[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 58.--DRAWING MADE IN 1743, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek (orientation to south).

(Fredericksburg Suit Papers.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 59.--ENLARGED DETAIL from lower right portion of figure 58, showing location of Stafford courthouse south of Potomac Creek.]

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 a.s.sembly 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 pet.i.tion 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]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 60.--EXCAVATION PLAN of Stafford courthouse foundation.]

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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 61.--HANOVER COURTHOUSE, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation.]

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 pa.s.sed 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Ill.u.s.tration 5.--Above, left, reconstructed wine bottle from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-fourth.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Ill.u.s.tration 6.--Top, right, fragment of molded white salt-glazed-ware platter from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Ill.u.s.tration 7.--Lower, right, iron bolt from Potomac Creek courthouse site. One-half.]

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 a.s.sOCIATED 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 oystersh.e.l.l 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Ill.u.s.tration 8.--Above, left, stone sc.r.a.ping tool.

One-half.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Ill.u.s.tration 9.--Above, right, Indian celt. Found near gate in Wall E. One-half.]

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 gla.s.s, 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 ma.s.s 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 62.--PLAN OF KING WILLIAM COURTHOUSE, whose plan dimensions correspond closely to the Stafford foundation. (_Courtesy of Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress._)]

Evidence of the structure is found in a large number of hand-forged nails, in quant.i.ties of window gla.s.s melted and distorted, and in pieces of plaster. The last is the typical hard, coa.r.s.e oystersh.e.l.l 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 gla.s.s occurred. One, the earliest type, is a thin, yellowish gla.s.s which is coated with irridescent scale caused by the breakdown of the gla.s.s surface. None of this gla.s.s 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 acc.u.mulated in thick ma.s.ses where tremendous heat caused the panes literally to fold up. A fragment of yellowish-green gla.s.s 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 gla.s.s.

ARCHITECTURAL a.n.a.lYSIS

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 compa.s.s-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 a.s.sume 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, Ma.s.s., 1959), vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 2-10.

[170] Ibid.

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