then standing" — a significant instruction, intended no 

 doubt to permit the reconciling of conflicting titles with 

 respect to what actually was built.'' 



The new survey was laid out July 23, 1731. "in the 

 presence of the said Feoffees," and drawn w'nh 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 east- 

 ward (fig. 2). This extra row, we ha\e 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 Improve- 

 ments on any the s.-iid Lots not before granted," 

 promising that they would at any time make him 

 "any Title they could lawfully pass." A proposal i)v 

 Fitzhugh to give title to any lots already purchased or 

 any which Mercer might take up under terms of the 

 Port Act of 1 705 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 

 "amicatjle 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 1 748. 



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""', all w'" he says have been built 

 on and saved." On the Buckner plat the lots bearing 

 these numbers comprise a block of six in the south- 

 west 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 tiiat the 

 new row bounds them on the west. 



We know that the Robinson-Berryman-l'opr-l'arrv 

 lot was the same lot originally granted to Robert 



.Alexander in Ib'Jl, 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 Piatt 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 1 707. All three appear to have 

 been in the corner i)lock 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, Southerlv 

 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 jilan, 

 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."- 



Assuming 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 court- 

 house property. Even though the courthouse had 

 been burned and abandoned, the two acres assigned 

 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 embarrassment at this state of affairs 

 must have been great. However, the addition by 

 Savage of a whole new rcjw of lots along the westerly 

 border of the town created new acreage, sufiicient 

 ijoth to reconcile the conflict and to provide com- 

 ]3ensatory land to satisfy the Brents. Unfortunalelv , 

 the .Savage survey, as we have noted, was not ni:i(le 



' '*■ tM'.oi of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17). 



02 Stafford County Will Book. I.iber Z. pp. 41)7. 4;11, 4'17. 



