Stafford County, which had been set off from Westmoreland in 1664, was
provided with a courthouse within a year of its establishment. Ralph
Happel in _Stafford and King George Courthouses and the Fate of
Marlborough, Port of Entry_, has given us a detailed chronicle of the
Stafford courthouses, showing that the first structure was situated
south of Potomac Creek until 1690, when it presumably burned.[22] The
court, in any event, began to meet in a private house on November 12,
1690, while on November 14 one Sampson Darrell was appointed chief
undertaker and Ambrose Bayley builder of a new courthouse. A contract
was signed between them and the justices of the court to finish the
building by June 10, 1692, at a cost of 40,000 pounds of tobacco and
cash, half to be paid in 1691 and the remainder upon completion.[23]
With William Fitzhugh the presiding magistrate of the Stafford County
court as well as cosponsor of the Act for Ports, it was foreordained
that the new courthouse should be tied in with plans for the port town.
The Act for Ports, however, was still in the making, and it was not
possible to begin the courthouse until after its passage in the spring.
On June 10, 1691, it was "Ordered by this Court that Capt. George Mason
and Mr. Blande the Surveyor shall immediately goe and run over the
ground where the Town is to Stand and that they shall then advise and
direct M^r Samson Darrell the Cheife undertaker of the Court house for
this County where he shall Erect and build the same."[24]
The court's order was followed by a hectic sequence that reflects, in
general, the irresponsibilities, the lack of respect for law and order,
and the frontier weaknesses which made it necessary to strengthen
authority. It begins with Sampson Darrell himself, whose moral
shortcomings seem to have been legion (hog-stealing, cheating a widow,
and refusing to give indentured servants their freedom after they had
earned it, to name a few). Darrell undoubtedly had the fastidious
Fitzhugh's confidence, for certainly without that he would not have been
appointed undertaker at all. In his position in the court, Fitzhugh
would have been instrumental in selecting both architect and
architecture for the courthouse, and Darrell seems to have met his
requirements. Fitzhugh, in fact, had sufficient confidence in Darrell to
entrust him with personal business in London in 1688.[25]
Although several months elapsed before a site was chosen, enough of the
new building was erected by October to shelter the court for its monthly
assembly. In the course of this session, there occurred a "most
mischievous and dangerous Riot,"[26] which rather violently inaugurated
the new building. During this disturbance, the pastor of Potomac Parish,
Parson John Waugh,[27] upbraided the court while it was "seated" and
took occasion to call Fitzhugh a Papist. The court, taking cognizance of
"disorders, misrules and Riots" and "the Fatal consequences of such
unhappy malignant and Tumultuous proceeding," thereupon restricted the
sale of liquor on court days (thus revealing what was at least accessory
to the disturbance).[28] Fitzhugh's letter to the court concerning this
episode mentions the "Court House" and the "Court house yard," adding to
Happel's ample documentation that the new building was by now in use.
During the November session, James Mussen was ordered into custody for
having "dangerously wounded M^r. Sampson Darrell."[29] This suggests
that the sequence of disturbances may have been associated with the
unfinished state of the courthouse, which, like the town, symbolized the
purposes of Fitzhugh and the property-owning aristocracy. Certain it is
that Darrell, publicly identified with Fitzhugh, was violently assaulted
and that "a complaint was made to this Court that Sampson Darrell the
chief undertaker 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
June 10, 1692. By February Bayley was complaining that he had not been
paid for his work, "notwithstanding your pet^r 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, Darrell 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, Darrell again was directed to pay Bayley
the full balance of his wages, but only "after the said Ambrose Bayley
shall have finished and Compleatly ended the Court house."[30]
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
supervised bricklayers and other artisans. Brick courthouses were not
unknown; one was standing in Warwick when the Act for Ports was passed
in 1691. Yet, the York courthouse, built in 1692, was a simple building,
probably of wood.[31] In any case, the Stafford courthouse was a
structure large enough to have required more than a year and a half to
build, but not so elaborate as to have cost more than 40,000 pounds of
tobacco.