An Introductory Review of London Customs Records from 1768-1773: Furniture Imports and Exports of Major North-east American Ports by Anne Rogers Haley

The "Northeastern Provinces" of America

N.B. -- This article was published in 1996 and is based on a lecture at Oxford University given by Ms. Haley 

Economic historians have long recognized the importance of customs ledgers and shipping registers, but the concentration of their publications tends to be on commodities such as rice, indigo, grains, tobacco and similar staple items. Various economists have utilized a customs house ledger book entitled Imports and Exports (America) 1768 to 1773, located in the Public Records Office at Kew, Surry, in their work.  Although cited in economic histories, I ‘discovered’ the London Customs Records during a chance encounter whilst completing other research. The ledgers contain a formidable amount of material relevant to an analysis of the furniture trade. They list the imports and exports at the various ports of North America noting the countries from which commodities were exported and imported, together with accounts of the ships entering inwards or clearing outwards at the ports, with their tonnage and type. Due to a series of fires at the London Customs House, this is one of the few surviving ledgers for the colonies during the eighteenth century.  This particular study reviews only the documentation for furniture, described as “House Furniture”.

                

Although the statistical data, which you can see by clicking here requires further analysis and additional documentation from social, economic and art historical sources, the ledger alone is an extremely important source for the study of furniture, particularly in relation to the questions of transmission of design.  The statistical analysis presented here is an overview of the entire five years and is not broken down by year. This study, therefore, does not definitely analyze trends over the entire time period, but rather suggests possible scenarios. A transcription of the ledger with its various accounts, noted in chronological order, is located here and followed by a summary of statistics for imports and exports. It should be noted, however, that without reviewing all the coastal port entry and clearance records for these years, some items may be double-counted. It is sometimes possible to see the intercoastal shipments, for instance, two billiard tables are imported into Nova Scotia and later shipped into Philadelphia via Boston. However, with chair statistics it is very difficult to know how many chairs originating from the port of Boston may have been exported to Savannah, for example, and then subsequently shipped on to the West Indies. Without reviewing each years’ statistics and checking the entries into and clearances out of the individual ports, double-counting is a particular problem with the analysis. It is a question that will need to be addressed as more documentation is accumulated and assimilated.

                

View of Salem, MA 1797

In American furniture studies, it is accepted that the transmission of designs utilized for furniture, i.e., the introduction of such elements as the claw-and ball foot, the pierced splat back, the bombe shape, etc., came from three primary sources: craftsmen who immigrated to the colonies; design and pattern books; and, imported furniture.  Although scattered documents and references survive to document the shipping trade, this customs house ledger notes the specific types of furniture both imported into colonial ports from London and exported coastwise to east coast colonial ports, the West Indies, the Wine Islands, Ireland, Great Britain and Africa. While we still remain uncertain as to exactly what these items of furniture looked like, the percentage of types of articles imported and exported documents trade and production patterns from 1768 to 1773. Additional research will of necessity look for items of furniture that may have survived their travels intact, and, with a reliable provenance. The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum owns a secretary labeled by the Sandersons of Salem, Massachusetts, that was discovered in South Africa earlier in the century. The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, owns an English mahogany bombe chest-on-chest with mirrored doors that is purported to have been imported to Boston by the merchant, Charles Apthorp (1698-1758).

                

In reviewing the ledger (266 pages), I have concerned my analysis so far to four major ports: Boston, Rhode Island, New York and Philadelphia. These eastern seaboard port communities were the busiest and most populated at the time. This study will key into a major research project on the colonial exportation of chairs made in Boston, Rhode Island or new York and their exportation to other colonies currently being funded by The Chipstone Foundation of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

                

Independence Hall

Philadelphia was a major trend setter (by American standards) of fashionable furniture during this period and was also a major port of importation from London. One of the most surprising trends noted in these ledgers are the number of chairs and case furniture (relative to the statistics from other ports) that were exported from Philadelphia. Boston has always been regarded as the center of furniture exportation, with Newport, Rhode Island producing more mid-century and eclipsing the Boston trade by the Revolution. The southern ports have only  temporarily been ignored, pending time and study. However, I have noted in the end notes any significant quantities or types of furniture going through those ports.

                

These ledgers are an important initial step in the study of the exports and imports of furniture from both a colonial and European viewpoint. The statistics derived so far indicate a number of questions that remain to be answered; in particular, the importance of actual furniture ‘designs’ being transported and their impact on style transmission.

Sundries exported to the British and Foreign West Indies included some interesting notes. A total of 4 billiard tables were exported from the ports of New Foundland and Quebec. Billiard tables appear to be somewhat common in the list of exports from these ports, but whether they were produced in local shops has not yet been ascertained. From the port of Bahama, probably Elutheria, 172 Mahogany Bedposts were shipped as part of a large cargo that included 27 tons of Lignumvite and 19 tons of Logwood. Given the number of bedposts it is conceivable that they were made in the Bahamas and not simply shipped from an east coast port, i.e., Savannah.

CONCLUSION 

It was frustrating to have most furniture imports from Great Britain described in general terms.  Some possible reasons for this practice could have been that the amount of furniture being shipped in packages and bales was so great that it was too time consuming to describe individually, or, the customs officer on duty simply took the easiest method and described the imports in bulk. In all the data supplied by these ledgers, furniture is not dutiable. Therefore, it was presumably not as necessary to describe the contents individually. However, another conclusion can also be drawn, one that I like to believe has great promise. The ledgers reviewed are for the Port of London. Perhaps the greatest number of imports from London was earlier in the eighteenth century, and that as the century progressed, other ports, such as Liverpool, Bristol, and Exeter took precedence. One of the most intriguing assumptions yet to be proven is whether there is a link between the regional craftsmen who ultimately immigrated to the colonies, for instance the Seymours of Devon, and the trade of the southwestern British ports.

Certainly a tenuous assumption, but one that bears some thought as the furniture market in the colonies was not a luxury market such as that supplies by Chippendale shop or Mayhew & Ince on London, but neither was a market of furnishings for the ‘middle class’ supplies by a pyramidal tier of artisans. It must always be kept in mind that the colonial market was dominated at the top by merchants: there was no royal or aristocratic class. The demands for furnishings were different than in London. Further research into British cabinetmakers’ export trade, such as Gillows of Lancaster, and surviving  documented import or export furniture, coupled with the statistical analysis of customs records is necessary before any many of the questions posed by this initial study can be  answered more comepletly.