by Roland L. Warren

14

Were There Two Parliament Houses? The Question Is Raised By The Author Of Mary Coffin Starbuck

THE FORTHCOMING BOOK, "Mary Coffin Starbuck and the Early History of Nantucket," by Roland L. Warren, is in the hands of the printers, and is due to appear in two or three months. Mr. Warren is the writer of the play about the Oldest House and its early families, which was shown at the celebration activities relating to the Oldest House last summer, and was well received by interested audiences.

On this occasion he is writing about the Mary Coffin StarbuckNathaniel Starbuck, Jr. house, known as "Parliament House," on the corner of Pine Street and School Street, in Nantucket. His chapter called: "Fact, Fiction and Conjecture," excerpts from which have been used herewith, appears as follows:

Fact, Fiction and Conjecture by Roland L. Warren

The confused identification of Mary Coffin Starbuck with her daughter Mary Starbuck has been mentioned in the Introduction. The circumstance that one author has the young Mary Starbuck marrying her own father, Nathaniel, might serve as the best illustration of the difficulties caused by conflicting accounts. But perhaps the most complex illustration of the jumble of statements based on inadequate data and statements that go contrary to the known facts is the example of Parliament House. When was it built? Was there one, or were there two Parliament Houses? And, was either one moved into Wesco (the present Nantucket)?

In July, 1983, Margaret S. Beale published an article called "The Starbuck Family and the Parliament House" in Historic Nantucket, the official journal of the Nantucket Historical Association. In it, she attempted "to determine if a correlation exists between 10 Pine Street and 'Parliament House', a dwelling known as the home of Nathaniel and Mary (Coffin) Starbuck, which was located in the section of Old Sherborn known as Cambridge as early as 1667. According to Nantucket lore, John Folger, a Quaker carpenter, told his grandson, Joseph Austin, that he had incorporated into the house on the corner of Pine and School Streets materials salvaged from 'Parliament House'."

Other writers take the "correlation" between the two houses as more than lore. Merle Turner simply reports that "In 1667 Nathaniel and Mary Starbuck had a house, called the Parliament House, on the hill north of Hummock Pond. Around 1820 this was moved to town..." For him, it was not just materials from the original house, but the house itself, apparently intact. Anderson states in a footnote that "The Parliament House still stands, although on a later site, at the corner of Pine and

TWO PARLIAMENT HOUSES?

15

School Streets in Nantucket town." William F. Macy states more cautiously that it "is said" that Parliament House now stands at Pine and School Streets.

But when was Parliament House built? Beale stated "as early as 1667." Anderson was not specific, but implied that it was not long after 1665. Turner indicated that it existed in 1667. In that year, as reported by Allen Coffin and Beale, an earlier reference to Parliament House had been recorded in the Book of Deeds. Both Beale and Coffin infer that this entry dated from the initial land division by the proprietors in July, 1661. They report that the entry referred to "the place commonly called the Parliament House." Worth, who is considered most authoritative on early land holdings and buildings, found mention of a meeting in "Parliament House" in 1667, being the home of Nathaniel and Mary Starbuck and Foreman states, curiously, that Parliament House was "still standing in 1665"!

At least one fact seems reasonably established from the above: Parliament House was built some time before the end of 1667.

But, wait. There may have been two Parliament Houses. The Parliament House referred to above may not have been the one that was allegedly moved to town in 1820. Guba asserts that the first Parliament House was the place in which the meetings of all three Quaker missionaries took place (1698-1701). This building, he relates, "was taken down and rebuilt on upper Main Street where it is known as the Tobey House." He goes on to explain that Nathaniel Starbuck built another house for his son Nathaniel, Jr. in 1699, and that this house of the "bright rubbed room" that Richardson described in 1701, now stands, yes, at Pine and School Streets and is known as the Austin House.

Similarly, Leach writes that it was in the Tobey House that Nantucket Monthly Meeting was born in 1708, but that "the first room used regularly for First-Day meetings was the living room of the Parliament House, built by Nathaniel Starbuck in 1699." (NHA1950, p. 24) He concurs that this was the bright rubbed room mentioned by Richardson and that it was modified and moved to School and Pine Streets as the present Austin House.

No doubt, both Guba and Leach were given impetus in their two-house explanations by Worth, who had concluded in 1901 that "The probability is that the house which Folger moved was a later house occupied by the Starbuck family and not that originally known as the Parliament House."

Beale, by the way, concluded that there was a "lack of evidence to support John Folger's incorporation of material from "Parliament House" in Cambridge into #10 Pine Street," but she went on to state that this lack "does not totally negate the story's credibility" — a truly inconclusive statement.

Interestingly, A.B.C. Whipple, who does not seek to weed out the aues-

16 HISTORIC NANTUCKET

tion of whether there was one house or two houses, nevertheless makes an anachronistic flight of imagination, visualizing "the Great Lady, Mary Starbuck, holding the white railing as she descended the steps and graciously acknowledged the bows of her neighbors as she proceeded grandly down Pine Street toward the square. To get there she might have gone down a narrow passage now known as Mooers' Lane..."All this, despite the fact that Mary Starbuck was already dead three years before the house was allegedly moved into town.

Just consider: There was one Parliament House. There were two. No, only one of them was named Parliament House. The original house was moved into town. No, the second house was moved into town. No, both houses were moved into town. No, we can't be sure that either one was moved into town.

Confusing, yes; but consider further: What of that reference to Parliament House in the Book of Deeds from 1661, as reported by Allen Coffin and Beale. That would have been a full year before Mary and Nathaniel were even married. I have found no assertion that either of the two buildings treated above was constructed as early as 1661. Worth, who has made the most thorough study of early Nantucket buildings, writes that "There is no doubt that in 1665 to 1667 the Starbuck house was designated the Parliament House, probably because it had a room large enough to accommodate the meeting of the inhabitants for religious or political purposes." In this passage, he ignores the reference to Parliament House in the Book of Deeds perhaps because on the face of it, it seems inconceivable that this house could have been built so early. Most historians agree that the first date at which one can be reasonably sure of a permanent settlement on Nantucket was July, 1661. It strains credulity to believe that a Parliament House such as Worth described it already existed at that time and already had become so designated because of its suitability for meetings. Neither Worth nor any of the other authors who treat the question make any such assertion.

How shall we resolve this problem of the reference to a Parliament House in 1661? Let us consider the full entry in the Book of Deeds, as given by Allen Coffin.

"The one half of the accommodation to Tristram Coffin, sen., being assigned to Mary Starbuck and Nathaniel Starbuck, Tristram also being present at the place commonly called the Parliament House, Sixty rod square, bounded with the land of Thos. Mayhew on the south; and with the land of James Coffin on the north; and on the east with the land of Stephen Greenleaf; on the west by the common—Same land allowed at the east end with reference to rubbage land, more or less."

Notice the wording: "at the place commonly called the Parliament House;" not the "building," "house," "structure," but "place." Can it be that the reference was not to an existing building but to a location, a section of land which for some long-forgotten reason was then called