Sumptuary Law of 1651 Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Fairbanks Family
What Made the Great Boots That Jonas Fairbanks Wore So Great?
Massachusetts Bay Colony Sumptuary Law of October14, 1651
Jonas Fairbanks was called to the Essex County Quarterly Court in Salem on November 30, 1652, for wearing great boots contrary to the October 14, 1651 Sumptuary Law passed by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. What did he do that was so wrong? The Essex County Quarterly Court 1636-
What is a Sumptuary Law?
Sumptuary laws restricted consumption. In many cases, the items restricted were styles of dress, food, drink, and luxury items. The sumptuary laws were meant to delineate hierarchies within a society, to enforce morals, and to indicate who could receive privileges of the upper class. Often the law was enacted with the stated purpose of preventing those who couldn’t afford extravagant items from spending money that should be used for necessities. Clothes were very expensive in the 1600’s and over dressing was common.
Even today, we recognize a police officer, a military rank, and levels of a clergy by their dress. Certain employees are required specific clothing, some for identification, others for safety. Even different sports have rules regulating clothing. Many country clubs require shirts with collar and sleeves for men. Professional golf requires the male competitors to wear long pants.
In the case of a law passed in 1571, England used a sumptuary law to require the wearing of a certain piece of clothing. It required every common man to wear a Monmouth type cap, a close fitting knit cap, to church to stimulate wool production and the sale of the knitted woolen caps. The requirement was lifted in 1597. The cold weather in New England made the caps practical in the 1600’s, and they were worn extensively. The Fairbanks family, no doubt, wore these in the harsh New England winters.
Monmouth woolen knitted close fitted cap of the 17th century as found in the Monmouth Museum in Wales
“Every person above the age of six (excepting “Maids, ladies, gentlewomen, noble personages, and every Lord, knight and gentleman of twenty marks land”) residing in any of the cities, towns, villages or hamlets of England, must wear, on Sundays and holidays (except when travelling), “a cap of wool, thicked and dressed in England, made within this realm, and only dressed and finished by some of the trade of cappers, upon pain to forfeit for every day of not wearing 3s. 4d.”
Sumptuary laws have been enacted since the Roman times and the Middle Ages. England made several attempts at these laws. During King Charles I of England’s reign, on June 9, 1643, the law forbid wearing of any lace, embroider, fringe, loops of gold, or silver, etc. In June of 1650, a bill was read in Parliament “against the vice of painting (as faces), wearing black patches, and immodest dress of yeomen” (Baldwin, page 334). Many sumptuary laws were difficult to enforce and didn’t last long.
Puritans and the Sumptuary Laws in the Massachusetts Bay Colony
Puritan Goodman, Plimouth Plantation, Plymouth Massachusetts, taken by Sharmin Fairbanks McKenny.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was a Puritan driven society. The leaders of the government and the church didn’t separate church and state. Therefore, many laws impacted the moral behavior of the population. In fact, most laws had a foundation in Biblical scripture.
Puritans believed it was righteous to live their lives based on scripture. They lived simply in housing, work, and dress. In their beliefs, they had little issue with rules of hierarchy. This was a way of life.
The sumptuary law was basic to the religious interpretation of the Fifth Commandment “honor thy father and mother” which included all superiors or persons of authority. Superior persons included those having a higher education, a high military rank, magistrates, those born of respected families, or those having a worth of 200L or more (North).
Puritan Goodwives at Plimouth Plantation, Plymouth, Massachusetts, taken by Sharmin Fairbanks McKenny
Sumptuary Laws Enacted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony
Sumptuary laws were enacted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony early in the settlement. In the fall of 1634, the General Court ordered,
“The Court, takeing into consideracon the greate, supfluous, & vnneccessary expences occaconed by reason of some newe & imodest fashions, as also the ordinary weareing of silver, golde, & silke laces, ‘ girdles, hatbands, &c, hath therefore ordered that noe pson, either man or woman, shall hereafter make or buy any appell, either wollen, silke, or lynnen, with any lace on it, siluer, golde, silke, or thread, vnder the penalty of forfecture of such cloathes, &c. ”
Clay pipe found at Saugus Iron Works Museum
The National Parks Service, Saugus, Massachusetts, taken by Sharmin Fairbanks McKenny
Another time, a law was issued regarding the use of tobacco. It was believed that its use was a detriment to productivity, as well as, a fire hazard. Homes in New England were made of wood and roofs were often constructed of thatch or wood shingles.
October 14, 1651, the General Court once again enacted a sumptuary law. At that time, the second generation’s social status was changing. Note below that George, Jonathan’s second son, was nearing a valuation of 200£ in 1653.
The workers of Hammersmith Iron Works were being paid better than the general population. They had money to buy the finery that was forbidden. Some were called to court frequently for not adhering to other Colony laws and traditions (The Essex County Quarterly Court Records 1636-1656.)
Sumptuary Laws of 1651
“Although seuerall declarations and orders have bin made by this Court against excesse in apparrell both of men and woemen, which have not yet taken that effect which were to be desired, but, on the contrary,'we cannot but to our greife take notice that intollerable excess and bravery hath crept invppon vs, and especially amongst people of meane condition, to the dishonor of God, the scandal1 of our profession, the consumption of estates, and altogether vnsuiteable to our povertie ; and although we acknowledge it to be a matter of much difficultie, in regard of the blindness of mens mindes...”
Fashion and Sumptuary Laws by Percy
A Valuation of the Fairbanks Family
Was the Fairbanks Men Worth the 200 Pounds Required to Wear Finery?
The Early Records of the Town of Dedham, Massachusetts: 1636-1659
The Fairbanks family was Puritan and probably immigrated primarily for religious reasons. They would have held the Puritan beliefs of simplicity and deportment based upon the Biblical commandments.
The immigrants to the New World were generally the middling class. (Why the Fairbanks and Prescott Families Emigrated to New England: Part I.) The Fairbanks family brought eight family members and an indentured servant (Indentured Servants, Apprentices, and Others That Were a Part of the Fairbanks Family) but could still build a fine house after they arrived. They were likely in the middling class.
The Fairbanks lived in one of the largest most valuable early houses in Dedham in the mid- 1600’s. In 1648, Jonathan was in the top one third of the tax payers of Dedham. His house was ranked tenth out of 85 houses and valued at 28£ 23s. Of the houses in the top ten, John Allin’s, the minister, house was valued at 45£ 36s. It was common for the minister to have the largest, finest home. Of the other top ten houses, five were valued nearly the same as Jonathan’s (DTR, page 153).
In 1648, only two sons of Jonathan Fairbanks had houses in Dedham:
John was 30 years old and married. His house was worth £ 4.
George was 28 years old and married. His house was worth £ 4.
Jonas was 24 years old, not married, and didn’t have a house.
Jonathan was 20 years old, not married, and didn’t have a house.
(There were only 6 others homes rated below £4. The lowest valuation was £ 2.
In 1653, Jonathan Fairbanks paid 1£ 3s 10d in country rates or taxes (DTR, page 213-214). Every man sixteen and above paid a poll tax of one shilling, which was reflected in the country rate. The rest was determined by the estate of the individual and an assessment of his ability to earn. In Massachusetts, the country rate or tax was a penny in the pound, a rate of 0.4 percent of the assessed value ( England. The Colonial Roots of America Taxation 1607-1700).
Based upon the country rates paid, if a man paid 16 shillings in taxes, his estate and ability to earn was worth about 200£. Jonathan Fairbanks was worth over 200£, the minimum value set for wearing finery under Sumptuary Law of 1651. Based on the country rates, Jonathan’s sons had not reached the required valuation at that time. Several authors noted that even though rates were very low, many did not declare their total worth to avoid taxes.
It is interesting to note that Jonathan’s sons paid the following country rates in 1653:
John paid 8s.
Sgt. George paid 13s 6d.
Jonas paid 5s.
Jonathan Jr. paid 5s 2d.
Great Boots
What Made Great Boots Special?
King Charles I wearing great boots and other finery.
Great boots were a tall boot worn by men in the 1600’s. They were high enough that they could be worn above the knees for riding or folded down for general wear. The Royal family had tall boots made for young Prince Charles who would become the monarch of England in 1625.
Early, Prince Charles had a deformity of his leg which required him to wear a brace fashioned from calipers. The great boots covered the apparatus so the attention of the public would not be drawn to the defect. The Royal family did not want to display a weakness. As Charles became king, he continued to wear the tall boots. They became known as great boots and were fashionable among the privileged class.
In the Sumptuary Law of 1651 of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the order included another reason for restricting the great boots. The mandate indicated that they were banned because "leather being so scarce a commoditie in this country."
An inventory of Robert Turner of Boston, a shoemaker, who died in 1651 reveals that some boots cost fourteen shillings per pair. These were probably not great boots. If the owner wanted to have wooden heals for their boots they had to pay more. This information was taken from a Suffolk county Probate Records, Vol. II (Dow, page 243). Twenty shillings equaled a pound. The fine for wearing great boots without proper credentials was ten shillings, near the cost of a regular pair of boots.
Jonas Fairbanks and Great Boots
At age twenty-eight years, Jonas Fairbanks was called to the Essex County Quarterly Court at Salem for wearing great boots on November 30, 1652. If he was found guilty, he would have been fined 10 shillings. His boots could have cost him about as much as he was fined. He made 16£ and 6s for working at Hammersmith in 1651, the year he was seen wearing the boots. His fine would have been about 3% of his wages for that year.
There were fine cobblers in the Lynn area. The Hammersmith Iron Works Company had shoes made for many of their employees and indentured servants. Heavy iron pieces and sparks created by its production required sturdy footwear for safety.
In the remaining accounts from Hammersmith, there is no mention of Jonas receiving shoes. However, there was an entry for his reimbursement for mending of a saddle and expenses at sundry times (Records of Iron Works at Lynn, Massachusetts).
On October 14, 1651, when the Sumptuary Laws was passed. Jonas was working at Hammersmith in Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts. I have not found when the law was published for the public. However, earlier Sumptuary Laws were put into effect in a fortnight, fourteen days, or in one month. In 1652, we know, from Hammersmith records, that Jonas worked from October 4 through December 24. It is likely he was working during the same time in 1651.
Jonas was called to appear at the Essex County Quarterly Court at Salem on November 30, 1652. He was cited for wearing great boots before being worth 200£ or for not meeting the other requirements for wearing such apparel. Dedham was in Norfolk County, so he would have been cited for the infraction while at Hammersmith.
Many of Jonas’s colleagues at Hammersmith are found on the mid-1600’s Essex County Quarterly Court records beginning in 1647. Early, they were charged with infractions such as: not attending church, swearing, delinquency in payments, violence, abuse, etc. In 1652, a majority of the cases against the workers at Hammersmith was for wearing clothes or appointments not allowed. The men at Hammersmith were earning more than the average colonial worker. They probably had current means to purchase the finery for which they were arraigned. They were not found qualified by education, military status, and overall valuation to wear the clothes of the upper class.
Not only iron workers, but many people in the general population in the jurisdiction of Essex County were called to court at that time. As early as September 28, 1652, two young women of the general population were charged for wearing excessive apparel or a silk hood. Both of the young women were discharged because they were under the governance of their mother or father who were worth 200£. Another woman was called, but discharged because she was brought up above the “ordinary rank” (The Essex County Quarterly Court 1636-1656).
No other men, besides Jonas, from Hammersmith were arraigned for wearing great boots, but two other men in the community were so charged.
Jonathan Fairbanks, Jonas’s father was worth more than £200. Perhaps Jonas wasn’t considered governed by his father, as the two young girls pardoned for their fines. Jonas was twenty-eight years old and had already paid his own Country Rates. The other lady was pardoned after proving she was brought up above the “ordinary rank.” Perhaps Jonas could have used the same claim. However, as an independent young man, his case was dismissed on the findings that he wore the great books prior to the publication of the Sumptuary Law of 1651.
After the end of December 1652, Jonas left the iron works, not to return. Nothing more was heard of the great boots.
Resources
Baldwin, Frances Elizabeth, Sumptuary Legislation and Personel Regulation in England, Dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1923. https://archive.org/details/sumptuarylegisla00bald/page/n655
Dow, George Francis, Every Day Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Dover Publlications, Inc., New York, 1988.
Hartley, Edward N., Ironworks on Saugus: Lynn and Braintree Ventures. University of Oklahoma Press, 1990.
Hill, Don Gleason, Early Records o Dedham, Massachusetts:1636-1659, Dedham, Massachusetts, 1892. https://archive.org/details/earlyrecordsofto03hill/page/28/mode/2up
Percy, Sidney, Fashion and Sumptuary Law, The Essex Antiquarian, Volume X, 1906. http://magenweb.org/Essex/1906%20Essex%20Antiquarian%20Vol.%20X%20V2.0.pdf
Records of Iron Works at Lynn, Massachusetts: 1650-1685, Folder 8, Baker Business College, Harvard University. library.Harvard
North, Gary, The Puritan Experiment with Sumptuary Legislation, June 1, 1974, https://fee.org/articles/the-puritan-experiment-with-sumptuary-legislation/
Shurleff, Nathaniel B. (ed.), Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Boston: State Printer, 1853), III, p.243.
Wood, Margaret, Sumptuary Laws, Feb. 6, 2014, Sumptuary Laws, Library of Congress, https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2014/02/sumptuary-laws/
Up Next
Jonathan Fairbanks and the Merchant
“Vivamus pellentesque vitae neque at vestibulum. Donec efficitur mollis dui vel pharetra.”
