Part 11 (1/2)
Mercer argued in the pet.i.tion that the county had nothing to lose--that it ”had received satisfaction” for at least 30 lots, some of which he might be obliged to buy over again; that, considering the history of the town, no one but himself would be likely to take up any other lots, the last having been subscribed to in 1708; and that his purchase of the town would be not to the county's disadvantage but rather to his own great expense. He was willing to accept an appraisal from ”any one impartial person of Credit” who would say the town was worth more, and to pay ”any Consideration this wors.h.i.+pful House shall think just.”
He pointed out that the two acres set aside for the courthouse were excluded and that they ”must revert to the Heir of the former Proprietor, (who is now an Infant).” He did not indicate in the pet.i.tion that he himself was the guardian of William Brent, infant heir to the courthouse property. It is most significant, therefore, that in asking for favorable action he added, ”except the two acres thereof, which were taken in for a Courthouse, as aforesaid and which he is willing to lay of as this wors.h.i.+pful House may think most for the Benefit of Mr.
William Brent, the Infant, to whom the same belongs, _or to pay him double or treble the worth of the said two acres, if the same is also vested in your Pet.i.tioner_.” (Italics supplied.) Plainly, Mercer had much at stake in obtaining t.i.tle to the courthouse land. This supports the hypothesis that the Gregg survey of 1707 infringed on the courthouse land, that Ballard's lot 19 on the Gregg survey overlapped it, and that Mercer's first two houses, and now his mansion, were partly on land that rightfully belonged to his ward, William Brent. Mercer apparently had so built over all the lower part of Marlborough without regard to t.i.tle of owners.h.i.+p, and had so committed himself to occupancy of the courthouse site, that he was now in the embarra.s.sing position of having to look after William Brent's interests when they were in conflict with his own.
Likely it is that he had depended too much on acceptance of the still-unauthorized Savage survey to correct the previous discrepancies by means of its extra row of lots.
Still further indication that the courthouse land was at issue is found in the proceedings that followed the pet.i.tion. In these, there are repeated references to Mercer's having been called upon to testify ”as the Guardian of William Brent.” Clearly, the legislators were concerned with the effect the acceptance of the pet.i.tion would have on Brent's interests. If Mercer, as seems likely, was building his mansion on the courthouse land, the burgesses had reason to question him. In any case, the House resolved in the affirmative ”That the said Pet.i.tion be rejected”.[110]
This setback was only temporary, however. The wider problems of Marlborough had at least been brought to light, so that by the time the next fall session was held Mercer's 18-year-old suit to have Savage's designated the official survey finally was acted upon:
”At a General Court held at the Court House in Williamsburg the 12th October 1749” the John Savage survey of 1731 was ”Decreed & Ordered” to be ”the only Survey” of Marlborough. The problem of overlapping boundaries occasioned by the conflicts between the first two surveys was solved neatly. Mercer agreed to accept lots 1 through 9, 22 and 25, and 33, 34, 42, and 43, ”instead of the s^d 17 lots so purchased.” The new lots extended up the Potomac River sh.o.r.e, while the ”s^d 17 lots” were those which he had originally purchased and had built upon. Since he had ”saved” these 17 lots by building on them, according to the old laws for the town, ”it is further decreed & ordered that the said Town of Marlborough grant & convey unto the s^d John Mercer in fee such & so many other Lotts in the said Town as shall include the Houses & Improvm^{ts} made by the said John Mercer according to the Rate of 400 square feet of Housing for each Lot so as the Lots to be granted for any House of greater Dimensions be contiguous & are not separated from the said House by any of the Streets of the said Town.”[111]
Thus, Mercer's original t.i.tles to 17 lots were made secure by subst.i.tuting new lots for the disputed ones he had occupied. This device enabled the feoffees to sell back the original lots--at 182 per lot--with new deeds drawn on the basis of the Savage survey. The final provision that lots be contiguous when a house larger than the minimum 400 square feet was built on them, and that the house and lots should not be separated by streets from each other, guaranteed the integrity of the mansion and its surrounding land. No mention was made here, or in subsequent transfers, of the courthouse land. Presumably it was conveniently forgotten, Mercer perhaps having duly recompensed his ward.
FOOTNOTES:
[108] James Taylor lived in Caroline County; the ”Wid^o Taliaferro” was probably Mrs. John Taliaferro of Spotsylvania.
[109] Pet.i.tion of John Mercer, loc. cit. (footnote 17).
[110] _JHB, 1742-1747; 1748-1749_, op. cit. (footnote 6), pp.
285-286.
[111] John Mercer's Land Book, loc. cit. (footnote 12).
HEALTH AND MEDICINE
Three weeks before his pet.i.tion was read in the House, Mercer became ill. On October 26, 1748, he noted in his journal, ”Very ill obliged to keep my bed.” This was almost his first sickness after years of apparently robust health. Such indispositions as he occasionally suffered had occurred, like this one, at Williamsburg, where conviviality and rich food caused many another colonial worthy to founder. In this case, anxiety over the outcome of his pet.i.tion may have brought on or aggravated his ailment. In any event, he stayed throughout the court session at the home of Dr. Kenneth McKenzie, who treated him.
On November 3 he noted that he was ”On Recovery,” and two days later ”went out to take the air.” The following appears in his account with Dr. McKenzie:
October 1748: By Medicines & Attendance myself & Ice 7.19.11 By Lodging &c 7 weeks 6. 6. 7
From William Parks, on another occasion, he bought ”Rattlesnake root,”
which was promoted in 18th-century Virginia as a specific against the gout, smallpox, and ”Pleuritick and Peripneumonic Fevers.”[112] Twice he bought ”British oyl,” a favorite popular nostrum sold in tall, square bottles, and on another occasion ”2 bottles of Daffy's Elixir.”[113] In 1749 he settled his account with George Gilmer, apothecary of Williamsburg, for such things as oil of cinnamon, Holloways' Citrate, ”Aqua Linnaean,” rhubarb, sago, ”Sal. Volat.,” spirits of lavender, and gum fragac. The final item in the account was for April 22, 1750, for ”a Vomit.” The induced vomit, usually by a tartar emetic, was an accepted cure for overindulgence and a host of supposed ailments. That inveterate valetudinarian and amateur physician, William Byrd, was in the habit of ”giving” vomits to his sick slaves.[114]
In November and December 1749 Mercer sustained his first long illness, during which he was attended by ”Doctor Amson.” ”Taken sick” at home on November 13, he evidently did not begin to recover until December 11.
Whatever improvement he may have made must have received a setback on the last day of the year, when he recorded in his journal: ”Took about 60 grains of Opium & 60 grains of Euphorbium by mistake instead of a dose of rhubarb.”
FOOTNOTES:
[112] Ten years earlier a vogue for rattlesnake root had been established, apparently by those interested in promoting it.
On June 16, 1738, Benjamin Waller wrote to the editor of the _Virginia Gazette_ extolling the virtues of rattlesnake root in a testimonial. He claimed it cured him quickly of the gout, and, he wrote, ”I am also fully convinced this Medicine has saved the Lives of many of my Negroes, and others in that Disease, which rages here, and is by many called a _Pleurisy_; And that it is a sure Cure in a Quartan Ague.”
Two weeks later the _Gazette_ carried ”Proposals for Printing by Subscription a _Treatise_ on the DISEASES of _Virginia_ and the Neighbouring Colonies ... To which is annexed, An Appendix, showing the strongest Reasons, _a priori_, that the Seneca Rattle-Snake Root must be of more use than any Medicine in the _Materia Medica_.”
[113] See GEORGE B. GRIFFENHAGEN and JAMES HARVEY YOUNG, ”Old English Patent Medicines in America,” (paper 10 in _Contributions from the Museum of History and Technology: Papers 1-11_, U.S. National Museum Bulletin 218, by various authors; Was.h.i.+ngton: Smithsonian Inst.i.tution, 1959).
[114] _The Secret Diary of William Byrd of Westover, 1709-1712_, edit. Louis B. Wright and Marian Tingling.