ays OM rede Hebei Hy srt Tees searentsheniae sities re i if 4 bebe of aieieet: She 2 Hef cobebes ie eS otesee Pa oe a =< at > esik jae ore Leelee mee st ay besectrees rhe Ret ieratesth wether e= aes st we rsietsteiss ras '-¢- 4a yharts tie Be 2 x. = ghat 53 aps ~ Criss orersoeere cy rer: ie i 4 i * - S53 Se = fo Om am ene beck > ae tee tate Spee SEE aS Noes pes sah sets xe ra Sete Te pesaeites =f ASTI soe ryt crite) Low = he or ee ee eee te Betenek ogee seeks ere *) Bie i oe wate te Ait Her i isi siete! ee i + Papel . te tasks Ete Si zh eee ae ee ne ee ane a ak Oe: 2 os > co he ee Se Soleo : Axe! A Tedd the CHARLES BULFINCH eA rchitect and Citizen CHURCH AT LANCASTER, MASSACHUSETTS “ CHARLES BULFINCH Architect and Citizen BY CHARLES A. PLACE With Illustrations BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY The Riverside Press Cambridge 1925 Padi, DOT)’ _ BS | (\ s - 3 ake st a: ee 5X 4 ” a * = “* . ' - , . - 1. + 2 7s ¢ fs . ‘ “ , - wwe ‘ . ; 3 : : a e ks a : i i = ' : - « os COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY CHARLES A. PLACE =¥3 a : ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A ¢ ¥ : The Riverside Press CAMBRIDGE - MASSACHUSETTS. PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. & PREFACE HE task of gathering accurate data and illustrations of Bul- ie, architecture grew out of a purely personal interest; and the photographs, lacking professional skill, are the result of an ac- quired use of the camera that buildings seen or pictures of those long since removed might have some representation. The architectural task developed an understanding and apprecia- tion of a gentleman whose character was noble and whose taste was for the beautiful and the true. As an architect Charles Bulfinch is known, but the dominant motive of his life was to be a true citizen. Few people realize the value of his service to his native town — long, faithful, unstinted. And so the life has come to have its part with the architecture, and the story is written in the hope that it may help others to a larger estimate of what Bulfinch was and what he did. The citizenship research has involved an amount of labor out of all proportion to the record here set down. Bulfinch kept no diary, wrote few letters of any kind, and almost nothing of him written by others has been found. The man lived in his work and there we must seek him. A mass of material has been searched, including the Town and Selectmen’s records and many obscure papers, which, while it consti- tutes the very warp and woof of the story, still is very inadequate in any attempt to make Charles Bulfinch live and move during the pe- riod of his unique service to the growing town. For personal coloring we seek almost in vain. Acknowledgment is made of the help derived from The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch, by Miss Ellen 8. Bulfinch, Houghton, Mifflin & Company, 1896, and to many individuals who by their kindness have made this work possible as well as a delight. CONTENTS . Earty YEARS . BEGINNING OF WorK AND MARRIAGE . ELectep SELECTMAN — THE Connecticut Statr House . FRANKLIN PLACE AND THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE ‘THE GREAT SELECTMAN’ . A Variety or Designs . RESIDENCES BEFORE THE WaR . THe GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE . Designs IN ARCHITECTURE, 1812-1817 . Tur Nationau CaPitot AND A Few DEsiens . Last YEARS INDEX 118 147 191 209 24] 276 289 Ys ILLUSTRATIONS Cuurcn AT LANCASTER, MASSACHUSETTS Frontispiece From a photograph by C. A. Place Susan ApTHORP From portrait by Blackburn, owned by J. Templeman Coolidge CHARLES BULFINCH From portrait by Mather Brown, owned by Francis V. Bulfinch Map or Boston, 1789 From the first Boston Directory, 1789 JOSEPH BARRELL From Copley pastel in Worcester Art Museum Houuis STREET CuurRcH From original sketch by Bulfinch East BRAINTREE CHURCH From photograph Hannan Butrrncn (Mrs. Cuarues BuLFINcH) From portrait owned by Dr. George G. Bulfinch Freperat Hatt, New York From original sketch by Bulfinch Bracon Hitt CotuMn From a lithograph made in 1857 by J. H. Bufford after a drawing by J. R. Smith made in 1811 BRATTLE STREET Cuurcn, Puupir Enp From photograph at the Bostonian Society Cuurcu, TAUNTON, MASSACHUSETTS From sketch owned by Old Colony Historical Society, Taunton, Massachusetts Cuurcu, PirtsrieELD, MASSACHUSETTS From an old cut Oxp StatE House, Hartrorp, CONNECTICUT From photograph by C. A. Place Upper Corripor, OLD CoNNECTICUT STATE House From photograph by C. A. Place Houss or REPRESENTATIVES, OLD CoNNEcTICUT STATE HousE From photograph by C. A. Place SENATE CHAMBER, OLD CoNNECTICUT STATE HOUSE From photograph by C. A. Place Tuer ARCH AND FRANKLIN MEMORIAL, TONTINE BUILDINGS From photograph at the Bostonian Society [ ix ] 3 13 Le 21 22 25 30 o4 35 36 45 48 49 51 57 ILLUSTRATIONS PLAN OF TONTINE CRESCENT From Massachusetts Magazine, 1794 MEDAL AWARDED TO BULFINCH, BY THE PROPRIETORS OF THE BOSTON THEATRE, SHOWING First THEATRE From photograph SECOND THEATRE From an old engraving A Nortu-SIpE HousE on FRANKLIN PLACE From photograph at Bostonian Society Tue Agcy AND Front or Boston Lisprary, FRANKLIN PLACE From original drawing by Bulfinch Tue Arcu, TonTINE BUILDINGS From photograph at Bostonian Society FRANKLIN Puace, Looking Down From photograph at Bostonian Society MASSACHUSETTS STATE House From Pendleton Lithograph at Bostonian Society Dog oF StTaTE Houssr, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place Doric Hatt, State Housnz, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place Ture Otp SENATE CHAMBER, STATE House, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place Tur Op House or REPRESENTATIVES, STATE House, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place GALLERY AND CEILING, HousE or REPRESENTATIVES From photograph by C. A. Place House oF REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT 1852 From Gleason’s Pictorial Councrit CHAMBER, STATE House, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place OLD SENATE GALLERY, STATE House, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place Letter or Butrincu on Massacuusetts STATE House (1795) From original in Massachusetts Archives Navy Orricr, Somerset Housr, LONDON From an engraving published in London, 1828 STRAND Front, SOMERSET House From an engraving published in London, 1828 [ x ] 59 61 62 65 71 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 87 88 88 91 92 ILLUSTRATIONS ALMSHOUSE, LEVERETT STREET, BOSTON From an old engraving Map or ‘Neck,’ Boston From Hales’s Street Maps of Boston, 1814 PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE Mitu Ponp, Boston From original, probably by Bulfinch InpiA WuarF Stores, East END From photograph by C. A. Place Court-Houssr, WorcssTER, 1801 From original drawing by Bulfinch ELEVATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE PRISON From the Massachusetts Archives Starrs, MASSACHUSETTS STATE PRISON From photograph by C. A. Place Faneuit HALL BEFORE ENLARGEMENT From an old engraving FaNeEvuIL HALL AS ENLARGED BY BULFINCH From an old engraving Starrs Detain, Fanrurt HAuLu From photograph by C. A. Place IntTeERIOR, FaNEvIL HALu From photograph by C. A. Place Don JuAN STOUGHTON RESIDENCE From photograph (C. A. P.) of an old painting Hoty Cross Cuurcu, Boston From photograph at Bostonian Society SAINT STEPHEN'S CHurcH (Catnoxic), Boston, FORMERLY ‘NEW Nortu’ CuHurcu From photograph by C. A. Place Beurry, HALLOWELL, MAINE From a photograph Curist Cuurcu Spire, Boston From a photograph UNITED STATES BANK, Boston From a plate in The American Builder’s Companion (1806) Boyuston Hatt anp Market, Boston From photograph owned by the Massachusetts Historical Society SPIRE, FEDERAL STREET CuurcH, Boston From photograph at Bostonian Society [ xi ] 98 108 119 133 136 139 141 ILLUSTRATIONS InTERIOR, FEDERAL STREET CHURCH From photograph at Bostonian Society Court-Houssr, Boston, 1810: AFTERWARDS THE Crty HALL From photograph at Bostonian Society AcADEMY BuILDING, Now Pusuic Lisrary, Portsmouth, N.H. From photograph by courtesy of Rev. Alfred Gooding BaAaRRELL MANSION From an old sketch at McLean Hospital, Waverley, Massachusetts Hawi, BARRELL Mansion From photograph at McLean Hospital Drawinc-Room, BARRELL MANSION From photograph at McLean Hospital JONATHAN Mason Mansion From a drawing made in 1836 Fay Houser, Rapciuirre CoLueGE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS From photograph by J. W. Lowes First Harrison Gray Orts House, 1796 From sketch, probably by Bulfinch, in the Otis papers ORIGINAL Cornice, First Otis House From photograph by C. A. Place Lower Hatt, First Ot1s House From photograph by C. A. Place Upper Hatu, First Otis House From photograph by C. A. Place Dininc-Room Mantet, First Or1s Houss From photograph by C. A. Place CorNER, CoLoniaAL Dames Room, First Orrs House From photograph by C. A. Place SecoND Harrison Gray Otis Houses, 1800 From photograph by C. A. Place Tuirp Otis Houss, 1805-06 From photograph by C. A. Place No. 4 Park STREET From photograph ParRK STREET AND THE STATE Houss, ABouT 1870 From photograph at Bostonian Society ELEVATION, 1-4 Park STREET From original by Bulfinch, owned by Dr. John C. Warren Howarp Hovusr, Butrincu PLAacE From photograph at Bostonian Society lexis! 142 143 146 148 149 150 153 155 157 158 159 160 161 163 165 166 169 170 171 173 ILLUSTRATIONS House oF STEPHEN HiacarInson, Jr., No. 87 Mount VERNON STREET 177 From photograph by C. A. Place Nos. 55 anp 57 Mount VERNON STREET 178 From photograph by C. A. Place Lower Hatt, 13 Cuestnut STREET 180 From photograph by C. A. Place Hatuway or No. 55 Mount VERNON STREET 181 From photograph by C. A. Place Nos. 18, 15, AND 17 CHESTNUT STREET 182 From photograph by C. A. Place Breproom MantTe., 15 CHESTNUT STREET 183 From photograph by C. A. Place PARK STREET, SHOWING AMorRY HOUSE ON THE CORNER 184. From photograph at Bostonian Society AN IntTERIoR, 15 CHESTNUT STREET 185 From photograph by C. A. Place AN InTERIOR, 17 CHESTNUT STREET 186 From photograph by C. A. Place Tuomas Perkins Houses, Joy STREET 187 From an old photograph CoLONNADE Row, TREMONT STREET 189 From photograph at Bostonian Society DESIGN FoR A City HovusE 191 From original by Bulfinch TREMONT STREET MAL 196 From a water-color in the Boston Public Library, believed to have been painted by a daugh- ter of General Knox about 1800 Outp Exim, Boston ComMMON 197 From an engraving by J. Kidder in Polyanthos, Boston, 1813 TREMONT STREET ABOVE CouRT STREET 206 From an old cut Tuirp Latin Scnuoout BuiLpina, 1812 209 From an old cut Untversity Hay, Harvarp, As ORIGINALLY BUILT 210 From a cut in Josiah Quincy’s History of Harvard University University HAL AFTER 1842 211 From a photograph Cuapet, Untversity Hau 213 From photograph by C. A. Place [xiii | ILLUSTRATIONS New Soutu Cuurcn, Boston From a photograph owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities IntTERIOR, NEw Soutu Cuurcu From an old photograph PLAN FOR A JAIL From the original by Bulfinch Biake-TucKERMAN Housk From photograph at Bostonian Society Portico or LANCASTER CHURCH From photograph by C. A. Place LANCASTER CuurRcH PorcH From photograph by C. A. Place INTERIOR OF LANCASTER CHURCH From photograph by C. A. Place Puurit, LANCASTER CHURCH From photograph by C. A. Place McLean Hospitat, tHE REMODELLED BARRELL MANSION From photograph at the Hospital at Waverley PEARSON Hai, ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS From photograph by courtesy of Phillips Academy Tutrp But~pine, Puimires AcapEMy, ANDOVER From photograph by courtesy of Phillips Academy MassacHusetts GENERAL Hospirat, Boston From photograph by C. A. Place Lower Corripor Stairs, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL From photograph by C. A. Place A Sreconp-FLoor Corripor, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL From photograph by C. A. Place Pencit DRAWING OF THE CAPITOL AT WASHINGTON From the original by Bulfinch West FRONT or THE CaAPritoL From original drawing by Bulfinch, published in 1821 East FRONT oF THE CAPITOL From original drawing by Bulfinch, published in 1826 DEsIGN For Rotunpba, CAprrou From original, probably by Bulfinch Fioor Puan, Caprrou From an engraving in Peter Force’s The National Calendar, 1823 WEstT StTEps, CAPITOL From an engraving in N. P. Willis’s American Scenery, 1840 lexiv al 214 216 233 234 235 236 238 ILLUSTRATIONS UNITARIAN Cyurcu, WASHINGTON From a photograph Cuurcu, Perrersoro, N.H. From photograph, by courtesy of Rev. Arthur H. Winn PLAN For Puupit, UNITARIAN CHURCH, WASHINGTON From the original by Bulfinch INTERIOR, PeTERBORO CHURCH From photograph by C. A. Place MAINe State House From a drawing MaIne State Hovust From a photograph PLAN FOR DoME or MAINE StaTE HousE From the original drawing by Bulfinch CHARLES BULFINCH ABOUT 1842 From a drawing by Alvan Clark BowDoIN SQUARE IN 1822 From drawing in 1922 for the Bostonian Society PLATE IN CRUNDEN’S OriGinAL Designs (LONDON, 1767) From copy of the book in Bulfinch’s possession DesiGn By WILLIAM THOMAS, SUGGESTING DOME FOR MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HospItTau From copy of Original Designs in Architecture (London, 1783) owned by Bulfinch PLAN AND ELEVATION FROM Piaw, Lonpon, 1795 From copy of book owned by Bulfinch SKETCH OF PornteD ArcH By BULFINCH From Bulfinch’s sketch in his copy of Essays on Gothic Architecture 269 270 271 281 284 288 CHARLES BULFINCH eArchitect and Citizen CHAPTER I EARLY YEARS N what we know as Bowdoin Square in Boston, Charles Bulfinch | was born on August 8, 1763, in a house built by his grandfather at the time of his marriage to Judith Colman. We have a fairly good idea of the house as it stood with its companions in the Square about one hundred years ago, after it was enlarged and remodeled at the close of the eighteenth century, and a more intimate touch of home and gardens in a description written about the time of Bulfinch’s re- turn to his birthplace at the close of his life. We can form no clearer idea of the house as it was at the time of his birth. The man who built this house, Dr. Thomas Bulfinch, was the son of Adino, a well-to-do Boston merchant, the first known Bulfinch ancestor in America. His son Thomas was likewise a physician. Both men were well trained abroad, the former at London and Paris, and the latter at London and Edinburgh, and their letters reveal high ideals and strong moral convictions. The second Thomas was gradu- ated from Harvard College in 1749, and the valedictory oration delivered by him is still preserved. With reasonable pride, because the test had been very severe, he informs his father that he was honored with a degree of Doctor of Physic in the University of Edinburgh. On the death of his father, December 2, 1757, he aban- doned a contemplated Italian trip and returned to Boston to take up [1] CHARLES BULFINCH his father’s practice, and on September 13, 1759, was married to Susan Apthorp whose father in his day was called the richest man in Boston, to whose interest and generosity the present King’s Chapel is due in large measure. Blackburn in one of his best portraits shows Miss Apthorp near the time of her marriage, a woman of beauty, refinement, and animation, and she has been described as having marked intellect and cultivation. Her brother, the Reverend East Apthorp, was rector of Christ Church, Cambridge, removing to England in 1764, and for a time was in charge of Saint Mary-le-Bow, London. With such inheritance Charles Bulfinch was born into the simple yet noble life of culture and motive. He grew up in the town of Boston with its truly English spirit of liberty and right, amid the turbulence of agitation and the war for Independence. Of the earliest years of his development there is little beyond what the general conditions of the time suggest. A hint of the taste that was to dominate his life is found in a little pen-and-ink sketch of two columns made at the age of ten, but no marked ability is displayed. His family was connected with Kking’s Chapel, and it was his father, as senior warden and acting for the congregation, who on November 18, 1787, ordained James Free- man to be ‘rector, minister, etc.,’ of the Society. In the brief autobiographical sketch Bulfinch speaks of his paternal ancestry and then proceeds to mention events in his life. ‘I was born in 1763, considered as a year of triumph; the peace with France having just been effected, after a successful war, in which Canada had been conquered, and all fear of a formidable enemy on the frontier had been removed. My earliest recollections are of the alter- cations and political disputes occasioned by the attempts of the mother country to raise a revenue in the colonies, of the resistence to the [ 2 ] BLACKBURN PORTRAIT USAN APTHORP ao * EARLY YEARS Stamp Act, of the destruction of the tea in Boston harbour, of the firing upon the citizens in State street, then called King street, March 5, 1770, of the blockade of the port, and removal of the Custom house to Salem, of the arrival of the British troops and of their encampment on the Common and Fort hill; of the fight at Lexington, and the battle of Bunker hill, which I saw the progress of from the roof of our dwell- ing-house: of the continuance of the siege of Boston and of the evacuation of the town by British troops on March 17, 1776. ‘After the return of the inhabitants to Boston the town schools being reorganized, I was readmitted to the Latin School under Mr. Hunt and fitted for College, which I entered in 1778, and was gradu- ated in 1781. The class consisted of only 27, and it now appears extraordinary to me that the parents of even that small number could determine to pursue an expensive education of their children at a time when war was raging and business interrupted, but it proves the general confidence in the success of the cause. This small class included several who have done honor to their college and have been distinguished in public life; Dudley A. Tyng, Judge Davis, Judge Paine, the Reverend B. Howard and the Honorable Samuel Dexter and others. ‘My disposition would have led me to the study of physic, but my father was averse to my engaging in the practice of what he considered a laborious profession, and I was placed in the counting-room of Joseph Barrell, Esq., an intimate friend and esteemed a correct merchant; but unfortunately the unsettled state of the times prevented Mr. Barrell from engaging in any active business, so that except for about three months of hurried employment, when he was engaged in victualling a French fleet in our harbour, my time passed very idly and I was at leisure to cultivate a taste for Architecture, which was [5 ] CHARLES BULFINCH encouraged by attending to Mr. Barrell’s improvement of his estate and (improvements) on our dwelling-house and the houses of some friends, all of which had become exceedingly dilapidated during the war. Coming of age about this time, an Uncle, George Apthorp, died in England, and a portion of his property, about 200 pounds sterling, came to my parents, who devoted it to my use for a visit to Europe. I accordingly embarked in June, 1785, and returned Jan. 1787. The time of my visit to Europe was passed, partly in London and in visits to friends of my family in different parts of England; in a visit to France and through that country to Italy. At Paris I tarried some time to view its buildings and other objects of curiosity, to which I was introduced by letters from the Marquis La Fayette and Mr. Jefferson, then minister there. From Paris I proceeded in the spring of 1786 through Nantz and Bordeaux and by the canal of Languedoc to Marseilles and then to Antibes, from which place I crossed in an open felucca to Genoa, thence to Leghorn and Pisa, by Viterbo and Sienna to Rome, where I remained three weeks, and then returned by Bologna, Florence, Parma, Placentia, and Milan over the Alps by Mont Cenis, to Lyons and again to Paris: after a short stay there, I returned to London by way of Rouen and Dieppe, crossing the channel to Brighton. This tour was highly gratifying, as you may well suppose. I was delighted in observing the numerous objects and beauties of nature and art that I met with on all sides, particularly the wonders of Architecture, and the kindred arts of painting and sculpture, as my letters to friends at home very fully express; but these pursuits did not confirm me in any business habits of buying and selling; on the contrary, they had a powerful adverse influence on my whole after life.’ These letters, all too few and with little description, throw some [6] EARLY YEARS light on the European trip. We infer that his is ever the artist’s eye, and that architecture in its full sense of building and decoration is the wonder he seeks. In his first letter he writes, ‘I have been engaged ever since my arrival in gratifying my curiosity with the sight of building, ete.’ There is a touch of the hazard of war and the un- settled conditions following the Revolution in a letter of December 12th of the same year. Evidently his father had suffered some loss as a consequence of the British occupation and had sought for settlement. In the same letter he writes regarding the King’s Chapel plate: ‘I was in hopes I should receive some further documents respecting the Church plate. ... The Doctor has been allowed by government a sum fully equivalent to his house in Boston, so that he can now have no plausible reason for detaining the plate, but as he still means to keep it, I should be glad to be furnished with such papers as would enable me to compel a return of it.’ Those who are familiar with the history of King’s Chapel will recall that, when the last Royalist rector, Dr. Caner, departed, he took the Chapel plate with him, and that it was never returned. We cannot determine at what time Bulfinch went to Paris, or how long he remained, though he writes in the letter dated December 12, 1785, ‘This week I mean to set off for Paris,’ indicating his intention of remaining on the Continent three or four months. Under date of May 2, 1786, he writes from Marseilles, ‘It is now three months since I have received any letters from Boston.’ We must conclude that at least three months was consumed in his visit to Paris and from there to Marseilles. His journey can be traced from L’Orient to Nantes where he spent two days viewing its curiosities, etc., among which were public build- ings and ‘public walks.’ ‘Every town in France has one or more public kta CHARLES BULFINCH walks, shaded with trees and kept in constant repair; these walks are usually surrounded by the public buildings of the place, which are an additional beauty at the same time that they serve as a shelter from the wind; I own myself much pleased with this mode of public walks.’ The theatre at Bordeaux he calls the most superb in France, a noble structure of the Corinthian order, and cost ‘only 130,000 pounds.’ From Bordeaux he passed rapidly to Toulouse and embarked on the Languedoc Canal in order ‘to have an idea of that great work.’ He did not tarry at Narbonne, but pushed on to Montpellier which he found beautiful in situation and climate. Nimes claimed his natural interest. He writes: “This city was formerly the capital of a Roman colony. Many ancient remains announce the grandeur of its former masters. The present inhabitants show with exultation the remains of a very extensive Roman amphitheatre, and several temples; one of which is entire, and is esteemed a perfect model of Corinthian architecture.’ No letter appears after the one of May 10, 1786, at Marseilles — really at Leghorn as Bulfinch informs his mother later — till the letter in August from London. According to the family tradition he was moved to tears on his first sight of Saint Peter’s, but there is no record of the three weeks’ stay in Rome or of the famous cities visited en route. If he actually set out for Paris after writing the letter of December 12th, we must conclude the whole journey from London to his return there occupied over seven months. The only record of his stay in England in the fall of 1786 before he sailed for Boston, probably about the first of December, concerns his portrait painted at that time. He wrote: “It is the work of Mr. Brown [Mather Brown]; you will find it very rough, but that is the modish style of painting, introduced by Sir Joshua Reynolds. Mr. Copley, indeed, paints in another manner, his pictures are finished to the ut- [8] S BULFINCH CHARLE inted by Mather Brow 1786 London, n, Pa EARLY YEARS most nicety, but then — they are very dear.’ Something of the under- standing of the artist is seen in this comment; we must remember that Copley had removed to England in 1774 where he remained until his death. This portrait may be considered a good likeness and is interest- ing when compared with a miniature painted about the same time as one of Mrs. Bulfinch. Both are interesting examples of miniature art, particularly that of Mrs. Bulfinch, but probably not by Malbone as held in the family tradition. The powdered wig and ruffled shirt be- token the ‘gentleman’ of his time, but the face reveals a youth of fine character, artistic taste and refinement. When Charles Bulfinch returned to Boston in January, 1787, it was to a town of some fifteen thousand inhabitants just beginning to re- cover from the stagnation caused by the war. The Royal Governors were gone forever. The houses for the most part were simple and quaint with their true homely charm. The streets were even narrower than in 1815 after many had been widened, and without sidewalks, though a few street lights were maintained at public and private expense. There were gambrel-roofed houses and a few mansions, the most notable of which were the Hutchinson house, residence of Governor Hutchinson, the Clark-Frankland house, suggesting the romantic story of Agnes Surriage — both built of brick and situated in North Square — the Hancock house of stone on Beacon Hill, and the Faneuil house of brick, home of Peter Faneuil, standing opposite the burying-ground on Tremont Street. Of public buildings there were the State House in State Street, old Faneuil Hall, the Province House, official residence of the Royal Governor after 1716 and formerly the residence of Peter Sargent, and a few notable churches the best of which are still standing — King’s Chapel, Christ Church, and the Old South. Brattle Street Church, beautiful within and architectur- [pily CHARLES BULFINCH ally interesting, built in 1772-73, has been removed. Cows grazed upon the Common and in the various pastures, including Beacon Hill. The Mill Pond and the windmills in different parts of the town were still to be seen. The town was bounded almost entirely by water and the marshes which extended on the south and west nearly to the foot of the hills. There was a bridge to Charlestown and a road across the neck to the southwest. But with all its narrow streets and quaintness Boston was more than a provincial town or fishing port. Considerable as was its fishing industry, its commerce was greater. Up to 1755 it had been the largest town in the American Colonies with a population of seventeen thousand in 1740. Long Wharf, nearly two thousand feet in extent, was built in 1710, and Boston Light, the first lighthouse in the New World, was completed in 1716. The larger merchants were traders in many ports with interests and relations which enlarged both their wealth and their minds. These men and others whose welfare was involved in shipping enterprises — shipbuilders, skilled mechanics, and tradesmen — saw their interests imperilled and threw themselves into the forces of the Revolution. It has been said that Commerce and not Democracy dominated the motives of Massachusetts in the Revolution, and there is much force in the statement. But Massachusetts was agricultural as well as commercial and the spirit of independence and of natural rights was strong. These forces and principles had their influence on the growing Bulfinch, and he in turn came to have his part in them in the work of the new era which had little promise at the beginning of 1787. For though the political tide, which had ebbed so steadily and with it industrial venture, was about to set in, there were yet two years of doubt and uncertainty. The Constitution and its adoption lay in the [ 12 ] Cyrartes RIVER BOSTON IN 1789 EARLY YEARS future and the ill-jomed Union gave little encouragement to enter- prise. In Massachusetts the sense of burden and injustice incident to debt, heavy taxes, and a depreciated currency made itself manifest in the anarchy of Shays’s Rebellion which speedily gave way to law and order. Boston was greatly depressed; local shipbuilding and trade had declined with her commerce and population; yet a few minds hoped and labored for the new day. With new hopes came new ventures, shipbuilding gradually increased and civic pride awoke. Up to within about a decade the town had been dominated by English ways in building, in dress, in general thought. Now it was to stand alone, to build for itself, to think for itself. Yet all of its new life and effort, as 1t soon found, rested upon the past, upon connections it could not sever, upon ideas that were a very part of its new develop- ment. What it had to do was to adapt these ideas to the new spirit and the new demands. No man was better prepared to be a leader in this civic betterment with its structural demands than Charles Bulfinch. By tradition and inheritance he felt himself a real part of the town and its life; by temperament and training he was fitted to choose and advise, with the zest and enthusiasm which come from seeing older forms of civilization expressed in municipal plans; in building for Church and State, Bulfinch, ever the artist and ever the good citizen, devoted himself to a life of real public service. With little if any consideration of pro- fessional interest or reward, he gave his consideration to the enlarging needs and demands of his time. This was not immediate, but of sure and steady development. He writes in his sketch, “On my return to Boston, I was warmly received by friends, and passed a season of leisure, pursuing no business but giving gratuitous advice in architec- ture, and looking forward to an establishment in life.’ [ 15 ] CHAPTER II BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE T the very beginning of his career as a citizen, Bulfinch was yaX identified with a venture which proved of great importance to the commercial life of Boston and to the extension of the territory of the new Republic. The value of trade with China was recognized by Boston merchants, but they lacked an attractive medium of exchange; the problem was to find such medium. Already trade in furs on the Northwest Coast had been advocated by Captain Cook, but before his official report was published in 1784, John Ledyard, a young American who had been with Cook, made persistent attempts to establish trade. He enlisted the interest of Robert Morris, but the New York business men declared the scheme visionary. He then turned to Jefferson and Paul Jones in Paris, but no French money was found. In England he succeeded in obtaining funds to fit out the ship Nootka, but the pro- ject fell through. In Boston, three years after Cook’s report was published, six men, of whom Joseph Barrell, a prominent Boston merchant, was the leader, financed a venture which had results more far-reaching than they anticipated. These men met in the house of Dr. Thomas Bulfinch and resolved to fit out two ships. Accordingly the Columbia, two hundred and twenty tons burden, commanded by John Kendrick, who also was in charge of the expedition, and the Lady Washington of ninety tons, commanded by Robert Gray, were fitted, and, with a cargo selected to attract the Indians, sailed from Boston September 30, 1787. A bronze medal struck in commemoration of the enterprise is now in the collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society, where also are many [ 16 | JOSEPH BARRELL Pastel by John Singleton Copley Li BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE original letters by Barrell, Kendrick, and Gray with accounts relating to the voyage. A number of pewter copies of this medal were struck off and taken on the ship. It will be seen that ‘C. Bulfinch’ appears on one side of the medal with other names. In July, 1893, one of the copper half-pennies taken on the voyage, dated Boston, 1787, was found by Alexander Mackenzie in the possession of a native of the country east of the Strait of Fuca. After various adventures the ships arrived on the Northwest Coast and opened trade with the Indians. When provisions began to run low in the summer of 1789, Kendrick ordered Gray to proceed in the Columbia to China. Gray accordingly, with a cargo of furs, sailed July 30, 1789. Arriving in Canton he sold the furs at a price lower than had been anticipated, loaded with tea, and on August 10, 1790, sailed into Boston Harbor amid the joyful acclaims of the citizens. For the first time the American flag had circled the globe. The tea was sold to Samuel Parkman; and though the venture was not a financial success and two of the owners, Darby and Pintard, withdrew, the ship was refitted and with a new and carefully selected cargo sailed September 28, 1790. In this venture Thomas Bulfinch is credited with £893. The Columbia arrived on the coast the following June. The next spring, 1792, Gray sailed southward where at Lat. 46° 10’ he found breakers which for nine days he attempted to pass without avail. Sailing north, he fell in with Vancouver on April 29th and asked him if he had made any discovery. Vancouver replied that he had not, as yet, and inquired of Gray’s success. Gray then told him about the breakers which he had seen, and Vancouver said that was probably what he sighted two days back, and which he had judged of little importance. Gray determined to try again, and running south he found an anchorage which he named Bulfinch Harbor, now known as elm CHARLES BULFINCH Gray’s Harbor; and then going on he came, on May 11th, to the breakers, which he essayed again, this time with success. Once passed, he found himself in a broad river of clear water which he ascended for some distance. Then returning he landed on May 19th, deposited some coins at the foot of a pine tree, raised the American flag, and named the river Columbia. The north point, at the mouth of the river, he called Cape Hancock, and the south one Adams Point. Gray thus was the first white man to cross the bar and anchor and raise the American flag. The Columbia with tea from Canton arrived in Boston July 29, 1793. Hence a voyage of commercial adventure resulted not only in the extension of American territory, but in stimulating the commercial interests of Boston and New England. At the time when the Columbia venture was launched, a new Massachusetts State House was agitated, and this young man, twenty- five years old August 8th, set himself to provide a plan. It was no slight undertaking, and required more than an interest in architecture or the zeal of a European trip. We can never know the weeks or months he spent on this, probably his first design, but on November 5th of that year he submitted a plan to the committee which had been appointed June 27th ‘to consider a more convenient place for holding the General Court.’ The letter, which is now in the Massachusetts Archives, contains detailed estimates amounting to four thousand pounds. It is not surprising, in consideration of the political and finan- cial condition, that no decided action was taken. The wonder is that a committee to consider the project should have been appointed within four months of the quelling of Shays’s Rebellion, but the final result of this initiative was a structure that was Bulfinch’s masterpiece. Bulfinch’s first executed design was Hollis Street Church, Boston, built in 1788 to replace the one destroyed by fire in 1787. The exterior [ 20 ] { | tant — 1 ant 3 Te sian <<... | Sennen: A Seam ronnie, A i. .d Sammcnenmermen 1788 > BOSTON SKETCHES FOR HOLLIS STREET CHURCH, wing From original dra E CHURCH EAST BRAINTRE BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE was not beautiful, due to whatever limitation in design or in the financial condition of the society; but it gives an immediate illustration of the influence of Bulfinch’s trip abroad. This type of church is not always satisfying in brick or stone and practically impossible in wood; though Hollis Street Church served as a model for the second edifice of the First Congregational Church, Providence (1795), which was called a “beautiful copy of one of the most beautiful houses of worship in Boston.’ The copy was better than the model, but both buildings lacked grace and lightness. Of the Providence church an Englishman wrote in his ‘Travels through the Northern Parts of the United States’ in 1807-08, ‘The west end of the cathedral church of Saint Paul, in the city of London, is the model on which it is formed, and from which as much of the pomp of architecture has been imitated, as the small dimensions of the copy may have justified.’ This applies equally to Hollis Street Church, which on contemporary evidence was the model for the Providence structure. Hollis Street Church interior, sixty feet square, undoubtedly was inspired by Saint Stephen’s Church, Walbrook, London, but of course lacking all that exquisite charm of carving and ornamentation which makes that church Wren’s finest interior, which so touched the sense of beauty in Bulfinch. The unskilled drawings, interesting as being among the first done by Bulfinch, furnish a few details such as the ceiling in the form of a Greek cross crowned by a thirty-foot dome, and the galleries cutting the four large Ionic columns. We reasonably may assume that the interior design was executed much as drawn, since we know such was the fact of the exterior, but there is no hint of pulpit lines or the shape of the pews. From the ‘Massachusetts Magazine,’ December, 1793, we learn that [ 23 ] CHARLES BULFINCH the galley breast work was adorned with festoons and a “fret-dentiled cornice,’ that the pulpit projected from the wall and had a flight of stairs on each side, and that back of the pulpit was a ‘ Venetian win- dow’ with fluted pilasters. There was no sounding-board, the dome serving instead; ‘those at a great distance hear as well as those near.’ ‘We add with pleasure that the plan was given by the ingenious Mr. Bulfinch, who, to a good natural genius and a liberal education, having added the advantages of a tour through Europe, has returned to adorn his native town and country, in particular by his taste for and im- provements in architecture. His views in the present instance were well seconded by Mr. Joseph Wheeler, the head workman, who excells in executing as the other does in designing.’ The church was taken down in 1810 and rebuilt in East Braintree with an entirely different facade, as shown in the photograph before 1897 when the edifice was destroyed by fire. Evidently the same framing was used and the old columns, but the lines of the cupola are wholly different and much better than those of Hollis Street Church. Bulfinch was married on November 20, 1788, to Hannah Apthorp, his cousin; one of the orphaned grandchildren of Stephen Greenleaf, the last high sheriff of Suffolk County under the British Government. In this marriage Bulfinch was blessed indeed! Through all the trials and afflictions of their life Hannah Bulfinch met the test. Her life was rich in faith and the power of the spirit, in moral fibre and steadfast- ness. Bulfinch writes of her: “We were cousins and had been in some degree acquainted from early life; the connection was esteemed a happy one and began under the most favourable circumstances. My disposition was sedate, hers cheerful and animated; a respectable property on both sides promised us the enjoyment of all the comforts and rational pleasures of life, and these expectations were fully [ 24 ] H © HANNAH BULFIN BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE realized in the blessings of a peaceful home, with mutual affection and the enjoyment of the best society.”. Mrs. Bulfinch’s estimate of her character at the time accords with her portraits in oil and miniature: “As my disposition was uncommonly lively, I was in the more danger from my inconsiderate gaiety.’ In the spring of 1789, Bulfinch and his wife, accompanied by Anna Bulfinch and Frances Apthorp, sister of each respectively, and George Storer, who later married Anna, set out for the inauguration of Washington as first President of the United States. The Constitution framed at Philadelphia in 1787, after strong opposition in which Massachusetts had joined, had been adopted before the close of 1788, thus making the United States a national unit. Passing through Worcester and Springfield, Hartford and other towns, they arrived in New York, from whence they went to Philadelphia, where the architect finds a house of special interest. “This city is not much altered since I was last here, except in its increase; the same plain stile of building is kept up, and the same quakerish neatness. One only great exception to this appears in the house of Mr. Bingham, which is in a stile which would be esteemed splendid even in the most luxurious parts of Europe. Elegance of construction; white marble staircase, valuable paintings, the richest furniture and the utmost magnificence of decoration make it a palace, in my opinion far too rich for any man in this country.’ In the next letter from New York, April 19th, we find a mention of a matter that was beginning to have consideration in Puritan Boston: ‘We attended three plays in Philadelphia, and have already seen two here; and I suppose it will be thought absolutely necessary by our party to see every one that shall be performed during our stay; indeed so charmed are they, that remarks upon the play and the different Lae | CHARLES BULFINCH actors engross great part of our conversation. You must expect our ladies to form a party in Boston for establishing a Theatre there, and they are pretty sure of success.’ And he adds, ‘I should be very glad to see him [Joseph Barrell] at a play; for the greatest part of my enter- tainment has arisen from a strict attention to the novices, and perceiv- ing their emotions.’ In this letter we find warm expression of his loyal admiration for Washington together with his comment on the hope of New York City to be the seat of government: ‘Notwithstanding these and other amusements we begin to wish to be at home, and shall hasten there with dilligence as soon as we have seen General Washington. The sight of this great man is all that is wanting to make our pleasures complete; he will certainly be here the latter end of this week, and will probably enter upon his office the Monday or Tuesday following; great preparations are making to shew the public joy on his arrival; elegant transparent paintings and fireworks are to be exhibited; and every- thing will be done to induce Congress to make this city the place of their permanent residence. Indeed, if a readiness to lavish away money can influence that body, no place can have an equal claim with New York, but I should not be surprised if they were to overdo the matter, and by such great eagerness excite the jealousy of other states; they have already expended near 25,000 pounds and seem to be still going on. ... We hope you do not blame us very loudly for overstaying our time, for you must reflect that the object we have in view is of such a sort as will never again appear during our lives. We expect not only to see General Washington, but to see him the favorite of this whole continent, the admiration of Europe — to see him publickly introduced to office and take an oath to preserve inviolate the constitution. This was one great motive for our coming, and we should ever regret losing this sight by any precipitate departure.’ Two days later he wrote: [ 28 ] BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE ‘Mr. John Apthorp, who left us at Philadelphia . . . has been as far as Mount Vernon, General Washington’s seat — dined with him — saw as much of the country as he wished, and is here with us ready to proceed to Boston.’ Unfortunately, we have no account by Bulfinch of the inauguration, April 30th, but we must hope that they all saw the ‘great man,’ and that then, or in the following October when Washing- ton visited Boston, they had some closer touch. Of more than passing interest is the unmarked and heretofore un- identified sketch by Bulfinch of Federal Hall, because it is associated with his early life and his keen interest in the beginning of the new Republic. Following the decision that the inauguration of Washington should be in New York, the old city hall was transformed by L’Enfant and called Federal Hall. Here George Washington became the first President of the United States, and the following month a cut sub- stantially like this by Bulfinch was published in the ‘Massachusetts Magazine.’ One of the stories related of Washington’s visit to Boston is that Governor Hancock, through an exaggerated sense of dignity of him- self or the Commonwealth, would not call upon the President, deem- ing it the duty of the Chief Executive to call upon the Governor of the Sovereign State where he was visiting. But discovering his blunder (so runs the story) he swathed his limbs in flannels — a sudden victim of the gout, to which he was subject — and had himself carried to visit the President, who accepted and excused the tardy sufferer. This story, true to Hancock’s known vanity, could not have been told of Bulfinch. As the Town Directory for 1789 reads, ‘Charles Bulfinch, gentleman, Marlborough Street,’ we must infer that the couple were settled in their new home at the time of their marriage or soon after their arrival [ 29 ] CHARLES BULFINCH Ox La SS eS ee SD RE Oe a FEDERAL HALL, NEW YORK From original sketch by Bulfinch home from New York. It must be remembered that the part of Washington Street between School and Summer was called Marl- borough Bircct after 1718. Miss Bulfinch, in ‘Life and Letters,’ thus comments: “Rich and well connected, high-principled, yet with their grave New England training softened by a cultivation of mind and sweetness of temper somewhat unusual, there was every reason to predict for them a happy future.’ There was, as Bulfinch wrote, ‘re- spectable property’ on both sides, but what he had in his own right at [ 30 | BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE this time we cannot determine. Somewhere on this street, probably between Franklin and Summer Streets, we must picture a house set a little back from the road with some land and trees and flowers — a house with sunshine and the atmosphere of home. Here began that practical consideration of the interests and needs of the town which developed steadily and continuously throughout his life. Though he did not accept official responsibility till March, 1791, his mind was occupied with the new and better town that was to be, and in the light of what he had seen in the cities abroad. We have an illustration of this in the design for the Beacon Hill memorial column. In 1789 the old beacon, which with its predecessors had served as a warning to the inhabitants in time of danger since 1634, was blown down. Bulfinch designed a column and suggested that this be erected in place of the beacon and to bear inscriptions commemorative of the liberty and independence secured by the exertion of patriots. The column, of the Roman Doric order, built of brick and covered with stucco, was sixty feet high and four feet in diameter surmounted by an eagle. It seems likely that the inscriptions on the four tablets were due to the Reverend Dr. Jeremy Belknap, pastor of the Federal Street Church. Dr. Belknap wrote: “Yesterday I was consulted on forming a set of inscriptions for an historical pillar, which is erecting on Beacon Hill. Some of the most striking events of the Revolution will be inscribed, beginning with the Stamp Act and ending with the Funding Act. These comprehend a period of twenty-five years. The one may be considered as the beginning, and the other as the conclusion, of the American Revolution. The pillar is to be sixty feet high; over its capital, the American eagle, which is to perform the office of a weather-cock. The arrows are to serve for points, and a conductor is to be added for the lightening. The designer is Mr. Charles [ 31 | CHARLES BULFINCH Bulfinch, a very ingenius and accomplished gentleman, and as modest as ingenius.’ The old beacon crude and practical had served its age; it gave way to the new day now dawning and to this new symbol which, with its finer beauty, pointed to those virtues in the past which must still inspire the future. We come here very close to the real Bulfinch; we see his taste, we feel the spirit of his civic and national ideals. When the top of Beacon Hill was cut down in 1811, this shaft was re- moved, and the four tab- lets preserved. This mon- ument was reproduced exactly in stone, with the four tablets, restored after years of neglect, set in its THE BULFINCH COLUMN, BEACON HILL, base by the Bunker Hill BOSTON, 1789 Monument Association in 1898, and formally presented to the State, June 17, 1899. It stands at the east of the State House. The designs for the churches in Taunton and Pittsfield, Massachu- setts, probably were made in 1789. They are both interesting in their extension of the church type plan as distinguished from the ‘ meeting- house,’ which had prevailed in New England till nearly this time. The [ 32 ] BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE early meeting-house was a house adapted to public worship, oblong or square, with the pulpit opposite the main door, which in the case of the oblong type was always on the side. The Puritan had no chancel, or chancel end with pulpit. Christ Church (1723) and King’s Chapel (1754), Boston, were on the church plan with chancel at the end. The Old South (1730), Boston, while much the same as Christ Church, was a meeting-house with main door on the side and pulpit opposite. This has a tower at the end as did the latest type of meeting-house, but in no case was the pulpit opposite the tower. The first church of the Pilgrim or Puritan descent in New England to use the church type was Brattle Street Church (1772-73), Boston. This had a projecting porch facade with the pulpit placed opposite. The interior of the church was very beautiful, but the porch was not well done. We find only one other example of this idea, naturally interrupted during the Revolu- tion and the period of reconstruction, till we come to the influence of Bulfinch. That example is the First Baptist Meeting-House, so called, though a church in plan, of Providence, Rhode Island, the design for which undoubtedly was influenced by Brattle Street Church and King’s Chapel. This extended reference to the transition from the New England meeting-house to the church is made to give a better appreciation of what Bulfinch did. All the examples of good church architecture in Boston, except the Old South, and those abroad which Bulfinch had seen, followed the church type. Though Bulfinch speaks of meeting-houses in Taunton, Pittsfield, and Lancaster, they were really on the church plan. The illustrations of the exteriors of both Taunton and Pittsfield show the type we have been considering. The differences are in details, the general plan being the same. The belfry and spire of Taunton follow the prevailing type on New England meeting-houses in the eighteenth [ 33 ] CHARLES BULFINCH century, but do not show Bulfinch’s hand as does the belfry at Pittsfield. The latter is a cupola, so called, and is a departure followed by builders in many communities after this time. Bulfinch’s contribu- tion in both these churches is the working-out of the projecting porch PULPIT END, BRATTLE STREET CHURCH, BOSTON, 1772-73 fagade, a very decided advance over Brattle Street Church, and the cupola belfry, no example of which has been found prior to that at Pittsfield, though a great variety subsequently throughout New England.! 1 “From Meeting-House to Church in New England,’ by Charles A. Place, in Old-Time New England, 1922-23. [ 34 ] ~~ BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE CHURCH, TAUNTON, MASSACHUSETTS, AFTER REMOVAL TO SPRING STREET IN 1827 The Town of Taunton voted to build June 1, 1789, though the church was not completed till five years afterward. Bulfinch’s name appears on the seating committee, and the church is described as having square pews and a ‘lofty pulpit,’ with galleries on three sides. The building was removed to Spring Street about 1827 and for many years was used by the Universalists. In 1789 a committee was appointed by the Town of Pittsfield to procure a plan, etc., for a new ‘meeting-house.’ The building probably [ 35 | CHARLES BULFINCH was begun in 1790 and was finished in 1793, at a cost of £2188. It is said to have been fifty-five by ninety feet. Doubtless the interiors of both churches were due as much to local housewrights as to Bulfinch’s design. The plan was his, giving the general lines and locating the pulpit, possibly with a design for the latter; but the finish depended much on local skill and finance. The pulpit in Pittsfield is described as ‘high and narrow with a long flight of stairs’; in Taunton, as a ‘lofty pulpit.’ It seems useless to hazard a guess at any- thing more definite. Thus far, after long search, no illustration of a high or lofty pulpit has been found in the whole Connecticut Valley and Berkshire re- gions, during the period from 1750 to 1800 and later. Most of the high pulpits were cut down or removed before 1850. Whether the pulpits in these two churches followed the style generally in use up to 1790, or CHURCH AT PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS were constructed on lines which Bulfinch designed, cannot be deter- mined. The writer deeply regrets his inability to give an illustration of the interiors of these churches and that no other descriptions have been found. An interesting illustration of the church is found in Clew’s ‘Winter View of Pittsfield’ (about 1825-35). In 1789, the Bulfinches’ first child was born and named Susan for the father’s younger sister so much loved by him. The house in Marl- [ 36 ] BEGINNING OF WORK AND MARRIAGE borough Street continued to be their home during 1790. It is significant that the assessor’s book for this year records Bulfinch as ‘architect’; and though there is no entry of a carriage we find a manservant and entry of unoccupied house in Ward 7. To this ward, in which Bulfinch was born, the family removed before June, 1791, but whether to this unoccupied house for a time, situated probably in Southack Court (Howard Street), or immediately to Middlecot Street (Bowdoin Street), where we are certain they lived for some years up to the win- ter or spring of 1796, we cannot determine. CHAPTER III ELECTED SELECTMAN — THE CONNECTICUT STATE HOUSE \ N YE now come to consideration of the first years of his service to the town. It has been understood commonly that his service dates from 1789, and indeed on seemingly good authority. Bulfinch wrote, ‘Charles Bulfinch was a junior member of the board of Selectmen from 1789 to 1793; he was chairman from 1797 to 1818, twenty-one years.’ Neither of these statements is correct. A number of the nine members elected to the Board March 14, 1791, declined; and at an adjourned meeting, March 30th, Charles Bulfinch was elected ‘unanimously’ to fill one of the vacancies. Thus and then began his official connection, which continued (with the exception of the four years, March, 1795, to March, 1799) till his removal to Washington in late December, 1817. During the second period, which began in 1799, for a period of nineteen years he was Chairman of the Board. In another place Bulfinch records, “I enjoyed too the confidence and goodwill of my fellow townsmen, who chose me one of the Select- men at the early age of twenty-seven.’ This is correct. Bulfinch was twenty-seven in August, 1790. His first election was in the following March, according to the published records of the town meetings, which the minutes of the Board of Selectmen confirm. His first meeting with the Board is recorded under date of April 5, 1791. At this meeting the Selectmen took under consideration the will of Benjamin Franklin because of a bequest to the town of one thousand pounds, and the Selectmen and three ministers were named trustees. In this year Bulfinch served on a number of committees which had to do with various town matters including Faneuil Hall, Beacon Hill, ete. [ 38 ] ELECTED SELECTMAN One of these was on street-lighting, and was a connecting link between private street-lamps, with increasing town appropriations for part maintenance, and a full town system. This committee, by the help of private subscription, tried the experiment of lighting the town in the winter of 1792. The success warranted a recommendation to light the lamps for the ‘ensuing’ year (April, 1792); and the town so voted. Bulfinch also had a part in the operation of a ‘New system of edu- cation’ which had been adopted by the town October 16, 1789. The committee (of which Bulfinch was secretary for the year 1792-93) to execute this new system was composed of twelve men elected annually ‘conjunctly’ with the Selectmen, making a total of twenty-one members. Their business was to visit the schools ‘once in every quarter and as much oftener as they shall judge proper with three of their number at least to consult together and devise the best methods for instruction and government, etc.’ It wae a real executive service and involved much time and thought. There were seven schools: one, in which Latin and Greek were taught and ‘scholars fully qualified for the Universities,’ called the Latin School; one writing school each for the north, center, and south parts of the town for the teaching of writ- ing and arithmetic, and one reading school each as above, where read- ing, spelling, and grammar were taught. The Latin School was for boys at least ten years old who had received instruction in English grammar; the others were open to both sexes, admitted at the age of seven years and to be allowed to continue till the age of fourteen. The boys were to attend the year round; the girls from April 20th to October 20th. The marked advance in this new system was the extension of education to the children of both sexes. The committee, in a report to the town at its meeting May, 1792, emphasizes the great advantages already received from this system, and in consideration of [ 39 | CHARLES BULFINCH the increased duties recommend that the Masters receive two hundred pounds annually. The demand for a theatre, which undoubtedly had been growing for a considerable period, was brought to the attention of the town by a petition which caused an article for the meeting October 26, 1791, to see if the town would ‘interest their representatives to endeavour a repeal of an Act passed July 1750, entitled an act to Prevent Stage Play, and other Theatrical Entertainments.’ The motion that the petitioners have leave to withdraw was lost. It was then voted that Perez Morton, Esq., James Hughes, Esq., Mr. Charles Bulfinch, Captain James Prince, Samuel Cabot, Esq., Thomas Crafts, Esq., and Joseph Russell, Esq., be a committee to instruct the representatives to seek a repeal of the law. The committee in a letter to those gentlemen inform them that at a ‘very full meeting,’ and ‘after a lengthy and deliberate debate they have determined by a very large majority’ that the law ‘operates as an undue restraint upon the liberty of the citizens.’ This was one of the first steps toward establishing a theatre in Boston. To all this Bulfinch gave hearty approval and help, indeed we must count him one of the chief movers. No Puritan by birth or training, and with little sympathy with repressive measures, he loved the beautiful and its full, free expression in life. We have seen his keen enthusiasm for the theatre on his New York—Philadelphia trip two years before, possibly preceded by similar experience and delight on his visit to Europe, and his artistic nature responded and made him eager to have the same opportunity for enjoyment in Boston. The law was not repealed, saved doubtless by the country constituency ; but an attempt was made in 1792 to open a theatre which was sup- pressed by the authorities —it is said, at the instigation of Governor Hancock. [ 40 ] ELECTED. SELECTMAN In this year Joseph Coolidge built his ‘noble mansion’ — as Bul- finch describes it in 1843, about the time of its removal, fronting on Middlecot, now Bowdoin Street — in the midst of extensive gardens which stretched from Cambridge Street to one hundred sixty-six feet south of Allston Street. Mr. N. I. Bowditch in his ‘Gleaner’ articles describes the land and says, ‘This house and garden was altogether one of the most beautiful residences which have existed in our city within my memory. The pity is that we have no illustration and no real description, except that it was built of brick, three stories high and about sixty feet square with ell, and had a very handsome staircase. Mr. Coolidge was a friend and neighbor of the Bulfinches, whose son Joseph a few years later married Bulfinch’s sister Elizabeth. This mansion is supposed to be the first designed of Bulfinch’s many single residences, no one of which is mentioned by him; and is a mark of the increasing prosperity which by this time was strongly manifest in the town. The Joseph Barrell mansion, to be considered later in the chapter on residences, also belongs to this period. We are led to suppose that in this and in the majority of other residences Bulfinch supplied the general design, the proportions and the artistic motives, possibly also some interior plans adapted to the need of the owner. But so far as details of trim, of mantels, and of staircases were concerned, much was left to the housewrights who had practical experience and good models both in books — some English, some published in Boston — and in houses which they knew or had helped to build. That Bulfinch entered heartily into the ambitious desires of Mr. Coolidge is most natural, supplying him with the main design and following, as the work progressed, with ornamental ideas; profiting much by this practical contact with skilled builders. There is not the slightest trace of what he suggested for the design. Later he [cAd oy CHARLES BULFINCH built a series of residences which have one or more unmistakable Bulfinch marks, but the Coolidge house may or may not have displayed any of these characteristics. In 1791, Bulfinch was made a member of a committee appointed by the town, at a meeting December 30th, to consider the petition of a considerable number of inhabitants who desired ‘a more efficient police,’ and that consideration be given to “The present State of the Town.’ This was one of a number of attempts to form a city govern- ment with which evidently Bulfinch was in sympathy. This com- mittee reported in favor of a town council with much wider powers than possessed by the Selectmen and taking.over much of the business usually transacted in town meeting. The report was rejected by a vote of 701 to 517. On August 24th of this year, Bulfinch was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, of which John Adams was president at the time, and there is on file at the Academy building, Newbury Street, Boston, his letter of acceptance. We find also that he was Vice-President 1793-96, Librarian (probably not active) 1816- 18, and member of the Council 1811—23. No record has been found of any paper read by him at any of the meetings. Bulfinch’s interests were many, as was natural for a man of his spirit and taste. In an Act of the General Court March 7, 1792, incorporating the Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, Bulfinch is named with Samuel Adams, Joseph Barrell, Charles Vaughn, and others. We have no means of knowing how deep this interest in agriculture was or that it ever grew, but at least it is a hint of broad sympathy. At the annual meeting of the town in March, 1792, Bulfinch was reélected to the Board of Selectmen, and during the year served on many committees, including those concerned with (427) ELECTED SELECTMAN the streets and the hospital, but after this year the extent of his service steadily declined. By this time Boston, still a town in government, bound to the town meeting and the annual dictates of citizens who distrusted delegated powers in matters small and great, was in reality a growing city with questions of education and vice, health and poverty, and the increas- ing demands for town improvements including new and wider streets. Its commerce and industry were flourishing, fishing was on the increase, and trade was world-wide, advancing steadily with the East and West Indies. In the Northwest Coast—Canton trade fourteen out of sixteen vessels belonged to Boston, helping to crowd the harbor with sail, as on a day in October, 1791, when seventy put out to sea. The town business then and for years to come was handled by a small group of men, the bulk of which devolved upon the Selectmen. In this school Bulfinch learned much by observance and experience which stood him well in hand in later years. All this activity of a population of over eighteen thousand in 1790, and growing rapidly, led not only to a demand for finer residences, to meet which Bulfinch applied himself, as we shall see later, but to general business expansion, including that of banking. Congress had funded the national debt, including that of the States incurred for national defence, and had established a national bank and a mint. Some indication of the increase of financial interests is seen in the establishment of the United States Branch Bank in 1791 and of the Union Bank in 1792, which, with the Massachusetts Bank dating from 1784, gave Boston at this time fairly adequate banking facilities. New lawyers, merchants, and statesmen had come to the front; the future was bright with promise. It seems strange that no records have been found in Bulfinch’s [ 43 ] CHARLES BULFINCH writings or in the family records concerning the State House at Hart- ford, Connecticut, but it is certain that plans had been drawn by him as early as September, 1792, and probably before that time. Though he had submitted a plan for the Massachusetts State House in 1787, the Connecticut State House was the first public building erected from his design. Situated in State House Square, Hartford, on the plot of land which was a part of the first purchase made by the English within the present limits of Connecticut, with unobstructed view across the green to the river at the east, the structure was a commanding symbol of a growing commonwealth. The painting in an old clock case gives us an idea of the building on the green; and though the early setting has been lost and we cannot see it as it was, the original beauty still appeals to us much as when completed in 1796. It is a delight to see this monument of State and civic pride so well restored, and it will become increasingly evident to the people of Hartford in particular that the decision to preserve and restore the old ‘City Hall,’ to which purpose the Old State House had been devoted in 1879, was not only wise, but a blessing to all who cherished the past expressed in architec- ture or the deeds of men. Some day the people of Hartford and the State of Connecticut will make another restoration and let this, one of the best-proportioned of public buildings, look out again to the east upon its original and true setting where the unhurried eye may behold its balanced grace and beauty. A representation of the building as originally finished may be found in the Colonel Jeremiah Halsey portrait, now in the possession of the Connecticut Historical Society, of which it forms part of the background. The balustrade was added in 1815 and the cupola in 1822, both doubtless in the original design. It is stated that the cupola is copied from one on the New York City Hall, and though the lines are good they are not those by Bulfinch. aay OLD STATE HOUSE, HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT fade | a “ 7 ELECTED SELECTMAN The restoration, begun in 1918 — difficult because of the many changes, especially after the occupancy by the city — has been done in a sympathetic and skilful spirit and deserves great praise. Exam- ination proved that the foundations and outer walls were in excellent condition; the foundations are four to five feet thick and the first story, twenty feet high, constructed of Portland (Connecticut) free- stone three feet thick, and the upper story thirty feet high, of brick in Flemish bond two feet thick. All floor timbers were replaced with steel beams and the roof and cupola supported on steel trusses. In the interior a part of the work is a close restoration, and the remainder is a new finish as much as possible in harmony with the building. The structure is fifty by one hundred twenty feet with east and west porti- coes forty feet each. The south door is a restoration very close to original location and finish. The figure of Justice on the cupola now faces west and Main Street instead of east as formerly. The eastern _ portico opened through arches to a corridor likewise open on the west through the western portico. There were no solid outer walls with doors as at present, and the side walls of the corridor were constructed of selected brick exposed to view. From this corridor, as at present, the staircases ran westward on the north and south walls, to landings from which, bending in, they meet in a common landing, then ascend- ing by a broader flight eastward to the floor above. The direction of these stairs had been changed, and they are now rebuilt in the old location and in harmony with the original ideas. From the open (now closed) corridor two doors led to the Superior Court Chamber on the north, a room approximately forty-four feet square and twenty feet high. Absolutely changed in more than a hundred years, leaving nothing to suggest the former ornamentation, it now is refinished in the Doric order on lines somewhat similar to ee, CHARLES BULFINCH UPPER CORRIDOR, OLD CONNECTICUT STATE HOUSE Doric Hall in the Massachusetts State House, and quite in harmony with the rest of the building and Bulfinch’s spirit. The gallery on the south in its original location is reached from the first landing of the north flight of stairs in the corridor. Across the corridor from the courtroom were the former executive offices, still showing traces of original finish, with an open fireplace and mantel in the former Gov- ernor’s office, simple and good as when first built there. These rooms display little architectural interest save in the general lines and in the mouldings of the doors and windows. The main staircase was not continued above the second floor, but access to the third floor, which extends only over the hall and connecting with the gallery of the House of Representatives, was by a spiral staircase from the Secretary [ 48 ] ELECTED SELECTMAN of State’s office over the west portico, now refinished in conformity to the general interior, the Palladian window giving light through this room to the second-floor corridor. At the east the colonnaded portico is one of the chief architectural features of the building, the columns of which were formerly of brick, covered with stucco and painted. The glory of the former interior was undoubtedly in the two great rooms on the second floor, and there we find it to-day, restored in some particulars, but essentially the same as when first finished. In the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OLD CONNECTICUT STATE HOUSE House of Representatives the columns supporting the gallery on the south have been removed and are now reproduced as are also the fireplaces. The ceiling is new, and the chandeliers, both memorial [ 49 ] CHARLES BULFINCH gifts, one in each chamber, are modern yet beautiful in themselves and in the adornment they add. In the Senate the fireplaces are original, though the over-mantels and a few other features, including the ceiling, are reproductions. The window-trim in this room is uncommon and interesting. These rooms are both approximately forty-five by forty-six feet and thirty feet high; rich in architectural ornamentation, well balanced, and with a grace and charm that appeal. The main architectural design of the building, with its almost perfect proportions and the other features which make the structure so good, belong to Bulfinch, but it hardly appears that all the interior finish can be ascribed to him. General lines were given, but much of the trim was due to the skill, by no means uncommon, of the carpenters or housewrights of the time. So with regard to the material used in construction; the architect might suggest and advise, but the decision rested upon local judgment involving resources of money and skill. That this was true in Hartford will be seen in the history to which we now come — a history of interest not only to the citizens of Connecti- cut, but beyond its borders. Some time after the adoption of the United States Constitution by Connecticut, a new State House was agitated, and in May, 1792, a petition was presented to the Legislature setting forth that £743 had been subscribed. One of Hartford’s leading citizens signing this paper was Thomas Seymour, the first Mayor when Hartford became a city in 1784. An Act of the General Assembly was passed at once appoint- ing a committee consisting of ‘John Chester, Noadiah Hooker, John Caldwell, John Trumbull, and John Morgan, prominent citizens of Hartford,’ to superintend the business of erecting and finishing a large and convenient State House, in the Town of Hartford, ‘with authority to draw upon the State for the sum of 1500 pounds, provided a like sum [ 50 | ELECTED SELECTMAN SENATE CHAMBER, OLD CONNECTICUT STATE HOUSE was raised from the City, Town and County of Hartford by May Ist, 1793.’ By June Ist, $3500 had been subscribed by the citizens of Hartford, the county at large soon followed with $1500; and on August 27th the committee advertised in the ‘Hartford Courant’ for material to be used in construction. The record of greatest importance is a letter written by John Trumbull the painter and a member of the com- mittee. Hartrorp, September 30, 1792 Dear Sir: — A new State House is to be built here next year upon a Design of Mr. Bulfinch, which I think is worth executing in the best is) CHARLES BULFINCH Materials. The Committee have determined to make great use of Middletown Stone — but as the Colour of that is not beautiful, I have propos’d to them to make use of the Philadelphia marble, such as us’d in the front of the new library (if the price be not too extravagant), in the more elegant parts of the Building. I will thank you therefore to ask of some of the principal workmen the price at which they will execute the following work: —a band of facia such as is common in the Philadelphia Houses, 14 feet Deep or wide to project out of the wall two inches — how much pr foot? — another facia 9 inches wide to project an Inch & half at bottom & the wall retiring above it half a brick so that the upper surface will be 6 Inches from the face of the wall — sloping to serve as a water- table. —a Doric Cornice the proportion of which is Two feet and a half — its depth proportional. —a Doric Column whose Shaft is 19 feet high: — Diameter 2 feet 4 inches L — the base to be one block, the Column in Three. —a Doric Pilaster of the same proportions. — The pedestal six feet high, but divested of its mouldings. — The entablature five feet Deep with its triglyphs & Stars. — The blocks over windows of four feet plain. The whole of the work to be executed in the style of the Pilasters of that is Chissell’d only, not polish’d. as I may be out of the way — you will be so good as to convey the the new Library answers to these questions to Col. Chester at Wethersfield, who is one of the Committee; & who enters with zeal into the idea of having an elegant and durable building. if you will further take the trouble of making some enquiry whether it be possible to get one of the best workmen of Philadelphia to [ 52 ] ELECTED SELECTMAN superintend the Masonry and Brick work of the Building, you will further oblige, —I presume that Mr. John Morgan who is another of the committee will be in Philadelphia in the course of the month on this subject the previous enquiries you may be so good as to make will be of much use to him. As you are a Connecticut and almost a Hartford man, I need make no apology for so many questions, since they tend to the Honor of the state. I beg my best respects to Mrs. Wolcott & am with much Esteem, (Ole Sie, Your friend & servant, JOHN TRUMBULL painter. bAddressed to) O.tveR Wotcott Esa. Comptroller of the Treas. of the U.S. Phil. Here we have satisfying evidence that Bulfinch was the architect; and some light on the question of material. It is to be noted that marble is suggested wholly for ornamental purposes, quite in line with what Bulfinch would have been likely to suggest and as we see illus- trated in the Massachusetts State House. That this was not carried out was due doubtless to the matter of expense. It would have added much to the finish of the building whether constructed entirely of brick or in part of stone. The work was begun in the spring of 1793, the Legislature in May approving the “best plan’ which the committee had obtained and submitted to the Legislature in May calling ‘for the building of the lower story with hewn stone which would occasion great additional expense.’ From this it is clear that there was no plan when the building was authorized in May, 1792; and we know from the record of an [ 53 ] CHARLES BULFINCH expense voucher that John Chester, the chairman of the committee, went to Boston in September following for the plan, and that the committee had decided upon ‘Middletown stone’ when Trumbull wrote his letter to Oliver Wolcott September 30th. Trumbull realized that the color of the proposed stone was not beautiful and that it would conflict with the hue of the brick, and therefore proposed the use of marble for relief and ornamentation. It is noteworthy that Trumbull in his ‘Reminiscences’ published in 1841, makes no mention of his connection with the construction of the Connecticut State House. At the same time the committee’s plan was approved, a State lottery for $5000 was authorized, twelve and one half per cent of which was to be applied to the building fund to cover the additional expense in the use of stone. The lottery did not meet with great success, owing to the fact that so many other lotteries were in progress in other States; but the work on the building progressed and by the middle of the follow- ing year the walls were practically completed. The committee then determined, in order to save the building from the exposure a winter, to roof and close it in. This was done on the personal security of the five members. Thus the matter rested at the close of 1794. In 1795, Colonel Jeremiah Halsey and General Andrew Ward offered to complete the building in consideration of a conveyance by the State of title to the ‘Gore Lands.’ These men gave bonds in $40,000 to complete the structure and a deed to the land was given, dated July 25, 1795. The work then went forward rapidly and the building was ready for occupancy in 1796; Oliver Wolcott to whom Trumbull had written in 1792 being inaugurated Governor there on May 13th. A committee appointed in October, 1796, to inquire into the cost of the building, reported that $17,480 had been expended up to the close of 1794, and EDs] ELECTED SELECTMAN that “Col. Halsey informs your committee that he expended in com- pleting the State House $35,000." The Legislature in June, 1796, approved Colonel Halsey’s account for furniture, amounting to £334-19-8. There is no evidence that Bulfinch devoted any time to personal supervision of the erection of the building. Not only is there a voucher of John Leffingwell, who was in charge of construction, that reads, ‘June 1793 to my expenses to Boston £6—3-8,’ which may be inter- preted as concerned with a consultation with the architect, but Bul- finch’s presence in Boston can be established so continuously that any- thing more than a brief absence was impossible. From the spring of 1793 onward he was absorbed in work in Boston and especially in his own venture in Franklin Place. CHAPTER IV FRANKLIN PLACE AND THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE N 1793, a beginning was made on a scheme that probably had been | in the mind of Bulfinch since his return from Europe and in re- sponse now to an increasing demand for new dwellings of the better kind. The full story of the Tontine plan in Franklin Place will never be written, because the scanty records leave many obscure points un- touched. The brief reference by Bulfinch, written years afterward, presents only a blurred picture, and Mrs. Bulfinch’s record adds but a shadow lit by the sunshine of her sweet spirit with no touch of bitter- ness. In 1793, fortune smiled upon Bulfinch, then in the full tide of his career, and he gave himself with artistic zest to the ideas that crowded upon him. The Tontine scheme was an association for build- ing dwellings on the annuity plan as practiced in Europe, and though the General Court refused to incorporate, Bulfinch and his brother-in- law Charles Vaughn went ahead, Vaughn purchasing the estate of Joseph Barrell lying north on Summer Street, May 10, 1793. The plan was for a series of connected dwellings, sixteen in all, from an idea which Bulfinch probably obtained in England, not unlikely, as has been suggested, from a design by the Adam brothers seen by Bulfinch when in England. This was of two semi-circles facing each other with a park space between, but though we are assured that no crescents are known in London as late as 1804, the Adam brothers are credited with combining dwellings in large blocks. Credit for introduc- ing this type of building in Boston is due to Bulfinch, but, though the south curved line, four hundred eighty feet in extent, may be seen to- day in Franklin Street below Hawley, the north line was straight. [ 56 | TIVINOWHW NITMNVUd AHL GNV HOUV AHL ONIMOHS ‘SDONIGTING ANILNOL AHL FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE Between these lines was a semi-oval strip of land three hundred feet long devoted to grass and trees in which opposite the arch Bulfinch placed an urn which he had imported from Europe, as a memorial to Franklin then recently deceased. 4 Zz By PLAN OF TONTINE CRESCENT FROM “MASSACHUSETTS MAGAZINE, 1794 Half of the block on the crescent, including the middle portion, was so far advanced that the promoters, on December 31st, wrote to the Massachusetts Historical Society, ‘In erecting the center building of the Crescent it was our intention to accommodate the Historical Society with a convenient room.’ This gift was accepted by the Society at a meeting January 10, 1794, and conveyance made May Ist following. Out of the tangle of many conveyances it seems evident that, though the original plan included all the block on the crescent, only fifty shares were sold applying to numbers one to eight; and that Vaughn began to transfer his shares and his landholdings May 3, 1794. At that time William Scollay increased his shares, holding at the end, January, 1796, the bulk. Vaughn, though no longer active, seems to have been a creditor. Another mark of the influence of Bulfinch was in the new theatre. [ 59 | CHARLES BULFINCH Not only was he a trustee with Perez Morton, Joseph Russell, Henry Jackson, and Samuel Brown, but one of the active movers in the enter- prise from the beginning of the agitation. At a town meeting January 22, 1793, a ‘remonstrance’ was sent to the General Court that the inhabitants of Boston consider the law ‘made antecedent to the establishment of our present free and happy form of government as un- constitutional, inexpedient and absurd’; and a committee, composed in part of Joseph Russell (town treasurer), Perez Morton, John Quincy Adams, Paul Revere, and Harrison Gray Otis, was appointed to co- operate in the matter and authorized to wait upon the Governor with a copy of the resolutions and present an address. In the following July, land on Federal Street was conveyed to the trustees of the Boston Theatre and the work of building pushed with such dispatch that the house was opened February 3, 1794. This theatre, after years of Puritan opposition, was a triumph of the new social spirit which set its stamp upon the town and against gloom and bigotry. The face portrayed by Mather Brown suggests how whole-heartedly Bulfinch entered into this newer and freer life and with what satisfaction he attended the opening performance. Our knowledge of the building is furnished by the gold medal given to Bulfinch, showing a facade of architectural merit with lines close to those in a little sketch by him marked ‘Crunden’s design,’ and with window motives used in the Massachusetts State House. The medal, still in the possession of the family, is a heavy piece of gold of artistic merit, carrying on the reverse side the inscription, “Presented by the Proprietors of the Boston Theatre to Charles Bulfinch, Esqr. for his un- remitted and Liberal Attention in the Plan and Execution of that Buildings [sic], the Elegance of which is the best Evidence of his Taste and Talents.’ We may imagine that the interior beauty was not much [ 60 ] FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE hyihe Proprine of the” Dos PON’ ae ie 7" ‘hat AE “ 18 MEDAL en 3 hit Widenee of I CHARLES ButPincn tt a Seat inthe BosronTaEaT Vale Vahe chart lig Like: ; MEDAL AWARDED TO BULFINCH BY THE PROPRIETORS OF THE BOSTON THEATRE The obverse shows the front of the Theatre different from that of the second theatre which quickly replaced the first, destroyed by fire in 1798, and opened in October. This plainer structure, sixty by one hundred fourteen feet, designed by Bulfinch, built of brick, had a circular ceiling on arches carried by Corinthian columns. The stage was flanked by two columns and two ters of boxes, the upper one of which was hung with crimson silk. The walls were painted azure, the columns straw and lilac color, and the balusters were gilt. In the wing, fifty-one by sixteen feet, was a spacious ball- room with a cuisine beneath. The property on the corner at the very foot of Franklin Place, including a scene-painter’s shop thirty-five by fifteen feet and 9987 feet of land, was taxed in 1798 for $20,000. Some idea of the cost of the original enterprise 1s found in a convey- ance to William Clap, under date of December 1, 1794, of “one un- divided sixtieth part’ in the theatre for which he paid £242, ‘lawful money. Because of its bearing on the furnishings and the success of the first short season, it seems worth while to reprint a letter of [Gls] CHARLES BULFINCH SECOND THEATRE Bulfinch to Mr. J. Taylor which was published in ‘Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch.’ Boston, June 11, 1794 Dear Str, — I have now the pleasure of forwarding to you a bill of Exchange, drawn by Stephen Higginson Esq. upon Messrs. F. M. &. D. Smit of Rotterdam, and payable in London. I have been anxious to remit this amount to you before, but all opportunities from this place have been prevented by an embargo of nearly 3 months, which has interrupted the regular course of business. At the foot I shall place a statement of your account with the Proprietors of the Theatre, and hope this remittance will cover all charges. The Trustees of the Theatre direct me to make their acknowledge- ments to you for your attention and kindness in procuring so elegant a set of embellishments for their house. [ 62 ] FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE The price has much exceeded their expectations, but they pay it with cheerfulness, as they are confident articles of equal elegance could not be procured on better terms. They have determined to allow you a commission of 5 P.C. on the purchase and interest as far as you have been obliged to pay it, or to advance. If these charges should exceed the sum now sent, please to make out a statement and charge the balance to my account, and it shall be paid immediately. I have the satisfaction to be able to inform you that the Theatre meets the wishes and expectations of the public and even has drawn some marks of approbation from foreigners who have seen it. At my first leisure I shall give you a description of it, and of other extensive works carrying on here. Mr. Powell is just closing his season, he has met with astonishing success, and his company has given satisfaction considering the short time he had to collect them in England; we homecer hope for a better, next winter. Mr. Powell promises that no exertions of his shall be wanting. Iam Xe. The work on the ‘Tontine Crescent’ had so far progressed that the Reverend Jeremy Belknap, writing on September 20, 1794, enclosed a rough sketch showing the Crescent buildings extending from Hawley Street, the Theatre, Federal Street Church (of which he was pastor), but with no indication of the buildings on the north side of Franklin Place. That the four detached double houses which were built on the north side were planned by the close of 1794 and begun in the following year seems evident. Charles Vaughn had withdrawn, and William Scollay gave little support. Bulfinch, with the fervor of the creative genius, looked ahead refusing to be daunted. But the risk was great. To the uncertainty of politics and commerce was added the certainty [ 63 | CHARLES BULFINCH of the Jay Treaty, signed in November, 1794, which, while it averted war with England, at once in Boston and in the Nation at large was received with dismay and determined opposition. Democracy had leaned to France till it became clear that anarchy and license were not liberty and justice. The Citizen Genét affair had demonstrated the cheap effrontery of mere citizenship not founded in principle. This Jay Treaty seemed a yoke of bondage restricting both trade and political freedom, yet England held the key to the financial situation and must be reckoned with, since any alliance with France now was im- possible. In spite of all this gloom and chagrin, Bulfinch determined _to push on. More deeply involving himself financially, one definite amount being $16,440, acknowledged to Harrison Gray Otis and David Sears in December, 1794, he proceeded to erect the four double houses on the north of Franklin Place, which must have gone forward rapidly, since one half of one of them, number 22, was conveyed by Bulfinch on October 15, 1795, for $8000. This conveyance was to John McLean, later the generous benefactor of the Massachusetts General Hospital, whose name is perpetuated in McLean Hospital. During the years 1793-94, Bulfinch had little time to devote to the affairs of the town. Elected to the Board of Selectmen in both years, he served on a few not important committees, but in 1794 was seldom present at the Board meetings. In November, 1793, the West Boston Bridge to Cambridge was opened, making the second bridge to afford communication with the mainland. The bridge to Charles- town had been opened in 1785. On September 5, 1794, Bulfinch was made chairman of a committee to erect a new building on Deer Island, which is mentioned as completed when the Board visited the Island in July following, but no plan or description has been found. Reélected again to the Board of Selectmen, March 9th, he declined on account of [Oe A NORTH-SIDE HOUSE ON FRANKLIN PLACE FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE pressure of business and received the ‘thanks of the town’ for his good services. In the records of these four years we have a glimpse of the growing town, and of Bulfinch’s part in it. With his fellow-citizens he was concerned with schools, better streets, the poor and the sick, with markets and fair methods of trade; and was associated with men of character and vision, with whom he labored for better conditions and life. No definite action was taken on the proposal made by the Town of Boston in January, 1793, to build a new State House for the Common- wealth on any spot within the town and on any model, providing the cost did not exceed £9000, and that the State would grant £2000, the old State House and the Province House; but on February 11, 1795, the town authorized a committee to procure land for the State House, and on February 16th, the Governor approved the Resolve of the General Court adopting Bulfinch’s plan and making him one of three agents for its erection. For the next few years he was concerned with the new State House, the vision and plan of which had been in his mind since his return from England. His first plan was submitted November 5, 1787; and now, after years of hope and waiting, he was to have the deep satisfaction of helping to objectify his own design in the town of his birth. His connection with this structure was more personal and intimate than with any other of his designs. He had a real part in the effort of the citizens which had resulted in the decision to build, and now at the age of thirty-one years he was to be associated with two men who represented the best of their times. Thomas Dawes, the member of the committee appointed from the Senate, was born in Boston, in 1731; ‘Mr. Jonathan Smoothingplane’ the Tories called him; and because of his conspicuous part in the early scenes of the Revolution he incurred the anger of the Royalists and [ 67 | CHARLES BULFINCH his house in Purchase Street, next to Samuel Adams’s, was sacked by the British troops before their removal from Boston. “Col. Dawes,’ ‘The Honab’] Thomas Dawes,’ served the State as Senator and on the Governor’s Council, and the town faithfully for a long period as member of the school and other important committees, and for many years was the town’s efficient and esteemed Moderator. Highly respected citizen, he had, from his trade as mason learned in youth, risen to be a practical and successful builder. Edward Hutchinson Robbins, of Milton, Speaker of the House and appointed from that body, was born in 1758. Well-connected, cultured, wealthy, a man of the highest integrity and so esteemed by his fellows, he-was well fitted to codperate in the work in which he delighted. From his estate in Calais, Maine, came the solid columns for the State House, which were carved on the ground in Boston. The laying of the corner-stone on July 4, 1795, was picturesque and impressive. Hauled to its place on a truck decorated with ribbons and drawn by fifteen white horses, representing the then fifteen States of the Union, it was laid by Governor Samuel Adams assisted by the Grand Lodge of Masons — Paul Revere, Grand Master. As architect, Bulfinch’s task was to interpret and advise; but upon him also devolved much of the purchasing as well as many of the business details. It must have been a duty greatly to his liking. Absorbed in his work in Franklin Place and the State House, the year 1795 passed bringing ever nearer the fatal hour in January, 1796. Bulfinch records that only half of the Tontine shares were subscribed for, the remainder continuing at the risk of the company; and that, as Vaughn had been seriously advised by his brother in London against the undertaking, ‘I agreed to discharge him from all obligation and take his share of the concern upon myself.’ [ 68 ] FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE ‘Mr. Scollay too was little able to make advances, still I was so sanguine respecting the success of the project, that I persevered in completing the whole range. But this was done at heavy interest on loans and losses on forced sales, till on the eve of an expected rupture with England, just before the settlement of topics of dispute by Mr. Jay’s treaty, property of every kind was at so low an ebb that no sales could be made and no further loans obtained and I was obliged to become bankrupt and assign the property for creditors; in the conse- quences of this project, my father and brother G. Storer were involved as my endorsers. “With what remorse have I looked back on these events, when blindly gratifying a taste for a favorite pursuit, I involved for life myself and wife with our children — my father and mother and sisters, who all held the utmost confidence in my measures and pride in my expected success. ‘They all bore the loss and mortification without repining. My in- experience and that of my agents in conducting business of this nature, together with my earnest desire to discharge all demands as far as possible, led me to surrender all my property, even that obtained by marriage, which was intended to be secured to my wife and her heirs but from a defect in the form of settlement this property was included with the rest, and I found myself reduced to my personal exertions for support. I had some satisfaction in knowing that not one of my creditors was materially injured, many were secured to the full amount, and the deduction on the balance due to workmen did not exceed 10 P.C. on their entire bills.’ It must be remembered that Bulfinch wrote this years afterward at the close of his life and that dates and events were obscure. As has been stated before, the persistency which led to his failure was in the [ 69 | CHARLES BULFINCH year 1795, following the signing, November, 1794, of the Jay Treaty, which was ratified in the succeeding August. He continues, ‘Soon after my failure my younger sister was married to Joseph Coolidge, son of Joseph Coolidge, Esq., merchant, who purchased the mansion house in Bowdoin Square, and enlarged and repaired it for his son, and I had the gratification to see my good father and mother living for the remainder of their lives under the roof of their own home, tenderly at- tended to by their daughter and her worthy and liberal husband.’ Dimly and imperfectly we realize something of the bitter chagrin Bulfinch felt. Whether this calamity narrowed or widened his oppor- tunity to enter into real life and to impress himself upon it, it is 1m- possible to say. Both husband and wife bore the blow with Christian fortitude. Her character is revealed in two records. The first is entered under date of July 12, 1795: ‘Affuence and content are ours, virtue and innocence the aim of our lives, the object of our wishes. Four families consisting of Brothers and Sisters, situated near each other and by affection still nearer, what more can we wish for except the continuance of our family harmony, and improvement in piety and benevolence. The world has nothing more to give, and we must own with humility these are above our deserts. Let me... for my own advantage upon this grateful retrospect copy the sublime instructions of my favorite Blair.’ The passage begins, “As men, then, bethink yourselves of human instability.’ The coming event here seems to have cast its shadow on her mind. The other record is by one of her sons and runs: “They say that while everything in the habits of the woman of fortune inconsistent with her altered circumstances was dropped instantly, and the business habits of a good housekeeper immediately adopted, she never laid aside, in any scenes of joy or sorrow, the deportment of a lady, nor the [ 70 | FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE graceful unembarrassed manner in which she could still meet the friends of former days, delighting in their society and ever cheerful and attractive in it. But in the narrow circle of home, to which her in- creasing cares confined her almost exclusively, she seemed to feel no want of other society than that of her husband and her children.’ The couple were obliged to give up their home in Middlecot Street and to occupy a small house the rent of which was paid by Mrs. Bul- finch’s brother. Great and sudden change — an ample home, a chaise, a man-servant and two or more maid-servants — to this little house with rent paid by another! A few months later they accepted the invitation of the Storers — George and Bulfinch’s sister, likewise in straitened circumstances by reason of Bulfinch’s failure — to share the same house and unitedly support their two families. This arrangement in Southack’s Court con- tinued till 1799, ‘united by interest and every tie grati- tude can form.’ Just before this failure, Bulfinch did a characteristic act by deeding to the Boston Library Society the lower room over thearch. Bulfinch From original drawing was one of the incorporators of the Society with Scollay, Vaughn, and others, June 17, 1794. Now, with ever-darkening clouds, carrying alone the whole burden of the Franklin Place scheme, he deeds for five shillings ‘and the encourage- cla CHARLES BULFINCH ment of literature,’ and Mrs. Bulfinch places her name on the paper. The year before, June 25, 1795, the Massachusetts Society for the Aid of Immigrants was incorporated by Bulfinch, Vaughn, Theodore Lyman, and others. It was in these many ways Bulfinch gave himself to the service of his fellows. Now comes the insistent question, why did Charles Bulfinch fail? Why did both Vaughn and Scollay withdraw? Were they unduly cautious and insistent upon curtailing and he oversanguine and equally determined to complete? In the face of lessening trade and commerce, with the Jay Treaty still unratified, new and elegant dwellings did not find ready sale. Money, too, was scarce and high; the Bank of England, straining every nerve, just escaped bankruptcy. But the condition of business alone fails to give us an answer. Before the failure, Bulfinch had sold seven houses, at least, not including numbers one to eight, and including one on the north side which brought $8000. What were his obligations January 15, 1796, and what then was the attitude of Vaughn and Scollay? On January 21, 1796. the fatal day, Bulfinch conveyed the balance, or his equity, to Charles Vaughn, and three days later, January 24th, William Scollay conveyed his Tontine shares involving numbers one to eight to Jonathan Mason and others. There is no record of costs of land and construction. Why, and by whom was settlement demanded? On March 20, 1798, Harrison Gray Otis wrote to his wife from Philadelphia, ‘Charles Bulfinch arrived yesterday and dined with me this day. He looks forlorn and dejected and gives me but little satisfaction with respect to Vaughn.’ Bulfinch gave no hint; but Mrs. Bulfinch, under date of September 1, 1796, writes, ‘Let me rejoice that we have health, friends and a good conscience’; and again, ‘Creditors hard and unfeeling refuse to my husband that settlement which again would leave him free to exert his ier THE ARCH, TONTINE BUILDINGS, BOSTON ar re = FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE faculties for the support of his family. We are consequently still dependent.’ Charles Bulfinch’s venture went upon the rocks just at dawn. Trade revived soon after the qualified acceptance of the treaty in August, 1795, and within a short time Boston commerce was reaching toward its greatest volume. By 1798, every one of the twenty-four dwellings had been sold with an assessed value of over $125,000. It may be of interest to see who owned or occupied these dwellings in 1798. Number 1, William Tudor; 2, Benjamin Green; 3, J. Perkins, occupier, J. and T. H. Perkins, owners; 4, Samuel Cobb; 5, John Murray; 6, Stephen Higginson, Jr.; 7, George Blake, owner, Edward Tuckerman, Jr., occupier; 8, Joseph Foster; 9, William Payne, owner, William Dagegin, occupier; 10, John Callender; 11, John Marston; 12, Benjamin Cobb, owner, Isaac Hall, occupier; 13, Abigail Howard; 14, William Welch; 15, Samuel Parkman, owner, Ebenezer Preble, occupier; 16, Samuel Parkman, owner, Edward Blake, Jr., occupier; 17, John Lucas; 18, John Osborn; 19, John Welles; 20, Mrs. Elizabeth Amory; 21, Thomas C. Amory;.22, John McLean; 23, John Hubbard; 24, Don Juan Stoughton, Spanish Consul. All our knowledge of the Franklin Place houses is found in the little ground plan and the old photographs. The end houses in the Crescent were projected slightly and carried pilasters; otherwise the structure was plain, save in the string-course and the ornamentation of the middle part at the arch. These buildings and those on the north were built of brick with details shown in the illustrations, the most out- standing of which are the pilaster treatment and the arched recess repeated in other buildings of later design. After the disaster of Franklin Place, Bulfinch continued his work on the State House happy in the continued respect and confidence of his [ 75 | CHARLES BULFINCH friends and fellow-townsfolk. There is almost no other record for the years 1796-98. In January, 1798, the State House was ready for occupancy by the General Court, though the finishing required more than a year beyond this date. Here was one high hope fulfilled despite other failures; and January 11, 1798, was a bright day for Charles Bulfinch as well as for his fellow-citizens. The heart of this noble gentleman must have beat high as he, a truly conspicuous figure, marched in the procession that made its way from the old State House in State Street to occupy this new structure on Beacon Hill. No building in Massachusetts is more worthy of interest and homage than the State Capitol in Boston, set high on Beacon Hill, with its commanding view of the Common. It has many cherished associations, and a valued history; men high in the moral action of State and Nation have trod its halls; out of it went men with lofty resolves on sacred mission; to it have been returned flags, precious tokens to past and present generations. But our interest here is primarily with its architecture. } | The general lines of the elevation are clearly evident, though some of the original details are obscure. The Pendleton Lithograph of 1827, or shortly after, is the most satisfactory of the earliest known illustra- tions of the buildings. The stone wall surmounted by the iron fence was erected in 1826. A print of 1817, from A. Bowen’s earlier woodcut, gives a cruder idea of the essential lines. The changes principally to be noted in the building as it stands to-day are the construction of a basement above the ground, and the building-out of a piazza with low balustrade from the steps which formerly ascended between the columns. This is distinctly at variance with Bulfinch’s design and undoubtedly would have had his strong disapproval, inasmuch as he planned the building without a basement. The structure as heztins NMOd DNIMOOT ‘AOWId NIIMNVUA ydeisoyy] Uojpusg oy} Woy HSNOH ALVIS SLLASOHOVSSVIN FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE it stands to-day, with the changes noted above, does not show the original proportions. A picture dating after 1865 shows a disfigure- ment to the front story caused by cutting the windows up to the string-course, later overcome by restoring the original lines. There is good evidence that the east end was constructed essentially as seen to-day with three arched windows; but the west end 1s notably different with five windows, unquestionably original, though the five smaller ones which cut the entablature almost up to the cornice, a construction impossible to reconcile with Bulfinch’s taste, may be later openings. The structure, one hundred and seventy-two feet by sixty-five feet, and with a dome rising one hundred and fifty-five feet, is constructed of red brick in Flemish bond, with white marble lintels and keystones. The brick was painted white in 1825. At the time of erection, the north side of the building was practically the same as the south, though much ob- scured by the hill which was higher back of it, removed in 1811. The north side was changed by the erec- tion of the fireproof edifice in 1831, ninety feet long; and again later in 1855, when a new building was DOME OF STATE HOUSE, BOSTON erected which extended the length of the Bulfinch building. The present cupola or ‘lanthorn’ is a repro- duction of the original; and the beautiful dome, fifty-three feet in diameter, made fireproof by steel beams in the preservation of 1896-98, is in all essentials of line and proportion the dome of Bulfinch. It seems almost unbelievable that the dome had no protection from the bah CHARLES BULFINCH weather until 1802 when Paul Revere and Son covered it with copper. It was first gilded in 1861 and covered with gold leaf in 1874. The story of the covering of the dome by Revere and Son and many other interesting facts are set forth by Miss Ellen M. Burrell in her little book, “The State House.’ Her untiring interest in the State House, extending through many years, has brought to light much that other- wise might have remained hidden. In spite of the many interior changes during one hundred years, we are especially fortunate to-day to behold the ma- jor part of the original beauty. Owing to the spirit which prevailed in 1896 to preserve the Bul- finch building, we find, especially in Doric Hall, the old Senate Chamber, the Old House, and the Council Chamber, the de- sign of Bulfinch. Doric Hall, approxi- DORIC HALL, SHOWING SOUTH DOOR mately fifty-five feet square, which had in 1798 three doors leading from the portico, now has only one, rarely used. This door has the original trim so much in use in the buildings of that time, and is [ 80 | FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE panelled with a reed moulding, all that suggests the lighter treat- ment to be found on the floor above. A detail illustration of the hall shows the door and a part of the cornice of the room, together with two of the ten columns, five on each side, which led originally to a corresponding door on the north. The Roman Doric cornice is good, and the columns now exactly reproduced are interesting. These with the door treatment are the distinctly architectural features of the hall. On the north side of the hall are two tablets, one com- memorating Bulfinch, and the other relating to the preservation of the Bulfinch building. Doric Hall has dignity and strength, a quiet beauty in keeping with an entrance hall from which one is to pass to something richer. There seems to be little else on the first floor of importance in determining Bulfinch’s hand except the interesting old staircases with well-designed newels and decorated stair ends. In the rooms on the second floor, which are to-day very true to the original design, we see Bulfinch at his best. The photographs repro- duced, together with a few details, may serve to show the beauty of the designs. The old Senate Chamber in the east end 1s thirty-six by fifty- six feet on the floor, composed of a middle area thirty-six feet square and the addition of two bays on the south and north, each ten feet deep. A gallery on the west extends over the adjacent corridor. The bays carry an entablature from which a curved and highly ornamented ceiling springs, with designs on a delicate blue ground. The columns of the Greek Ionic order, enriched and suggesting the columns of the Erechtheum, have octagon bases with reed mouldings at the top. There were four fireplaces, two in the east wall in the bays, and two opposite in the west wall. The three curved frames at the north represent openings which formerly were for windows. Now, as in 1798, there are three windows ded CHARLES BULFINCH THE OLD SENATE CHAMBER in the south wall and three in the east wall, although a reprint of an old photograph after 1855 shows that the middle window had been closed. This was in the space directly back of the then President’s chair. On the whole, the chamber to-day has the same lines and decoration as when built. The old House, now used by the Senate, fifty-five feet square, is architecturally interesting, chiefly in the treatment of the domical ceiling, the east and west galleries and the north and south sides. The old arrangement of the House with square head windows is shown in the cuts published in 1852 and 1856; but they also show the small projecting galleries put in after the chamber was finished and later removed. The lower walls as seen to-day with a low dado, and the [ 82 ] SHAILVINGASHUdaY AO ASNOH ATO AHL 4 : 4 s eh. ee SE 2 a oe - AU sccaieaemesemmmnnceae et ENTATIVES Y AND CEILING, HOUSE OF REPRES GALLERY FRANKLIN PLACE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE finish in imitation of block construction, broken ten feet from the floor by a narrow reed course, date from the changes made in 1866. At that time the fireplaces, one in each corner, were closed. Above these openings, between the springing of the arches, are emblems representing agriculture, commerce, peace, and war. No adequate description of the ceiling is possible. The photograph will help, and should be studied with the knowledge that the dark color in the small circles, in the centre, and in the larger circle around it, is a delicate blue. In this picture is to be seen the ancient codfish — emblem of the importance of the codfishing — transferred from the Old State House. The height from the floor to the centre of the cupola is approximately the same as the diameter of the ring, fifty feet. On the second floor at the west end, our interest in the original finish is confined to the Council Chamber, though the plan of the old REPRESENTATIVES HALL, ABOUT 1852 — LOOKING NORTH [ 85 | CHARLES BULFINCH corridor remains, containing the staircase with its changed location. The Governor’s room had no part in the first plan and 1s finished to- day in harmony with the Council Chamber and contains an elaborate marble mantel, of later date than 1798. The Council Chamber is of especial interest because of the marked departure in its finish. The room has two windows at the south and two at the west, all recessed, and an interesting stone fireplace between the west windows, evidently on original lines, with an opening approximately three feet six inches by thirty-three inches. Whatever our perplexity regarding the con- struction of the west when compared with the east end, we are certain that the finish of the Chamber as it is to-day follows almost exactly the design first executed. On January 10, 1798, the day before the occupancy by the General Court, the ‘Columbian Centinel’ published a full description of the building including the Council Chamber. “The council chamber ...is twenty-seven feet square, and twenty high with a flat ceiling; the walls are finished with Corinthian pilasters and panels of stucco. These panels are enriched with the State arms, with emblems of executive power, the scale and sword of justice and the insignia of arts and freedom, the caduceus and cap of liberty, the whole decorated with wreaths of oak and laurel.’ This evidence is conclusive. There is no mention of the Governor’s room, but “besides these principal rooms there are about twenty smaller, plainly finished for the use of committees.’ There is little else to-day in the interior of the original building that can be ascribed to Bulfinch. An examination of old papers relating to the State House shows there was little change in the general design offered by Bulfinch in 1795 from that of 1787. As early as June, 1787, a new State House was agitated, and on November Sth of that year Bulfinch wrote to the committee appointed to consider the matter submitting a plan which [ 86 ] ie MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE COUNCIL CHAMBER, OLD SENATE GALLERY, MASSACHUSETTS STATE HOUSE : (Py etl er.erte: gL fpre coz 4 ee CEAME frozete’ ges Grav’ AS ota ye ects Cs ICE, , ferret Mich” Ce. eer Qe Cac? hiner % ike es Keg de are exec rcesien Yerice Wiad Zerre as ane eee) mae ff BE frtieg 7- oreo ceer ee lawn corre “tte a. LL. ee ye Sie ce. feel lee pecteet’ Prarecomery G2 fewte creciernde te Keaw Che tooo ate sumer anak, a” Vee er epee De EULIES at . 5 3 ‘ a) ) Gan Girne ean oretece we Qreetlésviaky f cewrtbori cert AGE; Seer foo fe ethete cepsiered I Fo Fe eae EB Ofge —~ ie wat fiwhadey fia Bz E pe PaE, erin eestie’ Feet PP PLEPLL fr FED crcc#y a iced se 2 \ hegpec/ SESS aS Oo ay Ste tele ty Yi xc De ceeestig ier Glare, fre Als pressure’ ff Diy. . LIPPER: sacifecee ers uals ar LYfeere. erzee’ PrL<< oe i: ayer t. a7 Veale Deter ee op Some oF Looky, Pops eA frtaee, tad pevy oP icees fetes a) ca leeeVib tae i ee, San Rx pi borer Brereee . Fie") Pot Py, eS) Gree Cae Kor, Gone? ta” he eclO ay - : fat’) O Bey goy entine us TE oe Re Ae Oe aa ITS frcecte Wino for co one uae eatin < D6 Laeger cll’ wrx - - - - PEELE ce, LOT SO, 030 Gruss _.. . ~ Itfe ¥, pss. =p ine vox f oe - 13 RESIDENCES BEFORE THE WAR home, Mrs. Swan entertained her distinguished guest whom she had known in her younger years. This granddaughter also has told how from their Chestnut Street home Copley’s small wooden house on Beacon Street was plainly to be seen, where that noted artist had rie painted many of his portraits before his departure for England in 1774. Number 17 is of especial in- terest for its direct and continued association with Mrs. Swan, its atmosphere of the past and the largely unchanged original finish. It is now owned by Miss Eliza- beth Bartol, a great-grand- daughter of Mrs. Swan, and contains much of the beautiful furnishings sent over by Mr. Swan. Over the mantel in the BEDROOM MANTEL, 15 CHESTNUT STREET front parlor hangs the portrait of Mrs. Howard, Mrs. Swan’s daughter who first lived here, at the right is the portrait of Mr. Swan and at the left one of Mrs. Swan, all by Stuart; on the mantel the French clock and candelabra and in the fireplace the gilt fire-goats (not dogs). The great city shrinks, and again the past returns with its romance and reality. A feature in nearly all of the houses of this period is the cornice, the most notable found at 55 and 57 and 85 and 87 Mount Vernon Street. It should be noted how closely the four groups of houses just discussed follow Park Street both in date and in general plan, in all the same proportions and the arched window recess in the first story, and the low-down windows in Park Street and at 87 Mount Vernon Street. else CHARLES BULFINCH Two other notable houses of this period should be mentioned, that built by Thomas Amory about 1804 (later called the Ticknor house), and the John Phillips residence now numbered 1 Walnut Street, erected in 1805 by the man who in 1822 became Boston’s first mayor. Both houses remain, though much changed, but though there is no evidence to connect Bulfinch with the Phillips house, the marks on the other are unmistakable. This latter is larger and more elaborate, PARK STREET, SHOWING AMORY HOUSE ON THE CORNER answering to Amory’s ambition, and had the arched window recesses and the low-down windows with balconies which we have just noticed. Amory suffered reverses, the news arriving just as he was preparing to receive guests in his new house, whom he welcomed to the house- warming knowing that on the morrow they and others would know that he was bankrupt. a The Thomas Perkins house at the corner of Joy and Mount Vernon Streets belongs to this early period and is of considerable interest. [ 184 ] INTERIOR, 15 CHESTNUT STREET, BOSTON errant BEN os, snnatcone teens NO. 17 CHESTNUT STREET, BOSTON RESIDENCES BEFORE THE WAR How directly it is due to Bulfinch influence is not clear. It had the arched window recess in the first floor of the front elevation, but the proportions are not so good as usually are found in his designs. Built in the years 1804 and 1805 and occupied in 1806, the beautiful marble mantels carved in Italy were not received till Jan- uary, 1806. These man- tels are still in existence on Beacon Hill, being re- moved from the house when it was demolished in 1853, and are rare ex- amples of this style and date in Boston. Mention is made of the double house at 54-55 Beacon Street because of its colonnaded balcony on lines found in ‘Colon- nade Row.’ The date of erection falls between the dates of two conveyances, that of the land on De- THOMAS PERKINS HOUSE, CORNER OF MOUNT VERNON AND JOY STREETS, 1804-05 From an old photograph cember 10, 1806, and of the eastern half of the house on November 9, 1808. The swell front and the balcony design suggest Bulfinch, but the treatment of the pilasters is not good, particularly the awkward handling of the entablature block in contrast with the truer lines at 85 Mount Vernon Street and in the houses on the north side of Franklin Place. The building should be compared with numbers 39 and 40 [ 187 ] CHARLES BULFINCH Beacon Street which Bulfinch did not design, and with Colonnade Row which he did. An almost identical residence in Summer Street is illustrated in the ‘New England Magazine’ for November, 1898, the residence at one time of Edward Everett. Colonnade Row, a series of nineteen dwellings, not twenty-four as sometimes stated, extended from West Street to Mason Street on land formerly included in the Common and conveyed by the town in 1795. By November 15, 1809, this land was owned by David Greenough and others, and a conveyance of one of the houses is recorded June 17, 1811. Comparison of a lithograph published in 1843 with the copy of the old 1855 photograph shows how unreliable old cuts may be in details, particularly here in failing to show the balanced proportions, a strong Bulfinch characteristic. The Doric colonnade with the delicate balconies had charm, and, varying both in width and door treatment, the block had harmony without monotony. Well-set, facing the Common, catching the cool breezes of summer across the Charles, this group of dwellings is one of the most interesting of Bulfinch designs. The treatment of the cornice, simple and good, has dis- appeared and the interiors of the few remaining houses have been utterly changed. In the rear were gardens and stables which helped to make these residences among the best in town. ; Bulfinch mentions a succession of works in architecture of private houses, ete., during this period, and the full list would probably include others not yet found or mentioned above, though those described are typical examples. OISL ‘NOLSOd ‘LAAULS LNOWAUL ‘MOU AGVNNOTOO * yr CHAPTER VIII THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE HERE is little in the records for 1812 and 1813 to denote that “| Qe was in progress. Boston, never in favor of hostilities with England, went on largely undisturbed, and though before the close there were suffering and busi- ness depression there was no participation in actual war. Yet while building activities continued there was little town expansion fA _t SE and no matters of im- portance bearing upon Bulfinch or his service during these two years. He gave his time to the steady routine of town affairs and made some designs, but of his atti- tude on the policies of the National Administration or toward the war we find DESIGN FOR A CITY HOUSE no hint. From the original drawing made after 1800 Against the formal declaration of war suggested by President Madison, June 1, 1812, and adopted by Congress on the 18th, Boston [ 191 ] CHARLES BULFINCH registered its opposition on the 11th in an unanimously adopted resolution that ‘it is of the last importance to the interests of this country to avert the threatened calamity of war with Great Britain, and also to restore the freedom of commerce, if these important objects can be attained consistently with safety and honor of the American Nation.’ A committee was appointed that, at an adjourned meeting of the town the following day, offered a report which after full debate was accepted and ‘the Selectmen were requested to transmit a copy thereof to each town in this Commonwealth.’ The report complains that “the National Government is unprepared for war, and that under pretense of resisting the invasion of maritime rights it has debarred its own citizens from the use of the ocean.’ ‘The decrees of France, the edicts of England, and the Acts of Congress . . . constitute in effect, a triple league for the annihilation of American commerce.’ Abandonment of commercial restrictions was the burden of both report and resolutions; war against Great Britain alone was ‘unjust,’ against both Great Britain and France ‘an extravagant undertaking,’ and an alliance with France a subversion of liberty and independence. The citizens of other commercial states are earnestly requested to join for ‘restoration of our unalienable commercial rights’ and ‘the se- curity of our peace.’ Two years later this spirit found its culmination in the Hartford Convention. Boston had made its protest, had uttered its warning with disapprobation; but war was declared, on what principle of states- manship it is difficult to discover. We cannot fail to see that com- mercial interests bulked large, coloring the spirit of patriotism; no more can we fail to recognize the essential fairness of the criticism of the Administration. Another step toward the Hartford Convention was taken by the [ 192 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE inhabitants in a meeting in F aneuil Hall August 6th, to condemn the mob violence against the freedom of the press in Baltimore. The resolution, ‘passed nearly unanimously in the affirmative,’ cited ‘that those outrageous proceedings are in our opinion attributable to the present wanton, impolitic, and unjust war... and that we perceive no refuge from destruction, but in a change in our present rulers.’ The article in the warrant to consider the expediency of calling a State Convention was warmly debated, continued in an adjourned meeting the next day when it was ‘nearly unanimously’ voted to choose Harrison Gray Otis, Christopher Gore, Dr. John Warren, Theodore Lyman, Samuel Parkman, David Sears, and a number of others with a delegate from the Town of Chelsea, delegates for the County of Suffolk to act with delegates from other counties in the matter. We do not hear of this question again in town meeting, but the out- come is found in the Resolves of the General Court, October 15, 1814, which, because the ‘Constitution of the United States had failed to provide protection to Massachusetts and Eastern Sections,’ adopted measures for defence and appointed twelve delegates to confer with delegates from other New England States to meet at Hartford De- cember 15th. Many of the names of the delegates are the same as those chosen by the town two years earlier for a possible State Con- vention. This futile Convention, which contributed to the overthrow of the Federalist Party, met in the State House at Hartford designed by Bulfinch and began its deliberations just as the treaty was signed, December 24th, which ended the war. Though the Selectmen were requested at the town meeting in August, 1812, to take all proper measures for preserving the public order, little was done or deemed necessary for defence. During 1812 there was slight change in general business conditions or interruption [ 193 ] CHARLES BULFINCH of commerce, trade being carried on with England by permission of Great Britain’s blockade squadron. But in 1813 matters steadily grew worse, ships lay idle in the harbor, and by the spring of 1814 the blockade of New England ports was well-nigh complete. Yet there was little privateering issuing from the port of Boston; in disdain of the war or on principle, it largely held aloof. Unlike the smaller coast towns Boston had suffered little from the depredations of the enemy, but by April, 1814, 1t was truly alarmed and measures for defence eagerly sought. The Chairman of the Selectmen sent a letter to the Adjutant-General assuring him of the desire of the town to codperate in measures of defence, and immediate steps were taken to guard the islands and exposed situations, men were put in training for heavy artillery, but the proposition to sink hulks in the channel near Castle and Governor’s Islands was not carried into effect, due to the counsel of the Marine Society. But all bridges were guarded and provision made for their destruction if necessary, and in September the Chair- man of the Selectmen, acting here and in all these important matters as the town’s chief executive, issued a call for volunteers to work on the fortifications. On October 13th, the Chairman acknowledges the valuable help received for the defence of the town and makes appeal to complete Fort Strong, and in November he informs the Secretary of the War Board that over twelve thousand dollars, subscribed by the citizens for defence works, awaited the order of the Board. But no- thing happened, Boston remained untouched, the reason why does not appear. The Massachusetts delegates appointed October 15th, met with the other delegates at Hartford December 15th, and with slight credit to themselves or the Commonwealth they represented voiced a sense of wrong, but wanting the vision of large statesmanship. The Treaty of [ 194 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE Ghent was signed December 24th; and the Selectmen’s meeting on February 15th was occupied, in conjunction with a committee from the General Court, in planning for a demonstration of the public joy. Very appropriately the day selected was February 22d. After a salute in the morning and an impressive service in King’s Chapel, there was a ‘grand civic procession’ in which all citizens were invited to join by the Selectmen. The procession halted at several places while the marshals read the proclamation of peace; countermarched on State and Broad Streets and was dismissed at the Old State House. A ‘Public Dinner’ at the Exchange Coffee House was arranged by the Selectmen at which the Governor, the Lieutenant-Governor, members of the Council, Senate, and House, Judges, the President of Harvard, and other notables were guests. During the dinner a number of toasts were drunk, His Excellency Governor Strong offering, ‘Perpetual peace between Great Britain and the United States and harmony among ourselves.’ The celebration was concluded with fireworks in the evening. The unexpended balance of the contributions for defence was appropriated by the Selectmen in 1816 for the needed improvement of the Common, and Bulfinch and two other members were made a committee to superintend the work. The violent gale in the preceding September had wrought great havoc to the trees, uprooting not less than twenty-five, and this balance for defence was fittingly used in the adornments of peace. It will be seen even from this inadequate sketch that Bulfinch was closely associated with the events and business incident to the war. Since 1799, by his character and by faithful and efficient performance of his duties, he had become the chief executive in fact if not in name; but there is almost nothing to indicate his personal opinion and judg- [ 195 | CHARLES BULFINCH TREMONT STREET MALL ment on the matters we have been considering, and we can only guess his attitude on the action of the town in appointing delegates to a State Convention or on that of the General Court in instituting the Hartford Convention. He was a Federalist and doubtless in sympathy with the maritime interests of the town, but of his active participation in politics there is no evidence, while in all these issues we should expect fairness and perspective that touched the fundamentals. The ‘arduous duties’ of the Chairman of the Board increased and were recognized by his associates who more and more attended to the smaller matters that came before the Selectmen, but the larger and important interests had his full consideration. Of committees ap- pointed by the town for special work, composed of the Selectmen and others, he was not only the Chairman, signing the reports, but he entered fully into their content and the business involved, and the bulk [ 196 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE of the reports seem to have been written by him. Chairman of the ‘Convention’ composed of the Selectmen, the Overseers of the Poor, and the Board of Health, which the General Court authorized in 1813 to elect the Town Treasurer and Collector and to shape the financial affairs of the town, he not only signed all the annual reports, but rendered intimate and valuable service in the business involved. Hardly a committee on any important business was voted by the town of which he was not made Chairman. In these matters his judgment was sought and his executive ability recognized. } ws waited ee OLD ELM, BOSTON COMMON Showing Frog Pond and Rope Walks The report of one of these committees is of especial interest because it deals with a new era in the developing town life. Rendered on October 20, 1813, and signed by Bulfinch, it expresses approval of a petition to grant to a corporation, to be formed, the lands and flats lying about the shores of the bay west of Boston Neck for tide mills, on condition that the corporation should build a dam and bridge to South [ 197 ] CHARLES BULFINCH Boston and another dam wide enough for a street from the foot of Beacon Street to Roxbury or Brookline. This marks the beginning of the expansion of Boston manufacturing interests which went forward steadily from this period. The war had helped to teach America that in industry as in government it should be free, and though with the cessation of hostilities commerce improved, capital was attracted in- creasingly to manufacturing. It is of interest to note that during the war a certain element in humanity ran true to type. So pronounced and common was the evil of cornering of articles of necessity that the town took decisive meas- ures against all ‘forestalling of the market’ and all fraudulent practices, threatening to revoke all licenses of vendors and dealers, and to bring to punishment those convicted. Following almost immediately the demonstration of joy on February 22d, came the annual meeting of the town for the election of officers on Monday, March 13th, at which Bulfinch was not elected. The Town Clerk and the nine Selectmen were declared elected, and the meeting adjourned to Thursday. No reason is given in the record for this action, but at the meeting on Thursday we find that the gentlemen who had been chosen to the Board of Selectmen had declined to serve; whereupon the meeting proceeded to ballot again, with the result that Bulfinch and eight other men, five of whom were chosen Monday, were declared elected. The newspaper reports 2688 votes cast, ‘the largest vote ever recollected in March,’ adding, ‘all the candidates are re- spectable and esteemed Federalists.’ That Bulfinch received 1354 votes to 1186 cast for his opponent indicates a real opposition. Again the meeting adjourned without transacting any other business to Friday, when eight of the members appeared to take the oath, in- cluding Mr. Bulfinch, who did so after he had delivered an address [ 198 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE which the meeting immediately and unanimously voted should be published in all the Boston papers. This address for all it reveals is given here entire: ‘With your leave, Mr. Moprraror, I will thank my fellow townsmen for the honor they have done me in re-electing me to the office of Select- man by their deliberate choice, after a full consideration of the subject. ‘Twenty-four years have elapsed since I was first chosen to this board; and I have ever since, with the exception of one interval of three years served the town with all the talents I was possessed of. — For sixteen years I have had the honor to preside at the board as Chairman. During this time, no application on public or private business has been received by me with insolence or treated with neglect. No complaint has been made of delay except where imperious circumstances made it necessary, but the claims and interests of every one have been promptly attended to. ‘Notwithstanding this, I am sensible, that in many cases of straightening and widening streets, I have been obliged to oppose the private views, and personal interests of individuals; while my object has been to remedy evils which existed from former neglect, and in the removal of which the public convenience was materially concerned. In executing the laws for the maintenance of good order, collisions will sometimes happen with men whom I respect for their general conduct: but particularly in attempting to roll back the torrent of vice at the Hill at West Boston, or to control and keep it within bounds, I have incurred the enmity of some, whose friendship would be a disgrace. The prosecutions have been carried on in my name, but the fines have been paid to the complainants and to the County Treasurer, as his books will testify. [ 199 | CHARLES BULFINCH ‘By your vote of re-election, you give evidence of your approbation of my conduct; and in this persuation I shall continue the same course of duty, upon the same principles which have always actuated me. — While now addressing my fellow citizens, I take the opportunity to mention, that during the long period in which I have attended public business, several attempts have been made to alter the form of our Town government, these have always failed, when attempted on a general scale; but I have seen so many changes gradually introduced, and so many laws have been passed by the Legislature for our particu- lar benefit, that I now think the system of Town-government nearly as perfect as town principles and habits will allow: in effecting these changes, the good effects of which have been tested by experience, I claim no other merit than for suggestions arising from a knowledge of the defects of the system, for the aid which I have afforded, when suitable opportunities have occurred; and for supporting them, in conjunction with my associates, to whose fidelity and zeal for the interest of the Town I can bear testimony; and between whom and myself the utmost harmony has ever existed. But I feel it a special duty to mention the last great improvement, by which the Town Treasurer and Collector is in future to be chosen by a convention of the three boards, who have the direction of the expenditure of the public money; this mode imposes a greater responsibility in the choice, and insures punctuality, dilligence and accuracy in the discharge of the duties of the office. For this important improvement, the Town is indebted to the firmness and perseverance of BENJAMIN WELD, Esq. whose acknowledged financial abilities authorized him to take a lead in such a measure. ‘The establishment of a permanent Committee of Finance, who make an annual and particular report of the state of the monied [ 200 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE concerns of the Town is a measure of my proposing, and the publica- tion of the particulars of the annual expences was never done until adopted by me in the year 1800, the first year when I was Chairman. Such an account has ever since been annually prepared and published, unless directed otherwise by the Town. These measures must con- vince every person of reflection, that the board has ever been willing that its expenditures should be open to public inspection. ‘After apologizing to the Town for occupying them so long on a subject which may appear personal, but which I thought necessary under present circumstances, I am now, Mr. Moderator, ready to take the oath required by law.’ From this straightforward utterance it is clear that the Chairman had run counter to private interests, and that some real effort had been made to grapple with entrenched vice at West Boston some years before Mayor Quincy’s strong action to which he refers at length in his ‘Municipal History of Boston.’ Touched and inspired by the token of the continued support of the majority of the citizens, he points with pride to some of the notable achievements under his administration, and in particular to the Committee of Finance which he had initiated and which proved so highly valuable in the new era he was helping to institute and to serve. Here, too, for a moment the Chairman emerges from the shadows of the records of votes and routine business and becomes a man of real flesh and blood, of moral principles and motives. He has done his full duty steadfastly, seeking no man’s favor, fearing no man’s censure. We rejoice with him in this moral triumph and we are glad for this little glimpse into the deeper and truer nature of this genuine citizen. In the following June another and more insistent attempt was made (meet) Taal CHARLES BULFINCH to make Boston a city, but though the large committee of representa- tive citizens made a strong report and presented a draft of a bill for the General Court, at a meeting held October 16th, the voters refused, 951 to 920, at the adjourned meeting on November 13th, to adopt the recommendations. By this bill an Intendant was to be chosen annually who should be ea officio Chairman of the Selectmen and the chief executive of the city. The work of the finance committee was to go on practically unchanged, but provision was made for a police court. It is interesting to note as members of the reporting committee the names of John Phillips and Josiah Quincy, Boston’s first and second mayors respectively. The years 1816 and 1817 were uneventful, business was stagnant, and town improvements were curtailed in the interest of economy. In 1817 the town directed that the School Committee should be appointed henceforth by the Selectmen, a new police superintendent was chosen in place of Mr. Bulfinch, and subsequently the Chairman of the Selectmen was granted a salary of one thousand dollars. Thus some of the recommendations of the committee in 1815 for a city form of government were put in practice. A few items in the records are of local interest such as that under date of March, 1816, ‘Mr. Abraham Touro applied to the Town Clerk and requested that his religious profession might be recorded on the Town’s books... and that he belonged to a Synagogue of the Jews.’ Again, in June of the same year, ‘great complaints having been made of the irregularity in the time of the clocks of Boston, Cambridge and Salem, the Chairman was desired to invite Mr. Bowditch and Pro- fessor Farrar to agree upon a mode of drawing acurate meridian lines in those three places, that their time in future may be uniform.’ In 1816 a bequest was received from Abiel Smith, late of Boston, [ 202 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE consisting of a considerable amount of shares in various corporations, together with one thousand dollars, for the “maintainance and support of a school or schools ... for the instruction of people of color.’ The town had made its first appropriation for the education of colored children in the sum of two hundred dollars in 1812. This gift of Abiel Smith was exceptional, but it was a part of a movement that grew apace down the century making the philanthropic spirit of Boston known near and far. The city has increased in material wealth, but even more in human sympathy. It is difficult to appraise the moral and spiritual values of this town of considerably over thirty-five thousand people, to know the depths of ‘entrenched vice’ at West Boston or in other sections, or what was the real power of the Church in widening the human vision; but a broader interpretation of Christianity was expressed in the Church and in the community. Puritanism had steadily declined, the Old Testament code of ethics was giving way to the tolerance and brother- hood of the Christ. Bulfinch’s life falls within this period of transition with a constant registration for breadth and freedom. He may have hated evil, but never evil-doers, and his sympathy, so simple and free from false judgment, was in the spirit of his Master. It is here that Bulfinch is a high example of a quality of citizenship utterly different and nobler than that of the Puritan; and it is here that the value of his citizenship in the developing civilization of his day is rich indeed. In June, 1817, the town was greatly animated at the news of the proposed visit of the President of the United States, and a special meeting of the voters was called when the Selectmen and thirteen other gentlemen were requested to provide for suitable reception. The President’s journey had led through Rhode Island where he had visited Newport, Bristol, and Providence, at the latter place recelving [ 203 ] CHARLES BULFINCH a delegation of the Committee of Arrangements from Boston. Tues- day night he spent at Dedham, and about twelve o’clock on Wednes- day, July 2d, a salute from South Boston announced his arrival, and the bells of the town began a merry peal. After a brief address by Harrison Gray Otis the procession de- scribed as being over a mile in extent, composed of a cavalry escort, part of the committee of arrangements on horse, the President on a white charger, Navy and Army officers, Mr. Bulfinch the Chairman, and other members of the committee in carriages and a large number of citizens on horse and in carriages, moved down Washington Street to Boylston and up to the Common where, at the sight of four thou- sand children, the President unconsciously stopped fora moment. The people thronged the entire line of march exceeding two and one half miles, cheering and expressing their joy and welcome; bands at various points on the route played, and the whole was a demonstration of enthusiasm and good-will. The President was received at the Exchange Coffee House where Bulfinch voiced the welcome of the people. Recalling the visit of his illustrious predecessor in 1789, the Chairman expressed the hope that the journey would contribute to a larger understanding of the interests and needs of all of the people and help to promote the common security; and that the powers vested in him by the Constitution ‘will be exercised with a sincere regard to the welfare of the people’ in the high spirit which has characterized his private and public life in the past. Assuring him of the earnest solicitude of the people of Boston, Mr. Bulfinch expressed the ardent desire that, ‘Your administration may, with the blessing of Heaven, ... promote the advancement of our beloved Country, to the highest possible condition of prosperity.’ To this address President Monroe replied in fitting and sincere [ 204 J THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE terms. Among the guests at the dinner at the Exchange Coffee House at five o’clock were ex-President Adams, Lieutenant-Governor Phil- lips, President Kirkland of Harvard College, and the Committee of Arrangements. During the following days of the visit the President attended Christ Church on Sunday morning and received Communion, and in the afternoon at Channing’s Church. On Monday he was received by the President, Professors, and others of Harvard College; a procession was formed and marched to the Chapel in University Hall when the degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred on him, followed by a repast at President Kirkland’s home. On Tuesday President Monroe de- parted for Salem. During those crowded five days there were many events shared by Bulfinch, and thus was formed a mutual regard which had lasting and substantial results. In this experience Bulfinch must have had some measure of satisfaction and of reward incident to the duty of his office. Mr. Bulfinch presided for the last time at the meeting of the Board on December 22, 1817, when he reported that he had accompanied the Sheriff in taking possession of the land recovered from the heirs of Hancock, north of Beacon Hill. There was little other business and the meeting adjourned. The above report was his last service to the town, and ona matter that had engaged the town, and in particular the Selectmen, for over ten years. Thus closes almost nineteen years of continuous public service. practically as chief executive of the town, to which must be added his earlier period of four years on the Board. The Board met on December 24th to record the resignation of its Chairman and fix on a date for the election of his successor. There is no other record; but the town at the annual March meeting, 1818, ‘Voted, that the thanks of the town be presented to Charles Bulfinch (20a CHARLES BULFINCH Esq. for his able and faithful services as a selectman for twenty-two years, nineteen of which he with great ability discharged the duties of Chairman of that board.’ The resignation was occasioned by Bulfinch’s acceptance, under date of December 12th, of the appointment as architect of the Capitol at Washington, formally confirmed by the Commissioner of Public Build- ings January 8, 1818, with the advice that the salary commenced as of December 11th. In a letter dated Washington, March 16th, Bulfinch writes of receiving a letter from the Town Clerk, ‘presenting a vote of the Town, expressing their thanks for my long and faithful services — the cheap reward of republics, for which, however, I am grateful.’ Z : SS a == See Cole St, ack e of Win. Powell Esp. bxthiel Price, Relus Amery, Venue Kings Chapel. OLD VIEW OF PART OF TREMONT STREET, ABOUT 1800 Bulfinch lived west of Court Street, 1815-17. Any adequate summary of this unique and valuable service is im- possible, yet some word must be attempted. Charles Bulfinch’s service was to a town that grew from some seventeen thousand people at the close of the Revolution, almost devoid of modern necessities, to city proportions and demands, lacking only a few forms to make it a city, indeed. Very imperfectly we have traced the development and the part he had in it during almost thirty-one years, from his return from Europe in January, 1787, to his departure for Washington the last of December, 1817. The new system of education which admitted girls and enlarged the whole function of the public schools, the creation of a board of health, new, better, and wider streets, a real [ 206 ] THE GREAT SELECTMAN IN WAR AND PEACE police system, a Municipal Court, better accommodations for the poor and the sick, and last of all a finance committee of which he was Chairman, that brought order out of chaos, collected the taxes with a thoroughness only dreamed of before and safeguarded the money which was disbursed in conformity to a well-planned budget; —in all these important matters Charles Bulfinch served the town, associated with men with whom he worked in harmony and coéperation. Josiah Quincy, Boston’s second mayor, recounting in his ‘Municipal History of Boston’ the achievements of his own administration, so many and valuable, recognizes full well the sure foundation upon which he built, knowing that without foundation his structure would have-been far different. Writing of the latter years of the town government, Quincy says, ‘the data for its financial history are very complete and satisfactory and evidence wisdom and fidelity with which its affairs had been conducted’; and his personal tribute, printed in ‘The Life and Letters of Charles Bulfinch’ is worthy of being repeated, ‘Few men deserve to be held by the citizens of Boston in more grate- ful remembrance than Charles Bulfinch. During the many years he presided over the town government, he improved its finances, executed the laws with firmness, and was distinguished for gentleness and ur- banity of manners, integrity and purity of character.’ With reasonable pride Bulfinch recounts at the close of his life that the important improvements during his administration ‘were made by the town and paid for,’ so that, when he was invited to Washington, ‘the debt of the town was only $14,000, with a population in 1818 of 40,000’; ‘that the other improvements made in the years immediately following, while of great value for convenience and beauty, have occasioned a debt of $1,600,000, the interest of which is more than the whole annual tax of 1818.’ [ 207 ] CHARLES BULFINCH Faithful in much, in the weightier matters of municipal advance we have considered, he was faithful also in little, in the performance of daily routine without which even the large matters come to naught. It is surprising that this man, who was not a good business man for his personal gain, should have been one of the best in public trust, with a certain talent for administration and execution. In principle he was high and pure, in integrity sure, in enforcement of law fearless and firm, yet ever tempered with fairness and charity. He had faults, but also virtues many; and he won the respect and confidence of the citizens of the town. His reward scanty, measured by material standards, was rich in enduring values, and monuments to his faithful service are everywhere in the town that honors itself by calling him its ‘Great Selectman.’ CHAPTER IX DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE, 1812-1817 HE bulk of the building designs during the period just con- sidered belongs to Bulfinch, though, as he records, competitors were beginning to have a share. These competitors were Benjamin, Willard, and Banner, who have been mentioned, and Alexander Parris, in Boston by 1815, who with Willard designed Saint Paul’s Church, built in 1820. But as long as Bulfinch remained in Boston the more important designs were his, some of which were executed during the war, fur- nishing another proof of how little the town was affected by hostilities. There is conclusive evidence that ‘a Grammer School, stone,’ in Bulfinch’s list was the third Latin School building erected in 1812 with a facade quite in his spirit and on lines closely re- producing the middle elevation Preerold Court-House which THIRD LATIN SCHOOL BUILDING, 1812 it faced, the site of the present City Hall. Information of the ex- ecuted design is confined to the old cut of the building which was demolished in 1844. It is interesting to recall that the Latin School was Boston’s only town school till 1682. [ 209 | CHARLES BULFINCH ‘Two large school houses, brick,’ in Bulfinch’s hand, probably refer to the Hawkins Street School of 1803 and the Mason Street School built in 1816, but no illustration or description of these structures has been found. The dimensions of the Mason Street building are recorded as thirty-two by sixty-two feet of the ‘height of the Hawkins Street school house,’ and the Chairman and two other members of the Selectmen were made a committee to superintend its erection. UNIVERSITY HALL AS ORIGINALLY BUILT Another design by him serving the purposes of education is Uni- versity Hall, Cambridge, Massachusetts, the corner-stone of which was laid July 1, 1813. Built of Chelmsford granite and first occupied in 1815, it stands to-day in ‘the Yard’ of Harvard College a fine ex- ample of Bulfinch’s art. The building which cost $65,000, is fifty by one hundred and forty feet and forty feet high, and contains a chapel forty-five by fifty-five feet and thirty feet high. The design doubtless called for two flights of steps into the yard on the east, omitted on account of economy and constructed some few years ago; but may not have included the portico which was voted and built with nine granite [ 210 ] DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE columns, which was removed in 1842. Thus the exterior as seen to- day, with west and east sides practically alike, is probably close to what Bulfinch planned. The proportions are those usually found in his designs and therefore good; but the treatment of the middle section with four pilasters does not fully satisfy. The building originally contained besides administration offices and the chapel, lecture-rooms and commons; but to-day is devoted to administration purposes UNIVERSITY HALL AFTER 1842 entirely. There were four dining-rooms and two kitchens, the lines of the semi-circular openings for food from the kitchen still remaining; but commons, against which there was continual complaint, was abolished in 1842. The red hexagonal tiles of the corridors and the old granite stairs ascending to the second floor ‘miraculously sustained,’ though actually built into the walls on the cantilever principle the same as in the Massachusetts General Hospital, are still in use. Wooden staircases ascended to the third floor and opened upon the galleries of the chapel. The chapel, which was called ‘handsome’ and [ 211 | CHARLES BULFINCH “one of Mr. Bulfinch’s masterpieces,’ was occupied in 1814; previously to which time the First Church had been used, and, after 1858, Apple- ton Chapel. The pulpit was on the east where the present chimney cuts into the flanking window frames, and opposite was placed the or- gan, madein England, the gift of Mrs. Craigie and first used in 1821. The galleries at the ends were said to have been ‘deep,’ supported by columns and ‘richly panelled.’ Evidence that there were galleries is found in more than one record, one of which describing the visit of President Monroe in 1817 states that ‘the galleries had been opened for the admission of ladies.’ These galleries were not included in the restoration of the chapel in 1896 which was well done, removing the floor which divided the chapel in 1868, and restoring the decorative plan. There are six circular top windows on each side, a dado a little over five feet high, and a well-executed entablature. The room is now used for meetings of the faculty and contains many rare and interest- ing portraits. Across the south corridor are the offices of the President and the Secretary of the Corporation, both with a certain charm of simple design and beautiful furnishing. In the Secretary’s office may be seen President Jared Sparks’s sideboard and a portrait of Mrs. Sparks on the wall above it. In both rooms are stone fireplaces and a dado approximately three feet eight inches high. The building carries more than a century of association involving the hopes and ambitions of countless Harvard men and the vision of wider life and education. This interesting design by Bulfinch is indeed a worthy monument of a son of ‘Fair Harvard.’ The New South Church, Boston, dedicated in December, 1814, was likewise constructed of Chelmsford granite which by its beauty of finish was winning approval as a building material. This edifice is said to have been the first church in Boston to be built of hammered [ 212 | CHAPEL, UNIVERSITY HALL sd ‘seer ve aE 5B SOUTH CHURCH, BOSTON NEW DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE granite, and to have owed much to its fine masonry. No more beauti- ful spot could have been chosen for a church than the strip of land between Summer and Bedford Streets, granted by the Town of Boston in 1715 to some petitioners, among them one Samuel Adams, father of the Patriot, and later called “Church Green.’ Here the first meeting- house was built on ground ‘high and lofty’ with an unobstructed view of the harbor. Later,when Summer Street had become one of the finest residential avenues in Boston, with magnificent overarching trees its entire length, more prosperous conditions demanded a new church. Bulfinch’s plan, an octagon, was based on a square of seventy-six feet, with four sides of forty-seven feet, two of which contained three windows each, and four smaller sides of twenty feet in each of which was a window. The height was thirty-four feet finished with a ‘Roman Doric cornice of bold projection.’ The porch, projecting sixteen feet, was the extent of one of the sides, forty-seven feet; in front of this was a portico with ‘four fluted columns of Grecian Doric,’ fluted but otherwise Roman Doric. The spire is the best Bulfinch ever drew and displays originality in its general design. Some of its motives may have inspired Green for the spire of the church designed by him for the First Congregational Society, Providence, built in 1816, with results well pleasing in line, but with detail treatment somewhat faulty. Green’s combination of motives is exceptional, but his proportions are a delight, surpassing those in the New South. The interior was beautiful — light, rich, well-proportioned. If we examine the picture with the help of Shaw’s description of the interior we begin to realize some of the beauty which impelled the architect. ‘Inside the house, the ceiling is supported by four Ionic columns connected above their entablature by four arches of moderate eleva- [ 215 ] CHARLES BULFINCH INTERIOR, NEW SOUTH CHURCH tion; in the angles, pendants or fans, rising form a circular horizontal ceiling, decorated with a centre flower. Between the arches and walls are groins springing from the cornice, supported by Ionic pilasters between the windows. The galleries rest upon smaller columns, and are finished in front with balustrades.’ These smaller columns were fluted with Roman Doric capitals. How well the galleries are worked, with lines running from the intersection of the shorter and longer sides of the building giving a depth of approximately fourteen feet, curving in toward the pulpit! The Reverend S. G. Bulfinch, son of the architect, in an address before the Boston Society of Architects, a number of years ago, said of this building that “special attention was paid to speaking and hearing owing to the delicate health of the pastor. With this view, a flat ceiling was introduced instead of the dome which the form of the building would have rendered suitable.’ From English authorities Bulfinch had [ 216 | DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE been led to believe that a flat ceiling was better acoustically than a domical one. The old photograph indicates that the construction fol- lowed the design seen in the two small drawings which call for a flat ceil- ing for the major part with a certain groined treatment at the angles. The pulpit so well-balanced in line, so beautiful in detail, was built of mahogany and suggests Bulfinch’s Lancaster pulpit and Green’s Providence pulpit as we shall see later. Lacking the lightness of the other two which it doubtless inspired, it is a beautiful design harmoniz- ing well with the church interior. It is interesting to compare Bul- finch’s sketch for the treatment back of the pulpit with the different execution, but no drawing by him for the pulpit has been found. Considering the depression and confusion due to the war, it is surpris- ing that a church so costly should have been undertaken and carried to completion. All through the fall of 1814 the citizens were exerting themselves to the utmost for defence, but in December when the church was dedicated the terror was nearly over. The increasing demand for a House of Industry was considered by a committee, of which Bulfinch was Chairman, that recommended a building to cost about twenty thousand dollars on land west of the Almshouse on Leverett Street, and the town voted the same Septem- ber 5, 1814. No action was taken following this vote, due doubtless to the preparations for defence which may have postponed indefinitely fur- ther action. The final outcome was the purchase, in 1821, of fifty-three acres of land at South Boston and the erection of a three-story stone building two hundred and twenty by forty-three feet and twenty- nine feet high, completed in 1822. While Bulfinch as Chairman made the earlier report when the house was voted to be built in Leverett Street, the plan for the South Boston building was probably drawn by some one else. Pen ros CHARLES BULFINCH The ‘jail in Leverett Street,’ which Bulfinch records as built after the close of his services to the town in 1817, was probably the County Jail which was begun in 1821. There is a plan in the City Hall, Boston, signed by Bulfinch and undated, which is interesting and may be the one executed; but no record has been found and no illustration of the buildings. The residences erected after the close of the war, which can be ascribed to Bulfinch, are few with scanty description or illustration. The costly double stone house, of little architectural merit judging from the old photograph, which David Hinckly built on the corner of Beacon and Somerset Streets, carries a Bulfinch tradition, but there is no evidence. Nor is there evidence to connect Bulfinch with the stone house which David Sears erected on the site of the old Copley resi- dence. It had a swell front on lines introduced by Bulfinch and later was much enlarged as we see it to-day, the home of the Somerset Club, Solomon Willard carving the ornamental tablets on the front. The so-called Blake-Shaw house, really Blake-Tuckerman, which Samuel Parkman built of Chelmsford granite in Bowdoin Square, was finished undoubtedly in 1815 and, by family tradition, was from Bulfinch’s design which a study of the old illustration confirms. There also is a Bulfinch plan very close to the lines and details executed, except the lower entrance floor and the balconies above the doors omitted in the sketch. The northerly half of this house was deeded by Parkman to his son-in-law, Edward Tuckerman, Jr.,in 1817. The southern half, occupied by Mrs. Blake, came into her possession in 1824 by will of her father, who left to his daughter, Mrs. Shaw, the house occupied by her in Cambridge Street. Mention should be made of the double house, Beacon and Walnut Streets, which Uriah Cotting built on the site of his ambitious and [ 2184 ee ut pang ree vay Helis MED CIP EN eoier pf teed PIS DDE EI” Spas capes: me LF Som cate any ate os 4 \ \ eon ' Leapers Sa) Seeger? iret Bovey pad % 4 : i Wow ifort vagtn * POSS PARTE ISYL Be wee yrds epee at or cae H fe is B jee! ii a 17 iF a9 yeere ; ae shihesite werner ing inal signed drawi o t=} i PLAN FOR A JAIL From the or HSNOH NVWYAMOOC-aMV Ta oO nin DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE costly residence which, completed up to the first story, he was obliged, from altered fortune, to take down. This double house was begun in 1813; the westerly half, now much changed, was first sold by Cotting to Nathaniel P. Russell in February, 1814, and the easterly half be- came the property of Samuel Appleton, in 1818. The old illustration shows some Bulfinch marks, and while no evidence has been found, it is interesting to compare it with the house on the opposite corner built by John Phillips about 1805, possibly designed by Bulfinch, to which reference has been made. Weare on difficult ground in trying to determine Bulfinch residences of this period owing practically to no evidence and to competitors who not unlikely followed his motives. There is little warrant for ascribing 39 and 40 Beacon Street to Bulfinch, though these houses are very beautiful and interesting and have some Bulfinch tradition. It is doubtful if they were begun before 1818 when Bulfinch was in Wash- ington; but, though the actual design may not have been by Bulfinch, they show his influence. The interiors now richly and ornately fin- ished, more or less changed since 1818, follow Adam motives which are not strongly characteristic of known Bulfinch houses. We may admire the Scripps-Booth house, built probably about 1806 in Bowdoin Square and later incorporated in the Revere House, but we are unable to find in it evidence of Bulfinch’s design. Traditions of Bulfinch residences are found in a number of communi- ties, some of which have been rejected because groundless, others be- cause of lack of any record or of architectural design common to him. Evidence that he designed any house in Salem, Massachusetts, is not conclusive. Doubtless also there are single residences with as much claim to be included as some of those here mentioned. More light will come with the years. But while it should be definitely understood that [ 221 J CHARLES BULFINCH to establish individual authorship for the bulk of examples which carry undoubted Bulfinch influence is impossible, there is evidence, some circumstantial, some conclusive, for nearly all the residences here de- scribed. The essential thing is to know the main motives of design, the strong sense of proportions, and the handling of good ornamentation, and thus to have an increasing appreciation of what Bulfinch did and of his rich contribution to this class of architecture. Naturally his in- fluence and leadership were recognized and followed in Boston, in Salem by McIntire, and elsewhere, and in that his service lies beyond actual designs made by him; but to attempt to show how wide this in- fluence reached would be futile. Not all of his designs have the same value, while some doubtless were marred by economy or in execution; but his great merit lay in an innate sense of beauty, which ever involves balance and proportion. The Salem, Massachusetts, Almshouse which next claims our atten- tion, constructed of brick, two hundred feet in length with a middle portion forty feet in extent projecting approximately twenty feet, was ready for occupancy November 30, 1816. It contained hospitals and a chapel, had two connecting rooms on the floor above the basement designed for the Superintendent, with embrasured windows and a low dado, but the building has few architectural features and is interesting only for its generally plain finish. While there have been additions and some interior changes the original building, five stories in front, in- cluding the basement, and four in the rear, remains substantially as in 1816. The story of the edifice for the Church of Christ, Lancaster, Massachusetts, can be told more fully because it survives to-day in all its beauty, cherished by town-folk and admired by visitors. The oldest of the four buildings that face ‘the Green,’ looking south toward [ 222 | PORTICO OF LANCASTER CHURCH DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE the Town House, it dominates the setting with a beauty all its own and with a subtle spirit that falls with the shadows at morn or after- noon. The corner-stone was laid July 9, 1816; the building was completed within the year, and dedicated Wednesday, January 1, 1817. The sermon was preached by the Reverend Nathaniel Thayer, D.D., the minister of Lancaster, whose descendants to-day constitute a very in- fluential part of the town and congregation. The cost, approximately twenty thousand dollars, was ordered by vote of the town and assessed on the pews. The edifice, without doubt the finest proportioned of all Bulfinch’s churches, though with an interior less elaborate and _ costly than the New South, Boston, was reared almost wholly by artisans of Lancaster — a noble memorial to their skill and integrity — of Lancaster brick in Flemish bond, Lancaster timber, and the celebrated Bolton lime. In size, seventy-four by sixty-seven and a half feet, with a porch or vestibule forty-nine feet in width, projecting nineteen feet, and a portico four inches less on each side in width, and projecting seventeen feet, it stands to-day almost exactly as built, and practically as sound. The fagade and cupola are deserving of long and careful study and bear witness to the influence of Bulfinch’s trip abroad. Suggested in the New North, Boston, the result here is wonderfully fine. Especially noteworthy are the colonnaded portico with a charm hinted in the picture, the ornaments in the angles between the tower and attic, the almost perfect proportions of the cupola, surrounded by twelve Ro- man Ionic columns, supporting a well-balanced entablature, and the suggestion of old Roman construction seen in the lines of the dome. The height of the vane is one hundred and eighteen feet, and the cupola carries a Revere bell, which, recast on account of some defect, [ 225 | CHARLES BULFINCH bears the date 1822. The treatment of the entrance doors 1s simple, all having beaded frames and a one-and-a-half-inch round moulding in the angles of the frames and masonry. A study of New North (1804), New South (1814), and Lancaster (1816) reveals Bulfinch’s great advance. The fagade of New North is faulty, its proportions poor, its details not coérdinated; the progress in the treatment of por- tico, porch, and tower in New South is marked; Lancaster is the work of a master. Here is growth, the development of a progressive mind. The porch or vestibule has a distinctly New Eng- iand spirit, with the dig- nity and plainness of a New England meeting- house fifty years earlier. There are touches of beauty here, but they are: few and not what the ex- terior leads us to expect. ~ Two staircases bend in LANCASTER CHURCH PORCH and meet halfway in a common landing, under which the congregation passes to the middle inner door; a broader staircase ascends to the upper floor, passing from thence to right or left to the galleries, or up a narrow flight of stairs to the belfry. 2265) DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE On passing from the porch into the church we come upon beauty fully worthy of the best of the exterior. The interior which meets the eye, with the exception of the ceiling and wall ornamentation and certain changed details in the north end, is the same substantially as when finished in 1816. In 1881 the Thayer Memorial Chapel was built, connecting with the church, necessitating the cutting of two doors, the closing-up of the arched window back of the pulpit, and the removal of four pews on each side of the pulpit. Two windows each side of the pulpit, on the lines of the lower and upper rows of windows, eight in all, had been closed at an earlier date. In the gallery a few changes were made when the organ was installed. Otherwise the seating is as originally planned. In 1869, a proposition was made to run a floor on the level of the gallery floors, thus converting the structure into a lower vestry and an upper church. This was in line with what actually happened in so many New England churches, but would have been little short of van- dalism. The beautiful pulpit would have been lost, and low-studded utility rooms would have taken the place of the present beautiful interior. To the courageous and vigorous stand of the minister, Dr. George M. Bartol, the church is everlastingly indebted that the plan was abandoned. At that time the interior was redecorated and an organ installed. There is no picture of the interior of the church prior to the changes made necessary by the erection of the chapel. What Bulfinch would have done with the wall and ceiling treatment, had he been given a free hand, may be imagined from a study of the State House, Boston. Certainly the walls and ceiling in 1816 did not harmonize with the galleries, pulpit, and other details, including the cornice, and the decoration in 1900, while not Bulfinch’s, in some degree suggests [ 227 ] CHARLES BULFINCH what he did elsewhere, notably in the moulding designs, some of which are found in the Massachusetts State House and also in Saint Stephen’s Church, Walbrook, London, which Bulfinch admired, and are in keeping with his good taste. The gallery, supported by fluted columns with Roman Doric capitals, with no bases, ten feet eleven inches high and well-proportioned, is enclosed with an open balustrade, so called, and curves in toward the south end. At present there is no way of artificially ighting the church, and the old method of heating it with two stoves is still in use. The pews are made of pine, stained cherry color, and the numbers on the doors, at one time covered, have been restored. Side pews, four feet by eight feet, suggest the old style ‘box pews,’ while those in the middle of the church, three feet by ten feet, are usually called ‘slips.’ The windows have inside blinds. The two busts at the south end are of Dr. Thayer (1793-1840), and of Dr. Bartol (1847-1906), and were executed by Bela Pratt. Of the pulpit, much should be said, or very little, and it. should be seen and carefully studied; then the judgment of architects well qualified to pass upon it would be confirmed, that no more beautiful pulpit of its type exists in America. Not only is the proportion of width to height well-nigh perfect, but it possesses lightness and grace to a high degree. The only change in this design from the original is the removal of the arched window which was covered with ‘a rich green curtain of figured satin and velvet with a ball fringe roping and tossel.’ The present curtain is red damask. The pulpit, painted white, stands on a platform four inches high, with Ionic columns six feet five and a half inches high, with total height from the platform of ten feet eight inches. The panelling and two mahogany doors enclose a twenty- five-inch space which originally contained stairs — the only way of entering the pulpit until the chapel was built in 1881, [2 sa ee ARRRPE EROS PEELE EEL TOTTI ETE: INTERIOR OF LANCASTER CHURCH eageinins PRINTS PULPIT, LANCASTER CHURCH DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE The pulpit of New South, all so beautiful, suggesting in almost every line the Lancaster pulpit, lacks the latter’s almost perfect proportions and that lightness and grace which is the charm of the later design. It 1s of more than passing interest to compare these two Bulfinch pulpits with that in the First Congregational Church, Providence, designed by John H. Green, a Providence architect, and built in 1816. There is unmistakable evidence that Green drew inspiration from Bulfinch, and in particular from New South, giving to his Providence church a domical ceiling which was the logical treat- ment for the New South plan, together with much in line and detail that makes the Providence church exceptionally interesting. It is fitting to conclude the story of this edifice with a reference to the men who executed the design. That Charles Bulfinch was the architect is beyond question, though his name does not appear on the town records. This church is listed by Bulfinch, and he is also credited with its design in a newspaper report at the time of dedication. Why he should have been chosen to design the church is not hard to de- termine. Almost every man who was chosen by the town to aid in procuring land, to consider plans, or to form the building committee, was or had been a member of the General Court, and so had ample opportunity to see the wonderful Bulfinch State House and its exquisite interior finish. The building committee consisted of Eli Stearns, at the General Court, 1806-10; Jacob Fisher, 1811-13; and William Cleveland, 1813-15. Eli Stearns was a local carpenter and builder, and a first-class workman, as more than one Lancaster residence now standing attests. Jacob Fisher was a cabinet-maker and a progressive business man, and possessed of rare skill with tools. Doubtless his hand carved the pulpit. It is a splendid work in every detail. There is a story of ‘Jacob Fisher and the Twelve Apostles’ 23 La CHARLES BULFINCH based on the tradition that Jacob Fisher gave twelve columns for the church. These undoubtedly were the eight columns and the four pilasters under the pulpit, and would thus naturally connect his hand with the pulpit and its carving. William Cleveland, a man of taste and refinement, born in Salem, 1777, and coming to Lancaster in the early part of the nineteenth century, must have seen something of the wonderful work of McIntire, who died 1811, and hence was an ardent inspirer in choosing the Bulfinch design and carrying it to execution, There is no evidence that Bulfinch was ever in Lancaster, the plan being interpreted by ‘Capt. Thomas Hersey, master builder,’ as the town record reads. Hersey was born in Hingham, Massachusetts, in 1763 of a long line of Hingham masons and builders, and coming to Boston we find him in 1798 owning and occupying a home in Short Street (near Essex) where he had a carpenter shop. He is called ‘housewright’ in 1803 and onward, and a ‘bricklayer’ in 1813, and not unlikely was employed on Bulfinch buildings, though that has not been established. Subsequently he moved to Harvard, after 1813 and certainly before 1816, and was somewhat prominent in the affairs of the town. He died there in 1839, aged seventy-six years. As Harvard adjoins Lancaster, the employment of Hersey on the Lancaster Church was natural, becoming thus the interpreter of Bulfinch’s design to the men who executed it, who, knowing the principles of construction and the use of tools, built with integrity and on honor. All high praise to those early artisans who wrought themselves into this enduring monument, as well as to him whose mind conceived its beauty. The church is a unique example not only of Bulfinch’s fine achievement, but of the highest development of this style of architec- ture in America. Some years after Joseph Barrell’s death the Somerville estate was [ 232 ] DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE sold and Bulfinch was engaged to design buildings for the new McLean Hospital, which were ready for occupancy in 1818. Taking the man- sion built in 1792 from his design, Bulfinch added another story with a pediment to the middle section, continued the ends up to three stories and built on two wings. Besides this central structure for administra- tion and other purposes, two other buildings, forty by seventy-six feet each, were erected flanking the central one. These buildings, en- larged and changed with the years, were demol- ished in 1896 after the removal of the hospital to Waverley. Besides the exceptionally fine stair- case and drawing-room McLEAN HOSPITAL, THE REMODELLED BARRELL of the old mansion which MANSION we have considered, the architectural merit lies in the remodelled north and south fronts and had a charm almost as great as that of the original. Photographs preserved at Waverley show not only the old interior, but the general plan and setting of the group. The Bulfinch characteristics are seen in the remodelling of the mansion, but what he designed for the interior, for which, in connection with his plans for the General Hospital, he made a special visit to the hospitals in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, does not appear. [ 233 | CHARLES BULFINCH Two buildings of this period belonging to Phillips Academy, An- dover, Massachusetts, claim attention by their real merit. Only one — was listed by Bulfinch, at first called Bartlett Hall and a little later Bartlett Chapel, a gift of William Bartlett, of Newburyport, to the Trustees of the Academy for use of the Theological School. Begun in 1817 and completed the following year at a cost of $23,374, 1t con- PEARSON HALL, ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS tained a chapel at one end and a library at the other with recitation rooms above. The half-sized windows were designed to give light to chapel galleries and the library, and are somewhat unique. In 1878 a tower was added on the west side and interior changes made; and when the Theological School was removed to Cambridge in 1908, the name was changed to Pearson Hall. In 1923 a restoration was made [ 234 | THIRD BUILDING, PHILLIPS ACADEMY eh: i Labi at Sa ENERAL HOSPITAL, BOSTON, 1818-20 MASSACHUSETTS G DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE involving the removal of the tower and a change of location by which the building now faces north on the new quadrangle. The other building, erected in 1818 for the Academy, has clear Bulfinch characteristics, notably its pediment on the slightly project- ing middle elevation, and the beautifully proportioned cupola. The exterior is substantially the same as when built, but the interior, due to alterations in 1865 and later, shows no trace of original plan or finish. The cost was $13,252.73, of which $5000 was contributed by Lieutenant-Governor William Phillips. The dimensions of the ground plans of both these structures are almost the same, Pearson Hall (Bartlett Chapel) being eighty-eight feet, three inches, by forty feet, two inches, and the other is eighty by forty feet. Both buildings with their fine proportions are notable examples of Bulfinch designs. Prized as they are by the Trustees and friends of the Academy, they stand worthy illustrations of the past and an inspiration for the future. Though the condition of incorporation of the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1811, that $100,000 should be raised within ten years, was met at once by the gift of John McLean of the entire amount with a subsequent bequest of $50,000 divided between Harvard College and the Hospital, it was not till December, 1816, that Bulfinch was sent by the Hospital Board to visit other hospitals and report on their construction and management. His report was well received, and he proceeded at once with plans for McLean, superintending their execution, but no action was taken on the project for the General Hospital till after his removal to Washington. At a meeting of the trustees on January 25, 1818, a committee reported that the plan for a hospital by Mr. Bulfinch deserved the premium; and on Feb- ruary the plan, slightly modified by the committee, was adopted and [eo tel CHARLES BULFINCH immediate steps were taken to have the stone hammered at the State Prison. The acceptance of this plan was highly pleasing to Bulfinch, who wrote from Washington on February Ist, “It was quite beyond my expectation. I confess, however, that it grati- fied me... that my last act for Boston’ was ac- cepted ‘under circum- stances which preclude personal influence.’ The corner-stone was laid July 4, 1818, with Ma- sonic ceremony, the com- mittee in October, 1820, reported the centre and easterly sections nearly completed, and on Au- gust 21st following Drs. Jackson and Warren were notified that the build- ing would be ready for LOWER CORRIDOR STAIRS, MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL patients September Ist. This structure, approxi- mately thirty-five by one hundred and fifty feet, was located in the “West End’ and thus became the nucleus of that immense equipment which to-day, with splendid tradition and spiritual devotion, makes possible the service to suffering thousands. The original plans have not been found, but doubtless the commit- [ 238 ] DESIGNS IN ARCHITECTURE tee’s modification was slight. It is interesting to compare the origi- nal building of Chelmsford granite and almost faultless construction with one of Thomas’s ‘Original Designs in Architecture,’ published in London in 1783. A copy of this book, for which it would seem he paid $10, had influence on Bulfinch and contains a number of striking motives in common with some used by him. His treatment of the entabla- ture of the porch, though classically defective, is simpler and better than the design by Thomas both in proportion and ornamentation. The ad- ditions to the original wings, made a few years after the erection of the building, must be elimi- nated in the estimate of the lines which otherwise are unchanged. The ar- chitectural defects lie in the treatment of the mid- 4 SECOND-FLOOR CORRIDOR, MASSACHUSETTS ’ GENERAL HOSPITAL dle section above the roof, due doubtless to the practical demands for chimneys, and in the low dome almost concealed. A better handling of the design for the dome is found in the Maine State House a decade later. Though most of the rooms show considerable change, the entrance corridors and staircases are substantially as originally constructed and [ 239 ] CHARLES BULFINCH. exceptionally interesting. In the basement are found the old red tiles, seven and one half inches square, which are repeated on the third floor, and groined elliptical ceilings in the basement and in the halls above. The solid granite stairs, set in the walls with little evidence of being out of line, rise from the basement to the second floor carrying iron balusters and wood rails, but, while the construction is the same as in University Hall, the lines are more beautiful. The floors are granite, the blocks varying from twenty-two to twenty-six inches in width, and are four and one half feet in length. The upper stairs are of wood and lead to the old operating-room where, in 1846, ether was first used in a surgical operation of magnitude by Dr. John C. Warren. There are interesting details in the building, old doors with wrought- iron hinges, semi-elliptical windows over the second-floor hall doors, simple mouldings on doors and windows; but the great charm lies in the exterior lines and in the entrance corridors. The total impression is of a good design exceptionally well executed. From ‘this last act for Boston,’ we turn to Bulfinch’s career at the National Capitol. CHAPTER X THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS URING the nearly twelve and a half years in Washington, ae) sic Bulfinch called the happiest of his life, the citizen was overshadowed by the architect. Engaged on a work that deeply absorbed and interested him, he moved in the best society; yet of the growing National life, the people he met, the ideas exchanged, there is scarce a hint, and the home and personal life emerges from the shadow no more than in Boston. His was not the mind of Jeremy Belknap, and in that respect is to be keenly regretted. It is evident that he was happy, made friends, welcomed friends and guests, especially from New England, carried on his professional work with increasing satis- faction to the Administration and Congress, winning the confidence and respect of his associates: moreover, all the time as a loyal and true citizen; but we get no intimate or personal touch. A few letters, very few, and containing almost nothing of National or professional import, a few reports, no diary, no account written in the leisurely after years — such, in brief, is all we have of this important peried which began the first of January, 1818, and ended June 3, 1830. The circumstances leading to his removal to Washington are best described in Bulfinch’s own words which conclude his brief life sketch. Strangely, this sketch cannot be found among the family papers to- day, and the narration is copied from ‘Life and Letters’: ‘At the close of the war a project was started for building two hospitals, one for insane subjects, and the other with the title of the “General Hospital,” and by the influence of my brother Coolidge I [ 241 | CHARLES BULFINCH was sent by the board of agents to view the hospitals of New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, to observe their construction and to get a knowledge of the detail of their expenses and management. This commission was accepted by me willingly, as a proof of the continued confidence of the most respectable members of our community. I proceeded to execute it, and made reports of my proceedings on my return that I believe were quite satisfactory. ‘When at Baltimore, being so near Washington city, I determined to visit it, and passed three days there. I was much gratified by my view of the situation, and in seeing Congress in session, and left the city without any expectation of visiting 1t again, but it was so ordered that this visit led to the most important consequences. I was intro- duced by one of our Senators, Mr. Lloyd, to Mr. Monroe, President elect; he received me kindly, expressed his approval of the objects of my journey and afterwards directed Col. Lane, Commissioner of the Public Buildings, to conduct me over the ruins of the Capitol. This was on January 7, 1817; on the following July, Mr. Monroe visited Boston, as President of the United States; a large Committee was appointed by the Town to receive him, and I as Chairman of the Selectmen and Committee read to him the address of the Town before a large concourse of people assembled in the floor of their Exchange Coffee house. My duty as Chairman led me to be almost constantly in company with the President during his visit of about a week, after which I proceeded in my usual course, making drawings and directing workmen at the Insane hospital in Charlestown. ‘About November following, I received a letter from William Lee, Esq., one of the Auditors at Washington, and in the confidence of the President, stating the probability of the removal of Mr. Latrobe, the architect of the Capitol, and proposing that I should apply for the [ 242 | THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS place. I declined making any application that might lead to Mr. Latrobe’s removal; but before the end of the year, disagreements be- tween him and the Commissioner became so serious that he deter- mined to resign, and his resignation was immediately accepted. On receiving information of this, in another letter from Mr. Lee, I made regular application through J. Q. A., Secretary of State, and by return of post received notice from him of my appointment, with a salary of twenty-five hundred dollars and expenses paid of removal of family and furniture.’ This salary was continued during the entire period of his service, though in September, 1822, an attempt was made to reduce it to two thousand dollars, which failed on the simple merits of the question submitted by Bulfinch. Evidently on receipt of the letter from John Quincy Adams dated Washington, December 4, 1817, Bulfinch departed from Boston, not before December 22d, when he was present at the meeting of the Selectmen, and by December 24th, when the Board records his resig- nation, arriving in Washington on or before January 6th. His first letter, written to his wife under date of January 7th, describes his interview with the President: ‘We have been admitted to-day to an interview with the President: after passing up a noble stairway through a suite of elegant rooms, we found him seated alone in a most splendid apartment, covered with a rich blue paper, with broad gold borders, and gold flowers at suitable intervals. My reception was honourable and perfectly satisfactory, it was even cordial; the Presi- dent expressed himself gratified at my acceptance of the office, and hoped advantage would arise from it to myself as well as to the government. He entered fully on the subject of the Public Buildings, and without mentioning the particular causes of offence with the late architect, clearly evinced that he was not satisfied with his conduct or P22'se | CHARLES BULFINCH plans while he gave him credit for professional skill. The President said that immediately on a vacancy occurring, his attention had been turned to me, and that the offer would have been made if I had not applied; he promised me his support, and invited me to frequent calls and personal application to him.’ Later in the day, accompanied by the chief surveyor, he went over the Capitol building inspecting the work in progress; and the next day, January 8th, he took possession of his office in the Capitol, which was furnished with tables, desks, drawing-materials, etc., where from ten to three o’clock he kept office hours. He visited the workshops and found about one hundred and twenty men employed principally in cutting and finishing the great marble columns, and a number of sculptors, some at work on a figure of Liberty twelve feet high to be raised over the Speaker’s chair in the House of Representatives. In the same letter he writes: ‘I have received from Col. Lane a great number of drawings, ex- hibiting the work already done, and other parts proposed, but not decided on. At the first view of these drawings, my courage almost failed me — they are beautifully executed, and the design is in the boldest stile — after longer study I feel better satisfied and more confidence in meeting public expectation. There are certainly faults enough in Latrobe’s designs to justify the opposition to him. His stile is calculated for display in the greater parts, but I think his stair- cases in general are crowded, and not easy of access, and the pas- sages intricate and dark. Indeed, the whole interior, except the two great rooms, has a sombre appearance. I feel the responsibility rest- ing on me, and should have no resolution to proceed if the work was not so far commenced as to make it necessary to follow the plans al- ready prepared for the wings; as to the centre building, a general con- [ 244 ] THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS formity to the other parts must be maintained. I shall not have credit for invention, but must be content to follow in a prescribed path.’ Of the first Sunday in Washington Bulfinch writes in the letter quoted: “We have this day attended service in the Congress hall; it was respectably filled with many of the members, and a number of the in- habitants of the vicinity, among whom were many genteel and well dressed females. The service was the Episcopal form of afternoon prayer, singing without any instrumental music, and for want of books, two lines at a time of the psalm read off by the chaplain, to guide the congregation: an excellent sermon on the “foolishness of preaching” closed the duties of the day, which were conducted with great propriety and serious effect. After service I was recognized by several gentlemen from your quarter, and we paid a visit, at their lodgings, to some others.’ In spite of the limitations found in this and other religious services, the inconvenient distances and bad walking, in the straggling com- munity, the first impression of Washington on Bulfinch was favorable. He liked the climate and the views, found congenial friends, a demo- cratic society, good markets; and his spirit responded to the life there taking shape. The following Monday, Bulfinch met Dr. Thornton, then head of the Patent Office, whose design for the Capitol had been ac- cepted in 1793. He thought the Doctor a ‘singular character’ and ‘very decided in finding fault with Latrobe for changes he has introduced.’ The interesting story of the National Capitol concerns us here only so far as it helps us to understand Bulfinch’s part in it. Those desir- ing a more complete account should consult the outstanding work of Glenn Brown, ‘The History of the United States Capitol’ (1900), [ 245 ] CHARLES BULFINCH replete with evidence and illustrations collected during a decade of research, indebtedness to which is hereby acknowledged. Three men — William Thornton, Benjamin H. Latrobe, and Charles Bulfinch — were the architects. What Bulfinch did involves an under- standing that the general design of Thornton, who was not a pro- fessional architect, was followed, with certain changes, to the com- pletion of the building. Latrobe, who had been trained professionally, took charge in 1803, making some changes in the design and a large number of necessary detail plans. Bulfinch’s work, obvious and less original as he saw from the outset, was to complete the wings partially restored by Latrobe after the destruction by the British troops in 1814, and to construct the central portion for the most part from plans made by Latrobe, making such changes as were necessary. The bulk of the interior plans, however defective according to Bul- finch’s first judgment, must be executed; and while he did offer sug- gestions with respect to both fronts and the dome, the only essential exterior changes made by him were in modifying the design for the west central front and the dome. He also increased the size of the halls while decreasing the light wells. But though he did modify Latrobe’s design for the west front, which had been substituted for that of Thornton, with its semi-circular portico, he seems to have accepted Latrobe’s plan to make the east front the main approach, contrary to Thornton’s project to make the western the more imposing, overlooking the river and the city across the broad expanse toward the President’s House. The accomplish- ment of these two objects would have given him higher rank, but circumstances made this impossible. It seems obvious also that he could not remedy the faulty arrangement of the staircases complained of on his first inspection of the building. [ 246 ] THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS That he gave consideration to these questions and made suggestions has been known, but anything so drastic as the omission of the rotunda and the dome has not been understood heretofore. Such, however, seems to have been the fact, judging from letters of John Trumbull to Bulfinch, but how definitely this is to be interpreted is not clear after reading the correspondence involved in the question. It appears that on January 19th, within two weeks after his arrival, he wrote to John Trumbull, then in New York, describing his perplexity incident to the diversity of opinions with respect to the Capitol and seeking artistic advice from his friend. This letter according to Trumbull was destroyed in a New York fire of 1836, but Trumbull’s reply in two letters, both bearing the date of January 28th, sets forth the essential points under consideration. In the first letter he wrote to Bulfinch, ‘If you adopt a staircase similar to the city hall here, it will be im- perfect without a dome light.’ In the second letter, written at much length, describing the three plans he had thought wise to make and send in order that his ideas might be clear to Bulfinch, he continued, ‘TI feel the deepest regret at the idea of abandoning the great circular room and dome. I have never seen paintings so advantageously placed in respect to light and space, as I think mine would be, in the pro- posed circular room, illuminated from above.’ It should be recalled that Congress in 1817 authorized Trumbull to paint four historical scenes at a cost of eight thousand dollars each, to be placed in the rotunda. It is natural that Trumbull should have clung to the idea of the rotunda, urging upon Bulfinch that it was in- volved in the earliest project for the Capitol and as drawn by Thorn- ton; and likewise rejecting Bulfinch’s suggestion of a saloon for the gallery of paintings because paintings therein hung would not be well lighted. [ 247 | CHARLES BULFINCH Bulfinch’s letter of April 17th, which Trumbull thought had been destroyed with that of January 19th, but which recently has come to light, adds important information never before published. Excusing his delay in replying by saying, ‘I have been ever since in such a state of uncertainty respecting the temper of Congress and the plans that would be adopted,’ he goes on to relate that he had ‘prepared drawings of the centre building with the rotunda, one with the floor entire, another with a circular opening in the floor of forty feet diam- eter forming a spacious gallery twenty-five feet wide all around, sup- ported by a circular colonnade, and another plan according to your idea.’ The Committee of Congress to whom these plans were sub- mitted insisted upon sufficient committee rooms, and, ‘moreover, that if these rooms could not be had in any other way, the rotunda should be cut up for that purpose. These threats put me upon my exertion, and I have contrived to make thirty committee rooms under a court room,’ etc. ‘I obtain these rooms in part by sinking the centre one story — it projects seventy feet from the wings, and, as the ground falls rapidly, this advantage may be easily gained, a glacis of turf on each side will fall to this level in face of the wings. ... I intend that this basement story, which will be eighteen feet high, shall be plain, of square blocks of granite prepared in Boston, with rusticated windows —the color of this stone white, rather with a bluish tint, will keep the line of the yel- low freestone above unbroken.’ In this letter he describes the model of the Capitol in wood, made by ‘an ingenious young man from Boston’ whom he found in Balti- more. This model was ‘four feet in length, and in correct proportions — it exhibits the different facades that have been prepared by Dr. Thornton and Mr. Latrobe, just a section of the rotunda and dome, and exhibits the different stories of the centre projection. I find that it [ 248 ] THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS has been of material service — it has been seen by the President, and I believe nearly all the members of Congress, it conveys a correct notion of the design at a glance, and I believe has been satisfactory in convincing them that I understand what I am engaged in. This is certain, that one hundred thousand dollars are appropriated for com- mencing the centre this season. I intend to lay the foundation and build the walls of the basement.’ This ‘young man’ was Solomon Willard, then about thirty-five years old, who accomplished his task in about three weeks’ time. ‘I am almost afraid to ask your opinion of this basement, because it was a measure of necessity and cannot be dispensed with, but if you can recollect any precedent that will warrant it, I will thank you to inform me even if [ lose by it all claim to originality. I know of several respectable buildings, particularly ...in England, which have one story more on one front than on the other, but do not recall any, where this story is not continued for the whole length.’ A pencilled sketch at the close of the letter exhibits a pediment above the entablature, the one essential difference from the drawing herein reproduced of the west front. This motive is similar to one which appears in one of Latrobe’s drawings, but was not executed. It is interesting to see Bulfinch’s reluctance to introduce the basement, particularly when we recall the somewhat similar change to the Massachusetts State House at variance to the original design and construction. We note that this letter makes no mention of any suggestion to abandon the rotunda, but only of the possibility of using it for com- mittee rooms, doubtless never seriously considered. In his reply of July 25th, Trumbull expressed his satisfaction that ‘your plan has— saved the grand room. It appears to me that you have extricated [ 249 ] CHARLES BULFINCH caphige s PENCIL DRAWING OF THE CAPITOL AT WASHINGTON FROM A LETTER OF CHARLES BULFINCH yourself happily from the multitude of contradictory projects.’ It is interesting to have this evidence of the friendship of these two men, which may be held to bear on the design for the Connecticut State House, since Trumbull speaks of an acquaintance extending over thirty years. The work on the wings progressed rapidly; in November, 1818, Bulfinch reports them well advanced, and in December of the year following, Congress held its first session in the new Hall of Representa- tives. The interior of the wings, dominated by Latrobe and showing the originality of his detail designs, particularly in the columns and mantels, offered little scope for the expression of Bulfinch’s artistic spirit. On April 20, 1818, Congress made the first appropriation for the central part of the Capitol in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, and work went forward at once, so much so that Bulfinch in November reported considerable progress: and on December 9, 1822, he stated that the exterior was nearly completed. A number of old [ 250 ] THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS engravings, woodcuts, and lithographs give a fairly good idea of the Capitol when first completed, the earliest being a drawing of the west front by Bulfinch and published as an engraving in 1821, and another engraving of the east front, possibly drawn by Bulfinch, published in 1823. Both of these engravings appeared in the ‘ National Calendar.’ oe tne WEST On Tr SAPIEO BULFINCH DRAWING, PUBLISHED 1821 There are two other Bulfinch drawings of the east front, one published as an engraving in 1826 and herein reproduced, and the other appear- ing in an engraving in ‘The Jackson Wreath’ (Philadelphia, 1829). The essential difference in the three engravings of the east front is the lower dome in the one published in 1823. The total cost of the central part of the Capitol, constructed en- tirely under Bulfinch’s supervision, was $957,647.36, which compares well with the total of $1,743,725.34 for the entire structure (exclusive of the amount expended for rebuilding after their partial destruction). In considering these sums with relation to the magnitude of the work, we should understand that the highest daily wage paid, which was during the years 1815-18, was $1.88 to carpenters, $2.25 to brick- 25 i) CHARLES BULFINCH layers, and $2.75 to stonecutters. During the years 1819-22 the wage to none of these workmen exceeded $1.75. From the report of 1822 we learn ‘that about two thirds of the interior dome is built of stone and brick and the summit of wood’; and that “the whole is covered with a wooden dome of more lofty elevation, serving as a roof.’ The general understanding has been that Bulfinch was responsible for increasing the height of this dome over that sug- gested by Latrobe; indeed, Mr. Brown held that opinion as stated in his history. But this understanding does not accord with the facts, nor did the design selected from his drawings have the approval of his taste and judgment. The increase in height of the central dome was the cause of much criticism by Latrobe and shared by his son, who in 1842 wrote a letter, not altogether in the best spirit or manner, to the Secretary of the National Institute. This letter was read at a meeting of the society when the Reverend Stephen Greenleaf Bulfinch, a member, was present, who, resenting the unfairness of the criticism, forthwith gave to the members his version of the whole matter pertaining to the design for the dome, writing to his father full particulars. On receipt of the Secretary’s letter, Latrobe’s son, in a different temper, called on Bulfinch’s son and made full apology. To this incident we are indebted for an account probably not otherwise forthcoming. To Greenleaf, Bulfinch wrote: Boston, March 7, 1842 I thank you for the strong interest expressed in your letter of the 14 Feb’/, on the subject of Mr. Latrobe’s remarks on the Dome of the Capitol, as they might affect my professional reputation. From your sensibility on the subject, you may judge of the strong [ 252 ] 9681 GHHSITANd SONIMVUC HONIATOAG THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS desire which Mr. L.’s sons may feel, to exonerate their father from any mistakes that may have been made on that building. It was a great public work, designed and executed by various architects in succes- sion, and with long interruptions, that it is rather surprising that it presents so harmonious a whole. Your statement in my defence was so correct, that it appeared to me hardly necessary to add anything more. Your second letter, contain- ing the amende honorable of Mr. L. strengthens my resolution to let the matter rest. It was my intention, on receiving your first letter, to write a memoir upon the plan and construction of the Capitol to be presented to your society, but I felt that it would be a very tame performance unless accompanied by critical remarks which could hardly fail to give offence to some of the friends of Dr. Thornton, the original designer; of Mr. Hatfield, who was recommended from England as architect by Benjamin West and Colonel Trumbull, and was shortly super- seded by Mr. Latrobe — and especially if, in justice to myself, I related the alterations which I thought necessary to be made in that gentle- man’s plans, especially in the interior — and, indeed, if I attempted to throw the ponderosity of the dome upon the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, what could I expect but a retort from J. Q. A. — from which may all good powers defend me; and so I gave up the intention, and will now give you a short history of the dome, to be confined to yourself, and such as in sober Judgment you may think proper to show it to. Upon my taking charge of the Capitol, I found a number of draw- ings of the manner in which it was intended to finish it, but it was very difficult to give the Building Committee any clear ideas upon the sub- ject, and absolutely impossible to convey the same to the more nu- merous body of the members of Congress. I accordingly proposed to [ 255 | CHARLES BULFINCH have a model made to show the building in its complete state. This was made and inspected by the President and all the members of Congress, and I believe had a favorable effect in convincing them that I understood what work I had to do, and that there was some prospect of the building being finished. But there was one universal remark, that the dome was too low, perhaps from a vague idea that there was something bold and picturesque in a lofty dome. As the work pro- ceeded, I prepared drawings for domes of different elevations, and, by way of comparison, one of a greater height than the one I should have preferred: they were laid before the Cabinet, and the loftiest one se- lected, and even a wish expressed that it might be raised higher in a Gothic form, but this was too inconsistent with the style of the build- ing to be at all thought of by me. Upon the ribs of the dome being boarded, I was so far dissatisfied as to propose to reduce it, stating that the saving in copper would meet all the expense; but our Commissioner was not a very compliant gentleman and rested upon the Cabinet decision, and, to avoid the altercation which had been so common formerly, I yielded the point. But I should be well pleased if, when the dome requires a thorough repair, which it may in ten or fifteen years, it should be reduced in height — not to Mr. Latrobe’s design, but about halfway between that and the present elevation. The foregoing will give my sons a full view of the circumstances under which some of my work was executed; but you will readily see that it is best not to make it too public. Architects expect criticism and must learn to bear it patiently. ... This clears up the question of the dome and discloses Bulfinch’s taste in the matter which we see was for a lower dome than the one executed. This is interesting when the dome is compared with that Pa20Ge DESIGN FOR ROTUNDA, CAPITOL, WASHINGTON From original drawing THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS on the Massachusetts State House, but Bulfinch was not free to adopt the latter type of dome for the building he was charged with executing. The height of the dome was one hundred and forty-five feet from the ground, and the total length of the Capitol three hundred and fifty- one feet, four inches. Besides what has been set forth above, little of the interior of the central part of the Capitol can be attributed definitely to Bulfinch. The final outcome of the first three months of perplexity was to settle down upon the general plans already selected. Both the court room and the library were in Latrobe’s plans, and most of the finish had been determined. The only illustration found bearing on the interior is a drawing of the rotunda, now a part of the Bulfinch collection in the Architectural Library of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology. This should be compared with the rotunda as finished in 1824, with a diameter of ninety-six feet. One important recommendation made by Trumbull, that the ro- tunda be closed and kept free from dampness, was rejected, and in spite of his remonstrances his four pictures were hung there in 1824. But such was their condition in 1828 that Congress ordered their re- pair and the rotunda made free from dampness under Trumbull’s supervision. The dampness was due in large measure to the opening in the floor designed to give light to the proposed crypt for the body of George Washington, which subsequently was abandoned. This opening is mentioned in Bulfinch’s letter of April 17, 1818, to Trumbull, and it was closed under the latter’s direction. But, though there was little scope for original design, Bulfinch was well qualified by the work of the preceding years for his important position. Few men could have been found so well fitted in artistic appreciation and practical judgment. He knew what was good and [ 259 | CHARLES BULFINCH how to make the most of a difficult situation. Though not a domi- nantly forceful man, he was a gentleman with a certain degree of mas- tery both of artistic design and of principles of construction who could enter sympathetically into questions of practical execution. Under him the work progressed steadily, and, with increasing harmony among his associates, it gained in efficiency. Self-trained as he was, he was not untrained in structural prin- ciples. A case in point is found in his report of May 1, 1818, on the accident to the arch which was intended by Latrobe to carry the cupola over the ‘flat dome’ in the north wing. With reference to this, Mr. Brown, in his * History of the United States Capitol,’ relates that General Swift and Colonel Bomford, engineers, who had been in con- sultation, ‘agreed with Bulfinch that the arch would not bear any ad- ditional weight, and approved of his method of using a brick cone as a foundation for a cupola’; adding that, ‘although Latrobe thought the changes in the Senate made the arch necessary, Bulfinch seems to have contrived a simpler method.’ Latrobe attributed the failure of the arch to improper haunches or lack of loading, and to the error in not putting any hoop around the circular opening, which he had done uniformly in similar cases. He justifies the use of iron by quoting its use in the dome of Saint Paul’s and elsewhere. We have nothing by which to judge Bulfinch’s attitude on this method in dome construc- tion as exemplified in nearly all Renaissance domes, except the in- cident just related; but his mind here seems to have had recourse to fundamental principles rather than to makeshifts. His experience in this line of work was limited, and there is nothing to indicate that anything other than wood was considered for the construction of the actual dome over the rotunda. After the year 1826, or possibly a little earlier, Bulfinch was em- [ 260 | THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS PUAN thy wt He PRINCIPAR PA eek at ‘the FLOOR PLAN, UNITED STATES CAPITOL ployed for the most part on the landscape work and designs for the steps and fence at the west. Here he had freer scope for his artistic spirit, and though we can judge what he accomplished only from old illustrations, we know that the results were worthy of praise. His treatment of the western approach was original, intended to give the best setting to the Capitol, not well placed. The work must have been well advanced at the beginning of 1828, as we find Mrs. Bulfinch writing to her son Greenleaf on January 14th, ‘We went to the Capitol where we admired the high finish of the rotunda, and the western steps and the circular terrace. ...On the top is a fine walk and it is as a whole much commended by strangers.’ Again, on December 20th of that year she writes, ‘Your father is well and quite satisfied with the manner his year’s work is spoken of by [ 261 | CHARLES BULFINCH members of Congress.” The work by this time was nearly or quite complete. The ‘circular terrace’ involved the original and more imposing approach from the west as planned by Thornton. This is shown in a drawing by Bulfinch dating not later than January, 1821, which also gives a fairly good idea of the completed west front except the dome, WEST STEPS, CAPITOL, WASHINGTON which was higher. Some suggestion of the beauty of the grounds with the two gate-houses and the iron fence at the foot of the hill, the walks and the steps ascending to the first or circular terrace, is found in a number of paintings by W. H. Bartlett, an English artist, published in London in 1839 and in the United States the following year, one of which is reproduced here. The merit for this artistic creation be- [=26201 THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS longs to Bulfinch. In the terrace was the Tripoli Naval Monument, later removed to Annapolis. We have but a blurred idea of the routine of these years. Bul- finch’s work was not hard, and, though beset with difficulties, evi- dently it was pleasant and interesting. Some estimates were necessary and a few short reports were made; beyond that his main task, espe- cially after the first year, was to interpret and direct. The spirit which dominated him under many limitations that tested at once his artistic nature and his professional powers, his tact in dealing with the Commissioner and those in authority or of in- fluence, and his sane balance in the whole situation are evidenced to us almost wholly in the precious letter to his son Greenleaf, given above. Valuable, indeed, would have been that proposed memoir, of which he speaks, abandoned at the thought of critical remarks and possible offence it might cause. Keenly we regret that the importance of this personal testimony did not outweigh the natural tendency of his character. The building of the Capitol lay in the past. Why raise again the many questions with their personal angles of taste and judgment? Alas, that something like this feeling prevailed! There stands the monument to these three men who gave to it according to their several abilities. It is not a perfect whole; there were errors of taste and structural principles. That the finished whole as it was when completed is better for what Bulfinch could and did accomplish is beyond dispute. Only in our speculative moods do we wonder what he would have done with a free hand in 1793, or in 1803, had he been chosen then instead of Latrobe. Before the arrival of the family, Bulfinch writes on March 16th of attending “Mr. Monroe’s drawing room last Wednesday evening’; [ 263 ] CHARLES BULFINCH “we met a good deal of splendor and gaiety, but I find it rather dull business, although the close of the evening was enlivened by some songs sung by a circle of ladies with their beaux, accompanying a piano. You know I am not very sentimental, but you will suppose I had some pleasant feelings when the last song was sung, “See from Ocean rising.”’ I confess it reminded me of home, although the scene around differed very materially from that of the humble parlour in Tremont Street. I hope we shall soon have another home and renew our domestic occupations and enjoyments together.’ This hope was soon realized in a house with gardens on Capitol Hill, but of this and the later homes very little is known except that in the last years the family resided on Sixth Street. There were family connections in Washington, and Bulfinch, by virtue of his position and personality, gained friends. Once, at least, they were invited by the President and Mrs. Monroe to dinner; and throughout the years New England friends were ever welcome; among whom, in the winter of 1826-27, was Harriet Vaughn, of Hallowell, Maine, daughter of Mrs. Bulfinch’s sister and Charles Vaughn, a girl of rare attractions who later married Jacob Abbott and became the mother of Lyman Abbott, for so many years honored preacher and editor. From the beginning Bulfinch was interested in the projected Unitarian Church in Washington and devoted much time to pro- moting the undertaking as well as designing the first building, which was dedicated June 9, 1822. Hampered by every consideration of economy the question of design was exceedingly difficult. Our know- ledge of the structure is confined almost entirely to the little book of plans, the most complete of the extant plans by Bulfinch, now in the Architectural Library of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and to an old photograph of the exterior taken before the church was [ 264 ] THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS UNITARIAN CHURCH, WASHINGTON, 1822 demolished in 1900, the Government having taken possession in 1880. The design, marked 3, was executed with some little detail changes and the building constructed of brick and plastered. The floor plan specifies fifty by seventy-two feet, with a porch only slightly less in width than the main house and a projecting tower around which is built a portico with a pediment in the Doric order. The tower treat- ment is not common, and is interesting; also the well-proportioned cupola in which the first bell in the city, for public purposes, was dedi- he265a1 CHARLES BULFINCH cated on October 12th. The buttresses seen in the photograph are not shown on the design for the side elevation. It is interesting to find the same tower and portico treatment on churches at Newark, New Jersey, in Savannah and Augusta, Georgia, and at New Haven, Connecticut, all built prior to 1820, though the New Haven design was due to an architect of New York origin. There is no record or photograph of the interior, and we are obliged to assume that the church was finished as nearly as possible according to the designs in the collection. The pulpit end is plain in con- formity to economic necessity, and not of great interest. The pulpit, unlike others by Bulfinch, is suggestive of the drum-like type of the ‘Dutch Reformed’ Churches in New York State in Queen Anne’s time, while the decorative treatment back of it follows in simpler form that in some of Bulfinch’s churches. This church Bulfinch attended during the remainder of his resi- dence in Washington, and for a time later his son Stephen Green- leaf was the minister. CHURCH, PETERBORO, N.H., 1825 There is a strong tradition amounting to conviction that the church in Peterboro, New Hamp- shire, built in 1825, was erected from Bulfinch’s plans. Hearing that Bulfinch had a plan which had been rejected by another church, a [ 266 | PLAN FOR PULPIT, UNITARIAN CHURCH, WASHINGTON From original drawing THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS committee was sent to Boston and purchased it. This story is vouched for by Judge Jonathan Smith, to whom it was told by his father who was a member of the committee and twenty-two years old when the church was begun. It is, of course, possible that Bulfinch had such a plan which he left with some agent when he removed from Boston; but there is no record of any kind and the church is not included in Bulfinch’s list. The story is given here with some illustration of the building now standing because the structure is interesting, dis- playing one Bulfinch motive at least, that of the arched recesses in the walls for windows and doors. If this church was exe- cuted fairly close to a design by Bulfinch, it is in marked contrast with the Lancaster church which by another tradition, but with no evidence, had rejected the plan later used at Peterboro. The porch at Peterboro, ten feet deep, extends the full width of the building, the tower set upon the roof receiving its main support from INTERIOR, PETERBORO CHURCH the outer wall and the wall separating the porch from the audience room. This inner wall, which is ten inches thick, is carried only to the gallery floor, the tower weight at the ceiling level being carried by two fluted columns with simple moulded capitals. This same arrangement is found in the Old North Church, Hingham, Massachusetts. [ 269 | CHARLES BULFINCH The outer walls, of brick twelve inches thick, show evidence of strain in the middle of the porch end, but otherwise are in excellent condition. The interior is approximately fifty-one by fifty-five feet with delicately wrought gallery balustrade curving in toward the present organ end. The old pulpit end has been utterly and inhar- moniously altered; only the lectern column suggests the old pulpit it is reputed to have supported. On the whole, the church is a fine example of a closing period. Built at the very beginning of the so-called classic revival which soon became plain decadence, it remains to testify to a finer taste and to that integrity of workmanship which makes such buildings so full of interest and delight. MAINE STATE CAPITOL, 1829-31 Another building, the design of which belongs to the Washington period, is the Maine State House at Augusta, the corner-stone of which was laid, with full Masonic ceremony, July 4, 1829. This structure is listed by Bulfinch and we have a plan for the dome [ 270 | THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS marked, “This was executed.’ Strange to relate, this, together with some old pictures of the building occupied January 4, 1832, con- stitutes almost the whole story. When the building was remodelled and enlarged in 1909-10 only the Bulfinch front was preserved, the MAINE STATE HOUSE present lofty dome replacing the original one; and there was not enough interest in the interior, twice previously remodelled, to move any one to photograph it. Augusta was fixed upon in 1827 as the future capital of Maine, which had become a State in 1820, and in 1828 Bulfinch was asked to furnish a design which the Council adopted February 2, 1829, stating that the design by Bulfinch represented the Boston State House re- cla CHARLES BULFINCH duced in size. The building, constructed of Hallowell granite, was to be one hundred and fifty by fifty feet, though it measures one hun- dred and forty-six feet and has a plainer colonnaded portico than at Boston, eighty feet in extent and projecting fifteen feet, carrying a pediment. The cost, estimated not to exceed $80,000, totalled, with furnishings and work on the grounds, $139,000. The lines of the eo poi Atahe ler epee Ae Erg acer Fee _ DOME OF STATE HOUSE, AUGUSTA, MAINE From original drawing Massachusetts General Hospital dome were followed, though with a cupola constructed over the lantern. It may be noted that the pro- portion of portico to entire length of building, sometimes criticized at Boston, is repeated at Augusta, the Boston portico being ninety-six to one hundred and seventy-two feet, the total length of building. Though the criticism may be well-founded, Bulfinch had English models and designs usually considered good. [ 272 ] er eh THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS The church at Quincy, Massachusetts, known as the ‘Stone Temple,’ dedicated November 12, 1828, is sometimes erroneously attributed to Bulfinch; but it was designed by Alexander Parris, who also designed Saint Paul’s Church, Boston. Record of Bulfinch’s work for the Government other than that on the Capitol is contained in a clause of an Act of Congress approved March 2, 1831, which reads, ‘For compensation to Charles Bulfinch, late architect of the Capitol, for his extra services in planning and superintending the building of the penitentiary at Washington, the jail in Alexandria, the additional buildings for the post-office and patent office, and for allowance for returning with his family to Boston, eleven hundred dollars.’ As the allowance for moving from Boston to Washington was five hundred dollars, the compensa- tion for professional services could not have exceeded six hundred dollars. We have only scant information of one of these buildings, that listed by Bulfinch as a “penitentiary prison,’ and probably constitut- ing the major part of the work. Erected under an Act of Congress May 20, 1826, at the foot of 43 Street at a cost of forty thousand dollars, it is described as a long structure of brick with two wings, one occupied as a warden’s house and the other as a hospital. That it was constructed under the direction of the Commissioner of Public Works may have caused delay in granting the extra compensation to which manifestly Bulfinch was entitled. No adequate illustration of this structure has been found: but it has been said that, when Mckim designed the War College erected on the site, he based his architectural motives on those he found there, though it does not appear that he knew the author was Bulfinch, whose work he greatly admired. Arak | CHARLES BULFINCH Naturally, we should expect to find other marks of Bulfinch’s influence on Washington architecture, especially of residences, but no record has been found. The only mention by Bulfinch is of the Unitarian Church and the penitentiary. His memorial to Congress under date of January 24, 1830, is of interest, not only upon the acoustic problem of Representatives Hall, but as showing the careful study he had given to the problem for a period of ten years. The faultiness of the design, which, as we have seen, was not due to Bul- finch, was recognized as soon as the Hall was occupied. Bulfinch applied himself to remedy the defect, recommending some form of flat ceiling, which also was the suggestion of William Strickland, an architect and engineer called in consultation. In 1829, Bulfinch pre- pared drawings which, with two drawings made later, were submitted with the memorial. Under the circumstances and conditions no solu- tion could be satisfactory, but the matter furnishes evidence of Bul- finch’s essentially scientific habit of mind. Though an Act of Congress, May 2, 1828, abolished the office of Architect of the Capitol, Bulfinch continued to serve till June 30th of the following year, and in some capacity not fully determined for a portion of the ensuing year. In his letter to President Jackson, June 27, 1829, following a communication from the Commissioner of Public Buildings, informing him that by direction of the President the office of Architect of the Capitol would terminate June 30th, Bulfinch wrote, ‘There are several portions of the work in hand, and one of particular weight and massiveness, which require the superintendence of an architect.’ His request to be allowed to continue in his office for another quarter, during which time he could attend to work at the Navy Hospital at Norfolk, seems to have had the President’s ap- proval. We find him writing in August that the commission to Nor- [ 274 | THE NATIONAL CAPITOL AND A FEW DESIGNS folk had been executed, but no clear record has been found after that till his letter of June 3, 1830, in which he says, ‘I date from this place for the last time,’ adding, Washington has been ‘our pleasant and respectable home for twelve years and where we leave memorials. . . which we hope will long endure.’ CHAPTER XI LAST YEARS HERE is little more to be told. The few facts found in the Opes letters, including what is published in the ‘Life and Letters’ are quickly related. On their return from Washington, Mr. and Mrs. Bulfinch took lodgings in Bumstead Place, Boston, which at that time they found delightful with ample garden space. With sum- mers generally spent elsewhere, this was their home till 1839. Within a few weeks they went to Hallowell, Maine, to visit the Vaughns — Charles, who was connected with Bulfinch in the Franklin Place venture, and his wife, Mrs. Bulfinch’s sister. Here they remained till August, Bulfinch doubtless inspecting the work on the new State House at Augusta, only a few miles away, though there is no record of the fact nor of any connection with the work other than the design. Bulfinch seemed anxious to take up professional work, but nothing came to him and he settled gracefully into a serene old age. What he did in the leisurely years cannot be determined beyond the very short autobiographical sketch, hints of reading and study, but no more let- ters than in the active years. The Storers — George, and Bulfinch’s sister — who had shared their home with the Bulfinches after the Franklin Place disaster, boarded at Bumstead Place and had much in common with them in the same old delightful way, sharing in their interests and pleasures and on Sunday occupying the same pew in King’s Chapel. ‘We have kept ourselves quietly at home during the winter,’ writes Bulfinch in March, 1831; and a little later Mrs. Bul- finch writes: ‘We in our advanced age [they were then in their sixty- eighth and sixty-fourth years, respectively] are receiving from each Perks | Q CHARLES BULFINCH ABOUT 184 Alvan Clark ae BY wing a From a dr ‘an e LAST YEARS other’s society the best enjoyments of which we are permitted to partake — the united prayer, the confidential converse, the quiet readings, or the peaceful walks along our pleasant Common. I often think we are far more dependent upon each other now than in early life.’ In September, 1838, Mr. and Mrs. Bulfinch went to Washington, where they spent the winter very delightfully and were well received, Bulfinch giving some attention to repairs on the Unitarian Church; but though he wrote to his son Thomas in October commenting on various public buildings, there is no word on the Capitol which to see again must have given satisfaction. Doubtless there were memories of those past pleasant years, of work well done, of associations that enriched. In 1843, he wrote to a niece: ‘I love Washington, I passed there twelve of the happiest years of my life in pursuits congenial to my taste, and where my labors were well received. When walking through the Capitol and its grounds, you may well conceive the pleas- ure I felt at perceiving its progress from year to year.’ During these later years the family letters continued, a large number of which are published in the ‘Life and Letters,’ but there is almost nothing in them relating to the architect or the citizen. After the death of his wife, Bulfinch wrote more, of himself, his reading and his ideas; so that these last years reveal more of the man than all the other years combined. But only imagination can picture the life in summer or in Bumstead Place up to 1839, when in October Mr. and Mrs. Bulfinch were invited by their nieces, daughters of Bulfinch’s sister and Joseph Coolidge, to make their home with them in Bul- finch’s old birthplace in Bowdoin Square. This home is described in the ‘Life and Letters’ as ‘a three-story house of wood, a little withdrawn from the street, with a row of five | 2/9 | CHARLES BULFINCH Lombardy poplars in front, and a gate which opened on a white marble walk leading to the front door. We know its summer parlor with white panelling and French furniture, and its winter parlor or sitting-room with an arched recess on either side the fireplace. Through one of these, towards Chardon Street, a passage leads to the dining-room. The entry extends through the house, and the eastern door opens into a paved courtyard. In summer the open doors are sheltered by green blinds, and the rooms are scented after a shower by the sweet honey- suckle outside. Here on the roof of the stable is the great square pigeon-house, well known to the children. “We have a description of each room in the building, the many bed- chambers with their solid old furniture, the small library on the second floor, and the tall clock on the landing of the upper staircase. The two kitchens, even, are remembered in all their details, and we see the equipment required for cooking at their open fires, where in the chimneys were still the crane, the pothooks and trammels, and the iron wheel of the smoke-jack. Here, too, was the large screen lined with tin to protect the workers from the heat. From the paved yard a few steps in a grassy bank led down beneath an arched gateway to the garden. Here was the great horse-chestnut tree brought from abroad by one of the Apthorps, and at the end of the main walk a summer- house with the large pear-tree near it of family tradition, and other fruit-trees, and trellised grapevines, with all the variety of flowers that had given the architect’s mother so much delight.’ The charm of this home wings its way across the years, and we rejoice that the couple could come back to its sunshine and cheer to continue their life together amid congenial surroundings, made more comfortable and easy in mind by two substantial legacies received from English relatives. Here, in 1841, at the age of seventy-four, [ 280 ] ERE ; wae BOWDOIN SQUARE IN 1822, AS DRAWN FOR THE BOSTONIAN SOCIETY A HUNDRED YEARS LATER Bulfinch’s birthplace is the first house on the right ‘. LAST YEARS ‘Mrs. Bulfinch passed away all so quietly one night after one of the pleas- ant family gatherings. A woman of rare virtue, steadfast in faith, a mighty stay amid all the varied fortunes that came to her and her husband, of whom it may be truly said, ‘ Her children rise up, and call her blesséd; her husband also, and he praiseth her.’ The remaining years passed, consoled by friendly sympathy and a deep faith; interested and commenting on the affairs of the day — whether of the building of railroads, the New England boundary question, or the increasing radicalism in religion in the utterances of Theodore Parker. For the most part reading absorbed Bulfinch, and he writes of Combe’s “Travels in America,’ ‘very judicious and im- partial,’ and of Hallam’s ‘Literary History of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,’ ‘a work of wonderful research and highly in- structive and entertaining.’ There was much of the scholar in Bul- finch; “you and I love a little Latin,’ he wrote one of his nieces in 1843, and his interest in French evidently continued till the end. There is real charm in the few letters of the last years with their description of lectures, commenting at length on Greenough’s statue of Washington (which did not please him), noting events around him and in the world beyond — alive, mentally alert and growing, with interest keen and sane. His life lay within the shadow with no bitter- ness or remorse, in quietness and fineness of soul. To the last he was constructive, tolerant, humble, believing the best of life and hu- manity, open-minded to the truth, holding firm to a simple faith in life — now and forever. In all those last fourteen years Bulfinch made no design, performed no act of public service, yet his mind was dynamic, engaged with the forces and principles that had moved the past and were to move the future. His bodily vigor declined, impairing his physical activity, but [283 5] CHARLES BULFINCH ser d SE A OS 1 | ae LO ns Ll oe ied Co Co ae om ose Seu) PLATE IN CRUNDEN’S BOOK OWNED AND USED BY BULFINCH the man moved on. To the end he was architect and citizen in a world and life that those virtues glorify. On April 15, 1844, as the old family clock on the staircase in the house where he was born struck twelve, his spirit was released, and on the 17th the funeral services were held in King’s Chapel. So passed the first born American architect as well as a gentleman of the old school. What he achieved is due entirely to an artistic spirit and to years of patient work. We may only conjecture what most [ 284 ] LAST YEARS interested him in Europe, though that influence, especially in Eng- land, was great; and no review of the books he used will disclose the method of his designs. The books in his possession were the best of his time, suggest- ing the student grounding himself as far as possible in the art which impelled him, foremost of which was the 1785 edition of Crunden’s ‘Original Designs’ (London, 1767), containing some much-handled plates which suggest motives in the Massachusetts State House; and William Thomas’s ‘Original Designs in Architecture’ (London, 1783), which had much influence upon Bulfinch, particularly noticeable in the design for the Massachusetts General Hospital. To these may be added Sir J. Soane’s ‘Designs in Architecture’ (London, 1778), show- Tre eee DESIGN BY WILLIAM THOMAS, LONDON, 1783, SUGGESTING THE MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL [ 285 | CHARLES BULFINCH ing various country seats; a book of Palladio’s (Venice, 1581), re- printed in London in 1759; and ‘A Dissertation on the Construction and Properties of Arches,’ by G. A. Atwood (London, 1801). This book on arches contains three full pages of notes by Bulfinch showing Chart wt ae ye 38 Sanka Peabibahek LI Ws PLAN AND ELEVATION FROM PLAW, . LONDON, 1795 careful study of the subject and citing French builders. It is interesting to observe that of the fifteen or more foreign printed books on architecture in his possession, not one was of the kind in the hands of Ameri- can builders, such as Ware, Pain, Langley, and others — mainly concerned with the ‘five orders’ and details. Nor does it ap- pear that Bulfinch owned any of the rather numerous Ameri- can printed books except a copy of Asher Benjamin’s ‘Practice of Architecture’ (Boston, 1833), presented to him ‘with the re- spects of the author.’ His under- standing of the principles of con- struction was the result of careful study, and asa designer he was more than a copyist. Whatever the influence of other designs in his more important work, the source of practically all of which can be traced, there is a handling that shows mastery of any problem in hand. So, too, there is no evidence in what he did of the dominance of any school or individual. Peter Harrison’s influence upon Bulfinch has [ 286 ] LAST YEARS been called self-evident, and this may seem possible if one compare only the Brick Market, Newport, as it was about 1830 with certain Bulfinch motives; but there is nothing to show that Bulfinch ever visited Newport; and while Harrison’s King’s Chapel, Boston, and Christ Church, Cambridge, so familiar to him, must have appealed to his artistic spirit, they have little in common with what he did. Not even of Wren can we say that the influence was marked. Only two Bulfinch church interiors bear direct witness to Wren in the domical motive of Saint Stephen’s, Walbrook. Wren’s influence upon American architecture is considerable, but equally important and more direct, especially on churches, is that of James Gibbs to whom little credit has been given. The history of our architecture involves more fundamental sources than these two men, to whom we are much indebted, and this is true of Bulfinch in whose work the motives of Wren and Gibbs are not marked. Bulfinch’s power lay in an artistic spirit that helped him to select and adapt, and on the whole he cannot be measured by his executed designs, conditioned as he was by local limitations. The influence that moved Bulfinch was what we call Renaissance, but there are hints that upon his vision came a broader and more fundamental background, sometimes missed by architects. He could do little more than follow what was familiar to architects and builders of his day, yet with wider opportunity his was a nature to respond to what he saw of a noble past. In a copy of ‘Essays on Gothie Archi- tecture’ (London, 1800), we find over two pages of notes on Saxon architecture, the influence of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Saracens in Spain, ete., with a water-color sketch showing the pointed arch in the East. When these notes and the sketch were made cannot be determined, but they suggest his wide interest and hint the question | 287 | CHARLES BULFINCH 4) ti fi < ye BER # SKETCH BY BULFINCH IN A COPY OF ‘ESSAYS ON GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE’ of architectural origins which to-day is answered in the increasing light of facts; and we feel that Bulfinch would have delighted in the great motives flooding with new force from that wonderful East. As a citizen and public servant he was a product of his time, God- fearing, thorough, just; and his achievement was out of all proportion to the inadequate story here written. But Charles Bulfinch, architect and citizen, will find increasing recognition by those who love the beautiful and the true and that public spirit expressed in integrity and service. THE END INDEX Abbott, Jacob, 264. Boston Common, 12, 188, 195, 204. Abbott, Lyman, 264. Boston Court-House, 138, 145, 209. Adam Brothers, 56, 160, 221. Boston Library Society, 71. Adams, John, 42, 109, 127. Boston Light, 12. Adams, John Quincy, 60, 243, 255. Boston Marine Insurance Company, 137. Adams, Samuel, Sr., 215. Boston Neck, 197. Adams, Samuel, 42, 68. Boston Society of Architects, 89, 216. Almshouse, Boston, 98-99, 217. Bostonian Society, 175, 176. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 42. Bowditch, N.I., 41. Amory, Rufus G., 104. Bowdoin Square, 1, 70, 176, 279. Amory, Thomas, house, 184. Bowen, Samuel, 60. Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, 124. Brattle Street Church, 11, 33, 34. Andover Theological School, 234. British Coffee House, 135. Appleton, Samuel, 221. Broad Street, 104, 107, 195. Apthorp, Rev. East, 2. Brown, Abram English, History of Faneuil Hall, Apthorp, Frances, 27. 123. Apthorp, George, 5. Brown, Glenn, History of the United States Capitol, Apthorp, Hannah, 24. 245, 252, 260. Apthorp, John, 29. Brown, Mather, 8, 60. Apthorp, Susan, 2. Brown, Samuel, 60, 98. Arlington, Massachusetts, Calvary Methodist | Bulfinch, Adino, 1. Church, 138. Bulfinch, Anna, 27. Armstrong house, 176. Bulfinch, Charles, birth and family, 1-2; autobio- Augusta, Maine, First Church, 135. graphical sketch, 2-6; European trip, 6-11; Bos- 7 ton and the new era, 12-15; part in the ‘Colum- Baltimore mob, 193. bia’ expedition, 16-20; marriage, 24, to New Bank of England, 72. York and Philadelphia, 27-29; residence in Marl- Banner, Peter, 156, 168, 209. borough Street, 29-31, 36; removal, 37; elected Barrell, Joseph, 5, 16, 19, 28, 41, 42, 56; mansion, selectman, 38; prominent in establishing theatre, 147-51, 232. 40, 59-63; elected fellow, American Academy of Bartlett, William, 234. Arts and Sciences, 42; services to town, 64; one of Bartlett, W. H., 262. Committee on new State House, 67-68; bank- Bartol, Elizabeth, 183. rupt, 68-75; Chairman, Board of Selectmen, 94- Bartol, Rev. George M., D.D., 227, 228. : 117, 191-208; superintendent of police, 96; in- Beacon Hill, 12, 32, 99, 103, 104, 154. crease in salary, 112; member, Massachusetts Beacon Hill Monument, 31, 93, 154. Historical Society, 109; in jail, 114; services to Beacon Street, houses on, 187, 221. Catholics of Boston, 125; plan for development Belfast, Maine, First Church, 135. of Beacon Hill, 154; residence in Bulfinch Street, Belknap, Rev. Jeremy, ols 63. 172-75; in War of 1812, 193-95; many and ar- Benjamin, Asher, 167, 168, 209. duous duties as Chairman of Board, 196; fails Bingham house, Philadelphia, 27, 160. of reélection and vindication, 198; address at Blackburn, Joseph, 2. town meeting, 199-201; salary as Chairman, 202; Bordeaux, France, 8. prominent part in entertaining President Mon- Boston, Bulfinch’s early account of, 4-5; in 1787, roe, 203-05; presides for last time at Board meet- 11-15; selectmen, 38, 94 ff., 191 ff.; education, 39, 98, 202, 206; trade and commerce, 43, 94, 109, 191, 194; banking, 43, 135; West Boston bridge, 64; the poor, 96; health, 96; courts, 96, 202, 207; finance, 97, 113, 200, 201, 207; land expansion, 99: South, 100, 204; South Boston bridge, 100; War of 1812, 191-95. Boston Bank, 135, 136. ing, 205; summary of services to town, 206-08; removal to Washington, D.C., and architect of Capitol, 241; Bulfinch’s narration of, 241-45; salary, 243; first Sunday in city, 245; work on the Capitol building, 244-60; rotunda, 247, 249, 259; plans, 249, 251; central dome, 246, 247, 252-59; Bulfinch-Trumbull letters, 247-50; knowledge of structural principles, 260; work on Capitol [ 291 ] INDEX grounds, 260-63; home and social life, 263-64; other work for the Government, 273-75; de- parture for Boston, 275; at Bumstead Place, 276; visit to Washington, 279; return to birthplace, Bowdoin Square, 279; reading and letters, 283; his death, 284; his books, 285-86; sources of his inspiration, 286-88. Bulfinch, Mrs. Charles, 11, 24, 27, 56, 70, 72, 115, 276, 283. Bulfinch, Elizabeth, 41. Bulfinch, Ellen, 89, 90. Bulfinch, Madam, 142. Bulfinch, Rev. Stephen G., 90, 216, 252. Bulfinch, Susan, 36. Bulfinch, Thomas, Sr., 1. Bulfinch, Thomas, Jr., 1, 16, 19. Bulfinch Harbor, 19. Bulfinch Place, 171-72, 175, 176. Bulfinch Place, No. 8, 172-76. Bulfinch Street, 171, 175, 176. Bunker Hill, battle of, 5. Bunker Hill Monument Association, 32. Burrell, Ellen M., 80. Cabot, Samuel, 40, 153. Caldwell, John, 50. Cambridge, Christ Church, 2, 287. Cambridge, First Church, 212. Cambridge, East, Court-House, 145, 146; jail, 146. Canner, Rev. Dr., 7. Canton, 19, 20. Capitol, Washington. See Washington. Carleton, Osgood, 103, 172. Carrol, John, Bishop, 126, 127. Castine, Maine, Church, 132. Castle Island, 194. Catholics, Boston, 125-28. : Chamberlain, Allen, Beacon Hill, 154. Chambers, William, 91. Channing, W. E., Church, 205. Chardon house, 176. Charles River, 115, 148, 188. Charlestown Bridge, 12, 64, 149. Charlestown, First Church, 131. Charlestown, Navy Yard, Commandant’s house, 157. Chesapeake, frigate, 110. Chester, John, 50, 52, 54. Chestnut Street, houses on, 179-83. Cheverus, Rev. John, first Catholic Bishop, Boston, 126, 128. China, 16, 19. Christ Church, Boston, 11, 33, 132, 205. Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 287. Clap, or Clapp, William, 61, 171, 172. Clark-Frankland house, 11. Clarke, William B., 175. Cleveland, William, 231, 232. Coffin, Peleg, 121. Coleman, Judith, 1. Coleridge, Lord, 90. Colonnade Row, 147, 167, 187, 188. Columbia River, 20. Columbia, ship, 16, 19, 20; expedition, 16-20. Combe’s Travels in America, 283. Connecticut Historical Society, 44. Connecticut State House, 44-55, 90, 91, 92, 250. Coolidge, Joseph, Sr., 41, 70; mansion, 41. Coolidge, Joseph, Jr., 41, 70, 241. Copley, John Singleton, 8, 151, 152, 183, 218. Copley lands, 99, 152, 153, 154. Cotting, Uriah, 104; house, 218, 221. Crafts house, Roxbury, 156, 168. Cummings, Charles A., 89. Davis, Judge, 5. Dawes, Thomas, 67, 98, 100, 103. Dedham Court-House, 118. Deer Island, building, 64. Dexter, Samuel, 5, 111. Dickens, Charles, 121. Dillaway, Thomas C., 104. Edinburgh University, 1. Eliot, Samuel A., 124. England, 8. England, Bank of, 72. Essex Bank, Salem, Massachusetts, 137. Everett, Edward, 55, 188. Exchange Coffee House, 195, 204, 205. Faneuil Hall, 11, 111, 113, 114, 122-25, 193. Faneuil, Peter, house, 11, 114. Fay House, 154-56. Federal Hall, New York, 29. Federal Street Church, 31, 63, 141. Fisher, Jacob, 231-32. Flucker, Lucy, 151. Flucker, Thomas, 151, 152. Franklin, Benjamin, 38, 59. Franklin Place, 56-59, 63, 68-69, 75, 93, 167, 187; occupiers of houses in, 75. Freeman, Rev. James, 2. Frothingham’s History of Charlestown, 131. Gibbs, James, 90, 287. Gilman, Mary, 100. Gore, Christopher, 110, 193; mansion, 156. Gray’s Harbor, 20. Gray, Robert, 16, 19, 20. Green, John H., 215, 217, 231. Greenleaf, Stephen, 24. Hallam’s Literary History, 283. Hallowell, Maine, Old South Church, 132. Halsey, Jeremiah, 44, 54, 55. [e2G2a| INDEX Hancock, Cape, 20. Hancock, Ebenezer, 104. Hancock, Gov. John, 29. Hancock, John, 104. Hancock house, 11. Handel and Haydn Society, 141. Harrison, Peter, 286. Hartford, Connecticut, 44, 50. Hartford Convention, 111, 192, 193-94. Hartford Courant, 51. Harvard College, 1, 5, 205, 237. Hawkins Street School, 118, 210. Hersey, Thomas, 232. Hichborn, Benjamin, 100. Higginson, Stephen, 62. Higginson, Stephen, Jr., 176. Hingham, Massachusetts, 232; North Church, 269. Hinckly, David, house, 218. Hollis Street Church, 20, 23, 24. Holy Cross Church, 125-28, 131. Hooker, Noadiah, 50. Houghton Mifflin Company, 168. Howard, Rev. B., 5. Howard, Jonathan, 171. Hughes, James, 40. Huguenot Church, Boston, 126. Humphreys, David, 179. Hunnewell, Jonathan, 121. Hutchinson house, 11. India Wharf, 104-08. Jackson, Andrew, President, 274. Jackson, Henry, 60, 152. Jay Treaty, 64, 69, 70, 72. Jefferson, Thomas, 16, 109, 151. Jews in Boston, 202. Jones, Inigo, 90. Jones, J. C., 111. Jones, Paul, 16. Joy, Benjamin, 99, 115, 152, 158. Joy, Levi, 104. Kendrick, John, 16, 19. Kimball, Fiske, American Domestic Architecture, 156 n. King’s Chapel, 2, 11, 33, 109, 195; communion plate, 7, 276, 287. Kirkland, John Thornton, 205. Knox, Henry, house, 151-52, 158. Lafayette, Marquis de, 6, 180. Lancaster, Massachusetts, Church, 217, 222-32, 269. Lane, Commissioner, United States Capitol, 242, Q44., Latin School, 39, 145; third building, 209. Latrobe, Benjamin H., 242, 243, 244, 246, 248, 252, 255, 256, 260. Ledyard, John, 16. Lee, William, 242, 243. Leffingwell, John, 55. Leopard, frigate, 110. Leverett Street jail, 218. Lexington fight, 5. Infe and Letters, 30, 62, 89, 207, 241, 276, 279. Louisiana Purchase, 112. Lowell, Francis C., 104. Lyman, Theodore, 72, 111, 193. McIntire, Samuel, 138, 156, 167, 222, 232. Mackenzie, Alexander, 19. McKim, Charles F., 273. McLean, John, 64, 237. McLean Hospital, 64, 148, 233, 237. Madison, James, 191. Maine State House, 92, 98, 270-72. Malbone, Edward Greene, 11. Manufacturers and Mechanics Bank, 135. Marlborough Street, 29-30. Mason, Jonathan, 72, 99, 100, 111, 115; house, 152- 53; 154, 179. Mason Street School, 210. Massachusetts, 12, 15, 27. Massachusetts Bank, 43, 135, 137. Massachusetts General Hospital, 64, 211, 233, 237- 40. Massachusetts Historical Society, 16, 59, 109, 150, 168. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Architec- tural Library, 259, 264. Massachusetts Magazine, 23, 29. Massachusetts Society for the Aid of Immigrants, ion Massachusetts Society for Promoting Agriculture, 42. Massachusetts State House, 20, 44, 48, 53, 60, 67, 75-93, 249, 259. Massachusetts State Prison, 120-22. Matignon, Rev. Francis A., 126. Middlecot Street, 37, 71, 172. Mill Pond, 12, 100, 103-04. Minot, George B., 98. Monroe, James, visit to Boston, 203-05, 212; 242, 243, 255, 264. Morgan, John, 50, 53. Morris, Robert, 16. Morton, Perez, 40, 60, 89, 136. Morton house, Roxbury, 156. Mount Vernon Street, houses on, 176-79, 183. Nantes, 7. Neck lands, 100, 113. Newburyport, Massachusetts, Court-House, 119. New England Marine Insurance Company, 137. [ 293 | INDEX New North Church, 125, 131, 225, 226. New South Church, 138, 212-17. New York City, 27, 28. Nickerson, Samuel, 158. Nimes, 8. Nootka, ship, 16. Norfolk, Virginia, citizens protest, 110. Oakley, summer house of Harrison Gray Otis, 156. Old South Church, 11, 33. Otis, Harrison Gray, 60, 64, 72, 99, 100, 104, 115, 152, 153, 154, 156; first house, 159-63; second house, 163-64, 167, 176, 187; third house, 164, 167, 179; Hartford Convention, 193; address to President Monroe, 204. Paine, Judge, 5. Parker, Theodore, 283. Parkman, Samuel, 19, 125, 141, 176, 193. Park Place (now Street) houses, Nos. 1-4, 147, 167, 168-71, 183. Park Street Church, 141, 168. Parris, Alexander, 209, 273. Peck, John, 100. Perkins, Thomas, house, 184. Perkins, Thomas H., 111. Peterboro, New Hampshire, Church, 266, 269-70. Philadelphia, 27, 233. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, 237. Phillips, John, house, 184. Phillips, William, 237. Phillips, Zachariah, 154. Pittsfield, Massachusetts, Church, 32-36, 125, 142. Porter. Rev. Edward G., 150. Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Academy, 146. Pratt, Bela, 228. Prince, James, 40. Providence, First Congregational Church, 23, 215, 217, 231; First Baptist Church, 33. Province House, 11, 67. : Quincy, Massachusetts, Stone Temple, 273. Quincy, Josiah, 112, 201, 202, 207. Revere, Paul, 60, 68, 80, 93; bell at Lancaster 225. Reynolds, Sir Joshua, 8. Rice, Henry, 172, 175. Robbins, Edward Hutchinson, 68, 121. Roe, Alfred S., 90. Royal Exchange, London, 125. Russell, Joseph, 40, 60. Russell, Nathaniel P., 221. Saint Mary-le-Bow, 2. Saint Paul’s Church, Boston, 209. Saint Paul’s Church, London, 23. Saint Peter’s, Rome, 8. Saint Stephen’s Church, Boston, 125, 131. Saint Stephen’s Church, Walbrook, London, 23, 228. Salem, Massachusetts, 221, 222, 232. Salem Almshouse, 222. Sargent, Peter, 11. Scollay, William, 59, 63, 69, 71, 72, 154. Scripps-Booth house, 176, 221. Sears, David, 64, 193, 218. Seymour, Thomas, 50. Shays’s Rebellion, 20. Smibert, John, Faneuil Hall, 122. Smith, Abiel, 202, 203. Smith, Jonathan, 269. Society for the Preservation of New England An- tiquities, 159. : Somerset House, London, 91. Southack Court, 37, 71, 172, 175. Sparks, Jared, sideboard and portrait of Mrs. Sparks, 212. Spear, Samuel, 104. State House, old, Boston, 11, 67, 76, 85, 113, 195. Stearns, Eli, 231. Storer, George, 27, 69, 71, 172, 276. Stoughton, Don Juan, 126-27, 128. Strickland, William, 274. Stuart, Gilbert, 125, 152, 183. Suffolk Insurance Company, 137. Sullivan, William, 111. Swan, Mrs. James, 99, 152; Dorchester house, 156; Chestnut Street, 180. Taunton, Massachusetts, Church, 32-36, 125, 142. Thayer, Rev. John, 126. Thayer, Rey. Nathaniel, 225, 228. Theatre in Philadelphia, 27; in Boston, 28, 40, 59- 61, 63. Thomas, Isaiah, 119. Thomas, Original Designs in Architecture, 156. Thornton, William, 245, 246, 247, 248, 255, 262. Thurston house, 154. Ticknor house, 184. Touro, Abraham, 202. Tower, Rufus, 104. Trumbull, John, 50, 51, 54. Trumbull-Bulfinch letters, 247-50, 255, 259. Tuckerman, Edward, Jr., 218. - Tudor, William, 100. Union Bank, 135, 136. United States Branch Bank, Boston, 43, 135. University Hall, Harvard College, 138, 210-12, 240. Vancouver, George, 19. Vaughn, Charles, 42, 56, 63, 68, 71, 72, 132, 148, 264, 276. Vaughn, Harriet, 264. Ward, Andrew, 54. [ 294 ] —— a —, i ee ee 4 Aes bs ae a Pf : p . » z= in . ¥ St es tae eee . y ’ 7 ‘ : ihe ae A Rees ee iN, Ese. ed J ay - ' i eh Lae i. : -_ ® 19 ts Waverley, 150, 233. “Winate aes abu 7 ] | Weld, Benjamin, 200. Washington, D.C., 241; the Capitol, 241-63; peni- Wheeler, Joseph, 24. +9 cet entiary, 273; Unitarian Ch 1urch, 264-66, 279; Willard, Ashton R., 120. : ae) College, 273. “ % | Willard, Solomon, 136, 167, 168, 209, 218, 248, 249. gton, George, 27, 28, 29. Wolcott, Oliver, 53, 54. gton Street, Boston 30. Worcester, Massachusetts, Bank, 119; Court- gton, Lady, ship, mS * , #House, 118-19. «. ; n, Lucy, 175. Z Wren, Sir Christopher, 23, 90, 132, 287. be a i - " ‘ - " ‘ € iyi eee a : aa ° ? : 4. oe? ; we i * - e) ® us & ’ wa * * ¥ . eer “ ‘ 2 ig . a + - rs & * ° * * ‘ ” h * * .' .*» ° a “tad ; P ; ‘ Se r f * * e “ a & * a ee PEPCES ay ay + pRectihe eT Ps T ON Ae PSII ats ae Se FN mee a Go ees se - 7S Jae Gaon gS om. eee 7» 0-6 o--s- oe are aed Re ee fe sas ei eae shees > = 9 —| Seeectee ee eege oy CES oe Soe ese eee ees Terre eer, <3 Etats ae vets = ashpebeies? f+he 42-09 6-8 ho asses os 0 a 0 8 8 8 ee a ae ee Cet ek ae ee ~ pee eee ete ° eleiee® 228 ee be ests o. es Lots LT Set ee > I Siacstes. oa aes teeta : Sot a * ~~ — 9 —P—0— oa 4 = stetet SteseSs * ty . pay sr Fhe 24: fai pee tet pear Steet een Leeper eee eye ee he rer ~ oe ate ates eases siel ibis! Sadar kab tadeteaea-anabraae bea ee te ea eee pany ~o a See wr lo7* a fo e¢ ener Er cee peeriee te 35 Sate ets Seats Se ee ee ee Eee ope trp ey Supe oad cabinet ee. ee Stee ae ae ne ee tee or Oe oe Oe oe ae ee ee Oe ee ee ee Sr pe Phe et Soret Sere Ests Saat aateteter pSEtet SS rete tsetse: — a ooo vate rare oe oa ae! . > i a * ee eS er Ty 9 Gee) OOO OO a Ord Ow oe et hn St ee er eet eee = er peewee ret Ss Se eee Be Sree eee ee eer Pe ree ae ee ee te Be ee ae +e eee Cerresee es See ee eee Le Ee te Se Ee pay ta Se sases sete atsessabetaretatens sa e000 6 4 ee eee