UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Land and families in Horton Township, N.S., 1760-1830 McNabb, Debra Anne 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 M35_8.pdf [ 7.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097085.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097085-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097085-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097085-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097085-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097085-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097085-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097085-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097085.ris

Full Text

LAND AND F A M I L I E S IN HORTON TOWNSHIP, N.S., 176 0 - 1 8 3 0 By DEBRA ANNE MCNABB M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE REQUIREMENTS MASTER PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF FOR THE DEGREE OF OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF Department i n GRADUATE STUDIES of Geography We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1986 c Debra Anne McNabb In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of G£o£f<A PHY The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 D a t e DE-6(3/81) C o n t e n t s P a g e Abstract 1 1 1 L i s t o f Tables v L i s t o f Figures V 1 Acknowledgment v 1 1 CHAPTER 1 In t r o d u c t i o n 1 CHAPTER 2 Occupying the Land i 3 CHAPTER 3 Land and L i v e l i h o o d s 47 CHAPTER 4 Land and Inheritance 8 0 CHAPTER 5 Conclusion 1 0 2 B i b l i o g r a p h y HO Appendices A - An Account of the Shares i n the Township o f Horton B - State o f the Settlement of Horton With Regard to Rights o f Land i n Said Township C - State of the Settlement o f Horton With Regard to Rights o f Land D - Net P r o f i t s From the Horton Land Trade, 1760-1770 (Resident Grantees Only) E - Net D e f i c i t s From the Horton Land Trade, 1760-1770 (Resident Grantees Only i i ABSTRACT In the 1760s, some 5,000 New Englanders established fourteen town-ships on the former Acadian farmlands of northern and western Nova Scotia and the sheltered bays and i n l e t s of the colony's south shore. Drawn to the area by the promise of free land and access to cod-rich fishing banks, they 'founded both farming and fi s h i n g communities. Although the f u l l treatment of New England settlement i n Nova Scotia must consider both types of community, reconstructing the i n i t i a l stages of settlement i n an a g r i c u l t u r a l township serves as a beginning. Among the a g r i c u l t u r a l townships, Horton may be considered representa-t i v e , i f not t y p i c a l . It was the focal point of the four Minas Basin townships which received the bulk of the New Englanders. It was among the f i r s t townships to be settled. Its resource base - dyke, upland, forest, and f i s h - was essentially the same as that of the other town-ships. The story of New Englanders at Horton raises fundamental questions about the process of settlement, the foundations of economy and society, the nature of the family and the evolution of the landscape. To explain how Horton's development unfolded, t h i s thesis follows the l i v e s of 89 men and their families who came to Horton as proprietors and after surviving the f i r s t years of hardship became the core of a permanent society. It covers the period from 1760 to 1830, from the time these grantees arrived i n Horton u n t i l t h e i r deaths. The study focuses primarily on landholding and inheritance patterns and a g r i c u l t u r a l deve lopment and how they a f f e c t e d the l i v e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s and the e v o l u t i o n o f community . I t d i s c o v e r s t h a t d e s p i t e the r e l e v a n t abundance o f l a n d i n the new s e t t l e m e n t , l o c a l l a n d h o l d i n g p r a c t i c e s l e d to r e s t r i c t e d a c c e s s a lmost i m m e d i a t e l y . T h i s had a p r o f o u n d e f f e c t on the f o r t u n e s o f H o r t o n f a m i l i e s and the deve lopment o f a g r i c u l t u r e and community . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n a r g u e s a g a i n s t e x i s t i n g t h e o r i e s o f r u r a l community deve lopment which m a i n t a i n t h a t l a n d s c a r c i t y e v o l v e d o n l y a f t e r s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s o f i n c r e a s e d p o p u l a t i o n , p a r t i b l e i n h e r i t a n c e , and e x t e n s i v e a g r i c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s . i v Tables Page I. Acreage D i s t r i b u t i o n of Land Types i n Horton Township 39 I I . Average Land Prices i n Horton, 1760-1770 50 I I I . D istribution of Land Among Horton Landowners in 1770 53 IV. Aggregate A g r i c u l t u r a l Production i n Horton, by Census Year 66 V. Average Farm Size and Crop Yields i n Horton i n 1770 69 VI. Occupations of the Adult Male Workforce, 1770 and 1791 84 VII. Composition of the Adult Male Workforce by Occupational Group, 1770 and 1791 85 v Figures Page 1. The New England Townships in Nova Scotia 5 2. Connecticut Origins of Horton Grantees 18 3. Location of Land Types in Horton Township 23 4. Town Plot, 1760 (Chief Surveyor Charles Morris) 26 5. Town Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 27 6. F irs t Division Dyke Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 29 7. F irs t Division Farm Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 30 8. Island Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 32 9. Island Equivalent Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 33 10. Second Division Farm Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 35 11a & b Size Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 36-37 12. Third Division Farm Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees 38 13. The Lands of Joseph Gray, 1770 55 14. The Lands of Charles Dickson, 1770 57 15. Known House Locations, 1761-1770 58 16. Simeon Dewolf's Homes at Horton 60 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am indebted to a number of persons for their support and encouragement i n writing t h i s study. Thanks to Peter Ennals for kindling my i n i t i a l interest i n Horton Township and the community study approach through my work as his research assistant on the H i s t o r i c a l Atlas of Canada project, and to(4ie^ and Larry McCann for strongly advising me to do a Masters degree. Cole Harris and Alan Tully pro-vided useful insights and suggestions and read the f i n a l draft. The s t a f f of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia welcomed me into their family and made my task much more enjoyable. Financial aid came from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council through a Special M.A. Fellowship and from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia i n a Summer Graduate Fellowship, for which I am grateful. Special thanks to my family and those friends who never ceased to believe i n me. Most importantly, thanks to Graeme Wynn, whose wisdom, conscientiousness, f a i t h and incredible patience saw me through and profoundly influenced my scholarship. CHAPTER 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Nova S c o t i a i s d e f i n e d a s much by i t s r u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s a s i t s u r b a n c e n t r e s . I n t h e s e v e n t e e n t h , e i g h t e e n t h and n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s , r e m o t e a n d i s o l a t e d s e t t l e m e n t s w e r e f a s h i o n e d o u t o f i t s w i l d e r n e s s by d i v e r s e e t h n i c g r o u p s drawn t o t h e a r e a by t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f l a n d a n d a c c e s s i -b i l i t y t o f i s h i n g g r o u n d s . S e v e r a l f a c e t s o f t h e s e i m m i g r a t i o n s h a v e r e c e i v e d s c h o l a r l y a t t e n t i o n . I n b r o a d t e r m s , t h e n u m b e r s i n v o l v e d , a n d t h e t i m i n g and l o c a t i o n o f t h e i r s e t t l e m e n t a r e known; i m m i g r a t i o n h a s b e e n s t u d i e d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f p o l i t i c a l a nd i n t e l l e c t u a l e v e n t s , a n d t h e c o n -t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s g r o u p s t o t h e c u l t u r a l l a n d s c a p e o f t h e p r o v i n c e h a v e b e e n assessed."'' Y e t t h e ways i n w h i c h s e t t l e r s t o o k up l a n d a n d c r e a t e d l i v e l i h o o d s a r e p o o r l y u n d e r s t o o d ; and t h e p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p e o p l e a n d p l a c e r e m a i n s a m y s t e r y . By s t u d y i n g i n d e t a i l a Nova S c o t i a t o w n s h i p s e t t l e d by New E n g l a n d e r s i n t h e l a t e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , t h i s t h e s i s p r o v i d e s a u n i q u e p e r s p e c t i v e on one d i m e n s i o n o f Nova S c o t i a ' s m u l t i - f a c e t e d s e t t l e m e n t g e o g r a p h y a n d o f f e r s a b a s i s o f c o m p a r i s o n t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l e v o l u t i o n o f r u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s e l s e w h e r e . H o r t o n T o w n s h i p was s e t t l e d i n t h e e a r l y 1 7 6 0 s a s p a r t o f a c a m p a i g n by t h e Nova S c o t i a g o v e r n m e n t t o a t t r a c t New E n g l a n d e r s t o t h e c o l o n y . J u s t a few y e a r s b e f o r e , a n d a f t e r a l m o s t one h u n d r e d and f i f t y y e a r s o f h a b i t a t i o n , t h e c o l o n y ' s r e s i d e n t F r e n c h A c a d i a n p o p u l a t i o n h a d b e e n 2 f o r c i b l y d e p o r t e d a n d t h e l a n d l a y empty. The f a m i l i a r i t y New E n g l a n d e r s 1 2 had with the colony because of generations of f i s h i n g near i t s shores, engaging i n a sometimes clandestine trade with i t s towns and the expedi-t i o n against Louisbourg i n 1745, generated s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t at a time when New England was expanding northward. In 1758, the f a l l of Quebec ended a quarter-century of h o s t i l i t i e s between England and France i n North America, which had prevented a growing New England p o p u l a t i o n from spreading i n t o new t e r r i t o r y . Overcrowding and s o i l exhaustion i n the o l d e r - s e t t l e d towns of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode I s l a n d l e d to the mass migration of land-hungry s e t t l e r s to the unoccupied land of northern New England. In the f i f t e e n years f o l l o w i n g 1760, seventy-four towns were e s t a b l i s h e d i n Vermont, one hundred i n New Hampshire and ninety-four i n Maine.^ The pattern of settlement there d i f f e r e d d r a m a t i c a l l y from the c o l o n i z a t i o n of the f i r s t New England f r o n t i e r i n the seventeenth century. Townships, bought and s o l d on the open market, were s e t t l e d by d i v e r s e elements seeking unoccupied land r a t h e r than by a ready-made community bound together by shared r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s and s o c i a l values. There was widespread g r a n t i n g o f townships, rampant s p e c u l a t i o n , s p o t t y c o l o n i z a t i o n and delayed maturation. S e t t l e r s l o c a t e d p r i m a r i l y according to land s u i t a b i l i t y , on dispersed family farms r a t h e r than i n compact v i l l a g e s . To draw New Englanders to h i s colony, Nova S c o t i a ' s Governor Charles Lawrence o f f e r e d enticements of free land grants and easy settlement terms to prospective s e t t l e r s . Although he aimed to encourage a g r i c u l t u r a l settlement with h i s d e s c r i p t i o n s of the vast q u a n t i t y and s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y o f various land types, New England i n t e r e s t was more d i v e r s e . Recognizing the advantages of a l o c a t i o n c l o s e r to the c o d - r i c h f i s h i n g 3 banks of Nova Scotia, several hundred families migrated from the fishing ports of Cape Cod to Nova Scotia's southwestern coast i n the early 1760s. On this rugged, indented shore s o i l s derived from the g r a n i t i c spine of Nova Scotia are thin and rocky; foggy, damp summers further l i m i t a g r i -c u l t u r a l potential. The seaward orientation of the three townships founded there was immediately apparent; i t was late r confirmed by the f i r s t census i n 1767.^ Prospective emigrants from the a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of New England were more sensitive to the opportunities outlined in Lawrence's advertise-ments. They formed free associations and the i r agents negotiated agree-ments with the Nova Scotia government to colonize vacant Acadian farmlands. Acadian settlement had followed the rivers of the Bay of Fundy and had concentrated at Chignecto, Cobequid, Minas and along the Annapolis River. Using t r a d i t i o n a l dyking techniques, they had transformed large tracts of saltmarsh b u i l t from the sediment deposited by the tides of the Bay of Fundy into some of the most f e r t i l e land i n the colony. Their settlements were remarkably prosperous, supporting a healthy mixed economy based on farming and supplemented by f i s h i n g , hunting and trade. The Acadians enjoyed a comfortable standard of l i v i n g , raised large families and usually l i v e d to old age. Despite l i t t l e inmigration, between 1713 and the early 1750s the Acadians probably doubled their numbers every twenty years.^ The largest concentration of population was i n the area of Minas and focused on the expansive Grand Pre" marsh. Between 1710 and 1747 the v i l l a g e of Grand Pre grew from less than one thousand people to more than four thousand. Here, i n what late r became the heart of Horton Township, households had five to ten acres of dyked and t i l l e d farmland each and an 4 orchard on the adjoining upland. In addition to providing for their families, the farmers of Grand Pre exported c a t t l e , sheep, pigs and poultry to Louisbourg. Between 1760 and 1764, approximately 5000 New Englanders took up free grants of land ranging from 250 to 1000 acres i n fourteen townships of approximately 100,000 acres each which had been surveyed and l a i d out i n western Nova Scotia and the Isthmus of Chignecto (Fig. 1). The pattern and scale of t h i s process of settlement and the nature of the source materials on the period together argue strongly for an h i s t o r i c a l i n v e s t i -gation that builds from "the bottom up", which makes the community i t s focus. The microscopic examination of one place over time reveals more cle a r l y than more abstract aggregate analysis both the basic characteris-t i c s of, and the subtle changes i n , the l i v e s that were l i v e d and the land that was settled i n these small, r u r a l , isolated and for the most part r e l a t i v e l y dispersed communities. Clearly, the f u l l treatment of New England settlement i n Nova Scotia must be two-pronged. Agricultural and fishing v i l l a g e s were r a d i c a l l y different i n origins of s e t t l e r s , economic base, and morphology, and reconstructing the i n i t i a l stages of settlement i n an a g r i c u l t u r a l township serves as the beginning of t h i s investigation. Among the a g r i c u l t u r a l townships, Horton may be considered representative, i f not t y p i c a l . It was the focal point of the four Minas Basin townships which received the bulk of the New Englanders. It was among the f i r s t townships to be settled. Its resource base - dyke, upland, forest, and f i s h - was essen-t i a l l y the same as that of the other townships. It also warrants attention because i t was the shiretown of King's County. 6 Horton f i r s t received s e t t l e r s i n 1760. That s p r i n g , i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s from a r e l a t i v e l y few towns i n southeastern Connecticut began to a r r i v e i n the Minas Basin to stake t h e i r c l a i m to part of what had once been the heart of Acadia, Les Mines. At that time, the landscape s t i l l h e ld traces of an Acadian presence: abandoned orchards and k i t c h e n gardens and burned-over dwellings on the uplands; overgrown ox c a r t paths along the shore and c r i s s - c r o s s i n g the dykeland. Dykes damaged by powerful storms but s t i l l i n t a c t , stood as monuments to Acadian a g r i c u l t u r a l prac-t i c e s . When i t was surveyed, Horton Township's twelve square miles com-p r i s e d woodland on the South Mountain which formed the township's southern border, s c a t t e r e d pockets of upland of varying e l e v a t i o n and q u a l i t y , and a f r i n g e of saltmarsh to the east along the Basin and along the northern border of the C o r n w a l l i s River s e p a r a t i n g Horton from the adjacent township of C o r n w a l l i s . Another r i v e r , the narrow Gaspereau, cut through the township from west to east near the base of South Mountain and emptied i n t o the Basin. Small t i d a l i s l a n d s o f red c l a y and saltmarsh stood o f f -shore. Si t u a t e d at the eastern end of the Annapolis V a l l e y , the s o i l s of Horton Township were g e n e r a l l y w e l l - s u i t e d to farming. The outstanding g feature of the township though, was the 1200-acre l o w - l y i n g Grand Pre" dykeland which had once been the focus of Acadian a g r i c u l t u r e . Although i t had been damaged by a severe storm i n 1759, the Grand Pre" was salvage-able and the Nova S c o t i a government agents expected i t to be the b a s i s of the a g r i c u l t u r a l system of the New Englanders. 7 To this land the New Englanders came as proprietors, to transform what they had been given according to their individual aspirations and 7 l their c o l l e c t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to create a town. Their story raises fundamental questions about the process of settlement, the foundations of economy and society, the nature of the family and the evolution of the landscape. Who were the people who became Horton's permanent residents? How did grantees divide the township land and u t i l i z e their individual holdings? Where did they build their houses, m i l l s , and gaols? Did speculation and absentee ownership e x i s t , and i f so, how did they affect landholding patterns and the existence, design and implementation of proprietal regulations? What was the nature and extent of a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y i n this late eighteenth-century Nova Scotia community? Was there opportunity to pursue vocations other than farming? How did individuals d i f f e r in their relationships to the land? What types of l i f e s t y l e s evolved and how were they influenced by the nature of that relationship? What roles did females and the landless play i n Horton society? How did decisions about transmitting property to the next generation affect the l i v e s of family members? How was l o c a l society shaped by relationships within and among families and by communal relationships that may have extended beyond the boundaries of the township? This study addresses these questions by examining central themes of demography, land ownership, occupation and use, economic development, family structure and inheritance and the nature of community. To explain how Horton's development unfolded, i t follows the l i v e s of 89 men and their families who came to Horton as proprietors and, after surviving the f i r s t years of hardship, became the core of a permanent society. Against 8 the backdrop of l o c a l and e x t e r n a l events and the c o n t r a s t i n g l i f e e x p e r i -ences of latecomers, i t covers the p e r i o d from 1760 to 1830, from the time when the f i r s t generation of s e t t l e r s a r r i v e d i n Horton u n t i l t h e i r deaths. Famili e s were r e c o n s t i t u t e d i n order to understand the f u l l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a c t i o n s of household heads and to measure t h e i r success i n p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s . The study emphasizes the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f i n d i v i d u a l s to t h e i r land, which i n an a g r a r i a n s o c i e t y i s the source of personal and c o l l e c t i v e economic success and which, i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way, i n f l u e n c e s the fate of succeeding generations. The question of community was c e n t r a l to t h i s study o f a p l a c e . Was Horton a community i n the sense that i t was a group of people bonded together by shared problems and a common purpose? Here, the documentation i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t r a c t a b l e . But i f the d i s c u s s i o n that f o l l o w s i s essen-t i a l l y a study of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups of i n d i v i d u a l s i n which the broader image of community i s weak, t h i s i s l i k e l y a r e f l e c t i o n of the f a c t that Horton was not a community i n the t r a d i t i o n a l sense of a c l o s e l y - k n i t c o l o n i a l town. The a n a l y s i s uses a l l extant sources but r e l i e s p r i m a r i l y on deeds and w i l l s , Court of Quarter Sessions papers, the A g r i c u l t u r a l Census of 1770, the P o l l Tax of 1791 and g e n e a l o g i c a l m a t e r i a l . In a l i m i t e d way, i t draws on some of the methodologies and themes developed i n the exten-s i v e l i t e r a t u r e o f New England l o c a l s t u d i e s . More o f t e n though, those techniques serve as the b a s i s for new methods which are more u s e f u l f o r the narrow time span under study and the dearth of q u a n t i f i a b l e informa -t i o n on the p e r i o d . In a d d i t i o n , the economic and s o c i a l circumstances of New England at mid-century described i n these s t u d i e s provides a general background of the shared experience of most New Englanders who moved to the Nova S c o t i a f r o n t i e r . As w e l l , because i t was s e t t l e d as an offshoot of New England, the c o l o n i z a t i o n of Horton must be understood i n the context of New England settlement theory. Bumsted and Lemon have synthesized the f i n d i n g s of a number of New England l o c a l s t u d i e s i n t o a r u r a l settlement model that i d e n t i f i e s three s e q u e n t i a l phases of community development, each l a s t i n g 9 a generation or so. According to t h i s model, the i n i t i a l phase was marked by unsettlement, d i s o r i e n t a t i o n and great f l u i d i t y as s e t t l e r s found ways to organize t h e i r new environment. Large amounts of free or r e l a t i v e l y cheap land were a v a i l a b l e and communities were open. There was the s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of o l d s o c i a l forms as the i n h a b i t a n t s imposed s o c i a l arrangements that b e t t e r s u i t e d t h e i r new environment and a l t e r e d circumstances but bore l i t t l e resemblance to t h e i r previous experience. As s o c i e t y became more s e t t l e d and population more dense, i t entered a second phase of s t a b i l i z a t i o n . Economic strength grew, s o c i a l i n s t i t u -t i o n s , s t r u c t u r e s and values became more c l e a r l y defined and entrenched. Society became more complex. I f economic growth continued, t h i s phase became one of r e p l i c a t i o n as emerging e l i t e s i m i t a t e d the o l d e s t a b l i s h e d s o c i e t i e s from which they came. But i f the community d i d not continue to grow, i f commercial a g r i c u l t u r e or i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n d i d not occur, the community passed i n t o a phase o f s t a g n a t i o n . E v e n t u a l l y , increased popu-l a t i o n pressure on l i m i t e d resources l e d to le s s e n i n g opportunity and s o c i a l upheaval. 10 T h i s s t u d y o f the f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n or so o f s e t t l e m e n t i n H o r t o n Township a r g u e s a g a i n s t t h i s model by c h a l l e n g i n g i t s u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n o f the w i d e s p r e a d a v a i l a b i l i t y of-abundant l a n d . A d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p e o p l e to t h e i r l a n d r e v e a l s b o t h r e s t r i c t e d a c c e s s and the fundamenta l i m p o r t a n c e o f the r o l e o f the l a n d i n d i r e c t i n g t h e l i v e s o f the i n h a b i t a n t s and the c h a r a c t e r o f t h e i r e v o l v i n g s o c i e t y . 11 F o o t n o t e s A representative sample of the l i t e r a t u r e on the settlement history of Nova Scotia includes: general works of W.P. B e l l , The Foreign  Protestants and the Settlement of Nova Scotia (Toronto: 1961), J.B. Bird, "Settlement Patterns in Maritime Canada, 1687-1786", i n Geographical Review (1955); T.C. Haliburton, An H i s t o r i c a l and S t a t i s t i c a l Account of  Nova Scotia, 2 vols. (Halifax: 1829); J.S. Martell, Immigration to and  Emigration from Nova Scotia, 1815-1838 (Halifax: P.A.N.S. Publication No. 6, 1942); I.F. MacKinnon, Settlements and Churches i n Nova Scotia (Montreal: 1930); Beamish Murdoch, A History of Nova Scotia, 3 vols. (Halifax: 1865-1867); as well as several county h i s t o r i e s which provide anecdotal accounts of settlement and offer biographies of prominent c i t i z e n s . For an analysis of county h i s t o r i e s , see M. Brook Taylor, "Nova Scotia's Nineteenth-Century County Histories", i n Acadiensis, v. X, no. 2 (Spring, 1981), pp. 159-167. Studies concerned with a sp e c i f i c group of immigrants include: D. Campbell and R.A. MacLean, Beyond the At l a n t i c  Roar: A Study of Nova Scotia Scots (Toronto: 1974); Andrew H i l l Clark, Acadia, The Geography of Early Nova Scotia to 1760 (Madison: 1968); C.W. Dunn, Highland S e t t l e r : A Portrait of the Scottish Gael i n Nova  Scotia (Toronto: 1953); A.W.H. Eaton, "Rhode Island Settlers on the French Lands i n Nova Scotia i n 1760 and 1761", i n Americana (1915); Margaret E l l s , "Clearing The Decks for the Loy a l i s t s " , Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association Report, 1933, pp. 43-58; C.B. Fergusson, "Pre-Revolutionary Settlements i n Nova Scotia", Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections, v. XXXVII, (1970), pp. 5-23; R.S. Longley, "The Coming of the New England Planters to the Annapolis Valley", i n i b i d . , v. XXXIII (1961), pp. 81-101; W.C. Milner, "The Basin of Minas and Its Early S e t t l e r s " (the author, no date); Elizabeth Pearson White, "Nova Scotia Settlers From Chatham, Mass., 1759-1976", i n National Genealogical Society Quarterly, v. 62 (June, 1974), pp. 96-117. For p o l i t i c a l and religious interpretations of settlement, see J.B. Brebner, The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia. A  Marginal Colony During the Revolutionary Years (Toronto: 1969); Gordon Stewart and George Rawlyk, A People Highly Favoured of God (Toronto: 1972). For a discussion of the c u l t u r a l landscape, see i n pa r t i c u l a r , Peter Ennals and Deryk Holdsworth, "Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Landscape of the Maritime Provinces - A Reconnaisance", i n Acadiensis, 10 (1981), pp. 86-106; Alan Gowans, "New England Architecture in Nova Scotia" i n Art Quarterly (Spring, 1962), pp. 7-33; Graeme Wynn, "The Maritimes: The Geography of Fragmentation and Underdevelopment", i n L.D. McCann (ed.), Heartland and Hinterland (Scarborough, Ont.: 1982), pp. 156-213. 2 There i s an extensive l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the Acadians, and pa r t i c u l a r l y their expulsion from Nova Scotia. Standard works on Acadian settlement include: Andrew H i l l Clark, i b i d . , J.B. Brebner, New England's  Outpost. Acadia Before the Conquest of Canada (New York: 1927); and Naomi G r i f f i t h s , "The Golden Age: Acadian L i f e , 1713-1748", Histoire  Sociale/Social History, v. XVII, no. 33 (May 1984), pp. 21-34. 12 Lois K. Mathews, The Expansion of New England (Boston: 1909), pp. 113, 115. See also Charles E. Clark, The Eastern Frontier. The  Settlement of Northern New England, 1610-1763 (New York: 1970). Vor details of the two proclamations Lawrence published i n 1758.and 1759, outlining the advantages of Nova Scotia and the terms of settlement, see "Royal Proclamations, Proclamations By the Lord Justices and the Governors of Nova Scotia, 1748-1823", in R.G. 1, v. 346, series G. "A General Return of the Several Townships in the Province of Nova Scotia . . . 1767", R.G. 1, v. 443; reprinted i n Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections, v. 6-7, pp. 45-71. 6Naomi G r i f f i t h s , "Acadian L i f e " , pp. 25, 27. 7 I b i d . , p. 27. 8 In 1774 two t r a v e l l i n g Englishmen stated that the "Gramperre" consisted of 2600 acres of dykeland (John Robinson and Thomas Rispin, "A Journey Through Nova Scotia in 1774", in P.A.N.S. Report, 1944, pp. 26-57). This figure i s l i k e l y an estimate of t o t a l dykeland acreage at Horton including "si z e " . Computations discussed i n chapter 2, footnote 36 put the t o t a l at less than half t h i s . 9 J.M. Bumsted and J.T. Lemon, "New Approaches i n Early American Studies: The Local Community i n New England", Histoire Sociale/Social  History 2 (1968), pp. 98-112. CHAPTER 2 Occupying The Land In the late 1750s, the Nova Scotia Government focused i t s colonization efforts on establishing permanent a g r i c u l t u r a l communities and l e f t the fishing townships to develop more or less on their own. This was hardly surprising under the circumstances. Farming communities held greater promise of achieving permanent s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y than those based on an extractive resource; they also offered the potential of a food supply for the m i l i t a r y garrison at Halifax. In any case, executing an organized settlement plan would have been d i f f i c u l t on Nova Scotia's southwest coast where the rugged t e r r a i n and the nature of the resource would frag-ment settlement as i t stretched out along the shoreline and clustered i n sheltered coves. According to the Government's plan, the Minas Basin area was to be colonized as block settlements. A "block" settlement was one i n which the area to be colonized ( i n t h i s case a township) was granted to a group who had joined together prior to the move with the purpose of "planting" a community. Each of the four Minas townships was granted to a group of families and i n d i v i d u a l s , most of whom came from a few neighbouring towns in Massachusetts, Connecticut or Rhode Island. They were expected to move to Nova Scotia as a community and to occupy the land at least i n i t i a l l y , i n common. In 1759, c o l l e c t i v e township grants were issued to 197 proprie-tors i n Horton, 150 i n Cornwallis, 100 i n Falmouth, and 68 i n Newport ( i n 1764) and s e t t l e r s began to arrive the following spring. 13 14 Nova Scotia was only one of several unoccupied areas being colonized by New Englanders at the time, and l i k e the others i t had d i f f i c u l t y ensuring that those who claimed shares kept their promise to s e t t l e . Forfeitures, vacancies, and the influx of non-grantees confused a process already complicated by the speculative land interests of self-serving Halifax o f f i c i a l s . In the end, 202 grantees received Horton land and formed the basis of i t s evolving settlement, but the composition of t h i s group was decided neither quickly nor eas i l y . Only 64 of the 197 persons named on the 1759 Grant were i n Horton by May 1761 when absentee proprietors were threatened with f o r f e i t u r e of their grants."'' Circumstances were similar i n Cornwallis and the other Bay of Fundy townships. Anxious that the former Acadian lands should not remain long without settlement, the Government had established c r i t e r i a for for-2 feiture. Grants had to be settled by proprietors or their representatives and improvements begun within two years of the date of issue or the grants were subject to cancellation. When the Government acted against delinquent grantees i n 1761, the resulting shuffle i n the shareholder membership of Horton invalidated the township grant. Proprietors who had arrived i n Horton kept their grants. An undisclosed number of absentee proprietors had 37.5 shares saved for them by requesting a continuance of thei r grants and receiving a revised settlement deadline."' Twelve more, who had delayed moving to Horton u n t i l after 1761, were l i s t e d on the town plan i n confirmation of thei r intention to s e t t l e . Both of these groups claimed their grants between 1762 and 1764. The rest of the non-arrivals, repre-senting 121 shares, l o s t their grants. This encouraged other residents of Connecticut to emigrate to Horton i n the hope of acquiring one of the 15 suspended rights. In May 1761, 78 individuals having no previous claim to a Horton •share joined the resident grantees in a new col lect ive grant. The second or "Effective" Grant distributed 131.5 of the township's 200 shares to 142 individuals (plus one share for the f irs t minister, 600 acres for a glebe and 400 acres for the school for a total of 134.5 s h a r e s ) . O v e r the next few years, proprietors of the f irs t grant whose claims were saved, arrived in Horton and received their shares in private grants. Other arr ivals from Connecticut competed with Nova Scotians for the township's remaining rights. By 1764 a l l shares were distributed. The 200 shares of Horton Township were allocated to proprietors in grants of .5, 1, 1.5 and 2 shares. Social status had determined grant size and structured the social organization of seventeenth-century New England towns, but i t was of limited value to an eighteenth-century community founded on economic principles . True, Horton's 2-share rights of which there were five, were patronage awards, but more often entitlement was determined by the proprietor's "abil ity to cultivate". "Abil i ty", i t seems, was loosely based on age and family s ize. It may be argued that those who were older were more l ike ly to have attained social prominence and so the apparent c r i t e r i a of age may have actually concealed the less obvious dist inction of status. But not every esteemed c i t izen received a large grant, whereas most older men with large families did. And i f a l l who obtained the larger grants were prominent, some quickly f e l l into obscurity at Horton. They were neither acknowledged as the town leaders nor became particularly successful landowners or farmers. Thus, age (and perhaps the wisdom and experience i t suggested) was judged to be a better 16 measure of farming s k i l l than s o c i a l position. Consequently, the oldest household heads with completed (and therefore often larger) families received most of the 750-acre 1.5-share grants; young, single or newly-married, men were given the 250-acre .5 shares, and those i n between obtained 500-acre 1-share grants. The shares were divided among 202 i n d i -viduals i n the following proportions: 5 grants of 2 shares, 41 grants of 1.5 shares, 97 grants'of 1 share and 59 grants of .5 shares. Three components can be recognized in the f i n a l selection of Horton grantees: 177 New Englanders (168.5 shares), 14 soldiers (16.5 shares), and 11 placemen (13 shares).^ The soldiers received land grants as reward for past service. Most were captains and lieutenants and at least three came from the same regiment. 7 "Placemen" describes a mixed group consist-ing of powerful members of Halifax's s o c i a l e l i t e , i n f l u e n t i a l businessmen, p o l i t i c i a n s , and high-ranking government servants who obtained the i r grants through favour. Patronage and position influenced the granting of 2 shares to Rev. John Breynton, leader of the Anglican Church i n Nova Scotia and rector of Halifax's St. Paul's Church, and 1 share to William Nesbitt, a prominent Halifax p o l i t i c i a n . It was also a factor i n the issue of smaller grants to businessmen and their families. Halifax mer-chants Joseph Gray and Charles Proctor, for example, held diverse co l o n i a l business interests. They received 1 and 1.5 shares respectively. Three other shareholders, Capt. John Taggart, Charles Morris J r . , and Isaac Deschamps had served the government i n the i n i t i a l settlement of the Minas townships. 17 Yet most of the grantees - perhaps QQ% of the 202 proprietors - were New Englanders, and i f the origins of the 79 New England grantees for whom we have data are t y p i c a l , members of this largest group came from a compact area i n southeastern Connecticut focusing on the port of New London g (Figure 2). Originally occupied as part of the expanding Massachusetts frontier more than a century before, New London and neighbouring counties i n the eastern highlands were well settled. Generations of extensive and wasteful farm practices had exhausted the more accessible lands and a growing population was placing increasing pressure on the limited supply of good land remaining i n the v i c i n i t y of the shiretown. Here, as elsewhere 9 i n the older settled a g r i c u l t u r a l areas of New England, land scarcity and s o i l exhaustion r e s t r i c t e d the farming opportunities of the descendents of the e a r l i e s t s e t t l e r s . The hardest h i t were young sons who came of age at a time when fathers had l i t t l e to offer them as a sta r t i n l i f e . Without a patrimony, i t was almost impossible to get established i n these subsist-ent and semi-subsistent communities where there were few alternatives to farming. Much of Connecticut was yet l i t t l e influenced by an inc i p i e n t West Indian market for the colony's a g r i c u l t u r a l products. Local economies had not d i v e r s i f i e d and opportunity was lim i t e d . By New England standards, the land was overcrowded; wealth based on land ownership was unevenly distributed and the quality of l i f e had worsened as society became s t r a t i -f i e d . Communities that once had been e g a l i t a r i a n , homogeneous and open were s t r a t i f i e d , differentiated and closed. To escape these r e s t r i c t i v e conditions, s e t t l e r s moved to northern New England i n search of land. Emigration began i n the late 1600s,.when th i s f r o n t i e r separated settled New England from the enemy t e r r i t o r y of • equals one person 19 French Canada. Sporadic outbursts of warfare i n the f i r s t half of the 18th century checked the advance of frontier settlement and often wiped out existing communities. Between the wars, the coastal areas of Maine and New Hampshire were tentatively settled, but the i n t e r i o r and Vermont were not opened up u n t i l the French threat was completely removed with the f a l l of Quebec i n 17,61). As part of t h i s northern expansion of New England, emigrants were drawn to the unoccupied t e r r i t o r y i n the adjacent colony of Nova Scotia. The promise of free land not only lured the young sons of New England, i t attracted older, family-oriented men as well. In fact, p a r t i a l recon-s t i t u t i o n of the families of f i f t y Horton grantees reveals that fewer than one t h i r d of these men were single i n 1761 and that at an average age of 20, a l l but three came to Nova Scotia with the i r parents. Of the married male grantees, three-quarters were over 30 years old and one t h i r d were older than f i f t y . Their families were young though, and could be counted on as a labour supply on the fr o n t i e r . At an average age of 37, twenty-five wives whose birthdate i s known were an average of five years younger than their husbands and many had not finished bearing children i n 1761. At least five women were pregnant when they made the three-week sea journey1'"' to Horton. Couples brought as many as ten, but most often four (and an average of five) children under age 21 to the new land; many families included one or two sons aged 16 to 21 who were not grantees and could labour on family farms. There i s no evidence that the patterns revealed by sample family reconstitution differed appreciably from the demographic ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the other grantees. Almost half (59) of the remaining 123 New 20 Englanders were known to have brought wives and children or to have come to Horton with at least one member of their immediate families."''"'" Only 12 grantees are known to have been unmarried. Some grantees were connected through extended kinship t i e s . Brothers Asa and Ephraim Harris were accompanied to Horton by a cousin, Lebbeus Harris and a nephew, Daniel Harris, and proprietor William Coldwell was married to the s i s t e r ' o f grantee Jedidiah Jordan. Other Horton grantees had relations in nearby Cornwallis. For instance, Zebadiah Wickwire's brothers Christopher and Peter, and Obadiah Stark's brother, Zephaniel were Cornwallis grantees; Benjamin Beckwith's cousins Samuel and John Beckwith also l i v e d there. L i t t l e of the economic background of Horton's New England grantees can be known without reconstructing their l i v e s p rior to emigration. While i t i s very unlikely that the extremely r i c h or the very poor came to Horton, the sparse evidence suggests that the grantees represented a broad economic spectrum. Such men as prominent Connecticut landowner Robert Denison, Yale-educated lawyer Nathan Dewolf, and Col. Charles Dickson who personally.financed a m i l i t a r y company for the siege of Beausejour came to Horton, but other s e t t l e r s could not survive the f i r s t few years without food and grain subsidies from the Nova Scotia Government. Although almost every man called himself a yeoman farmer when he claimed a Horton share, the New Englanders brought a variety of s k i l l s to the new land. A small number i d e n t i f i e d themselves as blacksmiths, carpenters, cordwainers, weavers, and traders while others r e l i e d on informal t r a i n i n g to bu i l d t h e i r houses and provide the i r families with the basic possessions they had not brought with them. Women contributed domestic s k i l l s including 21 weaving and spinning and produced household goods such as soap and candles. Because a l l Horton shares were allocated i n the early 1760s, i t i s possible to offer a p r o f i l e of the founding society. It was a c u l t u r a l l y -homogeneous population consisting primarily of former residents of south-eastern Connecticut. Although they were of a wide range of ages, they shared a common culture and r e l i g i o n . They were primarily families with re l a t i v e s l i v i n g nearby to provide companionship during good times and support and comfort during bad. At the same time, where the formal structures of community were 12 absent or rudimentary, and where s o c i a l organization was dominated by kinship, communal interdependence among the inhabitants of the place was probably weak. To be sure, every able-bodied man served the community i n the m i l i t i a and on the township's road committees. But underlying the founding of Horton was the powerful yearning of most of i t s grantees for individual landholdings on which they could practise family agriculture. This factor proved c r i t i c a l to Horton's development; i t directed methods of land d i s t r i b u t i o n and influenced basic patterns of l i f e on the land. The Cadastre In May, 1760, government troops erected Fort Montague near Horton Landing to provide shelter and protection for grantees and thei r families and livestock. The f i r s t houses1"* b u i l t that summer were probably situated at town plot near the protection of the f o r t . Although they planted some root crops and corn, the s e t t l e r s depended on government provisions of f l o u r , corn, and mackerel to sustain them through the f i r s t Nova Scotian 14 winter. With the spring thaw, salmon from the township's rivers and 22 streams supplemented a meagre food supply. Since overland travel was exceedingly d i f f i c u l t , Horton Landing became the focus of arrivals and departures in the summer of 1761. In May, alone, a government vessel brought salt to cure f ish, and oats and potatoes for planting;"^ Captain Rogers arrived from New London with a small shipment of seed corn;"^ and 18 New Englanders bound for Cobequid stopped in at Horton. Quickly the proprietors began to provide the infrastructures of settlement: they con-structed a bridge across the lower Gaspereau River, established a ferry link to Cornwallis, erected a grist mi l l (and most l ike ly at least one sawmill) and began to set off individual shares. In the next three years a l l of the township's land except the size lots and the remote wildlands were laid out and distributed. By 1770 v ir tual ly a l l lands were allocated and the settlement pattern was established. 19 Although o f f i c i a l grants were often delayed several years, share-holders participated in the distribution of township land as soon as they became residents. The Nova Scotia township grants gave the proprietors control over the divis ion of their shares " . . . into one or more lots to each share,as shall be agreed upon by the major part of said grantees.. . ."' In Horton, as in the other agricultural townships, grants consisted of dykeland, marsh, upland and woodland. Horton was surveyed in typical New England form. Blocks of land of different types were la id out in lots of various sizes around a compact town plot. The divisions of the Horton survey described the type or loca-tion of land and broadly, the sequence of survey: f i r s t divis ion dyke, f i r s t division farm, second division farm, island lots , size or equivalent lots , and third division farm (Figure 3). If the procedure for laying out Location of Land Types in Horton Township fig. 3. 24 the third d i v i s i o n farm lots was t y p i c a l , the proprietors established the acreage per share for each d i v i s i o n (except the equivalent l o t s ) , by dividing the t o t a l acreage of a land type by the number of shares to be 21 distributed. The acreage for 1.5-share and .5-share entitlements were then calculated proportionately. Two-share disbursements were measured d i f f e r e n t l y : they were treated as two one-share allotments so that the composition of the grant was actually that of two separate shares. Having two-shares' worth of any of the various land types was to own two d i s t i n c t and possibly widely-separated lots instead of contiguous acreage as i n the case of 1.5-share t r a c t s . Further adjustments were made in acreage per share i n two of the upland divisions to compensate for variable quality. For the f i r s t d i v i -sion farm l o t s t h i s was expressed i n variable acreage per share; for second d i v i s i o n l o t s i t was i n the addition of one or more "s i z e " l o t s of marsh, dyke, upland and/or woodland to each right to make up the equivalent of i n f e r i o r quality. The lots of the Horton survey, ranging i n size from .5 to 3 shares i n some divisio n s , were l a i d out and numbered, and chosen by drawing corre-spondingly-numbered papers from a hat. The larger two and three-share l o t s of the f i r s t d ivisions of dyke and upland were parcelled out to two or more grantees. For example, the f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t numbered "N°3 3 shares f i r s t t i e r Grand Pre" was divided among three grantees who together owned a t o t a l of 3 shares: the north half or 1.5 shares was drawn by Samuel Copp; the south half was apportioned to John Burnham who owned the middle 1-share l o t and John Whitney J r . whose .5 share bordered north on Burnham's land and south on the King's Highway. S i m i l a r l y , Charles 25 Dickson Sr. obtained a .5-share s t r i p at the east end of the 2-share l o t "N° 29 f i r s t t i e r Gaspereau River"; John Allen Sr. owned 1 share adjoining 22 Dickson's l o t and the .5-share western s t r i p belonged to John Dickson. As long as the t o t a l combined shares corresponded with the share size of the l o t , grantees could choose their neighbours i n a subdivided l o t by "drawing i n company". Although owners almost always late r divided common plots into individual holdings, i n i t i a l l y t h is arrangement permitted a man to farm alongside someone he knew and trusted. Relatives, especially 23 fathers and sons, frequently chose t h i s variation of the b a l l o t . No one 24 was given preference i n the assignment of lo t s and a l l the proprietors 25 shared equally i n the costs of the survey. In June, 1760, before most grantees arrived, Nova Scotia Chief Land Surveyor Charles Morris J r . measured of f a compact town plot designed for 26 commerce and defence (Figure 4). Bordered to the north by the marshy fringe of Grand Pre", the 144-acre rectangular grid was located on cleared upland just south of Horton Landing on a bend near the mouth of the Gaspereau River. It consisted of three 44-acre squares each surrounding a 4-acre parade square and intersected by streets at right angles. In New England communities, wealth, s o c i a l status, family size and parti c i p a t i o n i n the i n i t i a l s e t t l i n g often determined i f a s e t t l e r was given a home l o t and i t s acreage, but i n Horton every grantee and proposed grantee received 27 a 250' x 100' .5-acre tract (Figure 5). Grantees probably took posses-sion of their l o t s as they arrived in town, but the method of d i s t r i b u t i o n i s unknown. There were more extra l o t s surveyed at town plot than i n any other d i v i s i o n ; perhaps the surplus was intended for the tradesmen Morris 28 anticipated would s e t t l e there. 26 Town Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees fig. 5. 28 The rest of the township was l a i d out by the Horton survey team. The survey team of seven or eight men, but of no fixed membership consisted of a surveyor to lay the bounds, committeemen to represent the proprietors, 29 and chainmen to carry axes and the Gunter measurement chain. In 1761, they l a i d out the f i r s t d i v i s i o n of dykeland northwest of the town plot on the Grand Pre. The survey plan, with nine alphabetized divisions of AO to 184 acres resembled a"patchwork of squares and rectangles (Figure 6). It divided the approximately 800-acre"^ Grand Pre into one hundred 8-acre trac t s . These 2-share l o t s could have as many as four owners, but by the draw each proprietor was aware of which section he owned. The f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm lots were also measured off i n 1761 on the cleared upland south of the Grand Pre'.'*1 Four t i e r s of .5 to 3-share l o t s , appropriately named the f i r s t and second t i e r s next the Grand Pre" and the f i r s t and second t i e r s next the Gaspereau River lay between the Grand Pre" and the Gaspereau River. The allocation of indiv i d u a l shares divided most l o t s into rectangles bordering on a road or the Grand Pre" (Figure 7). The central section of the middle t i e r s was known as the town common. The common was.the core of New England towns, but i n Horton the term was ana-chronistic; the area locals called the "common" was actually upland size that had been divided into l o t s and was privately owned by a handful of grantees. To the east, 50-acre l o t s "east of the lower bridge near the pear trees" provided another tract of f i r s t d i v i s i o n farmland. S i m i l a r l y , the cleared upland south of the town plot and the wedge of wetter ground on i t s northern boundary, were used for twenty-six .5 to 1.5-share l o t s . East of the town plo t , f i v e 3-share l o t s of at least 48 acres apiece, 31 appropriated a chunk of firmer ground on the peninsula known as "the Neck". A l l together, the f i r s t d i v i s i o n farmland to t a l l e d 1947 acres, but depending on the s o i l quality of each s e c t i on, the allotment per share varied from seven to twenty-four acres. 32 By 1763, at least some lo t s were measured off on the three islands, so-called, that were actually elevated land accessible on foot at low tide but surrounded by water at the flood tide (Figure 8). An access road divided the largest island, Long Island, into north and south t i e r s . With 4 acres to a share, each t i e r consisted of narrow 1.5 and 2-share s t r i p s . A small plot at the island's western end was reserved to provide s o i l for dyke construction. Few of those who obtained shares after the c o l l e c t i v e grant (and hereafter referred to as subsequent grantees) received l o t s on Long Island whereas they preponderated on Oak and Boot Islands. Since those l i s t e d on the 1761 Effective Grant drew their l o t s before the others, t h i s seems to indicate that Oak and Boot Islands were only divided after a l l Long Island l o t s had been distributed. The island was the only d i v i s i o n that contained fewer than 200 shares of land, and yet some island l o t s were never claimed. Perhaps the land was worthless i n those spots, but whatever the reason, 48 four to twenty-four-acre island equivalent l o t s scattered on the upland on the south side of the Gaspereau and i n the western section of the town-ship were offered i n l i e u to the remaining subsequent grantees (Figure 9). Between 1762 and 1764"^ the second d i v i s i o n farm l o t s were l a i d o f f i n four sections l y i n g west of the f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t s , on the south bank of the Gaspereau and the shores of the Piziquid (Avon) Rivers, and along the Horton-Falmouth Road. Rows of 100-acre rectangles were divided 3Z. Island Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees fig. 8. <mrm» dyke _____ division boundary lot boundary ——8H—1 lots granted lot boundary K I M S allocated island equivalent lots ungranted island equivalent lots 34 east to west i n 50-acre shares (Figure 10). To compensate For variable s o i l quality appraisers assessed each l o t against the highest prized l o t , A N° 10, and awarded proprietors pecuniary t i c k e t s to be exchanged for 34 "equivalent" l o t s of equal value at the recipient's l e i s u r e . In th i s way, proprietors pitched one or more l o t s on the residual marsh, dykeland, intervale and woodland of the township."^ Unlike arbitrary b a l l o t selec-t i o n , pitching meant that individuals chose the location of their l o t s . s Consequently, size land was usually a jumble of l o t s of many shapes and sizes (Figures 11a and l i b ) . ^ Some proprietors exercised their choice of size land i n the late 1760s, but most chose e a r l i e r and by 1770 attention was focused on the f i n a l allotment of land. By the th i r d d i v i s i o n , almost 90,000 acres of remote and inaccessible forest were set o f f i n half-share tracts of 225 acres each (Figure 12). With t h i s f i n a l d i v i s i o n , and exclusive of the size acreage, the t o t a l acreage of a l l divisions exceeded by more than 2000 acres the putative 100,000 acres allocated the township i n 1759 (Table I ) . Because the Horton proprietors wished to ensure that each and every share i n the township contained a portion of a l l kinds of land, they had no choice but to divide the land into scattered holdings. S t i l l , i n pitching size l o t s t h e i r selections perpetuated t h i s randomness. They favoured no particular type of land, nor did they choose acreage of every kind; there was no attempt to consolidate l o t s i n a single location and grantees rarely selected plots near their other holdings. This apparent disregard of the benefits of agglomeration and the inconveniences of long distances between holdings suggests what may have been accepted and indeed, preferred a g r i c u l t u r a l practise: farming small plots and 35 Size Lots Allocated to Horton Grantees fig. 11a. lot boundary marsh & dyke size dyke size I + + +l upland size allocated lots ungranted lots lot boundary lots granted 39 TABLE I. Acreage D i s t r i b u t i o n of .Land Types i n Horton Township D i v i s i o n 37 Town p l o t F i r s t d i v i s i o n dyke F i r s t d i v i s i o n farm: F i r s t t i e r Grand Pre Second t i e r Grand Pre" Second t i e r Gaspereau F i r s t t i e r Gaspereau East of the lower bridge South of the town p l o t North of the town p l o t On the Neck Total of f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm: Second d i v i s i o n farm Island l o t s : Long Island Oak Island Boot Island I s l a n d equivalent Total i s l a n d d i v i s i o n : Third d i v i s i o n Total ac. ac./ No. of Acreage Granted Share Lots 144 113.5 .5 288 800 792 4 100 388.5 46.5 7 26 350 234 14 19 210 189 14 14 443.75 442.75 12.5 16 243.75 243.75 12.5 22 195 195 12-14 15 51 42 6 11 360 348 24 5 2242.00 1741.00 9800 9150 50 98 478 420 4 104 48 45 6 8 64 60 8 8 577.25 577.25 12.5-16 52 1167.25 1102.25 52 87975 86850 450 391 Total e x c l u s i v e of s i z e 102128.25 99748.75 40 t r a v e l l i n g a few miles between l o t s . I f this i s true, a pre-disposition toward dispersion would s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence landowning patterns once proprietors began to re-structure t h e i r holdings by buying and s e l l i n g l o t s . The s p a t i a l arrangement of individual holdings on the land and the type, variety and quality of the s o i l s they contained would i n turn, profoundly affect the nature of the a g r i c u l t u r a l system and levels of productivity that were obtainable i n Horton. The o r i g i n a l Horton Grant implied the transfer of a single group from Connecticut to Nova Scotia, but shares i n the township were actually taken up by a diverse group of proprietors. Contrary to the Administration's plan for a block settlement and the instant community that that implied, most of Horton's proprietors came alone or i n small groups from south-eastern Connecticut hoping to improve their material circumstances by obtaining free land. Unlike t h e i r Puritan forefathers who proceeded cautiously i n developing a new town to ensure that l o c a l society was struc-tured to foster community, the Horton grantees immediately focused on exploiting the opportunities of the f r o n t i e r . A deep-seated desire to own land of one's own and an impulse to acquire as much of i t as they could, led the proprietors to divide the entire township into individual holdings i n the f i r s t decade. No land reserve or communal property remained; even the so-called town "common" was privately owned. Providing land for future generations - which once had been a community r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - became the private duty of each landowner. A basic aspiration for individual econo-mic success gained through the accumulation of land was the fundamental pr i n c i p l e underlying the i n i t i a t i o n of settlement at Horton. Economics motivated New Englanders to move to t h i s new land and economics shaped the o l v i n g c h a r a c t e r o f the c o m m u n i t i e s they e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e . 42 Footnotes There i s no surviving account of the i n i t i a t i o n of settlement at Horton, but the "Warrant for the Erection of the Township of Horton, 1759" (R.G. 1, v. 222, #3), the 1761 c o l l e c t i v e grant for Horton Township (Micro: Places: Nova Scotia: Land Grants, 3-35), Appendices A-C, and the town plan described below can be used to reconstruct the process of taking up shares at Horton. The plan of Horton town plot surveyed and l a i d out by Charles Morris J r . i n 1760, l i s t s the owner of each l o t . To determine who actually came to Horton and when, the l i s t has been analyzed according to appearance or non-appearance on a grant and i t i s divided into the following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s : 1. Individuals found on the 1759 Warrant only; 2. Individuals found on the 1759 Warrant and the 1761 Effective Grant; 3. Individuals found on the 1759 Warrant who became grantees after 1761 (hereafter referred to as subsequent grantees); 4. Effective grantees whose names do not occur on any previous l i s t ; 5. Individuals who became grantees after 1761, but who are not found on a previous l i s t (also called subsequent grantees); 6. Individuals who la t e r s e t t l e i n Horton but who are not grantees; 7. Those who p e t i t i o n for a grant but lose or s e l l i t without s e t t l i n g i n Horton; 8. Those who are mentioned on the town plan but i n no other Horton document; The analysis suggests that the names were probably inserted on the map sometime between 1760 and 1763. The o r i g i n a l plan i s hanging i n the Acadia University Archives, W o l f v i l l e , N.S.; a reproduction can be found as Figure 11, i n Douglas Eagles, A History of Horton Township, Sarnia: 1970). 2 Letter from Montagu Wilmot to the Board of Trade, Aug. 24, 1766, i n "Dispatches From the Governors to the Board of Trade and Plantations", R.G. 1, v. 37, Oct. 26, 1760 - Nov. 25, 1781. See category 2, "Settlers Recommended by the Committee..." i n Appendix A. 4 Twenty-seven grantees of the 1759 Warrant who were not l i s t e d on the second grant of 1761 received l o t s at town plot. Why thei r places were saved i s unknown, but i t may have been simply because they n o t i f i e d the Nova Scotia Government of their continued interest in s e t t l i n g i n Horton. Only twelve became subsequent grantees (Appendix C). I f the others l i s t e d on the plan came to Horton, they l e f t before they received grants. It i s doubtful that they ever arrived though, since even a temporary v i s i t (as in the case of a few Effect i v e grantees who s e l l their grants i n 1762 and 43 leave the township soon a f t e r ) would probably confirm t h e i r shares. There i s no f u r t h e r reference to these i n d i v i d u a l s i n Horton documents. "Land Grants", i b i d . ^See Appendix B for a l i s t of most of the s o l d i e r s and placemen who received Horton grants. ^Capt. Alexander Hay, L i e u t . James Stewart and L i e u t . P a t r i c k West belonged to His Majesty's F i r s t or Royal Regiment of Foot, see "King's County Deeds", R.G. 47, r e e l 1273, book 2, p. 230; r e e l 1274, book 5, p. 206. g O r i g i n s are derived from genealogies and deeds. See b i b l i o g r a p h y . 9 For a d i s c u s s i o n of socioeconomic c o n d i t i o n s i n Connecticut i n the eighteenth century see: J.M. Bumsted, " R e l i g i o n , Finance, and Democracy i n Massachusetts: The Town of Norton as a Case Study", Journa l of American  H i s t o r y , L V I I , no. 4 (March, 1971), pp. 817-831; Richard L. Bushman, From P u r i t a n to Yankee: Character and S o c i a l Order i n Connecticut, 1690- 1765 (Toronto: 1970); Bruce C. D a n i e l s , "Economic Development i n C o l o n i a l and Revolutionary Connecticut: An Overview", W i l l i a m and Mary Q u a r t e r l y , s e r i e s 3, v. 37 (1980), pp. 429-450; Charles S. Grant, Democracy i n the  Connecticut F r o n t i e r Town of Kent (New York: 1972). ^ A l e t t e r from Charles Morris J r . to the Executive C o u n c i l , June ? 30, 1760, s t a t e s that the f i r s t t r a n s p o r t s a r r i v e d i n the Minas Basin from New London a f t e r a twenty-one day sea journey, "Minutes of the Executive C o u n c i l " (R.G. 3, v. 188, Aug. 17, 1757 - Aug. 21, 1766). No explanation i s o f f e r e d f o r why the journey took so long. "^Unfortunately, i n these cases, there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t documentation f o r r e c o n s t i t u t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , 28 of the 123 never became permanent r e s i d e n t s , which f u r t h e r reduces the number of i n d i v i d u a l s whose d i s p o s i -t i o n i s unknown. There i s no s u r v i v i n g record of township meetings f o r Horton, but i f any meetings were held during the 1760s, they were l i k e l y f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s of settlement, as was the case i n Newport. See: John V. Duncanson, Newport, Nova S c o t i a : A Rhode Is l a n d  Township ( B e l l e v i l l e , Ont.: 1985). ^The number of houses b u i l t i s unknown; see "Dispatches ...", R.G. 1, v. 37, Dec. 12, 1760. 44 14 "Minutes of the Executive Council", Oct. 24, 1760, p. 159; Letter from the Provincial Secretary to Jeremiah Rogers, Nov. 7, 1760, in "Letter Books of the Provincial Secretary", R.G. 7, v. 136. "^Letter from the Provincial Secretary to Isaac Deschamps i n "Letter Books ..." May 15, 1761; "Minutes of the Executive Council", p. 219, July 15, 1761. "^"Minutes of the Executive Council", i b i d . 17... . Ibid. 18 Letter from the Provincial Secretary to Thomas Handcock i n "Letter Books ...", A p r i l 14, 1761. 19 The i n t r i c a t e procedures for issuing land grants combined with the overwhelming number of petitions for land i n Nova Scotia i n the early 1760s caused the o f f i c i a l grants to be delayed as long as 7 years after an individual staked a claim. 20 The Horton Township Grant, i b i d . 21 In the P a r t i t i o n of the Township of Horton i n 1770, the unimproved or t h i r d d i v i s i o n l o t s were l a i d out and shareholders drew numbered l o t s by ballot i n the order that they appeared on the 1761 Grant, and the others generally by the date of their grants, (R.G. 1, v. 361, #21). The boundaries of each l o t were recorded i n the Horton P a r t i t i o n Book (R.G. 1, v. 362). E a r l i e r , deeds of the mid-1760s commonly referred to the t h i r d d i v i s i o n l o t s as being "not yet divided or set o f f ... i n the Division late agreed upon by the Propriety of 225 acres to one half share ..." (See, for example, Lebbeus Harris to Joseph Gray, R.G. 47, v. 1273, book 1, p. 150). Jedidiah Williams to Charles Dickson ( i b i d . , book 3, p. 7, Sept. 8, 1761) refers to a f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t as being "drawn by l o t t e r y " . The sequence of numbered l o t s on the township plan implies that l o t s were l a i d prior to the draw. 22 The Horton P a r t i t i o n Book l i s t s the particular l o t s drawn by each grantee. 23 For instance, of 16 pairs of fathers and sons whose combined shares did not exceed the 2-share l o t size of the f i r s t d i v i s i o n dyke l o t s , 11 shared the same l o t . 24 The only exceptions were Israel Harding's 950 acres and Col. William Forster's 1000 acres at New Minas. 45 25 A l l survey b i l l s were submitted to the Court of Quarter Sessions and the totals were audited and divided by 200 to arrive at the assessment rate per share. 26 Letter from Charles Morris J r . to the Executive Council, i n "Minutes of the Executive Council", June 1, 1760. 27 The only exceptions were 9 marshy lots i n the northeast corner of the town plot which were 200' x 53'4" or 83'43". 28 "Minutes of the Executive Council", i b i d . 29 The date of survey and the type of land surveyed i s sometimes l i s t e d in survey b i l l s and petitions (M.G. 1, v. 181, nos. 12, 53, 81, 83, 210, 211, 270, 278-280, 293, 305, 307; v. 182, no. 39. In deed descriptions of the 1760s, land i s often distinguished before a survey as being "common and undivided" and afterwards by descriptions of stakes and stones boundary locations. The sale of f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t N° 2D on Nov. 2, 1761 i s the f i r s t mention of a bounded f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t i n Horton documents (R.G. 47, v. 1273, p. 196, #51). "^See footnote #37 for an explanation of how a t o t a l of 800 acres was calculated for the Grand Prd. ^ F i v e of the s i x Horton deeds recorded i n 1761 involve sales of bounded f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t s . It i s unknown i f the survey of that d i v i s i o n was completed that same year. 32 In Sept. 1761, Oak Island, at least, was s t i l l "common and . undivided", (R.G. 47, v. 1273, book 3, p. 7). The f i r s t mention of the di v i s i o n of island l o t s i s a survey b i l l of June, 1763, MG. 1, v. 181, #81. "^ On Oct. 5, 1761, at least "C" di v i s i o n of the second d i v i s i o n farm l o t s was s t i l l "common and undivided", (R.G. 47, v. 1273, book 3, p. 200). A June, 1764 survey b i l l accounts for charges "to Beginning of Laying out the Size of the Second Division farm l o t s " , M.G. 1, v. 181, #92, which implies that the l o t s were l a i d out by that date. 34 How s o i l quality was determined i s unknown. "^There i s no correlation between the location of a second d i v i s i o n farm l o t in any part i c u l a r section or area and the location of i t s size which would indicate that p a r t i c u l a r l y poor s o i l was compensated with a sp e c i f i c type or area of s i z e . 46 In the grants, deeds and on the township p l a n , s i z e l o t s are i d e n t i -f i e d by a number and the l e t t e r and number of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s second d i v i s i o n farm l o t (e.g., N°1B14). Although l o t s ranged from 1 acre of dykeland to 100 acres "of woodland, s p e c i f i c acreages were only c i t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y f o r woodland ( t o t a l : 2433 a c r e s ) . Thus i t i s impossible to determine the average acreage per i n d i v i d u a l or the t o t a l s i z e acreage at Horton. The acreage i n each d i v i s i o n was c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g the acreage/share by the t o t a l number of shares that were l a i d out i n l o t s on the township plans. I t should be noted that while l o t s i z e o c c a s i o n a l l y seems to vary on the plans, deeds for some of the smaller s i z e d i o c s i n d i c a t e that they contained the same acreage. There i s a s l i g h t underestimation of t o t a l acreage because i n some d i v i s i o n s there were a few l o t s that were not d i s t r i b u t e d . Although i n l a y i n g out the town p l o t Charles Morris i m p l i e d that there may be a reserve of land to be used to e n t i c e tradesmen to the community, there i s no evidence that Horton p r o p r i e t o r s had t h i s i n t e n t i o n i n surveying the other d i v i s i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , there i s no record of any newcomer s e l l i n g land for which there i s no record of purchase, nor were any grants i s s u e d a f t e r the 1760s. I t i s l i k e l y that land remaining a f t e r a l l shares were a l l o c a t e d was e i t h e r u n f i t f o r c u l t i v a t i o n or was used to compensate landowners f o r township roads routed through t h e i r property. CHAPTER 3 Land and L i v e l i h o o d s By. the mid 1760s, the geography of New England settlement i n Nova S c o t i a was f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d . On the south shore, ephemeral f i s h i n g enclaves had f i n a l l y a t t r a c t e d permanent r e s i d e n t s . And a g r i c u l t u r a l communities along the Bay of Fundy had taken root despite the departure o f some grantees. In Horton, the property surveys of the 1760s organized the land f o r settlement. But even as land was a l l o t t e d , p r o p r i e t o r s r e s t r u c -tured and used t h e i r assigned holdings according to t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l a s p i r a t i o n s . Because land shaped the economic and s o c i a l character of a g r i c u l t u r a l communities, the ways i n which Horton shareholders u t i l i z e d t h e i r grants - i . e . , how they responded to the opportunity of owning free land i n Nova S c o t i a - was c r i t i c a l to the fat e of the settlement and the p r o s p e r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g there. Reconstructing p a t t e r n s of land ownership and use i n the 1760s r e v e a l s the a c t i o n s o f the i n h a b i t a n t s during Horton's formative years. From a c l o s e a n a l y s i s o f t h i s person to land r e l a t i o n s h i p i t i s p o s s i b l e to deduce the motivations, values and goals that guided t h i s behavior. This consciousness, sometimes c a l l e d . metalite', and i t s connections to opp o r t u n i t y , s t r u c t u r e d by the l o c a l environment, determined Horton's course of development. The Connecticut s e t t l e r s came to Nova S c o t i a with a background that i n c r e a s i n g l y emphasized commercial farming, a g r i c u l t u r a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and the accumulation of land f or economic power; they a l s o evanced an optimism that a s s o c i a t e d opportunity with the f r o n t i e r . By 1760, 47 48 population growth and extensive and wasteful farming p r a c t i c e s had increased the demand f o r land, r a i s e d land p r i c e s and l e d a g r i c u l t u r e on to marginal lands that were b e t t e r s u i t e d to d a i r y farming than to g r a i n production. A West Indian market absorbed the colony's a g r i c u l t u r a l sur-p l u s . Although i t s t i l l consumed more than i t exported, and many l o c a l economies had yet to d i v e r s i f y , by the mid-eighteenth century, Connecticut/ was passing from an i n t e r n a l to an e x t e r n a l economy. E n t r e p r e n e u r i a l -y i values were of i n c r e a s i n g importance to the i n h a b i t a n t s . P r o f i t , not yearl y subsistence, was the goa l . The key to i t was i n accumulating land. Although access to land was r e s t r i c t e d i n much of older s e t t l e d New England, emigration to new f r o n t i e r s afforded the prospect of economic success through land ownership.''' The importance of owning land was r e i n f o r c e d by circumstances i n Nova S c o t i a . A f t e r the f i r s t New England townships were e s t a b l i s h e d , the Nova S c o t i a Government was bombarded with p e t i t i o n s f or the colony's remaining ungranted land. Between 1763 and 1768 approximately 3,500,000 acres were granted to Nova Sc o t i a n s , B r i t o n s and New Englanders who promised to s e t t l e 2 themselves or e n t i r e communities i n the colony. In the d r i v e to accumulate, even some of those who had already obtained grants requested land. Among them were Horton p r o p r i e t o r s who twice asked the Executive Council f o r a d d i t i o n a l land as compensation f o r a shortage of v i a b l e acreage i n t h e i r township grant. In 1764 they requested lands on the north s i d e of the Minas Basin; three years l a t e r they wanted land near Yarmouth."* Both p e t i t i o n s were turned down. Although the reasons f o r t h e i r r e j e c t i o n are unclear, the cl a i m that land was i n short supply i n Horton seems to have been the i n v e n t i o n of 49 p e t i t i o n e r s eager to acquire as much land as they could at an opportune time. The township contained more than the 100,000 acres promised the grantees. And t h e i r contentions of s c a r c i t y were made l e s s convincing by t h e i r choice of I s r a e l Harding as t h e i r spokesman. With 1000 contiguous acres at New Minas, Harding owned one of the l a r g e s t t r a c t s i n Horton. Moreover, due to the poorly-developed s t a t e of a g r i c u l t u r e i n the new township, there was l i t t l e chance that an a d d i t i o n a l grant could have been brought i n t o c u l t i v a t i o n f o r some time. A s i m i l a r demand for land e x i s t e d i n the l o c a l land trade. In the 1760s, 80% of a l l Horton grantees p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the land market; more than 53,000 acres changed hands through 480 deeds. Although more than three quarters of the grantees r e g i s t e r e d fewer than s i x deeds f o r the decade,^ i n many instances more than one and as many as ten l o t s changed hands i n a s i n g l e t r a n s a c t i o n . Consequently, the land trade was probably b u s i e r than the f i g u r e s suggest. In a l l , at l e a s t 777 p a r c e l s o f Horton land changed hands. Deeds record the t r a n s f e r o f 191 pieces of s i z e ; 141 pieces of f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm; 103 p a r c e l s o f f i r s t d i v i s i o n dyke; 94 town l o t s ; 93 second d i v i s i o n l o t s ; 79 t h i r d d i v i s i o n t r a c t s ; and 76 i s l a n d and i s l a n d equivalent l o t s . Town l o t s and farmland on the northern boundary of town p l o t were the most expensive acreage during the 1760s. P r o p e r t i e s i n these c a t e g o r i e s that changed hands averaged £4 and £3.3.0 per acre r e s p e c t i v e l y (Table I I ) . Over 40?o of a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v e d f i r s t d i v i s i o n farmland and s i z e l o t s . The l a t t e r were o f t e n part of a package i n m u l t i p l e - l o t s a l e s and i n the l e s s common b a r t e r exchange of l o t s . 50 TABLE I I . Average Land P r i c e s i n Horton, 1760 - 1770* Land Type P r i c e Per Acre Town Lot £4.0.0 Lots "north of town p l o t " £3.3.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) F i r s t t i e r Grand Pre* £2.32.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) F i r s t d i v i s i o n dyke £2.28.0 Second t i e r Gaspereau £2.17.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) North t i e r Long I s l a n d £1.25.0 ( i s l a n d l o t s ) F i r s t t i e r Gaspereau £1.20.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) Second t i e r Grand Pre" £1.6.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) Lots on "the Neck" £1.5.0 ( f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm) South t i e r Long I s l a n d £0.34.0 ( i s l a n d l o t s ) Third d i v i s i o n farm £0.6.0 Boot Island Not a v a i l a b l e Oak Island Not a v a i l a b l e Equivalent ( s i z e ) l o t s Not a v a i l a b l e •Source: King's County, N.S. Deeds (P.A.N.S. R^G. 47, #1273) 51 Landowning behavior between 1760 and 1770 suggests that a c q u i s i t i v e -ness, expressed both i n the p u r s u i t of immediate p r o f i t and i n property accumulation, motivated landowners.^ The land trade provided one of the few o p p o r t u n i t i e s to r a i s e c a p i t a l on the Nova S c o t i a f r o n t i e r and during the 1760s, one h a l f of Horton's r e s i d e n t grantees engaged i n t r a n s a c t i o n s that brought them a p r o f i t . ^ Astute landowners c a p i t a l i z e d on the land without reducing the s i z e of t h e i r own shares by s e l l i n g i n d i v i d u a l l y -purchased l o t s as a package de a l . More o f t e n , though, immediate p r o f i t was only r e a l i z e d by the reduction of a shareholder's improvable acreage. Defined broadly, "improvable" acreage was land e a s i l y prepared f o r c u l t i -v a t i o n . In the 1760s t h i s meant a c c e s s i b l e township land r a t h e r than the undivided t h i r d d i v i s i o n . E x c l u s i v e of " s i z e " l a n d , grants of .5 to 2 g shares contained from 31 to 145 improvable acres. Three-quarters of the grantees who made money from t h e i r shares 9 reduced t h e i r farm area. On average, t h i s r e duction amounted to 31 improvable acres (Appendix A). C l e a r l y , some conceived of t h e i r land as a commodity of exchange i n the cash-short economy of eighteenth-century Nova S c o t i a . They s o l d o f f some p a r c e l s to o b t a i n funds necessary to improve and stock the remainder. For o t h e r s , l e s s committed to s e t t i n g up a farm i n Horton, emigration to Nova S c o t i a was temporary. Whether engulfed i n debt, discouraged by pioneering hardships, or caught up i n the s p e c u l a t i v e fever sweeping the c o l o n y , 3 8 shareholders s o l d t h e i r r i g h t s by 1770, p u t t i n g more than 17,000 acres up for s a l e . Most of those who departed e a r l y i n the 1760s s o l d t h e i r land before l e a v i n g Horton, but by mid-decade the m a j o r i t y of grants s o l d were the property of s e t t l e r s who had returned to New England.^ 52 The p r i c e v a r i e d according to whether a p r o p r i e t o r s o l d before or a f t e r l e a v i n g Horton, the b u i l d i n g s and improvements to be i n c l u d e d , or i f the grant was s o l d by a d i s i n t e r e s t e d h e i r , but g e n e r a l l y , one share of 500 unimproved acres could be purchased f o r approximately £100. The w i l l i n g n e s s of many grantees to s e l l at l e a s t part of t h e i r shares made i t p o s s i b l e for anyone with c a p i t a l to buy land i n Horton. A few H a l i f a x businessmen who invested h e a v i l y i n the lands of the o u t s e t t l e -ments took advantage of t h i s o pportunity. For i n s t a n c e , i n a s i n g l e pur-chase, Thomas Cochran, merchant, paid £300 f o r 138 improvable acres, s e v e r a l s i z e l o t s and 450 acres of t h i r d d i v i s i o n w i l d l a n d s to become the 12 twenty-eighth l a r g e s t landowner i n Horton. S i m i l a r l y , John Cunningham purchased 272.5 improvable acres, s i z e and i s l a n d equivalent l o t s f o r £253.10.0 and was ranked n i n t h among Horton landowners. 1"* But these men were not t y p i c a l newcomers. Of 35 non-grantees who purchased land i n the 1760s, most owned l e s s than 25 acres; as a group they acquired only 15?o of the township's improvable acreage. Most of the lands s o l d i n the 1760s became the property of p r o p r i e t o r s eager to augment t h e i r o r i g i n a l shares. One quarter of the r e s i d e n t grantees invested s u b s t a n t i a l sums i n the l o c a l land market to increase t h e i r holdings by an average of 66 improvable acres (Appendix B ). A trend towards concentrated land ownership developed. By 1770, the top 20?o (40) of Horton landowners c o n t r o l l e d one h a l f o f the township's improv-able acreage; 10 of these landowners owned three times the t o t a l acreage of the 78 smallest property holders (Table I I I ) . In e f f e c t , the balance o f population and land was s h i f t i n g i n t h e i r favour. Future access to land would be severely l i m i t e d i f these few i n d i v i d u a l s were not i n c l i n e d to TABLE I I I . D i s t r i b u t i o n of Land Among Horton Landowners i n 1770 by grant Acreage i n 1 7 7 0 ca 1 7 6 0 0' /0 i n Resident Landowners Absentee Landowners Total 0' /• i n No. Acreage 1 7 6 0 No. Acreage No. Acreage No. Acreage 1 7 7 0 Top 20% 4 0 6 2 9 6 . 0 0 3 8 . 6 4 25 5 1 0 9 . 4 4 15 3 4 1 6 . 8 3 4 0 8 5 2 6 . 2 7 5 2 . 3 2 Mid 40?o 81 6 3 8 8 . 7 5 3 9 . 2 0 48 4 2 6 8 . 3 3 30 1 8 8 2 . 8 3 78 6 1 5 1 . 1 6 3 7 . 7 5 Bottom 40?o 81 3 6 1 1 . 2 5 2 2 . 1 6 48 1 0 9 1 . 9 9 30 5 2 6 . 5 8 78 1 6 1 8 . 5 7 9 . 9 3 202 1 6 2 9 6 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 121 1 0 4 6 9 . 7 6 75 5 8 2 6 . 2 4 196 1 6 2 9 6 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 54 s e l l . Only s i x ranked i n the top 20% without purchasing any land. They had been given the l a r g e r 1.5 and 2-share r i g h t s and by not s e l l i n g any land, owned some of the l a r g e s t holdings i n 1770. A l l of them were non-r e s i d e n t s . In 1770, s e v e n t y - f i v e absentee grantees owned one t h i r d of Horton's improvable acreage. Most never ever l i v e d i n Horton and t h e i r 14 shares were subsequently s o l d by h e i r s . And yet, non-residency d i d not have to mean i n a c t i v i t y . In 1770, Horton's l a r g e s t landowner was H a l i f a x merchant and government servant, Joseph Gray. A shrewd businessman, Gray not only c o n s o l i d a t e d s e v e r a l s u b s t a n t i a l farms, he purchased a l a r g e chunk of t h i r d d i v i s i o n w i l d -lands, perhaps s p e c u l a t i n g on the future value of the p r o p e r t i e s as tenant e s t a t e s . B e t w e e n 1765 and 1769 Gray acquired 94 t h i r d d i v i s i o n l o t s at a cost of £5178. He a l s o owned 344 improvable acres, i n c l u d i n g the 197-acre "Mud Creek Farm" i n the "A" t i e r o f the second d i v i s i o n farm l o t s and 170 acres south of the town p l o t f r o n t i n g on the Gaspereau River c a l l e d the "Pear Trees Farm". By 1770, Gray had increased h i s o r i g i n a l 1-share grant o f 517 acres to 21,494 acres ( F i g . 13)."*"^ Gray's c l o s e s t r i v a l as a Horton landowner was l o c a l r e s i d e n t , Charles Dickson. In 1755, Colonel Dickson l e d a company of New Englanders to Nova S c o t i a to f i g h t at Beausejour. Five years l a t e r he returned with h i s wife and f i v e c h i l d r e n to c l a i m 1.5 shares at Horton. There he became a prominent merchant, p o l i t i c i a n and landowner. Unlike Joseph Gray, Dickson's land d e a l i n g s favoured Lower Horton. By 1770 he owned 1475.25 improvable acres, more than four times Gray's improvable acreage and more than three times the improvable property of Horton's t h i r d - r a n k e d landowner. His l a r g e s t improvable t r a c t was the 322-acre farm he owned 56 on the "Neck" (Figure 14). By the time he died f i f t e e n years l a t e r , Dickson had made twice as much money as he had invested i n l o c a l land and s t i l l owned 5418.'25 acres, although by that time p r i m a r i l y i n the t h i r d ,. . . 17 d i v i s i o n . Few of the others who accumulated land emulated Joseph Gray and Charles Dickson. In f a c t , there seems to be no general p a t t e r n to the property a c q u i s i t i o n s - o f the 1760s. Some grantees purchased one or two pieces a d j o i n i n g , or near, one of t h e i r other l o t s , but few attempted to acquire the most f e r t i l e land or to c o n s o l i d a t e t h e i r holdings i n t o con-tiguous f i e l d s . Land seemed to be acquired f o r the sake of owning i t . As a r e s u l t , the dispersed land system that had been i n i t i a t e d by the township survey, and perpetuated by the process of p i t c h i n g s i z e , was entrenched on the landscape by 1770. Horton landowners l e f t t h e i r farms spread over s e v e r a l m i l e s , a few acres here, a few more there. This , i n t u r n , a f f e c t e d the settlement p a t t e r n . To compensate f o r fragmented holdings or to concentrate on what remained of t h e i r g r a n t s , i n h a b i t a n t s began to b u i l d t h e i r homes on one of t h e i r upland l o t s . Even i n the 1760s settlement began to d r i f t westward, drawing f a m i l i e s away from a communal town p l o t to homesteads o f t e n widely separated from each other by the empty f i e l d s of absentee p r o p r i e t o r s (Figure 15). Simeon Dewolf's r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i l l u s t r a t e s how people moved w i t h i n the township. A blacksmith from Lyme, Dewolf a r r i v e d i n Horton between 1761 and 1764 and erected a d w e l l i n g , barn, smithy and assorted o u t b u i l d i n g s on the town l o t of h i s 1-share grant. By 1768, he had b u i l t a frame house on a piece of upland s i z e adjacent to h i s f i r s t d i v i s i o n farm l o t and moved h i s family and forge to that s i t e j u s t west of town ISllStl original grant, 1761 piS&ifl lands aqulrod, 1761-1770 nous* 59 p l o t . Although he was not Horton's only blacksmith, Dewolf must have b e l i e v e d that h i s business would not s u f f e r by moving away from the center of town and c l o s e r to h i s farmlands. In f a c t , h i s new l o c a t i o n on the w e l l - t r a v e l l e d "road to the lower b r i d g e " may have made him more a c c e s s i b l e t o others who had moved out of town. In 1770, Dewolf moved again. He purchased a house and 100 acres i n the second d i v i s i o n along the king's highway to Annapolis." In 1779, f i v e years before he d i e d , Dewolf moved 18 f o r the l a s t time to a d w e l l i n g f a r t h e r west along t h i s road (Figure 16). There were others who shared Dewolf's wanderlust, but most i n h a b i t a n t s who moved probably d i d so only once or twice. Although the evidence i s i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c , i t appears that as soon as they could b u i l d frame d w e l l -i n g s , most s e t t l e r s l e f t the crude s h e l t e r s they had h a s t i l y erected at town p l o t . I f they r e b u i l t at another s i t e , i t i s l i k e l y that t h e i r f i r s t d w e l l i n g was s o l d or rented, although o c c a s i o n a l l y the b u i l d i n g was moved or t o r n down so that the l o t could be used f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. Dispersed settlement i m p l i e s that i n d i v i d u a l s were concerned more f o r t h e i r f a m i l i e s ' w e l l - b e i n g than f o r t h e i r community. Indeed, separateness may have i n t e n s i f i e d family bonds. In one extreme example, Andrew Davison's family endangered l o c a l i n h a b i t a n t s and challenged township a u t h o r i t i e s by r e f u s i n g to remove Andrew J r . from Horton when he c o n t r a c t e d 19 smallpox. As the town constable approached the Davison home, Andrew Sr. and h i s two sons, Thomas and Asa, threatened to "shoot h i s b r a i n s out" to prevent him from executing h i s d u t i e s . Young Asa added that he would " f i g h t ' t i l l he died i n h i s [ b r o t h e r ' s ] defence". V i s i t s from other l o c a l o f f i c i a l s met with s i m i l a r warnings. In the end, Andrew Sr. c a p i t u l a t e d by moving h i s namesake out of Horton u n t i l Andrew J r . recovered from h i s 1 = ca. 1761- 1764 2 a * 1 7 6 8 . house 3 ~ T770 4 = 1779 61 threatening disease. Such d i s p l a y s were ra r e ; n evertheless they i l l u s t r a t e the primacy of family bonds. Even so, Horton f a m i l i e s were not completely i n t r o v e r t e d ; i s o l a t i o n and remoteness were not the i n e v i t a b l e consequences of dispersed s e t t l e -ment. Most farmsteads were a c c e s s i b l e by the township's p r i n c i p a l roads and community tasks drew Horton's f a m i l i e s together. Townsmen served on j u r i e s , b u i l t and r e p a i r e d roads, constructed the county courthouse and 20 gaol and repaired the dykes. Farmers enroute to t h e i r f i e l d s exchanged 21 greetings - and o c c a s i o n a l l y blows - i n the road. Those who shared l o t s by "drawing i n company" had regular o p p o r t u n i t i e s to encounter f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s . While women v i s i t e d a f r i e n d ' s house, men gathered i n groups i n each other's homes or at a l o c a l i n n for a bowl of rum and hearty d i s -22 cus s i o n . During the 1760s most s o c i a l gatherings were probably t h i s c a s u a l ; i t would take time for formal community s t r u c t u r e s to emerge. Unlike neighbouring communities, Horton c i t i z e n s refused the r e l i g i o u s s e r v i c e s of Anglican missionary, Joseph Bennett once they could s o l i c i t a d i s s e n t i n g m i n i s t e r from Connecticut. Due to the poor economic c o n d i t i o n s o f the 1760s, however, the i n h a b i t a n t s were unable to s u s t a i n m i n i s t e r i a l 23 support. E v e n t u a l l y they accepted P r e s b y t e r i a n m i n i s t e r James Murdock who s e t t l e d among them i n 1769. And while the township acquired teacher E l i s h a Barton i n 1767, there was no school b u i l t during the f i r s t decade of settlement. In some ways, communal networks extended beyond Horton. Business connections with New England merchants and mariners and sea t r a f f i c between Horton and Connecticut must have perpetuated l i n k s between Horton 24 r e s i d e n t s ' and t h e i r former homes. News of the outside world reached 62 Horton through the H a l i f a x Gazette, which p r i n t e d news from England, Boston, H a l i f a x , and even o c c a s i o n a l l y the outsettlements. But without more d e t a i l e d information regarding everyday l i f e i n eighteenth-century \]ova S c o t i a outsettlements, i t i s impossible to unravel the web of s o c i a l and economic connections that may have e x i s t e d among the townships. C e r t a i n l y , business t r a n s a c t i o n s , c i v i l d u t i e s , and k i n s h i p t i e s cut 25 across township boundaries, but perhaps these exchanges were l i m i t e d ; i n 26 the 1760s nearly a l l Horton marriages were l o c a l matches. Population estimates f o r 1770 can be derived from the nominal Horton 27 census of 1770 supplemented by family r e c o n s t i t u t i o n s . The Census l i s t s the s i z e and composition of each f a m i l y according to numbers of men, boys, women and g i r l s . I t o f f e r s b a s i c demographic i n f o r m a t i o n on more f a m i l i e s than i t i s p o s s i b l e to r e c o n s t i t u t e from g e n e a l o g i c a l evidence, but by i t s e l f i t i s an incomplete assessment of Horton's p o p u l a t i o n . The census t o t a l o f 593 underestimates Horton's p o p u l a t i o n by o m i t t i n g 32 landowners who were known to have l i v e d i n Horton i n 1770. As w e l l , i t f a i l s to i n d i c a t e the age at which an i n d i v i d u a l was c l a s s i f i e d as an adult which makes census designations of adult and c h i l d v i r t u a l l y u s e l e s s . Thus family r e c o n s t i t u t i o n s supplement the census data by completing the census t o t a l and by p r o v i d i n g a sample f o r a n a l y z i n g the age and sex s t r u c t u r e of the population i n 1770. The a n a l y s i s shows that at the same time as access to land was narrow-ing i n Horton, the population was on the r i s e . I f census f i g u r e s are 28 accurate, the population had increased from 689 i n 1763 to approximately 743 by 1770. A r e c o n s t i t u t e d sample of 50 f a m i l i e s r e v e a l s that the population was young and t h e r e f o r e held p o t e n t i a l f o r s u b s t a n t i a l future 63 i n c r e a s e . S l i g h t l y more than one quarter ( 2 8 . 8 2 ? o ) of the i n h a b i t a n t s were under 11 years of age, more than one h a l f ( 5 4 . 8 7 ? o ) were l e s s than 21 years o l d and three quarters were no older than t h i r t y . The r a t i o of males to females was approximately equal. Comparing census data and gen e a l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e v e a l s that f o r the most p a r t , seventeen was the age at which both males and females were l i s t e d as a d u l t s on the census. As w e l l , i n f i f t e e n i n s tances there are d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n family s i z e between the two sources, and the census f i g u r e i s u s u a l l y higher. For example, Caleb Bennett's family of f i v e i s recorded as eleven; i n s t e a d of s i x , Lebbeus H a r r i s i s s a i d to have had eleven i n h i s f a m i l y ; and Charles Dickson's family of f i v e was doubled on the r e t u r n . I f i n f l a t e d family s i z e s r e f l e c t a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to exaggerate Horton's po p u l a t i o n , i t i s u n l i k e l y that some townsmen would have been l e f t o f f the r e t u r n . As w e l l , some of the l a r g e s t v a r i a t i o n s occur i n the f a m i l i e s of some of Horton's l a r g e s t landowners, i n c l u d i n g the top three r e s i d e n t s . When the d i f f e r e n c e was l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t , i t i s most often i n the a d d i t i o n o f an e x t r a g i r l to the f a m i l y . Since a l l family members are accounted f o r , these numbers suggest the presence o f 29 servants or sl a v e s i n Horton. I t i s conceivable t h a t some f a m i l i e s had a servant g i r l , w h i l e more s u b s t a n t i a l households could a f f o r d one or more ad u l t men and women to do domestic chores or work i n the f i e l d s . I f t h i s i s t r u e , the census f i g u r e s measure household and not family s i z e . I t al s o means that a small number of households had access to a l i m i t e d labour supply outside t h e i r f a m i l i e s . 64 Because most of Horton's s u r v i v i n g documentation i s at l e a s t i n d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to landholding, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to assess the extent of landlessness i n Horton, but during the e a r l y years of settlement, numbers •were probably s m a l l . The f i n a n c i a l c o s t s of e s t a b l i s h i n g the i n f r a s t r u c -tures of settlement probably i n t e n s i f i e d the widespread i n t o l e r a n c e of c i t i z e n s towards the p a r a s i t i c wandering poor."*^ Tenancy f u r t h e r reduced the number with no access to land."* 1 In Horton, there was the opportunity to c u l t i v a t e one or more l o t s or an e n t i r e farm "at the halves". According to E n g l i s h t r a v e l l e r s Robinson and R i s p i n , w r i t i n g i n the e a r l y 1770s, t h i s agreement allowed a poor man to take a farm, stocked by the l a n d l o r d , for which the l a t t e r r e c e i v e s for the r e n t , h a l f i t s produce; o r , f o r every cow, t h i r t y pounds of b u t t e r , h a l f the cheese; and so on i n p r o p o r t i o n of whatever e l s e the farm p r o d u c e s . ^ By r e n t i n g l a n d , d e s t i t u t i o n could be avoided. But by the same token, r e n t a l o b l i g a t i o n s probably prevented tenants from s c r a p i n g together enough to buy land of t h e i r own. Seven men with no record of owning land or having family connections i n Horton r e g i s t e r e d a g r i c u l t u r a l r e t u r n s on the Horton Census of 1770. Although t h e i r a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y was comparable to middling landowners, none of these men gained a f o o t h o l d i n the community. There i s no evidence that they ever purchased land and they are a l l missing from the 1791 P o l l Tax."*"* 34 Horton farmers i n i t i a l l y p r a c t i s e d an u n s p e c i a l i z e d a g r i c u l t u r e . In Horton, as i n a l l Fundy townships, land uses overlapped: the Grand Pre" dykeland grew both hay and g r a i n and i t became a common pasture i n the 65 F a l l ; the uplands provided the main pastures but they a l s o produced Indian corn and root crops. Only the low s a l t marshes which supported coarse grasses and the common woodlands of the t h i r d d i v i s i o n were r e s t r i c t e d to one land use. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , e a r l y a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y f l u c t u a t e d . In 1763, the King's County townships overcame problems of drought and i n s e c t s to r a i s e modest amounts of wheat, rye, corn, root crops and a v a r i e t y of l i v e s t o c k i n c l u d i n g cows, neat c a t t l e , sheep and s w i n e . ^ Four years l a t e r , the aggregate a g r i c u l t u r a l census of Horton i n d i c a t e d growth and d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . Wheat y i e l d s had almost t r i p l e d and farmers harvested f i v e times the amount of rye grown i n 1763. In a d d i t i o n , peas, b a r l e y , o a t s , f l a x and hemp had been added to the f i e l d s and the numbers of a l l types of l i v e s t o c k had m u l t i p l i e d . ^ According to the census, Horton ranked fo u r t h behind Lunenburg (which had twice the p o p u l a t i o n ) , Windsor (the home of many country estates of wealthy Haligonians) and C o r n w a l l i s i n production of most crops and l i v e s t o c k . In 1770, however, production was lower. Generally y i e l d s had decreased and there were fewer animals; only wheat and f l a x production and numbers of sheep had increased (Table IV). These f l u c t u a t i o n s i n produc-t i o n could be i n d i c a t i v e of nothing more than the incidence of a l a t e s p r i n g , poor summer weather, or an inclement harvest i n the p a r t i c u l a r year s e l e c t e d f o r comparison. What i s s i g n i f i c a n t i s that t h i s narrowing of production suggests a trend toward s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The Horton census o f 1770 r e v e a l s t h a t roughly two t h i r d s of the farmers r a i s e d at l e a s t 20 bushels of both wheat and f l a x , while fewer than h a l f the producers c u l t i v a t e d any other crop l i s t e d on the r e t u r n . And i f they were found on TABLE IV. Aggregate Agricultural Production in Horton by Census Year Year Persons Males Females Wheat Rye Corn Roots Pease Barley Oats Beans Hemp Seed Flax Seed 1763 689 991 171.5 1070 4613 1767 634 341 293 2905 941 1304 1473 1574 20 14 354 1770 593 (Census) 266 327 3259 581 834 384 1503 21 1 134 Year Hemp Flax Horses Oxen Cows Young Cattle Sheep Swine Salmon Dried Cod Fishing Boats Grist M i l l s Saw M i l l s 1763 99 159 302 402 369 162 1767 83cw 148 217 393 568 562 346 7 4 2 1770 20 3010 106 171 276 250 693 89 115 92q. ON ON 67 fewer farms than cows, sheep were nevertheless kept i n appreciably l a r g e r numbers than any other l i v e s t o c k . What did these aggregate production l e v e l s mean f o r the a b i l i t y o f Horton farmers to provide for t h e i r f a m i l i e s ? Did a tendency toward s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n d i c a t e that at l e a s t some farmers r a i s e d a s u r p l u s ? There i s no data on production and consumption to estimate subsistence l e v e l s at Horton. Annual consumption l e v e l s , c a l c u l a t e d by e x t r a p o l a t i n g the needs of an average family from widows' a l l o t m e n t s i n probate inven-t o r i e s , cannot be determined from Horton dowers which u s u a l l y l i s t only f u r n i t u r e and other personal household goods. The only extant nominal a g r i c u l t u r a l r e t u r n f o r the Horton before 1850 i s the Census of 1770. I t l i s t s family s i z e , crop production and l i v e s t o c k t o t a l s by household head but i t does not provide y i e l d s per acre per farm which i s necessary to measure production by farm. Because of the m u l t i p l i c i t y of land uses and the unknown s t a t e o f c l e a r e d land by farm, i t i s a l s o impossible to c o r r e -l a t e r e c o n s t i t u t e d landholdings with crop y i e l d s to determine production l e v e l s . S t i l l , farm s i z e can provide an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e framework f o r a n a l y z i n g nominal a g r i c u l t u r a l data. The i n d i v i d u a l s l i s t e d on the 1770 census were d i v i d e d i n t o three groups (top 20?o, mid 40%, bottom 40?o) according to the s i z e of t h e i r l a ndholding i n improvable acres. Averaging farm s i z e and crop y i e l d s for each of the three groups r e s u l t e d i n three d i s t i n c t farm t y p e s . T h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these "types" were compared to American estimates of the minimum acreage required to produce a b a s i c food supply. Admittedly, t h i s procedure i s crude; however, i t does make an attempt to c o r r e l a t e farm s i z e and a g r i c u l t u r a l production and i t provides at l e a s t 68 a n impressionistic statement of Horton's a g r i c u l t u r a l system. In his study of eighteenth-century Pennsylvania, James Lemon estimated 38 that a minimum of 27 acres could provide adequate subsistence. Of the food crops found on the 1770 Horton Census, Lemon calculated the require-ments for a Pennsylvania family of five as 60 bushels of wheat, 50-100 pounds of f l a x , 25 bushels of rye, 45 bushels of oats, and 20 bushels of 39 barley and malt. According to these requirements, most families were, s t i l l struggling to obtain l i f e ' s basic necessities ten years after they arrived i n Horton. For example, farmers i n the bottom 40% of Horton land-owners possessed on average, s l i g h t l y less than the minimum acreage iden-t i f i e d by Lemon as necessary for adequate subsistence, and their meagre crop yields reflected their primitive a g r i c u l t u r a l practices (Table V). An average farm consisted of a town l o t , 2.5 acres of Grand Pre* dykeland, 5 acres of f i r s t d i v i s i o n farmland, 4.5 acres i n an island l o t and only 11 acres i n a second d i v i s i o n farm l o t . These farmers had an average of 6 sheep, but they owned fewer cows and neat c a t t l e . And while a l l farmers raised wheat, yields were not only far less than Lemon's basic estimate, they also represented less than one quarter of the t o t a l production for the township. Many pioneers who struggled with t h i s hard-scrabble existence were inexperienced young men trying to get established i n a new land. Samuel Denison, for instance, was only f i f t e e n years old when he came to Horton with his family to receive his own one-half share i n the 1761 Effective Grant. His father's death five years lat e r l e f t Samuel with the family dwelling and two adjacent lots at town plot, £14 and an additional £5 to 40 be paid i n currency or stock. But the benefits of t h i s legacy and £40 TABLE V. Average Farm Size and Crop Y i e l d s in Horton i n 1770 % of Landowners on 1770 Cunsus D st.ribution of Acreage No. of Oxen and B u l l s No. or Young Neat C a t t l e Acreage town lot 1st Div. Dyke 1st Div. Farm Island Lot £ value of farm No. of Horses % of Total Producers % of Total Producers No. of Cows % or Total Producers % or Total Producers No. of Sheep °o of Total J MJroducepr; Bottom UQ% 24.03 .50 2.57 5.05 4.51 £ 24.02 1.48 86 1.62 67 3.38 86 2.76 67 6.43 67 Mid W% 74.23 .58 2.97 7.73 4.88 £ 74.23 1.18 70 2.03 73 3.58 97 4.03 85 10.24 67 Top 20?i 346.69 12.11 17.78 56.47 18.43 £346.68 3.71 90 5.64 90 8.86 100 8.64 90 26.29 70 % of Landowners on 1770 Census Wheat (bu.) X of Total Producers Rye (bu.) % of Total Producers Pease (bu.) % of Total Producers Barley (bu.) S of Total Producers Oats (bu.) % of Total Producers Beans (bu.) % of Total Producers Flax Seed (bu.) % of Total Producer:; Flax (bu.) % of , Total y Producers Bottom 40S 26.09 95 6.62 48 8.52 57 2.14 29 2.14 9.5 .19 9.5 1.04 48 37.38 Mid 40°; 32.58 91 5.51 39 6.79 70 2.54 24 20.42 58 .18 6 1.85 64 38.03 54 Top 20% 99.43 90 12.86 35 24.86 75 16.50 45 49.29 60 .71 30 2.57 55 46.28 70 70 revenue from the s a l e of h i s wildlands d i d not prompt Samuel to increase or improve h i s holdings i n the next f i v e years. Although he c a l l e d h i m s e l f 41 a yeoman, i n 1 7 7 0 Samuel owned two horses and two cows; h i s only crop was ten. bushels of wheat. Generally, middling landowners d i d not fare much b e t t e r than young Denison. Farmers i n the middle 40% of Horton landowners owned three times the mean improvable acreage of t h e i r counterparts i n the bottom two f i f t h s of s o c i e t y , but t h e i r holdings d i f f e r e d only i n the l a r g e r s i z e of t h e i r second d i v i s i o n farm l o t s . Crop y i e l d s were only s l i g h t l y higher than those of the bottom 40?o and they were s t i l l w e l l below comparable American subsistence estimates. While more farmers r a i s e d l i v e s t o c k , only sheep were kept i n appreciably l a r g e r numbers than on the smaller farms. Some men, such as John Bishop Sr., had s o l d o f f part of t h e i r share and c l e a r l y , they were not i n t e r e s t e d i n farming on a grand s c a l e . At age 6 0 , John had only h i s wife and a g i r l to support on the 54 improvable acres remaining of h i s 1 . 5 share and h i s 1 7 7 0 census r e t u r n o f 1 0 0 bushels of f l a x and a handful o f l i v e s t o c k probably r e f l e c t e d h i s semi-retirement. And yet there were a few men l i k e Benjamin Peck J r . , who strove to b e t t e r themselves from the beginning. At the age of 2 1 , Peck had obtained . 5 share at Horton i n 1 7 6 1 . By 1 7 7 0 , he had married, s t a r t e d a f a m i l y , added 33 acres to h i s property (and thereby moved from the bottom to the middle 40?o of landowners). He grew moderate amounts of a v a r i e t y of crops, i n c l u d i n g wheat, rye, pease, oats and f l a x , but he focused more on l i v e -stock. His production i n t h i s area was impressive by l o c a l standards: w i t h 10 swine, a f l o c k of 35 sheep, and herds of 11 cows, 12 neat c a t t l e , and 4 oxen and b u l l s , he had acquired more l i v e s t o c k than any other middling 71 farmer. More often, Horton's most successful husbandmen were i t s p r i n c i p a l landowners. Yet, on average, the ag r i c u l t u r a l output of the top 20% of Horton's landowners only barely met basic subsistence requirements although they held thirteen times the required minimum acreage. No rates of clearing Horton land have survived; yet even at the pace cf farmers who level l e d a thick Ontario forest to clear 5 acres a y e a r , ^ s u f f i c i e n t acreage could have been cleared and prepared for planting i n the f i r s t ten years to allow Horton farmers to produce more prodigiously. The reasons why they did not do so remain unclear. It i s evident, however, that dispersed holdings, scarce labour, d i f f i c u l t i e s in obtaining stock and seed, poor markets and the problems of adjusting to farming a new land were common hardships of eighteenth-century Nova Scotia farmers. Together they stood i n the way of e f f i c i e n t agriculture. Because of the struggle for subsistence during the 1760s, i t i s remarkable that some farmers produced a surplus. One tenth of a l l produ-cers raised extra wheat, averaging twice as much (233 bu.) as required for home consumption. In addition, thirty-two farmers raised more than the 8 43 sheep needed for subsistence: nine had herds of between 10 and 20; nine others raised between 21 and 30; and seven owned from 31 to 58 sheep. Lebbeus Harris owned the largest herd of 90 sheep. While the top wheat producers were also Horton's p r i n c i p a l landowners and farmers, the leading sheep herders also included the less successful small and middling farmers. This might indicate that sheep products provided a dietary sup-plement for farmers who produced less food than they needed. In any case, due to the generally low productivity and the distance to external markets, 72 the surplus was undoubtedly consumed l o c a l l y . Since a g r i c u l t u r e during the 1760s produced such a meagre food supply, i t i s u n l i k e l y that Hortonians l i v e d by farming alone. Evidence of non-farming a c t i v i t i e s i s scant, but i t i s reasonable to assume that s e t t l e r s used a l l l o c a l resources. Perhaps they p r a c t i c e d an occupational p l u r a l -ism, making ends meet by f i s h i n g and hunting, and o c c a s i o n a l l y going to the mountain for load of wood to s e l l . In 1770, the settlement at Horton was s t i l l i n i t s i n f a n c y . Most of the township's wooded i n t e r i o r was i n a c c e s s i b l e , accessed land was under-u t i l i z e d , a g r i c u l t u r e was p r i m i t i v e and the formal s t r u c t u r e s of community d i d not e x i s t . S t i l l , i t i s c l e a r that even at the o u t s e t , the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s o f the s o c i a l l y and e c o n o m i c a l l y - s t r a t i f i e d communities of Connecticut were being r e p l i c a t e d i n Horton. Access to land was not an e q u a l i z i n g f a c t o r that pared away a l l economic and s o c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n s t 44 among the i n h a b i t a n t s to y i e l d a homogeneous and e g a l i t a r i a n s o c i e t y . Rather, economic p o l a r i z a t i o n had begun i n the f i r s t decade. By 1770, a small group owned one h a l f of the township's improvable land and r a i s e d a surplus of wheat and sheep, despite environmental and economic impediments to p r o d u c t i v i t y . The " l e s s e r s o r t s " i m i t a t e d the leaders i n l i m i t e d ways. Some accumulated land, some r a i s e d e x t r a sheep, and a few d i d both, but most were forced to seek a more immediate i f u l t i m a t e l y l e s s rewarding source of p r o f i t through the s a l e of t h e i r lands. To be sure, ambitious men l i k e Benjamin Peck J r . s t i l l found o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r advancement, but as the gap between r i c h and poor widened, such occasions would become narrowly r e s t r i c t e d . A r e l a t i v e l y small group of men motivated more by personal success than communal goals shaped Horton's chara c t e r . They followed a s t r a t e g y that i n Connecticut had been associated with economic success: land accumulation, a g r i c u l t u r a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and s u r p l u s production. That not to say that they were t o t a l l y consumed by the p u r s u i t of p r o f i t , o nl that i t formed the c e n t r a l aspect of t h e i r outlook or m e n t a l i t e . Thus, in s t e a d of a ready-made community of " p l a n t e r s " , Horton was s e t t l e d by i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s who behaved as such by d i s p e r s i n g from a protec t i v e nucleated settlement to p r a c t i s e f a m i l y - o r i e n t e d a g r i c u l t u r e on homesteads s c a t t e r e d throughout the township. 74 F o o t n o t e s For a d i s c u s s i o n of the Connecticut l i t e r a t u r e , see chapter 2, footnote 9. 2 J.B. Brebner, The Neutral Yankees of Nova S c o t i a . A Marginal Colony During the Revolutionary Years (Toronto: 1969), pp. 94-100; W.O. Raymond, "Colonel Alexander McNutt and the P r e - L o y a l i s t Settlements of Nova S c o t i a " , Transactions, Royal Society of Canada, 1911, I I : 23-115; 1912 I: 201-215. ^Minutes of the Executive C o u n c i l , R.G. 3, v. 211, p. 340, A p r i l 9, 1764; v. 212, pp. 64-65, July 15, 1767, October 12, 1767. 4 The f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s of Horton landholding p a t t e r n s uses a l l deeds recorded i n R.G. 47, King's County, r e e l s 1273, 1274. I t should be noted that Horton's extant r e g i s t e r e d deeds are not a complete record of a l l land t r a n s a c t i o n s . For example, i n r e c o n s t i t u t i n g i n d i v i d u a l l a n d -holdings i t was discovered that there are deeds f o r the s a l e o f one or more l o t s for which there was no record of purchase. ''The average number of deeds recorded by grantees from 1760 to 1770 was 4.5. Non-grantees have been excluded from these c a l c u l a t i o n s because otherwise they could be included by making a s i n g l e purchase i n the l a t e 1760s, which would skew the general trends. U n l i k e Chebacco, Mass. i n Christopher M. Jedrey, The World of John Cleveland. Family and Community  i n Eighteenth Century New England (New York: 1979), pp. 65-66, there i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n landowning behavior between those with more than and those with l e s s than f i v e t r a n s a c t i o n s . ^The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n of landowning behavior i s based on an a n a l y s i s of the dates, l o c a t i o n s , acreages and p r i c e s of a l l l o t s bought and s o l d by every known landowner i n Horton between 1760 and 1770. ^Resident and absentee grantees are examined s e p a r a t e l y because t h e i r landholding p r a c t i c e s were markedly d i f f e r e n t . Net p r o f i t / d e f i c i t i s c a l c u l a t e d as the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r i c e s c i t e d f o r l o t s purchased and those s o l d during the decade. I t excludes the monetary values of that p o r t i o n of the o r i g i n a l grant s t i l l owned i n 1770, and t h e r e f o r e i t does not measure the cash equivalent of t o t a l wealth i n land. g Documentary references to " s i z e " l o t s o f t e n do not s p e c i f y acreages. For t h i s reason, " s i z e " i s not i n c l u d e d i n c a l c u l a t i o n s o f "improvable" acreage i n t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , although i t may have been among the most valuable and f r e q u e n t l y c u l t i v a t e d acreage any farmer owned. See chapter 2, footnote 35. 75 The other one quarter are discussed above as that group of land-owners who made a p r o f i t without reducing the s i z e of t h e i r l andholding. That one quarter of the complete removals of Horton grantees occurred i n 1760 and 1761 argues s t r o n g l y for s p e c u l a t i o n as a motive behind some New Englanders o b t a i n i n g Nova S c o t i a land grants. Only two grantees who l e f t Horton for good remained i n Nova S c o t i a . Amos F u l l e r moved to Cumberland and Benjamin Woodworth s e t t l e d i n C o r n w a l l i s . Known New England d e s t i n a t i o n s for grantees who l e f t Horton between 1760 and 1770-are: Connecticut: New Hampshire: New London 3 Lebanon 1 Stonington 2 Norwich 2 Norwich 2 Farmington 1 Glosenbury 1 New York: Lebanon 1 Long Island 1 Colchester 10 Middleton 1 East Haddam 3 Mansfield 1 ^ F o r Thomas Cochran's Horton deeds of the 1760s, see R.G. 47, r e e l 1273, v. 3, p. 152. For John Cunningham's deeds f o r the 1760s see R.G. 47, r e e l 1273, v. 1, p. 210; v. 3, p. 481; r e e l 1274, v. 4, pp. 151, 224; v. 5, p. 206. 14 There i s no evidence to suggest how non-residents might have con-t r i b u t e d t h e i r r e q u i r e d share of c a p i t a l and labour needed to e s t a b l i s h the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e s o f settlement. Perhaps, as i n S a c k v i l l e Township, N.B., l o c a l agents agreed to meet the o b l i g a t i o n s o f non-residents (see James Snowdon, " F o o t p r i n t s i n the Marsh Mud: P o l i t i c s and Land Settlement i n the Township of S a c k v i l l e , 1760-1800" ( U n i v e r s i t y of New Brunswick, Masters t h e s i s , 1975, p. 89) s i n c e only a few Horton absentees were reprimanded on t h i s account. Censure u s u a l l y r e s u l t e d from delinquent dyke r a t e s or unpaid survey b i l l s . "^Although the f i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of Gray's Horton lands i s unknown, he probably p r o f i t e d from t h i s s t r a t e g y ; as e a r l y as the l a t e 1770s, s e t t l e r s were c a r v i n g farmland out of the township's wooded i n t e r i o r . As w e l l , Gray had tenants on h i s farms known as "The Pear Trees" and "Mud Creek" discussed below. 76 "^For Joseph Gray's Horton deeds of the 1760s see R.G. 47, reel 1273, v. 1, pp. 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 21, 36, 40, 42, 55, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 80, 82, 84, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 133, 150, 159, 161, 167, 190, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203, 205, 207, 256; v. 2, pp. 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28 (2), 30, 31, 32, 54, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 71, 77, 130, 131, 274; v. 3, p. 269, 359. 1 7 F o r Charles Dickson's Horton deeds see R.G. 47, reel 1273, v. 1, pp. 2, 21, 35, 38, 40, 53, 60, 61, 86, 92, 152, 173, 180, 181, 182, 195, 212, 215, 217, 218, 231, 232, 234, 235, 236, 242, 247, 251, 268, 269; v. 2, pp. 3, 4, 7 (2), 8, 22, 31, 47, 51 (2), 79, 102, 106, 140, 167, 182, 185, 187, 191, 211, 212, 213, 214 (2), 234, 241, 246, 247, 249, 273, 303; v. 3, pp. 7, 66, 148, 150, 153, 154, 168, 199, 200, 227, 264, 352, 486, 519, 521, 530, 532; reel 1274, v. 4, pp. 5, 8, 154; v. 5, p. 104. 18 For mention of Simeon Dewolf's houses, see R.G. 47, reel 1273, v. 1, pp. 56, 214; v. 2, p. 116; v. 3, p. 296; reel 1274, v. 4, p. 97. 19 In eighteenth-century societies i t was customary to quarantine smallpox cases by moving them away from the community to prevent the spread of the contagion. The Davison smallpox case can be found i n the Records of King's County Court of Quarter Sessions, M.G. 1, v. 183, #1, #2, #4, #5. 20 For references to the various c i v i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , see the Records of the King's County Court of Quarter Sessions, M.G. 1, v. 181ff. 21 According to Records of the Court of Quarter Sessions, i t was not uncommon for assaults to occur i n the highway, which indicates that r e s i -dents often encountered each other as they t r a v e l l e d the l o c a l roadways. 22 Ibid. 23 A l e t t e r from Horton town clerk, Nathan Dewolf to Rev. Joseph Bennett dated August 10, 1765, terminated Bennett's services i n the town-ship with the reason that the township had obtained a dissenting minister (Micro: Miscellaneous; Societies: S.P.G. reel 73, #69. For Bennett's comments on the a r r i v a l and subsequent departure of the dissenting minister, see i b i d . , #66, #76, #106, #127. See also the "Invitation to Settlement" issued by the residents of Horton to Rev. Daniel F u l l e r , M.G. 1, v. 181, #245. 24 For example, deeds show that Horton grantee George Stocking was i n Horton in July 1765, and before 1772 he had permanently l e f t Horton for Glosenbury, Connecticut. Another grantee, John Randal removed to Colchester, Connecticut, between May 1769 and August 1769. In 1772 he returned to Horton. 77 The records of the King's County I n f e r i o r Court of Common Pleas i n d i c a t e the existence of inter-township business t r a n s a c t i o n s . For l i t i -g ations i n v o l v i n g r e s i d e n t s of more than one township, see for example: Charles Dickson, Horton, vs. Caleb Wheaton, C o r n w a l l i s ; Robert Thompson, Horton, vs. Peter Wickwire, C o r n w a l l i s ; Daniel Connolly, Windsor vs. W i l l i a m Dickson, Horton, R.G. 37. 26 Eighteen marriages ( i n v o l v i n g Horton r e s i d e n t s ) are known to have occurred i n the 1760s. In a l l but two i n s t a n c e s , both partners were from Horton. 2 7"A Return of the State of the Township of Horton, 1770", FLG. 1, v. 443, #15; r e p r i n t e d i n P.A.N.S. Report, 1934, pp. 39-42. 28 "Return of the F a m i l i e s S e t t l e d i n the Townships of Horton, C o r n w a l l i s , Falmouth, and Newport i n King's County, together with the number of persons s a i d f a m i l i e s e x h i b i t of and of t h e i r stock of c a t t l e and grains and Roots r a i s e d the present year 1763", M.G. 1, v. 471, #2. Rev. Joseph Bennett estimated the population at 670 for the same year, Micro: Miscellaneous: S o c i e t i e s : S.P.G. r e e l #73, #29. In 1767, the population decreased to 634, "A General Return ... 1767", i b i d . A.W.H. Eaton i n The H i s t o r y o f Kings County, N.S. (Salem: 1910) discussed the presence of s l a v e s i n Nova S c o t i a and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n King's County, but h i s references are for C o r n w a l l i s Township and H a l i f a x ; although i t i s very p o s s i b l e that there were a l s o s l a v e s at Horton, no reference t o them was found i n any of the extant documents. ^ A l t h o u g h there i s no evidence of the New England custom of "warnings out" of town of u n d e s i r a b l e s , Horton's Court of Quarter Sessions Records i l l u s t r a t e the r e l u c t a n c e of the i n h a b i t a n t s to be responsible f o r the community's bastard c h i l d r e n , so i t i s reasonable to assume that they would not be very r e c e p t i v e to i n d i g e n t t r a n s i e n t s . See, for example, M.G. 1, v. 183, #32, #33, #66, #87-90. "^For references to rented l o t s see R.G. 47, r e e l 1273, v. 1, p. 47; v. 2, pp. 7, 90, 167; v. 3, pp. 223, 364, 431, 562, 609; r e e l 1274, v. 4, p. 356; v. 5, p. 32; v. 6, p. 369. 32 Robinson and R i s p i n , "A Journey p. 98. 3 3 P o l l Tax of Horton Township, 1791, R.G. 1, v. 444. 78 For secondary d e s c r i p t i o n s of eighteenth-century Nova S c o t i a a g r i -c u l t u r e , see Robinson and R i s p i n , p. 48; J. Debrett, "Remarks on the Climate, Produce and Natural Advantages of Nova S c o t i a " i n a l e t t e r to the Right Honourable the E a r l of M a c c l e s f i e l d , 1784?, i n P.A.N.S. v / f ; Robert Morse, "Report on Nova S c o t i a " , 1784, i n P.A.C. Report, 1884, pp. x x v i i - i x ; Capt. W. Moorsom, L e t t e r s From Nova S c o t i a ; Comprising  Sketches of a Young Country (London: 1830), pp. 184-194; T.C. H a l i b u r t o n , A General D e s c r i p t i o n of Nova S c o t i a , 1825 ( H a l i f a x : 1825), pp. 89-103. 35„F General Return of the Townships, 1767, i b i d . 'Return of the F a m i l i e s ... 1763", i b i d 36 "^Although they were not included i n the a n a l y s i s , the 32 landowners omitted from the Census are represented by these types. James T. Lemon, The Best Poor Man's Country. A Geographical Study  o f Ea r l y Southeastern Pennsylvania (New York: 1972), p. 164; Robert Gross i n The Minutemen and Their World (New York: 1978), p. 214, estimated a minimum acreage requirement of between 24 and 48 acres f o r Concord, Mass. T h i r t y - f i v e acres was considered a bare minimum f o r the support of a family of s i x i n Chebacco, Mass. i n Christopher M. Jedrey, The World p. 63. 39 Lemon, i b i d . , p. 155. ^°The w i l l of Robert Denison, R.G. 48, r e e l 550, Hants County w i l l b o o k , p. 14, June 25, 1765. ^ I n Horton, "yeoman" meant more than f r e e h o l d e r . In o c c u p a t i o n a l 1 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s i t seems to have been interchangeable w i t h "farmer" and "husbandman" and i t was the most commonly used of these terms i n l o c a l documents. ^Th e estimate of f i v e acres a year i s quoted i n Kenneth K e l l y , "The Impact of Nineteenth Century A g r i c u l t u r a l Settlement on the Land", i n J.D. Wood, ed., Perspectives on Landscape and Settlement i n Nineteenth  Century Ontario (Carleton L i b r a r y : 1975), p. 103. In a d d i t i o n , 4 acres per share was l o c a t e d on the c l e a r e d Grand Pr£; and according to Charles M o r r i s ' Map of Horton Township, 1760, the upland southwest of town p l o t was " c l e a r e d " . Christopher M. Jedrey, The World pp. 65-66, estimates that 8 sheep were necessary for annual subsistence. 79 In "The S i m p l i f i c a t i o n of Europe Overseas", Annals, Association of American Geographers, v. 67 (1977), pp. 469-483, R. Cole Harris has argued that Europeans of diverse socioeconomic and c u l t u r a l backgrounds b u i l t homogeneous and e g a l i t a r i a n s o c i e t i e s i n c o l o n i a l s e t t i n g s . Social change due to changed conditions i n the new environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the a v a i l a b i l i t y of cheap land and poor market conditions pared away many t r a i t s unsuited to the new s i t u a t i o n . Changes i n land a v a i l a b i l i t y and markets over several generations led to a r e s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of society. For a further discussion of Harris' theory, see chapter 5, pp. 107-108. CHAPTER 4 L a n d and I n h e r i t a n c e In. t h e l a t e 1 7 7 0 s Nova S c o t i a f a c e d an e c o n o m i c r e c e s s i o n a n d a s m a l l -p o x e p i d e m i c ; t h e r e l i g i o u s f e r v o r o f t h e "New L i g h t " r e v i v a l s w e p t t h r o u g h t h e c o l o n y and Y a n k e e p r i v a t e e r s r a i d e d Nova S c o t i a n c o a s t a l s e t t l e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e A m e r i c a n R e v o l u t i o n . A t t h e w a r ' s e n d , t h o u s a n d s o f L o y a l i s t r e f u g e e s w a n t i n g t o b u i l d a new l i f e a n d e x p e c t i n g a t a n g i b l e r e w a r d f o r t h e i r l o y a l t y t o t h e Crown f l o c k e d t o t h e r e m a i n i n g B r i t i s h c o l o n i e s o f N o r t h A m e r i c a . To p r e p a r e t o r e c e i v e a l a r g e i n f l u x o f s e t t l e r s t h e Nova S c o t i a G o v e r n m e n t r e p a t r i a t e d l a r g e t r a c t s o f l a n d g r a n t e d d u r i n g t h e l a n d boom o f t h e 1 7 6 0 s b u t n e v e r o c c u p i e d . I n p e n i n s u l a r Nova S c o t i a a l o n e h a l f a m i l l i o n o f t h e 5.5 m i l l i o n a c r e s i s s u e d s i n c e t h e l a t e 1 7 5 0 s w e r e e s c h e a t e d by 1 7 8 3 ; i n t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s 2.5 m i l l i o n more w e r e r e t u r n e d t o t h e C r o w n . T h i s p r o c e s s o p e n e d up l a r g e t r a c t s o f l a n d i n what l a t e r became A n n a p o l i s , D i g b y , S h e l b u r n e a n d G u y s b o r o u g h c o u n t i e s a s w e l l a s s m a l l e r a r e a s a l o n g t h e S h u b e n a c a d i e R i v e r , C o b e q u i d Bay a n d t h e W i n d s o r Road."'" S t i l l , much o f t h e c o l o n y ' s more a c c e s s i b l e a n d f e r t i l e l a n d s r e m a i n e d i n t h e c o n t r o l o f New E n g l a n d e r s who h a d e s t a b l i s h e d t o w n s h i p s i n t h e e a r l y 1 7 6 0 s . Few L o y a l i s t s s e e k i n g a f r e e h o l d s e t t l e d i n t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s w h e r e f r e e l a n d was no l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e . A l l o f H o r t o n ' s l a n d h a d b e e n g r a n t e d w i t h i n a few y e a r s o f 1 7 6 1 ; t h e r e was n e i t h e r a r e s e r v e f o r newcomers n o r a d d i t i o n a l l a n d f o r s o n s o f t h e f o u n d i n g s e t t l e r s . A l t h o u g h l a n d was a v a i l a b l e f o r p u r c h a s e , 80 81 circumstances may have made i t d i f f i c u l t to a cquire. A c t i v e t r a d i n g i n land during the 1760s had given a small group c o n t r o l of most of the best township lands. In the next twenty years much of t h i s was kept out of c i r c u l a t i o n ; as measured by the number of deeds r e g i s t e r e d , land t r a n s a c -t i o n s occurred at l i t t l e more than h a l f the r a t e that marked the 1760s. Access to land was f u r t h e r reduced by e s c a l a t i n g p r i c e s , driven upward by a r i s i n g demand and s h r i n k i n g supply of l a n d . Any comparison of Horton land p r i c e s over time i s r i s k y because the impact of the type of s a l e ( i . e . , p r i v a t e or p u b l i c a u c t i o n ) , s o i l q u a l i t y , improvements and l o c a t i o n on p r i c e are impossible to* determine, although they s u r e l y were f e l t ; l o t s of equal acreage i n s i m i l a r p a r ts of the township were s o l d f o r d i f f e r e n t sums at almost the same time. In absolute terms though, p r i c e s increased. With time and the progression of settlement, buying land meant paying f o r improvements such as c l e a r i n g , f e n c i n g , c u l t i v a t i o n and perhaps even a house, barn and o u t b u i l d i n g s . Because l e s s expensive unimproved p r o p e r t i e s were not o f t e n o f f e r e d f o r s a l e , the p r i c e of land was pushed out of reach o f some. As the t h r e s h o l d o f access to land rose, the population of Horton increased. By e x t r a p o l a t i o n from the number of adult men l i s t e d on the P o l l Tax of 1791, the p o p u l a t i o n of Horton i n that year can be estimated 2 at 1175; t h i s was an i n c r e a s e of 63% over the 1770 t o t a l . Such growth can be a t t r i b u t e d i n part to the high r a t e of p e r s i s t e n c e among the founding s e t t l e r s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Twenty-six of the 184 o r i g i n a l Horton landholders are known to have died by 1790. Of the remaining 158, f u l l y 120 c e r t a i n l y l i v e d i n Horton i n 1791; the p r o p o r t i o n may w e l l have been higher because we do not know that some of the apparently missing 30 82 di d not continue to l i v e i n Horton unrecorded. Inmigration was another component of population growth. Horton a t t r a c t e d s e v e r a l newcomers i n the 1770s and 1780s. F u l l y 117 of these appeared as new names (not on the 1770 Census) on the P o l l Tax: a few ' were L o y a l i s t s , some came from Ire l a n d and others moved from C o r n w a l l i s and Falmouth, but the o r i g i n s of most are unknown. So too are the reasons they came to Horton. "Some (perhaps seven) men s e t t l e d Horton land included i n the dowries of t h e i r l o c a l b r i d e s . 3 Others may have had l i t t l e choice but to move to Horton or one of the other s e t t l e d communities i n the colony. Between 1770 and 1783 Crown lands were a v a i l a b l e by pur-chase; because p r i c e s were r e l a t i v e l y high there was l i t t l e settlement of unoccupied land and newcomers g r a v i t a t e d i n t o e s t a b l i s h e d towns i n search of other o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Even the r e l a t i v e l y well-to-do B r i t i s h migrants of the 1770s came, as Governor Legge observed not "with the e x p e c t a t i o n of having lands granted to them", but "to purchase, ... perhaps to become tenants" or "to labour".'' This was c e r t a i n l y the p a t t e r n followed by many of those who s e t t l e d i n Horton a f t e r 1770. Only one f i f t h purchased land i n the next twenty years and only h a l f ever acquired r e a l property. In 1791 two t h i r d s made t h e i r l i v i n g as wage labo u r e r s . R e v e a l i n g l y , l e s s than h a l f of those r e g i s t e r e d as farmers on the P o l l Tax owned land. To farm they had to rent l a n d . Tenancy had become an important facet of the economic s t r u c t u r e of the community. Tenant farmers were only s l i g h t l y b e t t e r o f f than the l a n d l e s s . True, they were husbandmen but s t i l l they laboured l a r g e l y f o r the b e n e f i t of someone e l s e . The lease between Joseph Gray and John Wallace^ f o r the 83 Pear Trees Farm was t y p i c a l of agreements that o u t l i n e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f l a n d l o r d and tenant i n greater d e t a i l than the a l t e r n a t i v e " r e n t i n g at the halves". The Pear Trees Farm was located southeast of town p l o t along the north shore of the Gaspereau R i v e r . I t c o n s i s t e d of 103 acres of upland and 67 acres of marsh. In 1773 Gray leased the land, house, barn, farming u t e n s i l s and one yoke of oxen to Wallace. The rent i n the f i r s t year, was £6 and Wallace had to bear the expense of keeping four y e a r l i n g h e i f e r s and f i v e c a l v e s f o r two years; t h e r e a f t e r the rent was £8 and Wallace had the cost of feeding l i v e s t o c k each ensuing year for three years a f t e r the marsh i n f r o n t of the farm was diked (the lease d i d not s p e c i f y who was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d i k i n g or p r e c i s e l y when i t was to be done), at which time the lease e x p i r e d . In a d d i t i o n , Wallace was respon-s i b l e f o r fencing and the general upkeep o f the farm. Unless he made enough money above and beyond these o b l i g a t i o n s to make s i g n i f i c a n t s t r i d e s toward economic independence i n the three or more years t h a t he worked the Pear Trees, r e n t i n g was a dead end f o r Wallace because when h i s lease ended he returned everything to h i s l a n d l o r d . As land grew scarce i n Horton, everyman's opportunity to own a farm diminished. Between 1770 and 1791 the number of farmers i n Horton decreased by one t h i r d (Tables VI and V I I ) . 7 There were a l s o fewer a r t i -sans and p r o f e s s i o n a l s on a p r o p o r t i o n a l b a s i s , and by 1791 labourers comprised almost h a l f (47?o) the workforce. They were not simply farmers' sons; Hortonians o f the second generation accounted f o r only one quarter of t h i s occupational group. Of the remainder, only one quarter had l i v e d i n Horton i n 1770. Once landowners, they had s o l d t h e i r property f o r one reason or another, but continued to seek a l i v i n g t here. The r e s t were 84 TABLE VI. Occupations of the Adult Male Workforce, 1770 and 1791 Occupation 1770 No. Esquire 10 9.25 F armer/Yeoman 73 67.59 116 38.79 Labourer 1 .93 142 47.49 Carpenter 4 3.70 7 2.35 Blacksmith 3 2.78 5 1.67 Shoemaker - 5 1.67 Tailor 2 1.85 3 1.00 Millwright - 1 .33 Weaver 2 1.85 1 .33 Mason - • 1 .33 Cooper - 1 .33 Cordwainer 3 2.78 -Merchant 5 4.63 7 2.34 Attorney - • 2 .69 Surgeon/Doctor 2 1.85 1 .33 Schoolmaster/ 1 .93 2 .69 Teacher • Minister 1 .93 -Innkeeper 1 .93 -Soldier - 3 1.00 Master of vessel - 1 .33 Boat owner - 1 .33 Totals 108 100.00 298 100.00 Not given 36 1 85 TABLE VII. Composition of the Adult Male Work Force by Occupational Group Occupation 1770 1791 No. % No. Esquire 10 9.26 Farmers 73 67.59 115 38.59 Labourers 1 .93 142 47.65 Professionals 10 9.26 12 4.03 Craftsmen 14 12.96 24 8.05 M i l i t a r y — 3 1.01 Marine — 2 .67 Totals 108 100.00 298 100.00 Source; The breakdown of occupations i n 1770 i s derived from deeds, w i l l s and Court of Quarter Sessions Records; the source for 1791 i s the P o l l Tax. 86 newcomers to the community. Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to t e l l what kinds of labour w e r e performed, s c a t t e r e d references suggest that men were h i r e d for a v a r i e t y of u n s k i l l e d and s e m i - s k i l l e d tasks, most of them farm-r e l a t e d . I t was i n t h i s c l i m a t e of economic hardship that a r e l i g i o u s r e v i v a l swept through Nova S c o t i a . Led by Falmouth "New L i g h t " i t i n e r a n t preacher Henry A l l i n e , Nova S c o t i a ' s "Great Awakening" corresponded with A l l i n e ' s career, l a s t i n g from 1776 to 1784. I t was strongest i n the area around the Minas Basin where A l l i n e confined h i s a c t i v i t i e s . Most i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of t h i s e v a n g e l i c a l movement have been concerned with i n t e l l e c t u a l o r i g i n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the connection between the dilemma of mixed l o y a l t i e s New Englanders i n Nova S c o t i a are assumed to have experienced during the American Rev o l u t i o n , the consequent i d e n t i t y c r i s i s t hat transformed g Yankees i n t o Nova Scotians and t h i s expression of r e l i g i o u s unrest. Arguing that r e l i g i o u s enthusiasm seemed to b u i l d only a f t e r the m i l i t a r y t hreat d e c l i n e d , J.M. Bumsted has diverged from t h i s conceptual approach i n suggesting the importance of the economic dimension and f r o n t i e r c o n d i -t i o n s to understanding the Nova S c o t i a r e v i v a l . According to Bumsted, "the discontent born of immediate economic hardship ... [and] the p s y c h o l o g i c a l uneasiness born of having p u l l e d up roots elsewhere to s e t t l e i n Nova S c o t i a ... made almost a l l r u r a l Nova Scotians s u s c e p t i b l e i n various 9 degrees of r e v i v a l i s m . " Conditions at Horton support Bumsted's contention of hard times i n the outsettlements. Indeed, economic hardship was not only a r e s u l t of f r o n t i e r c o n d i t i o n s as Bumsted has suggested, the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of e a r l y Horton s o c i e t y on the b a s i s of landed wealth may have caused even greater 87 discontent for i n h a b i t a n t s who were worse o f f than others. Whether socioeconomic d i s p a r i t y i n the community found expression as r e l i g i o u s r e v i v a l i s m can be assessed only with fu r t h e r a n a l y s i s of the impact of "New L i g h t " evangelism on Hortonians. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n should begin by r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the economic background of the membership of the "New L i g h t " Church founded at Horton i n 1778. As w e l l , since c r i t i c i s m of h i s r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e e v e n t u a l l y forced A l l i n e to focus h i s m i n i s t r y i n the s c a t t e r e d and i s o l a t e d communities of the Minas Basin area, the r e l a -t i v e importance of the New L i g h t Church to Horton s o c i e t y , i . e . , whether most of the community or only an impassioned few experienced a "great awakening", a l s o must be measured. I f there i s a c o r r e l a t i o n between immediate f i n a n c i a l d i s t r e s s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the R e v i v a l , i t i s u n l i k e l y that Horton's "New L i g h t " Church drew i t s membership from among the maturing sons of Horton's found-i n g s e t t l e r s . Seventy-three males who reached t h e i r m a j o r i t y between 1770 and 1791 were included on the P o l l Tax. They ranged i n age from 21 to 49; t h i r t y are known to have been married i n 1791 and had from one to seven c h i l d r e n at that date.^^ Had they depended s o l e l y on t h e i r own resources, these young men would have shared the s t r u g g l e s and the f a t e s o f most newcomers to the township. Instead, they fared much b e t t e r . By 1791, one h a l f owned at l e a s t a few acres, and bar e l y a quarter were wage lab o u r e r s . Even these men had reasonable prospects of improving t h e i r s t a t u s ; a l l but seven second generation males e v e n t u a l l y acquired land. That Horton's sons d i d b e t t e r on average than newcomers, suggests the economic importance of p a r e n t a l support. So f a r as we can t e l l , r e l a t i v e l y few sons were " s e t t l e d with a farm" or otherwise d i r e c t l y 88 provided for by their fathers; most were not given t o t a l autonomy. Rather, farmers allowed one or more of their sons to occupy part of the family's holdings informally for years with the understanding that t i t l e would he transferred to him or them at their decease. Rarely were marriages and families s i g n i f i c a n t l y delayed by these arrangements;"''"'' investing their labour on land that would one day be th e i r s , young men took brides, had families and quite probably applied any p r o f i t s from t h i s farming to the purchase of a few acres of their own. In t h i s way the second generation escaped the hardships experienced by other Hortonians. S t i l l , they were locked into a prolonged dependence on their fathers. Only with the deaths of their fathers and the settlement of the i r estates did sons acquire f i n a n c i a l freedom. Few men were inactive in transmitting th e i r worldly goods to the next generation. Of those estates whose transfer was recorded only 10% 12 were distributed by the Probate Court. In these cases the pattern was , well established. The deceased's real and personal property went to the widow; debts were paid; the residue was divided according to the number of surviving children; a double share went to the eldest son and one share to each of the others. In a l l other instances, the transfer between the generations was carefully l a i d out i n a l a s t w i l l and testament. The w i l l s of forty males who died between 1762 and 1831 reveal the variety of generational bequests i n Horton."'"3 Drawn from the spectrum of a l l but the wealthiest landowners and representing almost every occupation i n Horton, these i n d i -viduals died between the ages of 56 and 97 and l e f t completed families ranging from one to twelve but averaging eight persons. 89 Daughters, who received a dowry from t h e i r parents when they married, d i d not f i g u r e prominently i n t h e i r f a t h e r s ' w i l l s . In Horton, as i n many other communities, they u s u a l l y received a share of the household f u r n i t u r e at t h e i r mother's decease and o c c a s i o n a l l y a small cash legacy. Some were given remote t h i r d d i v i s i o n w i l d l a n d . A few whose fathers held s u b s t a n t i a l property received more valuable bequests of land. Rocksel, second daughter of Benjamin Cleaveland received a farm valued at £75.^ S i m i l a r l y , Amelia Bishop received extensive holdings of upland, marsh and woodland on the Windsor Road, Gaspereau R i v e r , Boot Island and Grand Pre from her father John J r . 1 " * But g e n e r a l l y , eighteenth-century custom excluded daughters from an i n h e r i t a n c e of family land because marriage t r a n s f e r r e d the b r i d e ' s property to her husband unless other l e g a l p r o v i s i o n s were made. In the minds of i n d i v i d u a l s as w e l l as i n those of the community, the a b i l i t y to provide sons with a landed i n h e r i t a n c e measured the success o f a l i f e t i m e d i r e c t e d toward e s t a b l i s h i n g an enduring family patrimony. One h a l f of the t e s t a t o r s d i v i d e d t h e i r land among two or more of t h e i r sons. As e l s e w h e r e , ^ Horton t e s t a t o r s used t h e i r w i l l s to d i r e c t the l i v e s of family members and the promise of a landed i n h e r i t a n c e was a profound force shaping the l i v e s of a t e s t a t o r ' s c h i l d r e n . Obadiah Benjamin, f o r in s t a n c e , spent a l i f e t i m e b u i l d i n g a legacy which he could pass on to h i s four sons.'''7 In 1761, t h i r t y year o l d Benjamin had come to Horton with h i s wife Mary and two young sons from Preston, Connecticut to rece i v e one share i n the township grant. S h o r t l y afterward, he erected a sawmill on the upper Gaspereau River . This may have been financed by the s a l e of some of h i s property i n the e a r l y 1760s. Although Bishop's M i l l l o c a t e d 90 f u r t h e r downstream and c l o s e r to the focus of e a r l y settlement probably o f f e r e d s t i f f competition, the Benjamin M i l l prospered. Benjamin i d e n t i -f i e d h imself as a yeoman and r a i s e d l i v e s t o c k . In 1770 he owned 20 sheep, 16 oxen, 2 cows, 2 neat c a t t l e , 4 swine and 1 horse. His only crops were 50 bushels of f l a x and 4 bushels of oats. By t h i s time h i s family i n c l u -ded f i v e sons and two daughters. In the next s i x t e e n years, he invested a s u b s t a n t i a l sum i n c o n s o l i d a t i n g second d i v i s i o n farm l o t s and woodlots i n the area of h i s m i l l as w e l l as i n a c q u i r i n g marshland on Boot I s l a n d . Despite h i s apparent p r o s p e r i t y , Benjamin never gave or s o l d land to any of h i s three sons who married during t h i s time, nor d i d he help them to buy land on the open market. Not u n t i l 1802, three years before h i s death i n 1805, d i d Benjamin deed land to h i s two e l d e s t sons, Stephen and Caleb. I f these bequests were s i m i l a r to that conferred on t h e i r younger brother Abel (who received the land "on which h i s d w e l l i n g stood" i n h i s f a t h e r ' s w i l l ) , the e l d e r sons l i k e l y l i v e d on t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s f o r many years before a c q u i r i n g o f f i c i a l t i t l e to them. By 1802 they were approach-in g middle age. Stephen, who had been married f o r twenty-one years, was f o r t y - f i v e years o l d and had a family of nine, when h i s father gave him 160 acres i n the v i c i n i t y of the s a w m i l l . Caleb was forty-one years o l d and had seven c h i l d r e n from h i s marriage of eighteen years before he 18 received t i t l e to 164 acres. Since t u r n i n g seventeen, both sons had spent upwards of twenty-five years dependent on t h e i r f a ther's g oodwill fo r t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d and the support of t h e i r f a m i l i e s . In r e c e i v i n g t h e i r p o r t i o n s l a t e i n l i f e , Benjamin's sons were t y p i c a l of t h e i r genera-t i o n . 91 S e t t l e r s l e s s s u c c e s s f u l than Obed Benjamin, who d i d not climb from the low or middling economic p o s i t i o n they acquired i n 1770, faced more d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s about the transmission of r e a l property to the next generation. Forced to recognize even i n the 1790s that the l i m i t s of good a g r i c u l t u r a l land had been reached i n Horton and that the r i s i n g t hreshold of a c c e s s i b i l i t y put land at a premium, they r a r e l y subdivided t h e i r holdings. Almost one h a l f (43?a) of Horton t e s t a t o r s bequeathed a l l of t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e to one son. In some cases t h i s represented the l a s t of s e v e r a l disbursements that had begun many years before, r a t h e r than d e l i b e r a t e primogeniture. Even so, many of these t e s t a t o r s had s i z e a b l e holdings, property which could have been d i v i d e d among a l l of t h e i r o f f s p r i n g . By choosing to favour only one, these men preserved the i n t e g r i t y of the family farm i n a way probably c a l c u l a t e d to ensure the family's s o c i a l and economic p o s i t i o n i n a farming community. Just as gender i n f l u e n c e d the i n h e r i t a n c e of land, so b i r t h order g e n e r a l l y a f f e c t e d the timing and q u a l i t y o f that i n h e r i t a n c e . When f a m i l i e s included more than one or two c h i l d r e n , o l d e r sons l i k e l y knew that the i n t e r e s t s o f themselves and t h e i r f a m i l i e s were best served by t h e i r r e c e i v i n g an advance on t h e i r i n h e r i t a n c e . One of the younger sons could expect, i n time, to own the family farmhouse and a d j o i n i n g f i e l d s . But those who i n h e r i t e d a l l , or the best o f , p a r e n t a l lands, paid a personal and f i n a n c i a l p r i c e . Besides the long wait to rec e i v e l e g a l t i t l e to the lands they occupied, p r i n c i p a l h e i r s were of t e n o b l i g a t e d to provide cash l e g a c i e s f o r the female, and sometimes male h e i r s . This could mean that sons who i n h e r i t e d the bulk of the es t a t e paid d e a r l y f or a small or middling property i n h e r i t a n c e . 92 Horton t e s t a t o r s often attempted to ease t h i s f i n a n c i a l s t r a i n by staggering payments over se v e r a l years. Alpheus H a r r i s , for example, was required to pay a t o t a l of £14 i n l e g a c i e s one year a f t e r the decease of. 19 h i s f a t h e r , Lebbeus J r . and £13 i n the next year. When h i s mother died, he had to pay an a d d i t i o n a l £7 over the f i r s t two years and £5 i n the t h i r d year. S i m i l a r l y , James Lockhart's son Daniel became responsible f or a 20 payment t o t a l l i n g £68 when he i n h e r i t e d a l l h i s f a t h e r ' s r e a l e s t a t e . Ten pounds of t h i s was payable one year a f t e r h i s f a t h e r ' s decease; £8 was due two years l a t e r ; and the r e s t came due a f t e r h i s mother's death when he received the residue of the e s t a t e . Then Daniel paid £10 a year to each of the h e i r s f o r the next f i v e years. Another o b s t a c l e to an unencumbered i n h e r i t a n c e was the debt a t e s t a t o r accumulated during h i s l i f e t i m e . In l a t e eighteenth-century Horton, goods and s e r v i c e s were purchased with promissory notes, by assuming another man's debts, or on account at long term c r e d i t . At death, a man was i n v a r i a b l y indebted to s e v e r a l of h i s neighbours. Of course, they were probably indebted to him as w e l l , but i n those cases i n which l i s t s of both debts and assets have s u r v i v e d , d e b i t s c o n s i s t e n t l y outweighed c r e d i t s . Sometimes the p r i n c i p a l h e i r was expected to assume h i s f a t her's debts but u s u a l l y the e s t a t e was l i a b l e f o r payment. Executors sometimes auctioned o f f the personal e s t a t e , and then as much of the r e a l estate as necessary to meet demands against the e s t a t e . Although only three auction b i l l s e x i s t f o r the t e s t a t o r s under examina-21 t i o n , frequent mention of auctions i n e s t a t e i n v e n t o r i e s and deeds suggests that they were often used to untangle a t e s t a t o r ' s finances p r i o r to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of h i s e s t a t e . 93 Of t h i r t y - t h r e e couples for whom both dates are known, more than 22 three quarters (79?o) of the wives o u t l i v e d t h e i r husbands. In l a s t w i l l s and testaments the s i z e and composition of the wife's bequest v a r i e d but g e n e r a l l y i t r e f l e c t e d the t e s t a t o r ' s concern for the widow's sub-s i s t e n c e and not her economic freedom. Nine husbands w i l l e d t h e i r widows one t h i r d or one h a l f of t h e i r e s t a t e , and i n e f f e c t made the community r e s p o n s i b l e for the widow's welfar e . As with i n t e s t a t e settlements, Court-appointed a p p r a i s e r s determined, i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the widow, the form the support would take. As might be expected, the items women chose f o r t h e i r dower r e f l e c t e d t h e i r pre-occupation with the home and t h e i r dependence on others to supply l i f e ' s n e c e s s i t i e s . T y p i c a l l y , they s e l e c -ted one or more beds with bedding, a few pieces of f u r n i t u r e , l i n e n and most of a l l , kitchenware. Rarely d i d they pick l i v e s t o c k , t o o l s or harvested crops. The d e t a i l o f f e r e d i n the dower d e s c r i p t i o n s show that the Court protected the widow's r i g h t s from any threat of l e g a l challenge from any other h e i r . Lydia Peck's Decree of D i v i s i o n , f o r example, defined the boundaries of her l o t s , designated her rooms i n the family d w e l l i n g , determined r i g h t s of way f o r her horses and even gave her "the p r i v e l e g e of a comfortable seat i n that very necessary l i t t l e B u i l d i n g at 23 the South East angle of the Garden". H a l f the t e s t a t o r s s p e c i f i e d annual cash allowances or a n n u i t i e s of food, firewood, and p r o v i s i o n s f o r t h e i r widows. Seven husbands made the comfort and support of t h e i r widows a c o n d i t i o n of the i n h e r i t a n c e s w i l l e d to one or more of t h e i r sons. H a l f the t e s t a t o r s s p e c i f i e d annual cash allowances or a n n u i t i e s of food, firewood, and p r o v i s i o n s for t h e i r widows. The other h a l f arranged f o r t h e i r widows to be supported from the rents 94 and p r o f i t s of t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e . This t i e d the widow's f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y to the farming s k i l l of the son who assumed management of the family farm. To provide for the widow's l i v i n g arrangements, one h a l f of the t e s t a t o r s d i v i d e d the d w e l l i n g i n t o east-west apartments by s p e c i f y i n g rooms or a f r a c t i o n (one t h i r d , one h a l f ) of the d w e l l i n g f o r the widow's use. Andrew Davison was t y p i c a l o f these t e s t a t o r s i n g i v i n g h i s w i f e Eunice: the use and improvement of the Northwest bedroom and other Bedroom a d j o i n i n g t h e r t o [ s i c ] , the west Pa r l o u r i n my Dwelling house, the p r i v e l e g e of using the Back Kitchen, one t h i r d part of the c e l l a r under s a i d house and one Chamber with f u l l r i g h t and L i b e r t y of passing and repassing to and from the s a i d Several apartments i n the s a i d house as she s h a l l and may have occassion [ s i c ] and whenever she p l e a s e s . 2 ^ In a l l but a few cases, the property a widow recei v e d through her husband's w i l l f or her n a t u r a l l i f e or widowhood was intended f o r her use but not her d i s p o s a l . Samuel G r i f f i n g ' s d i r e c t i o n s echoed the i n t e n t i o n s of many t e s t a t o r s i n t h i s regard: I t i s my w i l l that my w i f e s h a l l not s e l l or diminish any of s^ I n t e r e s t on or by w i l l mortgage or i n any way u n n e c e s s a r i l y dispose o f i t [the property] during her s^ l i f e t i m e . 2 - * At death, the widow's legacy r e v e r t e d to the husband's e s t a t e and h i s w i l l included i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r i t s subsequent d i s t r i b u t i o n . Conse-quently, i n the l e g a l sense at l e a s t , most women owned l i t t l e more than 26 the clothes on t h e i r backs. 95 This was true even when i t appeared that women were given greater f r e e -dom and c o n t r o l . S ix husbands l e f t t h e i r wives " a l l the whole of my world". Most of these men had adult sons who could have become custodians of the family e s t a t e . Instead they chose to ent r u s t a l l t h e i r r e a l and personal property to t h e i r wife's care. These husbands confirmed t h e i r confidence i n t h e i r wives' a b i l i t y to maintain or even p o s s i b l y to augment the family's patrimony by "leaving s i z e a b l e l e g a c i e s to the c h i l d r e n which were to be d i s t r i b u t e d at t h e i r mother's decease. Yet, i n so i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r f a i t h i n t h e i r wives, these men defined the boundaries of the widow's a u t h o r i t y . In t h e i r good judgement, husbands who s p e c i f i e d the f i n a l a l l o -c a t i o n of the fa m i l y ' s worldly goods, must have b e l i e v e d e i t h e r that t h e i r wives were incapable o f making these d e c i s i o n s or that i t was not t h e i r place to do so. Despite what she may have c o n t r i b u t e d to b u i l d i n g the family's stake during her husband's l i f e t i m e or how she coped as caretaker a f t e r h i s death, the widow had only as much say i n how the estate was passed on as her husband allowed her to have. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of her i n h e r i t e d r o l e as household head was f u r t h e r diminished by the f a c t that the widow's success or f a i l u r e i n maintaining the estate would have l i t t l e r e a l impact on the l i v e s of grown c h i l d r e n who had already received t h e i r p o r t i o n . When i t came to t r a n s m i t t i n g t h e i r w o r l d l y goods to the next genera-t i o n , Horton t e s t a t o r s were governed f o r the most part by a pragmatism that r e f l e c t e d the modest accomplishments of f r o n t i e r settlement. Some endowed a l l male o f f s p r i n g but only a f t e r most sons served lengthy apprenticeships as farm labourers, and then only with as much land as could be p a r c e l l e d out without j e o p a r d i z i n g the v i a b i l i t y of the family 96 farm. What i s remarkable about Horton's i n h e r i t a n c e patterns i s the high incidence of a l l r e a l property being s e t t l e d on one son for primogeniture was r a r e l y p r a c t i s e d i n New England when settlements were new. There, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y l a r ge landholdings accommodated the f i r s t s e t t l e r s who wished to d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r land among a l l t h e i r sons. But a f t e r a few generations s e v e r e l y reduced the s i z e of the f a m i l y ' s landholdings by t h i s p r a c t i s e , p a r t i b l e i n h e r i t a n c e was no longer r e a l i s t i c . S t i l l , r a t h e r than give land to some sons and not to others, men stubbornly clung to some form of p a r t i b l e i n h e r i t a n c e long a f t e r i t was a f e a s i b l e method o f . . . 27 transmission. Perhaps the a t t i t u d e s of Horton t e s t a t o r s s i g n i f y a conservative r e a c t i o n to t h e i r e a r l i e r experiences i n Connecticut. There, as i n a l l of older s e t t l e d New England, growing po p u l a t i o n pressure on a l i m i t e d land supply, aggravated by generations of p a r t i b l e i n h e r i t a n c e , s e v e r e l y reduced family landholdings and l e f t f a t h e rs incapable of p r o v i d i n g adequate patrimonies f or t h e i r grown sons. This dilemma provided at l e a s t part of the impetus f o r some of these sons to leave Connecticut f o r Nova S c o t i a . These were the men who became Horton landowners and l a t e r found themselves forced to make hard choices that a f f e c t e d the l i v e s of t h e i r own sons. Because t h e i r own youth had been u n s e t t l e d , these men must have been s e n s i t i v e to the s i t u a t i o n s t h e i r sons faced when they reached man-hood. But, at the same time they were keenly aware of t h e i r s t r u g g l e to e s t a b l i s h a patrimony and what s u b - d i v i d i n g the farm i n t o small p a r c e l s would mean f o r the family's chance of keeping a foothold i n the community for future generations. As a r e s u l t , d e c i s i o n s regarding the t r a n s f e r of property to the next generation were i n f l u e n c e d more by p r i o r i t i e s o f 97 maintaining the family landholding and ensuring the p a t r i a r c h ' s economic s e c u r i t y i n o l d age than by the a f f e c t i o n t e s t a t o r s may have f e l t for t h e i r c h i l d r e n and t h e i r i n s t i n c t s to provide for them. Even so, whether guided by sentiment or a r e c o g n i t i o n of the value of the family as the primary u n i t of production, t e s t a t o r s d i s p l a y e d a deep concern for the f a m i l y . When c h i l d r e n were unmarried, men used t h e i r w i l l s to advise the family on the importance of s t a y i n g together and to o f f e r them inducements to f o l l o w h i s wishes. Benjamin Peck J r . summed up the enticements i n h i s w i l l : I t i s my w i l l that nothing necessary f o r the comfort of my family now l i v i n g together should be moved o f f the place while they continue together.28 When sons were grown, f a t h e r s kept them nearby by a l l o w i n g them to b u i l d t h e i r homes on family land so that marriage and c h i l d r e n were not delayed. Most i m p o r t a n t l y , by the terms of t h e i r w i l l s , men r e - s t r u c t u r e d the family so that the operation of the homestead farm could be c a r r i e d on s u c c e s s f u l l y a f t e r the death of the household head. In a n t i c i p a t i o n of the t r a n s f e r o f property o u t l i n e d i n the w i l l , the son who was to i n h e r i t the homestead remained there, marrying and r a i s i n g h i s c h i l d r e n i n the company of h i s aged parents. Since i t evolved over s e v e r a l years, the t r a n s i t i o n was probably a smooth one. Even by 1791 the i n c r e a s i n g p o p u l a t i o n pressure on the l i m i t e d land supply, and a system of i n e q u a l i t y rooted i n the c o n t r o l of land ownership pushed Horton Township to i t s l i m i t s . The countryside could not support a l l i n h a b i t a n t s who wanted to farm. Nevertheless, the s i z e of farms 98 remained viable and there was a large (and therefore inexpensive) pool of farm labour to work them. As transportation began to improve and markets opened up with the i n f l u x of L o y a l i s t s to the region, Horton would be well-placed to expand a g r i c u l t u r a l production for export. 99 Footnotes Margaret E l l s , " C l e a r i n g The Decks", " S e t t l i n g The L o y a l i s t s i n Nova S c o t i a " , Canadian H i s t o r i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Report, 1934, pp. 105-109. The Horton P o l l Tax of 1791, i b i d , l i s t s 300 males age twenty-one and over. A f t e r s u b t r a c t i n g one quarter to account for s i n g l e men, a m u l t i p l e of four was chosen to estimate the t o t a l population (275 x 4 = 1100 + 75 = 1175). Although the average family s i z e was 7 i n 1770, the number 4 was considered to more ac c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t the e v o l u t i o n o f Horton's population to 1791. At that time there was a s i g n i f i c a n t com-ponent of men at both ends of the family c y c l e who had smaller than average f a m i l i e s because they were r e c e n t l y married or t h e i r c h i l d r e n were grown and had l e f t t h e i r households. 3 J . Noble Shannon, Samuel Avery, Ebenezer F i t c h , James F u l l e r t o n , Moses Stevens, John Graham and Michael Wallace married daughters of Hortonians. ^Margaret E l l s , " C l e a r i n g The Decks p. 11. ^ L e t t e r Governor Legge to Lord Dartmouth, May 10, 1774, i n " L e t t e r Books and T r a n s c r i p t s o f Dispatches from the Governors", R.G. 1, v. 44, #32. ^Joseph Gray to John Wallace, R.G. 47, r e e l 1273, v. 3, p. 269. An increase i n the number of labourers a f t e r 1770 i s supported by an increase i n the occurrence of the term "labourer" as an occupational i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i n the Court of Quarter Sessions papers. For examples, see MJ3. 1, v. 182, #38, #116-117, #228; v. 183, #2-31, #79-81, #103-107, #267-270. g For a d i s c u s s i o n of the h i s t o r i o g r a p h y of the Great Awakening i n Nova S c o t i a , see G.S. French, " R e l i g i o n and Society i n Late Eighteenth Century Nova S c o t i a " , a review a r t i c l e i n A c a d i e n s i s , v. IV, no. 2 (Spring, 1975), pp. 102-111. See a l s o M.W. Armstrong, The Great  Awakening i n Nova S c o t i a , 1776-1809 ( H a r t f o r d : 1948); Gordon Stewart and George Rawlyck, A People Highly Favoured Of God. The Nova S c o t i a Yankees  And the American Revolution (Toronto: 1972); S.D. C l a r k , Church and Sect i n Canada (Toronto: 1948). 100 J.M. Bumsted, Henry A l l i n e (Hantsport, N.S.: 1984) , p. 59 . For Bumsted's d i s c u s s i o n of the importance of the socioeconomic dimension to understanding the Great Awakening i n New England, see " R e l i g i o n , Finance and Democracy", i b i d . The second generation i s defined for the purposes of t h i s study as males who were younger than twenty-one i n 1770, but excludes any teenagers who owned land. This separates sons of grantees who were more or l e s s e s t a b l i s h e d on the land or i n other vocations by 1770 from those who grew up and sought l i v e l i h o o d s amidst the s o c i a l and economic pressures of the next twenty years. Their l i v e s o f f e r c lues to the e v o l u t i o n of the community a f t e r the i n i t i a l settlement p e r i o d . Males married at the average age of 25; females wed at the mean age of 22. The average age of marriage was c a l c u l a t e d from r e c o n s t i t u t e d Horton f a m i l i e s . See the b i b l i o g r a p h y for the sources used i n t h i s process. For Horton A d m i n i s t r a t i o n s see R.G. 48, r e e l s 778, 780, 784, 787, 789, 790, 793, 795, 798, 800, 801, 804, 806, 809, 810, 813, 815, 818, 819. "^ "Vor Horton w i l l s between 1762 and 1831 see R.G. 48, r e e l s 712, 727, 728, 732, 736, 738, 739, 742, 744, 747-749, 751, 753, 754-756, 760, 764, 767, 770. 14 Benjamin Cleaveland's w i l l , R.G. 48, Kings Co., r e e l 712, v. I I , p. 25, probated March 27, 1811. "''^ John Bishop J r . ' s w i l l , R.G. 48, r e e l 712, p. 67, probated Sept. 9, 1815. P h i l i p J . Greven J r . , Four Generations; P o p u l a t i o n , Land and  Family i n C o l o n i a l Andover, Mass. (Ith a c a : 1970), pp.72-103; 125-175. 1 7The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n of the l i f e and death of Obadiah Benjamin i s derived from the Horton Census of 1770, R.R. A l l a n Benjamin, "Obadiah Benjamin of Nova S c o t i a " , v e r t i c a l f i l e : Genealogy: "Benjamin Family"; deeds of Obadiah Benjamin i n R.G. 47, v. 1273, book 1: p. 59, #53, p. 166, #9, p. 62, #11; book 2: pp. 234, 264, 265; book 3: pp. 87, 112, 177, 179, 398; book 4: pp. 9, 33, 85, 122; book 5: pp. 23, 34; Obadiah Benjamin's w i l l , RJ]. 48, King's Co., r e e l 712, p. 270, #66, a l s o King's Co. W i l l s , r e e l 728, B12, probated May 31, 1806. 18 Because seventeen was the age at which o f f s p r i n g were c l a s s i f i e d as a d u l t s on the Horton Census of 1770, i t i s assumed that t h i s was the age customarily recognized as the age of maturity. 101 19 Lebbeus H a r r i s J r . ' s w i l l , R.G. 48, King's Co., r e e l 744, no page, probated June 27, 1827. 20 James Lockhart's w i l l , R.G. 48, r e e l 712, p. 116, a l s o r e e l 749, L2, probated December 24, 1789. 2 1 J o h n Bishop J r . , RJ]. 48, r e e l 728, B19, probated Sept. 28, 1815; Samuel Hamilton, r e e l 744, H8, probated 1830; James Miner, R.G. 48 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n papers, r e e l 801, M12, probated Feb. 4, 1823; Cyrus Peck, r e e l 756, P l l , probated A p r i l 25, 1812. 22 The number of wives o u t l i v i n g t h e i r husbands i s c a l c u l a t e d from gene a l o g i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n , references i n w i l l s i n instances where the date of probate f o l l o w s soon a f t e r the date the w i l l was w r i t t e n and mentioned the w i f e ; and evidence of widows remarrying. 2 3 C y r u s Peck's Estate Papers i n R.G. 48, r e e l 712, v. II, p. 145 and r e e l 756, P l l , probated A p r i l 25, 1812. ^Andrew Davison's w i l l i n R.G. 48, r e e l 712, v. I, p. 25. 25 Samuel G r i f f i n g ' s w i l l , R.G. 48, r e e l 550, p. 31, probated Nov. 25, 1773. 26 Unless they owned property p r i o r to t h e i r marriage which was protected by a p r e n u p t i a l agreement. 27 P h i l i p J . Greven J r . , Four Generations, pp. 125-172. 2 7Benj'amin Peck J r . ' s w i l l i n R.G. 48, r e e l 712, #203. CHAPTER 5 Conclusion This study of New Englanders t a k i n g up land i n Horton Township, rev e a l s that the most powerful dynamic underlying the settlement process was the l u r e of the land. The promise of free land drew the New Englanders to Horton "in the beginning and t h e i r l i v e s there were d i r e c t e d by a d r i v e f or modest economic success i n which land was the primary commodity of exchange. The story of t h e i r l i v e s and l i v e l i h o o d s and the s o c i e t y they created i n d i c a t e s that l i f e i n t h i s f r o n t i e r community was a s t r u g g l e , but i t was not so much one of taming the land as of a c q u i r i n g and keeping i t . Almost immediately, a l l the township's land was d i v i d e d among the p r o p r i e t o r s , but the amount each rece i v e d v a r i e d according to d i s t i n c t i o n s o f s t a t u s , family s i z e and " a b i l i t y to c u l t i v a t e " . D i s p a r i t i e s on the ba s i s of land granted gave some p r o p r i e t o r s an i n i t i a l advantage over others and a l l grantees were conside r a b l y b e t t e r o f f than any latecomers who wanted to own land. This was the basis of i n e q u a l i t y i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of a community where land was both the symbol and essence o f wealth. Land changed hands q u i c k l y and oft e n during the f i r s t decade o f settlement. Some p r o p r i e t o r s q u i c k l y s o l d o f f t h e i r shares e a r l y and l e f t the township and u s u a l l y the colony. Others made a p r o f i t by s e l l i n g p o r t i o n s of t h e i r grants and remaining i n Horton. This temporary f l u i d i t y i n the land market enabled a small group of non-proprietors (who were 102 103 often the sons of grantees) to s e t t l e on Horton land. More importantly, most of the land passed i n t o the hands of only a few grantees. Many of these had been given the l a r g e r grants when they f i r s t s e t t l e d i n Horton because they had the resources to improve the land. These resources allowed them to appropriate even more land and the gap between the l a r g e s t and smallest landowner widened. As e a r l y as 1770 the top ten landowners c o n t r o l l e d three times the acreage of the seventy-eight smallest property holders. This imbalance i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of land p e r s i s t e d for at l e a s t the next two decades. The e x i s t i n g p a t t e r n of ownership changed l i t t l e and only one f i f t h of those who made t h e i r homes at Horton between 1770 and 1791 were able to buy land. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the township contained more than enough acreage to provide a l l household heads with farms, but the d r i v e to accumulate and the consequent reluctance to s e l l on the part of the landowners who c o n t r o l l e d the l i o n ' s share created an a r t i f i c i a l s c a r c i t y . This shortage meant that the community supported fewer farmers i n 1791 than twenty years e a r l i e r and the number of l a n d l e s s labourers increased s u b s t a n t i a l l y . Less i s known about the market f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l products at Horton but scant evidence suggests that a nascent commercial economy e x i s t e d from the beginning. Although they had yet to produce a subsistence i n a l l crops i n 1770, 43% of farmers r a i s e d e x t r a sheep to d r i v e to the market at H a l i f a x . As w e l l , i t i s reasonable to assume that commercial t i e s between the leaders of Horton s o c i e t y and the H a l i f a x e l i t e must have generated, or perhaps were the r e s u l t of other business t r a n s a c t i o n s for which documentary evidence no longer e x i s t s . Even so, i n the e a r l y years, 104 c o m m e r c i a l i s m was s t i l l more o f an a s p i r a t i o n t h a n a r e a l i t y . I n e f f e c t , t h e m a r k e t f o r l a n d r e p l a c e d t h e m a r k e t f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t s a s t h e m e c h a n i s m f o r e c o n o m i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . T h ese c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e e a r l y d e v e l o p m e n t o f H o r t o n d i v e r g e s h a r p l y f r o m t h e f i r s t p h a s e o f t h e r u r a l s e t t l e m e n t m o d e l d i s c u s s e d i n c h a p t e r o n e . A c c o r d i n g t o t h e m o d e l , i n a new c o m m u n i t y l a n d was a b u n d a n t an d a c c e s s i b l e , s o c i o e c o n o m i c d i s t i n c t i o n s n o n e x i s t e n t a n d t h e f i r s t few g e n e r a t i o n s o f s e t t l e r s more t h a n a d e q u a t e l y endowed w i t h l a n d . I n t h e s e s e t t i n g s , t h e f o c u s o f l i f e was t o p r o v i d e f o r f a m i l i e s a n d t o e n s u r e communal harmony t h r o u g h c o l l e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f l o c a l r e s o u r c e s . C e r t a i n l y t h i s was t r u e o f some New E n g l a n d t o w n s . S e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y A n d o v e r a n d Dedham M a s s . , f o r i n s t a n c e , w e r e s m a l l , c o h e s i v e , s t a b l e P u r i t a n common-w e a l t h s . C o l l e c t i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l a n d meant t h a t t h e s e c o n s e r v a t i v e , s u b s i s t e n c e f a r m c o m m u n i t i e s u s e d up t h e i r a c r e a g e o n l y g r a d u a l l y o v e r s e v e r a l g e n e r a t i o n s , a n d u n t i l a c r i s i s o f l a n d s h o r t a g e o c c u r r e d , t h e i r s o c i e t i e s w e r e o p e n , homogeneous a n d e g a l i t a r i a n . I t was o n l y by t h e m i d e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h a t t h e y b e g a n t o s u f f e r f r o m o v e r -p o p u l a t i o n , e c o n o m i c s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a n d p o l i t i c a l f a c t i o n a l i s m . 1 I m p l i c i t i n t h i s m o d e l i s t h e a b s e n c e o f a m a r k e t economy a n d a c o m m e r c i a l i s t i c o u t l o o k on t h e p a r t o f t h e i n h a b i t a n t s . I n s t e a d , l i n e a l f a m i l y v a l u e s , James H e n r e t t a h a s a r g u e d , f o r m e d t h e c o r e o f t h e " d e e p l y h e l d v a l u e s " o r m e n t a l i t e o f t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n i n c o l o n i a l 2 A m e r i c a . He m a i n t a i n s t h a t an i m b a l a n c e i n l a n d o w n e r s h i p c o u l d e v o l v e s i m p l y b e c a u s e most p e o p l e w e r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d i n a c c u m u l a t i o n . They o n l y w a n t e d what t h e y n e e d e d t o s u s t a i n t h e i r f a m i l i e s . Y e a r l y s u b s i s t e n c e a n d t h e l o n g - t e r m c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e f a m i l y w e r e t h e i r g o a l s . When t h e m a r k e t 105 for commodities was weak, only subsistence a g r i c u l t u r e was p o s s i b l e ; economic goals r e f l e c t e d geographic r e a l i t i e s . Where markets e x i s t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n was nevertheless circumscribed by s o c i a l values. Primacy of k i n , forgiveness of debt, cooperative work p r a c t i c e s and the absence of "innovative r i s k - t a k i n g behavior" a l l i n h i b i t e d the free play of market forces. In assuming t h a t ' l a n d was acquired only f o r i t s use value, Henretta ignores the importance of accumulation for purposes of exchange and status-enhancement. And yet these motivations are c r u c i a l to understanding the dynamics of land ownership at Horton and i t s impact on the community's evol v i n g character. The f l u r r y of t r a d i n g i n land during the 1760s g r e a t l y outpaced a g r i c u l t u r a l development. Whether or not they wanted to p a r t i c i -pate i n the d r i v e to accumulate, a l l r e s i d e n t s were a f f e c t e d by i t . Few r e s i s t e d re-shaping t h e i r landholding i n some way. This process i d e n t i f i e d the leaders and l e s s e r s o r t s and had r a m i f i c a t i o n s f o r other aspects of community l i f e . Economic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , which was i n place from v i r -t u a l l y the beginning o f settlement, was as important as the l i m i t a t i o n s o f the Nova S c o t i a environment i n determining the d i r e c t i o n and extent of community development. Success, measured according to the s i z e of one's landholding, was not a v a i l a b l e to everyone. As a r e s u l t , when time came to t r a n s f e r t h e i r w o r l d l y goods to t h e i r c h i l d r e n , the f i r s t generation of Hortonians p r a c t i s e d an unusually high rate of primogeniture. Only a s i z e a b l e landholding could ensure the family's place i n the community. The perpetuation of s t a t u s was guaranteed by passing on the family farm i n t a c t to one h e i r . 106 Because of i t s socioeconomic r e l a t i o n s h i p s based on land ownership, Horton more c l o s e l y resembled the commercialized areas of r u r a l New England than the subsistence farm communities of Andover and Dedham. S p r i n g f i e l d , Mass., for instance, was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1636 as a fur t r a d i n g post and q u i c k l y became the major merchandising centre i n the upper Connecticut Valley."* I t was a h i g h l y commercialized developmental com-munity whose s o c i e t y was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n e q u a l i t y , bankruptcy and s o c i a l c o n f l i c t from the beginning. In S p r i n g f i e l d , as i n Horton, "patterns o f unequal land d i s t r i b u t i o n appeared with the town's founding 4 and i n t e n s i f i e d as the century progressed". In both communities, t h i s i n i t i a l i n e q u a l i t y l e d to a high ra t e of land tenancy and economic s t r a t i -f i c a t i o n . Those having the f i n a n c i a l wherewithal took advantage o f t h e i r i n i t i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s to achieve economic and s o c i a l dominance i n the community. In S p r i n g f i e l d , the Pynchon family c o n t r o l l e d v i r t u a l l y every aspect of community l i f e through a s o p h i s t i c a t e d network of f i n a n c i a l dependence. In Horton, power was l i k e l y shared among a handful of the most i n f l u e n t i a l landowners. The l a r g e s t of these, Joseph Gray, never gained a s t r a n g l e h o l d on the community as the Pynchons had. Perhaps weaker market p o t e n t i a l , poorer i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , and the underdevelopment of Horton's resources l e f t Gray with fewer o p p o r t u n i t i e s to entrench h i s power than he would have had i n S p r i n g f i e l d . Some of the wider i m p l i c a t i o n s of the experience of places l i k e S p r i n g f i e l d and Horton seem c l e a r . A c q u i s i t i v e n e s s was the motor o f c o l o n i z a t i o n and formed the c e n t r a l tendency i n the ment a l i t y of the s e t t l e r s who founded these communities. In S p r i n g f i e l d , " m a t e r i a l oppor- . t u n i t y , not organic u n i t y , governed the i n h a b i t a n t s ' behavior"."' 107 I n d i v i d u a l i s t i c goals l e d to a high l e v e l of economic d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and a weak sense of community. In Horton, a c q u i s i t i v e n e s s was more narrowly expressed i n the accumulation of r e a l property. There too, communal needs were subordinated to personal p r o s p e r i t y . C l e a r l y , James Lemon's " l i b e r a l i n d i v i d u a l i s m " by which people were d i r e c t e d "toward economic growth, toward success defined by wealth ... and toward accumulation as a goal i n i t s own r i g h t " ^ was at work at Horton. In the broader frame, the s e t t l i n g of Horton must be recognized as part of the c o l o n i z a t i o n of North America, a continuum i n i t i a t e d i n the seventeenth century and l a s t i n g w e l l i n t o the t w e n t i e t h . By focusing on some of the c e n t r a l elements and processes i n v o l v e d i n the s e t t l i n g of Europeans overseas, Cole H a r r i s has o f f e r e d a comparative a n a l y t i c a l 1 framework. H a r r i s has argued that changed circumstances i n new s e t t i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among land, labour and markets, l e d to the emergence of d r a s t i c a l l y s i m p l i f i e d versions of s o c i e t y i n which most of the socioeconomic hierarchy and r e g i o n a l v a r i e t y of l o c a l European r u r a l l i f e had been pared away. In essence, e a s i e r access to land permitted the r e a l i z a t i o n of the deep-seated d e s i r e f o r p r i v a t e c o n t r o l of the land. The landscape was marked by i n d i v i d u a l family rather than c o l l e c t i v e farming and dispersed rather than concentrated settlement. Eve n t u a l l y and i n e l u c t a b l y , population pressure on a l i m i t e d supply of land and improvements through c l e a r i n g and c u l t i v a t i o n , r a i s e d land prices and r e s t r i c t e d land-based opportunity. The poor could no longer a f f o r d to own land and became a supply of cheap a g r i c u l t u r a l labour. At the same time, as markets improved some had the opportunity to become r i c h and s o c i e t y s t r a t i f i e d according to wealth. Nevertheless, on the 108 c o n t i n e n t a l s c a l e , the opportunity associated with access to land sur-v i v e d . Settlement r o l l e d westward across twenty degrees of l a t i t u d e and again and again the s e l e c t i v e pressures at work i n new s e t t i n g s i n f l u e n c e d the i n i t i a l s e t t l i n g . To measure the extent to which the settlement process at Horton s i m p l i f i e d the s o c i e t y of the New Englanders who moved there would r e q u i r e d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the economic and s o c i a l circumstances i n the Connecticut towns from which they had come. What i s c l e a r from t h i s study of Horton Township, however, i s that as H a r r i s suggests, the most important v a r i a b l e i n the establishment of the new settlement was the r o l e o f the land. In the very beginning, the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f land meant that a l l who came to Horton could be guaranteed a s i z e a b l e farm on which they could achieve family-centered independence. This profoundly a f f e c t e d communal r e l a t i o n s , the s t r u c t u r e of the economy and the settlement p a t t e r n . But Horton diverges from the c y c l e as o u t l i n e d by H a r r i s because of the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f land s p e c u l a t i o n to the community's development. Speculation q u i c k l y changed the terms of access to land so that land-based opportunity became r e s t r i c t e d , s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and i n e q u a l i t y were created, and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n tendencies were blunted. I t remains to be seen i f the p a t t e r n of development d i r e c t e d by s p e c u l a t i o n and concentrated land ownership i n the f i r s t few decades of settlement had f a r - r e a c h i n g e f f e c t s on the e v o l u t i o n of Horton. Were the l a r g e landholders s u c c e s s f u l i n t r a n s l a t i n g t h e i r holdings i n t o tenant e s t a t e s ? Did some ev e n t u a l l y s e l l at a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o f i t ? I f so, d i d the i m p l i c i t r e - d i s t r i b u t i o n of lands lead to greater e q u a l i t y among landowners? Or a l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f these property holders died with t h e i r 108A estates i n t a c t , did their heirs perpetuate the pattern of concentrated ownership, or did they have other p r i o r i t i e s ? How did the community change as the advancement of agriculture and the expansion of markets gave cultivated land greater value than speculative real estate that lay idl e ? The s e t t l i n g of Horton Township was essentially the movement of a group of like-minded individuals to a new land. They moved to the Nova Scotia frontier to get ahead by exploiting the opportunities of the new land. The community that evolved reflected t h i s interplay between people and land. It i s s i g n i f i c a n t to our understanding of the h i s t o r i c a l geography of Nova Scotia that at Horton, one of Nova Scotia's most viable a g r i c u l t u r a l d i s t r i c t s , there i s a closing o f f of opportunity within the f i r s t generation of settlement. 109 F o o t n o t e s P h i l i p J. Greven J r . , Four Generations i b i d . ; Kenneth A. Lockridge, "Land Population and the E v o l u t i o n o f New England S o c i e t y , 1630-1790", Past and Present, no. 39 ( A p r i l 1968), pp. 62-80. 2 James A. Henretta, " F a m i l i e s and Farms: M e n t a l i t e i n P r e - I n d u s t r i a l America", W i l l i a m and Mary Qua r t e r l y , 3rd s e r i e s , v. XXXV (1978), pp. 3-32. "^Stephen Innes, Labour In A New Land. Economy and Society i n  Seventeenth-Century S p r i n g f i e l d ( P r i n c e t o n : 1983). 4 I b i d . , p. 45. ^ I b i d . , x v i i . James T. Lemon, "Communications. Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Families and Farms: Mentalite" i n P r e - I n d u s t r i a l America'", W i l l i a m and  Mary Quarterly, 3rd s e r i e s , v. XXXVII, no. 4 (Oct. 1980), p. 695. 7R. Cole H a r r i s , "The S i m p l i f i c a t i o n of Europe Overseas", i b i d . ; "The H i s t o r i c a l Geography of North American Regions", American Behavioral  S c i e n t i s t , 22 (1978), pp. 115-30. BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY DOCUMENTS A l l references are to the holdings of the Public Archives of Nova Scotia unless otherwise specified. Record Group (RG) Series "Dispatches From the Board of Trade and Plantations and the Secretary of State to the Governors of Nova Scotia, 1756-1799", R.G. 1, v.30-33. "Dispatches From the Governors to the Board of Trade and Plantations", R.G. 1, v. 37, Oct. 26, 1760 - Nov. 25, 1781. "Letter Books and Transcripts of Dispatches From the Governors", R.G. 1, v. 44. "Commissions", FLG. 1, v. 164-168. Isaac Deschamps, "Description of Nova Scotia, 1782", R.G. 1, v. 221, #69. "Papers of the township grants, memorials, m i l i t i a and repeal of laws against Catholics, 1757-1781", J^G. 1, v. 222. "Memorials, submissions of accounts for payment and petitions for land grants, 1783-1878", f^G. 1, v. 223. "Manuscript Documents of Nova Scotia", R.G. 1, v. 226-228. "Records of the Legislative Assembly", R.G. 1, v. 301. "Royal Proclamations, Proclamations By the Lord Justices and the Governors of Nova Scotia, 1748-1823", R.G. 1, v. 346. "Royal Instructions to the Governors, Governors General and Lieutenant Governors of N.S., 1713-1867", RX. 1, v. 348-352; v. 354-356, "Orders of H.M. King i n Council to the Governors of N.S., 1752-1852", R.G. 1, v. 354-356. "Papers of the Settlement of Townships after the removal of the Acadians with some papers of the L o y a l i s t s , 1759-1784, R.G. 1, v. 359. "Alphabetical l i s t s of names of Proprietors of the old Townships, n.d. but probably 1760-1761.", R^ TJ. 1, v. 360. 110 I l l " W r i t s o f P a r t i t i o n f o r t h e t o w n s h i p s o f F a l m o u t h , H o r t o n , N e w p o r t , L o n d o n d e r r y , Y a r m o u t h and O n s l o w R.G. -1, v. 3 6 1 . H o r t o n T o w n s h i p P a r t i t i o n B ook, R.G. 1, v. 362. "A 'Land Book' c o n t a i n i n g b o u n d a r i e s o f t o w n s h i p s a n d o t h e r t r a c t s o f l a n d g r a n t e d b e t w e e n 2 2 / 1 0 / 1 7 6 0 - 2 8 / 0 9 / 1 7 6 7 " , R.G. 1, v. 374. " L i s t o f E s c h e a t s " , R.G. 1, v. 377. R e c o r d s o f Deeds o f L a n d i n Nova S c o t i a r e c o r d e d w h i l e t h e I m p e r i a l Stamp A c t was i n f o r c e , 1 0 / 1 2 /1765 t o 2 6 / 0 4 / 1 7 6 6 , R.G. 1, v. 3 9 3 . " A c c o u n t s o f Q u i t R e n t s R.G. 1, v. 4 0 3 - 4 0 7 . "A R e t u r n o f t h e S t a t e o f t h e T o w n s h i p o f H o r t o n , 1 7 7 0 " , R.G. 1, v. 4 4 3 , #15; r e p r i n t e d i n P.A.N.S. R e p o r t , 1934, A p p e n d i x B, pp. 3 9 - 4 2 . Nova S c o t i a P o l l Tax L i s t s 1 7 9 0 - 1 7 9 5 , R.G. 1, v. 4 4 4 . " L e t t e r s o f t h e G o v e r n o r s t o t h e B o a r d o f T r a d e a n d P l a n t a t i o n s " , R.G. 2, v. 3 5 - 3 7 . " M i n u t e s o f t h e E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l " , /T^G. 3, v. 1 8 8 , 2 0 4 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 2 . " R e c o r d s o f t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A s s e m b l y , A s s e m b l y P a p e r s , 1 7 6 3 - 1 8 1 5 " , R.G. 5, S e r . A. " R e c o r d s o f t h e L e g i s l a t i v e A s s e m b l y . A g r i c u l t u r e " , R.G. 5, S e r i e s GP, v. 1. " L e t t e r B o o k s o f t h e P r o v i n c i a l S e c r e t a r y " , R.G. 7, v . 136 ( O c t . 9, 1760 -O c t . 16, 1 7 8 4 ) . " R e c o r d s o f t h e K i n g s Co. A g r i c u l t u r a l S o c i e t y " , R.G. 8, v. 1 5 . P a p e r s o f t h e K i n g s C o u n t y A g r i c u l t u r a l S o c i e t y , 1 8 1 9 - 1 8 2 5 , R.G. 8, v. 6. Nova S c o t i a L a n d P a p e r s , R^G. 2 0 , S e r . "C", v. 5 0 , 8 9 , 9 6 , 1 5 6 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 3 , 176. R e c o r d s o f t h e I n f e r i o r C o u r t o f Common P l e a s , K i n g s C o u n t y , R.G. 3 7 , 4 a . K i n g s C o u n t y D e e d s , J ^ G . 4 7 , r e e l s 1263 ( i n d e x ) , 1 2 7 3 - 1 2 7 6 ( 1 7 6 6 - 1 8 3 6 ) . H a n t s C o u n t y W i l l s , R.G. 4 8 , r e e l 5 50. K i n g s C o u n t y N.S. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P a p e r s , R.G. 4 8 , r e e l s 7 7 8 - 8 1 9 . K i n g s C o u n t y , N.S. W i l l B o o k s , j ^ G . 4 8 , r e e l s 7 1 2 , 7 2 7 , 7 2 8 , 7 3 2 , 7 3 6 , 7 3 8 , 7 3 9 , 7 4 2 , 7 4 4 , 7 4 7 , 7 4 8 , 7 4 9 , 7 5 1 , 7 5 3 , 7 5 4 , 7 5 5 , 7 5 6 , 7 6 0 , 7 6 4 , 7 6 7 , 7 7 0 . 112 Manuscript Group (MG) Series Court of Quarter Sessions, Records, Kings County, 1760-1810, M.G. 1, v. 181-186. "Deschamps Papers", M.G. 1, v. 258. Miscellaneous Material on Early Settlement, M.G. 1, v. 471, #2. Clarke, A.H., "Pre-Loyalist Geography of Nova Scotia, 1760-1780", M.G. 1, v. 1512, #F. Horton Township Book,"1751-1889, M.G. 4, v. 74. "Scrapbook on Grand Pre and Horton", NLG. 9, v. 18, v. 170. Letter by Isaac Deschamps referring to French prisoners, M.G. 100, v. 20, #14. New Light Church, Minutes of Meetings, 1778-1795, M.G. 100, v. 126, #25. Other "Extract of a plan presented to His Majesty by the Earl of Halifax for settlement of His Majesty's Colony of N.S." P.A.N.S. Report, 1971, pp. 21-50. Micro: Miscellaneous: Societies: Society for the Propagation of the Gospel i n Foreign Parts, reel 73. Micro: Places: Nova Scotia Land Grants. "Daybook of Timothy Bishop, 1775-1824", Micro: Biography: Bishop Family. Charles Morris J r . , "Description and State of the New Settlements i n Nova Scotia i n 1761 by the Chief Surveyor", P.A.C. Report, 1904, pp. 289-300. Morse, Robert. "Report on N.S. 1784", P.A.C. Report 1884, pp. x x v i i - l i x . "Report by Capt. Morris to Governor Shirley upon his Survey of Lands i n Nova Scotia Available for Protestant Settl e r s , 1749" i n P.A.C. Report, 1912, pp. "State and Condition of the Province of Nova Scotia Together With Some Observations ... Oct. 29, 1763", P.A.N.S. Report, 1933, pp. 21-26. 113 SECONDARY SOURCES  Nova Scotia Acheson, T.W. "A Study In the H i s t o r i c a l Demography of A Loyalist County", Histoire Sociale/Social History, 1 (1968), pp. 53-65. Armstrong, M.W. The Great Awakening i n Nova Scotia 1776-1809. Hartford, Connecticut: American Society of Church History, 1948. B e l l , W.P. The Foreign Protestants and the Settlement of Nova Scotia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961. Bird, J.B. "Settlement Patterns i n Maritime Canada, 1687-1786", i n Geographical Review (1955), pp. 385-404. Blackmer, Hugh A l l i s o n . A g r i c u l t u r a l Transformation i n a Regional System: The Annapolis Valley, N.S. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford, 1974. Brebner, John B a r t l e t t . The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia. A Marginal  Colony During the Revolutionary Years. N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1937. Bumsted, J.M. Henry A l l i n e . Hantsport, N.S.: Lancelot Press, 1984. . "The Origins of the Maritime Baptists: A New Document", Dalhousie Review, v. LIX, no. 1 (Spring 1969), pp. 190-192. . "Puritan and Yankee Rediviva: Recent Writings on Early New England of Interest to At l a n t i c Scholars". Acadiensis, v. I I , no. 1 (Autumn 1972), pp. 3-21. Cameron, Hazel G. Avondale and i t s People. 2 vols, n.p., 19.74. Clark, Andrew H i l l . Acadia. The Geography of Early Nova Scotia to 1760. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Davison, James Doyle (ed.). Mud Creek. The Story of the Town of Wo l f v i l l e , N.S. W o l f v i l l e : The Wo l f v i l l e H i s t o r i c a l Society, 1985. Duncanson, John V. Falmouth - A New England Township i n Nova Scotia  1760-1965. B e l l e v i l l e , Ont.: Mika Publishing Co., 1983. . Newport, Nova Scotia: A Rhode Island Township. B e l l e v i l l e , Ont.: Mika Publishing Co., 1985. Eagles, Douglas E. A History of Horton Township. Sarnia, Ont.: the author, 1975. . Horton Township Records, 1761-1895. Sarnia, Ont.: the author, 1974. 114 Eaton, Arthur W.H. The History of King's County, N.S. Salem, Mass.: The Salem Press Co., 1910. . "Rhode Island Settlers on the French Lands i n Nova Scotia i n 1760 and 1761". Americana. (January 1915), pp. 1-43. Eaton, Ernest L. "The Dykelands". Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Quarterly, v. 10, no. 3/4, 1980, pp. 197-211. . "The Sheffield Farm and Other Properties in Cornwallis Township". V e r t i c a l F i l e , v. 8. . "The Survey Plan of Cornwallis Township, Kings Co." N.S. H i s t o r i c a l Review, v. 1, no. 2, 1981, pp. 16-33. E l l s , Margaret. " S e t t l i n g the Loyalists i n Nova Scotia". Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association Report, 1934, pp. 105-109. . "Clearing The Decks For The Loyalists". Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association Report, 1933, pp. 43-58. Ennals, Peter and Holdsworth, Deryck. "Vernacular Architecture and the Cultural Landscape of the Maritime Provinces - A Reconnaisance" i n Acadiensis. 10 (1981), pp. 86-106. Ferguson, C.B. "Pre-Revolutionary Settlements In Nova Scotia", Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections. V. XXXVII, (1970), pp. 5-23. Flewelling, Susan. "The Diary of Mary Ann Norris, 1818-1838", Dalhousie  Review, V. XXIX, no. 4 (Jan. 1950), pp. 439-450; V. XXX, no. 1 (Ap r i l 1950), pp. 90-103. French, G.S. "Religion and Society i n Late Eighteenth Century Nova Scotia" Review a r t i c l e i n Acadiensis, IV, no. 2 (Spring 1975), pp. 102-111. Gowans, Alan. "New England Architecture in Nova Scotia" i n Art  Quarterly (Spring 1962), pp. 7-33. G r i f f i t h s , Naomi. "The Golden Age: Acadian L i f e , 1713-1748". Histoire  Sociale - Social History. V. XVII, no. 33 (May 1984), pp. 21-34. Halburton, T.C. A General Description of N.S. Halifax: Pr. at the Royal Acadian School, 1823. ' An H i s t o r i c a l and S t a t i s t i c a l Account of Nova Scotia. 2 v o l . Halifax: Joseph Howe, 1829. Harvey, D.C. "The Struggle For The New England Form of Township Govern-ment i n Nova Scotia". Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Association Report, 1933, pp. 15-23. 115 Kirkconnell, Watson (ed.). "The Diary of Deacon Elihu Woodworth, 1835-1836". W o l f v i l l e : Wolfville H i s t o r i c a l Society, 1972. . "The Lost Puritans (of Horton and Cornwallis)" typescript, Acadia University Archives, W o l f v i l l e , N.5., n.d. Longley, R.S. "The Coming of the New England Planters to the Annapolis Valley". N.S. H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections. V. XXXIII (1961), pp. 81-101. Longley, J r . , H.G. "A H i s t o r i c a l Comparison of Commodities, Prices and Customs in the Annapolis Valley (A Study of Account Books of di s t i n c t periods•beginning with the period 1795-1804)". Longley, Ronald Stewart. "New England Planters of Nova Scotia. A t l a n t i c  Advocate. V. 50, no. 12 (Aug. 1960), pp. 43-47. MacKinnon, I.F. Settlements And Churches i n Nova Scotia. Montreal: Walker Press, 1930. Mart e l l , J.S. Immigration to and Emigration from Nova Scotia, 1815-1838. P.A.N.S.-: Publication no. 6, 1942. Milner, W.C. The Basin of Minas and Its Early S e t t l e r s . The author, n.d. Moorsom, Capt. W. Letters From Nova Scotia; Comprising Sketches of a  Young Country. London: H. Colburn and R. Bentley, 1830. Munroe, Rev. James. History and Description and State of the Southern and Western Townships of Nova Scotia i n 1795. P.A.N.S. Report, 1946. Murdoch, Beamish. A History of Nova Scotia. 3 vols. Halifax: J. Barnes, ' 1865-1867. Nova Scotia. The Perpetual Acts of the general assemblies of H.M. province of N.S., as revised, i n the year 1783. Halifax: Anthony Henry, 1784. Rawlyck, G.A. H i s t o r i c a l Essays on the Atla n t i c Provinces. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., Carleton Library, 1967. . "Nova Scotia and the American Revolution Reconsidered". Dalhousie Review. V. XLIII. (Autumn, 1963), pp. 379-394. Raymond, W.0. "Colonel Alexander McNutt and the Pre-Loyalist Settlements of Nova Scotia". Trans. R.S.C., 1911 I I , 23-115; 1912 I, 201-215. "Rev. James Murdoch". Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections, v. I I , pp. 100-109. Snowdon, James. "Footprints i n the Marsh Mud: P o l i t i c s and Land Settle ment in the Township of Sackville, 1760-1800". Fredericton, N.B.: University of New Brunswick, M.A. thesis, 1975. Stephenson, Jean. "The Connecticut Settlement of Nova Scotia Prior to the Revolution". P.A.N.S. micro 5836. Stewart, Gordon and Rawlyck, George. A People Highly Favoured of God. The Nova Scotia Yankees and the American Revolution. Toronto: Macmillan, 1972. Trask, Deborah. L i f e How Short. Eternity How Long. Gravestone Carving  and Carvers i n Nova Scotia. Halifax: The Nova Scotia Museum, 1978 Wainwright, Rev. Kennedy B. "A Comparative Study i n Nova Scotian Rural Economy 1788-1872, Based on Recently Discovered Books of Old Firms in Kings County, N.S." N.S. H i s t o r i c a l Society Collections, v. 30 1954, pp. 78-119. Whitelaw, Marjory (ed.). The Dalhousie Journals. 2 vols, n.p.: Oberon Press, 1978. "Colonel John Winslow's Diary at Grand Pre", i n Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society, Collections, v. 3, pp. 71-196. Wright, Esther Clark. Planters and Pioneers. Hantsport: Lancelot Press, 1978. Wynn, Graeme. "The Maritimes: The Geography of Fragmentation and Underdevelopment" i n L.D. McCann (ed.), Heartland and Hinterland. Scarborough, Ont.: 1982. New England Arsenberg, Conrad. "American Communities". American Anthropologist. 57 (1955), pp. 1143-1162. Bender, Thomas. Community and Social Change i n America. N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1978. Berkin, Carol and Norton, Mary Beth. Women of America: A History. Boston: Houghton, M i f f l i n Co., 1979. Bumsted, J.M. and Lemon, J.T. "New Approaches i n Early American Studies The Local Community i n New England". Histoire Sociale/Social  History 2 (1968), pp. 98-112. Bumsted, J.M. "Religion, Finance and Democracy i n Massachusetts: The Town of Norton as a Case Study". The Journal of American History. LVII, no. 4 (March, 1971), pp. 817-831. 117 Bushman, Richard L. From Puritan to Yankee: Character and Social Order  in Connecticut, 1690-1765. Toronto: Geo. J. McLeod Ltd., 1970. Caulkins, Frances M. A History of New London, Connecticut. New London: H.D. Utley, 1895. Clark, Charles E. The Eastern Frontier. The Settlement of Northern New  England. 1610-1763. N.Y.: Knopf, 1970. Clark, S.D. Church and Sect in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1948 . Cook, Edward M. J r . "Geography and History: Spatial Approaches to Early American History". H i s t o r i c a l Methods, v. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 19-28. Daniels, Bruce C. "Economic Development i n Colonial and Revolutionary Connecticut: An Overview". William and Mary Quarterly, Series 3, v. 37 (1980), pp. 429-450. . "Probate Court Inventories and Colonial American History: Historiography, Problems and Results". Histoire Sociale/Social  History. V. IX, no. 18 (November, 1976), pp. 387-406. Demos, John. A L i t t l e Commonwealth: Family L i f e i n Plymouth Colony. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970. . "Notes on Li f e i n Plymouth Colony". William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 22 (1965), pp. 264-86. Dunn, Richard S. "The Social History of Early New England". American  Quarterly. V. 24, no. 5 (December, 1972), pp. 661-679. Gaustad, Edwin Scott. The Great Awakening i n New England. Mass.: Peter Smith, 1965. Grant, Charles S. Democracy in the Connecticut Frontier Town of Kent. N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co., 1972. Greene, Jack P. and Pole, J.R. Colonial B r i t i s h America. Essays i n the  New History of the Early Modern Era. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984. Greven, P h i l i p J. J r . "Family Structure i n Seventeenth-Century Andover, Massachusetts". William and Mary Quarterly, 23 (1966), pp. 234-256. . Four Generations: Population, Land and Family i n Colonial Andover, Mass. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. . " H i s t o r i c a l Demography and Colonial America". William and Mary Quarterly, 24 (1967), pp. 438-54. 118 Gross, Robert. The Minutemen and Their World. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson L t d . , 1976. H a r r i s , R. Cole. "The H i s t o r i c a l Geography of North American Regions". American B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n t i s t , 22 (1978), pp. 115-30. . "The S i m p l i f i c a t i o n of Europe Overseas". Annals, A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers, v. 67 (1977), pp. 469-483. Henretta, James A. " F a m i l i e s and Farms: M e n t a l i t e i n P r e - I n d u s t r i a l America". W i l l i a m and Mary Qua r t e r l y , 3rd s e r i e s , V. XXXV (1978), pp. 3-32. . Reply to "Communications. Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Families and Farms: M e n t a l i t e i n P r e - I n d u s t r i a l America'". W i l l i a m  and Mary Q u a r t e r l y . 3rd s e r i e s , V. XXXVII, no. 4 (Oct. 1980), pp. 688-700. . "The Morphology of New England Society i n the C o l o n i a l Period". Journal of I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y H i s t o r y , V. XI, no. 2 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 379-398. Innes, Stephen. Labour i n a New Land. Economy and Society i n Seventeenth- Century S p r i n g f i e l d . P rinceton U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1983. Jedrey, Christopher M. Family and Community i n Eighteenth Century New  England. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1979. K e l l y , Kenneth. "The Impact of Nineteenth Century A g r i c u l t u r a l Settlement on the Land", i n J.D. Wood (ed.), P erspectives on Landscape and  Settlement i n Nineteenth Century Ontario. Carleton L i b r a r y , 1975. Lemon, James T. The Best Poor Man's Country. A Geographical Study of E a r l y Southeastern Pennsylvania. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1972. '. "Communications. Comment on James A. Henretta's 'Families And Farms: M e n t a l i t y i n P r e - I n d u s t r i a l America 1". W i l l i a m and Mary  Quarterly. 3rd s e r i e s , V. XXXVII, no. 4 (October 1980), pp. 688-700. . " E a r l y Americans and t h e i r S o c i a l Environment". Journal of H i s t o r i c a l Geography. 6, 2 (1980), pp. 115-131. Lockridge, Kenneth A. A New England Town: The F i r s t Hundred Years.  Dedham Massachusetts, 1636-1736. New York: Norton, 1970. . "Land, Population and the E v o l u t i o n of New England S o c i e t y , 1630-1790". Past and Present, no. 39 ( A p r i l 1968), pp. 62-80. . "The Population of Dedham, Massachusetts, 1636-1736". Economic H i s t o r y Review. 19 (1966), pp. 318-44. 119 Mathews, Lois Kimball. The Expansion of New England. Boston: n.p., 1909. Mit c h e l l , Robert D. Commercialism and the Frontier. Perspectives on the  Early Shenandoah Valley. C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e : University of V i r g i n i a Press, 1977. . "Commentary: The Simplification of Europe Overseas". Annals, American Association of Geographers, v o l . 69, no. 3 (1979), pp. 474-476. Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty's Daughters. The Revolutionary Experience of  American women, 1750-1800. Toronto: L i t t l e , Brown & Co., 1980. Parr, Joy. "Hired Men: Ontario Agricultural Wage Labour i n H i s t o r i c a l Perspective". Labour/Le Travail, 15 (Spring 1985), pp. 91-103. Pollock, Adrian. "Commentary - Europe Simplified". Annals, Association of American Geographers, vol. 69, no. 3 (1979), pp. 476-477. Powell, Sumner Chilton. Puritan V i l l a g e : The Formation of a New England  Town. N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1965. Rothenberg, Winnifred B. "The Market and Massachusetts Farmers, 1750-1855". Journal of Economic History. V. XLI, no. 2 (June 1981), pp. 283-314. Rutman, Darrett B. "Community Study". H i s t o r i c a l Methods. V. 13, no. 1 (Winter 1980), pp. . Husbandmen of Plymouth: Farms and Villages i n the Old Colony, 1620-1692. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Walsh, James. "The Great Awakening i n the F i r s t Congregational Church of Woodbury, Connecticut". William and Mary Quarterly. 3rd series, V. XXVII (1971), pp. 543-567. Wood, Joseph. "Elaboration of the Settlement System: The New England Village i n the Federal Period". Journal of H i s t o r i c a l Geography. 10, 4 (1984), pp. 331-356. . "Village and Community i n Early Colonial New England". Journal of H i s t o r i c a l Geography, v. 8, 4 (1982), pp. 333-346. Zuckerman, Michael. Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns i n the Eighteenth Century. New York: Knopf, 1970. 120 GENEALOGICAL SOURCES Benjamin, R. Allan. "Obadiah Benjamin of Nova Scotia". V e r t i c a l f i l e : Genealogy: "Benjamin Family". Bishop, B.R. The Davison Family. 4 vols. W o l f v i l l e : Acadia University, Vaughan Library. . The Bennett Family, King's County. W o l f v i l l e , N.S.: Acadia University, Vaughan Library. "Bishop Family Papers". M.G. 1, V. 130-134. Boggs, W.E. and Bishop, B.R. Geneology of the Bishop Family of Horton. Micro: B622. Brainerd, Lawrence. Ful l e r Family of Plymouth Colony, Connecticut and  Nova Scotia. 1963 ed. Micro: Biography: F u l l e r Family. Caldwell, Charles T. H i s t o r i c a l Sketch of the Coldwell Family ... of  Horton. Micro: 688. Calnek, W.A. A History of the County of Annapolis. B e l l e v i l l e , Ont.: Mika Publishing, 1972. Cornwallis Township Book. Births 1786-1823; deaths 1760-1825. M^. 4, no. 18. Crowell Scrapbook. Micro: Places: New England. Crowell, Edwin. History of Barrington Township. B e l l e v i l l e , Ont.: Mika Publishing, 1974. Dictionary of Canadian Biography. V. 14, 1979. Duncanson, John V. A L i s t i n g of the descendants of Nathan Kinnie who settled at Horton, Nova Scotia i n the early 1760s. Falmouth, N.S.: the author, 1962. Eagles, D.E. The Churches and Cemetaries of Horton Township. Sarnia: the author, 1974. . A Genealogical History of Long Island. (North Grand Pr£), Kings Co., N.S. Sarnia: the author, 1977. "Family Tree of the Hamilton - Harris Family". V e r t i c a l f i l e : "Hamilton-Harris Family of Grand Pr£, no. 12.". "Fuller Family Genealogy". Micro: Biography: F u l l e r Family. "Genealogical information on the Full e r Family". M.G. 1, V. 1174. "Genealogical Notes on the Harris Family". M.G. 100, V. 13, no. 9. Johnson, Thomas M. "The Miner Family, Horton Branch". Micro: M664. "Horton United Church, Register of Baptisms, 1819-1904; Marriages 1825 1895; Burials 1901, 1905". Micro: Churches: Grand Pre", reel 1, vols. 1 and 2. "Huntley Family Genealogy, 1721-1941, Kings Co.", M^. 100, Vol. 166, no. 28. Kings County Marriages performed by Handley Chipman, J.P., 1762, M.G. 100, Vol. 172, no. 24. Marble, Allan E. A Catalogue of Published Genealogies of N.S. Families Genealogical Committee of N.S.H.S. Society, publication no. 2, Halifax, 1979. Marriage Bonds, Province of Nova Scotia, 1763-1854. R.G. 32. Micro: Biography: "Miner Family, Horton" Miner, Walter H. "The Miner Family, Horton Branch". Micro: M664. Newcombe, B.L. The Palmeter Family of King's County, N.S. M.G. 1, v. 1538. "Notes Concerning the Hamilton Family of Sa c k v i l l e , N.S. and Horton". M.G. 100, Vol. 161, no. 15. "Notes on the Bremner and Mitc h e l l Families". M.G. 1, V. 1466, no. 269 "Notes on the Fu l l e r Family". M.G. 100, V. 12, no. 13. "Notes on the Lathrap Family". YLG. 100, V. 12, no. 28. "Notes on the Lockhart Family of Nova Scotia". M.G. 100, V. 37, no. 38 Punch, Terence M. Genealogical Research i n Nova Scotia. Halifax: Petheric Press, 1978. Shand, G.T. "Descendants of Lebbeus Harris Senior i n Nova Scotia". M.G. 100, Vol. 161, no. 55. Robertson, Allen B. "The Family of Rolen Rogers, A New England Planter in Kings Co." Nova Scotia H i s t o r i c a l Society Quarterly. V. 9, no (June 1979), pp. 177-187. 1 2 2 S t . J o h n ' s A n g l i c a n C h u r c h , H o r t o n . " P a r i s h R e g i s t e r , 1 7 7 4 - 1 7 9 5 " . M i c r o : C h u r c h e s : S t . P a u l ' s A n g l i c a n , H a l i f a x , r e e l 2 , r e g i s t e r 3 . " U n i t e d B a p t i s t C h u r c h R e c o r d s ( 1 7 7 8 - 1 8 1 9 ) " . t r a n s c r i p t , W o l f v i l l e , N . S . : A c a d i a U n i v e r s i t y , V a u g h a n L i b r a r y . W h i t e , E l i z a b e t h P e a r s o n . " N o v a S c o t i a S e t t l e r s f r o m C h a t h a m , M a s s . , 1 7 5 9 - 1 7 6 0 " . N a t i o n a l G e n e a l o g i c a l S o c i e t y Q u a r t e r l y . V . 62 ( J u n e 1 9 7 4 ) , p p . 9 6 - 1 1 7 . W i c k w a r e , A r t h u r M . G e n e a l o g y o f t h e W i c k w a r e F a m i l y . M i c r o : W 6 3 7 . 123 APPENDICES 124 APPENDIX A An Account of the Shares i n the Township of Horton* Shares (1) Settlers On the Spot 119 (2) Settlers Recommended by the Committee who formerly had Rights and desire 37% a continuation of them (3) Promised by the Late Governor 16 Publick l o t s 4 176* '2 Horton 200 shares Shares granted and proposed 176% remains vacant 23% *The f u l l report made special note of the vacant shares i n Horton, Cornwallis and West Falmouth. Although the document i s undated and unsigned, a request for a return of the vacant l o t s was sent by the Executive Council to Isaac Deschamps before Nov. 9, 1761 (see Minutes of the Executive Council), and i t i s believed that t h i s was the reply, found i n "Land Papers - Kings County, 1760-1842, R.G. 20 Series "C", v. 89, #1. 125 APPENDIX B "State of the Settlement of Horton  With Regard to Rights of Land in Said Township"* Rights granted by a General Grant 134% consisting of Rights granted by private Grant to Colonel Forster Capt. James Wall Capt. Edward Hughes Lieut. Alexander Monroe Capt. Alexander Hay Dr. Edward E l l i s Isaac Deschamps Esq. Joseph Gray John Hendrick Lieut. James Stewart Lieut. Patrick West Henry Burbidge Richard Best Lieut. Francis Fitzsimmons Gilbert Jonathan Belcher William Nesbitt Esq. 22% s viz 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Rights to be Granted as p L i s t annexed for persons who have b u i l t and improved 40 Rights i n Suspence 3 200 two of these shares were allocated i n one-share grants to Matthew Jackson and James Kennedy, but their land was included i n Col. Forster's farm at New Minas. +two of these shares were allocated i n one-share grants to James Wall and William Wall. *Source: R.G. 20 Series "C", V. 89, Land Papers, King's County, 1760-1842, #2. APPENDIX C "State of the Settlement of Horton  With Regard to Rights of Land"* lh Benjamin Beckwith 1 Thomas Lee lh S i l a s Peck h Elisha Blackman lh Daniel Hovey h Daniel Dickson lh Joseph Woodworth h Francis Perkins lh John Copp h Benjamin Cleveland lh William Pride h Charles Dickson J r . lh Charles Proctor h Jonathan Barber lh Jonathan Darrow h Gordon Dennison lh Joseph Elderkin h John Bishop J r . lh Andrew Dennison h William Bishop 1 John Eagles 1 David Johnston 1 Walter Waltrous Andrew Marsters 1 Alex Morris a l i u s CM. J r * 1 $&M4X MHi Ml 1 Jahiel DeWolf 1 John Clark 1 Nathan DeWolf Daniel Bigsby 1 Jeremiah Calkins h $M1 ZtitiMH&i 1 Heirs of Timothy Buel h John Turner 1 James Anderson h Patrick Murray 1 Eleazor Chappel h John Dickson 1 James B i l l i n g s - absent h John Allan J r . 1 Jeremiah Calkins J r . 1 Timothy Goodwin 1 Jacob Brown - grant made h Peleg Ransom Harris 1 Shearman Dennison 1 Andrew Lisk 1 Simeon DeWolf h Isaac Lothrop - absent h Benjamin Peck - G -43 09 A p r i l 1764 Chas Morris „ t i e Com * c D O T ooo o i Henry Newton •Source: R.G. 1, v. 222, no. 21. APPENDIX D Net. P r o f i t s Emm the Horton [ ;ind Imdc , 1760-1770 '.' lies i dent. Crnntees Onlv) Name .Improvable Acreage Shares co. 1760 Improvable Acreage in 1770 Di fTerence i n Acreage Net P r o f i t ' 3rd Div. Sold Purchases Sales Exchanger Total no. of Land I ransact ion:; S i l a s Crane 1.5 98 5 81 - 17.5 +£480 X 2 • 11 - 13 S i l a s Peck 1.5 113 4 -109 +£335 X 2 8 - 10 Abraham Harding 1.5 123 5 1 -122.5 +£300 1 7 - 8 Noah F u l I e r 1 98 98.5 + 0.5 +£270 X 1 2 - 3 Lemuel Harding 1 82 5 8 - 74.5 +£223 X - 8 - 0 Jeremiah C a l k i n 1 79 49.5 - 29.5 +£220 X 3 3 2 1) Andrew L isk 1 79 25 60 - 19.25 +£213 1 8 - 9 Moses Clark 1 72 5 0.5 - 72 +£207.20 - 2 - 2 Darius Miner 1 65 5 8.5 - 57 +£177 X 1 8 9 C i l b e r t H a r r i s 1 64 5 16 - 48.5 +£168 X 6 1 7 Jonathan Craves 1 65 5 8.5 - 57 +£166 X 3 3 Peter Bishop 1 65 5 115 + 49.5 +£160 1 2 4 7 Jedidiah Williams 1 82 5 50.5 - 32 +£142 5 5 Joseph Hacket 1 65 5 54.5 - 11 +£131.17 X 5 5 James Anderson 1 83 37.5 - 45.5 +£123 X 3 1 4 William Caldwell 1.5 123 5 96.5 - 27 +£120 X 2 2 1 5 Jonathan Darrow 1 31 25.5 - 5.5 +£117 X 8 4 1 13 Thomas Harding 0.5 32 5 3 - 29.5 +£113.14 1 6 7 Simeon Dewolf 1 74 5 110 + 35.5 +£111 6 3 9 Jacob Burnham 1 65 5 62.5 - 3 +£110 X 1 3 4 John Whitney 1 71 66.5 - 4.5 +£100 X 1 3 4 Darius Brown 1 72 5 8.5 - 64 +£ 96 2 2 Henry Burbidge 1 67 5 67.5 0 +£ 90? - - - -John A l l a n 1 83 16.5 - 66.5 +£ 90 4 4 Zadock Bennett 1 72 5 14 - 58.5 +£ 85 X 1 3 _ 4 Rolen Rogers 1 72 5 58 - 14.5 +£ 56 1 2 1 4 William Pride 1.5 121 25 117.75 - 3.5 +£ 51 X 4 2 1 7 Samuel G r i f f i n g 1 71 11.5 - 59.5 +£ 50.12.5 X 2 3 - 5 00 CM Appendix D cont'd. Improvable Itnprovab l c Di fference 3rd I u t . i l f l O . Acreage Acreage in Div. of Land Shares ca. 1760 in 1770 Acreage Net P r o f i t ' Sold Purchases Soles Exchange:; [ raniiar t i ons Eleazor Chappel ! 77 .5 20. 5 57 +£ 50 X 1 2 1 4. D. Shearman Denison 1 83 72 - 11 +£ 44 X 2 6 - 8 Joseph Hacket J r . 0.5 36 5 5. 5 - 31 +£ 42.10.0 X - 4 - 4 John Bishop i 71 54 - 17 +£ 40 - 2 - 2 Marshall Hackley i 82 5 82 - 0.5 +£ 40 X - • 5 2 7 Jehi e l Dewolf i 83 83 0 +£ 40 X - 1 - 1 Samuel Denison 0.5 32 5 36. 5 + 4 +£ 35 X 1 1 2 Charles Dickson J r . 0.5 49 5 21. 5 - 28 +£ 34 - 3 1 4 William Dickson 1 64 5 67. 5 3 +£ 34 6 16 2 24 Jedidiah Jordan 1 71 8 - 63 +£ 28 X 1 5 - 6 John Hatch 1 65 5 79. 5 + 14 +£ 28 1 2 - 3 Israel Harding 1 82 5 79 - 3.5 +£ 27 4 5 - 9 David Johnstone 1 65 5 62. 5 - 3 +£ 26.8 - 2 - 2 Nathan Kinne 1 72 5 18 - 54.5 +£ 21.2 1 6 - 7 Daniel H a r r i s 0.5 32 5 36. 5 + 4 +£ 35 X 1 1 - 2 Andrew Denison 1.5 117 75 98. 75 - 19 +£ IB 2 2 1 5 William Bishop 0.5+0.5 81 5 65 - 16.5 +£ 14 1 1 - 2 Thomas Johnstone 1 72 5 68. 5 - 4 +£ 8 3 1 4 James Murdoch 1 65 5 66. 1 + 0.6 +£ 8 2 1 - 3 John Hamilton 0.5 33 74 + 41 • £ 7 2 - 2 Thomas Miner 0.5 36 5 29. 5 - 7 +£ 6 2 1 1 . 4 John Lockhart 0.5 41 5 29.5 - 12 +£ 6 3 1 4 Curdon Denison 0.5 41 75 35 - 6.75 +£ 5.5 1 1 . Samuel Reid 1.5 98 100.5 2.5 +£ 5 1 2 1 4 John Lockhart 1 82 5 78. 5 - 4 • £ 5 2 1 3 John Atwell 1 70 5 66. 5 - 4 +£ 4 1 1 Nathan Dewolf 1 83 84 + 1 +£ 3 X 2 2 1 5 Jonathan Godfrey 0.5 40 5 34. 5 - 6 +£ 3 1 1 Joseph Woodworth 1.5 98 92. 5 - 5.5 +£ 2 1 2 - 3 • I t i s impossible to assess the value of s i z e land and to deduct i t from the p r i c e when i t has been included i n a transaction i n v o l v i n g more than one l o t . Thus, while c a l c u l a t i o n s of t o t a l acreage do not include s i z e , t h e i r cash value cannot be deducted from quoted p r i c e s . APPFADIX C Name Shares Improvable Acreage ca. 1760 Net D e f i c i t s From the Horton tand Trade 1760-1770 (Resident Grantees Only) Improvable Acreage in 1770 Di fference i n Acreage Net D e f i c i t 3rd Div. Sold Purchases Sales Exchange: Total no. of Land Transact ion:; John Bishop J r . 1 5 111 75 443 + 331. 25 -£411 14 1 15 Anna Witter 1 72 5 289 25 + 216. 75 -£209 6 6 John Turner 1 5 98 156 5 + 58. 5 -£175 6 8 14 Lebbeus H a r r i s 1 5 108 5 387 25 + 278. 75 -£148 9 4 2 15 Caleb Bennett 1 5 98 37 5 - 60. 5 -£137 1 2 3 Robert Avery 1 5 98 126 45 + 28. 45 -£124 3 I 1 5 Thomas Lee 1 84 5 197 5 + 113 -£118 2 3 1 6 Jeremiah C a l k i n J r . 1 82 132 5 + 50. 5 -£117 4 1 5 John Copp 1 5 124 5 161 + 36. 75 -£113 X 2 7 9 Nathan F u l I e r 1 5 106 25 121 25 15 -£102 3 1 4 Obed Benjamin 1 64 25 100 5 + 36. 25 -£ 88 2 1 3 John Caldwell 0 5 35 75 100 5 + 64. 75 -£ 80 X 2 2 4 Charles Dickson 1 5 120 75 1475 25 + 1354. 5 -£ 78 Andrew Davison 1 5 98 124 26 -£ 77 4 1 5 Robert Denison 1 5 96 5 147 5 + 51 -£ 76 5 1 6 Benjamin Peck J r . 0 5 33 97 + 64 -£ 75 2 3 1 6 Benjamin Cleveland 0 5 39 75 78 5 + 38. 75 -£ 60 1 1 2 S i l a s Crane J r . 0 5 32 5 46 5 + 14 -£ 55 1 2 1 4 Amos Rathburn 1 65 5 59 5 - 6 -£ 43 4 2 1 6 Patrick Murray 1 73 91 + 18 -£ 34 2 1 3 Daniel Whipple 0 5 33 13 - 20 -£ 31 3 1 1 5 Jacob Brown 1 72 5 48 5 - 24 -£ 27 4 1 5 Sylvanus Miner 1 5 98 104 5 + 6. 5 -£ 25 2 1 3 Benjamin Beckwith J r . 0 5 35 5 39 5 + 4 -£ 24 4 1 5 John Dickson 0 5 35 75 33 75 - 2 -£ 17 1 2 3 ro Appendix E cont'd. Improvable Improvable Difference 3rd Total no. Acreage Acreage i n Div. of Land Name Shares' ca. 1760 in 1770 Acreage Net D e f i c i t Sold Purchases Sales Exchanges Transactions Brother ton Martin 1. .5 106. .25 150, ,5 + 44. ,25 -£ 14.15, .0 2 4 1 (, Benjamin Peck Sr. 1, .5 126. .50 101. .5 - 25 -£ 10 1 - - 1 Zebadiah Wickwire 1 65. .5 78. .50 + 13 -£ 9 ' 2 3 5 David Godfrey 1 72, .5 76 + 4. .5 -£ 8 1 1 1 3 Jonathan Hamilton 1. .5 98 11. .10 - 87 -£ 6 1 1 2 C i l b e r t Forsyth 1. .5 123. ,5 137. .5 + 14 -£ 6 1 1 2 Benjamin Beckwith 1. .5 119 152. .5 + 33. ,5 -£ 6 2 2 1 5 Samuel Copp 1. .5 98 12. .5 - 85. ,5 -£ 1.10, .0 X 3 6 9 Mary E l d e r k i n 1. ,5 112. .25 212. ,5 + 100. 25 no p r i c e 1 2 3 • I t i s impossible to assess the value of s i z e land and to deduct i t from the pri c e when i t has been included i n a t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g more than one l o t . Thus, while c a l c u l a t i o n s of t o t a l acreage do not include s i z e , t h e i r cash value cannot be deducted from guoted p r i c e s . O 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097085/manifest

Comment

Related Items