Change Font: Georgia

John Test and The Evolution
of His Social Status

Citizen - Cordwainer - Merchant - Inn Keeper
Yeoman - Gentleman - Esquire
Sheriff and Justice

Robert W. Test


The historical records referring to John Test describe him in various terms: as a citizen, a cordwainer, a yeoman, a merchant, as an inn keeper, and as a gentleman. His public service includes serving as sheriff at Chester (formerly Upland), as the first sheriff of Philadelphia, and as a justice on the Court at Burlington, W. Jersey.

L.G. Fryburg focuses our attention on his status as a gentleman:

John Test was called a cordwayner (or shoemaker) on the Marriage License , but we have no evidence of his ever carrying on the trade, but undoubtedly, according to the ruling of those days that all men be taught a trade, he was taught this one. We find him a few years later referred to as a London merchant. The family was no doubt in good standing and of gentle birth  [my emphasis]. He is always referred to as Gentleman and called “Mr. Test”, the title of respect “Mr.” being in that century carefully restricted to gentlemen.

This extraordinary claim deserves our attention. John Test, so it is claimed, was a gentleman -- “the family was no doubt in good standing and of gentle birth.” First, we need to understand the nature of the claim. In seventeenth century England gentlemen were a privileged class just below the nobility. Gentlemen were just below the dukes, the earls, and barons, but above the merchant, the craftsmen, and working classes.

In Colonial America a new system of class distinctions arose. Early America was settled by farmers and tradesmen -- cordwainers, carpenters, tailors, coopers, bricklayers -- and in this new system, a person with good judgment, business sense, and perhaps a willingness to accept public office, could become wealthy (compared to the average local farmer or tradesman) and earn the respect of others in the community. Such men, and John Test seems to have been one of them, could rightly be called a gentleman: someone occupying a station of accomplishment and respect above the general population. I will argue that Mrs. Fryburg's description of John Test as a gentleman is true in this new American system but false if taken to mean that John Test was a gentleman in the 17th century British sense of the term.

Clearly the colonial records refer to John Test as a gentleman. Fryburg points this out: “He is always referred to as Gentleman and called “Mr. Test”, the title of respect “Mr.” being in that century carefully restricted to gentlemen.” Moreover, in the record of the marriage license, although John Test is not called “Mr. John Test” his wife is called “Mrs. Elizabeth Sanders” implying she is a lady of gentle birth. So, if she is of gentle birth it would imply that John Test might have been as well.

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG


The Colonial Records

The Record of the Court at Upland 1676-1781

John Test and Peter Alrichs
The Only Private Citizens Given the Title Mister

Fryburg says, “The family was no doubt in good standing and of gentle birth. He is always referred to as Gentleman and called “Mr. Test”, the title of respect “Mr.”; being in that century carefully restricted to gentlemen.”

This strikes me as a bit strong. First, the statement is ambiguous. The scope of the quantifier ‘always’ is unclear. Is John Test always called a gentleman -- and sometimes called ‘Mr. Test’? Or does the scope of the quantifier range over being called Mr. Test as well? Is she claiming that John Test is always called a gentleman and always called Mr. Test.

But in either case, the claim is simply false. John Test is not always called a gentleman and not always given the title ‘Mr. Test.’

For example, in the marriage record, John Test is neither labeled a gentleman nor called ‘Mr. Test.’ He is referred to as a cordwainer. In the Malster receipt, he is called citizen and cordwainer.

There are about 25 references to John Test in the early records (from 1676-1681) of the Court at Upland.

1) In the first reference, on page 51, he is called ‘Mr. John Test’. This is the record for June 13, 1677 that Fryburg quotes.

2) March 12, 1677 (in old style dating the year begins on March 21 -- thus this recorded event is at the end of 1677 -- thus after the reference above) reference to John Test, merchant late of London.

3) The record for Nov 12, 1678 also refers to John Test as Mr. John Test (p. 112).

4) The record for Nov 25, 1679 refers to John Test as Mr. John Test (p. 139).

5) Another record on Nov 25, 1679 refers to John Test as ‘Upland merchant’ (p. 146).

So, of these 25 references, 3 refer to John Test as ‘Mr. John Test’ or ‘Mr. Test’. The remaining 23 references do not call him ‘Mr. Test’. None of the references call John Test a gentleman. However, each of these three instances must be taken seriously since the title of Mister is clearly meant as a title indicating a status higher than that of the ordinary person.

The first record listed above represents the status of John Test not just by the use the title Mr. John Test. Here is the record:

Mr. John Test brought In Court a certaine man servant named William Still, being a taylor br traede, whome hee the sd. Test did aknowledge to haue sold unto Captn. Edmond Cantwell for the space and tearme of foure Jeares, beginning from the first of aprill Last past; The sd. William Still declared in Court to bee willing to serve the said Captn. Cantwell the above sd. tearme of foure yeares;

John Test probably brought the tailor William Still to America from England paying his passage in return for 4 or so years of indentured servitude. The implication is that John Test was wealthy enough to have such a servant or employee. Whether or not this implies a clear class distinction between him and a tradesmen such as a tailor cannot be assumed -- but the implication of a distinction in status cannot be disputed.

One tends to wonder why William Still would be willing and perhaps even want to transfer from working with or for John Test to Edmond Cantwell. Was the tailoring business not likely to prove profitable in such a small community? Was there another tailor already established and taking all the business? What sort of work would Edmond Cantwell put him to that would be more inviting than anything John Test could offer?. Did he learn farming from Edmond Cantwell? Did John Test need the money he made selling the remaining years of servitude to Edmond Cantwell and did he only relunctantly agree to the sale or was this a shrewd business deal resulting in additional profit?



GGGGGGGGG


The Importance of the Title of Mister

Mister and Mr.

Mister is the most commonly used English honorific for men. The title derived from Master, as the equivalent female titles, Mrs, Miss, and Ms, all derived from the archaic Mistress. The title Master was retained and used for boys and young men, but is now rarely used.

In writing, “Mister” is almost always abbreviated “Mr.” or “Mr” when used with the person's name. As with most abbreviations of titles, in the United States and Canada a period follows the abbreviated form, while in most Commonwealth countries, the period (full stop) is not used.

Historically, Mr, like Sir, once indicated an ill-defined social status only applied to gentlemen or persons above one's own station as a mark of respect. This understanding is all but obsolete today.

The title of Mister certainly is meaningful and carries weight. It implies a respected status. Additionally, the Records of the Court at Upland contain very few instances of the use of this honorific title. The records begin on Nov. 14 1676 (p. 35) with the list of the 6 justices (serving as both a legislative and a judicial body) on the Commission. The justices are listed as:

Mr. Peter Cock
Mr. Peter Rambo
Mr. Israel Helm
Mr. Lace Andries
Mr. Oele Swen
Mr. Otto Ernest

The justices on the court, when they are listed as presiding over the court, are consistently given the title of Mister. On the other hand, when one of the members of the court is recorded as a petitioner or as a plaintiff in a case, the title of Mister is omitted. Neither is John Test called Mr. Test when his name appears as a plaintiff or defendant. Even the sheriff -- Edmond Cantwell is called Capt. Edmond Cantwell when the record shows him acting in his capacity as the sheriff. However, when he appears as a plaintiff in cases or when appearing as an attorney representing a client he is listed simply as Edmond Cantwell without any title.

There is no other instance in the first year of the records of the court, of an ordinary citizen called Mister except on the opening day of the court when the court ordered the former clerk of the court -- Mr. William Tom -- to convey the records of the court to the new clerk Ephraim Herman (p. 43/54).


All Instances of the Title Mister
in the Upland Court Record 1676-1680

1. Each time the justices of the court are listed.
2. June 13, 1677 - Mr. John Test. (p. 51/60 of the pdf file.)
3. Nov. 12, 1678 - Mr. Walter Wharton (the county surveyor) appeared as a witness to a transaction (p, 111/120).
4. Nov. 12, 1678 - Mr. John Test was the highest bidder on a boate & appurtenances (p. 112/121).
5. Nov. 25, 1679 - The Court ... appointed and sworne “Mr. John Test Mr. Jam: Sanderlins & Mr. William Orian appraizers to apprase Justa Justassen servant to Captn: Billop...” (p. 139/148).
6. Nov. 25, 1679 - reference to a Mr. Peter Alrichs (p. 149/158).
7. March 10, 1679/80 - Mr. Richard Noble appointed surveyor of Upland (p. 157/166).
8. March 10, 1679/80 - Mr. Israel Helm mentioned. A justice on the court.(p. 160/169).
9. Oct. 13, 1680 - Mr. Erik Cock was nominated appointed & sworne as Constable for one year...(p. 184/193).
10. Oct. 13, 1680 - Mr. John Cock & Lasse Dalbo were this day appointed; & sworne overseers & viewers of ye highwayes & Roads & fences within this county... (ibid.).
11. June 1681 - Reference to William Marckham Esquire. Esquire is a step above Mister.

In every instance, except for the two instances of Mr. Test and one instance of Mr. Alrichs, the person accorded the title of Mister is appointed an officer of the Court. So, it appears that Mr. Test (twice) and Mr. Alrichs (once) are the only private citizens called Mister during the course of these records.


New Jersey Patents and Deeds

1) May 12, 1686 - John Test called a yeoman of Red Bank Creek, West Jersey.

2) March 25, 1696 - John Test called a merchant of Philadelphia.

3) August 8, 1687 - John Test called a gentleman of Glocester Co.

4) August 8, 1687 - in another record, John Test called a gentleman of Glocester Co.

5) August 8, 1687 - in a third record, John Test called a gentleman of Glocester Co.

6) May 20, 1688 - John Test called a gentleman of Glocester Co.

7) June 3, 1693 - John Test called an inn holder of Philadelphia

8) April 24, 1697 - John Test called an inn holder.

9) March 1, 1702/3 - John Test called a yeoman of Salem.

10) June 16, 1703 - John Test called a gentleman of Salem Co.


Notice that three of these examples occurred on the same date, namely, August 8, 1687 (items 3-5). These transactions actually did not involve John Test, in person, but rather they were handled by his attorney Wm Rumsey. So was the transaction of May 20, 1688. Thus, in four of five instances when referred to as a gentleman it is his hired attorney that is the probable source of the description.

GGGGGGGGG


The Evolution of Social Status
In America


A Gentleman
But not a Member of the Gentry and Not of Gentle Birth


Agriculture was the dominant occupation in early Colonial New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The tradesman in England, e.g., a cordwainer, a woolcomber, distiller, chandler, cheesemonger or a cooper, would become a husbandman (i.e., tenant farmer), yeoman (a farmer who cultivates his own land), or a planter (someone who owns a large farm or estate) in the new American colony.

A man with good business sense could become a merchant importing and selling goods from around the world. John Test would not be alone in rising above the status of his birth, becoming a merchant, buying and selling land, and designated variously as a yeoman, merchant, and later, after achieving a measure of economic security, becoming a gentleman, that is, a person somewhat above the station of the average person.

William Biddle served as a justice of the Court at Burlington. He was a shoemaker in London, He bought and sold land in West Jersey and was called a ‘yeoman’, then later a ‘merchant’ and finally a gentleman (Introduction, to The Burlington Court Book: A Record of Quaker Jurisprudence In West New Jersey 1680-1709, p. xi).

John Test, citizen and cordwainer, was almost certainly not born into the English gentry. He was not of gentle birth. He was not always called a gentleman. Rather, he seems to have been a talented man, a sensible man, and man who others took as trustworthy, reliable, and able. His appointment as sheriff -- first at Chester and then at Philadelphia supports these claims as does his service as justice on the court at Burlington.

John Test most certainly engaged in business in London either at the wholesale or the retail level, i.e., either as a store keeper or a merchant. Was he in business for himself, with a partner or as an employee. We do not know. He probably achieved a measure of economic success in London, perhaps first as a cordwainer and then as a merchant. Transferring to America he became a respected and probably a successful merchant in Upland (later called Chester). The records suggest that he had a partner or an employer in London.

He may have made money buying and selling land. But land was plentiful and money was dear. Not even William Penn found land sales a profitable business. John Test was certainly shown a measure of respect above that of the norm in being called Mister when he appeared before the early Court at Upland. He was, in short, in a new American sense but not in the traditional sense as Fryburg claims, a gentleman.



GGGGGGGGG



What is a Gentleman
in the Traditional British
17th Century Meaning?



What does Fryburg mean by the term gentleman? She indicates she takes the term in its full 17th century British meaning when she says that the use of the title was carefully restricted to gentlemen and when she correlates the term gentleman with the expression gentle birth. What do these terms ‘gentleman’ and ‘gentle birth’ mean? Or rather, what did they mean in 17th century England? John Test was born in England and if he was of gentle birth then his status as gentleman is based on English social distinctions. English society was highly stratified -- these distinctions of class reflected differences in wealth, status, and power.

In 1577 William Harrison wrote:

We in England, divide our people commonly into four sorts, as gentlemen, citizens or burgesses, yeomen, and artificers or labourers. Of gentlemen the first and chief (next the king) be the prince, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons; and these are called gentlemen of the greater sort, or (as our common usage of speech is) lords and noblemen: and next unto them be knights, esquires, and, last of all, they that are simply called gentlemen. So that in effect our gentlemen are divided into their conditions, whereof in this chapter I will make particular rehearsal. William Harrison, “A Description of Elizabethan England "

About the nature of gentlemen, Harrison added, they are defined in general as “those whome their race and blood or at least their vertues doo make noble and knowne." The second degree of people consisted of the citizens and burgesses of the cities. This group is defined by their occupations and by their possession of freedom. Third are the yeomen of the country -- farmers who own or have rights to their land and earn about 40s./year. Lastly, the day labourers, poor husbandmen --renters of land, artificers and servants, people who had “neither voice nor authoritie in the common wealthe, but are to be ruled and not to rule other.”

This is not the only way classes were defined or described in England. In 1695 Gregory King in Ranks, Degrees, Titles and Qualificaetions drew up a slightly different categorization. Following Harrison starting at the top with peers listing the gradations among the gentle born (those who inherited their titles -- the dukes, earls, marquieses, viscounts and barons) down to the level of plain gentlemen. Rather than make a sharp distinction between rural and city he provides a simple ladder of social status based on occupation.

Just below the gentry is a large segment of mercantile professionals -- merchants, lawyers, and the clergy. Below them are the freeholders, farmers, “persons in sciences and liberal arts,” shopkeepers, tradesmen, artisans and officers in the forces. Below this group are the common seamen, “labouring people and outservants”. Below these are the cottagers and paupers, common soldiers and vagrants.

Gregory King's view of status places the focus on wealth. But King recognizes it is not just income that determines social status. There were extremely wealthy merchants who were not recognized as gentlemen. And there were many wealthy merchants with more money than many of the landed gentry. Yet these wealthy merchants were firmly located below the gentry on the social scale.

Social status depended on a complex mixture of birth, conferred title, wealth, the nature of the wealth, life-style, occupation, whether you owned or rented land, tenure in a position of authority and legal status.

Given this complex basis for social standing allowed for a measure of social mobility. Those in a higher status position could fall into a lower status and those in a lower status could rise to a higher status. Bad luck or bad business dealings causing a loss of income and wealth could make it impossible for a landed family to continue the life style of the gentry and drop that family into a lower social statue. A yeoman family could become wealthy enough to adopt that gentry live style and enter into the gentleman class. So, too a wealthy merchant could purchase a country estate become recognized as a gentleman. Landed wealth, was essential to membership in the gentleman class.

Gentlemen occupied a special place in the social order -- at the dividing line between the nobles and the commoners. And unlike membership in one of the noble classes of dukes or earls, the class of gentleman was not precisely defined -- nor did a gentleman automatically gain any legal privileges or seat in the House of Lords. Because titles were conferred by the King they were strictly limited. Gregory King estimated there were about 12,000 gentlemen in England in 1688 -- about 2 per cent of the population.

While gentility did not confer offices of authority, it was a mark of gentility. If you possessed a country estate, a large comfortable house, dressed well and ate well, enjoyed a leisurely existence, employed numbers of servants then you would probably also serve in some important public offices at the local level and you would be considered a gentleman.

So, in order to establish that John Test was a gentleman of gentle birth we would need to look for evidence of a long history of descent from ancestors with an income based on substantial landownership, in short possession of a country estate or estates. We have evidence of neither a long family history nor of substantial land holdings. The claim that the family, in general, and John Test, in particular, were of gentle birth is unsubstantiated.


Social Status of Various Trades in England



April 2010



IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII




References:

Keith Wrightson, English society, 1580-1680 (London : Hutchinson, 1982) Thompson Library Ohio State University Author Wrightson, Keith Title English society, 1580-1680 / Keith Wrightson Publish Info London : Hutchinson, 1982 Permanent link to this record Copy Status Details Find Similar Items Full Record Web View LOCATION CALL NO. YEAR STATUS NOTE THO Stacks DA380 .W75 AVAILABLE

Vicar-General Marriage Licence Index Essential background reading

Marriage Licence Allegations Index 1694-1850 Vicar-General and Faculty Office

David Cressy, Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England

UK Society of Genealogists

http://www.britishorigins.com/

New Castle County Land Records 1673-1710



GGGGGGG





The font used on this page is a 17th century Fell Type
designed by Igino Marini at http://iginomarini.com/fell/.