USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 28
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
1 Conn. Col. Rec., VII: 128-130, 345, 530, 531; VIII: 137-139; Poor Law of Conn., by Dr. E. W. Capen, pp. 61-66.
2 Conn. Col. Rec., VII: 240, 241; Original Distribution, pp. 329, 436, 438 n .; Hartford Land Records, 5: 132.
3 Conn. Col. Rec., VIII: 505.
4 Ibid., X: 159-161, 206.
5 Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 13, 1753; Hartford Town Votes, I: 184, 216; Hartford Land Records, 1: 70; 7: 548; 9: 363; 11: 295.
291
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY
originally erected in 1729 for the Colony work-house, and the Hartford County gaol ordered in 1753, came to occupy the same lot on Trumbull Street - a fact that has caused much confusion. As places of confinement, however, they were distinct. The classes above specified were committed to the work-house, which was conducted as in former times. For this, an assistant and a justice, or any two justices, received final jurisdiction in 1769.1 Criminals and some others temporarily confined were kept in the gaol. As both institutions were under county authority, there was doubt- less an interchange of courtesies between them. In 1785, the sentence of a horse thief was to ride the wooden horse half an hour and receive fifteen stripes in the square, and then be confined "in the gaol and the work-house" for three months, to be taken out every Monday morning for the first month, receive ten stripes and again ride his "oken stud." 2 Apparently, the two buildings were referred to, in some instances, as the gaol, jail or prison. Moll Rogers in 1757, and others at sundry times, escaped from this gaol. In 1764, a plot was formed in Colchester, by one Titus Carrier, to "pull Down, Demolifh and Deftroy it" and release the prisoners. Here, Moses Dunbar was imprisoned in 1777 for high treason, David Farnsworth and John Blair in 1778 as spies and counterfeiters, and Alexander McDowell in 1781 for desertion - all of them hung, probably on Gallows Hill. A yard was built in connection with it in 1776, for the safe-keeping of Revolutionary prisoners, who were confined there during the war. It seems probably that during this period both buildings were used for this purpose.
On February 28, 1792, the County Court, in view of the decayed state and insufficiency of this gaol, appointed Roger Newberry, William Moseley and John Caldwell a committee, with authority to purchase more land, if neces- sary, to sell, lease or use the materials of the old buildings and erect a new gaol or prison house.3 Additional land
1 Conn. Col. Rec., XIII: 237, 238.
2 Barber's Conn. Hist. Coll., p. 56. In 1775 a man was committed "unto the Keeper of the Gaol . . . within the said Prifon."
3 Hartford County Court Records, Feb. 28, 1792, March 4, Aug. 31, Sept. 18, 1793, June 3, 1794; The Connecticut Courant, Oct. 22, 1792.
292
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
was bought on the west, the southern part of which was sold, and the remainder, with the old lot, constituted the new prison tract.1 During the construction work, prisoners were sent to Middletown gaol. The building was "nearly finished" when, on April 6, 1794, it was set on fire by Betsy Goodhue, an insane woman confined in one of its apart- ments, who perished in the flames.2 Its brick walls were not greatly damaged. In the autumn it was completed, and its "liberties" round about were defined. The prison occupied the lower part. In the upper stories there was a tavern that was called "City Hall." There had been, probably, such apartments in the former building, for, on February 13, 1792, Jonathan Janes, who carried on the shoemaking business there, advertised "good accommoda- tions for travelers and good keeping for horses at the City Hall in Hartford," fifty rods west of the Court House. This was a unique combination, but it was a convenience to many a poor debtor confined there. There is a death notice of one such, who ended his days "in the City Hall" by swallowing three ounces of laudanum.3 In those days, many respectable people were sent to the gaol for such reasons, and it is believed that the main purpose and use of this tavern was to give them opportunities for self-support while there. It certainly attained that distinction and was never a popular social resort. Rooms there were occa- sionally used temporarily as business offices. Here Elias Morgan conducted the drawing of the State House lottery in 1795.4 Perhaps, also, the County Court met there for a time.5 This edifice was sold in 1836, to Case, Tiffany and Company, and demolished in 1866 to make way for the widening of Pearl Street and the present Case, Lockwood and Brainard Company building. In 1837, the jail was removed to No. 107 Pearl Street, where it remained until 1874, when it was located on Seyms Street.
Throughout colonial times the relief of the poor was
1 Hartford Land Records, 19: 450, 457; 20: 265; Maps in City Engineer's Office, Books 65: 14; 67: 9, 10; 69: 6, 14.
2 The Connecticut Courant, April 7, 1794.
3 Ibid., June 11, 1798.
4 Ibid., March 9 and 23, 1795.
5 "The gaol which has the court house on the top of it is the most elegant build- ing in the city."-John Gerrond's Travels.
COPPETTACONRU PRINTING BOOK-BINDING.
THE OLD JAIL, ERECTED IN 1793
293
PHASES OF CRIMINAL HISTORY
conducted by the town, without any institution. It con- sisted in grants of land, labor, provisions, wood and medical attendance. Besides this, there was much neighborly charity. Children without parental care were bound out. The customs of marriage really relieved social conditions to a large degree. Many a poor widow and her children thus found another home, after a shockingly brief interval of mourning. These children were practically placed out in another home with a new father. The records prove that the results were remarkably good, which should be remem- bered in a criticism of their marriage customs. With the Revolutionary War, the most extreme conditions of need were soon thrust upon every community, because of the number of men that were absent in the army. The town of Hartford, like others, met this situation with liberal bounties and the extensive practice of out-door alms by a special committee. After the war, there were many widows and orphans to be provided for, and how this relief was accomplished is a matter of wonder. There were also other broken fragments of society, not so easily placed. It is not strange, therefore, that there was a demand for an almshouse where a few could be made comfortable. In 1782, the selectmen were authorized "to build a small Houfe for the ufe of Neil McLean the old Soldier as long as he lives, . . . the same to remain to the Town for a Poor Houfe for the ufe and dispose of the Town." He was probably a French War veteran, for he was known in 1772 as "Old Niel the Soldier." The location of this house was south of the gaol, on the bank of the Little River.1 This veteran lived only about four months. Probably the town's purpose was carried out, and this was their first almshouse. It was evidently too small for their need. In January 1785, a committee was appointed to memorial- ize the General Assembly for liberty to erect an almshouse and tax the town for its support. The request was granted, and before the autumn, such an edifice had been erected on the east side of the road to Windsor, on land owned by the town.2 This site was nearly opposite the North Cemetery.
1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. II: 291.
2 Ibid., MS. Vol. II: 309, 311, 312; Hartford Land Records, 18: 290.
294
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
The conditions changed, and this property was sold in 1797, to reduce the town's expenses. The value of an almshouse, however, had been proved. In 1812, an act was passed by the General Assembly, upon the town's petition, authoriz- ing it to establish, maintain and regulate a workhouse - a privilege that had been granted earlier to some towns and was extended to all the next year. The town's vote shows that it then had in mind a temporary almshouse and work- house.1 The former almshouse on Windsor Avenue was secured for this purpose. There this dual institution con- tinued until 1822. The town then purchased the Kelsey farm, "a mile and a half northwest of the State House." It there established both a work-house and an almshouse.2 These were in separate buildings, and the old distinction between the two classes and their treatment was maintained to times within the memory of the living.
The work-house as a correctional institution was the product of colonial times - the natural outcome of an early belief in the reforming effect of hard labor for certain classes. Under the successive administration of colony, county and town, it accomplished a valuable service. The measure- ment of its success by their commercial standard of self- support, and the general neglect of education and training in its treatment of the inmates, impaired its usefulness. Those classes for which it was intended seem to have been clearly distinguished from criminals, on the one hand, and the poor, on the other; and yet there was always the ten- dency to combine it with their punishment of the former in the jail, and their charity for the latter in the almshouse. The fundamental principle of their work-house has been adopted for good by modern reformatory institutions. It has also been departed from for evil, by the indiscrimi- nate commitment of certain classes to our jails.
1 Hartford Town Votes, MS. Vol. III: 56, 65, 69, 83.
2 Ibid., MS. Vol. III: 102, 103, 105.
-
CHAPTER XVIII TRADE AND SHOPS
THE early emigrants to New England were well aware of their dependence upon trade for subsistence and develop- ment. They also thought it would be profitable. It is doubtful if they realized how little they would have for export, and how much they would need for themselves. Their descendants can hardly understand what it must have meant to them to begin life anew under primitive conditions. In their homes there were few of those tem- poral luxuries, common in an older civilization. Much of their diet was new. The scant supply of goods necessitated care and economy in their dress. They must have missed, most of all, some of those common tools, implements, utensils and other articles of farm or household use, so easily obtained in England. With these, their inventories show they were poorly supplied. These were the things they used most, and that wore out soonest. Such circum- stances, however, were not on the whole detrimental to New England life. Necessity thus put them in the way of using their own resources. To bring manufactured articles across the sea, they must send over their own products, or find a market elsewhere. It was a fortunate circumstance that beaver skins found such favor in England. The settlers profited greatly by the demand for pipe staves in the West Indies. With these and a few other products, they established an export trade. As time passed, they obtained by this means the things they had left behind in England. Nor was this all. Their need of many articles stimulated them to invent simple devices in their place, just as a camping life does to-day. What they could not thus provide, they found ways of getting on without. This tended to simplicity of life. Their needs resulted, also, in perpetuating, through apprentices, the trades in which some
296
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
of the early generations were skilled masters. So, the chair or chest of a colonial ancestor stands for something more than an ancient pattern. It represents achievement. Above all, these circumstances were the means of develop- ing home industries, by which many of their essential needs were supplied during colonial times. The old spinning- wheel is not a mere curiosity. It is an emblem of that era of American manufactures, in which the skill and dili- gence of women were important factors. Such industries were economically, socially and morally a great blessing to colonial homes. Leaving much to the reader's general acquaintance with the subject, we turn to the particular features of trade and shops within the town of Hartford.
The General Court, on July 5, 1643, granted liberty for a market to be held at Hartford weekly, on Wednesday, "for all manner of comodityes that shall be brought in, and for cattell, or any marchandise whsoeuer." The land records locate the site of this market at the southeast corner of the meeting-house yard. It is mentioned as a north bound of Jonathan Gilbert's purchase in 1663. In 1645, the Court also granted liberty for two fairs to be kept yearly at Hartford, upon the second Wednesday of May and September. The purpose of these occasions can be best understood through an introduction to contemporary English customs. "A fair," says Brand, "is a greater kind of market, for the more speedy and commodious providing of such things as the place stands in need of. They are generally kept twice a year."1 Thomas Warton states that "antiently before flourishing towns were established and the necessaries of life, from the convenience of com- munication and the increase of provincial civility, could be procured in various places, goods and commodities of every kind were chiefly sold at fairs: to these as to one universal mart, the people resorted periodically, and sup- plied most of their wants." 2 Such were the conditions in the river towns. Hartford, being the center settlement, was thus selected as a place for weekly trade. We are not to consider this market, therefore, as merely an early ex-
1 Brand's Popular Antiquities, II: 453.
2 Warton's Ilist. of English Poetry, 1840, II: 55 n.
.
297
TRADE AND SHOPS
ample of that institution known later by that term. It was the same kind of an occasion the settlers had known in England. One might call it a great country store, kept for a day in an open area, where "all manner of comodityes" would be likely to find a customer. Thither the surplus of their produce, herds or looms was brought, and presumably many second-hand articles. As they had at first no stores, it was a public necessity, as well as a convenience. Prob- ably the early traders of Hartford sold goods there. This custom was maintained for many years. The market- place is mentioned in a deed of 1763. Fairs were revived, generally, that year. Jonathan Trumbull petitioned the General Assembly for a fair at Lebanon, stating that "Fairs and Markets are found Beneficial & serviceable to facilitate the Transaction of Business." A similar petition for one at Windham expressly appeals to the English custom and its advantages. As shops and stores increased, however, this early market in Hartford came to be devoted to the sale of such produce as could not always be sold elsewhere. It is certain that this ancient privilege of periodical traffic in the square, or near the bridge, continued to quite recent times. It survived within the memory of many, in the sale of poultry in the square at Thanksgiving time. It is said that the drop curtain of a theatre or circus, long ago estab- lished in the rear of the American House, "represented the old State House and grounds, with farmers and their carts and oxen in the foreground on Central Row." The people seem to have regarded this as an inherited right. One reason given for the establishment of the bridge market, built in 1811 upon an arch on the west side of Main Street bridge, was the obstruction of the highway at its south end by the wagons of venders, who gathered there to sell their mer- chandise. This public need resulted later in the erection of the city's markets.1
When their early market or fair was established, there were in Hartford several merchants, who had in their homes or outbuildings such articles as were used in trade or were sold to the settlers. Their early traffic was with the Indians for corn or beaver skins. The General Court
1 Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, I: 368; Hartford Land Records, 22: 98, 466.
298
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
sent out its agents to obtain corn. In 1638, the exclusive right to trade for beaver on the river was given to certain individuals. William Whiting and Thomas Stanton secured it for Hartford. Governor Hopkins obtained a special privilege of trade at Warranoke in 1640. Traffic with the Indians on Long Island was restrained in 1642, though Thomas Stanton and Richard Lord were allowed to make one voyage. The settlers were then in need of articles and goods, which they hoped to secure in the older colonies. Protests were made, however, by Massachusetts and Plym- outh, that their markets were being overfilled. Hence, Connecticut traders sought a foreign market. In 1644, an agreement was made with Governor Hopkins and William Whiting, by which they were to pay a fixed price for corn, and have the sole privilege of transporting it to foreign parts.1 This restrictive policy prevailed for years. Such Hartford merchants as acquired particular rights under it were profited. As export trade increased, they were the first to win its rewards. Comparatively little progress had been made in 1680, when answers were asked to certain queries of the Committee for Trade in England.2 It was reported that there were then only about twenty petty merchants in the Colony. A few of these lived in Hart- ford. They had little traffic abroad. Provisions were sent to Boston or New York, and goods were received in return. Their products were occasionally shipped to Barbadoes, Jamaica, and other islands of the West Indies, in exchange for rum, sugar, and cotton wool. Trade with the Indians was then of little value. In 1730, the Colony again answered the queries of the Board of Trade in England.3 Their trade was then reported as small. Horses and lumber were being exported to the West Indies. Goods for clothing, nails, scythes, pewter, brass and fire-arms were obtained in American ports, for provisions, tar and turpentine. In 1747, the General Assembly passed an act for the regulating and encouragement of trade. It placed a duty upon goods, wares and merchandise above the value of fifteen pounds, imported from other American colonies, and offered a
1 Conn. Col. Rec., I: 116, 117, 119.
2 Ibid., III: 294 ff.
3 Ibid., VII: 580 ff.
299
TRADE AND SHOPS
bounty for such importations from Great Britain and Ireland. Another act provided for a duty upon lumber exported to neighboring governments.1 The next year a protest was made by various merchants, among whom were Daniel Goodwin, John McKnight and Benjamin Payne of Hartford. It resulted in the suspension of the importation act.2 As the years passed, their trade increased slowly, but Hartford was surpassed by other towns of the Colony. Its era as a commercial port did not arrive until after the Revolutionary War.
At an early date, there were some small vessels, owned, in part at least, by Hartford merchants. The joint building of a ship by the towns was proposed in 1642. One was owned at Wethersfield in 1649. The inventory of Rev. Thomas Hooker, dated the latter year, notes that he had a venture abroad in the Entrance. This may have been the name of the pinnace, in which his friend, William Whit- ing, owned a part interest, valued at £40. A ship of that name was "of Hartford," later. At his death in 1662, Richard Lord owned one-sixteenth of the Society and one- eighth of the Desire. It is said that his son Richard Lord and John Blackleach bought the ship America in 1669, and it was then in the Connecticut River.3 In 1680, only one ship was registered at Hartford. It was of ninety tons burden. Probably this was the Hartford Merchant, which Lord and Blackleach bought in Boston about 1676.4 Major Jonathan Bull, at his death in 1702, owned one-half of the sloop The Two Brothers, and one-half of the sloop The Bonneta. Other Hartford merchants during this period probably had similar interests. In 1730, four vessels were registered at Hartford as follows: Sloop Mary, 60 tons, Captain David Williamson, master; sloop Rebeckah, 40 tons; sloop Hampshire, 18 tons; and sloop Tryal, 35 tons.
1 Ibid., IX: 283-287.
2 Ibid., IX: 393-395; State Archives: Trade and Maritime Affairs, I: 135.
3 Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, I: 319 n. As the ship Mary and Elizabeth was of Hartford in 1671, it is conjectured that the owners renamed the America after their wives; that Richard Lord subsequently sold his interest to Giles Hamlin of Middletown, and that this was the ship of the same burden registered there in 1680.
4 State Archives: Private Controversies, II: 34, 44.
300
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Captain Jonah Gross commanded a sloop named the Tryal, in 1709. At his death in 1745, he had an interest in the Rebeckah. John Caldwell owned two-thirds of a brigantine in 1734. The report of 1730 states that two sloops had been recently built at Hartford, one of thirty tons and another of ninety tons. The latter was then being loaded, to be sold with her cargo at Bristol, England. These were probably built at the ship-yard on North Meadow Creek, where others had been earlier and many were later. The Colony's vessels increased from 74 in 1756, to 114 in 1761, and to 180 in 1774. Of these Hartford had a fair propor- tion for a river port. Several local merchants and ship captains had an interest in vessels that were engaged in the coast trade. In 1776, the following Hartford merchants petitioned for some relief from the taxes assessed upon their idle vessels: Daniel Goodwin, James Church, Samuel Olcott, James Caldwell, Samuel Marsh, Nathaniel Goodwin and John Chenevard.
A closer acquaintance with the town's early merchants may be obtained through their inventories. William Whiting was one of the most prominent. In 1646, he and Governor Hopkins complained of wrongs done them by the Indians, who had stolen their goods and burned their warehouse. This building was probably located on the south bank of the Little River, near the landing. Their joint ownership suggests that they may have used it in connection with the exportation of corn, according to their agreement. William Whiting died in 1647. His inventory indicates that he had commercial interests abroad in Eng- land, Piscataqua, Virginia, Warranoke and Long Island. In a room or closet of his house, he seems to have kept a stock of goods for the purpose of trade. In wampum he had £39 9s .; in beaver £10 4s., and in ammunition and gunpowder £7 10s. He had "2 Racoone coats, 1 Wolf skin coate, 4 Bear skinns, 3 Mooss." Another item of "beauer, mooss and wampum" amounted to £250. Of articles used in trade, he had hoes, hatchets, shoes, nails, pins, paper, shot, fish-hooks, blades, looking-glasses, pewter, bottles, brass ladles, brushes, bells, thimbles, boxes, knives, scissors, combs, "Jewes harps," brass kettles, etc. His
301
TRADE AND SHOPS
dry-goods were "shagg cotton, stockings, hollands," "25 yards greene tammy" and "13 peeces of duffles." The "howsing and land" of William Whiting in Hartford was valued at £400, and the same in Windsor at £300. The total of his inventory was £2854, and it was the largest estate that had been probated in Hartford at that date.
Another early merchant was Captain Richard Lord. He had a warehouse in which he stored grain, soap, salt, lime, pitch, deerskins, whalebone, cotton wool, axes, shovels, spades and forks. A supply of kettles, brass, tin, wooden and earthen vessels, trenchers and pewter ware, he kept in the great closet of his house. At the time of his death he had debts due him in the surrounding towns, in New London, Norwich, Long Island, Delaware Bay, Newfound- land, Barbadoes and England. He died in 1662, at New London. His epitaph pays him this tribute:
"To Marchantes as a Patterne he might stand, Adventring Dangers new by Sea and Land."
His son Richard Lord was also a prosperous merchant, and was lost at sea in 1685. Such goods as glasses, nails, scales, dimity, cotton and woolen yarn, he kept in a shop on his premises. In an "old warehouse," he had sugar, tar and old iron. He also had grain and tar in Ensign Stanley's warehouse. Debts were due him at Haddam, New London, Narragansett and Antigua. In due time his son Richard Lord became a very wealthy merchant, dying in 1712. He had a warehouse at Mill Cove, New London.
There were also in colonial times some inland traders, such as would now be termed "peddlers." These were often enterprising, shrewd and thrifty men. Along the highways of travel, and in remote settlements, they carried on a remunerative trade and amassed considerable property. John McKnight of Hartford thus began his career. He came from Glasgow in 1738, bringing with him English goods, valued at £60 sterling, "which he travelled with and Dis- posed of in this Colony." After two years experience as a trader, he was associated with Robert Sloan, a Hartford merchant. Then he went to New Haven, where he built two ships of about two hundred and fifty tons each, and was clerk of the company that extended Union or Long Wharf.
302
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Later he returned to Hartford. At one time he had large means, and gave financial aid to the government; but he suffered through the depreciation of old tenor, and by being "unhappily bound for another man." In 1774, he peti- tioned the General Assembly for a peddler's license, intend- ing to return to his early occupation.1 When he died, in 1785 at East Windsor, the Courant termed him "an eminent trader," to which his extant account books bear witness.
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.