Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

1

Introduction

In a preindustrial society without a developed monetized market economy, the link between food production, distribution, and consumption is often very direct. Meat is procured by hunting or slaughtering one's own livestock, usually with some type of social network, formal or informal, forming the basis for redistribution to the non-hunters or non-herders. Grains, wild plants, and produce are gathered or cultivated, and may be similarly redistributed to neighbors or kinsmen. Most non-direct redistribution takes place in a context of ritual or ceremony.

Such is not the case in a market economy, where redistribution is customarily non-direct, and the connection between the production of food and its eventual consumption and disposal can be convoluted. The eventual consumer may have no social relationship whatsoever with the producer, and the actual act of exchange may not even be between producer and consumer, but between producer and middleman or between consumer and retailer.

This presents a problem—how does one fully understand what people were eating without knowing where it came from? Where the plants and animals were actually raised, how they were gathered or slaughtered, whether they were sold or bartered, whether a middleman was involved in the transfer to the eventual consumer—all have direct and important implications for the study of what has come to be known as "foodways," the "whole interrelated system of food conceptualization, procurement, distribution, preservation, and consumption shared by all members of a particular group" (Anderson 1971: xl) . The mere question of just what an individual (or household) ate is only one small aspect of the problem; equally important is how they obtained their food, from whom, for what reason, and at what cost.

Central to an understanding of food distribution in the colonial and early federal Tidewater is the concept of the town market, a centralized gathering of farmers, merchants, and middlemen which furnished the town with much of its food. Some markets were well-organized, some were apparently indifferently run. Some specialized in certain commodities, some had a variety of everything. Some were large, some were small. But they all were clearly important to the functioning of their towns.

Travelers often remarked on the excitement of market day in towns such as Norfolk, Williamsburg, Fredericksburg, Alexandria, and Richmond. As Johann David Schoepf noted about the large Philadelphia market, "everything is full of life and action" (1788: 112) . For those living and working in these larger towns, however, especially middle-class craftsmen, artisans, and laborers, the market was more than a diversion. Unless they also farmed their own land or had enough space for a kitchen garden and a few livestock, it was virtually their only source of food. The rise of the full-time specialist classes, which brought enormous advantages to the towns, carried with it an enormous price—the absolute dependence on a functioning market.

At the other end of the spectrum, the market also influenced the farmers and planters of the surrounding region. Farmers could divest themselves of surplus at the market, or, if near a port, by 2 selling ships' provisions. By providing an outlet for surplus, the market thus permitted an entirely different type of animal and plant husbandry than that associated solely with subsistence.

It is known, of course, that markets existed in eighteenth-century Norfolk and Williamsburg, and that these markets served as the major source of food for the nearby urban (or semi-urban) regions. What is not clear, however, is what the residents of towns smaller than Norfolk, or less politically and socially important than Williamsburg, did to obtain their food. This paper will look at one such town—Hampton—between the years 1700 and 1800.

Because so little data still exists, however, it will also look at the town markets in Norfolk and Williamsburg, good examples of the market system in the Tidewater, and, possibly, sources for at least some of the meat and fish consumed by Hampton residents. Other possible sources, such as traveling hawkers and peddlers, informal social exchanges, and grocers and merchants, will also be investigated. Most attention will be focused on the mid- to late eighteenth century, the time in which these markets were rapidly expanding. Nineteenth-century markets were largely outgrowths of earlier ones, but there are important differences, particularly with the commercialization and industrialization of agriculture after the Civil War. For that reason, only a short summary of early nineteenth-century developments in these markets will be attempted.

Hampton in the Eighteenth Century

Lying astride Hampton Creek on the tip of the James-York peninsula, the community of Hampton was surrounded by abundant farmland and a rich tidal estuary abounding in shellfish and near-shore fishes. The area was settled quite early, but, like other such communities in Virginia, developed rather slowly. In an only-partially successful effort to establish commercial centers in the colony, the General Assembly in 1680 accorded Hampton, among others, the status of "town" (Hening 1819-1823: II: 471-478). These "Town Acts," intermittently amended and re-issued throughout the next thirty years, eventually gave to the newly-established towns certain important rights and privileges, including the right to create a town council, the right to maintain a merchant guild, and the right to hold markets and fairs.

Being located near the mouth of the James River, Hampton soon became a major trading port. The town, in fact, was always closely tied to the sea; shipbuilders and pilots would become some of its most important citizens, and a market in provisioning ships would, in the first half of the century, fuel much of its economy. Early on, in 1716, diarist John Fontaine described Hampton as:

a place of the greatest trade in all Virginia, and all the men-of-war commonly lie before this arm of the river. …The town contains one hundred houses, but few of them of any note, and it has no church (Fontaine 1716: 293).

Although Hughes (1975: 27) believes that his estimate of "one hundred houses" was exaggerated, it is clear that early eighteenth-century Hampton was an important place. Curiously, however, it did not develop as its founders must have expected, and by 1750 was no longer the colony's most important port (Hughes 1975: 30). Perhaps it is not so curious after all, though, given its location 3 "upon a narrow creek, barred with sand at the entrance, and having only shoal water" (Frese 1973: 314) .

Hampton's primary advantage—and jealously guarded it was—was its status as a port-of-entry. Center of what became known as the Lower James River Naval District, Port Hampton shipped tobacco, iron, corn, wheat, barrel staves, pitch, tar, and barreled pork and beef to England, the West Indies, and the other colonies. The Lower James was, in fact, the most important exporter of the latter two commodities, for most of the century shipping over 80% of the salt pork and beef exported from the colony (Bergstrom 1985: 141-144). In 1752 alone, barreled pork, bacon, hams, and lard were sent to Boston, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Piscataqua, Jamaica, Tortola, Antigua, St. Kitts, Nevis, St. Croix, Curacao, Barbados, Bermuda, Alicante, Madeira, and Africa (Huntley 1951: 304).

Despite the presence of the customs house, however, Hampton never became a great commercial center. Its place was taken by Norfolk, roughly two hours sail across the Bay on the other side of Hampton Roads. By 1770:

…vessels upon their arrival in the district proceed directly to Norfolk. The masters leaving their vessels there, return the next or perhaps the same day to the custom house at Hampton, eighteen miles across the road. … Nineteen/twentieths of all dutiable goods imported into this river are at present landed in Norfolk; from whence the people in these districts are almost entirely supplied with their commodities; so that it is the seat of the trade of the district. … On the other hand, [the exports of] Hampton town … consists only of about one hundred hogsheads of tobacco in a year. These are either sent in small craft to Norfolk, or the ships loading in the river … (Frese 1973: 313-314).

Despite the pressures brought as early as 1735 by a group of Norfolk merchants, however, Hampton was able to retain its port-of-entry status (Hughes 1975). Norfolk did not gain its own customs house until after the Revolutionary War.

Throughout the eighteenth century, the town's population remained relatively small. Around 1725, Hampton likely contained only between fifty and one hundred residents (Kulikoff 1986). A small number of craftsmen and artisans did inhabit the town, along with a few doctors, lawyers, ministers, and teachers. Most of the blacksmiths, glaziers, shoemakers, butchers, coopers, carpenters, and millers appearing in the Elizabeth City County records probably lived or worked on or near farms, and a number farmed their own land as well (Hughes 1975: 512).

By 1750, the town probably held between 250 and 500 full-time residents (Kulikoff 1986). Among the most important of these were the shipbuilders and pilots. Shipbuilding was the town's major industry; in the last half of the century George Hope employed "a large workforce whose size varied considerably from year to year," and which included skilled independent workers, apprentices, and slaves, both bound and hired (Hughes 1975: 493-494). Pilots were also quite numerous, in 1791-92 comprising some thirteen percent of the free white males in Elizabeth City County (Hughes 1975: 496). About half of the thirty-eight pilots then living in the county lived in Hampton, the other half living on farms in the surrounding countryside.

4

Another extremely important group were merchants. They had arrived early; in 1715, for example, Scottish merchant Alexander McKenzie owned a lot downtown, near the waterfront (Hughes 1975). Hampton was the Virginia headquarters of at least one London tobacco consignment firm, Jonas and Capel Hanbury (Hughes 1975), along with a number of lesser merchants. Most were apparently unsuccessful, and there was a high turnover rate. Nonetheless, the town continued to attract retailers throughout the century. By 1810, of the seventeen licensed merchants in Elizabeth City County, twelve lived in Hampton (Hughes 1975: 508).

Many, perhaps most, of the shipbuilders, pilots, and merchants did little else. While some of the wealthier citizens owned plantations or farms in Elizabeth City County, this was not the norm. In 1810, for example, only nineteen town residents owned their own farms (Hughes 1975: 524). Exactly how they procured their food, of course, is open to some question.

The Market in Hampton

The 1705 Town Act established, among other things, the right of each town to hold markets and fairs. Hampton specifically was allowed to hold twice-weekly markets, on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and to hold one fair a year, between October 10 and October 14, excluding Sundays (Hening 1809-1823: III: 416). There is no evidence, however, that the market was ever administratively established. No regulations were discussed in the surviving records, and no references, passing or otherwise, have been found regarding its operation. This is in stark contrast to the numerous references to markets in Williamsburg and Norfolk, and suggests that the Hampton market, if it ever existed, was far less remarkable.

Unfortunately, the surviving records are extremely incomplete. Most of the administrative records in Elizabeth City County were burned during the Civil War. Although Elizabeth City County fared better than neighboring Warwick and Gloucester counties in this regard (Hughes 1975), there are few remaining sources for the period prior to 1782. These few include three order books (1731-1747, 1747-1755, and 1755-1757), a minute book (1756-1760), a court minute book (1760-1769), several books of deeds and wills, guardians' accounts (1737-1748), and a book of surveys and plats (1761-1883). All order and minute books were scanned for references to the market, as were the more complete set of records for the period between 1782 and the end of the century.

No reference to a functioning market was found. Even the usually-thorough New and Comprehensive Gazetteer of Virginia (1835) does not mention a market:

[Hampton] contains about 130 houses; 2 Methodist, 1 Baptist, and 1 Episcopalian meeting house, 1 Academy and 1 private school, 6 dry good stores, 10 grocery stores, 2 taverns, [and] 3 castor oil manufactories … (Martin 1835: 164).

The suggestion that a town market was not present leads to some alternative explanations for food procurement-that meat, fish, and vegetables were being obtained directly from the producer, from unorganized individual pedlars and hawkers, or from local merchants.

5

Hawking goods on the streets or door-to-door was a long-established English practice, going back many centuries. Hawkers were often itinerant travelers, going from town to town until they were chased away. In 1707, New York City prohibited street hawking, fining hawkers twelve shillings for each offense (Wright 1927: 233). Perhaps because of the lack of centralized towns in Virginia, however, hawkers were apparently more tolerated. In 1797, they were only required to obtain a license:

that no hawker or pedlar, shall offer for sale or barter, any goods, wares, or merchandise, unless such person or persons so offering the same, shall have first obtained a license from some court of record in this commonwealth (Shepherd 1835: II: 94).

It is also possible that many provisions were obtained through informal social networks-that is, by trade or barter between farmers and their neighbors. In studying records from Suffield, Connecticut, Joanne Gaynor has found a complex and highly-interdependent system of meat exchange operating entirely separate from the traditional market (Gaynor n.d.). Few residents of Hampton also owned farms or plantations in Elizabeth City County, at least in the late eighteenth century, but they undoubtedly maintained contacts with their neighbors in the countryside. Others, even in the busiest parts of town, undoubtedly maintained kitchen gardens and raised small numbers of livestock for their own use.

A third, but most probably insignificant, source of meat and fish may have been provision dealers and grocers. Cathy Marten (1980) identified more than thirty-nine grocers (also called West India goods dealers) and thirty-five provisioners (or provision dealers) in early nineteenth-century Boston, but suggests that they furnished only a few meat or dairy products-salt pork and beef, salt fish, butter, and cheese. Hampton, a relatively small town, could have supported few if any of these specialists, certainly nowhere near the number in the busy port of Boston. A very cursory examination of the American Gazette and Norfolk and Portsmouth Public Advertiser (1795), however, shows that Norfolk contained at least three large groceries: Richard Frazer's, Robert White's, and J. & W. Bennett's.

Fortunately, these advertisements give a complete, if tedious, description of the type of goods for sale. J. & W. Bennett, for example, stocked:

Madiera, Port, Claret, Sherry, Lisbon, Malaya, Teneriffe, Champaigne, Hock, Tent, Vin-de-Grave, and Malmsey WINES of the best qualities … Old Spirits and West-India Rum, Gin, Old Arrack, Peach and French Brandies … Gloucester Cheese … A very great variety of rich Cordials, Syrops, Jellies, Preserves, Ginger, green Sweetmeats, Citron, Tamarind, Comfits of every description, and preserved Brandy Fruits … Pickled Cauliflowers, Mushroom, Cucumbers, French Beans, Onions … India Sov, Ketchup, Quin-sauce, Essence of Anchovies, and Table Salt … Durham and Philadelphia Mustard, Chocolate, Hair Powder, Castle Soap … Spermaceti, Mould & Dipt Candles, Anchovies, Capers, Olives … Excellent Prunes and … Raisins in boxes, casks and jars … Pearl and Scotch Barley, in bags, Honey, in demi-johns … Loaf and Brown Sugar, in barrels, Nutmegs, Sago, Cloves, Mace, Cinammon … Ginger, Pepper, and All-spice … Spanish and American Segars, in boxes, Macouba, Rappee, and Scotch Snuff … Single and double Matrasses … A variety of elegant Leghorn Fruits … Silk Hat Covers … Fresh Hysom, Imperial, Green, Souchong and Bohea TEAS just arrived from India … An assortment of Glass and Earthen Ware, &c. (American Gazette and Norfolk and Portsmouth Public Advertiser, September 18, 1795).

6

Fresh meat and fish products are conspicuously absent. Of course, Norfolk had a thriving market, which Hampton did not, and Hampton provisioners might have been forced to stock a wider variety of goods. No analogous grocery listing for the town of Hampton has survived.

Perhaps the likeliest non-market source of fresh meat and vegetables in Hampton were the merchants, who formed a vital bridge between the ships entering the harbor from abroad and the planters and farmers living in the countryside around the towns. Hughes (1975: 419) has suggested that several merchants, including Miles King, John Hunter, and Francis Riddlehurst, played an important intermediary role by gathering and marketing the local farm products while distributing manufactured goods in return. To some extent, this centralization of trade may have been necessary given the volume of commerce in ships' stores relative to the needs of the small resident community. Norfolk supplied ships' provisions as well, and also had a market; but, Norfolk was a bigger town. The evidence seems to suggest that the needs of the residents of Hampton could be fully met by the merchants, with perhaps some street hawking and informal trade and bartering with neighbors. A large centralized market was not necessary.

One additional factor mitigating against the rise of a local market may have been geographic. It must be remembered that Williamsburg, a market town, was only thirty-six miles up the peninsula, and Norfolk, with a major commercial market, was only two hours sail across the bay. The pilots who lived on the Hampton waterfront and piloted ships in and out of the harbor, in particular, would have almost constant access to Norfolk, where they could obtain small quantities of produce and meat. The wealthier citizens, of course, spent at least part of their year in Williamsburg, where they might have welcomed the chance to sample of fruits, vegetables, meat, and fish that they had to work harder to find at home.

So the evidence seems to indicate that a small town like Hampton did not need a major local market. But did it have more informal market-like gatherings on a more-or-less regular basis? The jury, unfortunately, is still out. Some clues, however, can come from a closer look at Virginia markets in general, and at the Norfolk and Williamsburg markets in particular.

The Market in Eighteenth-Century Virginia

Like many other institutions in the colonies, the early Virginia market was based on English prototypes. Markets and fairs have had a long history in England, going back at least to the Saxon period (Addison 1953). Originally they were controlled by manor lords, and were fairly limited in scope. By the end of the eleventh century, Norman rulers had restricted both markets and fairs to "cities and walled towns, or where there were castles or other secure places, 'where the customs of our kingdom and our common law … cannot perish'" (Addison 1953: 60) . Franchises were granted sparingly, with no franchise allowed within six and two-thirds miles of the nearest existing one. As trade and commerce became more important, however, market restrictions were considerably reduced. Towns began to grow up around markets, rather than the other way around, and the market town became an institution of English life (Addison 1953).

7

The first English colonists naturally took this tradition with them to America. Since the initial settlement, at least in the southern colonies, was largely dispersed, there was little need for a market. Moreover, virtually all colonists were farmers or planters, raising what they ate themselves, and there was relatively little incipient urbanism and development of specialized non-farming classes. By the middle of the seventeenth century, however, Jamestown had become large and diversified enough to demand its own franchise. A regular market was established in 1649, "to be holden every Wednesday and Saturday, … between the hours of eight in the forenoon and six in the afternoon" (Hening 1809-1823: I: 362) . Apparently there was less need than anyone then realized, for the law was soon recognized as a failure, and was repealed in 1655 (Goodwin 1950).

It was not until the 1705 Town Acts that regular markets were fully established. By this time close to twenty small villages had been established, and a much larger percentage of the population was principally engaged in something other than farming. The 1705 Town Acts, one of a series of acts that attempted to legislatively create commercial centers in the colony, provided for the creation of sixteen towns (Hampton, Norfolk, Nansemond, James City [Jamestown], Powhatan, York [Yorktown], Queensborough, Delaware [West Point], Queens Town, Urbanna, Tappahannock, New Castle, Kingsale, Marlborough, Northampton, and Orancock). These towns were provided with "a market at least twice a week, and a fair once a year, … a merchant guild and community with all customs and libertys belonging to a free burgh, … [and] benchers of the guild hall for the better rule and governance of the town" (Hening 1809-1823: III: 408) . Each of the sixteen towns was allocated two market days per week, and five days exclusive of Sundays for their annual fair.

In England, the market was generally held in a neutral location, often a specifically-designed "market square" or "market cross" near the center of the village (Addison 1953). In the colonies, the town market was held on public land and, in the case of Norfolk and Williamsburg, near one of the busiest parts of town. In Williamsburg the market was held in the square near the courthouse; in Norfolk, at least after 1787, it was held at the end of a wide avenue leading from the county wharf (Lounsbury 1986; Reps 1972: 217).

The most striking feature of the larger markets would have been the market house, a large, well-ventilated building usually built to stand open on posts, columns, or arcades (Lounsbury 1986). Stalls in the market house were often rented out to butchers, while others might sell nearby from carts or lorries. The stalls were usually furnished with large hooks, from which meat could be hung, and were as open and airy as possible. In most cases the market house had long overhanging eaves, to provide a large sheltered space for provisions, and the floor was elevated, probably to facilitate sweeping and rinsing (Lounsbury 1986). Many market houses, including the one in Norfolk, also had an upstairs loft for storage.

On market days, the square must have presented to the buyer a variety of sights, sounds, and smells. Meat, fish, eggs, butter, cheese, vegetables and fruits, bread, grain, and a few household items were all sold at market (Lounsbury 1986; Addison 1953). Sometimes the sale of these commodities was spatially segregated; Norfolk, Lounsbury indicates, had separate sections for the selling of meat, fish, livestock, and grain (1986: 2). Cider and liquor appear to have been generally available. In 1773, a law was passed prohibiting "Indians, mulattoes, or negroes Bound or free" from "retailing any kind of Beer or spiritous Liquors" at the Norfolk market (Norfolk Borough Records [NBR], 29 8 June 1773). Nearby shopkeepers and tavern keepers nearby would undoubtedly attempt to capitalize on the activity as well, trying to lure customers into their establishments by whatever means they could.

Meat sold at market was ordinarily hung from large hooks in the market house. The farmer might himself butcher the animal before market and sell it; alternatively, the animal could be sold to a butcher. Selling a whole animal or a quarter to a butcher for credit on later meat purchases was a common strategy, providing the seller with an easy profit and the butcher with a section to further subdivide for retail sale.

It is unlikely that slaughtering took place in the market itself. Most likely it was normally done outside of town, although in 1749 the Norfolk town council was forced to make a law "obliging the Butchers to Slaughter their Meat in proper places" (NBR, 8 July 1749) . Butchers themselves, in fact, probably lived in the countryside, at least in the latter half of the century. In Boston, for example, there were over thirty city-dwelling butchers in the 1730s; high wages, taxes, and stringent regulation reduced that number to four or five by 1746 (Friedman 1973).

As a whole, Virginia butchers are rarely seen in the documentary record. The location of two town butchers, however, were revealed in local newspaper accounts. Benjamin Hanson, a butcher in Williamsburg around mid-century, advertised in the Virginia Gazette for the purchase of "good Grass Mutton or Beef … [at my house] next door to Col. Custis's" (Virginia Gazette, 24 Oct 1745) . Colonel John Custis lived along the western outskirts of town, near the College. Another contemporary butcher, George Chaplin, advertised in 1769 that he was located "on the main street" (Virginia Gazette, 14 Sept 1769 [Rind]) . This was most likely a rented shop, however; he apparently was living on the eastern outskirts of town, near the tanyard.

Several other local butchers are known, at least by name. These were referred to in notices about runaway indentured servants or slaves (Virginia Gazette, 29 May 1746; 24 May 1751; 11 July 1751; 10 Jan 1752; 22 Sept 1768 [Rind]; 19 Oct 1769 [Rind]; 21 Nov 1771 [Rind]; 23 Jan 1772 [Purdie and Dixon]; 8 July 1773 [Purdie and Dixon]).

The butchers were important middle-class tradesmen, and seem to have formed their own alliances. By 1787 butchers had apparently monopolized the stalls in the Norfolk market, and had become organized enough to collectively request that their rent be considered in lieu of the standard toll (NBR, 28 Sept 1787).

Meat, whether sold by butchers or farmers, was probably displayed as quarters or other large sections. Butchers would usually charge an additional fee to cut up the meat into smaller pieces-a surcharge limited to one farthing per pound in Norfolk, but apparently left unregulated in Williamsburg (Virginia Gazette, 7 Sept [July] 1768 [Purdie and Dixon]) Beef, veal, pork, mutton, and lamb were all sold, probably in varying proportions depending upon the season and/or available supply.

Tainted or spoiled meat was common, both in English and American markets. Mutton sold at St. James' Market in London was: 9

neither lamb nor mutton, but something betwixt the two, gorged on the rank fens of Lincoln and Essex, pale, coarse, and frouzy (Drummond and Wilbrahan 1939: 227).

In Williamsburg, an angry "Timothy Telltruth" accused the butchers of hanging spoiled meat in the market stalls "for hours" (Virginia Gazette, 7 Sept [July] 1768 [Purdie and Dixon]) .

Livestock was also sold at market. Between 1700 and 1750, an average of 75,000-80,000 cattle were driven annually to London meat markets (Drummond and Wilbrahan 1939). The smaller American markets were obviously far less imposing, but some farmers would bring live cattle, sheep, and hogs for sale. The more prized stock, however, was probably sold on an individual basis, or, in areas where these existed, kept for the annual fair.

Poultry were relatively inexpensive at Virginia markets, at least in the latter part of the century. German traveler Johann David Schoepf was surprised to find that in Williamsburg one could get "a turkey-cock [for] 2 and a half shillings; a turkey-hen 2 shillings; a dozen pullets 6 shillings" (Schoepf 1788: 81) .

Eggs, milk, butter, and cheese were among the other animal products one could almost always obtain. Each particular market, of course, might specialize in different things; at the beef market in Charleston, South Carolina, for instance, cow hides were apparently sold as well (Calhoun et al. 1984).

Fish and shellfish seem to have been primarily vended from carts, probably by the fisherman himself. Rapid spoiling was a real problem. The Billingsgate fish market in London "would have turned a 'Dutchman's stomach, even if his nose was not saluted in every alley with the sweet flavour of "fresh" mackerel'" (Smollett 1771, cited in Drummond and Wilbrahan 1939: 228) . In some cases, the effect was intentional, as oysters "were sometimes given the green colour which appealed to connoisseurs by keeping them for some days in 'slime-pits' covered with 'vitrolic scum'" (Drummond and Wilbrahan 1939: 228) .

Produce was usually sold from carts as well. In large town markets it was rarely fresh, and shoppers in London were advised "to make their own arrangement with a market gardener or to go to Covent Garden where although the prices might be high the quality was on the whole satisfactory" (Drummond and Wilbrahan 1939: 229) . Grain, flour, and bread were, in theory, closely regulated, but in practice it is likely that the range in quality was enormous. Timothy Telltruth particularly singled out the Williamsburg bakers, who were entitled "to the pillory" for the bread they baked (Virginia Gazette, 7 Sept [July] 1768 [Purdie and Dixon]).

Long before the market opened, the square was the scene of sometimes-frenetic activity. In England, "most of the grain brought to market was stored at the various inns, a practice called pitching, and only sample bags were shown in the open market" (Addison 1953: 69) . Some market houses, including that at Norfolk, had a loft in which provisions could be stored.

Other provisions were brought in on the day of the market. By sunrise, sellers had entered the town and proceeded toward the market square. Sometimes they were intercepted along the way by so-called "hucksters." The huckster, often an itinerant traveler who went from town to town, would try 10 to buy farmer's goods in order to either sell them himself or inflate prices, a practice known as "forestalling" or "regrating." Since the huckster's goods would naturally go for a higher price, authorities attempted to eliminate forestalling with a series of laws and ordinances. In 1728, for instance, Philadelphia's town council prohibited the purchase of goods "at the ends of the Streets" on the way to market (Bridenbaugh 1938: 350). Judging by their frequency, however, these laws seldom worked, and forestalling remained a problem in almost all markets.

Hucksters would not only attempt to buy provisions on the back streets and alleyways on the way to market, but would try to buy out producers when the market first opened. Once again, authorities intervened. In 1696 Boston law prevented hucksters from purchasing any goods before noon. By 1701 the restriction was raised to two o'clock, and in 1711 was raised even farther (Bridenbaugh 1938: 194). Forestalling could not be eliminated, however, and the hucksters continued to flourish.

To a certain extent, the fairness of the market depended on the watchfulness of the authorities. The single most important official was called the Clerk of the Market. An appointed office, his was a most difficult job. He was in charge of the regulation of the weights and measures, the enforcement of provisions against forestalling, and the general conduct of the marketplace. Locally, he was also usually assigned to let out the market house to one or more sellers, and to collect and transmit the rent to the town council. The presence, or absence, of this official in administrative records, even just to pay his salary or to appoint him, thus appears to be an indicator of the degree of organization of the town market.

Other officials might be appointed as well. The "assize" of bread was intended to regulate the quality of flour and size of the loaves produced by bakers. A large market might have one or more inspectors, for bread, meat, and vegetables, plus several Clerks of the Market. Virginia markets, as a rule, was smaller and less regulated-in many cases, not nearly enough so.

The Market at Norfolk

Perhaps the best-regulated market in Tidewater Virginia was the one at Norfolk. In 1794 Médéric Moreau de Saint-Méry described it as an "open square, … quite deep, with shops and taverns along both sides," fronting on "the widest and longest" street in town. Despite the provision granting it two (later three) market days, it was "open every day except Sunday, when it closes at nine in the morning" (Roberts and Roberts 1947: 46) . Some years later, it was still:

the busiest and most crowded place of the same area in Virginia or the Carolinas, for not only does most of the population of Norfolk and suburbs do their marketing and shopping there, but the two ferries at one end, and the streetcar line at the other, pour in a continuous stream of human freight. … The huckster-stands and market wagons filled with the choicest of vegetables from the great truck-farms of Virginia and North Carolina; the fish stands; … game from the marshes of Carrituck Sound, Chesapeake Bay and the great Dismal, is a sight worth seeing. … (Norfolk Post, June 22, 1865, cited in Wertenbaker 1962: 258-259).

First mention of a Norfolk market was made in 1736, when the common council resolved: 11

That a market house be built of the following Dimensions, Thirty foot long fifteen foot Wide, Six foot overset each side … underpinned with Brick three Brick high from the Surface of the Earth (NBR, 20 Dec 1736).

At the same time the council restricted sales of meat outside the market, and established the penalties and tolls:

No Beef, Pork, Veal, Mutton or Lamb, be Sold within the Corporation at any other place under Penalty of Five Shillings for every Hog, five Shillings for every quarter of Beef, one Shilling for every quarter of Veal, Mutton or Lamb, The buyer and Seller each lyable to the above Penaltys … [and the tolls to be] for every Hog under Sixty pounds weight two pence and all above three pence, and for every Mutton four pence, for every Veal four pence, for every Lamb three pence, and so in-proportion for every Quarter to be paid by the Seller to the Clerk of the Market. The Meat Sold by any of the Inhabitants to pay but half (NBR, 20 Dec 1736).

Just one month later, the council decided that the tolls were too high and lowered them to "two pence halfpenny for every Hogg above Forty pounds Weight or Six pence for every Beef" (NBR, 24 Jan 1736/7) .

What was sold at market varied. In 1797, Saint-Méry noted that:

choice beef costs 1/8 of a dollar a pound … a quarter of mutton 3 to 5 francs, a pound of pork 15 sous; a pair of young fowl from 50 sous to 3 francs; a duck 15 sous; a hen turkey 5 francs; a dozen eggs 9 French sous; a pint of milk 1/16 of a dollar, or 6 sous (Roberts and Roberts 1947: 55).

He was astonished at the variety and abundance of fish:

a weakfish weighing more than 20 pounds costs only 4 or 5 francs, and sometimes one that weighs three times as much may be purchased for 1 dollar. … Drumfish are also cheap. Sturgeon, which here weigh up to 60 pounds, cost 6 French sous a pound, and one pays no more for little cod, which are sold alive and are delicious eating. Shad are innumerable. There are also perch, sea hog, herring, sole, plaice, flounder, mullet, trout, blackfish, eels, the cofferfish, the garfish, etc., etc. In a word, fish are so abundant that the police are frequently obliged to order unsold fish to be thrown into the sea (Roberts and Roberts 1947: 55).

As might be expected, the control of such a market was a constant challenge. On July 8, 1749, the council appointed a committee "to make a Law obliging the Butchers to Slaughter their Meat in proper places, and that there be set Hours for the Sale thereof on the Sabbath day" (NBR, 8 July 1749) . The throwing of "filth" into the streets, primarily by butchers, was apparently a continual problem-dead fish, waste from carcasses, and vermin undoubtedly contributed to the ill-health of the population. By 1794, a strong bye-law outlawing such practices had been put onto the books (NBR, 25 Oct 1794).

Other laws for the public health included provisions against hogs, goats, and stray dogs running loose in the streets. In 1773 a bounty of one shilling three pence was placed on every hog running free (NBR, 17 Aug 1773). In 1791, a "Brick Inclosure or Pound Sixteen feet square and Eight feet high" was ordered "for the purpose of secureing all Hogs or Goats that may be found running at 12 Large" (NBR, 8 Nov 1791) . A poundkeeper was named in 1795 (NBR, 9 May 1794); a year earlier, the council had attempted to get residents to take them seriously by threatening:

that every Hog, pig or goat which shall be taken up and delivered to the Keeper of the pound, shall on the fourth day after if not Claim'd … be sent to the Market House and exposed for sale at 11 O'clock to the highest bidder (NBR, 8 Aug 1795).

Laws regulating the price of market goods were almost continually mentioned in the records. The bye-laws regulating the market were periodically reviewed and amended, and, judging by the frequency of changes, were a constant source of controversy.

Some attention was also paid to the problem of unwanted competition in the marketplace. In 1764 a committee was appointed to look into the problem of "slaves … selling Cakes &c and small Beer at the market and other public places" (NBR, 1 Aug 1764) . Nine years later, a bye-law was passed prohibiting "Indians, mulattoes or negroes Bound or free from selling any kind of dressed meat, Bread, or bakes, … or retailing any kind of Beer or spiritous Liquors" (NBR, 29 June 1773) . The law was not repealed until 1783 (NBR, 30 Dec 1783).

In 1737, the market house was built, at a cost of £ 46, by merchant John Taylor (NBR, 21 June 1737). In 1743, the council ordered that the Clerk of the Market rent it out to the highest bidder (NBR, 24 June 1743); similar orders were given in 1745, 1747, and 1748. In 1747 the council asked that the annual rent for the market house, in the amount of £ 14.17.3, be paid to the mayor by "Mr John Willoughby, Acting Executor of Mr Archibald Taylor deceased" (NBR, 24 June 1747) . One possible interpretation of this request would be that Taylor was formerly Clerk of the Market, and thus would have collected the rent. This would make Taylor the first known individual to hold this position.

Expansion of the market was probably a function of the growth of Norfolk as a commercial center. In 1764, the council called for "a small stall for a market on the public land up Town" (NBR, 1 Aug 1764) . A year later, the stall had been built by alderman Samuel Boush Jr. at a cost of £ 20 (NBR, 24 June 1765). The exact location of this new auxiliary market is not known.

Like most of the rest of the town, the market house was apparently destroyed during the Revolutionary War. In all, more than 1,300 houses were burnt or demolished during the conflict (Reps 1972: 216). The last occupation of the town was in 1781, and it was not until 1783 that the town regained some of its commercial footing.

One of the first actions during the reconstruction of the town must have been reorganization of the market. A new market house had been built by 1787, when the council decided to contract with some person "to build a Shed at the west end of the Market House for the purpose of hanging the Scales, and also to lay a loft floor for Storing provisions brought to market for sale" (NBR, 28 Sept 1787) . In 1790, the new market house was "lengthened Sixteen feet from the Westernmost End of the said Market House, of the same width as the present one is, and … posted all round ten feet from the Market House with a Rail and Benches for the Convenience of the Country Markets, and … paved within the Post" (NBR, 24 Jan 1790) . Only a year later, the Chamberlain was directed to 13 "Cause four new Stalls to be Erected on the South side of the Market House, and let the same Out" (NBR, 8 Nov 1791) .

By 1787, it is apparent that many of the stalls had been appropriated by butchers. In that year, it was recommended to the council that "Money received for the rent of the Stalls from the Butchers, be considered as in lieu of toll heretofore Collected from them" (28 Sept 1787) . Whether the butchers were successful is unclear.

Tolls for the use of the loft were established in 1796:

… [no] Kind of Provisions, or any thing else, shall be received in the Market House loft without Storage for the same, After the following rates, to Wit, for every quarter of Beef One Shilling Six Pence, for every Bag of Meal Nine penny for every hogg or Sheep, or part thereof, One Shillings Six pence, and for every thing Else which may be Stored therein, in proportion on the Bulk may be to the above mention and Articles, And that the same shall be paid for every time such Articles shall be Stored, and should they continue there longer than Twenty four Hours at one time such Articles to pay the same Storage for every twenty four hours, they shall remain there (NBR, 17 Feb 1796).

The duty of enforcing these provisions largely fell upon the Clerk of the Market. Sixteen clerks are named in council records, thirteen of these appointed between 1784 and 1797 (see Table 1). It does not seem to have been a very popular office. A scandal in the Clerk's office erupted in 1785, as the council appointed a committee "to enquire into the Conduct of the present Clerk of the Market" (NBR, 23 July 1785) . That man, Nathaniel Murphy, was soon removed in favor of a James Boushell, who was himself dismissed the next year with an injunction to pay the debt, probably from rent of the stalls, due from him (NBR, 17 Oct 1785; NBR, 15 Aug 1786).

The location of the late eighteenth-century market can be seen on the earliest surviving town plan (1802), which shows a schematically-drawn arcaded building labeled "Market" on Main Street, at the head of a wide "Market Street" leading from the county wharf. The customs house is shown about eight blocks to the west, with the town hall about the same distance to the east. It is likely that this location, near the center of town, was the site of the earlier market as well.

TABLE 1.
CLERKS OF THE MARKET
BOROUGH OF NORFOLK, 1736-1798

Name	Dates in Office	Reason for Departure
Archibald Taylor	?-1747?	Death
Alexander Ross	1755-1758?	Unknown
William Freeman	1774-?	Unknown
John Baynes	1784-?	Unknown
Nathaniel Murphy	1785?	Removed
James Boushell	1785-1786	"Displaced"
14
Barnabas Lorain	1788?	Deceased
Joseph Mead	1789	Unknown
James Weir	1789-1791	Resigned
Francis Thorowgood	1791-1793	Resigned
Edward Donahue	1793	Unknown
James Dunn	?-1794	Resigned
Barzilla (Bazzella) Tuttle	1794-1795	Unknown
Custis Hyslop	1795-1796	"Removed"
Edward Widgen	1796	Unknown
Frederick Hennickie	1797	Unknown

Source: Norfolk Borough Records-24 June 1747; 24 June 1755; 31 Jan 1758; 14 Feb 1774; 26 Aug 1784; 17 Oct 1785; 9 June 1788; 19 Mar 1789; 27 Nov 1789; 9 Mar 1791; 7 Mar 1793; 25 Sept 1794; 14 Mar 1795; 10 May 1796; 5 Aug 1797.

The market house built in the 1780s was apparently in poor shape by the early 1800s, as in 1804 the council requested that a new market house be built "on the north side of Water Street and run up in the middle of Market Street towards Main" (Lounsbury 1986: 33) . The old market house was put up for sale in 1805, "except the pavement and outside posts" (Lounsbury 1986: 33-34). The new building, however, was likely no better built than the old, as in 1814 it was destroyed by a fire, which apparently started on its shingled roof and spread to engulf nineteen other houses (Wertenbaker 1962: 129).

The Market in Williamsburg

Unlike its counterpart in Norfolk, the Williamsburg town market was not particularly well-organized. Further, since many local administrative records were lost during the Civil War, it is difficult to get a precise picture of the market's operation. What is known comes primarily from legal records of the colony, a few letters, and notices in the Virginia Gazette. This information is fully summarized in Carl Lounsbury's study of the Williamsburg market house (1986); what follows comes mostly from that report.

In 1699, when the colony's capital was moved from Jamestown to Williamsburg, the governor was given the power to grant the city a market. This act was amended six years later, providing the trustees of the city with power to, among other things, "enlarge the market place" (Hening 1819-1823: III: 431) . Nothing seems to have been done, though in 1710 Governor Spotswood was "inclined to appoint Weekly Markets" in the town (McIlwaine 1928: III: 251). Three years after, he was proposing that a market house be built (Palmer 1875: 169), a project that, unfortunately, never seems to have gotten off the ground.

As Lounsbury suggests, it is likely that the lack of a regular market in the early eighteenth century was due to a small resident population and an abundance of available farmland in the surrounding countryside. Only during "Publick Times," when the great and not-so-great descended upon the 15 town to attend court or participate in the colony's government, was there a large enough population to support a regular market.

By 1757, however, there was a need for something more substantial. A market house was built on Market Square, near the center of town and about halfway between the Capitol and the College. One or two wooden buildings might have stood on Market Square at this time; it is just as likely, however, that the building constructed in 1757 was the first market house (Lounsbury 1986).

Although the exact specifications for the building are not known, Lounsbury suggests that it was probably a simple wooden building (since the construction was let out to a carpenter), resting on brick foundations and most likely with a shallow hipped roof with overhanging eaves (1986: 25-28). In 1770, several citizens petitioned to turn the old guard house near the powder magazine into a market, possibly indicating that the original had been torn down or burned (or, alternatively, that the market was growing and had outgrown its existing facilities). By 1797, the brick powder magazine itself had become the market house (Morse 1797: 594). It continued as such until the early 1830s, when a new market house was built (Martin 1835).

The only real description of the Williamsburg market in the eighteenth century comes in the form of an angry editorial in the Virginia Gazette by "Timothy Telltruth":

In all well regulated cities and towns the utmost regard is paid to the health and circumstances of the inhabitants, by those in power enacting such laws as deter butchers, bakers, &c. from exposing any thing to sale but what is good in quality, and at a certain fixed rate. We of the good town of Williamsburg, metropolis of Virginia! have but too much reason to complain of being neglected in those particulars; for here meat for poverty not fit to eat, and sometimes almost spoiled, may hang in our market for hours, without any notice being taken of the venders of it; and any person may ask what price for his commodity that his conscience will allow him, which is generally exorbitant enough, especially on publick times, or when little meat is at market. And if a man has not got money enough to purchase a whole quarter of meat, the butcher generally demands a penny a pound extraordinary to cut it. In the same manner we are treated about all other provisions, the feller always taking advantage when in his power. In Norfolk, I have heard that the markets are so regulated there that good meat must only bear such a price as the Magristrates think reasonable; and the butcher is obliged to cut his meat upon a farthing a pound being paid more than he demands the quarter. An example worthy of imitation.-And the bakers are suffered to make their bread of what weight they think proper, and to put such unwholesome ingredients into it, and bake it of such bad flower, as must be very prejudicial to the health of those who eat it. At this very juncture the bread they bake daily, and sell to the inhabitants, justly entitles them to the pillory, if they had their desserts. A good heavy fine, in all likelihood, would put a stop to their iniquitous practices, so detrimental to the inhabitants … . (Virginia Gazette, 7 Sept [July] 1768 [Purdie and Dixon]).

The complaints seem real, if possibly exaggerated, but there is little evidence for how well they were heeded. By the 1790s, Johann Schoepf had found that "provisions [in Williamsburg] are very cheap: butchers' meat 2 pence; hog meat 3 pence the pound; a turkey-cock 2 and a half shillings; a turkey-hen 2 shillings; a dozen pullets 6 shillings" (Schoepf 1788: 81) . However, he also found that the care of livestock on the peninsula was still slipshod: 16

swine and cattle multiply prodigiously, but there is so little attention given to their keep that besides what is fattened and salted for family use or for sale, many head of cattle perish for lack of suitable feed, given over to their fate in the woods and swamps, where often there is abundant nourishment to be had, (and quite as often very meagre), but the main dependence must be reeds and sedge throughout the winter (Schoepf 1788: 89).

The Effect of the Market on Hampton: The Documentary Evidence

What, then, do these comparisons, and the documents themselves, really tell us about the influence of the market in Hampton? The evidence appears to suggest that the town did not have its own market, at least on the scale of those previously discussed. A few sources indicate that the townspeople's food was derived primarily from merchants, who bought goods directly from nearby farmers. Some street vending, however, is likely, particularly in fish and produce.

Without an exhaustive search of existing farm account books, it is difficult to gauge the extent of informal exchange networks. Hampton, like most of the rest of Virginia, was not truly "urbanized." The countryside was only a stone's throw away; some town dwellers even owned their own farms. For the majority who did not own land outside of town, however, there was probably plenty of room for a kitchen garden and perhaps even a few livestock. By 1730 Hampton had a law prohibiting stray hogs in the streets (Winfree 1971: 339)-clear indication that some residents were raising their own pork.

The town markets in Norfolk and Williamsburg probably made a small, if infrequent, contribution to the diet. By the end of the century, the Norfolk market was open seven days a week, only a few hundred yards from the wharves and docks. The Williamsburg market, though smaller and less organized, was conveniently located next to the courthouse and only down the street from the Capitol. Any visitor might have been tempted to make the occasional purchase.

On the other hand, it does not seem likely that these markets were major outlets for surplus from Elizabeth City County farms. The distances, even for the most avaricious farmer, were probably too great to make the trip worthwhile. It is far more likely that the farmers did what Hughes (1975) suggests, selling their surplus to local merchants in exchange for credit or manufactured goods.