USA > Connecticut > Hartford County > Hartford > Colonial history of Hartford, Connecticut > Part 3
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
There are, however, among these pioneers, nine others who are new acquaintances. They had not sold their homes at Newtown February 8, 1635-6. It is believed that all of them were in the company of Thomas Hooker in 1636. Several of them are known to have been in Cam- bridge during the winter or spring. How then, if our theory is correct, did they apparently secure these house-lots thus early, interspersed as they are, at random among the lots of the pioneers? We can only offer a conjectural answer to this question, for which, however, there are some good reasons. They accompanied the emigrating party of 1635,
12
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
to assist in establishing them, intending to return before the winter set in, and, being present or represented at the first meeting of Suckiaug planters, they received an allot- ment with the others.
There is no doubt that the Hartford land records recog- nize certain Newtown emigrants as "Adventurers." This term is probably applied here, as in other instances, to those who, through an occupation earlier than the town's legal title, secured a right to land. A tract in Hartford, compris- ing about thirty-five acres, and hereafter located, was divided among certain settlers and was called in the records "Adventurers' Field." The original owners were: John Steele, William Westwood, Thomas Scott, Stephen Hart, William Pantry, John Barnard, Richard Webb, Richard Goodman, Mathew Marvin, Thomas Stanley, James Olm- sted and John Talcott. Nathaniel Ely was the original owner of the Brick-kiln lot of six and one-half acres, virtually a part of this tract. The mill tract south of it was given to Mathew Allyn. The first six of these names immediately follow that of William Goodwin in our tentative list of pioneers. The next four win their title to a place in it by their grants in this tract. James Olmsted and John Talcott were householders in Cambridge during the winter. The former may have been represented among the adventurers by his son Nicholas Olmsted. John Talcott was in Cam- bridge early in the spring. His house at Suckiaug, however, was erected in the winter of 1635-6. The memorandum book of his son, Lieutenant-Colonel John Talcott, has the following entry: "The kitchen, that now stands on the north side of the house that I live in, was the first house that my father built in Hartford, in Conn. colony, and was done by Nicholas Clark, the first winter that any English- man rought or built in Hartford, which was in the year 1635." 1 This evidence indicates that John Talcott may have accompanied the pioneers, secured his lot, arranged for the erection of a house and returned later in the season. Nicholas Clarke, however, had no grant in Adventurers' Field, or the two special tracts south of it. Neither had Goodwin, Butler, Kelsey and Elmer of our tentative list,
1 Mem. Hist. of Hartford County, I: 263.
-
13
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
nor six others who are supposed to have secured house-lots in 1635. These also would have had a right of prior occu- pation and an adventurer's proportion. As Talcott and Olmsted were also adventurers, others may have been. We conclude, therefore, that this particular tract, being of limited extent, did not provide for all. Across the highway northwest of these lots, was Little Ox Pasture. The original grantees in its eastern tier of lots, beginning at the high- way and going north, were: William Butler, William Hayden, Richard Goodman, Edward Elmer, Robert Day, Nicholas Clarke and Nathaniel Ely. Perhaps some of the adventurers preferred these larger lots. The name of William Hayden in this company may indicate that he also was a pioneer, for he had a house-lot near them. Wil- liam Goodwin received an extensive grant in the South Meadow, which was an exception to the rule of distribution, as he was a North-side inhabitant. Edward Stebbins and William Kelsey were original owners in a large tract called "Middle Ox Pasture." John Stone removed early to Guil- ford and Clement Chaplin settled in Wethersfield. No one of those early settlers lacked for land, but what special grant may have been made to them, we do not know. A large latitude of choice was certainly allowed them, to suit their needs.
There seems, also, to be confirmatory evidence that the above solution is correct in the case of Clement Chaplin. He secured one of the best house-lots among the pioneers, but he did not settle upon it. During the winter he was at Cambridge, being present at a town meeting in February, and probably removed in Hooker's company, but went directly, it is believed, to Wethersfield to settle. In 1639, he was one of those chosen by the General Court to make a record of the "first undertaking" of the plantations. On January 14, 1639-40, the town of Hartford, on account of his absence, appointed a committee to "Deall wth m" Chaplin aboute his [lands, that] are fforfeted into the Towns hands," but without any results. They were recorded to him in 1644, and afterwards sold by him or his widow. We can only account for this unusual procedure on the assumption that he claimed to have secured a right by
14
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
occupation in 1635, before the inhabitants had any title under the Warwick Patent, as they thought, or had pur- chased the lands from the Indians. As the pioneers, albeit they were adventurers, were all squatters, this was too delicate a matter under the circumstances to argue with a dissenting party.1 The town likewise made exceptions in the cases of William Butler and Nicholas Olmsted. The latter inherited his father's house-lot.
There was a company of men, whose names are unknown, who returned to the Bay late that autumn. Under the date November 26, 1635, Winthrop made the following entry: "There came twelve men from Connecticut. They had been ten days upon their journey, and had lost one of their company, drowned in the ice by the way; and had been all starved, but that, by God's providence, they lighted upon an Indian wigwam. Connecticut River was frozen up the 15th of this month." 2 This party started to return on the 16th, the day after the river was frozen up. It could not, therefore, have been composed of Dor- chester people, who arrived too late to get their cattle across, unless we suppose that they immediately abandoned their herds and started back overland. Nor is it likely that any Windsor pioneers would set out to return on the eve of expected arrivals and the coming of barks loaded with provisions. This party was composed wholly of men. That is a significant fact. We do not believe that there were any men in Windsor, who would desert the women and children of that plantation under circumstances that so soon resulted in disaster. It is here claimed, without any hesitation, that this party of men was composed of New- town emigrants, who had accompanied the pioneers to assist them in preparing winter quarters and erecting a palisado for defence in need, with the prior intention of returning
1 Clement Chaplin is one of the personal enigmas of our local history. He was evidently a leader and a man of ability. In Wethersfield he became the "proud and wealthy ruling elder" of the church, and was a cause of much trouble. His desertion of the Newtown company, and his subsequent experiences, lead one to suspect that he was an ardent champion of ecclesiastical rights and privileges, which may have been a reason for his settlement in Wethersfield and the factional dis- putes in which he was engaged.
2 Winthrop's History, I: 207.
15
THE PIONEERS OF HARTFORD IN 1635
to their former homes. On the day after the river was closed, they set out in haste, taking too little provision from the pioneers' store. One of the unlucky thirteen - perhaps a servant and unknown by name - was drowned in attempting to cross somewhere on the ice. Along the trail, they lost their way and were rescued by the host of an Indian wigwam.
If there were, as Winthrop states, "about sixty men, women and little children" in the original pioneer com- pany, the number of those who returned, with the fifty already accounted for, would make the party complete. An opinion as to the identity of those who remained at Suckiaug during that winter of hardship, can only be based upon the assumption that those would be most likely to do so who had sold their homes in Newtown or had no ties to call them back. Upon the best evidence that the records afford, their names are included in the list of sixteen who are called pioneers.
It was doubtless during the interval between the arrival of this company and the return of their friends, that the formal beginning of the North-side Plantation was made. If we assume that they proceeded in the usual way, they met, chose a moderator of the meeting and passed such votes as their present needs required. They would, natu- rally, vote that every inhabitant should have a house-lot, and a due proportion of meadow, pasturage and woodland. Probably they made a division of house-lots only that season. Thus they began their plantation.
The first labor of these pioneers was to prepare their dug- outs in the hillside and provide some rude shelter for their cattle. This was not a great task for hardy woodsmen; nor were such homes uncomfortable.1 Probably they did not suffer from the cold during the winter. They had fire
1 The following description of a settler's dug-out has been given by Mr. Jabez H. Hayden of Windsor: "Beginning a few feet below the brow of the hill, they excavated a space the size of the proposed house, throwing up the earth at the sides and west end. On the embankment thus made, they laid a plate, on which they rested the foot of the rafters. Where stone was convenient, a wall was laid under the plate, but as stone was scarce here they must have dispensed with it. Instead of shingle, the roof was thatched with a course of wild grass. The east end was probably made from 'clove' boards, i.e., boards cloven or split from short logs and hewn into shape. Only the east end and roof of these structures appeared
16
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
pits within and plenty of wood. The flood of the spring, however, brought some of them trouble. Stephen Hart and Mathew Marvin, who had located at the northern end of Front Street, found themselves inundated, if we may so interpret their early selection of other house-lots on the "Road to the Neck." 1 Their great hardship arose from the scarcity of food for themselves and fodder for their cattle. Provisions had, no doubt, been provided in advance and sent around by water, as the custom was.2 Such supplies usually prove to be insufficient. The pioneers of all the river plantations suffered for lack of food, as they did also for several winters thereafter. Some subsisted upon acorns. Still they had many reasons for thankfulness. The two great dangers, with which their removal had been threatened, did not arise. The Indians were friendly and helpful, and the Dutch were peacefully hibernating in the House of Hope. So the palisado, which they had made on the bank of the Little River, whither to seek refuge in an attack, was never a memorable place of warfare about which the whoop of the savage was heard. No event in Hartford's early history was ever associated with it. There it lingered for a few years, on its way to decay. The only fancy we can enter- tain concerning it is, that there within its log house, as their only public meeting place during the wearisome winter, Elder William Goodwin, their leader, standing in the place of his friend Thomas Hooker, gathered those brave pioneers to conduct the simple Puritan service of worship.
At last, the scattered snow melted on the hillsides. Around their huts, the bluebirds were seen. The flood of the Great River came, and it was spring in Connecticut. Then they came forth into the reviving hope of a new world.
above ground." Stiles's Hist. of Windsor, I: 33. See also Early Connecticut Houses, by Isham and Brown, pp. 12, 13.
1 Stephen Hart had, when his land was recorded, "One parcell on which his dwellinge house once stood," and also "One parcell on which his dwellinge house now standeth with other outhouses, yards and gardens." Original Distribution, p. 190, in Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll. Vol. XIV. Mathew Marvin had, beside the lot on which his dwelling house was standing, " one parcell for a house lott in the necke of land." Ibid., pp. 89, 90.
2 Winthrop's History, I: 207.
CHAPTER II
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
THE title "Warwick Patent" has been applied to that patent which Robert, Earl of Warwick, has been thought to have received from the Council for New England, by virtue of which he made a grant, March 19, 1631, to certain lords and gentlemen of England, of the territory now in- cluded in Connecticut. The discussion of the patent itself, and its validity, is left to others.1 We are concerned, merely, with the use the founders of the river plantations made of it. There is no doubt that, late in the winter of 1635-6, an understanding was effected between the emigrants and the representatives of the Warwick patentees, for the establishment of the river towns under the patent's favor. This agreement resulted, not only in some conditions affecting Connecticut's early government, to be considered hereafter, but also in certain plans and proceedings in the settlement of Hartford, which it is now our purpose to bring out into the light.
The season of 1635 at Windsor had been one of contention between the Dorchester pioneers, under Roger Ludlow, the Plymouth Trading Company, and the party of Francis Stiles. The traders of Plymouth had been tenants of the land since 1633, and claimed rights of prior settlement. The Stiles party came to occupy the land in behalf of the patentees. They were virtually crowded out by the aggres- sive pioneers. The patentees protested when they learned the facts. Lord Saye and Sele wrote that the emigrants had "carved largely for themselves," and would repent when they saw what helps they had deprived themselves of. He was doubtless right. At least, they did recede from the position they had taken in the early ardor of their venture.
1 The Warwick Patent, by Dr. Charles J. Hoadly, Acorn Club Publications, 1902; Connecticut's Warwick Patent, by Forrest Morgan, 1910; Connecticut Colonial Records, I: 568-572; Connecticut as a Colony, I: 65 ff.
18
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
Most of them, as it happened, driven out by starvation, returned to Dorchester in the Rebecca, arriving there on December 10th. There they had occasion to reconsider their hostile course.
The patentees had also, on July 8, 1635, commissioned John Winthrop, Jr., to build a fort and erect houses at the mouth of the Connecticut River. He was empowered to be the governor of their territory for one year.1 He arrived at Boston in the Abigail early in October. Within a few weeks, he sent a party to Saybrook to begin the design, just in time to anticipate the Dutch. The governor himself did not go thither until the next spring.
There had come with him from England, Mr. Henry Vane, Jr., son of the King's comptroller, and Rev. Hugh Peters, a somewhat famous minister, who was the step- father of Winthrop's wife. These three had been con- stituted the representatives of the Warwick patentees. They had orders from Lord Saye and Sele, to treat with the Massachusetts magistrates and "those who were to go to Connecticut," as to the relation of the river plantations to the patentees' authority and plans. The pioneers of Suck- iaug had set out in haste shortly after Winthrop's arrival, before anything was done, going thither without any other government than was provided in the choice of a constable. As Thomas Hooker, and other leaders of Newtown, had not as yet removed, the circumstances were favorable for all parties to consider matters involved in the general emigration that was contemplated the following season. This discussion was continued at intervals during the winter of 1635-6.
One fact, of paramount importance to the river planta- tions, thrust this subject upon their attention. The pa- tentees then positively declared that the river settlements were outside of the Massachusetts patent and within the territory they themselves claimed. Their representatives - Vane, Peters and Winthrop - put the following ques- tions to all the emigrating towns, and especially to the Dorchester people:
1 Winthrop's History, I: 202, 203; Trumbull's History of Connecticut, I: 497, 498.
GOVERNOR JOHN WINTHROP OF CONNECTICUT
19
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
"Imprimis, whether they do acknowledge the rights and claims of the said persons of quality, and in testimony thereof will and do submit to the counsel and direction of their present governour, Mr. John Winthrop the younger, established by commission from them in those parts."
"Secondly, under what right and pretence they have lately taken up their plantations within the precincts fore- mentioned, and what government they intend to live under, because the said country is out of the claim of the Massa- chusetts patent."
"Item, what answer and reasons we may return to the said patentees, if the said towns intend to intrench upon their rights and privileges, and justify the same." 1
This declaration of the patentees' jurisdiction placed the emigrants in a very embarrassing position. They could not deny the claim. Already, they had themselves suspected that they were outside of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, and were glad to believe it. There were, moreover, no good grounds upon which they could justify the rights and privileges that their pioneer companies had already assumed. Yet they were challenged, somewhat peremptorily, for an answer. No doubt important and interesting conferences followed. If they were conducted according to the expressed wishes of the representatives, they were "with as much secrecy as may be." Points were certainly raised that could not be settled, except by corre- spondence with the patentees themselves, who were in Eng- land. Dr. Hoadly says that "Hooker corresponded with Lord Saye and Sele." It surely developed that the patentees were not hostile to the emigration. At one time, says the same authority, Sir Richard Saltonstall himself "proposed to build at Hartford and join with Mr. Hooker, who, as he knew, was intending to remove thither." This correspond- ence was not finished in March when the Commission for a provisional government was issued, as that document itself states. The representatives were sufficiently assured, how- ever, of the patentees' wishes to proceed to an agreement with the emigrants to Connecticut.
The leaders among the removing towns must have seen,
1 Winthrop's History, I: 477, 478.
20
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
at once, that they could only secure title to their lands under the Warwick Patent. It was inevitable under the circumstances. This of itself was not so objectionable to them. It was rather a "help," as one of the patentees had stated. The sequel proved it to be such. If we may reason, however, from the conclusion, there was one condi- tion, pointedly stated in the above declaration, to which objection was made. It was the required submission to the government, set up by the authority of the patentees. Allegiance was required to a governor, unobjectionable in . himself, in the choice of whom the settlers had no voice. We cannot imagine that Roger Ludlow would accept any such provision. He would rather remain in Massachusetts. The flaunting of this claim of governmental rights in his face at Windsor, had doubtless been one reason why his company had carved so largely for themselves. Much less would this principle have been acceptable to Thomas Hooker. It would have destroyed all present hopes of securing such a government as he is supposed to have already seen in his visions. Surely it was radically opposed to his ideas subsequently expressed, and embodied in Connecti- cut's early constitutional government. This feature, it is believed, was the leading subject of correspondence with the patentees. There are indications, too, that their views, when ascertained, were found to be in harmony with those held by the settlers. It seems impossible that a settle- ment could have been made, as it was, had they been opposed.
Thus an understanding was arrived at, late in the winter of 1635-6. A tentative agreement was made between the parties, which was embodied in the Commission for a pro- visional government, as hereafter set forth. This agree- inent was, in fact, a compromise, in which the emigrants agreed to settle under the Warwick Patent, and the patentees made over to the colonists their rights of government. Under this, both parties acquired benefits. The patentees needed colonists to make good their claim to the lands. They were far-sighted enough to see that actual settlement would be recognized as the strongest support of their patent claims, as, indeed, the sequel proved. They were not so
21
SETTLEMENT UNDER THE WARWICK PATENT
particular about government. Certainly they had no reason to be, if they knew that what they had, if anything, was only "a deed of feoffment" in the lands. On the other hand, the emigrants from Massachusetts, since they were going outside of that colony's patent, needed some legal standing in their claim to the lands they intended to settle. To secure it, they were willing to take what was offered by the lords and gentlemen in England, so long as it left them free to conduct their own government. By this compro- mise, therefore, each party secured what was considered most advantageous to its own interests.
As to the fact that the removal of 1636 was conducted under the patronage of the patentees, there is no doubt. Concerning these settlers, Johnson, in his quaint history, says: "Being out of the Mattachufets Patten, they erected another Government, called by the Indian name, Canectico, being farther incouraged by two honorable perfonages, the Lord Say, and Lord Brookes." 1 On June 7, 1661, when the Colony sought the favor of Lord Saye and Sele in secur- ing a charter, it addressed him in a letter as follows: "The former encouragements that our fathers, and some of their yet surviving associates, received from your honor to trans- plant themselves and families into these inland parts of this vast wilderness, where (as we have been given to under- stand) your honor was, and as we conceive and hope are still interested, by virtue of patent power and authority, doth not only persuade us, but assure us of your patronage and favor." 2
This need of a patent right to the lands was especially urgent, in view of the future relation of Newtown's planta- tion to the Dutch, at the House of Hope. It gave them, as they believed, a good title to the lands they wanted. Perhaps they thought that they would thus acquire some- thing more in the privileges, which patents were sometimes supposed to include. It would, at least, bring them under the protection of England and be good as colonists, as against the claims of the Dutch. Perhaps special interest attaches to Winthrop's record, that, in January, "one went
1 Johnson's Wonder-working Providence, p. 76.
2 Trumbull's Hist. of Connecticut, I: 513, 514.
22
THE COLONIAL HISTORY OF HARTFORD
by land to Connecticut and returned safe." Was he a messenger to the Suckiaug pioneers, carrying information, which it was important they should have, before they had committed themselves to the Dutch? No man would have taken that journey alone, and in the dead of winter, except in an emergency. Hitherto, the settlers from Newtown had not entered upon the land south of the Little River, which the Dutch claimed. There is no evidence that they intended to do so. The pioneers of 1635 had established their plantation, laid out their house-lots and planned their divisions of land, apparently with the expectation that the main body to follow would be associated with them. The acquisition of rights under the patent entirely altered and greatly improved their prospects. They had thus secured a reasonable ground for claiming the land south of the Little River. They had only to enter in and possess it. This, then, was the situation that presented itself to the Newtown emigrants in the spring of 1636.
There was one other matter that compelled their im- mediate attention. It was general among New England colonists to purchase their lands from the native owners. The pioneers had entered upon their claim without any such purchase, though perhaps they had made a verbal treaty with the Indians. A conveyance was necessary. They would be at a disadvantage without it, notwithstand- ing the patent, if they attempted to occupy any part of the land claimed by the Dutch. Lord Saye and Sele has him- self mentioned the object of such a purchase. He has also stated the fact in the following language: "Many of the English (his Majesty's Subjects) having been incor- porated by his Majesty's letters patent, and having, in order to obviate all difficulties, purchased the land from the natives, the acknowledged and right owners thereof, es- tablished divers factories on the river." 1 His lordship made this statement in connection with the controversy with the Dutch; nor could it have applied to any other plantation than Newtown. It seems, therefore, to have been the plan of Hooker's company, having effected an arrangement with the patentees, and secured a Commission
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.