Chapter IX: Philadelphia Post-Office—Posts, etc (1)

“Among the Greek colonies and churches of Asia, _Philadelphia
is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins_, a pleasing
example that the paths of honor and safety may sometimes be
the same.”—GIBBON.

We purposely passed over Pennsylvania in giving a statistical account of post-offices, as we intend to make the Philadelphia post-office the starting-point of a more general history, as far as the State is concerned, as also a more extended notice of the system of the general postal department. Again, there are more historical and remarkable events associated with Pennsylvania, in connection with the Revolution, than any other State in the Union.

The history of any one post-office after the Revolution would be a history of all; and, as the writer is more familiar with that of Philadelphia, he is enabled to gather more materials for the miscellaneous portion of his work than if he had selected any other.

The general business routine of one office differs very little from that of another: yet every office has its “unwritten history” and its own “romance and realities.”

New York, with its vast commercial interests both at home and abroad, and justly termed the metropolis of America, could, from the archives of her post-office, give to the world incidents that perhaps would find no parallel in the annals of all the calendars that have registered events of a startling character since the creation of the world.

A post-office, with its millions of letters, is an epitomized world. The letters represent the human race, and contain the written records of their vices and virtues; or it may be compared to a huge volume, and the letters passing to and fro, the indexes to its contents.

Not that the secrets of a post-office become known to its officers by improper means, but by that process of secret modes of detection whose mysterious workings are unknown to those unconnected with the institution. Very little behind the great city we have named stands that of Philadelphia; and its post-office, like the tomb, has buried secrets which an “Old Mortality” alone has the power to bring forth. The task be ours to paint the mysteries of the postal tomb.

_THE ROMANCE OF THE POST-OFFICE._

History and romance have, as it were, by mutual consent allied themselves together for the sole purpose of mystifying mankind. It is true the first cannot pervert a living fact, but it can materially affect the character of one long since passed away and mingled with the revolution of words, men, and nations. The latter is simply a colorist: the one maps, the other paints. And yet how often do we hear it said that truth is stranger than fiction! The romance of a post-office would be a far more truthful history of the human heart than any other work ever written upon the subject. The post-office is the pulsation of a nation, the beating of a million of hearts, and its records would be the world’s volume. “A mail-bag,” says a writer, “is an epitome of human life. All the elements which go to form the happiness or misery of individuals—the raw material, so to speak, of human hopes and fears—here exist in a chaotic state. These elements are imprisoned, like the winds in the fabled cave of Æolus, ‘biding their time’ to go forth and fulfil their office, whether it be to refresh and invigorate the drooping flower, or to bring destruction upon the proud and stately forest king.”[26]

We have selected the Philadelphia post-office as the scene of our romantic portion of this work, because, as stated, it is familiar to us, and many of the incidents, anecdotes, &c. related came under our immediate notice. We mention this simply to do away with any impression that may arise that our purpose was to exalt one city over another and praise its institutions at the expense of those of other places. The author having received some little credit as a critic in another department of our literature for impartiality at least, it is hoped that he will not be accused of a departure from it in this instance.

The history of Philadelphia is fraught with much interest; it is identified with the name of one whose mild and conciliating views with regard to the Indians made his colonization one of holy peace, and gave to the name of Philadelphia by Christian practice what its Biblical meaning conveys,—“the City of Brotherly Love.”

We annex an extract from a Latin poem, inscribed to James Logan, Esq., by Thomas Makin, dated 1728. It was found among James Logan’s papers many years after his death. The poem seems to have been written for amusement in his old age:—

“First, Pennsylvania’s memorable name
From Penn, the founder of the country, came;
Sprung from a worthy and illustrious race,
But more ennobled by his virtuous ways.
High in esteem among the great he stood;
His wisdom made him lovely, great, and good.
Tho’ he be said to die, he will survive;
Thro’ future time his memory shall live;
This wise proprietor, in love and praise,
Shall grow and flourish to the end of days.
With just propriety, to future fame
Fair Pennsylvania shall record his name.
This Charles the Second did at first command,
And for his father’s merits gave the land;
But his high virtue did its value raise
To future glory and to lasting praise.”[27]

_HENRY WALDY, WM. PENN’S FIRST POSTMASTER._

The want of a regular postal system was not felt in the colonies until they had reached a certain point in trade, commerce, and population. The mode of conveying letters and packages, indeed, as well as merchandise of all kinds, was perfectly simple and of a decided primitive character.

Pack-horses were used for the purpose of conveying goods from Philadelphia to towns west. Pack-horses afforded almost the sole means of transportation until about 1788, when the roads were made accessible for wagons; and even then, when the first wagon made its appearance at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the “packers” became greatly excited, and looked upon it as an improvement likely to “ruin their trade.”

The year 1683 was remarkable for the number of emigrants who arrived in the colony. It was in this year the first Assembly was held in Philadelphia, and laws enacted which had a wonderful bearing on the future prospects of the colony.

In July of this year William Penn issued an order for the establishing of a post-office, and granted to Henry Waldy, of Tekonay (now written Tacony), authority to hold one, and to supply passengers with horses from Philadelphia to New Castle, or to the Falls. The rates of postage were as follows: “Letters from the Falls, 3_d._; to Chester, 5_d._; to New Castle, 7_d._; to Maryland, 9_d._; and from Philadelphia to Chester, 2_d._; to New Castle, 4_d._; and to Maryland, 6_d._” The post went once a week, and was to be carefully published “on the meeting-house door and other public places.”

There being no other mode of conveyance except by horse,—wagons and stages not being then established,—the transporting of letters was, of course, made by “post-horses:” these were of the slow order and conducted on that principle. It was not until 1756 that the first line of stages was established. The chief office was in Strawberry Alley, at the sign of the “Death of the Fox.”

The stage _viâ_ Perth Amboy and Trenton made its trip to New York in three days. John Butler was the proprietor, he having been set up in the business by the “Old Hunting Club,” to whom Butler had been huntsman and kennel-keeper. The same year “British packet-boats” are first announced between New York and Falmouth. In 1765 a second line of stages was set up for New York, to start twice a week, using three days in going through, at twopence a mile. It was a covered Jersey wagon, without springs, and had four owners or proprietors concerned in its management. The same year the first line of stages, vessels, and wagons is set up from Philadelphia to Baltimore _viâ_ Christiana and Frenchtown on Elk River, to go once a week from Philadelphia. In 1766 a third line of new stages for New York, modestly called the “Flying Machine,” and intended, of course, to beat the two former ones, was set up to go through in two days,—to start from Elm Street, near Vine Street, under the ownership of John Barnhill. They were to be “good stage wagons, and the seats set on springs.” Fare, threepence per mile, or twenty shillings for the whole route. In the winter season, however, the “Flying Machine” was to cleave to the rough roads for three days, as in former times.

In the “Weekly Mercury” of March 8, 1759, we find the following quaint advertisement:—

“PHILADELPHIA STAGE WAGGON AND NEW YORK STAGE BOAT

“_performs their stages twice a week_.

“John Butler with his waggon, sets out on Mondays from his house at the sign of the Death of the Fox, in Strawberry Ally, and drives the same day to Trenton Ferry, when Francis Holman meets him, and proceeds on Tuesday to Brunswick, and the passengers and goods being shifted into the waggon of Isaac Fitzrandolph, he takes them to the New Blazing Star to Jacob Fitzrandolph’s the same day, where Rubin Fitzrandolph, with a boat well suted, will receive them and take them to New York that night. John Butler returning to Philadelphia on Tuesday with the passengers and goods delivered to him by Francis Holman, will again set out for Trenton Ferry on Thursday and Francis Holman &c. will carry his passengers and goods, with the same expedition as above to New York.

“March 8, 1759.”

“In 1773, as perfection advanced, Messrs. C. Bessonett & Co., of Bristol,” start stage-coaches—being the first of that character—to run from Philadelphia to New York in two days, for the fare of $4. At the same time “outside passengers” were to pay 20 shillings each.[28]

In 1785 the legislature of New York passed an act of exclusive privilege for ten years to Isaac Vanwick and others to run a four-horse stage from New York to Albany at fourpence a mile. This to encourage the experiment.

It would be a curious history to follow up that of stage-coaches until the introduction of railroads and steamboats. It would be a history fraught not only with interest, but showing the enterprise of men under a new mode of government, and the developing of minds which under monarchical rule were chained as it were to ignorance and fanaticism. Liberty and that freedom a republican system gives both to mind and body create a desire

“To learn and know the truth of every thing
Which is co-natural and born with it,
And from the essence of the soul doth spring.”

We have stated that Butler was the “kennel-keeper” to the Old Hunting Club. This club was composed of the “first men of the day.” The kennel for the hounds belonging to the company was situated on the brow of the hill north of Callowhill Street, descending to Pegg’s Run, near Second Street. Butler lived in a low brick house adjoining the northwest corner of Callowhill and Second Streets. Fox-hunting was a favorite amusement of the club. When the population of the city increased and game disappeared, the members removed their establishment over to Gloucester, so as to make their hunts in the Jersey pines.

The passion for hunting led to other amusements not quite so interesting or innocent, both as regarded their character and the influence they were calculated to have on society. These were horse-racing and bull-baiting. The latter were frequent, more particularly in the Northern Liberties, and were first supported chiefly by butchers, but gradually assumed a more aristocratical character, being encouraged by many members of the “Old Hunting Club.” John Ord, an Englishman, kept bull-dogs for the purpose of the breed. His establishment was at the corner of Second and High Streets. The cruel amusement of bull-baiting—one which gave to Old Spain a character for cruelty only equalled by that of the Inquisition—continued until about 1798, when Robert Wharton, Esq., was elected mayor of the city. He attended one of these “bull-baits,” and actually, just as they were about to loose the dogs, jumped into the ring, and, calling aloud, said he would arrest the first man who should commence the cruel work. The effect was tremendous: men started back in affright; the very dogs cowed beneath the glance of his flashing eyes; and the bull gave a roar,—no doubt one of rejoicing for his escape. There were no more bull-baitings after that.

William Penn did not enter upon his mission in the colonies unprepared for all the difficulties he had to encounter, nor was he ignorant of the history of those nations and their great cities which ages ago gave them a classic habitation and a home.

Penn evidently had the celebrated city of Babylon in view as a model for Philadelphia; and, from a draft before us, the idea, as far as regularity and order were concerned, appears to have been well conceived, and, as proved, subsequently carried out.

The history of Philadelphia, as it was during its colonial, caterpillar state, and as it is now in dazzling, butterfly beauty under a far different system of government, is familiar to all: yet we shall have occasion, in connection with our subject, to allude to its former history as we proceed.

The post-office scheme of Colonel John Hamilton was well adapted to the wants of the colonists. In 1717 a settled post was established from Virginia to Maryland, which went through all the Northern colonies, bringing and forwarding letters from Boston to Williamsburg, in Virginia, in four weeks.

In 1727 the mail to Annapolis was opened, to go once a fortnight in summer, and once a month in winter, _viâ_ New Castle, &c., to the Western Shore, and back to the Eastern Shore, managed by William Bradford in Philadelphia, and by William Parks, of Annapolis.

William Bradford established a press in Philadelphia in 1687, the first-fruits of which was a sheet almanac. The title was, “An Almanac for the Year of the Christian Era 1687; particularly respecting the meridian and latitude of Burlington, but may indifferently suit all places adjacent. By William Leeds, Student in Agriculture. Printed and Sold by William Bradford, near Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania.”

A copy of this rare print is in the Philadelphia Library.

William Bradford was the then deputy postmaster, but, having proved negligent respecting his official accounts, was removed, and Benjamin Franklin was appointed in his stead. Colonel Spottswood was the postmaster-general, at whose instigation Bradford was removed.

Now commenced a new and important era in the postal department of our country, bearing date 1737. It was at that period, however, a very unimportant matter, but in time has become a gigantic institution. We look back to that period now with more interest, for two reasons: one is, to contrast it with the present, and the other, because the name of Benjamin Franklin is identified with the first great move in our postal history.

Franklin assumed the deputy-postmastership in 1737. The only pecuniary available result from it, however, was that it afforded him better facilities for procuring news for his paper, and for its distribution. This paper was originally entitled “The Universal Instructor in all Arts and Sciences, and Pennsylvania Gazette,” and had reached its thirty-ninth number when its proprietor sold out to Franklin and Meredith. October 2, 1729, was the date of No. 40, edited by B. Franklin. It was reduced in name to “Pennsylvania Gazette.” The increase and emoluments of his paper were still further aided by the diminishing patronage received by his rival Bradford, the displaced postmaster, who had while in office forbidden his post-riders to distribute any papers but his own. Franklin, speaking of this ungenerous conduct on the part of Bradford, said, “I thought so meanly of the practice on his part, that when I afterwards came into the situation I took care never to imitate it.” He also says, in his Life, “Thus Bradford suffered greatly from his neglect in due accounting; and I mention this fact as a lesson to those young men who may be employed in managing affairs for others, that they should always render accounts and make remittances with great clearness and punctuality, &c.”

Perhaps there is no portion of our postal history more interesting than that which characterized its early dawn. It presents a sort of political and financial struggle between trade, commerce, and a government. Franklin, however, settled the question by making it both a national and commercial feature. It is also interesting to note the difference between the movements of the public mail in those old colonial days, when its bags, at most but a few score pounds in weight, were almost universally carried on horseback, and in these times, when it is speeded in tons by steam!

Perhaps there was not another man in the colonies better adapted for the postmastership than Franklin. He had been, up to that period, an active business-man. He was a printer, editor, compositor, publisher, bookseller, and stationer,—in fact, a modern Faust in the first, and a Mathew Carey in the latter.

The postal services of the colonies now began to assume a somewhat business form, and, although some of these services were not immediately connected with the department, they were nevertheless highly advantageous to the community: as, for instance, letters arriving from beyond sea were usually delivered on board the ship into the hands of the persons to whom they were addressed; families expecting letters would send a messenger on board for the purpose of receiving letters. Those that were not called for before the sailing of the vessel were taken to the “Coffee-House,” where everybody could make inquiry for them; thus showing that the post-office did not seem to claim a right to distribute them, as now. Persons coming from adjacent settlements called at the “Coffee-House,” and carried away not only their own letters, but all those belonging to their neighborhood. These were called “neighborly posts.”

As the trade of the colonies extended, the system of letter-delivery began to vary; and thus the “neighborly post” system resolved itself into that of the “post-rider.”

Perhaps Boston deserves the credit of the first formation of a foreign postal system; for in 1639 the General Court of Massachusetts issued the following decree:—

“It is ordered that notice be given that Richard Fairbanks his house in Boston is the place appointed for all letters which are brought from beyond the seas, or are to be sent thither to be left with him; and he is to take care that they are to be delivered or sent accordingly to the directions; and he is allowed for every letter a penny; and he must answer all miscarriages through his own neglect in this kind.”

In Philadelphia, the Old Coffee-House system prevailed for many years.

In Virginia, the mail-bag was passed along from plantation to plantation, and each planter was required by law, passed in 1757, to send a messenger with it to his next neighbor, under a penalty of a hogshead of tobacco. Every man took out his own letters from the bag, and so on to the remainder.

In 1672 the government of New York established a monthly mail to Boston, advertising that those disposed to send letters should bring them to the secretary’s office, where, in a “locket-box,” they shall be preserved till the messenger calls for them; all persons paying the post before the “bagg be sealed up.”

In 1692 the office of postmaster-general for North America was created; but as late as 1704 no post-rider went farther east than Boston, or farther south than Baltimore. When Franklin was appointed postmaster-general, in 1753, the line of posts still began at Boston, and went no farther south than Charleston.

In 1738 Henry Pratt was made riding-postmaster for all the stages between Philadelphia and Newport, Virginia, “_to set out in the beginning of each month, and to return in twenty-four days. To him all merchants, &c. may confide their letters and other business, he having given security to the postmaster-general._”

In 1744 it was announced in the Gazette that the “Northern post begins his fortnight stages on Tuesday next for the winter season.” In 1745 John Dalley, Surveyor of the State, says that he has just made survey of the road from Trenton to Amboy, and has set up marks at every two miles to guide the traveller!

An attempt was made in 1692 to establish post-routes throughout Virginia. A patent was laid before the Virginia Assembly for making a Mr. Neal postmaster-general of that and other parts of America; but though the Assembly passed an act in favor of this patent, it had no effect. The reason assigned was that it was impossible to carry it into execution, on account of the dispersed situations of the inhabitants.

The locality of the colonial post-offices is a matter of doubt; but, as nearly all the public departments were located in private houses, the presumption is that the post-office was, under Bradford, at his printing-office, and it is more than probable that Benjamin Franklin’s residence, corner of Second and Race, was, or at least a portion of it, used for postal purposes. The first located building used for the purpose was on the east side of Water Street, a few doors below High Street,—the same house which had before been the residence of the chief justice.

It is evident from the old records that all along Water Street and Front Street, extending to South, the chief business of the city was transacted. The earliest papers show by their advertisements that many of the goods for retail were sold on Water Street. Even Penn Street at that early period was of some note; and there are to this day many buildings in its immediate vicinity which bear date prior to 1750. As early as 1737 Mrs. Fishbourne kept a store in Water Street below Walnut, expressly for “ladies’ goods.” In Water Street above Pine Street, in 1755, there was a fashionable furnishing-store for gentlemen’s wearing apparel. The “Old London Coffee-House” stood at the corner of Front and Market Streets: it was the resort of merchants and the _élite_ of the city.[29] All that portion of Front and Second Streets extending as far down as Almond was termed “Society Hill,” and was the nucleus around and near which the tradesmen, the milliners, mantuamakers, and retail merchants gathered.

William Penn, Jr., had a small house at the corner of Second and South Streets. The scenery in the neighborhood of Second and Dock Streets is described by old historians as being very beautiful. Watson says, “Looking across the ‘Dock Creek,’ westward, we see all the margin of the creek adorned with every grace of shrubbery and foliage; and beyond it a gently sloping descent from the line of Second Street, whereon were hutted a few of the natives’ wigwams, intermixed among the shadowy trees. A bower near there, and a line of deeper verdure on the ground, marked ‘the Spring,’ where the naiad weeps her emptying urn.”

In the neighborhood of Union and Front Streets, “Alderman Plumstead” had a splendid garden on the “Sloping Hill:” it was the admiration of the town. In 1739 the Rev. George Whitefield preached to fifteen thousand people on “Society Hill,” near to the flag-staff near Front and Pine. There was also a place of resort in this vicinity, called “Cherry Garden.” “The Friends’ Meeting-House” was also located here, and “George Wells’s place” was much admired. The Loxley House, which stood back of 177 South Second Street (old number), below Little Dock, and only within a few years torn down, is well known for its historical reminiscences to our readers. Near to the Loxley House there was a peculiar spring of water, called “Bathsheba’s Spring and Bower.” The origin of the name is somewhat curious. “Bathsheba Bowers” was the name of a young lady. She erected a small house near to the best spring of water that was in our city. The house she furnished with books, a table, and a cup, in which she, or any that visited her, drank of the spring. Some people gave it the name of “Bathsheba’s Bower,” and the spring long afterwards bore the name of “Bathsheba’s Spring.”

It was in the immediate vicinity of this then beautiful portion of the city the first theatre was opened.

Perhaps there are many of our readers unacquainted with the early history of the stage and the drama in Philadelphia. True, much has been written upon the subject; but in almost every instance discrepancies both in dates and names have occurred.

In the year 1747, one hundred and nineteen years ago, a company of comedians were performing in this city. As this announcement will no doubt startle many, we must, as pioneers in the cause of truth and the drama, be chronological as well as logical in establishing the fact.

The state of society at the period alluded to above was different from what it is now. A feeble, sickly spirit of aristocracy, even at that early stage of our history, disgraced alike the moral and intellectual character of those who caught the infection; and hence a bitter feeling existed among the various classes making up the great body politic. This dangerous foe to all social and religious forms was brought over to the colonies by a few decayed branches of the nobility-trees of England, who had established a sort of “West End” fraternity along Front Street below Spruce (in the immediate vicinity of the Loxley House), and which was known for many years as Society Hill. Broad lines of distinction were drawn between the classes, and mechanics were looked upon as being so far beneath the consideration of these “Malaprops” of real life that servants had to negotiate all business transactions: _the quality had nothing to do with them_!

In the principal streets, such as Second, Front, Spruce, and even as far down as South Street, various artisans, shopkeepers, and others had established themselves in business; and it was here the first attempt was made to enact plays and lay the foundation of the drama’s temple.

The Quakers, and the more sober portion of other denominations, left no means untried to break up what they termed “these Satan-like doings.” It is true, these exhibitions were not publicly announced, and the citizens generally were not aware of their secret place of exhibiting “profane plays.” Private as they were, however, sufficient publicity was given to them to create an alarm among a class of people possessing all the primitive qualities, as well as virtues, of their great founder.

The dawn of literature in this country (_that is, admitting it ever had a morning_) dates at a much later period than the year 1747. It is true many obstacles stood in the way of its advancement; apart from which, the colonists were not a reading community, and the press throughout the land might be likened unto “angels’ visits, few and far between.” It is true the colonists could boast of a few names, whose works bear date as far back as 1640. In 1639 manuscripts were used in courts. The laws by which the colonies were governed were not printed until 1641. The art of printing was introduced into North America in 1639. The first printing-press established in the States was put up at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1639, by Stephen Day. In 1640 he published the Bay Psalm-Book. The year 1678 may be said to form an era in our literature; for at that time John Foster, Boston, published the works of Anne Bradstreet; in 1676, Peter Folger wrote and published his famous “Looking-Glass for the Times.” Various poems, orations, sermons, &c. &c., were published; but it was not until 1720 the _first play was written on the American continent_; and we deem it of sufficient importance to engross it in our sketch of the American stage.

Benjamin Coleman, or, as some wrote it, Colman, was born in Boston, October 19, 1676. While at Harvard College, he wrote the tragedy of “Gustavus Vasa;” and this was the first play enacted by a company of amateurs in the colonies. The history of our literature is associated with that of the press: without the press it would have been as learning was when vellum and beech received the impression of certain figures called letters, and were sold at enormous prices, in proportion to the intellectual and physical labor bestowed upon their productions. The moment the press was put in operation in Connecticut, poetry, Pallas-like, sprang from its mystic womb, and, if unlike Pallas, completely armed, was at least so decently clad that criticism faltered at the threshold of censure. The next play written and the first published in the colonies was “The Prince of Parthia,” by Thomas Godfrey: it was printed in 1768. A copy of it is in the Philadelphia Library. This author was the son of Thomas Godfrey, a glazier, and inventor of the celebrated quadrant now in use. He was born in Philadelphia, in the year 1736. We never refer to these pioneers in the cause of our drama and literature without feeling a desire to moralize. Indeed, to look back over a series of years, and call up images to the mind which have long since passed away, strikes so forcibly the conviction of man’s identity with the infinite works of God, that he trembles, while he meditates, and feels his own insignificance while mourning o’er “visions fled.”

They are brought up to our view by the “Old Mortalities” of every generation; and the selfsame enthusiastic feeling which prompted them to remember coming ages urges us to fulfil our destiny in this. It would be curious to us in this generation, if it were possible, to raise up the curtain of the mouldering past and bring to view “the things that were,”—paint the lowly dwellings of our ancestors, the simplicity and primitive qualities of their minds, and the stern moral rectitude of their even lives. All this would contrast fearfully with what we are now, not only as regards our temporal but our spiritual state. If we differ from our good old friends of the eighteenth century, it is on the subject of the drama and the strange notion they had of its immoral tendency; for we never could imagine that the choicest gems from the British poets—conveyed to us through the medium of the stage—could have any other effect than to exalt the mind, expand the intellect, and open to the view the rich and inexhaustible mental wealth of the mimic world. It would be curious, we say, if it were possible to describe that state of society which could exist without _music_, _poetry_, and _painting_,—a state of society no doubt perfectly moral, strictly pure, but rather stiffly starched with the old-fashioned notions of propriety and the right of enjoyment. At that period, dancing was prohibited, and a fencing-master from Paris almost hunted down for attempting to teach the art in this city. It is true, a few wax figures and Punch and Judy made their appearance on some holidays; but they soon _melted_ away before the heat of puritanical sunshine.

We now come to the first attempt at theatrical representations. In the year 1747 a company was formed, composed chiefly of young men whose education and birth placed them in positions to advance the cause of science or art, as their tastes and inclinations might have led them to advocate. A family by the name of Courtland, an English family, had but recently arrived in this country, and, possessing many of the prevailing notions at that time popular in England, their astonishment at our total ignorance of the drama and its literature was fully shown by a display of their knowledge and a familiar acquaintance with the living dramatists of that period in England. It is not our purpose to connect the name of Courtland with the organization of this company: indeed, such a thing would be almost impossible, inasmuch as the association was as secret as were the names of its members. One thing, however, was evident: a taste for dramatic reading soon became prevalent, and the plays of Shakspeare found favor even in the eyes of the godly. Young Courtland, the leader of “Society Hill” boys, soon inoculated his companions with many of their follies, and the playgrounds about the Loxley House resounded with their shouts. From this circle came forth the pioneers of our drama. A companion of Courtland’s, by the name of Aitken, was the first to propose a dramatic association. The name of Garrick and the uprising of the English drama in London had already enlisted many here in its favor.

The place of meeting for the early pioneership of the drama was held in a house on Second Street adjoining the then gardens of the Loxley House, and immediately connected with an old white building, recently altered into stores, and which was used in our Revolutionary War as a hospital. The front portion of this dramatic temple was used as a boot and shoe store; the rear was occupied by the proprietor’s family, and the range of rooms over the back building was the scene of the drama’s birth. It was here “Richard III.” was enacted, and it was here the few plays that had crossed the Atlantic found favor in the eyes of the aspirants for histrionic fame, and whose dramatic efforts kindled a flame in many a youthful breast, which has sent its light down through the mimic world to brighten it in all ages.

A great sensation was created by this theatrical outbreak, and on its reaching the ears of the Quakers, they, with others opposed to such “unlawful proceedings and profane exhibitions,” had the matter brought before the council, or, rather, the recorder, and we find upon his office-books, bearing date January 8, 1749, gravely written, “The recorder then acquainted the board that certain persons had taken upon them to act plays in this city, and, as he was informed, intended to make a frequent practice thereof, which it was feared would be attended with mischievous effect, such as the encouraging of idleness, and drawing great sums of money from weak and inconsiderate people, who are apt to be fond of such kinds of entertainments, though the performance be ever so mean and contemptible. Whereupon the board unanimously requested the magistrates to take most effectual measures for suppressing this disorder, by sending for the actors and binding them to their good behavior, or by such other means as they should judge most proper.”

This proceeding, strange as it may seem, produced quite a contrary effect; for the company, which was now regularly organized, and was made subservient to the interests of all concerned, actually stepped out from behind the law and boldly asked permission from the authorities to enact plays in some more public place other than the obscure spot they had selected. Backed by the aristocracy of “Society Hill,” their application was granted.

What aided to strengthen this company and give it character was the fact of several members of a West India company arriving here, who immediately joined them; and thus Richard III., Hamlet, Beau Stratagem, &c., were played in a manner to please the “million.”

The Philadelphia company left the Quaker City at the close of 1749, and opened a temporary theatre in a wooden building in Nassau Street, New York. A writer, alluding to this company and the early history of the drama, says, “The earliest theatrical performances, in the recollection of the oldest inhabitants, were in a store on Crugar’s wharf, near Old Slip, by a company of Thespians, composed of ‘choice spirits’ of a certain order. They were roystering young men, full of tricks and mischief, who used to play cricket in the fields, and who spent their nights at the Boat-House, on Broad Street, near where the United States Public Stores now stand.” Our readers will recognize in these young men the Thespian company from the Quaker City. After playing here with some success, the company left for Virginia.

They then went to Williamsburg, Virginia, and, although William Dunlap denies the fact in his “History of the American Stage,” yet it is true that under the presidency of Thomas Lee the Philadelphia company, strengthened by the addition made to it in New York, obtained permission to erect a theatre in Williamsburg, and in the year 1750 it was begun and finished. They played here in 1751.[30]

Hallam opened at this very theatre on the 5th of September, 1752, and on the evening of July 13, 1752, the Philadelphia and New York company opened their second new theatre in Annapolis, and performed “The Beau Stratagem” and the farce of “The Virgin Unmasked:” boxes, 10_s._; pit, 7_s._ 6_d._ Richard III. was performed twice,—the character of Richard by Mr. Wynel, and that of Richmond by Mr. Herbert. Mr. Eyniason, Mr. Aitken, and Mr. Courtland are the only names handed down to us as belonging to the colonial company.

As Hallam’s company arrived at Yorktown in June, 1752, and did not open until September at Williamsburg, there is no doubt that a portion of his company joined Eyniason at Annapolis and played until the opening at Williamsburg.

The first play, therefore, acted in this country by what may be termed a regular company (and this company was composed of the old actors, and two or three of Hallam’s, viz.: Wynel and Herbert) was “The Beau Stratagem,” and the farce of “The Virgin Unmasked.” After the organization of Hallam’s company the members of the old became incorporated with it. The Annapolis theatre, which in 1752 was called the New Theatre, was built of brick, and was calculated to hold over five hundred persons. Dunlap says _this was the first theatre erected in this country_, not being advised of the one erected in Williamsburg in 1750. In justice, however, to Dunlap, the author has a letter from the veteran of the drama within a short time before his death, wherein he acknowledges his error and does justice to Burke the historian, and admits the justice of our correction made in the year 1835.

The following are the names of a portion of the company who played in the “The Beau Stratagem:”—Mr. Eyniason, Mr. Bell, Mr. Miller, Mr. Love, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Aitken, Mrs. Love, and Mrs. Becceley. These we have every reason to believe were of the old company.

COPY OF THE FIRST PLAY-BILL ISSUED BY THE ENGLISH COMPANY AT
WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 5, 1752.

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE.

Bassanio Mr. Rigby.
Antonio Mr. Clarkson.
Gratiano Mr. Singleton.
Salanio and the Duke Mr. Herbert.
Salarino and Gobbo Mr. Wynel.
Launcelot and Tubal Mr. Hallam.
Shylock Mr. Malone.
Servant to Portia Master L. Hallam.
Portia Mrs. Hallam.
Jessica (first appearance on the stage) Miss Hallam.
Nerissa Miss Palmer.

LETHE.

Æsop Mr. Clarkson.
Old Man Mr. Malone.
Fine Gentleman Mr. Singleton.
Frenchman Mr. Rigby.
Charon Mr. Herbert.
Mercury Mr. Adcock.
Drunken Man and Tattoo Mr. Hallam.
John Mr. Wynel.
Mrs. Tattoo Miss Palmer.
Fine Lady Mrs. Hallam.

The above cast includes in the bill the names of all who composed the company, with the exception of Mrs. Clarkson, Mrs. Rigby, and Adam Hallam, a child.

After playing here for a while under circumstances by no means pleasing, the manager cast his eyes to the principal cities of the country, and selected New York as the first step towards the establishing of the drama among the _élite_. At that period the _first families_ in Virginia had not assumed that prerogative. Hallam opened his first place of amusement in the city of New York on the 17th day of September, 1753, with “Conscious Lovers,” and “Damon and Phillida.” The site was originally occupied by the old Dutch Church on Nassau Street. As a matter of history, as well as of curiosity, we append the opening bill:—

BY HIS EXCELLENCY’S AUTHORITY.

By a company of comedians from London, at the New Theatre in
Nassau Street, the present evening, being the 17th of
September (1753), will be performed a comedy called

THE CONSCIOUS LOVERS.

Young Bevel Mr. Rigby.
Mr. Sealand Mr. Malone.
Sir John Bevel Mr. Bell.
Myrtle Mr. Clarkson.
Cimberton Mr. Miller.
Humphry Mr. Adcock.
Daniel Master L. Hallam.
Tom Mr. Singleton.
Phillis Mrs. Becceley.
Mrs. Sealand Mrs. Clarkson.
Lucinda Miss Hallam.
Isabella Mrs. Rigby.
Indiana Mrs. Hallam.

To which will be added the Ballet Farce of

DAMON AND PHILLIDA.

Arcas Mr. Bell.
Ogon Mr. Rigby.
Korydon Mr. Clarkson.
Cymon Mr. Miller.
Damon Mr. Adcock.
Phillida Mrs. Becceley.

A new occasional prologue to be spoken by Mr. Rigby.

An epilogue (addressed to the ladies) by Mrs. Hallam.

Prices.—Box, 8_s._; Pit, 6_s._; Gallery, 3_s._

No person whatever to be admitted behind the scenes.

N. B.—Gentlemen and ladies that choose tickets may have them
at the new printing-office in Beaver Street.

To begin at six o’clock.

The days of performance, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and continued so for half a century.

The city of Philadelphia was the next move by this company on the checker-board of the mimic world.

_THE PHILADELPHIA STAGE._

The Nassau Street, New York, closed on the 18th of March, 1754, and Hallam accepted a pressing invitation from a number of gentlemen in Philadelphia, and opened on the 15th of April, 1754, in a sail-loft or warehouse belonging to William Plumstead, Esq.,[31] situated in Water Street, southeast corner of the first alley above Pine. This building extended to the wharf. This was certainly a most curious locality: yet at that period the neighborhood of its site was almost _aristocratical_, for “Society Hill,” extending all along Front Street to Almond, was the theatre of as much fashionable parade and display as Chestnut Street is now. There stood at that period several finely-built houses, and its proximity to the “Loxley House” and “White Hall” gave it a character it certainly could not claim at the present day: we mean, of course, for its locality as a theatre. There is also another, and perhaps a paramount one; and that is, it was the only place they could get. It was here, on this lone spot, the first regular company of comedians opened their Philadelphia campaign. The play was the “Fair Penitent,” and “Miss in her Teens.”

We present the cast of the tragedy:—

Sciotto Mr. Malone.
Horatio Mr. Rigby.
Lothario Mr. Singleton.
Altamont Mr. Clarkson.
Catista Mrs. Hallam.
Lavinia Mrs. Adcock.
Sucetta Miss Hallam.

Prices of admission.—Box, 4_s._; Gallery, 2_s._ 6_d._

Having given an account of the first theatrical exhibition given in this city, and the site of the first theatre, we come now to the second, which may, in fact, be termed the first erected for legitimate purposes. The company continued to play at Plumstead’s warehouse, gaining favor gradually with the public, until June, having remained open two months, and playing to crowded houses. On the 17th of June they played “The Careless Husband” by particular request, the proceeds of which were appropriated to the poor of the city. It is a curious fact in the history of the drama, and one which reflects but little credit upon its opponents, that in almost every case of opposition the belligerent parties were bought over by _money_, and even this came into their hands as _donations to the poor_; but whether the poor ever received a penny of it is a matter time and eternity have already reconciled. Even at the present day there are classes of men whose opinion of actors and theatres would undergo a _material_ change if a portion of the proceeds of the theatrical representations were poured into their laps, and used, as the phrase goes, _for the poor_.

In the year 1759 David Douglas opened the second theatre in Philadelphia. This building stood at the southwest corner of South and Vernon Streets. It was built entirely of wood, weather-boarded and painted a dark lead-color. It was a large building, and calculated to hold a thousand persons. Douglas had succeeded to the throne of the “mimic world” in consequence of the death of Mr. Hallam, whose widow he married. Douglas was a man of enterprise, and ambitious to establish the regular drama in the Western World. In the pursuit of this object he at once determined to erect temples to the histrionic muses which in after-years would lead to the establishing of others, whose classic beauty and architectural design might emulate the proudest edifices of the land and find their model in Roman superstructure. In doing this, he had to contend against the prejudices of the people, and select such plays as were calculated to disarm opposition and enlist the liberal in his favor. Thus, he opened the old South Street Theatre with the tragedy of “Douglass,” written, as was stated in the bills, by Mr. Home, minister of the Kirk of Scotland. This was followed by “Hamlet,” which play, it was said, furnished a moral lesson for youth and the regulation of their conduct through life. On the 27th of December a benefit was given towards raising a fund for “purchasing an organ to the college hall in this city, and instructing the charity children in psalmody.”[32]

On the following evening “Hamlet” was played for the benefit of the Pennsylvania Hospital, and the theatre closed for the season. The members of the company—at least the chief portion—were Mr. and Mrs. Douglas, Miss Cheer, Mrs. Morris,[33] Mrs. Crane, Mrs. Allyn, and Miss Hallam. In addition to the company which we have already mentioned in another chapter, we find the names of Quelch, Tomlinson, Stuart, Tremaine, Reed, and Morris.

Francis Mentges, afterwards an officer in our service, was the dancing performer. While he danced he assumed the name of Francis. Miss Cheer was the _Lady Macbeth_ of the day, and Morris, the husband of the lady whose unfortunate fate we have stated, was the low comedian: his name is to be found in various companies, enacting old men, up to as late a period as 1800. Dunlap says, “Those that can look back to 1788 will remember him as a little, shrivelled old man, with a voice palsied with age, having for his second wife a tall, elegant woman, the favorite comedy lady, and the admiration of the public.”

The Presbyterian Synod, in July, 1759, formally addressed the governor and legislature to prevent the opening. The Friends made their application to Judge William Allen to suppress the representations. His reply was that “he had got more moral virtue from plays than he had from sermons.” As a sequel, it was long remembered and spoken of, that the night the theatre opened, and on which he intended to visit, _he was called to mourn the death of his wife_! The motto over the stage was:—

Totus mundis agit histrionem.

There are many persons who confound this with the third theatre, erected by Douglas. That no further doubt may exist upon its site, three brick buildings are situated, as stated, at the southwest corner of South and Vernon Streets.

Society Hill, which extended from Spruce Street (gradually rising, having its summit on Pine Street) to the Swedes’ Church, was the fashionable portion of the city. At that period they had “Cherry Garden” on Society Hill; the “Friends’ Meeting-House,” the “theatre,” “George Wells’s place.” They had also a flag-staff erected on Society Hill, under which Whitefield preached. This staff stood at the corner of Pine and Front Streets. Alderman Plumstead’s garden was situated in Union Street, and it was the admiration of the town.

In the year 1724 a slack- and tight-rope exhibition was given by a company of men and women, at the corner of South and Front Streets. They continued their antics for twenty nights to gaping crowds. This was the first exhibition of the kind ever given in the city.

Douglas, finding the more respectable portion of the community disposed to encourage theatricals, selected a more eligible site for the building of another theatre, and for that purpose fixed on a vacant lot situated at the southwest corner of South and Apollo Streets, above Fourth: hence the error of many historians who confound this with the one at the corner of Vernon Street. This theatre was erected in 1760. Little attention was paid to design in the building. The view from the boxes was intercepted by large pillars supporting the upper tier and roof. It was lighted by plain oil lamps, without glasses, a row of which was placed in front of the stage. The scenery was dingy,—chamber-scenes taken from descriptions of old castles; and altogether the whole presented a dark and sombre appearance. The stage-box on the east side in after-years was fitted up for President Washington, whenever he honored the theatre with his presence, at which time “The Poor Soldier” was played by “desire.”

Much was written and published at this time against the immoral tendency of the stage; and a cursory glance at the public papers would lead to a belief that the introduction of stage-plays was deprecated as being a greater evil than pestilence and famine. The fathers of the Church were quoted most appositely on the occasion, and the poor players were near being confounded with the weight of authority against them; for, unfortunately, they could not “quote Scripture for their purpose.” Occasionally some one was bold enough to raise his voice in their defence, but it was heard as the small note of the oaten reed amidst the braying of the warlike trumpet. More, however, is effected by steady perseverance than by violent measures. The players pursued the “even tenor of their way,” and as the mass of the people did not foresee the evil consequences which the more enlightened apprehended, they attracted full audiences, which kept up their spirits in spite of the papal bulls incessantly issued against them.

We have here to correct an error of Mr. J. F. Watson in his celebrated “Annals of Philadelphia.” In doing so, the writer of this would merely remark that this error of Watson’s evidently arises from his distaste to the subject of theatres; for had he exercised a twentieth part of his usual judgment in tracing past occurrences, incidents, &c., this would not have occurred. Page 471, first volume of Watson’s Annals, we find this paragraph:—“In 1760 a large building, constructed of wood, situated in South Street above Fourth Street, was opened,” &c. &c. “The managers were Hallam & Henry.”

Mr. John Henry, the partner of Hallam in after-years, arrived in New York from England in 1767, and made his first appearance at the John Street Theatre, New York, December 7 of that year. The company was still Douglas’s.

Mr. Wemyss, in his Chronology of the American Stage, says that the John Street Theatre opened December 7, 1767, under the management of Hallam & Henry, and in the same book announces his first appearance in America, on that very evening, as _Aimwell_ in The Beau Stratagem. Hallam & Henry did not form a partnership until the 21st of November, 1784. Douglas having gone to Jamaica, where he received a judgeship under the British crown, he relinquished the sceptre of the American company to Hallam, his step-son, who took for his partner John Henry. How our friend Wemyss could fall into so gross an error is entirely beyond our comprehension. The South Street Theatre opened under Hallam & Henry’s management in 1786.

The members of the old South Street company, in 1761, consisted of Messrs. Douglas, Hallam, Allyn, Morris, Quelch, Tomlinson, Street, Reed, Tremaine, and Master A. Hallam, Mesdames Douglas, Morris, Crane, Allyn, and Miss Hallam.

To the antiquarian the subject of our drama and stage would afford a wide range for the display of his genius in that line, as they embrace the very “_Mémoires pour Servir_” for a volume.

“POST TENEBRAS LUX.”

“After darkness comes light.”

We have referred to these reminiscences of the olden time simply to contrast the past with the present; for in tracing up the progress of any one institution connected with the government, it necessarily follows that every thing else must have a corresponding progressive interest. Reminiscences, however, are but retrogressive shadows that come over us in their gloom, as they conjure up the spirits of those who have long since passed away from the earth, as have all those scenes which the “Old Mortalities” of the present take delight in repainting. “Passing Away” is but the result of the onward march of Time:—

“Still he goes,
And goes, and goes, and doth not pass away;
He rises with the golden morning, calmly,
And with the moon at night. Methinks I see
Him stretching wide his mighty wings,
Floating forever o’er the crowds of men,
Like a huge vulture with its prey beneath.”

In 1753, on the death of the postmaster-general for America, Benjamin Franklin and Colonel William Hunter, of Virginia, by a joint commission from the English postmaster-general, were appointed to succeed him. The two American deputies were to have £600 per annum between them, provided they could raise the sum from the net proceeds of their office. The colonial post-office receipts had never been sufficient to pay a shilling of revenue into the English treasury; and to render them productive enough to yield the compensation mentioned, various reforms were necessary, and Franklin immediately set about introducing them. In the summer of 1753 he started out on a tour of inspection, and visited every post-office in the colony, except that of Charleston, infusing new vigor into the service, and putting the whole upon an improved footing.