bank lots to grant them the further privilege to build on the same, as much higher as they please, on the former terms, they therefore declare their concurrence with the same, because the more their improvements are [in elevation or value] the greater will be the proprietor's benefit at the expiration of said fifty-one years in the said patents mentioned.”

It appears from this paper that before the year 1690, the grants were only occasional to some few special circumstances or friends, and particularly to Samuel Carpenter, whose public buildings on the wharf near Walnut street were considerable. For these indulgencies they also allured, by a covenant, of giving back to the proprietary at the end of 50 years, one third of their improvements. To a needy patron, such as Penn was, the right of selling out the purposed improvements, presented, as they may have thought, an appeal to his actual wants, which might eventually reconcile him to their extra official concessions.

How mortified and vexed must Penn have felt on his second arrival in 1699, to witness the growing deformity of his city, and to see how far individual interest had swerved his agents from the general good! Logan's letter of 1741, to Penn's son, in explanation of the preceding facts, shows how sensibly Penn regretted the measures so taken, even while his circumstances prevented his reversing and cancelling the things already done; as if he had said: "Mine necessity, not my will, hath done this." Logan's letter says, "Thy father himself acknowledged when here (last) that he owed [as a cause] those high quit rents for the bank of Philadelphia, and the reversion of the third of the value [ground and all] after fifty years, entirely to Samuel Carpenter, who, much against his (Penn's) inclination, had tempted him, with them, to suffer himself [S. C.] and other purchasers in Front to build on the east side of that street; and he [S. C.] subscribed with Jonathan Dickinson and others to have a price set in the reversion of the said thirds, which was then done at 20 shillings per foot, now very near forty years since, with a view to raise a sum which was then exceedingly wanted."

Thus, even Penn, who should have laid his equivalent for so essential a deformity engrafted upon this city, after all, got not the proffered benefit of 50 years accumulation of value in houses and lots, but a small present sum in lieu; and we have now the entail of their selfish scheme! I feel vexed and chagrined, while I pen this article, to think for what mere personal purposes fair Philadelphia was so much marred! One is almost tempted, even now, to propose the expense of yet opening a river prospect to the river from Arch to Chesnut street; or, at least, striving so far to repair the loss sustained, as to make a water promenade under a continued line of trees, the whole length of the river front. A well paved straight street could yet be effected along the wharves, by extending some of the present docks, and thereby giving room for ranging the

fronts of the stores and trees on the western side in a direct and uniform line, and suffering no kind of buildings in their front.

The progress of Penn's dissatisfaction at his agent's management, and his own reluctant compliances, may be further noticed in James Logan's letter of 1702, and Penn's reply of 1703-4. James Logan says, "For this past year, we have sold but 165 feet of the banks, [perhaps a fact evincing its unpopularity] of which good part is yet unpaid according to thy concession, who, under thy hand, granted two years for the latter moiety. This backwardness was foolishly occasioned by P. Parmiter a few days after thy departure, who affirmed that thy right extended no further than to the edge of the river. This discouraged many." In another place he says, "The bank does in no way answer to sell out-only two patents granted."*

In 1703-4, William Penn writes, saying, "I will have no more bank lots disposed of, nor keys yet made into the river, without my special and fresh leave, for reasons justifiable." And this he confirms soon after, by saying, "Till further orders, I will have no bank lots sold, and never the 20 shilling per lott, on any account. Pray mind this. I have good reasons for it at present.

99

Among the early favoured persons, who had the indulgence of the bank lots, was Thomas Masters, who, in the year 1702, built "a stately house, five stories from the lower street and three the upper, at the corner of High and Front streets." And soon after says James Logan, "T. Masters has built another stately house, the most substantial in town, on Lætitia's bank lot, which, for the improvement of the place, was sold him for 190£. sterling, including the reversion."

In the year 1705, the bank lot owners being required to regulate King street, their fewness of names and number are only these, to wit: Hugh Codderey, Michael Isbern, Isaac Norris, Edward Shippen, Henry Badcock, Smith Carpenter, Isaac Norris, Abraham Buckley, Samuel Powell, Thomas Tresse, Joseph Pidgeon.

From the vague manner in which those few names “ are required to enter into measures to regulate King street" (the present Water street,) I think we can form a guess how we came to have so illconcerted and contracted a thorough-fare. With such abundance of earth as they had in the bank lots, it was easy to have determined upon and made a wide and straight street; but the selfish policy which first started the expedient of spoiling the river-front for private aims, conducted the primitive leaders in their measures to the shortest means of personal benefit. Where "all did what was right in their own eyes" only, it was easy to suit themselves for the occasion with a narrow street, and those who came after them had to follow it. The subject presents no point in which we can be gratified, or yield our commendation.

In 1701, a letter of Penn's inquired :-" What if I had 12 pence per foot to low water mark for ever!"

We shall now conclude with some notices of occurrences at or near the bank in early days, to wit:

In 1701, the Grand Jury present High street hill "as a great nuisance, and a place of great danger in passing Front street, and to the utter ruin of said street and public landing there; and, whereas there are also other breaches, places and landings within the town which require repair, the Governor and Council order that 500€. be assessed on the inhabitants for effecting the same." In 1712, they present the well at the end of High street near the river the same wants to be covered,-and King street, at the same place, to be made cartable. Thus showing, that if the well be near the river, and at the same time on King street, (Water street) the river shore was then close to the hill or bank. We know, in proof of this, that the house of Donaldson, at the north east corner of Water and High streets, was, for many years after it was built, subject to water in its cellars in times of freshets.

In 1720, an invasion of water "on the common shore," as made into King street, is noticed; and the Grand Jury present as "a nuisance, a great breach in the bank, and passing into Front street above Mulberry street and below Griffith's new wall,"meaning his wall to keep up the river bank.

In 1721, the Grand Jury present, as out of repair and dangerous, the "Crooked Billet steps," above Chesnut street.

In 1723, the Grand Jury present "deep gullies from Front street, where the arch stood, to the arch wharf," meaning at the east end of Mulberry street.

In 1725, the Grand Jury present "the east end of Sassafras street, the bank being washed away almost across the Front street; also the Front street, against the houses late of John Jones, deceased, [now end of Combes' alley] as hardly passable for horse or cart." They also present "the wall on the common shore in the High street for want of a better covering."

A. J. Morris, Esq. now 90 years of age, has told me that the bank side of Front street was unbuilt in several places in his youth. He used, like John Brown, to sled down the open hill, opposite to Combes' alley. From High street to Arch street was very open, especially from the bank steps at Cliffords, northward. Below High street it was full built up; but from Arch up to Vine street many places were still open. The east side of Water street was generally built up, and the best families were living there.

It

In my youth, I saw the only remaining original shore of the city unwharfed; it was called Taylor's dock, above Vine street; there numerous horses were daily sent to be swam out and washed. was a place of considerable width. At the dock bridge too, north side, was a similar dock, used for like purposes. At both places shallops brought loads of stone and street pebbles, which they unloaded into the carts, as the carts backed into the water along side of the vessels.

The Caves.

MOST Philadelphians have had some vague conceptions of the caves and cabins in which the primitive settlers made their temporary residence. The caves were generally formed by digging into the ground, near the verge of the river-front bank, about three feet in depth; thus, making half their chamber under ground, and the remaining half above ground was formed of sods of earth, or earth and brush combined. The roofs were formed of layers of limbs, or split pieces of trees, over-laid with sod or bark, river rushes, &c. The chimnies were of stones and river pebbles, mortared together with clay and grass, or river reeds. The following facts may illustrate this subject, to wit:

An original paper is in John Johnson's family, of the year 1683, which is an instrument concerning a division of certain lands, and "executed and witnessed in the cave of Francis Daniel Pastorius, Esq."

On the 17th of 9 mo. 1685, it was ordered by the provincial executive Council, that all families living in caves should appear before the Council. What a group they must have made! This order was occasioned by the representations of the Magistrates of Philadelphia, and enforced by a letter they had received from Governor Penn, in England. No one, however, thought proper to obey the order. The Council gave "further notice" that the Governor's orders relating to the caves will be put in execution in one month's time.

In 1685, the Grand Jury present Joseph Knight, for suffering drunkenness and evil orders in his cave; and several drinking houses to debauch persons are also presented. They also present all the empty caves that do stand in the Front street, "which is to be 60 feet wide," wherefore, the court orders that they forthwith "be pulled down," by the constables, and "demolished;" [terms intimating they were in part above ground,] and upon request of John Barnes and Patrick Robinson, [the clerk of Council,] who asked one month to pull down their respective caves, it was granted, on condition that they fill up the hole in the street. On another occasion, they are called caves "or cabins" on the king's high way.

The interesting story concerning the cave at the Crooked Billet, at which the ancestors of Deborah Morris dwelt, has been told under the article "Primitive Settlement."

Mrs. Hannah Speakman, now aged 75, has told me that she well remembered having seen and often played at an original cave, called "Owen's cave." It was in "Townsend's court," on the south side of Spruce street, west of Second street, on a shelving bank. It was dug into the hill-had grass growing upon the roof part, which was itself formed of close laid timber. The same man who had once inhabited it was still alive, and dwelt in a small frame house near it. Near the cave stood a large apple tree, and close by, on "Barclay's place," so called, she often gathered filberts and hickory nuts. The whole was an unimproved place only 70 years ago; it being, from some cause, suffered to lay waste by the Barclay heirs.

John Brown, and others, told me that the original cave of the Coates' family, in the Northern Liberties, was preserved in some form in the cellar of the family mansion, which remained till this year at the south west corner of Green and Front streets.