ill. 79) course of bricks,

5.5 feet east of pintle (see above).

In addition to the artifacts listed above numerous others were excavated from the trenches, although few of these have archeological value for purposes of analyzing the structures. Only the finds accompanied by depth and provenience data are significant in evaluating these structures, and in the case of the gateway few are helpful to any degree. The fragmentary bottle seal found there matches exactly a whole seal that occurs on a wine bottle described in a subsequent section. That seal is dated 1737, and thus this seal must have been similarly dated. Its presence near the lowest level suggests that the wall was in construction at the time the seal was deposited. Bottles were used for a long time, however, so the seal may have reached its final resting place years later than 1737. The Indian celt no doubt fell from the topsoil while the trench in which the wall was built was being excavated. The swingletree gear next to it probably was left there during the construction. The colter, although it appears to be of early 18th-century origin, may have been in use late in the 18th century after the wall had been removed. Since the colter is badly bent, it may have struck the top of the underground wall foundation, and, having been torn off from the plow, perhaps was left on the bricks where it fell.

HISTORICAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF WALL SYSTEM

John Mercer commented with exasperation in his Land Book about the unresolved discrepancies between the Buckner survey of 1691 and the missing Gregg survey of 1707 (p. 14). There are as many disparities between Buckner's plat and the plat resulting from the Savage survey of 1731. In the latter a new row of lots is added along the western boundary, pushing the Buckner lots eastward. Where in the Buckner plat the lots and streets in the lower part of the town west of George Andrews' lots turn westerly 1° from the indicated main axis of the town, paralleling the 30-pole fourth course of the town bounds which runs to the creek's edge, the Savage map shows no such change. Yet Savage, in describing the courses of the survey in a written note on the plat, shows that he followed the original bounds. He does note a 4°, 10-pole error in the course along Potomac Creek, "which difference gives several Lots more than was in the old survey making one Row of Lots more than was contained therein each containing two thirds of an Acre." This was doubtless a contrivance designed to reconcile the Gregg and Buckner surveys and also to benefit John Mercer.

In any case, it is clear that the plats themselves are both unreliable and inaccurate. What was actual was shown in the archeological survey of 1956 with its record of boundary walls and at least one street. An attempt has been made in figure 14 to give scale to the Buckner survey by superimposing the archeological map over it. There, Wall B-II, if extended north for 111 feet beyond its length of 384 feet to equal the 30 poles (495 feet) of the fourth course, would exactly touch the southwest corner of lot 21 where the fourth course began. But, in spite of this congruence, the other features of the plat are distorted and disagree with the slightly northwest-southeast basic orientation of the street and wall system. The simplest explanation might be that the layout was made on the basis of the 1707 Gregg survey. Since it was following the second Act for Ports of 1705 that the town achieved what little growth it made prior to Mercer's occupancy, it is probable that the town's orientation was made according to this survey.

Whether or not this is the case, the road to the creek side was fundamental to the town, and probably was built early in its history and maintained after the town itself was abandoned. We know from archeological evidence that Wall A antedates the brick walls that were connected with it. Further evaluation of the wall system in relation to the entire site will be made later. It may be concluded for now that Wall A and the road beside it represent the main axis of the town as it was laid out before Mercer's arrival, that the stone walls were built before that event, that Wall B-II follows the fourth course somewhat according to Buckner's plat, and that the brick walls may date as late as 1750, as some of the associated artifacts suggest.

X

_Mansion Foundation_

(_Structure B_)

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

With the exception of Wall A, the protruding bit of brickwork near the clump of trees (where Highway 621 makes its turn to the southeast) was the only evidence remaining above ground in 1956 of Marlborough's past grandeur. Designated Structure B, it was plainly the remains of a cellar foundation, which the tangled thicket of vines and trees adjacent to it tended to confirm. Since its location corresponded with the initially estimated position of the courthouse, it seemed possible that the foundation might have survived from that structure.

Excavation of Structure B began accidentally when the excavators began following the westward course of Wall A-I, as described in the preceding section on the "Wall System." Wall A-I abutted, but did not mesh with, the corner of two foundation walls, one of which ran northward and the other continued on for 28 feet in the same direction as Wall A-I. The brickwork in the 28-foot stretch of Wall A-I was laid in a step-back, buttress-type construction. At the bottom course the wall was 2.65 feet thick, diminishing upward for five successive courses to a minimum of 1.5 feet. A wall running northward--the east foundation wall--was exposed for 16 feet from the point of its junction with Wall A-I until it disappeared under the highway. It was found to have the same buttress-type construction. There was no evidence of a cellar within the area enclosed by the foundation walls south of the highway.

Excavation of the east foundation wall was resumed north of the highway, but here no buttressing was found, with evidence of a cellar visible instead. This evidence consisted of a curious complex of features, comprising remnants of two parallel cross walls only 4.5 feet apart with a brick pavement between 4.8 feet below the surface. The east wall and the cross walls had flush surfaces. The northerly cross wall was tied into the brickwork of the east wall, showing that it was built integrally with the foundation. The northerly cross wall had been knocked down, however, to within five courses on the floor level. The pavement was fitted against it.

The southerly cross wall was not tied into the brickwork of the east wall, and the pavement had been torn up next to it. Thus it was evident that this wall had been erected subsequent to the building of the foundation, that it had shortened the cellar by 4.5 feet, and that the cellar extended southward to a point beneath the highway where it was impossible to excavate. Documentary evidence to confirm this alteration will be shown below (p. 91).

Extending 12.5 feet north of the original cross wall was another cellarless section, with step-back buttressing again featuring the foundation wall. Another paved cellar was in evidence north of this, extending for 26 feet, with a final 14.25-foot cellarless portion as far as the north wall of the structure. The interior of the cellar, to the extent that inviolate trees and shrubs made it possible to determine, was filled with brickbats and debris, large portions of which were removed. Evidence, however, of construction of cross walls and of floor treatment remained concealed.

The entire length of this extraordinary foundation totaled 108 feet.

The northwest corner of Structure B was not excavated because it was hidden beneath a group of cedar trees which could not be disturbed. South of the trees, however, the section of the west-wall foundation was exposed to a length of 15.5 feet. This section was situated partly in, and partly north of, the north cellar area. The cross measurement, from outer edge to outer edge, was 28 feet, the same as the length of the south foundation wall. Another short section of the west foundation wall also was exposed from the southwest corner as far as a private driveway which limited the excavation.

Abutting the exterior of the north wall of the foundation a flagstone pavement was found, extending 8.45 feet northward and 16 feet westward from the northeast corner. Against the foundation, within this space, was a U-shaped brick wall, forming a hollow rectangle 5 feet by 3.6 feet (inside). The space was filled with ashes, loose bricks, and other refuse. This brickwork was the foundation for a small porch, the lime-sandstone slabs surrounding it having been an apron or a small terrace.

Extending westward from the cedar trees, beyond the projected 28-foot length of the north wall, was a short section of brick wall foundation, the outer surface of which was faced with slabs of red sandstone and dressed on the top with a cyma-reversa molding. The tops of the slabs were rough, but each had slots and channels for receiving iron tie bars (ill. 3) that were still in place. This wall was inset four inches to the south of the alignment of the main north foundation wall.

The northwest corner of this additional structure was hidden under the highway. Even now, however, the discerning eye can pick up the contour of a wall running parallel with the west foundation wall under the blacktop pavement. For a brief distance, between the point where the road swings eastward from it and the private driveway covers it again, excavation exposed this wall. Designated Wall C, it was 22 inches thick, entirely of brick, with no evidence remaining of red sandstone on the outside. The exterior surface was 9.5 feet beyond the west foundation wall.

At the southwest corner of the foundation, evidence matching that at the northwest corner was found. Here, again inset 4 inches from the line of the main south foundation wall, were to be seen the tops of red-sandstone slabs like those found at the north end (fig. 36), in this case with one tie rod still in place. The driveway obscured the point to which the corner of this extending structure could presumably be projected. Subsequent construction against the sandstone slabs had covered their surfaces with a rubble of brick and mortar that appeared to be the foundation for masonry steps (fig. 35). Projecting out from the southwest corner of the foundation was a rectangular red-sandstone block which appeared to be the corner of these superimposed steps. Although situated under the driveway, it was apparent by projection that Wall B-I joined the southwest corner of Wall C. It will be demonstrated from surviving records that Wall C, with its connecting sections, was the foundation of a full-length veranda.

The belief which persisted for a time that Structure B might have been the courthouse was dispelled by documentary evidence showing that it was John Mercer's mansion.

SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURE B

_Date _Artifact_ of Manufacture_ _Provenience_

2 rim sherds from ca. 1730 Beneath flagstone in brown-banded; porch apron north "drab," stoneware of Structure B. mug (USNM 59.1754; fig. 67b)

Iron candle-snuffer 1730-1750 Debris at south end (USNM 59.1825; ill. 62) of Structure B.

Small crescent-shaped Debris at south end chopping knife of Structure B. (USNM 59.1837; fig. 85a)

Silver teaspoon ca. 1730-1750 Wall debris near (USNM 59.1827; fig. 86d) north end.

In addition, there was the usual variety of 18th-century delftware, Nottingham and white salt-glazed stoneware, pieces of a Westerwald stoneware chamber pot, and much miscellaneous iron, of which only a hinge fragment and a supposed shutter fastener probably were associated with the house. None of this material has provenience data, nearly all of it having turned up in the process of trenching. Little of it, therefore, throws much light on the history of the structure. The most important artifacts found in and around Structure B are those of an architectural nature, and these will be considered primarily in the following section.

ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE B

That the "manor house," as Thomas Oliver called it in 1771, was an extraordinary building is both revealed in the Structure B foundation and confirmed by the insurance-policy sketch of 1806. Long, low, and narrow, fronted by a full-length veranda and adorned with stone trim for which we can find no exact parallel in 18th-century America, it was as individualistic as John Mercer himself. Yet, far from being a vernacular anachronism or a mere eccentricity, it was apparently rich with the Georgian mannerisms that made it very much an expression of its age.

The measurements made of the foundation when excavated, as we have seen, show a length of 108 feet and a width of 28 feet for the main structure, with an overall width, including the projecting Wall C, of 37 feet 6 inches. The insurance policy states a length of 108 feet 8 inches and a width of 29 feet 6 inches for the main foundation, plus a separate width for the "portico" (as the structure above Wall C was called) of 8 feet 4 inches. These small discrepancies probably lie in the differences between measuring a standing house and a foundation.

Despite the fact that the foundation was far from fully excavated because of the presence of trees and highway, it is clear, nevertheless, that two cellars of unequal size were situated within the main foundation, separated by sections where there were no cellars. These findings correspond with the notation on the insurance-policy plan, "a Cellar under about half the House."

The partly destroyed cross wall extends about midway across the foundation, acting as a retaining wall. As described above, this cross wall was found to be tied into the brick pavement that abutted it on the south side.

The bricks in the main foundation walls and in the partly destroyed cross wall and pavement, on the basis of sample measurements, show a usual dimension of about 8-1/2 by 2-3/4 by 4 inches. An occasional 9-inch brick occurs--about 10 percent of the sample.

In contrast, the bricks in the second cross wall are all 9 inches long, except two that are 8-1/2 inches and one that is 8-3/4 inches. Similar sizes prevail in the bricks exposed in the "portico" foundation (Wall C) at the south end. The significance of these brick sizes will be discussed later.

It is clear that Wall C was the foundation of the "portico," and that by "portico" the writer of the insurance policy meant veranda or loggia. The policy also shows a "Porch 10 by 5 f." extending from the middle of the veranda. The highway now covers this spot.

In the space between the two parallel cross walls within the main foundation, the debris yielded a large section of a heavy, red-sandstone arch, 14 inches wide, 9 inches thick, and 3 feet 2 inches long. This arch was roughhewn on the flat surfaces and on about half of the outer curved surface, or extrados. The inner surface, or intrados, and the remainder of the extrados are smoothly dressed (fig. 38). At the south end of the main foundation another curved red-sandstone piece was recovered. This piece curves laterally and has a helically sloped top surface. It is 25 inches long, 14-1/2 inches high at the highest point, and 9 inches thick. Presumably, it was part of a flanker for a formal outdoor stair or steps (fig. 39). Also at the south end was found a cast-mortar block with grooves on the back for metal or wooden fastenings (USNM 59.1823; fig. 40). This was perhaps part of a simulated ashlar doorframe. A few gauged or "rubbed" bricks occur that are slightly wedge shaped.

Turning to the documentary evidence, one may recall that an item dated September 1747, "By building part of my House," appeared in David Minitree's account in Ledger G. Two years later, in 1749, several items related to the house appeared in the account of Thomas Barry, "By Building the Addition to my House/ By 22 Arches/ By 900 Coins & Returns/ By a Frontispiece/ By Underpinning & altering the Cellar." In 1749 and 1750 William Copein was paid for mason's work.

There is a clear sequence here. "Building part of my house" referred to the basic brick structure built in 1747 by Minitree on the main foundation. The work of William Monday, the carpenter, followed in 1748. This doubtless included building the roof, setting beams, laying floors, and building partitions. Then in 1749 Barry built the "Addition to my House"--almost certainly the veranda. The item for 22 arches is difficult to understand unless one relates it to the veranda and divides the figure in two. The veranda was probably an arcade having 11 arched openings, with arched facings of rubbed brick both inside and outside the arcade. Thus, for the bricklayer, each actual arch would have required two arches of brick. The intrados, or undersurfaces, of the arches were probably red sandstone, like the fragmentary arch found in the site; the basic element of the arch was then faced on each side with bricks also arranged in an arch formation. The arcade at Hanover courthouse seems to have been built in a somewhat similar fashion, except that there the brick facing appears on the exterior of the arch only. The "900 Coins and Returns" probably are gauged bricks, that is, bricks ground smooth on a grindstone to provide a different texture and richer red color to contrast with the ordinary wall brick. They were widely used in Virginia mansions of the 18th century for corner and arch decoration. At Marlborough over 600 rubbed bricks would have been required to trim the piers of 11 arches, while the remainder may have decorated the porch. The porch, we may be sure, was the "Frontispiece."

The item for "Underpinning & altering the cellar" probably refers to the knocked-out original cross wall and the added parallel cross wall, although the reasons for the change will always remain a mystery. As has been noted, the average brick sizes in the main foundation, on the one hand, and those of bricks in the new cellar cross wall and in the veranda were mostly different. Probably the distinctions represent the differences between Minitree's and Barry's bricks.

The detailed sequence of joiners', plasterers', and painters' work during the 1748-1750 period has already been given attention in the historical section, enough to indicate that the mansion was one of luxurious appointments. The insurance policy describes it as a "Brick Dwelling House one Story high covered with wood." In modern parlance this would be called a story-and-a-half house with a wood-shingled roof. The veranda, probably in the form of an arcade, was trimmed with dressed red sandstone and perhaps paved with the squares and oblongs of this material found scattered around the site. The small projecting porch mentioned in the insurance policy provided a central pavilion. The appearance of the house from here on must be left wholly to speculation with only hints to guide us. We know, for instance, that a considerable amount--three books--of gold leaf was employed. Was there, perhaps, a small gilded cupola to break the long expanse of roof line? Were the 162 ballusters, purchased from George Elliott towards the time of completion, made for staircases indoors or for a balustrade along the roof? Or did they border the roof of the veranda? To these questions there can be no answer. Another question is whether the house, described as one story high, was built over a high basement or near ground level. Here we have evidence pointing to the latter, since the foundation had two separate cellars, equalling "a Cellar under about half the House." A high or English basement, by contrast, would have been continuous. Furthermore, the veranda was at, or near, the ground level. The ground floor thus might have been as much as 3 feet higher, reached by steps from the veranda--but not a whole story higher. The depth of the cellars, ranging from about 4 to 5 feet below ground level, implies that the first floor was not more than 3 feet above ground level.

Suggestions as to details of trim and finish are made here and there, again in fragmentary hints. Several broken pieces of a dark-gray, fossil-embedded marble survive from the "chimney-pieces" and hearths of fireplaces (fig. 42). They may be the "hewn stone from Mr. Nicholson" paid for in 1749. A piece of plaster cyma-recta cornice molding shows that some rooms, at least, had plaster rather than wooden ceiling trim (USNM 59.1829, ill. 4). Thomas Oliver's statement that "the Manor house wants lead lights in some of the windows" suggests an unparalleled anachronism, since the term "lead light" is an ancient one referring to casement sashes of leaded glass. But it is inconceivable, in the context of colonial architectural history, that this house should have had leaded-casement windows, and it is very probable, therefore, that the semiliterate Oliver was indulging in a rural archaism to which he had transferred the meaning of "sash lights." The latter term was used commonly to denote double-hung, wooden-sash windows, such as Georgian houses still feature. In support of this inference is the complete lack of archeological evidence of leaded-glass windows.

The cellarless areas of the foundation may have provided the footings for chimneys. These probably stood several feet from the ends, perhaps serving clusters of four corner fireplaces each, for each floor. One may surmise that there was a hip roof, with a chimney rising through each hip. A porch at the north end had a rectangular brick base 4 by 6 feet, surrounded by a flagstone area 16 feet wide and 8 feet 5 inches in extent from the house. This evidence, however, differs from the figures given in the insurance plan which shows a "Porch 8 by 6 feet."

The mansion embodied some characteristics which are traditional in Virginia house design and others which are without parallel. The elongated plan indicated by the foundation was more frequently encountered in Virginia dwellings of the late 17th and early 18th centuries than in the "high Georgian" mansions of the 1740's and 1750's. Turkey Island, for example, built in Henrico County in the 17th century, was 103 feet long, 5 feet less than Marlborough.[149] The additions to Governor Berkeley's Green Spring Plantation, built during the late 17th century, consisted of an informal series of rooms, one room in depth for the most part. Waterman is of the opinion that Green Spring was "in a sense an overgrown cottage without the real attributes of a mansion."[150] The excavations conducted in 1954 by Caywood have altered the basis for this opinion somewhat, but, with its 150-foot length, Green Spring remains an early example of the elongated plan.[151]

Aside from being elongated, Marlborough derives from the ubiquitous informal brick cottage of Virginia. So indigenous is this vernacular form that it is often found in houses of considerable pretension, even in the 18th century. Such are the Abingdon glebe house in Gloucester County, Gunston Hall in Fairfax, and the Chiswell Plantation, known as "Scotchtown," in Hanover. Robert Beverley noted the Virginians' fondness for this style, commenting that they built many rooms on a floor because frequent high winds would "incommode a towering Fabrick"--an explanation as delightful as it is absurd.[152]

That these one-story houses could be completely formal is demonstrated in the unique early 18th-century addition to Fairfield (Carter's Creek Plantation) in Gloucester County, which burned in 1897. This dwelling had a full hip roof, with dormers to light the attic rooms, and a high basement. Its classical cornice was bracketed with heavy modillions, while a massive chimney protruded from the slope of the hip.[153] Gunston Hall, on the other hand, reverted to the gable-end form. Although essentially a Virginia cottage, it is richly adorned with Georgian architectural detail. Completed in 1758, only eight years after Marlborough, and owned by Mercer's nephew George Mason, this building may be more closely related to Marlborough than any other existing house.[154]

Of all the one-story Virginia houses that have come to our attention, only Marlborough has a full-length veranda. To be sure, there are multiple-story houses with full-length verandas, the most notable being Mount Vernon. Elmwood, built just before the Revolution in Essex County, is another, having a foundation plan similar to Marlborough's.[155] The Mount Vernon veranda is part of the remodeling of 1784, so that neither house reached its finished state until a quarter of a century after Marlborough's completion. Marlborough may thus at the outset have been unique among Virginia dwellings in having such a veranda. However, full-length verandas on buildings other than dwellings were not unknown in Virginia prior to the construction of Marlborough, for they occurred in an almost standard design in the form of arcaded loggias in county courthouses. Typical were King William and Hanover County courthouses, both built about 1734 (figs. 5 and 61).

The arcaded loggia is Italian in origin and is traceable here to Palladio, whose influence was diffused to England and the colonies in a variety of ways. We know that _The Architecture of A. Palladio_ was one of four architectural works acquired by Mercer in 1748 and apparently lent to his "architect," joiner William Bromley. The direct influence of this work on the overall plan of Marlborough probably was negligible. However, Palladio illustrates the villa of "the magnificent Lord Leonardo Emo" at "_Fanzolo_, in the _Trevigian_" (fig. 45), which may have caught Mercer's eye. This building had a central, raised pavilion with two one-story wings, each approximately 100 feet long. Each wing had a full-length, arcaded veranda. The wings were intended for stables, granaries, and so forth. Palladio commented:

"People may go under shelter every where about this House, which is one of the most considerable conveniences that ought to be desir'd in a Country-house."[156]

Mercer may have been impressed by this argument and by the arcade in the design. He was already familiar with arcades at the capitol at Williamsburg and at the College of William and Mary, as well as at outlying courthouses where he practiced, the courthouse at Stafford probably included. In any case, he did not have the veranda built until 1748 or 1749, after the main structure had been completed. It is significant, in this regard, that it was not until March 1748 that he settled accounts with Sydenham & Hodgson for the four architectural books (including Palladio).

A formal garden apparently was laid out in the nearly square, walled enclosure behind the mansion. It is perhaps wholly a coincidence that Palladio, writing about the villa at Fanzolo, commented, "On the back of this Building there is a square Garden."

FOOTNOTES:

[149] HENRY CHANDLEE FORMAN, _The Architecture of the Old South_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp. 74-75.

[150] Op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 21.

[151] LOUIS CAYWOOD, _Excavations at Green Spring Plantation_ (Yorktown, 1955), pp. 11, 12, maps nos. 3 and 4.

[152] ROBERT BEVERLEY, op. cit. (footnote 5), p. 289.

[153] WATERMAN, op. cit. (footnote 94), pp. 23-26; FISKE KIMBALL, _Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 42.

[154] ROSAMOND RANDALL BEIRNE and JOHN HENRY SCARFF, _William Buckland, 1734-1774; Architect of Virginia and Maryland_ (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1958).

[155] WATERMAN, op. cit. (footnote 94), p. 298.

[156] ANTONIO PALLADIO, _The Architecture of A. Palladio ... Revis'd, Design'd, and Publish'd By Giacomo Leoni ... The Third Edition, Corrected ..._ (London, 1742), p. 61, pl. 40.

XI

_Kitchen Foundation_ (_Structure E_)

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

Structure E was a brick foundation, 17 feet by 32 feet, situated at the northwest corner of the enclosure-wall system. Its south wall was continuous with Wall D, which joined it, and was at right angles to Wall E. The latter abutted it in line with an interior foundation wall which bisected the structure into two room areas, designated X and Y. Thus it once stood like a bastion extending outside the enclosure walls, but remaining integral with them and affording a controlled entrance to the enclosure (fig. 46).

The east end of Structure E extended under a modern boundary fence to the present edge of the highway. Ditching of the highway had cut into the foundation and exposed the debris and slabs of stone in place, which indeed had provided the first clues to the existence of the structure. Clearance of the easterly area, Room X, revealed a pavement of roughly rectangular slabs of mixed Aquia-type lime-sandstone and red sandstone. These slabs were flaked, eroded, and discolored, as though they had been exposed to great heat. The pavement was not complete, some stones having apparently been removed. The scattered locations of the stones remaining _in situ_ implied that the entire room was originally paved.

Between the northwest corner of Room X and a brick abutment 5 feet to the south was a rectangular area where the clay underlying the room had been baked to a hard, red, bricklike mass (fig. 49). Wood ash was admixed with the clay. This was clearly the site of a large fireplace, where constant heat from a now-removed hearth had penetrated the clay. Extending north 3.8 feet beyond the bounds of the room at this point was a U-shaped brick foundation 4.75 feet wide. Near the southeast corner of the room, just outside of the foundation, which it abutted, was a well-worn red-sandstone doorstep, which located the site of the door communicating between Structure E and the interior of the enclosure--and, of course, between Structure E and Structure B, the distance between which was 100 feet.

Room Y, extending west beyond the corner of the enclosure walls was perhaps an addition to the original structure. The disturbed condition of the bricks where this area joined Room X, however, obscured any evidence in this respect. In the northeast corner, against the opposite side of the fireplace wall in Room X, was another area of red-burned clay. Lying across this was a long, narrow slab of wrought iron, 34.5 by 6 inches (fig. 50), which may have served in some fashion as part of a stove or fire frame. In any case, a small fireplace seems to have been located here. Approximately midway in the west wall of Room Y, against the exterior, lay a broken slab of red sandstone, which obviously also served as a doorstone. That it had been designed originally for a more sophisticated purpose is evident in the architectural treatment of the stone, which is smoothly dressed with a torus molding along each edge and a diagonal cut across one end (fig. 41). No evidence of floor remained in this room, except for a smooth surface of yellow clay which became sticky when exposed to rain.

The north half of Room Y was filled with broken bricks, mortar, plaster, nails, and--significantly--small bits of charred wood and burned hornets' nests. The concentration of debris here could be explained by the collapse of the chimney as well as the interior wall into the room. The crumbly condition of the southwest portion of the exterior-wall foundation also may indicate a wall collapse. Few artifacts were recovered in this area.

North of Room X lay a large amount of rubble and artifacts, suggesting that the north wall had fallen away from the building, perhaps carrying with it shelves of dishes and utensils. Both rooms contained ample evidence in the form of ash, charcoal, burned hornets' nests, and scorched flagstones to demonstrate that a fire of great heat had destroyed the building.

ARCHITECTURAL DATA AND INTERPRETATION

John Mercer's account with Thomas Barry (Ledger G) itemizes for 1749, "building a Kitchen/ raising a Chimney/ building an oven." It is clear from the features of Structure E, its relation to Structure B, and the custom prevalent in colonial Virginia of building separate dependencies for the preparation of food, that Structure E was the kitchen referred to in Barry's account. Like this building, kitchens elsewhere were almost invariably two rooms in plan--a cooking room and a pantry or storage room. One of the earliest--at Green Spring--had a large fireplace for the kitchen proper, and in the second room a smaller fireplace, both served by a central chimney. An oven stood inside the building between the larger fireplace and the wall.[157] At Stratford (ca. 1725) the kitchen is similarly planned, as it is at Mannsfield (Spotsylvania County).[158] Mount Vernon has an end chimney in its kitchen, and only one fireplace. The floor of the kitchen proper is paved with square bricks, while the second room has a clay floor. The Stratford kitchen is paved with ordinary bricks. Such examples can be multiplied several times.

The physical relationship of the kitchen to the main house in Virginia plantations was dictated in part by convenience and in part by the Palladian plans that governed the architecture of colonial mansions. Structure E's relationship to Structure B is representative of that existing between most kitchens and their main buildings. Mount Vernon, Stratford, Blandfield, Nomini Hall, Rosewell, and many other plantations have, or had, kitchens located at points diagonal to the house and on axes at right angles to them. Usually each was balanced by a dependency placed in a similar relationship to the opposite corner of the house. Sometimes covered walkways connected the pairs of dependencies, curved as at Mount Vernon, Mount Airy, and Mannsfield, or straight as at Blandfield in Essex County (1771). Marlborough, as we shall see, was not typical in its layout, but the relationship between kitchen and house was the customary one.

The thickness of the foundations in Structure E was the width of four bricks--approximately 17 inches. As usual in the case of the lower courses of a foundation, the bricks were laid in a somewhat random fashion. The intact portions of the south and west walls revealed corners of bricks laid end to end so as to expose headers on both sides. The east wall showed pairs of bricks placed at right angles to each other, so that headers and stretchers appeared alternately. On the north wall of Room X bricks were laid as headers on the outside and as stretchers, one behind the other, on the inside. These variations probably are due to different bricklayers having worked on the building simultaneously. Since oddly assorted courses would have been below ground level, care for their appearance was minimal. Finished exterior brickwork was required only above the lowest point visible to the eye.

Brick sizes ran from 9 to 9-1/2 inches long, 4 to 4-1/2 inches wide, and 2-1/4 to 2-3/4 inches thick. These measurements are similar to those of bricks in the veranda foundation and the added cellar cross wall of Structure B. It is apparent from Ledger G that the elements in Structure B, as well as the kitchen, were all built by Thomas Barry. Barry probably used bricks that he himself made, according to the custom of Virginia bricklayers, so that the archeological and documentary evidences of the extent of his work in the two buildings reinforce each other.

The protruding rectangle of bricks at the north end of Structure E resembles the foundation for steps in Structure B. However, its position directly adjacent to what must be assumed to have been the fireplace precludes the possibility of its having been the location for a step. Moreover, the pavement and doorstones at the west and south demonstrate that the floor of the kitchen was at ground level, so that a raised step at the north side would have been not only unnecessary, but impossible.

We know from the ledger that Barry built an oven and raised a chimney. That the latter was a central chimney may be assumed on the basis of the evidence of the two fireplaces placed back to back. There is, however, no archeological evidence that there was an oven within the structure, and every negative indication that there was not. The rectangular protrusion, exactly in line with the end of the fireplace thus was apparently the foundation for a brick oven, the domed top of which extended outside the building, with its opening made into the north end of the fireplace. Protruding ovens are known in New York and New England, but none in Virginia has come to the writer's attention. On the other hand, protruding foundations like the one here are also unknown in Virginia kitchens, except where slanting ground, as at Mount Vernon, has made steps necessary.

It may be concluded that Structure E was the plantation kitchen, that it was built in 1749, that it had two rooms (a cookroom with fireplace paving and a large fireplace, and a second room with a smaller fireplace), that an oven built against the exterior of the building opened into the north end of the fireplace, and that the first, and probably the only, floor was at ground level. Archeological evidence points to final destruction of the building by fire. (Mercer indicated that fire had threatened it previously in the entry in his journal for April 22, 1765, which noted "kitchen roof catch'd fire.") In the form of datable artifacts, it also shows that the structure was destroyed in the early 19th century, since the latest ceramic artifacts date from about 1800.

FOOTNOTES:

[157] CAYWOOD, loc. cit. (footnote 151).

[158] WATERMAN, loc. cit. (footnote 94).

XII

_Supposed Smokehouse Foundation_ (_Structure F_)

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

A nearly square foundation, measuring 18.3 feet by 18.6 feet, with a narrow extended brick structure protruding from it, was situated some 45 feet north of Wall D, about midway in the wall's length. It was oriented on a north-northwest--south-southeast axis, quite without reference to the wall system. The foundation walls and the narrow extension were exposed by excavation, but the interior area within the walls was not excavated, except for 2-foot-wide trenches along the edges of the walls.

The foundation itself, about 2 feet thick, consisted of brick rubble--tumbled and broken bricks, not laid in mortar and for the most part matching bricks found elsewhere in Marlborough structures. Scattered among the typical Virginia bricks and brickbats were several distinctively smaller and harder dark-red bricks measuring 7-1/4 inches by 3-1/2 inches (fig. 53).

The most interesting feature of the structure was its narrow extension. This had survived in the form of two parallel walls laid in three brick courses without mortar, the whole projecting from the southeasterly wall. The interior measurement between the walls was 1.75 feet and the exterior overall width was 4 feet. Its southern extremity had an opening narrowed to 1 foot in width by bricks placed at right angles to the walls. Approximately 5 feet to the north the passage formed by the walls was narrowed to 1 foot by three tiers of one brick, each tier laid parallel to the passage on each side. At 8.7 feet from its southern terminus the extension intersected the main foundation. Just north of this intersection, bricks laid within the passage were stepped up to form a platform two courses high and one course lower than the top of the foundation. A fluelike opening was formed by two rows of brick laid on top of the platform, narrowing the passage to a width of 5 inches. North of the southeast foundation wall there remained a strip of four bricks in two courses at the level of the opening, forming a thin continuation of the platform for 3.25 feet.

SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS IN STRUCTURE F

The narrow extension contained several bushels of unburned oystershells and some coals. There was limited evidence of burning, although the shells were not affected by fire. A small variety of artifacts was found, few of which dated later than the mid-18th century. The flue or fire chamber yielded the following artifacts:

59.1717 Wine-bottle basal fragments, 5-5-1/2 inches, mid-18th-century form

59.1721 Stem of a taper-stem, teardrop wineglass, misshapen from having been melted, ca. 1730-1740

59.1723 Green window glass, one sherd with rolled edge of crown sheet

59.1724 Blue-and-white Chinese porcelain

59.1725 "Yellowware" sherd, probably made before 1750

59.1727 Westerwald gray-and-blue salt-glazed stoneware

59.1728 Buckley black-glazed ware

59.1730 Miscellaneous late 17th- and early 18th-century delftware fragments

59.1731 Staffordshire salt-glazed white stoneware, some with molded rims, ca. 1760

59.1734 Half of sheep shears (ill. 85)

59.1735 Convex copper escutcheon plate (fig. 83g)

59.1736 Brass-hinged handle or pull for strap (fig. 83j, ill. 89)

Elsewhere, in the trenches next to the foundation walls, artifacts typical of those occurring in other parts of the site were found. Worth mentioning are pieces of yellow-streaked, red earthen "agate" ware, sometimes attributed to Astbury or Whieldon, and sherds of cord-impressed Indian pottery.

ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

Since the interior of this structure was not excavated, many uncertainties remain as to its identity. The peculiar fluelike structure passing through its foundation, the rubble of bricks used to form the foundation, the huge quantities of oystershells in the flue, with partly burnt coals underneath, give rise to various speculations. So does the orientation of the structure, which is off both the true and polar axes and is also unrelated to the mansion or the wall system.

The most likely explanation seems to be that Structure F was the foundation of a smokehouse. A recently excavated foundation in what was known as Brunswick Town, North Carolina, is almost identical (except for the use of ballast stone in the fire chamber and the building foundation). This also is believed to be a smokehouse foundation, since similar structures are still remembered from the days of their use.[159]

The position of the Marlborough structure, outside of the enclosure wall but not far from the kitchen, the relative crudeness of its construction, and its off-axis orientation, support the likelihood of its being a utilitarian structure. The firing chamber and the flue show unquestionably that it was a building requiring heat or smoke. Marlborough had two greenhouses, according to Thomas Oliver's inventory, and these would have required heating equipment. But the small size of this structure and the absence of any indication of tile flooring or other elaboration suggested by contemporary descriptions of greenhouses seem to rule out this possibility.

FOOTNOTES:

[159] STANLEY SOUTH, "An Unusual Smokehouse is Discovered at Brunswick Town," _Newsletter_, Brunswick County Historical Society (Charlotte, N.C., August 1962), vol. 2, no. 3.

XIII

_Pits and Other Structures_

STRUCTURE D

An exploratory trench was dug northward several yards from a point on Wall D, on axis with Structure B. An irregularly shaped remnant of unmortared-brick structure, varying between two and three bricks wide and one course high was discovered at the undisturbed level. This measured 8.5 feet by 6 feet. Adjacent to it, extending 5.8 feet and having a width varying from 6.5 to 7 feet, was a pit 2 feet 8 inches deep, dug 2 feet below the undisturbed clay level, and filled with a heavy deposit of artifacts, oystershells, and animal bones. The artifact remains were the richest in the entire site. Some of the most significant of these are the following:

59.1656 Key (fig. 88)

59.1942 Iron bolt (ill. 69)

59.1663} 59.2029} Two-tined forks (ill. 55-57) 59.1939}

59.1664 Jeweler's hammer (ill. 78)

59.1665 Fragments of a penknife (fig. 85c)

59.1668 Knife blade and Sheffield handle (fig. 86b)

59.1669} 59.1670} Pewter trifid-handle spoons (fig. 86f and g, ill. 58)

59.1672 Pewter "wavy-end" spoon (fig. 86e, ill. 59)

59.1675 Fragments of reeded-edge pewter plate (fig. 86a)

59.1676 Pewter teapot lid (fig. 86c, ill. 60)

59.1678 Brass rings (fig. 83i)

59.1680 Steel scissors (ill. 61)

59.1681 Large fishhook (ill. 88)

59.1682 Chalk bullet mold (fig. 84b, ill. 51)

59.1685 Slate pencil (fig. 85d, ill. 54)

59.1687 Octagonal spirits bottle (fig. 80)

59.1688 Wine bottle: seal "I^[C.]M 1737" (fig. 78, ill. 37)

59.1679 Handle sherd of North Devon gravel-tempered earthenware (ill. 15)

59.1698 Buckley high-fired, black-glazed earthenware (fig. 65)

59.1699 Buckley high-fired, amber-glazed earthenware pan sherds (fig. 65, ills. 17 and 18)

59.1700 Brown-decorated yellowware cup or posset-pot sherds (fig. 64c, ill. 16)

59.1701 Nottingham-type brown-glazed fine stoneware sherds (fig. 67a)

59.1762 Sherd of Westerwald blue-and-gray stoneware, with part of "GR" medallion showing (fig. 66d)

59.1704 Large sherds of brown-glazed Tidewater-type earthenware pan (fig. 63a, ill. 11)

59.1706 Blue-and-white delft plate, Lambeth, ca. 1720 (fig. 69)

59.1707 Blue-and-white delft plate, [?]Bristol, ca. 1750 (fig. 70)

59.1714 Kaolin tobacco-pipe bowls, and one wholly reconstructed pipe (fig. 84f, ill. 53)

59.1715 Steel springtrap for small animals (ill. 86)

(Also numerous sherds of Staffordshire white salt-glazed ware and creamware. A single disparate sherd of pink, transfer-printed Staffordshire ware, dating from about 1835, is the only intrusive artifact in the deposit.)

The bones were virtually all pork refuse, except for a few rabbit bones. The oystershells, found in every refuse deposit, reflect the universal taste for the then-abundant oyster.

The significance of the structure is not clear. It was probably the site of a privy, the remaining bricks having been part of a brick floor in front of the pit.

STRUCTURE G

A few feet southeast of Structure D, another much smaller pit was found, surrounded on two sides by a partial-U-shaped single row and single course of bricks. This brickwork measured 5 feet in length, with a 4-foot appendage at one end and a 7-foot appendage at the other. The pit was small and shallow. Typical ceramic artifacts were found, as well as fragments of black basaltes ware (ill. 32) and some early 19th-century whiteware. The function of this pit is unknown.

PIT AT JUNCTION OF WALLS A-II AND D

Just north of the northeast corner of the wall system a small trash pit was uncovered. It contained a scattering of wine- and gin-bottle sherds, a few miscellaneous, small, ceramic-tableware fragments, and about one-third of a blue-and-white Chinese porcelain plate (figs. 55 and 77).

UNIDENTIFIED FOUNDATION NEAR POTOMAC CREEK (STRUCTURE H)

About 60 feet from the shore of Potomac Creek, at the southeast corner of the old road that runs from the highway to the creek, bordered by Wall A, were indications of a brick foundation. This structure was explored to the extent of its width (about 15 feet) for a distance northward of 17 feet, then the east wall was traced 22 feet farther north until it disappeared into the bankside and a thicket. The excavated area disclosed quantities of brickbats, a layer of soil, a number of burnt bricks, a layer of black charcoal ash, and a 6-inch deposit of clay. The brick walls were 1.5 feet thick. The structure had been built into the hillside, so that the north end was presumably a deep basement.

Artifacts were few. A complete scythe (fig. 90) was found embedded in the clay above the brickwork on the east side of the structure, and next to it a large body sherd of black-glazed Buckley ware. A few small ceramic sherds occurred--pieces of redware with trailed slip (fig. 64), and small bits of delft, salt glaze, and Chinese porcelain.

The location and implied shape of the building suggest that it had a utilitarian purpose. Near the waterfront, it would conveniently have served as a warehouse, or possibly as either the brewhouse or malthouse, each described by Mercer as having been 100 feet long, of brick and stone. Whether one was of brick and the other of stone, or both were brick and stone in combination, is not clear. There was no evidence of stonework in Structure H. On the other hand, the 100-foot-long rectangular stone enclosure, of which Wall A formed a part, shows no evidence of brickwork. The purposes of both these structures must, for now, remain unexplained, but association with the brewery seems plausible.

XIV

_Stafford Courthouse South of Potomac Creek_

INTRODUCTION

The chief archeological problem of Marlborough at the time of excavation was whether or not Structure B had served as the foundation for both the courthouse and for John Mercer's mansion. Although the possibility still remains that the sites of the two buildings overlapped, preceding chapters have demonstrated that the foundation was constructed by Mercer for his house, and that it did not stand beneath the courthouse.

However, in 1957 it was thought that exploration of the late-18th-century courthouse site, located upstream on the south side of Potomac Creek, might reveal a structure of similar dimensions which would help to confirm the possibility that Structure B had originated with the Marlborough courthouse. Furthermore, the Potomac Creek site was of interest by itself and was closely related to John Mercer's legal and judicial career.

The location of the site is depicted in surveys included with suit papers of 1743 and 1805.[160] These papers were brought to our attention by George H. S. King of Fredericksburg, and were mentioned in Happel's carefully documented history of the Stafford and King George courthouses.[161] Previously, we had been led to the site by a former sheriff of Stafford County, who recalled listening as a boy to descriptions of the old courthouse building by an ancient whose memory went back to the early years of the 19th century. The old man's recollections, in turn, were reinforced by similar recountings of elders in his own youth. Unscientific though the value of such information may be, it emerges from folk memories that often remain sharp and clear in rural areas, spanning in the minds of two or three individuals the periods of several conventional generations. As clues, at least, they are never to be ignored. In this case we were taken to a rubble-strewn site on an eminence that overlooks Potomac Creek. At the foot of a declivity below, on the old Belle Plains road, we were shown another obvious evidence of structure, which we were told had been the jail. Just to the east of this where a road leads away to the site of Cave's tobacco warehouse (now the "Stone Landing"), we were informed that the stocks had once stood.

Of the latter two sites we have no confirming evidence, although both claims are plausible enough. No archeological effort was made to investigate them, since funds were limited. The surveys of 1743 and 1805 are sufficient to confirm with accuracy the courthouse site. Accordingly, an archeological exploration was made between August 19 and August 23, 1957, revealing unmistakably the footings of a courthouse. As will be shown, these footings in no way bore a resemblance to the Structure B foundation.

FOOTNOTES:

[160] Fredericksburg Suit Papers, 1745-1805 (MS., Fredericksburg, Virginia, courthouse).

[161] HAPPEL, op. cit. (footnote 22), pp. 183-194.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The history of the Potomac Creek courthouse site has been presented thoroughly by Happel, but a brief review is in order here. Happel shows that a courthouse was ordered built in 1665, a year after the establishment of Stafford as a county. He quotes a court reference in 1667 to the road along the south shore of Potomac Creek, running from the "said Ferry," near the head of the Creek, "to the Court house to the horse Bridge," which he identifies as having spanned Passapatanzy Gut. In his opinion, this courthouse was near the mouth of the Creek, but he fails to show that it equally well may have been near the site of the later 18th-century structures.

We have seen that in 1690 court was first held in Thomas Elzey's house, seemingly located near the 18th-century courthouse site, and that orders were given that it continue to meet there until the new courthouse was ready. The history of the new courthouse at Marlborough has already been recounted, its final demise occurring about 1718. The court's official removal from Marlborough was agreed upon July 20, 1720, and, as already noted, "the head of Ocqua Creek" was designated for the new site, although obviously by error, since Potomac Creek plainly was intended.

Happel tells us that the Potomac Creek building burned in 1730 or early 1731 and that the justices were ordered on April 27, 1731, to rebuild at the same place. It is this next building that was depicted on the 1743 survey plat (see fig. 58). In 1744 a bill was presented in the Assembly to relieve persons who had suffered or "may suffer" from the loss of Stafford County records "lately consumed by Fire";[162] apparently the courthouse had again burned. There seems to have been a delay of about five years in rebuilding it this time. Pressures to relocate it were exerted in the meanwhile and hearings were held by the Governor's Council on a petition to "remove the Court House lower down."[163] The Council listened, then "Ordered, that the new Court House be built where the old one stood."[164]

This settled, Nathaniel Harrison and Hugh Adie contracted in 1749 with the justices of Stafford court to build a "Brick Courthouse, for the Consideration of 44500 lb. of Tobacco, to be furnished by the last of October, 1750."[165] Harrison was a distinguished member of the colony who, as a widower, had moved to Stafford County the previous year and had married Lucy, the daughter of Robert ("King") Carter of "Corotoman" and widow of Henry Fitzhugh of "Eagle's Nest."[166] Harrison, who later built "Brandon" for himself in King George County, probably provided the capital and the materials, and perhaps the design, of the courthouse. Adie, of whom nothing is known, was doubtless the carpenter or bricklayer who actually did the work.

The construction was delayed by "many Disappointments, and the Badness of the Weather." Finally, in the spring of 1751, it was about to be brought to completion, "when it was feloniously burnt to the Ground."[167] In April 1752 a special act was passed in order to permit a levy to be made which would allow the Stafford court to reimburse Harrison and Adie for the amount of work which they had accomplished on the courthouse and the value of the materials they had provided.[168]

No record exists of the contract for the next--and last--courthouse building on the Potomac Creek site. Quite possibly Harrison and Adie again did the work. This building was used until removal of the court to a new building completed between 1780 and 1783 on a site near the present Stafford courthouse. It remained standing throughout most of the 19th century, according to local memory. In surveys of 1804 and 1805 the structure was identified as the "old court house."

FOOTNOTES:

[162] _JHB_, 1742-1749 (Richmond, 1909), p. 127.

[163] Ibid.

[164] _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_ [November 1, 1739-May 7, 1754], (Richmond, 1945), p. 282.

[165] _JHB, 1752-1755; 1756-1758_ (Richmond, 1939), p. 55.

[166] "Harrison of James River," _VHM_ (Richmond, 1924), vol. 32, p. 200.

[167] See footnote 165.

[168] HENING, op. cit. (footnote 1), vol. 6, pp. 280-281.

DESCRIPTION OF EXCAVATIONS

Excavations were conducted in the simplest manner possible, in order to arrive at the objective of determining the dimensions of the courthouse without exceeding available funds. An exploratory trench soon exposed a line of rubble and disturbed soil. This line was followed until the entire outline of the building was revealed. At several points bricks in mortar still remained _in situ_, especially at the south end. Two brick piers extended 4 feet 5 inches into the structure, midway along the south wall at a distance of 5 feet 9 inches apart.

The emerging evidence indicated that the structure was rectangular, approximately 52 feet long and 26 feet wide, with a T-shaped projection 25 feet wide extending out a distance of 14 feet 5 inches from the center of the east wall of the building.

SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS ASSOCIATED WITH POTOMAC CREEK COURTHOUSE

Few artifacts occurred in the small area excavated at the courthouse site. Those which did, significantly, related either to the structure itself or to the eating and drinking that probably occurred either alfresco or within the courthouse building. We know that the Ohio Company Committee met there for many years, beginning in 1750, and doubtless lunches and refreshments were served to the members during the day, before they returned to the tavern or to neighboring plantations to dine and spend the night.

Portions of wine bottles (of the same dimensions as the Mercer "1737" bottle from Marlborough) were found (ill. 5), along with small fragments of late 18th-century types. A section of the rim of a large, octagonal, white, salt-glazed-ware platter with a wreath and lattice design was recovered from the north-wall footings (ill. 86), and fragments of a salt-glazed-ware dinner plate occurred in the south trench. An oystershell found nearby suggests how the platter may have been used. Two pieces of a white salt-glazed-ware posset pot round out a picture of elegant eating and drinking in the 1760's, as do the fragments of polished, agate octagonal-handled knives and forks. The latter were badly damaged by fire.

Pieces of blue-and-white delft punch bowls were found, as well as a sherd of polychrome delft which dated apparently from 1740 to 1760. Two sherds of creamware plates with wavy edges in the "Catherine" shape reflect the last years of official use of the courthouse. A tantalizing find is a small fragment of cobalt-blue glass, blown in a mold to make panels or oval indentations. This piece may have come from a large bowl or sweetmeat dish.

Three sherds of black-glazed red earthenware are the only evidence of utilitarian equipment. Pipe-stems belong to the mid- and late-18th-century category. A George II copper penny is dated 1746. A large mass of pewter, melted beyond recognition, was found near the south end of the structure. Bits of charcoal are held within it. The pewter originally may have been in the form of mugs or tankards.

Evidence of the structure is found in a large number of hand-forged nails, in quantities of window glass melted and distorted, and in pieces of plaster. The last is the typical hard, coarse oystershell plaster of the area, having a smooth surface coat, except for fine lines left by the trowel. There is no evidence of paint. A small slide bolt of wrought iron probably fitted on a cupboard door, or possibly the gate in the bar (ill. 87). Another iron fixture is not identified.

Two kinds of window glass occurred. One, the earliest type, is a thin, yellowish glass which is coated with irridescent scale caused by the breakdown of the glass surface. None of this glass shows signs of fire or, at least, of melting. The remainder is a grayish-blue aquamarine, much of it melted and distorted, and some of it accumulated in thick masses where tremendous heat caused the panes literally to fold up. A fragment of yellowish-green glass pane, related to the early type and again coated with scale, varies in thickness and was apparently from a bullseye. No evidence exists of diamond-shaped panes, but, as should be expected, there is indication of square-cornered panes in both types of glass.

ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS

The plan of the footings (fig. 60) shows a T-shaped foundation. This was an immediate clue to the nature of the structure, for the T-shaped courthouse was virtually a standard 18th-century form in Virginia. This foundation, in fact, is almost a replica of the plans of both King William and Hanover County courthouses, each built about 1734[169] (figs. 5, 61, and 62).

The King William courthouse measures 50 feet 4-1/4 inches long and 26 feet 4 inches wide in the main structure. Its T section extends 14 feet 9 inches to the original end (to which an extension has been added) and has a width of 23 feet 10-1/4 inches. The Stafford foundation is 52 feet long and 26 feet wide in the main structure. The T-section is 14 feet 5 inches long and 25 feet wide. A closer comparison could scarcely be expected.

Hanover's length is 52 feet 4-1/2 inches, the width of the main section 27 feet 10 inches, while the T-section is 15 feet 2-1/2 inches long (in its original part) and 26 feet 7 inches wide.

A third example, completed in 1736, is the Charles City County courthouse.[170] The measurements of this building are not available to us, but close examination of photographs discloses a building of about the same size.

The earliest of these T-shaped buildings thus far recorded was the York County courthouse, completed in 1733. Destroyed in 1814, its site has been excavated by the National Park Service. Its foundation, measuring 59 feet 10 inches in length and 52 feet in full depth, including the T, was somewhat larger than the others known to us. The records show that it was rather elaborate, with imported-stone floors and compass-head windows.[171]

All these buildings had arcaded verandas. Marcus Whiffen raises the question as to which of them, if any, was the prototype, then concludes by speculating that none was, and that all four may have derived from the 1715 courthouse at Williamsburg, the dimensions of which, however, remain unknown. The introduction of the loggia first at the College of William and Mary and then at the capitol led him to postulate that its use in a courthouse also would have originated in Williamsburg.[172] The Stafford foundation showed no trace of stone paving where an arcade might have been, but, since virtually all the bricks had been taken away, it is likely that such a valuable commodity as flagstones also would have been removed as soon as the building was destroyed or dismantled. Two brick piers at the west end of the structure (fig. 36) remain a mystery. They are equidistant from the longitudinal walls, and may have been the foundations for a chimney. However, their positions do not relate to the floor or chimney plans at Hanover or King William courthouses, the other features of which are so nearly comparable. One would suppose every basic characteristic of the Stafford building would have been the same as in these buildings. The piers were perhaps late additions or modifications.

The roof was apparently of wood; there were no evidences of slate shingles. The bricks were approximately 8-1/2 inches by 4 inches by 2-3/4 inches, and were probably laid in a patterned Flemish bond, as at Hanover or King William, since some of the bricks were glazed. No lead or other signs of "calmes" used in leaded sash were found, so we must assume that the 1665 courthouse was built elsewhere.

FOOTNOTES:

[169] MARCUS WHIFFEN, "The Early County Courthouses of Virginia," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (Amherst, Mass., 1959), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-10.

[170] Ibid.

[171] RILEY, op. cit. (footnote 31), pp. 402 ff.

[172] WHIFFEN, op. cit. (footnote 169), p. 4.

CONCLUSION

It may be assumed that the Potomac Creek courthouse, which was built of brick, resembled the courthouses of Hanover, King William, and Charles City, and that its architecture, symbolizing the authority of Virginia's government, reflected the official style expressed in the government buildings at Williamsburg. All the successive Stafford courthouses from 1722 on probably were built on the old foundations; if so, the Stafford building was the earliest T-form courthouse yet known in Virginia. Its similarity to the three structures built in the 1730's shows that an accepted form had developed, possibly, as Whiffen suggests, deriving from a prototype in Williamsburg.

The courthouse bears no resemblance, either in its shape or the absence of a basement, to the Structure B foundation at Marlborough. The site, reached more easily than Marlborough from any direction, dictated the removal to it of the courthouse in 1722, thus contributing to the demise of Marlborough as a town. The last structure, especially, was historically important because of the meetings of the Ohio Company held in it. It is of particular interest to the story of Marlborough because John Mercer was, for most of its existence, the senior justice of the Stafford court.

ARTIFACTS

XV

_Ceramics_

Most of the ceramic artifacts found at Marlborough can be dated within John Mercer's period of occupancy (1726-1768). A meager scattering of late 18th- and early 19th-century whitewares and stonewares reflects the John Francis Mercer and Cooke ownerships (1768-1819).

COARSE EARTHENWARE

TIDEWATER TYPE.--Mercer's purchase in 1725 of £12 3s. 6d. worth of earthenware from William Rogers (p. 16, footnote 54) probably was made for trading purposes, judging from the sizable cost. Rogers operated a stoneware and earthenware pottery in Yorktown, which evidently was continued for a considerable time after his death in 1739.[173] An abundance of waster sherds (unglazed, underfired, overfired, or misshapen fragments cast aside by the potter), supposedly from Rogers' output, has been found as street ballast and fill in Yorktown and its environs. Microscopic and stylistic comparison with these sherds relates numerous Marlborough sherds to them in varying degrees. For purposes of tentative identification, the ware will be designated "Tidewater type." Some of the ware may have been produced in Rogers' shop, while other articles resembling the Yorktown products may have been made of similar clay and fired under conditions comparable to those at Yorktown.

A Marlborough milk pan (USNM 59.1961, ill. 11, and USNM 59.1580) has a salmon-colored body and a lustrous mahogany glaze with fine manganese streaking. Another milk pan (USNM 59.2039, ill. 2, fig. 63a) has a buff body and a glaze of uneven thickness that ranges in color from thin brown with black flecking to a glutinous dark brown approaching black. The most typical glaze color, influenced by the underlying predominant pinkish-buff body, is a light mahogany with black specks or blotches. It occurs at Marlborough on a small sherd (USNM 60.201). A variant glaze occurring on pottery found in Yorktown appears here in a yellowish-buff sherd flecked with black (USNM 60.154). The flecking is only in part applied with manganese; it is also the effect of ocherous and ferruginous particles which protrude through the surface of the body, assuming a dark color. Occasionally the manganese is spread liberally, so that the natural body color shows through only as flecks in a reverse effect (USNM 59.1855); now and then the vessel is uniformly black (USNM 60.141).

Tidewater-type forms found at Marlborough include milk pans 15 inches in diameter and about 4-1/4 inches deep (in 1729 Mercer bought "2 milk pans" for 5d. and 5 "gallon basons" for 4s. 7d.), a black-glazed jar cover with indicated diameter of 6-1/2 inches (USNM 59.2013), and fragments of other pans and bowls of indeterminate sizes. A portion of an ale mug has a tooled base and black glaze (USNM 59.2043, fig. 63d, ill. 12). Its diameter is 3-5/8 inches.

MOLDED-RIM TYPE.--This is a type of redware with a light-red body and transparent, ginger-brown lead glaze. It is characterized by a rolled rim and a tooled platform or channel above the junction of rim and side. A small number of pan and bowl rims was found at Marlborough. The ware is usually associated with early 18th-century materials from such sites as Jamestown, Kecoughtan, Williamsburg, and Rosewell. It may have originated in England.

NORTH DEVON GRAVEL-TEMPERED WARE.--The coarse kitchenware made in Bideford and Barnstaple and in the surrounding English villages of North Devon is represented by only two sherds. This ware is characterized by a dull, reddish-pink body, usually dark-gray at the core, and by a gross waterworn gravel temper. It occurs in contexts as early as 1650 at Jamestown and as late as 1740-1760 at Williamsburg. One of the Marlborough sherds is part of a large pan. It is glazed with a characteristic amber lead glaze (USNM 60.202). The other sherd is a portion of an unglazed handle, probably from a potlid (USNM 59.1679, ill. 15).[174]

SLIP-LINED REDWARE.--Numerous 18th-century sites from Philadelphia to Williamsburg have yielded a series of bowls and porringers characterized by interior linings of slip that is streaked and mottled with manganese. These are glazed on both surfaces, the outer surface and a border above the slip on the inner surface usually ginger-brown in color. Comparative examples are a bowl from the Russell site at Lewes, Delaware, dating from the first half of the 18th century, and several pieces from pre-Revolutionary contexts at Williamsburg. A deposit excavated by H. Geiger Omwake near the south end of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal in Delaware included sherds from a context dated late 17th- to mid-18th centuries.[175] Several fragments of bowls occur in the Marlborough material (USNM 59.1613, 59.1856, fig. 64g).

ENGLISH YELLOWWARE.--The few sherds of so-called combed ware occurring at Marlborough, although only the base fragments connect, all seem to have come from a single cup or posset pot having a buff body and characteristically decorated with spiraled bands of dark-brown slip that were created by combing through an outer coating of white slip, revealing an underlayer of red slip. The vessel was glazed with a clear lead glaze (USNM 59.1700, fig. 64c, ill. 16). Comparative dated examples of this ware include a posset pot dated 1735.[176] A chamber pot bearing the same kind of striping was excavated by the National Park Service at Fort Frederica, Georgia (1736-ca. 1750). A piece similar to that from Marlborough was found in the Rosewell deposit, and another in the Lewis Morris house site, Morrisania, New York.[177] Although this type of ware was introduced in England about 1680, its principal use in America seems to have occurred largely between 1725 and 1775. Archeological evidence is corroborated by newspaper advertisements. In 1733 the _Boston Gazette_ advertised "yellow ware Hollow and Flat by the Crate" and again in 1737 "yellow and Brown Earthenware." In 1763 the _Gazette_ mentioned "Crates of Yellow Liverpool Ware," Liverpool being the chief place of export for pottery made in Staffordshire, the principal source for the combed wares.[178]

BUCKLEY WARE.--I. Noël Hume has identified a class of high-fired, black-glazed earthenware found in many 18th-century sites in Virginia. He has done so by reference to _The Buckley Potteries_, by K. J. Barton,[179] and to waster sherds in his possession from the Buckley kiln sites in Flintshire, North Wales. The ware probably was made in other potteries of the region also. This durable pottery, more like stoneware than earthenware, is represented by a large number of jar and pan fragments. Two body types occur, each characterized by a mixture of red and buff clay. In the more usual type the red clay dominates, with laminations and striations of buff clay running through it in the manner of a coarse sort of agateware. The other is usually grayish buff with red streaks, although sometimes the body is almost entirely buff, still showing signs of lamination. The glaze is treacly black, often applied unevenly and sometimes pitted with air bubbles. The body surfaces have conspicuous turning ridges. Rims are usually heavy and flat, sometimes as wide as 1-1/2 inches. A variant of the ware is represented in a milk pan with a dominantly red body which has a clear-amber, rather than black, glaze. (USNM 59.1887, ills. 17, 18, and 19 and fig. 65).

MISCELLANEOUS.--Several unique specimens and groups of sherds are represented:

1. A large, outstanding, horizontal, loop handle survives from a storage jar with a rich red body. Two thumb-impressed reinforcements, splayed at each end, secure the handle to the body wall. The top of the handle has four finger impressions for gripping; the lead glaze appears in a finely speckled ginger color (USNM 59.2049, fig. 64b).

2. A single fragment remains from a slip-decorated bowl or open vessel. The body is hard and dark red, the glaze dark olive-brown. The fragment is glazed and slipped on both sides (USNM 59.1614, fig. 64e). Other small sherds of a similar ware are redder in color and without slip. Another, with lighter red body and olive-amber glaze, is slip decorated (USNM 60.161, fig. 64f).

3. A unique sherd has a gray-buff body and shiny black glaze on both surfaces (USNM 59.1815).

4. A group of pale-red unglazed fragments is from the bottom of a water cooler. A sherd which preserves parts of the base and lower body wall has a hole in which a spigot could be inserted (USNM 59.2061, ill. 20).

5. Fragments of a flowerpot have a body similar to the foregoing, but are lined with slip under a lead glaze. A rim fragment has an ear handle with thumb-impressed indentations attached to it (USNM 60.203, ill. 21).

6. Two sherds of a redware pie plate, notched on the edge and lined with overglazed slip decorated with brown manganese dots, imitate Staffordshire yellowware, but are probably of American origin (USNM 59.1612, fig. 64g).

FOOTNOTES:

[173] WATKINS and NOËL HUME, op. cit. (footnote 54).

[174] C. MALCOLM WATKINS, "North Devon Pottery and Its Export to America in the 17th Century," (paper 13 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), 1960.

[175] The Russell site was excavated by members of the Sussex Archeological Society of Lewes, Delaware. Artifacts from the site are now in the Smithsonian Institution, as are those found by H. Geiger Omwake at the end of the Lewes and Rehoboth Canal.

[176] JOHN ELIOT HODGKINS, F.S.A., and EDITH HODGKINS, _Examples of Early English Pottery, Named, Dated, and Inscribed_ (London, 1897), p. 57, fig. 128.

[177] J. E. MESSHAM, B.A., and K. J. BARTON, "The Buckley Potteries," _Flintshire Historical Society Publications_, vol. 16, pp. 31-87.

[178] GEORGE FRANCIS DOW, _The Arts and Crafts in New England, 1764-1775_ (Topsfield, Mass., 1927), pp. 84, 85, 92.

[179] MESSHAM and BARTON, loc. cit. (footnote 177).

STONEWARE

RHENISH STONEWARES.--The stoneware potters who worked in the vicinity of Grenzhausen in the Westerwald in a tributary of the Rhine Valley held a far-flung market until the mid-18th century. It was not until the Staffordshire potters brought out their own salt-glazed whitewares that the colorful blue-and-gray German products suffered a decline. Before that, Rhenish stonewares were widely used in England and the colonies; those for the British market frequently were decorated with medallions in which the reigning English monarch's initial appeared. Elaborate incising and blue-cobalt coloring gave a highly decorative character to the ware, while salt thrown into the kiln during the firing combined with the clay to provide a hard, clean surface matched only by porcelain.

John Mercer, like so many of his fellow colonials, owned Westerwald stoneware. From Ledger G, we know that in 1743 he bought "2 blew & W^t Jugs 2/." From the artifacts it is clear that he not only had large globose jugs, but also numerous cylindrical mugs and chamber pots. A small group of sherds has a gray-buff paste, more intricately incised than most. Internally the paste surface is a light-pinkish buff. These sherds are probably of the late 17th century, or at least earlier than the predominantly gray wares of the 18th century, which have hastily executed designs.[180] Only two "GR" emblems (_Guglielmus_ or _Georgius Rex_), both from mugs, were recovered (fig. 66d).

MISCELLANEOUS GRAY-AND-BROWN SALT-GLAZED STONEWARE.--The shop of William Rogers apparently made stoneware of fine quality in the style of the London stoneware produced in the Thames-side potteries.[181] Wasters from Yorktown streets and foundations indicate many varieties of colors and glaze textures, some of which are matched in the Marlborough sherds. Admittedly, it is not possible to distinguish with certainty the fragments of Yorktown stoneware from their English counterparts. Sherds of a pint mug, externally gray in the lower half and mottled-brown in the upper, may be a Yorktown product (USNM 59.1780, ill. 22). The interior is a rusty brown. Fragments of the shoulder of a very large jug, mottled-brown externally and lined in a dull red like that often found on Yorktown wasters, also have body resemblances. (Mercer bought a five-gallon "stone bottle" from Charles Dick in 1745.)

There are numerous other types of coarse stoneware of unknown origins, including one sherd with a dull-red glaze and black decorative spots (USNM 59.1840, ill. 23).

NOTTINGHAM-TYPE STONEWARE.--Several sherds of stoneware of the type usually ascribed to Nottingham appeared at Marlborough. This ware is characterized by a smooth, lustrous, metallic-brown glaze. The fragments are apparently from different vessels. One is a foot rim of a posset pot or jug. Several body sherds have fluting or paneling formed by molding, with turning lines on the interior showing that the molding was executed after the forms were shaped. One sherd is decorated with shredded clay applied before firing when the clay was wet. It appears to come from the globose portion of a small drinking jug with a vertical collar. A handle section comes from a pitcher or posset pot. Interior colors range from a brownish mustard to a reddish brown. Nottingham stoneware was made throughout the 18th century,[182] but these sherds correspond to middle-of-the-century forms (fig. 67a).

DRAB STONEWARE.--The dominant position attained by the Staffordshire potters in the 18th century is due to unremitting efforts to achieve the whiteness of porcelain in their native products. Improvements in stoneware were mostly in this direction, with the first steps plainly evidencing what they failed to achieve. One of the earlier attempts has a gray body coated with white pipe-clay slip obtained at Bideford in North Devon. This slip created the superficial appearance of porcelain, as did tin enamel on the surface of delftware. Although some Burslem potters were making "dipped white stoneware" by 1710,[183] it does not seem to have occurred generally until about 1725. Salt glaze was applied in the same manner as on the earlier and coarser stonewares. Mugs in this ware were banded with an iron-oxide slip, presumably to cover up defects around the rims.

Several sherds of this drab stoneware were found at Marlborough, including the base of a jug with curving sides and pieces of tall mugs with brown rims (USNM 59.1893, fig. 67b, ill. 25). The body is characteristically gray, while the slip, although sometimes dull white, is usually a pleasant cream tone. Two sherds were found beneath the flagstones around the north porch of Structure B, where they probably fell before 1746 (USNM 59.1754).

One of the Burslem stoneware potters between 1710 and 1715 made what he called "freckled ware."[184] Possibly this describes a sherd of a thin-walled mug from Marlborough (USNM 59.1636) which is coated with white slip inside and is finely speckled, or "freckled," in brown on the outside. Its body is the gray of the drab stoneware, but with a high content of micaceous and siliceous sand. Simeon Shaw, the early 19th-century historian of the Staffordshire potteries, asserted that what he called "Crouch" ware was first made of brick clay and fine sand in 1690, and by 1702 of dark-gray clay and sand.[185] Although his dates are questioned by modern authorities, his order of the progressive degrees of refinement in the paste are acceptable as he suggests them. In respect to the Marlborough sherd, although it is coarser than the white-coated fragments described above, it answers very well Shaw's description of sandy-gray "Crouch" ware.

WHITE SALT-GLAZED WARE.--About 1720 calcined flints were added to the body of the Staffordshire stoneware, thus making possible a homogeneous white body that did not require a coating of slip between the body and the glazed surface.[186] With this ware the Staffordshire potters came closer to their goal of emulating porcelain.

At Marlborough the earliest examples of this improved ware are found in two sherds with incised decorations that were scratched into the wet clay (USNM 59.1819, Fig. 67b); the incised lines next were filled with powdered cobalt before firing. This technique is known as "scratch blue," dated examples of which, existing elsewhere, range from 1724 to 1767. The body in the Marlborough specimens is still rather drab, the whiteness of the later ware not yet having been achieved. No slip was used, however, so that the surface color is a pleasant pale gray. One sherd is from a cup with a slightly flaring rim. The exterior decoration is in the form of floral sprigs, while the inside has a row of double-scalloped lines below the rim. The other fragment is from a saucer. Possibly the cup is part of Mercer's purchase in 1742 of a dozen "Stone Coffee cups," for which he paid 18d. In Boston "White stone Tea-Cups and Saucers" were advertised in 1745, and "blue and white ... Stone Ware" in 1751.[187]

A later variant on the "scratch blue" is a class of salt-glazed ware that resembles Westerwald stoneware. Here loops, sworls, and horizontal grooves are scratched into the paste. The cobalt is smeared more or less at random, some of it lying on the surface, some running into the incised channels. This style of decoration was applied mostly to chamber pots but also to small bowls and cups. Fragments of all these forms occurred at Marlborough (fig. 67c).

After 1740 the body was greatly improved, resulting in an attractive whiteware. Many wheel-turned forms were produced, and these were liberally represented at Marlborough in fragments of pitchers, mugs, teapots, teacups, bowls, posset pots, and casters (fig. 67d).

In the middle of the 18th century a process was developed for making multiple plaster-of-paris molds from brass or alabaster matrices[188] and then casting plates and other vessels in them by pouring in the stoneware clay, diluted in the form of slip. The slip was allowed to dry, and the formed utensil was removed for firing. This molded salt-glazed ware occurs in quantity in the Marlborough finds, suggesting that there were large sets of it. One design predominates in plates, platters, and soup dishes: wavy edges, borders consisting of panels of diagonal lattices--with stars or dots within the lattices framed in rococo scrolls, and areas of basket-weave designs between the panels. On a large platter rim the lattice-work is plain, somewhat reminiscent of so-called Chinese Chippendale design. The pattern is presumably the design referred to in the _Boston News Letter_ for May 29, 1764: "To be sold very cheap. Two or three Crates of white Stone Ware, consisting chiefly of the new fashioned basket Plates and Oblong Dishes."[189] One fragment comes from a cake plate with this border design and a heavily decorated center (fig. 67e).

Other molded patterns include gadrooning combined with scalloping on a plate-rim sherd. A rim section with molded rococo-scrolled edge is from a "basket weave" sauceboat. Considerably earlier are pieces of a pitcher or milk jug with a shell design (USNM 59.1894, ill. 27). One rare sherd appears to come from a rectangular teapot or tray. All the white salt-glazed ware from Marlborough represents the serviceable but decorative tableware of everyday use. It must have been purchased during the last 10 years of Mercer's life.

TIN-ENAMELED EARTHENWARE.--The art of glazing earthenware with opaque tin oxide and decorating it with colorful designs was an Islamic innovation which spread throughout the Mediterranean and northward to Holland and England. Practiced in England before the close of the 16th century, it became in the 17th and the first half of the 18th centuries a significant source of English tableware, both at home and in America. Because of its close similarity to the Dutch majolica of Delft, the English version was popularly called "delftware," even though made in London, Bristol, or Liverpool.

Surprisingly, a minimum of tin-enameled wares was found at Marlborough, with several sherds reflecting the Port Town period. One of the latter shows the lower portion of a heavy, dark-blue floral spray, growing up, apparently, from a flowerpot. A section of foot rim and the contour of the sherd show that this was a 17th-century charger, probably dating from about 1680 (USNM 60.177, fig. 68a). The leaves are painted in the same manner as on a Lambeth fuddling cup.[190] A section of a plate with no foot rim includes an inner border which encircles the central panel design. It consists of two parallel lines with flattened spirals joined in a series between the lines. The glaze is crackled. This probably dates from the same period as the preceding sherd (USNM 60.99, fig. 68a). Sherds from a larger specimen, without decoration, have the same crackled enamel (USNM 59.2059). There is also a fragment decorated with small, blue, fernlike fronds, again suggesting late 17th-century origin (USNM 59.1756, fig. 68a). A small handle, the glaze of which has a pinkish cast, is decorated with blue dashes, and probably was part of a late 17th-century cup (USNM 59.1730, fig. 68a).

Several fragments of narrow rims from plates with blue bands probably date from the first quarter of the 18th century. A reconstructed plate with the simplest of stylized decoration was made at Lambeth about 1720 (USNM 59.1707, fig. 69). This plate has a wavy vine motif around its upward-flaring rim, in which blossoms are suggested by stylized pyramids of three to four blocks formed by brush strokes about 1/4-inch wide, alternating with single blocks. The central motif consists of two crossed stems with a pyramid at each end and two diagonal, block brush strokes intersecting the crossed stems. A large fragment of a washstand bowl also has similar plain, block brush strokes along a border defined by horizontal lines--in this case a triplet of three strokes, one above two, alternating with a single block. Edges of similar brush strokes on the lower portion of the bowl remain on the fragment. Garner shows a Lambeth mug embodying this style of decoration combined with a suggestion of Chinoiserie around the waist. He ascribes to it a date of "about 1700," although the block-brush-stroke device, with variations, was practiced until the 1760's at Lambeth.[191] The Marlborough bowl fragment may be from one of the "2 pottle Basons" bought by Mercer in 1744 (fig. 68b, ill. 28).

Another reconstructed plate, probably a Lambeth piece, has blue decoration in the Chinese manner. It dates from about 1730 to 1740 (USNM 59.1706, fig. 70). Several small bowl sherds seem to range from the early to the middle 18th century. Polychrome delft is represented by only three sherds, all apparently from bowls, and none well enough defined to permit identification.

There are several fragments of ointment pots, all 18th-century in shape. Three sherds of tin-enameled redware are probably continental European. Two of these have counterparts from early 17th-century contexts at Jamestown. A blue-decorated handle sherd from a large jug or posset pot is also 17th century.

The predominance of early dating of tin-enamel sherds and the relatively few examples of it from any period suggest that much of what was found either was used in the Port Town or was inherited by the Mercers, probably by Catherine, and used when they were first married. It also points up the fact that delftware early went out of fashion among well-to-do families.

ENGLISH FINE EARTHENWARES.--The fine earthen tablewares introduced in Staffordshire early in the 18th century, largely in response to the new tea-drinking customs, are less well represented in the Marlborough artifacts than are those made later in the century. Apparently, the contemporary white salt-glazed ware was preferred.

MARBLED WARE.--The Staffordshire factories of Thomas Astbury and Thomas Whieldon were responsible for numerous innovations, including fine "marbled" wares in which clays of different colors were mixed together so as to form a veined surface. The technique itself was an old one, but its application in delicate tablewares was a novelty. Although Astbury was the earlier, it was Whieldon who exploited the technique after starting his potworks at Little Fenton about 1740.[192] From Marlborough come three meager sherds of marbled ware, probably from three different vessels (USNM 59.1625, 59.1748, 59.1851). They are brownish red with white veining under an amber lead glaze. A posset pot of these colors in the Victoria and Albert Museum is supposed, by Rackham, to date from about 1740.[193]

BLACK-GLAZED FINE REDWARE.--Whieldon made a black-glazed, fine redware, as did Maurice Thursfield at Jackfield in Shropshire.[194] A fragment of a black-glazed teapot handle was found at Marlborough, although the body is more nearly a hard grayish brown than red (USNM 59.1638).

TORTOISESHELL WARE.--Cream-colored earthenware was introduced as early as 1725, supposedly by Thomas Astbury, Jr. It was not until the middle of the century, however, that Whieldon began the use of clouded glaze colors over a cream-colored body. After 1756 Josiah Wedgwood became his partner and helped to perfect the coloring of glazes. In 1759 Wedgwood established his own factory, and both firms made tortoiseshell ware in the same molds used for making salt-glazed whiteware.[195] From Marlborough there are several sherds of gadroon-edge plates and basket-weave-and-lattice plates, as well as a piece of a teapot cover. Tortoiseshell ware was advertised in Boston newspapers from 1754 to 1772 (fig. 71).[196]

QUEENSWARE.--Josiah Wedgwood brought to perfection the creamware body about 1765, naming it "Queensware" after receiving Queen Charlotte's patronage. Wedgwood took out no patents, so that a great many factories followed suit, notably Humble, Green & Company at Leeds in Yorkshire (later Hartley, Green & Company).[197]

The Marlborough creamware sherds are all plain (with one exception), consisting of fragments of wavy-edge plates, bowls, and platters in Wedgwood's "Catherine shape," introduced about 1770, as well as mugs and pitchers (fig. 72). A piece of a large platter has impressed in it the letters WEDG, running up to the fracture. Below this is the number 1 (USNM 59.1997, fig. 73).

WHITEWARES USED IN THE FEDERAL PERIOD.--During the late 1770's Wedgwood introduced his "pearlware,"[198] in which the yellow cast of the cream body was offset by a touch of blue. With the use of a nearly colorless glaze that was still slightly bluish, it was now possible to make a successful underglaze-blue decoration. These whitewares were made in three principal styles by Wedgwood's many imitators, as well as by Wedgwood himself. The most familiar of these styles is the molded shell-edge ware, which was used in virtually every place to which Staffordshire wares penetrated after 1800. In a plain creamware version, this was another Wedgwood innovation of about 1765.[199] After 1780, the ware was white, with blue or green borders. The Wedgwood shell-edge design has a slightly wavy edge, and the shell ridges vary in depth and length. At least one Leeds version has a regular scalloped edge, like those found on several other Marlborough sherds. In the 19th century the ware became coarser and heavier, as well as whiter, and in some cases the shell edge was no longer actually molded but simply suggested by a painted border. Some variants were introduced that were not intended to be shell edge in design, but merely blue or green molded patterns. A Marlborough sherd from one of these has a gadrooned edge and molded swags and palmettes. Except for two late rims, painted but not molded, the shell-edge wares from Marlborough probably date from John Francis Mercer's period in the late 1700's and from John Bronaugh's occupancy of the mansion during the Cooke period in the first decade of the 19th century (fig. 74c).

The success of the new whiteware in permitting the use of underglaze blue resulted in a second class that is decorated in the Chinese manner, after the style of English delft and porcelain. This type was popular between 1780 and 1790, especially in the United States, where many whole specimens have survived above ground. Several sherds are among the Marlborough artifacts and appear to have come entirely from hollow forms, such as bowls and pitchers.[200] Sherds from a blue-and-white mug with molded designs, including the shell motif around the handle, have been found also.

The third class of whiteware, which was heavily favored in the export trade, consisted of a gay, hand-decorated product, popular at the end of the 18th, and well into the 19th, century. It had pleasing variety, with floral designs in soft orange, green, brown, and blue, often with brown or green borders. A few examples of this later whiteware occur among the Marlborough artifacts (fig. 74b). One sherd from a small bowl is mottled in blue and touched with yellow (USNM 59.1805, fig. 74b). Another is also mottled, but in gray and blue. Such wares as the latter were made by Hartley, Green & Company at Leeds before the factory's demise in 1820 (USNM 59.1950, fig. 74b).[201]

The transfer-printed wares that were so popular in America after 1820 are represented by a mere eight sherds, which is in accord with evidence that the mansion house was unoccupied or destroyed after 1819. Of these sherds, only five can be dated before 1830. Two are pink, transfer-printed sherds of about 1835-45, and one is gray-blue, dating from about 1840-1850.

BLACK BASALTES WARE.--Another late 18th-century innovation by Wedgwood, imitated by his competitors, was a fine stoneware with a black body, called black basaltes because of its resemblance to that mineral. A few sherds of this were found at Marlborough. Typically, they are glazed on the insides only. They postdate John Mercer by twenty or thirty years.

CHINESE PORCELAIN.--Oriental porcelain was introduced to the English colonies at a very early date, as we know from 17th-century contexts at Jamestown. As early as 1725 John Mercer acquired "1 China Punch bowl." Presumably the "6 tea cups & Sawcers," "2 chocolate cups," and "2 custard cups" obtained by him the same year were also porcelain. Even before 1740, porcelain was occurring with increasing frequency in America. We are told that in 1734, for example, it can be calculated that about one million pieces of it left Canton for Europe.[202] Doubtless a large proportion was reexported to the colonists. William Walker, Mercer's undertaker for the mansion, left at his death in 1750: "1 Crack'd China bowl," "1 Quart Bowl 6/, 1 large D^o 12.6," "6 China cups & Sawcers 5/," and "12 China plates 15/."

It is not surprising, therefore, that 18th-century China-trade porcelain sherds occurred with high incidence at Marlborough. Mercer's accounts show that he acquired from Charles Dick in 1745 "1 Sett finest China" and "2 punch bowls." From the archeological evidence it would appear that he had supplemented this several times over, perhaps after 1750 in the period for which we have no ledgers.

Most of the porcelain is blue and white. One group has cloudy, blurred houses and trees, impressionistic landscapes, and flying birds. This pattern occurs in fragments of teacups, small bowls, and a coffee cup. Another type has a border of diamonds within diamonds, elaborate floral designs delicately drawn, and a fine thin body. Similar sherds were found at Rosewell. At Marlborough the design survived in teacups, coffee cups, and saucers. There are several additional border designs, some associated with Chinese landscape subjects or human figures (figs. 76, ill. 24, and fig. 77, ill. 25). A coarse type with a crudely designed border hastily filled in with solid blue is represented in a partly reconstructed plate (USNM 60.122, fig. 77).

Polychrome porcelain is found in lesser amounts, although in almost as much variety. Three sherds of a very large punchbowl are decorated in red and blue. Fragments of a small bowl have delicate red medallions with small red and black human figures in their centers. Fine borders occur in red and black. Gold, yellow, and green floral patterns constitute another class (fig. 75).

Almost all the porcelain is of high quality, probably reaching a peak during Mercer's middle and prosperous years between 1740 and 1760. We cannot expect to find any porcelain purchased after his death in 1768, and certainly none appears to be connected with the Federal period or with the so-called "Lowestoft" imported in the American China trade after the Revolution.

FOOTNOTES:

[180] See BERNARD RACKHAM, _Catalogue of the Glaisher Collection of Pottery & Porcelain in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge_ [England] Cambridge, England: (Cambridge University Press, 1935), vol. 2, pl. 150 B no. 2053; and vol. 1, p. 264.

[181] I. NOËL HUME, "Excavations at Rosewell, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1957-1959," (paper 18 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 12-18_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 225, by various authors; Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1963), 1962. J. PAUL HUDSON, "Earliest Yorktown Pottery," _Antiques_ (New York, May 1958), vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 472-473; WATKINS and NOËL HUME, loc. cit. (footnote 173).

[182] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 180), vol. 1, p. 158.

[183] W. B. HONEY, "English Salt Glazed Stoneware," [abstract] _English Ceramic Circle Transactions_ (London, 1933), no. 1, p. 14.

[184] Ibid.

[185] Ibid.; BERNARD RACKHAM, _Early Staffordshire Pottery_ (London, n.d.), p. 20.

[186] BERNARD RACKHAM and HERBERT READ, _English Pottery_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), p. 88.

[187] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), pp. 86-87.

[188] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 92.

[189] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), p. 92.

[190] A. M. GARNER, _English Delftware_ (New York: D. Van Nostrand and Co., Inc., 1948), fig. 23B.

[191] Ibid., fig. 37.

[192] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 28.

[193] Ibid., pl. 57.

[194] RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), p. 96.

[195] Ibid., p. 97.

[196] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), pp. 85-95.

[197] RACKHAM, op. cit. (footnote 185), p. 29; RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), pp. 107-109.

[198] W. B. HONEY, _English Pottery and Porcelain_ (London: 1947), p. 89. [F99] _Wedgwood Catalogue of Bodies, Glazes and Shapes Current for 1940-1960_ (Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent: Warwick Savage, n.d.), pp. M1, M2.

[200] "The Editor's Attic" and cover: _Antiques_ (New York, June 1928), vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 474-475.

[201] RACKHAM and READ, op. cit. (footnote 186), p. 110.

[202] J. A. LLOYD HYDE, _Oriental Lowestoft_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 23.

XVI

_Glass_

BOTTLES

ROUND BEVERAGE BOTTLES.--Bottles of dark-green glass were used in the colonial period for wine, beer, rum, and other potables. Although some wines and liquors were shipped in the bottle, they were distributed for the most part in casks, hogsheads, and "pipes" before 1750. John Mercer recorded the purchases of several pipes of wine--kinds unspecified--a pipe being a large or even double-size hogshead. He purchased rum by the gallon, in quantities that ranged from 2 quarts in 1744 to "5 galls Barbadoes Spirits" in 1745 and a "hhd 107-1/2 gall Rum" in 1748.

Bottles were used largely for household storage and for the serving of liquors. They were kept filled in the buttery as a convenience against going to the cellar each time a drink was wanted. Bottles usually were brought directly to the table,[203] although the clear-glass decanter was apparently regarded as a more genteel dispenser. Mercer, like his contemporaries, bought his own bottles, as when he purchased "2 doz bottles" from John Foward in 1730. The previous year he had acquired a gross of corks, which would customarily have been inserted in his bottles and secured by covering with cloth, tying around the lips or string rings with packthread, and sealing with warm resin and pitch.

Some wines were purchased in the bottle. In 1726 Mercer bought "2 doz & 8 bottles Claret" and "1 doz Canary" from Alexander McFarlane. In 1745 he charged Overwharton Parish for "2 bottles Claret to Acquia," apparently for communion wine. Whether all this was shipped from the vineyards in bottles, or whether Mercer brought his own bottles to be filled from the storekeepers' casks is not revealed.

An insight into the kinds of alcoholic drinks consumed in Virginia in Mercer's early period is given in the official price-list for the sale of alcoholic beverages set forth in the York County Court Orders in 1726:[204]

This Court do Sett the Rate Liquors as followeth:

£ s. d. Liquors Rated

Each diet 1

Lodging for each person 7-1/2

Stable Room & Fodder for each horse p^r night 11-1/4

Each Gallon corn 7-1/2

Wine of Virg^a produce p Quart 5

French Brandy p Quart 4

Sherry & Canary Wine p Quart 4 4-1/2

Red & white Lisbon p^r Quart & Claret 3 1-1/2

Madera Wine p Quart 1 10-1/2

Fyall wine p Quart 1 3

French Brandy Punch p Quart 2

Rum & Virg^a Brandy p^r Quart 3-3/4

Rum punch & flip p^r Quart 7-1/2^d made with white sugar 9

Virg^a midling beer & Syder p^r Quart 3-3/4

Fine bottled Syder p^r Quart 1 3

Bristoll Beer Bottles 1

Arrack p^r Quart 10

It will be noted that Bristol beer was sold by the bottle, probably just as it was shipped, and "Fine bottled Syder" apparently came in quart bottles. Probably the wines were dispensed from casks in wine measures. Mercer bought Citron water in bottles, a half dozen at a time, as he did "Mint, Orange flower & Tansey D^o," in 1744.

Round beverage bottles ranged in shape from, roughly, the form of a squat onion at the beginning of the 18th century to narrow cylindrical bottles towards the end of the century. The earliest bottles were free-blown without the constraint of a mold, hence there were many variations in shape. After about 1730 bottles were blown into crude clay molds which imparted a roughly cylindrical or taper-sided contour below sloping shoulders and necks. These marked the first recognition of binning as a way of storing wines in bottles laid on their sides. About 1750 the Bristol glasshouses introduced cylindrical brass molds.[205] From then on the problem of stacking bottles in bins was solved and virtually all round beverage bottles thenceforward were cylindrical with long necks.

At Marlborough the earliest form of wine bottle is represented by a squat neck and a base fragment (USNM 59.1717, ill. 35), both matching onion-shaped bottles of the turn of the century, such as one excavated at Rosewell (USNM 60.660). Except for these fragments, the oldest form from Marlborough may be seen in the complete bottle found in refuse pit D (USNM 59.1688; fig. 78, ill. 37). This bottle is typical of the transitional form, sealed examples of which regularly occur bearing dates in the 1730's. Its sides are straight for about three inches above the curve of the base, tapering slightly to the irregular shoulder that curves in and up to a neck with wedge-shaped string ring. Two inches above the base is a seal, bearing the initials I^[C.]M above a decorative device and the date 1737. The arrangement of initials exactly matches that found on Mercer's tobacco-cask seals (p. 30 and footnote 89) indicating the "home plantation" at Marlborough.

Seals were applied by dropping a gather of glass on the hot surface of a newly blown bottle, then pressing into this deposit of glass a brass stamp bearing a design, initials, date, etc. Three similar seals from broken bottles also were found. The same arrangement of initials, but with no date or device of any kind, occurs on seven different seals (fig. 79, ills. 36 and 37).

The diameter of the base of the sealed beverage bottle is 5-1/2 inches, the widest diameter occurring on any bottle fragments from Marlborough, excepting the early specimen mentioned above. Bases in gradually decreasing dimensions vary from this size to 2-3/4 inches. Six bases run from 5 inches to 5-1/2 inches; 11 are over 4-1/2 inches and up to 5 inches; 4 are over 4 inches and up to 4-1/2 inches; 3 are over 3-1/2 inches and up to 4 inches; none, except the smallest of 2-3/4 inches, found in a mid-19th-century deposit, is less than 3-3/4 inches.

FOOTNOTES:

[203] LADY SHEELAH RUGGLES-BRISE, _Sealed Bottles_ (London: Country Life, Ltd.; New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1949), p. 18.

[204] _York County (Virginia) Orders & Wills 1716-1726_ (in York County courthouse, Yorktown, Va.), no. 15, p. 571.

[205] "Old English Wine Bottles," _The Wine and Spirit Trade Record_ (London, December 17, 1951), pp. 1570-1571.

BEVERAGE-BOTTLE BASES

_USNM_ _Inches in_ _No._ _Diameter_ _Provenience_

59.1688 5-1/2 Refuse pit D 59.1717 6 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-1/2 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-3/4 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 4-7/8 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 5 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1717 5-1/8 Structure F, firing chamber 59.1793 2-3/4 S.W. corner, Structure B 59.1870 5-1/4 Wall D, trench 59.1918 4 Structure E, N. side, Room X 59.1921 3-3/4 Debris area, N.E. corner, Structure E 59.1957 5 Structure F, N.E. corner of pavement 59.1957 5 Structure F, N.E. corner of pavement 59.1998 4-3/4 Structure E, N. of fireplace, Room X 59.1998 4-3/4 Structure E, N. of fireplace, Room X 59.2007 3-7/8 North of Structure E, lowest level 59.2007 4-1/4 North of Structure E, lowest level 60.83 4-1/2 Wall E, gateway 60.103 4-3/4 Trench along Wall E 60.117 5-1/8 Junction of Walls A-I and A-II 60.117 4-5/8 Junction of Walls A-I and A-II 60.120 5-1/2 Trash pit no. 2 60.123 5-1/2 Trash pit no. 2

Since beverage-bottle diameters diminished from about 5 inches in the 1750's and 1760's to about 4 inches in the 1770's and 1780's and to 3-1/2 inches in the 1790's and early 1800's, the peak of their incidence at Marlborough occurs between 1750 and 1770, the period of greatest opulence in the Mercer household.

OCTAGONAL BEVERAGE BOTTLES.--A rarely seen variation from the round beverage bottle is a club-shaped, octagonal, molded type with long neck, perhaps so shaped in order to permit packing in cases. Cider is said to have been put up in such bottles, and it is also possible that brandies and liqueurs were delivered in them. A quart-size bottle of this shape at Colonial Williamsburg bears the seal "I. Greenhow WmsBgh. 1769." Another, purchased in England, in the G. H. Kernodle collection at the Smithsonian Institution, also has a seal with the name "Jn^o Collings, 1736" (USNM 59.2170). A pint-size example, 9 inches high and dated 1736, is illustrated in plate 95e in the Wine Trade Loan Exhibition catalog.[206] A restored bottle of this form from Marlborough (USNM 59.1687, fig. 80, ill. 40) is 8 inches high, but bears no seal. Among the glass found at Marlborough are also three bases and other fragments of similar bottles.

SQUARE "GIN" BOTTLES.--Square bottles, usually called "gin" bottles, occur in the Marlborough material. Two base sections and lower pieces of the flat sides have been partly restored (USNM 59.1685, 59.1686, ill. 41), and a neck and shoulder have survived. The bases are 4 inches square, and the whole bottles were probably about 10 inches high. They did not taper but maintained a continuous dimension from shoulder to base. The bases, which are rounded on the corners, have a slightly domed kick-up with a ring-shaped pontil mark. The glass is olive green. The necks are squat--barely 7/8 inch--and have wide string rings midway in their length.

Square "gin" bottles were designed for shipment in wooden boxes with compartments in which the bottles fit snugly. Although Dutch gin customarily was shipped in bottles of this shape, indications are that the square bottles may have been used for other purposes than holding gin. For one thing, Mercer's ledgers mention no purchases of gin. There is, in fact, almost no evidence of the sale of gin in Virginia; a single announcement of Holland gin available in Williamsburg in 1752 is the exception until 1773, when gin was again advertised in the _Virginia Gazette_.[207] Its sale had been prohibited in England in 1736.[208] For another thing, square bottles were both imported and manufactured in America for sale new. In 1760 the Germantown glassworks in Braintree, Massachusetts, made "Round and square Bottles, from one to four Quarts; also Cases of Bottles of all Sizes ...,"[209], while George Ball, of New York, in 1775 advertised that he imported "Green glass Gallon square bottles, Two quart ditto, Pint ditto."[210]

A smaller base (USNM 59.1642) has a high kick-up, the dome of which intersects the sides of the base so that the bottle rests on four points separated by arcs. This fragment measures 3 inches square. An even smaller version (USNM 59.1977) is 2-3/4 inches.

SNUFF BOTTLES.--Several items in Mercer's ledgers record the purchase of snuff, such as one for a "bottle of snuff" in 1731 for 15d., another in 1743 for 3s., and a third in 1744 for 1s. 6d. Among the artifacts is a partly restored bottle of olive-green glass, shaped like a gin bottle but of smaller dimensions, with a 2-1/4-inch-wide mouth (USNM 59.1686, fig. 81). The bottle is 3-3/4 inches square and 7 inches tall. It has a low kick-up and a smooth pontil mark. Also among the artifacts are a matching base and several sherds of similar bottles.

MEDICINE BOTTLES.--Only a few fragments of medicine bottles occurred in the Marlborough artifacts. This is surprising, in view of Mercer's many ailments and his statements that he had purchased "British Oyl," "Holloway's Citrate," and other patent nostrums of his day. A round base from a greenish, cylindrical bottle (USNM 59.2056) seems to represent an Opadeldoc bottle. Another base is rectangular with notched corners. The last, as well as the base of a molded, basket-pattern scent bottle (USNM 59.2093) may be early 19th century in date. Other medicine-bottle fragments are all 19th century, some quite late (fig. 82).

FOOTNOTES:

[206] _Wine Trade Loan Exhibition of Drinking Vessels_ [catalog] (London, 1933), no. 226, p. 26, pl. 95.

[207] CAPPON & DUFF, _Virginia Gazette Index 1736-1780_, op. cit. (footnote 93), vol. 1, p. 451.

[208] ANDRE SIMON, _Drink_ (New York: Horizon Press, Inc., 1953), pp. 139-140.

[209] DOW, op. cit. (footnote 178), p. 104.

[210] RITA SUSSWEIN, _The Arts & Crafts in New York, 1726-1776_ (New York: J. J. Little and Ives Co., 1938), p. 99. (Printed for the New-York Historical Society.)

TABLE GLASS

A minimum of table-glass sherds was recovered, and these were fragmentary. Glass is scarcely mentioned in Mercer's accounts, although there is no reason to suppose that Marlborough was any less well furnished with fine crystal than with other elegant objects that we know about. Three sherds of heavy lead glass have the thickness and contours of early 18th-century English decanters, matching more complete fragments from Rosewell and a specimen illustrated in plate 98a in the Wine Trade Loan Exhibition catalog.[211] Two fragments are body sherds; the third is from a lip and neck.

Several forms of drinking glasses are indicated. A fragment of a foot from a long-stemmed cordial glass shows the termini of white-enamel threads that were comprised in a double enamel-twist stem. The twists consisted of a spiral ribbon of fine threads near the surface of the stem, with a heavy single spiral at the core. The indicated diameter of the foot is 3-1/4 inches (USNM 59.1761, ill. 43).

Fragments of large knops are probably from heavy baluster wineglasses dating from Mercer's early period before 1750. A teardrop stem from a trumpet-bowl wineglass has been melted past recognition in a fire. The stem of a bucket-bowl cordial glass has suffered in the same manner (USNM 59.1607). Still with their shapes intact are two stems and base sections of bucket-bowl wineglass. Two engraved bowl sherds from similar-shaped cordial glasses and a rim sherd from another engraved piece are the only fragments with surface decoration (USNM 59.1634, 59.1864, ill. 45). Several sherds of foot rims, varying in diameter, were found, including one with a folded or "welted" edge.

Tumblers, depending on their sizes, were used for strong spirits, toddy, flip, and water. The base and body sherds of a molded tumbler from Marlborough are fluted in quadruple ribs that are separated by panels 1/4-inch wide (USNM 59.1864, fig. 82c, ill. 46). Plain, blown tumbler bases have indicated diameters of 3 inches.

A few unusual, as well as more typical, forms are indicated by the Marlborough glass sherds. One small fragment comes from a large flanged cover, probably from a sweetmeat bowl or a posset pot. A specimen of more than usual interest is a pressed or cast cut-glass octagonal trencher salt (USNM 59.1830, fig. 82a, ill. 47). This artifact reflects silver and pewter salt forms of about 1725. A curved section of a heavy glass rod is apparently from a chandelier, candelabrum, or sconce glass (USNM 59.1696, fig. 82e). We have seen that Mercer, in 1748, bought "1 superfine large gilt Sconce glass."

Although precise dates cannot be ascribed to any of this glass, it all derives without much question from the period of Mercer's occupancy of Marlborough.

FOOTNOTES:

[211] Op. cit. (footnote 206), no. 244, p. 66, pl. 68.

MIRROR AND WINDOW GLASS

We know from the ledgers that there were sconce and looking glasses at Marlborough. Archeological refuse supplies us with confirmation in pieces of clear lead glass with slight surviving evidence of the tinfoil and mercury with which the backs originally were coated. One piece (USNM 59.1693) has a beveled edge 7/8 inch wide, characteristic of plate-glass wall mirrors of the colonial period. A curved groove on this piece, along which the fracture occurred, is probable evidence of engraved decoration.

Window glass is of two principal types. One has a pale-olive cast. A few fragments of this type have finished edges, indicating that they are from the perimeters of sheets of crown glass and that Mercer purchased whole crown sheets and had them cut up. It may be assumed that this greenish glass is the oldest, perhaps surviving from Mercer's early period.

The other type is the more familiar aquamarine window glass still to be found in 18th-century houses. A large corner of a rectangular pane has the slightly bent contour of crown glass, which is the English type of window glass made by blowing great bubbles of glass which were spun to form huge discs. The discs sometimes were cut up into panes of stock sizes and then shipped to America, or else were sent in whole sheets, to be cut up by storekeepers here or to be sold directly to planters and other users of window glass in quantity.

The centers of these sheets increased in thickness and bore large scars where the massive pontil rods which had held the sheets during their manipulation were broken off. The center portions also were cut into panes, which were used in transom lights and windows where light was needed but a view was not. Hence they served not only to utilize an otherwise useless part of the crown-glass sheets, but also to impart a decorative quality to the window. They are still known to us as "bullseyes." A piece of a bullseye pane of aquamarine glass occurs in the Marlborough finds. The pontil scar itself is missing, but the thick curving section leaves little doubt as to its original appearance. A similar fragment was found at Rosewell.

XVII

_Objects of Personal Use_

Costume accessories recovered at Marlborough are extremely few. There are six metal buttons, all of them apparently 18th century. One of flat brass (USNM 59.2004) has traces of gilt adhering to the surface; another of similar form (USNM 60.85) is silver; a third (USNM 59.2004) is copper. The silver button, 7/8 inch in diameter, could be one of two dozen vest buttons bought by Mercer for 18 pence each in 1741. A brass button with silver surface was roll-plated in the Sheffield manner (USNM 59.2004), thus placing its date at some time after 1762. "White metal"--a white brass--was commonly used for buttons in the 18th century, and is seen here in a fragmentary specimen (USNM 59.2004). One hollow button of sheet brass shows the remains of gilding (USNM 60.73). Only one example was found--a dark-gray shell button--that was used on under-garments (USNM 59.1819).

Among the personal articles are two brass buckles, one a simple half buckle (USNM 70.72, fig. 83d, ill. 48), the other a knee buckle (USNM 60.139, fig. 83e, ill. 49). Except possibly for a pair of scissors to be mentioned later, a brass thimble is the only artifactual evidence of sewing (USNM 60.74, fig. 83b, ill. 50). Four thimbles, mentioned in Ledger B, were purchased in 1729, and four in 1731.)

Parts of a penknife that were found consist of ivory-casing fragments, steel frame, knife blade, single-tined fork, and other pieces (USNM 50.1665, fig. 85). Two chalk marbles attest to the early appeal of that traditional game, as well as to the ingenuity that went into making the marbles of this material (USNM 59.1682). Chalk also was used to make a bullet mold, half of which, bearing an M on the side, has survived (USNM 59.1682, fig. 84b, ill. 51). A musket ball (USNM 59.1682) from the site could have been made in it. Two gun flints (USNM 59.1629 and 59.1647, fig. 84a) are of white chert.

An English halfpenny, dated 1787, was found near the surface in the kitchen debris of Structure E (USNM 59.2041, fig. 83c). Considerably worn, it may have been dropped after the destruction of the building. Two fragments of flat slate were found (USNM 60.95 and 60.113), as well as a hexagonal slate pencil (USNM 59.1685, fig. 85, ill. 54). It is clear that slates were used at Marlborough, probably when Mercer's children were receiving their education from the plantation tutors.

As usual in colonial sites, quantities of pipestem and bowl fragments were recovered. Virtually all the bowls reflect the typical Georgian-period white-clay pipe form, with only minor variations. Most of the stems have bores ranging from 4/64 inch (1750-1800) to 6/64 inch (1650-1750). A single stem fragment from a terra cotta pipe of a kind found at Jamestown and Kecoughtan, probably dropped by an Indian or early white trader, is early 17th century (fig. 84f), while two white-clay stem fragments have bores of 1/8 inch (1620-1650). A fragment of a pipe bowl has molded decoration in relief, with what appear to be masonic emblems framed on a vine wreath (USNM 59.2003, ill. 52).

XVIII

_Metalwork_

SILVER

Mercer, as we have seen, had a lavish supply of plate. Little of this, understandably, was likely to have been thrown away or lost, except for an occasional piece of flatware. One such exception is a teaspoon from the Structure B foundation (USNM 59.1827, fig. 86). It has a typical early Georgian form--ribbed handle, elliptical bowl, and leaf-drop handle attachment on back of the bowl. As in the case of small objects worked after the marks were applied, this has evidence of two distorted marks. Corrosion has obliterated such details as may have been visible originally, although there are fairly clear indications of the leopard's head crowned and lion passant found on London silver.

TABLE CUTLERY.--Fragmentary knives and forks from the site date mostly from before 1750. Forks are all of the long, double-tine variety. One, which may date back to the second half of the 17th century, has a delicate shank, widening to a tooled, decorative band, with shaft extending downward which was originally enclosed in a handle of horn, bone, or wood (USNM 59.1663, ill. 55). A fragment of a narrow-bladed knife (USNM 59.1882, fig. 85) may be of the same period as the fork. Two forks, each with one long tine intact, show evidence of having had flat cores for wood or silver handles (USNM 59.2029, 59.1939, ills. 56 and 57). The shanks, differing in length from each other, are turned in an ogee shape. Three blades, varying in completeness, are of the curved type used with "pistol-grip" handles (USNM 59.1667-1668, 59.1939). A straight blade fragment (USNM 59.1999) is probably contemporary with them. Only two knife fragments (USNM 59.1799 and 59.2082) appear to be 19th century (fig. 85).

One of the most unusual artifacts is a half section of a hollow Sheffield-plated pistol-grip knife handle. Sheffield plate was introduced in 1742 by a process that fused sheets of silver to sheets of copper under heat and pressure.[212] The metal, as here, was sometimes stamped (USNM 59.1668, fig. 86b).

FOOTNOTES:

[212] SEYMOUR B. WYLER, _The Book of Sheffield Plate_ (New York: Crown Publishers, 1949), pp. 4-5.

PEWTER

Three, whole pewter spoons, as well as several fragments of spoons, were salvaged from the large trash pit (Structure D). Two whole specimens and a fragment of a third are trifid-handle spoons cast in a mold that was probably made about 1690. One of these (USNM 59.1669, fig. 86g, ill. 58) has had two holes bored at the top of the handle, probably to enable the user to secure it by a cord to his person or to hang it from a loop. This circumstance, plus the presence of such an early type of spoon in an 18th-century context, suggests that the spoons were made during the Mercer period for kitchen or slave use from a mold dating back to the Port Town period. The spoons themselves may, of course, have survived from the Port Town time and have been relegated to humble use on the plantation.

A somewhat later spoon, with "wavy-end" handle, comes from a mold of about 1710. It has the initial N scratched on the handle (USNM 59.1672, fig. 86e, ill. 59). Another fragmentary example has a late type of wavy-end handle, dating perhaps ten years later (USNM 59.1672).

A pewter teapot lid with tooled rim and the remains of a finial may be as early as 1740 (USNM 59.1676, fig. 86c, ill. 60). Two rim fragments of a pewter plate also were found (USNM 59.1675, fig. 86a).

KITCHEN AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS

CUTLER'S WORK.--In 1725 Mercer bought a pair of "Salisbury Scissors"; there is no clue as to what is meant by the adjectival place name. He purchased another pair of scissors in 1744. In any case, a pair of embroidery scissors, with turned decoration that one would expect to find on early 18th-century scissors, was found in the site (USNM 59.1680, ill. 61).

IRONWARE.--Pieces of two types of iron pot were found. One type is a large-capacity version, holding possibly five gallons. It has horizontal ribbing and vertical mold seams (USNM 59.1645, 59.1845, 59.60.147, fig. 87). Such, perhaps, was the "gr[ea]t pot" weighing 36 pounds which Mercer bought from Nathaniel Chapman of the Accokeek Iron Works in 1731. Two other fragments are from a smaller pot. The inventory taken in 1771 (Appendix M) lists five "Iron Potts for Negroes," that were probably smaller than those used in the plantation kitchen.

Two heaters for box irons were found in the kitchen debris. A heavy layer of mortar adhered to one, suggesting that it may have been built into the brickwork--whether by accident or design there is no way of telling. In that case, however, the specimen would antedate 1749 (USNM 59.2024, 59.2026, fig. 87). Box irons were hollow flatirons into which pre-heated cast-iron slugs or "heaters" were inserted. Two or more heaters were rotated in the fire, one always being ready to replace the other as it cooled. In 1725 Mercer bought a "box Iron & heaters," and in 1731, from Chapman, "2 heaters."

Other kitchen iron includes the fragmentary bowl and stem of a long-handled iron stirring spoon (USNM 59.1812), an iron kettle cover (USNM 60.69), and the leg of a large, heavy pair of andirons (USNM 59.1826, fig. 87). A small, semicircular chopping knife has a thin steel blade and an iron shank that originally was inserted in a wooden handle. Lettering, now almost obliterated, was impressed in the metal of the blade: "SHEFFIELD WORKS 6 ENGLISH...." (USNM 59.1834, fig. 85a).

FURNITURE HARDWARE.--A few metal furniture fittings were recovered. Six curtain rings, cut from sheet brass and trimmed with a file, vary from 7/8 inches to 1-1/4 inches. On tubular ring (USNM 60.53, fig. 83) may have been used as a curtain ring, although signs of wear suggest that it perhaps may have been a drawer pull. A small, brass, circular escutcheon (USNM 59.1735, fig. 83) comes from a teardrop-handle fixture of the William and Mary style. A round keyhole escutcheon has tooled grooves and holes for four nails (USNM 59.1630, fig. 83), and dates from about 1750. The handsomest specimen of furniture trim found is an escutcheon plate with engraved linear decoration dating from about 1720 (USNM 60.71, fig. 83). An iron bale handle was probably on a trunk or chest (USNM 60.130, fig. 88e). A small strap hinge (USNM 59.1657, fig. 88) is like those found on the lids of 18th-century wooden chests, while a butt hinge may have served on the lid of the escritoire which Mercer owned in 1731 (ill. 63).

ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL HARDWARE

Iron was a fundamental material in the construction of any 18th-century building. Mercer's ledgers make repeated references to the purchase of hinges, locks, latches, and other related iron equipment. Most of this material was obtained from local merchants and was probably English in origin. However, the ledger records numerous purchases from Nathaniel Chapman of iron that was undoubtedly made at his ironworks. It is probable also that many simple appliances were made at Marlborough by slaves or indentured servants trained as blacksmiths.

HINGES.--Hand-forged strap hinges were employed throughout the colonies from the first period of settlement to the middle of the 19th century. In addition to the many fragments that probably came from such hinges, one artifact is a typical spearhead strap-hinge terminal with a square hole for nailing (USNM 60.146, ill. 64). Three pintles--L-shaped pivots on which strap hinges swung--were recovered. One was found at the site of a gate or door in the wall south of the kitchen (USNM 60.59, fig. 88l).

Fragments from at least four different H and HL hinges occur. Several entries in the ledgers refer to the purchase of such hinges. A nearly complete HL hinge, probably used on a large door, recalls an item in the account with Charles Dick for June 14, 1744, "2 p^r large hinges 9/" (USNM 59.1945, fig. 88). A piece of a smaller H or HL hinge is of the type used on interior doors (USNM 59.1767, fig. 88), while a still smaller section of an H hinge was perhaps used on a cupboard door. H hinges were more properly known as "side hinges," and we find Mercer using that term in 1729 when he bought a pair of "Sidehinges" for 9d. "Cross-garnet" hinges, where a sharply tapering, spear-headed strap section is pivoted by a pin inserted in a stationary, rectangular butt section, are represented by three imperfect specimens (USNM 59.1657 and 59.1881, fig. 88). Both these types are named, described, and illustrated by Moxon.[213]

LOCKS, LATCHES, AND KEYS.--Only one remnant of the ubiquitous 18th-century "Suffolk" thumb-press door latch was found at Marlborough. This fragment comprises the handle but not the cusps at the ends, by which the age might be determined (USNM 60.137, fig. 88). Mercer purchased an "Iron door latch" from Nathaniel Chapman for ninepence in 1731. In a complete assemblage for these latches, a thumb press lifts a latch bar on the reverse side of the door, disengaging it from a catch driven into the edge of the jamb. One large latch bar was recovered (USNM 59.1972, fig. 88f), as well as two catches (USNM 59.1644, fig. 88i, and 59.1801, ill. 65). Sliding bolts were the usual locking devices when simple thumb latches were used. A survival of one of these is seen in a short iron rod with a shorter segment of rod attached to it at right angles (USNM 59.1942, ill. 69).

Purchases of padlocks are recorded, but there is no archeological evidence for them. However, a well-made hasp (USNM 59.1655, ill. 66) has survived, and also three staples (USNM 59.1644, 59.1659, 59.2027, fig. 88j). Mercer bought six staples in 1742 at a penny each.

Apparently the principal doors of both the 1730 house and the mansion were fitted with box locks, or "stock-locks," in which wood and iron were usually combined. A heavy iron plate comes from such a lock (USNM 59.1943, fig. 88). Two stock-locks were bought from John Foward in 1731. Another was purchased from William Hunter in 1741. In the same year Mercer acquired from Charles Dick "8 Chamberdoor Locks w^{th} brass knobs." If by knob was meant a drop handle, then a fine brass specimen may be one of these (USNM 59.1944, fig. 83h, ill. 67). Fragments of three iron keys have survived, the smallest of which may have been used with a furniture lock (USNM 59.1644 and 59.1656, fig. 88h).

NAILS AND SPIKES.--The ledgers point to a constant purchasing of nails which is reflected in the great quantity recovered from the excavations. A 1731 purchase from Chapman comprised 2-, 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, 10-, 12-, and 20-penny nails, while in the 1740's not only nails but 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-penny brads were purchased, as well as 20-penny flooring brads. Excepting the last, nearly all these sizes occur in the artifacts. There is also a variety of heavy spikes, ranging from 3 inches to 7 inches in length (see ills. 70-73).

FOOTNOTES:

[213] ALBERT H. SONN, _Early American Wrought Iron_ (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1928), vol. 2, p. 9.

HANDCRAFT TOOLS

Marlborough, like most 18th-century plantations, was to a large extent self-sufficient, and therefore it is not surprising to find handtools of several kinds. A blacksmith's hammer (USNM 59.2081, ill. 74), for example, strengthens the view that there may have been blacksmiths at Marlborough. Other tools include a smoothing-plane blade of iron with a 1-inch steel tip (USNM 59.1897, fig. 89a); a set wrench for a 3/4-inch square nut or bolt (possibly for bed bolts), equipped originally with a wooden handle (USNM 60.91, ill. 75); a steel scraping tool or chisel with handle set at an angle (USNM 60.133, fig. 89b, ill. 76); a small half-round bit or gouge chisel (USNM 59.1644, fig. 89c, ill. 77). Three crude lengths of iron with stubby L-shaped ends appear to be work-bench dogs (fig. 89f).

One fine tool is from the equipment of a jeweler or a clockmaker (USNM 59.1664, ill. 78). It is a very small hammer with a turned, bell-shaped striking head. Originally balanced by a sharp wing-shaped peen, which was, however, badly rusted and which disintegrated soon after being found, the tool has a tubular, tinned, sheet-iron shaft handle which is secured by a brass ferrule to the head and brazed together with brass. The lower end is plugged with brass, where a longer handle perhaps was attached. In 1748 Sydenham & Hodgson, through William Jordan, imported for Mercer "A Sett Clockmakers tools." This entry is annotated, "Return'd to M^r Jordan." Although the hammer cannot be related to this particular set of tools, the ledger item suggests that fine work like clockmaking may have been conducted at Marlborough. This tool may have been used in the process.

FARMING, HORSE, AND VEHICLE GEAR

The 1771 inventory is in some ways a more significant summary of 18th-century plantation equipment than are the artifacts found at Marlborough, since its list of tools is longer than the list of tool artifacts and is pin-pointed in time. However, artifacts define themselves concretely and imply far more of such matters as workmanship, suitability to purpose, source of origin, or design and form, than do mere names. The Marlborough tools and equipment, moreover, correspond, as far as they go, very closely with the items in the inventory, thus becoming actualities experienced by us tactually and visually.

For instance, the inventory lists 22 plows at Marlborough. Among the finds is an iron colter from a colonial plow in which the colter was suspended from the beam and locked into the top of the share (USNM 60.88, ill. 79). The colter is bent and torn from exhaustive use (Chapman, in 1731, fitted a plow "w^{th} Iron" for Mercer). From it we learn a good deal about the size of the plow on which it was used and the shallow depth of the furrows it made.

Four chain traces were on the list, one of which is represented by a length of flat links attached to a triangular loop to which the leather portion of the traces was fastened (USNM 60.64, fig. 91b). The halves of two snaffle bits (USNM 59.2078, 60.67, fig. 91c; ill. 87) correspond to an item for eight "Bridle Bitts." (A "snafflebit" costing 1s. 8d. was among Mercer's purchases for 1743.) A third bit, crudely made of twisted wire attached to odd-sized rings, is a makeshift device probably dating from the 19th century. Three ox chains listed in the inventory are not distinctly in evidence in the artifacts, although a heavy hook, broken at the shank, is of the type used to fasten an ox chain to the yoke (USNM 60.9, ill. 80).

Archeological evidence of the two oxcarts and one wagon listed in the inventory is confined to nuts and bolts that might have been used on such vehicles. A long axle bolt (USNM 59.1802) measures 23 inches. A small bolt or staple, split at one end and threaded at the other, has a wingnut (USNM 60.145, ill. 81). A hook with a heavy, diamond-shaped backplate and a bolt hole was perhaps used on a wagon to secure lashing (USNM 59.2030, ill. 82). A heavy, curved piece of iron with a large hole, probably for a clevice pin, appears to be from the end of a wagon tongue, while a carefully made bolt with hand-hammered head (USNM 59.1821) and a short rivet with washer (USNM 59.1881, fig. 91g) in place seem also to be vehicle parts.

The inventory listed four complete harnesses, the remains of which are probably to be found in four square iron buckles (USNM 59.1644, 59.1901, 60.131, fig. 91h), a brass ring (USNM 59.1678, fig. 83), and an ornamental brass boss (USNM 59.1878, fig. 83j).

Twelve "Swingle trees" (whippletree, whiffletree, singletree) are listed in the inventory. The artifacts include three iron loops or straps designed to be secured to the swingletrees. One (USNM 59.2042, fig. 91b) still has two large round links attached. (In 1731 Chapman fitted ironwork to a swingletree.)

Ten "Hillinghows," 17 "Weeding hows," and 8 "Grubbing hows" are listed. In the long Chapman account for 1731 we see that Mercer then purchased "5 narrow hoes" and "2 grubbing hoes." The only archeological evidence of hoes is a fragmentary broad hoe (probably a hilling hoe) (USNM 59.1848, ill. 83) and the collar of another.

Thirteen axes are listed in the inventory. Again we find Nathaniel Chapman providing a "new axe" in 1731 for five shillings, while William Hunter sold Mercer "2 narrow axes" and "4 Axes" in 1743. One broken ax head occurs among the artifacts, worn back from repeated grinding and split at the eye (USNM 59.1740, fig. 89e).

There were four spades and an iron shovel at Marlborough in 1771. An iron reinforcement from a shovel handle occurred in the site (USNM 59.1847, ill. 84), while a slightly less curved strip of iron may have been attached to a spade handle (USNM 59.1662). Once more in Chapman's account we find evidence of local workmanship in an item for "1 Spade."

Thirteen scythes were listed in 1771; perhaps the one excavated from the foundation of Structure H on Potomac Creek may have been among these (USNM 59.2400, fig. 90). There were eight sheep shears; half of a sheep shears was found in Structure G (USNM 59.1734, ill. 85). Of the other items on the list, a few, such as stock locks and hammers, have already been mentioned, while the remainder of the list is not matched by artifacts. An item for a chalk-line is supported by a piece of chalk (USNM 59.1683, fig. 84).

A few specimens are not matched in the inventory. One is a springtrap of hand-forged, hand-riveted iron (USNM 59.1715, ill. 86) for catching animals. Another is a fishhook (USNM 59.1681, ill. 88), possibly one of 95 bought in 1744. An iron stiffener for the framework of a saddle is fitted with 10 rivets for securing the leather and upholstery (USNM 59.1847, fig. 91d). The third artifact is an elegantly designed brass fitting for a leather curtain or strap (USNM 59.1736, fig. 83j, ill. 89). It is fitted with a copper rivet at the stationary end for securing leather or cloth; just below the rivet is a recessed groove and shelf, perhaps to receive a reinforced edge; to the lower part of this is hinged a long handle cut in a leaf design. An iron hinge bar is part of the equipment for folding back the top of a chaise (USNM 60.178, fig. 91a). There are several horseshoes, two whole shoes and numerous fragments (fig. 91i and j). Finally, the handle shaft and decorative attachment of an iron currycomb (USNM 59.2077, fig. 91f) recalls Mercer's purchase of "1 curry comb and brush" in 1726.

XIX

_Conclusions_

Almost no exclusively 17th century artifacts were found at Marlborough; at least, there were very few sherds or objects that could not have originated equally well in the 18th century. The exceptions are the following: Westerwald blue-and-white stoneware with gray-buff paste; several sherds of delft and other tin-enameled ware, late 17th century in type, and an early 17th-century terra cotta pipestem. Otherwise, we find a scattering of things belonging to types that occurred in both centuries: North Devon gravel-tempered ware, which was imported both in the late 17th and early 18th centuries; yellow-and-brown "combed" ware, which elsewhere occurs most commonly in 18th century contexts; pewter trifid-handle spoons, the form of which dates from about 1690 but which may have been cast at a later date in an old mold (a wavy-end spoon in the style of 1710 may also have been cast later). Fragments of an onion-shaped wine bottle may date from the first decade of the 18th century, but the presence of such bottles in the Rosewell trash pit shows that bottles, being too precious to throw away, were kept around until they were broken--in the case of Rosewell for 60 or 70 years. Thus the Marlborough sherds cannot be excluded from the Mercer period. The same may be said of a late 17th-century type of fork. Thus, there is virtually no evidence of the Port Town occupation, especially as the few 17th-century artifacts that were found may well have belonged to the Mercers rather than to Marlborough's previous occupants.

The ceramics and glass are the most readily datable artifacts, and these coincide almost altogether with the period of John Mercer's lifetime. Common earthenwares are predominantly Tidewater and Buckley types, with a scattering of others, most of which are recurrent among other Virginia and Maryland historic-site artifacts. No distinct type emerges to suggest that there may have been a local Stafford potter. Common stonewares occur in such a variety of types that no source or date can be attributed, although there is some evidence of the work of William Rogers' shop in Yorktown. Westerwald stonewares are predominantly of the blue-and-gray varieties commonest in the second quarter of the 18th century.

There is only a small quantity of delftware, but a great deal of Chinese porcelain. Evidences are that the first kinds of English refined wares, such as drab stoneware, Nottingham stoneware, and agateware, were used at Marlborough, thus pointing to an awareness of current tastes and innovations. The large quantity of white salt-glazed ware suggests that, although it was a cheap commercial product, it was regarded as handsome and congenial to the environment of a plantation house that was maintained in formal style.

Except for the white salt-glazed ware, which was probably acquired in the 1760's, most of the table ceramics date from about 1740 to 1760. Bottles and the few datable table-glass fragments are also primarily from this period. Creamwares and late 18th- and early 19th-century whitewares diminish sharply in numbers, reflecting a more austere life at Marlborough in its descent to an overseer's quarters. Later 19th-century wares are insignificant in quantity or in their relation to the history of Marlborough. Tool and hardware forms are less diagnostic. Most of them correspond to ledger entries and to the 1771 inventory, so, without contradictory evidence, they may be assumed to date from John Mercer's period.

In general, the artifacts illustrate the best of household equipment available in 18th-century Virginia, and the tools and hardware indicate the extensiveness of the plantation's activities and its heavy reliance on blacksmith work.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

XX

_Summary of Findings_

Marlborough's beginnings as a town in 1691 cast the shape that has endured in a few vestiges even until today. The original survey of Bland and Buckner remains as evidence, and by it we are led to believe that the courthouse was located near the "Gutt" to the west of the town, near a change of course that affected the western boundary and all the north-south streets west of George Andrews' lots. Archeological excavation in the area disclosed Structure B, which subsequent evidence proved to be the foundation of Mercer's mansion, built at the pinnacle of his career between 1746 and 1750. No evidence exists that this foundation was associated earlier with the courthouse.

Two years after the second Act for Ports was passed in 1705, the second survey was made and was lost soon thereafter. There is evidence that the house built by William Ballard in 1708, on a lot "ditched in" according to this plat, was also in the vicinity of the courthouse. After Mercer moved into this house in 1726, it became clear that the two surveys were at odds, and a new survey was ordered and made in 1731. The maneuvers which followed make it fairly clear that Mercer's residence was encroaching upon the two acres that had been set aside for the courthouse, which by Act of Assembly had reverted to the heirs of Giles Brent after the courthouse had burned and been abandoned about 1718. The 1731 plat provided a whole new row of lots along the western boundary of the town, while pushing the original lots slightly to the east. This device would have assured the integrity of the courthouse land, while relieving Mercer of the uncertainty of his title. When Mercer's petition to acquire Marlborough was submitted in 1747 (the 1731 plat still remained unaccepted), he offered to buy the courthouse land for three times its worth. Since Mercer was guardian of the heir, "Mr. William Brent, the Infant," he was called upon to testify in this capacity at the hearings on his petition. Thus the courthouse, Ballard's house, and Mercer's mansion all appear to have been involved in a boundary difficulty, and we may assume, therefore, that the courthouse during its brief career stood close to the spot where Mercer later built his mansion.

This difficulty, in particular, was influential in determining the shape of the town, the manner in which Mercer developed the property and the peculiarities that made Marlborough unique. It was not until 1755 that he was permitted to acquire all the town and by that time Marlborough's character had already been fixed. We have seen that its outstanding feature, the mansion, was architecturally sophisticated, that leading craftsmen worked on it, and that it was as highly individualistic as its master. It was lavishly furnished not only with material elegancies but with a library embracing more than a thousand volumes.

Aside from the mansion, the area most actively developed by Mercer lay between it and Potomac Creek, with some construction to the north and the east. In 1731, Mercer built two warehouses which probably stood near the waterside at Potomac Creek where his sloop and schooner and visiting vessels found sheltered anchorage. These burned in 1746, but must subsequently have been rebuilt, since Thomas Oliver in his 1771 report to James Mercer commented that the "tobacco houses" must be repaired as soon as possible. They were probably among the buildings that Mercer had constructed up to 1747, when he reported that he had "saved" 17 of the town's lots by building on them. These lots comprised 8-1/2 acres in the southwest portion of the town.

The windmill was built on land near the river shore, east of the mansion. It was probably located a considerable distance from the shore, although erosion in recent times has eaten back the cliff. In the fall of 1958, half of the stone foundations collapsed, leaving a well-defined profile of the stone construction. Fragments of mid-century-type wine bottles found in the lower course of the stones support other evidence that the mill was built in 1746.

Mercer mentioned his "office" in 1766. This may have been a detached building used for a law office. Oliver in 1771 listed a barn, a cider mill, two "grainerys," three cornhouses, five stables, and tobacco houses. He mentioned also that "the East Green House wants repairing, the west d^o wants buttments as a security to the wall on the south side."

Besides the malthouse and brewhouse built in 1765 (which may have been situated at Structure H and the 100-foot-long stone-wall enclosure attached to Wall A), John Mercer in his 1768 letter mentioned "Cellars, Cooper's house and all the buildings, copper & utensil whatever used about the brewery," as well as the "neat warm" house built for the brewer. When the property was advertised in 1791, "Overseers houses," "Negroe quarters," and "Corn houses" also were mentioned.

The development of the area in the southwest portion of the plantation probably sustained--or established for the first time--the character originally intended for Marlborough Town. The situation of the mansion was undoubtedly affected by this, as indeed must have been the whole plantation plan. The archeological evidence alone shows that the plan was abnormal in terms of the typical 18th-century Virginia plantation. The rectangular enclosure formed by the brick walls east of the mansion doubtless framed the formal garden over which the imported English gardener, William Black, presided. It connected at the northwest with the kitchen in such a way that the kitchen formed a corner of the enclosure, becoming in effect a gatehouse, protecting the mansion's privacy at the northwest from the utilitarian slave quarter and agricultural precincts beyond. Walls A-I and A-II, however, related the mansion directly to this plantation-business area and caused it to serve also as a gate to the enclosure.

The position of the kitchen dependency northwest of the house is the only suggestion of Palladian layout, other than the garden. The southern aspect of the house and the rigid boundary to domestic activity imposed by Walls A-I and A-II probably prevented construction of a balancing unit to the southwest. Slave quarters, stables, and perhaps the barn apparently were located to the north.

Since it was not until 1755 that Mercer came into full title to the town, the town plan and its legal restrictions were influential in determining the way in which the plantation was to grow. The house and the surrounding layout were, therefore, wholly peculiar to the special circumstances of Marlborough and probably also to the individuality of its owner. The approach to the house from the waterside was to the south end of the building, leading up to it by the still-existing road from the creek and along the old "Broad Street across the Town," which probably bordered Walls A-I and B-I. The mansion thus had a little of the character of a feudal manor house, as well as some of the appearance of an English townhouse that abuts the street, with the seclusion of its yards and gardens defended by walls. In many respects it only slightly resembled, in its relationship to surrounding structures, the more representative plantations of its period.

The house was well oriented to view, ventilation, and dominant location. The veranda, which afforded communication from one part to another out-of-doors, as well as a place to sit, was exposed to the prevailing southwesterly summer winds. In the winter it was equally well placed so as to be in the lee of northeast storms sweeping down the Potomac. The view, hidden today by trees, included Accokeek Creek and a lengthy vista up Potomac Creek. Presumably, a road or driveway skirted the kitchen at the west and perhaps ended in a driveway in front of the house. The gate in Wall E south of the kitchen would have been a normal entrance for horses and vehicles.

Within the garden was the summerhouse built by Mercer in 1765. From the east windows and steps of the house and from the garden could be seen the Potomac, curving towards the bay, and the flailing "drivers" of the windmill near the Potomac shore.

The excavated and written records of Marlborough are a microcosm of Virginia colonial history. They depict the emergence of central authority in the 17th century in the establishment of the port town as a device to diversify the economy and control the collecting of duties. In the failure of the town, they demonstrate also the failure of colonial government to overcome the tyranny of tobacco and the restrictive policies of the mother country. They go on to show in great detail the emergence in the 18th century of a familiar American theme--the self-directed rise of an individual from obscure beginnings to high professional rank, social leadership, personal wealth, and cultural influence. They demonstrate in Mercer's career the inherent defects of the tobacco economy as indebtedness mounted and economic strains stiffened. In Mercer's concern with the Ohio Company and westward expansion they reflect a colony-wide trend as population increased and the need grew for more arable land and areas in which to invest and escape from economic limitations. They show that the war with the French inevitably ensued, with its demands on income and manpower, while following this came the enforcement of trade laws and the immediate irritants which led to rebellion. So Marlborough gives a sharp reflection of Virginia's history prior to the Revolution. It was touched by most of what was typical and significant in the period, yet in its own details it was unique and individual. In this seeming anomaly Marlborough is a true illustration of its age, when men like Mercer were strong individuals but at the same time typifying and expressing the milieu in which they lived.

Mercer's rise to wealth and leadership occurred at a time when favorable laws held out the promise of prosperity, while boundless lands offered unparalleled opportunities for investment. It remained for those best able to take advantage of the situation; Mercer's self-training in the law, his driving energy, and his ability to organize placed him among these. The importance of his position is signified by the justice-ship that he held for so many years in Stafford County court; the brick courthouse on the hill overlooking the upper reaches of Potomac Creek was the architectural symbol of this position. Although most of his income was derived from legal practice, it was his plantation that was the principal expression of his interests and his energies. Mercer was in this respect typical of his peers, whose intellectual and professional leadership, on the one hand, and agricultural and business enterprise, on the other, formed a partnership within the individual. The great plantation house with its sophisticated elegancies, its outward formalities, and its rich resort for the intellect in the form of a varied library, was the center and spirit of the society of which men like Mercer were leaders. With the death of the system came the death of the great house, and the rise and fall of Marlborough symbolizes, as well as anything can, the life cycle of Virginia's colonial plantation order.

Appendixes

APPENDIX A

Inventory of George Andrews, Ordinary Keeper

[Stafford County Will Book--Liber Z--1699-1709--p. 168 ff.]

An Inventory of the Estate of George Andrews taken the (six) October 1698. 6 small feather beads with Bolsters 5 Ruggs 1 Turkey Work 1 Carpet 1 old small Flock Bed boulster Rugg 4 pair Canvis Shooks 2 pair Curtains and valleins 4 Chests 1 old Table 1 Couch 1 Great Trunk 1 small ditto 1 Cupboard 2 Brass Kettles 1 pieis Dowlas 2 spits 1 Driping pan & fender 6 Iron Pots 5 pair Pot-hooks 6 dishes 1 bason 2 dozen of plates 4 old chairs made of kain 9 head horses + mares 3 Colts of 1 year old each 4 head Oxen 2 Chaine Staples 8 Yoaks 7 Cows + calves 1 Bull 2 barron cows 2 five year old stears 6 Beasts of a year old each 30 head of sheep being yews and lambs 4 Silver spoons 1 Silver dram cup 1 Lignum vitae punch Bowl 1 Chaffing Dish 1 Brass Mortar & Iron Pestle 2 ditto & 1 great iron pestle 1 broad ax 2 narrow D^o 1 Tennant Saw 1 Whipsaw 1 drawing knife 2 augurs 1 Frow 1 pair Stilliards & too with Canhooks 1 Saddle & Curb bridle 3 servants 2 Men 1 Woman 3 years + 6 months to serve 1 Welshman 4 years to serve the other servant named Garrard Moore 13 months to serve 1 old Chest drawers 1 old plow 1 old pair Cart wheels w^{th} a Cart 2 old Course Table Cloths & 8 Napkins 4 Towels 1 Gall^n Pott 1 Paile Pott 2 Chamber Potts 2 tankards a parsil of old Bottles 1 old Looking Glass 1 Grid Iron 1 Flesh fork & Skimmer 1 pair Spit hooks Iron square 3 pair Iron tongs 2 Nutmeg graters 3 Candlesticks 1 old Great Boat old Sails Hawsers Graplin 1 Box Iron 1 Warming pan 2 pair Pot racks

Jurat in Curia

Returned by John Waugh Jun^r

APPENDIX B

Inventory of Peter Beach

[Stafford County Will Book--Liber Z--1699-1709--p. 158-159.]

Estate of Peter Beach. Inventory taken by William Downham, Edward Mountjoy, W^m Allen "having mett together at the house of Mr. Peter Beach."

"Dan'l Beach Alex and Mary Waugh executors Nov. 20, 1702"

To 4 three year old heifers. at 350 Tob^o p 1400

To 1 stear 6 years old at 600 To 5 D^o 4 year old at 2000 2600

To the 2 yr old at 2800 To 2 Bulls at 600 3400

To 8 Cows & Calves at 4000 To 2 Barron Cows 900 4900

To 1 Mare & Mare Filly at 1200 To 1 two year old horse 400 1600

To 1 D^o 5 years old at 1000 To 1 very old D^o at 150 1150

To 1 Feather bedd + Bedstead + furniture 1500 To 1 do at 1200 2700

To 2 D^o at 2000 To 1 Old Flock Bed + Feather pillow at 300 2300

To one servant Bot 9 years to serve 3000 to 4 stoolth 8 Chairs @ 160- 3160

To 9 old flagg & boarded Chairs 130 To 1 small old table & stool 100 230

To 1 old Standing Cupboard 150 To Looking Glass at 30 100

To 1 pair small Stilliards at 60 to 1 Iron Spit+Dripping pan at 80 140

To 1 pair old Tongs and fire shovel at 30 To 2 Ladles+Chafing Dish 50 80

To 1 old Narrow Ax + frow at 30 To 1 Box Iron & Heaters at 25 55

To a passel of Glass Bottles at 40 To a Parcel of old Iron at 50 90

To 8 old Pewter Dishes and three Basons Ditto at 228

To 1 small Table Cloth + 6 Napkins at 50 to 4 Tinpanns 1 Copper Sawspan at 150 100

To 2 2 quart Potts 1 Pewter Tankard Old 20

To 1 old Warming Pan 20 To 1 Brass candlestick 1 Skimmer Old 15 35

To pasl of Earthen Ware 50 To 3 Iron Potts 2 p^r potthooks 250 To 1 Brass Kettle at 300 600

To 1 Brass kettle at 60 To 23 pewter plates old 110 To 4 old Chests 250 420

To 1 Frying Pan 1 Meal Sifter 15 To a parcel of old Tables and Cyder Cask 350 365

To 1 Pewter Sheaf[214] 50 To 1 old Gun 100 To 2 Bibles at 40 190

To 1 Pewter Chamber Pott 10 To 3 Pewter Salts 1 Dram Cup 15 25

To 1 pair Iron Spansils[215] at 50 ----- Total [_sic_] 26010

Daniel Beach was janitor of the Court House, being paid 200 pounds tobacco annually 1700-1703:

1700 and 1701--"To Daniel Beach for cleaning the Court House" 1702 and 1703--"To Daniel Beach for Sweeping the Courthouse."

FOOTNOTES:

[214] A cluster or bundle of things tied up together; a quantity of things set thick together. [New Oxford Dictionary]

[215] SPANCEL: A rope or fetter for hobbling cattle, horses, etc.; especially, a short, round rope used for fettering the hind legs of a cow during milking. [New Oxford Dictionary]

APPENDIX C

Charges to Account of Mosley Battaley for Goods Sold by Mercer

[From Ledger B, p. 1]

£ s. d. 1725 October

12^{th} To Ball^{ns}. y^r Acco^{tt} Book A for (75) 3 10 3 To a Sword & Belt 14 To 1 Snuff 8 To 1 best worsted Cap 5 To 1 p^r Neats Leather Saddlebags 12 9 To 2 silk Romall handkerchiefs @ 3/ 6 To 1 p^r Seersuckers 1 13 To 1 fine Hat N^o 7 13 6 To Cornelius Tacitus in fol. 7

13^{th} To 1 p^r mens white topt Gloves 1 6 To 50 4^p Nails 2

14^{th} To 5-1/4 y^{ds} Broadcloath at 9/ 2 7 3 To 7 y^{ds} Shalloone at 2/ 14 To 8 Sticks Mohair at 3^d 2 To 7 doz Coatbuttons at 7-1/2^d 4 4-1/2 To 4 doz. breast d^o at 3-3/4 1 3 To 3 hanks Silk at 9^d 2 3 To 1-1/4 y^{ds} Wadding at 10^d 1 3 To 1 p^r Stone buttons set in Silver 5

15^{th} To 1 p^r large Scissars 7-1/2 To 1 p coll^d binding 1 7-1/2 To 1 p holland tape 1 6 To 6 ells broad Garlix N^o F at 2/11 17 6 To 1 p^r womens wash gloves 1 6

19^{th} To 1 y^d black ribband 10 To 1 horn & Ivory knife & fork 1

21 To 1 fine hat N^o 7 13 6 To 1/4 y^d Persian 1 3 To 2 y^{ds} silk Ferritting at 5^d 10

22 To Cash won on the Race against Cobler 5

29 To 1/4 y^d broadcloath 2 3 To 1 q^t Rum 1 3 To a Sword & Belt 14 3 To Club in Punch 2 To 1^£ sugar & 1 q^t Rum 2

30 To Club with Quarles 9

Novb^r 20 To 1 quire best paper 1 6

Dec^r 13 To 1 narrow axe 2 3 16 To 1200 10^d Nails 5 30 To 1 p^r Shooebuckles 7-1/2 To 100 6^d Nails 9 To y^r Stafford Clks notes 162^£ tob^o 1 3

Feb 5 To Cash on Acc^t Thomas Harwood 10 ------------------- Mar 5 To D^o 18 6 11-1/2 ------------------- 21 To 1 q^t Rum & 1^£ Sugar 2 3

Ap^l 3 To 2 q^{ts} D^o & 1 y^d Muslin 6

26 To 1 q^t D^o to Tho^s Benson 1 6

Sept^r 16^{th} To 1/2 y^ Druggett 1 10-1/2 To 2 y^{ds} Wadding 1 6 To p^d for rolling down Thomson's hhd. tob^o 10 ------------------- £19 10 1

APPENDIX D

"Domestick Expenses"

[From Ledger B]

£ s. d. 1725

Sept^r 9^{th} To Cash for Exp^s at Stafford & Spotsylvania 1 3 To 7-1/2 y^{ds} Grown Linnen Sarah & Pitts 7 6 To 11 fowls & 1 quarter beef 17 6 To 100^£ Sugar to this day expended 2 16 6 To Cash for Exp^s Urbanna 3 1-1/2 To Horsehire &c 6 To p^d John Marnix for bringing my Sloop 2^d 10 To p^d his ferrage 1 3 To Cash for Exp^s Poplar Spring 1 3 To Exp^s at Bowcocks 10 To Exp^s at M^{rs}. Powers's 1 5 7-1/2 To a man to cart down Cook & barber 1 3 To Exp^s at Gibbons's 2 To Exp^s at Dalton's 15 To given Serv^{ts} at Col^o Page's 2 6 To 1-1/2 doz. red Port at 22/6 1 13 9 To 1-1/2 doz. mountain at 30/ [Note 1] 2 5 To Exp^s poplar Spring 2 3 To 1 bar^l tar & pitch for the Sloop 1 6 6 To 50^1 pork 8 4 To 25^l bisquet 3 6 To 1 China punch bowl 10 To 6 Glasses 3 To 8^l Candles 6 To given Servants at M^r Standard's 3 1-1/2 To Ferrage & Exp^s Piscattaway & Hob's Hole 4 4-1/2 To Exp^s Essex Court & Ferrage at Keys 1 3 To p^d William Warrell Wages 1 To p^d Patrick Cowan D^o 1 2 11 To horsehire from York 2 To a Trunk 6 To a Saddle & Furniture self 3 15 To 1-1/2 y^d Cotton 2 5-1/4 To 1 horsewhip 6 9 To 1 p^r Shooes & buckles Pitts 6 7-1/2 Oct^r 2 To 2 silk Romall handkerchiefs [Note 2] 6 To 6 loaves 9^s 38-3/4^£ double refin'd Sugar 2 18 7-1/2 To 2^l Tea at 15/ 1 10 To 6^l Chocolate 15 To 15-1/4^l Castile Soap at 13^d 17 1-3/4 To 15^l Gunpowder at 9^d 11 3 To 1 mans worsted Cap 3 10-1/2 To 1 Wig Comb & Case 9 To 1 purse wrought with Silver 2 3 To 2 p^r buttons set in Silver at 3/ 6 To 1 p^c 9^d 14-3/4 Ells bag holland at 7/10-1/2 5 14 2 To 2 p^r mens fine worsted hose at 6/ 12 To 2 p^r mens fine thread D^o at 5/ 10 To 1 p^r womens silk D^o 12 To 1 p^r womens fine worsted D^o 5 6 To 1 p^r Scissars with silver Chain 10 6 To 1 box Iron & heaters 9 9 To 1 fine hat n^o 6 12 To 1 fine Dandriff Comb 1 6 To 1 ounce fine thread 7-1/2 To 1 fine hat N^o 7 9 To 30 y^{ds} fine Dutch Check at 2/6 3/15 To 1 m^s pins 1 6 To 2 p^c tape 2 4 To 1 hat N^o 5 gave Sam 2 6 To 1 quire best paper 1 3 To 1 Storebook 1 5 To 1 p^r Seersuckers 1 13 To 1 hoop petticoat 1 1 To 1 womans side Saddle & furniture 3 11 3 To 2 y^{ds} silver ribband at 22-1/2 3 9 To 1 hat N^o 12 9 To 1 y^d fine strip't muslin 6 To 1 y^d fine Kenting [Note 3] 4 To 4-1/2 y^{ds} white Cotton Sarah at 18^d 5 9 To 4-1/2 y^{ds} filletting D^o at 3^d [Note 4] 1 1-1/2 To 2 skeins thread 2 To 1 p^r wom^s wash gloves 1 6 To 1/4^l w^t bio: thread 1 5 To 1/2 doz: plates 7 6 To 2 porringers 2 6 To 1 p^r fine blankets 1 13 To 1 y^d fine strip'd muslin 6 To 1 Cadow Sarah [Note 5] 3 6 To Earthen Ware 10 To 1-1/2 bushel Wheat 4 6 To 2 fowls 10 To Battalay's Account for Rum both in day 2 1 3 To 1-1/2 y^d red Cotton 2 5-1/4 To 1 p^r womens Shooes 3 6 To 1 p^r patterdashers [Note 6] 14 3 To 5 Candlesticks 17 6 To 1 Bed Cord 2 To 3 maple knives & forks 2 Oct^r 22 To Cash lost at a Race 2 To Tho^s Watts for Ditto 10 To Expences there 1 4 To 6 y^{ds} silk ferriting at 5^d [Note 7] 2 6 25 To 16-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons at 7-1/2 for Pease [Note 8] 10 3-3/4 To 1 P^r mens thread hose 5 To 1 p^r mens silk Ditto 1 1 To 2-1/4 y^{ds} fine Kenting at 4/6 10 1-1/2 26 To 1 p^r wom^s worsted hose 3 To 1 knife & fork 8 27 To a Steer 1 11 9 To 2 yew haft knives & forks 1 3 28 To 2 q^{ts} Rum 4 6 To 1 yew haft knife & fork & 1 p^r Studds 1 10-1/2 29 To 1 p^r Salisbury Scissars 2 6 To 1-1/2 Gallon Rum 4 6 To 1 speckled knife & fork 5 Nov^r 4 To 1 writing Desk 5 16 8 To 1 Glass & Cover 8 9 To 18^l Pewter at 1 8 To 6 tea Cups & Saucers 14 To 2 Chocolate Cups 2 4 To 2 Custard Cups 1 9 To 1 Tea Table painted with fruit 16 4 To 6 leather Chairs at 7/ 2 2 To 1 sm^l walnut eating table 8 To 1/2 doz Candlemoulds 10

GLOSSARY

1. "Mountain: 5. (In full _mountain wine_). A variety of Malaga wine, made from grapes grown on the mountains."--_A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles,_ Sir James A. H. Murray, ed., vol. 6 (Oxford, 1908), p. 711.

2. "Romal: 1. A silk or cotton square or handkerchief, sometimes used as a head-dress; a thin silk or cotton fabric with a handkerchief pattern."--Ibid., vol. 8, pt. 1 (Oxford, 1910), p. 764.

3. "Kenting: A kind of fine linen cloth."--Ibid., vol. 5, (Oxford, 1901), p. 673.

4. "Filleting: 2. a. A woven material for binding; tape; a piece of the same; a band or bandage."--Ibid., vol. 4 (Oxford, 1901), p. 217.

5. "Caddow: A rough woolen covering ... 1880. _Antrim & Down Gloss._ (E. D. S.) _Cadda_, _Caddaw_, a quilt or coverlet, a cloak or cover; a small cloth which lies on a horse's back."--Ibid., vol. 2 (Oxford, 1893), p. 13.

6. Patterdashers. Probably the same as "spatter-dash. A legging or gaiter extending to the knee, worn as a protection from water and mud." Webster's _New International Dictionary of the English Language_, second ed., unabridged; Springfield, Mass., G. & C. Merriam Co., 1958.

7. Ferreting. Same as "Ferret. 2. A stout tape most commonly made of cotton, but also of silk; then known as Italian ferret." Murray, _op. cit._, (no. 1) vol. 4 (Oxford, 1901), p. 165.

8. "Cantoloon. _Obs._ A wollen stuff manufactured in the 18th c. in the west of England." Ibid., vol. 2: (Oxford, 1893), p. 79.

9. "Soosy ... 1858. Simmond's _Dictionary of Trade._ Soocey, a mixed striped fabric of silk and cotton in India."--Ibid., vol. 9. pt. 1 (Oxford, 1919), p. 428.

£ s. d.

To 1 Tea table 18 To 1 brass chaffing dish 5 To 6 copper tart pans 6 Nov^r 4^{th} To 1 p^r mens yarn hose 2 To 1 silk Romal 3 To Expences Spotsylvania Court &C 1 7 4 To 1 p^r bellows To 2 funnells To Coffeepot, teapots, &c 7 To 1 Seabed Sheets Table Linnen &c 3 10 To Cash to Pitts to bear Expences at Court 2 9 To a pack of Cards 9 To 1 pair mens Shooes 5 6 To 1 silk Romall handkerchief 3 11 To 6-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons @ 9^d 4 8-1/2 17 To 16 q^r 22 y^{ds} Scotch Cloth @20^d-1/4 1 17 1-1/2 20 To p^d William Warrell Wages for this day 1 6 8-1/2 22 To 6-1/4^l tallow @ 6^d 3 16 To 3-1/2 y^{ds} Cantaloons & 40^l coll'd thread 3 4 To 1 maple knife & fork 1 25 To 154^l pork at 1-1/2 19 3 To 91^l D^o at 1-1/2 11 4-1/2 Dec^r 19 To 2 p^r wom^s Shooes 11 X^tmas To Cash for Lost at Cards & sundry Expenses 1 18 19 To p^d Thomas Morris for pork 6 7 5 To p^d Pitts Wages till February 4 19 9-1/2 To p^d Thomas Collins D^o till March 18 2 To 3 Ells y^d w^d Garlix 3/ 9 To sundrys from M^r Crompton p^r Acc^t 1 19 1-1/2 Feb 26 To 1 q^t rum 27 4 q^{ts} D^o 7 6 Mar 2 To 2 q^{ts} D^o 5. 1 q^{ts} D^o 7 2 q^{ts} D^o 8^{th}. 5 q^{ts} D^o 15 9 To 2 q^{ts} D^o To sundry Exp^s to this Day 1 10 To 2 q^t Rum 12th 2 q^{ts} D^o 15th 2 q^{ts} D^o 9 15 To 5 p^{ts} Rum 1^l Sugar & 2 y^{ds} Check 7 6 18 To 7 gall^s Rum & 16^l Sugar 2 9 6 To Cash for taking up W^m Hall's horse 10 To D^o at Stafford Court 4 To Sundrys to W^m Dunn 1 17 6 June 11 To cleaning out the house 6 9 To 1500 10^d Nails used about it. 11 3 To 1 doz. Canary 1 10 To p^d Tho^s Collins his Wages to May 11 3 To 2 doz & 8 bottles Claret 2 8 To 3 Cows & Calves & 1 featherbed 11 To 1 [?] Chints 18 To 21-1/2y^{ds} coll^d blew at 2.6 2 13 1-1/2 To 15 y^{ds} course Check at 16^d 1 To 12 y^{ds} best D^o 18 To Account Rum &c to this day 2 10 To Wheat Corn fowls &c 3 2 3 To sundrys of M^c farlane as p^r Acc^t 5 11 1-1/2 To sundrys of Alex^r Buncle as p^r D^o 15 17 9-1/2 To 7-1/2 y^{ds} y^d w^d Check @ 2/ to W^m Dunn 15 To 2-1/2 y^{ds} brown linnen @ 10^d to D^o 2 1 To p^d M^{rs} Bourne for sundrys 5 To p^d for a Coffin & digging ye Child's grave 1 5 To sundry Expences for fowls &c 17 4 To John Chinn's Acc^t ferrages &c for going to W^{ms}burgh 2 5 6 To 2 p^r Andirons 2 Trunks &c 2 7 6 To 2 dishes & 4-3/4 y^{ds} India Persian 1 13 1-1/2 To 1 p^r Shooes & buckles 6 To Cash to Bates to go for my horse 7 2 To D^o lost at Race & gave Scarlett Handcock 2 12 To Cash for Exp^s 3 9 To John Barber for going to Gloucester 11 6 To gave W^m Johnson 7-1/2 To paid for Apples 6 To paid Eliz^a Rowsey Wages 6 9 To 5 gall^s Rum 1 5 To sundrys bought of Thomas Hudson as by his account 12 6 10 To 1 y^d princes Linnen W^m Johnson 1 3 To Cash for 1/2 doz. Spoons &c 4 10-1/2 To D^o for Exp^s on a Journey to W^{ms}burgh 1 19 3-1/2 To Mosley Battaley's Acc^t for his fee for 1726 2 10 To allowed him for extraordinary service 4 15 1 To Peter Whitings Account Palms & Sail Needles 2 6 56^1 Cordage 1 8 3 To Cha^s McClelland's Account for sundrys Going to Col^o Mason's for Eliz Rowsey 10 Going to York & sundrys 1 5 6 Going to Nich^o Smith's 10 To Rob^t Spotswood's Account for sundrys 1 10 To Geo. Rust's Acc^t for 1 Ironpot 5 To John Dagge's Acc^t of sundrys 1 Oven 17 6 Bringing over 10 Sheep from Sumn^{rs} 5 To John Randolph's Acc^t for Lawyers fees 4 2 To Esme Stewart's D^o for Toys 2 To George Walker D^o for Law Charges 4 15 5 To 2 Gall^s Rum of Simon Peirson 10 To John Maulpus's Acc^t for 2 bar^{ls} Corn 1 1 To Thomas Hudson's D^o for 2 bar^{ls} D^o 15 To Joshua Davis's D^o for paid Thomas Jefferies for a Gun 2 To M^r Graeme's Acc^t for sundry books 2 9 3 To Jn^o Quarles's D^o for 1 p^r sm^l Stilliards 7 6 To Hen Woodcock's D^o for Ferrages 9 To Harry Beverley's D^o for Lawyer's fees 4 2 To Rob^t Wills's Acc^t for sundrys 18 8 To Rose Dinwiddie's Acc^t for 1 p^r mens yarn hose & 2 bush^{ls} Wheat 7 6 To Peter Hedgman's D^o for sundrys 2 2 7 To Mary Fitzhugh's D^o for 8 bus^{ls} Wheat 9 To Lazarus Pepper's D^o for Quitrent of 187 Acres of Land 4 6 To Quitrents of 2087 Acres of Land for the year 1725 2 8 To Cash Account for sundrys 11 8 To Rawleigh Chinn's Acc^t for sundrys 0 0 0 Keeping my horse for a Race 15 1-1/2 barr^l Corn 15 1 Shoat 18 Fodder 17^d 5 Geese 7/6 10 5 4 days hire Moll 1 3 Dressing Deerskins for Will Dunn 4 Plowing & fencing my Garden 1 4 A Gun 18 To Alexand^r M^cfarlane's Acc^t A Caddow & 1 p^r blankets 16 1 wom^s horsewhip 6 1£ Gunpowder & 10^£ Shot 5 10 1 womans bound felt 4 6 To 12^l Gunpowder & 20^l Shot 2 To Henry Floyd's Acc^t for 5 pecks Corn 2 6 To Ja^s Whalley's D^o for 7 fowls 3 To Ja^s Horsenaile's D^o for sundrys 1 19 9 To John Holdbrook's Acc^t for taylor's work 2 11 6 To John Tinsley's Acc^t for Fodder & tallow 14 To Hugh French's Acc^t for a Serv^t woman 12 To D^r Roy for a visit & medicines my Child 12 6 To Edw^d Snoxall's Acc^t for 1 bush^l hommonybeans 4 To Edw^d Simm's Acc^t for sundrys 6 11 11 To Ralph Falconer's D^o for D^o 1 10 To Tho^s Eves for fowls 4 6 To 1 olives 5 To 1 pair mens Shooes W^m Dunn 5 To 3 Ells Dowlass D^o 5 6 To 1-1/2 bush^l Corn 3 To 3-3/4 y^{ds} Check for finding my Saddle 5 To 10 y^{ds} fustian 2/6 1 5 To 5-1/4 doz Coat Buttons 10^d 4 2 To 3 hanks silk & 2 hanks mohair 3 2 To 4 Soosey handkerchiefs [Note 9] 12 To 12 yd^s Check & 1 p^r mens gloves 4 To 2 yd^s Wadding 1 6 To 6-1/4 bush^{ls} Corn 13 To 2-3/4 bush^{ls} pease 11 To 2 bush^{ls} potatoes 4 -------------------- £285 2 3-1/4

APPENDIX E

Mercer's Reading 1726-1732

[From Ledger B]

_Mr. John Graeme_

1726 By sundry Book bo^d of him belong^s to the Hon^{ble} Col^o Spotswood. Viz. The History of England 3 vols £4. 2 Clarendon's History 6 vols 2. 2 Tillotson's Works 15 vols 5.15 Plutarch's Lives 5 vols 1.10 Dryden's Virgil 3 vols 17.6 Cowley's Works 2 vols 13. Milton's Paradise Lost 6.6 Secret Memories 7.7 Chamberlayne's State of England 6.6 Wilkin's Mathematical Works 5.6 Petronius 5. Tilly's Orations 5.6 [Symbol: dagger]Bible 4 Hudibras 2 vol 5.3 Callipoedia 2. Dunster's Horace 6. De Gennes Voyage 3. Banquet of Xenophon 3. Congreve's Plays 4. Lock's Essays 12. Evelyn's Gardening 1. [Symbol: dagger]Littleton's Dictionary } [Symbol: dagger]Present State of Russia } [Symbol: dagger]Sedley's Works } 1. [Symbol: dagger]New Voyages } [Symbol: dagger]New Travels } [Symbol: dagger]Cole's Dictionary }

[All except those marked by [Symbol: dagger] are listed as returned on the debit side]

* * * * *

Law Books Bought of Mat Stotham May 1732 Salkeld's Reports 1.18. Ventris's Reports 1.15. Jacob's Law Dictionary 1. 8. Maxims of Equity 10. Cursus Cancellaris 6. Hearn's Pleader 1. 5. Lilly's Practical Register 2 vol 14. Treatise of Trespasses 6. Laws of Evidence 8. Laws of Ejectments 8. The 5 last extraordinary scarce

_Account of Books lent & to whom_ (1730)

History of the Netherlands Jn^o Savage July 13 Coles's Dictionary History of the Royal Society Col^o Fitzhugh Rochesters Works Andrew Forbes Evelyn's Sylva Ralph Falkner Woods Institutes 1^{st} Vol. Parson Rose Mathesis Juvenilia } Ozenam's Mathem. Recreations } Edmund Bagge Cockers Arithmetick Robert Jones 30 Mariners Compass rectified M^r Savage Travels thro' Italy &c Cap^t Hedgman Daltons Justice D^o

_A Catalogue of the Books bought March 1730 of Mr Rob^t Beverley_

Coke's Reports temp Eliz^a Reg 1.10 Dalton's Officium Vicecomitum 1. Coke upon Littleton 1. Cokes 2^d, 3^d & 4^{th} Institutes 2. 4 Cooks Reports 1. Laws of Virginia fol^o printed two 1. 4 Compleat Clerk 12. Swinburne [18th-century author] 12. Laws of the Sea 14. Godolphin's Orphans Legacy 9. Symboleography 14. Sheppards Grand Abridgment 1.10. Three Sets of Wingates Abridgm^t of Statutes 15. Instructor Clericalis in 7 parts 1.15. Woods Institutes 2 vol 8vo 12. Placita Generalia 5. Tryals per pair 5. Practical Register 6. Law of Obligations & Conditions 3.6 Reads Declarations 4. Clerks Tutor 6. Prasca Cancellaria 6. Fitzherberts new Naturabrevium 6. Brownlows Declarations 6. Clerks Guide 3.6 Melloy de Jure maritime 6. Grounds of the Law 3. Compleat Attorney 5. Terms of the Law 5. Finch's Law 3. Doctor & Student 3. Greenwood of Courts 3.6 Law of Conveyances 3. Practice of Chancery 5. English Liberties 2. Reports in Chancery 3. Meriton 3. Exact Constable 1. Littletons Tenures 2. Written Laws of Virginia 25. --------- £46. 7.6 Woodbridge of Agriculture The Compleat Angler Salmons Dispensatory The accomplished Cook History of the Royal Society

March y^e 4th 1730, I promise to deliver the above mentioned books being fifty two in number to M^rJohn Mercer or his Order on demand.

Witness my hand the day & year abovewritten.

Rob^t Beverley Test John Chew Copy

APPENDIX F

Credit side of Mercer's account with Nathaniel Chapman

[From Ledger B. Nathaniel Chapman was Superintendent of the Accokeek Iron Works.]

1731

Sep 9 By Ball^[a.] bro^[t.] from fol 36 £ . 2.4 By 500 2^d Nails @ 2/5 p m . 2.5 By 500 3^d D 3/ 3. By 1^m 4^d D^o 4/ 4. By 6^m 6^d D^o 5/ 10. By 4^m 8^d D^o 7/9 1.11. By 4^m 10^d D^o 9/6 1.18. By 8^m 12^d D^o 12/ 1.16. By 2^m 20^d D^o 14/ 1. 8. By 1 handsaw file 5^d .5 By 1 p^r mens wood heel shooes 6/6 6.6 By 1 half Curb bridle 6/ 6. By 1 halter 2/4 2.4 By 1 boys hat 2/ 2. 25 By 1 coll^d thread 3/ 3. Oct 29 By 16 1-1/2 20^d } Nailes }2000 20^d @ 1. 6. By 27 1-1/2 24^d D^o } 13/ By 2^m 8^d D^o 7/ 15.6 By 4^m 10^d D^o 9/6 1.16. By 5^m 12^d D^o 12/ 3. January 1 By 1 p^r girls Shooes By 4y^{ds} Cotton 2/4 9.4 By 1 double Girth 2/ 2. By 1 Garden hoe By 2-1/2 y^{ds} Kersey 4/1-1/2 10.3-3/4 By 1-1/2 y^{ds} Shalloone 1/9 2.7-1/2 By my Ord^r in favour of W^m Holdbrook 4. 1.3-1/2 By 2 hanks sowing Silk 9^d 1.6 By Cash overpaid 1.2 By 1-1/2 y^d Garlix N^o 24 2.5 10 By 1 Iron pot g^t 36^l-1/2 at 4^d 12.2 By 1 bushel Salt 2.6 By 1 new Axe 5. By 1 p^r pothooks & wedges 16^l-1/2 at 8^d 11. Feb. 7 By 1 plough & Swingle tree fitted of w^{th} Iron 9.6 By 5 narrow hoes 12.6 By 2 grubbing hoes 10^l-1/2 at 8^d 7. By 1 Ironwedge 4^l-1/2 at 8^d 3. By 2 new horse Collars 8. By 2 p^r Hames & Ironwork 1.6 By 2 p^r Iron traces g^t 19^{lb} at 8^d 12.8 By Iron door Latch 9 By 1 Ironrake 1.6 By 2 Heaters By putting a leg in an old Iron pott Mar By 17-1/2 double refin'd Sugar @ 16^d 1. 3. By 100^l Sugar 35/& 3 gall^s Rum 7/6 2. 2.6

-------------- £28.15.8-3/4

APPENDIX G

Overwharton Parish Account

[From Ledger B]

------------------------------------+--------------------------------- | Overwharton Parish Dr. | Contra | 1730 |1730 March | March 15 To a Book to keep the | By W^m Holdbrook's fine Parish Register £1.11. | for Adultery £5 To drawing Bonds between | By Ebenezer Moss's for Blackburn & the | swearing & Sabbath Churchwardens ab^t | breaking 1.15. building the Church 1. | By Edward Franklyn's for To fee v Moss 11.8 | swearing when reced 3. Ballenger | Cabnet | -------- | £9.15. | 15 | To 1/3 W^m Holdbrooks's | fine 1.13.4 | To 1/3 Eliz^a Bear's D^o | To fee v Franklyn 1. | To paid Burr Harrison by | Ord^o Vestry 2.10. | ------- | £8.11 | £1.4 | ------- | £9.15 | 1732 |1732 April | To fee v Coulter £ .15. | March 25 | By Ball^a 1.4 | By Eliz^a Ballengers fine | for a bastard | By Alice Jefferies' D^o | By Ann Holt's D^o

APPENDIX H

Colonists Identified by Mercer According to Occupation

[From Ledger G]

William Hunter Merchant Fredericksburg Jonathan Foward Merchant London William Stevenson Merchant London Robert Rae Merchant Falmouth Robert Tucker Merchant Norfolk David Minitree Bricklayer [Williamsburg] Thomas Ross Merchant Alexandria William Monday Carpenter Abraham Basnett Oysterman John Booth Weaver John Pagan Merchant Fairfax John Grigsby Smith Stafford Francis Hogans Wheelwright Caroline Doctor Spencer [Physician] Fredericksburg William Threlkeld Weaver Elliott Benger Loftmaster Gen'l. William Brownley [Bromley] Joiner Andrew Beaty Joiner George Wythe Attorney-at-Law Williamsburg William Jackson Wheelwright Stafford James Griffin Carpenter William Thomson Tailor Fredericksburg Jacob Williams Plasterer Joseph Burges Plasterer Henry Threlkeld Merchant Quantico Cavan Dulany Attorney-at-law [Prince William?] Peter Murphy Sawyer John Fitzpatrick Weaver Cuthbert Sandys Merchant Fredericksburg Henry Mitchell Merchant Occaquan John Harnett Ship Carpenter Nanjemoy John Graham Merchant Essex Fielding Lewis Merchant Fredericksburg Robert Duncanson Merchant Fredericksburg John Fox Smith Fredericksburg Robert Gilchrist Merchant Port Royal Robert Jones Attorney-at-Law Surrey [Jonathan] Sydenham & Hodgson Merchants King George Watson & Cairnes Merchants Nansemond William Prentis Merchant Williamsburg William Mills Weaver Stafford Thomas Barry Bricklayer Edward Powers Shoemaker Caroline Clement Rice Shoemaker King George William Ramsay Merchant Fairfax Andrew Sproul Merchant Norfolk Richard Savage Merchant Falmouth Charles Dick Merchant Fredericksburg William Miller Horse Jockey Augusta Charles Jones Tailor Williamsburg Peter Scott Joiner Williamsburg William Copen [Copein] Mason Prince William John Blacke Gardener Marlborough Richard Gamble Barber Williamsburg Launcelot Walker Merchant John Rider Waterman Maryland John Proby Pilot Hampton John Hyndman Merchant Williamsburg James Craig Jeweler Williamsburg Robert Crichton Merchant Williamsburg John Simpson Wheelwright Fredericksburg George Charleton Tailor Williamsburg Hugh MacLane Tailor Stafford William Kelly Attorney Prince William Walter Darcy Harnessmaker John Carlyle Merchant Fairfax ---- Kirby Mason King George

APPENDIX I

Materials Listed in Accounts with Hunter and Dick, Fredericksburg Alphabetical Summary of Materials listed in Ledger G in Mercer's accounts with William Hunter and Charles Dick, merchants of Fredericksburg. Definitions are based on information in _A New Oxford Dictionary_, Webster's _New International Dictionary_ (second edition, unabridged), _Every Day Life in the Massachusetts_ Bay Colony, by George F. Dow (Boston, 1935), and a series of articles by Hazel E. Cummin in _Antiques_: vol. 38, pp. 23-25, 111-112; vol. 39, pp. 182-184; vol. 40, pp. 153-154, 309-312.

ALLAPINE: A mixed stuff of wool and silk, or mohair and cotton.

BOMBAYS: Raw cotton.

BOMBAZINE: A twilled or corded dress material of silk and worsted, sometimes also of cotton and worsted, or of worsted alone. In black, used for mourning.

BROADCLOTH: A fine, smooth woolen cloth of double width.

BUCKRAM: A kind of coarse linen or cotton fabric, stiffened with gum or paste. Murray quotes Berkeley, _Alicphr_ ... (1832), "One of our ladies ... stiffened with hoops and whalebone and buckram."

CALAMANCO: A light-weight material of wool or mohair and wool, sometimes figured or striped, sometimes dyed in clear, bright colors, and calendered to a silky gloss to resemble satin.

CALICO: Murray defers to Chambers' _Cyclopaedia_ definition (1753): "An Indian stuff made of cotton, sometimes stained with gay and beautiful colours ... Calicoes are of divers kinds, plain, printed, painted, stain'd, dyed, chints, muslins, and the like." It is not to be confused with the modern material of the same name.

CAMBRIC: A fine white linen or cotton fabric, much used for handkerchiefs and shirts, originally made at Cambray in Flanders.

CAMLET: A class of fine-grained material of worsted or mohair and silk, sometimes figured, sometimes "watered." _Moreen_ is one of its subtypes.

CHECK: Any checked, woven or printed, material.

DUFFEL: A woven cloth with a thick nap, synonymous with _shag_. Made originally at Duffel, near Antwerp. In a passage quoted by Murray, Defoe (_A Tour of Great Britain_) mentions its manufacture at Witney, "a Yard and three quarters wide, which are carried to New England and Virginia."

FRIEZE: A coarse woolen cloth with a nap on one side.

GARLIX: Linen made in Gorlitz, Silesia, in several shades of blue-white and brown.

HOLLAND: A linen material, sometimes glazed, first made in Holland.

KERSEY (often spelled "Cresoy" by Mercer): A coarse, long-fiber woolen cloth, usually ribbed, used for stockings, caps, etc.

SHALLOON: A closely woven woolen material used for linings.

PRUNELLA: A stout, smooth material, used for clergymen's gowns, and later for the uppers of women's shoes.

TAMMY: A plain-woven worsted material, with open weave. Used plain, it served for flour bolts, soup and milk strainers, and sieves. Dyed and glazed, and sometimes quilted, it was used for curtains, petticoat linings, and coverlets.

TARTAN: Woolen cloth woven in Scotch plaids.

In addition to these fabrics, there are listed "China Taffety," "Silv^r Vellum," "worsted," "Pomerania Linnen," "Russia Bedtick," "Irish linnen," "1 yd. India Persian," "worsted Damask," "Mechlin lace" (a costly Belgian pillow lace, of which Mercer purchased nine yards of "No. 3" at five shillings, and eight yards of "N^o 4" at six shillings), "sprig Linnen," and "6 silk laces at 4-1/2."

For trimming and finishing, one finds white thread, black thread, nun's thread, brown thread, blue thread, red thread, colored thread (all bought by the pound), gingham and hair buttons, "gold gimp ribband," "pair Womens buckles," fringe, coat buttons, vest buttons, scarlet buttons, silver coat buttons, shirt buttons, "mettle" vest buttons, "fine" shirt buttons, "course" shirt buttons, "Card sleeve buttons," silver sleeve buttons, and cording. There were several purchases of haircloth, used principally in stiffening lapels and other parts of men's clothing, but used also for towels, tents, and for drying malt and hops.

APPENDIX J

Account of George Mercer's Expenses while Attending the College of William and Mary

[From Ledger G]

Son's Maintenance at Williamsburg, Dr.

1750 April 5 To Cash £ 1. 7.6 To D^o p^d M^r. Robinson for Entranc £4.12. M^r. Graeme D^o 4.12. M^r. Preston D^o 4. 6. 8 M^r. Davenport D^o 1.12. 6 Housekeeper 3.10. for Candles 15.10 for Pocket money 3. 6. 4 22.15.4 -------- To Cash p^d for Lottery Tickets 7.10.6 To D^o p^d for washing 1. 1. To M^r Dering for Board 5. To Peter Scott for mending a Table 2.6 To Housekeeping at Williamsburg for sundrys Viz A Featherbed & furniture £8. A Desk 1. 1. 6 An oval Table 1. 1. 3 Chairs 7/ 1. 1. 11. 3.6 --------- -------- July To General Charges for sundrys Viz To Cash p^d M^r Preston as advanced for George £2. 3 to George 2. 3 to the Usher 1.11. 3 5.17.3 ---------

August To Cash p^d the Nurse attending J^{no} & Ja^s £2. 3. to John & James 1. 1. 6 3. 4.6 ---------

To W^m Thomson for Taylors work 3.10.6 Septemb^r To Cash to George 1. 1.6 October To D^o to D^o to John James & Nurse 6. 9. To John Holt for sundrys 4. 5.7-1/2 To James Cocke for D^o 1.15.9 To Covington the dancing master 2. 3. To James Power for Cash to George 2.3 To William Prentis for sundrys 18. 1.3-1/2 To Rich^d Gamble for two wigs & shaving 5. 7.3 To Books for sundrys 22. 4.7-1/2 To W^m Thomson for Taylors work 1. 9.6 -------------- £126.13.1-1/2

APPENDIX K

John Mercer's Library

[From Ledger G]

"The prices are the first Cost in Sterling money exclusive of Commission, Shipping or other Charges."

Sterling LAW BOOKS

_Abridgments_ Cases in Equity abridged £ 18. Danvers's Abridgment 3 vol 3.10. Viner's Abridgment 6 vol 8. 8. Davenport's Abridgm^t of Coke on Littleton 2. Hughes's Abridgm^t 2 vol 10. Ireland's Abridgm^t of Dyer's Reports 2. Rolle's Abridgm^t interleaved 2 vol 5. Salmon's Abridgm^t of the State trials 1.15. Statutes abridged by Cay 2 vol 2.10. State trials abridged 1 vol 5.6 Virginia Laws Abridged 8.

_Conveyancing_ Ars Clericalis 1 vol 4.6 Compleat Conveyancer 5. Clerk's Guide 5. Clerk & Scriveners Guide 8. Herne's Law of Conveyances 2. Lawyer's Library 3.6 West's Symboleography 5.

_Courts & Courtkeeping_ Attorneys Practise in C B 6. Attorney's Practise in B R 2 vol 12. Coke's Institutes 4^{th} Part 15. RK Crown Circuit Companion 6. History of the Chancery 2.6 AR Practise in Chancery 2 vol 7. Practick Part of the Law 6. GI Rules of Practise commonplaced 4. Practise of Chancery 1672 1.6 AR Harrison's Chancery Practiser 6.

_Crown_ Coke's Institutes 3rd Part 15. Hale's History of the Pleas of the Crown 2.10. 2 vol/ Hawkins Pleas of the Crown 1.10. Hale's Continuation of the Crown Laws 2.6 Sutton de Pace Regis 5.

_Dictionaries_ Consell's Interpreter 10. Jacobus's Law Dictionary 1. 8. Law French Dictionary 6. RI Students Law Dictionary 5. AR Term's de la Loy 5.

_Entries_ Aston's 3. TA Brown Lows' Declarations 12. AR Bohun's Declarations 6. Brown's modus intrandi, 2 vol 12. Clift's 1.10. Coke's 1. 1. Lilly's 1. 5. Mallory's Quarer Impedit 17. Placila generalia & specialia 3. Rastallo 1. 1. Robinson's 10. Read's Declarations 3. Vidiano 10. Thompson's 1. _Justices of Peace_ Justicio vade mecum 2. Keble's Assistant to Justices 5. Manual for Justices 1641 2.

_Maxims_ Doctor & Student 3.6 Finch's Law 4. Francis's Maxims of Equity 8. Hale's History & Analysis of the Laws 6. Hale's Hereditary Descants 1.6 Hawks's Grounds of the Laws of England 3. Perkins's Laws 2.6 Treatise of Equity 8.6 Woods Institutes of the Laws of England 1. 5.

_Miscellanies_ Booth's Real Actions 8. GI Baron & ferne 6. Billinghurst of Bankrupts 1.6 Britton 5. Brown of fines & Recoveries 5. Coke's Institutes. Comments on Littleton