth holders for

other wealth groupings and shows the distinct underrepresentation of

wealth distributions derived directly from taxation records.

I then determined how best to group the individuals into loose wealth

groups, groups used for preliminary exploration of differences in

community wealth. The simplest method was to group the decedents' ' wealth by decile. Table A.7 shows that frequency distribution and the

range in adjusted pounds sterling i t represented.

While decile groups are convenient for general analysis and provide a

standard for comparison, refinements were needed to bring out the

"natural" groupings not obvious in decile breakdowns. For instance, the

first twenty percent of the wealth distribution represented a range of

I about one pound while the top twenty encompassed hundreds. I assumed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227

Graph A.4

PRE-ADJUSTED(— ) & TOTAL ADJUSTED(-) WEALTH PORTSMOUTH, N.H. 1 6 8 0 -1 7 4 0 PRE-ADJUSTED GINI INDEX=0.667 TOTAL ADJUSTED GINI IN D EX=0.684

160

P E R C E N T

0 F

V A L U E

PERCENT OF POPULATION

th at there were breaks in the data which loosely described economic

groupings. A procedure known as analysis of variance helped show those

breaks. The data was regrouped to minimize the difference in wealth

values within groups and to maximize that difference between groups.

While i t would have been possible to have up to 234 groups (the number

of decedents for which we had final adjusted data) I believed that

between four and six groups would be an ideal number of groups to work

with. After testing, I divided the data into groups shown in Table A.8.

Those groupings showed a high degree of independence. Eta squared, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Graph A.5 Total Adjusted Wealth Distribution Portsmouth, N.H. 1680—1740 1680—1699(—) Gini=.641 1700-1719(— ) Gini=.622 1720—1740(------) Gini=.687

100

P e r c e n t

0 f

V a 1 u e

i o o

Percent of Population

I Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229

Table A.6

Gini Indieies and SSTT's from Portsmouth Tax Records

Date Rate Gini SSTT

1688 Constable Rate .U24 34.51 1691 Poor Rate .364 29.16 1698 Province Rate .421 30.31 1707 Province Rate .359 24.50

Sources:

1688: Portsmouth Town Records I, Pt. 2, 252B-255B. Typescript of original. University of New Hampshire Special Collections, IXarham, N.H.

1691: Ibid 279A-282A.

1698: "Copie of the List of Town Rate of Portsmouth Made August: 29th 1698," Portsmouth Town Records, New Hampshire H istorical Society, Concord, N.H.

1707: Portsmouth Town Records I, Pt. 2, 339A-343A.

Table A.7

D ecile Breakdown of Inventoried Wealth after all weightings Portsmouth, N.H. 1680-1743

Decile Range in Pounds

0-9 0- 0.0 10-19 •6—6•9 20-29 7.0-19.7 30-39 19.8-34.5 40-49 35.9-56.2 I 50-59 56.3-89.8 60-69 89.9 144.9 70-79 145.0-253.9 80-89 254.0-407.6 90-100 407.7-1961.3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230

Table A .8

Wealth Groups: Inventoried Hale Decedents Portsmouth, N.H., 1680-1743

Group Number Range

Poor 84 0.0 - 25.0 Low Middle 46 2 5 .1 - 7 5 .0 Middle Middle 37 75.1 - 150.0 High Middle 52 150.0 - 500.0 Elite 15 500.1 - 2000.0

statistic used to demonstrate that degree, was .8 and the groups were

significant at the .001 level. We termed the lowest group "poor," the

three middle groups "low," "middle," and "high" middle groups, and the

top group "elite."

Several observations apply to this sequence of calculations. First,

the numerical description of a population's wealth, when derived from a

probate population, is a long and involved process. Hie series of

analysis and resultant intermediary data sets were all necessary to

assure a relatively unbiased final view of the Portsmouth wealth

distribution. Second, many of the assumptions made in these processes

are open to criticism, but they were made on the basis on the best

available information. Should others use the same procedure,

substitutions or amendments may be made at any stage. However, the

steps one follows are set - raw data, price index, estimation of

liabilities, construction - of model life tables from available data,

| determination of age cohorts, and weighting of individual wealth cases

within those cohorts based on their proportional influence in the total

scheme. In sum, the raw data cannot be taken at face value and attempts

to do so will mask the real distribution of wealth.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX II

PORTSMOUTH INVENTORY CODEBOOK

This codebook is intended as a guide and reference for the preceding

work. It is also offered as a guide for other reseachers interested in

constructing similar coding systems for probate materials. It provides

a reference to items mentioned in the text, and allows readers to

understand how I categorized specific household and business items.

Perhaps my choices in category, or the object I chose to place in those

categories, will raise doubts in reader's minds. I hope so. During the

course of th is study I found that my in itia l sorting often proved

erroneous. Ihis forced me to rethink the scheme several times, but the

end product was better for that reevaluation..

My twentieth-century preconceptions of what types of items were used

B in what surroundings and for what specific purposes often proved wrong

in the colonial context. "Beds," I found, were not the complete set of

bedding as we now refer to it, but rather, a reference to only the

wooden superstructure on which the m attress ( if any) and coverlets

rested, "Looking glasses" were not mirrors, as I imagined. Instead,

archeologists and old dictionaries told me, they were a polite term for

chamber pots. Silver objects were not only decorative but had an innate I worth in their weight; a silver buckle was a capital investment as well as a means to keep a b e lt tied . These are few examples among the many

personal "discoveries" made while constructing the code. My formal

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232

training as an historian had to be supplemented time and time again with

informal philologic forays and trips to local archeological sites and

museums to give me a clear understanding of what the objects I read

about in probate actually were, how they were shaped, and what they were

used for. I recommend such adventures to anyone pursing similar studies

for they made the dusty probate entries spring to life.

The item coding scheme was based roughly on those used in libraries,

where every digit is a discrete descriptor. The item codes were part of

an eleven-variable sequence coded for each item in each inventory. The

sequence described, in order, the file number (representing the probate

volume from which the information was taken), the decedent

id e n tific a tio n number, the item number (a sequential number representing

the place of that item within the inventory), the item code (described

in the following pages), quantity (how many of that item were itemized),

measurement (how the item and quantity were measured also described in

the following pages), an assessment cross-reference (noting whether or

not the item was assessed separately or if its value was lumped together

with other items), an assessment key (representing the type of currency

it was valued in), and finally the assessment (the value). In cases

where a number of d iffe re n t items were assessed to g eth er, the value was

assigned to the first item mentioned, but that item was separated from

items with discrete values when final calculations were done on a value

per item basis. If the item was assessed individually, a three-variable

code designating pounds, shillings, and pence wasused. Those values

were trahsi'crmed into astandard pence evaluation at at’later time.

This scheme has a disadvantage in that it veils prices for goods

assessed in groups instead of individually. However, it does reveal the

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. quantity and description of each item in every inventory.

The item code is a four digit code representing three levels of

description. This first digit, then, is most general and represents one

of the following seven categories:

1 s Personal 2 s Non-personal: Household 3 = personal: Household 'A s Livestock I 5 = Labor 6 = Financial 7 = Realty

The first digit is the "generic" code. The second digit is a "type"

code and represents types of items within the generic category. The

last two digits signify kind or quality of goods, or ages of living

things. There were a few problems associated with specific goods. To

return to an earlier example, I classified precious metal ornaments in

the personal-jewelry generic and type code. However, precious metal

service pieces such as silver tankards were put in the non-personal

cutlery and plate category. In other words, function as well as form

was used to decide where objects were slo tted . When I asked questions

about use of goods, for example, the silver items were considered

separately. But when I investigated capital all silver goods were

pulled together for analysis. In the main, however, these were small

problems that were solved easily with file manipulation using

statistical packages such as the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS). The code does not have any alphanumeric variables so

the numbers may be treated as integers for sorting and selection

purposes. It has the capability of 10,000 different items.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 3 1*

The scheme came from my desire to categorize things from a personal

viewpoint, as those whom I studied might have used them. I purposely

avoided standard economic categorization - i.e. labor and capital,

consumer and producer durables and perishables - because those

categories minimized the human element. The following type codes were

used to define tne generic categories: "personal" included clothing,

grooming, gaming, jewelry, literacy, weaponry, and musical. "Non­

personal Household included fu rn itu re, cutlery and p late, crockery,

utensils, bedding, craft, provisions, and fuel. "Non-personal Non­

household" contained tools, vehicles, building material, crops,

containers, craft, saddlery, and miscellaneous. "Livestock" refered to

cattle, pigs, horse, sheep, fowl, goats, and other. "Labor" included

both male and female slaves and indentured servants. "Land" described

all the types of realty mentioned in the records. "Financial" included

the available types of monies credited and debited to an estate.

The numbers 9998 and 9999 represent inventoried land or goods located

outside of the Portsmouth area. The format of the codes appearing on

the proceeding pages is as follows: the generic code is on the far left

of the type code, and they are noted only once at the beginning of the

string of two-digit descriptors, shown at the far right.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Personal 0 Clothing 00 Men's general 01 Women's general 02 Women's gown 03 Trousers 04 Walking stick 05 Wig 06 Hat: Man's 07 S h irt 08 Cap: ’..-men's 09 Hat band 10 Buckle 11 S u it: Man's 12 Cap: Manf3 13 Boots: Man's 14 Bodice 20 Shoes 2 Stockings: Unspecified 22 Shoe horn 23 Stockings: Silk 24 Stockings: Worsted 25 Slippers 26 Shoe buckle 27 Stockings: Wool 28 Stockings: Cotton 29 Stockings Yarn 30 Gloves: Unspecified 3 Gloves: Woman's 32 Gloves: Man's 35 Gloves: Leather 33 Mittens 40 Coat: Unspecified 46 Coat: Hair 47 Coat: Cloth 56 Coat: Watch 57 Coat: Drugget 88 Coat• Indian 41 Waistcoat 42 Cloak 43 Jacket 44 Buckskins 45 Sleeves 89 Wrists 50 Handkerchief 51 Neckband 52 Sash 53 Nightcap 54 Scarf 55 Hood 58 Cape 59 S h ift 60 Laces 61 Petticoat

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

62 Drawers 63 Girdle 66Last 67 Fringe 70 Purse 71 Bag 72 Walking s ta ff 73 Cane 74 Fan 75 Muff 76 Snowshoes 80 Haberdashery: Unspec. 81 Sea gown 82 Belt 83 Spatterdash 84 Apron 85 Breeches: Leather 86 Stay 87 Nightrobe 90 Umbrella 1 Grooming 00 Mirror 01 Comb 02 Brush 03 Razor 04 Chamber Pot 05 Pipe 06 Ear Trumpet 07 Medicine 08 Razor case 09 Razor hone 10 Lancet 11 Drugs: Miscellaneous 13 Clothes brush 14 Pocket looking glass 15 Incision knife 16 Speaking trumpet 17 Comb case

2 Gaming 00 Cards 01 Dice

3 Jewelry 00 Ring 01 Earrings 02 Necklace 03 Watch 04 Glasses 05 Penknife 06 Broach 07 Seal ring 08 Pendant: Agate 09 Necklace: Pearl 10 Ring: Gold 11 Reading glass 12 Watch: Gold

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

13 Watch: Silver 14 Buckle: Silver 15 Buckle: Gold 25 Buckle: Heck 19 Button: Silver 16 Button: Gold 17 Stick pin 18 Clasp: Silver 20 Chain: Silver 21 Thimble: Silver 23 Bracelet 24 Box: Silver 26 Cameo 30 Whistle: Silver 4 L iterary 00 Bible 01 Book: Unspecified 02 Paper 03 Pen 04 Horn book 05 Primer 06 Map 07 Ink well 08 Seal 09 Globe 10 Alphabet paper 11 Ink 12 Paper book 13 Calendar 14 Ink case 15 Ink horn 16 Writing book 17 Quill 23 Book: Latin/Greek 24 Book: Geography 25 Book: History 26 Book: Medicine 27 Book: French 28 Book: Mathematics 29 Book: Philosophy 30 Folio 31 Quarto 32 Octavo 33 20’s 34 Pamphlet? 35 Grammer 40 Wagoner (Nautical Chart) 41 Chart: Unspecified 42 Account book 43 Sea book 44 Sermon book 45 Genealogy 46 Psalm book H Psaltar 48 Dictionary

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238

5 Weaponry 00 Pistol 01 Musket 02 Sword 03 Knife 04 Fowling piece 05 Bandaleer 06 Rapier 07 Carbine 08 Gun 10 Hunting: General 11 Shot 12 Powder 13 Hunting bow 14 Powder horn 15 Tackling 16 B ill 17 B ullets 18 Gun barrel 19 Sword b elt 20 Gun lock 21 Bagnet I 22 Drops 23 Blunderbuss 24 Cuttace 25 Bow 26 Hunting net 27 F lin t 28 Holster

6 Musical 00 Unspecified instrument 01 Fiddle 02 Flute 03 Tremble violin 04 Trumpet 05 Jew's harp 06 Drum 10 Sheet music

2 Non-Personal 0 Furniture 00 Chest Household 01 Table 02 Chair 03 Bench 04 Bedstead 05 Stool 06 Trunk 07 Case 08 Drawers 09 Couch 10 Picture 11 Escritoire 12 Carpet 13 Box 15 Cupboard

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Cradle 17 Bird Cage 19 Desk 20 Lantern 21 Hour glass 22 Half-hour glas3 23 Lamp 24 Teapot stand 25 Hammock 26 Curtain Rod 27 Mirror 28 Basin stand 29 Clock 30 Screen 32 Cabinet 40 Flag chair 41 Turkish carpet 42 Cushion 44 Settee 45 Picture frame 47 Leather chair 51 Coat of anns 52 Double chair 53 Dressing box 54 Medicine chest 55 Stand 56 Buffet 57 Tea Table 58 Mantle mirror 59 Go-cart 61 Iron stove 62 Shuffleboard table 63 portmantable 64 Peg 65 Sconce 66 Nursing Chair 68 Snuff Box 99 Unspecified

1 Cutlery/Plate 00 Kitchen: General 01 Knife 08 Knife: Jack 09 Knife: Chop 11 Cleaver 02 Flatware: Unspecified 03 Spoon 07 Spoon: Basting 10 Spoon: Tea 05 Fork 04 Fork: Flesh 06 Fork: Carving 30 Tin: Unspecified 27 Tin: Coffee pot 28 Tin: Measure

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240

29 Tin: Candlebox 31 Tin: Pan 32 Tin: Basin 33 Tin: Candlestick 34 Tin: Pot 35 Tin: Funnel 36 Tin: Colander 37 Tin: Saucepan 38 Tin: Dish cover 50 Pewter Unspecified 40 Pewter Saucer 41 Pewter Tumbler 42 Pewter Flagon 43 Pewter Pan 44 Pewter Candlestick 45 Pewter P la tte r 46 Pewter Pot 47 Pewter Quart pot 48 Pewter Dish 49 Pewter Chamber pot 51 Pewter Spoon 52 Pewter Basin 53 Pewter Plate 54 Pewter Tankard 55 Pewter Cup 56 Pewter Tray 57 Pewter Colander 58 Pewter Salt holder 59 Pewter Porringer 60 Silver Unspecified 61 S ilv er Spoon 62 Silver Basin 63 Silver Plate 64 Silver Tankard 65 S ilver Cup 66 Silver Tray 67 Silver Colander 68 Silver Salt holder 69 Silver Porringer 70 Silver Beaker 71 Silver Dram cup 72 Silver Tumbler 73 Silver Seal 74 Silver Server 75 Silver Box 76 Silver dish 80 Copper Unspecified 81 Copper Tankard 82 Copper Pot 83 Copper K ettle 84 Copper Sauce pan 90 Brass: Unspecified 85 Brass: Flour Box 86 Brass: Pepper box

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241

87 Brass: Colander 88 Brass: Scu m m er 89 Brass: Andirons 91 Brass: Kettle 92 Brass: S k illet 93 Brass: Candlestick 94 Brass: Tongs 95 Brass: Pot 96 Brass: Bell 97 Brass: Ladle 98 Brass: Warming pan 99 Brass: Pan

1 Containers 00 Kitchen : General 01 Plate 02 China: Unspecified 70 China: Bowl 71 China: Plate 72 China: Cup 73 China: Saucer 74 China: Punch bowl 03 Wood: Unspecified 22 Wood: P latt 80 Wood: Bowl 81 Wood: Dish 04 Jug 05 Cup 06 Glass 07 Bowl 08 Tankard 09 Basin 10 Crock 12 Rundlet : Unspecified 20 Rundlett: 5 quart 13 Cider cask 14 Pestel 15 Mortar 16 Mug 17 Syllabub pot 18 Flagon 19 Porringer 23 Bottle: Unspecified 24 B ottle: Glass 25 Dram cup 26 Sugar box 27 Chocolate dish 28 Mustard pot 29 Canister 30 Earthenware: Unspecified 11 Earthenware: Crock 31 Earthenware: Platter 32 Earthenware: Jug 33 Earthenware: Cup 34 Earthenware: Dish

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2M2

35 Earthenware: Candlestick 36 Earthenware: Salt cellar 37 Earthenware: Chamber pot 38 Earthenware: Plate 39 Earthenware: Pot 75 Earthenware: Pan 76 Earthenware: Custard cup 77 Earthenware: Porringer 78 Earthenware: Bowl MO Caster M1 Saucer 21 Pot: Quart M2 Pot: Pint M3 Pot: Half-pint MM Pot: Gill 50 Glass: Wine 51 Glass: Large 52 Glass: Decanter 53 Glass: Salt 5M Galss: Water 55 Glass: Plate 60 Teapot 61 Punch bowl 62 Punch strain er 63 Cheese plate 6M Pie plate 66 Tinder box 67 Tube 68 P la tte r 69 Trivet 90 Cheese pot 91 Milk pot 92 Butter pot 93 Tree (small cask) 9M Flasket 95 Cruet 96 Cover 97 Pudding pan

3 Utensils 00 Kitchen: General 01 Pot 02 Pan 03 Serving: Unspecified 0M S k ille t 05 Ladle 06 Strainer 08 Skimmer 09 K ettle 10 Wanning pan 11 Andiron 12 Tongs 13 Shovel 1M Hook 15 Spit

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243

16 Pot rack 17 Bellows 18 Hoop 19 Funnel 20 Salt cellar 21 Stillyard 22 Fire dogs 23 Trammel 24 Frying pan 26 Dripping pan 25 Seive 27 Heater 28 Chafing dish 29 Pot hanger 30 Gridiron 31 Trencher 32 Fish scumraer 33 F ire pan 34 Pot hook 35 Fender 36 Brace 38 Sauce pan 40 Candlestick 41 Snuffer 42 Candlebox 43 Coffee m ill 44 Toasting iron 46 Peck measure 48 Cabbage net 49 Coffee roaster 50 Table linen 51 Table cloth 52 Table napkins 53 Smoothing iron 54 Jack 60 Tray 61 Dish cover 62 Spoon mold 63 Bread trough 64 Coffee pot 65 Slice 66 Flour box 67 Milk tray 68 Grain fan 69 Wood form 70 Iron 71 Iron box 72 Mustard m ill 73 Mouse trap 74 S alt box 75 Wick 76 Safe 77 Half-bushel measure 78 Candle mold

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244

80 S ifte r 81 Egg slic e r 82 Churn 83 Whisk 84 Rolling pin 85 Grater 86 Pepper box 87 Co Hander 89 Bed pan 90 Cutting knife 91 Cork screw 92 Cork 93 Brush 94 Press 95 Bell 96 Broom 97 Ring 98 P late wanner 99 Grate

4 Bedding 00 Unspecified 01 Pillow 02 Bolster 03 Curtain 04 Valance 05 Quilt 06 Rug 07 Linen 08 Blanket 09 Bed cord 33 Bed: Unspecified 10 Bed: Feather 11 Bed : Flock 12 Bed: C attail 17 Bed: Down 25 Bed: Sea 26 Bed: Canvas 31 Bed: Straw 53 Bed: Coah 59 Bed: Trundle 15 Towel 18 Coverlet 19 Hand towel 13 Sheets: Unspecified 20 Sheets: Holland 21 Sheets: Brin 22 Sheets: Cotton 40 Sheets: Linen 41 Sheets: Osenbrig 23 Pillowcase: Unspecified 24 Pillowcase: Dowlace 27 Bolster case 28 Cupboard cloth 29 Cushion case

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245

32 Cradle rug 34 Bed stud 35 Window cu rta in 36 Counterpane 39 Bed sack 50 Cornice 51 Bed ticking 52 Underbed 56 Cradle quilt 57 P a lle t 58 Head cloth 60 Bed r a il

5 Craft 00 General 01 Weaving: Unspecified 02 Loom: Hand 03 Loom: Harness 04 Spinning wheel 12 Flax wheel 36 Q uilting wheel 05 Warping board 06 S h u ttle 08 Card 09 Comb 10 Sewing: General 11 Needle 13 Thread: Unspecified 59 Thread: Silk 41 Thread: shoe 14 Frame 15 S cissors 16 Buttons: Unspecified 26 Button: Horn 27 Button: Hair 28 Button: Metal 20 Button: Glass 32 Button: Pewter 38 B utton: Mohair 17 Pins 18 Tape 19 Ribbon 20 Beads 21 Knitting: Needles 22 Knitting: Hooks 23 K nitting: Yarn 24 Twine 30 Thimble 31 Spindle •*4 Pincushion 35 Lace 37 Needle case 43 Braid 44 Wax 45 Spool

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2*16

50 Wool yarn 51 Cotton yarn 52 Flax 53 Cotton wool 55 Mohair 56 Trissell tw ist 60 Material Unspecified 61 Material Cotton 62 Material Wool 63 Material Kersey 6*1 Material Linen - Portugal 68 Material Linen - Unsp. 65 Material Silk 66 Material Muslin 67 Material Kinting 69 Material Ticking 70 Material Crepe 71 Material Satin 72 Material Diaper 73 Material Serge 7*1 Material Scotch cloth 75 Material Fasting 76 Material Trucking cloth 77 Material pennistone 78 Material Osset 79 Material Dowles 80 Material Calico 81 Material Osenbrig 82 Material Prunella 8*J Material Neckcloth 85 Material Stuffing 86 Material Lockrene 87 Material Brins 88 Material Canvas 89 Material Ratteen 90 Material Buckrum 91 Material Drugget 92 Material F illetin g 93 Material Shalloon 9*1 Material Homespun 95 Material Damask 96 Material Worsted 97 Material Cape 98 Material Plaid 99 Material Holland

6 Provisions 00 Unspecified 01 Dairy: Unspecified 12 Dairy: Cheese 18 Dairy: Butter 02 Grains: Unspecified 23 Grains: Hops 03 Meat: Unspecified 26 Meat: Beef

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247

13 Meat: Salt pork 17 Meat: Suet 19 Meat: Pork 05 Spices: Unspecified 14 Spices: Cinnamon 15 Spices: Nutmeg 16 Spices: Cloves 31 Spices: Pepper 32 Spices: Allspices 45 Spices: Ginger 06 Soap 08 Molasses 09 Sugar 10 Misc. preserved 11 Wax 27 Tallow 20 Spirits: Unspecified 21 Spirits: Rum 22 S p irits : Wine 23 Spirits: Madiera 24 Spirits: Fayall wine 80 Spirits: Brandy 81 Spirits: Barbados rum 28 S p irits: Beer 30 Cider 33 Starch 34 Flour 36 Honey 37 Oil 38 Hog lard 39 Wool 40 Skinned animal 41 Skinned calf 42 Beaver 43 Vinegar 44 Raisins 46 Biscuits 47 Gingerbread 49 Castoriura 50 Fish Unspecified 51 Fish Cod 52 Fish Mackeral 53 Fish Skate 54 Fish Peal (salmon) 55 Fish Refuse 56 Fish Skall (carp) 57 Fish Polluck 58 Fish Jamaica code 60 Vegetable: Unspecified 61 Vegetable: Turnip 62 Vegetable: Cabbage 63 Vegetable: Onion 64 Vegetable: Indian Beans 65 Vegetable: Peas

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248

66 Vegetable: Endive 70 Bread 82 Coffee 83 Indigo 84 Chocolate 85 Tea

8 Fuel 00 Unspecified 10 Wood: Unspecified 11 Wood: Birch 20 Coal: Unspecified 21 Coal: Sea (soft)

9 Miscellaneous 00 Unspecified 01 Microscope

3 Non-personal 0 Tools 00 Unspecified Non-household 01 Saw 02 Axe 08 Hatchet 03 Hammer 04 Vise 05 Adze 06 Wedge 07 P liers 09 Pitchfork 10 Scythe 11 Sickle 12 Rake 13 Hoe 14 Shovel 15 Spade 16 Trowel 17 Brentplate 18 Scupper 20 Carpentry: Unspecified 21 Joinery: Unspecified 22 Gauge 23 Rule 24 Auger 25 Awl 26 Planer 27 Rile 28 Cooper's tools: Unspecified 29 Chisel 30 Fishing: Unspecified 31 Fishing: Line 32 Fishing: Hook 33 Fishing: Net 34 Fishing: Seine 35 Fishing: Mackeral line 36 Fishing: Cod line 37 Fishing: Reel 38 Fishing: Lead

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249

39 Fishing: Flake 40 Plow 41 Plow blade 42 Yoke 43 Wheel 44 Yoke tackle 45 Plow chain 46 Harrow 47 Oyster rake 48 Marlin spike 49 Chopping block 50 Branding iron 52 Marking iron 53 Last 55 Hatch bar 56 Cross-but saw 57 Frame saw 58 Tennent saw 59 Javering saw 60 Grindstone 61 Scrivinger 62 Anvil 63 Lodestone 64 Sledge 65 Pick 66 Wheelbarrow 67 Drawing knife 68 Mortise ax 69 Falling ax 70 Scale 71 Weight 72 Quadrant 73 Compass 74 Jacob s ta ff 75 Square 76 Mallet 77 Hack 78 Tap borer 79 Scale and weight 80 Lock 81 Latch 82 Mason's tools 83 Spring lock 84 Taper bit 85 Piercer bit 86 Stone hammer 87 Money scales 88 Sodering iron 89 Whistle 90 Tobacco tools 91 Utility knife 92 Mattuck 93 Chain 94 Crowbar

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250

95 Truss 96 Beetle ring 97 Tobacco tongs 99 Free

1 V eh icles 00 Carriage 01 Sled 02 Boat 03 Cart wheel 04 Cart 05 Canoe 06 Shallop 07 Ketch 08 Gundalow 09 Sloop 10 Oars: Unspecified 11 Oars: Shaved 12 0ar3: Unshaved 13 Skiff 14 Truck 15 Sail 16 Schooner 17 Bob sled 18 Rigging 19 Calash 20 Anchor 21 Flag 30 Cart ring 31 Lynch pin 32 Rode 33 Pump spear 34 Snake cable 35 Sheet 36 Cable 41 Ship 42 Spar 43 Canoe chain 46 Hull 48 Sounding lead

2 Building 00 Unspecified Material 01 Rough 02 Plank 03 Shingles 04 Pipe staves 05 Board 06 Twine 07 Beam 08 Pipe 09 Rafter 10 Nails 12 Staples 13 Hoop 14 Bricks

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

15 Clapboard nails 16 Hinge 17 6-penny nails 18 Hook 19 Deck n ails 20 Tin 30 Iron 31 Smith's supplies 32 Screw plate 34 Iron bolt 35 Steel 36 Iron bar 40 Glass 41 Brimstone 50 Rope 51 Spike 53 Dovetail 60 Lime 61 Oakum 62 Tar 63 Lead 64 Pitch 70 Pine log 71 Reed wood 72 Lathe 73 Cork 74 Rubstone 75 Caulk 76 Resin

3 Crops 00 Unspecified 01 Grain: Unspecified 02 Grain: Corn 09 Grain: Indian corn, 03 Grain: Wheat 04 Grain: Oats 05 Grain: Barley 07 Grain: Malt 08 Grain: pease 13 Grain: Hay 14 Grain: Rye 15 Meal 06 Potatoes 10 Tobacco 11 Lug tobacco 12 Cotton 16 Hops * 17 Peas 18 S alt hay 19 Onions 20 Fruit: Unspecified 21 F ru it: Apples 22 beans 23 Bran

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I

252

24 Flax seed 25 English hay 26 Turnips 28 Carrots 29 Cabbage 40 Carolina Beans 4 Container 00 Unspecified 01 Pail 02 Trough 03 Cask 04 Sack 05 Tub 06 Beer cask 07 Powdering tub 08 Fish tub 09 Bag 10 Piggin 11 Gimlet 12 Peck 13 Hogshead 14 Barrell 15 Basket 16 Bucket 17 Keg 18 Half-bushel 19 Fish pot 20 Box 21 Tobacco box 22 Barley basin 23 Water pail 24 Heal bag 25 Pipe 26 Soap trough 27 Clothes basket 30 Brewing copper 31 Pitch pot 32 Meal trough 33 Corn basket 34 Glue pot 35 Sugar tub 36 Rundlett 37 Brewing tub 38 Powder cask 39 Copper clothes k e ttle 40 Cart box 41 Washing tub 42 Bushel 43 Half hogshead 44 Gaming bag 45 Mash tub

5 Craft and 00 General processing 01 S till 02 Cheese press

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

03 Cheese vat 05 Rolling mill 06 Hand m ill 07 Meat seive 08 Cider press 10 Mill 11 Mill stone 12 Flour mill 20 Leather: Unspecified 21 Skins: Unspecified 23 Skins: Moose 25 Skins: Cow 26 Skins: Deer 22 Icing glass 24 30 Sheep shears 31 Cleaver 32 Shears 33 Coltar 40 White lead (paint) 41 Red lead (paint) 50 Feathers 51 Hair 52 Whale bone 53 Chalk 60 Gunnie (trap) 61 Sail needle 62 Shot mold 63 Bullet mold 64 Nocturnal 65 Forestaff 69 Shoemaking: Unspecified 70 Shoemaking: Punch 71 Shoemaking: Sole-Leathers 72 Shoemaking: Shoe nails 73 Shoemaking: Heel tool 74 Shoemaking: Tacks 75 Shoemaking: Knife 76 Shoemaking: Blackener 80 Tailor: Unspecified 81 T ailor: Goose 90 Blacksmith: Unspecified 91 Blacksmith: Bellows 92 Blacksmith: Sledge 93 Blacksmith: Anvil 94 Blockmaker: Block 6 Saddlery 00 Unspecified 01 Saddle 02 Bridle and b it 03 Harness 04 Stirrups 05 Riding crop 06 Bridle 07 Bit

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 08 Spurs 09 Stirrup leathers 10 Muzzle 11 Curry comb 12 Crupper 13 Pillion 14 F etters 15 Collar 16 Whip 17 Side saddle 20 Bell 21 Calash harness

7 Services 00 Unspecified 01 Wintering: Horse 02 Wintering: Cow

4 Livestock 0 Cattle 00 Unspecified Age and Type (01-09 Ages 1-9) 20 Dairy: Unspecified age .(21-29 Ages 1-9) 40 Beef: Unspecified age (41-49 Ages 1-9) 50 Oxen: Unspecified age (51-59 Ages 1-9) 70 Bull: Unspecified age (71-79 Ages 1-9)

1 Pigs ' 00 Unspecified type (01-09 Ages 1-9)

2 Horses 00 Unspecified type (01-09 Ages 1-9)

3 Sheep 00 Unspecified type (01-09 Ages 1-9)

4 Fowl 00 Unspecified type 01 Chickens 10 Ducks 20 Wild game 30 Pigeons 40 Geese

5 Goats 00 Unspecified type (01-09 Ages 1-9)

9 Other 00 Unspecified 01 Bees 02 Parrot Labor 0 Black Male 00 Unspecified Age (01-09 Ages 1-90) 94 Adult (prime) 96 Old

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255

1 Black Female 00 Unspecified Age (01-90 Ages 1-90) 91 Female and child 92 Child 94 Adult (prime) 96 Old

2 White Female 00 Unspecified Age (01-90 Ages 1-90) 91* Adult (prime) 96 Old

3 White Female 00 Unspecified Age (01-90 Ages 1-90) 91 Female and Child 92 Child 94 Adult (prime) 96 Old

4 Indian Hale 00 Unspecified Age (01-90 Ages 1-90) 94 Adult (prime) 96 Old

5 Mulatto Female 00 Unspecified Age

6 Apprentice 00 Unspecified age (01-90 Ages 1-90)

6 Financial 0 Credit 00 Unspecified 01 English sterling 02 Local currency 03 Province b ill 04 Bill of credit 05 Debts received 06 Bond 08 Interest 09 Note 10 Tobacco 40 Rent received 50 Wages due

1 Debit 00 Unspecified 01 English sterling 02 Local currency 10 Tobacco 20 Goods 99 Other

2 Cash on hand 00 Unspecified 01 English sterling 02 Local currency 03 Spanish dollar

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256

05 Pieces of eight 06 Half crown 07 Silver 08 Paper money 09 Spanish shilling 10 Gold guinea

7 Realty 0 Improved 00 Unspecified 01 House 02 Pew 03 Shop 04 House frame 05 House and barn 10 Outbuilding: Unspecified 11 Outbuilding: shack 12 Outbuilding: Brew house 13 Outbuilding: Sawmill 14 Outbuilding: Stable 15 Outbuilding: Woodhouse 20 Barn: Unspecified 21 Barn: Cow 22 Barn: Sheep 23 Barn: Frame 25 Garden 26 Orchard 27 Mooring and Chain 28 G rist Mill 29 Flake room 31 Wharf 32 Warehouse 33 Stage 34 Fish house 35 Bake house 36 Windmill 37 Tanyard 38 Mill 39 Slaughter house 40 Fenced Unspecified 41 Fenced Pasture 42 Fenced Flat land 43 Fenced Marsh 44 Fenced Salt marsh 45 Fenced Home lo t 46 Fenced: Sheep pasture 47 Swamp 50 Fenced: Crop field i 51 Fenced: Corn field 52 Fenced: Wheat field 53 Fenced: Hay field 54 Fenced: Indian corn field 60 Unfenced: Crop field 61 Unfenced: Corn field 62 Unfenced: Wheat field 63 Unfenced: Hay field

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257

70 Bridge 71 Fish flake 80 Share: Barrington 81 Share: Nottingham 82 Share: Commons 83 Share: Rochester 84 Lot in Chester 85 Lot in Newington 86 Lot in Barnstead 87 Lot in Epsom 88 Lot in Londonderry 89 Lot in Gilmanton 90 Lot in Chichester 91 Lot in Bow 92 Lot in Canterbury 93 Lot in Durham 94 Lot in Exeter 95 Lot in Rye

1 Unimproved 00 Unspecified 01 Pasture 02 Marsh 04 F lat land 05 Woodland 90 Island

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

PUBLISHED SOURCES

BOOKS

Adams, George M., An H istorical Discourse delivered at the Celebration of the Two hundredth anniversary of the formation of the North Church, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, July 19. 1871. Portsmouth, 1871.

Adams, Nathaniel, Annals of Portsmouth, comprising a period of two hundred years from the first settlement of the town; with biographical sketches of a few of the most respectable inhabitants, Portsmouth, 1825.

Albee, John, Newcastle: Historic and Picturesque, Boston 1884.

Albion, Robert Greenhaugh, Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652-1862, Cambridge, 1926.

Aldrich, Thoma3 Bailey, An Old Town by the Sea, Boston, 1917.

Andrews, Wayne, Architecture in New England: A Photographic H istory, Brattleboro, 1973.

Art Institute of Chicago, American Art of the Colonies and the Early Republic, Chicago, 1971.

Atkinson, A.B., The Economics of Inequality, Oxford, 1975.

Bailyn, Bernard, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, 1955.

Batchellor, Albert Stillm an, Outline of the Development of Probate Law and Probate Jurisdiction in New Hampshire, Concord, 1907.

Batchelder, Calvin B., History of the Eastern Diocese, Claremont, 1876.

Baxter, James Phinney, ed ., The Documentary History of Maine, I II , Portland, 1884.

Belknap, Jeremy, History of New Hampshire, 2 v o ls., Boston, 1791.

Bell, Charles H., History of the Town of Exeter, New Hampshire, Exeter, 1888.

Birket, James, Some Cursory Remarks made by James Birket in his voyage t o North America, 1750-1751, New Haven, 1916.

259

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission Bloch, Marc, The H isto rian 's C raft, New York, 1963.

Bridenbaugh, Carl, The Colonial Craftsman, New York, 1950.

Brighton, Raymond A., The Came to Fish, 2 vols., Portsmouth, 1973.

Brittain, John A., The Inheritance of Economic Status, Washington, D.C., 1977.

, Inheritance and the Inequality of Material Wealth, Washington, D.C., 1978.

Brewster, Charles Warren, Rambles About Portsmouth. Sketches of persons, localities, and incidents of two centuries; principally from tradition and unpublished documents, Portsmouth, 1859.

Brock, Leslie V., The Currency of the American Colonies, 1700-17611: A Study in Colonial Finance and Imperial Relations, New York, 1973.

Bullock, Charles J . , Essays on the Monetary History of the United S ta te s, New York, 1900.

Burroughs, Charles, A Discourse delivered in the chapel of the new almshouse in Portsmouth, N.H. Dec. XV. MDCCCXXXIV. on the occasion of i t s f i r s t being opened for relig io u s serv ices, Portsmouth, 1835.

Chase, Horace, The New Hampshire Probate Directory Containing All the Statute Laws Relating to Courts of Probate and Proceeding Therein: With a Complete Collection of Probate Forms Adapted to the Revised Statutes and Acts Since Passed, including Nov. Session, 18U , Concord. 1845.

Coale, Ansley J., The Growth and Structure of Human Populations: A Mathematical Investigation, Princeton, 1972.

Coale, Ansley J. and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, Princeton, 1966.

Coleman, Emma Lewis, New England Captives Carried to Canada Between 1677 and 1760 During the French and Indian Wars, vol I, Portland, 1925.

Craig, Lawrence, A History of the South Church and Parish (Unitarian) and the Univer3alist Church with an article on early religious matters in Portsmouth, New Hampshire and the Glebe land g ran t, Portsmouth, 1966.

______, Three Centuries of Religious Living, Portsmouth, 1966.

Cremin, Lawrence A., American Education: The Colonial Experience, 1607-1783. New York 1970.

Crowley, J.E ., This Sheba, SELF: The Conceptualization of Economic Life in Eighteenth Century America, Baltimore, 1974.

Cummings, Abbott Lowell, The Fhamed Houses of Massachusetts Bay. 1625-1725, Cambridge, 1979.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. , e d ., Rural Household Inventories: Establishing the Names, I Uses, and Furnishings of Rooms In the Colonial New England Home, 1675-1775, Boston, 1964.

Daniell, Jere, Experiment in Republicanism: New Hampshire P o litics and the American Revolution, 1741-1794, Cambridge, 1970.

Davis, Andrew MacFarland, ed.. Colonial Currency Reprints, 1682-1751, vol. 34, Boston, 1911.

Deetz, James, In Snail Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American L ife , Garden City, 1977.

Demos, John, A L ittle Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony, New York, 1970.

Dorftaan, Joseph, The Economic Mind in American C ivilization, 1606-1865, vol. I, New York, 1946.

Dow, G.F., and J. Robinson, Sailing Ships of New England, Salem, 1922.

Dow, Joseph, History of Hampton, New Hampshire, Hampton, 1883.

Drummond, J.C., The Englishman's Food: A History of Five Centuries of English D iet, London, 1958.

Duffy, John, Epidemics in Colonial America. Baton Rouge, 1953.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Peter M. Blau, The American Occupational S tructure, New York, 1967.

Ernst, Joseph A., Money and P o litic s in America, 1755-1775: A Study in the Currency Act of 1764 and the Political Economy of Revolution, Chapel H ill, 1973.

Fairchild, Eyron, Messrs. William Pepperrell; Merchants at Piscataqua, Ithaca, 1964.

Farmer, John, and Jacob B. Moore, Gazetteer of the State of New Hampshire, Concord, 1823.

Flaherty, David, Essays in the History of Early American Law, Chapel I H ill, 1969. Florin, John W., Death in New England: Regional Variations in M ortality, Chapel H ill, 1971.

Forster, Robert and Orest Ranum, eds., Family and Society: Selections from the Annales, Economies, Societies, C iv ilisa tio n s, Baltimore, 1976.

______, Food and Drink in History: Selections from the Annales Economies, Soieties, Civilisations, Baltimore, 1979.

Foster, Sarah H., The Portmouth Guidebook, Portsmouth, 1876.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fry, William H,, New Hampshire as a Royal Province, New York, 1908.

Garvin, James L., Historic Portsmouth, Somersworth, 1974.

George, Henry, Progress and Poverty, New York, 1883.

G lassie, Henry, Patterns in the Material Folk Culture of the Eastern United States, Philadelphia, 19

Gurney, Caleb Stevens, Portsmouth, Historic and Picturesque, A Volune of Information, Portsmouth, 1902.

Halsey, Thomas M., The Diary of Samuel Sewall, 1674-1729. 2 vols., New York, 1973-

Hammond, Issac W., ed ., New Hampshire Town Papers, vol. XIII, Concord, 1884.

, A Checklist of New Hampshire Local History, Concord, 1925.

Haskins, George I . , Law and Authority in Early Massachusetts: A Study in Tradition and Design, Hamden, 1968.

Hauser, Robert M., and David I. Featherraan, The Process of Stra tific a tio n : Trends and Analyses, New York, 1977.

Hazlett, Charles A., An Historic Calender of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, 1907.

Hickcox, John F., History of Bills of Credit, New York, 1969.

Hindle, Brooke, Early American Science, New York, 1976.

Howells, John Mead, The Architectural Heritage of the Piscataqua: Houses and Gardens of the Portsmouth District of Maine and New Hampshire, New York, 965.

1 Lost Examples of Colonial Architecture: Buildings that Have Disappered or Been so Altered as to be Denatured, New York, 1963.

Hurd, D. Hamilton, History of Rockingham and Strafford Countie:*, New Hampshire, with Biographical Sketches of many of Its Pioneers and Prominent Men, Philadelphia, 1882.

i n n i s , Harold, The Cod Fisheries, Toronto, 1954.

Jameson, J. Franklin, ed., Privateering and Piracy in the Colonial Period, New York, 1970.

Jenness, John Scribner, Isle3 of Shoals: An Historical Sketch, Hanover, 1975.

______, Transcripts of Original Documents in the English Archives Relating to the Early History of New Hampshire, New York, 1876.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jones, Alice Hanson, American Colonial Wealth: Documents and Methods, New York, 1977.

Judah, Charles B., The North American Fisheries and B ritish Policy to 1713. Urbana, 1933.

Kammen, Michael, Empire and In te rest: The American Colonies and the P o litic s of Mercantilism, New York, 970.

Kanowitz, Leo, Women and the Law: The Unfinished Revolution, Albuqueque, 1969.

Katz, Stanley, ed., Essays in P o litic s and Social Development in Colonial America, Boston, 1971.

Lampman, Robert J . , The Share of Top Wealth Holders in National Wealth, 1922-1956, Princeton,~1962.

Land, Aubrey C., Lois Green Carr and Edwad C. Papenfuse, ed s., Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland, Baltimore, 1977.

Leach, Douglas E ., Arms for Empire: A M ilitary History of the B ritish Colonies in North America, 1607-1763. New York, 1973.

Libby, Charles T., ed., Province and Court Records of Maine, Portland, 1931.

______, ed., Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire, 5 v o ls., Portland, 1928-1938.

Locke, Arthur H., Portsmouth and Newcastle New Hampshire Cemetary Inscriptions, Portsmouth, 1907.

Lockridge, Kenneth A., A New England Town: The F irst Hundred Years, New York, 1970.

______, Literacy in Colonial New England: An Enquiry into the Social Context of Literacy in the Early Modern West, New York, 1974.

Lord, G. T ., Belknap's New Hampshire: An Account of the State in 1792, Hampton, 1973-

Malone, Joseph L., Pine Trees and Politics; Naval Stores and Forest Policy in Colonial New England, 1691-1775. S e a ttle , 1964.

Mathes, Francis A. and Charles A. Hazelett, eds., An Historical Calender of PotSBiouth, Portmouth, 1907.

May, Ralph, Early Portsmouth History, Boston, 1926.

McClintock, History of New Hampshire, Boston, 1888.

McCusker, John, Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775, Chapel H ill, 1978.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 264

McFarland, Raymond, A History of the New England F ish eries, New York, 1911.

Montgomery, Florence M., Printed Textiles: English and American Cottons and Linens, 1700-1850, New York, 1970.

Morris, Richard B., Studies in the History of American Law, New York, 1930.

Moore, N. Hudson, Old Pewter, Brass, Copper, and Sheffield P la te , Garden City, 1933.

N ettles, Curtis P ., The Money Supply of the American Colonies Before 1720. New York, 1934.

Page, Elwin L ., Judicial Beginnings in New Hampshire, 1640-1700, Concord, 1959.

Pillsbury, Hobart, New Hampshire: A History, New York, 1927.

Pole, J. H., The Pursuit of Equality in American History, Berekley, 1978.

P otter, David H., People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character, Chicago, 1964.

Quimby, Ian M.G., ed., Material Culture and the study of American Life, New York, 1978.

Robinson, Maurice H., A History of Taxation in New Hampshire, New York, 1978.

Rutman, Darrett B., American Puritanism: Faith and Practice, New York, 1970.

Saltonstall, William G., Ports of Piscataqua: Soundings in the Maritime History of the Portsmouth, N.H. Customs District from the days of Queen Elizabeth and the Planting of Strawbery Banke to the Times of Abraham Lincoln and the Waning of the American C lipper, Cambridge, 1941.

Sargent, Wiliam M., e d ., Maine W ills, 1640-1760, Portland. 1887.

Scales, John, History of Dover, N.H., Vol I., Manchester, 1923.

S cott, William B., In Pursuit of Happiness: American Conceptions from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, Bloomington, 1977.

Soltaw, Lee, Six Papers on the Size Distribution of Wealth and Income, New York, 1969.

Stackpole, Everett S., History of New Hampshire, Vol I., New York, 1916.

______, Old Klttery and Her Families, Lewiston, 1903.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265

Terleckyi, Nestor, e d ., Household Production and Consumption, New York, 1975.

Titmuss, Richard M., Income D istribution and Social Change, London, 1962.

Vaughan, Alden T ., New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, 1620-1675, Boston, 1965.

Wachter, Kenneth W., Statistical Studies of Historical Social Structure, New York, 1978.

Wasson, George S ., Sailing Days on the Penobscot, New York, 1932.

Watkins, Lura Woodside, Early New England Pottery, Sturbridge, 1966.

Wedgewood, Josiah, The Economics of Inheritance, Port Washington, 1971.

Winslow, Ola Elizabeth, Portsmouth: Life of a Town, New York, 1966.

Wrigley, R. A., Population and H istory, London, 1969.

Zuckerman, Michael, Peacable Kingdoms, New York, 1970.

ARTICLES

Anderson, Terry L, Economic Growth in Colonial New England, Journal of Economic H istory, XXXXIX (1979), 243-258.

______, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies, 1650-1709", Explorations in Economic History, XII (1975), 151-176.

Auwers, Linda-, Fathers, "Sons and Wealth in Colonial Windsor, Connecticut", Journal of Family History, III (1978), 136-149.

B all, Duane E ., "Dynamics of Population and Wealth in Eighteenth Century Chester County, Pennsylvania", Journal of Interdisciplinary History, VI (1976), 621-644.

Bissell, Linda A., "From One Generation to Another: Mobility in Seventeenth Century Windsor, Connecticut", William and Mary Quarterly, 3d. Ser., XXXI (1974), 79-110.

Boulding, Kenneth, "The Pursuit of Equality", Studies in Income and Wealth, XXXIX (1975), 11-28.

Carr, Lois Green, and Lorena S. Walsh, "The P la n te r's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth Century Maryland", WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXIV (1977), 542-571.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 266

Caulfield, Ernest, "A History of the Terrible Epidemic, Vulgarly Called the Throat Distemper, as it Occured in His Majesty's New England Colonies Between 1735 and 17*10", Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, XI (1938-39), 219-272; 277-335.

Clark, Charles Edwin, "The Second New England; Life Beyond the Merrimack, 1690-1760", H istorical New Hampshire, XX (1965), 3-22.

Cole, Thomas E., "Family, Settlement, and Migration in Southeastern Massachusetts, 1650-1805: The Case for Regional Analysis", New England Historical and Genealogical Register, CXXXII (1978), 171-185.

Daniels, Bruce C., "Defining Economic Classes in Colonial Massachusetts, 1700-1776", Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, IXXXIII (197*1), 251-26 0.

"Economic Development in Colonial and Revolutionary Connecticut: An Overview", WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXCII (1980), 429-*»50.

______, "Defining Economic Classes in Colonial New Hampshire," HNH, XXVIII (1973), 53-62.

David, Paul A., "The Growth of real Product in the United States Before 18*10: New Evidence and Controlled Conjectures," JEH, XXVII (1967), 151-197.

______, "New Light on a S ta tistic a l Dark Age: U.S. Real Product Growth Before 18*10," American Economic Review, LVII (1967), 29*1-36.

Davisson, William I., "Essex County Price Trends: Money and Markets in Seventeenth Century Massachusetts," Essex Institute Historical Collections, CII (1967), 1*15-185.

Fainie, D.A., "The Commercial Empire of the Atlantic, 1607-1783", Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., XV (1962-63), 205-217.

Ferguson, E. James, "Currency Finance: An Interpretation of Colonial Monetary P ractic.e," WMQ. 3d. Ser., X (1953), 153-180.

Garvin, James L., "Portsmouth and the Piscataqua: Social History and Material Culture," HNH, XXVI (1971), 3-*!8.

Henretta, James A., "Economic Development and Social Structure in Colonial Boston," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXII (1965), 75-92.

Innes, Stephen, "Land Tenancy and Social Order in Springfield, Massachusetts," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXV (1978), 33-56.

Jones, Alice Hanson, "Wealth Estimates for the New England Colonies about 1770," JEH, XXXII (1972), 98-127.

______, "Wealth Estimates for the American Middle Colonies, 177*1," Economic Development and Cultural Change, XVIII (1970), 1-172.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 267

Koch, Donald W.t "Income Distribution and P o litic a l Structure in Seventeenth Century Salem, Massachusetts,” EIHC, CV (1969), 50-71.

Land, Aubrey, C., "Economic Base and Social Structure: The Northern Chesapeake in the Eighteenth Century," JEH, XXV (1965), 639—65^.

______, "Economic Behavior in a Planting Society: The Eighteenth Century Chesapake," Journal of Social History, XXXIII (1967), M69—^85.

Lampmar., Robert J ., "Social Accounting for Transfer," SIW, XXXIX (1975)• 31-44.

Lemon, James T ., "Urbanization and the Development of Eighteenth Century Southeastern Pennsylvania and Adjacent Delaware,” WMQ, 3d. Ser,, XXIV (1967), 501-533.

______, "Household Consumption in Eighteenth Century America and Its Relation to Production ar.d Trade: The Situation Among Farmers in Southeastern Massachusetts," Agricultural History, XII (1967), 59-70.

Lindstrom, Diane, "American Economic Growth Before 1840: New Evidence and Directions," JEH, XXXIX (1979), 289-302.

Lockridge, Kenneth, "The Population of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736," Economic History Review, 2nd S er., XXIX (1966).

Main, Gloria L ., "The Correction of Biases in Colonial American Probate Records," Historical Methods Newsletter, VIII (1974), 10-28.

, "Inequality in Early America: The Evidence from Probate Records of Massachusetts and Maryland," JIH, VII (1377), 559-581.

______, "Probate Records as a Source for Early American History," WMQ, 3d Ser., XXXII (1975), 89-99.

Menard, Russell R., "From Servant to Freeholder: Status Mobility and property Accumulation in Seventeenth Century Maryland," WHQ, 3d Ser., XXX (1973). 37-64.

Nash, Gary B., "Urban Wealth and Poverty in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts, Population Studies, XXV (1971), 433-452.

Norton, Susan L ., "Population Growth in Colonial America: A Study of Ipswich, Massachusetts, Population Studies, XXV (1971), 433-452.

Price, Jacob, "The Economic Growth of the Chesapeake and the European Market, 1697-1775," JEH, XXIC (1964), 496-511.

Rothenberg, Winifred B., "A Price Index for Rural Massachusetts, 1750-1855," JEH, XXXIX (1979), 975-1002.

Shammas, Carole, "Constructing a Wealth Distribution from Probate Records, JIH, IX (1978), 297-307.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268

______, "The Domestic Environment in Early Modern England and America," Journal of Social History XIV (1980), 3-24.

, "The Determinants of Personal Wealth in Seventeenth Century England and America," JEH, XXXCII (1977), 675-690.

Smith, Billy G., "The Material Lives of Laboring Philadelphians, 1750 to 1800," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXCIII (1981), 163-202.

Smith Daniel Scott, "Underregistration and Bias in Probate Records: An Analysis of Data from Eighteenth Century Hinghara, Massachusetts, WMQ, 3d. S e r., XXXII (1975), 100-110.

Spengler, Joseph J . , "Changes in Income D istribution and Social S tra tific a tio n : A Note," American Journal of Sociology, LIX (1953-54), 247-259.

Steele, I.K., "A London Trader and the Atlantic Empire: Joseph Cruttenden, Apothecary 1710-1717," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXIV (1977), 281-297.

Thomas, Robert Paul and Terry L. Anderson, "While Population, Labor Force and Extensive Growth of the New England Economy in the Seventeenth Century." JEH. Ill (1973), 634-661.

Vinovskis, Maris A., "From Household Size to the Life Course: Some Observations on Recent Trends in Family History," American Behavioral Scientist. XXI (1977), 263-287.

Walton, Gary E., "A Quantitative Study of American Colonial Shipping: A Summary," JEH, XXVI (1966), 595-598.

______, "The Distribution of Property in Boston, 1692-1775," Perspectives in American History, X (1976).

______, "Law Reform in England and New England, 1620 to 1660," WMQ, 3d. Ser., XXXV (1978), 668-690.

Waters, John J., "Patrimony, Succession, and Social Stability: Guilford, Connecticut in the Eighteenth Century," Perspectives in American History, X (1976), 131-160.

UNPUBLISHED SOURCES

Anderson, Terry Lee, "The Economic Growth of Seventeenth Century, New England: A Measurement of Regional Income," Ph.D. diss., University of Washington, 1972.

Barry, Peter,R., "The New Hampshire Merchant Interest, 1609-1725," Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1971.

Candee, Richard M., "Wooden Buildings in Early Maine and New Hampshire:

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

A Technological and Cultural History, 1600-1720,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1976.

Lord, Gary Thomas, "The Politics and Social Sructure of 17th Century Portsmouth," Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1976.

Main, Gloria L ., "Personal Wealth in America: Explorations in the Probate Records of Maryland and Massachusetts, 1650 to 1720," Ph.D. d is s ., Columbia University, 1972.

McKinley, Samuel J . , "The Economic History of Portsmouth. N.H. from its f i r s t settlem ent to 1830, including a study of price movements there, 1723-1770 and 1804-1830," Ph.D. d is s ., Harvard University, 1931.

Oedel, Howard T., "Portsmouth, Ne.j Hampshire: The Role of the Provincial Capital in the Development of the Colony, 1700-1775," Ph.D. d is s ., Boston U niersity, 1960.

Rhoades, Elizabeth A., "Household FUrnishings in Porsmouth, N.H., 1750-1775," M.A. thesis, University of Delaware, 1972.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission