USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 13
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
The reader is reminded that the inhabitants of the planta- tions had in their Constitution, adopted January 14, 1638-9,
123
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
made over to the General Court the right to "dispose of lands vndisposed of." This was not a meaningless phrase. Grants were afterwards made by the Court to various persons, to whom titles can now be traced. On October 10, 1639, authority was given by the Court "to dispose of their owne lands vndisposed of." That act was certainly received by the inhabitants of Hartford as their warrant for subsequent divisions. In 1721, when a dispute arose con- cerning the ownership of land at Podunk, the town expressly appealed to the settlement of bounds there in 1636, and to this act of 1639, as the authority the inhabitants had for dividing the Three-mile Lots east of the Connecticut River. This was the tract east of the meadow lots. It is stated that it was divided "about the year 1640 ... to and amongst the then Inhabitants" of the town.1 The case in question seemed to threaten "dangerous consequences, to the weakening and destroying of all the titles of the pro- prietors" of the town and other towns in the Colony. This was one occasion for an act confirming titles in 1723.2
The months of the winter following the Court's action of 1639, were partly devoted in Hartford, and probably in other river towns, to the settlement of this issue of owner- ship. This was necessary in clearing the way for con- templated divisions of land. On January 7, 1639-40, all distributions by the inhabitants of the North-side or South- side plantations were made thereafter void. Obviously their former method of plantation divisions was to be sup- planted by another, arising out of the whole body of legal inhabitants. They had always acted on the basis of an in- habitant's right of ownership. Such rights could not be set aside, giving to every new resident thereafter a share in the inhabitants' property. The Court did not intend any such action. Hence the question necessarily proposed for the town's consideration was this: Who are the inhabitants that have secured a right in undivided lands, and in what proportion shall they share?
At the annual town meeting, December 23, 1639, William Spencer, William Westwood, John Moody and Nathaniel
1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 21, 22.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., VI: 394-397.
124
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Ward were chosen townsmen. This meeting probably adjourned to the 26th, when a vote was passed as follows: "Mr [Edward] Hopkins mr [Thomas] wells m' [John] Steele and mr [John] Taylcot are desired to asist vs in exsameing the devsions one either side the River & to rectify the same also to see whoe are Inhabetants to haue proporcons in all devesions & whoe not also to Inquier wt ordrs stand in forse wch are of genrall Concernmt wch are not recorded." 1 As this record was made in William Spencer's handwriting, and he was one of the townsmen, the intent of the vote was to add the above inhabitants, two from each side, to the four townsmen, thus constituting a committee of eight to ascer- tain who were the proprietors of Hartford. The examina- tion of the divisions and accounts of each plantation, probably recorded in the North-side and South-side books, would have disclosed the names of those who had received proportions as inhabitants, and the amount they had paid in rates. These would have been the proprietors. More- over, they would thus gather the names of those whose grants had been made by free gift. Apparently the com- mittee reported at a meeting of the town, January 3, 1639- 40, and their report was adopted as "the rule for division of lands." 2 The share of each was designated by a certain number of acres. With their honorary titles and usual spelling of names, these lists are as follows:
"The Names of such Inhabitants as haue Right in un- divided Lands.
John Haynes, Esq., 160; George Wyllys, Esq., 150; Mr. Edward Hopkins, 120; Mr. Mathew Allyn, 110; Mr. Thomas Welles, 100; Mr. John Webster, 96; Mr. William Whiting, 96; John Talcott, 90; Andrew Warner, 84; Mr. Thomas Hooker, 80; William Pantry, 80; William West- wood, 80; James Olmsted, 70; Thomas Hosmer, 60; Na- thaniel Ward, 60; William Wadsworth, 52; John White, 50; John Steele, 48; Thomas Scott, 42; Mr. William Goodwin, 42; Thomas Stanley, 42; Mr. Samuel Stone, 40; Stephen Hart, 40; William Spencer, 40; John Moody, 40; William Lewis, 38; William Ruscoe, 32; Timothy Stanley, 32; Jonathan Ince, 30; Richard Webb, 30; William An- 1 Hartford Town Votes, I: 10. 2 Ibid., I: 21-24.
125
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
drews, 30; Samuel Wakeman, 30; Jeremy Adams, 30; Richard Lyman, 30; William Butler, 28; Thomas Lord, 28; Mathew Marvin, 28; Gregory Wolterton, 28; Andrew Bacon, 28; Richard Goodman, 26; Nathaniel Richards, 26; John Pratt, 26; Thomas Birchwood, 26; George Steele, 26; John Barnard, 24; James Ensign, 24; John Hopkins, 24; Stephen Post, 24; Edward Stebbins, 24; George Grave, 24; John Clarke, 22; William Gibbons, 20; John Crow, 20; Thomas Judd, 20; William Hills, 20; George Stocking, 20; Joseph Mygatt, 20; Nathaniel Ely, 18; Richard Lord, 18; William Hyde, 18; William Kelsey, 16; John Arnold, 16; William Blumfield, 16; Richard Butler, 16; Arthur Smith, 14; Robert Day, 14; John Maynard, 14; Seth Grant, 14; William Hayden, 14; Thomas Spencer, 14; Thomas Stanton, 14; John Baysey, 14; John Wilcox, 13; John Marsh, 12; William Parker, 12; Nicholas Clarke, 12; Thomas Bull, 12; John Higginson, 12; William Holton, 12; Edward Elmer, 12; Francis Andrews, 12; Richard Church, 12; James Cole, 10; Zachary Field, 10; John Skinner, 10; Joseph Easton, 10; Thomas Hale, 10; Richard Olmsted, 10; Samuel Hale, 8; Richard Risley, 8; Thomas Olcott, 8; Robert Bartlett, 8; Thomas Selden, 6; Thomas Root, 6; William Pratt, 6. - Total, 95.
The Names of such Inhabitants as were Granted Lots to have only at the towns courtesy, with liberty to fetch wood and keep swine or cows by proportion on the common.
Thomas Woodford, 6; Ralph Keeler, 6; Thomas Lord, Jun., 6; Thomas Barnes, 6; John Purchas, 6; William Phillips, 6; Nicholas Desborough, 6; Benjamin Burr, 6; Ozias Goodwin, 6; Daniel Garret, 6; John Hall, 6; John Morris, 6; Nathaniel Bearding, 6; John Sable, 6; Richard Watts, 6; William Westley, 6; John Holloway, 5; John Bidwell, 4; Nathaniel Kellogg, 4; Robert Wade, 4; Henry Wakeley, 4; Thomas Upson, 4; Widow Mary Betts, 4; John Bronson, 3; John Olmsted, 3; John Pierce, 3. - Total, 26."
The committee of eight were also authorized to rectify any errors or inequalities in previous divisions. Whether or not they did so is uncertain. There was evidently some dissatisfaction as to the proportions. Our interpretation of the records is that some were found to have more and others
126
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
less land than their investment warranted. Perhaps this is the meaning of a vote, not fully deciphered, that was apparently passed January 3, 1639-40, when the committee reported. At all events, on January 14th, the following action was taken: "Whearas their is some differents in m[ens] Alotments some haveing moor then is according to their due proporcon Itis the[refore] orderd That mr Hopkins mr Wells [m]] Webster mr Steele mr Taylcot [Andrew] Warner John Prat Tymothy [Sta]ndly John Clarke Joseph Mygate wth the [towns] men shall Exsamen the same and s[hall] haue power to Appoint Euery man [his] proporcon according as in ther Judg[ment] shalbe Just and Equall And A[ppoint] the places wheer such ffurther [divisions?] of land shallbee layde fforth as [also] Appoint wch off the Inhabetants [shall have] Equall Right to all vndevided land wch are onely to take soe much as [they] shall in[rprove?] [faithf?] ully and. .. ." 1 Presumably this committee of fourteen, having full power, reviewed the former lists. It is believed that they first considered the matter of propriety rights and the claims of those who had been put in the town's courtesy list. Their report is thought to be the lists that are found in the records without proportions.2 The names of the ninety-five proprietors are the same, though arranged in another order. Fifteen names were added, however, to the earlier town's courtesy list. These, with their subsequent proportions, are as follows:
John Warner, 6; William Cornwall, 8; Richard Seymour, 6; Benjamin Munn, 8; John Gennings, 6; Paul Peck, 8; George Hubbard, 6; Thomas Bliss, 6; Thomas Bliss, Jun., 4; Edward Lay, 6; Thomas Gridley, 6; Giles Smith, 8; Thomas Richards, 8; Thomas Bunce, 13; William Watts, 4. - Total, 15.
This committee apparently decided not to alter the pro- portions already adopted, but to adjust any inequalities, in the distribution of East-side upland lots then in contempla- . tion. This division was ordered January 11, 1640-41. On February 18th, it was decided to run a line east and west through this tract, distributing the land north of it to North-side men, and that south of it to South-side men,
1 Ibid., I: 14. 2 Ibid., I: 16-20.
127
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
excepting a few of the latter, who were to share with the former. North of the line, the grantees were to have one hundred and five acres for one hundred, and south of it, one hundred for one hundred. The same ten inhabitants, with the townsmen, were then authorized to prepare the lists and determine the proportions for this division.1 We have these reasons, therefore, for assigning to this com- mittee the third set of names recorded in the town votes, according to which proportions the East-side division of 1666 was actually made.2 In this list, the names are ar- ranged as North-side and South-side residents. Some proportions are greater than those in the rule of division, and others are less. These proportions were used only in the East-side upland division. The proprietors were the same as in the earlier list, excepting that John Cullick had acquired the right of Jonathan Ince, and a lot was sequestered to that of Clement Chaplin. Since the former list, however, seven others had secured a place in the town's courtesy list. Their names and proportions are as follows:
James Wakeley, 4; Samuel Gardner, 4; Thomas Black- ley, 4; James Bridgman, 8; John Latimer, 4; Thomas Porter, 4; Richard Billings, 6.
Thus the town perpetuated the acquired rights of the plantation inhabitants in the body of proprietors. If we interpret the records correctly, John Cullick secured by the payment of accumulated taxes the propriety of Jonathan Ince, who did not settle permanently in Hartford. It was given to him July 28, 1640, upon the same condition other lands were given, he "To paye all ye Charges yt is exspeded vpon it ye land: a Just account now given." 3 John Crow, who received Bartholomew Greene's propriety at an early date, doubtless made the same payments. He assumed a proprietor's responsibilities and secured his privileges. Apparently the taxes had been charges made against a propriety. They must have been proportionate to an in- habitant's interest in lands or estate. A careful study of the land records shows that there was a general correspond- ence between the proportions in their rule of division in
1 Ibid., I: 39, 42, 46. 2 Ibid., I: 49-55; Original Distribution, pp. 492-494. 3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 33, 34.
128
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
1639, and the earlier grants that were made by the planta- tions. We see, moreover, in the later application of this rule, when they assessed a rate upon each man's propriety, to raise funds for the purchase or division of lands, the continuance of the same principle.
As already stated, the early Indian deeds of the West-side lands having disappeared, the ancient proprietors of Hart- ford secured a confirmation of this purchase in 1670. They then paid the surviving natives "near the value the land was esteemed at before the English came." At a propri- etors' meeting, February 9, 1671-2, it was agreed to make a rate of ten pounds upon the proprietors of January 3, 1639, to pay for this purchase, the amount to be raised "upon every man according to his propriety." It was therefore their ancient rule that determined the proprietors' propor- tions in paying for this land in 1670, as stated in the records.1 They voted in 1672 to divide a mile and one-half along the town's western bound. The remainder of this tract was to be a "common" forever. The above lots were laid out in November 1674. A committee of the proprietors was appointed in 1677 to distribute the overplus south of the Farmington road among such as had need of the land.
The same principle was applied in the division of the Five-mile tract east of the Connecticut River. This was distributed, however, among another class of owners. As already stated, it had been purchased from Joshua's execu- tors in 1682, by the "inhabitants." This term had assumed its modern meaning under their town government. The money to pay for this tract was raised by a rate assessed upon the town's grand list of that year. The grantees were not the ancient proprietors, but the selectmen of the town. Hence it was divided among the "Inhabitants of the Town" according to what each had paid for the purchase, and the rate of 1682 was recorded as a rule of division. Three miles and one hundred rods next to Bolton, were distributed in 1731. The remainder was held in common until its division in 1753.2
1 Original Distribution, pp. 549-552.
2 Hartford Town Votes, I: 201, 202, 205, 252, 284, 309, 310; MS. Vol. II: 360 ff .; Hartford Land Records, I, first pages; V, last pages; VII: 476 ff .; Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, II: 244-246.
129
PROPRIETORS OF HARTFORD
Such was the standing of the ancient proprietors and the proprietors - inhabitants, who made the year 1754 mem- orable in Hartford by a famous contest over their rights in the division of the West-side town common.1 The former body was composed of the heirs and assigns of the original proprietors in 1639; the latter embraced the inhabitants, who held the powers and shared the responsibilities of town government in 1682-1685. One made a distribution accord- ing to the rule of division adopted in 1639, already used in 1671-1674; the other followed the rule established for the division of the Five-mile tract. The influential majority had allotments in either case. Shares varied, however, according as one owned a propriety or participated as a taxpayer. Some in each class were excluded by the rule of the other. Self-interest probably decided their party allegiance. The fundamental question was one of owner- ship. Their legal contest involved the interpretation of the town's patent. In the time of Sir Edmund Andros, the General Court, fearing that their rights were in danger, had required each town to take out a patent from the Governor and Company, the grantees under the Charter, and had divided among them the western lands.2 Such a patent of the land within the town's bounds, was issued May 26, 1685, to Major John Talcott, Samuel Wyllys, Esq., Captain John Allyn, Mr. Richard Lord, Mr. John Haynes, Mr. Thomas Richards, Mr. Cyprian Nichols, Lieut. Joseph Wadsworth, Ensign Nathaniel Stanley, Mr. Stephen Hos- mer, and the rest of the proprietors of the town, "sayd parcell of land hauing been by purchafs or otherwise Law- fully obteyned of the Indian Natiue proprietors." 3 Each party considered itself the grantees under this patent. The act of 1723 concerning titles, was supposed to confirm their rights.4 In 1753, these bodies began their divisions of the
1 Collections of Conn. Hist. Soc. - "Proprietors' Title to Lands," No. 283; and "Proprietors' Papers," No. 284; County Court Records, Vol. T, No. 209; Superior Court Records, Vol. XII (1754, 1755); State Archives: Division of Common, Hartford; Proprietors' Votes, 1754-1786, City Clerk's Office; "Hartford Proprietors" in Boardman Collection, State Library.
2 Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, I: 76-78; Andrews's The River Towns, pp. 40, 41.
3 Conn. Col. Rec., III: 177, 288; Colony Record of Deeds, III: 148, 149.
4 Conn. Col. Rec., VI: 394-397.
130
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
common. Subsequent meetings increased the heat of their controversy. Then the matter was taken to the County Court, in the case of Samuel Flagg vs. John Ledyard and William Hooker for the possession of a twenty-acre lot, located on the "First Hill," south of Wadsworth's tavern. The plaintiff represented the claims of the ancient pro- prietors, having acquired the right of William Westwood. At the trial, in April 1754, he was defeated, but appealed to the Superior Court. There again, the verdict was first sustained. A review was granted, and, in June 1755, the matter received extended consideration. It was such a marshalling of historical evidence as had never before been known, and probably never since. They cited the purchase of 1636, and its confirmation in 1670; the act of the General Court October 10, 1639, authorizing town organization and the distribution of undivided lands; the list of ancient proprietors of 1639; their rule of division as used in 1671; the sequestration of the town common for the perpetual use of the inhabitants; the grant, purchase and division of the Five-mile tract; the town's patent in 1685, and their grants made in town meetings, confirmed by the act of 1723, when the proprietors' rights in the remaining undivided lands were recognized. The jury found that, if the law was such that the purchasers of the said land were vested with the fee thereof, as an estate of inheritance descendible to their heirs and assigns, the verdict should be for the ancient proprietors. The court decided that such was the law, and execution was granted, June 18, 1755, to recover the land with twenty shillings damages and costs of court. Other actions involving this question of ownership, mnet the same fate as this test case. The parties soon agreed to suspend further controversy, and it is said that the ancient proprie- tors' rights were purchased by the inhabitants, whose allot- ments prevailed. Thus after an exciting legal contest, when the shades of the forefathers walked abroad in our courts and legislative halls, and the facts of our early history were marshalled in grand review, the victorious heirs and assigns of the proprietors of 1639, with becoming dignity, made their bow to posterity and passed out of sight.
CHAPTER IX PLANTATION DIVISIONS
THE loss occasioned by the disappearance of the North-side and South-side plantation books, can be repaired in part by the study of the land records. We cannot recover their early votes, the time when some settlers received their house-lots, the dates of various divisions, the special reasons for some grants and certain orders that would have solved perplexities in the town's history. There is no question, however, that the value of the lost books was depreciated in the town's estimation, by the fact that their essential data had been transferred to the town votes and land records. This led, indirectly, to their disappearance. The missing books are supposed to have contained some record of their plantation divisions. When the General Court, in 1639, required the register of each town to "record every man's house and land already graunted and measured out to him," both in the town's book and with the Secretary of the Colony, it virtually ordered each inhabitant to make a return of his plantation allotments. These records are, therefore, a summary of earlier divisions. Unfortunately, some inhabitants delayed their returns. Meanwhile they had bought, sold or exchanged lots; and the ownership of abutting lots had changed. So the names of original grantees, or earlier owners, have in some instances been lost. The plotting of some tracts has been made difficult, if not impossible. Still the town's book of original distribu- tion enables one, on the whole, to follow with reasonable confidence the development of Hartford during the four years of its plantation estate. In doing so, it may be definitely stated that the same general rules as to propor- tions that prevailed in Springfield and elsewhere were adopted. To each inhabitant, and to some who were not, there were given a house-lot and such a proportion of
132
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
meadow, pasture and woodland as was mete for his circum- stances. One's estate, social standing, occupation, family, public service, convenience, and ability to improve the land, were considered. As elsewhere, a larger proportion of planting-ground was given to those who were agricul- turalists. In distributing meadow and pasture, they re- garded those who were engaged in raising cattle and had the means for that venture.1 As a rule, those who worked at their trades had less land. The principle that governed them in their plantation divisons was to supply the needs of all, in such manner as would further the settlement's development.
There is no doubt that the entries in the Original Distri- bution, under the caption "Febr: Anno dom: 1639," made by the first and second recorders - unknown by name, but acting under John Steele, the official register - comprise the returns made promptly in compliance with the Court's order.2 These lots, with a few exceptions, were original grants. A lot secured by purchase or exchange is some- times found among them. The reason for some of these exceptions is known, as in the early sale of Soldiers' Field lots. Presumably such transactions had usually the con- sent of the inhabitants, as they were contrary to the established rule. On February 18, 1640-41, this vote was passed: "Its ordered yt euery man yt hath beene an Inhabitant foure years shall haue power to sell all the Lands that he is possessed of." 3 Perhaps there had been already some sales by inhabitants of four years' standing, but this vote removed the former restriction upon all such settlers. Many lots were then bought and sold. It was a time when each inhabitant could readjust his real estate to his means and circumstances. This accounts for the fact that the record of original grants, made by the first and second recorders, is so often followed by entries, in John Steele's hand, of lots acquired by purchase. It also supports the conclusion that earlier entries were of lots received in their plantation divisions. In certain instances, it is valuable
1 Burt's Hist. of Springfield, I: 158.
2 See Introduction to Original Distribution, by Albert C. Bates.
3 Hartford Town Votes, I: 41. Cf. p. 1.
-
133
PLANTATION DIVISIONS
evidence that the prior owner was an early inhabitant - that is, he must have been an inhabitant four years, or his sale would have been illegal. Now, as the plantations had not been competent to make any new divisions after the adoption of the Constitution, until authorized by the General Court, there are conclusive reasons for the claim that these original grants had been made before January 14, 1638-9, and were, therefore, plantation divisions. In other words, the first and second recorders, so far as returns had been made, entered in the town's book the various divisions of the North-side and South-side plantations. They have thus given us the names that were early applied to these tracts; lists of those who were inhabitants, or had secured an inhabitant's right, probably before these tracts were originally divided; some details as to the manner in which their divisions were conducted; evidence that certain settlers were, for various reasons, regarded with special favor and not a little information as to the topographical features of early Hartford. The order in recording these lots may also indicate, in a general way, their progress in developing the settlement.
In 1640, it was not customary to give detailed descrip- tions of land. Under each settler's name is a list of his various tracts. His house-lot is first. The general location of his other tracts is usually given as in a section identified by its name. We have also the acreage and abutting owners, or bounds of the four sides. As no measurements are given, the plotting of these tracts is laborious. Some- times adjoining lots must be followed to a recognizable landmark. The amount of land in any district or division can only be ascertained by collecting all available data concerning it. Upon the total area other conclusions are based, such as the course of bounding highways, long since abandoned. The task is like putting together the fragments of a picture puzzle. Yet it is only by such tedious labor that one can recover an historic representation of early Hartford.
The two plantations must have agreed in 1636 upon the Little River as the boundary between them. Then or later, they ran a line due west from the junction of its two forks. This was the southern bound of Bridgefield, in con-
134
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
nection with which it is termed "the deuiding lyne betwene ye South & North side." This line is mentioned in quite recent conveyances. House-lots were the first allotment. These were intended to be about the same in size - "two acres more or less." They were so generally more, that in most sections there proved to be an excess of land.1 House- lots given by courtesy were usually of smaller extent and were located in the same neighborhood. In the autumn of 1636, all the inhabitants who had then arrived were doubtless provided for. These house-lots have been plotted from the records by William S. Porter, in whose plan of Hartford in 1640 their location may be seen. In the older parts of the town, this plan is equally applicable to the plantations as they were in 1636. The division of other tracts in each plantation was doubtless begun in that year.
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.