His Ledger B reveals that as early as 1730 his legal career was becoming firmly established. It records fee accounts, charges for drawing deeds, writing bonds, and representing clients in various courts. In that year he "subscribed to Laws of Virginia" through William Parks, the Williamsburg printer and stationer, and began to build up a substantial law library, which was augmented by the purchase of 40 lawbooks from Robert Beverley.

DIFFICULTIES IN ACQUIRING MARLBOROUGH

On October 13, 1730, Mercer obtained t.i.tle from David Waugh to the Ballard house and lots on the basis of the "Statute for transforming uses into possessions." At the same time he acquired the three lots originally granted to John Waugh, while nine months later he was given the release of the three lots inherited by George Mason from his father.[60] Mercer's foothold in Marlborough was now secure.

Following these developments, he "employed the County Surveyor to lay off the several Lots he had purchased," which led to the discovery of the previously mentioned disparities and conflicts between the Buckner survey of 1691 and the missing Gregg survey of 1707. For some reason the town now lacked feoffees, so Mercer "applied to the County Court of Stafford on the tenth day of June one thousand seven hundred and thirty-one and the said Court then appointed Henry Fitzhugh Esquire and James Markham Gent. Feofees of the said Town." Mercer stated that he "proposed making great Improvements ... and wanted to take up several other Lots to build on." The court thereupon ordered John Savage, the county surveyor, to make a new survey, "having regard to the Buildings and Improvements then standing"--a significant instruction, intended no doubt to permit the reconciling of conflicting t.i.tles with respect to what actually was built.[61]

The new survey was laid out July 23, 1731, "in the presence of the said Feoffees," and drawn with the same plan and numbering as Buckner's, except that an additional row of lots was applied along the western border of the town, compressing slightly the former lots as planned by Buckner and pushing them eastward (fig. 2). This extra row, we have reason to believe, was added with "regard to the Buildings and Improvements then standing."

At the time of the survey, the feoffees told Mercer "that he might proceed in his Buildings and Improvements on any the said Lots not before granted," promising that they would at any time make him "any t.i.tle they could lawfully pa.s.s." A proposal by Fitzhugh to give t.i.tle to any lots already purchased or any which Mercer might take up under terms of the Port Act of 1705 was discouraged by Mercer's lawyer, Mr. Hopkins, who took the view that, since the three surveys conflicted, the deeds would not be good. Accordingly, Fitzhugh and Mercer applied for an "amicable Bill," or suit in chancery, in the General Court, in order "to have Savage's or any particular Survey established." The request was shelved, however, and still was unanswered in 1748.

The extra row of lots and the court's instructions to Savage to make his survey with "Regard to the Buildings and Improvements then Standing"

seem to be correlated. Savage made a significant notation on his survey plat: "The lots marked 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, & 21 joining to the Creek are in possession of Mr. John Mercer who claims them under Robinson, Berryman, Pope & Parry, & under Ballard & under John Waugh dec^{ed}, all w^{ch} he says have been built on and saved." On the Buckner plat the lots bearing these numbers comprise a block of six in the southwest corner of the town, extending up from the creek in two 3-tiered rows (fig. 2). The plat included the lots near the head of the "gutt" where the courthouse appears to have stood, as well as the land on which Structure B (the foundation of Mercer's mansion) was excavated. The lots appear in the same relationship on Savage's survey, except that the new row bounds them on the west.

We know that the Robinson-Berryman-Pope-Parry lot was the same lot originally granted to Robert Alexander in 1691, numbered 19 on Buckner's plat. It was granted to its later owners according to the Gregg survey in 1707, and was then described as "being the first Lott known in the Survey Platt by number 1." From Mercer we have learned already that Gregg made "his number 1 in the corner at Buckner's 19."

The other five lots were claimed under Ballard and John Waugh. Waugh was granted one lot in 1691--Buckner's number 20--and acquired two more in 1707. All three appear to have been in the corner block of six lots. In any case, these six lots equal the number of lots known to have been granted the above-listed lot holders. Both of Ballard's lots were granted in 1707. His lot number 19 (Gregg survey), where Mercer first lived, is described as "bounding Easterly with a lott surveyed for Mr.

John Waugh Westerly with a Narrow street Northerly with a lott not yet surveyed, Southerly with the first main Street which is parallel with Potomac Creek." We do not know which of Waugh's lots is meant, nor do we know Gregg's street plan, except that it was at odds with Buckner's. But it is probable that Ballard's lot (Gregg's number 19) was the same as Buckner's number 21, that the crosstown street on Gregg's plat lay to the south of the lot rather than to the north of it, as on Buckner's plat, and that one of Waugh's lots lay to the east of it.[62]

a.s.suming that the two acres for the courthouse were located near the head of the "gutt" and that Ballard's lot 19 was approximately the same as Buckner's 21, it is apparent that Ballard's lot must have overlapped the courthouse lots in the confusion between the two surveys. Since Mercer was living on Ballard's lot, he probably infringed on the courthouse property. Even though the courthouse had been burned and abandoned, the two acres a.s.signed to it were required to revert to the original owner, as provided in the Act of 1667, concerning church and courthouse lands. In this case, the courthouse land, having been "deserted," had reverted to the heir of Giles Brent.

Mercer's embarra.s.sment at this state of affairs must have been great.

However, the addition by Savage of a whole new row of lots along the westerly border of the town created new acreage, sufficient both to reconcile the conflict and to provide compensatory land to satisfy the Brents. Unfortunately, the Savage survey, as we have noted, was not made official, and Mercer was forced to continue his questionable occupancy of properties whose t.i.tles were in doubt.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Figure 5.--KING WILLIAM COURTHOUSE, about 1725. Mercer often pleaded cases here. (From a Civil War period negative.) (_Courtesy of Historic American Buildings Survey, Library of Congress._)]

What is most significant to us in all this is the inference that the courthouse, the Ballard house which Mercer occupied, and the Structure B foundation were all in close proximity.

FOOTNOTES:

[60] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12).

[61] Pet.i.tion of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17).

[62] Stafford County Will Book, Liber Z, pp. 407, 431, 497.

LARGE PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

Mercer's next purchase of Marlborough property was on July 28, 1737, when he bought the three lots granted in 1691 to George Andrews from Andrews' grandson, John Cave. Meanwhile, he began large-scale acquisitions of lands elsewhere. By 1733 he had acquired an aggregate of 8096 acres in Prince William County. In addition, he obtained a "Lease for three Lives" on three large tracts belonging to William Brent, adjoining Marlborough, so that he controlled virtually all of Potomac Neck.[63]

Thus, after 1730 we find Mercer's fortune already well established and increasing. No longer a youthful trader plying the Potomac in his sloop, he was now a gentleman planter and influential lawyer. He lived in a new house, owned some parts of Marlborough, and was building "improvements"

on others. Almost overnight he had become a landed proprietor.

FOOTNOTES:

[63] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12).

SUCCESS AT LAW AND CONFLICTS WITH LAWYERS

The source of Mercer's newly made wealth is easily discovered. His ledger shows an income from legal fees in 1730 amounting to 291 10s.

10-1/2d. In 1731 the figure climbed to 643 18s. 2d., then leveled off to 639 11s. 2-1/2d. the following year. For a young man still in his twenties and self-trained in the law, this was a remarkable achievement.

His success perhaps is attributable to a single event that stemmed from youthful brashness and vigorous outspokenness. Early in 1730, in a daring gesture on behalf of property owners and taxpayers, he protested against privileges granted in an act pa.s.sed by the a.s.sembly the previous year "for encouraging Adventurers in Iron Works." Presented in the form of a proposition, the protest was read before the Stafford court by Peter Hedgman. The reaction to it in Williamsburg, once it had reached the ears of the a.s.sembly, was immediate and angry. The House of Burgesses

_Resolv'd_ That the Proposition from _Stafford_ County in relation to the Act past in the last Session of this a.s.sembly for encouraging Adventurers in Iron Works is a scandalous and Seditious Libel Containing false and scandalous Reflections upon the Legislature and the Justices of the General Court and other Courts of this Colony.

_Resolv'd_ That _John Mercer_ the Author and Writer of that paper and _Peter Hedgman_ one of the Subscribers who presented the same to the Court of Stafford County to be certified to the General a.s.sembly are guilty of a high Misdemeanour.

_Order'd_ That the said _John Mercer_ and _Peter Hedgman_ be sent for in Custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House to answer their said Offence at the Bar of this House.[64]

Mercer and Hedgman made their apologies to the House, received their reprimands, and paid their fines. But this protest, so offensive to the dignity of the lawmakers, had its effect in forcing amendments to the act, particularly in removing the requirement for building public roads leading from the ironworks to the ore supplies and shipping points. To those living in Stafford, particularly in the neighborhood of the proposed Acc.o.keek Ironworks, near Marlborough, this concession must have elevated Mercer to the level of a hero.[65]

Mercer's frank disposition led him into other difficulties during the first years of his practice. His insistence on the prompt payment of debts and his opposition to stays of execution following suits had won him enemies at Prince William court. Charges of improper legal activities were brought against him; these were investigated at Williamsburg, with the result that on June 13, 1734, he was suspended from practicing law in Virginia for a period of six months.[66]

FOOTNOTES:

[64] _JHB, 1727-1734; 1736-1740_ (Richmond, 1910), p. 66.

[65] Ibid., p. xxi.

[66] _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_ (Richmond, Virginia: D. Bottom, superintendent of public printing, 1925), vol. 4, p. 328.

TEMPORARY RETIREMENT, THE ABRIDGMENT, AND GUARDIANSHIP OF GEORGE MASON

Deprived temporarily of his princ.i.p.al livelihood, Mercer set out to write an _Abridgment of the Laws of Virginia_. The task completed, he pet.i.tioned the General Court on April 23, 1735, for "leave to Print an Abridgment compil'd by him of all the Laws of this Colony & to have the benefit of the Sale thereof." On the same day he pet.i.tioned for a renewal of his license, which was granted with the exception of the right to practice in Prince William, where he was to remain _persona non grata_ generally thereafter.[67]

Soon after these events his brother-in-law and old acquaintance, George Mason, drowned. Mercer was designated co-guardian of 10-year-old George Mason IV, who came to live at Marlborough. Young George later grew up to be the master of Gunston Hall and, as the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, to stand among the intellectuals whose ideas influenced the Revolution and the framing of the Const.i.tution. In these formative years, young George Mason surely must have been affected by the strong legal mind and cultivated tastes of his uncle.[68]

On October 14, 1737, the _Virginia Gazette_ carried the following advertis.e.m.e.nt:

_This Day is Published_

An Exact Abridgment of the Laws of VIRGINIA, in Force and Use, to this present time. By

John Mercer.

At long last, after innumerable delays, the _Abridgment_ was in print.

From a financial point of view it was a conspicuous failure. Too few Virginians, apparently, were sufficiently interested to buy it.

FOOTNOTES:

[67] Ibid., p. 348.

[68] KATE MASON ROWLAND, _The Life of George Mason_ (New York and London: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892), vol. 1, p. 49.

DOMESTIC FURNISHINGS AND SERVANTS