Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE
(Restored)
Block 29, Colonial Lots #165 and #166

The Brush-Everard House was restored under the direction of the Department of Architecture of Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. Perry, Shaw & Hepburn, Architects, acted as consultants. Restoration was started in May, 1949

A. Edwin Kendrew, Vice President and Resident Architect.
Division of Architecture, Construction and Maintenance
Mario E. Campioli, Director of the Department of Architecture
Ernest M. Frank, Assistant Director, Department of Architecture
Singleton P. Moorehead, Architectural Advisory Consultant

Field Notes and Measured Drawings made, November, 1937, by
John W. Henderson and Richard A. Walker

Archaeological Excavations and Archaeological Drawings and Report made by
James M. Knight Report dated December 11, 1947

Working Drawings made by John W. Henderson, Chief Draftsman
Joseph F. Jenkins
Albert M. Koch
Robert E. Taylor
Ralph E. Bowers
Working Drawings checked by Eric R. Enholm
Landscape Drawings by Alden Hopkins
Sidney I. Benton, Construction Superintendent

This report was prepared by A. Lawrence Kocher and Howard Dearstyne for the
Department of Architecture (Architectural Records.)
February 22, 1950
Revisions and additions made in February, 1952

JOHN BRUSH. GUNSMITH - THE FIRST OWNER.

John Brush is said to have been brought to Virginia by Governor Spotswood. We are reasonably certain that Brush was a gunsmith, a calling which in that day was a vital one in the colony.^* It is quite possible that Spotswood looked upon Brush as an individual of sufficient importance to warrant his bringing pressure to bear on the city trustees to grant him this exceptional location. At any rate John Brush, gunsmith, by virtue of a deed from the city dated July 8, 1717, became owner of two half-acres of the most desirable land in Williamsburg. The deed contained the customary provision from the Act of the Assembly of 1705 obligating him within two years to build on the lots a house 40 ft. long and 20 ft.^{- 2 bldgs if lot not on the main street [illegible]} wide, or to return the land to the city. Brush must have complied with this regulation because he continued in possession of the lots after the stipulated time had elapsed, so that we can assume that the first house was built on lots #165 and #166 sometime between 1717 and 1719. Whether this was the dwelling which, with considerable alterations, to be sure, has survived to this day is a matter of conjecture, but the house, whatever it was, was one of the earliest built in Williamsburg.

The evidence indicating that John Brush was a gunsmith is circumstantial but it is nevertheless good. We know that he was keeper of the arms in the Public Magazine. In this capacity he would doubtless have been in charge of the gunsmith's shop located in the building and responsible for the repair and maintenance of the firearms stored there. Brush was also employed on one occasion to fire the guns at the Palace in celebration of the King's birthday. It would not, of course, require a gunsmith to fire the guns, but Brush, nevertheless, would have been a logical person to do this. The fact, on the other hand, that Spotswood placed him in charge of what must have been one of the feature events of a gala program tends further to support the thesis that he was a protêgê of the Governor's. Probably the most conclusive evidence, however, of the nature of Brush's profession, is contained in the inventory of his personal effects compiled after his death, which occurred sometime before December 19, 1726, the date his will was probated. Along with a few items of furniture, mostly EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GUNSMITH'S SHOP SIMILAR IN GENERAL CHARACTER TO THE SHOP WHICH JOHN BRUSH MAINTAINED ON HIS LOT EAST OF THE PALACE GREEN 4 indifferent in quality, there is a long list of those tools and materials which a smith would have used. Among the latter are found, furthermore, a number of items which are specifically the equipment of a gunsmith, and some of these may, be mentioned: "3 gun barrils, 1 stock ... 1 gun ... 2 pan borers^* ... 1 tinder box and powder trier, 2 long shank bills,^# 1 drawbore^½..."^X

FIRING MECHANISM OF A TYPICAL MID- 18th CENTURY "BROWN BESS" MILITARY MUSKET OF ENGLISH MANUFACTURE. THIS GUN AND OTHERS LIKE IT ARE NOW OWNED BY COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG, INC.

John Brush's inventory with its meager listing of furniture, is that of a man whose life was spent in his shop and who probably devoted relatively little attention to has house. It is likely, not only that his dwelling was poorly furnished, but also that this first house itself was a modest structure. Examination of certain of the woodwork details in the existing house seems to indicate 4a that much of the enrichment of the interior is of a date later than that of the original building of the house. In other words, it was undoubtedly not John Brush, capable and respected artisan though he was, who embellished the interior and laid out the extensive pleasure garden at the rear, but some later owner who gave more thought than the gunsmith to the art of fine living.

HENRY CARY II. ARCHITECT-BUILDER

At some uncertain date not long after the death of John Brush lots #165 and #166 passed into the possession of Henry Cary II, son of Henry Cary. The Cary's, father and son, were contractors and builders ("overseers" or "undertakers") and between them constructed most of the larger public buildings erected in Williamsburg during the first three decades of the 18th century.^*

All that is definitely known about Cary's ownership of lots #165 and #166 is that the builder sold them in 1742 to William Dering, a dancing master. How he acquired the lots is not known, although it has been suggested that they passed into his hands upon his marriage to his (third) wife, Elizabeth Russell, who may possibly have been the former Elizabeth Brush, John Brushes daughter, who is believed to have owned the property.

There is no documentary evidence to prove that Cary lived in^{Cary [illegible] until 1728. Brush was [illegible]} the house but it seems reasonable to suppose that he did, since he was employed in 1720 to supervise the completion of the Palace. This was a major undertaking which must have required close and constant supervision on the part of the architect-builder. In view of this a residence near to the scene of operations would have been highly desirable, so that it appears altogether likely that, owning the former Brush house, Cary would have occupied it.

We also have reason to believe that Henry Cary III known as the "gentleman builder" of Ampthill, which formerly stood in Chesterfield County, may also have given the one-time residence of John Brush the form which it had at the highest point of its development and the form to which it is being restored. (This thesis will be discussed at some length later in the report.) If the theory is indeed fact it would explain the elaboration of the interior which we hesitated above to attribute to the inspiration of John Brush.

THE TWO JOHN BLAIRS, BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN OWNERS OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD PROPERTY

From deeds relating to the property it seems that John Blair, the elder, possessed lots #165 and #166 after 1745. It is not known how long he held the lots but he died in 1771, and a John Blair -- his son it must have been -- transferred lot #172, the plot on which the garden was located, to Thomas Everard in 1773. To our knowledge neither the elder nor the younger Blair ever occupied the house.

THOMAS EVERARD - HIGH PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND CITIZEN OF REPUTE

Thomas Everard, whose name is linked with that of John Brush in the title of the house, acquired lot #172, the plot which adjoins lots #165 and #166 on the east and on which the pleasure garden was located, by deed from John Blair, Jr. in 1773. There is strong evidence indicating that by September, 1779 he had also come into possession of the neighboring lots mentioned above, although the exact time and manner in which he acquired them is not known.

It is quite likely that Everard not only owned but also occupied the house. We know that he lived near George Wythe, whose residence lies diagonally across the Palace Green from the Brush-Everard House, since in a letter of 1770 to John Norton & Sons, merchants in London, he says: "Your Son has been sometime confined sick at my Neighbor Mr. Wythes but is now pretty well recovered and gone to York." We also know that he lived in the vicinity of Dr. Gilmer's, for in his diary (1751) John Blair, Sr. notes that he "Spent the even^g (after a visit at Mr.Everard's) at Doct^r Gilmer's ...." Dr. Gilmer's house and shop were on 7 lot #163, at the corner of Nicholson Street and Palace Green, a stone's throw from Everard's place.

Everard was clerk of Elizabeth City County from 1743 to 1745, and then clerk of York County from 1745 to 1784. He also served as clerk of the Committee of Courts of the House of Burgesses, and as Commissioner of Accounts.

Among the numerous documents bearing Everard's signature, which may still be examined at the York County Courthouse, is the will of Governor Fauquier, which he witnessed. It may be of some significance that after the Governor's death, Everard purchased items of the latter's personal property amounting in value to£125. Only a man of means could have afforded to do this, but, without much doubt, Everard was well-to-do. The official positions which he held for so many years were among the most important in the colony and these were probably lucrative as well. There is reason behind this enquiry into Thomas Everard's financial condition - if he was, in fact, so well-off it may have been he who, on lot #172 at the rear of the house, planted the still-existent boxwood arbor and built the pool which we believe to have been situated to the north of this.

It is also possible that Everard, during his occupancy of the house, did more than build the garden. In September of the year (1773) in which he acquired lot #172, and, it may be, lots #165 and #166 as well, he ordered from Norton & Sons a long list of goods. Among articles of clothing, household equipment etc., is found an order for "100 feet window glass, 11 inches by 9½." Earlier in the year he had also ordered "100 lb. white lead ground in Oyl." These orders seem to indicate that he contemplated some building or building repair work, 8 and it is possible that the materials were to be used on his house outbuildings.

We have intimated that Everard was a man of consequence in the colony and other facts bear this out. He was, for instance, a member of the Bruton Church vestry which in 1769 decided to build a new steeple (the one which still stands) and repair the church. He was appointed by the General Assembly in 1770 a member of a committee, otherwise composed of Peyton Randolph, John Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas and John Blair, Jr., "... to agree on a Plan for the Hospital ... [for the insane -- said to be the first in America] and to advertise the building thereof ...." One of Everard's daughters married the Rev. James Horrocks, Commissary of the Bishop of London and President of the College. Martha, another daughter, became the wife of Dr. Isaac Hall, a doctor of high standing in Petersburg. Hall seems to have succeeded Everard in the ownership of lots #165 and #166, and he may have acquired them through his marriage to Martha Everard.

THE SMITHS - RESIDENTS OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE FOR NEARLY A CENTURY

Sydney Smith bought the Brush-Everard House from Daniel P. Curtis on December 8, 1849, and from that day until the Williamsburg Holding Corporation acquired it nearly one hundred years later, it remained in possession of the Smith family. Some of these Smiths who lived there so long were especially interesting people and we shall say a few words about them.
Sydney Smith, the son of Henry Smith of Yorktown, was a lawyer, having been graduated from the law school of the College of William and Mary in 1846. He was builder of the Gothic revival office with its crenelated 9. walls, which until recently stood just north of the house. This he used as his law office. Romance entered Sydney Smith's life when he walked down to the foot of Palace Green, fetched a Miss Virginia Bucktrout from the Repiton House where she lived to Bruton Church across the main street and wed her.

The Smiths, man and wife, were blessed with seven children -- three sons, Sydney, Henry and Alva, and four daughters, Martha, Virginia, Cora and Estelle. It is with the last two that this short history of the Smith family will henceforth concern itself, and for these reasons: they lived their long lives through in the Brush-Everard House and died there -- Miss Cora in 1939 and Miss Estelle in 1946 -- and they were, each in her way, personalities worthy of being commemorated by a brief biography.

Miss Estelle, the youngest of the children, was born at the outset of the Civil War. She was tall, and frail in body -- so frail, in fact that "she was practically transparent -- it seemed that a gust of wind might carry her away."^* But her spirit -- her ardent love for life -- sustained this frail and ailing body. She was proud and autocratic, critical and outspoken but a kindly soul withal, loving and loved by her neighbors. She was a famous raconteur -- her witty tales of Virginia life -- told and retold many times, to be sure, will long be remembered.

Miss Cora was much prettier than Miss Estelle, with lovely complexion, and she was in her youth one of the belles of Williamsburg. She differed also from her sister temperamentally; she was sweeter and less caustic, but brave, intelligent and active-minded like her sister. She was the housekeeper.

Long before the Restoration was conceived the sister's Smith were ordinary keepers, so-to-speak. To be more exact they took in roomers and 10 MISS CORA B. SMITH ^* MISS ESTELLE SMITH^*
TEA! THE MILDLY STIMULATING LEAF PLAYED A PROMINENT ROLE IN
THE LIVES Of TWO SUCH EMINENT CONVERSATIONALISTS AS MISS CORA AND MISS ESTELLE not only fed them but fed them well with old Virginia dishes prepared by the cook, quick-tempered but kind-hearted Josephine who, with a maid and crotchety old Uncle Nick, the colored handy-man, presided over the ancient brick kitchen behind the house. Their spoonbread and scalloped oysters were renowned. It was over this board that Miss Estelle, with dignity, but with charm and wit besides, presided, regaling her guests -- 11. college faculty members and students mostly, but tourists also -- those who even at that early day had heard of Williamsburg -- with funny stories.

On one occasion such a guest was a Reverend Dr. Goodpasture. Miss Estelle, throughout the meal, frequently and with consistency, addressed the clergyman as "Dr. Cowpasture." When the worthy man had departed, Miss Estelle, assailed by a terrifying suspicion of the truth, turned anxiously to a friend and said: "Oh, Mary, I think I may have called him 'Cowpasture!'"

A body of legend has grown up about the lives and experiences of those estimable characters, the Smith sisters, and many stories might be related. Of these, by far the rarest is that of the Lost Lion, a tale already told in winged-worded prose and lofty verse.--

AUDREY -- ANOTHER FAMOUS RESIDENT OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE

To many Williamsburg citizens the Brush-Everard House has long been known as the "Audrey House." This came about through the fact that Mary Johnston, celebrated Virginia author of "To Have and to Hold," lays part of the action in her novel "Audrey" in a "small white house" on the Palace Green in Williamsburg. In fact she seems to locate this small white house on the site of the Brush-Everard Houses as the following passage (p.241) indicates:

Hayward walked on to the grape arbor, and found there a black girl, who pointed to an open door pertaining not to the small white house, but to the portion of the theatre which abutted upon the garden.

The theater alluded to was evidently the first theater of Williamsburg, which was located, we believes on lot #164, between the Brush-Everard and the Levingston Houses. Because of its close proximity to the Brush-Everard House, the colored girl whom Hayward encountered in the grape arbor might readily have pointed to it. Thus the Audrey House of the novel was located, apparently, where the Brush-Everard House stands, so that the two are without much doubt one and the same. Indeed, the Brush-Everard House is the only house on the Palace Green which now, or, for that matter, in 1901, when the book was written, could have answered to the designations "small white house."

The house as it is presented in the novel is an imaginary creation, based, probably, upon Miss Johnston's impressions of the Brush-Everard House^* and other similar eighteenth century houses. In a letter 15. written in 1930 to Dr. W. A. R. Goodwin she said:

It has been so very many years since I wrote that old romantic novel, Audrey! At the time I read many things -- all that I could lay hands on -- about the Williamsburg of the first quarter of the eighteenth century. I tried for a certain accuracy, though of course all was idealised for fictional purposes .... My description of it [the theater] is imaginary. Nor when I described "a small white house which adjoined a larger building" (The play house) did I intend actually to pre-empt the Page house ....

There is in the novel little actual description of Audrey's house, nor, for that matter, is it important that we have it. To us the significant and intriguing point is that, to all intents and purposes, the house in fiction and the house in fact are one. THE KITCHEN OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE BEFORE ITS RESTORATION: THE CORNER OF THE LATE EAST ADDITION (SINCE REMOVED) IS SEEN AT THE LEFT.

A HOUSE OF HISTORY AND ROMANCE

It is not usual in Williamsburg or elsewhere, to find a house, like the Brush-Everard, of modest size and pretensions, which not only boasts significant historic associations but which also has so much romance hovering about it. Much of the action of a well-known novel (Audrey) centers about this house. Unusually interesting people have resided in it and they have left us a legacy of fascinating stories. A lion, distressed in heart and doubt-tormented was once an uninvited, unwelcome visitor. No spirit residents, its true, have cast their fearsome spell about the house -- no shade of John Brush, for example, pounding on a phantom anvil, sends a spine-chilling, hollow clang at midnight o'er the Palace Green. But the house does have its mystery, for long-departed occupants have left enigmatic marks upon its window panes and a symbol, familiar to us, but as yet not with certainty deciphered, upon a board beneath the roof.

CHANGES IN THE EXTENT OF THE HOUSE AS REVEALED BY ITS OLD FOUNDATION

The plan arrangement of the Brush-Everard House follows the familiar pattern with broad central hallway and rooms on either side. The interior plan as seen today is, however, the result of a development, since through the years certain additions and modifications took place. In its first form there were, it is believed only two rooms and a hallway at the first floor level and two bed rooms on the second floor, reached from the stair hall. The enlargement of the dwelling by the addition of two wings toward the east was occasioned by a constantly increasing need for floor space.

The plan arrangement of she original part of the Brush-Everard House is common enough in and around Williamsburg. It differs, however, from most other local house plans in one respect, namely, in the location of the fireplace in each of these two rooms, not at the ends, as is customary, but at the rear center of the room (see Fig. 1, next page). With the fireplaces so located it was a simple matter to expand the area of the house by the addition of rooms at the back, as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, and it is quite likely that the first builder, from the outset, contemplated doing this. The original house, in that case, would have been an expansible house, which brings to mind present-day dwellings which are so designed as to permit the addition of further rooms with only minor changes to the structure. This possible intention of enlarging the house, together, of course, with the presence of the chimneys at the back, may be responsible for the fact that no dormers, so far as we know.. were ever placed on the rear roof slope.

The next development in the growth of the house was the addition of the south wing (Fig. 2). The findings made in 1947 in the course of excavating the site of this wing after the removal of the late shed addition which then existed leads us to some interesting conclusions concerning this wing. The archaeologist first came upon a nearly complete colonial foundation about 9" wide for a wing similar in size and position to the existing north wing. Continuing the digging, however, he located, several feet below the first foundation wall and paralleling the northern side of it for about two-thirds of its length, a second and still older colonial foundation 20" wide. This foundation was apparently built of salvaged brick fro curved coping brick, possibly from a garden wall of the Palace, were found laid up in it.

The most logical explanation of the existence of these two levels of colonial foundation work is that the south wing existed in two states in the eighteenth century. The 20" foundation wall, naturally, 17a. would represent the earliest state of this wing and the 9" wall the later. The depth of the early foundation indicates that this first version of the south wing had a basement. In addition we believe this to have been connected with the basement under the main house because indications of a former door opening exists in the common foundation wall between the two. As a matter of fact, since there is evidence in the foundation wall of the main house that a basement was added after this portion of the house was built, it has been suggested that this may have taken place at the time the south wing with its basement was built.

The first south wing, evidently, disappeared in colonial times and a second, with 9" foundation walls, took its place. This happened, probably, at the same time the north wing was erected for the foundation walls of the two wings are similar in width and character. With the building of these two wings the house attained its greatest extent (Fig. 3).

In Fig. 4 the south wing is once more missing so that it must have burned or have been removed for one reason or another.

Fig. 5 shows the state of the house as it came down to us with a shed-roofed addition of the nineteenth century occupying part of the site of the south wing. The house, of course, was restored to the state represented by Fig. 3.

FIRST FLOOR PLAN OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE, SHOWING THE FIRST FORM OF THE BUILDING AND ITS TWO ADDED WINGS (SEE KEY).

SIMILARITY IN DEVELOPMENT AND FINAL FORM OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE AND AMPTHILL

It has not been possible for the architects or the research department to establish the precise date when this third, complete house form came into existence, although there is a circumstantial basis for its having been built before 1750. There are striking points of resemblance between the Brush-Everard House and Ampthill,^* which originally stood in Chesterfield County, and which was built by Henry Cary II, architect-builder, in the 1730's. A fact of considerable importance in this connection is that Henry Cary II owned the Brush-Everard House during precisely the same period. Could the building of both the Brush-Everard House and Ampthill have been under the trained direction and supervision of Henry Cary? Such a supposition is supported by the existence in the houses of a number of similar features. The plans were alike in both, even in the placing of the two fireplaces on the rear wall. Both were enlarged by similar additions. Both had the very unusual rear court or passage. Finally, there is a striking (ABOVE) PLAN OF AMPTHILL (CHESTERFIELD COUNTY) BUILT BY HENRY CARY II. (BELOW) PLAN OF BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE, OWNED BY HENRY CARY II DURING THE 1730's WHEN AMPTHILL WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. 20. similarity in the square shape of the rooms of the two houses. These facts seem to indicate that one individual (Henry Cary II) erected both houses.

THE RESTORATION OF THE HOUSE AND THE REMOVAL OF ANACHRONISTIC FEATURES IN THE COURSE OF IT

The house front remained pretty much the same throughout its long history, although it is known to have received, at an early date, the addition of a hooded stoop at the front door, and later on a "Victorian" porch which faced on Palace Green. The roof dormers were also changed at some time before 1900. All of these alterations were considered by the Restoration architects as anachronisms and, as such, were BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE IN ITS FINAL FORM, WHEN ITS RESTORATION WAS UNDER-TAKEN, 1948-1950. THE VICTORIAN PORCH AND THE GOTHIC OFFICE BUILDING AT THE LEFT WERE REMOVED IN THE RESTORATION PROCESS. THE CENTER DORMER WAS REPLACED BY ONE SIMILIAR TO THE ORIGINAL ONES THAT ADJOINED IT. 21. removed. The purpose prompting the Restoration has been to recover the eighteenth century appearance of the house. To achieve this, long continued effort was exerted to gather together all of the known facts about the house, and a thorough study of its structure was made to bring to light the changes that the house fabric underwent. With this information at hand the architects were able not only to reestablish the house as a whole in its first form, but also to restore the exterior and interior with convincing precision to their original condition and appearance.

As we have observed, there were several successive plan arrangements, each becoming increasingly more spacious. The house growth, so far as ground floor area is concerned, was always toward the rear, in the direction of the garden. In observing many early house plans of the town we become aware of the constantly active horizontal spread of the Williamsburg house throughout the eighteenth century,^* which reveals, we believe, a steady improvement in living conditions and a rise in the standard of comfort and convenience in the local community. This is definitely noticeable immediately before and after the Revolution. In addition to this, with the advance of the eighteenth century, imported furniture and accessories became more and more common and a great number of new types of furniture and furnishings made their appearance, as well as more varied and space-consuming dress for both men and women.

The alterations made to a house from decade to decade often reveal a sequence of architectural fashions. In the case of the Brush-Everard 22. House we observe that the house at the beginning had an austere front and steep roof, that it was built with the simplest of materials and without any ostentation. Subsequently an ornate stairway with surprisingly sophisticated and at the same time Baroque characteristics was introduced. At a still later date we find some traces of Greek revival details in the broad molding that surrounded a rear doorway. As an accompaniment to the Greek revival episode, a Gothic revival office building came into being near the north end of the house at some time after the middle of the century. Mr. R. M. Hughes, Jr., a former resident of the houses mentions this as having been built by his grandfather at some time before the Civil War.

The last of the additions but not the least, the porch, extending across the entire front of the house, was gaily embellished with cut-out brackets in a true Victorian manner. This was slyly referred to by visiting Northerners as in the bracketed style of General Grant.

THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE A "STATUTE HOUSE, SIMILAR IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM TO OTHER EARLY WILLIAMSBURG HOUSES

The original portion of the Brush-Everard House has the dimensions and characteristics of the typical "statute" Williamsburg house. Its size, 20'-0" x 44'-2" is a reasonably close approximation to the 20'-0" x 40'-0" size requirement specified by the building act of 1705.^* These dimensions (20' x 40') were, by the way, a minimum requirement -- an owner could make his house larger if he chose to do so.

That the house has the two brick chimney stacks required by the act has already been stated. It is of interest that the act should have compelled each builder to erect two chimney stacks. The General Assembly, by this requirement, seems to have intended to determine, to an extent, the interior layout and appointments of the house, since two chimneys would imply two rooms with a fireplace in each. A house with two well-heated rooms would have been a fairly comfortable one in the early years of the eighteenth century.

As has already been noted, the original house was the typical story-and-a-half, single-room-deep, wood frame house with A roof which resulted, in the first half of the eighteenth century in Williamsburg, from adherence to the terms of the act of 1705. It was similar in type, though not in all of its details, to other original colonial houses in Williamsburg, such as Captain Orr's Dwelling and the Bracken House. It has, in its front face, a central doorway with a pair of windows placed nearly symmetrically on either side of this. Five dormers bring light to the "half" story, and these are located approximately over the door and window beneath. In respect to its openings, therefore, the Brush-Everard House differs from Captain Orr's Dwelling and the Bracken House, each of which has three front dormers only. The Bracken House, furthermore, has only two first floor windows, while Captain Orr's has three. These differences in the three houses, which are alike fundamentally, may be looked upon, however, merely as variations upon a single theme.

THE BRUSH-EVERARD PLOT AND OUTBUILDINGS

In tracing the history of the plan, which consisted of two half acres, we find no less than nine outbuildings dotted the area between the house and garden (see plot plan on following page). These are partly symmetrical in their placing in relation to the house; the shop balances the kitchen while the center rear doorway of the house is on the axial path that leads directly to the boxwood garden.

These many outbuildings were not built at one time but rather at intervals. They included a kitchen with servants' quarters above, a shop, office, dairy, smokehouse, well house and privies. Many of these are to be found on the Frenchman's Map of 1782.^* On the center ABOVE, PORTION OF THE FRENCHMAN'S MAP SHOWING THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE (ENCIRCLED IN RED) AND THE OUTBUILDINGS ON THE PLOT. AT LEFT, REDUCED VERSION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL DRAWING FOR LOT #165, SHOWING THE HOUSE WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES AND WALKS. 24-a. PLOT PLAN SHOWING BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE AND OUTBUILDINGS 24b. axis of the houses as was noted above, was a brick path which led between the kitchen and shop to a large boxwood garden. Other lesser paths extended at right angles to this axis, and joined the outbuildings to the house and to one another. The brick and marl paving, which still remains, is surprising in its extent and varied patterns.

THE NEO-GOTHIC BUILDING (NOW DEMOLISHED) WHICH WAS BUILT BY SYDNEY SMITH NORTH OF THE BRUSH-EVERARD HOUSE AND USED BY HIM AS A LAW OFFICE. LATER COLLEGE STUDENTS OCCUPIED IT.

THE HOUSE EXTERIOR DISCUSSED IN DETAIL