A few years later the landlord of this tavern was John Clapp, the maker and publisher of the first almanac by a resident of New York City, which he says was “the product of my many spare Minnits.” It was not the first printed in New York, for Bradford had, for several years, printed Leed’s Almanac. Clapp claims to have been the first person in New York to set up a hackney coach, and announces in his almanac that “about two miles without the City of New York, at the place called the Bowery, any Gentlemen Travellers that are strangers to the City, may have very good Entertainment, for themselves and Horses, where there is also a Hackney Coach and good Saddle Horses to be hired.” He was a promoter of social festivities, which well became him as a genial landlord. In the Almanac, under June, is found the following:

“The 24th of this month is celebrated the Feast of St. John Baptist, in commemoration of which (and to keep up a happy union and lasting friendship by the sweet harmony of good society), a feast is held by the Johns of this city, at John Clapp’s in the Bowery, where any Gentleman whose Christian name is John may find a hearty wellcome to joyn in consort with his namesakes.” He notes that John Clapp’s in the Bowery, two miles from the postoffice, is generally the baiting place where gentlemen take leave of their Friends going on a long journey, “where a parting glass or two of generous Wine,

Seven miles from Clapp’s was the half way house, nine miles further was King’s Bridge, and from King’s Bridge to Old Shute’s, at East Chester, was six miles.

Excepting that of the governor, it is doubtful if there was a single equipage for pleasure in the City of New York at this time, and the ease with which a sled or sleigh could be constructed, which would smoothly and silently glide over the snow, made sleigh-riding a great sport during the period when it could be enjoyed. That John Clapp’s house, at the two mile station, was a great place of resort at such times, is no mere supposition. We have the testimony of Madam Sarah Knight, who was in New York in 1704, that this was so. She had come from Boston to New York on horseback, and the quaint and humorous way in which she has told the story of her travels has made her little book a gem for the antiquarian. She says of the New Yorkers: “Their diversion in the winter is riding sleys about three miles out of town, where they have houses of entertainment at a place called the Bowery.” On an excursion with Mr. Burroughs, she says that she believes that she met that day as many as fifty or sixty “sleys,” which, she says, “fly with great swiftness, and some are so furious that they’ll turn out of the path for none but a Loden cart,” which surely indicates the enthusiasm with which the sport was enjoyed, and John Clapp, at such times, was, no doubt, a very busy man.

John Clapp seems to have received an education which made him a prominent man among the settlers. In the time of Governor Leisler he was a resident of Flushing, when, “at a town meeting upon Long Island where divers of the freeholders of the Towns of Hamsted, Jamaica, Flushing and Newtown wer mett and assembled, to consult on the lamentable state and condition that Theire Maj’ties liege subjects lay under; by the severe oppressions and Tyranical usurpations of Jacob Leisler and his accomplices, it was desired by the freeholders aforesaid that Capt. John Clapp should write an humble letter to Their Maj’ties Secr’ty of Stat in all there behalves and signify to there Maj’ties in what a sad condition we are all in.—Nov. 7th, 1690.” This is followed by a long letter.

He was clerk of the New York Assembly, in session in New York during the year 1692. He was also a tavern keeper at that time, and must have been a man to win the esteem and good will of those who became his guests. Lucas Santen, who was at one time collector of the port of New York, and a member of Governor Dongan’s Council, when he died, in 1692, left “to my landlord, Captain John Clapp, £40 to buy him a mourning ring, in consideration of the trouble I have given him.” The next year Clapp succeeded Cornelissen as landlord of the tavern in the Bowery village. Here all the travel to the north and east passed his door and we can hardly believe that any traveler would, without stopping, pass the door of such a genial and jovial landlord as we are convinced was John Clapp, and we have reason to believe that his house was a favorite resort for the people in the city. He was undoubtedly residing here in 1703, and at some time between this date and 1710 removed to Rye, in Westchester county, for in the latter year John Clapp made returns of the names of men from 16 to 60 in the County of Westchester, and he was interested there in large grants of land.

Towards the close of the seventeenth century there were two features in the local history of New York City which attract attention. For many years before the close of the century it was regarded by the maritime countries of Europe as a protecting port for pirates, and the political disturbances which resulted in the execution of Jacob Leisler and Jacob Minhorne continued to divide the community into two contending factions composed of many bitter partisans.

Respected merchants from New York sent out ships to the coast of Africa for slaves, loaded with liquors, arms, ammunition and other articles, just such as would be desired by pirates, which they exchanged at tremendous advance in prices for the plunder of these robbers of the seas, and returned to New York with slaves and the valuable goods they had thus obtained. One successful voyage was often sufficient to make the owners of the vessel wealthy, and they claimed that they were doing nothing wrong; that they had a perfect right to buy goods of any kind wherever they could purchase them to the best advantage. With some this trade in the plunder of pirates was, no doubt, incidental, but it was profitable, although they ran the risk of being the victims of pirates themselves.

Pirates came into port and were received not only in a friendly manner, but were even honored by unusual attentions from the governor, who was apparently interested in their ventures.

William Mason went out of the harbor of New York in 1689 with a commission as a privateer. He turned pirate, made war on East India commerce, and reaped a rich harvest of gold and East India goods, with which he filled his ship. When the ship returned under the command of Edward Coats, she put in on the east end of Long Island, where Coats and his crew found a friendly reception, and learning that they might be favorably received in New York, came into this port. Coats and his crew, by making valuable presents to the Governor and his family, and also to members of the Council, were unmolested. The ship was presented to the Governor, who sold it for £800. Coats said that his exemption from prosecution cost him £1,800.

Captain Thomas Tew, who was known as a pirate, and had been the subject of complaint from the East India Company, came to New York in November, 1694, and was received by Governor Fletcher on terms of intimate companionship; was invited to his table, and rode by his side in his coach and six. He gave elegant presents to the Governor and his family, and left with a commission as privateer against the French, agreeing to discharge his cargo in this port. He went directly to his former field of activity and made his name still more notorious by his depredations upon the East India commerce.

About this time, John Hoare came to New York and received the usual commission from Governor Fletcher to act against the French. He openly avowed that his destination was for the African coast and recruited for that purpose. From the sequel we can not avoid the conclusion that there was some kind of an understanding with some of the merchants of New York, for after he had been absent about a year they sent out the ship Fortune to Madagascar, loaded with goods suitable for pirates, where she was met by Hoare’s ship, filled with valuable plunder. The goods were transferred to the Fortune, and with a part of Hoare’s crew she returned to New York. At this time Governor Fletcher, whose dealings with pirates had been brought to the attention of the British government, had been superseded by the Earl of Bellomont, whose instructions were to put a stop to this illegal trade. The cargo of the Fortune, when she arrived in New York, was secretly gotten ashore in the night, and stored. By order of Bellomont the goods were seized and officers were about to remove them, when a large number of merchants interfered to prevent them from doing it, using violence and locking the officers in the house, who, after three hours, were only released by the appearance of the lieutenant-governor and three files of men. The ship Fortune was forfeited.

Bellomont

Frederick Phillipse, one of the Governor’s Council, and reported the richest man in New York, expected a ship from Madagascar and to prevent her arrival in the port of New York with goods that might subject her to forfeiture, sent out his son Adolphus, on a vessel ostensibly bound for Virginia, which laid off the port until the expected vessel arrived, when the East India goods on board were transferred to her and carried to the Delaware, leaving the Madagascar ship to enter with only slaves as her cargo. The East India goods were sent to Hamburg, where they were seized.

“AS GENUINE PIRATES AS EVER SAILED THE SEA”

In taverns of medium and even in some of the better class, could have been met at this period men who had taken part in captures on the African coast, and who, over their mugs of ale, entertained their companions with stories of their adventures, modified somewhat as suggested by prudence. They were not men of swarthy complexion and ferocious features, with knife and pistol in belt, as pictured by the imagination of writers of tales of the sea, yet they were, nevertheless, as genuine pirates as ever sailed the sea.

For some time, in the latter part of the year 1694, Thomas Tew, the notorious pirate, was a well known and picturesque figure on the streets and in the taverns of New York, where he spent money lavishly, ordering brandy, ale and other beverages for whoever would drink with him. He was a man about forty years of age, of slight figure and dark complexion; richly and strikingly dressed. He wore a blue cap with a band of cloth of silver, and a blue jacket bordered with gold lace and ornamented with large pearl buttons. Loose trunks of white linen extended to his knees, where they were joined by curiously worked stockings. From his neck hung a rich chain of gold, and in his belt, curiously knit, he carried a dagger, its hilt set with the rarest gems.

The exciting events of the Leisler period had left in the body politic a festering sore that would not heal. The Leislerians believed that the execution of Jacob Leisler and his son-in-law, Jacob Minhorne, had been nothing less than murder, and their relatives and friends were active in England in endeavors to revive the honor of their names and to reverse the attainder of their estates. In this situation of affairs it can readily be seen that there was much uneasiness and excitement in the community, and the taverns were the centers of all this boiling and agitated disturbance in the mercantile and political life of New York.

CAPTAIN TEW

The bitter opposition which Bellomont received from the merchants and the wealthiest of the people of New York compelled him to look to the Leislerians for support and to appoint to office members of that party. He seems besides to have been moved to take this step from a conviction that great injustice had been done. A few extracts from his letters will tend to show the situation as he viewed it.

From a letter of the Earl of Bellomont to the Board of Trade, dated September 21, 1698:

“The Jacobite party in this towne have a clubb commonly every Saturday (which was Colonel Fletcher’s clubb day). Last Saturday was seaven night, there mett twenty seaven of them, their ringleaders are Colonel Bayard, Colonel Minviele, both of the Councill, Mr. Nicolls, late of the Councill, and Wilson, late Sheriff of this towne; there is so great a rancor and inveterancy in these people that I think it by no means proper for me to leave this province till I have your Lordship’s orders upon the representations I made to your Lordships by the Richmond Frigatt, and since by Mr. Weaver; for I do verily believe if I should goe from hence, the people would fall together by the ears, besides, should I goe away, it would give the faction great advantage, and would tend very much to the revenue ceasing, and the measures I have proposed to myself for the obtaining the continuance of this present revenue would be thereby frustrated. This the Faction know very well, and therefore are very free in their wishes that I were gone to my other governments.”

To Mr. Popple, Secretary of the Board of Trade, he writes:

“This day another instance happen’d of the brutishness of some of the people here. The Master of the ship that carries this packet, was with me last Tuesday and promised to call on me on Thursday for the King’s packetts, but it seems intended to disappoint me and leave my letters behind and begon his voyage. I refer you for an account of this man’s behavior to the inclosed certificate and warrant, only this I must tell you, I sent yesterday the Commissioner of the Customes Mr. Hungerford to pray him to come to me and receive the King’s packetts, and he swore he would not for all the Governours in Christendom, and he would not be Post Boy to carry letters for any body; which refusal of his made me send a warrant to bring him by force. The angry merchants of this town had without doubt encouraged this man to be thus insolent, or he durst not have refused to carry the letters, after promising me faithfully, he would call for and carry them. This is another specimen of the rage and malice of these people, who I am satisfied nothing but fear keeps from rebelling against the Government; unlawful trade and Arabian gold brought in by Pirat ships from the Red Sea are the things they thirst after.”

On October 18, 1700, he wrote to Secretary Vernon, as follows:

“The Lords of the Councill of Trade direct me to make an experiment in working some navall Stores here, with the soldiers. I cannot go about it with such Officers who I believe would rather traverse me in such a design than further it; and would I fear stir up a mutiny among the sould’rs, if I should propose to ’em the working of Navall Stores for the King. I am not for breaking those Lieut’s, but exchanging them for honest, good Lieut’s in some of the Regiments in England. My first Lieut’s name is Peter Matthews, bred up from a child with Coll. Fletcher & ’tis at his house that the angry people of this Town have a Club and hold their cabals; my second Lieut’s is John Buckley; there is also another Lieut, in Maj’r Ingoldesby’s Company whose name is Matthew Shank, a most sad drunken sott, and under no good character for manhood. I desire also he may be exchanged for a better man from England.”

Colonel Fletcher, on his return to England, asked for an examination, which was accorded him by the Lords of Trade. Plausible explanations were made of his conduct, but they were not convincing, and the Lords of Trade recommended that the charges be referred to the Attorney-General for further action. The King, however, seems to have interposed, as there is no evidence of further proceedings against him. Of his subsequent career nothing is known.

III

In September, 1701, a very exciting election took place in the city. Thomas Noell, the mayor, was commissioned and sworn into office on the 14th day of October, 1701. The returns of the election for aldermen and assistant aldermen, which gave the Leislerians a majority in the board, were contested in some of the wards and a scrutiny was ordered by the mayor, who appointed committees, composed of members of both parties, to examine the votes in the contested wards. Some of the Leislerians, who were appointed on these committees, refused to serve, claiming that it was irregular; nevertheless, the scrutiny was completed, and those declared elected, after much excitement and disturbance, finally took their seats at the board. Among those who were declared elected was John Hutchins, landlord of the Coffee House or King’s Arms, situated on the west side of Broadway, next above Trinity Churchyard, where the Trinity Building now stands. He had represented the West Ward as alderman in 1697. In 1698 he was returned as elected, but his election was contested, and his opponent, Robert Walters, was declared elected. He was now again alderman of the West Ward. He had come out with Governor Sloughter as a lieutenant in the regular service and had since then, for the most part of the time, made his residence in New York City. He was one of the signers of a petition stating grievances at New York in 1692 and 1693, during Fletcher’s rule. In this paper it is stated that Lieut. John Hutchins was imprisoned at Albany and sent to New York, and coming before Governor Fletcher, was suspended and kept out of his pay, because he had favored the cause of Leisler, and had endeavored to persuade Governor Sloughter not to order the execution of Leisler and Minhorne, it being contrary to his letter to the King for their reprieve and contrary to his commission from his majesty.

After being thus deprived by Fletcher of his pay as an officer, he had to seek some means of livelihood and he turned to the occupation of keeping a tavern. Previous to 1696 he was keeping a house on the southwest corner of Broad and Wall Streets. In this year he purchased a lot on the west side of Broadway, the deed bearing date, October 1, 1696, which is described as “lying and being next and adjoining to the North side of ye Buriall without the North Gate of the City.” It had a frontage of sixty feet on Broadway. At the western end of this lot, one hundred and thirty-five feet from Broadway was a street running from the churchyard to Crown Street (now Cedar Street), called Temple Street, a portion of which has since been vacated. Farther down, about ninety feet, was Lombard Street, where is now Trinity Place. The lot of land inclosed by Temple Street, Crown Street, Lombard Street and the churchyard, about ninety by one hundred and sixty feet, was also conveyed to Hutchins in the deed.

On the Broadway lot Hutchins erected a house, which he opened as the King’s Arms, more generally known as the Coffee House. It was not large, but for a time it was the most fashionable public house in the city, and was considered the headquarters of the anti-Leislerians party. Upon the roof was a balcony, arranged with seats, commanding a beautiful view of the bay, the river and the city. North of the tavern there were only a few scattered buildings on Broadway, the principal of which was the store of Alderman Jacob Boelen, north of Liberty Street. The extent of Broadway was only to the present postoffice, the road thence continuing on the present line of Park Row, then the post road. The Commons or the Fields, originally the pasture ground for the cows of the Dutch settlers, was at first nearly square, and this road cut off a triangular piece of land on the east side, a part of which, before the charter gave to the city all “waste, vacant and unpatented lands” on the island, was selected and appropriated by Governor Dongan to his own use, on which he built a house, with an extensive garden attached to it. This place, embracing about two acres of land, became known as the “Governor’s Garden.” After the Governor left the province it is said to have been converted into a place of public resort, and became known as the “Vineyard.” We can find no record of details of any particular interest connected with it.

During the latter part of the seventeenth century the use of coffee as a beverage had been introduced into England and on the continent of Europe. The first coffee-house in Paris was opened in 1672. Previous to this time coffee-houses had been opened in London, and in 1663 they were placed on the footing of taverns and a statute of Charles II of that year required that they should be licensed. In the English coffee-house the guest paid a penny for a cup of coffee. This gave him the privilege of sitting by the fire and reading the journals of the day, which the coffee-houses made a point of keeping on hand as one of their attractions, and he had also the opportunity of hearing discussions on political topics or to take part in them, if so disposed, or if he could find listeners. The sober, religious Puritan resorted to them in preference to the tavern. In the time of Charles II, they were places of political agitation-to such an extent that in 1675, the King, by proclamation, ordered that they should all be closed as “seminaries of sedition,” but the order was a few days later rescinded.

When John Hutchins came to New York coffee-houses had become very popular and numerous in London and he was, no doubt, familiar with the way in which they were conducted, so that when he built his new house on Broadway, in addition to its designation as the King’s Arms, he called it the Coffee House. As it was the first and, in its day, the only coffee-house in New York, it had no distinguishing title, but was simply called the Coffee House. In the bar-room was a range of small boxes, screened with green curtains, where guests could sip their coffee or enjoy their chops and ale or Madeira in comparative seclusion. The upper rooms were used for special meetings.

Although Hutchins had been favorable to the Leislerians in Fletcher’s time, he seems to have gone over to the anti-Leislerians, and had been elected alderman by the votes of that party. He had borrowed money from both Gabriel Minvielle and Nicholas Bayard, having mortgaged his house and lot in Broad Street to Minvielle and his house and lot on Broadway to Bayard. These two men are named by Bellomont as ringleaders in the party opposed to him. The mortgage to Bayard covered also the lot of ground between Temple and Lombard Streets, and the whole property subsequently came into the possession of Bayard, although, no doubt, Hutchins continued in charge of the house until his death or removal from the city.

In the election for aldermen there was great excitement in the East Ward, the returns of which were contested. In this ward Roger Baker was well known as the landlord of the King’s Head, and Gabriel Thompson was equally well known as the landlord of the White Lion. As revealed by the scrutiny of the votes, Baker and Thompson were on opposite sides. Baker voted for William Morris, the anti-Leislerian candidate for alderman, and Thompson voted for Johannes DePeyster, who was the Leislerian candidate. Baker had been commissioned by Bellomont a lieutenant of militia and Thompson had also been an officer in the militia. In 1664, Gabriel Thompson, as master of the sloop, Hopewell, cleared from New York for places up the river seven times during the year. He was an ensign at Albany in 1685, and a captain in the expedition against the French and Indians in Leisler’s time, and since then had probably been a resident of New York City, where he had kept a tavern. He petitioned, in 1693, that the sub-collector repay to him £36 excise money, which indicated that he was a tavern-keeper, but where his house was then located we do not know. He was one of the signers of the petition showing to the home government the grievances existing in New York in 1692 and 1693.

These were exciting times and the citizens who gathered at these two taverns in all probability had not a few hot discussions over the political situation. On August 29, 1701, a committee of the council was appointed to meet in conference a committee of the assembly at three o’clock in the afternoon at Roger Baker’s, at the sign of the King’s Head. The conference accordingly met, and from thence adjourned to Gabriel Thompson’s at the White Lion.

During the months of September and October, 1701, many conference committees of the council and the assembly met at the White Lion, the house of Gabriel Thompson. There was a conference meeting here on September 4th and on September 11th we find record of another. On September 28, 1701, we find the following record in the Journal of the House:

“A message was sent to this House from the Council, that a Conference is desired by the Council, with a committee of this House at 3 of the Clock in the Afternoon, at Gabriel Thompson’s, at the White Lion,

Which was agreed to and,

Ordered, That Capt. Provoost, Col. Rutsen, Mr. Hanjen, Mr. Sebring and Mr. Veghte, be a Committee of this House, to confer with a Committee of Council this Afternoon.”

A deed bearing date November 23, 1701, shows that Gabriel Thompson, tavern-keeper, purchased from Nicholas Bayard and Abraham De Peyster the lot on the northwest corner of the present Wall and William Streets, but whether or not he ever kept a tavern here we have not been able to determine. Maps of this locality, of subsequent date, show no building between the City Hall and Bayard’s sugar house. Thompson’s house was undoubtedly in this neighborhood and probably not far from the City Hall, where the assembly held their sessions.

It has been stated by some writers that the King’s Head, the house of Roger Baker, was at the corner of Pearl Street and Maiden Lane. Henry Coleman, butcher, mortgaged this property in February, 1701, to Roger Baker, vintner, for a loan of £348 10s. Baker may have eventually come into possession of it, and he may have kept a tavern here, but we can find no evidence of it. In the mortgage deed it is described as lying without the fortifications on the north side of a street called Queen Street and bounded on the east side by a street which leads to Green Lane.

After the death of Bellomont, during the brief rule of Lieutenant-Governor Nanfan, who was a relative of the Earl, the political agitation was active and aggressive. As soon as it became known in New York that Lord Cornbury had been appointed to succeed the Earl of Bellomont as governor of the province, measures were taken to secure the favor of that corrupt individual by the anti-Leislerian party. In this procedure Nicholas Bayard took the lead, and procured addresses to be signed to the King, to parliament and to Cornbury. To Cornbury, a man very susceptible to flattery, they were profuse in their congratulations and in assertions calculated to prejudice him against those who had supported Bellomont and to gain his favor for themselves, that they might again become the dominant party. Not only were reflections freely cast on the Earl of Bellomont, but Nanfan, the lieutenant-governor, was accused of bribing members of the house of assembly.

The addresses were signed at the Coffee House, kept by John Hutchins, and as soon as it was known, Hutchins was summoned to appear before the lieutenant-governor and the council and ordered to produce the addresses. This he could not or would not do, and on the 19th of January, 1702, was arrested and committed to jail. Two days after, Bayard was also arrested and committed to prison on a warrant as a traitor. Nanfan was aware that Bayard had dug a pit for others that might be used for his own destruction. He had procured the passage of a law in 1691, when he was striving and hoping for the ruin of Leisler and his friends, by which, “whatsoever person or persons shall, by any manner of ways, or upon any pretence whatsoever, endeavor, by force of arms or otherwise, to disturb the peace, good and quiet of their majesties’ government, as it is now established, shall be deemed and esteemed as rebels and traitors unto their majesties, and incur the pains, penalties and forfeitures as the laws of England have for such offences, made and provided.” The trial of Bayard was hastened that it might be concluded before the arrival of Cornbury. The prisoners petitioned that they might not be tried until the usual sitting of the Supreme Court. This, of course, was refused. All objections were overruled and Bayard was ordered for trial on Monday, the 2d of March. He was convicted and sentenced to death, and Hutchins was tried and condemned in like manner. Bayard was granted a reprieve until her majesty’s pleasure might be known. Hutchins was released on bail. Bayard was held in confinement until the arrival of Cornbury, when all was reversed. Not very long after, by order of the government, Bayard and Hutchins were reinstated in all honor and estate, “as if no such trial had been.”

THE BAYARD PUNCH BOWL

In the trial of Bayard, testimony was given that the addresses were signed in an upper room in the Coffee House, and that Nicholas Bayard was present, “smoaking a pipe of tobacco.” One of the signers was Peter Matthews, who was a lieutenant in the service, and the landlord of the tavern where Bellomont declared the club met which was composed of men opposed to his administration. Lieutenant Matthews had come out with Governor Fletcher in 1692. He had previously been one of the household of the Governor, and by him had been made a lieutenant in the garrison at the fort. He subsequently rose to the rank of colonel and was one of the commissioners of Indian affairs in 1715. In 1703 his house was in the south ward. Soon after, he removed to Orange County, where he held a large grant of land.

Another tavern-keeper who became entangled in the meshes of the law and suffered from his boldness in expressing his opinions was Roger Baker, the landlord of the King’s Head. We give an account of his trial taken from a letter from New York, May 4, 1702, which is probably not altogether impartial.

“The Grand Jury brought in presentments.—* * * One against Roger Baker saying the 5 November last the King was made a nose of wax and no longer King than the English please. * * * Roger Baker came upon tryal with a packt petty Jury according to custome, whereof four happening to be absent, a tales was ordered, and although there were then spectators in Court above 30 Englishmen and he told so, yet the Sheriffe went out and brought in three Dutch men of their party, and finding no more he was forced to take one John Ellis an Englishman then in court. Three witnesses were sworn the first said, he Baker spoke the words; but that they were all very drunk it being Holy-day. The other two said they were always present with them, but heard no such words nor nothing like it, that they were all drunk but the other witness to that degree he could not stand. Judge Atwood gave charge to the Jury to bring Baker in Guilty; the Jury went out and stayed all night then came into Court and deliver’d their verdict Not Guilty; at which Judge Atwood was very angry refusing to the Verdict, sent them out again, when after 6 hours they returned again with Not Guilty. At which the Judge grew very passionate, and threatening them several times. They were sent out three several times more and persisted in Not Guilty. Upon which the Judge threatened to imprison and fine them. That so scared the 11 Dutch, that in Open Court being sent for (it being about an hour before the Court was to determine), were demanded why they were not agreed and who it was that would not agree to find Guilty. Answer was made John Ellis upon which the Judge fell upon him with such menacing language in open Court and a considerable time hectoring and threatening him, he so managed him too that at last he gave his consent in open Court where Baker was recorded Guilty and fined 400 pieces of Eight and to remain in Custody of the Sheriffe till his fine was paid and after that until he made such acknowledgments as the Governor should think fit.”

Conferences of committees of the council and of the assembly were appointed at taverns during the years 1701-2-3, or at the great room in the fort, but after the passage of an act in 1703, declaring the proceedings against Colonel Bayard and Alderman Hutchins, for pretended high treason illegal, and the judgments null and void, the Coffee House or the King’s Arms, kept by John Hutchins, became the place appointed for these conferences and they continued to be held here for several years. The Coffee House was the public house patronized by the wealthier class of citizens and by those in official life as well as by the military officers.

Lord Cornbury, at this time governor of New York, is described by Macauley as “a young man of slender abilities, loose principles and violent temper. He had been early taught to consider his relationship to the Princess Anne as the ground work of his fortunes, and had been exhorted to pay her assiduous court.” He was cousin to the Queen, and believing that he resembled her in features, was led by his vanity, it is thought, to dress in women’s clothes and appear publicly on the ramparts of the fort and even in the street in that neighborhood. Lord Stanhope says that when Lord Cornbury was appointed governor of New York, and told that he should represent the Queen he fancied that it was necessary to dress himself as a woman. Still another reason is assigned for this silly behavior. It is said that in consequence of a vow he obliged himself for a month in every year to wear every day women’s clothes. He otherwise prided himself on his erratic doings, and the town was, at times, amused and entertained, or shocked by the pranks of this kinsman of the Queen. It is said that he once rode on horseback through the spacious front door of the Coffee House, and was thus served with a drink at the bar. It is easy to credit this of such a man.

VISCOUNT CORNBURY

In the early part of the year 1709 there were several conferences held at the Coffee House by committees from the council and assembly. On September 22d of that year a conference was appointed at the New Coffee House. What was meant by the New Coffee House, or where it was situated we are unable to state. The Coffee House as a place of conference does not appear in the journal of the assembly again for many years.

The conferences of the committees of the council and assembly were, no doubt, held at the best taverns in the city, at those frequented by the members, where at other times they talked of the affairs of state over their wine and spent a pleasant evening in social converse, changes being made as the quality of the taverns changed. At this period there were no clubs, such as exist today, no theatre, no newspaper. There was hardly a man in the community who did not habitually visit some tavern, where he met his friends and neighbors to talk over the news of the town. It was the place where he obtained all the knowledge he possessed of what was taking place in the world around him. The political unrest of the period made the taverns more particularly places of life and excitement.

OLD TANKARD

The history of a people consists not only in their wars and treaties with foreign nations, and in the political disturbances and struggles within; the manner in which they lived, and what were their interests and pleasures, are likely to interest us quite as much. If we can succeed in picturing them in our imagination, put ourselves in contact with them in their everyday walks, it is a matter of great satisfaction. The life and activities of the early colonial days, before there were any newspapers, were reflected in the tavern as in no other place in the community. Here all classes met, and the good listener, could, by the conversations and talks of travelers and other visitors, gain more knowledge of the political and social condition of the neighboring country than in any other way.

In September, 1708, Henry Swift was a tavern-keeper in New York and rendered a bill to the authorities for boarding the French captain and company who came down from Albany. He was one of a number of men who came out with Lord Cornbury and by order of the common council were made freeman of the city gratis. His house was on Broadway, near the Fort. When Lord Lovelace arrived as governor of the province a grand dinner was served in the Fort, which was provided by Henry Swift at a charge of £40, 7s, 6d. Almost four years afterwards he was still petitioning for the payment of this bill. On the 13th of November, 1707, the corporation gave a dinner “as a treat to his Excellency the Governor on his arrival here from his other government of New Jersey.” It was provided by Henry Swift and the wine and dinner cost the corporation £8, 5s.

In 1710, Henry Swift was made collector of customs for Perth Amboy, although Governor Hunter was much opposed to the appointment. Conference committees of the council and of the assembly met at his house on September 23, 1710; and again, on November 17 and 18, 1710, conference committees of the two houses were appointed to meet here. Mrs. Swift kept the house after her husband’s death. It was owned by Arent Schuyler, of New Barbadoes, New Jersey, and when he died, by will dated December 17, 1724, he left the house and two lots of ground to his daughters, Eva and Cornelia. Mrs. Swift was then living in the house, as stated in the will.

From the time of the English occupation, feast days and anniversaries had been observed with more or less spirit and display, which increased as the population of the city increased. The birthdays of the King and members of the royal family and the anniversaries of the coronation and the gunpowder plot were generally observed, and a new governor was always received with more or less enthusiasm, and his entry into the city was attended with imposing formalities. When Governor Andros came to New York, in 1688, he was accompanied by a large and brilliant retinue, and was received with great ceremony and escorted to the fort by the city guard—a regiment of foot and a troop of horse, in showy uniforms—where his commission was published, and later at the City Hall.

In August, 1692, the common council resolved that “a treat be made to welcome his Excellency, Benjamin Fletcher, now arrived in this city to the value of £20 or thereabouts,” and in December, 1697, they ordered that four barrels of powder be provided for saluting the Earl of Bellomont on his arrival; and after his arrival in the city, it was resolved by the common council that a dinner be given at the charge of the corporation for the entertainment of his Excellency, Earl of Bellomont, captain-general, etc., etc.; that a committee be appointed to make a bill of fare (two aldermen and two assistants), “and that for the effectual doing thereof, they call to their assistance such cooks as they shall think necessary to advise.”

On the 15th of February, 1703, the treasurer of the city was ordered to repay to the mayor £9 10s 3d, which he had expended for a bonfire, beer and wine, on her majesty’s birthday, the 6th of February, and on the 24th of this same month the common council ordered that a public bonfire be made at the usual place, and that ten gallons of wine and a barrel of beer be provided, at the expense of the city, to celebrate the success of her majesty’s arms at Vigo and in Flanders, and the housekeepers were ordered to illuminate.

Much more deference was paid to the dignity of office two hundred years ago than at the present time. Not only were governors received with great honor at their appearance to assume the office, but often, when they left the city to visit Albany or New Jersey, they were, on their return, entertained by the corporation. In November, 1704, Lord Cornbury, on his return from his other government of New Jersey, was entertained at a dinner given by the corporation at the house of Richard Harris, which cost the city £10 18s 6d. This is the bill rendered, and which was ordered paid:

Richard Harris married the widow of Roger Baker, who had been the landlord of the well known King’s Head, not long after the latter’s death, which occurred in 1702, and he may have continued this tavern, which is very likely, as it was probably being conducted by the widow when he married her. The year after his marriage, he was elected assistant alderman, and his house for many years was patronized by the officials of the province and the city. He was assistant alderman for several years. In 1707 he was one of a committee for leasing the Long Island ferry. On the 10th of October, of that year, the committee met at his house for that purpose, and for their expenses he was paid by the city £1 12s. Five years after this, when he was no longer a member of the common council, the lease being about to expire, the committee for leasing the ferry met at his house on the 17th of December, 1712, and this time he charged the corporation £7 10s 9d. Conference committees from the council and assembly met at his house several times in November, 1710, and in 1712. On the 6th of October, 1714, the governor gave notice of the death of Queen Anne, and on the 11th, King George was proclaimed in the city. The common council ordered seven or eight cords of wood for a bonfire and twenty gallons of wine for the people. The expenses of the common council on this occasion at the house of Richard Harris amounted to £8 4s, which was ordered to be paid.

On November 7, 1717, the council requested a conference at the house of John Parmyter on the subject matter of the bill for letting to farm the excise, and on October 20th of the same year a bonfire was ordered and a dinner was given by the corporation at his house in celebration of the anniversary of his majesty’s coronation. The aldermen seem to have been ever ready to celebrate any of the usual anniversaries by eating a good dinner and drinking good wine. The bill for this dinner was as follows:

As on most occasions a large portion consisted of liquor exhilarants.

John Parmyter had been a resident of New York since the time of Bellomont and probably had been a tavern-keeper for some years previous to the date of this dinner. His house was on or near the corner of Beaver and New Streets. In 1712 an act was passed by the legislature of the province prohibiting all but John Parmyter to make lamp-black, for five years, “this to encourage the first to set up that manufacture.” He no doubt continued to keep tavern and had the monopoly of the manufacture of lamp-black until his death, and it also appears that his widow continued to carry on both lines of business. An act to prohibit all persons but Susannah Parmyter, widow, and her assigns, to make lamp-black during the space of ten years, was passed by the legislature in 1724. She continued to keep the tavern and rendered a bill to the authorities in August, 1727, for the “board of the Governor of Canada (sic) and fourteen men and wine.”

The custom of meeting in conference at the taverns continued and the names of the keepers of these houses are given in the journal of the assembly. In 1713 conference committees met several times at the house of Bernard Hardenbrook and in 1718, at the house of Elizabeth Jourdain, who was the widow of Henry Jourdain, captain of the sloop Dolphin, who died at sea in the latter part of the year 1702. The Dolphin was probably a slaver, for Henry Jourdain, in his will, evidently made at sea, directs that sixty-one elephants’ teeth marked H. J., and some gold in bulk should be delivered to his wife in New York, which indicates that he had visited the African coast. His entire estate amounted to £426, which enabled his widow to set up a public house, where she entertained the committees from the council and assembly and “lodged his majesty’s soldiers.”