USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Simsbury > A record and documentary history of Simsbury > Part 11
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
1696-7
Anthony Austin, Town Clerk.
in the name and by the order of the Selectmen.
Dated in Suffield the 5th, (of Feb. ? ) 1696-7." "The above sd script entered here March 12th 1696-7.
I24
Verbatim pr me, being exactly transcribed from ye Originall Writ.
John Slater, Register."
When the time came for the Simsbury perambulators to run their bound line and renew their bound marks, agree- able with the aforementioned notice, the Selectmen of Suffield sent two men to be present at the running of the line between Simsbury and Suffield, who were the bearers of the following letter from the Town Clerk of Suffield.
"These for our Loving friends and Neighbours off Simsbury Towne."
"Loving friends and Neighbours."
"According to your desires, we have sent two of our neighbours, Serj. Joseph Harmon & Serj. David Winchell to met with your men at the place appoynted, but not to joyn Issue with you in running any such lyne, but on the contrary, to protest against it. it being so unlikely, and also so unreasonable that your bounds should come within a mile and halfe or two miles at farthest, of the center of our Towne; and besides, friends, we think that we have the wethergag of you, or the best end of the staffe in our hands. For as much as we challenge nothing but what lyes within our province lyne; your demaund is whollily out of yours. But yet, not- withstanding, pray let not us contend; or give on another hard words, but treat one another Lovingly; like Christians, and Let our Authority on both sides Issue the matter: and if it appear to be your right, we shall not desire one foot or inch of it: if not, we desire yt may enjoy our own peaceably. Per me, Anthony Austine, Town Cleark."
"Dated in Suffield Feb. 15th- 1696-7."
"The above sd is extracted from ye originall and is here recorded verbatim, exactly according to originall writ. March 12, 1696-7. Pr John Slater, Register."
Notwithstanding the words of kindness, aggressions on the rights and property of the inhabitants of Simsbury by those of Suffield did not cease.
But the controversy was not confined to these border towns. The two Colonies of Massachusetts and Connecticut
125
T. R. B. 2 P. 00
1696-7
Col. Rec. Vol. 4 P. 443
1703
became involved in the contest, and at length assumed the whole responsibility. The strife waxed warm between them. Many years they strove, each claiming the right to the disputed territory. For many years efforts were made by Connecticut to bring about a settlement, but in vain. Massachusetts was unyielding in her claims to the territory in controversy. The people claiming to be citizens of Connecticut were taxed, and their property seized under Massachusetts laws.
In 1694 the General Court of Connecticut appointed a Committee to run the line between the two Colonies, and in- vited Massachusetts to join them. On her refusal the Con- necticut Committee ran the line, by direction of the General Court. Again in 1695, Massachusetts was urged to unite ami- cably in running the line, or agree to it as run by Connecticut, but she insisted on the old line which was found to be quite erroneous. Connecticut threatened to lay the matter before the Home Government in England.
At length in 1703, an exasperating case occurred which brought her to take decisive action, and to assert, emphatically, her right of jurisdiction over the disputed ground. The pro- ceedings in the General Court explain and set forth the particu- lar facts in the case.
"Whereas this Court is informed by divers members of the Lower House that one Benjamin Dibble of Symsbury was about twentie dayes past arrested while he was about his lawfull labour within the town of Symsbury in the Colonie, by one Jonathan Rimington who pretended to be constable of Suffield, with many others of said town of Suffield, who did seize and carry away to said Suffield said Dibble and severall barrells of his turpentine and twentie barrells of turpentine belonging to divers other persons of said Symsbury, and said constable pretended to act by virtue of a writt signed by Samuel Patrick Esqr, which writt, as by a coppie thereof at- tested doth appear, did require said constable to arrest said Dible and seize his turpentine for a triall, but not any others; And whereas neither time was appointed for triall by said writt nor court that could take cognizance thereof, all which matter and proceeding this Court judgeth to be very illegall and arbi-
I26
Trumbull Vol. I P. 416
trary, especially since it is found by observation and triall that the greater part of said Suffield is and ought to be part of this Colonie: for redress whereof this Court doth order and appoint the constables of Windzor and Symsbury or either of them by writt from, any Assistant or justice of peace to seize and arrest the said Jonathan Remington and Joseph Sheldin (if found within their precincts) who did principally (as this Court is informed) contrive said arbitrary proceed- ings, assist and abett said Remington in the execution thereof, and bring them or either of them before any of the Assistants or justices of the peace of this Colonie to find sureties for their appearance to answer for their illegal and arbitrary proceedings before any of her Majesties courts as shall be as- signed them, and in default of such sureties to send them to the gaol till they find such sureties as aforesaid."
Whether any arrests were made, or further proceedings had under this order, does not appear.
In 1704, the Generall Court issued another order as follows:
"This Court being informed by some of Symsbury of sundry outrages that have been comitted by sundry of Suf- field men in seizing some of Symsbury and Windzor men, and also carrying away of divers barrels of turpentine, and mowing grasse, and clearing and improving of land within the bounds of the towne of Symsbury which belongs to this Colonie of Connecticutt: therefore this Court doth order that any of the persons aforesaid, that hath or that shall for the future transgresse as aforesaid, shall be seized by warrant from authoritie if found within this government, and brought to or before the next authoritie, who shall take sufficient securitie for their or either of their appearance, at such court as shall be assigned them, to answer their uniust outrages, and irregular dealings."
But, notwithstanding these Orders of the Court, the "outrages and irregular dealings" continued.
The General Assembly, holden at New Haven, in October, 1705, passed another stringent order, as follows:
"Whereas the selectmen of the towne of Suffield in the Province of the Massachusetts Bay have demanded of severall
Col. Rec. Vol. 4 P. 490
Ib. P. 523
I27
of the inhabitants of Symsbury to give in to them their lists of estates with intent to levie rates upon them: this Assembly doth hereby order, that if the said townsmen or any other Suf- field men shall demand rates of any of the inhabitants of Syms- bury they shall not yeild to pay any rates to them, but are hereby forbidden so to doe; and in case they shall presume to distrain on any of said inhabitants for the same, the authoritie in Symsbury, or the next neighbouring townes, are hereby ordered to grant a warrant for arresting them, in order to bring them to a triall for the said offence."
It will be remembered that the Committee appointed by the General Court in 1683, did not fully complete the survey of the town lines of Simsbury, but after running a mile and a half on the Northern line, proceeded no farther in their work and reported progress. Here the matter rested for more than twenty years.
In 1710, the General Assembly took further action, and appointed a new Committee to finish the survey and make report to the Assembly in 171I.
Though not in chronological order, for the purpose of presenting this controversy, with attendant circumstances, all together, and at one view, these proceedings are here inserted.
"At A General Affembly holden at hartford May 11th 1710. Whereas the General Affembly of this Collony held at Hartford May IIth 1683 did appoint Mr Nathan1 Standley Mr James Steel and Mr Cyprian Nickoles or any two of them to lay out to Simsbury, their bounds. according to the grant of this Court. and Committee purfuant to the faid order and appointment. fometime in or about the year 1687 entred upon and begun the faid work and furveyed the eaftern lyne, or Boundery of the faid Town of Simsbury. and from the Northeaft corner thereof run one mile and an halfe of the Northern boundary and then left of
This affembly do now allow and approve the faid lines fo furveyed and run, and order that their report there of be recored with the publick records of this Collony And this Affembly, do order and appoint Mathew allyn Esqr Lieut
I28
S. T. R. B. 212 P. 107 (Back of Book)
Daniel Hayden and benejah Holcomb Jun' of Windfor. or any two of them. to Survey and Runn the reft of the Northern Lyne. and alfo the weftern lyne or boundary of the fayd Town of Simsbury and to make a report or return of their doings therein, to this affembly, in May 171I."
In obedience to this Order, this Committee made a survey of the unfinished Northern line and of the Western line or boundary of the town, and made return thereof to the General Assembly, which return was accepted and recorded.
A transcript of this Survey and return is found on record in Simsbury Town Records, B. 212, P. 107 (Back of Book).
Thus twenty-eight years passed from the time when the survey was ordered by the General Court to the time of its completion. During all these years this border territory was a scene of perpetual strife. Vexations, lawsuits and prosecutions, with their attendant and resultant bitter personal animosities, caused a state of society which was anything but desirable.
At length, in 1713, Commissioners from each of these Colonies, fully empowered to adjust town and colonial bound- aries, came to an agreement which was adopted by the legisla- ture of each Colony.
By the terms of the agreement it was expressly stipulated that the persons to whom either Colony had granted lands, should be secure in the possession of them; and that each should maintain jurisdiction over the towns which they had re- spectively settled, and it was further agreed, that as many acres as should appear to have been gained by one Colony from the other should be made up out of other unimproved land. Under this preliminary agreement mutual consent was given "that a new survey of the line between the Colonies should be made, and that each would abide the result."
On running the line it was found that Massachusetts had encroached upon Connecticut to the extent of 107,793 acres, which quantity Massachusetts granted to Connecticut and it was accepted as an equivalent.
It was further found that instead of parts of Simsbury and Windsor being within the Colony of Massachusetts as claimed, the true boundary between that Colony and Connecti-
Trumbull
I29
cut was ninety rods North of the Northeast corner of Suffield. Consequently, not only these border settlers, but the whole town of Suffield were within the limits of Connecticut.
Under the arrangement, however, previously entered into, Suffield and parts of other towns similarly circumstanced were retained under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. But the adjustment having been made without the consent of the inhabitants of the town, though Suffield remained under the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, its people were not satisfied. In 1749, they preferred a petition to the General Assembly of Connecticut, claiming that under the Charter they belonged to Connecticut and were entitled to the privileges of citizens of that Colony. Accordingly, by an Act of the General As- sembly of Connecticut, in 1749, Suffield, which for more than three quarters of a century had been under the government of Massachusetts, became a Connecticut town.
The question is often asked, why the "Notch", or pro- jection in the State line between Massachusetts and Connecti- cut exists. The answer is found in this settlement of the bound- ary line.
The territory in dispute embraced, besides Suffield, a part of the town of Westfield, then bounded south on the Colonial line, and included the "Congamond Lakes". In the final adjustment of the line, that part lying easterly from the "Ponds" on petition of its inhabitants, was annexed to Suffield, and with it restored to Connecticut, while the part lying westerly of the Ponds and including them, for the greater convenience of transacting town business, remained in Massa- chusetts. The "Notch" is about two and a half miles square, lying wholly in the town of Westfield, (now Southwick). That part of Simsbury (now Granby) lying westerly on the west line of Southwick, extends north to the true Colony line, while the south line of the "Notch" is the line formerly claimed by Massachusetts.
In 1774 the strip of land between the Notch and the western boundary of Simsbury extending north to the cor- rected line was, by Act of the Legislature, annexed to Sims- bury, whereby the length of the town, from north to south,
130
was made to extend over thirteen miles, the west line being nearly sixteen miles. This Annex was afterwards known as "The Wedge."
Following is the act of annexation:
"Upon the memorial of Nathaniel Gillett and others, living upon a tract of land north of the north line of Symsbury, called the Wedge, within the County of Hartford, shewing that said tract of land and the inhabitants living thereon are not incorporated or included within any town or ecclesiastical society whatever, and are destitute of town or society privileges &c .; praying to be incorporated with the town of Symsbury, and also to be annexed to the society of Salmon Brook &c., as per memorial &c .: Resolved by this Assembly, that the whole of said tract of land called the Wedge, and the inhabitants, be, and the same are hereby, incorporated and included within the township of Symsbury, and also that the said tract of land and the inhabitants with their families be and they are hereby annexed to said society of Salmon Brook, and that they shall be entituled to all such town and society privileges as other towns by law have and do enjoy."
1774
Col. Rec. Vol. IV P. 245
I3I
FIRST CHURCH BUILDING . 1683
XVI
Ecclesiastical Affairs
Our Pilgrim ancestors came to these shores ostensibly for the purpose of enjoying religious freedom. How far that object was obtained can be judged from the laws by which they were governed, after their settlement here. Within a brief period after the government of Connecticut was organized, the following Order, recommended by the Commissioners of the New England Colonies, was adopted and passed, by the General Court of Connecticut:
Col. Rec. Vol. I P. 545
"Whereas the most considerable persons in (these Colo- nyes) came into these parts of America that (they might) inioye Christe in his ordinances, without dis(turbance;) And whereas, amongst many other pretious (mercies,) the ordinances haue beene and are dispensed amongst vs with much purity and power; this (Courte) tooke it into theire serious con- sideration how due meintenance, according to God, might bee provided and setled, both for the present and (future,) for the incouragement of the Ministers who (labour) therein: And doe order that those who are (taught) in the word, in the severall plantations, bee (called) together, that euery mann voluntarily sett downe what hee is willing to allowe to that end and (vse:) And if any man refuse to pay a meet proportion, that then hee bee rated by Authority, in some (just) and equall way; and if after this any man withhold or delay due payment, the Civill power to bee exercised, as in other just debts".
P. 524 1b.
By another law of the Colony, every man was required to attend upon the ministry of the word, on the Lord's day, and
I32
Fast days, - on penalty of a fine of five shillings for every time of absence.
Such were the practical teachings of "religious freedom". During a few years, and especially during the lives of the first ministers, these ordinances and orders were generally observed, without a murmur. But these ministers and fathers of the church had now passed, or were passing away. A new genera- tion had arisen, some of whom did not inherit the strict prin- ciples and piety of their fathers, and who were not inclined to walk in their footsteps, in regard to Church ordinances and practices. They insisted on changes in respect to Church mem- bership, and demanded an extension of its privileges and qualifications.
Commencing in Hartford after the death of Mr. Hooker, dissensions arose and spread among the other churches of the Colony. The origin of the Hartford quarrel seems to have been personal, rather than doctrinal, but not so in other churches. It was contended by some that all persons of good moral character, honest and upright in their dealings, and respectable in their social relations, without regard to the question of regeneration or conversion, ought to be admitted to the privi- leges of church membership, on profession of their belief in the Christian religion; and that all baptized persons were members of the church and were entitled to all its privileges. It was also insisted that all baptized persons, upon "owning the covenant", as it was called, "should have their children baptized, though they come not to the Lord's table."
By others it was claimed that all persons, who had been members of Churches in England, or who had been members of the regular Ecclesiastical parishes there, and had supported the public Worship, should be allowed to enjoy the privileges of members in full communion in the Churches of Connecticut.
Michael Humphrey, of Windsor, was one of those who entertained this opinion. He had been an inhabitant of Windsor for more than twenty years. He had been in extensive business there, and was identified with it in interest and social relation. He had now a large family of children. He had paid taxes there, and had been rated for the support of the church and a ministry
I33
which did not recognize him as a communicant, or allow him a voice or a vote in its government, or to be a participant of its privileges.
What his first proceeding, or the first matter of complaint was, is not known. The first we know of a difficulty between him and the church, is the following record of the General Court, at its session of March 1663/4.
"The Church of Christ at Windsor complaynes of James Enoe and Michaell Humphrey, for seuerall things contayned in a paper presented to the Court. Mr. Clark, in behalf of the Church complaynes of James Enoe and Michaell Humphrey for a misdameanor, in offering violence to an establisht law of this Colony". "Mr. Clark withdrawes this charge".
But though the charge, whatever it was, was withdrawn, the matter of the complaint was not dismissed. The Court proceeded to a consideration of the case, and rendered the following decision.
1b.
"This Court hauing seriously considered the case respect- ing James Ennoe and Michaell Humphrey, doe declare such practises to be offensiue, and may proue prejudiciall to the wellfare of this Collony, and this Court expects they will readily come to the acknowledgement of their error in the paper by them presented to the Church, wherupon the Court respitts and remitts the sensure due for their offence, prouided answer- able reformation doth followe, expecting that their lenity therein will winne upon the spiritts of those concerned in this case. And this Court doth approve of the pious and prudent care of Windsor, in seeking out for a supply and help in the ministry. Mr. Warham growing ancient; and do order all per- sons in the sayd plantation to allow their proportion towards the competent maintenance of such a supply in the ministry. And the Court desires a friendly correspondency may be main- tayned at Windsor, as if this trouble had neuer been; this Court declaring their readyness to mayntayne all the just priuiledges of all the members of this Corporation".
From the tenor of this action of the General Court, it would seem that the ground of the complaint was that these men had refused to pay, - or desired to be relieved from pay-
I34
Col. Rec. Vol. I P. 420
ing the minister's tax, or from contributing their proportion, as the law required, for the support of a church which denied to them all church privileges. Before immigrating to this Colony, they had been members of the established Church of England, and by virtue of such membership, they demanded admission to church privileges here, including baptism for their children. Upon the refusal of this demand, another paper was presented to the General Court, signed by seven persons, (including Eno and Humphrey), - inhabitants of Windsor and Hartford, setting forth their grievances, and pray- ing for relief, - as follows:
"The humble address and petition of sundry persons of and belonging to the same Corporation, sheweth,
That, whereas, we, whose names are subscribed, being Professors of the Protestant Christian Religion, members of the Church of England, and subjects to our Sovereign Lord, Charles the Second, by God's grace, King of England, etc., and under those sacred ties mentioned and maintained in our covenant, sealed with our baptism, having seriously pondered our past and present want of those ordinances, which to us and our children, as members of Christ's visible Church, ought to be administered; - which we apprehend to be to the dis- honor of God, and the obstruction of our own and our chil- dren's good, (contrary to the pious Will of our Lord the King, his main purpose in settling these plantations, as, by the Charter and his Majesty's letter to the Bay, June 26, 1662, and thereways is most evidently manifested,) to our great grief, the sense of our duty towards God, the relation we stand in to our mother, the Church, our grateful acceptation of His Majesty's Royal favor, the edification of our own and our children's souls, and many other good Christian and profit- able ends, (as also at a late session of this honoured assembly having received a favorable encouragement from the Worship- ful Deputy Governor,) hereunto moving us, we are bold by his own Address to declare our aggrievance and petition for a redress of the same.
"Our aggrievance is, that we and ours, are not under the due care of an orthodox ministry, that will, in a due manner
I35
Stiles' Ancient Windsor P. 67
administer to us those ordinances, that we stand capable of, as the baptism of our children, our being admitted (as we, ac- cording to Christ's Order, may be found meet,) to the Lord's Table, and a careful Watch over us in our way, and suitable dealing with us, as we do well or ill, with all whatsoever bene- fits and advantages, belong to us as members of Christ's visible Church, which ought to be dispensed by the officers of the same, of which being destitute, we humbly request, that, this Honoured Court would take into serious considera- tion, our present state in this respect, that we are thus as sheep scattered having no shepherd, and compare it with what we conceive you cannot but know, both God and our King would have it different from what it now is, and take some speedy and effectual course for redress therein, and put us in a full and free capability of enjoying those forementioned ad- vantages, which to us, as members of Christ's visible church, do of right belong, by establishing some wholesome law in this Corporation, by virtue where of we may both claim and re- ceive of such officers, as are or shall be, by law set over us in the church or churches where we have our abode or residence, these forementioned privileges and advantages.
"Furthermore, we humbly request, that for the future, no law in this Corporation may be of any force to make us pay or contribute the maintenance of any minister or officer of the church that will neglect or refuse to baptise our children & to take care of us, as of such members of the church, as are under his or their charge or care.
"This, in hopes that your careful and speedy considera- tion and issue hereof, will be answerable to the weight of the matter, and our necessities, and that matters of less moment may be omitted till this be issued, We wait for a good answer, and for this Honored Court we shall ever pray, etc.
"(Signed by) William Pitkin. Hartford. Michael Humphrey. Windsor. John Stedman. Hartford. James Eno. Windsor.
Robert Reeve. John Moses. Windsor. Jonas Westover. Windsor."
Oct. 17, 1664.
I36
It is a remarkable fact that these men, claiming and acknowledging themselves to be members of the established Church of England, should thus unite and ask, or rather claim, to be admitted members of the churches of Connecticut, whose members for the very purpose of escaping from the tyranny of the Church of England had separated themselves from it, and fled hither; and that they should have the effrontery to make the claim, solely on the ground of their having been members of that Church.
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.