USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 12
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
blaze of indignation at the licentiousness that often made the Dutch trading post a curse.1
In 1650, these charges were reviewed at the meeting be- tween the Commissioners of the United Colonies, and Peter Stuyvesant, then Director General of New Nether- land; but William Kieft being then dead, they were referred to the authorities in Holland, or, in other words, buried with him. The decision of the arbitrators who made the award was, that the Dutch should retain all the lands they actually possessed at Hartford, and the remainder on both sides of the river should be and remain forever to the Eng- lish.2 This was ratified by the States General in 1656. Thus the occupation of the disputed lands by colonists became the factor that determined the issue. Within a few years, the mother countries being at war and colonial relations strained, the House of Hope was deserted. Then came Captain John Underhill, acting under a commission to prosecute a predatory warfare against the Dutch, and on the 27th and 28th of June 1653, he took possession of the House of Hope and its lands. On the door of the block house, he placed this notice: "I, John Underhill, do seize this house and land for the State of England, by virtue of the commission granted by the Providence Plantation." He claimed afterwards to have done so with the permission of the General Court, then in session at Hartford. This was disallowed by the Court, April 6, 1654, when it seques- tered the property "in the behalfe of the Common wealth of England." 3 Three days later, peace was proclaimed between the two nations, and by the terms of the treaty, the English retained the property.
At this time the Dutch possessions consisted of four tracts of land as follows: 1. Twenty-three and one-half acres in the South Meadow, being their meadow, garden and wood lot, and lying between the Great River on the north, and the "highway from ye meadow gate to the In-
1 See Letter of Lord Saye and Sele, in Holland Documents, I: 129; "Hoeren Eyland," Map of 1666, in Winsor's Narr. and Crit. Hist., III: 333; and cf. Porter's Historical Notices, No. 2, p. 25. See also Bradford's History, p. 24; Wassenaar in Doc. Hist. of N. Y., III: 33, 41; Doc. Rel. to Col. Hist. of N. Y., I: 290; III: 342, etc. 2 Holland Documents, I: 611; Ply. Col. Rec., IX: 188-190.
3 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 254, 275; N. E. Register, VI: 369.
114
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
dian Land" on the south. 2. One acre in the South Meadow, which "abutteth on the landing place in Little River on the eaft," and William Gibbons [James Ensign] and Gregory Wolterton [Andrew Bacon] on the south, and the Little River on the north. 3. Three acres, "lying on ye poynt of ye little meadow," now Dutch Point. 4. Two acres, "being an Island Lyeing near ye eaft Side of ye great river over against ye Sowth end of ye little meadow." 1 Captain Underhill laid claim to all this land by virtue of his seizure. On May 17, 1655, he petitioned the General Court for per- mission to sell and convey it. His request was refused. Apparently the matter was adjusted, as he sold it, July 18th, to William Gibbons and Richard Lord, reserving the State's right. When a division was made, March 5, 1659-60, the Gibbons share was twelve and one-half acres of the west end of the bouwerie. The Lord share was Dutch Point, the Island and nine and one-half acres of the "bouwerie" east of the Gibbons lot. The State received the one-acre tract, and the remaining one and one-half acres of the bouwerie, both of which were sold, March 11, 1662-3, to John Gilbert.2
There is no doubt as to the location of the House of Hope. It was on the one-acre tract, beside the Little River and adjoining the landing-place, from which a lane twenty-four feet wide led to the "highway from ye meadow gate to the Indian Land." 3 This road ran alongside of the bouwerie, between which and the lane about eight acres had been granted to Andrew Bacon and George Steele. Across the stream, eastward of the fort, was the neck that connected the low land of Dutch Point with the Little Meadow, so that the House of Hope was not far in a direct line from the Connecticut River. The mouth of the stream provided a good harbor. DeVries describes this location in these words: "This redoubt stands upon a plain on the margin of the river, and alongside it runs a creek to a high wood- land." 4 The map of the Great River in 1666, while its ,
1 State Archives: Towns and Lands, I: 76-91; Original Distribution, pp. 131, 304, 500.
2 Original Distribution, p. 533.
3 See Albert L. Washburn's "Map of the Dutch Land," in The Hartford Times, February 24, 1905, and Goodwin's Map of 1824.
4 "Voyages of DeVries" in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., III: 86.
115
THE DUTCH AND THEIR HOUSE OF HOPE
testimony may not have great weight in such a matter, places the "Huys de Hoop" on the south side of the stream, and not upon the Connecticut River. Moreover, this loca- tion alone meets the conditions of the Dutch authorities, who place the fort near the bouwerie, and yet where the fence erected by the English cut it off from that tract.
The House of Hope was a fortified redoubt. Such struc- tures among the Dutch were usually built of logs, with stones or brick at the angles. Within there was a two-story block house, of commodious proportions, having a large Dutch fire-place at one end. About the house was an open court, with a hard earthen floor. At Fort Orange the build- ing was twenty-six feet and nine inches long. Underneath there was a cellar. The first floor was divided by a partition. On the second, which was reached by a ladder, there was a court or storage room. Probably the House of Hope had an enclosed yard, with sheds for their horses and cattle, on the southeast side at the landing-place. In 1639, De Vries found "forty to fifty cherry trees" about it. Of their fruit he feasted the English governor, minister and chief men with their wives at the fort, when he sought their favor in securing a pardon for the minister's servant. The offender had become drunk aboard a ketch in the river, and nar- rowly escaped a flogging at the whipping-post.
The ruins of this historic station of Dutch soldiers and traders survived for many a day. A burying-ground near it was discovered by chance in 1852. It is thought to have been the resting place of some of the inmates, who died during those early years. In 1819, when Dr. Abiel Holmes visited the place, he found there only some decayed timbers and a few Dutch bricks, one of which is preserved among the exhibits of the Connecticut Historical Society. In time these bricks became scattered, and the finding of them elsewhere has misled some, as to the fort's location. Wil- liam Imlay, it is said, at last removed the mound of earth and débris to fill a swale, on the north side of the stream. A portion of this historic acre has passed peacefully into the possession of the City of Hartford, where its people might fittingly place a memorial to the buried hopes of their old neighbors.
CHAPTER VIII PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
THE people of Connecticut have many good reasons to praise the worldly wisdom of their forefathers. They were men of human ambitions, and hence deeply interested in getting on in the world. It does not detract from a high estimate of their moral virtues and religious character if we admit that they were sagacious, enterprising and far- seeing men, who sought, and promptly accepted, a good chance in the line of colonization. Like all emigrants to New England, they wished to settle where they would soon see the reward of their labors, and leave to their children a goodly heritage. Among such a people, the quality and extent of their lands were important. Thomas Hooker himself was frank to say, in 1634, that his flock wanted more and better land. Their attention had been turned toward the raising of cattle. This was then considered a promising venture, especially where there were large river meadows. Our records furnish many indications that this pastoral purpose directed the agricultural labors of the river planta- tions for some years. They all had extensive hay and pas- ture lands. Thus a considerable portion of the territory now occupied by the city of Hartford was used in early years for grazing and kindred purposes.
The original "writeing" in which Sequassen and his tribe conveyed the Suckiaug lands to Samuel Stone and Wil- liam Goodwin in 1636, specified "all the land from Wethers- field bounds on the south, to Windsor bounds on the north, and the whole bredth from Connecticutt river on the east six large miles into the wilderness on the west." Our only authority for this statement is the confirmatory deed of 1670.1 The grantees of the lost conveyance were, probably, the abovenamed and their associates, the "inhabitants"
1 Hartford Land Records, I: 5, 6; Porter's Historical Notices, No. I, pp. 4-7.
117
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
of the plantation. This grant "was afterwards upon further consideration renewed and enlarged" by Sequassen, at the desire of Mr. Haynes and the other magistrates. It then conveyed to them Sequassen's land as far westward "as his country went." As this occurred "severall yeares" before 1640, it may have been a factor in the readjustment of the relations between the English and the Indians fol- lowing the Pequot War. If so, it doubtless provided that Sequassen's people should occupy a part of the South Meadow lands. This document, also, had disappeared before 1670. The confirmatory deed refers to the "full mention" of this grant in the conveyance of Pethus, sachem of the Tunxis Indians, to the English about 1640. The latter deed was of Farmington lands. It reserved a tract for the natives. On July 5, 1670, the surviving Suckiaug Indians confirmed these earlier grants. In this document the terms of that time are used. The purchase of Stone and Goodwin is referred to as having been made "in the behalfe of the present proprietors." This was true, though these proprietors were, in 1636, the legal plantation inhabitants. The gantees of 1670 were "Mr. Samuel Wyllys, Capt. John Talcott, Mr. John Allyn and Mr. James Richards, in behalfe of the rest of the proprietors of the land belonging to the township of Hartford, their heires and assignes forever." Such was the title and extent of their lands on the west side of the river. The western boundary in this general description was six miles from the river, as measured along the northern and southern lines. It was about five miles from it at Hartford. When Farmington was incor- porated in 1645, the latter distance was given, perhaps for this reason. This territory included the present town of West Hartford, except that portion west of the old moun- tain road at Foote's Corners. This was added from Farming- ton in several tracts, after having been included many years in the West Division Society. The northern and southern boundary lines were periodically matters of controversy for many years, but the alterations were unimportant except to adjoining landowners.
On the east side of the Connecticut River the Podunk and Hockanum Indians were the native owners of the land.
118
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
The English at once saw the advantages of possessing it. The Windsor Plantation bought a tract opposite its territory in 1636.1 At an early date Wethersfield did the same. The purchase of the latter plantation extended eastward from the river three miles.2 On February 21, 1636-7, the General Court fixed the east side boundaries between those planta- tions and Hartford. It seems probable therefore that some- time in 1636, the inhabitants of Hartford's plantations made a purchase from the native owners. Possibly this was de- layed in completion, or a purchase was first made of the east side meadows, and afterwards the upland was secured. The former tract was one of the early divisions of the plantation. The bargain was certainly completed and the upland was secured before or in 1640.3 This conveyance also is lost, but references to the purchase are found in the records. The lands east of these "Three-mile Lots" had not been bought from the natives in 1672. Then the General Assembly, exercising jurisdiction under the charter, extended the bounds of Hartford eastward five miles. This tract was claimed by Joshua, sachem of the Niantic Indians, who died in 1676. A short time before his death he sold it to Major John Talcott, but no deed was executed. Upon the town's agreement to pay the stipulated sum to Joshua's executors, they deeded this tract, May 13, 1682, to Cyprian Nichols, Caleb Stanley and John Marsh, selectmen of Hartford.4 Thus the original town came to include the territory between Bolton on the east, and Farmington on the west, now divided into Manchester, East Hartford, Hartford and West Hart- ford. East Hartford was incorporated as a separate town in 1783. From it, Manchester was set off and incorporated in 1823. West Hartford was created a separate ecclesiastical society in 1711, and incorporated as a town in 1854.
It is essential to an understanding of the early history of Hartford, that a careful study be made of the formation of its body of proprietors. The usual practice, in the settle- ment of new regions, was for a number of associated indi- viduals to buy a large tract of land, and divide it among
1 Stiles's Hist. of Windsor, I: 127, 128.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 7.
3 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22.
4 Hartford Town Votes, I: 196, 205; Hartford Land Records, 1: 6, 7.
119
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
themselves on the basis of the amount each had contributed to the purchase money, or the initial expenses of the enter- prise. Such persons were termed "proprietors." It has always been assumed that this was the case in the settlement of the river plantations, but the conclusion has never been consistent with extant records. The inference is natural that proprietorship is based upon sharing the cost of the coats, hatchets, hoes and knives, which the English usually -. paid the natives for their lands. It has also been thought that proprietorship implies a participation in the original establishment of a plantation. Some have attributed to it a prominence among the founders of the river settlements that was denied to others, who seem to have been of equal or superior worth. These inferences are sometimes justified. In their application to Hartford, however, and, so far as we know, to its associated plantations, they have resulted in error and confusion, both among historians and genealogists. The claim here made may be summarized in the statement that the establishment of Connecticut's colonial govern- ment involved such a transition from plantation to town estate, that it was necessary to revise the list of legal inhab- itants, who had hitherto been, in fact, the original proprie- tors, and this was accomplished by the formation of the body of proprietors of 1639.
The common statement that has been made concerning many an honored ancestor in Hartford, is that he was "an original proprietor in 1639." What does that mean? Not necessarily that a man shared directly in the purchase of the town's lands from the Indians. It does not affirm that he was surely among the first settlers of the plantation. There is documentary evidence that some of the proprietors were not. Nor does it prove that his social standing was superior to that of some who received grants of land by the town's courtesy. It means that in 1639, when, for rea- sons herein stated, the body of proprietors was constituted to determine who had a right to share in undivided lands, the man named was found to have been a legal inhabitant, and to have borne, by taxation upon his lands or estate for a greater or less period, a share in the plantation's financial burdens. He had thus become, in business terms, a stock-
120
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
holder in the plantation and was entitled to a stock dividend of land. The legal inhabitant, as already stated, was the unit of the franchise. He was also the unit in early distri- butions of land. As the first conveyances from the Indians, where known, were to the "inhabitants" as grantees, or to their body called the "plantation," so the lands acquired were divided among such inhabitants. We do not read of any proprietors in name, because these legal inhabitants were the owners and grantors. Others than these received grants of land in Hartford, both before and after the forma- tion of the body of proprietors. Such settlers, however, either because they had not been inhabitants for some reason, or because they had arrived too recently to participate in the plantations' burdens, did not secure the standing of proprietors. Hence they had by right no share in the un- divided lands when the time arrived for their distribution. The grants such settlers received were by "the town's courtesy." The other river plantations made the same dis- tinction. Such was the practice elsewhere. In 1664, when there were common lands to be distributed in Cambridge, two lists were ordered to be made, one of those who had a "just right," and another of those whose claim was "in a way of free gift."
Leaving for another chapter the consideration of their order of plantation divisions, the result of its application was that the proportions of the inhabitants varied greatly. Upon these lands, rates were assessed to defray all their charges. The cost of the land purchased from the Indians was comparatively a small matter. One planter might advance the sum, to be repaid later by the inhabitants. William Pynchon bought such land at Springfield, and was reimbursed by a rate assessed upon the lots granted to the settlers. There were other and larger initial expenses. In the river settlements their remoteness made these consider- able. For their circumstances, the annual plantation and colony rates were high. On February 9, 1637-8, the General Court was forced to provide for the payment of a debt. It was for £620, the "charges of the late designes of warr." Of this amount £251 2s. were apportioned to Hartford, to be raised by a rate probably assessed upon the acreage
5
Bod. Bartlett
0
Thơm NaÀ ris
O
0
To River
ĐỊA NỢ
Gorge Semb
Road from George Steeles to the
Part of the Ox Pasture
0
0
--
T
Ruh. Lymen
0
and
..... Arthur Sunth
John Barnard
0
Gregory WStarten
Fick Lent
0 Thơm Lani
Sem Grambulls har
0 Then Sadly
Do Wethersfield
Road
C
Andron Baan
Nach Word
O
Thơm Judi
0
Does. Juneno Mener
Lenght soveral Lata
C
C
0
0
0
Krant
WY Whiley
14
Edward Boykins Eng.
LITTLI
W
GREAT
MEA
SOUTH
Duktueret Land
Highway on the Bank of the River
C
Thomas Ender Poter
0
0
L
bowled Road non / Lyss or the Road from Litt
To the (south viendow) Drawers sanding
Lune of the River In IXy
Dutch Point
0
great Swamp
c
Como
the South Meadow
0
Jeremy None
Road from Gos sardes to the South Meadow .........
Highway on the Bank of the River
Th Ordigy
John Moody
Moody's to Ox Pasture and Wethersfield
... Giles Smith to We Gibbins
O
Thomas Ante O
Part of the Cow Pasture
L
-
John Brownsm
1
V: Sutm (Bayern)
Nich Cơk te Thơm Aksa
To the .. Neck
G
Nich Clark
0
1640
To Brick Hul
Prepared from the Grigmal Records By Vote of the Town and Drawn by William S. Porter. Surveyor & Antiquarian.
Than Koươm tạ Kuà Lông
We Phillipe
Styhm Hot
1
Rob Day
O Weth Banding
Thơm Halee
C Muth Ely
W. Westwood
7
Pound
J
C
W" Deveity Charter
FIELD
Them Birchwood (Zudurt)
U
Ruch Wall
0 Johne Tallostt
0
C John Skinner
Mak, Allens
Joha Park
C
John Maynant
C WT Levis
John Hill to
U
John Pratt
John Stone a Jêm March
Lunling
U
Bich dortman
Am Simile
wwwwwwww
J
C
to Centinel Hill
House Yard
Medwy Have to Landay
To Lurte Monitor
Than Salt
to Waterfuld
rtk - Meadow
EADO
VER
L'anhand
0
C
misto Auch Land
John Muirks Tra Tan
Mary Ditta
Bich Other
lisado
Meeting Market Place
Cale ; The Bad
Prison Jail
Little
MadAllens
Road from the Mecting
of
Seth Grant's to Continel Hull
Je Bernard tr Then Wadfond
Little Burger Creek from lunch Vrat
W
To the Landing
River
WEST
Ruch, Lørd
Centinel Hill
Old Ox Future to Cow Future
0
Zach Field
Com Ruhur to J Alent Land
To the Cow Pasture
Centinel Hill to
D
W" Kasey
Muh Marvin
Rner Bank IN 1934
Hentet tự, Vorth Meist
0
W Kelsy
L
the North Meadow
0
DW: Frul
Stryhex Kert
1
Matchen Allen
0
in
John Pura
0
HARTFORD
Road from
John Haynes ahâte John Bratt J
!
121
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
of each.1 Collectors were appointed in all the plantations. Thus by their payment of successive rates, the inhabitants were making investments in a corporation that had con- siderable tracts of undivided land. At any particular time the taxes each had paid during the period of his residence would be the amount of his investment, and hence his rightful share in the divisions.
All grants of land in the plantation divisions of Hartford were conditional. This was an important factor in their scheme of development. The first order, recorded by Wil- liam Spencer under the date 1635, provided that if a settler had a lot granted to him and removed within four years, the lot should return to the town, the former owner receiv- ing the worth of his labor upon it. If any person desired to sell his lot or lots within that time, he was first to offer them to the town for the valuation of his improvements; or, upon the town's approval, to sell at such a valuation to another. House-lots that were not built upon within a year were forfeited to the town. Nor were such rules restricting early sales peculiar to Hartford. They were made in Cam- bridge, Springfield and other settlements. There is no doubt that these rules were enforced. Some lots did return to the town. The time of other grantees was extended.2 The town made offers to pay for improvements on some lots, and purchasers of others were approved.3 Probably the lost plantation records contained evidence of such action. On January 14, 1639-40, the townsmen were ordered to examine all former bargains of land made by the inhab- itants, and confirm or disannul the same. Planters as prominent as William Gibbons and Nathaniel Ward were fined for buying land in violation of the order, though their purchases were confirmed.4 Indeed, as hereafter shown, the land records prove that sales were comparatively few before the expiration of the four years, and immediately
1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 12. After King Philip's war, the Colony rate was increased from one penny on the pound to eighteen pence. The Court then appointed a committee to "size" each class of lands. The valuation in Hartford was: Home lots at 40 s. per acre; improved uplands 25 s. per acre on the south side, 20 s. per acre on the north side; meadow, one half at 50 s., the other half at 40 s. per acre. - Conn. Col. Rec., II: 237, 292.
2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 13, 29, 30.
3 Ibid., I: 15, 36, 42. 4 Ibid., I: 15.
122
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
after the restriction was removed, they became numerous. It is obvious, therefore, that more land than a settler could improve or use was a burden to him. Such tracts were unsalable property. The owner was compelled to pay taxes upon them, but they yielded no income. Planters of large means could afford to take such land, and hold it until it could be sold. Others were satisfied to have them do so, for thus the rich paid the burden of the taxes. By this plan, all speculation in lands was for the time excluded. The settler's chance of reward depended upon his enterprise and labor. Apparent inequalities were thus righted. Hence in all their plantation divisions of land, the inhabitants were, in a sense, distributing only opportunities for improve- ment according to each man's ability. The poor man who employed his talent was rewarded. Those settlers of the wealthier class, who invested their fortunes in the planta- tion during a period of Indian warfare, received that return which their loyalty merited.
If now these legal inhabitants of the plantation, as the stockholders in a corporation, upon entering into a new estate as an organized town in which new arrivals were to participate, were forced to provide for future divisions of their assets, they could only do so equitably by ascertaining the amount of each man's investment. This was not a diffi- cult problem, and the result would most naturally be ex- pressed in the number of acres to be allotted to each pro- prietor in every division. This was commonly called a "rule of division." The early settler, who had paid rates from the beginning, would thus have a larger share in the land. This was justly due him. Another settler who had come later might have the same share, because he had paid a larger tax during his residence. A place would be given to every inhabitant, whatever his estate, who had a pro- priety right in the plantation. This explains the fact that we find among the proprietors of Hartford, and other original plantations, the names of arrivals in every year from 1635 to 1638. We have now to test this explanation of a long- standing mystery by the records.
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.