Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Chapter I
INTRODUCTION

Leather is a manufactured product. It is produced by the tanner from the skins or hides of animals, reptiles, fishes and birds, and leather made from human skins is not unknown. The process by which skins are converted to leather is broadly covered by the term "tanning, " although tanning proper is only one of the operations necessary to produce finished leather. The object of tanning is to preserve the pelt against putrification through chemical processes and, at the same time, to preserve the natural fibrous structure from which ultimate strength and pliability are derived. This was originally attained by the use of natural substances, but manufactured chemicals are now increasingly employed for this purpose.

The conversion of hides and skins into leather is an art of such antiquity that its origins can only be conjectural. It is known that properly tanned leather was in regular use by the ancient Egyptians, Romans and Greeks and others, but the evolution of leather making probably extended over thousands of years prior to even the earliest period of 2 which approximate dates are known. A leather cup believed to be of the neolithic period, has been found in London, and flint implements of an earlier period——the paleolithic——have been identified as hide scrapers.

By the eleventh century the tanner's art had been reduced to well-established techniques, but the chemical principles involved were not defined until the nineteenth century. Until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the methods of producing leather were substantially those of the preceding two thousand years.

Leather played an important part in many early machines and it was essential for everyday life. In 1812 Tench Coxe wrote: "The uses of leather are of the utmost importance to health, the facilitation of industry, the diffusion of knowledge, and the military operations of the United States by land and sea." Coxe's list of the uses of leather contained only "ready necessaries or plain conveniences." Of these he named "shoes, boots and slippers, saddles and Briddles, harness, carriages (many of which have leather bootes, tops, curtains, and aprons), drums, gloves, leaterhn breeches, rigging and other hides for ships and vessels, bound books, manufactured cards and carding machines, military equipments, and other leather goods."¹

In addition, Coxe noted that the tanner's essential place in society was strengthened by the fact that "the manufacture of hides and skins are of great importance to agriculture." For example, "bark, abundant everywhere, is redundant in new settlements, where the tanning facilitates the destruction of the forests, which obstruct agriculture."²

Coxe here neatly summed up a century and a half of leather-making experiences in America——a basic industry, meeting the needs of an essentially agrarian society; and it had been so ever since the arrival of the first settlers.

Chapter II
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEATHER INDUSTRY IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA

The craftsmen whom the Virginia Company planned to send to the New World included at first no tanners, curriers, or shoemakers. The Company probably intended to supply the settlers with shoes as well as every other form of clothing. The author of Nova Britannia mentioned no leather workers in his list of artificers whose services would be needed in the colony¹ . This may indicate that he was anxious to advance the interests of the colony, and was careful not to present it as a possible rival to any branch of English trade and manufactures. Possibly he wished to make Virginia appear in a favorable light to the English by showing that an increase in colonial population would provide a larger market for English manufactured goods which was one of the purposes of founding the colony. In a broadside issued by the Virginia Company in 1611, however, tanners and shoemakers were among those to whom inducements to emigrate were offered. The need for such craftsmen in Virginia may have resulted from the failure of the Company to provide the colony with supplies. In addition, by 1611 the increasing number of 6 cattle in the colony as well as vast numbers of deer provided the settlers with a plentiful supply of raw hides². The inducements offered by the Virginia Company apparently were effective, for it is known that tanners and shoemakers followed their trades in Virginia in 1616.³ In 1620 tanners, shoemakers, and leather dressers were among the tradesmen the Virginia Company again attempted to persuade to settle⁴ in the colony .

After the dissolution of the Virginia Company in 1624, the colonial government continued to encourage the leather industry in the colony. The colonists found supplies from England slow and uncertain and the scarcity of commodities forced the government to encourage certain local manufactures. In an account of Virginia presented to the Board of Trade in 1625 the author claimed that the health of the colonists was endangered because of the "most extreme want of hose, shoes & all other apparell…. " In 1632 Governor Harvey complained of the great want of shoes in Virginia.⁵ During the same year the legislature passed an act designed to provide tanners, shoemakers, and other leather craftsmen with materials by prohibiting the exportation of hides and skins from the colony.⁶ In accordance with royal instructions sent Governor William Berkeley in 1642, another act 7 was passed in 1645 which prohibited the exportation of hides and skins "that all manufactures should be sett on work and encouraged in this colony." ⁷ Again in 16 58, the exportation of iron and wool in addition to hides and skins was restricted because the Assembly claimed "the exportation of hides, wool, and iron is gennerallie conceived to be much prejudicial to the commonwealth and good of this colony."⁸ In 1659 this act was repealed by the legislature, and "liberty given to any one to make their best advantage of it."⁹ An abundance of cheap land and such a profitable crop as tobacco lured many craftsmen and tradesmen to agriculture with the result that manufactures languished.¹⁰

Among the other causes that induced craftsmen to abandon their trades was the scarcity of money and towns in the colony. Governor Harvey complained in 1636 that craftsmen could not be paid because of the lack of money.¹¹ Henry Hartwell, James Blair, and Edward Chilton reported to the Board of Trade in 1698:

For want of Towns, Markets, and Money, there is but little Encouragement for Tradesmen and Artificers, and therefore little Choice of them, and their Labour very dear in the Country. A Tradesman having no Opportunity of a Market where he can buy Meat, Milk, Corn, and all other things, must either make Corn, Keep Cows, and raise Stocks himself, or must ride about the Country to buy Meat and Corn where he can find it, then is puzzeled to find 8 Carriers, Drovers, Butchers, Salting, (for he can't buy one Joynt or two) and a great many other Things, which there would be no Occasion for, if there were Town and Markets. Then a great deal of the Tradesmen's Time being necessarily spent in going and coming to and from his Work, in dispers'd Country Plantations, and his Pay being generally in straggling Parcels of Tobacco, the Collection whereof costs about 10 per Cent. and the best of this Pay coming but once a Year, so that he cannot turn his hand frequently with a small Stock, as Tradesmen do in England and elsewhere, all this occasions the Dearth of all Tradesmen's Labour, and likewise the Discouragement, Scarcity, and Insufficiency of Tradesmen.¹²

The legislature repeatedly attempted to establish towns where it believed craftsmen and tradesmen would settle. Anthony Langston remarked in 1663: "Towns & Corporations stored with Trades and Manufactures is the onely defect we have to make us the most florishing and profitable Plantation his Majesty hath."¹³ As early as 1636 Richard Kemp, Secretary of Virginia, suggested that all ships should unload and load at certain places where he thought towns would soon arise and where craftsmen would settle.¹⁴

After previous failures, another attempt was made to promote industry in Virginia in 1662. This time the Assembly enacted three laws to encourage manufacturing. The first act relieved any "artificer or handycrafts man" from the payment of levies for three years if he would follow his trade and not plant tobacco.¹⁵ The second law required each 9 county to erect "one or more tanhouses, and … provide tanners, curryers and shoemakers, to tanne, curry and make the hides of the country into leather and shoes."¹⁶ The third act prohibited the exportation of hides, wool, and iron under heavy penalty.¹⁷

The last act was strengthened by another act passed during the next session of the Assembly in December 1662:

Whereas the act restrayning exportation of hides lays the penalty only upon the buyers, and therefore produced not the effect that was intended thereby which was the supply of the country with leather, Be it therefore enacted that whosoever shall sell or otherwise dispose of any hides contrary to the intent of the former act shal be fined for every hide soe by him sold or otherwise disposed of to be exported one thousand pounds of tobacco; and it is granted by this act that sale may be made of hides to any person liveing in the country, the clause in a former act comanding them to be sold in the county to the contrary notwithstanding. ¹⁸

The following year, Edmund Scarborough, planter, industrialist, and member of the House of Burgesses from Accomack county, proposed that deer skins and calf skins should be added to the list of hides not to be exported.¹⁹ This was accordingly done, because the Assembly considered them "useful and beneficial to the Country as hides, for promoteing the manufacture of shoes." At the same time the 10 Assembly placed a still heavier penalty on anyone who exported "shooes, hides, or leather."²⁰

The efforts of the legislature, however, were not altogether successful. In 1671 the act prohibiting the exportation of hides, wool, and iron was repealed:

Whereas it was hoped that weavers, tanners and smiths would have been encouraged with greater diligence and cheerfulness to have improved their severall callings for the good of the country when they were sencible what tender care was taken for supplying them with materialls for to work upon, in reference to which the exportation of wool, hides, and iron was by an act of assembly … under greate penalties prohibited, and that act strengthened by diverse others since, but noe successe answering the conceived hopes and apparent losses accrueing to all inhabitants by the refusall of those concerned to buy the comodityes aforesaid, Be it therefore enacted by the grand assembly and the authority thereof that all acts tending to the restricting of selling or exporting of any of the comodityes aforesaid stand repealed and every one permitted to make the best he can of his owne comodity .²¹

In 1680 the Virginia government made another 11 attempt to prohibit the exportation of hides and deer skins and a more sweeping act was passed two years later which included, besides hides and skins, woolfells and iron.²² This law provided heavy penalties for anyone engaged in the exportation of "any iron, wool, wool fells, skins and hides, or any manner of leather, tanned or untanned of any deer, oxen, bull, cow or calf." The justices of the peace in the various counties were given the responsibility of enforcing the law and "every collector in this country shall at the entry of every ship or vessel acquaint the master of such vessell or ship with this act, and enter a perticular clause in the condition of their entry bond for the performance of the same."

The Commissioners of the Customs in England had other ideas. They reported to the Lords of Trade that the Staple Act of 1663 was designed to make England the source of supply for the colonies and the Virginia act of 1682 not only violated the intention of the Staple Act but injured the customs and trade of England as well. The Lords of Trade confirmed the report and instructed Lord Howard of Effingham, Governor of Virginia, to have the Virginia act repealed, which was accordingly done.²³ As such laws had proven practically useless, this action was of little 12 importance, but it marked a distinct step in English policy. Attempts to divert the colony from tobacco culture were hereafter abandoned by the Mother Country. The most influential factor in inducing the change in the government's attitude was the large revenue derived from the customs on tobacco, which was greatly increased by an additional duty imposed in 1685.

Now the problems of the Virginia legislature were reversed——instead of encouraging industry they now had to discourage it. After 1682 there were no more attempts by the Virginia government to restrain the exportation of hides and skins. Now the colony placed a duty on all hides and skins, tanned and untanned, carried out of Virginia by land or sea . The money arising from the duty was applied "towards the better maintenance and encouragement of a learned and pious ministry and advancement of learning and towards lessening the levy on the people." It was later designated for the support of the College of William and Mary.²⁴

The Virginia Assembly passed a law in 1691 entitled "An Act declareing the dutie of Tanners, Curryers, and Shoemakers,"²⁵ which was apparently intended to regulate the leather industry by placing tanners, curriers, and shoemakers 13 under careful restrictions in following their callings and in no way was it intended to represent governmental encouragement of the industry. The legislature probably hoped that if better leather were produced in Virginia, the inhabitants would be less dependent on England for leather articles. During periods of low tobacco prices, Virginians were often unable to buy English commodities and without some local supplies of leather products, they would find themselves short of many necessary articles, such as shoes, saddles, and harness. During these times, and they were frequent, the colonists turned to locally manufactured products.²⁶

The primary purpose of the act, however, may have been to eliminate those tanners, curriers, and shoemakers whose work was of poor quality, and thereby to reduce the quantity of leather articles produced. The act indicates that leather and leather products were being manufactured in Virginia of an inferior quality. Poor workmanship usually results from lack of skill and knowledge, or from lack of time to do the work thoroughly, or perhaps from both deficiencies. It is not surprising that much care less work resulted from inadequate and often unskilled labor, especially when there was an abundant supply of materials. It is significant that in restrictions imposed upon tanners, 14 curriers, and shoemakers by the act, the element of time plays an important part. For instance, no leather was to be over-limed nor was leather to be put into the tan vats until the lime had been thoroughly soaked out of it. The currier was not permitted to "curry any hyde or skin being not thoroughly dry" and he was to use "good stuff, nor with less of that, than the leather will receive." He was also warned not to use salt in preparing leather. The shoemaker was cautioned to use only thread that was sound, twisted, and waxed and rosined, and the stitches were to be drawn with the utmost care.

The law, to take effect March 29, 1692, required each county to appoint searchers to examine all leather produced in the county and approve for sale only that "leather well tann'd and curry'd." They were also to approve for sale only those "boots, shoes, and bridles and other things made of tann'd or curry'd leather" fabricated of good material. The act empowered the searchers to confiscate all leather and leather articles of poor quality.

On June 24, 169 2, York County Court appointed Richard Appling and Robert Harris, a shoemaker, as searchers and sealers of leather. The court provided them with seals 15 or stamps engraved with the letters "YC".²⁷ In Surry County, on March 1, 1691/2, John Moring, "a person of good integrity, skill, and knowledge in the well tanning & currying of Leather, " was appointed searcher for that county. He was to be furnished with a seal "with SC at one end and the broad arrow at the other."²⁸ In February 1691/2 Henrico County Court appointed Arthur Mosely searcher and ordered John Dawson to make a seal in the form of a hammer with a double face "one of w[hic]h to be engraved HC & [the broad arrow] on the other."²⁹ On May 31, 1693, William Kemp and Thomas Chancellor were appointed leather searchers for Westmoreland County "of which all persons concerned are to take notice and permit them quietly to execute the office."³⁰

Even though some leather workers were prosecuted under the act, the law seems to have been generally unenforceable. From 1698 to 1713 England was in an almost constant state of war and the resulting restriction of shipping to the colonies forced Virginians to turn to the manufacture of many necessary articles. Colonial governors often complained that uncertain supplies from England forced the colonists to manufacture their own clothing. In 1708, for example, it was reported that the failure of the planters to receive supplies from England forced many of them to manufacture 16 woolens, cotton, flax, and leather. The report claimed that the manufactures were brought to such perfection "that four whole Counties, and part of several others, not only clothed themselves, but sold great Quantities of the same Manufactures toother neighbouring Counties." The report concluded with a warning: "Establishing of Woollen, and other Manufactures in America, will not only lessen the Planting Tobacco, but consequently very much diminsh the Revenue and Navigation of this Kingdom."³¹ In 1734, George Webb wrote that the act of 1691 had proven to be "impractiable here, as not well adapted to our practice, and therefore the Execution is neglected."³² The law was repealed in 1748.³³

The act of 1691 seems not to have improved the quality of leather and leather products in the colony if we are to believe some contemporary observers. In July 1697 Governor Edmund Andros remarked: "There are no manufactures setled in Virginia Except Inconsiderable tanning and shoemaking (bad Leather) and some lynning [linen] and Woolen made when not supplyed from england and then all laid by for Tobacco…"³⁴ In 1705 Robert Beverley wrote: "…most of their Hides lie and rot, or are made use of, only for covering dry Goods in a leaky House. Indeed some 17 few Hides with much adoe are tann'd, and made into Servants Shoes; but at so careless a rate, that the Planters don't care to buy them, if they can get others; and sometimes a better manager than ordinary, will vouchsafe to make a pair of Breeches of a Deer-Skin."³⁵

Not all commentaries were so critical of Virginia-made leather. A Major Wilson testified before the Board of Trade in England on September 1, 1697: "…very good leather made and shipped to New England; labourering men's shoes made there [i.e. in Virginia] worth half a crown, and will last much better than ordinary sale shoes they receive from England."³⁶ About the year 1700 it was estimated that the importation of shoes had decreased by about two thirds because of the increased local manufacture of shoes.³⁷

It is possible that the contradictory reports may be explained by the fact that Andros and Beverley were trying to minimize the importance of leather manufacture in Virginia in an attempt to present the colony and themselves in a more favorable light to the English government. The Board of Trade instructed colonial governors to discourage the growth of certain manufactures in the interest of English commerce.³⁸

Hugh Jones wrote that hides might be tanned very 18 cheaply in Virginia "because of the plenty of bark" and he believed "that good use might be made of their sheep and calf-skins, which are now of no value nor use worth speaking of. " He continued, however:

But I see that these propositions may raise the loud clamours of thousands of people concerned in England, in the trades belonging to all the commodities here spoken of: In answer to whose various objections it may be replied that all these things would be wrought by their own countrymen, poor neighbours, or friends; that it will ease them of their poor, vagabonds, and villains: That all these goods transported to England, so that in reality Virginia would be only as a yard or work-house where these servants and journeymen would labour for the English: besides several of these things are such as we are wholly or in part supplied with from other nations; and certainly we had better have goods of the produce of our own people and countries, than buy them of strangers, who make them for us; and if too great quantities of any kind should be made, more than our own consumption requires, surely it will be very advantageous for us, if we can supply other nations with such goods, the best of their kind, and at the cheapest rate.³⁹

When a depression in the tobacco trade in the late 1720's produced a flurry of industrial activity in Virginia, the Council in 1731 tried to quiet the fears of the English authorities by assuring them that the shift to manufactures had happened before and they predicted that as soon as tobacco prices rose all these "new-fangled manufactures" would vanish.⁴⁰

Nevertheless, the leather industry persisted. In 19 1742 Governor William Gooch reported to the Board of Trade that "some of our people, with Hides of their own tanning, tho' the Leather is very indifferent, make shoes for sale, as well as for their own familys."⁴¹Governor Francis Fauquier commented in 1766 that shoes were made for domestic use "but few manufactures of any kind carried on and those that are, are for the Consumption of the Inhabitants, who do and will import all matter of Elegance and Conveniency; for the nature of the people is such that they are too indolent to engage in Manufactures or work of any kind."⁴² Two years later James Blair, president of the Virginia Council, wrote: "We make shoes but chiefly for negroes."⁴³

If Fauquier was not trying to minimize the importance of the leather industry in Virginia, he was certainly out of touch with his colony. It is significant that in 1765 the Virginia Assembly passed an act exempting exporters of dressed hides and skins from the payment of duties. The act stated: " … that the manufactures of leather hath of late years very greatly increased in this colony, and become a considerable article of commerce, and would be much more extensively prosecuted but for the excessive duties imposed on the exportation of skins and furs …." The law relieved tanners from payment of duties or impositions on leather 20 exported provided it was made from imported hides and skins.⁴⁴

The Sugar Act of 1764, however, placed hides and skins on the list of enumerated commodities——those which could be shipped only to English or colonial ports.⁴⁵ This act, in effect, eliminated colonial leather from the export market and acted as a sort of control on the American leather industry. Colonial leather could hardly find a market in Great Britain where the best leather in the world was reputedly produced. If American leather were re-exported from Great Britain, the price would be so inflated with impositions and increased freight rates as to drive it from the market altogether. In any case, the Virginia act of 1765 proved to be useless and it was repealed by royal order in 1767.⁴⁶

Some Virginia-manufactured leather was exported to New England and the West Indies. However, the demands of local craftsmen apparently exceeded the supply of locally-produced leather and a ready market existed for English leather. Francis Jerdone, a merchant in Louisa County, ordered leather from London in 1743. He requested that it be "speedily" sent by the "first Ship that Sails from London to York river" because his shoemakers were idle.⁴⁷ From 1758 to 1767 almost one hundred thousand pounds of tanned leather and over half a million pounds of "wrought leather," which 21 included "all manner of manufactures of Leather," were imported into Virginia and Maryland from Great Britain.⁴⁸ The desire for the best leather may have been one reason for the importation of such large quantities of that article. For example, Robert Gilbert, a boot-and shoemaker of Williamsburg, advertised that he imported "the whole of his materials from Great Britain."⁴⁹ Fisher, Bragg, and Fleming, saddlemakers of Norfolk, Virginia, and Whitehaven, England, boasted that "the greatest part of the Leather they use is imported from their own Tanyard in Whitehaven, which is well known to be neater and more durable in general than the leather of this Country."⁵⁰

English made shoes were always in demand in Virginia. Planters were probably more accustomed to English made commodities and imported articles have always had a special glamor. Captain Robert Ranson, a York County merchant, received a shipment of shoes from England in 1696:

Beginning around the middle of the eighteenth century, shoes made by John Didsbury of London became especially popular with Virginians, who sometimes ordered shoes from him made to measure. For example, in 1760 John Walker sent full instructions to Didsbury for a pair of boots:

• 1.From the Knee Buckle to the Bottom of the Heel 16 Inches
• 2.Round the Middle of the Calf 15 Inches
• 3.From the Middle of the Calf to ye bottom of ye Heel 13 3/4 Inches
• 4.Round the Heel & Instep 12 3/4 Inches
• 5.Round the Ball of the Foot 9 7/8 Inches
• 6.Length of the Foot 9 3/4 Inches

Nearly every merchant sold Didsbury's boots and shoes. Catherine Rathell, a Williamsburg milliner, advertised in 1768:

… Didsbury's best shoes and pumps for Gentlemen, red, 23 blue, and yellow slippers for do. Didsbury's best and neatest black and white sattin and callimanco pumps Ladies ….

John Blaney & Company of Petersburg advertised shoes made at their factory to be of "the newest Fashion, and equal in Goodness and Workmanship to any imported from London, many of the Hands having worked with Didsbury and other capital Tradesmen in that Branch."⁵⁵ Shoes made by other English shoemakers such as Davis and Gresham were also popular in Virginia.

Virginians were alarmed when the British government proposed to lay a stamp duty on paper, leather, and other commodities in 1764. The Virginia Committee of Correspondence wrote in July 1764: " … the immediate effects of an additional heavy burthen imposed upon a People already laden with Debts, contracted chiefly in Defence of the Common Cause & necessarily to continue by express Stipulation for a number of years to come, will be severely felt by us and our children…."⁵⁶

Chapter III
THE LEATHER INDUSTRY IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA

Leather manufacture is peculiarly suited for a plantation industry——its raw material is a by-product of the cattle industry, and bark is plentiful in most rural areas. In addition, during much of the tanning process, hides lay unattended in the pits which allowed the farmer to employ his labor force in other plantation duties. It is not surprising then to find that the leather industry developed as one of the earliest industries in Virginia. Wild animals as well as domesticated ones have always furnished a source of leather. Deer skins are used in the manufacture of leather clothing and beaver and bear skins are important in the manufacture of hats.

The cattle industry developed early in Virginia. In 1639, Governor John Harvey wrote that there were "about twelve hundred head of neate cattell besides goates" in the colony.¹ Ten years later it was estimated that the number had increased to about 20,000 including "kine, Oxen, Bulls, and Calves." Beef, pork, and bacon were not only sold as ships' provisions but were also exported from Virginia to the West Indies.² The hides of 30 slaughtered cattle were made into leather for the manufacture of shoes which were in short supply in Virginia during most of the seventeenth century. Governor Harvey complained in 1632 that shoes were greatly needed in the colony and English shoes "sell at … most excessive rates."³

Chapter IV
LEATHER WORKERS IN WILLIAMSBURG

Leather workers appeared in Williamsburg soon after its establishment as the colonial capital and there may have been some tanners and shoemakers in Middle Plantation before 1699. The earliest known leather craftsman to settle in Williamsburg seems to have been Henry Gill who arrived in the city from Charles City County in 1707. In that year he purchased lots 49 and 50 on Duke of Gloucester Street.¹ He was referred to as both tanner and shoemaker and he later operated an ordinary at his house.² In 1717 Gill purchased lots 263, 264, and 265 on the north side of Nicholson Street from Edward Ripping.³ His estate included "1 set of tanners tools," "300 hides and skins…in the Second liqr of Bark," and "1 mill to grind bark and furniture thereto belonging."⁴ At his death in 1721, Gill left his two lots on Duke of Gloucester Street to his son John, and the "three lots where Mr. Hollan keeps store" and his "Tann yard and the Lotts thereto" to his wife Margaret.⁵ There is no indication where the "Tann yard and Lotts" were; there are deeds in York County Court Records for only five lots——two of which Gill occupied and three where Holland operated 62 his store. The tanyard may have been in the James City part of Williamsburg; but Gill's inventory does not mention its location.

Thomas Allen, shoemaker, was in Williamsburg by 1710. In that year the death of his daughter was recorded in the Bruton Parish Church records.⁶ Six years later Allen purchased lot 40 in Williamsburg from John Anderson of York County.⁷ Nothing further is known of Allen.

Daniel Groome, tanner and collar maker, appeared in Williamsburg about 1713 when he purchased lot 169 from the trustees of the city. He evidently failed to build on the lot as the deed required, because the lot reverted to the trustees who resold it in 1716.⁸ Nothing further is known of Groome's activities in Williamsburg; he had moved to Henrico County by 1720.⁹

John Coulthard, a saddler, appeared in Williamsburg sometime before 1734.¹⁰ Little is known of his business activities. In 1751 Coulthard announced that he had moved his shop "from next Door to the Printing-Office to the Back Street, next Door to the house of Mr. Walter King, in Williamsburg, where all Persons may depend on being faithfully and speedily serv'd…"¹¹ He evidently retired from business before 1756. In that year his estate was inventoried 63 and no leather workers' tools were included.¹² From 1734 to 1742 Coulthard supplied Thomas Jones with harness and saddles in return for skins and shoes:

Collo Thomas Jones

1734
Decr 5	To a strong Snafel Bitt	0..1..0
	To makeing up a Bridle	0..1..0
1735
June	To aq Strong Kerb Bridle with a Common Bitt	0.10..6
July 5	To a Sturop & Leather	0..1..0
Oct 29	To a half Check Bridle	0..4..0
Nov. 5	To Repairing a Sadle a Buckle to a Girt	0..1..8
	To 4 Strops put to a Sadle	0..0..8
1736
May 17	To a pair Womans Rains mending a Brist plate	0..3..9
	To 3 Single Girts	0..2..6
June 24	To 5 Single Girts	0..4..2
July 9	To makeing 2 heads stall for Coach Bridles one cupling Rain	0..9..6
Aug 7	To a large hunton Sadle £1.17..6, a Snafel Bridle 3/6	2..1..0
	To a pair Sturops & leather mending a Sadle	0..4..7
12	To a pair Coach Rains	0..6..3
Dec 20	to a half Cheeck Bitt	0..1..6
1738
Oct 25	To a Kerb Bridle	0..6..0
1739	To a Cart Sadle pad a Girt & Strap	0..5..0
June 1740	To a Dutch Kerb Bridle	0..6..3
May 2, 1741	To makeing up a pad	0..2..6
1741
July 3	To a Snafel Bridle	0..3..6
Jan. 30	To a new Seat put in you Sadle	0.10..6
	To a new pad 4 Strops 4 tuff nails	0..4...8
1742
June 10	To a new pad a Single Gert	0..4..3
12	To a Martindale A Single Gert	0..2..6
	To a mail pilion & Strop	0..4..6
64
1742
Nov 15	To a pad to a Cart Sadle	0..3..0
	Errors Excepted pr John Coulthard	7..5..9
	To a Portmantua omited	1..6..0
	To a further Acct for Chair Harness &c	5.19..2
		14.10.11
	Out of mistake a Port-mantua not enterd	11.14..2
		£26..5..1
Contra	Cr
1735
July 5	By a Strong Bridle Returned	0..9..0
1736
Aug	By a Hunton Sadle Returned	1.14..0
	By 26 Bushels of haire	1..6..0
1742
March	By 7 Skins	0..7..0
	By 3 Skins	0..3..0
	By Ball: of Acct 1735	3..6..7 ½
1745
April	By 22 Skins	1..2..0
	By his Bond to Bowlers Estate dated April 1743
	to be paid in July following	9..0..0
Sept 21	By Acct of Sh0es	0.12..6
1746
Nov 12	By his whole Acct to this day	26..5..1
	Ball due Mr. John Coulthard	8..4..11 ½
Jan 6, 1745	Received of Thomas Jones Eight Pounds four Shills and 11d ½ for the above Ball.

p. John Coulthard¹³

Another saddler, and probably one of the most successful craftsmen in Williamsburg during the colonial period, was Alexander Craig. It is not known when he established his business but an account of Craig with James Crosby 's estate is mentioned in 1748.¹⁴ In February 1749 Craig purchased lot 25 on the road leading from Williamsburg to Yorktown 65 where he probably built and operated his saddle shop.¹⁵ In 1751 he advertised leather for sale:

To be SOLD, at Mr. Alex. Craig's in Williamsburg, Best Sole and Neats Leather, wax'd Calve Skins and Hides, suitable for Coaches, Chaises, Couches, Portmantuas and Chair Bottoms in any Quantity .¹⁶

In January 1755 Craig purchased a section of lot 55 on the Duke of Gloucester Street.¹⁷ Craig evidently rented the shop that was on this site to James Currie, a wigmaker.¹⁸ A note dated 1763 in his account book indicates that he was building a new shop. ¹⁹ Since Craig owned several parcels of land in and around Williamsburg, it is impossible to locate his new shop; he may have been remodeling the shop on lot 55.

Sometime around the middle of the eighteenth century, Craig established a tannery on Capitol Landing Road near Williamsburg in partnership with Christopher Ford, carpenter, and Nicholas Sim, tanner.²⁰ The tannery was evidently built between 1752 when Ford purchased the property and 1758 when Craig bought out his partners. In 1760 the tannery consisted of "Tan Vatts … New and Old Bark Houses, Mill House and Fleshing House … and other houses and buildings … used in the Business of Tanning and making Leather."²¹

When Craig became sole owner of the tanyard in 1758, Sim left Williamsburg to settle in Petersburg.²² It is probable that Craig then hired William Pearson, a tanner, to operate the tannery. In 1760 Pearson was renting a house adjoining the tanyard from Craig.²³

Craig apparently built up a large and successful business. He had several indentured servants and slaves and he employed at least three leather workers. He hired James Hern, a harness maker, at piece work, Silas Smith at 7 shillings 6 pence a week, and John Shepherd, harness maker, at ten shillings a week. He also hired Thomas Wade whose profession is undisclosed.²⁴ Even with his staff of leather workers, Craig could not handle all of his orders and he was forced to farm out some of his work to local craftsmen. For example, Craig paid James Taylor, a shoemaker, £ 6..3..6 for "Acct for Harness Work." He also paid James Swain, leather breeches maker, for making a shot bag.²⁵

Craig's account books, two of which are extant, reveal a great variety of leather work carried on in his shop. He not only sold ready-made shoes imported from England, but also manufactured shoes in his shop:

Craig either discontinued the manufacture of shoes or kept his shoemaker's accounts in a separate book, because his account book which covered the years 1761 to 1763 contains no accounts for shoemaking. However, it does contain sales of shoes, but in most cases the shoes were either imported or made by a local shoemaker:

Mr. Lewis Hallam May 14, 1761
To a pr of Shoes of Jno Wilson [shoemaker]
Col: Richd Randolph April 18, 1761
To a pr of Didsberrys shoes for yr Brother John	0.16..0
Mr Jos Scrivener Jany 15, 1761
To Shoes made by Didsberry	0.16..0
Col . Richd Bland Dec. 14, 1761
To a pr of English pumps for yr son at College	0.14..0
Mr Walthoe Jan. 18, 1762
To a pr of shoes made by J. Cooke [shoemaker]	1..8..0

²⁷

The account book includes sales of other shoes without specifying the maker. Even though they may have been made in Craig's shop, it seems more probable that they were made by someone else since there is no evidence in three years of accounts to indicate that Craig made or repaired shoes after 1761.

Craig performed a variety of leather work in his shop. For example, he made cushions for couches, chairs, and even billiard tables. He also made sword belts, holsters, 69 gun buckets, leather pipes for a fire engine, razor cases, pistol belts , cartridge boxes, scabbards, and in one case a "strong Coller for a Bear." On several occasions he made and lined trusses for Dr. Patrick Adams of Surry County. But saddles and harness were Craig's specialties. In 1761, for example, he did extensive repairs to Mrs. Elizabeth Dawson's coach:

1761	Mrs. Eliza Dawson
	To a Calf skin for binding the Top of a Coach	0..5..0
	To Dressing a hide of English Lear for Do	0..7..6
	To 1 piece of Cord for the lining	0..3..0
	To 250 Large fuller nails & doning the top of a Coach	1..6..0
	To new lining a Coach, new cushions, new bottom steps & Hammock Cloth & finding thread & some nails	5..0..0
		7..1..6

²⁸

1749	Mr. Wm Taliaferro	Do
Feby 8	To fringe & buckles & Strapps for a pantha Skin Housing	0.13..0
June 17	To a Sett of Harness for a Pole Chair & wt Pole Mans & Tail cases	10..0..0
Novr 20	To an apron for a Chair & mending a Saddle	1.10..0

1750	Mr Robt Todd mercht
July 18	To a Harness for a Shaft Chair	£ 7..0..0

1753	Mr Humphrey Hill	Dr
Aprile 28	To a pr of Harness wt 2 Saddles	8..0..0

Dr	Jno Blair Esqr
70
1753/4 Jany 5	a harness & Saddle for a tumbler [cart]	1..1..6

	Mr. Jno Randolph
1751
Novr 12	To a pr of Pole End Harness	6..0..0

	Mr. Chas Carter son of Chas
1755
May 16	a pr of Postillion harness & Saddle & a pr of Pole End DO	15..0..0

	Mr. Thos Atchinson	Dr
1750
Novr 6	To a Harness for a Single Horse	5..0..0

Mr. Jno Tucker
1753 Aprile 7	To a harness for an Itallian Chair	5..0..0

1762	Col: Byrd
Oct 12	To Harness for 6 Coach Horses	25..0..0

1762	Col: Ben: Harrison
Sept 18	To Harness for four Charriot Horses	16..0..0

²⁹

Craig also made and repaired all kinds of saddles and bridles, saddle cloths and pads, and did other saddle work. His long account of work done for Robert Hutchins, a tailor in Blandford, gives an idea of the nature of work carried on in the shop: 71

	Mr. Robt Hutchins	Dr
1751	Brought from Leger A f. 116	3.14..0
June 21	To 2 large buckles for ye Shaft of a Chair	0..1..3
	2 Cruppers	0..4..6
	a breaching & backhand & strapp	0..7..6
	A Cart Saddle & girth & Strapp	0..7..6
	a Brass Dee for a Chair Saddle	0..0..7
	a Chair Whip	0..3..0
	a Coupling Rein	0..1..8
July 2	To a Lash & Keeper	0..1..0
	To a Shaft for a Chair Whip & hand Rein for a Bridle	0..2..3
15	To Stuffing a Saddle	0..1..3
19	To a Chair & 2 Harness & Saddles & Braces a pr of flapps for a Saddle	24.10..0
	a thong & lash & mending apr of Baggs	0..1.10 ½
	another thong & keeper	0..1..6
29	To a new padd & 2 strapps	0..4..6
Augt 18	apr of Stirrup lea[the]rs	0..2..0
Novr 19	a Lash & eye	0..1..0
26	a mail pillion & strapp	0..3..6
	2 Snipebills & a pr of Mail strapps	0..2..6
	Stuffing & mending a Saddle	0..2..0
Deccr 10	a pr of Bootstrapps	0..1..6
16	mending a Stirrup lea[the]r	0..0..4
23	a Snaffle Bridle	0..4..0
	2 pr Shoes for self	0.15..0
	Cash pr for Cartege for you	0..5..0
1752
Feby 13	a Brass Dee for harness & mending a Bridle	0..1..7 ½
March 3	a Curb for a Bridle	0..1..0
	a back band & 2 brass Dees & mending harness	0..3..0
5	a Lash	0..0..7 ½
16	a pr of Lea[the]r garters	0..1..0
April	a Lash & eye 1/ & stuffing & mending a Saddle	0..2..6
May 15	4 girth strapps	0..1..3
June 11	a thorn & keeper & mending a Saddle	0..3..0
July 3	mending a Bridle & Portmanteau in many places	0..2..3
Augt 5	To a Saddle &c	2..3..0
	a fringed Housing	1..2..0
		36..6..2 ½
72
Augt 5	To over Charge of 3 yds Cloath 6/	0.18..0
Sept 18	a pr Stirrup Leathers	0..2..0
	a Strapp & mending a pillion a pr of Coat strapps & a lash & keeper	0..2..9
Octr 3	lengthening Reins & mending Harness	0..3..6
Decr 15	To Stuffing a Saddle	0..1..3
1753
Feby 6	To a Side Saddle wth Cover & furn[iture] Studded	6.10..0
	a Portmanteau girth	0..2..0
	a Buckle & mending a Portmanteau	0..1..3
April 25	Stuffing a Saddle	0..1..3
May 9	Mending a pr of Baggs	0..1..3
Augt 6	a padd to a Saddle	0..4..0
25	a Curb & Stuffing a Saddle	0..2..3
	To Jno Donalson for Silk & altering a Coat you made	0..3..0
		45..0..2 ½
1756
June 10	To 4 tuffnails w[i]th Double plates & 1 pr Coat Strapps	0..4..0
Augt 24	To a pr of Leather baggs	0.13..0
1757
June 6	To a Whip	0..7..0
Augt 2	To a lash to a Whip	0..0..7 ½
1759
Feby 27	To a headstall 4/6 Bitt 3/6 Long Reins to a Chair Bridle 8/	0.14..0
		46.18.10

³⁰

Craig's account books indicate that a separate book, which no longer exists, was kept for his tannery accounts. On May 20, 1758, Craig transferred balances from the "tanyard book" to his general ledger. The two existing books reveal the kind of leather Craig made and that he purchased raw hides and skins from local butchers. It also shows that he imported leather and purchased leather from other tanners in the colony. In at least one instance he 73 supplied a tanner with raw hides in return for tanned and curried hides. In 1756 and 1757 Craig purchased one hundred and fifty-six pounds of harness leather from Andrew Cox of Suffolk.³¹ Craig supplied leather to craftsmen, such as cabinetmakers, coachmakers, and shoemakers, all over the colony. For example, in 1761 he sold leather to a Williamsburg shoemaker:

1761	Mr. Rolleson
Apr 20	To a Calfskin	0..7..6
June 1	To ½ lb of Shoethread	0..1..3
June 6	To Spurr Lea[the]r	0..1..0
Octr 12	To a Calfskin	---

³²

1761	John Wilson
May 7	To 33 Calf Skins	11.17..9
	To 2 English calfskins	1.16..0
	To 4 lb of Shoethread	0.10..0
July 17	To 12 Calf Skins	4.17..6
Sept 24-25	To 12 Calf Skins	4.11..6

³³

Craig sold Ralph Hankey an assortment of leather, including bassils, "Trotter's leather," Virginia leather, stirrup leather, bridle leather, skirt leather, calf skins, sheep skins, and a shammy skin. He supplied John Carom, a professor at the College of William and Mary with leather "for an air pump." In 1762, Craig sent a Mr. Terry in Amelia County "Leather for 15 Chair bottoms ." He also furnished 74 leather to William Houston, a saddler in Fredericksburg, Isaac Smith, a shoemaker in Charles City County; and a Nicholas Smith, shoemaker in Fredericksburg, as well as John Harwood, chairmaker in Warwick; Miles Taylor, saddler in Richmond, and Charles and Richard Taliaferro, chairmakers in Williamsburg.³⁴

In 1760 Craig sold William Pearson, the tanner who rented a house from him adjoining the tannery, the land on which the tanyard was located, but reserved for himself, "the Tann Vatts and Vatts seated upon the said Premises together with the New and Old Bark Houses, Mill House and Fleshing House and all other Houses and Buildings now used in or hereafter to be used in the Business of Tanning and making Leather with a free & open Passage to and from the same."³⁵ The deed indicates that Craig must have had some sort of agreement with Pearson concerning the tannery. Indeed, they may have been partners in the business. For example, Craig and Pearson sued John Dennis in 1763 for an account which appeared on Craig 's account book in 1761.³⁶

Pearson later came into complete possession of the tanworks. The circumstances concerning the transfer to Pearson are unknown. There is no mention of the tanyard in Craig 's will dated December 1772 nor are there any tanner's 75 tools listed in the inventory of his estate ³⁷ Pearson may have gained complete control of the tannery by 1767. In that year he purchased bark from Carter Burwell and also advertised that he would pay "great wages" for a good currier.³⁸ During the early years of the Revolution he tanned hides for the state and furnished shoes and leather to the army.³⁹

When Pearson died in 1777, his widow advertised the tanyard for rent:

To be let for a term of six years, on the 24th instant, the TAN WORKS in this City, late the property of Mr. William Pearson, deceased, with the Dwelling House and all convenient out houses both for a Family and the Business, and several Acres of Ground, under a good enclosure, also four Negro men Tanners and Curriers, two shoemakers, a Carpenter, and two Negro Women, one a good Cook, the other a Spinner. Any one whom it will suit to rent may enter on the Tanyard immediately. As there is a small number of Hides that I will dispose of, and as Possession cannot be given of the Negroes until the Business now in Hand is finished, they will be able, under a proper manager, to be assisting in their Work, on paying a Proportionate Part of the Expence.

It is earnestly requested of those indebted to the Estate to make immediate Payment and those to whom anything is due will please to bring in their Accounts, properly proved and shall be paid.⁴⁰

The tannery was rented later that year by William Plume, a tanner and currier who had worked for James Parker, a partner in the tanworks in Norfolk.⁴¹ In May 1777 Plume 76 announced in the Virginia Gazette that he had taken over the tanyard near Williamsburg and that he paid the "highest price" for hides and skins. He claimed to be "well acquainted with the Business, and particularly the Currying Part, which is so necessary."⁴² In 1779 Plume was paid by the state of Virginia for 116 hides of sole, upper, and harness leather.⁴³

In 1780 Plume advertised that he was in need of oak bark and would pay for it with cash or leather. He also advertised "a large quantity of tanned and curried leather of all sorts, among which is excellent boot legs, with best bend leather soles" for sale.⁴⁴

After the Revolution, Plume filed a claim against the British government for supplies he furnished the British army during the war:

188 Sides of Harness Leather	@ 21/	197..8..0
12 Sides of Bridle Leather	20/	12..0..0
54 Calves Skins	15/	40..10..0
192 Pair of Boot Legs	18/	173..0..0
16 Sides Vamp Leather	20/	16..0..0
2 Sides Sole Leather	21/	2..2..0
26 Calves Skins	16/	20..16..0
		£ 461..16..0

⁴⁵

At the expiration of his lease on Pearson's tanyard, Plume returned to Norfolk.⁴⁷ On March 1, 1783, Mathew Pearson 77 son of William, offered the "TAN-YARD, near this City" for sale and in May he advertised "FOR SALE THREE NEGRO MEN, one an exceeding good currier,… the other two have been used to attend in a tanyard; and work in a shoemaker's shop."⁴⁸ However, Mathew had no buyers, for in 1797 the guardian of his orphans announced that the "TAN-YARD In Williamsburg," would be leased for the term of ten years.⁴⁹ In 1824, Theodore Gatewood Pearson of Washington County, Virginia, sold the tanyard to Robert P. Waller of Williamsburg.⁵⁰

Gabriel Maupin, a saddler and harness maker who probably learned the trade with Alexander Craig, established his business in Williamsburg by 1762. In that year he charged John Prentis with repairs to a harness.⁵¹ Maupin opened a tavern in 1767 but continued his saddle and harness shop.⁵² In 1771 he purchased the "House in the Market Square lately occupied by Thomas Craig… for the purpose of KEEPING TAVERN." He also moved his shop to this building "… where the SADDLERY and HARNESS MAKING Business will be carried on in all its Branches. Those who please to employ me may be assured of being furnished with neat and substantial Work, at short Notice, and on reasonable Terms "⁵³ Maupin died about 1800.⁵⁴

John Shephard, who also had worked with Craig, 78 entered business for himself by 1770 when he did harness work for Governor Botetourt.⁵⁵ His first advertisement appeared in the Virginia Gazette in April 1775:

JOHN SHEPPARD, Coach, Chaise, and Harness Maker, from London, Informs the Public that he has now on Hand a neat Phaeton, double and single Riding Chairs, &c. which he will dispose of on reasonable Terms, for Cash, European or West India Goods. He returns his most grateful Thanks to all those who have hitherto favoured him with their Custom, and takes this Method to inform them, as well as the Public in general , that he is determined to spare neither Pains nor Expense in prosecuting the different Branches of his Business to the Satisfaction of all who please to employ him. He will repair Carriages as above mentioned , either in the Wheels, Bodies, or Carriages, and will attend to the greatest punctuality.⁵⁶

Williamsburg seems to have been well supplied with shoemakers during the eighteenth century. However, as the population increased the demand for shoemakers so increased that they evidently had more work than they could conveniently handle. Robert Gilbert, for example, advertised for journeymen shoemakers:

JOURNEYMEN SHOEMAKERS, Who are well acquainted with womens or mens wood healed work, will meet with good encouragement by applying to the subscriber in Williamsburg.
Robert Gilbert .⁵⁸

The fact that the shoemakers were advertising for journeymen may indicate that they were too busy to train apprentices and few shoemakers' apprentices are mentioned in the Virginia Gazette and York County Court Records. Shoemakers found another source of labor among indentured servants. William Willcock and James Taylor, shoemakers, advertised jointly for two runaway indentured shoemakers.⁶¹ George Wells, who later owned a shoemaker's shop in Williamsburg, came to Virginia in 1738 as an indentured servant. He advertised lodgings for rent in 1751 and at his death in 1753 his estate included a well-equipped shoemakers shop.⁶²

Most craftsmen, including shoemakers, had considerable difficulty in collecting their debts. For example, Thomas Skinner announced in 1768 that he would put all accounts not paid immediately into the hands of an attorney.⁶³ Robert Gilbert's financial condition was so bad in 1773 that he was forced to discontinue his business:

I THINK it necessary to give this publick Notice , 80 to all Persons who are in Arrears to me, that if they do not, without fail, discharge their Accounts by the July Meeting of the Merchants, they will most assuredly be put into a Lawyer's Hands.

N.B. In the mean while, for the many Disappointments I have met with in Collecting my Debts, I am obliged to stop Trade, till I can receive the Money due me to carry it on.
Robert Gilbert.⁶⁴

The exact locations of Williamsburg's shoemakers' shops are unknown. Henry Gill may have operated his shop on lot 49, but with this exception there are no other deeds which locate the sites of other shoemakers' shops in the city. Some shoemakers' advertisements give a general idea of the location of the shops. For example, George Wilson's shop was "next door to John Greenhaw's Store " —— but it is not known on which side. Thomas Skinner advertised his shop "at the back of the Raleigh Tavern," and Robert Gilbert's was "near the Capitol."⁶⁵

Shoemakers' advertisements along with the few extant accounts give an idea of the work performed by these craftsmen. Charles Holdsworth presented an account to the estate of James Morris for work performed during two years:

	The Estate of James Morris	Dr 1712
Novr 25th	To 2 blind halters	0..5..0
	To paid John Davis	0.10..0
	To 1 pr woms. Shoes	0..4..0
	To 2 pair Child Shoes	0..5..0
	To paid his man Lewis	0..1..6
81
	To 1 pr mens Shoes	0..5..0
	To 1 pair Do	0..5..0
Aug 1713	To 2 pair plane Shoes	0..8..0
	To 1 pair Child Shoes	0..2..0
	To 1 pair Spansells	0..2..0
	To paid Robt Crawley 150 lb Tobo at 10 p Cent	0.15..0
Sept 14, 1714	To a pair of boxes wt 18 lb at 6d p lb	0..9..0
	To 2 pair woms Shoes	0..8..0
	To a Chest	0..6..0
		4..5..6

⁶⁶

Richard King Dr 1727
June ye 10 To 1 pr of shoes mending	0..0..7 ½
July ye 15 To 1 pr of mens shoes	0..8..0
Septber ye 8 To 1 pr of mens of shoes	0..8..0
Decber ye 2 To 1 pr womens shoes	0..4..6

⁶⁷

Robert Gilbert advertised a wide variety of shoes available at his shop:

ROBERT GILBERT, BOOT and SHOEMAKER, &c. HEREBY acquaints the publick that he has opened shop near the Capitol in Williamsburg, where he intends carrying on his business in all its branches, viz. shoe or channel, calf or buckskin boots, jockey do. and spatterdashes, mens plain, stitched, spring, and wood-heeled, shoes and pumps, calf or dogskin; campaign, single, double or turned channels, slippers, blue or red turkey, cork soles, galloches, and clogs. As he imports the whole of his materials from Great Britain, where punctual payments are required, he proposes supplying Ladies and Gentlemen with any of the above articles on the most reasonable terms, for ready money. Those who please to favour him with their custom may depend on their work being speedily executed, in the genteelest and newest fashions, and in such a manner as he 82 hopes will merit a continuance of their favours.⁶⁸

JUST IMPORTED, by the Subscriber, a choice Cargo of best sorts of English LEATHER for all Manner of Mens Shoes and Pumps, and excellent LONDON DRAWLEGS for BOOTS, with which he will be glad to accommodate Gentlemen, He returns his most grateful Acknowledgments to those who formerly favoured him with their Custom, and hopes his past workmanship will merit a Renewal of it, and he will make it his constant Study to give Satisfaction to all who shall please to favour him with their Commands.
George Wilson, & Co.⁷⁰

Wilson, like other shoemakers, not only made shoes but also repaired them. In 1773 he charged Henry Moss for repairing shoes:

1773	Mr. Henrey Moss to George Willson
Octr 3	To futting pr Boots for Peter	0.12..6
	To Mending pr Shoes	0..1..0
		0.13..6

⁷²

APPENDIX I

This Indenture made this twenty first day of January in the year of our Lord God One thousand seven hundred and fifty four Between Young Morland of York County and Yorkhampton Parish of the one part and William Dunford of the Parish and County aforesaid of the other part Witnesseth that the said William Dunford doth by the Consent of his Mother Anne Dunford put and bind himself an Apprentice unto the said Young Morland until he shall come to the Age of twenty one Years to learn the Art Trade and Mystery of a Shoemaker and Tanner during all which time the said Apprentice shall well and truly serve his said Master in all lawful commands. He shall not waste his Masters Goods nor suffer it to be by others. He shall not Contract Matrimony or Play at Cards Dice or any other unlawful Gaming whatever but in all things behave himself as a faithful trusty Servant during the said term. And the said Young Morland doth oblige himself to do his utmost endeavour to learn his said Apprentice the Art and Trade above-mentioned likewise to find him good and wholesome Diet Cloaths Washing Lodging and all other things meet & convenient for an Apprentice during the said 91 time And further doth agree to give hi s said Apprentice at the expiration of the said Term or time a Compleat Sett of Shoemakers Tool s besides what the Law allows in such cases. In Confirmation whereof the Parties to these Presents have hereunto set their hands and Seals the day and date above written.

Young Morland (LS )
William Dunford (LS)

At a Court held for York County the 21st day of January 1754. This Indenture with the Approbation of the Court was acknowledged by the Parties thereto and Ordered to be recorded.

Teste
Thos Everard Cl: Curt:¹

APPENDIX II

Williamsburg Leather Workers

The list below includes the known leather workers who engaged in business in Williamsburg during the eighteenth century. The dates following the men's names indicate the years the men are known to have worked in the city.

Allen, Thomas. Shoemaker (1710-1716). The first record of Thomas Allen is in 1710 when the death of his daughter was recorded in the Bruton Parish Register. In 1716 Allen purchased a lot in Williamsburg . No other information concerning Allen has been located.

Coulthard, John. Saddler (1734-1756). John Coulthard's name is first mentioned in Williamsburg in 1734 when he did saddlers' work for Thomas Jones. In 1751 he announced in the Virginia Gazette that he had moved his shop "from next Door to the Printing-Office to the back Street, next Door to the house of Mr. Walter King." Coulthard died in 1756.

Craig, Alexander. Saddler (1748-1776).Craig, who owned a saddle shop and tannery, is first mentioned in Williamsburg in 1748. His business was quite extensive. Craig made and sold shoes, saddles, harness and other leather goods; and he employed several journeymen leather workers. 93 Craig died in 1776 and left a large estate.

Gilbert, Robert. Shoemaker (1768-1783). Robert Gilbert announced in 1768 that he "opened Shop near the Capitol in Williamsburg" where he advertised leather and shoes for sale. Gilbert continued business in Williamsburg until 1783 when he moved to Richmond.

Gill, Henry. Tanner and Shoemaker (1707-1720). Henry Gill, tanner and shoemaker, arrived in Williamsburg from Charles City County in 1707. He established his shop on Duke of Gloucester Street where he soon opened an ordinary. Gill died in 1720.

Groome, Daniel. Tanner and Collar maker (1713-1719). Daniel Groome purchased a lot in Williamsburg in 1713. At that time he was described as being from James City County. By 1719 Groome had left Williamsburg and settled in Henrico County .

Hern, James. Harness maker (1762-1764). James Hern worked as a journeyman harness maker with Alexander Craig from 1762 to about 1764.

Maupin, Gabriel. Saddler and Harness maker (1752-c. 1800). Gabriel Maupin, son of Gabriel Maupin, was born in Williamsburg and probably learned his trade with Alexander Craig. He carried on the saddle and harness making business, 94 but was primarily a tavern keeper. He died about 1800.

Morris, Edward. Leather breeches maker and Glover (1739). Little is known of Edward Morris. He announced the opening of his business "near the College in Williamsburg" in June 1739. In his advertisement he stated he was from London. In addition to making breeches and gloves, he dressed leather "after the Philadelphia manner."

Pearson, William. Tanner (1760-1777). William Pearson appeared in Williamsburg in 1760. He worked with Alexander Craig and may have been in partnership with Craig. Pearson later became owner of Craig 's tannery in Williamsburg, and he operated it until his death in 1777 .

Plume, William. Tanner (1777-1783). William Plume came to Williamsburg from Norfolk in 1777 and leased Pearson's tannery. He operated the tanyard until 1783 when he returned to Norfolk.

Quirk, William. Leather dresser (1745). William Quirk was either an indentured servant or journeyman who worked with Robert Simpson, leather breeches maker of Williamsburg. In 1745 Simpson advertised that Quirk had "absconded from his Habitation" in Williamsburg .

Roberts, Edward. Saddler and Harness maker (1775-1777). Edward Roberts evidently established his business in 95 Williamsburg before 1775. In that year he advertised that he "continues to carry on the business of Saddling, Cap and Harness making, at the late Mr. Elkanah Deane's shop." He left Williamsburg in 1777 to settle in Maryland .

Rolleson, John. Shoemaker (1750-1784). Very little is known of John Rolleson. He is mentioned as being in Williamsburg in 1750, and he purchased leather from Alexander Craig during the 1760's. Rolleson's estate was settled in York County Court in 1784.

Sclater, John. Shoemaker (1774). John Sclater is mentioned as being of both Williamsburg and York County in 1774. In that year Matthew Evans was apprenticed to him, and Sclater offered "good Encouragement" for "a Sober Journeyman Shoemaker who understands Mens and Womens work ."

Shepherd, John. Harness maker (1761-1787) John Shepherd worked as a journeyman harnessmaker with Alexander Craig from 1761 to 1762. About 1772 he apparently established his own business and advertised himself as "Coach, Chaise, and Harness Maker from London." Shepherd died in Williamsburg sometime in 1787.

Sim, Nicholas. Tanner (1758). Nicholas Sim was a partner with Alexander Craig in a tannery in Williamsburg. When Craig bought out his partners in 1758, Sim left Williamsburg 96 to settle in Petersburg .

Simpson, Robert. Leather breeches maker (1745). Robert Simpson of Williamsburg advertised for a runaway indentured servant or journeyman in 1745.

Skinner, Thomas. Shoemaker (1754-1777). Thomas Skinner came to Williamsburg from Henrico County sometime before 1765. He engaged in the shoemaking business until 1777 when he dropped from sight.

Swain, James. Leather breeches maker (1763). Little is known of James Swain. He is mentioned in Alexander Craig's account book in 1763. In that year Swain made a shot bag for Craig. This may have been the same James Swain who is mentioned in Henrico County in 1777.

Taylor, James. Shoemaker (1742-1775). James Taylor is first mentioned in 1742. He may have been in business with William Wilcox, shoemaker. In 1751 Wilcox and Taylor advertised for two runaway indentured shoemakers. Taylor engaged in business in Williamsburg until 1775 when he dropped from sight.

Wells, George. Shoemaker (1738-1753). George Wells came to Virginia in 1738 at the age of 21, as an indentured servant. He was engaged to work for seven years. In 1751 he advertised lodgings for rent in Williamsburg where he 97 worked at the trade of a shoemaker. He died in 1753 and left a fairly large estate.

Wilcox, William. Shoemaker (1748-1757). William Wilcox is first mentioned in 1748. He may have been in business with James Taylor by 1751. Wilcox died in 1757 and left a large estate.

Wilson, George. Shoemaker (1773-1774). George Wilson was probably a brother of John Wilson, shoemaker of Norfolk. After John Wilson's death in 1771, George carried on his shoemaking business in Norfolk until 1773 when he moved to Williamsburg. George Wilson operated the shoemaking business on a large scale in Williamsburg until his death in 1774.

APPENDIX III

APPENDIX IV

Inventories
of
Some Eighteenth-Century Leather Workers

• 1.William Broadribb - Saddler
• 2.Alexander Craig - Saddler
• 3.Henry Gill - Tanner and Shoemaker
• 4.William Pearson - Tanner and Shoemaker
• 5.Thomas Thompson - Tanner
• 6.George Wells - Shoemaker
• 7.William Wilcox - Shoemaker
• 8.John Wilson - Shoemaker

APPENDIX V

Directions for and Currying

Soak your Hides in running water for two or three days, then take them up and flesh them with an old drawing-knife, and break them well upon a leg with a four square stick. This done, put them into weak lime-water, about half a peck to a hide; take them up every night, hang them on a pole over the vat, and put them down again in the morning three or four days successively. You must now add as much more lime, and manage the hides as before. Stir the vat up every morning, and put those hides that were uppermost one day at the bottom the next. Three weeks will suffice for the first preparation, if the weather be warm. In frosty weather you need not touch your hides for many days; and indeed, your sole leather would be better if it were kept in lime all the winter, now and then refreshing the vat with a little lime, as the rains weaken it. At the end of three weeks, or as soon as they are sufficiently raised, you must hair your hides on the leg with the four square stick; flesh them over again with the drawing-knife, and wash the lime well out. During this operation they must be kept from the 138 sun. When you have thoroughly cleansed them from lime & flesh, put them into weak ouse^*, stir them well for an hour, then take them out and lay them in water for a night, after which return them into the ouse, where they may lie eight days; which expired, they must be put into the tan-vat, and covered with beaten oak bark one after the other; take care they do not touch one another; the grain side must be laid uppermost except the top skin; then pour on water sufficient to cover them. Let them lie thus three weekes, then take them up, save the ouse, and lay them away in the second bark^#, reversing the hides, and laying those that were at bottom in first bark at top now; pour the ouse you reserved over them, and make up the dificiency with cold water, or better with ouse made for the purpose Remember to supply the vat with ouse, or water, when the bark appears dry on the top.

APPENDIX VI

Virginia Tanneries in 1810

The following list, taken from A Statement of the Arts and Manufactures of the United States of America for the 1810 (Philadelphia, 1814) , shows the number of tanneries in each county, the number of hides tanned, and the number of shoes manufactured in Virginia for the year 1810.

BIBLIOGRAPHY