_C. Malcolm Watkins_
In his annual reports on manufactures to the Lords of the Board of
Trade during the 1730s, Virginia's royal governor, William Gooch,
mentioned several times an anonymous "poor potter" of Yorktown. At
face value, Gooch's reports might seem to indicate that manufacturing
was an insignificant factor in Virginia's economy and that the only
pottery-making endeavor worth mentioning at all was so trivial it
could be brushed aside as being almost, if not quite, unworthy of
notice. Occasionally, historians have selected one or another of
these references to the "poor potter" to support the view either that
manufacturing was negligible in colonial Virginia or that ceramic art
was limited to the undeveloped skills of a frontier potter.[183] The
recent development of archeology, however, as an adjunct of research
in cultural history--especially in the historic areas of Jamestown,
Williamsburg, and Yorktown--has produced substantial evidence
challenging both the accuracy of Gooch's reports and the conclusions
drawn from them, which, contrary to Gooch's statements, proves that
pottery making in Yorktown was highly skilled and much at odds with the
concept of a "poor potter."
The observation that a remarkably developed ceramic enterprise had
been conducted in or near Yorktown was first made by Mr. Noël Hume,
the archeologist partner of this paper, in 1956 when he identified
fragments of saggers used in firing stoneware, which were excavated
in association with numerous stoneware waster sherds and a group of
unglazed earthenware sherds of good quality at the site of the Swan
Tavern in Yorktown.[184] The question naturally arose, could these
expertly made wares have come from the kilns of the "poor potter"?
Although ultimate proof is still lacking, identification with him
is sufficiently well supported by documentary and artifactual hints
that--until further scientific findings are forthcoming--it is
presented here as a hypothesis that the "poor potter" did indeed make
them. This portion of the paper considers not only the specifics of
artifacts and documents, but also the state of manufactures in Virginia
before 1750 and their relationship to the character and attitudes of
Governor Gooch.
The Crown and Colonial Manufacture
It should be noted that, in general, the history of pottery making
in colonial America is fragmentary and inconclusive. Scattered
documents bear hints of potters and their activities, and occasional
archeological deposits contain the broken sherds and other material
evidence of potters' products. Difficulty in obtaining information
about early pottery manufacture may be related in large part to
a reluctance on the part of the colonists to reveal evidence of
manufacturing activity to the Crown authorities. It was the established
principle of the Mother Country to integrate the colonial economy into
her mercantile system, which was run primarily for her own benefit. As
a consequence, there increasingly developed a contest between those
who sought to protect English manufactures by discouraging production
of colonial goods and those who, in America, tried to enlarge colonial
self-sufficiency, the latter inevitably resorting to evasion and
suppression of evidence in order to gain their advantage.
The outlines of this struggle are suggested in the laws and official
reports relating to colonial manufactures. In Virginia, during the
late 17th and early 18th centuries, influential landowners encouraged
manufactures as a way to offset the dominance of tobacco in the colony,
while several acts were passed in the Virginia Assembly to establish
official port towns which, it was thought, would result in flourishing
craft communities. Although, for a variety of reasons inherent in
Virginia's economy and geography, most of these failed, the acts
nonetheless were consistently opposed by the Crown authorities. The
1704 Act for Ports and Towns, for example, was vetoed by the Crown in
1709 for the following reasons:
The whole Act is designed to Encourage by great Priviledges the
settling in Townships, and such settlements will encourage their
going on with the Woolen and other Manufactures there. And should
this Act be Confirmed, the Establishing of Towns and Incorporating
of the Planters as intended thereby, will put them upon further
Improvements of the said manufactures, and take them off from the
Planting of Tobacco, which would be of very ill consequence, not
only in respect to the Exports of our Woolen and other Goods and
Consequently to the Dependance that Colony ought to have on this
Kingdom, but likewise in respect to the Importation of Tobacco
hither for the home and Foreign Consumption, Besides a further
Prejudice in relation to our shipping and navigation.[185]
This forthright exposition of official English attitudes reiterated
the policy of colonial economic dependence. The wording of the
veto--"encourage their _going on_ with the Woolen and other
Manufactures" and "a _further_ Prejudice in relation to our shipping"
[italics supplied]--shows that the dangers feared by the Board of Trade
regarding the establishment of towns had already become a reality and a
threat to English economic policy.
Victor S. Clark, in _The History of Manufactures_ in _the United
States_, points out that the colonists passed so many laws to encourage
their own manufactures "that such British intervention as occurred must
be regarded rather as indicating the passive disposition of the home
government than as defining an administrative policy vigorously carried
out."[186] Nevertheless, from 1700 until the Revolution, reports on
American manufactures made by royal governors to the Board of Trade
demonstrate not only that the Americans were vigorously promoting
manufactures but also that they were being evasive and secretive in
doing so in the face of official disapproval. The Board of Trade
reported in 1733: "It is not improbable that some former governors of
our colonies ... may, in breach of their instructions, have given their
concurrence to laws, or have connived for many years at the practice
of trades prejudicial to the interest of Great Britain...."[187]
Governor Belcher of Massachusetts in his report to the Board of Trade
complained that "we cannot conceal from your lordships that it is
with the greatest difficulty we are able to procure true informations
of the trade and manufactures of New England; which will not appear
extraordinary when we acquaint your lordship, that the assembly of the
Massachusetts Bay had the boldness to summon ... Mr. Jeremiah Dunbar
[Surveyor General of his Majesty's woods in North America] before them
and pass a severe censure upon him, for having given evidence at the
bar of the House of Commons of Great Britain with respect to the trade
and manufactures of this province...."[188]
After the Port Act of 1704 was disallowed, the Virginians were harder
pressed than the northern colonists, who managed to maintain their
frowned-upon industries. Ignoring the Virginians' resentment at being
limited almost exclusively to the growing of tobacco, additional
economic pressures were put upon them. For example, whereas stripped
tobacco--the leaves separated from the stalks--had constituted the
principal form of exported tobacco, an Act of Parliament was introduced
on January 17, 1729, containing clauses prohibiting the importation
into England of "Stript Tobacco." John Randolph, Clerk of the Council
of Virginia, wrote a letter to Parliament, petitioning the repeal of
the clause. By having to export the stalks, he complained, the planters
are loaded with the duty and Freight of that which is not only of
no Value, but depreciates the pure tobacco at least 2d in every
pound. The Tobacconists are under a temptation to manufacture
the Stalk and mingle it with the leaf, whereby the Commodity is
adulterated, and of course the consumption of it is lessend.
And the Merchants are obliged to keep great quantities in their
Warehouses, and at last to sell upon long Credit. In consequence
of which the price of the Planters Labors, is fallen below what
they are able to bear. And unless they can be relieved, they must
be driven to a necessity of Employing themselves more usefully
in Manufactures of Woollen and Linen, as they are not able under
the present circumstances to buy what is Necessary for their
Cloathing, in this Kingdom....[189]
Although the usual covering phrase, "other manufactures," was omitted
here, it could well have been included. Under such adverse restraints,
enterprising Virginians were almost forced to turn to surreptitious
manufacturing; perhaps the restraints became excellent excuses for
pursuing such manufactures, which, perhaps, were in any case inevitable.
Relief came by 1730 with the passage of a new tobacco act, liberalizing
the restrictions on the planters. Meanwhile, in 1727, William Gooch
was appointed Lieutenant Governor and, owing in part to his political
astuteness and sympathetic awareness of the colonists' difficulties,
the lot of the planter was greatly improved. Nevertheless,
manufacturing persisted as the colonists increased in strength and
numbers. Although official restrictions may have been a perverse
encouragement to manufactures, the dynamics of a growing population
in a new country predetermined even more an expansion of enterprise.
Not only did economic depression force the industrious to turn to
manufactures as an alternative to poverty, but economic prosperity,
when it occurred in the 1730s, provided a financial stimulus to further
that prosperity by means of local manufacturing.
Governor Gooch doubtlessly understood this. He was remarkable among
Virginia's colonial governors for his ability to achieve what the
colonists wanted while pleasing the home government. His administration
created an era of good feeling during which the Virginians frequently
expressed their gratitude and praise. In 1728, after serving as
Governor for seven months, he was given £500 by the Assembly as well
as an illegal grant by the Council of £300 from the royal quit-rents,
which led George Chalmers, an English historian, to comment sourly in
1782 that for this gift "he in return resigned in a great measure, the
government to them."[190]
This was not altogether a fair conclusion, for, though Gooch, as
Campbell in his _History of Virginia_ states, may have been possessed
of "some flexibility of principle,"[191] he was an extraordinarily
successful Governor. Percy S. Flippin concluded that Gooch "was a
striking example of what an energetic, forceful royal governor, who
was influenced by conditions in the colony and not altogether by
his instructions, could accomplish, both for the colony and for the
British government."[192] He repeatedly acted in the interests of the
colonists, particularly regarding improved tobacco laws. He attended
almost every meeting of the Council, whose members constituted the
most influential persons in the colony, and thus established a close
working relationship and understanding with those who expressed the
colonial view-point. Quite evidently he understood that prosperity in
the colony was a prerequisite to successful trade with England and to
a substantial tax return. In respect to improving the tobacco laws,
we know that he opposed existing British attitudes; in relation to
colonial manufactures beneficial to colonial prosperity, we may assume
that he was sympathetic, even though he could not advocate them openly.
Certainly, as Campbell stated, "Owing partly to this coalition [between
Gooch and the planters], partly to a well-established revenue and a
rigid economy, Virginia enjoyed prosperous repose during his long
administration."[193]
Gooch's reports on manufactures to the Board of Trade provide an
exercise in reading between the lines. They suggest that he was doing
his best to support the colonists while observing the letter of the
Crown's instructions. They allude to manufactures here and there, but
usually in terms that minimize their importance or that brush aside the
possibilities of their growth. Yet in his depreciations one senses that
while he was trying to state such facts as were necessary, he actually
was trying on occasion to create an impression that was at variance
with the whole truth. In tracing the Yorktown potter we shall see that
this must have been the case.
In his report of 1732 he made a general statement calculated to allow
the Lords of the Board of Trade to relax in calm reassurance, while at
the same time encouraging their recognition of his wisdom in initiating
a new tobacco law:
There hath been much Discourse amongst the common People of
Sowing Flax and Cotton, and therewith supplying themselves with
Cloathing: but since the late Tobacco Law hath begun to raise the
Price of that Staple, all these projected Schemes are laid aside,
and in all probability will Continue so, as long as Tobacco is of
any Value, seeing the necessary Cloathing for the Planters and
their Negroes, may be more easily Purchas'd with Tobacco than made
by themselves. Nor indeed is there much ground to suspect that any
kind of Manufactures will prevail in a Country where handycraft
Labour is so dear as 'Tis Here; The Heat in Summer, and severe
Colds in Winter, accompani'd with sundry Diseases proceeding from
these Causes, such as Labouring People in Great Britain undergo,
and where the Earth produces enough to purchase and supply all
the necessitys of life without the drudgery of much Toil, men are
tempted to be lazy.
He then added inconsistently that four ironworks making pots and "Backs
for Fireplaces" had been set up in Virginia and admitted that one even
included an air furnace. The Lords of the Board of Trade might well
have asked how these were accomplished without "the drudgery of much
Toil."
He also stated that: "there is one poor Potter's work of course earthen
Ware, which is of so little Consequence, that I dare say there hath not
been twenty Shillings worth less of that Commodity imported since it
was sett up than there was before."[194] It is remarkable that Gooch
felt the need to mention the potter at all, since pottery making was
usually an anonymous, little-noted craft. Nevertheless, in 1733 he
reported again on this seemingly insignificant enterprise:
As to Manufactures sett up, Wee have at York Town upon York
River one poor Potter's Work for Earthen Ware, which is so
very inconsiderable that I dare Say there has not been forty
Shillings' worth less of that Commodity imported since it was
Erected than there was before; the poorest Familys being the only
Purchasers, who not being able to send to England for such Things
would do without them, if they could not gett them Here.[195]
Clearly, we, like the Lords of the Board of Trade, are led to believe
that a semiskilled country potter was operating a small shop which
produced crude pottery incapable of competing with English wares. The
word "poor" can be interpreted doubly, connoting both poverty and low
quality. Hence, by inference, it was an enterprise destined to failure.
But such an impression of failure was not supported by Gooch's own
evidence that the pottery works were continuing year after year. In
1734 he reported:
As to Manufactures We have at York Town, on York River, one poor
Potters' work for earthen Ware, which is so very inconsiderable,
that there has been little less of that Commodity imported since
it was Erected, than there was before.[196]
The 1735 report was equally depreciating,[197] while the following
year Gooch opened his report with the comment: "The same poor Potter's
Work is still continued at York Town without any great Improvement
or Advantage to the Owner, or any Injury to the Trade of Great
Britain."[198]
The 1737 report on Trade and Manufactures even contained a special
subheading: "Potters' Work." There then followed: "The Potter continues
his Business (at York Town in this Colony) of making Potts and Panns,
with very little Advantage to himself, and without any dammage to
Trade."[199] One wonders why Gooch's persistence in mentioning this
enterprise in such terms almost annually did not lead the Board of
Trade to question his reasons for mentioning it at all if the pottery
was so insignificant. Perhaps they did question it, because in the
next report, filed in 1739 after a two-year interval, Gooch dismissed
the pottery succinctly, almost impatiently, as though to turn aside
further questions that might be raised: "The poor Potter's Operation
is unworthy of your Lordships notice." Gooch then proceeded with an
admission that:
The Common People in all Parts of the Colony, and indeed many of
the better Sort, are lately gott into the use of Loom Weaving
coarse cloth for themselves and Negroes; And our Inhabitants on
the other side of the Mountains, make very good Linnen which they
sell up and down the Country. Nor is the making of Shoes with
Hides of their own Tanning less practiced, tho' the Leather is
very Indifferent.[200]
It was easier, of course, to admit that the "common People in all Parts
of the Colony" were engaged in domestic manufactures than to allow
attention to concentrate on a single commercial, industrial enterprise.
Only with difficulty could sanctions have been brought to bear against
home industries throughout the colony--a single manufactory reported
almost annually for eight years was quite another matter. To have
lasted this long, the "poor potter" must have been less than poor, and
his pottery must have had an importance that either had to be revealed
by truthful statement or dissimulated. It appears that Gooch chose the
latter course: the pottery being a large enterprise was noticeable;
being noticeable it had to be reported; but being large it contributed
to the wealth of the colony while competing with British imports which
did not, and therefore it should be condoned. Gooch made a practical
decision which may reflect his obligation to the colonists: the pottery
works had to be downgraded in his reports and attention distracted from
it.
The "Poor Potter" and his Wares
Who, then, was the "poor potter," and how wide of the mark was Gooch in
so designating him?
The first clue was found in a ledger kept between 1725 and 1732 by
John Mercer, who was to become master of the plantation Marlborough in
Stafford County as well as an influential colonial lawyer. In 1725,
at the age of 21, Mercer was making his way in the world by trading
up and down the rivers of Virginia, buying imported goods in towns
like Yorktown, where he had a large account with the wealthy merchant
Richard Ambler, and exchanging these imports for raw materials at
upstream plantations. Included in John Mercer's ledger is an account
with one William Rogers having the following entry: "By Earthen Ware
amounting to by Invoice 12. 3. 6."[201] So large an amount implies a
wholesale purchase from a potter. Was William Rogers, then, the "poor
potter" of Yorktown?
Scattered throughout the records are references to several William
Rogerses from 17th-and 18th-century Virginia (see Appendix I), but
none seems likely to refer to the "poor potter" until one reaches
Yorktown. There a deed is recorded from the "Trustees to the Port Land
in Yorktown," granting two lots of land on May 19, 1711, to "William
Rogers aforesaid Brewer."[202] That he was a brewer admittedly is a
weak clue to his being a potter. But, despite this, it is necessary
to pursue this William Rogers further. These two lots were granted
to Rogers by the Trustees in accordance with previous acts for
establishing port towns. Yorktown had been established according to the
Act for Ports and Towns in 1691, and Rogers' lots were numbers 51 and
55 (see plat, fig. 1), lying contiguously on the northern border of the
town between Read and Nelson Streets. To this day they continue to bear
the same numbers.
[Illustration: Figure 2.--MAJOR LAWRENCE SMITH'S ORIGINAL SURVEY PLAT
of Yorktown, Virginia, made according to the Virginia Port Act of 1691,
which set up a port town for each county. This plat, still in the York
County records, bears the names of successive lot holders from 1691 on
into the 18th century. William Rogers' name appears on lots 51 and 55.
He was granted this property by the town feoffees in 1711. Additional
properties he acquired are mentioned in his will as lots 59, 74, and
75.]
For year after year nothing appears in the York County records to
indicate that William Rogers was connected even remotely with a pottery
works. That he was soon prospering as a brewer is suggested by the
mention of "Roger's [sic] best Virga aile," as selling at sixpence
per quart, in a list of liquor prices presented for Yorktown tavern
keepers on March 19, 1711.[203] In 1714 an indentured woman servant
of Rogers ran away and was ordered to serve an additional six months
and four days.[204] His name occurs in 1718 in two small court actions
to collect bad debts and in another against Robert Minge for trespass.
He is recorded in these simply as "Wm. Rogers."[205] There is no other
significant mention until 1730, when the wife of "William Stark, Gent."
relinquished her right of dower to lands in the County, so as to permit
their sale to "William Rogers."[206] Later in the same year "Mr. Wm.
Rogers" was sued by Henry Ham, a bondservant, for his freedom.[207] In
1734 "William Rogers gent" took oath as "Capt. of the Troop."[208]
Later that year "William Rogers gent" was appointed "Surveyor of the
Landings, Streets, and Cosways in York Town."[209]
LIST OF PLAT OWNERS
--PARTIAL NAME
* ILLEGIBLE
1. Thomas *; W--
2. Neillson; Buckner
3. John Ande--; Buckner
4. (?) Th[r]e[l]keld
5. (?) Q[u]arl[e]; Read; Buckner
6. John *; Buckner
7. Henry Alexander; P. Lightfoot
8. Thomas Greenwood; J. Walker; (?) Amos *
9. Robert L[e]ighton; Sam. Cooper
10. Mr. Joseph; Mr. J. Walker
11. Ralph *; Lightfoot
12. *; Wm. Cary
13. (?) Owen; David
14. Robert Moore; Wm. Cary
15. William Webb; Jno. Trotter
16. Mr. Thomas; Lightfoot
17. Mr. Dudley Diggs; Lightfoot
18. *; Wm. Cary
19. Thomas Collyer; Wm. Cary
20. Thomas Branson; Wm. Cary
21. Nicholas Harrison; Robt. Ballard
22. Thomas *
23. *
24. Jefferson
25. (?) Charles Hansford
26. William Tomkins
27. James Archer; John (?) Douglas
28. *
29. Saml. Tompson
30. John R--
31. Will[ia]m Pattisson
32. Thomas (?) Wootton; A. Archer
33. Mr. Edwd. Moss Jr.; *; Jno. Loving
34. Capt. *
35. Capt. Edmond Jennings
36. Coll. Wm. Diggs; Lightfoot
37. Thomas Mountford; Lightfoot
38. Richard Trotter; P. Lightfoot
39. John Wyth; Jno. Martin
40. Richard (?) Trotter
41. David *
42. John *; Diggs
43. Dannll. Taylor
44. Edward Dodds; (?) Jo. Cathafie
45. William Hewit
46. *
47. *
48. Coll. Wm. Cary; 1709
49. James (?) Plowman; 1712
50. Jno. Simson; Edwd. Powers
51. Wm. (?) Anderson; Wm. Rogers
52. *
53. Will[ia]m--son; Edwd. Smith
54. Edward (?) Gibbs; Ballard
55. James Walker; Wm. Rogers
56. *
57. *; Jno. --ton
58. Harrison
59. Harrison
60. Mrs. Young
61. Mrs. Young
62. Let to Morrison; Tho. H--
63. Robt. Morrison (?) Jr.
64. *
65. Edwd. Power
66. Ed Power
67 and 71. -- Gibbons
67. Deed; Geo. Allen
68. Edward * *
69. Jno. Wyth; Edwd. Webb
70. A. Archer; James (?) Paxton; N. Hooke
71 and 67. -- Gibbons
71. Geo. Allen
72. *
73. Edward Fuller
74. *
75. *
In the _Virginia Gazette_ for September 10, 1736, Rogers advertised
for rent or sale "The House which formerly belong'd to Col _Jenings_,
in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept ... in _Williamsburg_,"
and on December 22 put in a notice for an overseer.[210] The following
year, on June 20, Rogers was appointed to build the county prison
for £160.[211] In the _Gazette_ for May 4, 1739, he announced the
sale of "A small shallop ... in _York_ Town: she is about Five Years
old...."[212]
Then, on December 17, 1739, we find that Rogers had died and that
his will was presented in court. He had identified himself as "Wm.
Rogers ... Merchant." The will lists the distribution of his lands and
property (see Appendix II) to his wife Theodosia, to one daughter, Mrs.
Susanna Reynolds, and to his son William Rogers--the latter being under
age. In addition to town properties a "Trace of parcel of Land lying
& being and adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York
commonly called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point" went to William
Rogers, Jr.[213]
It is only when we arrive at this document that we find the clue we are
seeking: "my interest is that no potters ware not burnt and fit for
sale should be appraised." Who but a potter (or the owner of a pottery)
would have had in his possession unfired "potters ware" not "fit for
sale"?
Any remaining doubts that Rogers operated a pottery are dispelled by
the inventory (see Appendix III), which describes the estate of a
wealthy man, not a "poor" potter. He owned 29 Negroes, considerable
plate, a clock worth £6, a silver-hilted sword and spurs, and a silver
watch. There were many pictures, including "a Neat Picture of King
Charles the Second" and "52 pictures in the Hall." Some of the rooms
had "Window Curtains & Vallins," and one of the beds had "work'd
Curtains & Vallins" [presumably crewel-worked]. The furniture included
a marble table, "12 Chairs with Walnut frames & Cane bottoms," a
"japand corner cupboard," "Couch Squab and pillows," "pcl Backgammon
Tables," and a great deal more of lavish furnishings. But more
important for us is a grouping of items:[214]
1 pr large Scales & Weights £2.10 a pcl crakt redware £2
a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11 pocket bottles 3/8
1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old Sain & ropes £1.10
1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron £9.11. 8
26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt Do 7.10
11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large Cream potts 4/6
9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do 2/
2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz porringers 4/
6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird bottles 12/
3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone bottles 6/
4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz puding pans 2/
26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels Salt £4
With this, added to the provision in the will, we have adequate proof
that Rogers ran a pottery shop and that he made both stoneware and red
earthenware.
Further evidence is found in the _Virginia Gazette_ for February 4,
1740:
To be Sold by Way of Outcry, at the house of Mr. William Rogers,
deceas'd ... all the Household Goods, Cattle, and Horses; also a
very good drought of Steers, 3 Carts, a Parcel of Wheat, and Salt,
a large Parcel of old Iron, Parcel of Stone and Earthen Ware, a
good Worm Still, a very good Horse Mill to go with one Horse; also
a new Sloop, built last March with all new Rigging, and very well
fitted, with 2 very good Boats and several other Things.[215]
The horse mill was probably the potter's traditional clay-grinding
mill, while we may assume that the large amount of salt was intended
for stoneware glaze. Other items in the inventory show that Rogers was
in both the brewing and the distilling business and every evidence is
that he had achieved great affluence.
Governor Gooch's last report on the "poor potter" was filed in 1741
(none having been sent in 1740). In it he stated:
The poor potter is Dead, and the business of making potts & panns,
is of little advantage to his Family, and as little Damage to the
Trade of our Mother Country.[216]
There is little question now that this William Rogers was, indeed, the
"poor potter." We also learn from this report that the business was
being continued by his family after his death. This is confirmed by a
number of documentary clues, the first of which occurs in an indenture
of 1741 (proved in 1743 in the York County Deeds). It begins:
I George Rogers of Bra[i]ntree in the County of Essex [England]
coller Maker Send Greeting. Whereas William Rogers late of
Virginia Mercht was in his life time younger brother to me the
said George Rogers and at the time of his death left an Estate to
his only son named William Rogers which sd last mentioned William
Rogers dyed lately intestate so that in right of Law the said
Estate is devolved & come unto me....
This document served to appoint "Thomas Reynolds of London Mariner" as
his attorney and to assign to him all his rights in the estate.[217]
We hear no further of George, suggesting that his claim on the estate
was settled permanently, but of Thomas Reynolds we learn a good deal.
On June 6, 1737, as captain of the ship _Braxton_ of London, he arrived
at Yorktown from Boston "where she was lately built." He brought from
New England a cargo of 80,000 bricks, "Trayn Oyl," woodenware, and
hops.[218] It was he who had married Susanna Rogers.[219]
He sailed to Bristol on September 30, 1737, perhaps to sell or
deliver his new ship in England. In any case, he returned from
London the following April as master of the ship _Maynard_. He made
several crossings in her until he docked her at London on October
10, 1739.[220] While there he must have learned of the death of his
father-in-law; whether for this reason or some other, his name was
no longer listed among those of shipmasters arriving at and leaving
Yorktown. Since he then would have been in effect the head of the
family, he probably gave up the sea and settled in Yorktown to manage
William Rogers' enterprises, because William, Jr.,--intended to take
over the principal family properties upon his coming of age--died
within about a year of his father's death. Reynolds, both on his
own account as Susanna's husband and as attorney for George Rogers,
logically would have succeeded to proprietorship. In any case, by
1745 he was established so successfully at Yorktown that he was made
a justice of the peace. At some point he went into partnership with
a Captain Charles Seabrook in a mercantile venture that involved
ownership of the ocean sloop _Judith_ and two "country cutters" named
_York_ and _Eltham_.[221]
Reynolds lived next to the Swan Tavern in Yorktown and was
characterized by Courtenay Norton, wife of the merchant John Norton, as
having "shone in the World in Righteousness."[222] He died in 1758 or
1759.
That the pottery was being operated, presumably by Reynolds, at
least until 1745 is evident from an advertisement by Frances Webb of
Williamsburg in the _Virginia Gazette_ for June 20, 1745. This called
attention to "all Sorts of _Rogers'_ Earthenware as cheap as at York."
And, although we have no assurance that the earthenware was made at
the Rogers pottery, we learn from the _Gazette_ that two days prior to
this the sloop _Nancy_ had sailed from Yorktown for Maryland, bearing a
"Parcel of Earthenware."[223]
How long the pottery may have flourished is not known. There is no
further mention of it after 1745, and the shipping records do not
suggest that earthenware or stoneware products were then being shipped
out of York River.
The most significant fact about the "poor potter" is the revelation
that he made stoneware. Stoneware manufacture is a sophisticated art,
requiring special clays, high-temperature firing, and the ability to
use salt in glazing. When William Rogers acquired his first lots in
Yorktown in 1711, no stoneware, so far as we know, was being made in
North America. By 1725, when Rogers sold earthenware to John Mercer,
the Duché family apparently had just succeeded in making stoneware in
Philadelphia.[224] Since we have no documentary evidence of Rogers'
first production of stoneware, we do not know whether his stoneware
antedated that of the Duchés; we know only that after he died in 1739
numerous pieces of stoneware were listed in what were obviously the
effects of his pottery shop. There is strong archeological evidence,
however, that it was made about 1730 (see p. 110).
Although Rogers may not have been the first to make stoneware in
colonial North America, that he was at least one of the first must
have elevated him to a position of prominence among colonial potters.
Far from being a poor potter who conducted a business "with very
little advantage to himself, and without any damage to Trade," he was
supplying a colonial market that heretofore had been filled solely
from England and Germany. There is a hint that he may have shipped his
wares to North Carolina, because the _Virginia Gazette_ announced on
September 21, 1739: "Cler'd out of York River ... September 11. Sloop
Thomas and Tryal, of North Carolina, John Nelson, for North
Carolina ... some Stone Ware."[225] Three years before, Rogers had sued
in court to collect "a Bill Payable to him from one Richard Saunderson
of North Carolina."[226] The possibility that the stoneware in the
sloop _Thomas and Tryal_ had been made by Rogers is highly conjectural,
since European imports often were redistributed and transshipped
in American ports. But, since its cargo as a whole consisted of
non-European materials, this still remains a possibility.
The most notable inference that Rogers' stoneware may have infiltrated
distant colonial markets is found in the Petition of Isaac Parker
to the Massachusetts Court to establish a stoneware manufactory in
Charlestown, Massachusetts, filed in September 1742: "... there are
large quantities of said ware imported into this Province every year
from New York, Philadelphia, & Virginia, for which ... returns are
mostly made in Silver and Gold by the gentn who receive them here."[227]
Since there is no evidence that stoneware was being made at this time
in Virginia, other than at Yorktown, it is reasonable to suppose that
the "poor potter's" heirs shipped stoneware all the way to New England
and that they were paid in hard cash, as distinct from tobacco credits,
which would have been the case with local customers. However this
may be, the Rogers enterprise, even if its products were confined to
Virginia, appears to have been extensive, wealth-producing, and quite
the opposite of Governor Gooch's appraisal of it in his reports to the
Board of Trade.
As to the location of his kilns, we know that Rogers owned two lots,
where he apparently lived, at the northern boundary of the town. He
also owned a warehouse by the riverside and other lots on which he was
building dwellings when he died. He owned land at "Tarripin Point" and
two lots in Williamsburg. Governor Gooch repeatedly located the pottery
in Yorktown: "We have here at York Town upon York River one poor
Potter's Work ...," or, "the Potter continues his Business (at York
Town in this Colony)." This is rather good evidence that the kilns were
within the town limits rather than at some outside location, such as
"Tarripin Point." A waterfront location would have been desirable for
many reasons, but, since a potter's kiln would have been a fire hazard
not to only Rogers' but to other warehouses, it is questionable whether
nearby kilns would have been tolerated. English practice was usually
to locate potter's kilns at the far edges of towns or outside their
limits. Nevertheless, there were many exceptions, and kilns sometimes
were located near the water, especially when practical reasons of
convenience in loading ships outweighed the dangers. The North Devon
potteries were heavily committed to water transportation, and at least
two of the kilns at Bideford in North Devon in the 17th century, for
example, were located near the water in what were then densely settled
areas.[228] The North Walk Pottery in nearby Barnstaple was also on the
water's edge, close to a thickly populated area;[229] in 17th-century
America we find a parallel in the pottery of William Vincent, located
at the harbor's edge in Gloucester, Massachusetts, where it was easy
for him to ship his wares along the coast.[230] The 18th-century
potteries of Charlestown, Massachusetts, which also had wide markets,
were clustered along the harbor shore amid a welter of wharves and
warehouses.[231] It is conceivable, therefore, that the Yorktown
waterfront may have been similarly exposed to the dangers of a potter's
kiln, since Rogers transported his wares by water.
More logical from the standpoint of safety, however, would be the
pair of lots on the western edge of the town where Rogers apparently
dwelt after they were granted to him in 1711. Although it is not
conclusive, his inventory, which includes the lists of earthenwares and
stonewares mentioned above, appears to have been taken in a sequence
beginning with the house and followed by one outbuilding after another.
Presumably these were located close together. Things pertaining to the
kitchen and perhaps to the quarters follow the contents of the house
(in which the "work room" is mentioned), then the distilling apparatus
followed by the brewing equipment. Next come the pottery items, then
a miscellany of laundry, garden, and cooking gear, and finally stable
fixtures and a horse. It is not until the end of the inventory that
the boats and their rigging and equipment, doubtless located at the
waterside, are mentioned. These speculations are offered for what
they are worth in suggesting possibilities for future archeological
discovery of the kiln site.
The question of William Rogers' own role in the pottery enterprise
perhaps will never be solved conclusively, although, as Mr. Noël Hume
points out, there is no evidence that he himself was a potter. His
beginnings almost surely were humble ones, humble enough for a potter.
We know that his brother George was a maker of horse collars--a worthy
occupation, but not one to be equated with the role of an 18th-century
gentleman--in Braintree, Essex County, England. There were many potters
in Essex in the 17th and early 18th centuries, and one wonders if
William Rogers was trained by one of them. But the Essex Records do not
reveal a William Rogers whose dates or circumstances fit ours. We do
find that a George Rogers died at Braintree in 1750.[232]
Whatever may have been William's early training, it is apparent that he
knew the art of brewing and that he engaged in it at Yorktown. To be
sure, nearly every farmer and yeoman in the colonies knew how to brew.
Furthermore, commercial brewing was probably accepted as an honorable
industry by the Crown authorities, since the colonial demand for beers
and ales must have always been in excess of the exportable supply. It
is possible, we may speculate, that Rogers was trained as a potter but
practiced brewing and preferred to be known publicly as a brewer. In
any case, he was essentially a businessman whose establishment made ale
as well as pottery for public consumption, and it is clear that by 1725
he was conducting a potter's business on a considerable scale. To have
done so he must have employed potters and apprentices, yet in cursory
searches of the York County records, we have been unable to discover
any reference either to potteries or potters, reinforcing the suspicion
that every effort--including Gooch's apologetic references--was being
made to conduct the pottery in a clandestine manner.
Thus, the only thing we know with certainty is that William Rogers was
a very successful entrepreneur who carried on more than one kind of
business. We also can deduce from what is disclosed in the records that
he ascended high in the social scale in Virginia and that the rate of
this ascent was, not surprisingly, in proportion to the increase of his
wealth. Whether or not he was a trained potter, one thing is certain:
he was not a "poor potter."
As to the role of his son-in-law and successor, Thomas Reynolds, we
know with certainty that Reynolds was not a potter. For at least five
years and perhaps longer, however, he evidently ran the pottery,
which means that there were trained hands to produce stonewares and
earthenwares. Who they were or where they came from are not revealed
in the records. If, however, we can prove that the wares about to
be discussed were made by them, it becomes clear that they were a
remarkably competent lot, often able to equal if not to excel their
English peers.
The persistence of the pottery for at least 20 and perhaps more than
34 years was owing in part, no doubt, to Governor Gooch's apologetic
treatment of it in his reports to the Lords of the Board of Trade and
to his leniency toward colonial manufacturers in general. Basically,
however, it was a response to public need and to a growing independence
and a socio-economic situation distinct from the mother country's.
The Virginians had a will and direction which impelled them beyond
the restrictions imposed upon them to grow tobacco and do little
else. The "poor potter" is significant because he exemplified the
impulse to break these restrictions and to move the colony toward a
craft-oriented economy. Because his wares were skillfully made and
sometimes were scarcely distinguishable from those of his English
competitors, he was able to hold his position economically and at the
same time to become personally wealthy and influential. The scope
of his enterprise--more clearly demonstrated in the archeological
section of this presentation--should lead to a reappraisal of Governor
Gooch's attitudes toward the endeavors of the colonists. His reports
to the Board of Trade are shown to have been dissimulations instead of
statements of fact. They evidence a daring and suggest a wisdom and a
degree of pragmatism on the part of the Governor that might well have
been continued by the Crown and its authorities. This entire episode
illustrates a remarkably fluid phase of Virginia's history in which the
opportunity for an energetic man to rise from obscurity to wealth and
position foretold a pattern that became legendary in American society.
Governor Gooch undoubtedly sensed these internal pressures, as much
psychological as economic, to seek the rewards of industry and
enterprise. That the pottery later ceased to function and Virginia's
manufactures in general failed to develop may reflect the differences
in attitudes between Governor Gooch and his successors and the stubborn
impositions by the Crown that eventually led to the American Revolution.
There seems little doubt that the "poor potter," William Rogers, and
the maker of the pottery so liberally dispersed around Yorktown and
elsewhere in Virginia are one and the same. Further archeological
investigation and discovery of a kiln or kiln dump should provide the
evidence needed for proof.
APPENDIXES
I: Other Virginians by the Name of William Rogers
In order to feel absolutely certain that the William Rogers of Yorktown
was the "poor potter" so often mentioned by Governor Gooch, a check was
made through the records of all 17th-and 18th-century Virginians named
William Rogers to see if any others might possibly have been associated
with the Yorktown pottery.
The earliest William Rogers found was listed as one of a group of
60 persons transported and assigned to Richard Cooke in Henrico
County.[233] In 1639 a "Mr. William Rogers" was viewer of the tobacco
crop in Upper Norfolk.[234] In 1718 a William Rogers died in Richmond
County.[235] It is quite evident that none of these was the "poor
potter."
In 1704 a William Rogers owned 200 acres in Accomack County on the
Eastern Shore,[236] and in 1731 a will of William Rogers was recorded
there.[237]
In Surry County several men of this name are noted.
One of them was bound as an apprentice in 1681;[238] this William
Rogers was probably the same man who was listed in 1687 in the Surry
militia "for Foot."[239] In 1702 a William Rogers took up some newly
opened land "on the South side of Blackwater," which was measured by
the surveyor for Charles City County (only meaning, perhaps, that Surry
did not have its own surveyor).[240] In 1704 a William Roger (sic)
owned 450 acres in Surry.[241] Two years later William Rogers, Jr., had
220 acres surveyed on the "S. side of Blackwater" in Surry County.[242]
Meanwhile a William Rogers had recorded a will in Surry in 1701, and
another (presumably William Rogers, Jr.) did so in 1727.[243]
A William Rogers was listed in Lancaster in 1694 as the husband of
Elizabeth Skipworth,[244] and he appears to have been tithable in the
Christ Church parish in 1714.[245] Wills are recorded under the name in
Lancaster County in 1728 and 1768.[64]
None of these records dispute the strong evidence discovered at
Yorktown concerning the identity of the "poor potter."
II. Evidence of William Rogers' Properties
_Virginia Gazette_, SEPTEMBER 10, 1736
"To be Lett or Sold, very reasonably. The House which formerly belong'd
to Col _Jenings_, in which the _Bristol_ store was lately kept, being
the next House to _John Clayton's_, Esq.; in _Williamsburg_: It is a
large commodious House, with Two Lots, a Garden, Coach-House, Stable,
and other Outhouses and Conveniences. Enquire of Capt. _William
Rogers_, in _York_, or of _William Parks_, Printer in _Williamsburg_."
ROGERS' WILL (1739)
To his wife Theodosia: "... two Lotts--lyeing & being in the City
of Wmsburgh together with the Dwelling House and other houses
thereunto belonging" and also
"... a Lott lying behind Cheshire's Lott number 63 in York Town
that I bought of Mr. George Reade, with all the Improvements upon
it during his life and after his death." ["Behind _Cheshire_'s
Lott" apparently means Lot 59, next to it. See plat.]
"... one certain Tract or Parcel of Land, lying being and
adjoining to Mountford's Mill Dam in the County of York commonly
called & known by the Name of Tarripin Point."
"... the parcel of Land that I bought of Mr Edwd Smith except one
Chain and that to be laid off at the end next the Lott that I
bought of Francis Moss with all the Improvements on it and in case
I should dye before I build upon it, I shall leave all the plank
& framing stuff together with the window frames & all the other
things designed for the House to my Wife and not to be appraised
with my Estate and if my Carpenter is not free that he shall
not be appraised but serve his time out and with my said Wife."
[Francis Morse owned Lot 75, extreme southwest corner. Therefore,
this was probably Lot 74.]
* * * * *
"unto my son Wm Rogers
all my Lotts in Yorktown where I now dwell with all
the houses thereunto belonging."
"also the warehouse by the waterside and
all other my Lands and Tenements wherever lying
except the Lotts & Land before given to my Wife."
* * * * *
To his daughter Susanna Reynolds: "the Lott that I bought of Mr Francis
Morse known by the No 75 together with the Brickhouse and all other
Improvements upon it also one Chain of the Land that I bought of Mr
Edward Smith to be taken at the end next to the Lott to her & her heirs
for Ever in case I dye before the House is done I then leave also
bricks enough to finish the house, together wth the window frames &
doors and what other framing was design'd for her house...."
64 _Virginia Wills and Administrations_, loc. cit. (footnote 53).
III: Inventory of William Rogers' Estate[246]
Pursuant to an Order of York Court Dec. the 17th 1739 We the
Subscribers being first sworn before Wm. Nelson junr Gent have
appraised the Estate of Capt. Wm. Rogers decd. as followeth Vizt.
Waterford £25 Betty £25 Adam
£30 Blackwall £30 £110. 0. 0
Nanny £18 Lazarus Son of Nanny
£5 23. 0. 0
Amy Daughter of Nanny £16
Grace Daughter of Nanny 8£ 24. 0. 0
Barnaby £15 Samson £25 Quaqua
£25 Tony £30 95. 0. 0
Jo £30 York £25 Jack £25
George £22 Tom 30 132. 0. 0
Monmouth £30 London £30
Ben £30 Pritty £30 120. 0. 0
Phillis £25 Sarah £30 Harry £25
Lucy £12 92. 0. 0
Little Nanny £25 Phoeby £20
Phil son of Phoeby £5 50. 0. 0
Cato £20 James £18 Peg £16 54. 0. 0
Household Goods &c.
1 Clock £6 one Silver hilt Cutting
Sword and one pr. Silver
Spurrs 4£ 10. 0. 0
1 Tea Pott 5 Spoons 2 pt. Cans
and 2 Salts of Silver 11. 15. 0
To a parcel China ware £10 a
pcl Glasses & Table Stand £1.10 11. 10. 0
a pcl books £4 a pcl Sheets Table
Linnen and one wt. Quilt 22l 26. -- --
1 Silver Salver 1 pt. Can 2 Salts
11 Spoons and one Soop Do 14. -- --
1 Silver Watch £4 one horse Colt
£4 a Coach & 4 horses £40 48. -- --
a Neat Picture of King Charles the
Second 2. 10. 0
1 Marble Table £2 one corner
cupboard wth. a glass face 20/ 3. -- --
1 Looking Glass £1.10 1 pr. Glass
Sconces 15/ £2. 5. 0
1 Chimney Glass wth. a pr. brass
arms £2 a japaned corner Cupboard 2. 15. 0
12 Chairs wth. Walnut frames &
Cane bottoms 5. -- --
1 Dutch picture in a guilt frame 0. 10. 0
7 Cartoons 4 glass Pictures 4
Maps & 3 small Pictures 1. 5. 0
1 Large walnut Table £1.15 one
less Do 20/ 2. 15. 0
1 small Table & one Tea board 5/
one Iron back 12/ 0. 17. 0
1 pr. And Irons 20/ one Iron fender
1 pr. Tongs & Shovel fire 7/6 1. 7. 6
1 Iron plate frame 7/6 8 China
Pictures in large frames 8/ 0. 15. 6
1 Copper Cistern 13/ 12 Ivory
handle knives & forks £1.10 2. 3. 0
11 Eboney Do 12/6 12 Desart Do
wth. Ivory handles 12/ 1. 4. 6
4 Window Curtains & Vallins
£1.10 one small Cherry Table 6/ 1. 16. 0
2 Mares & one Colt £5 a pcl of
Carpenters Tools £2.10 7. 10. 0
27 head Cattle £17 Six high back
Chairs wth. rush bottoms £1.10 18. 10. 0
1 Bed Bolster Pillow Bedsted 1
pr. blankets & Quilt 3. -- --
2 small pine Tables 0. 4. 0
1 large Bed Bolster 1 Pillow 1 pr.
blankets Bedstead Curtain rod
Workt Curtains & Vallins 7.
1 Bed Bolster 2 pillows 1 pr. blankets
1 Old Quilt old blue
Hangings & Bedsted 4. -- --
1 Looking Glass 20/. 2 pr. window
Curtains 10/ one pr. Sconces 6/ 1. 16. 0
1 pr. large mony Scales & weights
12/6 1 pr. less do 5/ 0. 17. 6
1 pr. small do 2/6 5 rush bottom
Chairs wth black frames 7/6 0. 10. 0
A Chimney piece 10/ 52 Pictures
in the Hall 10/ 1.
1 Couch Squab and pillow 30/
1 japand Tea Table 5/ 1. 5. 0
1 Small pine Table 1/ 2 Walnut
Stools 3/ 0. 4. 0
1 Chimney Glass 4/ one pr.
Sconces 7/6 1 Dressing Table 2/ 1. 09. 6
1 Looking Glass wth Drawers 20/
one Iron back 6/ £1. 6. 0
1 pr. And Iron 7/6 1 pr. Tongs &
fire Shovel 4/ 0. 11. 6
1 brass fender 5/ 1 Case wth
Drawers 1.5 1. 10. 0
1 pr. Backgammon Tables 12/6
Tea Chest & Cannisters 6/ 0. 18. 6
1 Dresing Box 5/ 1 Trumpet 5/
1 large Elbow Chair 7/6 0. 17. 6
A Dutch Picture in a guilt frame 2. 0
1 Bed Bedstead Bolster 2 pillows
1 blanket 1 Quilt Curtains
Vallins & Curtain Rod 6. 0. 0
1 Bedstead wth Sacking bottom
1 small Bed & one pillow 1. 10. 0
1 Dram Case & 6 Bottles 12/6
2 pr. window Curtains 10/ 1. 2. 6
1 Copper preserving pan 10/ 1 pr.
large pistols 15/ 1. 5. 0
1 pr. Holsters 5/ 1 pr. holster Caps
& housing laced and flowerd
with Silver 20/ 1. 5. 0
14 bottles Stoughton's Elixir 14/
6l Chocolate 18/ 1. 12. 0
20 lb Cocanuts £2, 50 Ells
Ozn brigs £2.10 4. 10. 0
15-1/2 yds Dorsay 9 Strips twist
2 hh Silk 5 doz Coat and 2 doz.
brest buttons 2. 0. 0
3 Cloth brushes 3/ 28 Maple
handle knives 5/10 0. 8. 10
10 Yarn Caps 2/6 3 horn books 6d
3 Baskits 4/ 0. 7. 0
1 Iron back in the work room 5/
1 Do in the Little Chamber 6/ 0. 11. 0
1 Iron fender 1 pr Tongs & fire
Shovell 5/ 1 pr Andirons 2/ 0. 7. 0
5 brass Candle Sticks 2 Tinder
boxes & 1 Iron Candle Stick 14/ 0. 14. 0
1 Flasket and a parcel Turners
Tools 0. 18. 0
8 pr Negros Shoes £1.4. 72 yds
Cantaloon £1.4 2. 8. 0
11 yds Coarse Stuff 5/6 1 old Desk
20/ 1 Cedar Press 15/ 2. 0. 6
13 Cannisters 3/6 16 Tin patty
pans 12 Cake Do 2 Bisket Do
12 Chocolate Do 2 Coffee pots
and 1 Funnell 11/6 0. 15. 0
1 Box Iron & 2 heaters 5/ 1 Coffee
mill 4/ £0. 9. 0
1. 2 hour Glass 1/ 5 broad hows 13/
1 Spining Wheel 5/ 0. 19. 0
2 4l flat Irons 6/ 1 Trooping
Saddle blue housing Crooper
& Brest plate 20/ 1. 6. 0
An Ozenbrig Skreen 10/ 1 small
pine Chest 2/6 0. 12. 6
1 Walnut Table 12/6 5 Candle
Moulds 7/6 1. -- --
1 Bark Sifter 5/ 10 Pictures 4/
1 Cold Still 12/6 1. 1. 6
1 pr Stilliards 7/6 12 New Sickles
12/ 10 old Do 2/6 1. 2. 0
2 larger Sieves and 1 Hair Sifter
7/6 1 Case wth. 14 bottles 15/ 1. 2. 6
1 Bell Metal Skillet 12/ 1 pr brass
Scales & weights 10/ 1. 2. 0
1 Coffee Roaster 4/ 1 fire Shovell
1 pr Tongs & 1 Iron fender 3/ 0. 7. 0
6 woodin Chairs and 1 old Cane Do 0. 8. 0
1 pewter Ink Stand 2/6 1 Tea
Kettle 5/ 0. 7. 6
2 Trivets 2 pr Sheep Sheers and 1
pr Bellows 5/ 0. 5. 0
1 Warming pan 5/ 20 doz Quart
bottles 2£ 1 whip Saw 20/ 3. 5. 0
3 Empty Casks and 2 beer Tubbs
7/6 0. 7. 6
2 Powdering Tubbs and 1 large
Cask 0. 6. 0
A Meal Binn 3/ 3 Spills 9/ 1
worm Still £2/10 3. 2. 0
4 Wheel barrows 8/ 3 Spades 7/
a Copper Kettle £2.10 3. 5. 0
1 large Iron pott 12/6 1 Iron
Kettle 15/ 1 Flasket 1/6 1. 9. 0
1 Iron pott 1/6 1 Bed Bolster
Bedsted 1 Rugg & 10 Blanket
1/10 1. 11. 6
1 Bed Bolster Bedsted Blanket and
1 old Quilt 17. 6
1 old Table 1/6 6 oxen Ox
Cart Yokes & Chains 13. -- --
80 lb Ginger 10/ 24 lb. Alspice
£1.4 55 lb. Rice 5/ 1. 19. 0
50 lb. Snakeroot £1/5 34 lb. Hops
17/ 124 lb. feathers £5.3.4 7. 5. 4
a pcl old Sails & riging 3. -- --
1 pr large Scales & weights £2.10
a pcl crakt red ware £2 £4. 10. 0
a parcel crakt Stone Do £5 11
pocket bottles 3/8 5. 3. 8
1/2 barrel Gun powder £2.10 1 old
Sain & ropes £1.10 4. -- --
1 horse Mill £8 2300 lb. old Iron
£9.11.8 17. 11. 8
26 doz qt Mugs £5.4 60 doz pt
Do 7.10 12. 14. 0
11 doz Milk pans £2.4 9 large
Cream potts 4/6 2. 8. 6
9 Midle Sized Do 3/ 12 Small Do
2/ 0. 5. 0
2 doz red Saucepans 4/ 2 doz
porringers 4/ 0. 8. 0
6 Chamber potts 2/ 4 doz bird
bottles 12/ 0. 14. 0
3 doz Lamps 9/ 4 doz small stone
bottles 6/ 0. 15. 0
4 doz small dishes 8/ 6 doz
puding pans 2/ 0. 10. 0
26 Cedar pailes £2.12 40 Bushels
Salt £4 6. 12. 0
104 lb. pewter in Dishes & plates 5. 4. 0
1 Gallon 1. 2qt 1 qt 1 pt & 1
1/2 pt pewter pott 0. 16. 0
1 pewter Bed pan 5/ 12 Sheep £3 3. 5. 0
6 Washing Tubbs 12/ 1 Chocolate
pott & Mill 6/ 0. 18. 0
6 Tea Spoons & a Childs Spoon of
Silver 1. -- --
7 Bell Glasses 16/ 1 Kitchen jack
26/ 2. 2. 0
1 pr Andirons 15/ 1 large Copper
pott & Cover 30/ £2. 5. 0
1 less Do 17/6 1 Marble Mortar
12/6 1. 10. 0
1 Bell Metal Do and Iron Pestle 0. 10. 0
2 large knives 1 Choping Do 1
Basting Ladle 1 Brass Skimer
1 pr small Tongs and flesh fork 0. 5. 0
1 Copper Stew pan 1 Copper & 1
Iron frying pan 1 Tin fish
Kettle 0. 14. 0
1 Brass Skillet and 2 Tin Covers 0. 9. 0
1 Iron Crane and 1 large Pestle 0. 8. 0
1 Water pail 1/6 1 Iron pott 1 pr
hooks & 1 Iron Ladle 6/ 0. 7. 6
1 larger Iron pott & hooks 6/ 1
horse Cart & wheels £3 3. 6. 0
1 old whip Saw 10/ 1 Set old
Chain harness for 3 horses 20/ 1. 10. 0
1 Set Do for 3 Horses £4 8 Iron
Wedges 12/6 4. 12. 6
1 Bay horse £1.5 1 pr wooden
Scales 2/ 2 Baskets 2/6 1. 9. 6
1 old horse Cart £1.5 212 bushels
wheat a 1/6d £15.18. 17. 1. 0 [sic]
1 old Boat 10/ a New Sloop
Boat Sails Rigging 2 Anchors
2 Cables 1 old Hawser and 1
Grapnell 90. 0. 0
1 Glass Light 3/ 2 Wyer Sieves 7/6 0. 10. 6
------------
£1224. 5. 6 [sic]
John Ballard
John Trotter
Ishmael Moody