Full download test bank at ebook textbookfull.

com

Senior Cohousing: A New Way Forward

for Active Older Adults Sherry

CLICK LINK TO DOWLOAD

https://textbookfull.com/product/senior-
cohousing-a-new-way-forward-for-active-older-
adults-sherry-cummings/

textbookfull
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Nursing for Wellness in Older Adults Miller

https://textbookfull.com/product/nursing-for-wellness-in-older-
adults-miller/

Designing Displays for Older Adults 2nd Edition Anne

Mclaughlin

https://textbookfull.com/product/designing-displays-for-older-
adults-2nd-edition-anne-mclaughlin/

Pain Management in Older Adults Gisèle Pickering

https://textbookfull.com/product/pain-management-in-older-adults-
gisele-pickering/

Primary Care for Older Adults: Models and Challenges

1st Edition Michael Wasserman

https://textbookfull.com/product/primary-care-for-older-adults-
models-and-challenges-1st-edition-michael-wasserman/
Designing for older adults. Case studies, methods, and
tools First Edition Boot

https://textbookfull.com/product/designing-for-older-adults-case-
studies-methods-and-tools-first-edition-boot/

Home-Based Medical Care for Older Adults: A Clinical

Case Book 1st Edition Jessica L. Colburn

https://textbookfull.com/product/home-based-medical-care-for-
older-adults-a-clinical-case-book-1st-edition-jessica-l-colburn/

Vascular Disease in Older Adults A Comprehensive

Clinical Guide 1st Edition Rabih Chaer (Eds.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/vascular-disease-in-older-
adults-a-comprehensive-clinical-guide-1st-edition-rabih-chaer-
eds/

Ageing and Digital Technology Designing and Evaluating

Emerging Technologies for Older Adults Barbara Barbosa
Neves

https://textbookfull.com/product/ageing-and-digital-technology-
designing-and-evaluating-emerging-technologies-for-older-adults-
barbara-barbosa-neves/

Designing for older adults: principles and creative

human factors approaches Third Edition Sara J Czaja

https://textbookfull.com/product/designing-for-older-adults-
principles-and-creative-human-factors-approaches-third-edition-
sara-j-czaja/
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN AGING

Sherry Cummings
Nancy P. Kropf

Senior Cohousing
A New Way
Forward for Active
Older Adults

123
SpringerBriefs in Aging
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10048
Sherry Cummings Nancy P. Kropf
•

Senior Cohousing
A New Way Forward for Active Older Adults

123
Sherry Cummings Nancy P. Kropf
College of Social Work School of Social Work, Perimeter College
University of Tennessee Georgia State University
Knoxville, TN, USA Atlanta, GA, USA

ISSN 2211-3231 ISSN 2211-324X (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Aging
ISBN 978-3-030-25361-5 ISBN 978-3-030-25362-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
During our travels to twelve senior cohousing
communities, the two authors spoke with 76
of residents. These women and men opened
their homes, shared their experiences, and
made this project informative …… and fun!

We dedicate this book to those individuals as

a small way to thank them for their kindness,
and generosity of spirit.
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Senior Cohousing . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 The Purpose of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
References . . . . . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Cosmic Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 Self Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.3 Social/Personal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 Communities Visited—Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Cohousing Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Alcequia Jardin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3 Elderberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Elder Family Fellowship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.5 Elderspirit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.6 Glacier Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.7 Mountain View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 Phoenix Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9 Sand River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.10 Sarah’s Circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.11 Silver Sage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.12 Walnut Commons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.13 Wolf Creek Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.14 Governance and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.15 Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

vii
viii Contents

3.16 Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.17 Member Recruitment and Vetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4 Why Senior Cohousing? . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.1 Pushes: The Desire to Leave a Current Residence . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Pulls: The Move to a SCC . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.3 Why Senior Cohousing? . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 33
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . . . . . . . . . 34
5 Staying Active and Engaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.1 Activity Within Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5.2 Engagement Outside the Senior Cohousing Community . . . . . . . 40
5.3 Public-Private Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6 Benefits and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.1 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2 Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.3 Practical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.4 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.5 Interpersonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.6 Amount of Time Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.7 Self-governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
7 Looking to the Future—Aging in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.1 Hopes for Aging Within Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
7.2 Support in Senior Cohousing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
7.3 Limits of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
7.4 Envisioning the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
8 Advice from Senior Cohousers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1 Adequate Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.2 Self-reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.3 Be Courageous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9 Living and Learning—The Senior Cohousing Experience . . . . . . . . 71
9.1 The Desire for Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9.2 Growth and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
9.3 Thoughts for the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
9.4 Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix A: Questions for Members of Senior Cohousing
Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Abbreviations

EFF Elder Family Fellowship

NOBO North Boulder
SCCs Senior cohousing communities

ix
Chapter 1
Introduction

…. we’re on the leading edge of the baby boomers so we don’t do anything like anybody
has ever done before and that includes aging. You know, we’ve seen our parents in nursing
homes and that’s not where we want to go…. (Tammy)

Our society is currently experiencing demographic shifts due to the aging of the
baby boom generation, and Tammy (above) captures well the magnitude of change
brought about by the baby boomers. This cohort, born after World War II during
the years of 1946–64, has transformed social institutions and trends at every point
in the life course. As members of this cohort ourselves, both of the authors have
faced the changes firsthand—and many of you who are reading this book have gone
through these experiences as well. We overflowed school classrooms as our sheer
number went beyond the capacity of space and resources. We embraced new trends
and modified social values and norms in many areas including choices, customs, and
social roles. Now as we grow older, we are transforming options for later life by our
preferences and decisions.
We see these trends in many ways which create new and emerging journeys into
later life. One is the way that we care for ourselves. For example, greater attention
is being paid to staying healthy and fit into later life such as described in the book
Fitness After Fifty: Eat Well, Move Well, Be Well (Rosenbloom & Murray, 2018).
Take the experience of running a marathon, for example. Previously, this event was
dominated by younger runners who were viewed as having the endurance to complete
the 26.2 miles. However, there has been a shift in runners’ profiles as greater numbers
of master runners compete in this sport. In fact, now over 50% of men and 40% of
women are over the age of 40, and often runners are competing into their 60s or 70s
with substantial benefits to physical health (McMahan, 2015).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

S. Cummings and N. P. Kropf, Senior Cohousing, SpringerBriefs in Aging,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_1
2 1 Introduction

Even with the onset of chronic conditions, people are also looking more holisti-
cally at their health and well-being. In older adults with diabetes, for example, one
report indicated that 25% had used complimentary alternative medicine treatments
within the past year (Rhee, Westberg, & Harris, 2018). These included interventions
such as acupuncture, massage, herbs and supplements, and mind-body programs
(e.g., yoga and tai-chi). Spiritual changes are also happening. The baby boom gen-
eration embraces a more diverse array of spiritual traditions, beyond the mainstream
religions, which includes meditation, connecting with nature, and other practices.
Another area that is changing is the decision about where and how to live during
later years. Many older adults state a preference for living in their own homes; how-
ever, this decision can have unintended consequences such as worrying about how to
manage if a health crisis is experienced, or feeling unsafe in a home or neighborhood.
Living situations that provide people with companionship, ways to stay engaged with
others, as well as provide a purpose and community have emerged. As baby boomers
consider later life, many are exploring options that channel relationship and support.
In this way, the baby boom generation is once again transforming options for later
life—just as we have done during early times in our lives!
The desire for connection is an important factor in exploring more communal
living arrangements. Isolation is particularly acute in later adulthood when there are
fewer options for increasing engagement and social ties. Limited mobility, sensory
declines, and other age-related changes may prevent older adults from establishing
meaningful and supportive relationships. Additionally, later life is without some of
the settings that provide a context for establishing friendships such as employment
and school settings. These combined factors contribute to loneliness, depression,
and disengagement. Consider a story in the New York Times (Onishi, 2017) about
isolation in older adults in Japan, which is one of the top countries for long life
expectancies. Mega-apartment complexes house scores of older adults, each who
live alone within her or his small unit. Without meaningful interaction within these
buildings, individuals stay cocooned within their own units- never knowing their
neighbors. A shocking tale brought this situation to national attention when a 69 year
old man was found dead in his apartment, being deceased for three years prior to
being discovered. This is an extreme example, yet it does speak to both a concern
shared by many about potential isolation and the desire to be involved in engaged
and caring relationships in later life

1.1 Senior Cohousing

In response to desiring connection and engagement, senior cohousing communities

(SCCs) have been developed to bring together individuals around shared values1 .
While cohousing was initially designed as multigenerational communities, a move-

1 For
more information about Intentional Communities, visit the Fellowship for Intentional Com-
munity for references and resources: https://www.ic.org/.
1.1 Senior Cohousing 3

Fig. 1.1 Elder Family Fellowship

ment has formed to establish communities specifically for those in later life (Fig. 1.1).
A more detailed history of cohousing is provided in Chap. 2.
Senior cohousing communities offer living arrangements which provide space and
attention to the experience of growing older, including both the rewarding aspects
4 1 Introduction

and the challenges. In multigenerational cohousing, these issue are diluted by many
important ones that are part of family life such as raising children and labor force
issues. One of the women interviewed as part of this project summed up her decision
to move to a SCC instead of a multigenerational community:
I had good friends that lived there [multigenerational cohousing community], and I observed
the interaction of the community, intergenerational, and it seemed that there were issues
involving young children, and different things that older people would not necessarily be
concerned about. That’s why I then thought that I would concentrate on a senior community,
because we wouldn’t have some of those issues.

In addition to having space for issues of aging, SCCs promote a sense of fac-
ing the aging process collectively. In these communities, there is a perception that
everyone is sharing the aging process together which brings security and a sense of
caring (Fig. 1.2). Noreen summed up her impression of living in an SCC with this
view, “I think that there’s a sense of more ease with it knowing that we’re not gonna
be alone. Knowing that there are people around who care. So, I think for me, that
makes me feel just more confident about the [aging] process. That’s the way I wanna
live and the way I wanna die.”
Like cohousing communities in general, SCCs are founded upon shared values
and assumptions that provide the basis for residents. The six principles of cohousing
are:
1. Participatory Process—development of a community is started with a vision
statement. Future residents lead the development process and are co-collaborators
in overall design of the community.
2. Neighborhood Design—the lay out and configuration of the space within the
community is created to stress connection and sense of community
3. Common Facilities—a common building on the property includes kitchen space
for shared meals, along with other spaces, such as laundry and library, based upon
the vision and shared principles
4. Resident Management—decisions about division of labor are made by the com-
munity residents themselves. While residents have responsibility for their own
units, decisions about governing policies and work related to common spaces
(common building, shared meals, gardens, patios) are determined by the resi-
dents
5. Non-hierarchical Structure and Decision-making—most cohousing commu-
nities use a consensus decision making model. There is no person or group that
has greater power or decision making over others
6. No Shared Community Economy—the community does not exist to create an
income stream for the residents.
1.1 Senior Cohousing 5

Fig. 1.2 Socializing in the common area

6 1 Introduction

1.2 The Purpose of the Book

This book was written to specifically explore older adults’ experience of living in a
senior cohousing community. The idea came to the authors through both professional
and personal perspectives. Professionally, both of us are social workers and geron-
tologists and we have studied numerous issues of later life including mental health,
caregiving, and social networks. As teachers, we have also worked with students
to learn effective practice with the older population—and this includes eradicating
some of the myths of growing older. One common myth is that all older adults end
up in nursing homes. In exploring SCCs, we hope to bring additional understanding
to social work, gerontology and other students who seek careers in health and human
service about how these communities enhance options for adults as they age.
Along with this professional journey, however, there are personal reasons for our
interest. As baby boomers, we are exploring options for our own aging years. What
kind of place would we like to live? Where do we see ourselves aging? These are
important questions and are informed by caregiving experiences that we have had
with our own parents. We both have had a parent who lived in a long-term care setting
and concluded that this would not be a place that we would choose to move. As true
academics, we decided to address this issue by exploring other living options—and
spent our summer researching, visiting, and interviewing residents of SCCs across
the country.
During our visits, we were interested in several questions. How did the residents
make the important decision to move into this type of residential setting? What activi-
ties do they participate in—both within the SCC and in the surrounding environment?
As they look into the future, how do they see their aging within this type of com-
munity? What are the biggest challenges, and what has this experience taught them
about themselves? We addressed the same set of questions across all of the commu-
nities to compare similar and unique issues that arose. (A full set of the questions
can be found in Appendix A).
We selected twelve SCCs to visit. We used a sampling approach called maximum
variation purposive sampling to identify 12 SCCs that would represent the full vari-
ety of senior cohousing characteristics. The purposive sampling was based on the
variation of SCCS along the following dimensions: (1) Mission; (2) Population; (3)
Structure; and (4) Geographic location. The communities identified were distributed
across California, Colorado, New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington
DC. In some communities, we interviewed residents separately and in other places
within group formats—whatever made the residents most comfortable. All in all, we
ended up interviewing a total of 76 residents. In a few places, we were invited to
spend the night and participate in some of the activities such as meals, happy hour,
vespers and soaking in a hot tub. In all cases, the residents with whom we met were
generous with their time, and honest with their answers.
This book tells the story of life in senior cohousing communities. We employed an
existential-phenomenological qualitative research method. The ultimate goal in using
this approach is to gain knowledge of the phenomena being studied by achieving a
1.2 The Purpose of the Book 7

deeper understanding of the lived experience of the individual or group of individuals

involved (Collingridge & Gantt, 2008). Informed consent was obtained for each
person prior to being interviewed. Participants were told that no real names would
be used (all names appearing in this book are aliases) and that no specific remarks
would be attributed to those living in particular communities. In this way, we hoped
to preserve the anonymity of those interviewed and encourage the most open and
honest answers to the questions posed. Data for this study consisted of the transcripts
made from the audio-recorded focus group and individual interviews. The transcripts
were then read individually by each of the authors and analyzed to discern common
themes that emerged in response to the questions asked. Final themes were discussed
and agreed on by the researchers. What is presented in this book, therefore, is not an
account of individual senior cohousing communities. Rather, it is the story of common
experiences of those who live in SCCs regardless of the geographic area in which
the community is located, its size, or years in existence. Our experience highlights
some of the common characteristics found across the settings which include a desire
to be in relation to others, the offering and receiving of assistance and support, and
a common structure that provides for ongoing maintenance of communal space. As
you read the stories of the residents and the SCCs, you will find powerful descriptions
of resilience, connection, and caring. One of the men interviewed was in the process
of moving to a particular community, and summed up the benefits as he made this
decision:
… being here, knowing that there is an intact support system is important. I live with people
who are very supportive and all that stuff, but it’s in a typical American suburb, so you may
not even know… I don’t even know some of the neighbors. Here, you can’t not know people.
Here, you want to know about what other people are doing, and maybe you don’t sometimes,
but everybody’s got different ideas about how to relate and what they’re doing, and you hear
about this and you hear about that, and that’s always fun.

References

Colloingridge, D. S., & Gantt, E. (2008). The quality of qualitative research. American Journal of
Medical Quality, 23(5), 389–395.
McMahan, I. (2015, April 22). Running into old age: A growing number of seniors are completing
marathons and triathlons, shedding new light on how exercise affects the elderly body. The
Atlantic.
Onishi, N. (November 30, 2017). A generation in Japan faces a lonely death. New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/world/asia/japan-lonely-deaths-the-end.
html.
Rhee, T. G., Westberg, S. M., & Harris, I. M. (2018). Use of complementary and alternative medicine
in older adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 41(6), e95–e96.
Rosenbloom, C., & Murray, B. (2018). Food and fitness after fifty: Eat well, move well, be well.
Chicago, IL: Academic of Nutrition and Dietetics, Eat Right Press.
Chapter 2
Senior Cohousing—History and Theory

We decided on cohousing; we decided that what we really wanted was to be good to the
earth; we wanted spirituality; we wanted mutual support…And I think community’s worth
it. It’s not easy, but it’s worth it. …And I think it’s the human condition - what we want is
some belonging, and support, and acceptance. (Stephanie)

2.1 History

The first modern cohousing community was developed in Denmark just outside of
Copenhagen in 1972. Twenty-seven families who desired a greater sense of commu-
nity and collaboration than found in typical neighborhoods of the time came together
to develop a fresh approach to housing (McCamant & Durrett, 1988). With the guid-
ing principles of community and cooperation in mind, these families developed the
physical characteristics and the governing structure for their new community that
have now become hallmarks of the modern cohousing movement. Architectural fea-
tures such as community kitchens, communal play areas for children, and common
gardens and courtyards served to heighten residents’ natural interactions with one
another. Shared responsibility for the functioning and upkeep of their community
further fostered interpersonal engagement. What resulted was the formation of a
more close-knit “neighborhood” without families having to forfeit living in indi-
vidual homes (Bamford, 2005). In a manner, it was an attempt to re-gain what was
thought to have been lost through modernization—a hearkening back to village living
where community residents worked together to maintain their way of life.
Senior cohousing, then, was an adaptation of the modern cohousing movement
applied to older adults. The first senior cohousing community, called Midgården,
was established in Denmark in 1987 (Durrett, 2009). This community was pioneered
by two women, Tove Duvå and Lissy Lund Hansen, who championed independent
housing for older adults (Durrett, 2009). As their model, they used the already estab-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 9

S. Cummings and N. P. Kropf, Senior Cohousing, SpringerBriefs in Aging,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_2
10 2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory

lished intergenerational cohousing communities in Scandinavia. The community

opened with 9 single older women as the initial residents.
The idea of cohousing for older adults caught on quickly in Denmark; but, the
reality of working with the government to sponsor such senor cohousing, learning
the needed skills to work with architects and developers, and creating a beginning
community that was able to effectively confront and solve problems was daunting to
many.
Then, in 1995 Henry Nielsen created a comprehensive model to help guide
cohousing-interested seniors in the often confusing and challenging process of cre-
ating a cohousing community. Nielsen gained his expertise in the field of older adult
cohousing through his work with the Danish nonprofit Quality of Living in Focus.
His model addressed issues related to design, community size, aging-in-place and
member participation. He stressed that the participatory process is essential to the
creation of a strong and vibrant cohousing community, as it involves the members
in the construction and design of their future community. Nielsen’s model describes
a step by step process to follow, consisting of 2 phases and three study groups, in
order to develop a cohousing community. Phase one is called the “feasibility phase,”
and is identified with discerning whether or not a senior cohousing community is
possible in a given area, finding a site, and exploring how the community will be
financed. Phase two is called the “information phase.” This phase involves locating
other seniors interested in participating in a senior cohousing community, along with
honing-in more on how development will take place. Following the “information
phase” is a series of three “study groups” that cover specific topics: aging success-
fully, participatory design, and policy (Durrett, 2009). Furthermore, Nielsen’s model
identified a number of key players, in addition to future residents, who are essential to
the developmental process. These include a third party advisor and project manager
who work to coordinate between all the people involved; local officials who help
with zoning, public services availability, etc.; a developer who works with the resi-
dents and oversees the project’s development and financial process; and an architect
who designs the community in consultation with the members. While the process of
developing a cohousing community can be an arduous one, Nielsen’s model helped
pave the way for many by demystifying the complex activity of senior cohousing
development. As a result, the number of senior cohousing communities in Denmark
and beyond began to grow. By 2009 there were 2,800 senior cohousing units in Swe-
den and 2,100 in the Netherlands (Glass, 2009), while by 2015 there were 250 senior
cohousing communities in Denmark alone (Penderson, 2015).

2.2 Cohousing in the U.S.

Moving to the American context, McCamant and Durrett (1994) are credited with
coining the term cohousing and introducing the concept to Americans in the 1970s
(Glass, 2009). The two were architecture students on a year abroad at the University
of Copenhagen. During his daily commute to the university, Charles Durrett came
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. 11

across a newly developed cohousing community. Intrigued, by the lively social inter-
action on display, Durrett and McCamant decided to learn more about cohousing.
They spent 14 months in the early 1980s visiting close to 200 cohousing communities,
studying many in detail and even living in a few to gain a deeper understanding of the
structure, principles and workings of cohousing. After returning to the U.S., they self-
published a book on the topic in 1988 and three years later built the first cohousing
community in the U.S. fashioned after the Denmark cohousing model (Verde, 2018).
Since the early 1990s, the number of cohousing communities has grown throughout
the U.S. Although it can be very difficult to determine the exact number of cohousing
communities, according to the Cohousing Association of the United States (2019),
there are currently 165 cohousing developments in 36 states. Of course, these rep-
resent only those communities that have chosen to join this cohousing association.
The vast majority of these cohousing communities are intergenerational.
Communes versus cohousing. In the U.S., the term cohousing is often confused
with “commune”. Many of the older adults who we interviewed reported that their
friends and family members replied, “What! You’ve joined a commune?!, when they
told them that they had purchased a house/unit in a senior cohousing community. In
many peoples’ minds vivid images of the 1960s and 1970s “hippie” communes still
endure. It is true that communes continue to exist in the U.S. and across the globe.
While some hippie-type of communes do remain, the term commune is now used to
designate a community in which “most everything is shared” and which may consist
of shared housing, co-householding and/or co-living (multiple individuals sharing
a house) (Fellowship for Intentional Community, 2019). Communes and cohousing
are different in several important ways. In communes there is often: (1) a common
purse; (2) a focus on the group rather than on the nuclear family; and (3) 100%
income sharing. In cohousing some land and space (e.g. the common house) are co-
owned. However, cohousing community residents own their own homes and can sell
them on the open market. In addition, while community members may have close
relationships, there is no desire nor expectation for the group to become the primary
focus. Rather, it is understood that the main emotional relationships remain within
the family/unit. Lastly, in cohousing there is not a common enterprise nor income
sharing. Cohousing, therefore, is more of a tightknit village that shares responsibility
for common areas and promotes strong community while maintaining the concepts
of individual income, property, and households.
Senior cohousing in the U.S.. Given the quick spread of cohousing across the ocean
to America, it would be reasonable to assume that senior cohousing caught on rather
quickly. However, this was not the case. Cohousing, focused on those 55 years and
older, did not begin in the U.S. until the early 2000s (Glass, 2013). The publication
of The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living
by Charles Durrett (2005) helped spur the growth of senior cohousing. In addition to
introducing the idea of senior cohousing and describing aspects of the architecture,
Durrett clearly described the process of creating a senior cohousing community.
According to Durrett (2005, 2009) Study Group I is especially important. It is during
this 10-week process that potential members look at, and hopefully come to accept,
12 2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory

Fig. 2.1 Blueprints for Silver Sage Senior cohousing

their own aging process, examine what it means to them to “age-in-place” and decide
how they would like to do this. This type of sharing also enables potential members
to learn essential listening skills, get to know one another better and build beginning
community bonds. Approximately 40% of those who go through this process decide
to forge on and participate in the creation of a senior cohousing community (Durrett,
2009) (Figs. 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3).
Between 2005 and 2007 three separate senior cohousing communities opened in
California, Virginia, and Colorado, all which were visited by the authors. The first
cohousing community in the U.S. was Glacier Circle in Davis, California. Much like
the first elderly cohousing development in Scandinavia, Glacier Circle was conceived
of by a single person, Ellen Coppock, who had reservations about moving into a
traditional senior housing residence. Concerns about loneliness and isolation were
the impetuses that drove Ellen Coppock and her friends, many of whom had known
one another since their children were in pre-school, to begin considering options other
than the local Life Plan Community. In their own way, they informally engaged in the
process of Study Group I. At the end of this process, they decided to move forward and
develop a senior cohousing community. They visited an intergenerational cohousing
community in California and decided to base their community on this model. Glacier
Circle was privately developed by a core group of about eight people who were
committed to creating a community of older adults dedicated to living in relationship
as they aged. The group first came together in 2002. Although they initially faced
many setbacks, once they found a plot of land where they could build and an architect
who was willing to work with them as they wanted, the project moved forward, and
after several years of hard work, the community officially opened in 2005.
2.2 Cohousing in the U.S. 13

Fig. 2.2 Working toward a Senior cohousing mission statement

The second senior cohousing community to develop was ElderSpirit in rural,

Virginia. After looking for land, a group of interested older individuals formed a
corporation to purchase the property and received funding from the Research Retire-
ment Fund for predevelopment activities. This group consulted with Charles Durrett
and hired an architect. Members of this emerging community served in the role of
program manager, who oversaw the physical development and worked with govern-
ment housing agencies, and in the role of community coordinator, who publicized
and recruited members for the developing community. ElderSpirit opened in 2006.
The third senior cohousing community to open was SilverSage in Boulder, Colorado.
This group was initially made up of aging members of an existing intergenerational
cohousing community, Neyland Cohousing, who were exploring a cohousing option
for themselves that was more focused on their needs and interests as older adults.
They were soon joined by others and found land across the street from an already
existing intergenerational cohousing community, Wild Sage. They worked with a
non-profit agency and a developer to create the first mixed income senior cohous-
ing community. This group also hired McMamant and Durrett as their architects to
design, with community members input, the physical structure and space. This was
also the first group that officially went through the process of Study Group I. They
opened their doors in 2007.
14 2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory

Fig. 2.3 Blueprints come to life in common spaces

Since 2007, the number of senior cohousing communities has slowly but steadily
grown. There are now seventeen such communities listed in the directory of the
Cohousing Association of the United States (2019), and 28 are currently in forma-
tion or under construction. Similar to the original three projects, these new com-
munities are spread in states throughout the country, range in size, are situated in
diverse geographic settings, and possess mission statements with a variety of foci
from mutual support and green living to spirituality and community engagement.
Likewise, new groups are now employing a variety of developers and architects,
including senior cohousing specialists, local professionals and community members
themselves, and using a creative array of financial mechanisms to develop and build
their communities.

2.3 Theory

The Gerotranscendence Theory of Aging helped shape the framework we used to

conduct our study of the lived experience of senior cohousing residents. In particular,
this theory was used to guide the development of our structured interview questions
and to organize our data analysis and data interpretation, that is, the way we thought
2.3 Theory 15

about and developed themes from what the residents told us about their lives in their
cohousing communities. Gerotranscendence is a developmental theory of aging that
posits the continued possibility of personal growth as one ages. It suggests that growth
can be seen on three different levels—cosmic, self, social/personal. So, as one grows
older, it is possible to “transcend” or move beyond previous understandings and gain
new perspectives on fundamental existential issues, the meaning and importance of
relationships, and definitions of self (Tornstam, 2005, 2011).

2.3.1 Cosmic Level

• Increased feeling of oneness with the universe

• Increased connection to both past and future generations
• Increased ability to reflect on and incorporate earlier aspects of life
• Increased acceptance of the mystery of life; accepting that not all things can be
understood or explained from a rational point of view
• Increased ability to see the universal in individual objects
• Decreased fear of death.

2.3.2 Self Level

• Increased self-acceptance
• Increased altruism
• Increased integration of different pieces (both good and bad) of one’s life
• Increased sense of wholeness and coherence
• Decreased self-centeredness
• Decreased obsession with the body.

2.3.3 Social/Personal

• Increased desire for solitude and meditation

• Increased acceptance of other ways of being and doing things
• Decreased interest in superficial relationships
• Decreased need to conform to social roles and norms
• Decreased attachment to material possessions
• Decreased judgmentalism.

The authors went into this project believing that growth can occur at all ages, and
saw in the theory of gerotranscendence a framework for looking at different aspects
of possible growth as one ages. What is presented in this book should not be viewed as
16 2 Senior Cohousing—History and Theory

an effort to support or critique the theory of gerotranscendence. Rather, it is an attempt

to explore whether the experiences described to us by senior cohousers would reflect
any of the themes noted above and, if so, would the participants attribute some of their
growth experiences to life within cohousing rather than to aging itself? In other words,
might the experience of living in senior cohousing help foster gerotranscendence?
In the next chapter we turn to a description of the communities we visited, and an
explanation of the shared governance and communal management processes used.
These set the scene for the remaining chapters and further exploration of the lived
experiences of community members and the impact of these experiences on their
growth and development.

References

Bamford, G. (2005). Cohousing for older people: Housing innovation in the Netherlands and Den-
mark. Australian Journal on Ageing, 24(1), 44–46.
Cohousing Association of the United States (2019). https://www.cohousing.org/. Accessed 1 Febru-
ary 2019.
Durrett, C. (2005). Senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living (1st
ed.). Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press.
Durrett, C. (2009). Senior cohousing handbook: A community approach to independent living (2nd
ed.). Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Fellowship for Intentional Community. https://www.ic.org/. Accessed 17 February 2019.
Glass, A. P. (2009). Aging in a community of mutual support: The emergence of an elder intentional
cohousing community in the United States. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23, 283–303.
Glass, A. P. (2013). A conceptual model for aging better together intentionally. Jounal of Aging
Studies, 27, 428–442.
McMamant, K., & Durrett, C. (1988). Cohousingg: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves.
Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press/Ten Speed Press.
McMamant, K. & Durrett, C. (1994). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves
(2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.
Pendersen, M. (2015). Senior cohousing communities in Denmark. Journal of Housing for the
Elderly, 29, 126–145.
Tornstam, L. (2005). Gerotranscendence: A development theory of positive aging. New York:
Springer Publishing.
Tornstam, L. (2011). Maturing into gerotranscendence. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology,
43(2), 166–180.
Verde, T. (January 20, 2018). There’s Community and Consensus. But It’s No Commune. New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/20/business/cohousing-communities.html. Accessed
10 February 2019.
Chapter 3
Communities Visited—Overview

We made a commitment to be in community. That both has to do with running the place and
all of that entails but also in terms of being there for each other…. (Bob)

In the U.S., there are 17 senior cohousing communities that are currently up and
running. The first was established in 2005 and the last came onboard in 2018. To
achieve a good representative understanding of these communities, we visited 12
communities that ranged in size, geographic location, number of residents, types of
structure (homes or condo units) and urban/rural/suburban setting.
An integral aspect of senior cohousing is the active participation of the older
residents in the design and development of the community. All but one of the com-
munities that we visited was developed by an original group of older residents who
were strongly committed to the cohousing principles noted in chapter one. Most
frequently, these original members reached out to a developer and/or architect early
in the process to help guide them thought the design development and construction
phases. One team in particular, Charles Durrett and Kate McMamant, who are lead-
ers in the senior cohousing movement, provided consultation to several of the senior
cohousing communities. Others recruited local architects and contractors while a
member of one smaller community, who had a background in real estate and con-
struction, oversaw most of the process herself.

3.1 Cohousing Communities

Following is a brief description of each of the communities we visited and an overview

the governance, decision-making and recruitment processes they employed.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 17

S. Cummings and N. P. Kropf, Senior Cohousing, SpringerBriefs in Aging,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25362-2_3
18 3 Communities Visited—Overview

Fig. 3.1 Acequia Jardin

3.2 Alcequia Jardin

Established in 2013, Alcequia Jardin is a small community set on 1.1 acres located
just a few miles away from Old Town Albuquerque and next to a food co-op. Nestled
off of a main road, the community consists of the 5 duplexes (10 homes), a small
community room and a guest-suite used for short-term visits by family and guests.
The community prides itself on being environmentally and socially responsible.
Homes, which are energy efficient and range in size from 800 to 1200 sq feet, are
gathered around a community garden and courtyard maintained by the members.
While members have organized a weekly book club, occasionally share dinners and
engage in other activities that take place on-site, they are also very active in the larger
community (Fig. 3.1).

3.3 Elderberry

Elderberry is located in a rural area about 30 min north of Durham, North Carolina.
Started in 2011, Elderberry is adjacent to a multi-generational cohousing community
named Potluck Farms. With strong principles rooted in ecology and sustainability,
the residential units are energy efficient and a solar farm is being added. There are
multiple organic gardens and a chicken coop for eggs. The 18 home units have a
limit of 1200 sq feet and are either duplexes or quadplexes. There is a common
house with a kitchen, library, and meditation area. While the members of Elderberry
have organized several activities and events for themselves, they also interact with
those living in Potluck Farms.
3.4 Elder Family Fellowship 19

3.4 Elder Family Fellowship

Elder Family Fellowship (EFF) is located in the rural community of Whittier, North
Carolina. As a senior cohousing community, it is the smallest of the communities
visited with just two current residents. The goal is to recruit additional members to
become part of the “family” which is the preferred term over “residents”. EFF is part
of a larger community, Union Acres, that was started in 1989. One of the founders
is now living in EFF, which is physically sited within the Union Acres property.
Whittier is in a beautiful area located in the western part of the state in the Smokey
Mountains. EFF consists of a single building with multiple floors, separate units, a
large kitchen and a great deal of privacy. All other homes in Union Acres are spread
over about 90 acres. There is a communal building where residents of both EFF and
Union Acres gather for meetings and social events.

3.5 Elderspirit

Elderspirit is located in Abingdon, Virginia which is a small town in the southwest

part of the state. Started in 2006, the community has a strong spiritual foundation and
includes Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. In addition to single dwellings, there are
rooms in the communal building that are rented to make living there more affordable
for those in lower income brackets. About 25 people currently live in Elderspirit.
The property is integrated into the small town, and it is easy to walk to the downtown
area which has shops, a community theater, and restaurants. In addition, the property
borders on the Virginia Creeper Trail, a 34 rail-to-trail system for walking, biking
and recreational uses.

3.6 Glacier Circle

Glacier Circle, begun in 2005, was the first senior co-housing community estab-
lished in the U.S. Organized by a group of friends with common roots in the Uni-
tarian Church, this community is located in suburban Davis, California. The eight
townhouses, 1,000–1,400 sq feet in size, and a spacious community house encir-
cle a mature and well-maintained garden consisting of colorful flowers and trees.
While the front of the community faces a neighborhood consisting of single-family
dwellings, the back gate opens onto a greenway and reserve. Because current mem-
bers have aged-in-place and are older (current average age is 90 years), they have
chosen to jointly hire outside help to handle the community’s finances, maintain the
garden, and to cook communal dinners 4–5 times per week.
20 3 Communities Visited—Overview

3.7 Mountain View

This cohousing community is located in the city of Mountain View, CA, which lies in
the heart of Silicon Valley and is situated on the southern end of the San Francisco Bay
Area. Mountain View is a small high-end city with a walkable downtown. The senior
cohousing community at Mountain View began in 2014. One structure houses the 19
condo homes, which extend from 1350 to 2090 sq feet and are situated along three
floors. Front doors and back walls contain windows that allow in ample sunlight and
foster easy socialization. A spacious community area consisting of a large kitchen,
meeting space and a mail area is positioned in the center of the first floor. Residents
maintain a large communal garden that includes a wide variety of flowers, trees and
vegetables. Guests and family members are welcomed to stay at the “farmhouse”, a
separate adjacent building that houses two well-appointed bedrooms, a kitchen and
a living area.

3.8 Phoenix Commons

Phoenix Commons is located in a busy urban area of Oakland, California known

as Jingletown. This 41-unit condo complex, begun in 2016, is the largest senior
cohousing community we visited. It is also the most diverse community explored in
terms of backgrounds, race, sexual orientation and work status. The units in this airy
multiple-floor building face one another and are separated by open air walkways.
This construction grants privacy while encouraging residents to mingle in outdoor
areas. A spacious common area, located on the first floor, contains a large kitchen,
an exercise room, a library and gathering/television area where residents meet to
visit and cheer on their favorite teams. Phoenix Commons is positioned along the
Oakland waterfront and at the base of a walkable bridge to Alameda Island.

3.9 Sand River

Situated a few miles from downtown Santa Fe, Sand River is a small cohousing
community positioned on 3.5 acres of land. The community, which is celebrating
its 10th anniversary this year, consists of 14 adobe style duplexes with 28 units and
a common house that contains a large kitchen, a small library and an office area.
The duplexes and community house are joined by gravel walkways while natural
southwestern-style plantings and grasses line many of the buildings. The cohousing
community rests about a quarter mile off of a main road that runs through Santa Fe. A
large gym, commercial establishments and restaurants are a quick drive away. Sand
River prides itself on being a LEED community with sustainable design features that
save resources and promote renewable, clean energy.
3.10 Sarah’s Circle 21

3.10 Sarah’s Circle

Sarah’s Circle is a non-profit agency and apartment community located in the heart of
the Adams-Morgan neighborhood of Washington D.C. Begun in 1983, Sarah’s Circle
was established to provide affordable housing and a vibrant community for very low-
income older adults. Although not a traditional senior cohousing community in that
it was not designed and developed by the older residents themselves, it is included in
this book as an example of older adult community living that is accessible for those
with very limited financial resources. The three-story building houses 36 studio, one-
bedroom and 2-bedroom apartments and is anchored by a large community center in
which residents gather to socialize and participate in activities such as weekly creative
writing and watercolor classes. One of the residents functions as the manager for the
building while other residents serve on the Sarah’s Circle board of directors. Sarah’s
Circle is supported by HUD-funding and donations. Residents contribute one-third
of their income toward their monthly rent (Fig. 3.2).

Fig. 3.2 Sarah’s Circle

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 George Cruikshanke

Breaking into the Strong room in the “Jewel Tower” and

Removal of the Regalia, on the night of the Fire, Octr 30
1841
 Crime, like history, repeats itself. Amongst the manuscripts kept at
Hatfield House is the following declaration:—
“1593–4 Feb. 6. John Danyell, Irishman, came to me, Richard
Young, the 6th day of February 1593, and gave me to understand of
a plot that is pretended for the firing of the Tower—viz. that there is a
vault wherein brimstone doth lie, and there is gunpowder under it.
And he says that there is a trap door that doth stand much open, and
is purposed that two men like labourers shall come in as though they
were workmen in the Tower, and shall cast certain balls into the vault
where the brimstone lieth, and in a short time it will take fire and
consume all.”
From this it will be seen that the intention of one criminal in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth was carried out by another nearly three
hundred years later, in the reign of Queen Victoria.

THE END.

APPENDICES
The Great Court of the Tower.
 APPENDIX I
DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LONDON
AND THE OFFICIALS OF THE TOWER AS TO
THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE
TOWER
“This dispute as to the Liberties and Privileges of the Tower began
as early as 1465–66, the fifth of Edward IV. Early in Queen
Elizabeth’s reign it was renewed; the points of controversy are
referred to in the above letter (a letter from the Lord Mayor to the
Lords of the Council complaining of the conduct of Sir William
George, Porter of the Tower of London, regarding his usurpation of
the Liberties and Franchises of the City by ‘compelling poor
victuallers strangers, coming to London by ship or boat with fish,
fruit, or such victuals, to give him such a quantity as pleased him to
take, as two or three cod-fish from each boat, etc., without payment.
Such as refused he caused to be imprisoned in the Tower, whereby
the victuallers were discouraged to come to the City, and their
number decreased, to the great hurt of the markets and the
victualling of the City, especially at this present time of Lent’). The
Council referred the question to the consideration of the Lord Chief-
Justice of the Queen’s Bench (Sir Christopher Wray), the Lord Chief
of the Common Pleas (Sir Edward Anderson), and the Master of the
Rolls (Sir Gilbert Gerard), who gave their opinion upon some of the
privileges claimed by the Lieutenant, but not upon the question of
boundaries. They reported with respect to the claims of freedom
from arrest by action in the City, and protections granted by the
Lieutenant to officers and attendants in the Tower, and not obeying
writs of habeas corpus; that in their opinion, persons daily attendant
in the Tower, and serving the Queen there, should be privileged, and
not arrested on any plaint in London, but this should not apply to
writs of execution or capias utlagatum; that the Lieutenant ought to
return every habeas corpus out of any court at Westminster, so that
the justices before whom it should be returned might either remand it
with the body, or retain the matter before them, and deliver the body.
They further gave their opinion that the claim of the Lieutenant, that if
a person privileged in the Tower were arrested in London, he might
detain any citizen found within the Tower until the other was
delivered, was altogether against the laws of the realm. The Lords of
the Council made an order settling these controversies, which was
dated from Nonsuch, October 3rd, 1585. The question of boundaries
still remained in dispute. Stowe quotes documents, which he says he
had seen among the Records in the Tower, from which it would
appear that the bounds in controversy were at Little Tower Hill, the
Postern, and East Smithfield on one side, and on the other the
extent of Tower Hill, and towards Barking Church. The City claimed
the Postern Gate in the end of the London Wall by the Tower, and
houses built near to the Wall and Postern; all the void ground within
the Postern Gate—viz. the whole hill and ground where the scaffold
for the execution of traitors stood, and where the Sheriffs of London
received prisoners from the Tower to be executed (from which place
the boundary stone had been removed), with the Watergate and the
gardens under the London Wall. The City also claimed that the
whole ground and soil called Tower Hill without the Postern Gate,
being parcel of East Smithfield, was theirs. They likewise objected to
the Lieutenant holding pleas in the court of the Tower, that being only
a Court Baron, and not a Court of Record; also to the exactions
taken in the name of prizage of victuallers bringing victuals, fuel, and
other things by water. The Lieutenant disputed the original position of
the Postern in question, and asserted that the City’s proofs brought
from their own manuscripts, etc., were insufficient to dispossess any
subject, much less the King. He also submitted the presentment
made by an inquest held anno 27 Henry VIII., before Sir Anthony
(William) Kingston, High Constable of the Tower, which stated that
the bounds began ‘at the Watergate next the Ramshead, in Petty
Wales; and so streyched North unto a Mudwall called Pykes Garden,
on this side of Crutched Friars; and so strait East unto the Wall of
London, with nine gardens above the Postern, and above the Broken
Tower, right unto the midst of Hog Lane End, and so strait unto the
Thames, and so six foot without the Stairs at the East-gate of the
Tower towards St Katherine’s.’ In the reign of King James the
Second the subject was again before the Privy Council, who on the
12th May 1686, directed the boundaries to be ascertained, which
was done, and the broad arrow in iron, with the date, set on the
houses. On the 13th October in the same year a warrant was issued
by King James the Second, for a charter to be prepared for
confirming the same. This Charter, dated 10th June 1687, exempted
the limits defined in the schedule (and which were practically those
claimed by the Lieutenant) from the jurisdiction of the City, and of the
Justices, etc., of Middlesex; directed that the Governor of the Tower,
or his deputies, should execute and return all writs, processes, etc.,
within the limits; that a Session of the Peace should be held four
times a year within the Liberty of the Tower, and that the Justices of
the Peace should have power to commit traitors, felons, etc., to
Newgate. It also established a Court of Record within the Liberties,
the Steward of the Court being the Coroner, the Governor of the
Tower having the appointment of the officers. Whilst the duties of the
Justices of the Peace, as defined by the charter, have been from
time to time added to by the Acts 13 George II. cap. 19. sec. 7, 37
George II. cap. 25, sec. 13–16, and by sundry licensing Acts, their
powers have been limited by the Police Act (10 George IV. cap. 44)
and supplementary Police Acts. The Central Criminal Court Act, 4
and 5 William IV. cap. 36, included the Liberty of the Tower within the
jurisdiction of that Court, and took away the power of its Justices to
try at their Sessions offences under the Act. This, however, has been
somewhat modified by subsequent Acts.”
 APPENDIX II
The
Behaviour and Character
of
Samuel M‘Pherson,
and Farquar Shaw,
Malcolm M‘Pherson
the
Three Highland Deserters;
who were
Shot at the Tower, July the 18th, 1743.
with
Some Observations on the Conduct of a certain Stranger, who
advised the Prisoners to wave any Defence they had, and to plead
guilty.
Also
A plain Narrative of the Original Institution of the Regiment, now
commanded by my Lord S——. Containing an Impartial Account
of the Rise and Progress of the late Mutiny in that Regiment.
To which is added,
The two Petitions which they sent to the Lords of the Regency,
and to the Dutchess of Richmond.
By the Clergyman of the Church of Scotland, who conversed with
them in their own Language from the Time of their Sentence till
their Execution.
Nil turpe commitas neque coramalias neque tecum maxime
omnium reverere teipsum.
 London
Printed for M. Cooper in Pater-Noster-Row, 1743
Price Six-pence.
The
Behaviour and Character
of the
Three Highlanders,
Who were Shot, on July 18th, 1743.
The many inconsistent and scandalous Reports that are spread
about Town, both in Print and Conversation, concerning the
Characters and Behaviour of the three unhappy young Men who
suffer’d in the Tower of London on Monday the 18th of July, make it
necessary as well for Information of the Public, as out of Charity to
their Memories, to publish the following Sheets.
The Author of this Tract thinks it necessary to premise, that he
means not in the Relation he intends to make of this Affair, either to
justify the Crime for which these Men suffer’d; or, in the least, to
arraign the Justice of the Court-Martial in their Proceedings; or tax
the Sentence with Severity; but, from a Motive of Christian Charity
and Love for Truth, means to remove from the Character of the
Deceased, such false Aspersions as are cast upon them, either by
the Malice or Ignorance of some, who think it not only necessary for
the Vindication of public Justice, to represent these unhappy Men as
Mutineers and Deserters, but must paint them as Men void of every
other Virtue, and addicted to the grossest Vices.
In order to give the Reader a just Idea of this Corps of Men, it will
not be improper to go back as far as their original Institution, by
which we shall be the better enabled to form a just Notion of their
Character.
Few that are in the least acquainted with the History or
Constitution of Scotland but know, that anciently all the Lands in that
Kingdom were held of the Crown by Military Tenures, or Knights
Service; and that the Vassals of these great Men held their Lands of
them by the same kind of Tenures.
 By this Means, the Nobility of that Kingdom had always a Number
of Men ready to bring into the Field, either in defence of their
Sovereign, or to decide their own private Quarrels with one another,
at which the Crown always conniv’d (for political Reasons) until both
Parties were reduced to an equal and moderate Share of Power.
This Practice of Subjects deciding their private Quarrels by the
Sword, obtained anciently all over Britain and most other Countries,
until Civil Polity and more wholesome Laws prevailed: and still
remained in the South parts, and towards the Borders of Scotland, till
near the Time of the Union of the Crowns in the Person of King
James the First, when the chief Men in those Parts were diverted
from their private Animosities, by their necessary Attendance on the
Court, now removed at a greater Distance from them.
However, this Spirit of Family Feuds still prevailed in the
Highlands, and more remote Parts of Scotland, who, by their
Distance from the Court, were unacquainted with the Manners of the
civiliz’d Part of the Nation.
The inferior Chieftains in these Parts still determined their mutual
Quarrels as usual: and in revenge of any Affront, made Incursions
and Depredations into the Estates of one another, or connived at
their Followers doing so, to the great Discouragement of Industry,
and Disturbance of the public Peace.
In this Situation were Things in that Part of the Country about the
Time of the Union of the Kingdoms, when the Government very
wisely, by the Act called the Clan-Act, abolished these Tenures, and
for preventing these Depredations last mentioned, raised several
Independent Companies in the Highlands, the command of which
were given to some of the most considerable Gentlemen in that
Corner, such as Lord Loveat, Laird of Grant, Lochnell, Farah, etc., all
men of Distinction and Weight, who were willing to engage their
Personal and Family Influence, as well as that of their Companies,
for suppressing those Quarrels, and settling a Civil Polity in the
Country.
When this Levy was made, the Officers took a special Care that
none should be enlisted into that Service, but the Sons of the
wealthiest and most reputable Farmers in the Country; and the
second and younger Sons of some of the lesser Vassals were not
asham’d to enlist in a service calculated for restoring of Peace, and
establishing Liberty and Property in their Country. And as they were
allowed to occupy their own Farms or follow any other Occupation,
except upon Muster-Days, or when they were actually employed in
pursuit of Robbers, or Disturbers of the public Peace; they, instead of
receiving Bounty-Money, made Interest with the Officer to be
admitted.
In this Shape they continued till they were Regimented, under the
Command of the Honourable the Earl of Crawford, a Nobleman,
whose Character was every way agreeable to them, and made little
or no Alteration in their Circumstances.
When we have taken this View of their Original and History, down
to the Period of their being Regimented, it will be no Matter of
Surprize to find the private Men of that Regiment differing much in
their Manners from those of other Corps, if we consider that when
they entered the Service it was impossible for them to have the least
Apprehensions of ever being obliged to leave their own Country
where most of them had Farms or other Concerns, and looked upon
themselves, and I believe were esteemed by the Country, only as a
regulated Militia, at least till such Time as they were Regimented,
which was only a few Years ago.
The Earl of Crawford enjoyed that Regiment but a short time,
when it was given to their present Colonel the Honourable Lord
Semple.
They were quartered last year, the one half of them at Inverness,
and the other at Perth; some Time in Spring the Regiment was
informed by their officers that they were to be reviewed at
Musselburgh, a village within four miles of Edinburgh, and afterwards
to return to their quarters.
Accordingly they had a Rout given them to that place, and arrived
there; but were told they were not to be reviewed there, but at
Berwick upon Tweed; when they came to this place, they were told
that his Majesty designed to review them in Person at London, and
that then they would all return to their Families.
When they arrived at London, and found that his Majesty was
gone, the Regiment were universally dissatisfied, that after so long a
March they were disappointed of the Honour of being reviewed by
his Majesty.
Some Time after their coming here a Report was currently spread
that the Regiment was to be sent to some Parts of the West-Indies,
and broke or divided amongst the Colonies; which raised in the
private Men, who believed this Report, a very great Animosity
against their Officers, whom they groundlessly blamed for not
informing them truly where they were to go before they carried them
from their own Country; and not allowing them Time to settle their
Concerns, of which some had very considerable, which they were
obliged to leave in great Disorder, they thought the Interest of the
Government did no ways require that they, more than any other
Regiment in Britain should be left ignorant of the Rout they were to
take, and by that means be disappointed of an Opportunity of settling
their private affairs in a manner suitable to so long an Absence; that
they had been so long settled in that Country without any View of
being so suddenly called from it, that it amounted to as great a
Hardship on them (comparatively speaking) as it would be to the
Militia of the City of London to be shipped for the Indies on an Hour’s
Warning.
The Officers took pains to allay this flame, by assuring the Men
that so soon as the Review was over they would be allowed to return
Home.
But when the Report of their Embarkation prevailed, they were out
of all Patience, and looked upon the Design of sending them to
Flanders only as a Blind to get them on board, in order to ship them
really for the West-Indies.
Tho’ their Officers attempted to undeceive them, yet they had
been disappointed so often, and filled so long with Hopes of going
Home, that they had no Credit with them.
 Add to this, that there was another Complaint pretended for the
Ground of their Discontent, that some small Arrears were due to
them, that they had all been obliged to use their own Swords, and
that their Cloathing, especially their Shoes and Plaids, were
remarkably deficient, these last not being worth Six-pence per Yard;
whereas they used to be allowed Plaids of more than double that
Value.
This Spirit continued after the Review, when the Discontented
agreed upon Tuesday Night after to meet at Finchley Common,
where a great Number of them convened and waited till their
Number increased. In this interval some of their Officers came up,
and by their persuasions a great Number returned; However, about a
100 of them continued their first Resolution of returning to their own
Country.
Here it is remarkable that the Night was so dark that they scarce
could distinguish Faces, or make any Computation of their Number,
and that Malcolm M‘Pherson, one of the Deceased had never
hitherto given any Consent to go away, but came within some
Distance of the Place where the Men were assembled, and with
another in Company, continued irresolute what Course to take until
the coming up of the Officers had raised some Ferment, upon which
he came into the Crowd, and allowed himself to be hurried along
without knowing where he was going.
Next Morning when by Day-Light they could discern their Number,
and not finding the Desertion so general as they expected, Samuel
M‘Pherson, another of the Deceased, advised the whole Body
strenuously to return to their Duty, which Advice he continued to
inculcate during their March to Lady Wood; and in a short Time after
they came there, he applied to a Justice of the Peace to propose
terms of surrender; and during all their Stay there, used his utmost
Endeavours to prevent Things coming to the last Extremity.
At last being in some Hopes of a Pardon by the Intervention of his
Grace the Duke of Montague, to whom Application was made in their
behalf, they surrendered on Discretion, in which Samuel M‘Pherson
was the most instrumental, as will be acknowledged by the Officers
to whom he surrendered.
They were brought soon after to the Tower, and a Court Martial
appointed to try them.
The first Day the Court Martial sat, a Person, a Stranger to all the
Prisoners, came to the Grate, and pretending a great deal of
Concern for their Misfortunes, advised them not to mention on their
Trial any complaint they might have against their Officers, intimating,
that he was certain such a Plea would not avail them, and without
serving them would expose their Officers.
That the wisest Course they could follow for their own Safety,
would be to acknowledge their Guilt, and plead mercy of the Court
Martial, which he assured them would effectually work their
Deliverance that no Punishment would be inflicted on them, and at
the same Time presented them with a Petition which he had already
drawn, addressed to the Court Martial in these terms, and they very
frankly relying on these assurances signed and delivered the same
to that honourable Court.
One of their Officers came next day to the Tower, and inculcated
the same Doctrine into the Prisoners that the Stranger had done
before, assuring them that they would all be liberate in a short time,
when all Justice should be done them.
The Prisoners were examined before the Court Martial one by
one; the Questions asked them were to this Purpose, Was you
enlisted? Have you taken the Oaths? Have you received your Pay?
Had you your Cloathing regularly? To all which they answered in the
Affirmative: They were asked if they had any Complaints against
their Officers, they all answered in the Negative, and in general
pleaded nothing in Alleviation of their Crime before the Court Martial,
but Inadvertency, and that they were moved to it by a Report which
prevailed of their being sent to the West-Indies, and into a Climate
destructive of their Health.
I cannot help in this Place to take notice of the remarkable
Officiousness of this Stranger. He takes upon him without being
asked, or the least apparent Interest in the Prisoners, to advise them
in Matters of the last Consequence to them, their Lives and
Reputation; has the Rashness to prejudge the Opinion of the
Honourable the Court Martial in a Point of Law, which is at least a
moot Point amongst the Lawyers themselves.
How unreasonable was it for any Man to pretend to determine
what Weight any Plea would have before a Court of Judicature
determining in a Case of Life and Death; and how unjust to the
Prisoners, to advise them to conceal any Circumstance in their Case
that might have the smallest Tendency towards alleviating their
Crimes, or raising the smallest Motions of Compassion towards them
in the Breasts of their Judges!
Suppose there had been but little Weight in the Plea of their Want
of Pay, yet still it was a Circumstance closely connected with their
Crime, without which it was impossible to form a just Judgment of
the Heinousness of that Action. For it must be granted on the one
hand, that a Soldier who deserts and cannot plead Want of Pay, etc.,
is less excusable, and consequently deserves a greater Degree of
Punishment than he who has such a Pretence; this must be granted,
tho’ it should be admitted on the other hand, that there is not so
much in this Plea, as to skreen the Criminals totally from
Punishment; But how much, or little is in it, is a Case few wise Men
will determine dogmatically, especially against the Prisoner, since
History, either antient or modern, does not afford any one Instance of
Capital Punishments inflicted on Soldiers who mutinied for Want of
Pay.
It is true, the Pay they want is but small; by their own Account ten
or twelve shillings, some less, some a trifle more, which I mention
out of Justice to the Officers, because it was currently reported in
Town that the Deficiency was much more considerable. But however
trifling this and their other Complaints may seem to Men not
concerned, yet I cannot but reckon it barbarous to have advised
them to conceal these Circumstances, the Relation of which could
not be supposed to have been capable of making the Court Martial
less merciful to the Prisoners, if it had not the contrary effect.
 But however that Plea was waved, and did not fall under the
cognizance of the Court Martial who made their Report, the
Consequence of which was, that on Tuesday the 12th, a Warrant
was directed by their Excellencies the Lords of the Regency to the
Governor of the Tower, for the Execution of Samuel M‘Pherson,
Malcolm M‘Pherson, both Corporals, and Farquar Shaw, a private
Centinel, all three of the Number of the Deserters, upon Monday the
18th of July last.
Having thus impartially traced this Meeting from its Rise to this
Period, it remains that we give some Account of the Character and
Behaviour of these three unfortunate Criminals from the Intimation of
their Sentence to their Execution.
Samuel M‘Pherson, aged about twenty-nine Years, unmarried,
was born in the Parish of Laggan in Badenuck and Shire of
Inverness; his Father still living, is Brother to M‘Pherson of Breachie,
a Gentleman of a considerable Estate in that County, and is himself
a Man of unblemished Reputation, and a plentiful Fortune.
Samuel was the only Son of a first Marriage, and received a
genteel Education, having made some Progress in the Languages,
and studied for some Time at Edinburgh with a Writer (that is, an
Attorney), until about six Years ago he enlisted as a Volunteer in
Major Grant’s Company, where he was much respected both by the
Officers and private men, and was in a short Time made a Corporal.
Malcolm M‘Pherson, aged about 30 Years, and unmarried, was
likewise born in the same Parish of Laggan, was Son of Angus
M‘Pherson of Driminard, a Gentleman of Credit and Repute, who
bestowed upon Malcolm such Education as that Part of the Country
would afford. He enlisted about seven Years ago in my Lord Loveat’s
Company, where his Behaviour recommended him to the Esteem of
his Officers, and was soon made a Corporal.
Farquar Shaw, aged about 35 Years, unmarried, was born in the
Parish of Rothmurchius in Strathspey, and Shire of Inverness. His
Father, Alexander Shaw, was an honest Farmer, but gave his Son no
Education, as living at a Distance from Schools, and not in a
Condition to maintain him elsewhere; Farquar lived some time by
droving, but meeting with Misfortunes in that Business, was reduced,
and obliged, for Subsistance, to enlist in this regiment, where he has
lived till now without any Reproach.
The Sentence was intimated to them upon Tuesday before their
Execution. This unexpected Change of their Fortunes, from hopes of
Life and Liberty, to that of a short Preparation for a violent Death,
very much shock’d their Resolution; but Samuel less than any of
them: When the Warder went to acquaint Samuel of this melancholy
News, he carry’d with him two Centinels, for fear any Accident might
happen; and after expressing his Concern for being the Messenger
of such unhappy News, acquainted him, he must die. He started with
Surprize; and asked, with some Emotion, How must I die? You are to
be shot, Sir.—Then he reply’d, pretty composedly, God’s Will be
done; I have brought this upon myself. He then asked, If he might be
allowed Pen and Ink; and when the Post went for Scotland? The
Warder told him the Night; but that he could not live to receive any
Return: He said, he did not want any. He very pleasantly gave the
Warder what Weapons he had, which were only a small Penknife
and a Razor: and before the Warder parted with him seem’d to have
assumed his ordinary Calmness of Mind; and he and the other two,
after some Reflection, and the Conversation of the Clergy (who from
this time attended them) were reconciled so much to their
Circumstances, as to be able to bear the thoughts of Death with
great Decency, and Christian Resignation to the Will of God.
Samuel owned he had been active at the Beginning of the
Sedition; but he could not help sometimes thinking, that the great
Pains he took to influence the Men to return to their Duty afterwards,
in a great Measure, alleviated his first Crime.
Malcolm, to the last declared that he never advised any Person to
go away; on the contrary, that he never was resolved himself, till the
moment he joined the Men in their March from Finchley Common,
and then his Reflection was so short, that he scarce knew what he
did.
Farquar Shaw, in the same manner, declared, That he was no way
active in raising the Meeting: That he never advis’d any Man to
desert; deny’d that he presented his Piece to any of the Officers, as
it was reported. He owned, that he might have utter’d some very
passionate and indecent Expressions to some of the Officers who
commanded him to return; but that these expressions did not import
a threatening to strike any of them.
But notwithstanding that they all three imagin’d themselves no
more guilty than the rest of the Prisoners, yet they never once utter’d
the least Reflection against the Sentence, the Court Martial, or the
Lords of the Regency; in short, they did not Attribute their Death to
anything else but the divine Providence of God, to which they
chearfully submitted, and acquitted all Mankind of their unhappy
End; of which Farquar Shaw gave a lively Instance: It being reported
to him, that one Serjeant Mc.Bean had deposed before the Court
Martial, that he (Shaw) had presented his Piece to him, when he
commanded him to return to his Duty; and that this Deposition had
determined the Court Martial to fix upon him in particular; he sent for
the Serjeant, and very calmly questioned him concerning this Fact;
Who told him that he had never been an Evidence against him, but
own’d, that he told some of his Officers, that he (Shaw) had
threaten’d to strike an officer who commanded him to return to his
Duty; and that it was probable, the Colonel might receive this
Intelligence from the Officers, and that by this means it might come
to the Knowledge of the Court Martial: The Serjeant express’d his
Regret, that he should be any way instrumental to his misfortunes.
But Shaw, in an affable Manner, desir’d him to give himself no
Uneasiness on that Head: That he had neither Spite nor Ill-will at him
for what he had said, but would die in perfect Love and Friendship
with him, and all Mankind: That he had sent for him on purpose to
make his Mind easy and not to trouble himself with needless
Reflections, since he heartily forgave him; and accordingly parted
with him in the most friendly and amicable manner and frequently
after express’d to me his Concern for the Serjeant, lest his
Reflections on himself should prejudice him, or make him uneasy.
This behaviour of his, to the Man whom he was convinc’d had been
the principal Cause of his Death, must argue a most charitable,
forgiving, and generous Temper and Disposition of Mind, very
seldom to be met with in Men of more elevated Stations in Life.
 They all three were Men of strong natural Parts, and religiously
disposed both from Habit and Principle, the natural Result of a good
Example and early Instruction in the Doctrine and Precepts of
Christianity; for I received from all of them a great deal of
Satisfaction when I examined them on the Grounds of our holy
Religion; and even Shaw, who was perfectly illiterate and could
neither read nor write, was ignorant of no Christian Doctrine
necessary to Salvation, or from whence he could draw Comfort in his
present Circumstance. They were educated, and died Members of
the Church of Scotland, tho’ they chearfully embraced the
Opportunity of receiving the Sacrament from the Hands of the
Reverend Mr Paterson, who officiated for the Chaplain of the Tower,
after the Form of the Church (sic) England, on the Sunday preceding
their Execution.
As their Notions of Religion were sincere, so they expressed the
greatest Regard for Honesty and Integrity, and thanked God, tho’
they were great Sinners, that his restraining Grace had enabled
them to avoid all vicious and prophane Courses or the offering any
Injury to their Neighbours in their Persons or Properties; that they
hoped they had not only the Approbation of (sic) of a good
Conscience, but the Testimony of their Officers, Friends and
Acquaintance, that they have lived all their Life-time without Scandal
to themselves, or Reproach to their Friends, until this unhappy
Period, when Rashness, without any Mixture of Malice, Cowardice,
or Disaffection to his Majesty’s Person or Government, had brought
their Lives to this miserable Catastrophe.
They applied themselves diligently to the Duty of Prayer and
reading the Scripture, from the Time of their Sentence, which they
said they had but too much and too long neglected.
When they were all three brought to one Ward near the Place of
Execution, about four o’Clock that Morning, they expressed the
greatest Affection and Sympathy for one another, each regretting the
case of the other two more than his own; at the same time
encouraged one another to Constancy of Mind, and a dutiful
Resignation to the Hand of God.
 Samuel M‘Pherson ordered three Coffins to be made of fifteen
Shillings Value each, for which he paid; and Malcolm made a Will,
which he deposited in the Hands of three of his own Name among
the Highland Prisoners, some Days before their Execution.
These three were admitted to visit the Prisoners, who told them
that they thanked God that they had got the better of the Fears of
Death, and were prepared to embrace it chearfully; that they thought
their Case better than that of their Fellows, as they were leaving this
World in Hopes of Eternal Peace and Happiness, whilst they were to
remain here exposed to new Temptations and new Troubles in
distant and unknown Countries, where they would not enjoy Life, but
a lingering Death. They applied by Petition to several Persons of
Quality, of which the two following are true Copies.
To their Excellencies the Lords Justices.
The humble Petition of Samuel M‘Pherson, Malcolm M‘Pherson, and
Farquar Shaw.
May it please your Lordships,
That, whereas your poor Petitioners lie under Sentence of Death for Mutiny
and Desertion, and have nothing to hope (under the Almighty) but from your
Lordships’ Favour on our Behalf, which we do most humbly intreat. And as we
are sincerely sorry for our base Conduct and Misbehaviour, and it being our
first Crime, we hope for your Lordships’ kind Indulgence, which should we be
so happy as to obtain, we do sincerely promise to retrieve this our Misconduct
by a steady Attachment to our most gracious Sovereign King George, by
defending him and his Royal House with all our Power, where and in whatever
manner we shall be directed.
Samuel M‘Pherson.
Malcolm M‘Pherson.
Farquar Shaw.

To her Grace the Dutchess of Richmond,

The humble Petition of Samuel M‘Pherson, Malcolm M‘Pherson, and
Farquar Shaw.
May it please your Grace,
 That, whereas your poor Petitioners lie under Sentence of Death for Mutiny
and Desertion, and have nothing to hope (under the Almighty) but from your
Grace’s charitable Intercession to the Lords Justices on our Behalf, we do most
humbly intreat your Grace’s good Offices. And as we are sincerely sorry for our
base Conduct and Misbehaviour, and it being our first Crime, we hope for your
Grace’s kind Indulgence, which, should we be so happy as to obtain, we do
sincerely promise to retrieve this our Misconduct by a steady Attachment to our
most gracious Sovereign King George, by defending him and his Royal House
with all our Power, where and in whatever manner we shall be directed.
Samuel M‘Pherson.
Malcolm M‘Pherson.
Farquar Shaw.

Upon the Monday Morning the Governor ordered them to put on

their Shrouds below their Cloaths, which when done, they
immediately began to pray, and continued in that Exercise very
devoutly and fervently till six o’Clock, when they were called out to
Execution. They walked to the Place close up to the Chapel in the
Tower without expressing the least Horror or Despondency in their
Gaite or Countenance, but with a Christian Composure and
Resignation of Mind. Here Samuel M‘Pherson standing on the Plank
which was appointed for them to kneel on, with an assured
Countenance and in an audible Voice, in his own Language,
addressed his Fellow-Prisoners that were drawn up round the Place
of Execution, in this Manner:
My Friends and Countrymen,
You are not Strangers to the Cause of my Sufferings with these my
Companions; I hope the Anguish you must feel at the Sight of this shocking
Scene, will be the last of your Punishment; for I am convinced you must think it
a Punishment to see us bleed: But my Blood, I hope, will contribute to your
Liberty; That Thought affords me as much Satisfaction as a Soul prepared to
take a Flight to Eternity can receive from any Earthly Concerns.—Take
Example from our unfortunate Ends, and endeavour to conduct yourselves so,
both before God and Man, as your Lives may be long, and your Deaths natural.
Next to your Duty to God, discharge what you owe your King and Country; wipe
off this Reproach by a steady Loyalty to his Sacred Majesty, and a respectful
and obedient Conduct towards your Officers.