CALIFORNIA COLONIAL WOMEN OF AFFAIRS CHAPTER I MY HOSTESS OF THE TAVERN FALSTAFF: And is not my hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench? King Henry IV, Part 1, Act 1, Sc. 2. THE Woman tavern-keeper was a familiar figure in Elizabethan England. Soon after the settlement, she became equally familiar in the colonies, although hostesses resembling Mistress Quickly would hardly have been tolerated. At a surprisingly early date the town selectmen and the General Courts were making sure that every town contained an ordinary, as the inns of the time were appropriately named. If none of the good fathers felt a call to become an innkeeper, the selectmen would choose one who had a large and conveniently located house, and deliver the call to him direct. The standards of what constituted a "large and conveniently located house" were not unduly high. As late as 1768 Mary Austin, of Stanwich, Connecticut, advertised for sale a house two stories high, forty-five by thirty feet, four rooms on a floor, saying: 1 It is very conveniently situated for a merchant or tavern keeper, and is much noted, as there has been a mercantile store and tavern there for some time, and neither merchant nor tavern within four miles. Under these conditions it is easy to understand why innkeeping for women was advantageous. A woman who found herself deprived of support by the death of husband or father, whose chief legacy must in many cases have been the homestead, could find no readier means of maintaining her home than that of entertaining travelers. All the evidence indicates that women constituted a larger proportion of the hotel-keepers then than they do now. These hostelries were of all types, from that of the woman who merely consented to rent a room and furnish meals on demand, to that of the hostess whose excellent tavern was known for miles around. There, travelers betook themselves gladly, the judges on circuit made a point of dining, and groups, such as proprietors of townships, held their regular meetings. The assistance of a man must often have been desirable, especially when as was always the 1 New York Mercury, January 18, 1768. case in an enterprise of any importance- the license to keep the inn included the privilege of "drawing wine." One early case shows the interest taken by the court in every detail. Records of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County for 1647 state that on petition of Mrs. Clark, of Salem, widow, she was licensed to keep the ordinary there, with liberty to draw wine, for which privileges she was to pay a fee of ten pounds annually; all, however, on condition that she "provide a fitt man yt is godlie to manage ye business," he to be approved by the General Court.1 Apparently Mrs. Clark and her "godlie" bartender prospered. The record of another woman appointed by the Essex County Court is less satisfactory. In April, 1666, Elizabeth Sharrat (Sherrod?) was licensed to keep the ordinary at Haverhill for the ensuing year. In October, 1667, Thomas Mudgett sued Hugh Sharrat and wife Elizabeth for not paying for a pipe of wine and other goods delivered to the said Elizabeth in May, 1666; the court found for the plaintiff, and Elizabeth's license was never renewed. In October, 1704, Madam Sarah Knight, of Boston, traveled on horseback from Boston to New Haven, and thence to New York, returning in 1 Quarterly Courts of Essex County, vol. I. p. 123. 2 Ibid., vol. III, p. 319. 8 Ibid., vol. III, p. 450. |