USA > Virginia > City of Williamsburg > City of Williamsburg > Site of old "James Towne," 1607-1698 : a brief historical and topographical sketch of the first American metropolis > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12
It is stated by some who were present at Sunday services held for the island garrison in the old churchyard in 1861 that there was then a sufficient number of tombstones to serve as seats for the command of two hundred men. Only a few complete stones remain, and the fragments of others show what has been the common fate of nearly all.
Reference is now made to two grants to " Thomas Hampton, Clerke," in 1639 and 1644.7 Both tracts are described as being on a ridge of land behind the church, the earlier and smaller between two swamps and the later " containing from the East- ermost bounds Westerly one hundred and twelve paces five foot to the pace and running the same Breadth Northerly to the back river." The later grant may have been made to include the earlier, a practice which, as previously noted, was common to the period. In any event, both grants were most probably upon the same ridge.
Several patents are employed to locate Hampton's two tracts, as follows : to John Bauldwin in 1656 for 15 acres 69 poles, 5 acres 69 poles of which were " at the old block house " and ten acres bounded " Easterly upon Mr. James' land Northerly upon the back river " [marsh ?], and the smaller tract, " West upon the Main river and South upon the slash which lyeth between the State house and the said Mr. James." James' western
6 Colonel Wm. Perry's at Westover. Colonel Perry was member of House of Burgesses and subsequently member of the Council.
7 Virginia Land Patent Records, Book I, p. 689, and Book II, p. 105.
70
THE SITE OF OLD "JAMES TOWNE."
boundary was a meridian passing " by Friggett landing."8 The approximate position of "Friggett Landing " is learned from the probable position of a grant to Richard Clarke in 1646.º
In 1644 Richard Sanders patented an acre " bounded west upon the river East upon ye marsh North upon the block house land and South upon the Land of Edward Challos." In the same year Edward Challis received a grant of an acre bounded "West upon the river East upon the marsh North upon the blockhouse Land and South towards the land of Radulph Sprag- gon." The word "upon " in the phrase " upon the blockhouse land " in the Challos patent should be towards, for Challos is given as the southern boundary of Sanders in the latter's patent. Spraggon's land, an acre, patented in 1644, was bounded " South upon the land of Geo. Gilbert North towards the Way leading towards the Mayne West upon the river and East to- wards the land of Mr. Hampton." Bauldwin's patent shows approximately the former site of Block House Hill, below which was the land of Sanders, adjoining whom on the south was Challos. Next below came a space, probably unoccupied ex- cept by part of the highway, below which, but not adjoining, was Spraggon, all about as shown on the " Map of Iames Citty."
Arguments have been presented for the sites of the churches used after 1617 and of the graveyard pertaining to them before that year, as being adjacent to the tower ruin at the eastern side of the four-acre paled town.
The description of an acre granted to John White in 1644 reads, " bounded West upon the Church Yard East upon the land apprtaining to the State House North towards the land of Mr. Thomas Hampton and South upon James River the Length being twenty three poles and breadth Seaven poles almost."
The word " towards " in the White patent and also in the Spraggon patent with reference to Hampton's land, shows that the last named was situated north of the first and east of the
8 Virginia Land Patent Records, Book IV, p. 196.
" Ibid, Book II, p. 47.
71
THE SITE OF OLD "JAMES TOWNE."
second, but in each case at some indefinite, but not remote dis- tance, the intervening land not being patented. By projecting series of lines east from Spraggon and north from White they will intersect on the second ridge about where the Hampton land is indicated on the map.
On account of the peculiar wording of the parts of the Hamp- ton patents, describing the relative positions of the tracts on a ridge, and the church, viz .; " behind the church," it is not clear at first glance whether the church and the tracts were on the same, or different ridges. If on the same, the second, the church would have been mentioned in Spraggon's patent, whose land was west of Hampton's. No allusion to the church, how- ever, occurs in that or any other patent on or near the western shore of the island. The particle " behind " is not understood as meaning in the rear of the church's back wall, but signifying on the opposite side from where the writer stood or imagined he was standing, or possibly as having reference to some other object understood but not mentioned, e. g., the churchyard or river bank. The above is a sample of the vague and inaccurate expressions appearing in some of the patents and too often used at the present day.
As, according to its description, the White tract was on the southern bank of the island and the churchyard adjoined it on the west, the latter was also on the river bank. Finally, until 1644 the first ridge belonged to the block house, and the land at the western end of the second ridge has been accounted for in that year ; the third ridge was occupied by buildings from an early day (1666), and, therefore, most probably never contained the church or graveyard; all of which also goes to show that the church and graveyard were not on the western bank of the island. All of the available evidence pertaining to the church, therefore, proves that it and the graveyard, in 1644, were on the fourth ridge and on the southern water front at the old tower ruin.
Bishop Meade states in effect that the graves near the tower ruin inclosed by a brick wall, before referred to, near the close
22
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
of the eighteenth century, cover but a third of the original graveyard, which had an area of a half acre. Although the graves are in very close order, each one apparently occupying, on an average, about thirty-two square feet, it is evident that a half-acre would have sufficed but for a small fraction of those who died at "James Citty." 10
In 1896, as before described, the remnant of the original head- land, which still shielded the adjacent river bank below it from abrasion, was removed to bring the shore to a fair line for re- ceiving protection work, constructed in that year. It is credibly stated that when the bank thus exposed was undermined by the waves, several human skeletons lying in regular order, east and west, about two hundred feet west of the tower ruin were un- covered. On account of their nearness to the tower it seems quite probable that the skeletons were in the original church- yard. One of the skulls had been perforated by a musket ball and several buckshot, which it still held, suggesting a military execution. Soon after being exposed to the air the skeletons crumbled.
From the evidence of the White patent and the positions of the skeletons, it would appear that the churchyard extended from the junction of the Back Street with the " old Greate Road," northeast of the church, to near the water side and up the latter, including a part of the ground subsequently covered by the Confederate fort. Thus situated, it would have had an area of about one and one-half acres.
Judging from the brick bond of the church tower it belonged originally to the fourth of the five churches, all of which, except the latest one, are more or less briefly referred to in the available annals of the colonists.
The brick church would to-day be regarded as a very plain and unpretentious chapel. It was rectangular in plan, having the customary high pitched roof on both nave and tower, the aisle paved with brick and the chancel with tiles. The tower,
10 Meade's Old Churches and Families of Virginia, Vol. I, p. III.
THE TOWER RUIN
.
73
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
situated at the western end, on account of being dispro- portionately large in comparison with the rest of the struc- ture, was the prominent feature. On account of its solidity, it was not materially injured by the conflagration of 1676. Arched doorways through the front and back walls of the first story formed the main entrance. The second story openings were most probably a window in the west wall and a door in the east wall, the latter opening into a gallery across the western end of the nave, as in the " old Brick Church " at Smithfield, Va. The third story was probably lighted only by six loop holes, two in the front and two in each side wall. The loop holes indicate that the intention of the builders of the tower was to make it defensible against Indian attack. As, with the defeat and death of Opechancanough in 1644, the fear of such attacks occurring at Jamestown should have almost entirely dis- appeared, it seems likely that the tower was designed and prob- ably built before or about that time. The brick work formerly separating the openings of the first and second stories having broken away, the front and back walls now have high portals extending to about twenty and nineteen feet, respectively, above the ground.
The brick work of the tower and foundation is in so-called English bond, quaintly embelished, after the fashion of the period, with glazed headers. The walls of the ruin were recently strengthened by tie rods, with ornamental washers of cruciform shape. It is a dignified old pile, of sombre detail, and originally had a height of about forty-six feet, to the peak of the spire that surmounted it. It is approximately eighteen feet square in plan, with walls three feet thick at the base, diminishing by offsets in the inner faces at each story to about seventeen inches at the belfry.
Within nave and chancel are interred many unknown dead, and, lying with its head to the north, is an ironstone tablet from which are missing inlaid brasses with which it was embossed. In its present position it does not apear to mark a tomb, for it would thus show a violation of the time-revered custom, form-
74
THE SITE OF OLD "JAMES TOWNE."
erly universally observed in Christian burials, to place the feet towards the rising sun. Whose " death in life " it commemo- rated will probably ever remain one of the unsolved mysteries of this mysterious island. This tomb stone is probably the only one in this country that had brasses. In the upper sinister corner was the escutcheon of the deceased. The scroll in the upper dexter corner was probably inscribed with a text or short prayer. It is conjectured by some that the stone formerly marked the grave of Governor, Sir George Yeardley, Knight, who died at Jamestown Nov. 12, 1627. The Rev. John Clough whose grave stone is shown on the plan of the church, was condemned to death by Nathaniel Bacon, " the Rebel," but was not executed.
The " James Citty " brick church resembled the " old Brick Church " about five miles from Smithfield, Isle of Wight County, Virginia, modernly known as St. Luke's. The latter, however, is a larger building than was the former. The points in common between the two churches are a tower at the western end, and a chancel door on the south side, near the eastern end of the nave. The brick work of St. Luke's church, however, is laid in so-called Flemish bond, and its tower has quoins at the corners, broad friezes at each story and under the eaves and its exterior faces broken by offsets at each story.
NORTH
THE MYSTERIOUS TABLET.
The tablet is 5 feet 72 inches long by 314 inches wide. The black surfaces show the channelings in the stone formerly filled with metal. The inscription plate was about 19 by 10} inches, and the height of the draped figure 243 inches.
THE COLONIAL LEGISLATURE.
HEN Captain Smith became president of the colony, in 1608, he styled the meeting of the colonists which he called to announce that thereafter those who would not work must starve, a "generall assembly." 1
A peculiar feature of the first colonial legislature, and appar- ently of those of many ensuing years, was that both of its branches, the governor's council and the House of Burgesses, met in joint session, after the fashion of the Scotch Parliament.
According to Beverley, this custom obtained until 1680, when Governor Culpeper, "taking advantage of some disputes among them," caused the two bodies to hold their sessions in separate apartments,“ the council being presided over by the governor and the House of Burgesses by a speaker of its own election.
It was resolved at a session of the House of Burgesses in March, 1658, that "they "-" all propositions and lawes "- " shall be first discussed among the Burgesses only " * * * " in private " * * * " and not in presence of the Governour and Council.""" The above action of the burgesses, evincing a desire to assert the independence of their body, was a precursor of the discontinuance of joint sessions, above noted by Beverley.
From what follows, the custom of holding joint sessions apparently had been discontinued before 1680, although it had been customary for two of the members of the council to attend the sessions of the burgesses, as shown in "T. M.'s " account of Bacon's Rebellion.
1 Works, Captain John Smith, p. 149.
2 History of the present State of Virginia, by Robert Beverley, p. 187.
3 Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 497.
" The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, in the Years 1675-1676, p. 13 .- Force's Historical Tracts, Vol. I .- " T. M." is supposed by Campbell and Fiske to have been
[ 75]
76
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
The ostensible purpose of the presence of the councillors was to assist the burgesses in conducting their proceedings in a par- liamentary manner. The real object, obviously, was to keep the governor fully apprised of all that occurred in this democratic and often intractable body. This was fully understood by the burgesses, some of whom on the occasion referred to by "T. M.," manifested their unwillingness to have the councillors present.
Prior to its session in September, 1632, the colonial legislature of Virginia was styled " The General Assembly." Beginning with the above session, it was called "The Grand Assembly," which title it bore until the session of June, 1680, when the former appellation was revived.
Thomas Mathews, son of Samuel Mathews, governor of Virginia, 1657-1659. (Campbell's History of Virginia, p. 284, and Fiske's Old Virginia and her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 66.) The available evidence is quite conclusive that "T. M." was Thomas Mathew, and not Thomas Mathews, a son of the governor. See Notes and Queries, by W. G. Stanard, Virginia Historical Magazine, Vol. I. (1893-1894), pp. 201 and 202. He was a timid, cautious man, who unwillingly became the representative of Stafford county in the first Assembly after the "Long Assembly."
"JAMES CITTY" STATE HOUSES.
HE first General Assembly, as previously stated, was con- vened in the third church, referred to in a preceding chapter as having its foundations inclosed by those of its successor, the first brick church, erected between 1639 and 1647.
The available information concerning the various buildings used for subsequent meetings of the legislature and for holding courts is too incomplete, meagre and obscure to be reduced to a succinct and entirely satisfactory statement. Following are deductions from the available data pertinent to the subject, which are given in subsequent pages :
During about the first two decades after 1619 there were at least twelve sessions of the legislature. They were probably held either in the third church or at the governor's house. There were also held during the above period sessions of the court and meetings of the governor and council. From the latter the proclamations of the governor that were intended to take the place of legislative enactments, were probably promul- gated.1
During the next six decades, while "James Citty " remained the seat of government, there were apparently four different state house buildings, all of which were burned. The time they were occupied collectively amounted to about forty-three years. During the intervals between the burning of the several state- houses and the acquiring of new ones, amounting in the aggre- gate approximately to seventeen years, taverns were used for the meetings of the Assembly and the sessions of the courts.
As in April, 1641, the colonial government purchased from ex-Governor Harvey, who about a year before was adjudged a bankrupt, one of his houses, known as the courthouse, the
1 Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 120.
[ 77]
78
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
courts and meetings of the governor and council were no doubt held there, and probably also the meetings of the whole legis- lature. The above building, therefore, most probably consti- tuted the first state house.
In June, 1642, the Grand Assembly presented Governor Berkeley with two houses and a tract of land adjacent to them, at "James Citty." Between the above year and 1655, Gov- ernor Berkeley erected a house adjoining on the west the first state house, which thus became the middlemost of three houses, all having the same dimensions in plan, viz., forty by twenty feet, and forming a block with a frontage on the river of sixty feet and a depth of forty feet. The block was sixty-seven feet from the southern bank of the island and about forty-five yards below the present wharf. The bank probably having receded slightly, its site would now be somewhat nearer the present bank line.
The middle house of the block was used as a state house for about thirteen years longer, or until some time between March, 1655, and June, 1656, when it would seem to have been burned. After the burning of the above building two courts were held in a tavern kept by Thomas Woodhouse.
The available information about the second state house is scant and indirect. The building appears to have been acquired some time before October, 1656. All that is known of it is learned from a reference to it in a patent of the above year from which it appears to have been situated on the fourth ridge. It appar- ently was used for but three or four years, and then burned.
During the ensuing five years, or until about 1665, the colony's affairs seem to have been transacted in part, if not entirely, in taverns belonging to Thomas Woodhouse and Thomas Hunt, situated on the river bank about one hundred and three hundred yards respectively, east of the first state house. About the above year a house was purchased or built by the colonial government on the third ridge about two hundred and forty yards northwest of the brick church, and this served as the
79
THE SITE OF OLD "JAMES TOWNE."
state house until burned by Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., in September, 1676.
During the ten years following, or until about 1686, the expedient of using taverns for meetings of the legislature was again resorted to. In the above year the re-building of the state house was completed. As it was on the site of its prede- cessor, it most probably had the same proportions, which in plan were about seventy-four feet long and twenty feet wide, within the walls. This was the last state house building erected at "James Citty." It was occupied for about twelve years, and was burned in the fall of 1698. The Assembly held its last session at "James Citty," in April, 1699, when it was decreed to move the capital to Williamsburg.
Subjoined are the data on which the foregoing is based.
The earliest available evidence of the colony's intention to build a state house appears in a letter from its governor, Sir John Harvey, Knight, and his council to the Privy Council, dated January 18, 1639, in which it is stated that by the king's command a levy had been raised for the above purpose.2 One year later, during the session of the Grand Assembly beginning January 6, 1639-40,3 an act was passed providing for defraying the cost of building a state house by a poll assessment of two pounds of tobacco.
On April 7, 1641, about fifteen months after the passage of the above act, Sir John Harvey conveyed to the colonial gov- ernment, for 15,700 pounds of tobacco, to be paid the following January," " all that capital messuage or tenement now used for a court house late in the tenure of Sir John Harvey, Knt.,
2 McDonald Papers, Vol. I, p. 249.
3 Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 226 .- The acts of several of the Assemblies between 1619 and 1642 are not known to be in existence. They are only known to have been framed by allusions to them in acts passed at other sessions, contained in Hening's Statutes, and from being mentioned in the land patents, in official correspondence, and in the minutes of the London Company.
4 The poll assessment of January, 1640, would have become due January, 1641.
80
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
situate and being within James City Island in Virginia with the old house and granary, garden and orchard as also one piece or plot of ground lying and being on the west side of the said cap- ital and messuage as the same is now inclosed."" The above conveyance shows that the court had been holding its sessions in a house owned by Sir John Harvey, and it seems quite likely that the assessment of January, 1639-40, was expended in buy- ing Harvey's houses and lot, one of the former being the court house. It is more than possible that the Grand Assembly had also been meeting in the same house. It seems most probable that the above building was the one mentioned in patents referred to below as "the old state house," whose location is given further on.
In a letter of instructions from King Charles I to Governor Berkeley and the Colonial Council in August, 1641, the building of a state house is ordered.
By an act of Assembly passed in June, 1642, two houses and an orchard " belonging to the colony " were presented to Gov- ernor Berkeley. This act was confirmed by another passed at the session of March, 1642.6
In February, 1643, a patent was issued to Captain Robert Hutchinson, burgess from "James Citty," for one and one-half acres situated on the south shore of the island and bounded west in part " towards " the state house." It appears from the Hutchinson patent that by 1643 the previous acts of Assembly for procuring a state house had gone into effect, and that the building was on the south shore of the island.
" Transcripts of Miscellaneous MSS., by Conway Robinson, p. 188.
6 Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 267.
7 Va. Land Pat. Records, Book I, p. 944.
Hutchinson's patent reads " bounded South upon the river North towards Pasby Hayes, West upon the land of John Osborne & `towards the State House." As the tract could not have been situated on the southern bank of the island and at the same time been in a southerly direction from Paspahegh town, which was on the main land above the island, either some other locality named Pasby Hayes was referred to or an error made in describing the tract or transcribing the patent.
81
THE SITE OF OLD " JAMES TOWNE."
In August, 1644, a patent previously quoted from was issued to John White for one acre of land lying along the south shore of the island, between the churchyard on the west and the state house land on the east.8 This locates the state house with reference to the churchyard in 1644, whose position has already been determined, and places the western boundary of the state house grounds about twelve yards below the present wharf, or about seventy yards below the eastern boundary of the land now owned by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities.
On March 30, 1655, Sir William Berkeley sold to Richard Bennett, who had succeeded him as governor in 1652, his house, " the westernmost of the three brick houses," which the deed recites the grantor had built.º The deed, however, does not show that the ground on which the house stood and that adjacent to it was sold with the house. The above mentioned land was granted to Thomas Ludwell and Thomas Stegge, January 1, 1667. Its area was a half acre. It was situated on the southern shore of the island " adjoyning to the westermost of those three houses all of which joyntly were formerly called by the name of the old state house," sixty-seven feet from high-water mark.1º From what follows the patent apparently did not include the house, or, more correctly, its ruins.
Henry Randolph, clerk of the court, sold the ruins of the three houses and the grounds they respectively covered, April 7, 1671,11 as follows: The eastern house ruins and grounds to Thomas Swann, of the county of Surry; the middle, or " old state house " proper, to Nathaniel Bacon [Sr.], executor of the estate of Colonel Myles Cary,12 and the western to Thomas
8 Va. Land Pat. Records, Book II, p. 10.
9 Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 407.
10 Virginia Land Patent Records, Book VI, p. 223.
11 Conway Robinson's Transcripts of Miscellaneous Manuscripts, p. 258, from General Court Rule Book No. 2, pp. 155, 617.
12 Colonel Cary came to Virginia in 1645, constructed the first fort on site of Fort Monroe, and was killed there in an engagement with the Dutch, in 1667.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.