And, twice a week, beyond, light stalls are set, Oft, west from these, the country wains are seen To crowd each hand, and leave a breadth between." At a subsequent period the market was extended up to Third street, where, for many years, its Third street front was marked with the appendages of pillory, stocks, and whippingpost. * About the year 1773, the subject was agitated for constructing another market, to extend in continuation from Third to Fourth street-a measure much opposed by property-holders along High street, who preferred an open wide street. In some of the paper discussions, which appeared in print at that time, it was proposed to take the market out of High street altogether, and to locate it in the centre of the square from High street to Chesnut street, and from Third to Fourth street, leaving the dwelling houses still on the front streets, on Third and Fourth streets; to pull down the stone prisons on the south west corner of Third and High streets, and to erect there a court house, town house, &c. In time, howev er, the advocates for the market prevailed, and the building went on daily; but a measure, not foreseen, occurred every night:The housekeepers who lived along the line of the market, employ. ed persons in the night-time to pull down the mason-work of the day. This being persevered in for some time excited considerable interest. Something like a similar excitement occurred about the year 1749, when the older market was extended from Bank alley up to Third street. While some then pulled down by night what was set up by day, Andrew Marvell's addresses came out to the people, denouncing the building thereof, saying, in his second address, that "the persons who before bought lots on High street, because of its superior width, were thus to have their expectations and interests ruined thereby, by creating a greater grievance than they remove." He adds, that "the advice of several eminent counsel in the law has satisfied the people that an opposition is not only legal and justifiable, but also their duty; for the lawyers have assured them the corporation has no right, either in charter, laws, or custom, to sustain the building of shambles in any street of the city; but on the contrary have pointed out some laws which limit and restrict their power in this instance." We have all heard of Fairs once held in our markets before the Revolution, but few of the present generation have any proper judgment of what manner of things they were. A few remarks on them shall close this article, to wit: A Fair was opened by oral proclamation in these words, (Vide a city ordinance of 1753,) saying: "O yez! &c. Silence is com * The place of Doctor Franklin's mansion. manded while the Fair is proclaiming, upon pain of punishment! A. B. Esq. Mayor of the city of Philadelphia, doth hereby in the King's name strictly charge and command all persons trading and negotiating within the Fair to keep the King's peace, and that no person presume to set up any booth or stall for the vending of strong liquors within this Fair-that none carry any unlawful weapon, or gallop or strain horses within the built part of the city-And if any person be hurt by another let him repair to the Mayor here present. God save the King!" The Fair-times in our market were every May and November, and continued three days. In them you could purchase every description of dry-goods, and millinery of all kinds, cakes, toys, and confectionaries, &c. The stalls were fancifully decorated, and inclosed with well made patchwork coverlets. The place was always thronged, and your ears were perpetually saluted with toy trumpets, hautboys, fiddles, and whistles, to catch the attention of the young fry who on such occasions crowded for their long promised presents at Fair-time. They were finally discontinued, by an Act of the Legislature, somewhere about the year 1787. It is really surprising they should ever have been adopted in any country where regular stores and business is ordinarily found sufficient for all purposes of trade! THE ARCH STREET BRIDGE AT FRONT STREET. [ILLUSTRATED BY A PLATE.] THE tradition of such a bridge, over a place where there was no water, (taken down about the year 1721,) had been so far lost, that none among the most aged could be found to give a reason for Mulberry street, over which the bridge or arch stood, being called "Arch street." My MS. Annals in the City Library, pages 24, 31 and 46, show three several reasons given by the most aged citizens for the change of name to Arch street, all of which were erroneous. The truth is, I should not have known the cause but by perceiving it was implied in the presentments of the Grand Juries, &c. The facts were, that in the neighbourhood of Front and Mulberry streets was originally a hill, or knoll, rising above the common elevation of the river bank. In opening the street down Mulberry street to the river as a necessary landing place, they found the Front street on each side of it so high, that in preference to cutting it down, they constructed a bridge there so a to make the passage up and down Front street over the Mul"ry street. As they usually called such a bridge an arch, and arch was a notable enterprise then, all things in the neighrhood was referred to it, so that the street itself where stood "great arch," became subject to its name, i. e. the Arch street. The neighbourhood was made conspicuous too by the house of The Turner, (still standing) constructed of brick as a pattern or others, and also by two of those early houses, whose flat v the primitive regulations, were not to intercept the river along the eastern side of Front street. .. J. 1 lowing facts will serve to illustrate and confirm the preoduction, to wit: Roberner in his letter, of 1685, to William Penn, says: "Since I buit my ...house, [at the north east corner of Front and Arch streets,] the founder of which was laid at my going, which I design after a good manner › encourage others, and that from (their) not building with wood; it being the first, many take example, and some that built wooden houses are sorry for it. Brick building is said to be as cheap, and bricks are exceeding good, and better and cheaper than when I built, say now at 16 shillings English per thousand, and many good brick buildings are going up, with good cellars." "I am building another brick house by mine, [on the east side of Front street, No. 77,] which is three large stories high, besides a good large brick cellar under it of two bricks and a half thickness in the wall, and the next [i. e. Front street first story] half under ground. The cellar has an arched door [still visible there] for a vault to go (under the street) to the river, and so to bring in goods or deliver out." The first story "half under ground,"-now no longer so, was doubtless owing to the highness of the ground then in the street, and intended afterwards to be cut down. Gabriel Thomas in his account of the city, as he saw it before the year 1698, thus speaks of his impressions, saying, "they have curious wharfs and large timber yards, especially before Robert Turner's great and famous house, where are built ships of considerable burthen-they cart their goods from that wharf into the city under an arch, over which part of the street is built. In 1704, the Grand Jury present Edward Smout, sawyer of logs, &c. for encumbering "the free wharf, used as a landing, on the east end of Mulberry street, with his logs and timber left too long there." In the same report, it is stated to be for " encumbering the street and wharf near the arch." Patty Powell, an aged Friend, told me her mother told her of seeing the arch, and that it was so high that carts, &c. passed under it to the river, so that those who went up and down Front street went over it. At a Common Council held at "the Coffy House," December, 1704, a committee was appointed to view the arch in the Front street, and to report how to repair the same, &c.-found to be 12. whereupon it was ordered that the ground on each side of the arch, fronting King street, (Water street now) be built upon by such persons as shall be willing to take the same on groundrent. In the year 1712, the Grand Jury present " that it is highly necessary to repair the arch, by paving the same, and fencing-it on either side above." Another Grand Jury, at the next session, present the passage down under the arch, for that it is worn in holes and gullies, and is not passable-it wants a fence upon the walls of the said arch-it being dangerous in the night both to man and beast. At another session, they present the want of walls to secure the street in the going down to the arch, also two fences (palisades) on the top of it to secure people from falling down. In 1713, they again present the arch in the Front street, for that it is very dangerous for children in the day time, and for strangers in the night; neither is it passable underneath for carriages. In 1717, the Grand Jury present "the great arch" in the Front street, the arch in Second street-as insufficient for man and beast to pass over. The pump at the great arch, being now out of use and standing much in the street, ought to be removed. King street, as a cart-way, they recommend to be kept 30 feet wide. |