USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Stratford > A history of the old town of Stratford and the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut > Part 16
USA > Connecticut > Fairfield County > Bridgeport > A history of the old town of Stratford and the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut > Part 16
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60
History of Stratford.
remained in the community until 1706, when they began to secure services by the Episcopal Church.
The matter of dissention having been brought before the General Court, the advice of that body was rendered, probably, in the latter part of the year 1667, and on March 27, 1668, at a lawful town meeting the advice was "in every particular voted and accepted," and ordered recorded. It had reference not only to Church matters but also to civil rights and liberties ; and occurring as it did directly after the union of the New Haven and Connecticut Colonies, it was of importance to the whole united Colony.
Early in the year 1668, the minority engaged Mr. Zecha- riah Walker of Jamaica, L. I., to preach to them ; and as Mr. Israel Chauncey had signed a paper accepting the land prof- fered by the town upon the conditions stipulated ; Mr. Walker also signed a like agreement and acceptance.
These facts placed the two ministers and their parties on equal rights and privileges in law and worship; but they were very differently situated as to advantages, for the minority had no organization and no meeting house.
The next trouble arose from the application of Mr. Walker and his adherents, for the use of the meeting house during some portion of each Sabbath day, as a place of wor- ship, under the proposition that the two congregations should use the same house, but meet at different hours on the same day. This created more division and excited feeling, appar- ently, than had been experienced before, for the old congre- gation declined to grant the request, and that apparently by a large majority.
In accordance with the recommendation of the Court, a complete list of the proprietors of the town was made, on the 27th of March, 1668, just in the midst of these difficulties, and by it and Mr. Walker's report of the organization of his church the relative strength of the parties may be seen.
The Inhabitants of Stratford in 1668.
" A list of the Inhabitants of Stratford, drawn up by the townsmen and recorded by order from the Govenor and Mr. Jones and Mr. Stowe 27th March, 1668, as followeth and diligently recorded by order from the present townsmen this 28th March, 1668 :
179
Proprietors of Stratford.
1. Mr. [Samuel] Sherman.
2. Mr. [Thomas] Fairchild.
3. Mr. [Israel] Chauncey.
4. Mr. [Zech.] Walker.
5. Lieut. Wm. Curtis.
6. Elder [Philip] Graves.
7. Ensign Jos. Judson. S. John Birdseye, Sen".
9. John Minor.
10. Nath1 Porter.
II. John Birdseye, Jun".
12. Henry Wakelyn.
13. Jehiel Preston.
14. Mr. Nicholas Knell.
15. John Brinsmayd, Sent.
16. Richard Butler.
17. Benjamin Peak.
IS. John Curtis.
19. John Peck, Jr.
20. Timothy Wilcockson.
21. Joseph Bearslye 22. Israel Curtis.
23. Arthur Bostick.
24. Caleb Nichols.
25. John Beach. 26. John Wells.
27. James Blackman.
28. John Pickett, Jr.
29. Robert Lane.
30. John Hull.
31. Jabez Harger.
32. Daniel Titterton.
33. Robert Rose.
34. Robert Clark.
35. John Wilcockson.
36. Hugh Griffin.
37. Richard Hurd.
38. Edward Hinman.
39. John Thompson, Sent. 40. John Thompson, Jr. 41. Moses Wheeler.
42. Francis Hall.
43. Esbon Wakeman. 44. Samuel Sherman. 45. Joseph Hawley. 46. Adam Hurd.
47. Henry Tomlinson.
48. Richard Boothe.
49. John Hurd, Jr. 50. Isaac Nichols.
51. Sergt. Jeremie Judson.
52. Samuel Bearslye.
53. John Pickett, Sen".
54. Thomas Uffoot.
55. James Clark.
56. John Peacock.
57. John Hurd, Sen'.
58. Mr. David Mitchell. 59. Stephen Burritt.
60. Samuel Blackman.
61. John Bearslye.
62. Samuel Stiles.
63. Ephraim Stiles.
64. Thos. Sherwood's children.
65. Thomas Wells.
66. John Wheeler,
67. Obadiah Wheeler,
Outlivers, i. e. out
68. Hope Washburn,
69. Theophilus Sherman, of the village.
70. Matt. Sherman, Admitted freeholders Jan. 1, 1668.
71. Thomas Kimberly.
72. Samuel Fairchild.
73. Thos. Fairchild, Jr.
74. John Brinsmade, Jr.
75. Daniel Bearslye.
76. Jonathan Curtis.
77. John Judson. Were by the townsmen ordered to be recorded Outlivers, March 3, 16gg.
78. Samuel Gregory.
79. James Pickett.
80. Benjamin Beach.
SI. John Bostick.
82. Henry Summers.
83. Jonas Tomlinson.
84. Dan1. Brinsmade.
85. John Burritt.
86. Widow Bearsley wife of Thomas B.
87. Mrs. [Adam] Blackman.
88. Widow Titterton.
89. Widow Bearslye, wife of William, half proprietor of house lot and accommodations."
180
History of Stratford.
This list gives 85 men, and if all were allowed to vote in a Society meeting, then the list includes both parties as to legal votes.
In the Woodbury History is an account given by the Rev. Mr. Walker of the organization of his Church at Strat- ford, May 1, 1670, and according to it the Covenant was taken that day by 20 persons, to whom 7 were added in a few days, making 27 in all, and omitting Mr. Walker himself, 26. Of the whole number 7 were not inhabitants, and could not vote in town meeting. Hence the number of Mr. Walker's voters to those opposed was 19 to 65.
Two years Mr. Walker and his people continued their work in Stratford under great difficulties, when the project of colonization to Woodbury arose and was soon after effected in a very commendable and successful manner. When set- tled in Woodbury they adopted the Halfway Covenant sys- tem of church relations and government, the same as the Stratford Church had pursued, probably, all the years of its existence before 1670, and which it followed, probably, about one hundred years later.
CHAPTER IX.
D
PROGRESS AMIDST DIFFICULTIES.
URING the years from 1650 to 1670, great changes took place in the town of Stratford. The purchasing of the lands from the Indians and the consequent proposition for extend- ing the settlement; the decease of several prominent men and the incoming of new settlers; the differences which arose as to the privileges of the halfway covenant church members, resulting in the organiza_ tion of a second society for public wor- ship; the union of Connecticut and New Haven Colonies, and the taking of New York from the Dutch ;- all these had placed the community upon a new stage of social, religious and civil life.
The territory opened for settlement by paying the In- dians for various tracts of land extended north into what is now Huntington and Trumbull, and west to Fairfield bounds. Different parties had become interested in these purchases by paying the Indians, in behalf of the town, and they desired to secure the return of their money by the division and sale of the land to old and new settlers, and this awakened a spirit of enterprise and progress to the extent that new settlers were not only made welcome but invited to come in, and the territory seemed so large that a proposition was made in 1670, and a petition presented to the General Court, to organize a separate plantation at Farmill river within the bounds of Stratford.1
1 "October, 1670. Whereas, Mr. Sherman hath motioned to this Court in the behalf of some of the inhabitants of Stratford, that they might have liberty and
13
182
History of Stratford.
The Stratford company was organized at Wethersfield and Hartford in the beginning of the year 1639, and tradition says it contained fifteen or seventeen families. They began the settlement that Spring at what was afterwards called the harbor, in Stratford village, and in the Autumn of that year military drill was established under the command of Francis Nichols, acting as captain.
The land records as they now exist were commenced, probably, in 1652, and all dates prior to that were entered at that time or later. It is quite doubtful as to there having been any records in this town previous to that date, but if there were they have been lost or destroyed.
The law providing for such records and a town clerk to keep them was enacted in 1639, and provided such penalties as to make it hazardous for any town to neglect the matter twelve years, as must have been the case if Stratford made none but those now possessed.
The record of each proprietor's surveyed land, being entered in 1652, there are two forms of expression used which designate the first proprietors from those who came after. Of the first of these it is said he " hath a home lot," but of the second it is said, " hath purchased a home lot." Hence when the town clerk recorded his own lot, probably in 1652, he said : "Joseph Hawley hath purchased of Richard Mills, a home lot, 2 acres, bounded with the street on the east, John Blakeman west, Adam Hurd on the south, and a highway north." In this case Mr. Hawley appears to have purchased the whole Right of Mr. Mills as well as the home lot.
This was the only form of land records in the early settlement of the place.
Besides the above evidence as to the first families, nearly
encouragement to erect a plantation at or near a river called the Farmill river, and the lands adjacent, this Court refers the consideration of this motion to Capt. Nathan Gold, Mr. James Bishop, Mr. Thomas Fitch, and Mr. John Holly, and they are desired and appointed to view the said lands, and to meet sometime in November next, to consider of the aforesaid motion, and to labor to work a com- pliance between those two parties in Stratford ; and if their endeavors prove unsuccessful then they are desired and ordered to make return to the Court in May next what they judge expedient to be attended in the case." Col. Rec., ii. 141.
183
Emigration to Stratford.
all other early settlers in this town are found residing else- where in the year 1639. In a previous part of this book, all settlers before 1651 are spoken of as first settlers, but those included more than the first company formed at Wethersfield.
Most of these seventeen families had been in America four or five years, looking for a final location as a home for life, and it must have afforded a sense of rest and satis- faction when they planted themselves on the western shore of the great river, then known only as the Pootatuck, as their final earthly home. And yet it was not like home to them, but as unlike as was possible to be.
Apparently they had all left many friends and kindred whose faces they would have been glad to have seen after these several years of wandering in the new world instead of stop- ping among the Indians. Some of them, if not all had relin- quished comfortable homes and possessions, but when landed at Stratford they had not a shelter nor a covering for the night, probably, unless they accepted hospitality in the Indian wigwams, of which there is no tradition. They may have sent on a part of their company early in the Spring to prepare some houses or places for temporary dwelling, but the company was organized so late in the winter that there was but little time before the important work of planting de- manded all their labor and skill, and therefore but small preparations could have been made, however diligent and energetic their efforts.
And all this, for what? To escape religious oppression. Much has been written with a purpose to indicate that that oppression was of little consequence-largely imaginary, and soon forgotten, but no unprejudiced mind can read a tenth part of the historical proof of the trerribleness of that op- pression without a shudder of horror and wonder.
But in their minds at least there must have been a great pressure, to drive them 3000 miles across a mighty ocean, with families of children, into a wilderness country such as they knew this was. If the emigrating companies had con- sisted only of men, as in the recent exodus to California in IS49, the case would have been very different and might have been stimulated solely for gain.
184
History of Stratford.
Fortunately, however, for the world, whatever the sad or hopeful experiences through which they had previously passed, they came, and through them the nations have been and are honored.
The First Families of Stratford, Connecticut.
1 Rev. Adam Blakeman.
2 William Beardsley.
3 William Willcoxson.
4 Richard Harvey.
5 Elizabeth Curtiss.
6 Thomas Fairchild.
Philip Groves.
8 John Hurd.
9 Richard Mills.
10 William Judson.
11 Francis Nichols.
12 John Peat.
13 Robert Seabrook.
14 Thomas Sherwood.
15 William Crooker.
16 William Quemby.
17 Arthur Bostwick.
It is possible that this list should be varied a little, but from the best light after very close study, it seems to be correct.
There were no settlers here in 1638, as supposed by Dr. Trumbull.
These seventeen families consisted of the following persons :
I Rev. Adam Blakeman, his wife and six children, 8 persons.
2 William Beardsley, his wife and four young children, 6 persons.
3 Wiliam Willcoxson, his wife and three young children, 5 persons.
4 Richard Harvey and his wife,
2 persons.
5 Widow Elizabeth Curtiss and two sons, young men, 3 persons.
6 Thomas Fairchild and his young wife, 2 persons.
7 Philip Groves and wife,
2 persons.
8 John Hurd, probably his wife and son Adam,
3 persons.
9 Richard Mills, his wife, sister of Caleb Nichols, and son Samuel, 3 persons.
IO William Judson, his wife and three sons.
5 persons.
II Francis Nichols and his three sons,
4 persons.
12 John Peat, his wife and two children,
13 Robert Seabrook, probably no wife,
14 Thomas Sherwood, his wife and six children,
8 persons.
15 William Crooker and wife, perhaps children, 2 persons.
16 William Quemby, his wife, two children, perhaps others, 4 persons.
17 Arthur Bostwick, probably his wife and one son,
4 persons. I person.
3 persons.
Harvey.
Richard
4
William Judson.
IO
Richard Mills.
O
John Hurd, Sen.
8
William Quemby. 16
Wid. Elizabeth Curtiss. 5
Francis Nichols.
Thos. Fairchild. 6
Arthur Bostwick. 7
John Peat.
12
William Willcoxson.
3
William Beardsley. 2
Philip Groves.
7
Rev. Adam Blakeman.
I
William Crooker.
15
Robert Seabrook,
13
First Meeting Housc.
RIVER.
Little Neck.
POOTATUCK
14 Thomas Sherwood
STRATFORD VILLAGE IN 1639,
Containing only Seventeen Families.
Indian Wigwams.
186
History of Stratford.
This was the company that came from Wethersfield through the wilderness to Stratford on foot and horseback, and tradition says, forded the Housatonic river somewhere above Stratford village. What few articles of household goods, if any, which were too heavy to bring on horseback were doubtless sent around by water.
Their encampment on the plain-then an Indian field- near the harbor must have been picturesque as compared with the present. Possibly they had some tents for tempo- rary shelter and then built themselves wigwams or log houses. What they suffered in the chilly Spring winds and rains has not been recorded although, no doubt, it was often repeated to their successors for many years following.
Probably new planters came the next year; and there- after, nearly every year, until 1675. In 1650 there were about fifty families in the town, several others having come and removed.
These families were all, probably communicants in the English or Episcopal Church when they left their native land, and brought their certificates as such, with them to America. In the list of the ship that brought three families that settled in Stratford-William Beardsley, William Will- coxson and Richard Harvie, it is said : " the parties have cer- tificates from the minister of St. Albans in Hertfordshire, and attestations from the justice of the peace according to the Lord's order." 3 These certificates as communicants, and at- testations of loyalty-they having taken the oath of loyalty- by the justice, were a prerequisite to the privilege of emigra- tion. The Rev. Adam Blakeman himself was not only a com- municant, but a regularly ordained minister of the English Church in good standing, having been suspended from officiat- ing as a clergyman, for nonconformity to a few particular forms of service, then not in the prayer-book. One of these was the requirement that persons while partaking of the sac- rament should be in a kneeling position. This kneeling was the form of the Roman Catholic Church in which they taught
3 Page 122 of this book.
I87
Many Changes.
the " Worshiping of the Host." This form, the Puritans thought, was idolatry, and therefore refused to observe it.
There were no Presbyterians in Stratford, not even in 1708, when the Saybrook Platform was adopted, so far as any indications set forth.
When, therefore, these first families reached Stratford they organized themselves into a Church with the recogni- tion of neighboring Churches, and called themselves, as did their neighbors also, "a Church of Christ," and these bodies worshiping together as congregations separate from each other, were after about thirty years, in 1669, styled "Congre- gational Churches." ‘
Richard Booth is not included as one of the first com- pany, because the indications are that he came with his brother-in-law, Joseph Hawley, who came and purchased his first land here about 1650.
William Burritt seems not to have been among the first settlers, in 1639.
Richard Butler, the brother of William, of Hartford, as given on page 108, in this book, lived and died at Hartford, and the Richard Butler of Stratford, was here probably several years before 1651, and was another person than Richard of Hartford.
John Birdseye, in all probability, did not come to Strat- ford until 1649, as stated in Barber's Historical Collections, since he did not become a land holder here until 1654.
The list of deaths and removals between 1650 and 1670, is as follows, nearly, there having been some deaths, doubt- less, before 1650, of which there are no records.
Francis Nichols, William Burritt, John Alsop and Wil- liam Willcoxson died in 1650 and 1651. Henry Gregory died in 1655, Thomas Sherwood, Sen., in 1655, Robert Coe, Jr., in 1659, William Beardsley in 1660, John Wells, Sen., in 1660 or 1661, Joshua Judson, in 1661. Thomas Uffoot removed to Milford and died in 1660; William Judson removed to New Haven and died in 1662. The Rev. Adam Blakeman died in 1665 ; Samuel Blakeman died in 1668; Thomas Fairchild,
4 Col. Rec., ii, 109.
IS8
History of Stratford.
Sen., and John Peacock, Hugh Griffin and his wife Dorothy Griffin, died in 1670.
Edmund Harvey from Milford, resided a short time in Stratford and removed to Fairfield, where he died in 1648. John Pettit, probably from Roxbury, Mass., was here about 1651, removed to Fairfield, and he and his wife were deceased in 1684, leaving children, Sarah, John and three younger. Edward Higby was a resident here a short time about 1654, and soon removed. John Reader, John Ferguson, William Read, and John Blakeman, were here but soon removed.
Some sketches of new settlers will be found in the next chapter of this book, the number being about 30 before 1680.
The difficulties which arose in the first church in Strat- ford, in 1666, in regard to the privileges of the halfway cove- nant members, resulted in the organization of a second eccle- siastical society in 1668, and a second Church in March, 1670.
The question as to a second ecclesiastical society and church was settled in a most generous and Christian manner by the old society, which was a large majority of the voters of the town, notwithstanding all that has been published to the contrary.
The law of the Colony did not allow an ecclesiastical society to be organized in any plantation, except by permis- sion of the General Court. When the difference of opinion had continued in Stratford a little more than a year, the voters of the town, being most of them members of or in covenant with the old church, made a proposition for settle- ment with the minority, or those who proposed a second society, which was accepted, and was to take effect at once if the General Court should approve it, and this they did promptly." 5 It gave one fourth of the sequestered ministry
5 " Dec. IS, 1666, Voted and agreed that there shall be (in case it be found no ways contradictory to a Court order to have another minister here in Stratford) a laying out of the sequestered land reserved for the ministry-viz : one-quarter part of it to Mr. Chauncy and a quarter part of it to Mr. Peter Bulkley or any other man by that party obtained that now endeavors for Mr. Bulkley ; and that which shall be laid out to Mr. Chauncey shall by him be improved as his during his life or continuance in Stratford ; and in case of removal the said land is to return to the town again ; provided always that the town pay him for what it is bettered by
189
Reasons for a new Plantation.
land to Mr. Chauncey and the other fourth to the minister, whoever he might be,-for one had not then been secured,- of the second society, and that, too, when the voters of that society numbered 19, and those of the old society 65.
All this was done by the parties interested, without any governmental authority whatever.
The Woodbury History opens one of its chapters thus : " The settlement of Woodbury was the result of differ- ence in religious opinions, among the inhabitants of Stratford. It was ushered in by 'thunderings and lightnings, and earth- quakes ecclesiastical.' "
There were no " thunderings and lightnings " nor " earthquakes ecclesiastical," in the matter, except such as may have occurred in Woodbury years after.
There were no ecclesiastical or General Court threaten- ings or fulminations heard of in those days, for the whole arrangement was completed by amicable vote in the town meeting without any outside force or urgency whatever ; and was fully settled before Mr. Zecharia Walker preached a ser- mon in Stratford.
The Woodbury History says Mr. Chauncey " was or- dained in the independent mode," which means, if anything, that he rejected the advice and aid of the Association of Min- isters, which was then the only ecclesiastical body known in the Colony except the local churches. This statement is wholly without foundation, as is shown by his own letter to the minority, April 16, 1666, in these words: " We have no such custom nor the churches of Christ with whom we hold communion," thus showing that he held in highest estimation his relation to the Association, which was the only formal communion of the " Churches of Christ" at that day.
his improvement, according as ye town and Mr. Chauncey shall agree, . . . and in case of decease the town is to pay Mr. Chauncy, his heirs, what the whole ac- commodation, together with the improvement shall be judged, at his decease.
It is further agreed on, in case Mr. Buckley or any other minister be obtained he shall have, hold and enjoy his part in every respect the same as Mr. Chauncy.
It is further agreed on that as respecting a houselot, the reserved land for that purpose shall be equally divided into two lots, and Mr. Chauncy is to have his choice which of the two he will please to have."
190
History of Stratford.
It is quite evident that after this arrangement had been made and the minority had secured half of the ministerial lands and the sanction of the Court to be a separate society, that their demand to occupy the meeting house as well as the old society some portion of Sunday, increased very decidedly the difficulties and controversies in the town.
In the next March, 1668, the town " Voted and unani- mously agreed on the advice presented to us by our Honored Governor, the Worshipful Mr. Jones [an Assistant], and Mr. Stone, and our respected friends, Mr. Jehu Burr and, Mr. John Burr, bearing date the 26th of March, 1668, for our present and future direction, as to inhabitants and their privi- leges (as also their explication of the first particular, sub- scribed by the honored Governor and Mr. Jones), every particular being particularly voted and agreed on, every par- ticular was accepted and should be recorded.
John Minor, Recorder."
This advice, given6 the day before this town meeting was held, consisted of four items and an after explanation, the
Advice of the Governor and his Associates.
"I. That the present freeholders, dwelling upon or possessing allowed home lots in propriety be allowed as free planters, and have the privilege of vote in all town affairs ; and the present outlivers on propriety, have the like liberty of vote so far as may properly concern them in point of interest in town affairs, as choice of constable and townsmen, &c., but not in granting of home lots and receiving inhabitants, or the like where they are not concerned.
"2. That for the future none be admitted to privilege of vote as free planters but such as shall be orderly admitted by the town's consent upon certificate and testimony according to law.
" 3. That the sons of settled and approved planters be not capable of vote in town affairs until of lawful age and distinct proprietors and planters themselves.
" 1. That no transient person or persons, admitted for habitation only or mere tenantship be allowed the privilege of vote in the plantation until orderly approved to be free planters by the town's consent.
"And whereas persons have built upon division land contrary to the town's order, it is not our intent in any thing by us propounded to justify their so doing, but leave the case to the town's consideration, to provide for their own good and to add such penalty for the future to their above said confirmation thereof as they shall see cause.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.