Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

THE CAPITOL, LOOKING NORTHEAST

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
THE CAPITOL
Block 8--Building 11

Reconstructed under the direction of Perry, Shaw and Hepburn, architects for the Williamsburg Holding Corporation between October, 1931 and January, 1934. For a detailed listing of the organizations and persons who participated in the work on the Capitol, see the Appendix of the report.

Part 1 of the report introduces the subject of the Capitol by reviewing possible English antecedents of this exceptional structure and by pointing to subsequent buildings in Virginia and the neighboring colonies the design of which, in one respect or another, was influenced by it. It outlines the history of the first and second buildings, down to 1928 when the site was presented to Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. The report then reviews certain puzzling questions concerning the original building which arose when the documentary and archaeological data were studied, in preparation for the reconstruction of the structure. The body of the report lists, detail for detail, the precedent followed in the design of the various features of the building, the exterior being treated in Part 1 and the interior in Parts 2 and 3.

The chief sources consulted in the writing of this report were the following:

• Capitol Notes, a compilation of all available seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century references to the Capitol, issued by the Department of Research and REcord in March 1932.
• Capitol Notes, a discussion of factors which influenced the design of the reconstructed building, by Andrew H. Hepburn, revised in October, 1946.
• Architectural Record, which gives the precedent followed by the architects in the design of many features of the building. This was written by Thomas T. Waterman in February, 1932.
• The correspondence files relating to the Capitol of Perry, Shaw and Hepburn, Colonial Williamsburg and of the builders, Todd and Brown, Inc.
• The working drawings and specifications followed in the reconstruction of the building and the progress photograph file on the Capitol.

This report was written by Howard Dearstyne for the Architects' Office of Colonial Williamsburg. Part 1 was completed in draft form in October, 1954. This was reviewed by Singleton P. Moorehead and Orin M. Bullock, corrected and typed in final form in November-December, 1954. It was bound December 8.

[Eagle emblem]

Ever will the thought of this reconstructed Capitol move us profoundly, for here as Councilor or Burgess sat nearly every great Virginian of the 18th century; here were spoken words that will never die; here plans were laid and actions taken of untold moment in the building of this nation. What a temptation to sit in silence and let the past speak to us of those great patriots whose voices once resounded in these halls and whose far-seeing wisdom, high courage and unselfish devotion to the common good will ever be an inspiration to noble living. To their memory the rebirth of this building is forever dedicated. Well may we say to ourselves in the words which the Captain of the Lord's host spoke unto Joshua:

"Loose thy shoe from off thy foot, for the place whereon thou standest is holy."

From address or John D. Rockefeller, Jr., delivered on February 24, 1934 at a special session of the General Assembly of Virginia held in the House of Burgesses Chamber to signalize the completion of the reconstruction or the Capitol.

The eagle on the previous page was taken from the title page of The Works of Colonel John Trumball / Artist of the American Revolution by Theodore Sizer, New Haven, 1950. A note in the book explains that the eagle appeared originally at the top of a music sheet entitled Hail! Columbia, Death or Liberty, A. Favorite New Federal Song, which was published in Boston in 1798.

DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Several words used frequently in the report are given specific or specialized meanings and this glossary is included here to obviate the danger of their being misinterpreted.

The word existing is used to designate features of the building which were in existence prior to its reconstruction by Colonial Williamsburg.

The phrase not in existence means "not in existence at the time of reconstruction."

The word modern is used as a synonym of recent and is intended to designate any existing eighteenth-century building which is a replacement of what was there originally and which is of so late a date that it could not properly be retained in an authentic restoration or reconstruction of the building, or be used as precedent in the restoration or reconstruction of another building.

The word old is used to indicate anything on or in a building that cannot be defined with certainty as being original but which is believed, nevertheless, to stem from the eighteenth century.

The term restoration is applied to the reconditioning of an existing building in which the walls, roof and many of the architectural details are original but in the case of which decayed parts have been replaced with new ones patterned after the old and missing elements have been supplied in the form either of old parts from other eighteenth-century buildings or of new ones of authentic eighteenth-century design.

The term reconstruction is applied to a building which has been wholly rebuilt in the position of the old foundations on the basis of archaeological and documentary evidence as to the nature of the original structure.

Length signifies the greatest dimension of a building or building part measured from end to end.

Width and breadth are used in this report to mean the dimension of a building or building part measured at right angles to the length.

Depth, in addition to meaning extent or distance downward, is also used in the sense of extent or distance inward or backward, so that we may, on occasion, speak of "the depth," of a lot, a building or of a room,

ENGLISH PREDECESSORS AND VIRGINIAN DISCIPLES

JAMESTOWN STATEHOUSE BURNS AND A CAPITOL BUILDING IS PROJECTED FOR MIDDLE PLANTATION

When the statehouse in Jamestown was burned in 1698 the government of the Virginia colony was moved to middle Plantation which was thereafter called Williamsburg. A new statehouse, to be known as the Capitol, was ordered to be built there and until it was completed Governor Francis Nicholson, the councilmen and the burgesses carried on the affairs of government in the Wren Building of the Collage of William and Mary, a structure which had been built some years before.

LEGISLATIVE ACTS GIVE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ERECTION OF CAPITOL; THESE BASED ON EXISTING PLAN; BLAND SHOWS BUILDING ON LAYOUT FOR NEW CITY

Two acts passed by the legislature (June, 1699 and August, 1701)^* gave explicit directions for the building of the city of Williamsburg and the Capitol. The directions for building the Capitol are so exact and so complete that we are forced to the conclusion that they are the verbal interpretation of previously-existent, exactly-executed drawings made for the structure. This theory becomes for us a matter of fact when we read the following in the record of the proceedings of the House of Burgesses for May 25, 1699:^**

Upon further Consideration of the State house to be built being referred to this day and againe debated, The House agreed as followeth
That the House be built according to the forme and Dimentions of the Plott or Draught laid before the House.

It was doubtless this "Plott or Draught" upon which Theodorick 2 Bland draw when, having been commissioned in 1699 to survey the site for the new town, he made a layout for the latter and included therein a plan of the projected Capitol {see plate, p. 3). This plan gives the form of the building essentially as it was later built, except that both of ends of each wing are squared off whereas the Act of 1699 specifies that one end of each is to be made semi-circular. Since his plan for the new city and its two water approaches is of the utmost simplicity and includes buildings (Bruton Church and the Wren Building are also shown), without doubt, only to give their locations. Bland did not hesitate to schematize his indication of the Capitol and to square off all four ends.

UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER CAPITOL WAS DESIGNED IN ENGLAND; POSSIBILITY THAT WREN WAS THE ARCHITECT

We have no way of demonstrating the validity of the supposition that the Capitol was erected from plans drawn in England. It seems reasonable to assume this since we know it to have been the case with the Wren Building of the College of William and Mary, the construction of which was started in 1694, a very few years before the beginning of the Capitol (1699). Of the Wren Building, Hugh Jones was for some years a professor of mathematics at the College and chaplain to the General Assembly, says, in his The Present State of Virginia, London, 1724, that it was "first modelled by Sir Christopher Wren, adapted to the nature of the country by the Gentlemen there…" Jones, in the same book, describes the Capitol and, although he makes no statement as to the designer of this, he says of the House of Burgesses that it "is not unlike the House of Commons." We are uncertain whether he was comparing the architecture of the two legislative bodies or likening the one to the other on the basis of function and procedure. This subject is 3 4 treated at some length on p. 56, in the caption to a picture of the House of Commons. The question therein raised as to whether Sir Christopher Wren, as surveyor general to the crown, m.y have had a hand in the design of the Capitol cannot, in the present state of our knowledge as to the origins of the building, be answered satisfactorily. Since it has a possible bearing on the matter, it seems appropriate to quote here a statement made by Nathaniel Lloyd on p. 115 of his A History of the English House, London, 1931. Lloyd speaks of "Wren's practice of furnishing designs, with or without detail drawings, for provincial buildings and leaving the execution of the work to others…." There is considerable probability that this is what he did in the case of the Wren Building and he may well have done the same thing for the Capitol.

LIKELIHOOD THAT CAPITOL DEVELOPED OUT OF A BUILDING TYPE EXISTING IN ENGLAND

Even if one saw fit to reject the thesis that the Capitol was designed in England, he would still have to look to the mother country for the forerunners of the building form. It is seldom that a new building type springs full blown from the mind of some gifted creator; such innovations represent, rather, advances upon or alterations of older forms. Since it was customary for the Virginia colonists at this period to turn to England for architectural guidance, we may expect to discover among buildings which existed there at the time structures with characteristics which relate them to the Capitol. We should find, therefore, buildings having H plans, others with arcades and still others in the designs of which cylindrical or half-cylindrical forms have been incorporated, to mention only the most striking features of the first Capitol.

U, H, AND "HOLLOW SQUARE" PLANS POPULAR IN ENGLAND; TWO HOUSE WITH H PLANS

It should be remarked here that plan types in vogue in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries included, among others, 5 the simple rectangle; the U-shaped plan, obtained by adding, at the ends of the rectangle, two wings at right angles; the "hollow square" plan (projected for the Wren Building but never completed), which results when two U's are joined at the ends of the wings, and the H plan which is formed, theoretically, when two U's are placed "back to back." We have no difficulty tracing the English origin of the H plan of the Capitol since, according to Nathaniel Lloyd; the Elizabethan house generally took that form (p. 212, A History of the English House). Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603 so that this plan form became well-established a century before the Capitol was built and it continued in frequent use into the eighteenth century. For the plans of two English Houses having the H form, which were erected about the same time as the Capitol see our plate, p. 7.

ADVANTAGES OF H PLAN AND OTHER RELATED PLAN TYPES

The H-shaped plan, the U-shaped plan and the hollow square plan were all planning devices used to avoid unlighted and unventilated interior spaces by giving each room at least one and often two or three outside walls in which windows could be located. In his The Mansions of Virginia, Chapel Hill, 1946, Thomas T. Waterman says (p. 85) of the H plan and its related forms:

As has been pointed out elsewhere, fanciful plans were much in style in England during the seventeenth century, and in provincial areas in the early eighteenth century as well. H, E, U, and T plans were frequently used, the first of which was used in the Capitol in Williamsburg (1699) and was illustrated in Stephen Primatt's The City and Country Purchaser and Builder, published in 1667. The virtues of such a plan were also extolled by Blome in his The Gentleman's Recreation, printed in London in 1709. He observes that "in building of houses long, the use of some rooms will be lost, in that more room must be allowed for Entries and Passages and it requires more doors; and if a building consists of a geometrical square, if the house be large, the middle rooms will want light, and many therefore commend the form of the Capitol Romman H, which, they say, makes it stand firm against the winds, and lets in both light and air and disposes every room nearer to one another."

TUCKAHOE AND STRATFORD ARE EXAMPLES OF H PLAN IN VIRGINIA; FORMER HAS ENTRANCE IN LONG SIDE OF ONE OF WINGS

The various "alphabetic" plan forms discussed above are all represented in the eighteenth century buildings of Virginia, as well as the hollow square (orig1nal plan for Wren Building) and, of course, the rectangular plan, of which there are many examples. Our previously-consulted plate, p. 7, shows two well-known examples of the H plan, Tuckahoe in Goochland County and Stratford in Westmoreland County. Tuckahoe, a wood dwelling commenced after 1712 and enlarged to the H form shown in the plan sometime after 1730, consists of two typical Virginian two-room-and-central-hall plans, joined by a large central room or salon. It is interesting to note that one of the wings rather than the central hall faces the approach. This is mentioned here because it recalls one of the questions much-debated during the reconstruction of the Capitol, i.e., whether the main entrance to the latter was via the central loggia or the west doorway facing Duke of Gloucester Street. This subject will be treated more at length farther on in the report; suffice it here to note that Tuckahoe, probably in consequence of its piecemeal development; has, like the second Capitol building and perhaps, like the first in its latter days, its main entrance in the long face of one of the wings.

TUCKAHOE PLAN BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THAT OF CAPITOL; INFLUENCE OF LATTER ON VIRGINIAN ARCHITECTURE

Although the plan of Tuckahoe, like that of the Capitol, could have been inspired by some English example of the H plan, it is more likely that it represents an instance of the influence of the Capitol plan on the architecture of Virginia. Waterman, on p. 86 The Mansions of Virginia, subscribes to this opinion on the basis of the fact that Thomas Randolph, the builder, frequented the Capitol at Williamsburg and was, therefore, well-acquainted with 7 FAWLEY COURT (LEFT) BUILT BY SIR CHRISTOPHER WREN BETWEEN 1684 AND 1688 AND CLAREMONT ESHER, BUILT BY SIR JOHN VANBRUGH FOR HIMSELF IN 1711. THESE HOUSES ARE SHOWN HERE CHIEFLY TO INDICATE THAT THE H PLAN WAS IN USE IN ENGLAND DURING THE PERIOD THE CAPITOL WAS BUILT WHICH STRONGLY SUGGESTS THAT THE DERIVATION OF THE PLAN OF THE LATTER WAS ENGLISH. TUCKAHOE, GOOCHLAND COUNTY (LEFT), WAS BEGUN SHORTLY AFTER 1712 AND ENLARGED TO ITS PRESENT FORM AFTER 1730. STRATFORD, WESTMORELAND COUNTY, WAS ERECTED ABOUT 1725. IT SEEMS VERY LIKELY THAT THE H PLANS OF BOTH OF THESE HOUSES WERE INSPIRED BY THAT OF THE CAPITOL. 8 its form. It is possible that he recognized in this building type the answer to the problem of ventilation which the hot and humid climate of eastern Virginia poses. That buildings of the size and importance of the Governor's Palace and the Capitol should have exerted an influence on the architecture of a land as yet all too scantily provided with impressive structures is not surprising. A documented case in which the Capitol served as a model for emulation is found in an entry of November 18, 1719 in the Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish in New Kent County (pp. 126, 127). The entry is a specification for the building of a brick courtyard wall about St. Peter's Church. Among other things, it requires "The s'd wall to be in all Respects as well Done as the Capitol wall in Williamsburg."

PLAN OF STRATFORD SIMILAR TO THAT OF TUCKAHOE, BUT MAIN ENTRANCE IS IN CENTRAL CONNECTING ELEMENT

The second Virginia example of an H plan shown on our plate, p. 7 is that of Stratford, a brick mansion built about 1725 by Thomas Lee. The plan, like that of Tuckahoe, is composed of two central hall plans linked by a central salon, but the central-halled wings, in this case, are two rooms deep. It should be noted that, unlike the arrangement at Tuckahoe, the main entrance of Stratford is a doorway in the center of the middle element. From the standpoint of ease of circulation this was the logical place to locate the main entrance and we are, likewise, convinced that the original planner of the Capitol looked upon the central approach, via the loggia, as the most reasonable one in the case of that building. Stratford was built in a single continuous operation, so that the builder was able to place the main entrance in the moat feasible position. In his treatment of Stratford in 9 The Mansions of Virginia (pp. 92-95) Waterman notes the influence on the structure of the baroque work of Sir John Vanbrugh (see house plan, p. 7 of this report) and Nicholas Hawksmoor and suggests that the design of the bui1ding may have resulted from a combination of influences. i.e. literary sources (builders' handbooks) and, as in the case of Tuckahoe, the Capitol at Williamsburg.

ENGLISH ANTECEDENTS OF CAPITOL ARCADE WILL BE INVESTIGATED

Returning to our investigation of the English antecedents of certain of the main features of the Capitol, we will consider the use in English architecture of the loggia or arcade in the period preceding the design and erection of the Williamsburg statehouse. Our purpose in this is to determine, if possible, the source or sources from which the arcade connecting the two wings of the Capitol and bearing enclosed and usable space above it, may have been derived.

CAPITOL ARCADE PRECEDED BY THAT OF WREN BUILDING

We should not fail, at the outset, to mention the fact that the Capitol was not the first building in Virginia in which the arcade was employed, The Wren Building with its arcaded west porch, having been started in 1695 and substantially completed by 1698, preceded it in the use of this feature. A difference of some consequence between the arcades of the two buildings should, however, be pointed out. In the Wren Building a single line of arches and piers forms the outside support of a porch having a rear wall which is unbroken except for a central doorway and, carrying two, full stories above it. In the Capitol three lines of arches support a story-and-a-half super-structure forming a bridge between the two wings of the building and having an open loggia beneath it.

WHETHER BASED ON ENGLISH MODELS OR ON WREN EXAMPLE ARCADE DERIVED ULTIMATELY FROM ENGLAND

If we believe that the Capitol was designed in England we are led to seek the precedent for its arcaded loggia there rather than in Virginia even though the arcade existed in Williamsburg at the time the Capitol was built. Even if, on the other hand, we were to conclude that the Capitol arcade was derived from that of its near neighbor, the Wren Building, the difference would not be important since, in that case, its ultimate English origin would be but one step removed.

HOUSE SCHEME BY JOHN THORPE HAS BASIC PLAN ARRANGEMENT LIKE THAT OF CAPITOL

Although our search cannot be considered to have been exhaustive, we have succeeded in locating only one example, an architectural design which was never executed, in which the two parallel wings of an H-shaped or, actually, I-T-shaped building (a so-called monogram house in which the architect, John Thorpe, used his own initials), are tied together by a portico (see p. 11}. The portico of this projected Elizabethan house, as in the case of the Capitol loggia, serves as the main approach to the two wings and here, as in the Capitol, there are also secondary entrances. Unlike that of the Capitol, however, this portico is but one bay deep and carries above it a balustraded walk but no enclosed rooms. It is furthermore, of course, constructed of columns rather than arches and piers. However much this house design may differ in character and detailing from the original Capitol, its plan type and scheme for circulation, nevertheless, are similar, basically, to those of the Capitol.

ENGLISH BUILDING TYPES WHICH MAY HAVE INFLUENCED DESIGN OF CENTRAL PART OF CAPITOL

Arcades supporting enclosed spaces above them were plentiful in England at the time the Capitol was being erected. The arcade is a Roman invention so that it was probably first introduced into England in ancient times. It continued to be used there, as elsewhere, in medieval Romanesque and Gothic ecclesiastical 11 SCHEME FOR A HOUSE BY JOHN THORPE, ENGLISH ARCHITECT ACTIVE AROUND 1600. THE HOUSE HAS THE PLAN OF THE CAPITOL AND A CENTRAL CONNECTING MEMBER SERVING AS THE APPROACH TO BOTH WINGS. (FROM HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH HOUSE BY NATHANIEL LLOYD, LONDON, 1931.) BELOW RIGHT: THE TOWN HALL AT ABINGDON, ENGLAND, BUILT IN 1677. (FROM ENGLISH HOMES PERIOD IV--VOL. I BY H. AVRAY TIPPING, LONDON, 1920.)
BELOW LEFT: THE TOWN HALL AMERSHAM, ENGLAND, BUILT IN 1682. (FROM ENGLISH DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE XVII AND XVIII CENTURIES BY HORACE FIELD AND MICHAEL BUNNEY, CLEVELAND, 1928.) BOTH BUILDINGS HAVE AN OPEN ARCADED LOGGIA WHICH, LIKE THAT OF THE CAPITOL, CARRIES AN ENCLOSED ROOM ABOVE IT. BOTH ALSO HAVE CUPOLAS SERVING AS BELL TOWERS. 12 ABOVE: BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF LAWNS AND RANGES, DRAWN BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR HIS PROJECTED UNIVERSITY AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS BEGUN IN 1817. THIS PERSISTENCE OF THE ARCADE IN VIRGINIA ARCHITECTURE IS EXPLAINED, PROBABLY, BY THE FACT THAT IT WAS RECOGNIZED AS BEING VERY USEFUL IN THE "SUNNY SOUTH." (DRAWING REPRODUCED FROM THOMAS JEFFERSON / ARCHITECT AND BUILDER BY I. T. FRARY, RICHMOND, 1939.) RIGHT: PLAN AND FRONT ELEVATION OF KING WILLIAM COURT HOUSE, ERECTED EARLY IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. A NUMBER OF OTHER COURTHOUSES WITH ARCADED FRONTS WERE BUILT IN VIRGINIA, AMONG WHICH THE HANOVER COURTHOUSE (1735) IS NOTEWORTHY. LIKE THOSE OF THE WREN BUILDING AND THE CAPITOL, THESE ARCADES DERIVED FROM ENGLISH ANTECEDENTS. (ELEVATION DRAWING REPRODUCED FROM ORIGINAL IN ARCHITECTURAL SKETCHBOOK OF SINGLETON P. MOOREHEAD.)
THE PLAN OF THE KING WILLIAM COURT-HOUSE (FROM A MEASURED DRAWING BY GEORGE S. CAMPBELL ) IS MORE OR LESS TYPICAL OF VIRGINIA COURTHOUSE PLANS SINCE SIMILAR FUNCTIONS ARE PERFORMED IN ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS. IN THE ISLE OF WIGHT COURT-HOUSE AND THE CHOWAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE, EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA (ILLS., PP. 18, 19) THE COURT ROOMS, ESSENTIALLY THE SAME IN FORM AND USE AS THE GENERAL COURT ROOM OF THE CAPITOL, WERE GIVEN, LIKE THE LATTER, SEMI-CIRCULAR ENDS. 13 architecture. With the introduction into England by Inigo Jones and others of the form vocabulary of the Italian Renaissance, the arcade again became a frequently-used feature. Our plate, p. 11, shows two English town halls built only a few years before the Capitol. In these buildings, as in the Capitol, open arcades carry enclosed spaces above them and these were used, no doubt, for much the same purpose as the Conference Room of the Capitol which occupies the space over its arcade. To be sure, the town halls have no flanking wings, but they do bear a close resemblance to the central element of the Capitol, even to the possession of cupolas over their centers. In detailing, of course, the pilastered Renaissance facades of the Abingdon town hall are far more ornate than the restrained faces of the Capitol but the Amersham structure, on the other hand, despite its stone trim, has a simplicity which links it, in feeling, with the Capitol. We have reason to suspect that buildings of this type exercised an influence on the design of the Capitol.

USEFULNESS OF ARCADED PORCH IN VIRGINIA

A few words should be said about the appropriateness of the use in Virginia of the arcaded porch. This feature which, as we have said, originated in Italy, a land of arched and collonaded porticoes, was there eminently practical as well as highly ornamental, since it furnished pedestrians protection not only from the rain but also, in that southern climate, from the intense heat of the sun. Though less necessary for the latter reason in England, it was once more, in Virginia, very useful since it provided shade which in the summer heat of that country is very welcome. 14 THE SEMI-CYLINDRICAL SOUTH ENDS OF THE RECONSTRUCTED CAPITOL 15 In using it in public meeting places like courthouses, the main building of the College and the Capitol, in all of which numbers of people were likely to pause for conversation or to discuss business, the colonists adapted their buildings to the climate of the land. These loggias continued to be used, indeed, long after the colonial period ended, a notable example of this use being the arcaded covered ways of the east and west ranges of Thomas Jefferson's University of Virginia (see drawing, p. 12).

CURVED ENDS OF CAPITOL, ITS MOST STRIKING FEATURES, HAD NO COUNTERPARTS IN VIRGINIA; EXAMPLES OF CIRCULAR BUILDINGS IN COLONY

By all odds the most striking features of the Capitol were the half-cylindrical south ends of its wings which had no counterparts in the architecture of Virginia at the time of their erection. Roughly-cylindrical tower windmills and some cylindrical plantation outbuildings, such as the ice houses at Rosewell and Toddsbury (Gloucester County) and Westover (Charles City County); the quite exceptional slave quarter at Keswick (Powhatan County) and the dovecotes at Westover and Shirley (Charles City County), were, in fact, almost the only buildings erected during the colonial period in Virginia which were not straight-sided. Again we must turn to the mother country to find the basis for the curved ends of the Capitol wings and for these other cylindrical structures.

CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURES NOT UNCOMMON IN ENGLAND AND CAPITOL ARCHITECT COULD HAVE DERIVED INSPIRATION FROM THEM

We find upon investigation that cylindrical and semi-cylindrical buildings were not rare in the architecture of England. On the two illustration plates which follow (pp. 16 and 17) we present a few selections from many extant English examples of buildings in which the cylindrical form plays an important role. These suggest the rounded ends of the Capitol sufficiently to justify us in venturing the assertion that had the Capitol been erected in England it would scarcely have aroused wonder or curiosity because of the unfamiliarity of its shape.

THE BUILDING OF STONE CASTLES BEGAN IN ENGLAND AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST, THE EARLIEST OF THEM, THE TOWER OF LONDON, HAVING BEEN COMPLETED BEFORE 1087. TOWERS OR TURRETS ERECTED AT SALIENT POINTS OF THE ENCLOSING WALLS ENABLED BOWMEN TO SHOOT AT ATTACKING FORCES. THESE TURRETS WERE SOMETIMES SQUARE IN SECTION AND SOMETIMES ROUND. THE LATTER TYPE WAS FREQUENTLY USED SINCE IT ENABLED DEFENDERS TO OBSERVE AND TO SHOOT THROUGH CROSS-SLITS PLACED AT SEVERAL POINTS IN THE CYLINDER'S CIRCUMFERENCE. BODIAM CASTLE (TOP PICTURE, TAKEN FROM NATHANIEL LLOYD'S A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH WAS SURROUNDED BY A MOAT AND ENTERED THROUGH A FORTIFIED GATE-HOUSE APPROACHED VIA A DRAWBRIDGE. WOULD-BE INVADERS WERE SUBJECT TO FLANK ATTACK FROM THE CYLINDRICAL TOWERS.

BY THE TIME THE GATEHOUSE OF WOLFETON, A LARGE TUDOR MANOR HOUSE IN DORSET (MIDDLE AND LOWEST PICTURES, TAKEN FROM COUNTRY LIFE, AUGUST 6, 1953) WAS BUILT IN 1534, THE NEED FOR DEFENSIVE TOWERS HAD LARGELY PASSED, SO THAT IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT THESE MAY BE EARLIER FEATURES INCORPORATED INTO THE TUDOR STRUCTURE. THE UPPER PARTS OF THE TOWERS WERE ONCE DOVECOTES AND AN OLD ENGRAVING SHOWS THAT THEIR CONICAL ROOFS WERE FORMERLY STEEPER.

WITH THE END OF CASTLE BUILDING IN ENGLAND THE CYLINDRICAL AND HALF-CYLINDRICAL FORMS CONTINUED TO BE USED AS ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES HAVING NO DEFENSIVE PURPOSE AND WE FIND THEM LATER IN WORKS BY ENGLISH RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTS SUCH AS JONES, WREN, VANBRUGH AND OTHERS. THEY WERE ALSO OFTEN EMPLOYED IN MORE PURELY FUNCTIONAL STRUCTURES LIKE FARM BUILDINGS OF VARIOUS SORTS (SEE PICTURES ON OPPOSITE PAGE). IT BECOMES EVIDENT THAT CYLINDRICAL AND SEMI-CYLINDRICAL SHAPES HAD BEEN FAMILIAR ONES IN ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE FOR CENTURIES BEFORE THE CAPITOL WAS BUILT. IT IS NOT SURPRISING, THEREFORE, THAT THE ARCHITECT OF THAT BUILDING SHOULD HAVE MADE USE OF HALF CYLINDERS IN ITS DESIGN.

[Sketches]

LEFT: GRANITE BARN AT SOUTH COOMBES HEAD, CORNWALL, ENGLAND. (FROM REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND BY A. E. RICHARDSON AND C. LOVETT GILL, LONDON, 1924.) THE AUTHORS SPEAK 0F THIS AS "ONE OF THE FINEST EXAMPLES OF EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY MASONRY IN THE PROVINCES." THE BARN HAS TWO OF THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE CAPITOL, THE ARCADE AND THE HIP-ROOFED APSIDAL END. THOUGH BUILT LATER THAN THE CAPITOL, IT IS UNQUESTIONABLY COMPOSED OF TRADITIONAL FORMS.

THE PICTURE IMMEDIATELY BELOW, OF TWO OAST-HOUSES (HOP DRYING KILNS ) NEAR COWBEECH IN SUSSEX, ENGLAND WAS REPRODUCED FROM ROWLAND C. HUNTER'S OLD HOUSES IN ENGLAND, 1930. THESE BUILDINGS, WHICH THE AUTHOR DOES NOT DATE, PROBABLY STEM FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, WHEN MANY KILNS OF THIS TYPE WERE BUILT, THOUGH OAST-HOUSES EXISTED BEFORE THAT. THE BRICKWORK OF THESE BUILDINGS WAS LAID UP IN FLEMISH BOND, ACCENTED BY GLAZED HEADERS. THE STRUCTURES SHOWN HERE NO LONGER SERVE THEIR INTENDED USE AND HAVE LOST THE FUNNEL SHAPED VENTS IN WHICH THE ROOFS ONCE TERMINATED. THE WALLS, FURTHERMORE, WERE ORIGINALLY WITHOUT OPENINGS, THE WINDOWS HERE BEING A MODERN INSTALLATION.

THE TWO LOWER PICTURES AT THE RIGHT, FROM THE NOVEMBER 26, 1953 ISSUE OF COUNTRY LIFE, SHOW TWO OF SOME HUNDREDS OF CIRCULAR STONE DOVECOTES WHICH STILL EXIST IN SCOTLAND. THE LEFT HAND EXAMPLE IS AT DIRLETON CASTLE IN EAST LOTHIAN WHILE THE OTHER IS AT PITTENCRIEFF PARK, DUNFERMLINE, FIFE. THREE OR FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO PIGEONS WERE, IN SCOTLAND, ALMOST THE ONLY SOURCE OF FRESH MEAT IN WINTER, SO THAT EVERY CASTLE, MONASTERY OR GREAT MANOR HOUSE THERE HAD A DOVECOTE TO SUPPLY IT WITH THE BIRDS.

A MORE STRIKING EXAMPLE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE CAPITOL ON (THE SUBSEQUENT ARCHITECTURE OF VIRGINIA COULD SCARCELY BE FOUND, PROBABLY, THAN THAT REVEALED IN THE FORM OF THE COURT ROOM WING OF THE OLD ISLE OF WIGHT COURTHOUSE IN SMITHFIELD, WHICH STEMS FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. THIS BUILDING HAS THE T PLAN CHARACTERISTIC OF VIRGINIA COURT HOUSES BUT, QUITE UNTYPICALLY, THE COURT ROOM END HAS BEEN MADE SEMI-CIRCULAR IN IMITATION OF THE ROUNDED SOUTH ENDS OF THE TWO WINGS OF THE CAPITOL. THE HALF-CONICAL HIPPED ROOF OF THE END HAS NEARLY THE SAME PITCH (SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 45°) AS THE ROOF OF THE CAPITOL; THE MODILLION CORNICES OF THE TWO BUILDINGS ARE VERY SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER AND THE BRICKWORK OF BOTH, ABOVE THEIR WATERTABLES, IS LAID IN FLEMISH BOND. IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT THE UPPER WINDOWS OF THE CURVED END OF THE COURT HOUSE HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF LIGHTS AS THE SECOND STORY WINDOWS OF THE CAPITOL. THE CORRESPONDENCE OF THESE ORIGINAL FEATURES OF THE COURT-HOUSE WITH THE RECONSTRUCTED DETAILS OF THE CAPITOL SERVES FURTHER TO DEMONSTRATE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE LATTER.

THE LOWER PICTURE SHOWS THE STRUCTURE WITH NINETEENTH CENTURY ACCRETIONS WHILE THE UPPER ONE SHOWS IT AS IT IS AT PRESENT, WITH THESE ADDITIONS REMOVED. THE BUILDING IS NO LONGER A COURT HOUSE. THE FRONT PORTION BEING USED FOR OFFICES AND THE COURT ROOM REMAINING UNOCCUPIED. THE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FROM THE H.A.B.S. COLLECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHS, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

[Interior photograph - Chowan Courthouse]

ANOTHER EIGHTEENTH CENTURY COURTHOUSE WHICH DEMONSTRATES UNMISTAKABLY THE INFLUENCE OF THE CAPITOL ON THE SUBSEQUENT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES DEVOTED TO GOVERNMENTAL USES IS THE CHOWAN COUNTY COURTHOUSE IN EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA. THE PHOTOGRAPH (FROM THE H.A.B.S. COLLECTION) IS AN INTERIOR VIEW OF THE APSIDAL TERMINATION OF THE COURT ROOM SHOWN IN THE PLAN BELOW. THE LATTER WAS TAKEN FROM THE EARLY ARCHITECTURE OF NORTH CAROLINA BY FRANCES B. JOHNSTON AND THOMAS T. WATERMAN, CHAPEL HILL, 1941.

[Plan]

WE CAN D0 NO BETTER, PROBABLY, THAN QUOTE WATERMAN ON THE SUBJECT OF THIS COURT HOUSE AND ITS DESIGN DERIVATION SINCE, HAVING WORKED ON THE PLANS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL, HE WAS INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE LATTER. OF THE COURT HOUSE HE SAYS: "IT WAS BUILT IN 1767, AND IS ATTRIBUTED TO GILBERT LEIGH, A RESIDENT OF EDENTON, SAID TO HAVE COME FROM WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA. THE GENERAL PLAN, WITH CENTRAL COURT ROOM AND FLANKING OFFICES, IS TYPICAL OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA. AN EXACT PARALLEL IN PLAN…IS THE FORMER ISLE OF WIGHT COURT HOUSE AT SMITHFIELD, VIRGINIA… THE ORIGIN OF BOTH BUILDINGS CAN CERTAINLY BE FOUND IN THE CAPITOL AT WILLIAMSBURG, WITH ITS APSIDAL GENERAL COURT ROOM AND HOUSE OF BURGESSES. EVEN THE JUDGE'S CHAIR AND PANELED WAINSCOT AT EDENTON ARE PARALLEL TO THESE FEATURES OF THE WILLIAMSBURG CAPITOL. … THIS WOULD MEAN THAT LEIGH KNEW THE CAPITOL BEFORE THE FIRE OF 1747, AS ALL OF THIS DETAIL PERISHED THEN."

THE TWO EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHURCHES SHOWN HERE, TRINITY CHURCH, DORCHESTER COUNTY, MARYLAND (ABOVE) AND ST. PAUL'S CHURCH, EDENTON, NORTH CAROLINA BOTH HAVE SEMI-CIRCULAR APSES RESEMBLING THOSE OF THE CAPITOL. ACCORDING TO SWEPSON EARLE, FROM WHOSE BOOK, THE CHESAPEAKE BAY COUNTRY, BALTIMORE, 1938, OUR PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN, "OLD TRINITY" DATES BACK TO ABOUT 1680 WHILE THOMAS T. WATERMAN TELLS US IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF NORTH CAROLINA (FRANCES B. JOHNSTON AND THOMAS T. WATERMAN, CHAPEL HILL, 1941) THAT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH WAS STARTED IN 1736 AND ITS SHELL AND ROOF COMPLETED BY 1745.

THE DESIGN OF TRINITY COULD NOT WELL HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THE CAPITOL, IF EARLE IS CORRECT IN HIS DATING OF IT, BECAUSE IT WAS ERECTED ALMOST A QUARTER CENTURY BEFORE THE BUILDING OF THE FIRST CAPITOL. OF ST. PAUL'S, WATERMAN SAYS: "ITS FORM IS UNUSUAL IN AN AREA OF COUNTY CHURCHES WHERE … CUSTOM AVOIDED A CHANCEL APSE. NO APSE IS KNOWN EVEN ON SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY CHURCHES IN VIRGINIA, AND THE ONLY REFERENCE TO ONE THERE IS IN A DRAWING IN THE FULHAM PALACE ARCHIVES … IT WOULD SEEM QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE PLANS FOR ST. PAUL'S CAME FROM ENGLAND… ."

THE SEMI-CIRCULAR APSE, OF COURSE, WAS A COMMON FEATURE IN THE CHURCH ARCHITECTURE OF EUROPE FROM THE DAYS OF THE EARLY CHRISTIAN BASILICA ONWARD THROUGH THE ROMANESQUE AND GOTHIC PERIODS TO THE TIME OF THE BUILDING OF THE TWO CHURCHES ILLUSTRATED HERE. IT IS LIKELY, THEREFORE, THAT THEY STEM FROM THIS LONG-ESTABLISHED CHURCH FORM RATHER THAN FROM THE EXAMPLE OF THE CAPITOL, WHICH MAY ITSELF, HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY THIS TRADITIONAL USE OF THE APSE FORM.

OLD ENGLISH COURT ROOM MAY HAVE BEEN ACTUAL MODEL FOR APSES OF CAPITOL

Thus far, in our illustrations and text, we have considered possible English antecedents of the half-cylindrical south ends of the Capitol from the standpoint of the external resemblance between the latter and the former. In addition, an English interior has come to light which so strongly resembles the apsidal end of the Capitol Court Room as to lead us to believe that it may have been the actual model after which the original Court Room, with its half-cylindrical end, may have been designed. The example in question is the court room of the Doctors' Commons in London. Two drawings of this are reproduced on pp. 277 and 278 of Part 2 of this report.

APSIDAL SHAPE OF SOUTH ENDS OF WINGS OF CAPITOL WAS FOLLOWED IN THREE COURTHOUSES BUT OTHERWISE NOT IMITATED

However great the prestige of the first Capitol may have been, it cannot be said that its most striking features, the half-cylindrical ends, were widely copied in the colonies, possibly because curved forms are not so readily executed in brickwork as rectangular ones. Nevertheless, two courthouse buildings still exist in which the imitation of these features of the Capitol is very apparent and we have the original specification for a third one, which has since disappeared. In the structure in Smithfield which served from l750 to 1800 as the Isle of Wight CourthoUse {see photos and discussion, p. 18) the resemblance of the curved end to those of the Capitol is so close as to remove all doubt as to its provenance. It is evident, likewise, that the County Courthouse in Edenton, North Carolina (p. 19) was designed under the direct influence of the Capitol and here the imitation of the interior treatment of the apsidal end of the Chamber of the House of Burgesses is readily discernible. The specification mentioned above stems from 1740 and lists the dimensions and various features of a courthouse to be erected in Lancaster County. It provides, among other things, that the building shall have "one compas End." Since only circles or parts of circles can be drawn 22 with a compass, this "compas End" must have been semi-circular.^*

As for the curved apses of the two churches shown on p. 20, it is probable that these are lineal descendants of countless examples of this feature which have been used on churches since the early days of the Christian church. The most one might say is that the existence of the shape on the Capitol influenced the builders to choose a form long characteristic of European church architecture but which was rarely used in the South in colonial times.

OCTAGONAL STRUCTURES BECAME MORE NUMEROUS IN VIRGINIA THAN CIRCULAR

It should be pointed out that while circular shapes, except in minor details, were not numerous in the buildings of Virginia (see p. 15), the octagon and half-octagon were used fairly frequently. The octagon could be looked upon as a straight-sided first cousin of the circle since, like the latter, it is concentric and symmetrical and possesses much of the feeling of the circle. It is, of course, far simpler to build, a consideration which probably accounts for the fact that it was more often employed. The Magazine in Williamsburg, built in 1715, has this form. I twas used in garden houses and other smaller outbuildings (the reconstructed structure in the service court of the Governor's Palace which, for want of a more specific title, is designated as the "Hexagonal" is, of course, six-sided). The shape was later a favorite one with Thomas Jefferson who made numerous building designs utilizing the full or half octagon. It should be remarked, in concluding this discussion of circular and quasi-circular structure in Virginia, that Jefferson's great cylindrical building, the Rotunda of his University at Charlottesville, was based on neither Virginian nor English models but, rather, on the form of the ancient Pantheon in Rome.

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN RECONSTRUCTION OF CAPITOL

BRIEF REVIEW OF HISTORY OF CAPITOL; FIRE OF 1747 AND ERECTION OF SECOND BUILDING; REMOVAL OF SEAT OF GOVERNMENT TO RICHMOND

It will be an aid to the understanding or some of the questions to be discussed in this section and in the report generally if we are in possession of a few facts on the history of the Capitol or, rather, the Capitols subsequent to the completion of the first building in 1704. This building was burned in 1747 but parts of its walls, we believe, remained standing and were utilized in the construction of the second building. This was begun in 1751 and completed in 1753. The second Capitol, the scene of many significant events, remained in use as a statehouse until 1779, when the seat of government was removed to Richmond.

USES SERVED BY SECOND CAPITOL DOWN TO 1832, WHEN ITS REMAINING HALF BURNED

"During the fifty years which followed, the Capitol served variously as a meeting place of the Court of Admiralty and of the District Chancery Court, as a law school; a military hospital, and as a grammar school. In 1793 an act of the Assembly authorized the sale of the east wing to raise funds for the repair of the west wing. In 1832 the remaining portion of the Capitol was destroyed by fire.

SITE ACQUIRED BY A.P.V.A. WHICH PRESENTS IT TO COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG INC. IN 1928

"In 1839 a 'female academy' was erected on the Capitol site. In 1881 the last traces of this building were removed. In 1897 the site was presented by the Old Dominion Land Company to the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. This association protected and preserved the old foundations of the Capitol until July 16, 1928, when it presented the land to Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated.

STUDY OF SITE

"In 1928 the old foundations were excavated and archaeological investigation undertaken. Following an extensive research campaign, 26 the Capitol was rebuilt upon its original foundations."^*

REASONS FOR CHOICE OF FIRST CAPITOL AS THE ONE TO BE REBUILT; MORE DETAILED INFORMATION CONCERNING IT EXISTED THAN IN CASE OF SECOND

It should be stated at the outset that the first Capitol building was chosen for reconstruction rather than the second, in which so many events occurred which contributed to the outbreak of the War for Independence, for several reasons. Chief among these was the fact that, thanks to the availability of the acts and other measures of the General Assembly giving directions for the building of the Capitol (p. 1), a great deal was known about the first building. Nothing at all comparable in the way of detailed information existed concerning the second building, so that a reconstruction of that structure of the degree of authenticity of the present one, could never have been made.

FIRST BUILDING A "PURER' AND MORE UNIFIED STRUCTURE THAN THE SECOND

A further consideration which carried weight in arriving at the decision to rebuild the original edifice had to do with the relative architectural merit of the two structures. The first Capitol building was built in one operation and was a unified structure, as well as being a unique one. The second, though built upon the ruins of its predecessor, was a much altered version of this and may well be said to have been a transitional or a nondescript building. Stylistically, then, the first building was much superior to the second.

FIRST CAPITOL A TRAINING GROUND IN THE CONDUCT OF DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES

Returning to the relative significance which the two buildings had, politically, and, admitting the importance and dramatic character of the events which took place in the second one, it 27 behooves us to point out, as does Stanley M. Pargellis in his informative article, "The Procedure of the Virginia House of Burgesses" (William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, Vol. VII, April and July, 1927) that the activities which, took place in the first building also merit our attention. We should not forget that it was in this building, as well as in the statehouses at Jamestown, that the colonists gained experience in democratic parliamentary procedures, laid the groundwork for the conduct of future representative assemblies in America and, for the matter, acquired the political maturity and acumen which enabled them, when the final culminating crisis in the relations of the dominion with the mother country came, to act with wisdom and decision.

DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR ERECTION OF CAPITOL, CERTAIN POINTS IN ITS DESIGN REMAINED IN DOUBT WHEN RECONSTRUCTION WAS UNDERTAKEN

Despite the fact that the legislative acts of 1699 and 1701 specified the type of plan the Capitol was to have and the dimensions of each of its three parts; the thickness of its walls; the interior divisions and many of the exterior and interior details (see Appendix for a verbatim transcript of these acts), the architects in charge of the reconstruction of the building were nonetheless confronted by a number of puzzling questions when they undertook their investigation into the nature of the original structure, preparatory to the making of the working drawings. We will outline here the chief points which were in doubt and the decisions which were reached respecting them.^*

DETERMINATION OF WHICH FACE WAS FRONT OF CAPITOL NECESSARY IN WORKING OUT CERTAIN POINTS IN ITS DESIGN; I.E. LOCATION OF QUEEN'S ARMS

A matter which was the subject of considerable study and debate was the question as to which of the building's four facades had been looked upon as the front in the eighteenth century. This was a consideration of importance for a number of reasons. On it hinged the decision as to which of the faces of the cupola was to receive the Queen's Arms since, according to an entry on p. 217 of the Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1702-1712, it was ordered on June 7, 1706 "… That the Queens arms be painted upon the front of the Cupolo of the Capitol" Since the cupola was hexagonal, only two sides could be made parallel with either of the two main axes of the building. Therefore, it was important to determine which face of the building had been the front in order to know how to turn the faces of the cupola. If, for example, either the north or south face were found to be the front, the cupola would be placed so that two of its faces paralleled the east-west axis.

LOCATION OF BRICK SHIELD DEPENDED ON INDENTIFICATION OF MAIN FRONT

This information was also needed to enable the architects to locate the carved brick shield of which Governor Francis Nicholson speaks in a communication of March 3, 1705, now in the Public Record Office, London (C05-#1314):

… he [James Blair] had the Assurance (to give it no worse name) to reflect upon what I had ordered to be put upon the Capitoll which was done in cutt bricks, & first showed on the day that (according to my duty) I proclaimed her Maty [Majesty], at top there was cut the Sun, Moon, and the planet Jupiter, and underneath thus HER MAJESTY QUEEN ANNE HER ROYALL CAPITOLL…

SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF BUILDING DICTATED USE OF "PIAZZA" AS MEANS OF APPROACH TO TWO WINGS OF CAPITOL

Ease of use would surely, in the beginning, at least, have dictated that the building be entered via the "piazza" connecting the two wings and we have every reason to believe that the arcade was intended, originally, as such a focal point from which the two parts of the building could be reached directly. It would have required only a rudimentary sense of sound planning on the Part of the builders of the Capitol to cause them to decide against the designation of either the east or west doorway as the main entrance for the reason that, if one of these were so chosen, the ground floor room of that wing, either the hall of the House of Burgesses or the General Courtroom, would have become a passageway for persons having business to transact in the other wing. Such use would also, of necessity, have led to some modification of the internal arrangements of one or the other of these two important chambers.

ACCEPTING THIS REASONING, THE ARCHITECTS HAD TO DECIDE WHETHER NORTH OR SOUTH FRONT HAD BEEN THE MAIN APPROACH; EVIDENCE POINTED TO LATTER AS FRONT FACADE

Thus, the architects were bound to conclude that the building had originally been approached from either the north or the south, the two sides, that is, from which the central arcade could most easily be reached. The question then remained as to which of these two sides had been looked upon as the main approach; They believed, at first that the north side had served as the front, inasmuch as the engraver of the Bodleian plate had chosen to depict that side of the building. It was argued that, since he had shown the fronts of the Wren Building and the Palace, he would, in all likelihood, also have shown the main facade of the Capitol. Documentary evidence, nevertheless, militated against the acceptance of the north facade as the de facto front of the building. A deed given by Claude Revierre and wife, executors of Joseph Chermoson, to David Cunningham, dated The Bodleian copper plate from which the above representation of the Capitol was taken, carries on it, also, views of the buildings of the College of William and Mary of its flora and fauna. It has never been possible to date the engraving exactly. The plate, or, more accurately, perhaps, the sketches from which the engraver who made the plate worked, it seems, must have been made between 1733, the completion date of the President's House of the College, which is shown on the plate, and 1747 when the first Capitol burned. This Bodleian plate representation of the Capitol proved to be an invaluable aid to the architects in the determination of the general character of the building and of a number of its details.
The presence in the engraving of the two chimneys, not shown on our drawing of the north elevation, p. 131, requires a few words of explanation. For reasons of fire safety chimneys were omitted from the reconstructed Capitol. By 1723 the danger of the destruction of the records by dampness came so far to outweigh the fear of fire that the House of Burgesses, complying with the recommendation of the Governor and Council, resolved "to build stacks of Chimneys with two Fire places in each Chimney at the North end of the Capitol… ." (Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1712-1726, p. 390). The two foundations indicated in green on the archaeological plan, p. 41 are presumably the remains of these stacks, although they are indicated as being later in period than the squared-off south ends of the second Capitol. 31 May 8, 1712,^* was discovered, which runs, in part, as follows:

… All those two lots of land with dwelling house and outhouses which was the testators at the time of his death, lying and being in the City of Williamsburg, on the back side [italics ours] of ye Capitol near ye Public Gaol, designed in the plot of the said city by the figures 279; 280…

A RESOLUTION ORDERED THE CLOSING OF THE NORTH ARCHES; WAS THIS EVER CARRIED OUT?

This conclusion was further reinforced by a resolution of November 5, 1720 which is recorded in the Journal of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1712-1726, p. 255:

Resolved That Mr. Speaker and Mr. Clayton who are Impowered by Act of Assembly to repair and amend the Capitol, be desired Immediately to Imploy the workmen to Close up North Arches in the Piassa of the Capitol.

EVIDENCE THAT ARCHWAYS WERE CLOSED IN SECOND CAPITOL, IS, HOWEVER, POSITIVE

There is, on the other hand plenty or evidence to prove that both the north and south arches were closed in the second building, probably, however, by means of doors rather than by the bricking up or the arches, as was contemplated in the order of 1720, but, we believe, never carried out. In this building, as we have remarked, the west side was forced into serving as the principal facade by the application to the front of a two-tiered portico and the closing of the external arches of the central porch was doubtless intended, by discouraging their use as a means of entry, further to consolidate the position of the west front as the main entrance side.

EVIDENCE IS BOTH LITERARY AND PICTORIAL; STATEMENTS BY TRAVELLERS

The evidence which indicates that the outside arches of the central cross gallery or "piazza" were closed and that this space became, in effect, a room is both literary and pictorial. As to the first, we have in the journal kept by Ebenezer Hazard, a traveller who paid Williamsburg a visit in 1777,^* the following reference to the one-time open porch:

Upon entering the Capitol you get into a Room in which the Courts of Justice are held; it is large & conveniant… Opposite to the Door by which you enter this Room (in another Apartment, which is a Kind of Hall)^** is an elegant white marble pedestrian Statue of Lord Botetourt in his Robes….

DRAWING BY BENJAMIN LATROBE SHOWING CONDITION OF "PIAZZA IN 1796.

In addition to this, Johann Schoepf described the Capitol in 1783 and made note of the statue which stood "in one of its lower rooms ." Finally, Isaac Weld visited the Capitol in 1796 and stated that "In the Hall of the capitol stands a maimed statue of lord Botetourt."

PICTORIAL EVIDENCE; DRAWING BY LATROBE

Pictorial evidence pointing to the closing off of the arches is contained in a drawing of the "piazza" made by the celebrated architect-engineer, Benjamin Latrobe when, on a mission in this vicinity in 1796 to revamp the seventeenth century former 34 gubernatorial residence, Greenspring, he visited Williamsburg.^* Latrobe's drawing (reproduction on preceding page) shows what is evidently the southern half of the arcade since it was there that the Botetourt statue is believed to have stood (see plan of second building, Diagram A, p. 46). The drawing clearly indicates that the space in question was plastered and the transom in the archway at the left suggests that doors had been used to close it off from the outside. The jambs of the arches at the right, half plastered and half showing brickwork, reinforce this hypothesis; the door frames, evidently, had served to divide the interior plaster from the exterior brick-work of the piers. The fact that the piers, both right and left, are half plastered and half brickwork suggests two possibilities, i.e., that only the southern half of the former "piazza" was enclosed or in the second building the middle line of arches had been eliminated.

MEANING OF STATEMENT CONCERNING DIMENSIONS OF CROSS GALLERY NEVER COMPLETELY CLARIFIED

Before leaving the subject of the central arcade or cross gallery it should be mentioned that the building Act of 1699 (see Appendix) stipulated that "the two parts of the building shall be joyned by a Cross Gallery of thirty foot long and fifteen foot wide each way… raised upon Piazzas and built as high as the other parts of the building." The expression, "fifteen foot wide each way" puzzled the architects and they never did attain to absolute certainty as to its meaning. Since, however, the height of the first story of the structure is specified in the act as fifteen feet it is likely that the prase was intended to mean that the arcade should be made fifteen feet wide (north-south dimensions) and fifteen feet high.

GALLERY WIDTH DOUBLED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS BEGUN

Plan I of Diagram A, p. 46 purports to show the main floor of the building as originally specified. The arcade or cross gallery is represented as being one bay wide. We know that the arcade was never built this way since, before the erection of the structure was begun, the Act of 1701 was passed by the General Assembly (Appendix) and this contained certain additions and amendments to the original one. One of the changes specified was "that the cross building betwixt the two main buildings be of the same breadth with the maine buildings…" The building, evidently, as originally built, had a two-bay, ca. 30-foot-wide cross gallery and the architects reconstructed it that way. This state of the cross gallery is shown on plan II of Diagram A, which represents the main floor of the building as it was originally built.

WHY DID THE BUILDERS OF THE CAPITOL TURN THE "ARCHITECTURAL FRONT" TOWARD THE NORTH AND THEREBY NEGATE THE PROBABLE INTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT?

The theory has been advanced that the north facade of the Capitol which the maker of the Bodleian plate depicted and therefore evidently, looked upon as the main front, was likewise intended by its designer in England as the "architectural front" (chief facade) of the building. It may well have been his intention for this elevation of the building to face westward toward the Wren Building and this is particularly likely to have been the case if the Wren Building and the Capitol were the work of the same architect, i.e., Sir Christopher Wren (p. 2), for the latter would surely have considered carefully the relationship of his two structures. Otherwise, one may ask if the fronts of the two buildings were not intended to face each other, why should the two have been placed at either end of this major Duke of Gloucester Street axis? The form of the building, i.e. , two equal wings joined by an open arcade, was, furthermore, such that 36 had the so-called architectural front been placed toward the west, it would have permitted the main street, in effect, to continue through to Waller Street without interruption, as we know from Theodorick Bland's survey map (p. 3) it was intended to.^* Finally it would have made the approach to the building from York Road, at that time by afar the most heavily-trafficked route entering Williamsburg, most convenient.

REASON ADVANCED TO EXPLAIN ORIENTATION OF CAPITOL, VIZ., THE WISH TO GIVE MAIN MEETING ROOMS THE MAXIMUM SUNLIGHT

The builders of the Capitol, then, muSt have had some weighty reason for sacrificing these various advantages in turning the intended architectural front of the building toward the north where the ground fell off, making the approach from that direction much less feasible than from the other three, and causing what is obviously a side of the structure to face the main street. The theory proposed to explain this is based upon the circumstance that it was originally decided for reasons of fire prevention, to omit from the building the only means of heating then available, fireplaces, and this omission would have made the building cold and uncomfortable 37 in winter. In order to compensate as much as possible for this lack of heating, the rooms of chief importance, which were located in the curved ends of the wings, were turned south to give them the maximum benefit from the sun's heat. Any other orientation of the rounded ends would have cast one or the other of the two wings in shadow and thus deprived it of this warmth.

BUILDERS IGNORED DUKE OF GLOUCESTER STREET, IN TURNING SIDE OF CAPITOL TOWARD IT, BECAUSE IT WAS THEN AN UNIMPORTANT ROADWAY; CONSEQUENCE OF THIS LACK OF FORESIGHT

To the above explanation should be added, in partial justification of the turning of a side rather than the front of the building toward the Duke of Gloucester Street, the consideration that that particular avenue, regardless of the major role the planners of the town quite evidently envisioned for it, was, at the time the first Capitol was built, a very unimportant roadway. Apparently, those in charge of the building of the structure could not foresee the significance that this would take on when, in time, the intention inherent in the city plan would come to be fulfilled. Because of this irremediable decision to face the Capitol away from the prospective main street, a later generation recognizing the anomaly in the fact that a side rather than the front of the building faced the, by that time, major approach, was forced, by way of amending this situation somewhat in the structure rebuilt after the fire of 1747, to apply a two-tiered portico to the west facade and to designate the doorway in it as the main entrance to the building.

RELATIONSHIPS OF CENTERS OF CERTAIN ESSENTIAL BUILDING ELEMENTS HAD TO BE DETERMINED BEFORE EAST AND WEST FACADES COULD BE DESIGNED

Another question which was given careful study before the actual restoration of the building was begun had to do with the relation of the east-west axis through the center of the cupola to the center line of the west doorway and the center line of a 38 semi-circular foundation discovered adjacent to the west wall beneath the doorway and the relation of all of these to the axis of Duke of Gloucester Street. The establishment of these relationships was of essential importance in the determination of the number and spacing of the openings in the east and west walls, since neither the legislative acts directing the building of the first Capitol nor any other available documents gave this information.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL REMAINS TO BE DISCUSSED HERE BRIEFLY BECAUSE FOUNDATIONS HAD BEARING ON DESIGN OF SIDE FACADES

It would be well, before exploring the subject touched upon above to say a few words about the archaeological remains which were uncovered on the Capitol site, since these were involved in the decisions which were made respecting the form of the two side facades. 'The discussion of these will be brief since the archaeological drawing on p. 41 and photograph on p. 42 show and explain pretty completely what was found on the site.

ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF CAPITOL CAN BE READ IN FOUNDATION REMAINS

Much of the architectural history of the Capitol can be read in the foundation remains. The extent and plan character of the first and second buildings are clearly evident from the archaeological drawing, which is to say that the layout of the original structure and the modifications made in this building when it was rebuilt after the fire of 1747 are discernible.

SEMI-CIRCULAR FOUNDATION, WHEN UNCOVERED, APPEARED TO HAVE BRICKWORK OF TWO PERIODS

The archaeological feature which concerns us most at the moment, since it played an important part in the investigations into the nature of the west facade, is the semi-circular foundation adjacent to the foundation of the west wall. This foundation, like those of the main walls, had previously, for its preservation, been capped with concrete by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (A.P.V.A.) which owned the Capitol site at the time, 39 When the concrete cap of the semi-circular foundation was removed and the brickwork beneath it studied the latter was found to contain, at different levels, bricks which were believed to be of both the first and second periods, laid up for the most part with an oyster shell mortar containing more sand than that in the foundation walls of the original building. Little or no evidence was found of the bonding of the semi-circular foundation with the brickwork of the west wall.

COMMITTEE OF A.P.V.A. BELIEVED SEMI-CIRCULAR FOUNDATION TO BE THAT OF ORIGINAL WEST PORCH

The actual period of the brickwork of the semi-circular foundation was so difficult to determine with certainty that two quite different conclusions were reached concerning it. The members of the A.P.V.A. Capitol Committee (see Appendix for a listing of the membership of this) were of the opinion that the foundation was that of the semi-circular porch specified in the building act of 1699 (see Appendix). Had this view been accepted the eventual appearance of the reconstructed Capitol would have been considerably different from what it is, since the center line of the semi-circular foundation virtually coincides with the east-west center line of the cupola and, of course, the west entrance would have been on this center line.

ARCHITECTS DECIDED THAT ORIGINAL PORCH AND DOORWAY HAD BEEN MOVED AND THAT POSITION OF SEMI-CIRCULAR FOUNDATION WAS THAT OF SECOND PORCH

The lack of evidence of the bonding in of the brickwork of the semi-circular foundation with that of the main west wall, the heterogenous character of the brick work of the foundation and also, evidence of the disturbance, at some time in the past, of the brickwork of the west wall of the building convinced the architects that this was not the foundation of the original west entrance porch. They decided that the original doorway had been farther north and 40 had lined up with the first position which had been fixed for the cupola but never carried into execution {see plan I of Diagram A, p. 46. This had been closed up at some time before 1747 and a new doorway and porch had been built to line up with the position of the cupola as actually built. The semi-circular foundation, they maintained, was that of this altered entrance porch. The fact that no foundations of the original porch were discovered was not remarkable, they argued, since, in accordance with a stipulation in the act of 1701 {see Appendix) the first semi-circular porch had been supported on cedar columns and these would long since have disintegrated. The reasoning of the architects prevailed and, since the structure was to be restored to its original condition, the semi-circular foundation was ignored and the doorway was placed some 6'-9 ½" north of the center line of the semi-circular foundation, in the position which it had taken in consequence of its having been made to line up with the cupola as first planned.

RECTANGULAR FOUNDATION ADJACENT TO WEST WALL AS THAT OF TWO-STORY PORCH OF SECOND CAPITOL

In concluding this brief treatment of the Capitol foundations, the attention of the reader should be called to the large rectangular foundation which is seen, in the archaeological plan, p. 41 and in the photograph, p. 42, to abut the west wall. This, without question, was the foundation wall of the two-tiered west porch of the second building, both because it corresponded in size and shape with this porch and because its brickwork was similar to that of the foundation walls of the squared-off south ends which we know belonged to the second building.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CAPITOL [Image unavailable - Oversized]

OLD CAPITOL FOUNDATIONS, LOOKING SOUTHEAST

WITH ENTRANCE CENTER LINE DETERMINED, WINDOW SIZED AND SPACING COULD BE WORKED OUT WITH AID OF BODLEIAN PLATE DRAWING OF NORTH FACADE

Once the architects and the A.P.V.A. building committee had come to agreement on the location of the west doorway they had the key to the positions of the window openings in the west facade, as well as in the identical east facade. They assumed, on the basis of the prevailing architectural usage of that day and this, that the window sizes, types and spacing would have been the same on the east and west facades as on the north, the windows of which were clearly indicated on the Bodleian plate drawing. (See p. 30). These sizes and types (round-arched below and straight-headed above) and the spacing when applied to the east and west facades, resulted in a relationship of openings to wall in those facades which was architecturally correct and satisfying. This was strong presumptive evidence that these window sizes and types and their spacing were a close approximation of the original window condition and, consequently, the architects developed the straight facades of the building on this basis. In doing this, they used, of course, the plan and elevation dimensions fixed by the original building act of 1699 (see Appendix) and confirmed by the foundations and, preserving a constant distance from the centers of the end windows in any facade to their adjacent building corners, they found that a difference in the center-to-center spacing of the openings in the east and west facades and those of the north ends of only 11" resulted. Since there is no possibility of a direct and close comparison, because the facades stand at right angles to each other, this difference is insufficient to become apparent to the eye, so that these adjacent facades seem to the observer to be harmoniously related to each other.

A. H. HEPBURN'S CAPITOL NOTES; FOUR DIAGRAMS ACCOMPANYING THESE ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT

In order to explain the major problems encountered by the architects in the reconstruction of the Capitol and the conclusions they reached concerning them, Andrew H. Hepburn of the firm in charge of the work compiled an informative paper entitled Capitol Notes, copies of which are available in the Architectural Records Office. This paper should be consulted by those desiring additional data on the matters which have been discussed in present chapter of this report. Mr. Hepburn supplements his commentary on the reconstruction of the Capitol with several diagrams which show, in plan and elevation, the various eighteenth-century states of the building. We are including, on the four succeeding illustration pages, reproductions of these very helpful drawings. These will be found to consist (in the order in which they appear here) of the following:

• Diagram A: Four plans of the building showing the Capitol, I, as originally planned, but not executed; II, as originally executed; III, as altered, by moving the west doorway southward to line up with the cupola and IV, as rebuilt after the fire of 1747.
• Diagram C: The west elevation as it was originally built and as it was reconstructed.
• Diagram D: The west elevation following the moving of the doorway and the inclusion of an additional window in both the first and second stories.
• Diagram E: The west elevation of the building as rebuilt after the fire of 1747.

TWO ITEMS ON DIAGRAM A SEEM TO BE OF DOUBTFUL ACCURACY

Attention should be called to two items shown on Diagram A concerning the accuracy of which the author believes there is considerable doubt. On plan III is the note, "Arches closed 1720." These arches were probably never closed in the first building, as has been pointed out on p. 31. Secondly, on plan IV, the same arches are indicated as closed on the north side by masonry and the corresponding arches on the south side are shown open. From descriptions of the condition of the one-time "piazza" which have been left by contemporary travellers who saw it and from the drawing made of it by Benjamin Latrobe, it seems likely that the arches of two sides of either one-half of the space, or the whole of it, were enclosed in the second building and that the enclosure was effected by placing doors in the archways, not by bricking them up (pp. 32-34).

DIAGRAMS SHOWING DIFFERENT STATES OF PLAN AND WEST ELEVATION OF CAPITOL

DIAGRAM A
FOUR STATES OF THE CAPITOL PLAN

CONJECTURAL DIAGRAM OF WEST ELEVATION OF THE CAPITOL SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE OPENINGS IN THAT FACADE WHEN THE BUILDING WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT. THE CUPOLA, RISING FROM THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF OF THE "PIAZZA" OR ARCADE LINKING THE TWO WINGS, WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO LINE UP WITH THE EAST AND WEST DOORWAYS. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING GOT UNDER WAY, HOWEVER, THE WIDTH OF THE ARCADE WAS DOUBLED WITHOUT ALTERING THE POSITION OF ITS NORTH SIDE, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE ROOF RIDGE AND THE TOWER ASTRIDE IT MOVED SOUTHWARD AND LEFT THE AXIS OF THE TWO ENTRANCES. THIS IS THE CONDITION SHOWN IN THE ABOVE DIAGRAM. FOR THE SEVERAL CONJECTURAL STATES OF THE CAPITOL PLAN, SEE DIAGRAM A.

ELEVATION III (COMPARE WITH PLAN III OF DIAGRAM A) SHOWS THE WEST ELEVATION WITH ITS ENTRANCE MOVED SOUTHWARD TO LINE UP WITH THE CUPOLA. THE OLD DOORWAY HAS BEEN BRICKED UP AND A FIFTH WINDOW HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE LEFT OF THE NEW ENTRANCE TO PRESERVE A UNIFORM CENTER-TO-CENTER SPACING OF THE WINDOWS. THE SAME OPENING PATTERN HAS ALSO BEEN CARRIED TO THE SECOND FLOOR.

ELEVATION IV (SEE DIAGRAM A FOR PLAN) SHOWS THE BUILDING AS REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE OF 1747. A TWO-STORY, PEDIMENTED PORTICO HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE WEST ELEVATION. THE HEADS OF THE ONCE ROUND-ARCHED FIRST FLOOR WINDOWS HAVE BEEN SQUARED OFF BUT THE WINDOW POSITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE LOCATIONS OF THE SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE BEEN ALTERED CONSIDERABLY. THE CUPOLA AND DORMERS HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THE SKETCH, PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT SHOWN IN THE TWO OR THREE NINETEENTH-CENTURY REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SECOND BUILDING AFTER WHICH THIS WAS DRAWN (SEE NEXT PAGE).

THE ABOVE SKETCH OF THE SECOND CAPITOL, BY ANDREW H. HEPBURN, IS PROBABLY, IN CERTAIN RESPECTS, A TRUER REPRESENTATION OF THE BUILDING AT THE TIME IT WAS BUILT THAN THE ONE ON THE PRECEDING PAGE. WE KNOW FROM AT LEAST THREE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY REFERENCES TO IT (SEE INDEX OF HAROLD R. SHURTLEFF'S CAPITOL NOTES, VOL. 2, FOR THESE) THAT THE BUILDING HAD A CUPOLA, THOUGH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS LOOKED LIKE. WE MAY ALSO ASSUME THAT THE THIRD STORY WAS USED, IN THE BEGINNING, AT LEAST, SO THAT DORMERS WOULD HAVE EXISTED TO PROVIDE LIGHT AND AIR. IN ADDITION, THE BUILDING HAD CHIMNEYS SINCE THESE ARE MENTIONED IN AN ACCOUNT OF 1785 IN HUMPHREY HARWOOD'S LEDGER (LEDGER B, P. 62, COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG RESEARCH LIBRARY). IT IS OF NO PARTICULAR CONSEQUENCE THAT THESE FEATURES ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE PRECEDING PAGE, SINCE IT WAS DRAWN MAINLY TO SHOW THE CONDITION OF THE WEST ELEVATION IN THE SECOND BUILDING. IT IS LIKELY, INCIDENTALLY, THAT THE CUPOLA WAS REMOVED SOMETIME BEFORE THE BUILDING WAS FINALLY DESTROYED BY FIRE IN 1832, SINCE NONE OF THE DRAWINGS MENTIONED ON P. 49 SHOWS IT.

OTHER PROBLEMS REQUIRING SOLUTION WERE LESS BASIC IN NATURE THAN DETERMINATION OF APPROACH SIDE OF CAPITOL AND LOCATION OF DOORWAY IN WEST FACADE

The problem, hitherto discussed, as to which of the four facades of the Capitol was the so-called "architectural front" and which became, through use, the actual front or main approach side and that of determining the location of the doorway in the west facade, which, once this was solved, enabled tho architects to design the west and east facades of the structure, were, probably, the most basic and, furthermore, the most perplexing questions with which the architects had to cope in the reconstruction of the building. When these questions were answered to the satisfaction of the "client " (the Williamsburg Holding Corporation); the A.P.V.A. Capitol Committee, which held a veto power over the decisions of the architects (see Appendix, p.648), and the architects, themselves, the problems which remained, though sufficiently numerous and sometimes difficult, were chiefly matters of detail and, consequently, of less fundamental and far-reaching importance. These "lesser" problems had mostly to do with the interior design and furnishing of certain of the rooms of the Capitol. As in the case of the exterior of the building, the architects had, to aid them, a bill or resolution passed on April 9, 1703 by the General Assembly. This specified with great exactness many features of the interior treatment and furnishing but, just as in the case of 52 the building Acts of 1699 and 1701, a number of necessary matters were omitted or insufficiently described and, furthermore, certain statements in the bill were unclear to the architects (see Appendix for the text of this resolution).

INCOMPLETE DATA, IN CASE OF COURT ROOM, OCCASIONED PROTRACTED INVESTIGATION INTO COLONIAL COURT PROCEDURE: ROOM LAYOUT BELIEVED TO BE AUTHENTIC

The interior design and furnishing of the General Court Room, for example {see plan, Part II, p. 153 and photographs in section on General Court), required much investigation before a solution generally satisfactory to all concerned could be agreed upon. The architects consulted old prints showing comparable contemporary English courts, as well as old books and other documents describing English and Virginian legal procedure of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and, since these were insufficient, they also acquainted themselves with present-day Virginian legal procedure, on the assumption that, due to the well-known conservatism of legal practices, many court usages which obtain today in the commonwealth represent survivals of court procedure of the eighteenth century. The nature of the interior fittings and furnishings of the present Court Room and the layout of the latter which are the result of these rather protracted investigations are not, beyond peradventure, positively representative, in every detail of the original state of the Capitol Court Room but they are as close an approximation as could be made under the circumstance that information concerning certain aspects or the court procedure in colonial Virginia was lacking.

Of the ambiguities in the resolution of 1703 mentioned above, the points which caused the greatest difficulty were the following:

That the ffootsteps of the General Court house be rais'd two feet from the ffloor, and the seats of benches Whereon the Court is to sit rais'd a convenient hight above that.

AMBIGUITIES IN RESOLUTION OF 1703 WHICH GAVE ARCHITECTS MOST DIFFICULTY IN DESIGN OF COURT ROOM; MANNER IN WHICH THESE POINTS WERE INTERPRETED

The architects decided that the "ffootsteps" referred to the semi-circular platform in the apse on which the judges sat. (See Part II, General Court Room, Floor for discussion of manner in which architects worked out architectural features of apse in conformity with provisions of resolution of 1703.)

"Seats of benches" was interpreted to mean separate seats and not seats fastened together as a bench. (Letter of R. c. Dean to Dr. E. G. Swem, June 10, 1930, Colonial Williamsburg Archives.)

That the Circular part thereof be rais'd from the seat up to the windows.

That there be two Galeries made one at the Lower end of the Room, and the other on the East side.

[Possible view of St. Stephens Chapel with House of Commons in Session]

Oliver Cromwell Dismissing the Long Parliament, April 20, 1653.

This picture, from a contemporary Dutch engraving, appears in The House of Commons by Martin Lindsay, London, 1947.

"… the old satirical Dutch print showing Oliver Cromwell dissolving the Long Parliament is of great value to us in interpreting the documents concerning the House of Burgesses." (Excerpt from letter of William G. Perry to Dr. W. A. R. Goodwin, April 12, 1930.) Other references in the correspondence relating to the Capitol in the Colonial Williamsburg files attest the important role which this drawing played in the design of the interior of the House of Burgesses.

The drawing shows the House of Commons (St. Stephen's Chapel) in its gothic state, before its remodeling by Sir Christopher Wren (see Pugin-Rowlandson drawing, next page). A comparison of the two pictures of the earlier and later conditions of the House reveals that though Wren made substantial changes in the architectural character of the interior, the furniture arrangement (i.e., speaker' s chair, clerk's table and members' benches) remained unaltered.

The above picture shows the bar or barrier (lower left) which divided the public area from the "working" part of the House. It is quite likely that this bar actually ran entirely across the room and that the right half was omitted in the engraving for compositional reasons (to permit showing the figures on the lower right side).

The picture on the opposite page has not been identified with certainty, although the architects believed it to be another view of St. Stephens Chapel with the House of Commons in session. The bar is again shown here and its function, in this case, is quite evident. Since no gate is visible at the center where it surely would have been had it existed, the architects assumed that access to the "sacred precincts of the house" was made possible by raising a hinged part of the railing in the manner indicated in the sketch, by Mr. Perry below the, picture. This reasoning was the basis for the design of the similar device in the reconstructed House of Burgesses.

[House of Commons]

The above picture shows the English HOUSE OF COMMONS as it existed from the time of Queen Anne (1665-1714; reigned from 1702-1714) to the fire of 1834. The. hand-colored aquatint from which our reproduction was made, was drawn jointly by Augustus Charles and Thomas Rowlandson for The Microcosm of London a work which, issued in parts, began to appear in 1808. For the 100 colored views of London contained in the book, Pugin drew the architectural backgrounds and Rowlandson the figures. The plate we believe, gives an accurate view of the House of Commons since John Summerson, commenting on Pugin's work, speaks of "his photographic accuracy." The accuracy of the drawing is further substantiated by an oil painting by K. A. Hickel, 1793, of a part of the same room showing the windows, the speaker's chair and other details (see The House of Commons by Martin Lindsay, London, 1947, for a reproduction of this picture). The details in the Hickel painting correspond closely with those in present drawing.

A comparison of the Pugin-Rowlandson picture with our photograph of the Burgesses chamber reveals a close similarity in the arrangement of the furniture in the two halls—the speaker's chair on center with the clerk's table on which rested the mace, symbol of authority, in front of it and, on either side, paralleling the long walls, the rows of benches for the members. This was to be expected, if we accept the, statement made by Stanley M. Pargellis in his informative article, "The Procedure of Virginia House of Burgesses" {William and Mary Quarterly, second series, Vol. VII), that "…the house of commons was copied in nearly every important detail by the house of burgesses…" Pargellis is referring primarily to parliamentary procedure and it is possible that this is also true of Hugh Jones, who for some years was chaplain to the General Assembly, when, in his The Present State of Virginia, London, 1724, he says that the House of Burgesses "is not unlike the House of Commons," although Jones, at the time, was discussing the Architecture of the Capitol.

A further matter of interest should be mentioned, viz., that, according to John Summerson, it was Sir Christopher Wren (1632-1723) who remodeled the gothic St. Stephen's Chapel at Westminster, applying the wainscoting, erecting the galleries and giving it the form shown in the Pugin-Rowlandson drawing. In the light of his having done this we are justified in speculating about the possibility that, as surveyor general, he had a hand in the design of the Capitol. Although the acts containing the specifications for the erection of the Capitol were passed by the General Assembly, the specifications may have incorporated the features of a design made in England.

Above drawing of House of Commons, taken from catalogue issued in 1950 by Parker Gallery, picture dealers of London, to commemorate their bi-centenary, is dated 1755. It is almost identical with one reproduced in The Architectural Review for September, 1950 which is said to show House session of 1741, except that it is evidently a reversed version of it and was doubtless made by tracing over earlier picture . Both versions correspond, in architectural detail, very closely with Pugin-Rowlands on drawing on opposite page, proving that few if any changes were made to House interior between 1741 and 1808, approximate date of Pugin-Rowlandson picture.

All three pictures show St. Stephen's Chapel as it was remodeled by Sir Christopher Wren. What Wren did to St. Stephen's is summarized as follows by Maurice Hastings in his article, The House of Commons in issue of The Architectural Review mentioned above: "Perennial attempts were made to adapt a building [St. Stephen's Chapel], built for an entirely different purpose, to the needs of the Commons. The roof had to be taken lower and lower until Wren drastically removed the whole clerestory of the Chapel (some time between 1690 and 1707)… It can be presumed that Wren first built the gallery to accommodate the extra members at the union with Scotland [March 6, 1707]. He gave the whole Chamber a firmly classical superficies, inserting an interior shell of wooden panelling. The gallery was supported on Corinthian columns, and three round-headed windows replaced whatever had remained before of the old east window."

Since no more exact date for Wren's remodeling of St. Stephen's Chapel than between 1690 and 1707 can be given, we have no way of knowing whether it was Gothic House of Commons (see pp. 54 and 55) or Wren's revision of this which influenced design of original House of Burgesses. Architects of reconstructed Capitol evidently decided that it was Gothic St. Stephen's which existed in 1699 when first act for building of Capitol was passed because they followed, in design of bar railing, balustrade type shown in pictures on pp. 54 and 55 rather than panelled type which appears in above drawing, It is, of course, possible that they were not acquainted with this drawing and did not know that Wren's House of Commons had had a closed bar railing.

DESIGN OF INTERIOR OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES LESS DIFFICULT THAN THAT OF COURT ROOM; FURNITURE ARRANGEMENT BASED ON THAT OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

The design of the interior of the House of Burgesses presented no problems as difficult of solution as those encountered in the design of the General Court Room. The furnishings required by the function of the room were less complex and the specifications covering them in the resolution of 1703 were clear enough. The remark by Hugh Jones in his The Present State of Virginia to the effect that the House of Burgesses "is not unlike the House of Commons"^* and the statement by Stanley M. Pargellis, an authority on the history of the procedure of the Virginia House of Burgesses, that the House of Commons was copied "in nearly every important detail" by the House of Burgesses^* were taken at their face value, so that the procedure of the English lower house was studied, with the aid of old prints which showed the architectural details and the location of the various articles of furniture in the room.

BAR OR BARRIER RAILING WAS INCLUDED IN EQUIPMENT OF ROOM, ITS DESIGN BEING DERIVED FROM BARS SHOWN IN OLD PICTURE

The bill of 1703 refers to a "Barr" in the House of Burgesses and considerable research was necessary to determine how this should be designed. Mr. Pargellis, who was consulted on this, 58 pointed out that, though today there is no actual physical bar in the House of Commons, such a tangible barrier railing had existed there in the eighteenth century and, undoubtedly, also in the Virginia House of Burgesses for the purpose of separating the space to which the public was admitted from the "sacred precincts of the house itself." This bar necessarily had an opening in it to permit individuals to pass into the house proper, but this would have been kept closed, for the most part, to protect the reserved area within from intrusion by persons who had no business to be there.^* The architects found old prints of the House of Commons helpful in the design of the bar as of other features of the room. Such a bar is shown, for example, on the two engravings of the House reproduced on pp. 54 and 55.

THE MAJOR PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY ARCHITECTS IN REBUILDING CAPITOL HAVING BEEN DISCUSSED, TREATMENT OF THIS SUBJECT WILL BE ENDED

The matters we have thus far discussed under the chapter heading, Problems Encountered in Reconstruction of Capitol, are by no means the only questions which arose in the course of the work on the project which were subject to various interpretations and which, consequently, demanded careful study and analysis or in the case of which needed information was missing at the outset and had to be acquired through research. The problems which have been treated, however, represent the major ones with which the architects and their associates, the officers of the Williamsburg Holding Corporation and the members of the A. P. V. A. Capitol Committee, had to cope and, therefore, we will terminate the consideration of the subject at this point.

PORTION OF FRENCHMAN'S MAP SHOWING CAPITOL AND CORRESPONDING PART OF MODERN MAP PRESENTED FOR PURPOSES OF COMPARISON

Before beginning the systematic treatment of the architectural details of the Capitol it seems desirable to consider briefly the representation of the building and the area surrounding it which is found on the Frenchman's Map.^* A reproduction of a portion of this map showing the area in question is given on p. 62 while, on the page opposite that has been placed the corresponding part of Colonial Williamsburg's map of the city which shows the buildings in existence today.

FRENCHMAN SHOWS SECOND CAPITOL; DID HE INTEND TO REPRESENT MAIN STREET AS CONTINUING EASTWARD TO WALLER STREET?

As one would expect, in the light of its date, the Frenchman's Map shows the second Capitol building, with its squared-off south ends. One might judge, from the two parallel lines which run through the Capitol square and continue eastward, that the cartographer intended to show Duke of Gloucester Street connecting with Waller Street (vertical street on right hand side), but an examination of the complete Frenchman's Map throws some doubt on this. The above-mentioned parallel lines are seen to run entirely across the map as if the engineer had started his work by drawing two construction lines representing the width of the Duke of Gloucester Street roadway and had neglected to remove the unused portions of the lines when he finished the map. So we are at a loss to say whether the parts of these two parallel lines east of the Capitol are intended to represent a continuation of the main street or not, though, as we have already seen (p. 36), the evidence points strongly to the fact that the street did continue through to Waller Street.

COMPARISON OF TWO MAPS REVEALS CARE COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG HAS TAKEN TO FOLLOW BUILDING INDICATIONS ON OLD MAP

A comparison of the eighteenth century map of the Capitol area with the modern map, incidentally, reveals with what fidelity the structures indicated on the Frenchman's Map have been rebuilt by Colonial Williamsburg. A few buildings are shown on the old map which have not yet been reconstructed and certain buildings or parts of buildings, such as the west wing of the Public Records Office (building #12 northwest of the Capitol), which are post-eighteenth-century, still appear on the modern map since life tenancies or other considerations have delayed their removal. Certain other buildings also appear on the modern map which were reconstructed on the basis of foundations not indicated on the Frenchman's Map. The French engineer showed, presumably, most of the buildings which existed on the lots at the time he made the map but a considerable number of structures, outbuildings chiefly, had disappeared by his day. The foundations of these buildings however, still remained for the most part and these were discovered by the architects by means of cross-trenching. It should be remarked to the French engineer's credit, that in almost all cases where he indicated a building either an actual building still stood or the foundations of one were uncovered; although certain smaller buildings were not located with complete accuracy. It should also be noted that in certain cases, for example, that of the Capitol Necessary House (#11-D); the engineer had shown by pin pricks only where a building had once existed, suggesting that he intended to connect these by lines but had not gotten around to doing this.

PART OF FRENCHMAN'S MAP SHOWING CAPITOL AND SURROUNDING AREA.

PRESENT-DAY MAP SHOWING CAPITOL AND SURROUNDING AREA.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS OF THE CAPITOL
AND THE PRECEDENT ON WHICH THEY WERE BASED

PART OF REPORT WHICH FOLLOWS WILL LIST ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND GIVE THEIR PRECEDENT

This section of the report will be devoted to the recording of the precedent followed in the design of the various exterior and interior details of the reconstructed Capitol. The exterior details will be treated first, facade by facade, and these will be followed by the interior features, taken room by room. No attempt will be made to describe the various parts——they will be listed only and their precedent will be given. To aid the reader to visualize the details thus listed; photostats of the plan and elevation drawings followed in the reconstruction of the building will be included and at least one photograph of each of the more important rooms open to the public. Those who desire further information as to the features under consideration may consult the detailed working drawings and the progress photographs in the Colonial Williamsburg files or, better still, examine the particular details at the building itself.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE CAPITOL — PART 2
INTERIOR — FIRST FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
THE CAPITOL
PART 2
INTERIOR
FIRST FLOOR

The pagination of this part of the report is continuous with that of Part 1. References in Part 2 to matter in Part 1 will be located by page numbers, preceded by the volume number, i. e. , "Part 1, p. 31." Absence of volume number indicates that page referred to is in Part 2.

This report was written by Howard Dearstyne for the Architects' Office of Colonial Williamsburg. It was reviewed in its draft form by Orin M. Bullock, Jr. and Singleton P. Moorehead. Changes suggested by them were made by Howard Dearstyne and the report was typed in final form, being completed on July 15, 1956.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS OF CAPITOL AND THEIR PRECEDENT

FIRST FLOOR: EAST WING
HOUSE OF BURGESSES CHAMBER

PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN DESIGN OF CHAMBER DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THIS REPORT; SOURCES OF INFORMATION CONSULTED BY ARCHITECTS IN DESIGN OF THE ROOM

The reader who has not already read them should turn to pp. 54-58 of Part 1 where certain problems encountered in working out the design for the reconstruction of the Burgesses Chamber are treated. Included and discussed on these pages, also, are three pictures of the English House of Commons which is said to have been the model after which the House of Burgesses was patterned. These pictures; archaeological evidence obtained through excavations made at the site and the information concerning the first building contained in the Journals of the House of Burgesses and other contemporary documents enabled the architects, aided by their wide knowledge of eighteenth-century English and Virginian buildings, to recreate the Burgesses Chamber with what we believe to be a high degree of fidelity to the original room.

PARGELLIS' DESCRIPTION OF CHAMBER AND OFFICIALS WHO USED IT

In fulfillment of the intention stated on p. 151 of describing what took place in each room as an aid to understanding the basis for its appointments, we will introduce here a discussion of the Burgesses Chamber and its occupants by Stanley M. Pargellis, an expert on the history and functioning of the Virginia House of Burgesses^*:

It is fortunate that the records are complete enough to permit the reconstruction of the room in which the burgesses sat during the eighteenth century. The most striking feature is that their seats, as in St. Stephen's Chapel [House of Commons, Part 1, pp. 54-56], were parallel to the side walls, so that the house was divided into two sections that faced one another. Whether that arrangement was consciously copied from England, or whether 155 it was a reverent adherence to the form which necessity imposed in the shape of the "quire stalls" of the wooden church at Jamestown in 1619, is uncertain; it is not known whether the seventeenth century meetings in ale-houses and private dwellings, as well as in the state-houses, built at Jamestown, followed the same plan…. Directly across the hall ran the "barr of the burgesses," and within the bar were on either side of the house two rows of seats, one on a raised platform along the wall, the other on the floor itself, with an opening next the bar, and with a "gangway" in the center. One end of the hall was semi-circular in shape, and in this end was a raised platform, containing likewise seats or benches, as well as the Speaker's chair. In the center stood the clerk's table, covered with green "carpet"; the benches themselves were stuffed with hair, and covered with green serge fastened down with crimson tape. On the walls hung both the Queen's and the Virginia arms.^* To complete the picture one must imagine the Speaker gowned; the clerk and clerk-assistant also gowned before him at the eight-foot table, upon which lay the emblem of the authority of the house, the mace, a gift from Governor Nicholson. At the doors stood the four doorkeepers, dressed in clothes provided by the assembly, and wearing the badges of their office; at the bar was the sergeant-at-arms. The members themselves, who sat covered^** wore their ordinary attire, and presented, especially at the close of the period, a motley array, from the correct habits of the Blands and the Harrisons to the rough garments of the members from the Valley-counties. Not until 1766 was any provision made for the admission of visitors; in that year a gallery was erected across the hall, but only members of the council or persons introduced by members of the house could gain entrance to it.

NUMBER OF BURGESSES INCREASED TOWARD END OF LIFE OF FIRST CAPITOL, NECESSITATING ENLARGEMENT OF SEATING AREA

It may be well to add to this description these facts: that the burgesses at the time of the 1705 session numbered about 50 whereas in the session of 1734-40 the House membership had risen to about 70, new counties having been created in the colony in the meantime.^*** It was this increase in membership, no doubt, which occasioned the order passed by the burgesses in 1736 "That the speaker of this House employ workmen to enlarge the Chamber of the Burgesses, and to make the same more commodious, before the next session of Assembly." (Journals of the House 1727-1740, p. 315). That the changes were made is evident from this item 156 APSIDAL (SOUTH) END OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES
Sketch at left is photostat of original made by Ebenezer Hazard on his visit to Capitol in 1777 (see p. 32). of November 29, 1738 in the Journals of the House, 1727-1740 (p. 356): "A Petition of John Steele was presented to the House and read; setting forth, That the Treasurer has only paid him part of his Account, for enlarging the Chamber of the Burgesses, and making the same more commodious…" We are forced to the conclusion that this "enlargement" of the Chamber must have consisted in merely adding more benches for the members since the Stair Hall could not well have been encroached upon and since, so far as we know, the total area of the east wing of the Capitol was not increased by any addition to it. Exactly where the additional seats were placed is a matter of conjecture.

HOUSE OF BURGESSES, LOOKING NORTHEAST
(See footnote, p. 184)

Sketch made by Robert C. Dean in 1930

INTERIOR
FIRST FLOOR: EAST WING
STAIRHALL

SIZE, LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF STAIRHALLS NOT SPECIFIED; REASONS FOR THEIR BEING ENCLOSED

Two identical staircases were provided for in the building acts of 1699 and 1701, one for each of the two wings. (see p. 229 and Appendix). The location of these, and the size of the area to be devoted to them are not specified nor, for that matter, is it anywhere stated whether or not they were to be in stair halls enclosed on all sides. In respect to the last matter, the architects assumed that the staircases would, indeed, have been in compartments separated by walls from the other rooms of each wing for structural reasons, no doubt, but also for reasons of temperature control and privacy. Particularly in the original Capitol, in which no provision was made for heating, protection against the drafts which would have been present in a stairhall running without interruption through three stories would have dictated closing this off from the other rooms. More important still, perhaps, the nature of the business conducted in the various rooms would have necessitated their being separated from the public means of circulation.

STAIRHALLS NOT AS AMPLE AS THOSE OF MANY HOUSES IN VIRGINIA AND SERVE ONLY FOR CIRCULATION

Lest the above appear to be laboring to establish a fact which is so much a matter of reason as to require no demonstration, it should be pointed out, that stairhalls in Virginia mansions were generally so ample that they could and did serve uses other than that of circulation, becoming at times virtually living rooms. 227 Excellent examples of stairhalls which combine the function of circulation and living are those of Rosewell, Gloucester County (now a ruin); Shirley, Charles City County; Prestwould, Mecklenburg County and Elsing Green, King William County, the plans of all of which are reproduced in Thomas T. Waterman's The Mansions of Virginia. In the case of the Capitol Stairhall the amplitude characteristic of so many of the Virginia hallways is not present but rather, they have been restricted in size to a "generous minimum" sufficient to permit them to serve their appointed purpose of both horizontal and vertical circulation, but no other function. In designing them the architects had no alternative since the dimensions of the structure were fixed by the building acts and by the foundations. (The hallways are spacious enough, nevertheless, to accommodate the "large and handsome staircase" which the Act of, 1699 {Appendix) specified for each of them.

WHAT IS TO BE TREATED IN THIS SECTION AND SEQUENCE TO BE FOLLOWED IN HANDLING OF ELEMENTS

Since the staircases in both Stairhalls continue without interruption from the first floor level to the second floor and from there to the third it is difficult to treat them floor by floor since parts of them are intermediate between floors. Furthermore this would lead to needless repetition. We will therefore complete each staircase in its entirety "at one sitting," so-to-speak, so that it will be unnecessary to return to this building element later on in the course of the discussion of the second and third floors. Elements, however, such as windows; doors, cornices, lighting fixtures, etc. which are confined to one or another of the three floors will be handled in the course of the discussion of the floors on which they occur. In the ensuing detailed treatment of the first 228 floor of the East Stairhall and of the staircase (three floors} the various features will be discussed, as far as possible, in the sequence followed in the case of the House of Burgesses Chamber (see p. 151).

INTERIOR
FIRST FLOOR: EAST WING
OFFICE OF CLERK OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES

ASSEMBLY MEASURES PROVIDED SPACE FOR "OFFICES" OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES

The Act of 1699 directing the building of the Capitol (Appendix) provides that "one part or side of which building shall be and is hereby appropriated to the use of the Generall Court & Council… The other part or side of th sd [said] building shall be and is hereby appropriated to the use of the house of Burgesses and the offices thereof and to no other use or uses whatsoever…" The resolution of August 26, 1702 (Appendix) repeats this provision of space for the House of Burgesses and its offices, making it somewhat more specific:

"that the building to the Eastward be appropriated to the use of the house of Burgesses and the offices thereto belonging to wit
"The great Roome below for the house of Burgesses to Sit in.
"The other part of the building below for the Stair case and the Clerk of the House of Burgesses office."

BURGESS OFFICES APPARENTLY CONFINED TO SINGLE ROOM IN EAST WING

From the above we gather that the offices of the House of Burgesses occupied all of the space on the first floor of the east wing not taken up by the Burgesses Chamber and the Stairhall. If we are concerned, in the above measures, about the use of the term "offices", rather than "office," an order of the Council of June 21, 1706 (Legislative Journal of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Vol. I, p. 485) seems to make it clear that a single room only was intended: "Ordered — That the said Henry Cary [builder of Capitol] do fitt up the office belonging to the house of Burgesses useful for preserving the Records and papers thereto belonging."

HUGH JONES LOCATES ASSEMBLY OFFICE ON FIRST FLOOR OF EAST WING

This interpretation, as will be seen, makes a statement of Hugh Jones in his The Present State of Virginia (London, 1724) less puzzling: "The Building is in the Form of an H nearly; the Secretary's Office, and the General Court taking up one Side below Stairs; the middle being an handsome Portico leading to the Clerk of the Assembly's Office and the House of Burgesses on the other Side…." We are inclined to believe that Hugh Jones, who had been chaplain of the General Assembly^* only a few years before he wrote the passage, knew the Capitol building well, so that we must take his statement that a part of the first floor of the east wing was occupied by the "Assembly Office" seriously and try to explain it.

CLERK OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY AN OFFICER DISTINCT FROM CLERK OF HOUSE OF BURGESSES

Numerous references to the "Clerk of the Generall Assembly" appear in the records. That he was functionary distinct from the clerk of the House of Burgesses seems to be demonstrated by the following provision in the resolution of May 1, 1704 (Appendix) which deals with the disposition of the spaces of the third floor of the Capitol:

"That the Garrett over the Conference room be divided into four closetts to be thus appropriated vizt. 260 "One for the Clerk of the Genll Assembly, One for the Clerk of the House of Burgesses and One for each of the two Clerks of the Committees."

ASSEMBLY OFFICE AND BURGESS OFFICE WERE, SEEMINGLY IN ONE ROOM

A provision in the Resolution of April 9, 1703 (Appendix), suggests that the Assembly office and the office of the Clerk of the House of Burgesses were in one and the same room:

"Agreed…That the room appropriated for the Assembly Office be fitted and furnished with boxes &c for keeping and preserving the records and papers thereto belonging and according to the direction of the Clerk of the House of Burgesses"
…
"That the room over the Clerk of the House of Burgesses office be furnished with a long square table…."

This conclusion seems to be reinforced by the following excerpt from the resolution of May 3, 1704 (Appendix):

"Resolved and accordingly Ordered / That the Clerk of the House of Burgesses remove the Records and papers belonging to the Assembly Office to the Capitol when there shall be a room fitted for them."

ABOVE CONCLUSION BEST EXPLAINS APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN PROVISIONS FOR OFFICES OF ASSEMBLY AND HOUSE OF BURGESSES

Though the conclusion that the clerk of the general Assembly had his office in the same room as the clerk of the House of Burgesses is open to some question, this appears to the writer to be the most plausible explanation of the seeming contradictions in the several excerpts quoted above. The subject has been considered at this length, of course, in an attempt to demonstrate that the provision of a single office room rather than two on the first floor of the east wing of the reconstructed Capitol represents a correct interpretation of the provisions respecting the offices of the clerks of the House 261 of Burgesses and the General Assembly which are found in the old records.

USES OF CLERK'S OFFICE MADE CLEAR BY FACTS CONTAINED IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY RECORDS OF CAPITOL

That the purpose of this room was to serve as a storage place for the records, apparently of both the House of Burgesses and the General Assembly has already become evident from statements contained in some of the excerpts from old documents quoted above. A better glimpse of what the room contained, however, is provided by a report on the condition of the Clerk's Office made by Landon Carter on December 4, 1766 to the House of Burgesses (Journals of the House, 1766-1769, p. 51):

It appears to your Committee that the several Records and Papers in the Office are kept in as good a State of Preservation as Manuscripts presumptively can be, the several Cases containing the same are under good Locks and Keys, in which every Record and Paper is carefully and distinctly deposited, except as to One Press, containing sundry old Papers, which though bundled up appear in the same disordered indigested State in which they were saved in the Time of the burning of the Capitol; as to the Journals before the Year 1752, many of the Volumes appear to have endured the Inconveniences, and indeed Destructions, that Time generally effects on Manuscripts, and since the Year 1752 the several Journals are preserved in printed and bound Books, kept for the Use of the Assembly; but that the ancient Minutes of the Office before the Year 1752, from which the Journals have been transcribed into the Volumes as before, are in a very perishing condition.

INTERIOR FIRST FL00R: WEST WING GENERAL COURT ROOM

GENERAL COURT ROOM, LOOKING SOUTHEAST
Photograph Published in The National Geographic Magazine for October, 1954

GENERAL COURT ROOM, LOOKING SOUTHEAST [remainder of photograph]
Photograph Published in The National Geographic Magazine for October, 1954

PROBLEMS POSED BY DESIGN OF COURT ROOM ALREADY TREATED

The problems encountered by the architects in the design of the General Court Room have beeN discussed at some length in Part 1, p. 51 et seq. The reader Who has not already done so is urged to examine that material in preparation for the detailed treatment of the General Court Room Which Will follow here.

FUNCTIONING OF GENERAL COURT AS REVEALED BY EXCERPTS FROM HISTORY BY BEVERLEY

The functions of the General Court are treated in considerable detail by Robert Beverley, a native Virginian, in his The History and Present State of Virginia, first published in London in 1705. 273 In order to give the reader some notion of "what went on in the room we will quote here certain workings of the General Court.^* The quoted material is from the edition of the work published in 1947 by The University of North Carolina Press and is found on pp. 256-259 of that edition:

The General Court, is a Court held by the Governor and Council, who by Custom, are the Judges of it, in all civil Disputes: but in all criminal Cases, they are made Judges by the Charter.

This Court, as it did from the beginning, so it does still, takes cognizance of all Causes, Criminal, Penal, Ecclesiastical and Civil. From this Court there is no Appeal, except the thing in demand exceed the value of three hundred pounds Sterling; in which case, an Appeal is allowed to the Queen [i.e., Queen Anne] and Council in England… In Criminal cases I don't know that there's any Appeal from the Sentence of this Court; but the Governor is authorised, to pardon Persons found guilty of any Crime whatsoever, except of Treason, and willful Murder; and even in those cases, he may reprieve the Criminal…

This Court is held twice a year, beginning on the 15th of April and on the 15th of October: Each time it continues eighteen Days, excluding Sundays, if business hold them so long….

The Officers attending this Court, are the Sheriff of the County, wherein it sits, and his Under-Officers. Their business is to call the Litigants, and the Evidences into Court, and to impannel Juries….

The way of impanneling Juries to serve in this Court, is thus: The Sheriff and his Deputies every morning that the Court sits, goes about the Town, summoning the best of the Gentlemen, who resort thither, from all parts of the Country. The Condition of this Summons is, that they attend the Court that day, to serve upon the Jury… By this means are procur'd the best Juries this Country can afford….

Every one that pleases, may plead his own Cause, or else his Friends for him, there being no restraint in that case, nor any licensed Practitioners in the Law….

PARTICIPANTS IN COURT ROOM PROCEEDINGS WHO ARE NOT MENTIONED IN BEVERLEY QUOTATION

Most of the persons directly involved in the proceedings of the General Court are mentioned in the passages from Beverley quoted above, with the exception of the attorney for the crown (attorney general), the clerk of the court, who kept the case records, the witnesses and the audience. Under "litigants" is to be understood, of course, the plaintiff and the defendant.

INVESTIGATION OF CHARACTER AND LOCATION OF COURT ROOM FURNITURE WAS DIFFICULT AND LENGTHY

In addition to reconstructing the architectural setting for the activities of the Court, many of the details of which were specified, though by no means with complete clarity, in several acts and resolutions of the General Assembly, the architects had to concern themselves with the furniture which would have been required in the room. Some of this was specified but much was not and the architects had to investigate English and Virginian court procedure of the period of the building of the first Capitol in order to determine, as far as possible, what this would have been and where the various pieces would have been placed (see Part 1, p. 51). AS it eventuated, this study, since so little information on the conduct of business in the General Court existed, became a protracted one, lasting several years. Questions concerning the location in the room of persons participating in the trials held there and the character of the furniture they would have required continued to be raised, in fact, even after the Capitol was officially opened on February 24, 1934.

LETTER GIVES ARCHITECTS' CONCLUSIONS AS TO ORIGINAL FURNITURE ARRANGEMENT IN COURT ROOM

A letter written by Robert C. Dean to Harold R. Shurtleff on March 25, 1935 (Colonial Williamsburg Archives) summarizes clearly and succinctly the architects' conclusions concerning the nature of the procedure of the Court and the arrangement of the furniture therein and gives, at the same time, a possible alternative to the scheme they adopted at that time. A large part of this letter is being quoted here 275 since it will doubtless aid the reader to understand the meaning of the furniture layout in the General Court Room:

Now the situation with regard to the general court is this. It was our impression from reading Beverly and other authors who wrote on early Virginia that the colonists had violently reacted to the long drawn out proceedings the trickery and delay practiced in English Courts of this period. The feeling was that this was entirely the fault of the lawyers so that he set up of the courts in Virginia was such as to eliminate as much as possible the use of lawyers. It as on this premise that we studied the layout of the Court.

From the evidence at our disposal there are two possible schemes available for arranging the court room. The first scheme and the one which was followed in the layout of the court room furniture as it now is was based on the belief that procedure was very simple; that attorneys were not allowed to carry on very elaborate schemes of prosecution or defence; that a table for their use was not in accord with the hostile spirit shown by the colonists to their profession and that any writing they might have to do might be done while standing at the Clerk's table. This is well illustrated in the Sheriff's court where the Clerk alone is seated.

Following this scheme the usage of the Court Room as now arranged would be. The Governor and Council of any five of them sat as Judges. They apparently so sat even when there was a jury (see quotation from Beverly.) Inside the same circle was the space called the bar. In this space was a table at which sat the Clerk. The lawyer, when pleading, entered this space and stood before the Judge's bench. When he was not pleading he went outside and sat on the bench which is placed in front of the rail dividing the court from the public. ON this bench or in the audience sat witnesses. The Attorney General was given a table in front of the window as he might have a number of cases in a day and this procedure seemed to add to his dignity. The plaintiff and defendant in civil cases might sit on the bench with the witnesses or among the audience. In criminal cases the defendant would probably sit on the bench in custody of the Sheriff.

The only difference between this general arrangement and that of present court procedure is the omission of a table for the attorneys which was done deliberately to follow the description of Beverly and others of the simplicity of court proceedings and the photostat of a Sherriff's Court in 1709 as shown in the accompanying photostat.

[Note: this letter is continued on p. 280]

THIS DRAWING, OBTAINED BY MARCUS WHIFFEN FROM GYLDHALL LIBRARY, LONDON, SHOW DOCTOR'S COMMONS (SEE OPPOSITE PAGE) IN COURSE OF DEMOLITION IN 1867. IF CONFIRMATION OF BASIC SHAPE OF ROOM SHOWN IN PUGIN-ROWLANDSON DRAWING WERE NEEDED, THIS PICTURE, EXECUTED ABOUT 60 YEARS LATER THAN OTHER ONE, PROVIDES IT. TWO DRAWINGS ACTUALLY ARE IN STRIKING ACCORD IN RESPECT TO ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF ARCHED SCREEN AND APSIDAL END, EVEN THOUGH, IN LATER ONE, WOODWORK HAS BEEN REMOVED BY WORKMEN ENGAGED IN TEARING OUT INTERIOR. AN INTERESTING STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCE WILL BE NOTED, HOWEVER, IN TWO REPRESENTATIONS OF ROOM; SOMETIME, EVIDENTLY, DURING MORE THAN HALF CENTURY WHICH ELAPSED BETWEEN EXECUTION OF TWO DRAWINGS AXIAL WINDOW BACK OF CHIEF MAGISTRATE WAS CLOSED P AND A SKYLIGHT SUBSTITUTED FOR IT. EXISTENCE OF SKYLIGHT INDICATES TO US THAT APSIDAL END OF DOCTOR'S COMMONS, UNLIKE THOSE OF CAPITOL, WAS SINGLE-STORIED.

ABOVE DRAWING OF SO-CALLED DOCTORS' COMMONS WAS USED BY ARCHITECTS IN THEIR STUDY OF FORM AND MANNER OF OPERATION OF ENGLISH COURTS (SEE REFERENCE IN NEIGHBBORING LETTER OF ROBERT C. DEAN). DOCTORS' COMMONS WAS A COLLEGE OF DOCTORS OF CIVIL LAW IN WHICH DOCTORS LIVED IN A COLLEGIATE MANNER, "COMMONING" TOGETHER. IT WAS SITUATED NEAR ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL AND IN IT ECCLESIASTICAL AND ADMIRALTY COURTS WERE HELD AND OTHER LEGAL BUSINESS TRANSACTED. BUILDING SEEN HERE WAS ERECTED IN 1672 TO REPLACE AN EARLIER ONE DESTROYED IN GREAT FIRE OF 1666 AND IT WAS TORN DOWN IN 1867. PICTURE WAS DRAWN BY THOMAS ROWLANDSON AND AUGUSTUS CHARLES PUGIN FOR THE MICROCOSM OF LONDON, A WORK IN SEVERAL VOLUMES, THE FIRST OF WHICH APPEARED IN 1808. OUR PHOTOSTAT WAS MADE FROM A REPRODUCTION IN JOHNSON'S ENGLAND, VOL. II, EDITED BY A. S. TURBERVILLE, OXFORD, 1933.
A COMPARISON OF THIS DRAWING WITH OUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF SOUTH END OF COURT ROOM MAKES IT EVIDENT THAT ARCHITECTS LEANED HEAVILY ON IT AND PROBABLY, ALSO, ON COMPANION DRAWING OF OLD BAILEY ON NEXT PAGE IN THEIR DESIGN OF JUDGES' CRESCENT OF APSE. AN IDEA OF STILL MORE FAR-REACHING SIGNIFICANCE COMES TO MIND WHEN ONE CONSIDERS SEMI-CYLINDRICAL FORM OF JUDGES' END OF DOCTORS' COMMONS, VIZ., THAT FORM OF THIS FAMOUS COURT MAY HAVE SUGGESTED USE OF HALF-CYLINDRICAL SHAPES IN ORIGINAL CAPITOL. AT TIME CAPITOL WAS STARTED (1701) DOCTORS' COMMONS WAS BOTH SUFFICIENTLY OLD (29 YEARS) TO BE WIDELY KNOWN AND SUFFICIENTLY NEW, DOUBTLESS, TO BE CONSIDERED LAST WORD IN COURT BUILDING DESIGN AND, AS SUCH, A SUBJECT FOR IMITATION. (SEE PART 1, PP. 15-21 FOR DISCUSSION OF OTHER POSSIBLE ENGLISH INFLUENCES ON DESIGN OF CAPITOL.)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT SITUATED IN OLD BAILEY, NOT FAR NORTHWEST OF ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL IN LONDON. THIS DRAWING, LIKE THAT OF DOCTORS' COMMONS ON PRECEDING PAGE, WAS MADE BY ROWLANDSON AND PUGIN FOR THE MICROCOSM OF LONDON. OUR PHOTOSTAT WAS MADE FROM PLATE 58 IN FOL. II OF AN ORIGINAL COPY OF THE MICROCOSM IN POSSESSION OF VIRGINIA HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN RICHMOND.
THIS COURT HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1773, DESTROYED IN 1780 AND REBUILT IN 1809. VOL. II OF THE MICROCOSM APPEARED AFTER 1809 SO THAT, UNDOUBTEDLY, ROWLANDSON AND PUGIN MADE THEIR DRAWING FROM REBUILT COURT ROOM. ALTHOUGH IT IS LIKELY THAT COURT ROOM OF 1809 FOLLOWED CLOSELY DESIGN OF THAT OF 1773, CONSIDERATION OF CHIEF IMPORTANCE IS THAT MORE THAN A CENTURY AND A QUARTER AFTER ERECTION OF DOCTORS' COMMONS SEMI-CIRCULAR ARRANGEMENT OF JUDGES' AND LAWYERS' AREA STILL OBTAINED, INDICATING THAT THIS HAD BECOME AN ACCEPTED COURT ROOM FORM. IF WE ASSUME THAT SUCH ARRANGEMENTS WERE BASED ON THAT OF DOCTORS' COMMONS, WE MAY CONCLUDE THAT ARCHITECT OF FIRST CAPITOL DERIVED FROM SAME SOURCE HIS IDEA OF A SEMI-CYLINDRICAL END FOR COURT ROOM WING OF VIRGINIA STATEHOUSE. THIS WING, WHICH WAS TO HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES OF CROWN, WAS DOUBTLESS LOOKED UPON IN LONDON AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT WHICH WAS TO ACCOMMODATE DELEGATES OF PEOPLE, SO THAT SATISFACTORY FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF FORMER MAY WELL HAVE BEEN GIVEN FIRST CONSIDERATION BY ARCHITECT6. HAVING DETERMINED UPON HALF-CYLINDRICAL FORM FOR COURT ROOM WING, DEMANDS OF BI-LATERAL SYMMETRY WOULD HAVE PRESCRIBED SAME SHAPE FOR BURGESSES WING. THIS SHAPE, INDEED, WAS ALSO WELL-ADAPTED TO USES OF BURGESSES CHAMBER.
THOSE WHO MAY BE INTERESTED IN IDENTIFYING VARIOUS FEATURES OF COURT ROOM SHOWN ABOVE, WILL FIND THIS ROOM DESCRIBED IN DETAIL ON P. 448 OF JOHN TIMES' CURIOSITIES OF LONDON, LONDON, 1855, A COPY OF WHICH IS IN LIBRARY OF COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY. FOR MAJOR PART OF THIS DESCRIPTION, SEE APPENDIX.

PARTLY ILLEGIBLE CAPTION OF ABOVE PICTURE READS AS FOLLOWS: "INTERIOR OF THE CROWN COURT OF HERTFORD AT THE MOMENT THE PRISONERS WERE BROUGHT UP TO PLEAD." THE PHOTOSTAT WAS MADE FROM AN OLD PRINT IN THE CARSON COLLECTION OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN THE FREE LIBRARY OF PHILADELPHIA. WE DO NOT KNOW ITS DATE OR AUTHORSHIP.
THE COURT ROOM SHOWN ABOVE, WE BELIEVE, IS IN THE SHIRE HALL AT HERTFORD. NIKOLAUS PEVSNER, ON P. 123 OF HIS THE BUILDINGS OF ENGLAND/HERTFORDSHIRE, DESCRIBES THIS STRUCTURE, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS: "SHIRE HALL, 1768-9, BY JAMES ADAM, ROBERT ADAM'S BROTHER. LARGE YELLOW BRICK BLOCK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TOWN COMPLETE UNADORNED, UNLESS THE TWO CURVED PROJECTIONS ON THE N AND S ARE ACCEPTED AS ORNAMENTAL."
THIS PICTURE IS SHOWN HERE BECAUSE IT TENDS TO CORROBORATE THE SURMISE GIVEN EXPRESSION ON THE PAGE OPPOSITE THAT THE SEMI-CIRCULAR, APSIDAL FORM ESTABLISHED IN THE DOCTOR'S COMMONS BECAME A FAVORED FROM FOR LATER ENGLISH COURT ROOMS. THE PANELLING AND RAILING USED IN THE HERTFORD COURT ROOM ALSO HAVE A BEARING ON SIMILAR FEATURES EMPLOYED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE GENERAL COURT ROOM OF THE CAPITOL. SEE PART 1, PP. 56a AND 56b, FOR DISCUSSION OF QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ORIGINAL COURT ROOM OF CAPITOL HAD OPEN OR CLOSED BAR RAILINGS. THE PRESENT PICTURE WOULD SEEM TO JUSTIFY THE USE OF EITHER.

THIS SKETCH OF FEDERAL COURT IN RICHMOND BY BENJAMIN H. LATROBE IS ONLY PICTORIAL REPRESENTATION OF A VIRGINIA COURT ROOM MADE IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY WHICH HAS YET COME TO OUR ATTENTION. IT WAS REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY FR0M A COPY OF JULY, 1905 ISSUE OF APPLETON'S BOOKLOVERS MAGAZINE FOUND RECENTLY IN PRINT ROOM OF NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY. IT IS QUITE LIKELY THAT DRAWING WAS NOT KNOWN TO ARCHITECTS WHEN THEY RECONSTRUCTED CAPITOL SINCE IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN RECORDS. WE POSSESS, AT MOMENT, NO INFORMATION ABOUT BUILDING OTHER THAN THAT PROVIDED BY DRAWING ITSELF. LATROBE DOES NOT REFER TO IT IN HIS JOURNAL.
DRAWING IS OF INTEREST TO US HERE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. LIKE ENGLISH COURT ROOMS ON PRECEDING PAGES, AND ALSO LiKE CAPITOL COURT ROOM, IT HAS A SEMI-CIRCULAR DESK FOR JUDGES IN WHAT MAY BE A SEMI-CIRCULAR END OF R00M. SECONDLY, BENCHES ARE CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THOSE DESIGNED BY ARCHITECTS FOR HOUSE OF BURGESSES CHAMBER, EVEN TO SUPPORTS WITH OGEE CUT-OUTS (SEE PP. 194 AND 337). FINALLY, THIS ROOM, LIKE HOUSE OF BURGESSES CHAMBER AND GENERAL COURT ROOM, EVIDENTLY HAS APPLIED PILASTERS .

The other possibility of arrangement is given in our letter of June 26, 1934 and was given to meet the demand from Williamsburg for a table for the attorneys. It is based on the assumption that the procedure was somewhat more complicated than indicated in the first scheme. That lawyers were held in greater esteem in the Colonial Courts than early writers have lead us to believe and that a table should be assigned to them. Later photostats, Doctors Commons 1808 and Scottish Bench and Bar 1830, show them arranged around a table in a semi-circle. This perhaps demands a somewhat larger table than we now have in this location. This then would require the clerk to have the small table outside. The witnesses, plaintiff and defendant would be disposed as in the first scheme. The question of the lawyer being separated from his client is answered in our letter of July 20, 1934.

It seems to us that your research staff could re-read all the early historians of Virginia and see if the weight of evidence bears us out in our belief that the people of Virginia did not want lawyers in their courts; that later they were compelled to admit them but that at the time of the construction of the Capitol this feeling was still strong enough to have justified us in making very little provision for them.

SOON AFTER DEAN'S LETTER WAS WRITTEN OPINION TURNED TO FAVOR HIS SECOND ALTERNATIVE AND POSITION OF SOME PIECES OF FURNITURE WAS CHANGED

The first of Dean's two alternative interpretations is the one which was followed when the Court Room furniture was located in our first floor plan, p. 153. Sometime before the close of 1935 opinion shifted to favor the second alternative (i.e., that in which defence lawyers are given a dignified status) since a chair was assigned the attorney for the defence at the attorney general's table and the table was turned to parallel the outer bar. This interpretation has prevailed to this day, as the recent color photograph at the beginning of this section indicates.^* It will also be noted in the picture that the table shared by the Clerk and the sheriff has been moved from the position given it in plan 281 to the center of the semi-circular platform below the judges' crescent. A further change from the plan arrangement is the moving of the witness bench to a position along the west wall, near the attorneys' table. This bench is not visible in the illustration. Aside from these changes the court room remains as it was at the opening of the reconstructed building.

UNCERTAINTY STILL REMAINS ABOUT COURT PROCEDURE AND LOCATION OF SOME ITEMS OF FURNITURE

It should be noted that some doubt still remains as to the exact manner of functioning of the Court and the guides at the Capitol have been advised to state this fact to persons viewing the General Court Room. The furniture arrangement represents the closest approximation of the original layout which could be achieved under those circumstances.^*

WHEN ROBERT C. DEAN MADE ABOVE SKETCH IN 1930, BELIEF PREVAILED IN ARCHITECTS' COUNCILS THAT ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENCE HAD BEEN HELD IN LOW ESTEEM IN VIRGINIA AT TIME FIRST CAPITOL WAS ERECTED, THAT THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT IN GENERAL COURT ROOM AND THAT, IN LIGHT OF THIS, NO DESK AND CHAIR NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED FOR THEM. THUS, DEAN SHOWS ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHIN OUTER BAR AND ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENCE (COUNSEL) ON PUBLIC SIDE OF IT. LATER, AS WE HAVE NOTED, ARCHITECTS CHANGED THEIR OPINION OF IMPORTANCE OF DEFENCE LAWYERS AND A SEAT AT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S TABLE WAS ALLOTTED THEM (SEE COLORED FRONTISPIECE TO THIS SECTION).
DRAWING UNDER DISCUSSION WAS MADE EARLY IN COURSE OF INVESTIGATION OF REQUIREMENTS OF COURT ROOM AND CERTAIN OTHER DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN IT AND EXECUTED SCHEME MAY BE OBSERVED BY COMPARING IT WITH FRONTISPIECE. INNER BAR RAILING, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS EVENTUALLY MADE A BALUSTRADE WITH A SWINGING GATE, AND CENTER STEPS TO PLATFORM OCCUPIED BY CLERK AND SHERIFF WERE ELMINATED AND PLATFORM ITSELF LOWERED. PANELLING ARRANGEMENT OF ENDS OF JUDGES' SEMI-CIRCULAR DESK WAS ALTERED; DESIGN OF GOVERNOR'S CHAIR WAS CHANGED AND SHIELD ABOVE CENTER WINDOW ELIMINATED. PICTURE, IN ADDITION, SHOWS NO LIGHTING FIXTURES SINCE THESE HAD AT THAT TIME NOT YET BEEN SELECTED. DEAN'S SKETCH, NEVERTHELESS, IS INTERESTING IN GIVING AN IMPRESSION OF HOW GENERAL COURT MIGHT HAVE APPEARED IN ACTUAL USE.

APSIDAL (SOUTH) END OF GENERAL COURT ROOM
Photograph by F. S. Lincoln

NORTHWEST CORNER OF GENERAL COURT ROOM

INTERIOR
FIRST FL00R: WEST WING
STAIRHALL

WEST STAIRHALL IS BASICALLY SIMILAR TO EAST STAIRHALL, THOUGH MORE ELABORATE IN ITS DETAILING

The West Stairhall, in size, location and the type and arrangement of its features, is thE counterpart of the East Stair-hall, though it differs from the latter in a number of its details. In accord with the consistently-maintained sumptuousness of the appointments on the first and second floors of the west Wing, the woodwork and its' color treatment have been made richer and more elaborate in the West Stairhall than in the East. Although there is little in the old records which directly supports the assumption, the architects believed that the west wing of the first building, occupied as it was by representatives of the Crown, had been richer in its architectural detailing and its furnishings than the wing in which the representatives of the people had performed their functions. If the royal governor's residence was sumptuous enough to merit the title, "Palace" which was conferred upon it, it seems likely that that part of the Capitol in which the Governor and his administrative colleagues did their work was likewise exceptional in its appointments.

ASPECTS OR FEATURES OF WEST STAIRHALL IDENTICAL WITH THOSE OF EAST TO BE COVERED BY REFERRING TO APPROPRIATE PARTS OF SECTION ON EAST STAIRHALL

Because of duplication in the planning and in the handling of a number of the architectural elements of the two Stairhalls, it will be unnecessary, in the pages which follow, to cover again all of the ground traversed in our treatment of the East Stairhall. Repetition will be avoided, as far as possible, in the feature-by-feature discussion of the part s of the West Stairhall, by reference 367 to similar items in the section on the East Stairhall. We will put this policy into practice immediately by referring the reader to the introductory matter of that section, pp. 226-228, which is equally valid for both stairhalls.

INTERIOR
FIRST FL00R: WEST WING
OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE

IMPORTANCE OF SECRETARY OF STATE^*

According to Philip Alexander Bruce (Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, New York, 1910, ^{Vol. II}p. 391), "One of the most important of all the offices established in the Colony during the Seventeenth century was the Secretaryship of State." And Lord Culpeper, writing in 1683, went so far as to say that the secretary was "the very next in dignity to the Governor…"^** The office was so important, indeed, that the secretary, like the governor, the members of the Council and the treasurer, was appointed by the Crown. Speaking further about the secretary's office , Bruce (ibid., p. 395) says that "the incumbents were, without an exception, drawn from the circle of the most prominent citizens of the Colony; that they were men in the enjoyment of competent fortunes; that they belonged, as a rule, to families of great social and political influence; and that they were distinguished for superior talents and accomplishments, and 389 generally for ripe experience in the public service."

DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY

The duties of the secretary were many and varied. They have been enumerated with exhaustive completeness in Hartwell, Blair and Chilton's The Present State of and the College.^* Another eighteenth-century description of the duties of the secretary is found on pp. 245 and 246 of Robert Beverley's The History and Present State of Virginia.^** Since this is a shorter account and still sufficiently detailed to answer our purposes, we will reproduce it here:

The Secretaries business is to keep the public Records of the Country, and to take care that they be regularly and fairly made up; namely, all Judgments of the General Court, as likewise all Deeds, and other Writings there proved; and further, to issue all writs, both Ministerial, and Judicial relating thereto. To make out and record all Patents for Land, to file the Rights by which they issued, and to take the return of all Inquests of Escheat.

In his Office is kept a Register of all Commissions of Administration, and Probates of Wills, granted throughout the Colony; as also of all Births, Burials, Marriages, and Persons that go out of the Country; Of all Houses of publick Entertainment, and of all publick Officers in the Country; and of many other things, proper to be kept in so general an Office.

From this Office are likewise issued all Writs for choosing of Burgesses, and in it are filed Authentic Copies of all Proclamations .

MAINTAINED LIAISON BETWEEN COLONY AND CROWN

The Colonial Virginia Register by William G. and Mary Newton Stanard gives, on p. 7, another category of duties performed by the Secretary, which Beverley fails to mention. These are of such significance that they should be mentioned here. In the words of 390 OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF STATE, LOOKING NORTH 392 the Stanards, "An important part of the Secretary's duties was to keep the English government constantly informed in regard to affairs in Virginia, and send home copies of all public papers." Thus, in this capacity, the secretary performed the vital function of maintaining a liaison between the colonial government and that of the mother country.

EQUIPMENT OF OFFICE OF SECRETARY

The work performed in the Secretary's Office was of the same general character as that done in the Office of the Clerk of the House of Burgesses and consequently its equipment would have been of the same type (see p. 261). Definite information concerning the equipment of the Secretary's Office, moreover, is found in the Capitol records. A resolution of August 20, 1702 (Journals of the House, p. 385), for instance, runs as follows:

Resolved and accordingly ordered
That Boxes be provided for keeping the Records and other papers belonging to the Secretary's Office and Assembly office so as they may be removed easily in case of fire

Another reference to the equipment of the Office occurs in an amendment made by the Council to a series of orders sent to it for approval by the House of Burgesses on June 21, 1706 (Legislative Journals of the Council, Vol. 1, p. 485):

And the said Orders being read were agreed to with the following amendmts viz at 21st line at the end add (and that he [Henry Cary] fitt up the Secretarys office, and Council office with such presses, barrs and desks as are wanting there, acording to the direction of the Secretary and Clerk of the Council)—

AUXILIARY ROOM ON THIRD FLOOR ASSIGNED TO SECRETARY

As might be inferred from the moderate size of the present room, not all of the document appertaining to the Secretary's Office were actually kept there. What was presumably a storage room was provided for the secretary on the third floor of the 393 building, as becomes clear from this excerpt from a Burgesses resolution of May 1, 1704 (Journals of the House, 1702-1712, p. 61; see Appendix for complete text of resolution):

Resolved
That each of the Garretts of the East and West ffronts of the Capitol be divided into four roomes and thus appropriated vizt
One for the Auditor, One for the Secretary, One for the Judge of the Vice admiralty, one for my Lord Bishopp of Londons Commissary, One to keep all the Collectors Accounts and Papers. One for the Navall Officers to be imployed for the same use, One for the Attorney Generall and One for the Sherriff attending the Genll Court.

FIREPLACES INSTALLED IN OFFICES TO PROTECT RECORDS FROM DAMPNESS

As is stated in the caption to the reproduction of the Bodleian plate drawing of the north face of the Capitol (Part 1, p. 30), the building, as originally erected, had no chimneys. It was soon found necessary, however, to introduce heat into the building to protect the records from dampness. A written message of June 14, 1723 from the governor and Council to the House of Burgesses (Journals of the House, 1712-1726, p. 390) proposes the addition of chimneys to the building:

A Memorial having been laid before us by John Carter Esqr Secretary of this Colony Setting forth the Danger to which the Records and papers in his Office are Exposed by the Damps in that Office Occasioned for want of Chimneys therein, We think it proper to Signifie to your House That we are of Opinion the Building Chimneys to that and the other Offices kept in the Capitol is Absolutely necessary for the preservation of the Records and recommend to your House to take proper Measures for that purpose and for defraying the Necessary Charge thereof.

The House responded to this recommendation the same day with the following resolution which was concurred in by the Council on June 19, 1723:

Resolved
That Mr. John Holloway Mr. John Clayton and Archibald Blair be Impowered to agree with workmen to build stacks of 394 Chimneys with two Fire places in each Chimney at the North end of the Capitol…

ALL RECORDS ARE SAVED WHEN CAPITOL IS BURNED OUT IN 1747

Possibly as a consequence of this introduction of fireplaces into the building, although at the time there was a suspicion of incendiarism, the first Capitol was destroyed by fire on January 30, 1747. According to a description of the conflagration printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette of February 25, 1747, the records, fortunately, were saved from the flames:

During this Consternation and Hurry, all the Records deposited in the Capitol, except a few loose, useless papers, were by great Care and Diligence, and in the midst of Danger, happily preserved …

SECRETARY INTRODUCES BILL TO ERECT A SEPARATE STRUCTURE FOR RECORDS

The fire, which might easily have destroyed the irreplaceable records, brought forcibly to the attention of the legislators the need to provide a more secure repository for them. Consequently, on April 15, 1747, the secretary of state made the following motion in the House of Burgesses, then meeting in the Wren Building (Journals of the House, 1742-1749, p. 246):

Mr. Secretary Nelson moved for Leave to bring in a Bill for erecting a Building for the Presevation of the Public Records of this Colony; and the Question being put thereupon, Resolved in the Affirmative .

RIDER CAUSES DEFEAT OF BILL: COUNCIL THEN TAKES MATTER INTO ITS OWN HANDS AND ISSUES ORDER FOR ERECTION OF BUILDING

This bill was quickly passed by the House but when it was sent to the Council for its approval, the latter tacked a rider on it, calling for the removal of the seat of government to some other part of Virginia. The Burgesses refused to accept this amendment and the bill was killed. The Council, however, evidently decided to "go it alone" in the matter of constructing a building in which 395 to keep the records. At a meeting of that body held on April 29, 1747, it "Ordered That a Building be erected for the Preservation of the Records and that John Blair Esqr William Nelson Esqr John Robinson junr ^Esqr and Thomas Nelson Esqr be appointed Managers to treat with workmen about the same." (Executive Journals, Council of Colonial Virginia, November 1, 1739 - May 7, 1754, Vol. V, p. 233).

COUNCIL PAID FOR STRUCTURE OUT OF KING'S REVENUE; BUILDING KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN ERECTED IN 1747-1748

The Council was able to build this structure without the consent of the House of Burgesses simply because the construction costs were paid out of the King's revenue, over which the Burgesses exercised no control. That the building for the secretary was actually built and expeditiously, as well, is proven by the fact that, on November 26, 1748, "The following warrants on the Receiver General to be paid out of his Majesty's Revenue of 2/. per Hhd. [Hogshead] Port Duties &c. were Sign'd by the Governor in Council.

For building a House to preserve the Records--367..19..7"(ibid., pp. 274, 275)