Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

TUCKER HOUSE
[Block 29, Colonial Lots 163-164-169]

The previous report on this house (Summer, 1941) refers to the report of May 25, 1940 on the First Theatre. It then takes up the story of the Tucker House lots, 163, 164, and 169 in the year 1779 when John and Sarah Tazewell deeded them to Henry Tazewell (York County Records, Deed Book VI, page 227). However, because of certain questions it seems wise to go back over some of the material contained in the report on the First Theatre, in order to determine what light may be thrown on the story of the property that came into St. George Tucker's possession in 1788.

Since the Frenchman's Map shows no building on the site of the present Tucker House [see Illustration #1] some study of the buildings known to have stood on the lots in question, is necessary. From the report on the First Theatre, it is obvious that the building used first as a theatre and later as a courthouse once stood on ground included in Lots 163-164-169. On December 4, 1745 in a deed from Gilmer to the City of Williamsburg, it is recorded that Lots 163-164-169 were assigned to George Gilmer on February 20, 1735. The property is described as "The Lotts and land whereon the Bowling Green formerly was, and the Dwelling House & Kitchen of William Levingston, and the House call'd the play House." The same deed records the transaction whereby Gilmer "did Covenant and agree to convey and assign unto them [Mayor of Williamsburg, Common Council, Recorder and Alderman] all his Right Title & Interest of and in the said playHouse, the Ground whereon it Stands together with six feet of Ground adjoining to the said Play House on every side thereof." (York County Records, Deed Book V, pp. 153-154)

2

Gilmer kept title to the remainder of Lots 163-164-169, and in 1751 advertised the wares of an apothecary "at his Shop, nigh the Court-House, the Corner of Palace-street, Williamsburg,"(Virginia Gazette, Hunter, September 19, 1751)

Up to this point then, the buildings known to have stood on Lots 163, 164, and 169 are a "Dwelling House & Kitchen" (probably two buildings), a Play House, that became a courthouse when the city acquired it in 1745, and Gilmer's apothecary shop.

On March 23, 1769, the following advertisement appeared in the Virginia Gazette:

WILLIAMSBURG, March 16, 1769

THE COMMON HALL having this day determined to build a commodious brick COURTHOUSE in this city, and having appointed us to agree with an undertaker to build the same, we do hereby give notice that we shall meet at Mr. Hay's on Tuesday the 4th of April, to let the building thereof. We are also appointed to dispose of the present court-house, and the ground on which the same stands.
JAMES COCKE.
JAMES CARTER.
JOHN CARTER,
JOHN TAZEWELL.

N.B. The plan of the above courthouse may be seen at Mr. Hay's at any time.

On September 27, 1770, the city conveyed to John Tazewell the land on which the play house had stood (York County Records, Deed Book VIII, p. 107) This must mean that at some time between March 23, 1769 and September 27, 1770, the building that was used first as a playhouse and then as a courthouse, disappeared. Nothing has been discovered about its fate, but in view of the foregoing facts, it is hardly reasonable to call the building that appears on the northwestern part of Lots 163-164-169 on the Frenchman's map, the first theatre. The report on the First Theatre says (p. 14): "Just when or how the first theatre building (afterwards the courthouse) disappeared is not known, but the language of the conveyance just 3 referred to [This was Deed Book VIII, p. 107, from the York County Records] would seem to indicate that it had perhaps disappeared since the Announcement had been made the previous year that it would be sold; this, despite the fact that, at a somewhat later date, as will be seen, there was evidence of a building on the same site." On pages 15-16 of the same report, this sentence appears: "Notwithstanding the fact that the records seemed to imply that the play house had disappeared at some time between March 16, 1769 and September 27, 1770, the map of Williamsburg by an unknown Frenchman of the year 1781 (or 1782 or 1786) reveals that a large building was at that time on the property which archaeological excavation has shown to be of the same dimensions, as the building indicated on the map." The present report emphasizes the need for remembering that although the building on the Frenchman's Map may have been built on the foundations of the theatre-court-house, it cannot be the building that was spoken of in the past tense in 1770.

These facts do not assist in determining exactly what buildings on Lots 163-164-169 came into St. George Tacker"s hands in 1788. It will be noticed that John Tazewell was one of the signers of the Common Hall's advertisement concerning the courthouse. The report on the First Theatre gives the chain of title that leads up to John Tazewell's ownership of all three lots. In 1779, John Tazewell and his wife deeded to Henry Tazewell the three lots in the "city of Williamsburg denoted in the plan thereof by the figures 163, 164, and 169, bounded by Palace Street on the West by the lot of Thomas Everhard on the North by the lots of John Blair, Esq. on the East and by the Market Square on the South."(York County Records, Deed Book VI, p. 227)

The exact period of time during which Henry Tazewell had possession of Lots 163-164-169 is not known, but in 1782, he advertised as follows: 4

September 14, 1782

TO BE SOLD,
To the highest bidder for ready money, on-the premises., the 25th of this instant (September).

THE LOT and HOUSES in the city of Williamsburg, whereon Joseph Thompson now lives adjoining the lots of the Honourable John Blair. On this lot is a good dwelling-house with four rooms on the lower and three on the upper floor, a good smokehouse, dairy, kitchen and other convenient out houses, and a good garden well paled in. The situation is pleasant and healthy, and an indisputable title will be made to the purchaser.
HENRY TAZEWELL

(Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser Nicholson and Prentis, Editors)

Although the advertisement says "lot" instead of "lots" and although it does not describe the exact location any more specifically than in the phrase "adjoining the lots of the Honourable John Blair," it seems reasonable to suggest the possibility that this advertisement applies to the Tucker House property. Perhaps the advertised auction resulted in a sale, but the next fact that is definitely known is that by December 17, 1785, the property had come into the possession of William Rowsay. On that date Rowsay was advertising in the Virginia Gazette (James Hayes, Editor) as follows:

FOR SALE,
THE HOUSES and LOTS in Palace Street, formerly the property of the Hon. Henry Tazewell. The buildings are in pretty good repair, and sufficient 5 to accommodate a large family ... Possession of the Houses and Lots may be had in January...
WILLIAM ROWSAY

Rowsay evidently did not sell the property at that time, for the next spring (May 31, 1786) he advertised again:

…
The subscribers Houses and Lots on Palace-street, with the Lands and Negroes in York-County, advertised some time past, are yet for sale. He would also willingly sell the house he now resides in, which was formerly a well frequented tavern.. being the house on the main street, nearly opposite the Rawleigh, occupied by Mr. Southall.. and afterwards by Mr. Anderson. The houses and out-houses are now in good repair, and the lot under an excellent plank enclosure.
WILLIAM ROWSAY

(Virginia Gazette, James Hayes)

It seems wise to call attention to the fact that Rowsay was not living on Lots 163-164-169 at that time, but in another house on Duke of Gloucester Street. The record of Rowsay's sale of Lots 163-164-169 has not been found, but the property must have come into possession of Governor Edmund Randolph at some time between May 31, 1786 and July 2, 1788.¹

On July 21, 1788, St. George wrote the following letter to Governor Randolph:

July 2nd, 1788

Dear Sir/
I will take your Houses on the Palace Street 6 in Wmsburg. on the terms you offered them--that is to say, Seventy five pounds to be paid on the Execution of the deed for them-and twenty five-pounds to be discounted on acct. of Robins Hire--you'll be pleased to Call on our Mutual friend Beverley for the Money and leave the deed with him.
I am, Sir
Yr. Mo. Oblg.
St. G. Tucker Governor Randolph

The original, of which the above is a true Copy, was put into the hands of the Governor, by me on the day of its date. Tho. Pleasants, Jr.(Copy of letter in Tucker-Coleman Collection, on loan in Department of Research)

The indenture under date of July 3, 1788 (Copy in Tucker-Coleman Collection, on loan in Department of Research) speaks of the land "whereon William Rowsay lately lived," but Rowsay's will (Copy in Tucker-Coleman Collection, on loan in Department of Research) speaks definitely of two other places where he was living in 1786. The copy of the will is marked on the back, in St. George Tucker's handwriting:

Copy of W. Rowsay's Will under which my Houses & Lots in Williamsburg were sold by his Administrators to Ed. Randolph of whom I purchased them.

Rowsay's will mentions "the Lott and Houses which I purchased of Samuel Beall adjoining Store whereon I now live" and later, the "Lotts and Houses whereon I now dwell which I purchased of Henry Nicholson." This apparent conflict seems resolved by a study of the report on the Bland-Wetherburn House (M.E.McW., February, 1943, pp.18-22.) for it appears that the property bought from Beall and the property bought from 7 Nicholson were adjoining properties on the Duke of Gloucester Street across from the Raleigh Tavern. It would thus be natural for Rowsay, in his will, to speak of living on both of them, but to distinguish between them for the purpose of letting his executors know which part he meant to give to his wife and which part to his son John.

In any case, William Rowsay was not living on Lots 163-164-169 in July, 1786. Nor was he living there in May of that year when he advertised in the Gazette. (See page 5 of this report.) Can we assume that the language of the indenture of July 3, 1788, describing the Tucker property as the "lots of land ... whereon William Rowsay lately lived;" meant merely that Rowsay owned the property? Another possibility is that, since "lately" is a word of flexible meaning, we can conclude that Rowsay lived on Lots 163-164-169 at sometime after September 14, 1782 (the date of Henry Tazewell's advertisement, saying that Joseph Thompson was living there) and before May 31, 1786 (the date of Rowsay's advertisement, mentioning his dwelling on Duke of Gloucester Street).

Thus, St. George Tucker came into possession of the land which has been handed down in his family for more than one hundred fifty years. But what buildings stood on the land? If we accept the evidence of the Frenchman's Map (See Illustration #1), there were on the lots three buildings---a large rectangular building on the northwestern section of the lots, a small square building close to it, and another small square building on the corner of Palace and Nicholson streets. It must be pointed out again that although the largest of these buildings may or may not have been built on the site of the "First Theatre," we must avoid the danger of calling this building that appears on the map the theatre, since the records show that the theatre-courthouse had disappeared by 1770, some years before the Frenchman's map was made. It is altogether possible, then, that the largest building 8 shown on the map¹ was the dwelling house into which the Tucker family moved when they took possession of the lots, and that the house on the present location was built later.

In addition to the fact that the house does not appear on the Frenchman's Map in its present location, there is also the fact that the present house does not line up with the other houses shown on the map on Nicholson street. In other words, if the house were sketched in on the map in its present, location, it would be out of line--that is, farther back from the street than the other houses on that street. This might lead to the theory that the Tucker House was built in a different period.²

It is obvious, even to a layman, that the house as it now stands, was not all built at once, but that additions were made from time to time. First of all, the foundations offer evidences of parts added to the east end and to the west end. Walls of brick added to an existing wall of the same material show that the added part is butted against the older wall. What may be considered the original part of the house consisted 9 of a center hall with a room on either side of it, and a chimney at each end of the house. These chimneys were centered in the walls of the original rooms, and are therefore not in the center of the walls of the house since the depth of the house has been increased. The evidence of the stairway from the first to the second floor points to the fact that the house was originally a story and a half high. There is also evidence that the roof was raised and the house made into a two-story house. The east and west wings that were added, extended north of the house, and a long hall, running at right angles to the original hall, connects them. The original north windows of the house have changed from outer to inner windows, so that one can look through a window from the library into the long north hall. In the basement, too, the original part is still a separate unit. The weatherboarding that was once the outside finish of the original part of the house may still be seen on the inner walls of closets added later, next to the chimneys at either end. (Information from observation of the existing house, from a study of the measured and working drawings in the Architectural Department's files, and from conversations with members of the Architectural Department.)

William Rowsay's advertisement of December 17, 1785, spoke of the buildings on his lots as "sufficient to accommodate a large family," but the fact that must be constantly kept in mind is that the Frenchman's Map shows no building on the site of the present Tucker House. It must also be remembered that the size of St. George Tucker's household might strain even the accommodations for a large family. Mrs. Coleman's book says: "St. George purchased the property from Randolph, and in the autumn of 10 1788 the pathetic little group¹ from Matoax arrived in Williamsburg. Fanny Tucker was nine years old, and between her and her infant sister, Elizabeth, were three small brothers, Henry St. George, Theoderick Tudor, and Nathaniel Beverley, with young Maria Rind in charge, and the servants necessary for their household."(St. George Tucker, Citizen of No Mean City, Mary Haldane Coleman, p. 98).

Although the date of St. George Tucker's purchase of the property is clearly enough July 3, 1788, some confusion seems to exist as to the exact date on which the family moved in. St. George's own footnote to the pamphlet he wrote in defense of Williamsburg says, "The writer of this letter hath spent more than ten years of his life in Williamsburg--Four of them between the age of nineteen and twenty-five ... He removed to Williamsburg in 1789, and has resided there ever since..." (William and Mary Quarterly, First Series, II, 190-191) Since the pamphlet was written in 1795, it seems hardly probable that St. George was mistaken about the year in which he moved.

A letter ^{headed Williamsburg} from the Tucker children's tutor, John Coalter, in Feb. 1789, says, "As Mr. Tucker's house is small and his family large, I sleep in the house of Mr. Wickham next door, who is a practitioner of the law, and keeps Bachelor's Hall."(William and Mary Quarterly, First Series, VIII, 157)

It probably makes little difference whether the Tuckers moved in in the autumn of 1788 or in February 1789. The significant fact is that there was a lapse of time between the purchase of Lots 163-164-169 on July 3, 1788 and the move, sufficient for the building of a house. However, no records of such 11 building have been found for the year 1788.

There are several possible theories. Mrs. Coleman's book says the original part of the house was "probably constructed in 1718 or thereabouts."(St. George Tucker, Citizen of No Mean City p. 105) Mr. Coleman says that he seems to recall a notation in St. George Tucker's handwriting in an old memorandum book, giving the date as 1718. Mrs. Coleman does not remember the notation, nor has it yet been found in the Tucker-Coleman collection on loan at Colonial Williamsburg. It is possible that the year 1718 figures in the tradition, because it is two years after the original grant of Lots 163-164-169 to Levingston in 1716. Since the law called for the building of a dwelling house within two years, it is likely that Lots 163-164-169 had buildings on them by 1718. It is possible that the original part of the Tucker House (the foundations of which measure almost exactly the same as the foundations on the excavated site of the supposed First Theatre)¹ was one of these early buildings; but the only way to reconcile that conclusion with the evidence of the Frenchman's Map is to assume that (1) an old house was moved to a new location after the map was made or (2) that the Frenchman's Map ignored the building.²

12

Mrs. Coleman's description of the house, seems worth recording:

To the east side of the high-old-fashioned house, probably constructed in 1718 or thereabouts, was moved one of the smaller houses on the lot, forming a wing with a large room on the first floor, which was made the "chamber", the bedroom of the master and mistress. On the west of the central house a wing was built to balance the other, in which the large lower room was the dining room. A long wide hall across the back of the house tied the whole together into a well-balanced though rambling structure. This hall made a pleasant sitting room in summer, its windows and wide doors opening into the garden at the back; though it was a veritable arctic region in winter, being on the north side of the house and entirely unheated.

Each room, upstairs and down, had its own fireplace; and the smoke poured merrily from two massive chimneys which held all the various flues.

The kitchen was, of course, a separate building, with the most tremendous chimney of all. An outside door from the dining room led into the yard, across which the meals were carried...

(St. George Tucker, Citizen of No. Mean City, pp. 105-106)

In the Research Department there are copies of many papers, culled from the Tucker-Coleman Collection, which concern building. These papers, with their records of orders for lumber and other building materials have more meaning for an architect than for a research worker; and a thorough study of them is necessary as a supplement to this report. However, these items seem to be of such significance that they are included here:

Williamsburg - June 21st, 89

Sir:
. Having been unfortunately obliged to throw down the Chimney, last built to your House, in consequence of a Defect in the Foundation, I am extremely desirous of knowing your sentiments respecting the a- construction of it:- whether you wold still wish to have it on the same plan- viz: with the eight feet fire-place--or whether the same size with other now standing?-

13

If I might presume to offer my opinion, I wd. recommend the rebuilding it the size of the other which is now standing;-because from the immense body of work which must necessarily be carried up the foundation will probably always prove defective; & because it will add more to the uniformity of your House-

I am desirous of hearing from you as soon as possible--

I am, Sir, With esteem
Your Hble. Sert.
Wm. Harwood

The honourable St. George Tucker Esqr.
Richmond
Favoured by
Mr. T. Dawson

(Typed copy in Research Department)

A bill of,1790 from James Boushall mentions, among other things, a charge for "framing the smoakhouse," and one for "framing the other small house." ¹

Another paper, undated, is headed "ESTIMATE OF PLANK &c FOR COMPLETING MY HOUSE."

A letter dated, "Wmsburg. feby. 18, 1791," follows:

Dear Sir:
I should long since have answered your several favors had I been able to procure from Mr. Saunders a Bill of Such plank &c. as I stand in need of- but I have not been able to obtain one from him. I have however ventured to make out a bill of flooring & featheredge plank which I wish to have- other plank for doors windows &c I shall want but I can not tell of what thickness or quantity to direct & must wait Mr. Saunders instructions.

	Planks
400 feet flooring plank 25 feet long & 6 inches wide---	32
800 ditto--22 feet long & 6 inches wide ------	72
NB not to exceed 6 Inches. whole number of planks----	144
In addition to the above
700 feet of common featheredge plank- 16 feet long 8 Inches
600 feet ditto-----20 feet long 8 Inches
4400 common ¾ cypress shingles.

14

Of these Quantities I should wish to receive one half of the long flooring planks- viz: 16 planks 25 feet long & 36 ditto 22 feet long as soon as possible-- as also from 1200 to 1500 feet of the best featheredge plank & 5 or 6M shingles. The remainder may be delivered any time between this & the month of August, as I shall not stand in need of it sooner.

I am respectfully Sir
Yr. most obed: servt.
[St. George Tucker]

Another paper, bearing St. G. Tucker's name and dated "Janry. 16, 1791,11 records lumber specifications for "A Kitchen" and this notation:

N.B. There are to be two doors, opposite each other in the middle of the longest sides of the Kitchen, & a window on each side of the Doors- also a window in the end opposite the Chimney.

At the end of this page, there appears: Bill of scantling
Estimate cost of house & kitchen
Frames -

Evidently a new kitchen was being planned in January, 1791, but the words, "Estimate cost of house & Kitchen" are not clear in meaning. Certainly the Tuckers were living in some house on Lots 163-164-169 by February of 1789. "Cost of house" may mean "cost of repairs or additions to house," or it may mean that another little house was being built somewhere on the property.¹

Possibly in answer to a communication regarding the estimated cost of the "house & kitchen," William Harwood wrote the following to St. George Tucker:

20th January 1791

W. Harwood will find lime & lay the Bricks of of the addition which S. G. Tucker wishes to have made to his House-build a Kitchen chimney 15 & oven at the rate of the twenty shillings per thousand for the number of Bricks laid.-- He will also find lime & undertake the filling in, lathing & plaistering of the walls & cielings at the same rate that he did the same for the House already finished..(Typed copy in Research Department)

The wording of the reference to "the House already finished" leads one to believe that William Harwood¹ had built a house for St. George Tucker before this date, but of course it may have been an outbuilding. St. George Tucker's account with Humphrey Harwood began in April, 1789. This account, in full, covering the years from 1789 to 1794 is given as Illustration #3 in the Appendix of this report, and it should be studied as a guide in trying to determine just what St. George did to the House.²

16

On October 14, 1791, Dr. Philip Barraud wrote to St. George Tucker at Corotoman, congratulating him and "the amiable Partner of your happiness." This was at the time of St. George's marriage to Lelia Skipwith Carter, and the letter from Barraud seems to suggest that he had been left in charge of the work that was being done to the Tucker House (called the "Castle"). The significant part of the letter follows:

I fear we shall not see you here as early as you have appointed. The workmen have been tardy & the Castle will not be in habitable order so soon as it ought to have been.

I have been an unfaithful superintendant of its operations from the vile ill health & confinement which has persecuted me. I have however prevented their wanting any material as far as I cou'd - Harwood has done his part as far as the carpenters would allow him.

You had better come & look at us a Day or two when at leisure. You shall find things capable of being render'd very comfortable before hard weather.

(Letters of Dr. Philip Barraud to St. George Tucker, 1791 - 1827, 1938; p. 1. Typed copies in Research Department)

At this point, it seems wise to summarize the outstanding known facts concerning St. George Tucker's first few years of occupancy of Lots 163-164-169. He bought the lots on July 3, 1788 and there were houses of some kind on the property at that time. He and his family were living in a house on the property by February, 1789. From that date until 1794, there is evidence, in the papers of the Tucker-Coleman collection, of building and alterations, the nature of which may be determined in part by a detailed study of the papers by an expert on building. Even an expert, however, may find that the records leave much to the imagination.

Tyler's plat of Williamsburg (date, c.1790) records "Tucker" as the owner of Lots 163-164- and an unnumbered lot next to 164 which 17 is assumed to be 169. (See Illustration #2.)¹

By 1796, the house had acquired the general outline that it has today, as is shown by the drawing on the insurance policy, copied as Illustration #5 in the Appendix to this report.

The year 1796 seems to be the date of the installation of a bath house on the Tucker property. The following discussion of that convenience and St. George's inventiveness is from Mrs. Coleman's book:

Like Thomas Jefferson, with whom he corresponded frequently, he was always inventing mechanical contrivances of every sort. He turned the little dairy house by the well in the Tucker House yard, into a bathroom far surpassing in luxury anything of which Williamsburg could boast for the next hundred years. From the well A pipe was laid, which permitted water to be poured directly into the bath from the well-house. The cottage in which the clothes were washed and in which the house servants slept, was convenient for a supply of hot water. The bath was of copper, generously proportioned, and fitted with a vent for emptying it.(St. George Tucker, pp. 124-125)

Henry St. George Tucker, writing to his father from Williamsburg on June 15, 1706, says that his mother "has been in the bath...She says this is the first morning she has tried the bath, which she likes very well 'though at first she was very much frightened."(Tucker-Coleman Collection, Research Department)

A letter from Barraud (August 4, 1798), while St. George Tucker was at Staunton, tells something about the Tucker House grounds:

[Williamsburg]

The Pears begin to look tempting at your garden & the grapes too. But I tremble for the Rascallity of the world that mocks the sacred Rights of good men. The Peaches have been pillaged half ripe & God only knows how the Case may be the case with my Pears & grapes.(Letters of Dr. Philip Barraud to St. George Tucker, 1791-1827, p. 11 Typed copies in Research Department)

18

A little later in the same year (October 28, 1798). Dr. Barraud writes to St. George:

... You may believe me - our Village is a very decent, sweet & clean sort of a place & your own Habitation is not among the worst looking Habitations in it...(Barraud Letters, p. 18)

In 1798, there is a bill to St. George Tucker for house painting, giving various kinds of paint used. (Folder #2, St. George Tucker Mss. Smith's Ledger [1783-1798], College of William and Mary) A copy of this bill in included with this report as Illustration # 6, because the following excerpts from letters of Henry St. George to his father, show that house painting was going on in that year. "Mr. Sattywhite" is mentioned both in the bill and in the letters:

Wmsburg. Oct:13.1798.

Sattywhite goes on with the painting of the house. He has finished the tops & has begun your press. The first coat is now dry. I this morning gave him his bottle of Rum, & hope that I may soon give him his money. I shall however obey your injunction with respect to obtaining the Doctors judgment.

Wmsburg. Oct. 21.

The house is at last done. Doctor Barraud yesterday came to look at it, & told me that he thought I might with propriety pay Mr. Sattywhite his 50 dollars. This I did & took his receipt, which I have safely put in the bundle with the others. The platform is not yet begun. I went yestday to Mr. Piggots to ask him the reason, but did not find him at home. The doctor told me that he said that [illegible] mber which he had, was not good enough, [illegible] the work in the stite which you appeared to wish. The doctor then advised me to commission him to get such timber as he wanted, and to [illegible] him to return the other, which might serve for some other purpose. I shall however direct him to make ready the parts which [illegible], & anxiously expect an answer from you with respect to the doctors advice.

(Tucker-Coleman Collection, Research Department)

19

The following excerpts from letters of the first part of the nineteenth century tell something about the Tucker property. A letter signed "Phill." [In another letter, the signature is "Phill-Anthony.," evidently a servant or slave of St. George's], dated September 14, 1807, and addressed to St. George Tucker at "Elm Grove near Staunton," says:

[Williamsburg]

I recd the timber to do the house on this day week, and have the promise of the workman to begin it tomorrow. I have had the house whitewashed throughout, and hope Ben will put it in good order for your reception. (Uncatalogued papers, Folder marked "Servants & Household Matters," Tucker-Coleman Collection, Research Department)

Mrs. Coleman's book quotes from a letter of St. George's to one of his children [no date given, but apparently between 1808 and 1810]:

Your Mama is in the Garden, planting, laying out, etc. etc. & even I have been trying my hand at grafting & making an Espalier of a peach tree.(St. George Tucker, p. 146)

In the spring of 1810, according to Mrs. Coleman's book, Fanny Coalter was visiting in Williamsburg, and she wrote to her husband of her father's (St. George Tucker's) reluctance to leave his home to attend the duties of his position in the Court of Appeals in Richmond:

Bless his soul! It seems hard at his time of life to leave such a home as this & at this season too, when spring is putting forth all her charms. The double blossoms are beginning to look beautiful & the garden will soon exhibit many sweet & ornamental shrubs in perfection.(St. George Tucker, p. 147)

The insurance policy of 1815 provides another drawing of the plan of the house. (See Illustration #7 in Appendix of this report.)

When all of the papers in the Tucker-Coleman collection are catalogued, there may be more items that tell something about the Tucker 20 property. In the meantime, mention is made of a few items noted in those uncatalogued papers. On September 27, 1819, "Phill. Anthony" wrote a letter to "Master" [St. George Tucker], signed "Your Old Servant," about asking Mr. Grove to shingle the shed. An excerpt from the letter follows:

[Williamsburg]

it is very much in want of Shingling the plaste has fell down very much and it is in very bad order. Oang to this wet weather. I am also very sorry to inform you the the cattle has destroyed Mr. Henderson's¹ Garde & the palings is so indiferent betwen his garde & ours that I am very much afraid the will Brake in to Ours...They have not [batched?] the chimney as yet

Robert Edmondson, another servant, wrote to Mrs. Lelia Skipwith Carter Tucker (St. George's second wife) from Williamsburg on October 7, 1826:

There is nothing dun yet about the Repairing the Lot. Mr Booker has BeGain to Bring Timber to the place to Go to work ... as to the State of the Gardin it is in a very poor State at this time--

Another paper, headed "Furniture belonging to Mrs. Tucker in Williamsburg 1828" presents an inventory which includes china, silver, tools, etc. (These last three items from uncatalogued papers, Tucker-Coleman Collection, Folder marked "Servants & Household Matters," Research Department)

St. George Tucker died November 10, 1827. (William and Mary Quarterly, First Series, XVII, 268) The Williamsburg tax record for that year¹ lists one lot (house valued at $1500, total $1625) in the name of Lelia Tucker, with the explanatory note, "Via last will and testament of St. George Tucker Decd." Lelia Tucker continued to be taxed for one lot until 1835. She died in 1837 (William and Mary Quarterly, First Series, XVII, 268), and the tax record lists a lot in the name of her estate from 1838 to 1850. In 1854, a lot appears on the record charged to Beverly 21 Tucker's Estate, and it is so recorded until 1861. The abstract of title traces the history of the property from 1867 until 1929 when it was deeded to Williamsburg Holding Corporation. It begins with the will of Lucy A. Tucker (dated January 29, 1867) which recites that she had inherited the entire estate of Judge N. Beverley Tucker. Thus, the title abstract brings the story up to the present, showing which Tucker descendants were owners.

Contents of Appendix,

Illustration	#1 -	Frenchman's Map
"	#2 -	Tyler's plat of Williamsburg
"	#3 -	Tucker account from Harwood's Ledger
"	#4 -	William Pigget's bills to Tucker
"	#5 -	Tucker insurance policy, 1796
"	#6 -	Tucker's bill for paint, 1798
"	#7 -	Tucker insurance policy, 1815
"	#8 -	Tax record