(iiKuiiicniatiuii ili;il tlic new huildiiiR was by now in c|,il)oiatc as to have cost more than 40,000 pfjunds 



Duriiit; tlu- November session, James Musscn was 

 ordrrcci into custody lor haviiii; "danijcrously wounded 

 M'. Sampson Darrell." •'" This suc;gests that the 

 sequence of disturbances may have been associated 

 witli the unlinished state of the courtlioiise, which, 

 like the town, synibohzed the purposes of I'itzliugli 

 and the property-owning aristocracy. Certain it is 

 that Oarrell, pulilicly identilied with Fit/hugh, was 

 violently assaulted and that "a complaint was made 

 to this Court that Sampson Darrcll the chief under- 

 taker of the building and Erecting of a Court house for 

 this county had not performed the same according to 

 articles of agreement." He and Bayley accordingly 

 were put under bond to finish the building by Juni' 

 10, I6'J2. By February Ba\ley was complaining that 

 he had not been paid for his work, "notwithstanding 

 your pet' as is well known to the whole County hath 

 done all the carpenters work thereof and is ready to 

 perform what is yet wanting." On May 12, less than 

 a month from the deadline for completion, Darrcll 

 was ordered to pay Bayley the money owing, and 

 Bayley was instructed to go on with the work. Nearly 

 six months later, on .November 10, Darrcll again was 

 directed to pay Bayley the full balance of his wages, 

 but only "after the said Ambrose Bayley shall have 

 finished and C^ompleatly ended the C'ourt house." ^" 



No description of the courthouse has been found. 

 The Act of 1663 seems to have required a brick 

 building, although its wording is ambiguous. Even 

 if it did stipulate brick, the law was 28 years old in 

 1691, and its requirements probably were ignored. 

 Although Bayley, the builder, was a carpenter, this 

 would not preclude the possibility that he supcr\iscd 

 bricklayers and other artisans. Brick courthouses 

 were not unknown: one was standing in Warwick 

 when the Act for I'orts was pas.sed in Iti^.M. Vet, the 

 York courthouse, built in 1692, was a simple building, 

 probably of wood." In any ca.se, the .StafTord court- 

 house was a structure large enough to have rec|uired 

 more than a vear and a half to build, but not so 



» .StiilTord County Ordrr Book, I68'»-It>'>t, p. |ti7. 



" Ibid., pp. \'H, 2h7. MX 



" Kkmno. op. cit. (footnoir 1), vol. 3, p. lit); Edward M. 

 RiLEV. "The CkiloninI Courthoiisci of York County, VirRiiii.i," 

 William li? .\tary Collfgf Quarlnh Hulorual Mafa.;inr (Williniiia- 

 burK. l'H2), 2nd srr.. vol. T2. pp. i?'*'* 40I ( hcrrin.iftrr driii;- 

 ii.ilcd ir.t/Q |2|). 



.1" I.. I. 



LOC.MIU.N or THE STAFFORD COURTHOUSE 



The location of the building is indicated by a 

 notation on Buckner's plat of the port town: "The 

 fourth course (runs) down along by the Gutt between 

 Geo: Andrew's & the Court house to Hotoniack 

 Creek." A glance at the plat (fig. 2) will disclose 

 that the longitudinal boundaries of all the lots south 

 of a line between George .Xndrews' "Gutt" run 

 parallel to this fourth course. Plainly, the courthou.se 

 was situated near the head of the gutt, where the 

 westerly boundary course changed, near the end of 

 "The Broad .Street Across the Town." It may be 

 significant that the foundation (Structure B) on 

 which John Mercer's mansion was later built is 

 located in this \icinity. 



In or about the year 17IK the courthouse "burnt 

 Down," '^^ while it was reported as "being become 

 ruinous" in 1720, with its ".Situation ver>' inconven- 

 ient for the greater part of the Inhabitants." It was 

 then agreed to build a new courthouse "at the head 

 of CJcqua Creek." " Aquia Creek was probably 

 meant, but this must have been an error and the "head 

 of Potomac Creek" intended instead. Happel shows 

 that it was built on the south side of Potomac C'reck. 

 Thus, the burning of the Marllx>rough courthouse 

 in 1718 merely speeded up the forces that led to the 

 ciu! (if tlir tu\\ n's c'.iricr. 



.M.VRLbUROL Ull I'KUl'LKIY OW.NliRb 



.Not only was Marlborough foredixmied by external 

 decrees and adverse otiicial decisions, but much of its 

 failure was i-ooted in the local elements by which 

 it was constituted. The great nuijority of lot holders 

 were the "gentlemen" who were so carefully dis- 

 tinguished from "all other of the Inhabitants" in the 

 order to sunry the town in 1691. Most were ' 

 pei-sonages in .Stafford, and we may as.sume ti: 

 purchases of lots were made in the interests of in- 

 vestment gains, not in establishiiv 

 < )nly three or four yeonjen .ind ' 

 to have setded in the town. 



Sampson Darirll. for example, held i\su lot-s, but he 



" Petition of John Mcrtrr. loc, cil. (foMlnotr 17- 



«» r. ' Ommtil •/ Ctlmi^ I'ufmM (Kkh- 



Ml ml 



It 



