Here is a little-known tidbit about living in any New England town in the in the 1600s-1770s. Anyone who was not an “admitted” member of the town – as determined by the townsfolk and/ or the Parish – but came to town to work, was permitted to stay for a brief period of months. After that, they might have been told they had to leave. This process was called being “warned out.” How did this arrangement come to be?
The concept of “warning out” arrived in New England along with the first English settlers, who brought with them familiar English customs. One of these was the tradition that every town was responsible for financially supporting its own poor. Since that could become expensive, the town’s solution was to allow any newcomer up to three months residence after which they could be told to leave or “warned out.” Quoting from the towns earliest records, Cambridge historian, and Town and City Clerk, Lucius Paige (1802-1896) highlights the beginning of this policy in 1636:
“whosoever [sic] entertains any stranger into the town, if the congregation desire it, he shall set the town free of them again within one month after warning given them or else he shall pay 19 shillings (??) 8 pence unto the townsmen as a fine for his default, and as much for every monthly shall there remain.” (December 5. 1636)
By 1723, the outside transient issue was still a problem: “… of late years, sundry person and families have been received and entertained amongst us, to the great trouble of the Selectman and damage of the town…voted…that henceforth no freeholder nor inhabitant in said town shall receive or admit any family into our town to reside amongst us for the space of a month, without first having [notified and obtained] the allowance and approbation of the freeholders and inhabitants of said town, or of the Selectmen …”
Most outsiders appear to be less wandering transients than people hired by townsmen to work as servants or as laborers. In some cases, arrangements were made for a young person (typically young boys) to reside with a townsperson for general, educational reasons. Townsmen (or women) were then required to inform (“Notify”) the Selectmen with details about the person’s name, age, and background. Keeping track of the new arrivals in this way enabled the town to send the “warning out” at the appropriate time. Typically, the outsider was permitted to stay from 1-3 months.
There were exceptions to being cast out. These included anyone who married into an inhabitant’s family, or those sent to town for educational reasons, or “men or maid servants upon wages, or purchased servants or slaves.” The grounds for allowing a person to remain in town are not entirely clear. There may have been some combination of proving themselves to be good workers, providing positive recommendations from permanent residents, continuing to be decent members of the local parish, or providing proof that they could support themselves. If those under scrutiny were still required to leave, they were usually sent back to the town from whence they came.
Examples of “Notifications”
The following examples illustrate the variety of reasons and circumstances for taking a person into one’s household. Those accepting “outsiders” into their household appear to have been well established and prosperous. Those they took in were often much less so. Affluent members of society appear more often in official and personal records, and therefore the newcomers are difficult to trace. These examples are taken from the records of 1788-1794, published in the New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Vol. CXLVI: January 1992 and transcribed by Ann Smith Lainhart.
Farmer John Foxcroft’s 1789 description of William Banks no doubt served as a recommendation for allowing him to remain in town:
“This is to inform you that on Thursday the sixteenth instant, I admitted into my Farm house Mr. Benjamin Pratt his wife & four children…together with a young man named of William Banks of whose character & Circumstances I have such an opinion that I have entrusted him with the care of my farm…” (Previously, in 1788, Foxcroft took into his home Hannah Holding, 27 years old.)
Gershom Cutter, on the other hand, wrote implying that Lucy Wright should not be able to remain in town:
“This is to inform you, that on the 15th of July last, I admitted into my house as a boarder, one Lucy Wright a Widow, formerly Lucy Morton, daughter of [blank] Morton, who keeps the White Horn Tavern in Boston; her Circumstances are at present, I suppose, indigent; She is about 32 years of age. I give you this information in order that you make take the steps of the law to prevent her being chargeable to this town.” Gershom Cutter June 4, 1789
Thomas Gardner III, (1761-1810) who lived across the river in “Little Cambridge” (now Allston/Brighton) took in eight people in between 1789 and 1798, including:
“This may certify that I took into my house
-a young man from Pelham in the State of New Hamshire [sic], of nineteen years of Age, by the name of Ezra Johnson”
– a young Woman from Newtown of Seventeen Years of age by the name of Abigail Weld.”
…a Boy from Needham of twelve years of age by the Name of Jeremiah Gay.”
…a young woman from Watertown came to live with me upon hire, the 12th of October 1789, by the name of Hannah Learned of Eighteen years old. “
Thomas Gardner III was the son of Revolutionary hero Captain Thomas Gardner (1774-1775) whose estate was in Little Cambridge. Captain Gardner was killed at the battle of Bunker Hill and his funeral was attended by General George Washington. An elementary school in Allston and the town of Gardner, Mass are named after him.
Rev. Caleb Gannett (1745-1818) was a distinguished inhabitant who also lived in Little Cambridge and hired several African Americans, one of whom was Peter Waters who had served in the Revolution:
“Peter Waters, a blackman, born in Maryland, served in the American Army in the late war; afterwards lived in Newton & thence came into the Subscribers employment March 15th. 1789. Caleb Gannett”
Also:
“Pompey Parsons a black man age 42 – brought from Africa when ten years old. Immediately after his arrival went to live with the Rev’d. Mr. [Joseph?] Parsons of Bradford, with whom he continued two or three years, till his master’s death; after which he was under the care of Dr Scott of Boston, till 21 years old which town (Boston) he has since considered as the place of his residence. He came into the Subscriber’s service the 13th of last month,” March 25, 1790
After he was admitted to Harvard College at the age of 14 and received his MA in 1766, Gannett preached in local towns before returning to Harvard to become a tutor of Natural Philosophy and Mathematics. He was an early member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, member of the Cambridge School Committee and Humane Society, the Massachusetts Historical Society, and a Justice of the Peace. In 1779, Harvard asked him to become the College Steward, a position he held until his death in 1818. In this role, Gannett was responsible for managing the daily operations of the college dormitories, kitchen, catering, obtaining fuel, supervising staff, and collecting tuition and fees from students. It is possible that Peter Waters and Pompey Parsons worked for him at Harvard.
William Winthrop, son of Prof. John Winthrop of Harvard, was a gentleman farmer of Cambridge who also served as Town Clerk, Selectman, State Senator, Justice of the Peace, and Registrar of Deeds for Middlesex County. William hired ten individuals between 1786 and in 1793, one of whom he describes, oddly, as living in the house he bought for his own home:
“Joseph Winship, about 20- years born in Cambridge of Parents who [are?] inhabitants of Lexington & now receive a partial support from that [town], he has lived in this Town ever since his birth. When I purchased the house where I now live, I found said Winship in it & he has remained there ever since.“
The Winthrop notification below in 1790 appears to refer to the practice of placing children in prosperous households in order to be educated or raised for a period of time:
“This is to acquaint you, that on the 29th day of December last past I admitted into my house, one Simon Fuller, Son of Edward & Ruth Fuller; the boy I am informed was born at Newton (where his parents were Inhabitants) on February 10th 1790[sic] & he is to live with me until he is 15 years old. I give you this information agreeable to a late law in order that measures may be taken if it is thought best, to prevent said Simon Fuller from becoming an Inhabitant of the town of Cambridge:
Simon Fuller’s father, Captain Edward Fuller, also appeared to be wealthy and was a Lieutenant in the army during the Revolution. After the war, Fuller served as Selectman of Newton, and for seven years represented the town in the State Legislature.
It was not uncommon for children to be “bound out” (indentured) from almshouses. In some cases, this was a preferable alternative: circumstances at almshouses were generally appalling, as can be seen in the case of a boy taken in by Joseph Stacey Read:
“June 1, 1790. Sir [Dr. T. L. Jennison, Town clerk of Cambridge] This is to give information to the Selectmen that I have taken into my family a boy named James Osburn, about twelve years old. He is taken from the Alms House in Boston, and bound to me by the Overseers of the Poor of that town Yours, Joseph Stacey Read. From the records of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts we know that James Osborn was “free” in 1799.
Joseph Stacey Read (1754-1836) was a saddler and served as the Postmaster in Cambridge for several years.
Priscilla Whiston, who, in 1789 had already brought into her household a young woman named Keziah Underwood, in 1792 wrote to the Selectman about another woman she had sheltered out of charity but could no longer house. Note that “strolling” did not necessarily refer to “ladies of the night,” but rather destitute people wandering into towns looking for work:
“Your petitioner humbly sheweth that on the 13th of November last, [1791] she was obliged by all the ties of humanity to admit a strolling girl into her house, who calls herself Vice Ross; and that by applying to the Selectmen, she was desired to harbour her for a few days while they could make some enquiry concerning her place of abode: and that the said girl has tarried with her ever since that time. That your petitioner has been daily expectation of some decision from you upon the matter: that she does not wish to keep her any longer, unless by vote from you. She therefore requests that you would take it into consideration immediately, and give you her information how she must act. And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray.” (January 2, 1792)
Gideon Frost (1754-1803) was a grandson of Samuel Cooper whose father John Cooper had built the house in 1681. It still stands at 21 Linnaean Street in 1657 (below). (Gideon’s father Edmund Frost had married Samuel Cooper’s daughter Hannah). In 1790 he notified the Selectman about:
“Uriel Lyon aged 29, born in Newport Rhode Island State, but last from Boston. Block maker by trade, (with) Lydia his wife (&) Lydia the daughter, came into Cambridge the first of February 1790 (admitted by Gideon Frost).” It is unclear where Uriel Lyon went next.
Because Gideon Frost purchased the house at 21 Linnaean Street it is now referred to as the Cooper-Frost-Austin House.
Examples of “Warnings Out”
Between November 7, 1791 and March 18, 1793, records show approximately 269 adults were warned out of town. Mostly these were laborers, servants, tradesmen, butchers, tanners, and those of similar occupations. The list includes many “spinsters,” one “physician” two “Esquires” and a handful of “foreigners.”
On November 7, 1791, Cambridge Selectmen Moses Robbins, R. Richardson, George Prentiss, and Moses Griggs wrote to the Constables of Cambridge informing them of the list of individuals whom they wanted to be warned out. These were people who:
“… have lately come into this town, for the purpose of abiding therein, not having obtained the Towns consent therefor, that they depart the limits thereof, with their Children, and others under their care, if such they have, within fifteen days. And of this Precept with your doings thereon, you are to make Return into the Office of the clerk of the town, within twenty days next coming, that such further proceedings may be had in the Premises, as the law directs.”
These people included:
Isaac Higby (Higsby) for whom Gersham Swan had submitted a notification on November 8, 1789.
Philemon Robbins, butcher, and his wife Sally, of Lexington, for whom Nehemiah Cutter Jr. had submitted a notification on July 31, 1790.
Hannah Hammond, spinster, for whom Jonathan Livermore had submitted a notification May 3, 1790.
Joshua Winship, his wife Mary, and their children, whom Jonathan Winship had submitted a notification in April of 1789.
Luther Ware, for whom Richard Gardner had submitted a notification in 1790
Thomas Gibbs a “Negro man…who came from Swanzey about 8 years ago [and?] was admitted to this town by Bowers, which negroman married a negro woman by the name of Ross about 3 months ago, a servant belonging to me. I give you this information in order that the steps of the law may [be?] taken to prevent them…from becoming chargeable to this town.) Jonathan Winship had notified their arrival in 1789.
Thomas and Hannah Cheeney (Cheney) for whomMary Jeffries in had submitted a notification in 1787: “…they came to my house from Newtown, where I suppose they belong. Mr. Thomas Cheeney informs me that he was born at Newtown, – I give you this information in order that the Steps of the Law may be taken to prevent the above- named persons from being chargeable to this town.”
Changing the System: The End of Notifications and Warnings Out
During the 1700s, as cities and towns grew, more and more people migrated from farming villages into towns looking for work. Some were soldiers returning from wars. Job availability could not keep up with the influx. It became obvious that there needed to be a change in how society provided for the poor.
This dilemma led to the demise of the “Notifications and Warning Out” as a system of social policy. Instrumental in this change was the Massachusetts Poor Relief Act of 1794. This Act required all towns in Massachusetts to build their own almshouse for care of the poor.
Even before the Massachusetts Poor Relief Act, Cambridge had already been working on the problem. In 1779, a location near Harvard Square was selected to build a dual poorhouse and workhouse. The mandate was to “provide all necessary food, fuel, clothing, and medicine, proper for the occupants and tools and materials necessary to their proper employment.” And, that the warden of the Poor’s House “shall endeavor to form the paupers under his care to habits of economy, frugality, temperance, sobriety, and industry; particularly he shall keep them employed in such useful and profitable labors as they may be respectively able to perform, within doors or without doors, having regard to their different sexes, ages bodily strength, former habits of life, and all other circumstances, with the approbation of the Overseers.”
This first location did not work out. In 1786, the almshouse moved to North Cambridge, halfway between the Harvard Square area and what is now Arlington. After that, the facility was moved two more times: in 1818 and again in 1851. For more on the history of Cambridge Almshouses see “The Cambridge Almshouses and Avon Home for Children” by CHC Assistant Director Kathleen (Kit) Rawlins.
Today’s post was written by CHC volunteer Kathleen M. Fox
Sources
“The Almshouse and the Workhouse” by Hollis R. Bailey. Proceedings of the Cambridge Historical Society, vol. 10.
“The Almshouse and the Workhouse”. Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, LXIX (2006). https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/3076
“The Beginnings of the First Church in Cambridge” by Hollis R. Baily. Proceedings of the Cambridge Historical Society, vol. 10.
Building Old Cambridge by Susan E. Maycock and Charles M. Sullivan, MIT Press (2016).
“Cambridge, the Focal Point of Puritan Life” by Henry Hallam Saunderson. Proceedings of the Cambridge Historical Society, vol. 32.
History of Cambridge, Massachusetts 1630-1877. With a Genealogical Register. by Lucius R. Paige (1877)
“The Massachusetts Poor Relief Act, 1794” as published in The Eighteenth-Century Records of the Boston Overseers of the Poor, edited by Eric Nellis and Anne Decker Cecere (2006).
Massachusetts Reconnaissance Survey, 1980.
Mellen Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society.
MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Cambridge (1980). Massachusetts Historical Commission. https://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/townreports/Boston/cam.pdf.
Papers of Caleb Gannett, Harvard University Archives.
“Warning Out.” Primary Research. (2015, January 4). https://primaryresearch.org/warning-out/.
Warning Out in New England, 1656–1818 byJosiah Henry Benton, (Boston: W.B. Clarke Company, 1911).
“Warnings Out” by Sheilagh Doerfler. (2017). Vita Brevis. American Ancestors. https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2017/06/warnings-out.
“When People Were ‘Warned Out’ of Town” by Tyler Resch. The Fourteenth State essays, Bennington
Museum. https://benningtonmuseum.org/library/fourteenth/12-when-people-were-warned-out-of-town.pdf.
Wikipedia
