THE REV. JOHN WAUGH AND CAPTAIN MASON.

17

titles. Both were "great Indian fighters" and men of mark in the community, and while Colonel Mason, the elder, was a true cavalier, he appears to have inclined to the popular side in the contest between Berkeley and Bacon. The second George Mason proved himself a decided whig, as we learn from the correspondence of the zealous tory Colonel Fitzhugh.

Lord Howard of Effingham had made himself very unpopular in Virginia, in advancing the bigoted views of James II. And when the Revolution of 1688 took place, while the council leaned to the Stuart cause and supported the governor, the Assembly welcomed the accession of the new dynasty. Great excitement prevailed and it was said in Virginia that the "papists" in Maryland were going to bring in Indians to destroy "the Protestants of both Dominions." In the Maryland Council pains were taken to contradict those extravagant rumors, raised, as was reported, "by Mr. Burr Harris [son] of Virginia and several evil disposed persons to this [the Maryland] government."' Colonel Spencer, Colonel Lee, and Colonel Allerton of the Virginia Council exerted themselves successfully in the effort to allay the excitement. Captain Brent, as a Roman Catholic, was an object of persecution by the more ignorant and fanatical of his neighbors in Stafford County, the seat of the disturbances, and he was advised to take refuge from the mob at "Mr. Fitzhugh's or Captain Mason's." In the conflict between whig and tory in Stafford County, the leader of the whigs was the Rev. John Waugh, a non-conformist clergyman. Crowds flocked to his eloquent ministry and his denunciations of the government of Lord Howard and his royal master inflamed the people, and produced disturbances of the peace approaching to a rebellion.' Three of the councillors were sent to Stafford, Spencer, Lee, and Allerton, to quiet the county. Colonel Fitzhugh asso

1 Archives of Maryland. Proceedings of the Council, 1687-8-1693. (Maryland Historical Society, 1890.)

Burk's "History of Virginia," vol. ii., p. 305.

ciates George Mason with the Rev. Mr. Waugh in his denunciations of the latter. He wrote from Jamestown to his brother-in-law, Mr. Luke, then in England, on the 27th of October, 1690, and betrays a very sore feeling against these gentlemen, who had evidently found favor in high places for their political principles, whatever penalties it had been thought necessary to prescribe in the first instance against the over-zealous clerical partisan. "The conclusion of Parson Waugh's business is," writes Fitzhugh, "he has made a public and humble acknowledgment in the general court, by a set form drawn up by the court and ordered there to be recorded; and is appointed to do the same in our court, as soon as I come home, with a hearty penitence for his former faults and a promised obedience for the future, which he sincerely prays for the accomplishment of, and for the sake of his coat I do too. I stood in the gap and kept off an approaching rebellion (Waugh's), to my no small charge and trouble, as you fully know, being sending almost every day for five months together, and writing with mine own hand above three quires of paper to quash the raised stories and settle the panic fears; having my house most part of the time constantly thronged, and in daily expectation of being treacherously murdered; for all which charge and trouble I being out, as you know, above £25 sterling, particularly for messengers sent severally up and down, besides the purchasing the powder and shot for our men in arms; for all which I thought at least I deserved thanks, if no retaliation, but, thank God, I have missed them both, and can do it with cheerfulness too; but to be disregarded, nay, and slighted too, and to see those mischievous, active instruments, as you well know Waugh and Mason,

the only men in favor and the only men taken notice of, grates harder than the non-payment for shot and other disbursements. I thought good to intimate this to you, that you may give my Lord [Howard] a particular account of that whole affair wherein his Lordship, as you know from these persons [Waugh, Mason, etc.] missed not

and fully set forth the the at present

wickedness of Waugh and Mason, grand favorites, but I hope, upon his Lordship's arrival, the scene of affairs may be changed.' It is evident that the tories were down at this time and the whigs uppermost. And in Stafford the leaders of the late "rebellion" were enjoying the favor of the new government. Waugh and Mason were, no doubt, among those who signed the "association" for the defence of King William after the Jacobite plot of Barclay's in 1696.' Virginia and New York were the only two colonies, apparently, that testified their loyalty in this way. The Rev. John Waugh (or Wough, as the name is spelt in the old record) had charge of two churches in 1680, Stafford Parish and Chontanck [Chotank].' And in 1691 he patented six thousand, three hundred and fifty acres of land in Stafford. His friend, George Mason, became his son-in-law, as will be seen later.

Colonel Fitzhugh had been engaged in lawsuits with Colonel Mason which apparently descended to the son, and may have helped to embitter the political animosity which subsisted between Fitzhugh and the younger Mason. The former wrote to George Luke in regard to one of these suits: "Mason's business appeared with such a report from the referees Allerton and Lee (back friends to us both as this court then found) that there was neither word nor argument to be used. When I see you I shall be more full." This Lee was Col. Richard Lee of the council, whose daughter Mary was to marry the younger William Fitzhugh. Colonel Fitzhugh seems to have considered Colonel Lee a "back friend" and Captain Mason an open enemy at this time. But these legal animosities, not less than the political ones, were apparently assuaged subsequently. At least the unfriendliness between these neighbor families gave place in the next

1 Fitzhugh Letters, Virginia Historical Society. The London Gazette, August 27, 1696.

'Colonial Records of Virginia.

4 Fitzhugh Letters, Virginia Historical Society.

4

generation to the amenities of kinship. At a court held for Stafford County on the 9th of October, 1689, Lieut.-Col. Fitzhugh and Capt. George Mason head the list of justices. On this occasion George Brent laid before the court the case of a disputed patent which he had surveyed "in obedience to an order of the worshipful court of Stafford." In 1691 the town of Marlboro', on Potomac Neck was appointed to be laid off by act of Assembly, on fifty acres of land surveyed by Theodorick Bland. The first "feoffees" of the town granted thirty of the ninety odd lots into which the town was divided to different persons, of whom Captain Mason was one, the deeds conveying these lots to him being dated February, 1691-2.' Captain Mason's plantation, inherited from his father, it will be remembered, was in this same neck of land in Stafford County. There is reason to believe, however, that Captain Mason was not living at "Aquaceek," which may have been occupied by his mother or other members of the family, if, as is probable, he had brothers and sisters; and that he had fixed his residence near "Pohike" Creek, or Pohick as it is called at the present day, in Dogue Neck, much nearer the northern boundary of the county. Such, at least, is the inference to be drawn from the notices of him in the quaint journal kept by one of the Potomac Rangers in 1692. These rangers were appointed by the governor for frontier duty, and according to one of the acts of the Assembly regulating this service, a lieutenant or commander of rangers was to have under him eleven men with horses, arms, etc.' These men were to reside as near as might be to the station, and the County Lieutenant, as commander-in-chief of the county militia, was empowered to impress men for rangers. George Mason seems to have been one of the Stafford rangers, deriving his military title, as is likely, from this service. The paper alluded to is dated October 31, 1692.

I Mercer Land Book.

• Ibid.

'Hening's "Statutes," vol. ii.

JOURNAL OF THE POTOMAC RANGERS.

21

"A Journiall of our Ranging, Given by me David Strahan, Lieutenant of ye Rangers of Pottomack. June 9th June, the 17th; We ranged over Ackoquane, and so we Ranged Round persi-Neck and ther we lay that night. And on ye 18th came to Pohike, and ther we heard that Capt. Mason's Servt-man was missing. Then we went to see if we could find him, and we followed his foot abut half a mile, to a house that is deserted, and we took ye tract of a great many Indians and we followed it about 10 miles, and having no provisions we was forced to return. June the 26th: We Ranged up to Jonathan Matthews hs. along with Capt. Masone, and ther we met with Capt. Houseley, and we sent over for the Emperour, but he would not come, and we went over to ye towne, and they held a Masocomacko (?) and ordered 20 of their Indians to goe after ye Indians that carried away Capt. Masone's man, and so we returned. July the 3d July 11th; We ranged up to Brenttowne and ther we lay. The 19th we ranged up to Ackotink, and discovered nothing. So we Ranged once in ye Neck till ye 20th Septbr, then we mercht to Capt. Masone's, and ther we met with Capt. Houseley and his men; so we draved out 12 of our best horses, and so we ranged up Ackotink, and ther we lay that night. Sept. 22d Sept 23d We marcht to the Suggar Land . . And the 24th We Ranged about to see if we could find ye tract of any Indians, but we could not see any fresh signe . . ; the 26th marcht. to Capt. Masone's, and ther I dismissed my men till ye next March.'

'Suggar Land" is supposed to be identical with Fairfax and Loudoun counties and the opposite shores of Maryland, and its name was derived from the sugar maple tree, though there are none now in that locality."

The Northern Neck, or the country between the Potomac and Rappahannock rivers, had been granted by Charles II. to Lord Culpepper in 1683. But the colonists here had objected to this arrangement, and in memorials to the Assembly prayed that they might have their lands secured to them by patent as was the case elsewhere in Virginia. 1 "Virginia Calendar Papers," vol. i., P. 44.

* Ibid., p. xlvi.